STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented tihe fourth report of the select standing committee on standing orders and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Questions

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What were the conditions laid down in regard to mail contract for R. R. No. 3, Armstrong, British Columbia?
2.	Have any complaints been received against the recent holder of the contract and, if so, from whom?
3.	Was the recent holder a disabled veteran?
4.	Was the contract taken away from him?
5.	To whom has the contract been now granted?
6.	Was this person the lowest tenderer?
7.	Is he an ex-service man?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Contract expired March 31, 1934, and tenders were invited for a new contract.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	Contract expired.
5.	Geo. W. Game.
6.	Equally low with two others.
7.	No information.



VANCOUVER TERMINAL ELEVATORS

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many terminal grain elevators at Vancouver are operated as public terminals?
2.	How many are operated as private elevators in which "mixing" may take place?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Two.
2.	Two, which may mix except in first four grades of wheat.



YAMASKA COUNTY-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What amounts did the government contribute under the terms of the Unemployment Relief Act, to the county of Yamaska, in each of the following years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933?
2.	What municipalities benefited thereby?
3.	What amount was contributed yearly in respect of each such municipality?
4.	What was the aggregate amount?


Mr. MANION (for the Minister of Labour) :: Under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, the following amounts were contributed by the dominion towards the cost of unemployment relief in the county of Yamaska:-
Notre Dame de Pierreville parish.. $ 749.58
St. Joachim de Courval parish.... 875.00
Village of Pierreville	 1,452.63
Parish of St. Gerard-Magella....	366.95

There have been no accounts received from the province under subsequent legislation for the county of Yamaska.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many vessels were specially equipped for the export of cattle under the control of the Trade and Commerce department within the last two years?
2.	What are the names of persons or companies to whom such vessels belonged?
3.	How much money was spent in each case?
4.	To whom was such money paid?


Mr. STEVENS:: Return tabled herewith.



DEATH OF MR. THOMAS HERBERT LENNOX TRIBUTES TO HIS MEMORY BY MR. GUTHRIE, MR. MACKENZIE KING, MR. COOTE AND MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it becomes my painful duty in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to announce in this chamber the sudden death of our esteemed colleague, Thomas Herbert Lennox which, I believe, occurred in the city of Toronto at an early hour this morning. The awful suddenness of the demise of our late colleague has cast a feeling of most profound sorrow throughout this chamber. It was but a few days ago that he sat in his place here and also but a few days ago when he was engaged in an important legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Little did we think at that time that he was so soon to be removed from this earthly scene. It brings before us very prominently the old admonition that in the midst of life we are in death.
Mr. Lennox had sat in this parliament for a number of years and I think I can say he had endeared himself to members in every corner of the house. His affable, genial disposition was manifest at all times and his friends throughout Ontario and in this chamber were legion. He was a native son of the province of Ontario, having been born sixty-five years ago in the county of Simcoe. He was the product of the public schools of Ontario and of the collegiate institute at Barrie. Afterwards he took his legal course and was called to the bar at Osgoode Hall in the city of Toronto. After having been called to the bar he immediately engaged in practice and from the very start of his career at the bar it may be said that he was wonderfully successful. He soon rose to a very prominent position at the bar; he was made one of His Majesty's counsel
Death of Mr. Lennox

learned in the law; he was elected a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and at the time of his death he was one of the undoubted leaders of the bar of the province of Ontario and one of the really great lawyers of the Dominion of Canada. His death will be sincerely mourned by his many colleagues in the legal profession. The late T. H. Lennox was a man of varied attainment and of many activities. During the war it will be remembered that he was exceedingly active; at that time, he cast aside his profession and his public life, and through his efforts to a very large extent the battalion known as the 208th was raised, he himself became the officer commanding, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and took that battalion overseas. He returned to Canada with an excellent military record.
Early in life our late colleague resolved to devote at least some portion of his time to what we might term the public service of the country, though I think it will be recognized on all sides that his chief interest in secular matters was in his own chosen profession of law. He devoted a very large amount of his time to his profession, he was engaged in a great many varied and important cases, and was not permitted to devote as much time to his public life as we would all have liked. As early as the year 1902 he unsuccessfully contested a riding for the legislature of the province of Ontario, but subsequently in the jrear 1905 he was elected for the provincial constituency of North York at a general election, and at four subsequent general elections in the province of Ontario he carried the same riding. He continued as a member of the Ontario legislature until he was first returned to the House of Commons as representative for the riding of North York in the general election of 1925, again in the year 1926 he was elected for that riding, and also in the year 1930 at the last general election.
He has had an eminently successful career both in the legislature of Ontario and in the parliament of Canada, and had he been able to devote more time to his parliamentary duties he would certainly have risen to a very high place in the public life of Canada. He was a man whom everyone liked, everyone regarded as a friend. While he was a hard fighter when a contest was on, he was a man who carried no bitterness, no acrimonious feelings when the contest was over. I believe one can say that all who knew him were his friends; few, if any, were his enemies. The suddenness of his taking off has produced a tremendous impression in this house. We all mourn him most sincerely. All we can do now is to lament his loss and express our

feelings of regret and sympathy to those members of his family and relatives who survive.
It is to be noted that the deceased himself received some hard knocks during his lifetime. Only a few months ago his only son was suddenly killed in an automobile accident in the city of Toronto. Indeed, many of his intimate friends consider that Thomas Herbert Lennox never really got over the shock caused by his son's death.
He is gone from us, and all we can do is to respect his memory and lament his early death.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: On behalf of
honourable members of the official opposition, I desire to convey to the Prime Minister, to members of the government, and to other honourable gentlemen opposite the expression of our sympathy in the loss which they have sustained in the death of one of their fellow members of this House of Commons, one who for many years had been prominent as a member of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario.
In the appreciation which he has just expressed of the late member's career, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has reviewed in a fitting manner Mr. Lennox's attainments and services, alike to his profession and to the state. I join with him in recognition of the late member's talents and abilities,' and in particular of his patriotic services at the time of the great war, to which the minister has made special reference.
As one who, for a short time, had the honour of representing the constituency of North York, I have knowledge of the considerable personal and political following which the late member enjoyed in that riding, and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express to Mr. Lennox's friends in the constituency my sympathy with them in the death of one to whom, over a period of so many years, they have given so large a measure of their confidence and support.
I also join, as all on this side will wish very sincerely to join, in the expression of sympathy for Mrs. Lennox who has been so suddenly and so greatly bereaved.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) is not here. In his absence I would like to take the opportunity of saying that I am sure every member in this corner of the house joins very heartily in the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the leader of the opposi-

Oaths oj Allegiance Act
tion (Mr. Mackenzie King) expressing our regret at the death of Colonel Lennox and our sympathy with his relatives and friends. May I say that I doubt if there is a member of the House of Commons who was more generally liked by his fellow members than was Colonel Lennox. I think that is one of the highest tributes that can be paid to any member.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS PO'ULIOT (Tem-iscouata): Mr. Speaker, when I declared my pair yesterday with the hon. member for North York nothing was further from my mind than that the flag would fly at half mast over this building to-day as a tribute to his memory. For nearly ten years or sessions he was my pair, and I shall always have the most pleasant recollections of my dealings with the late hon. gentleman. We have been closely associated and I came to have the highest respect for his qualities. He had attained prominence at the bar of his province and at the bar of this country; he was a gallant soldier, he was a congenial member of this house, a very popular representative of the people, and1 a true friend. I join in the tributes which have been expressed to his memory, and wish to convey my most heartfelt and sincere sympathy to his family, to the members of the legal profession in the province of Ontario and in Canada at large, and also to my hon. friends .on the other side of the house.



FRUIT AND HONEY ACT


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees with their 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments to the Bill No. 26, An Act respecting Fruit and Honey, for the following reasons:-
"Inasmuch as the clauses amended are identical with clauses in the following acts passed-
The Seed Act
The Root Vegetable Act and it is essential that there be uniformity in such legislation."
And agrees to the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th of their amendments, without any amendment.
And that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: before the motion to send the bill back is carried I wish to draw the attention of the house to one clause in this bill and the suggestion that the Senate has made. It is that after the words:
The minister may, from time to time, make regulations:-
There is inserted the phrase:
subject to the approval of the governor in council.
I think the extra precaution which the Senate is there taking in the matter of making known in as public a way as possible the regulations that may be passed is distinctly of advantage. I had hoped that the government would have seen its way clear to accept that amendment. I think the other amendments have reference to interprovincial trade, and inasmuch as this house is the guardian of the trade and commerce of the dominion it seems to me the amendments proposed by the Senate are very much in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 57, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill really takes the place of a bill that was introduced by the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). After the hon. gentleman introduced his bill on March 13 last I conferred with him at the earliest opportunity, and it seemed expedient to suggest to him that the bill might take a slightly different form. After consultation with the hon. gentleman he withdrew his bill, with the result that the present bill was introduced on April 19 and fully explained to the house. In effect it is carrying out a resolution of the imperial conference of 1926 at which Canada was represented by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleague the then Minister of Justice. That resolution of the imperial conference was carried into effect by the parliament of the United Kingdom, which passed the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, and on May 13, 1927, a royal proclamation was issued setting out His Majesty's style and title.
The oath of allegiance, as it appears in the present bill, is identical with the oath of allegiance as administered in Great Britain, in Australia, in the Union of South Africa and I think generally throughout the British Empire ; and it is deemed expedient that the same oath of allegiance should be prescribed in Canada. I think, as far as hon. members have expressed opinions to me privately, this bill meets with the almost unanimous support of the house, and as I fully explained it on the previous occasion it seems to me that no further explanation is required at the present time.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Companies Act
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I desire to confirm what my hon. friend has said, and I am grateful to him for having asked me to confer with him as to this bill, which I support with great pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 64 respecting Dominion companies:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I had hoped to be able to move the second reading of this bill.
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN	(Charlevoix-
Saguenay): I have asked for a copy of this bill in the French language, but it has not been printed in French. It is so marked on the order paper, but I inquired yesterday and to-day and was informed that it is not printed in French. It is quite important that we have the French version, because many explanations will have to be given.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was about to move the second reading, but last evening I was notified by one of my colleagues whose maternal language is French that he had not been able to procure a French copy at the distribution office. I understand that it is in print, but perhaps the final distribution has not been completed. Hon. gentlemen might allow the bill to receive second reading awaiting final distribution of the French copy, though under the rules my hon. friend is perfectly right, I cannot insist upon second reading if the French copies are not distributed.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not think we should be asked to consent to the second reading of this bill without having it printed in both languages. .



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 70, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Mr. E. R. E. OHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks to make in connection with this bill, but I should like to know if the minister intends to have this bill considered by the committee of the whole or by a special committee.


Mr. MacLAREN:: It is entirely at the option of the house as to whether or not

any discussion takes place at the present time. Perhaps I might explain the bill a little further than I did on the motion for first reading. The main objects of the amendments in the amending bill are to produce a conformity between the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act there is a provision whereby in the case of certain diseases it is not permissible to sell certain drugs or remedies. That provision does not obtain in the Food and Drugs Act. It so happens that when on some occasions people find it is not permissible to sell remedies under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act they seek permission for the sale of such remedies under the Food and Drugs Act. As the object of the provision under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act with reference to the prevention of the sale of certain remedies for the treatment of certain diseases is for the protection of the public, and as time may be lost in the event of people acting on advertisements of those remedies, these changes are proposed to the Food and Drugs Act.
Another provision presents the adulteration of vinegar through the use of acetic acid. Then, there is a schedule of diseases for which remedies may not be sold. There is provision whereby in the light of subsequent knowledge, changes in the list of diseases and list of remedies may be made by order in council. From time to time therefore, if found desirable, certain changes may be effected by order in council.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask
the minister if there have been any requests for these changes, and especially those changes affecting drugs and proprietary articles. If so, from where did the requests come?


Murray MacLaren: There have been many requests for the changes. To begin with, departmental officials have felt that this action should be taken, and in addition, the amendments have been submitted to many of the medical men of the House of Commons, who have expressed their approval.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The house is not in committee. If any hon. member wishes to speak he is at liberty to do so, but the house is not in committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do you rule that I
cannot ask another question of the minister?


Hugh Guthrie: Wait until we get into
committee.

Food and Drugs Act


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I was just pointing out
that the procedure followed in this instance is not in accordance with our rules or customs. It is not customary on second reading to engage in a general questioning. However, if the house chooses to do so, I have no objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations by governor in council.
Mr. CHEVRIER:: With the principle of the bill I have much sympathy, because I understand that it is directed against sales by people commonly known as quacks, and with a view to protection against such people. Although I have much sympathy with the measure there are some features in it with which I cannot agree in toto. For instance, as I understand the bill, any remedies which may be self-administered can no longer be imported, manufactured or offered for sale. I have in mind this case: I understand that for the treatment of arteriosclerosis there are certain standard drugs prescribed by the medical profession, but which the profession do not compound. One goes to his medical adviser who prescribes a certain medicine or solvent. These medicines are already made up; the patient goes to the drug store and presents the medical prescription. The druggist takes pills from a bottle and puts them into a box, and after the box is labelled we are allowed to take it home. From the drug store we may purchase some medicine which has been imported or manufactured. If the bill now before us became law I understand that I could not go to a drug store to buy some of these specific remedies declared to be valuable in the softening of arteries, or when used as a solvent.
Let us suppose that we are suffering from blood poisoning. What would be my position if, going to camp, I decided to take iodine, mercurochrome, listerine, peroxide, or some other medicines which could be used in the event of an accident? In a case of blood poisoning those remedies would be self-administered. We know that blood poisoning may be caused from an interior condition, or from a scratch. Supposing I happened to be in the woods, and while walking I tripped, thereby causing some part of my body to become infected, under this measure I could not have iodine or mercurochrome. I could not take one of those disinfectants to my camp, nor could I import, manufacture, offer for sale or advertise by any means whatever, nor sell any remedy 74726-1751
recommended or suggested for use for selfadministration. That would be my difficulty. I suppose if this bill passed the country storekeeper would not be at leisure to sell any more painkiller, because it might be used to combat blood poisoning, or some such ailment. To what extent should we be limited because it was a self-administered drug? For instance, when I go to camp I might want to take with me spirits of ammonia. It might be for a case of chronic heart disease or for a heart attack that might suddenly develop. As I interpret this clause I could not take up with me spirits of ammonia because it was going to be self-administered. Clause 2 reads:
No person shall import, manufacture, offer for saleany of these drugs that might be self-administered.
It is quite true that pills have been sold for a large number of diseases, and I fully agree that the public should be protected; but take obesity, for example. There is the glandular kind, and obesity that results from over-eating and under-exercising. As I understand the effect of this bill the remedy for obesity of the glandular kind would be barred. That might be all right. But to what extent would this prohibition apply to treatment by way of dieting, plus the use of some drug, probably laxatives, which are sometimes used. I have a lot of sympathy with the principle of the bill but I would suggest that it be referred to a mixed committee of medical men, who I suppose are the ones primarily interested, and practical men-I am not saying that offensively-so that the Food and Drugs Act might be considered both from the point of view of the medical men and of protecting the rights and privileges of the public. We do not want the ordinary rights of the people trampled upon.


Murray MacLaren: I do not think that the interpretation placed upon this amendment by my hon. friend from Ottawa is a correct one. The amendment does not propose to prohibit the manufacture of any remedy. It proposes to prohibit the sale or manufacture of any remedy for self-administration in the case of the diseases which are listed under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and which it is thought can be placed, with advantage to the public, under the Food and Drugs Act. That is a different thing altogether. It altogether depends on the objective. This amendment does not prohibit the manufacture of the remedy but it says that the remedy must not be manufactured or sold or advertised for certain diseases or conditions, which is a different thing altogether.
Food and Drugs Act


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: lam not satisfied with the explanation that has just been given by the minister. I have the greatest respect and the kindliest feelings for him, and he knows it, and I do not intend to quarrel with him at all. I stated at the outset that I agreed with the principle of the bill to protect people from themselves. But I ask the minister, will this bill prevent me taking iodine, for instance, to my camp? The bill says that you cannot sell or manufacture these remedies which are to be self-administered. Of course, if a doctor prescribes the use of that remedy it would be all right, but I am speaking of iodine that is going to be self-administered, and which, as I read clause 2, cannot be imported, manufactured or offered for sale. I should like the minister to make sub-clause 6A plain. I cannot get it. Under its provisions you cannot even offer for sale or advertise any of these antiseptics that may be used in the case of blood-poisoning. Of course, I agree that one would have to determine what bloodpoisoning was. But suppose it was caused by a scratch; how, under this clause, am I going to use iodine or listerine or lysol or any of these other antiseptics. I am not here to advertise these products by mentioning their names. Take any antiseptic that might be used for that purpose.


Murray MacLaren: What the amendment
seeks to correct is self-administration in the case of diseases where valuable time may be lost and recovery delayed by self-administration instead of medical treatment. I do not think it is a reasonable interpretation to say that one could not under this clause make an application of iodine to the skin. It is the advertising of remedies for self-administration in the treatment of these diseases and their sale to the public for that purpose that we are seeking to prevent. The public at the present time very often depend on these advertisements and believe that they are going to obtain benefit from these remedies, when such is not the case.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask the
minister if the object of this legislation is to restrict the sale of proprietary articles, commonly called patent medicines, by druggists.


Murray MacLaren: This amendment does
not affect what my hon. friend refers to in the slightest.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am only asking if it does.


Murray MacLaren: And I am simply
answering my hon. friend's question. This has nothing to do with patent medicines.

They come under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. This is the Food and Drugs Act, and this amendment does not touch the sale or prohibition of sale of patent medicines. It is limiting the sale of certain remedies for the treatment of certain diseases under the Food and Drugs Act. The question of patent medicines does not come directly under the amendment.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing clause 6A of section 2. I did not know that we had dealt with section 1. But if we are discussing clause 6A I take it to mean, and I would ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong, that remedies such as might be prescribed for diseases listed in schedule A shall not be imported, manufactured, advertised or offered for sale by others than qualified medical men. I assume that is the meaning of the clause. If the clause is so sweeping as to mean that no pharmaceutical company, medical man or anyone else shall import a remedy which may be prescribed for the treatment of arteriosclerosis, let us say, or Bright's disease, in my opinion it is too broad. If, on the other hand, the bill is intended to prohibit other than medical men or qualified persons from importing and offering for sale medicines of a nature not safe for one not posted to take without directions, then I think the clause is entirely in order. I should like an explanation from the minister in that regard.


Murray MacLaren: The amendment states
that it shall not be for selfadministration.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Once a remedy is recommended by the label on the bottle it becomes a remedy recommended and you cannot sell it.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Recommended
for self-administration only.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: You may have a painkiller which could be self-administered in the bush to prevent a cold. The label might state that it is a preventative of colds, but you would not be able to sell it, to advertise it, to manufacture it or to import it because it is recommended and is to be self-administered.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Get the other
fellow to give you a dose and then it would not be self-administered.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: My hon. friends may
know what it means but I do not. I am in favour of the spirit of the bill but I think we should be able to understand it.


Mr. COTNAM:: If the hon. member will
read section 6A a little more carefully he

Food and Drugs Act
will see that it has nothing at all to do with common colds. It refers to the diseases mentioned in schedule A which are of such a nature that remedies prescribed or self-administered without the supervision of someone who understands the disease might be harmful to the individual and may even endanger or imperil his life if there was any delay. I think all medical members of the house will agree that remedies for the diseases mentioned in this schedule should be carefully prescribed and taken only on the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Suppose a man has blood poisoning and he purchases one of these disinfectants which are recommended for the cure of blood poisoning, perhaps by superficial application. These remedies are recommended and suggested for that purpose and I want to know how they would be affected by this bill. I did not draft the bill and I am trying to get an interpretation of its meaning. This is the time to get that interpretation, not when we get into court. I ask the minister or someone in authority if, after this bill goes through, I will be able to purchase one of these disinfectants which are recommended or suggested for blood poisoning and which may be self-administered.


Mr. McGIRRON:: I think that difficulty could be overcome by adding just a word or two to the clause. The hon. member is confusing external applications with internal medication. It looks to me as though the schedule contains one or two diseases which could be left out, I think influenza and probably alcoholism could be left out. The rest of the diseases are of such a sierious nature that a medical man ought to be called in immediately. There are no known medicinal cures for some of the diseases mentioned, surgery is the only method by which a cure can be effected. The hon. member is referring to remedies such as lysol which are not taken internally. I do not think there is anything in this bill to prevent a man from using that remedy externally. If there is, I suggest that the words "for internal medication" be added. We must protect the public against themselves and against their own foolishness. We must protect them against deception. This is in the interests of their health and even of their lives. For instance, take cancer. Everyone knows that it runs a certain length of time before it breaks away from its original moorings or location. If that happens the patient is doomed. Time is important in this disease, as it is in tetanus, or what is commonly known as lockjaw. In nearly all
these cases time is an essential factor and drugs are mostly useless. I think I would be safe in saying that there is not a disease in this category in which medicine would be worth anything as far as effecting a cure is concerned. There is great danger in the delay which may occur by the application of these quack remedies, and the patient may lose his life.
Mr. EiLLIOTT: I think the discussion could be clarified a good deal if the minister would tell us what is meant by "recommended or suggested for use." Influenza is one of the diseases mentioned in schedule A and of those mentioned it is perhaps the one most frequently treated by home remedies or by remedies obtained from the drug store. After this bill becomes law, could a person having influenza go to the drug store and purchase a remedy which states on its label that it is good for influenza? Will that be permitted, or will he have no right to do that? I do not think he should have a right to go to a druggist and say, "I have influenza, what do you recommend for it?" I take it that the druggist must not suggest that a particular remedy is good for influenza. As I understand the meaning of this bill, after it becomes law no one will be able to go to a drug store and purchase a remedy for any of these diseases when the label on the bottle or the verbal representation of the druggist is to the effect that it is recommended as being good for any one of these diseases.


Murray MacLaren: I think the interprets tion given by my hon. friend is approximately correct; it is nearer the truth than that given by other hon. gentlemen. We have heard the old time honoured remedy referred to more than once to-day, and that is painkiller, but painkiller does not come under this amendment or under this act. There is some confusion on the part of some hon. gentlemen about this matter. Painkiller finds its resting place, I believe, under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and it is dealt with there; whether it may or may not be sold is determined under that act; it does not come under our proposed amendment.
With reference to influenza, that is no light matter. Does my hon. friend realize the last year in Canada, for which a report is available, there were 4,500 deaths from that disease, so it is a highly important subject. Let us take afflictions that are familiar to us, for instance, the case of lockjaw, which is another name for tetanus; if the sufferer, on the advice of some kind friend, resorts to some remedy that the latter has found good, it may be for
Food and Drugs Act

something else, the time has gone by for the remedy that we know is practically the only one that is helpful and curative in tetanus or lockjaw, and that is by administering antitoxin.
These are striking examples and as we know we may come down to a boundary line; that is natural in all matters of legislation. As we are all aware it is of the first importance to act at once in the case of diphtheria, and how? By administering an antitoxin. Some friend or next door neighbour can hardly be a safe adviser in such cases. The whole measure is one designed to protect the public. One constantly hears about cancer to which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has referred. What do we all hear? If this had been dealt with earlier, the prospects of success would have been substantially good. In cancer there are probably .two remedies that are of use: one is by surgical operation, removing, if possible, the cancer, and the other is by administering radium or X-ray. There are no successful remedies other than those I have mentioned, and if a neighbour or somebody else suggests some remedy, the opportunity for the man or woman who is trying to treat it in this way, is slipping fast, That is all.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I have no doubt that the aim of the bill is to protect the public from the misuse or abuse of medicines, but I think the whole trouble is that the wording of the bill is not very clear. The real trouble is about the word "remedy." Drugs are either crude or compound and crude may be open to the public as to its name and purpose while compound may also be open to the public with the prescription written on the bottle, or it may be patented with a secret prescription. The clause reads:
Nor sell any remedy-
What kind of remedy? Is it crude, open prescription or patent medicine? If the wording comprises patent medicine, it should read:
Nor sell any remedy recommended or suggested and labelled for use for selfadministration.
I know for a fact that in the patent medicine branch there is a board of supervisors of patent medicines or patent prescriptions coming in and anything that is harmful is not accepted. This bill is to prohibit the importation, manufacture, offering for sale, advertising by any means whatever or selling of any remedy recommended or suggested in the case of certain diseases. It is to forbid a person or a company to put on the market a medicine recommended by advertisement or by pamphlet or in any other way such as by the label on the bottle, that it is to cure some of the diseases mentioned. Those diseases are
fMr. MacLaren.]
considered by the supervisors of medicine serious enough that they should not be meddled with by anybody except those qualified. Therefore I think the clause should read:
Any remedy recommended or labelled for use for self-administration in the treatment of any of the diseases-
And so forth. I think that would cover the whole point.


Murray MacLaren: I think my hon. friend will find that what he is suggesting now is already covered in the act. All of those remedies that come under the Food and Drugs Act have the formula on the bottle or the case or whatever it may be. Let us say the bottle; the formula now has to appear on it That I understand is what my hon. friend has been suggesting and that now is operative under the act.


Mr. VENIOT:: Under which act? The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I would like to ask the minister one last question. He has spoken about influenza. There is influenza and influenza. We know at one time an influenza epidemic caused us a great deal of harm, trouble and death. But we are in the habit of calling grippe and cold by the same name. My question is this: If I call that cold or grippe, influenza; if I go to a corner drugstore and buy quinine which is recommended and suggested by everybody and this is contained in a box labelled "quinine, infallibly recommended for influenza, grippe and colds," what happens to me and what will be the position of the man who sells it?


Murray MacLaren: My hon. friend is
speaking outside the provisions of the act. I will say first that this has nothing to do with proprietary or patent medicines. They are dealt with in another act. The hon. gentleman mentions certain articles and asks whether under the conditions indicated they could or could not be sold. They could not be sold and have not been sold for years, under the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act.
Now let us get down to what we really have before us. This amendment deals with such remedies as are not permitted to be sold under this act for certain purposes, and the question as to quinine does not arise, because as I say these remedies must have the formulae on the bottles.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Where do we get that? It is not in the bill.

Food and Drugs Act


Murray MacLaren: We find it in the Food and Drugs Act, chapter 76, revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Frederick George Sanderson: A couple of minutes
ago the minister replying to a question of mine said that this amendment would not restrict the sale of proprietary articles or patent medicines so-called, in drug stores. Yet in answer to a question by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) he said that if a customer went into a drug store and asked for some remedy for influenza and the druggist said, "Here is something that will help you," and sold it to him, and he went home and administered the medicine to himself he was acting contrary to the law. The minister admitted that this bill would restrict the sale of certain articles in drug stores. Am I right in that?


Murray MacLaren: No, you are not quite
right.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I shall await
further explanation from the minister. There is another point. According to this amendment the breach of the act will consist in self-administration of the medicine. If a man buys at a drug store a bottle of something for influenza, takes it home and his wife gives it to him, or his neighbour, or a nurse, is he liable under the act? Who would be liable under such circumstances; would the man who bought it and the wife or nurse who gave it to him also be liable?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Husband and wife are one.


Mr. HANBURY:: Not always.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, say the neighbour's wife, what about that?


Leslie Gordon Bell: That would be a
scandal!


Murray MacLaren: I think there is no
doubt there would only be one left if some of the suggestions of his friends or even the wife were followed. The person who sells is responsible.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then this legislation
does restrict the sale of certain remedies in drug stores?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: Before going further I think I ought to call the attention of the committee to the fact that we are discussing section 2, whereas section 1 has not yet been dealt with.


Frederick George Sanderson: I put a question to
the minister. He told me the bill does not
restrict the sale of certain articles although he told the hon. member for West Middlesex that it does. Was his answer to me correct or incorrect?


Murray MacLaren: If my hon. friend would listen a little more carefully-


Frederick George Sanderson: I am listening very patiently.


Murray MacLaren: But not clearly. I think that is a correct choice of words. I do not conceal this fact, that it is difficult to frame that provision so clearly that those listening perhaps for the first time follow it exactly. One must remember that the articles dealt with are those registered and labelled under the Food and Drug Act. It does not contemplate the suppression of the manufacture of drugs of all kinds nor does it say that a remedy like, say, quinine cannot be sold. These remedies referred to are covered by the Food and Drugs Act and labelled with a formula and sold for a certain purpose.


Peter John Veniot: Those are not affected under this bill?


Murray MacLaren: Those are the very ones that are affected. That is what I am trying to make clear. Now it may be that that clause is not as clear as it might be. I would like to have some hon. members suggest a better wording. I might be prepared to act on it. I am considering whether I will move that the committee rise and report progress with a view to redrafting that clause so that it will be clearer and more easily interpreted. That would be under subsection 6A and I presume section 1, that has not been discussed at all. I would like to say a word about that. Should there be at any time reason to change that list of diseases or should there be reason for change in certain remedies mentioned in schedule B, it should be provided that those changes could be effected by order in council. Otherwise it would mean coming back to the house for an amendment. Science advances from year to year, knowledge increases continuously. While the views' expressed are the views held by my department and others, it is felt that there should be freedom to make changes by order in council in the light of future knowledge.
Progress reported.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, it was expected that we would go on with three bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), but he is engaged in the banking committee and will not be free until
Supply-Indian Affairs

this evening, when he desires to proceed with those bills. In the meantime I would move that you leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply, and we will take up the Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Indians: to provide for expenses connected with the administration of Indian Affairs, including salaries, supplies, relief, medical attendance, hospitalization, dwellings, agricultural activities, surveys, roads, bridges, irrigation, dyking, education, etc., and a grant of $100,000 approved by parliament in session of 1926-27, $3,939,500.
Mr. BOUCHARD:: Would the minister tell the committee what agricultural activities are carried on under this vote?


Mr. MURPHY:: In the different provinces, notably in Ontario and the western provinces, and to a lesser degree in British Columbia, Quebec and the maritimes, Indians carry on agricultural pursuits on reserves which are suitable for such a vocation. In Ontario there are certain reserves, such as the Six Nations reserve at Brantford, and the Tyendinaga reserve along the Bay of Quinte, as well as others throughout the province, where the Indians carry on farming operations in the same manner as they are carried on by their white neighbours, and the same condition applies in the west, where there are many reserves large in area and located in fertile regions.
Mr. MoINTOSH: Will the minister explain what advance the Indians are making in the way of agricultural development?


Charles Murphy: In connection with the residential schools farms are operated, and the children are given instruction not only in reading, writing, arithmetic and the usual courses of study prescribed for public school but also practical instruction by the heads of the institutions in the different phases of agriculture, such as the care of cattle, swine and horses and the growing of crops. This practice has been in effect for a great many years, and I am happy to tell the committee that we in the department believe progress is being made to quite an extent. As the committee knows, in the past the Indians were not an agricultural people; they were rather a pastoral people or, shall we say, devoted to

the chase. During the years that this policy has been in effect, however, the children of the second generation have made appreciable progress. Those who first attended these schools may not have made that progress which we could have wished, but we have found that it is the custom of the pupils of those various residential schools to intermarry, and on going to the schools their children are noticeably more intelligent and more interested in agriculture.


Mr. MARCIL:: I have two Indian reserves in my constituency, Maria and Restigouche. A few days ago I sent the minister a letter I received from the superior of the Capuchin monastery at Restigouche, in which he directed attention to the condition of the roads in that reserve. It lies on the banks of the Restigouche river, opposite the town of Campbellton, and is surrounded by a splendid network of highways built by the province of Quebec. Ste. Anne de Restigouche is a pilgrimage centre to which thousands of people come from all parts of Quebec and the maritime provinces to visit the church, which is one of the oldest in the district. According to this reverend gentleman the roads within the reserve are in very bad shape, though the surrounding roads are in good condition. He complains that nothing has been done for some time and in the letter which I sent the minister he makes a number of suggestions which I think are very timely. These Indians are the survivors of the Micmacs of the old days, who reside on the Restigouche. They earn their living by doing a little cultivating and by acting as guides for fishermen on the salmon rivers in my county and the surrounding districts. Some of them work in the sawmills when they are in operation, but there is not very much of that work at present. This gentleman points out that the reserves are in a pretty neglected condition, not through any fault of the agent but because of lack of funds, and I should like to know what the minister intends doing this year.


Charles Murphy: Did I understand my
lion, friend to say there were two reserves?


Charles Marcil: Yes, Restigouche and
Maria. They are both in Bonaventure county.


Charles Murphy: There is the sum of $125 in the estimates for the maintenance of roads in the Restigouche reserve.


Charles Marcil: Is there anything for the
Maria reserve?


Charles Murphy: No.

Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles Marcil: Does the minister imagine he will go very far with S125 on a reserve about ten miles square? I think the amount is much too small, and I hope the inspector who goes down there periodically will look into the matter and see if the amount cannot be increased. Apart from the Indians themselves thousands of people visit that reserve to see the shrine of Ste. Anne de Restigouche, which dates back to the middle of the eighteenth century, and it is not to the credit of the Indian department to have the roads and sidewalks in the condition in which they are at present. I hope the minister will see his way clear to improve matters. Then, I should like to ask this question: Is the same system being followed whereby teachers are paid to educate the Indians in these two reserves, or have changes been made lately?


Charles Murphy: Practically the same
system is in existence to-day as has been operating for some time, namely day schools are provided on the reserves, and the teachers are paid from parliamentary appropriations.
I should like to know if the hon. member referred to roads on the reserves which might be considered provincial highways, and used by white people and Indians, or whether he had reference more particularly to roads maintained in the interest of the Indians themselves. I make this distinction because the committee will readily understand that in the Indian reserves there are different types of roads. Since a policy of provincial highways has been inaugurated throughout the length and breadth of Canada many such highways pass through Indian reserves. When speaking of roads we must keep those provincial highways in mind as contrasted with the roads built in the reserves purelj' for the use of the Indians themselves.


Charles Marcil: The Perron boulevard which encircles the whole Gaspe peninsula passes through the township of Mann in which this reserve is situated. That road is in first class condition, and this year, owing to the celebration, Gaspe will be visited by thousands of people from all parts of the continent. The roads to which I have referred, however are those local roads which run through the reserves, following the Restigouche river. From the letter which I received I would judge they are in very bad condition. Of course, any person going to church in that section of the country must pass along the roads on the reserves.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: While I have no desire to criticize the manner in which the department has carried on its administration, may I say to the minister that the tendency to educate the Indians in an attempt to bring them to our standard of living seems to me rather far fetched. Three centuries of the history of Canada have proved it is useless to try to make white people from Indians. Of course, I am not criticizing the minister in this connection, because I understand the educational system is carried on in close cooperation with the different religious denominations. I think however that after three centuries of experience we must come to the conclusion that it is useless to try to bring these people to our standards of living, and I doubt very -much whether in those efforts we are improving the conditions under which the Indians live. Instead of doing that I think we should try to develop their natural tendencies and dispositions. For instance, the Indian people are highly artistic and have given to Canada an example of artistic work which cannot be surpassed. While I admit that some kind of education is needed I should like to see some change introduced whereby the system of education among the Indians would follow more closely their needs, requirements and disposition. For instance, why should we not help them to foster the development of those handicrafts in which they are past masters. I do not think those Indians who have been educated to our standard of civilization are very happy.
In passing may I say that there seems to be a tendency for the city people to educate the farmers according to city standards. Certainly -I do not wish to create any ill feeling between city and country people, but I believe that different standards of teaching and of education should be set for the different modes of living. I should like the minister to give some thought and consideration to these views. Perhaps with his long experience and with his influence he might try to experiment along the lines I have suggested.


Charles Murphy: In a word, the hon. gentleman is questioning the administration of the education system of the department, and I have no quarrel with his observations. As he and other hon. members are aware the system of education among the Indians is not the result of a day's growth. Rather, the system now in vogue has developed through a great -many years. My reading has taught me that the educational system started through the efforts of the different church denominations to Christianize the Indians. In their zeal those people sent missionaries who, I believe, found themselves handicapped in
Supply-Indian Affairs

their work. In order to help themselves they established schools, feeling that if they could gain the support of children when they were young, thereby getting them under their control, they would be in a position to Christianize those children and bring them to the white man's mode of living. Various churches put that system into effect. At a later point, finding the financial burden of education rather heavy, they applied to the dominion government for assistance. That assistance was given and throughout the years has been increasingly given.
The system education in effect to-day might be divided, broadly, into two classes, namely the residential and the day school systems. The churches prefer the residential school system. In those schools the child is taken in at a comparatively tender age, about six or seven years, and remains there until he or she has reached the age of sixteen or seventeen. During that time they are instructed in practically the same subjects as are the pupils in the white schools. The day school system is run very much on the same plan as the public school system of our provinces, and it is in existence on those reserves where such a plan can be put into effect. The committee will realize that on many reserves it is impracticable to have a day school system. The Indians in some cases occupy a large area of land and it would be impossible to get the children to school. On the other hand, the population of a residential school may be drawn, as it sometimes is from the whole provincial area. The hon. member has expressed the opinion that the system now in vogue is wrong in certain respects and that these people should be taught their native handicrafts. That is a debatable question. For instance, the handicrafts system is best known by the Indians themselves, and those best qualified to teach these handicrafts are the parents of these Indian children. In many reserves these handicrafts have been preserved and are to-day one of the main sources of income of the Indians. I need only mention the St. Regis Indians, who are proficient in basket weaving, and Indians on other reserves who are proficient in making snow-shoes, Indian moccasins and so forth. I may say to the hon. member that I have given considerable thought to the question whether these handicrafts should be taught in our residential schools at the present time.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Fostered, not taught. I agree with the minister.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend says that
he agrees that these handicrafts should be fostered rather than taught. I was merely going to point out that if these handicrafts were to be taught in the schools it would impose upon us a financial burden which we are not able to bear at the present time because we have all we can do to maintain the present system. But as a matter of fact we are encouraging handicrafts among these people, and I agree with my hon. friend that we should in certain cases foster these handicrafts. We must, however, be careful not to generalize because while certain Indians are proficient in basket-weaving or the making of snowshoes, not all Indians are. They have their different abilities the same as the white people, and because one Indian is a basket-weaver it does not follow that every Indian is a basket-weaver. But in order to encourage this work we are making grants of a total of $7,500 this year for prizes at exhibitions for Indian handicrafts and agricultural produce.


Charles Marcil: Do those grants cover all
the reserves or apply only to a certain area?


Charles Murphy: The grants are made to
certain fairs and institutions.


Mr. BROWN:: I presume on this item we
can discuss everything that relates to the Indians because it is the only item in the estimates that I find referring to them. I would recall to the minister that last year the minister brought in a bill that was very much debated and very much amended, and finally passed, with reference to the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians. I think this would be an opportune time, if a report has not already been made in some form that I have missed, for the minister to report what has been done under the authority of that act.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It is not near
enough to election time to give a report.


Albert Joseph Brown: We should know what was
done under that bill. While I am on my feet I wish to refer to a newspaper report in regard to a matter on which the minister probably has some information. It was reported that certain Indian youths of eighteen or nineteen at a place called Shubenacadie were subjected to treatment that, judged by the standards of British justice, would seem to be monstrous. It was alleged that certain youths were soundly thrashed in order to extort confessions of the theft of a small sum of money. I would like to know if the minister has had any report on the matter and can inform the committee what action

Supply-Indian Affairs
has been taken, because if the facts were as reported I have no hesitation in saying that those responsible should receive the utmost penalty the law provides. In dealing with the Indians we must not insist in treating them altogether according to our own standards. They must be treated with a good deal of consideration for the fact that their standards are not as high as we claim ours to be, and we should set them an example of humanity and justice rather than an example of extreme cruelty such as would seem to have been practised on these boys.


Charles Murphy: Answering the first question of the hon. member for Lisgar, in the fiscal year 1933-34 there were 44 enfranchisements of Indians under section 114, I think it is, of the act, but none were enfranchised under the section of the act that was amended last year.
With regard to the second portion of my hon. friend's remarks, the alleged flogging of Indians at Shubenacadie was brought to my attention both in newspaper reports and in reports which have been received in the department from the Indian agent for the district, and from the principal of the school. For the information of the hon. member and the committee I may say that a commission is being appointed under the Inquiries Act to make the fullest inquiry into and report upon all the circumstances surrounding the alleged flogging, and upon that report the action of the department and of the government will be based.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was very glad to hear
the minister say what he has said with regard to no compulsory enfranchisements having taken place under the act passed last year.


Charles Murphy: Not under that amended
section.


John Campbell Elliott: But there have been 44
enfranchisements-


Charles Murphy: Under section 114, I think it is.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope that from time to
time as the estimates of the department comfe before the house those of us who are fortunate enough to be here will receive a similarly satisfactory report from the minister that no compulsory enfranchisements have taken place under the amendment which caused so much discussion in this house last year. At that time I expressed myself, as did some others, as being very strongly opposed to that class of legislation, particularly as applying to these people. I am glad that the minister and the department have not found it necessary to resort to what I looked upon as a very harsh, very drastic and very unnecessary piece of legislation.
I see that the estimates here include relief, agricultural activities, roads, bridges, dyking, education and so forth. I would like some information in regard to these matters, and perhaps it would make the discussion a little less disconnected if I indicated the information I should like to receive:	First of all,
as to the amount expended on relief last year for the Indians throughout the dominion, and how that compares with the amount spent on relief in the previous two years; also the manner in which that relief was expended. I happen to come from a section of the country in which a number of Indian reserves are located containing I think as good a type of Indian as can be found on this continent. I hope the minister's experience during the stress of the last few years has been that the Indians have not required more in the way of relief than has been required by white people in many municipalities. I should like to know the manner in which relief is expended, whether upon roads, upon bridges or in what way. The amount given to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) as the expenditure on roads throughout the whole dominion seems to me to be very small.


Charles Marcil: The amount expended in the Restigouche reserve was S150.


John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if the hon. member understood the minister correctly.


Charles Murphy: That is estimated for the present fiscal year.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister give me the expenditures for the present fiscal year for the Muncey, Oneida and the Chippawa reserves? Could he also give us the amounts expended in previous years? The reserves to which I have referred contain many miles of roads and like most Indian reserves, they lie alongside rivers. Consequently the construction of highways and bridges is perhaps a little more difficult than on more level ground. Much industry has been expended by the Indians themselves in keeping up their own roads on the reserves and in some cases they have worked without pay. I think better results could be obtained from the money expended on relief by increasing the amounts for highway construction. A number of bridges are at present in such a condition as to be almost dangerous to the travelling public and I should like to know if there is to be a program of reconstruction of bridges on the reserves to which I have referred.
Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles Murphy: The aids to Indians are as follows:
1929-	30	
$711,5231930-	31	
823,3431931-	32	
988,3401932-	33	
935,7341933-	34	
854,935
I should explain that these aids to Indians do not mean relief only, they represent purchase of implements, purchase of seed grain, of garden seeds and potatoes and many other things. I am sorry I have not the items for relief toy themselves but I may say that we have been able to keep our relief within reasonable bounds. Since I have had the honour of administering this department it has been my constant endeavour to inculcate in the minds of the Indians through the administration of the various officers that they should make every effort to make themselves self-supporting rather than to lean upon the state. I think we have been fairly successful in -that connection. The hon. member desired to know the amounts in the estimates for certain reserves in Ontario. I find that the estimates for tihe Caradoc agency contain the sum of S500 for the improvement of main roads in the Muncey reserve, $250 for the improvement of main roads in the Oneida reserve and $250 for repairs to culverts over Turkey creek in the Oneida reserve. I might explain that in addition to parliamentary appropriations for the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges, this work is also carried on with expenditures from the band funds. For instance, on the Six Nations reserve we expect to make a considerable expenditure for the maintenance and improvement of the roads in that reserve and the money for this work will be obtained from the band funds, supplemented by a donation of forty per cent from the Ontario government.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand $7,500 is being granted for gratuities by way of agricultural prizes.


Charles Murphy: Prizes for agricultural and handicraft exhibits.


John Campbell Elliott: Would that include ploughing matches and that sort of thing?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the department carry on competitions open to Indians only?


Charles Murphy: Prizes are given for Indian work and these prizes would go to Indians only. Both systems are carried on in connection with the ploughing matches. There are some matches in which Indians only compete while in others they compete with whites.


John Campbell Elliott: I think some of the best ploughing done in my part of the country is that done by Indians from the reserves to which I have referred. These Indians have been successful in taking a number of prizes in open competition with the white men in the community. In my opinion one of the best ways of encouraging proficiency in agriculture is to provide for a certain amount of money to be expended on prizes along the line of ploughing matches and that sort of thing where the competition is limited to those who are on the reserve.


Charles Murphy: I am informed of an item which may be of interest to the committee: at Yanderhoof in British Columbia the Indians carried off practically all the first prizes in open ploughing competitions, so I can readily understand the interest of the hon. member for West Middlesex in this matter. The Indian, if he sets his mind to it, can do in many lines of endeavour just as efficient work as can his white brother. I am well aware of that from my knowledge of Indians who inhabit a reserve in my constituency. I know in white settlements adjacent .to that reserve, if the white people can employ Indian labour at harvest and haying times, they prefer them to any other class of labour they can get. That is of course a matter which gives us in the Indian department great encouragement, because we feel that these people are capable of being very proficient in different lines of endeavour.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I should like to have some information from the minister regarding the Lennox Island reserve. As he is probably aware it is on a small island and a ferryboat has to be maintained there with a wharf on each side. I think the wharf on the mainland side is kept up by the federal Department of Public Works. I am not sure whether the minister's own department maintains the wharf on the island where the reserve is. I should like to know in what condition are the wharves, the ferry and the road?


Charles Murphy: We have in the estimates for this year the sum of $175 for repairs to roads, bridges, etcetera, generally for the reserves in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. RYERSON:: Could the minister give to the committee the amount expended for relief on the Six Nations reserve during the past three years?


Charles Murphy: I am sorry I have not that information at hand but I would be glad to get it and give it to the hon. member.

Supply-Indian Affairs


John Power Howden: There are one or two matters I would like to put before the minister with regard to the Indians around lake Winnipeg. These fellows have a habit of wandering in to see me occasionally, I do not know why. There was a complaint made to me some time ago by the Indians on the Fisher River reserve that leases were given by the government, probably the provincial government, to fish on the Fisher river. Those fishermen occupied all the ground in the mouth of the river and after taking out their nets full of fish including a great many small ones, the latter were discarded and thrown dead back into the river or discarded generally. The Indians said that the fish discarded by these fishermen would feed the Indian tribe who were themselves more or less without food. I do not know how much truth there is in that, but I thought it worth while putting before the minister. The Indians complain that these fishermen discard enough fish to feed the tribe over the winter and it is deprived of the possibility of fishing for itself. That is the first item.
The other one is this-and I have mentioned a portion of it to the minister privately-in the lowlying land around the delta of lake Winnipeg, the mouth of the Red river as it empties into the lake, there is a very wide stretch of hay land, and between the town of Selkirk and the mouth of the river there are many settlers of foreign extraction, Ukrainians. They are petty farmers; all of them have herds of milch cows and raise a little bit of grain. Those hay lands are leased as far as possible according to the requirements of the farmers in that district, but the complaint is made that a number of men from the same establishment will put in applications for licences and instead of the hay being liberally divided among the various farmers of the district, it has all got into the hands of a very few. I do not for a moment suppose that the minister would have any knowledge of these matters, but there is without doubt an abuse of administration and they are worth while looking into. For that reason I put them before the minister just for what they are worth.


Charles Murphy: Tire hon. member has brought up a question which has not previously been directed to my attention, namely, the matter of fishing in lake Winnipeg at the mouth of the Fisher river. There is, I know, an Indian fishing station at that point utilized by the members of the Fisher River band and those who live on the Peguis reserve. Whether since the transfer of the natural resources to
the provinces, the regulations in regard to fishing come under the jurisdiction of the provincial or the dominion government, I am not in a position to state, but I am rather of opinion that the regulations in regard to this fishing rest with the provincial rather than with the dominion government although I speak subject to correction on that point.


John Power Howden: If I may interrupt the minister on that point: if by any chance through an abuse of the regulations the' Indians are being deprived of their winter food which very largely consists of frozen fish, I think the matter ought to be looked into by his department.


Charles Murphy: I was about to remark when the hon. gentleman interrupted me- and I do not object to the interruption-that I would be pleased to inquire fully into the matter and find out under which jurisdiction it rests; if it rests with the province I shall be glad to bring it and the remarks made by the hon. member to-day to their attention and endeavour to secure a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I know the Indians depend to a great extent in many cases on fishing for food particularly in the winter time, and I know what this means to the Indians of that particular reserve.
In regard to the licensing or the granting of permission to cut hay on what is known as the old St. Peter's reserve, as the hon. member has stated, he did take the matter up with me privately some time ago, and I issued to the department instructions which I think will solve the difficulty, if there has been any. Those licences can be granted earlier in the season than has been the practice hitherto, or at least I know of no reason why they should not be. Apparently the hon. member thinks, if that is done, the difficulty will be overcome.


John Power Howden: Another point that I wish to draw to the minister's attention is that a number of applications will come from one establishment, so that the hay on the old St. Peter's reserve instead of being fairly well distributed amongst the Ukrainian settlers of that district practically all falls into the hands of two or three.


Charles Murphy: Those who have first
claim upon this hay are, I believe, the Indians who own lands in the vicinity. After that permits are given to the various white settlers. I am informed that the division has been fairly equal among the white people. However, I shall be glad to make inquiry
Supply-Indian Affairs

and get a list of those who have received permits. The intention is that those hay lands would be used fairly amongst the white settlers in that district after the Indians have obtained their allotment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: In item 176 there is
provision for a grant of 8100,000 approved by parliament in the session of 1926-27. Will the minister explain what that is and for what it is used?


Charles Murphy: This money is included
in the estimates yearly, following an arrangement arrived at after the parliamentary committee had inquired into the matter in the session of 1926-27. I was not a member of the house at that time but I think I am correct in saying that this sum of money is paid to the Indians of British Columbia in lieu of treaty money. That is, certain Indians in other parts of Canada receive certain annuities, amounting to 8234,000, which sum is provided by statute. In order to put the Indians of British Columbia on a fair footing with other Indians in Canada this special amount is provided by parliament from year to year. It is used for hospitalization, education and medical services.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What consideration has
been given, if any, to the building of roads or bridges in any of the Indian reserves in the constituency of North Battleford? There are quite a number of Indian reservations in that constituency, some very large, and I would like to know if anything is to be done in the way of giving the Indians on them better transportation facilities.


Charles Murphy: There is no amount provided in the estimates this year for roads or bridges on any of the reserves in Saskatchewan.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think the minister
is acquainted with the fact that on many of the reserves in Saskatchewan, and I presume all reserves in western Canada, the fur catch is becoming less and less, and the money returns from this activity becoming smaller year by year. If the Indian is not making satisfactory progress in the cultivation of land and the rearing of cattle and such ways of making money, his standard of living must be going down. Can the minister throw any light on the results of education of the Indians on these reserves in that respect?


Charles Murphy: As the hon. member knows, the Indians in certain parts of Canada were granted certain rights in regard to hunting, fishing and trapping. In the western provinces prior to the transfer of the natural resources

the dominion of course had complete control. When the natural resources were transferred to the western provinces a clause was inserted in the agreements providing that the Indians were to have the right to trap and hunt on unoccupied crown lands. The provinces, I believe, or some of them, claim that they have the right to grant leases to or licence individuals to run trap lines on these crown lands, and that having so leased or granted licences over these lands they are no longer unoccupied crown lands. That is a position with which we do not agree. But, as the hon. member will realize, it is a matter of considerable importance to the Indians. I am glad to tell the committee that the fur catch generally this last season has been very satisfactory, in fact better than for some years, and as the prices of fur were also higher, the Indians, or those at least who follow that mode of making a living, are in a better position than they have been for the preceding three or four years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for that answer. Even if the Indian is forbidden to go on crown lands to catch furbearing animals I believe that under the educational facilities on some reserves at any rate he is being trained and developed to be more capable of making his own living successfully.' It may be that no matter what amount of education you give an Indian he still remains an Indian, but the idea is to develop the possibilities of manhood in him and make him able to adjust himself to his surroundings and thereby make him a better citizen and less dependent on the state. I think the education of our Indians on the reserves has that for its object-, and I believe that as long as that object is kept in view we shall have at least fair success in educating the Indians.
But to proceed may I say that the Meadow Lake Indian reserve is located on the Meadow river over one hundred miles north of North Battleford. I think any one who knows that reserve will admit that the land there is as good land as there is outdoors in Canada. I understand that a few Indians occupy that reserve-. On it now there is the town of Meadow Lake, with a population of about 1,500. The Canadian Pacific Railway has built from a point on the Prince Albert-Shellbrook line of the Canadian National into Meadow Lake. The Canadian Pacific now has connection from Prince Albert, and I might say North Battleford, into Meadow Lake. There was a move to see whether that Indian reserve can be bought from the

Supply-Indian Affairs
Indians in order that there may be settlement on it, and not simply a few families as at the present time. The idea would be to pay a fair price to the Indians, distribute the money among them and have them relocate farther north or in any other direction, on suitable land. Some representations must have been made to the minister with regard to this matter, which has been hanging fire for years, and I think there should be a report in the department. I should like to ask the minister whether any action has been taken or if any action is contemplated with regard to this very important matter.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Would the hon.
gentleman tell us roughly how many settlers might be expected to avail themselves of that opportunity?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I could not say exactly
but I should think there would be a considerable number of settlers. There are only a few Indians located on that land, and my idea was that the Indians could be fairly dealt with by having that land purchased and the money distributed among them. It would be a great help to the progressive Meadow Lake settlement, which has taken on new life in the last few years, since the railway went in and settlers from the south have gone north.


Hugh Guthrie: Approximately how large is the reserve?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not know exactly
but I should think the minister could give us that information.


Charles Murphy: I have not the exact
figures before me, but the reserve is of considerable size, comprising several thousand acres. I may say that this matter was brought to my attention, on the last occasion about two years ago, I think, when representations similar to those made by my hon. friend were submitted to me by correspondence. The position is very simple, in one sense of the word. The Indians own these lands; they belong not to the white people but to the Indians, and the department is unable either to lease or sell any Indian lands in the Dominion of Canada until a surrender is obtained from the Indians themselves stating the terms and conditions upon which the land may be leased or sold.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Might I ask the minister if the whole proposal could be halted by one Indian who refused to sign?


Charles Murphy: I have not the Indian
Act before me and I cannot quote the section, but I think I am correct in stating that the surrender is based upon the majority vote; that is, if a majority of the male members of the band over twenty-one 3'ears of age vote in favour of a surrender such surrender is made. Then, of course, the department is in a position to make whatever deal may be considered most advantageous under the circumstances. I may say that the Indians on this particular reserve to date have not been willing to surrender their lands, and in consequence nothing can be done in regard to the matter.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand the position of the minister and the department. I was under the impression, however, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, that some few years ago practically every Indian was willing to sign, with I think only one exception. I do not know whether the matter actually came to a vote.


Charles Murphy: Of course I speak subject to correction, but to the best of my knowledge no vote was ever taken. There are certain very definite rules and regulations in regard to how the vote shall be taken, and to the best of my knowledge no vote was taken. Individuals may have expressed themselves as being favourable to the surrender of the lands for lease or sale, but when it came to the question of voting they might vote differently. I think we have all had a little experience along that line during our canvasses; certain individuals have told us they were for us, but when we saw the results at that poll later we found that they did not come up to our expectations. Perhaps the same thing might happen in this case.
I would point out further that in the course of his remarks the hon. member suggested that these Indians might be moved further north. There is no land further north in the province which is within the gift of the dominion government. Since the transfer of the natural resources all such land is under the control of the provincial government and we have nothing to do with it.	.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Of course the government could buy land further north or in any other direction if they saw fit to do so.


Mr. NEILL:: The minister is correct in stating that the majority prevails, and that brings to mind a grievance which has been brought to my attention from time to time and which I should like to discuss on behalf of the Indians. I am dealing with British Columbia only, because I am familiar with conditions in that province.
277S
Supply-Indian Affairs

The department recognizes the Indians as their responsibility and takes care of them in the matter of relief. The Indian knows that no matter what happens, even though he may have nothing at all, if he becomes destitute or ill the department will take care of him. Here is the situation that arises at times, however. A railway wants to buy a piece of land from the Indians for a right of way, or perhaps the land is needed for a factory site or a sawmill site. In any case a body of white men want to buy a piece of the Indian reserve, and under the law the consent of the Indians must be obtained in the way indicated by the minister. I think of recent years, though it was not so when I was first an Indian agent, the rule has been that if the land is sold for a given sum half that sum can be distributed in cash to the band while the other half is put into a fund allotted to that particular band and no other, it being argued quite properly that they have alienated a piece of their communal holdings. So they get half the cash and the other half goes into a fund. That is explained to the Indian, and he is told also that there will be interest accruing on that amount. Too often the idea is held out to him that if he wants to use that money to put up a community hall or do fencing or something like that he may get the interest on the money or sometimes the capital itself. This is what happens very often, however; perhaps interest accumulates for a year or two and then a cash payment is made to the head of each family. Two or three years later they apply for another payment, but they are told there is no more interest money. They ask what has become of it, if the Indian agent has stolen it, because that is usually their first reaction. The agent tells them that he has taken that interest and used it to pay for the relief bills of the band.
From the point of view of the department there is some plausibility to that argument; they say this is the Indian fund and the interest should be used for the jrelief of the band. The Indian says-and this is very logical-the next time you go to him and ask him to consent to the alienation of a piece of his land, "What shall it profit me; why should I oblige the white man? I only received the small cash payment and did not get the rest of the money." The Indian decides that the department will take half the money and use the interest to pay the ordinary relief bills of the band, which the department would pay in any case, and the Indian has enough intelligence and understanding to see that point. The band on the next reserve,

who do not sell their land, are cared for in exactly the same way as the band who alienate part of their land, but in the one case the department pays for the relief while in the other case the relief comes out of the funds of the Indians themselves. As a result the next time we want the Indians to part with their land they are extremely unwilling to do so, and very often it is very important from a public point of view that Indian land should be acquired.
I do think faith should be kept with the Indians. If the department say the money is to go into a fund for the band, that fund should be kept subject only to the control of the band. You would not think of selling a piece of the reserve in order to pay the storekeeper's relief bills, but this fund takes the place of the piece of land that has been sold, and it should be regarded not as a fund for relief but as a part of the reserves of the Indians. Any interest accruing on it should go to the Indians at the absolute discretion of the band. That has been a sore point with the Indians ever since I have had anything to do with them, which covers a period of more than thirty years, and as the encroachment-I do not mean that in an improper sense-of the white man upon their lands becomes greater it becomes more and more necessary to alienate parts of these reserves. You have that increasing trouble because the Indian thinks he is not getting a square deal. You have taken his money from him, and you do not give it back. I think the minister understands the point.


Charles Murphy: Yes, I believe I have a fair knowledge of the matter about which the hon. member has spoken, and I may say there have been certain difficulties in connection with it. When the land or Indian property is surrendered for sale an amount-I think it is up to one-half-may be used for distribution pro rata among the members of the band. Sometimes half the amount will be given, and at other times the Indians themselves will, in the surrender, specify the amount to be distributed.


Alan Webster Neill: Not exceeding one-half.


Charles Murphy: Yes, not exceeding one-half. We will say that they do not think it would be in their interests to take one-half, when they surrender on the condition that a certain amount shall be distributed among different members of the band. The hon. member has said that the amount of money left is placed in a certain fund to the credit of that particular band. In that statement he is correct. The money is placed to the

Supply-Indian Affairs
credit of the band, and on it the dominion government allows five per cent interest. The fund thereby accumulates, if the increment is not used for relief, for the building of council halls or for other Indian purposes. Sometimes, not very often, a distribution from that fund is made. The hon. member has said that that is not a fair treatment and that the funds and the interest should not be used for purposes of relief. That is an open question, and one in connection with which different opinions might be held. I would point out that the Indians in one reserve, namely the Blackfoot in southern Alberta, are practically self supporting, that is to say, no demands are made on the department for relief. Through their own efforts they are able to provide a living for themselves, and in addition they pay their own hospitalization services. The only money spent on that reserve from parliamentary appropriations is for the upkeep of the schools. The funds of the band are used for all other purposes.


Alan Webster Neill: That is an exception.


Charles Murphy: As the hon. member has said, it is an exception. To some extent however it is true with other reserves and other bands in Canada where band funds are held. These interest funds are used for the benefit of the Indians. I have stated to the committee and to the house on many occasions my belief is that the Indian should be in a position to stand on his own feet and through his own efforts provide for himself. That is the policy which has guided me in the administration of the Indian Department. I do not believe that it is good either for the Indian or for the white man to have the feeling that whether he works or not, or whether he has funds or not, he may throw himself upon the state and that in any event the state is bound to look after him. I realize that a responsibility rests upon the Indian department to look after the Indians and, when they are unable to do it for themselves, to provide them with the necessities of life. At the same time I reiterate that not only should he be encouraged but he should be directed and led along the lines of self reliance. I am not certain whether the hon. member has argued that these funds should not be used for the purposes of building a council hall or for relief purposes. In some instances the bands hold funds running up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Blackfoot Indians of southern Alberta have a fund amounting to considerably more than a million dollars. It could hardly be argued that a band with such 74726-176
valuable assets should be kept on relief from parliamentary appropriations.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks I said I was referring to the province of British Columbia where band funds run to only a few hundreds, or at the outside perhaps a couple of thousand dollars. The minister has said that he believes the Indians should be taught to stand on their own feet. No one can possibly gainsay that statement; it is a truism. I suppose his statement applies to standing on their own feet financially and socially; I think it should also apply to standing on their own feet morally. And how can you teach them to do that when you break faith with them? There is no question at all that the bargain is made with these Indians that they shall have half the money in cash, if they wish it, and that the other half will be put into a fund under their control. You break faith in doing anything else. The minister has asked what I want, and he has asked whether or not I want relief to be paid out of their interest money. I do not care what they do with their interest money, provided the consent of the band is obtained. The money in the fund is the property of the Indians, just as the land was their property, and you should no more take away that money-because the land is represented by money-than you should take away the land.
The treaty made with the Indians has from time immemorial recognized that we must provide the Indian with relief when he needs it. We know that. We have two bands placed side by side, one of which has not sold any of its land or its reserve, and they get relief when they require it. We cannot get away from that fact; that is in the treaty. But the band a few miles away have been induced by the arguments of the Indian agent to part with their heritage, their land, and a substitution is made of so much cash in the bank. Then the department comes along and although they could not alienate the land without the consent of the band they alienate the interest money and use it to pay bills which otherwise they would have had to pay, anyway. Is that fair? Certainly, spend it on a community hall or for relief, if you like, but only if you can get the vote of the band to that procedure. But I say the money belongs to them, just as the land did. The money represents a piece of their land. Then the department comes along- they would not dare do it if a white man was concerned because in that event they would be taken before the courts-and they say, "We will take this money, which is yours,

Supply-Indian Affairs

and we will alienate it, and pay our relief bills with it." That is not fair or reasonable. In years to come when, in a hurry, you want a release from an Indian band you will have trouble in getting it. That is the point. Get the consent of the Indians to alienate their money, if you can-I know you cannot-but do not take it from them simply, I was going to say, by force of arms, actually by departmental regulations.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is there any difference in principle between the use of the interest on the money to the credit of the Indians and the use of the natural resources which the Indian has not alienated? I am going to ask the minister whether it is not a fact that timber on the lands of some of the unceded bands in northern Ontario is being used now by the Indians to provide themselves with relief. The timber standing on the land is the property of the Indian, and as I understand it it is being used by the Indians-and I am speaking subject to correction-and sold for the purpose of providing means for relief or living through these difficult periods. Am I right or wrong; I should like to be clear on the point?


Charles Murphy: The hon. member is quite correct. In some instances Indians are surrendering their timber for sale, and from the proceeds they gain a livelihood. In other cases the Indians themselves cut their own timber and utilize the proceeds from the sales for their living.


Mr. HO  WIDEN@: I think it is to be hoped that the department will not for some time, lightly undertake the release of any further Indian lands in this country. I have lived in western Canada for over fifty years, and if my information is correct the Indian has always got very decidedly the worst of the deal. Some considerable number of years ago the surrender of the St. Peters Indian reserve was obtained from the Indians for a certain consideration in cash-I do not know the exact terms of the contract-but the Indians were relieved of a fairly good piece of agricultural land and were moved away from lake Winnipeg to a place among the rocks and muskeg where there is no timber and very little land of value, and there to-day they are starving. They are the most scrofulous, the most tubercular people I have even seen in my life. They have very little means of making a living except by fishing in the summer, and when the water freezes in the winter they have a very blue look-out for a living. That St. Peters reserve got into the hands of a few speculators. The Indians 
were moved off and the speculators failed to make anything of the land, and a great deal of it is lying idle to this day. Since then the Indians have been seeking to come back to this land but they have never been permitted to do so, although there are very few settlers on it. So it is with some reason that I say it is to he hoped that the Department of the Interior will hesitate before they seek the release of any more Indian lands.


Charles Murphy: Not the Department of the Interior, the Department of Indian Affairs.


John Power Howden: Well, the Department of Indian Affairs.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Following the remarks of my hon. friend from St. Boniface, so far as the selling of any portion of the Meadow 'Lake Indian reserve is concerned, if through force of circumstances, the encroachment of population or the development of the district, something must be done, then I would say that the department should be the major factor in any change that is made with respect to this land. Surely the Indian department should be able to guarantee an absolutely fair deal for the Indians. If it could not, what department of the government could?
May I say that in any suggestion I have mads with regard to moving Indians north, south, west or east, my underlying thought' was always that the Indians would be paid every cent that was coming to them for their land, that the Indian Act would be abided by and a vote of the band taken, and that in every case, if anything were done, the Indians should be dealt with fairly and in their own interests. Might I ask the minister, if it is the case that a vote must be taken before any part of a reserve is given over for any other purpose than that of an Indian reserve, how did it happen that the Canadian Pacific Railway got control or purchased thirty or forty acres of the Meadow Lake Indian reserve and built a station upon that land and constructed a right of way through it, together with yard facilities upon a certain amount of it? Did they buy that land from the Indian department? Were the Indians satisfied to sell it, or does a deal of that kind come under what we might term, in railway language, the right of eminent domain?


Charles Murphy: My answer to the hon. gentleman some time ago in regard to the surrender of the lands in, the Meadow Lake reserve, that the department was not in a position to deal with -these lands until they had been surrendered by the Indians them-

Supply-Immigration
selves, I should have qualified by saying that under certain conditions, when it is in the public interest, expropriation proceedings may be taken. Whether the Indians surrendered their land that it might, be sold to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I do not know; but I rather think that those lands were expropriated, as can legally be done under the Railway Act.


Mr. MUNN:: I understand that the Indians of the Squamish reserve, North Vancouver, during the fiscal year 1932-33 were allowed several thousand dollars from their fund, for agricultural development. Would the minister explain how that was handled and if it has been a success?


Charles Murphy: The money has not all been expended as yet. We are carrying on certain agricultural experiments on that reserve, and we are moving slowly in the matter. I have read certain reports from the agent and the inspector that appreciable progress is being made on that reserve in agricultural pursuits.
Answering the hon. member for St. Boniface, I am in general agreement with the remarks which he made in regard to the alienation or sale of Indian reserves. We have in Canada now an Indian population of approximately 115.000, and in some of the provinces the Indians are being so cribbed, cabined and confined in very small areas that it is difficult indeed for them to make a living. I wish to assure the hon. member that before the department considers the sale of any -Indian reserve or any portion thereof in the Dominion of Canada the question will be most minutely inquired into, as we are fully seized of the importance of retaining these reserves for the use of the Indians.


John Power Howden: As the charge has been directly made that the Indians have never been paid for the St. Peters reserve, that they have been paid only a minute fraction of the consideration involved in the undertaking-I have never inquired into the details-I think now is a good time for the minister to make a statement on the matter.


Charles Murphy: I- have not the figures before me but I can say that the report which the hon. member has received is untrue. I shall be very glad to get, and to give to the hon. member, a full statement of the financial 'consideration and of the financial adjustments that have been made since the sale of that reserve.


George Brecken Nicholson: I would like to say a word to the minister on a subject I raised 74726-176 }
last year when the Indian estimates were up. What progress, if any, is being made in the negotiations which I understand have been entered into by the Indian department, with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec particularly, in relation to setting apart that portion of Ontario and Quebec north of the height of land for the use of the Indians in the taking of fur-bearing animals and game birds for profit? These Indians are the natives of that area and they should have the exclusive use of the country, otherwise they will soon become wards of the government in the sense that they will have to be maintained all the time by the government. The quantity of furs which can be taken out of that area by the native Indians, who were there before we were, would enable them to make a living and preserve the game life of the country at the same time. If that part of the country is going to continue to be overrun by the class of white trapper now trapping that country, the game life will be soon extinguished and the Indians forced to depend upon the state entirely. There are no other means by which they can make a living.


Albert Edward Munn: They could have farm lands.


George Brecken Nicholson: There are no farm lands north of the height of land.


Mr. SPROULE:: What amount is being set aside for roads in the Stony Point and Kettle reserves?


Charles Murphy: There is an amount of $695 for improvement of roads, 8300 for repairs to bridges and culverts and $300 for maintenance of drainage systems in the Kettle and Stony Point reserves, Lambton county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Immigration and colonization-immigration salaries and contingencies, $1,239,288.
Mr. YENIOT:: There is some information I should like to get from the minister. The case is that of the son of a man who came
Supply-Immigration

to this country years ago and was naturalized, the son also being naturalized. The son went to France and married there. He has attempted to return to Canada and apparently some difficulty has arisen. If the minister cannot give an explanation in detail to-night, perhaps I might have an appointment with some official of the department who would give me the information. But, roughly, could the minister explain what steps have to be taken in order that that young man may return with his wife to his parents? The father is a large property holder in New Brunswick and is prepared to put up any bond to any extent that the department may require.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I think the case need present no difficulty whatever. If the hon. member cares to take it up with the deputy minister, I am sure there will be no trouble about it.


Peter John Veniot: Thank you very much.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In this item how much is for salaries and how much for contingencies?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The appropriation is divided between salaries, $191,484 and contingencies, $16,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am glad to see the
minister back in the chamber in good health and able to give us the information. He has been ill for some time and I am sure all hon. members are pleased to see him back in good health and able to attend to his duties. In the city of Quebec what amount is spent each year for the administration of the immigration office and the staff there?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I regret that I cannot give the figures for any one port of entry because they are not made up in a way that would give the information asked for, but I shall be glad to get it for the hon. member.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many immigration offices are there in the various ports of the dominion?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Ports of entry are established on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as along the United States-Canada boundary. The ports on the Atlantic coast are Halifax, Saint John and Quebec. Montreal is, of course, a port of entry but it is treated as an inland port.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any special officials and what are their functions at the various places?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At each port of entry an inspector is in charge whose duty it is to examine the ships arriving and to check up those who seek legal landing under the act, to see that they comply with the regulations. Those are broadly and generally the duties of the officers at ocean ports, so far as incoming migrants are concerned. There are other duties with respect to those who are being returned to their country of origin. So far as the latter are concerned the matter is different because they have to be taken charge of and turned over to the transportation company that brought them to Canada.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In Montreal there used to be at one time a Mr. Moquin and a Mr. Regimbal in charge of the immigration office. Have they been removed? Who has replaced them? When did this change take place? They used to sit as a board of inquiry.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Regimbal I am informed was superannuated some years ago; Mr. Moquin was also superannuated. The present inspector is Mr. Langlais.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is he the only official in charge or are there other officials connected with the department?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He has a staff of officials.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the staff in Montreal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I may not have the names of the staff there, but I can supply the hon. member with the information later.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are these officials
appointed by the civil service commission or by direction of the minister only?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The civil service commission in all cases.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who is in charge at
Quebec city?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Cormier is inspector in charge, but I have not the names of his staff.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister said he was not in a position to give details of the various costs for all these ports. He said the salaries amounted to $191,484 and the contingencies to $16,000. There is a diminution in this vote of $177,712, but the sum we are called upon to vote is $1,239,288. Is that amount all expended in Canada, and for what purposes besides salaries and contingencies? There seems to be a discrepancy somewhere.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The figures I gave a
moment ago were a division of the civil gov-

Supply-Immigration
ernment vote. I shall have to give at considerable length perhaps the figures indicating the division of this vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am sorry, but I think the house and the country should have an explanation of the difference between the salaries and that large total.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For the purposes of the
department there are three divisions: the eastern, the western, and the Pacific division. The vote is distributed as follows:
Eastern Western Pacific Permanent salaries.. $466,604 $129,420 $80,610 Temporary salaries. .	32,274	20,268	7,569Part time salaries.. 13,325	4,401	6,548
Then listed under other locations, some of which are in Canada and some outside, are: permanent, $99,178; temporary, $29,391. I have not a separation of the contingencies by divisions, but the total of contingencies is $349,700, thus making the grand total indicated in the vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are 'the temporary and part time employees also subject to the test of the civil service commission.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The , employees of the
department are all subject to the civil service commission.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For contingencies $349,700 is a large sum. Can the minister tell what they are, and how much is spent outside of Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The amount is divided
as follows:
Boundary inspection (between United
States and Canada)	$ 73,000
Inland agencies	 33,000
Seaport agencies	 28,000
Chinese Immigration Act	 9,000
Deportation	 135,000
Women's division	 1,000
British immigrant children	 3,700
Head office	 6,000
Publicity	 7,000
Great Britain and Ireland (where we
still maintain offices)	 35,000
Continent (inspection offices)	 19,000

The publicity is mainly in connection with colonization at home.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is meant by inland supervision? You have boundary inspection, and inland and seaport supervision.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We have agencies at
Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Calgary and various other inland cities where agents of the immigration department are resident.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But we were told a few moments ago that the services of the department are divided into three sections, east, west and Pacific coast, and we were given the figures in each case. In the east it cost $466,604 for permanent employees, $32,274 for temporary employees and $13,325 for part time employees. In the west the figures were $129,000, $20,268 and $4,401, while on the Pacific coast they were S80,610, $7,569 and $6,548. We pay large salaries to the employees in the various divisions mentioned by the minister, and I am surprised to learn that in addition the department has to provide such huge sums as $33,000 for the inland agencies, $28,000 for the seaport agencies and $73,000 for the work on the boundary, as well as the other items mentioned. I submit that the minister should give us more details as to how these contingencies are arrived at, and whether they could not be curtailed. We are told that the government has practically stopped immigration, that we do not want people from foreign lands to come to Canada, but there is a reduction of only $177,712 in this item; we are still called upon to vote the huge sum of $1,239,288. If we have stopped immigration, as the government say we have, why do we have to spend this large sum of the people's money? I should like the minister to answer that question.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The decrease in the vote as compared with last year is $183,712. From the immigration figures of a few years ago it will be seen that in the last five years the total vote has been decreased by probably fifty per cent. It is quite true that immigration such as was invited and encouraged in the years prior to 1930-31 has diminished very materially. Whether or not it has been the part of wisdom to invoke those restrictions to the extent deemed necessary by the government is, of course, a matter of argument; everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But bear in mind that in the immigration department files containing the history of every landed migrant are kept for the purposes of determining his right to stay during his probationary period.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How far do these files
go back into history?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They have been kept
since the department was set up. I think that would be shortly after confederation, at which time it was a branch of the agriculture department. Following that it was a branch of the interior department and finally was set up by itself as the immigration department.
Supply-Immigration

These files cover the migrants who have legally landed, and they are very necessary to-day, as hon. members of the chamber well know, because I doubt if there is a member who has not at some time or other seen me with respect to relatives of or those closely associated with people legally landed in Canada with a view either to returning them to the land of their nativity or allowing their near relatives to come to Canada-


Ernest Lapointe: I have not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are some exceptions; the hon. member for Quebec East says he has not done so, but I think he is almost alone in that regard. It is necessary that we have these facts, because in Canada we have a very complex population and these files are of great assistance in determining whether or not and to what extent their relatives or friends in the old land or in other countries can be admitted. So it is very necessary that these files be preserved for use when investigations are made to determine whether or not the government or the department would be justified in following a course looking to the uniting of families or the admission of friends, and matters of that kind.
It may seem that since there is practically no immigration there is no work, but I would leave it to the judgment of the ex-Minister of Immigration, the hon. member for West Edmonton, whether or not the department does not provide ample opportunity for the activity of the minister and the officials who are taking care of this situation as best they can. The figures will disclose a great shrinkage in expenditure over the last few years, and each month there is a further decrease where decreases can be brought about and where departmental officials can be adjusted so that their activities will be put to good Service. When vacancies occur it will be noted from the report that has been tabled that they are not filled except in very special cases.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
Mr. DONNELLY:: Does the vote include medical inspection of immigrants?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I assume the hon. member has in mind the medical inspection overseas of intended migrants.


James J. Donnelly: Yes.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And at ocean ports. That does not come under this vote, but is dealt with by the Department of National Health.


James J. Donnelly: It is not under the Department of Immigration at all?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Mr. REID:: There are two small matters
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister; the first being in regard to the employment of immigration officers during the busy season. At the moment I am not going into the question of salaries, but I must say a complaint has been made to me that in the last two years the services of seasonal men have been cut down, and that men who are employed the whole year through are getting

S upply-Immigra tion
considerable overtime, thereby cutting out seasonal employment. Looking through the records I find that in some instances the overtime runs as high as S450 or $500. In my view that is a considerable amount of money to be received for overtime, especially in these days when so many men are out of employment. I think consideration should be given to those men who are engaged during the busy season, and that if possible they should be given an opportunity to assist during the busy seasons at the ports of entry.
While I am on my feet I should like to voice another complaint which has been made, namely that the Canadian Pacific Railway have been bringing engineers from the old country to fill positions on their steamships on the Pacific coast. Last year they brought in six engineers from the old country and placed them on the ships on the Pacific. The complaint is made that in these times of unemployment no men should be brought from the old country; it is not fair to allow men to be brought in to fill these positions, when plenty of competent engineers are idle on the Pacific coast. I have affidavits under my hand from at least six competent engineers who were formerly employed on Canadian National ships, and who for the last one and a half or two years have been idle. They feel aggrieved, and rightly so, that a company like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should bring men from ships travelling between Great Britain and Atlantic ports and place them on the Pacific coast, at a time when employment is so scarce here.
I know that what is done in the United States can have little bearing on this country, but one superintendent who two years ago was in charge of the Canadian National docks in Vancouver who was ordered to go to the United States and take charge of Canadian National property in Seattle where we have property valued at at least $1,000,000. After being in that city for two weeks he was ordered out of the country because he had no permit and was told not to come back. I believe some explanation should be given as to why engineers were allowed into the country when there are plenty of engineers on the Pacific coast competent to fill the positions.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question raised by the hon. member has been given a good deal of consideration. The point arises as to whether or not persons working in international waters should be accorded privileges, if we may call them such, and whether or not the engineers on the coastal steamers are qualified to carry
on under the laws which have relation to the operation of those steamers. I recall that at one time representations were made to the department with respect to some engineers on the Pacific coast. The information I was able to gather with respect to this group-whether it is the group the hon. member has in mind I am not prepared to say-was to the effect that they were unable to qualify for service on the steamers upon which they sought employment. If my recollection serves me correctly, opportunity was given to these men to take out the necessary certificates in order to qualify and some difficulty arose in connection with adopting that course. However the matter is still under consideration and investigation in the hope that any real grievance may be removed.
With respect to part time employees may I say I believe it will be found that across Canada there are very few employees receiving overtime pay. Unquestionably in some cases an employee will work a day or two longer than his usual hours of employment, and receive some remuneration for such overtime. But generally speaking, and in so far as humanly possible, overtime has been eliminated. I shall consider, however, the representations made by the hon. member in order that as many temporary employees may receive work as is consistent with efficiency.
Mr. MeINTOSH: I am pleased to see the minister back in the house again, and may I express the hope that with renewed health and energy he may continue his work to the end of the term. I have a question or two I should like to ask. It is generally admitted that immigration into western Canada has been curtailed seriously during the last four years. Having that fact in mind may I ask the minister how many ports of entry there are from the United States into the three western provinces.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are about thirty ports.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Does the minister mean that there are that many ports along the international boundary stretching from Ontario to British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the western division, yes.
Mr. MeINTOSH: How does that number compare with the number in 1930, for instance?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No material change.
Mr. MeINTOSH: There would be an inspector at each of these ports of entry, I presume, and just what other staff?
Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It sometimes happens that the immigration and customs services can be combined at different ports, each department bearing a portion of the charge. Perhaps the following information will be sufficient for the hon. gentleman, although I can give the names of the officers as well if desired. We have in Manitoba an inspector at Banner-man; one at Winnipeg, with a considerable staff; a part time inspector at Cartwright, Crystal City, Goodlands, Haskett, Lena, Coulter, Piney, Snowflake, Windygates. Then in Saskatchewan we have a part time inspector at Northgate, Big Beaver, Big Muddy, Carievale and Climax. A number of others, such as North Portal, Coutts and Emerson, make up the total for the western ports that I have mentioned.


James J. Donnelly: Are these part time inspectors customs officers as well as immigration inspectors?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think in nearly every case those mentioned are customs officers as well.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do they get two salaries or only one?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They have a very difficult time getting one salary.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They have these two services to perform, and as I understand the minister's statement the customs work is the heavier. These staffs are required because of the dual duties they are performing. Do I understand that to be the real reason?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is a reason in a sense, but let me put it this way. Wherever by reason of the amount of work to be done and by reason of the customs work and immigration work dovetailing into each other it is possible to unite the two services in one official, we have tried to do that across Canada for the obvious reason of saving expenses.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What has been the difference approximately in the expenditure at these ports in the last few years?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps the picture can best be shown by giving the total expenditures for the last few years:
Total
Fiscal year-	appopriation
1928-	29	
$2,943,391	661929-	30	
3,084,278	131930-	31	
2,578,251	901931-	32	
2,190,751	801932-	33	
1,681,153	711933-	34	
1,435,842	00
It will be seen that since the fiscal year 1928-29 the total appropriation has been reduced by more than fifty per cent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any agencies still maintained in the United States and other parts of the world looking after immigration to Canada? If so, where are they located, who is in charge of the different offices, and what are the salaries paid


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1930 the government of the day had about fifteen agencies in the United States spread from coast to coast, and a number of agencies on the continent of Europe and in the British Isles. It was thought desirable to close the agencies in the United States, and they have all been closed. It was also thought desirable to close the offices on the continent of Europe, and they have all been closed with the exception of the offices maintained' for the purpose of civil and medical inspection of those who have a legal right to enter Canada. We have three offices on the continent, at Paris, Antwerp and Hamburg. Certain curtailments have taken place with respect to the offices in1 the British Isles. We have offices at London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Bristol, Inverness, York and at Belfast, but the staffs in all these offices have been very materially reduced. It was not thought desirable that these offices should be closed because certain valuable contacts were made in the United Kingdom during the course of immigration activities. We get so many very highly desirable people from the British Isles that it was thought desirable to maintain these offices, although they are being maintained with greatly reduced staffs. There is also an office at Hong Kong through which are passed all people from the orient who have a right to come to Canada.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister tell us who is in charge of the offices at Paris, Antwerp and Hamburg?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Belanger at Paris, Mr. Mitchell at Antwerp and Mr. Chapdelaine at Hamburg.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any other officials?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There may be a stenographer, but I do not know.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister any idea how much these offices cost at Hamburg, Antwerp, Paris, the British Isles and in the orient? The minister mentioned salaries paid in Canada as well as contingencies, but I do not think he gave particulars of the salaries or expenditures in connection with the offices outside of Canada.

Supply-I mmigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have hot the figures before me showing the actual expenditure for each office.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to have that information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall get it for my hon. friend.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think the department is quite right in maintaining a certain number of immigration agencies throughout the British Empire. We can maintain empire contacts through these agencies. The minister stated that nothing is being done in the way of immigration activities in the United States. I should like to know how many immigrants came into western Canada from the United States during the last year or so.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It would be difficult for me or anyone to state exactly how many immigrants came into western Canada from the United States. It is within the realm of possibility that an immigrant might come into western Canada from the United States and then, not liking that part of the country, move to eastern Canada, or vice versa.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I hardly think that would happen.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. On page 10 of the report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization which has been tabled are figures which will furnish an answer to the hon. gentleman's question. Unless the committee desires it, I should like to be relieved from reading the figures on to Hansard.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought that would be rather an easy question to answer. If we are doing no work to get people into western Canada from the United States I should like to know just how many did come in.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: During the year 1933, 13,196 people came into Canada from the United States. I think we can congratulate ourselves that the movement of desirable immigrants from the United States is very substantial.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was the idea back of my question.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We have a splendid
country.


Mr. MITCHELL:: In January of this year the following resolution was passed by the British House of Commons:
That this house is of opinion that the time has now come when His Majesty's government should get in touch with the governments of
the dominions with a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the empire and the stimulation of shipping and trade under the flag.
Could the minister state whether the British government has got in touch with the Canadian government in connection with that resolution?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The answer is in the negative.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that this government has not been approached by the government in England with a view to promoting that scheme?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is all on paper.


Humphrey Mitchell: When the estimates were up before the minister gave the number of people who had been sent back to the British Isles. I asked a question at that time, out of which another question arose. I wanted to know the number who had requested to be sent back to their country of origin. The minister was able to give me the figures for the British Isles and he said he would look up the figures for the other countries in Europe. Has the minister any information to give the committee at this time?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The answer to that question would involve a great deal of detail. It is all given in the report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1933. Table number 54 on page 65 gives the countries to which people were returned and the reasons for their being returned.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the amount mentioned for contingencies is included $9,000 for Chinese; what is that spent for?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Department of Immigration and Colonization is charged with the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act. For reasons which I am sure are well known to hon. members, this act is very difficult of administration. The item to which reference has been made has to do with the administration of that act.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is that act administered by this government in conjunction with the United States or China, or is it under the control of this country alone?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That act is a statute of the parliament of Canada. It was passed before I became a member of the house and I think before my hon. friend was a member.
27S8
Supply-Immigration


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not think so, because I would remember.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was designed to control Chinese immigration into Canada. I shall not take up the time of the committee in going over its various sections as they are there for any hon. member to read.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That statute was passed several years ago and I do not know just what are its terms. I should like to know in what way that $9,000 is to be spent in connection with the administration of the act. Is it to be spent to keep Chinamen out of the country, or to send them back, or to prevent them from committing misdemeanors, or what?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Sometimes it is to send
Chinese back to their country; sometimes it has to do with legal proceedings in connection with their right to be in Canada; and there are of course travelling expenses in connection with these investigations and other small incidental matters such as stationery, ink, postage stamps and so forth.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is true, but in view of the minister's statement there are some other figures that need further explanation. He says that that amount is spent for stationery and also for sending Chinamen home. In the contingencies he has another item of $135,000 for deportations. Does he mean to say that besides the $135,000 under the heading of contingencies in connection with deportations, there is still some of that amount of $9,000 that goes to deport Chinamen? He speaks about stamps and stationery. There is under contingencies another item of $6,000 for the head office at Ottawa. I suppose the expenses in that connection are for stationery and such matters. Some further explanation should be given.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Regarding the item of
$135,000 for deportations, there may be an overlapping so far as the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act and deportations generally are concerned, but if so, it is to a very slight degree; the item of $135,000 is deportations generally without, in the main, including those under that act.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If the minister cannot
give more detailed information I have to take what he givers me, but I must tell the committee that I am not very well satisfied with the explanation given. I hope next year, when these estimates come up, we shall receive more detailed information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I hope to be here at that time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There may be a change and then we shall have more information.
Regarding the item of $3,700 mentioned under contingencies, for immigration of British children, how is that sum accounted for? Have we a scheme for bringing young British immigrants here?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That item is the result
of an agreement entered into between the British government and the government of Canada that preceded this one, with respect to bringing British children here, under which certain obligations were assumed by the Canadian government with respect to the aftercare of those children. If the estimates for past years are examined, they will be found to be rapidly decreasing. The British children who come in under the agreement have, generally speaking, done very well.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How long will these
agreements be operative?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The agreements, so far as bringing in the children is concerned, have expired, but the obligation to take care of them, that is the after-care, has not expired. This vote, however, indicates by its reduced size that the work is pretty well finished. I hope it will not be long before we can not only take care of those in Canada but see many more of the British boys come here.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that this
sum of $3,700 is for looking after British immigrant children in Canada. How many of those young boys came here this year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There are some other
items to which I would like to draw the attention of the minister. I said a moment ago that under the heading of contingencies the sum of $6,000 was mentioned. This is a big amount when we have also all the salaries of the officials; I am not complaining about their efficiency, but I should like to know what this item of $6,000 is for. The minister told us that under the item of $9,000 for deporting Chinese, stamps, stationery and other matters are included. Six thousand dollars is a very large amount and I would like to have some definite information as to how it was spent.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This item would cover
such matters as travelling expenses of executive officers of the department. There are some expenses of the head office at Ottawa

Supply-Immigration
that will be charged to this vote, the details of which I cannot supply because I do not have them at hand.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: These people must be
travelling a great deal. Under the heading of contingencies, as I have stated before, we had 873,000 for the people who look after the boundary immigration service, $33,000 for the inland service, and $28,000 for the seaboard service. Besides all these we have S4,000 or $5,000 or $6,000 for travelling expenses from the head office to the various parts of the country. The minister ought to be in a position to give us detailed information as to how this amount of $6,000 is arrived at. If the department has any motor cars at the head office, how many would there be? Who are the officials or special inspectors or other officers, if there are any, who travel, and if they were on special cases, what was the purpose of their travels here and there throughout the country?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I confess I cannot give
the details of the travelling expenses of the major officials of the department. Certainly the chief commissioner has been to each coast on a number of occasions; the deputy minister has made certain trips, as has also the assistant deputy. In fact, I think if the auditor general's report were examined, it would be found that I have made certain trips and probably, although I do not know at the moment, they were charged to the department; I have not the figures under my hand. But this, I take it, is an appropriation that is common to every department of government where one cannot go into the details; in every department an item of this kind is voted and has been since there were departments. It is a responsibility of the minister and those acting with him to see that a vote of this kind is properly spent and used for contingencies for the expenses of the major officials of the department during the course of their work. Surely the hon. member would not ask me to try to forecast for the next twelve months what a vote of this kind is likely to comprehend. I frankly confess I cannot do it.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: What are the conditions and regulations in regard to the entry of any immigrant into Canada? In other words what are the admissible classes?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps I may answer in this way; there has been no amendment of the statute itself, and no amendment of the regulations with respect to intended migrants from the British Isles and from the United
States. There have been amendments relating to the continent of Europe, limiting those who will be admitted to (1) the wives and children of migrants legally landed in Canada who upon investigation have been found willling and able to receive their relatives, and (2) migrants who desire to come to Canada, who upon investigation have been found to be provided with sufficient money to carry on agricultural activity in Canada, who have had an agricultural background in the land of their nativity and who in the opinion of our investigating officers are desirable people to be admitted. That is as briefly as I can state the act and regulations as they obtain at the present time.


Michael Luchkovich: What about the case of the children of immigrants who have been allowed to enter this country? I feel personally that there should be some latitude in regard to allowing say a son or daughter of an immigrant now in Canada to come into the country. Certainly such a one is to be preferred to an immigrant who ostensibly comes to farm but soon drifts into the city to engage in some calling there.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Cases such as the hon. member has outlined arise very frequently. Perhaps a son or a daughter not eligible under the present regulations desires to enter Canada, and the parents here desire the migrant to join them. When representations are made to the department concerning such cases an investigation is conducted, and if it is found that the family is a desirable one-of course I have to rely on the information I can get from the safest sources that I can resort to-and the case falls outside the regulations, a recommendation is made to council in order to procure the admission of the person in question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has any bond to be given by the parents in a case of that kind?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No bond is required unless it is a case, such as arises sometimes but not frequently, where the child is physically or perhaps mentally defective. Then a bond would be required in order to assure ourselves against the possibility of that child becoming a permanent public charge.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I may say to the committee that I have had the privilege of making representations to the minister on one or two occasions with regard to cases of this kind. The minister received these representations in a splendid way, and if I remember correctly the children were admitted, of course to join their parents and engage in agricultural work in the dominion. May I ask the
Supply-Immigration

total number of deportations from the prairie provinces to the United States in the last year?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many altogether?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Hon. members will find a compilation of the figures in the last annual report at page 65, table 54, showing the deportations by provinces.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is the figure for Saskatchewan there?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The table gives the figures for the years from 1902 to 1933. The total number from Saskatchewan for the whole period was 16,796.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the minister give the total?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total during that period is 52,119.


Humphrey Mitchell: What are the total deportations to Poland, Germany and Russia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: While those figures are being looked up I would like to answer a question asked a while ago relating to the number of people deported from Canada to the United States. The figures are:
1931		 263
1932		 367
1933		 308
The numbers deported to Canada from the United States were:
1931		 2,038
1932		 2,112
1933		 1,803


Henry Elvins Spencer: While the minister is looking for the figures could he give us the meaning of the large number coming from the United States to Canada as against the small number going from Canada to the United States?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The figures I have just given had to do with deportations, but I am afraid the hon. member's guess is as good as mine with regard to the reason; I do not know.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to ask a question based on an answer' given by the minister a short time ago. I think he stated that the conditions under which immigrants might come to Canada from continental Europe were first that they intended to engage in agriculture and second that they had the requisite amount of money to give them some prospect of success. Can the minister tell the committee how large is the sum, generally speaking, which is looked upon as requisite for that purpose, or if there is any set figure?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is a very difficult question to answer; it must lie very much in the discretion of the officers who carry on the investigation. I am sure hon. members will readily realize that if they were at one of the ocean ports or on the continent looking over a possible immigrant, using their best discretion they might well turn down a man with $50,000 and let in a man with 50 cents. Perhaps the man with $50,000 would lose it in a very short time and become a charge on the community while the other chap would start to make his small capital grow. We have to use discretion, and we do not lay down any arbitrary rule. It is most difficult to determine just what should apply in each individual case.


Alfred Speakman: Then there is no minimum sum required? I based my question on the minister's statement that one of the conditions, and perhaps the main condition, was that the immigrant should have that sum which, in the opinion of the department, was requisite in order to give him some prospect of success, and I wondered if any minimum was set. I understand that there is no minimum?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can perhaps answer that by saying that no agriculturist has been admitted with less than $1,000 in cash after he arrives here, and in almost every case it is a great deal more.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: This is a very large vote, amounting to practically $1,250,000, and according to the minister very few immigrants are being admitted, while the restrictions covering their admittance are very rigid. I have been wondering if it would be possible for this department to branch out on another line that might be considered an innovation. Before mentioning that, however, I should like to direct to the attention of the minister the matter of the British boys who have been brought to Canada. I believe he said they were quite satisfactory. I remember that a few years ago we were told that these boys were given some training in Great Britain prior to being brought out here. I believe they were put in schools or on farms under agricultural instructors and given at least the first principles of agricultural activities before being sent to this country, and I think perhaps they were put on farms out here for instruction as well. At any rate, in general I think the scheme was quite satisfactory.
For the past two or three years the minister also has been pursuing what he calls a land policy, which I endorse. While some

Supply-Immigration
take exception to it I do think that any person with an agricultural background placed on the land with not too heavy an indebtedness over him has at least a fair chance of making a living. The matter I was going to bring to the attention of the minister is this: there are a number of young boys in our own country who have not an agricultural background. Some of them are university graduates; some have graduated from our collegiate institutes. I have had young boys ask me how they can get a start so as to make their way in the agricultural industry. Some of them would not know which end of a horse to put forward or where to put the collar on a horse, perhaps, but the point I had in mind was this: would it be possible, out of this large sum of money, perhaps in conjunction with our experimental farm system, to establish training schools for such boys who have not an agricultural background, giving them a year or two of agricultural training and then starting them out on our farms as the British boys were started, in the hope of placing a number of them where they would have a chance to make good? I wonder if this thought has ever been brought to the attention of the minister and what he would think of such a scheme.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The suggestion made by
the hon. member is one that might very well be given serious thought by everyone interested in this country. In this rapidly changing world we have found that perhaps industry does not offer the same job security that we had hitherto expected. Previously activities along the line suggested by my hon. friend have been confined largely to private organizations within and without Canada. The activities of the department, with regard to trying an experiment, let us call it, along the line suggested, commenced in the fall of 1930, and the hope was that facilities could be provided to bring to the attention of Canadians just where lay their surest hope of security as far as the home unit was concerned. We saw our cities with many jobless persons, a large percentage of whom had come from the rural sections of Canada, as every hon. member knows. A casual review of the movement from the rural districts to urban centres during the past forty years disclosed a rather arresting picture, and unquestionably in this country there is a very large disequilibrium of population, particularly having regard to the advance and mechanization of industry. The suggestions made by the hon. member might very well merit the attention of every hon. member in the chamber, because, in my opinion, in very large
measure his suggestion offers an outlet and security not only for the youth who is growing up, but for even middle aged persons who find themselves without any means of livelihood. In 1930 the department outlined what has now been termed the back to the land movement, but which at that time I called colonization at home. The purpose behind the movement was to try to induce those who were able, to take advantage of what Canada had to offer. It was an encouragement to people who had funds of their own, and who saw those funds gradually dwindling in rents paid in the cities. I believe that in that effort we met with measurable success. Then, as hon. members will recall, in the following year aid was given to those who understood what it was to make a living on the land -not a fortune, but a living-so that they might be taken off the unemployment shelves.
The suggestion made by the hon. member goes somewhat further. I can readily appreciate its implications, and I have a considerable appreciation of the benefits which would flow from a long range policy of the type which he has suggested. I have given careful consideration to it. As to whether or not this is the time to begin there may be differences of opinion. In my view one thing is sure, namely, that no sounder or saner policy could be advocated or invoked by any government in 'Canada than to equip young men who have a flair for farming with knowledge which will enable them to 'take advantage of such opportunities as our country affords. All of us cannot go into mining; we all cannot go into the professions. Our country is just as good as we make it-perhaps it is just a little too good for most of us, because there are too many who will not take advantage of the opportunities it affords, but would rather take the very comfortable attitude that the world owes them a living. I think the day is rapidly coming when people will have to turn to the advantages the country offers, go at it and work. A long range policy along the lines suggested by the hon. member cannot be developed in a moment. It would be most desirable to equip our young men who care to take up that vocation with a scientific background, if you like, or at least with a mechanical background, so that they may know how to do their work, and so that if they desire they may take advantage of the Opportunity afforded by the farm lands in Canada.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I did not intend to take part in the discussion to-night, because I have a great deal of sympathy for
Supply-Immigration

the position in which the minister finds himself, due to the fact that in previous governments I occupied that position on various occasions. But I do wish to say, Mr. Chairman,, that when I hear professional men and some farmers talking about the advantage of training young men to go on the land I get a little bit fed up-yes, just a little bit fed up, because for some sixty odd years I happened to be a farmer. We farmers find it difficult to keep our boys, trained to farming, on the land. Why? Because they cannot make a living on the hand'-.that is the difficulty. When I hear hon. members who have spent their lives in farming express approval of a scheme for training young men who have been prepared for other vocations in life, to do farm work, at a time when tens of thousands of boys are leaving the farms to go into the legal and medical professions, I am somewhat annoyed. Let me say to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that until farming is put upon a different basis you had better quit advocating the sending of men to the farms.	4


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Change your policy.


Charles A. Stewart: Such talk makes me tired. Only the other day I entertained a young man who had been brought out from England under a scheme of immigration. A bright young chap, he discovered very soon after arriving in Canada that in comparison, with law, farming was a poor vocation. He is now training for taw. This young man was in Ottawa only a few days ago with a group of young people from the university of Alberta who were taking part in. the drama festival. I asked him why he did not stick to farming, in view of the fact that he had come to Canada with the avowed purpose of doing so. He said, "Mr. Stewart, it did not take me long to discover that farming was not a profitable vocation in Canada. I decided to enter the university of Alberta, and, backed by the financial assistance of my people, take a legal training."


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He has my sympathy.


Charles A. Stewart: I can say this to the minister, who is also a member of the legal profession that when he gives advice to young men to choose agriculture, as it exists in Canada to-day, in preference to any other profession, he is not giving them very good advice. I make that statement despite the fact that we have a good many medical and other professional men on relief to-day. In my opinion agriculture has

never had a fair deal; certainly it has never had a fair deal in all the years I have been engaged in it. Remuneration from agricultural activity in Canada, despite what professional gentlemen may say, is not and never has been at all comparable to that received from any professional vocation. When I hear hon. members advocate that young men should give up professions of various kinds and, backed by the government or by some other authority, go into agriculture, I say to myself "Well, for heaven's sake, if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't advocate any such thing." As Minister of Immigration and Minister of the Interior I have sat on the government benches and have been bombarded by hon. gentlemen who then sat on this side of the house with requests to bring people to Canada to engage in farming. Because of the necessity of the occasion I was forced to spend money for that purpose, knowing in my heart that when I did so I was possibly lending my assistance to a scheme which was not required in Canada. Because of modern inventions and modern machinery we have enough agriculturists in Canada to-day to produce far more than we can consume, yet we are asked to spend money to take young men from the cities and the professions and place them in a vocation which in Canada is already overcrowded. Why have we 200,000,000 bushels of wheat which we cannot sell? I submit that if we could sell all the live stock owned by farmers today, over night they could increase their production to the point where we could not possibly dispose of it. I get a bit tired of hearing gentlemen advocate schemes under which they w-ould put people on the land to earn a livelihood. Perhaps some people in the cities to-day who have been trained in agriculture could go on the land, on a small holding, and make a living, but that is all they will make. I know western Canada and I know eastern Canada. The statement used to be made that we westerners produced great quantities of wheat and then went to California to spend our profits, but in the most prosperous days not three per cent of the western farmers found themselves in a position to go to California. I know something about Ontario, the banner province of Canada, and I know that under present conditions very few farmers in this province are far removed from the sheriff, who may step in any day and sell them out. Let us face the facts squarely. We are all in difficulties. I do not say that the professional man is having an easy time, but when

Supply-Immigration
you tell me that the professional man, who may have a smattering of agriculture, can be trained to take his place and succeed amongst men who have followed agriculture all their lives, you are telling me something that is not true. My hon. friend may indeed know a great deal about agriculture. He has been trained in the profession of the law, but let him go out on the farm-I will give him one in Ontario, and I guarantee that in five years he will have starved to death. We might just as well be honest and plain about this thing. Ask any practical farmer in this house, no matter how much he has had in the way of financial support, and he will tell you that in a period of twenty-five years, unless he has been mighty careful, his remuneration at the end of that period will not in any way 'be comparable with that of the professional man-I am not speaking of the top-notcher, but the ordinary, everyday doctor or lawyer. And the reason we cannot keep our boys on the farm is that they know these things, and they want to enter one of the professions. I have three boys; only one of them is on the farm, and I have the greatest difficulty in keeping him there, because despite the fact that his brothers are in receipt of only meagre incomes he still thinks they are much better off than he is. Yet the government is asked, and when I was in the government I was asked, to train young men who have no knowledge of farming in order that they may go into agriculture and the professions may not be overcrowded. I repeat that I get just a little bit tired of that sort of thing, Mr. Chairman. I do not care what branch of agriculture you go into, the fact remains that agriculture has had to bear the burden and heat of the day ever since I knew anything about conditions in this country, and just now this government, apparently sensing the real situation, are presenting a marketing bill in order that they may help our distressed producers of natural products. Why are they doing it? Because they realize full well, just as the minister does, that the agriculturist to-day is in a very serious situation. The government are beginning to realize today more than they ever did before that unless they do something for the farmer his chance of earning a livelihood on the farm is very precarious indeed.
What is the remedy? What are you going to do about it? Put more of them on the farm? I have never believed in all the years I have been in this house that we could pay our debts and ease the burden of taxation that is upon our shoulders by further immigration, because every new citizen means a
new burden. I think I am warranted in making that statement. The poor duffer who comes to this country or our own citizens who have been born and raised in urban localities have a mighty slim chance of succeeding on the farm. Better train these young men in mining or lumbering or something else, but for heaven's sake do not spend money to send them into agriculture under conditions as they exist to-day.


Mr. BAKER:: I have no right, of course,
Mr. Chairman, to speak on a question pertaining to farming, but the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichaeil) brought forward, as I think the minister admitted, a very good suggestion that was worthy of consideration. I did not hear anybody suggest that professional men should be taken from the cities and put on the farm. The suggestion was that young men of Canada, not men learned in the law or in some other profession, should have the means to go on the farm. I have never attempted to discuss farming except in 1926 when I did venture to express the opinion that if the farmers of the west would quit wheat mining and become real farmers they would not have hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat on their hands. I told them they would if they continued wheat mining, and they have got it now. I am not speaking as a lawyer, for I am not a lawyer. I was not brought up in the legal profession, which may or may not be good for me. I am only speaking as a five cent business man. But I do say to my hon. friend from West Edmonton that the trouble with the farmers of the west is that they were not farmers but wheat miners. The men in the west to-day who are real farmers are not in any great difficulty. If the information is of any value to my hon. friend, I may say that my father was a dry goods man. He had three sons and brought them up to the dry goods business, which we nicknamed the rag business. We have stuck to the dry goods business, and I think the great mistake in this country is that the man and the woman on the farm with three sons, instead of encouraging them to stay on the farm, have the idea that one must be a lawyer, another a doctor and the other a minister of the gospel. That is the key to a lot of the trouble. Keep them on the farm, and the affairs of this country will be in a better state. Do like my dear old dad did-bring your sons up to your own business.


Charles A. Stewart: I just want to correct my hon. friend in one thing. When he talks about wheat mining he is talking
Supply-Immigration

absolute rot. He is talking about something he knows nothing about. He knows no more about it than I do about the dry goods business, and that as nothing. It is all right for the easterner who has made his pile and can spend it in, California to talk glibly about the wheat miners of the west. But that is a pure myth. There is just as much mixed farming in western Canada to-day as in eastern Canada. But fortunately in the west we happen to have a country in which we can produce considerable quantities of wheat. We find ourselves with a considerable surplus, or rather the government finds itself with it, unfortunately. But when my hon. friend makes a statement like that about wheat mining it is pure unadulterated rot.
Mo-. SPOTTON: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: I say that advisedly, Mr. Chairman. It is pure unadulterated rot.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that it is unparliamentary for a member to say that another member is talking rot. I ask for your ruling.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you hesitate to express your opinion on the point of order. I would hate to offend my hon. friend, but his statement calls for strong language, and so far as I am concerned I propose to express my views in the strongest possible terms. I have no apologies to make. When I hear hon. gentlemen rising and talking in this house about matters which, as I have pointed out, they know nothing about, know no more about than I do about the dry goods business, then I am constrained to use strong language.


Richard Langton Baker: I never assumed to know anything about farming.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say this to my hon. friend, and perhaps he will think this a strong statement. I was raised in Ontario before I left for the west. I operated a farm which my father had operated before me. My only background is farming; I have no other business except that I happen to be a member of parliament. The situation of the farmer in western Ontario may have been maligned and in some respects misrepresented, but with few exceptions the position of the farmer in the old province of Ontario is just the same as that of the farmer in the west.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend says, "oh, no," but I have made some

very close and careful inquiries and I say that advisedly.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am not wrong. To put a man on a small piece of land with the handicap of even $600 is placing too much upon his back. The minister has followed me in the administration of the Soldier Settlement Act. Who were the soldier settlers? They were young trained farmers who had joined up, served their country and came back. The moment I took charge of that matter I claimed that no boy, no matter what his training or no matter how well he was equipped, could carry such a burden of indebtedness upon his shoulders. He has not been able to do it and that is the reason why there have been so many failures. It is an utter impossibility. What is going to happen with this back to the land movement? As long as conditions continue to be serious and difficult in the urban centres these people will stay on the land and eke out a living, but the moment the wage scales mount in urban localities, there will be a desertion from the farms to the cities.
Speaking for myself alone, I do not believe in encouraging people to go on the land, either through state aid or in any other way. If they want to go on the land of their own volition and know something about it, let them do it, but you will never make a success of putting people on the land under state aid. There has never been a more deplorable thing than the attempt to settle trained farmers on the land under the soldier settlement scheme. These men were not novices; they knew their business, yet they could not make it go. Under present conditions no farmer in Canada is going to make a success unless some relief is given, and I know whereof I speak. This applies not only to western Canada but to eastern Canada as well. Yet hon. members stand up and say that farming is a lucrative occupation, that a man can make at least a living out of it. You can if you are mighty careful, but I would hate to say the rest of it. I do not believe in any back to the land movement aided by the state, but I do believe in a back to the land movement by people who know something about fanning, who know the difficulties they will have to face and the privations they will have to endure. At no time during the sixty years that I have lived has the farmer received a square deal. I say that advisedly. It is amusing to hear hon. gentlemen in the professions, in the trades and in industry telling people how to live upon the land. I

Civil Service-Salary Deduction
have listened to such talk in the legislature and in this House of Commons until I have become tired of it.
There is no doubt we are passing through serious times but that is because fifty per cent of the people who are on the land are not able to make a livelihood. Until these conditions change neither the farmers nor the rest of the population will be in a very happy position. Unless something in a real way is done to assist our farmers and agriculture, the difficult times through which we are passing to-day will continue.


Hugh Guthrie: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) as to whether an hon. member is in order in saying that another hon. member's utterances are unadulterated rot.


Charles A. Stewart: Will it help my hon. friend if I cheerfully withdraw that remark?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I cheerfully do so, because I have made my statement.


George Gibson Coote: More than ten years ago I remember saying in this house, when we were debating this very question of immigration, that the greatest danger facing the western farmer was that of overproduction. I did not get very much support-no more than a horse laugh from some hon. members. We have gone too far in the spending of money to bring in immigrants to produce more wheat and cattle. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and I congratulate him on the case he has made out to-night. Eleven years he was being badgered in the house to spend more money to bring in more farmers. We were told we must bring in farmers only, we must keep out the professions, the dry goods merchants and all such; they did not need any competition, but we did need more farmers to produce more agricultural products. When we asked who would eat all this stuff we were told there was an unlimited market. We have now found out that that is not so. To suggest that we ought to train more men and encourage them to go on the land seems to me to be

well, I do not know any parliamentary language in which to express myself. It is absolute nonsense to talk about such a thing. We know what happened with the soldier settlement scheme, and yet it is proposed that we enter upon a scheme whereby a lot of men will be put through the same kind of misery. A few weeks ago I gave the house the average income in 1932 of all farms in Canada; according to the bureau of statistics it was only $600, and out of that amount had to come interest, taxes, insurance premiums, machinery repairs and all that. There is an average of six and one-half persons per farm, and these had to live out of the balance. To suggest that we should encourage people to engage in agriculture under conditions like that is pure nonsense, and I am sorry I cannot use language strong enough to express what I really think about it. This fall good beef cows were selling in my constituency at one cent per pound. Any hon. member ought to know that any man engaged in producing fat cows to sell at one cent a pound is going into bankruptcy more quickly than he could go any other way; he would probably be better off if he went and gambled on the stock market or bought a sweepstakes ticket. If the government want to do something to better conditions in Canada, let them regulate the packers and take them off the farmer's back. Let them see that the farmer gets a decent price for his products. To think of spending our good money-perhaps it will be raised by the sugar tax-to put people back on the land to produce more wheat or cattle or other agricultural products, I say again is nothing but pure nonsense. I am surprised at the minister encouraging such a move, let alone proposing it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It seems that we have had a fairly good round at immigration, and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, to provide for the deduction from compensation in the public service.-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 3, subsection 1-Ten per cent deduction.
Mr. RHODES:: When we were in committee on the last occasion, the hon. member for Rimouski raised a point with respect to a provision in clause 3 and the point was also raised by the hon. member for Gloucester. The provision will be found in line ten on page 2 of the bill, as follows:
And there may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund such sums as are not otherwise provided for and are necessary to provide the full amount of compensation of those to whom this proviso applies.

Civil Service-Salary Deduction

The objection of the hon. member for Rimouski and also of the hon. member for Gloucester was that this gave unlimited powers of appropriation from the consolidated revenue fund and there ought to be a specific vote for the purpose. On that occasion I pointed out that a similar provision was contained in a number of bills. I instanced at the time, without having any record before me, that a similar provision was found in the Old Age Pension Act. But may I point out also that the same provision is found to-day in the following acts or statutory provisions:
Government Employees' Compensation Act.
Subsidy payments on Canadian coal.
Dominion Fuel Act.
Election expenses.
Gratuities in lieu of leave on retirement- National Revenue employees.
Cost of loan flotations.
Railway grade crossing fund.
Furthermore, may I point out that in the Salary Deduction Act of 1932 the same provision appeared, as will be found in subsection 2 of section 5 of that act which provides:
The superannuation of any contributor whose compensation does not exceed $1,200 per annum shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
Identically the same provision will be found in the Salary Deduction Act which we passed last year. Therefore it will be observed that there is nothing new in the principle of this provision. I do not, however, wish to say that' because this has been done in previous acts and in previous years by governments of varying political complexions, therefore of necessity we must continue the practice, although I must say that there is a very sound reason for it. It is impossible in the nature of things to make an exact computation, and this is to provide an elastic sum to meet contingencies which cannot with accuracy be appraised in advance. The danger if you provide a fixed sum is that you may have too much or too little. If you have too little you do not provide sufficient to accomplish the purpose you have in mind, and if you provide too much you have an invitation to utilize a larger share of the appropriation than may be necessary. I do not wish to stand upon the order of procedure so far as the suggestion of the hon. member for Rimouski is concerned, and if he feels there is any more protection to the public treasury I am quite content that a limitation should be proposed. With that object in view, if the committee desires to put a limitation on the amount, I have had an amendment prepared accordingly.

There is only one other point with respect to the wording of this subsection-and perhaps it is worthy' of note-it is that the provision for payment of the amount in the terms in which it is provided in the bill limits it to the second proviso whereas the appropriation should be available for both provisos. Perhaps this feature ought to be provided for by amendment, but with respect to the limitation of expenditure I am quite prepared to abide by the wish of the committee.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member read the amendment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment I am suggesting is of course in deference to the representations made by the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Gloucester. I am not sure that it is the best method of procedure, but' I desire in so far as possible to meet their objections. The amendment as I have it drafted is as follows:
That the second proviso in subsection 1 of section 3 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Provided further that such deduction shall not apply to any member of the public service of Canada whose compensation during such fiscal year is not more than one thousand dollars-
That is the same phraseology, it will be observed, as at present exists.
-and there may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund such sums, not to exceed in the aggregate one million dollars, as are not otherwise provided for and are necessary to give effect to the provisions of this subsection.
Mr. H-BENAN:	The position I took, and
I take it personally, irrespective of the Liberal party or any other party, is that if we are going to give the benefit of the ten per cent increase, those who are entitled to it ought to get it, whether it be one million dollars or ten million. Therefore I cannot subscribe to an amendment that would limit it to one million. I take the position that the several departments ought to be able to bring in an estimate of the number of employees that would be affected. If the Minister of Finance tells me that they cannot do that, why should we limit it? By limiting it to one million dollars-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, that is the amount
I named. I pointed out the difficulty; if you make it too large there is no advantage, and if it is too small it does not serve the purpose.


Mr. HEENAN:: Well, the million might
be too small.

Civil Service-Salary Deduction


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


Peter Heenan: Can I stand here, whether it be on the side of the Liberal party or any party, and say that those who are entitled to the ten per cent shall not get it beyond a million dollars? No, and I will not do it. If we are not going to have the several ministers bring in an estimate I would rather leave it in the hands of the government as provided by the bill. The principle of the old age pensions is entirely different, because no one can tell-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the point in this
case.


Peter Heenan: If that is the case then
I agree to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already cited a
number of statutes containing this same provision, for the reasons I have indicated. I would prefer to see the provision stand as it is as far as appropriating moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund is concerned, for this reason: that it provides just the sum which is required, no more, no less; whereas the naming of a specific sum has the objectionable features to which I have referred. My hon. friend will appreciate that I have only proposed this method out of deference to representations made in the committee by the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Gloucester.


Peter Heenan: I may stand alone on
this; whether I do or not is immaterial to me. I disagree entirely with the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that this is similar in principle to old age pensions. I know enough about old age pensions to know that no minister nor anyone in Canada can determine wether there will be two thousand or five thousand names added to-morrow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will
permit me to interrupt, while in this matter there may be a nearer computation as to numbers, there cannot be as to amount, so that the principle is the same; it cannot be an ascertained sum.


Peter Heenan: Well, that carries out my point; I thank the minister for helping me. When I pointed out that the analogy did not hold I had in mind the fact that no one could determine the number of old age pensions that would be applied for. I did think and I still think that each department of the government could estimate the number of its employees that will be affected, and therefore could estimate the amount. But the Minister of Finance tells me they cannot, and I think there is something in the argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will agree that it is impossible for a department to know, for example, how many days its temporary employees may work in a given year. Take for example the House of Commons; we do not know how long the session is going to last. If it extends beyond a given number of days the daily pay of the staff of the house will amount to more than a thousand dollars, whereas if at the end of the year they have not worked a given number of days, their pay will fall below that amount. This elastic provision is intended to provide for such contingencies. I think my hon. friend will see that under these circumstances it is impossible to make an accurate computation. I have endeavoured to meet the objections which have been raised by hon. gentlemen opposite-and I find no fault with them, notwithstanding that they are objecting to a provision which has been in the statutes for years, a provision which my hon. friend has supported, and which he supports now. I do not complain of being subjected to criticism by my hon. friend, but we are in the hands of the committee. The best estimate that can be made by the officials whose advice I must seek in the matter is one million dollars. If the sum is enlarged it is still open to the very objection to which I gave utterance before and on which I need not enlarge.


Peter Heenan: The minister, I think, has made a fair statement. But here is the quandary in which I find myself. I do not agree yet that the several departments cannot estimate the number of employees that would be affected, but suppose we accept the statement of the minister that they cannot-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hoo. friend will permit an interruption, I presume he wants to elucidate this difficulty. Suppose we have an estimate from every department of the government, including the House of Commons, embracing all this class of seasonal employees, and the amount estimated is not sufficient, what then? Some of these employees will have to go without their proper remuneration. That is why the provision is as it appears in the bill-in order that we may take from the consolidated revenue fund such sum as may be necessary for the purpose for which this legislation is passed.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Finance does not appreciate when a member of the opposition is trying to help him out. This is the first time in my life that I have agreed with a Conservative minister.

Civil Service-Salary Deduction


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope I am not wrong.


Peter Heenan: You must be wrong, or I must. In the first place I do not agree that the several departments cannot estimate the amount that will be coming to their several staffs. But .let us accept the statement of the minister

and we cannot take exception to that, because I know of no minister of this government who has ever estimated anything right; we have had this government now for four years with all its bluster and bunkum and blather, and it does not seem possible for any one of them to be right. We will admit their inability, so that the next best thing, in order to see that the civil servants get a fair deal, is to leave the matter in the hands of the ministry. If we put a limit of $1,000,000 beyond which they cannot go they may find that it will take a million and a quarter. I am not going to take the responsibility of saying that any civil servant who is entitled to the benefit of this ten per cent increase should be without it because I voted for the limitation of $1,000,000. When we were last in committee the minister gave an interpretation of the law which I appreciated and thought very good. I propounded a question as to whether any civil servant was going to benefit by this measure, having regard to the rumours in the corridors and even in the Ottawa press. Let us take the sessional stenographers as an example; they will not get any benefit because some of them are rated at $5 a day, though in the end they will earn only about $500.
I wonder if the hon. member whom I will call the minister from East Edmonton would give me about five minutes with the Minister of Finance; I would appreciate it, because I am going to speak for only about five minutes.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: The hon. member has the floor.


Peter Heenan: Yes, but my hon. friend has the seat. In reply to my question the Minister of Finance put on record a very liberal interpretation, shall I say, of the bill with relation to part time and sessional employees. This is a delicate point, and I should like the minister to give me his attention. I think he said that no one could determine what the sessional or part time employees would earn in a year. I agreed entirely with him, but here is the position; if a sessional stenographer or any other part time or sessional employee works this session and then is away for a period of a few months, starting to work again next year, say in January,

February and March, would the amount of money earned this session be taken together with the amount of money earned in the first three months of next year? I hope the government will not call a session next winter; I hope they will call an election instead, but if the session commences in January and the employee works during January, February and March, would the amount earned in those three months be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not that employee had earned $1,000? That is the only difficulty I have now. Having regard to the minister's statement that the government cannot estimate the amount of money that will be required I am not going to be a party to limiting the government no matter what amount there may be required in order to give the civil servants fair play.
Apart from that, I want to ask the minister if it is his understanding that in the case of a sessional employee the money that may be earned next January, February and March will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not their salary is more or less than $1,000?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can add anything to the statement I made in that regard when we were last in committee. The bill provides that border line cases can be taken care of by regulation of the treasury board, and I have already stated that we will give as wide an interpretation as possible within the terms of the act, and that in cases of doubt we will give the benefit to the civil servant in every case.


Peter Heenan: But the minister referred to the amount earned in a year. Does that mean the fiscal year or does it mean this session?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly it would not have the effect of limiting the salary of the temporary employee even if we made it the calendar year. If there are any border line cases coming after the turn of the year my previous statement still holds good. I must say, however, that assuming there were cases where there were additional days of service on the part of certain employees at a later stage in the year which put them well beyond the $1,000 limit, I am sure they would much rather have the deduction than earn only the thousand dollars without the deduction. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the treasury board will give the widest and most generous interpretation possible in these border line cases.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman-

Civil Service-Salary Deduction


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman-


Samuel Gobeil: The horn, member for Gloucester has the floor. He has risen three or four times.


Peter John Veniot: Go ahead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: Some hon. members opposite are thinking of something else than wages or salaries. With the exception of a few like the Minister of Finance I have never seen a tory who thought about wages; they generally think about dividends and clipping coupons. This is a practical question; it is not a theory or a supposition. We are asked to vote a bill that provides for the remuneration of civil servants. I will take the sessional stenographers as the best illustration of which I know. They are employed at the rate of about $5 a day, and they will not earn more than S500 or at most S600 this session. I am trying to put a practical question to the Minister of Finance. I speak about the sessional stenographers because their position is known to all of us. Although they receive $4.50 or $5 per day, in the aggregate they earn about $500, or not more than $600, during the session. I looked up the minister's words when he referred to this matter before. I did not think he was trying to put anything over, because I have a great deal of confidence in him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: I know that statement
may be surprising to some hon. members sitting behind him, because they laugh at it. Why they laugh I do not know. I must repeat that I have confidence in the Minister of Finance, but when he mentioned a year I did not know what he meant.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: There is confidence for you.


Peter Heenan: Some hon. members behind the Minister of Finance may laugh, but loud laughter denotes an empty mind. I have never seen on a platform in Ontario any Conservative who had much more than an empty mind. That will be indicated at the next provincial election. At the moment however I am speaking to a gentleman who, I know, has some gray matter. When he mentioned a year he might have meant the calendar year or the fiscal year. Some hon. members may not understand that.


Samuel Gobeil: May I
remind the hon. member that he is not speaking to the question at issue.


Peter Heenan: How do you know that?
The chairman is taking a serious responsibility.


Samuel Gobeil: I must
ask the hon. member to keep to the clause under discussion.


Peter Heenan: The chairman is taking
a serious responsibility when he states that I am not talking to the question, because he does not know what he is talking about.


Samuel Gobeil: For the
present I am in charge of the committee.


Peter Heenan: I shall come to the point, so that even the chairman will know what I am talking about. When the Minister of Finance mentioned a year he might have meant either the calendar or the fiscal year. I should be glad to have that point cleared up or explained. For instance, a sessional stenographer works during the session and then he, or she, as the case may be, is laid off until the next session. The stenographers, may work, January, February and March. Will their earnings for those months be included in the aggregate when the computation is made as to whether or not they earned $1,000?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course I had in mind
the fiscal year. The bill itself provides for the fiscal year which expires on March 31. That is why I referred to those border line cases which cannot be determined until about the end of the year.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Finance
will agree there is something in my question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, certainly.


Peter John Veniot: After all these questions, answers and explanations, may I be permitted to have a word? The other evening when this bill was under consideration I took the objection to which reference has been made by the Minister of Finance. I believe that before I had spoken the hon. member for Rimouski had taken a similar objection. Upon that occasion I suggested the draft of an amendment to the bill. My object in doing so was, notwithstanding what the practice in the past might have been, to attempt as far as possible to keep in parliament the control over the expenditure of public money. I did not agree with the bill, as it then stood, taking the amount to pay these various employees out of unappropriated funds. Recognizing the right of parliament to have direct control over expenditures, I wished to have stated in the bill a definite amount. The

Civil Service-Salary Deduction
Minister of Finance has kindly considered the matter and this evening he submitted to me a copy of what he thought might meet my suggestion. I have gone into the matter carefully, have considered the form of amendment he submitted, and must say that it meets my views in every respect, and I should be only too glad if the Minister of Finance would have the clause so amended. Any attempt to limit the amount which should be paid to the civil servants was farthest from my mind. I know it is difficult for the minister to have every department submit a definite estimate to be brought into the sup-plementaries. Some departments could do so; I know of a fact that in the Post Office Department it could very easily be done. In other departments, however I realize that procedure would not be so easy, because of the variety of outside services connected with them. The minister has suggested that a million dollars might be within the mark, and if that definite amount could be stated I am willing to accept it. But in the event of the million dollars not being enough, what would be done to meet the balance I suggest that under the bill the treasury board has the power. One section states that the treasury board may make regulations for any other purposes deemed necessary to give effect to this act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, but that would not permit the treasury board to go beyond a specific limitation which had been provided.


Peter John Veniot: If parliament were not in session it could be done by governor general's warrant and then ratified by parliament.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course, one may always resort to governor general's warrants, but it is a practice which should be avoided.


Peter John Veniot: I suggest that in a case of this kind it is not a bad practice. I must say that I appreciate the spirit shown to-night by the Minister of Finance, but I suggest that if an emergency arose and the amount was found insufficient it would not be unreasonable to have a governor general's warrant to meet the deficiency, up to a certain point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The presumption is that the border line oases will arise at the latter part of the year, and be provided by supplementary estimates. May I point out, not by way of complaint, but to show how conditions of various kinds arise, that for about three weeks we debated the salary deduction bill of 1932; we were in committee for a very considerable time and this point was never raised.


Peter John Veniot: It was not noticed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it was. It is conforming to a precedent that has been in vogue for many years, and has been in bills which my hon. friend supported. I am not making that suggestion to indicate that because something was done previously it must be continued; that is not my idea. I make the statement merely to show that there were sound reasons for doing it as it was done at that time.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Is there any possibility that in handing back the ten per cent to those who would be affected the million dollars might be reached?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. As I say it is extremely difficult for the officials to make an accurate computation. Their view is that it might be reached, but the figure given is as near as can be estimated.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Make it $2,000,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have no objection to $2,000,000, but there again we are up against the difficulty about which I spoke earlier.


George Gibson Coote: I really do not think the
objection that has been raised is vital. I think the paragraph as drafted ought to be all right. Although I do not agree with the principle of the bill, or at least to confining the restoration of the ten per cent only to those under $1,000-I think that amount is too small-the drafting of the section seems to be all right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If this amendment is not
pressed, there is one amendment that should be made. If my hon. friend from Macleod will look at line 12 of section 3 he will see that the last two lines of that section read: "to provide the full amount of compensation of those to whom this proviso applies." That limits the payment of compensation to those referred to in that last proviso, whereas I am quite certain that it was intended, or should have been intended, by the draftsman to make the compensation applicable to those in both provisos. I therefore suggest that all the words after the word "necessary" in line 12 on page 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "to give effect to the provisions of this subsection." That widens and clarifies the section. It is carrying out the original intent.


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Peter John Veniot: It does not meet the objection which I raised the other night. I do

Civil Service-Salary Deduction
not want to delay the committee; I should like to see the minister get the bill through to-night, but I still hold to my opposition to the term "unappropriated moneys." If the minister would have the section read as he first proposed, and strike out the words he now proposes to put in, I should be satisfied.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have tried to give effect to my hon. friend's desire, but apparently the committee was not with him.


Peter John Veniot: The committee was with
me. There was only one objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There was another as well.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Well, that is two.


Peter Heenan: As I understand the effect
of this amendment it is more or less window dressing. It is just the same thing-a blank cheque.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, my hon. friend is in
error. It widens the section. The wording of the clause as it stands restricts the compensation to those in the second proviso while the intention was to include both provisos, and the amendment is moved to make that clear.


Peter Heenan: I cannot object to it
under the circumstances. The minister says it makes it wider. That simply means a wider blank cheque.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It means more generous
treatment of the employees of the government.


Peter Heenan: Then I will vote for it. But does the minister not think it unfair that employees who are working for a daily or weekly or monthly wage should have to wait until the end of the fiscal year before they know whether they are going to be engaged for a sufficient length of time to earn $1,000 or get the benefit of this legislation? I am satisfied that the Minister of Finance is practical enough to realize that men or women, boys or girls, who are working in the civil service from month to month have their bills to pay the same as the rest of us; they are thinking not of the end of the fiscal year but of the end of the month. When the 31st of December comes, the year has gone by; why should civil servants who are only temporarily employed, and who give very valuable service to this country, have to wait until the end of the fiscal year before they can tell whether or not they are going to get back the ten per cent? It would be a small amount
in the aggregate for those civil servants who are usually employed as temporaries, I do not care in what capacity. There cannot be very many of them, and they are nearly all in Ottawa. They should be reimbursed the ten per cent at the end of the calendar year, not at the end of the fiscal year, and if the minister will amend the bill accordingly I will vote for it one hundred per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be to the advantage of the civil servant to wait until the end of the year. He is being paid in the meantime.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 2-apportionment of deduction.
Clarence Joseph Veniot: I want to draw the attention of the minister to a situation that prevailed Last year in connection with this deduction. In the case of postmasters the deduction is made from the total amount received on commission, that is, over the $100 allowed the postmaster as salary in the smalll rural offices. Where a postmaster is paid by commission the deduction is made on his total commission. For instance, the business done may be between $1,800 and $2,000 to give the postmaster $1,000 as his salary. The ten per cent is deducted from that $1,000

I am referring to the previous bill-irrespective of the expenses which he must incur to carry on the business of the government. In the larger revenue offices-these do not come under the present bill-(the commission may be $2,000 but the postmaster has expenses to pay to carry on the work of the government. The deduction does not take those expenses into account and it should be made only after the postmaster has paid his help and his light and fuel. It is not fair to make a deduction from his total commission when he may have to pay $150, $110, $100 or $75 for expenses to run his office on behalf of the government. Perhaps it cannot be remedied under this bill, but I suggest to the minister that he take this point into consideration when dealing with future deductions-I think it can be regulated by the treasury board-and make the deductions from the minimum and not from the total commission received.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the treasury board is considering such regulations I will give my personal undertaking to look into the questions brought up by my hon. friend. If there is any injustice which can be properly remedied, I shall be very glad to see that the proper remedy is provided.

Civil Service-Salary Deduction


Peter John Veniot: Before the board deals with such a matter perhaps the minister would call in some of these postmasters in order to obtain accurate information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I doubt if that will be necessary. I think all the information necessary can be gathered from the officials of the department.


Peter Heenan: I appreciate the very
gracious way in which the minister has received suggestions from the opposition. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is in his place, but I regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) are not in their places. I remember sitting on the other side a few years ago-it may seem like a hundred years to some but in fact it is only three or four years ago-when the present Minister of Justice, the present Minister of Railways and the present Prime Minister sat on this side of the chamber. At that time they claimed with tears in their eyes that a civil servant should have at least $100 per month in order to bring up a family under Canadian standards. If that statement was right then, it is right to-night. In view of that statement I wonder if the Minister of Finance would not make the amount $1,200 instead of $1,000. Of course, he was not in the house at that time and was not responsible for the sins-I should not call them sin3, because I agreed with them
or the gospel of his colleagues. I know the Minister of Jinance will say that increasing this to $1,200 will mean quite an additional amount. The same thing was said in connection with the old age pensions. After that legislation was well on its way through the house hon. members of the Conservative party who were opposed to old age pensions advocated that the pension should be not $20 a month but $30. They also wanted the age limit lowered from seventy years to sixty-five years, and some wanted it brought down to sixty years. That would have cost about $1/9,000,000, but these suggestions were made in an effort to kill old age pensions. I know the Minister of Finance can advance the legitimate argument that increasing this limit to $1,200 will cost the federal treasury several millions of dollars, but the fact remains that some years ago $1,200 was the minimum set upon which a civil servant could live, and the same holds true to-day.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 4, 1934