NON-INSISTENCE OP SENATE ON AMENDMENT WITH WHICH HOUSE OF COMMONS DISAGREED

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate to the effect that the Senate do not insist on their amendment to Bill No. 92 to facilitate compromises and arrangements between farmers and their creditors, with which the House of Commons disagreed.



PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre) that the third report of the special committee on price spreads and mass buying be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house more than a moment or two in speaking to this motion. As a matter of fact, my only desire at the moment is to express, as chairman of the committee, my appreciation of the painstaking manner in which all members of the committee, not only attended its sessions most regularly but lent their earnest cooperation to the task undertaken. It was a difficult and exacting task, calling for the closest attention day after day over a period of approximately sixty days, upon most of which two sittings were held. I do not think any chairman ever had more cordial cooper-

ation than I received from the members of the committee, and I desire to express my appreciation of that fact.
However, it became clear to the committee and ultimately was agreed upon unanimously that the work of the committee could not be completed within the period of this session. Consequently, the report which is very brief, asks for the erection of a commission under the Inquiries Act to continue the work of the committee. This recommendation constitutes the report rather than an attempt to make a fairly full analysis of the evidence. As I say, the committee was unanimous in that view. The evidence submitted was most voluminous and both the evidence and the exhibits were of a very technical character. I am quite confident that this evidence will be found most useful and valuable as a basis for the ultimate report as well as for other uses in years to come. I commend this motion to the house for its agreement.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Has the minister any idea as to how long the adjourned investigation will take?


Mr. STEVENS:: The time will be considerable because of the amount of work to be done in preparing a report. There will not be an immediate hurry due to the prorogation of the house and it is very difficult to say just what actual time will be occupied by the commission.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Is it not unusual to submit an important report like this and then move concurrence on the same day?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The report was presented yesterday.


William Richard Motherwell: I have nothing
further to say. What does it say?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very briefly the report states that the work of the committee has not been completed and asks that the committee be continued as a commission under the Inquiries Act.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: When this commission is appointed, will it investigate the prices charged by the oil companies? Some time ago I asked a question of the minister with regard to the prices charged for fuel oil in Montreal. I pointed out that there was a combine there as well as in the prices charged to the owners of schooners and fishing vessels. I think it would be appropriate to have an investigation carried out along these lines.

Private Bills


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Is it the intention of the commission to travel or will it just hold sessions here in Ottawa?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am out of order in continuing this discussion. I should like to answer all questions, but I think it would be unwise for me to enter into a sort of committee stage on my own motion.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The question I asked is quite important.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What my hon. friend says has been noted.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I have no objection to the adoption of this report to erect a commission to make inquiries after the session is over, but I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to take such action as the evidence discloses might be necessary? Unless we are assured that some action will be taken I see no reason to extend the life of this committee. Could the minister give us some assurance in that regard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Once more, with the permission of the house. It is intended to make a very complete study of the evidence, which has not been possible up to the present. A report will be submitted which we hope will prove to be useful, effective and practical.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. V. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on June 14 I moved:
That as the preamble of Bill No. 10, respecting a certain patent owned by the Firth-Brearley Stainless Steel Syndicate Limited, has been declared not proven as recorded on pages 153 and 160 of the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate of April 25 and 26, 1934, the fees and charges paid on the said bill be refunded less the cost of printing and translation.


Mr. BENNETT:: A former Minister of Finance once said that he thought it was undesirable that fees should be remitted under the circumstances indicated in this motion, but inasmuch as the house has proceeded to do so with respect to all the measures that have been declined this session, I have no objection to this being one of the number.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Who was tlie superintendent in charge of works done at Riviere des Hots, or Newport Islands river, Newport, county of Gaspe, from June, 1928, to December 31, 1930?
2.	Who supplied the materials in connection with such works and what was the cost of same ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: (From January 1, 1930 to December 31, 1930)
1.	Gregoire Chapados.
2.	Alfred LaRocque, smithwork, $25.25; Le Marquand & Sons,, hardware, $10-135.25.
Note.-The information requested re work at Riviere des Hots from June, 1928 to January 1, 1930, was tabled in the House of Commons on June 21, 1934, in answer to a similar question for that period.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
That standing order 93 be amended,-[DOT]
(a)	'By deleting the following words from section (1): "and if such bill is not deposited by the time above specified, the applicant shall, in addition to the charges for printing and translation, pay the sum of five dollars for each and every day which intervenes between the said first day of the meeting of the house and. the date of the filing of the bill: but such additional charge shall not exceed in the aggregate in any one case the sum of one hundred dollars."
(b)	By deleting the word "two" from the last line of section (2) and substituting the word "five" therefor.
He said: It is quite clear now that no interest can be affected by the proposed change in the rules that would be brought about by the acceptance by this house of this amendment. Standing order No. 93 reads in part:
(1)	Any person desiring to obtain any private bill shall deposit with the clerk of the house, not later than the first day of each session, a copy of such bill in the English or French language, with a sum sufficient to pay for translating and printing the same; the translation to be done by the officers of the house, and the printing by the Department of I ubhc Printing; and if such bill is not deposited by the time above specified, the applicant shall, in addition to the charges for printing and translation, pay the sum of five dollars for each and every day which intervenes between the said first day of the meeting of the house and the date of the filing of the bill; but such additional charge shall not exceed in the aggregate in any one case the sum of one hundred dollars.
(2)	After the second reading of a bill, and before its consideration by the committee to
[Stage Direction]
Australian Wheat
[Stage Direction]
which it is referred, the applicant shall in every case pay the cost of printing the act in the statutes, and a fee of two hundred dollars.
It is proposed to endeavour to secure the freedom of this house from the initial consideration of large numbers of private bills by increasing the business that may be presented to the second chamber in the way of private legislation. The effect will be to delete all these words that appear in subsection (1) which I have just read, commencing "and if such bill is not deposited," and to increase the sum charged, when the bill gets second reading, from $200 to $500, the view being that it will afford a larger measure of business to be transacted in the other chamber and free this house from too much time being taken with private legislation, until such time at least as it has been considered elsewhere.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Public Works once again whether he can give information with respect to the progress of negotiations affecting the First Narrows bridge in Vancouver.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The situation is the same as when my hon. friend made his last inquiry-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No
progress.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -but after the house rises I shall have the matter brought to the attention of council and I hope disposed of speedily.


AUSTRALIAN WHEAT AND FLOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a dispatch which appears in this morning's papers to the effect that the steamship Pennland is sailing from Southampton to-day for Halifax with a shipment of over 400,000 pounds of Australian flour. Is the minister aware of that, and has he an explanation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not seen the dispatch but I will take notice of what my hon. friend says.


Mr. YOUNG:: In regard to the shipment of Australian flour to Canada, I wonder whether

the minister is aware that the millers of England are advertising flour made from soft Australian wheat for sale in Canada, and that the British millers are objecting that if this kind of flour is shut out of Canada they will shut out of Britain Canadian flour made from Canadian wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will also take notice of what the hon. member for Weyburn says.


William Richard Motherwell: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce stop the importation of Australian flour until the three months necessary notice has expired?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is under the control of the agreement-


William Richard Motherwell: Then it cannot be stopped for three months.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and the terms of the agreement will be observed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): The Minister of Railways, in a debate in the house about two months ago, said that he would have a statement to make with regard to Canadian National Railways branch line construction in western Canada. I wonder whether he could make a statement in that regard to-day.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: I think the hon. gentleman misinterpreted my words. I said that when the estimates of the Canadian National Railways were being discussed by the special committee the whole matter could be discussed, but no one brought it up. The officers were here and my hon. friend could have appeared and brought the matter up, but he did not do so, and consequently I have no statement to make.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I have a question to ask the Prime Minister. Will concurrence in the last civil service committee's report be moved at this session, and, if not, will the right hon. gentleman indicate why.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is no.

Radio Broadcasting


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 126, respecting radio broadcasting.
Right Hon.  W. L. MACKENZIE ICING@Leader of the Opposition: I rise, not to object to the third reading of this bill but once more to bring to the attention of the government, and possibly by my words in this house at the moment, to the attention of the radio commission as well, the importance of some arrangement being made before a general election which will insure impartiality in the use of the radio as between different political parties. I mentioned the matter yesterday and I am not sure whether the government has included any provision in the Elections Act itself. It may be difficult so to arrange.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) may be in a position to make a statement to the house as to what the country might expect in that regard. Personally I feel that the radio to-day plays such an important part in all matters affecting public opinion that it would be quite proper that some provision should be made whereby, for example, each political party which has a representative following should be entitled to have broadcast at the expense of the state one or two addresses which would set forth its platform or policies before the people. That I believe is the custom in Great Britain itself and it might well be followed here. Apart from that I think there ought to be some definite understanding that radio where it is to be used for political purposes will be used in a manner which will not give to one party which may happen to have more in the way of financial backing than other parties, a larger use of that national instrument. The radio to-day is a national instrument and the necessity for its use impartially as between different parties that are appealing for public support on matters of public policy is only too obvious. I hope the government has not overlooked making provision in the election measure which we will be discussing later in the day and that the Prime Minister will, either now or later on, make a statement to the house on the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the right hon. gentleman has directed attention is one of very great importance. At the last federal general election it will be recalled that the Canadian National Railways had the largest measure of facilities for use in broad-
74726-285J
casting and perhaps he will recall that lots were drawn for periods of time that would be used, with the exception that as Prime Minister he was to have the right to close, as he did. I was a party to that arrangement which I thought not an unfair one. I thought it was the proper thing to do; I said so at the time and I say so now.
My attention was forcibly directed to what the right hon. gentleman is now discussing during the progress of the recent election in Ontario when the facilities to a very considerable extent of some private enterprises were in the hands of one party and another had certain facilities of another kind. As there is no complete nationalization of radio broadcasting facilities, the right hon. gentleman will realize that the extent of the supervision or control that can be exercised by the broadcasting commission becomes of course of the utmost importance. There are complaints made against the commission if it says that the particular radio facilities at, we will say "X" town, should not be utilized continuously by one political party and that opportunity should be afforded for another party also to use them. That is not easily disposed of by the radio commission and I assure the right hon. gentleman that I agree with him that something will have to be done to prevent any abuses or cause for complaint that the radio facilities are placed by contract or otherwise at the disposal of one party to the exclusion of others, and that some opportunity must be given to all to place their case before the electors. Just how this may be accomplished I am not at the moment fully advised because the situation in Canada is not like that in England where the commission owns and controls the entire distribution, so to speak, through the air. Although in this country they have the power to control, they do not own the facilities through which the control can be exercised. I have every reason to believe and I can assure the right hon. gentleman that nothing will be done that will permit of any such abuse as he suggests. My personal opinion is, having regard to the satisfactory manner in which we disposed of the matter at the last federal general election, possibly some similar arrangement can be made. Whether or not that is possible is a matter on which I am not in a position to express any definite opinion. I can only assure the house that so far as the influence of the government may be able to control the broadcasting commission, no such difficulties as those to which the right hon. gentleman has referred will be permitted to arise.
Radio Broadcasting


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, just a word. I quite realize that in privately owned stations, though they are to some extent under the control of the commission, it would be difficult to arrange in a definite way to apportion the time among the various political parties; but so far as the program of the commission itself, I mean the national hook-up, is concerned, it is very easy and I think it would be only fair for the commission to divide the time equally, or at least to give the same measure of justice to the various parties for national broadcasts of political discussions. I wish, as my right hon. leader has done, especially to direct the matter to the attention of the commission.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) ; Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that when the matter is under discussion it be considered that at least two of those broadcasts, that is, one at the opening of the campaign and one at the clo.se of it, be given free of charge to the various parties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That costs the country money, you see. That is the point.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I quite appreciate that, but the matter is so important it seems those are two broadcasts that the country could well afford to take care of. We are in the Elections Act trying, as the lists are to be closed, to have so far as possible fall upon the country the costs that formerly to a great extent fell upon members of parliament.


Robert James Manion: To how many different parties?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not discriminate against parties.


Robert James Manion: To how many?


Charles A. Stewart: There should be some understanding as to that but I would not say that any individual who calls himself a party should be given the privilege; I would not suggest that.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would say that where stations are nationally owned there should not be any very great practical difficulty in working out some sort of scheme whereby it would be ensured that the different parties had equitable treatment in the matter of broadcasting during elections. But I rose to say this with regard to stations that are privately owned; when one considers the fact that these privately owned stations are in the nature of

a monopoly granted by the government of Canada I do not think it would be at all unfair to put into the act or regulations something which would regulate them so that they could not abuse the privileges they have in the interests of any one political party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what I was saying a moment ago.


William Daum Euler: I have heard of cases where one political party took the broadcasting of a privately owned station for two weeks with the express intention of shutting out their political opponents. That should not be tolerated in view of the fact that this is a monopoly which is conferred by the government of the dominion. Something should very properly be done with regard to that.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I think from the slight experience I have had in connection with the radio and as organizer of a political campaign, political parties have that characteristic which is traditionally attributed to women in that all political parties wish to have the last word. On the occasion to which I refer when I was interested in this matter I found little or no difficulty in arriving at an arrangement with the opposite political party, even though the principal station in the district was owned by Conservatives. For instance, as is well known to this house, Sundays are the great speaking days throughout the province of Quebec, and it was arranged that if one party had Sunday afternoon on the radio the other party should have Sunday evening. But when it came to the last word on the last night, then the difficulty arose. The owner of the radio station in his loyalty to his party insisted that the Conservatives should have from ten to twelve o'clock on the very last night. I do not know how we could get over that difficulty.


Robert James Manion: What good did it do?


Charles Gavan Power: The Conservatives had the last word, the electors spoke the next day.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I be permitted a word along the
line of the remarks made by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)? I found some difficulty myself at the time of the last election. I communicated with one station in Quebec city asking to be favoured in having the use of the station to speak to my electors on the north shore. I wrote a letter to the party at the head of that concern but never got an answer, with the result that I did not get the use of the station although

Radio Broadcasting
I offered to pay for it, and the people of the opposite party got it and used it to speak as much as they liked.


Robert James Manion: You did not need it, you
are here.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I was told, I do not
know if the information is right, that the people opposing me, more especially the candidate, were more friendly than I was to the institution, and he got the use of the radio and I did not.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: I am not desirous of challenging the statement of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) but I feel I am correct in saying that during the 1930 election there was no station in Quebec city of sufficiently high power to enable his beloved electors to hear him from there. Therefore I am sure he was not refused access to the Quebec stations, because even had they been at his disposal none of his electors would have been able to receive the broadcast.
With respect to what the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has said, I say it is absolutely unfair to expect that the commission shall make broadcasting facilities available to political parties without any charge. As long as the House of Commons will not be public-spirited enough to vote the necessary money to the radio commission in order that proper facilities be afforded to the general public we ought not to expect them to give facilities for election speeches free. We have had many by-elections since 1930, and lately we have had general elections in two provinces. I think it is fair that it should be stated in this house that no complaints have been made against the commission as to what took place in Ontario, for instance. I was just speaking yesterday with Colonel Steel, who is in charge of broadcasting, and he told me he had received no complaint, therefore I think we can say that there was fairness to all political parties.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) stated that no radio station in the district of Quebec would have been able to reach the people in my district. My opponent who comes from Quebec city-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: [DOT]-spoke over the radio in that city and I heard him myself addressing the people in my riding.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a question of privilege at all.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: It must be gratifying to the house to find itself in such fairly close agreement on this matter of the use of radio facilities for election purposes. I appreciate very much the generous attitude that has been taken by the leaders of both the major political parties. I hope they will see to it that there is justice for all political parties in the use of radio. The one to which I happen to belong is not possessed of the necessary funds to undertake any extensive use of the radio, and in all probability it will be confined pretty much to local stations. I would like to direct the attention of the government and the leader of the opposition tc the fact that the total cost of election of all the members from the province of Alberta who sit in this section of the house did not exceed that of two national chain hook-ups It is out of the question for us to finance that sort of thing. I agree with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and approve of the suggestion he made. I disagree with the attitude of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), who, I think, has not given this matter the consideration he usually gives to such questions. After due consideration I am satisfied that he would accept as fair the idea that there should be one national broadcast at the beginning of the election campaign when the manifestoes of the three parties are put on the air, and there should be one at the close of the campaign from the major parties in the country. I believe those broadcasts should be free of charge to the parties concerned. I have no objection to the house entering into an arrangement for defraying any necessary overhead caused to the commission, but I do approve of the proposal that there should be a free initial broadcast and a free closing broadcast for all major political parties.


Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex):: I wish to put myself definitely on record against any free use of the radio during election campaigns. If we wish to preserve nationalization of radio we must realize that in doing that you come in competition definitely with private business in the way of newspapers, and I do not see how you can expect to use the national radio in competition with other publicity agencies. In the United States I am advised that they have a rule for private stations whereby when a station gives a certain length of time to one party a similar length of time must be offered to the other party or parties. I think that idea might be looked into in making rules for both privately or publicly owned stations
Radio Broadcasting


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: This radio commission is another wart on the government. The government is shifting its responsibility in all ways. Last year when I asked the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he had any control over the radio commission I was very sorry when he answered, "Well, I do not know," He should have direct control.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I beg your pardon, I never made any such answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, the hon. minister made a normal reply, he did not say yes, he did not say no. Gentilment le Normand repond: "Ca me dit pas oui; ca me dit pas non." That was the answer of the hon. gentleman. I think he should have direct control over the radio commission, and the radio commission should be responsible through him to this house. That is my humble view. It would save a lot of difficulty and trouble. Therefore I am against the extension of the powers of the radio commission. It is the more necessary for the hon. gentleman to have direct control over the radio commission because it will save the Prime Minister a lot of trouble. When people work radio cross word puzzles and are unsuccessful they write to the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister directs his secretary to answer them: "What is the right answer?" Why do they waste the time of the right hon. gentleman? I have upstairs in my file an original letter sent by the Prime Minister's office telling a man in Montreal how he should do the radio cross word puzzle. I think the Prime Minister has enough to do in ending unemployment and bringing back prosperity without worrying himself about such childishness. If the Minister of Marine had control over radio and the people knew that, they would write him, and I know the minister would be a good enough business man to tell his secretary to refer all those people to Mr. Charlesworth and the secretary of the radio commission.
I am against the extension of these powers, first as a matter of principle and in the second place in order to give the Prime Minister a chance to look after the affairs of the country instead of wasting his time answering such futile questions.


Alfred Duranleau: The question of direct control of the minister over the radio commission is a very much debated question in this country. Hon. members know very well that when the question of nationalizing radio broadcasting was

brought up the associations requesting nationalization were strong in their demand that the radio commission should be absolutely free from political control, and I think everybody will admit that since this commission has been in operation it has been absolutely free from such control. I defy my hon. friends to show any instance where the party on this side of the house received preferred treatment from the radio commission. I may say that we were unable to broadcast some of our meetings over the commission's stations because of the tremendous cost. The commission represented that they had to make large disbursements for the use of telephone lines throughout the country, amounting to practically SI,000 an hour for a coast to coast broadcast.
I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite can complain of being ill treated in this regard. We have heard them over the radio so many times in the last two years that I think they have had the preferred treatment. That has been so much the case that to-day in Montreal when my hon. friends opposite have a broadcast on the air the radio owners tune in something else.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question arising out of what he said a moment ago. I quite agree that in federal elections the Prime Minister should have the last word over the radio on any national broadcast, but I wonder if he would tell me how, not being a member of the legislature, he succeeded in having the last word in the recent provincial campaign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is in error; I did not have the last word. The last word, over another radio altogether, was said by the gentleman who is now the premier-elect of the province of Ontario.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 124, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. Matthews-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Governor in council may order that excise duties and taxes be disregarded.
Mr. DONNELLY:: Would the minister tell us what articles come under this section?

Customs Tariff


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I may say that gasoline is one of the principal items.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 125, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in council may order that excise duties and taxes be disregarded in certain other cases.
James J. Donnelly: Apparently this bill is
going to do away with some of the excise taxes that have been charged in the past, and I refer particularly to the matter of gasoline. In the fall of 1932, some time about November 9, I brought, up this matter in the house and said that while we were taking off the dumping duty we were still charging the excise tax, which amounted to one and a quarter cents per gallon on gasoline. Shortly afterwards the Minister of National Revenue made a long speech in which he tried to make out that this tax did not amount to very much anyway. It does amount to one and a quarter cents per imperial gallon, which now, apparently, is to be done away with.
I do not object to that at all; I am glad it is being done, but I think the tariff on gasoline is still too high. I have in my possession a way bill covering a tank car of gasoline brought into western Canada from the United States. This tank car came to a place called Wilcox. The cost of the gasoline at the refinery was $305; the duty was $299.77. In other words, practically speaking there was a difference of only $6 between the cost of the gasoline and the duty imposed. The price of gasoline is one of the factors which go to make up the cost of production in western Canada. I may say that there is no single factor which has entered into the cost of wheat production and the production of other grain to any greater extent than has the cost of this commodity. Many of our farmers in the dried out areas are unable to get feed to feed their horses and cattle, and for that reason they are farming with gasoline tractors. Because of the high price of fuel they are farming at a disadvantage, as compared with
those people who are doing their work with horses. Even after paying the enormous duty, which was equal to the original price, the gasoline could be laid down at Wilcox at a price of 18-9 cents per gallon, whereas the cheapest the farmers can buy gasoline from the Imperial Oil Company at Regina, laid down at Wilcox, is 19-7 cents. In other words, they were taking full advantage of the duty, and charging more for gasoline than the price at which it could be imported.
These conditions should be rectified. The duty of 2) cents a gallon is ridiculous, and the excise tax of an additional 3 per cent results in a great injustice. The investigation we had last year into the prices of gasoline disclosed that the manufacture of gasoline cost less than one cent a gallon. The people in western Canada are paying 47 cents freight per hundred pounds for crude oil brought in from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the freight rate on gasoline from that point runs up to $1.40 per hundred pounds. The oil companies in Canada take advantage of the 2\ cents duty and
3	per cent excise tax, and yet the farmers can import gasoline after paying all the duty and enormous freight cheaper than they can buy it in Regina at the present time. I say that the duties on gasoline are ridiculous.
I know of a company in Regina called the Highway Gas Company. It began operations, by bringing in crude oil from the Tulsa oil fields as well as from Alberta. At the end of ten months operations that company was in a position, selling gasoline 4 cents per gallon below the price asked by the Imperial Oil Company, to declare a profit of 8 per cent, a special bonus of 5 per cent, and to buy back 20 per cent of its preferred shares. In other words, it had a profit of 33J per cent in a ten month period, by selling gasoline at a price 4 cents lower than that asked by the Imperial Oil Company. This company was a thorn in the flesh of the Imperial Oil Company. After trying to get rid of the independent companies by competitive prices and one thing and another, last spring an agent came from Chicago-he was supposed to be an independent agent-to buy the independent refiners. He went to one company, the plant of which was valued at $39,000, and paid $125,000 for it. In order to get their money back, the next day they shot up the prices on distillate
4	cents a gallon, and the farmers had to pay for the excess price paid for the refinery. The same thing happened in Montreal in connection with an independent refinery, known as the LaSalle Company. Three companies, formed a subsidiary company and had a man named Todd, buy the small companies in
Customs Tariff

Montreal. The head of the LaSalle Company was given a job at an enormous salary, and has nothing to do. He was recompensed in that vvay for selling out. The price of gasoline in Montreal was immediately raised. The excise tax of one cent a wine gallon, which amounts to 1J- cents an imperial gallon should be taken away, and the duty on gasoline should be reduced to about one cent a gallon. A protection of 2-J cents is given, and they have the further protection of the 3 per cent excise tax. I say that this matter of gasoline prices should be investigated by the committee which up until a few days ago was sitting, and which proposes to sit after prorogation.
There is no one factor which affects our western farmers to-day more than does the price of gasoline. It affects every man who drives a small car, who has a gasoline engine or any other machinery operated in that way. I brought this matter to the minister's attention two years ago. At that time he tried to side-step the issue. Again, to-day I bring it to his attention. There was an investigation into gasoline prices, and we had all the facts before us. Some hon. members on this side tried to bring the matter before the house for discussion, but we did not have the opportunity. We were voted down, solidly, by the present government. To a man, they voted against having the gasoline situation aired, and given to the public. This is a matter of vital importance. I should like to know what other articles may be affected by this measure. There must be another long list of articles to which the federal excise tax refers. I believe it refers to cylinder oil, and I should like to know from the minister if I am correct in my assumption.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to concur
in the remarks-


James J. Donnelly: Let the minister answer.


Robert Charles Matthews: In reply may I say
that the bill refers to any article subject to excise tax in the country of export.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to know
the names of the articles. Name some of them. Does it refer to cylinder oil?


Robert Charles Matthews: It refers to any article upon which another government may impose a domestic tax. We have no control over that.


James J. Donnelly: Has the American government a federal excise tax on cylinder oil?


Robert Charles Matthews: I am sorry, but I
cannot give my hon. friend that information.


James J. Donnelly: When speaking to the
former Minister of National Revenue I said that it did refer to cylinder oil. This matter was brought up in 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it does, it does.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to concur
in the remarks of the hon. member for Willow Bunch. I have raised my voice very often this session to urge upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have the price spreads and mass buying committee carry on an investigation along the lines mentioned by the hon. member who has just spoken. The price spreads commission should consider the prices cur farmers and fishermen have to pay for gasoline. Not only the farmers in the prairie provinces, but the fishermen and owners of schooners and other vessels in the province of Quebec and in the maritimes are affected. I say that the prices paid by these people for gasoline and oil are too high. Many people in my constituency have made representations along those lines, and have asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the house in order to see what can be done. I think the government would be well advised to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Willow Bunch to have gasoline prices investigated by the price spreads commission.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
something radically wrong with the sale of gasoline in Canada. Whether or not the remedy is to wipe out the tariff altogether, I cannot say. Last fall when I left Edmonton I paid 36 cents per gallon for gasoline. I made inquiries and discovered that it costs no more to deliver gasoline in Edmonton than to deliver it in Ottawa. Yet, when I arrived in Ottawa only two or three days later, the retail price was 9J cents lower. There is certainly something wrong when the gasoline consumers in western Canada are called upon to pay such exorbitant prices. There is no difference in the cost of transportation from the oil fields.


Robert Charles Matthews: This measure should
lower the cost.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree that it should; but when you are doing it, wipe it out altogether.


Robert James Manion: Is the provincial tax in
Alberta higher than it is in Ontario?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
the same-6 cents per gallon. The fact is that in western Canada we have had to pay between 7 and 10 cents a gallon more than the people in eastern Canada have had to pay.

Pension Act
At the present time in this city there is a gasoline war in progress, and we buy our gas 5 or 6 cents a gallon cheaper. That has happened three or four times previously. I say these companies are not entitled to protection of any sort; they should not have a particle of protection. The way they are going after the public in Canada is an outrage and a disgrace.


Robert Charles Matthews: I am afraid my hon. friend was not quite right when he said that this party as a party voted down that suggestion.


James J. Donnelly: Every member of the Conservative party voted against it.


Robert Charles Matthews: The hon. member
knows very well that his statement is not quite right.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to know who on the Conservative side voted for it.


Robert Charles Matthews: Hon. members on the other side voted against it.


James J. Donnelly: That does not make
any difference. Every hon. member on the Conservative side voted against having these gasoline prices exposed.


Robert Charles Matthews: My hon. friend did not say that it was moved and seconded on that side of the house.


Mr. BROWN:: We will attend to that.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 127, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-
Richard Bedford Bennett: Several difficulties have arisen in connection with this act, to which the attention of the house has been directed on more than one occasion by several hon. members, noticeably by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). A difficulty arose some months ago and the government concluded that men were being deprived of rights without an opportunity to present their case in accordance with the well-known principle which has been established by judicial decisions in the courts of last resort. We felt that it was
illegal to deprive a man of his rights without affording him an opportunity to be heard, and we so indicated to the commission. As is known to the committee, they ultimately undertook to restore to their former positions those whose rights had been taken from them and proceedings or hearings were instituted to enable the parties affected to present their cases. I understand that that	has not been wholly satisfactory
because of an attitude of mind, if I may use that term, which existed w'ith respect to some of the problems. I have had the advantage of discussing this matter fully with those who officially represent the pensioners of the country in more than one of the organizations which we have in Canada. They are all anxious to avoid friction as much as possible and to improve the administration of pensions to the greatest possible extent. It is believed that with the aid of a judge acting as chief commissioner and the application of the well-known rule that he who asserts must prove the administration would be relieved of much of the difficulty which now exists. We could not have a long discussion with respect to various cases which might be misunderstood in many quarters, but we have concluded that the situation might be met by endeavouring to deal with the difficult cases in the manner I have indicated and by the application of the general rule of our jurisprudence. I have mentioned that he who asserts must prove, and that the presumptions which arise from a long-continued living together in a community of a man and a woman of repute could not be overcome except by the application of the rules of evidence as applied in the way I have just indicated. This cannot continue longer than a few months in any event, and it is believed that it affords an opportunity by administration to solve the difficulties which have been the cause of a great deal of concern. I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. gentlemen I have named for giving me an opportunity to discuss this matter with them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I have only a word or two to say with regard to this bill. I am personally in favour of the bill. My only reservation is the fact that on February 13 when this question was raised we received an announcement by the Prime Minister which was welcomed all through Canada. This matter was referred to the Department of Justice to see whether the hardships which resulted from a too rigid administration of the act could be met by administration or whether legislation
Pension Act

would be necessary. It has been suggested in many quarters that legislation might be necessary. There will be an interval of at least six or seven months, in all probability, before parliament meets again, and the suggestion has been made to me that possibly the act could be amended to provide that where entitlement has once been conceded, this should not be subject to alteration or reversal except on the specific ground of deliberate fraud. This would protect the marriage cases which have merit and which now stand as reinstated. It would also provide protection for all classes of entitlement cases in the future. This proposal is directly in line with the British practice and the rights of the applicant, of course, would stand as they are at present.
There is another point which has arisen and which has caused some elements of dissatisfaction. I think .there should be a definite delineation of the functions of the auditor general in regard to pensions. It should be made clear that findings of law or fact within the statutory jurisdiction conferred upon the commission should not be subject to question by the auditor general. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has referred to the attitude of mind of some people, and this undoubtedly has caused some trouble. In regard to other cases which arose somewhat recently a direction was given as to the policy of the pensions commission, and I think it would be very advisable in this case that a direction should be given to whoever is appointed under the bill to give these marriage cases every possible consideration upon their merits, and *that there should not be an unduly biased attitude of mind with regard to their disposal.


Mr. RALSTON:: Like the hon. member
for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) I am disposed to try the method of administration. I must say that I do so with some reluctance as I have expressed myself in this house on more than one occasion as feeling that that means could not be entirely satisfactory, particularly for the class whose interest I was specially representing, until a change can be made in the Pension Act. It seemed to me that in view of the fact that the attitude of the board of pension commissioners was what it was, plus the fact that the auditor general had seemed to consider he had a right to go there and question decisions of the board, the position of pensioners and of their dependents was extremely precarious under any administrative regulations. However, the Prime Minister has endeavoured to meet the situation with regard to the matter of personnel and I am disposed, if there is any

difficulty about passing legislation, or if it is considered that legislation is not necessary, to try out an attempted revision of administration-and by administration I mean, not simply clerical work but the principles on which these pension cases are decided. I join with what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has said in suggesting to the Prime Minister that, in order to make the situation as definite as possible without legislation, the government or the minister indicate to the board of pension commissioners the principles on -which they are prepared to have the board decide, particularly the marriage cases, and in fact any cases where there is a question as to the basis of entitlement. I suggested, in connection with the commission with which I had to do a good many years ago, that there should be no difficulty whatever in regard to these pension cases, because it seemed to me that the board of pension commissioners were pretty well advised as to what the views of parliament and of the country were, and that when they struck a snag in connection with the act, all they had to do was to go to the government of the day and intimate to them that something unforeseen, something not contemplated had arisen, and I felt sure they would have directions from the government to carry out administratively what was the intention of parliament, leaving it to the next session of parliament to amend the act. That, I submit, can be done here, and if the board of pension commissioners approach the matter in the right spirit, guided by a declaration as to the intention of parliament as we understand it, namely, that entitlement to pension should not be disturbed in cases where they have been paid, unless there has been deliberate fraud, then it seems to me that with that declaration the board of pension commissioners can proceed on firm ground. And if it is found in administering the act that there are cases in which there is too much generosity, that can be easily dealt with when parliament meets. I rather believe, however, that the trouble will have been settled if the principle I suggest is adopted, and it will be found that we have been doing just exactly what parliament intended and what the people of the country desire. Therefore, with that understanding, I accept the amendment which is proposed in this act and I am willing to accept the Prime Minister's suggestion that an attempt be made to carry out the Pension Act and deal by way of administrative action with the cases in connection with which there has been hardship. Subject to these two reservations I accept the Prime Minister's suggestion, two reservations

Pension Act
with which I think the Prime Minister will agree: The first is that there should be a definite declaration by the government or the board as to the principles on which they are expected to proceed in connection with any proposal to change the basis of entitlement, and secondly, if that administration does not result satisfactorily between now and next session, that the act be amended accordingly and made retroactive.


Mr. ROSS:: I support some of the statements just made. If the Prime Minister had been at home at the time I brought this matter to the attention of the government last November-and December, pointing out to them that a campaign was under way along this line, perhaps a good deal of suffering and injustice might have been prevented. But the acting Prime Minister at that time said to me that no action could be taken nor any change made. There is another matter to be considered in addition to the marriage question, and that is the practice of going back on medical records to discover some little point on which they can upset a pension. I might bring to the attention of the Prime Minister one example. A certain ex-service man had received a pension for epilepsy. In reviewing the case an official of the board found that he had suffered from dizziness when _ eleven years old and therefore it was decided that his pension for epilepsy must be discontinued. There is nothing more ridiculous in the whole history of pensions than that example, but it is only one of very many.
I trust that, as the last speaker said, a declaration will be made by the government, or a gesture from this House of Commons, which will bring about a different attitude of mind towards the treatment of these cases.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In common with other hon. members who have spoken, and having been made familiar with the situation, I had hoped for and looked forward to the introduction of some specific legislation to correct the point at issue. I realized however that that might be very difficult and further that it was the almost unanimous opinion of returned men's associations and of this house that the legislation itself as at present on the statutes was fairly just and satisfactory, the question being rather one of administration. That being so, I am prepared to accept the present amendment, trusting that a change in administration in these respects will bring about the results for which we have been looking. I do not think there is any question, from expressions of opinion in this house from time to time, as to the general view of parliament on these matters and the feeling that this law should be interpreted and administered in a reasonably sympathetic manner and not in a manner which would open it wide to unreasonable application. What is needed is a sympathetic interpretation in accordance with the intent of the various committees of parliament that have studied the subject and of parliament itself as a whole, and that intent as expressed by different members leaves no room for doubt in the matter. I assume that these peculiar cases, where they have been in good standing for many years and w-here recently a change has been made or suggested without additional evidence having been adduced, and in regard to which the attitude of the pension board has been so strongly criticized, will be dealt with by the acting chairman and dealt with, I hope, in a sympathetic manner in accordance with what I conceive to be the obvious intent of parliament, expressed so frequently in committee and in the house, as to the real meaning of the act. If that is done, I think the bulk of the trouble will be obviated. And if we then find that administration alone, however sympathetic or judicially proper, does not serve to correct one or two difficulties that still remain, it will be time at the next session for an amending act to be introduced which will put the matter completely beyond doubt. In the meantime, with others, I am prepared to accept the amendment in the hope, shared by all including the Prime Minister, that these various matters of discontent will be satisfactorily dealt with and that our pension legislation and administration will be placed on a proper and sure foundation.


Mr. VENIOT:: Might I be permitted, before this goes through, to say that I agree with the suggestion made to try to remedy the abuses in the administration of the Pension Act? But from my experience before the pension commission in numerous cases, I do not believe we should wholly blame the pension commissioners. If we look carefully into the matter we shall find that the medical boards outside Ottawa, established in the different provinces, are greatly to blame for the way in which they make their reports. I have a case in point where a certain medical board-I do not want to give any names-have had a case outstanding before them for several years. This applicant, who has been receiving a small pension and who is applying for a larger one, they have trotted back and forth from one medical board to another and from one province to another and the reports are so
Pension Act

conflicting that it is almost impossible for the commission to reach an honest and proper decision in the matter. I wish to state right now that my experience in connection with certain medical boards in the dominion has been that they are not doing justice to themselves nor to the applicants. I know of the case of an applicant who after travelling all night and all day, gets before a medical board at ten o'clock in the morning and is not attended to until three or four o'clock in the afternoon. When he gets there in the morning, there are no doctors present although there should be, and that man is kept waiting, without anything to eat, until two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Then, instead of giving him a full medical examination, they merely talk to him, discuss his case with him and then send him away. After this a report goes in that there is nothing wrong with the man.
I know of several cases and I have the facts in regard to one under my hand. This man was sent from a medical board in New Brunswick to a medical board in Quebec. The minute he got to the latter place he was put into a cell for mental cases although according to the report of the medical board in New Brunswick there was absolutely no sign of any such trouble. For three days he was kept in a cell with iron bars across the window and without seeing a doctor. The nurse in charge took pity on him and pleaded that a doctor be brought to attend him. Then when the report was sent back there was a great deal of doubt as to the hysteria from which it was claimed this man was suffering. This man went back to his native province and since that time he has passed a couple of medical boards. He went before a medical board; he was taken in and after two or three days he was told to go back because there was no room for him; there were others to come in and he had to go home. As he required treatment he had to go to a private hospital and employ a doctor to attend to him. Instead of the pension hospital doing this work, this doctor gave him hospital attention free. I have absolute proof of this; I know whereof I speak; I have the record of the doctor who attended to this man in the private hospital and this doctor is one of the leading physicians of the province in which this medical board sits to-day. I have reported those facts to the commission; I was before the commission yesterday; I looked over the reports and when I drew the attention of the doctors on the commission to the record of this case and they reviewed it, they did not 
know what to say about the matter. They were surprised to find that the case under examination revealed such a condition of affairs. Therefore I say that the commission at Ottawa is not always to blame for what are called injustices to the returned men. We must have a reorganization of the medical boards in the different sections of the dominion in order that at those medical boards those returned men will get at least a modicum of fair play and not be treated as they have been.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Would the hon. member for Gloucester kindly furnish me with the names so that the case that he cites may be considered?


Peter John Veniot: I gave the names to the board of pension commissioners yesterday and in doing that I thought I had done my duty. I am not going to go any further.


Murray MacLaren: Will he not also furnish the minister with the names because it is impossible to make any investigations into complaints and into that case until full particulars are available.


Peter John Veniot: I am endeavouring to give fair play to the board of pension commissioners at Ottawa; they are not always to blame.


Murray MacLaren: I am not reflecting on my hon. friend, but I am asking that I be given an opportunity to look into this case personally and I can do so only if he will kindly let me have the names.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralston) to know I have taken up with the auditor general the questions to which he has referred. The auditor general directed my attention to the fact that under one of the provisions of the Audit Act he is entitled to make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is warranted in issuing his cheques; He gave me a number of cases which I in turn reported to the commission and which were cases that went back to the very start of the commission and possibly the basis of entitlement was not quite as clear then as it is now. But I endeavoured to point out to the auditor general that I did not think his function was to determine the sufficiency of the evidence on which entitlement was predicated but rather that it was whether or not a judgment was arrived at and if so he had reason to feel that he had satisfied himself that the country was properly paying the pension in question until further action was taken by someone else.

Pension Act
There is one other ease, other than fraud, which possibly has some effect upon matters of that kind and that is "common mistake." There are a few of those cases that have come to my attention and I suspect the commission has no alternative but to act when by common consent there has been a misstatement that is not fraudulent but which arose from a misunderstanding of something, that amounts in law to an ordinary mistake.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection whatever to the passing of this legislation which in all deference I submit has nothing whatever to do with the matters which we have been discussing on both sides of the house. This bill simply provides that in the case of a vacancy arising in the chairmanship of the commission, the government may appoint a judge of the superior court temporarily to fill that place. When the matter was being discussed in the house before, I did contend that legislation should be introduced in order to clear up those marriage and other cases. I do not know that you can change a law by changing the judge; it is the law and not a change in the person who interprets the law that requires amendment. As to the suggestion made from this side of the house that the government or the minister should issue instructions to the board of pension commissioners, may I say that I do not think that should be done. The board acts under the authority conferred upon it by parliament. It is supposed to be and so far as possible can be independent of this or any other government.
Further instructions, as full and as complete as it was possible to frame, were placed in the statute, I think it is section 73, that the board of pension commissioners should under all circumstances give the benefit of the doubt to the soldier who made application. Those instructions have not been followed out, possibly for some legal reason or because the law was not properly drafted. If it was not properly drafted, it should be redrafted and amended so that the will of parliament will be imposed upon the board. Personally I cannot see that the fact of changing the judge will have any effect in legalizing these so-called marriage cases and in giving to the people with reference to whom complaint has been made, the rights to which they are entitled.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say a word in reply to what the hon. member for Quebec South has said. This is the way in which the matter strikes me with regard to marriage cases. The pension board is authorized to pay pension to a man on account of his wife. That is what the act says. Wife I presume means legal wife. The question of administration is, how much evidence shall the board of pension commissioners require as to the legality of that marriage. I submit my hon. friend is wrong when he suggests that we have put full instructions in the act. We have told the board that they may pay on account of the legal wife. The act as it stands is perhaps deficient because it does not provide that they may pay to what is known as a common law wife when the soldier is living. In the case of death there is a provision that payment may be made to a so-called common law wife, but there is no provision that they may pay to a soldier an additional allowance on account of a common law wife where the pension is a disability pension. I come back to this: I think what the Prime Minister is suggesting is that in the matter of administration, that is to decide how strict they shall be in connection with the proof that a woman living with a man is his legal wife, there may be some latitude. As to that I am suggesting that directions should be given to the board that where a pension has been awarded, where the board of pension commissioners has admitted by payment of pension that the woman is the wife of the man, unless deliberate fraud has been proven that decision shall not be disturbed or reversed, and that shall apply to the period back of the time when this wholesale review took place whereby hundreds of people were cut off who had been receiving pension before for many years. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) mentions the date of February, 1933. But I think the Prime Minister has found some which go back beyond that, and I have sent him some myself. At any rate we know that in 1932 and 11)33 there was a general, almost wholesale review, with the result that the board of pension commissioners tightened up their requirements regarding proof by saying to the pensioner, You have to prove that your marriage is not adulterous. That is about the effect. Up to the time these revisions were made we have taken it that the woman you have been living with is your wife, now we find that previously you had another wife and we are going to put on you the burden of proving that you are not living in adultery. It seems to me that the board of pension commissioners should be instructed that where they have admitted by payment the legal relation between the man and the woman with whom he is living, that position should not be disturbed unless deliberate fraud is proved. That is my answer to my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he suggests that we cannot make any change by administration. If that is not sufficient
Pension Act

we shall have to pass legislation, because I believe the country intended that the same rule should apply with regard to pension payable on account of disability, as to pension payable on account of death, namely that the woman with whom the man is living, who has borne his children, who has carried the responsibilities of wifehood, should receive the benefit of the pension which this country intended for the returned man and his dependents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are eliminating from discussion the bigamous situation?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I am discussing particularly the so-called marriage cases.
There is another class of cases interfered with by the auditor general. It is a most serious situation. That is, a man has been awarded a pension for a disability which was supposed to have been incurred during service. The auditor general has got in and rustled around among the papers and dug up files and medical reports and has come to the conclusion himself, gratuitously, that that man had some disability before enlistment and therefore what he has now and the thing for which he is pensioned is only an aggravation or increase of a pre-enlistment disability. While the Prime Minister calls attention to the fact that I am not referring to the bigamous cases; this is another class of cases in which the board has admitted from the time they started paying pension that the man had a war disability, not an aggravation, and was therefore entitled to the full amount. I say the board should not be allowed to interfere at this late stage with that and cut off pensions and start recovering back pension.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is not that the class of case
to which I referred?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) is quite right. I only mentioned it now because the Prime Minister spoke of my having dealt particularly with the marriage cases. I say the class to which my hon. friend refers are equally meritorious in the sense that they may be dealt with by administration if the board just exercises good common sense and endeavours to carry out the spirit of parliament.
Two things further. First the Prime Minister worried me a little by his reference to the fact that there should be an exception in cases of common mistake. I did not quite understand what he meant in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially what you
would mean in a contract action where mis-

take applies. The same as I would mean if I were in a court of law setting up mistake as defence in an action.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows that in cases of innocent mistake very often that is not a defence. I am thinking about those cases of innocent mistake, common mistake, as the Prime Minister calls it. The board of pension commissioners say: We were mistaken, we thought that woman was his wife from the evidence produced-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he did, too.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, he says, I was mistaken too. I went through a form of marriage, I thought the other party was dead, or the divorce legal, or something of that kind. That is the case I am very much concerned about. It seems to me that if we except that case-and I do not think the Prime Minister intended to-from the beneficent instruction in connection with administration which we propose to give we would be throwing the door wide open, which we are trying to close.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to make clear
that two wives cannot be getting pension at the same time in respect of the same man.


Charles Gavan Power: That has been done. I
mean legally and properly. I think it will be found that a common law wife living in England, who had lived with the soldier in England and had children by him, actually drew pension on behalf of those children and probably on her own behalf, whereas the wife living in Canada also drew pension. But I think a division was made so that each had her share so to speak, according to her interest in the deceased soldier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was talking about the
case where the soldier is not deceased, but a living man.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure of
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there is a case of two women receiving benefit as wives in respect of a living soldier.


Charles Gavan Power: Not as wives.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend has
reassured me. If he is referring to the cases in which otherwise pension might be paid to two wives at the same time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I have in mind.


James Layton Ralston: But if he is referring to
the cases where there is a mistake on both

Pension Act
sides, those are the cases I am trying to protect. I understand the Prime Minister to say it is not intended to except those cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact I
have not dealt with that state at all. I was trying to make clear that what was giving me concern was that we should not be paying pension to two women as wives of a living soldier. I am in difficulty though in view of what the hon. gentleman has said as to the question of the auditor general. The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act does permit him to draw files for the purpose, as I submit, of deciding whether or not there was a legal basis for the payment. As to whether he would arrive at the same conclusion as to pensionability as someone else, I submit he has no right to deal with that-none at all. In the absence of fraud-of course, fraud vitiates everything. I have not heard anything further, I think it is probably now in process of adjustment. One case was very early in the history of pensions. His investigator in the course of investigation discovered something that seemed to indicate that the pension had been paid on a wrong basis. In my judgment that is not competent for him at this time.


James Layton Ralston: The other suggestion I
want to make is this: the right hon. gentleman understands that we are endeavouring to carry out what we believe to be the wishes of the country, and at the same time we want something that is satisfactory to those who officially represent the ex-service men. I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter in order to find out whether or not the Prime Minister's suggestion is satisfactory to the officers of the Canadian Legion -to speak frankly-which I regard as by far the largest and most representative body of ex-service men, without in any way minimizing the efforts of the many others who are engaged in that sort of work. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the suggestion of endeavouring to meet the situation by administration, for the next year at least, is satisfactory to them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my understanding, from my conversation with the president. I talked the matter over very carefully with him. I explained how difficult it might be at this time to endeavour to deal by legislation with matters of such a delicate character as those to which we have been referring. He told me they were content with the law, but that the administration of the law by a person without judicial experience-if I may put it that way-had brought about the
difficulties, without questioning in any sense the high integrity and excellent character of the individual in question. I then asked what he thought should be done, and he suggested that the services of a judge might be utilized, who would understand what the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has just stated. In nine cases out of ten, a witness is called and he says, "I saw him with his wife." That is the general reputation in the community; that is the woman with whom he lives and by whom he has children. Under our common law there is a presumption which a judge well understands. It is a rebuttable presumption, but it gets back to the principle I mentioned a moment ago. He who asserts must prove; if it is asserted that it is not a proper marriage someone has to prove it, instead of putting the onus on the man who, to all intents and purposes, is living the normal life of a married man. This administration on the basis of judicial experience and the application of the general principles of our common law will bring about these improvements. The president of the legion left the city yesterday, but he sent me a note indicating that he thought just as the hon. gentleman thinks, that this creates a situation which will result in curing, by administrative means, many, though we cannot say all, of the evils complained of.


James Layton Ralston: Would the right hon.
gentleman consider the suggestion that has been made, in regard to preparing some memorandum for the board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a little hesitancy about that, together with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), but on the other hand I am not unwilling to make a statement to the chairman of the board when he takes over his duties, along the general lines mentioned by hon. gentlemen. I would not like to put myself in the position of endeavouring to indicate to anybody what they should do, but I will take the responsibility of indicating that it is the will of parliament that the broad principles indicated should be applied, if they can be applied within the law.


James Layton Ralston: If I might suggest it I would go further and say that if they cannot be applied within the law the government should be supplied with a memorandum accordingly, indicating the appropriate amendments which should be made, and I would suggest that these amendments should be retroactive.


Charles Gavan Power: I think that would be a most dangerous proceeding. .

Canadian and British Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman does not wish me to commit myself to the last part of his remarks. I have already indicated that I propose to ask the chairman to keep a close record, almost in the nature of a diary, from the time he takes over, indicating anj' difficulties in the law as he administers it, so that we may be able to understand what the difficulties are. I could not commit myself to the other phase of my hon. friend's suggestion at the moment.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 128, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Investments of company's funds.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 63 of the act indicates the investments which may be made by companies, and those investments include debentures, debenture stocks or other evidences of indebtedness created by a statutory charge instead of by a trust deed. It provides that in cases where for ten years there have been uninterrupted payments of charges, such debentures or debenture stock may be available for investment. I believe there was thought to be no question about it, but a question has arisen. Inasmuch as some of the insurance companies had made engagements to acquire some of the debenture stock recently issued by the Canadian Pacific railway it was thought advisable to make it clear beyond peradventure that this is so. I state the case frankly to the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see no objection at all to the amendment. I think the security provided is more ample than in most other cases.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 116, to amend the Representation Act.

Motion agreed to, bill read the second and third times and passed.

Richard Bedford Bennett: The printed bills have just been placed in the hands of the minister, and we will be in a position to take them up at three o'clock. They did not come from the printing bureau until this morning. There is one amendment which is not yet completed.


Charles Gavan Power: Have the franchise bill and the elections bill been reprinted?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The amendments are
printed in the elections bill. We are not going to reprint the franchise bill.


Charles Gavan Power: Some further time might be desired if we made a decision on the principle of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and introduced by the minister. We might save some time if we decided now whether or not the principle of the amendment is to be adopted.


Hugh Guthrie: That amendment is standing for consideration, and the other clause regarding the salary of the franchise commissioner is standing.


Charles Gavan Power: Could we decide the principle of the amendment before one o'clock?


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, we shall do that.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment to section 99, respecting absentee voters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, so far as I am personally concerned I am prepared to support the amendment. I think however, having regard to the very limited time we have had to consider the matter, every hon. member should feel perfectly free to take his own position on the amendment, so far as a vote is concerned. I am prepared to support the amendment, but I should like every hon. member to exercise his own judgment.


Mr. IRVINE:: Was the alteration suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in regard to another group, added?

Dominion Elections Act


Hugh Guthrie: We disposed of that last night by a negative vote.


William Irvine: Was it considered last night?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. MacINNIS:: So far as I can remember there was no vote taken last night. An amendment was suggested, but no action was taken.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: With regard to the amendment read last night by the Minister of Justice I wish to state that after having given the matter some consideration I do not think it is the kind of legislation this house should pass in these late hours of the session, when we have not had an opportunity to consider carefully the election possibilities such an amendment might involve. There is a great deal of detail which should be considered. The amendment would provide that people may vote in a riding in which they are not known, and I believe it is a practice which would tend to election irregularities. Personally I am opposed to the amendment.


Mr. NEILL:: In answer to the hon. member who has just said that we are passing the amendment at a late hour of the session, may I say we are passing the bill at a late hour, and one is complementary of the other. The usefulness of the bill will be seriously invalidated if the amendment is not passed.
May I point out further that this legislation was enacted by the Liberal party in British Columbia in the year 1920, and when the Conservatives took office in 1928 they did not see fit to make an amendment. There was some trouble in the earlier years, and the privilege was abused. However when the abuse was discovered a very definite check was effected. For the last eight years the Liberals and the Conservatives have united in their acceptance of it. While many complaints were made about the last campaign, there was never a whisper about anything wrong with the absentee vote or the way in which it was operated.
A great deal of the opposition to this amendment comes from hon. members who are not familiar with the details. The amendment contains a great deal of language, some of which may be unnecessary, but all of which is quite simple when you understand it. I heard one lion, member say that he could not support the idea of telegraphing the vote, and that such a procedure was ridiculous. But when I explained to him that the only telegraphing done was done by the returning officer who merely wired the number of votes
cast, he was quite satisfied to accept the suggestion. If hon. members would take the trouble to study the suggestion I think they would be thoroughly satisfied with it. If we are going to have what the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. leader of the opposition spoke about only the other day, namely the inherent right of every qualified person to vote, we certainly need this provision. The arrangements with regard to fixed or permanent voters lists would not have been accepted in British Columbia if it had not been accompanied with the right to have the absentee vote. In order to make the provision acceptable to our eastern friends it has been considerably modified. The amendment proposed affects only four classes, namely miners, lumbermen, fishermen and sailors, and I suggest that it will have very little effect in the cities about which hon. members from the province of Ontario have been speaking. The same would apply to the big cities in the province of Quebec. If this provision does not pass it will leave a sore spot in British Columbia which will be remembered for a long time. I repeat that this provision is corollary to the permanent voters lists, and I repeat that that system would never have been passed in British Columbia .but for the right of having the absentee vote. Some people think the word "transients" suggests hobos, and people of that sort. It is nothing of the kind. It is no crime to have to earn your living away from home and by the methods I have indicated. There is no suggestion that these people are of a low standard because they have to go away to earn their living. Surely they are entitled to a chance to vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope
we may be able to dispose of this amendment before the house rises at one o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Or before we call it one o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must
support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I happened to be in the British Columbia legislature when the first amendment was introduced by Mr. Oliver, personally. He framed the act, himself. The act as at first conceived was not fool proof, and in 1924 we had distinct and sweeping allegations of irregularities. In 1925 both parties in the legislature got together, both Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. Oliver, and drew up an amended bill upon which is based the present amendment. The difficulty with the first measure in British Columbia was that

Dominion Elections Act

there was no provision whereby the returning officer could send the results of the absentee poll; in other words, the candidate did not know on the night of an election how many votes had been recorded in absentee polls. Under the new legislation however the results are sent by telegraph, and I cannot see any possibility of irregularities. I am in favour of the present amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: I should like to give notice of an amendment, but I do not wish the minister to think that I am going to insist upon the discussion of it now. The amendment is to the effect that the registrar shall strike from the permanent list prepared at any general registration or annual revision the names of persons who did not vote at the last election. The purpose of the amendment is to keep the list clear, and to effect some form of compulsory voting. I shall not read it, but with the permission of the committee I shall place it on Hansard. Of course I do not expect it will be dealt with at this session, but I shall ask the minister to consider it during the recess. I would ask hon. members to read it, and if it is not satisfactory as drafted they may offer their suggestions. I should like to have a consideration of the principle involved, namely that of striking off the lists the names of persons who have not voted at a preceding election. This is the practice in British Columbia, and I believe such a change would meet the washes of a great many people throughout the country who believe we should have some form of compulsory voting.


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member would put it on Hansard I am sure all hon. members, including myself, would give it consideration. It raises an important and interesting point.


Charles Gavan Power: It provides that a name shall be struck off the lists if a person has not voted at a preceding election, and also provides for reinstatement on taking an oath.


Mr. STIRLING:: And automatically takes dead people off the lists.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is there provision for sickness?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, there is exemption for sickness.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall hand the suggested amendment to Hansard, so that it may appear in the proceedings:
That section 28 be amended by adding thereto the following sections:-

(k) The registrar shall strike off from the list prepared at the general registration of voters, or at the last annual revision, the names of all voters who from an examination of the books kept pursuant to section 42 (b) of the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, are found to have failed to tender their votes at any election held in the electoral district since the completion of the general registration, or the last revised list of voters; provided, however, that except where the voter is otherwise debarred from voting by reason of any disqualifying provisions of the Dominion Franchise Act or of the Dominion Elections Act, he may apply for reinstatement, and shall be reinstated by making application as hereunder provided.	_
(2) Any voter whose name is liable to be struck off from the last revised list of voters under clause (k) of this section may at any time during the sitting of the court of revision file with the registrar an affidavit in support of his application for the reinstatement of his name on the list of voters. The affidavit shall be in Form	.
Form
(Section 23 (k) (2) )
Affidavit in support of application for reinstatement as a voter
I,	do hereby apply to have my
name reinstated on the list of voters for the electoral district of	and I do
hereby make oath and say (or solemnly affirm):-
1.	That I now reside at No. street, in
the	of	in the provinceof	.	_2.	That I am registered as a voter in thesaid electoral district, but I am liable to have my name struck off from the list of such voters under clause (k)	(1) of section 28 of the
Dominion Franchise Act.
3.	That I am in no respect disqualified from being registered as a voter in the said electoral district.
Sworn (or affirmed) before me at in the province of	this	dayof	19	.
(Deponent sign here.) At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: I think Bill No. 115 is ready to report. The last amendment was carried and that is the only one left.
Bill reported.


Mr. POWDER:: I think we should see the amendments before the bill is read the third time.


Hugh Guthrie: We can let third reading stand until later.


Charles Gavan Power: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that all the amendments are not in. Form 19 does not conform to the amendment suggested last evening.

Dominion Franchise Act


Hugh Guthrie: The forms are being
examined by Mr. Troop, the law officer, and Mr. O'Connor. I am assured that they will be ready before the bill goes to the Senate.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 101, respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Smoke in the chair.
On section 5-The commissioner and his staff.
Hugh Guthrie: There is only section 5 to be considered. There is a blank in subsection 3 in connection with the annual salary of the commissioner. I now move that that blank be filled in with the words "ten thousand dollars." I am moving also that in line 16 the following words be deleted, "and be entitled to superannuation." As soon as this bill has received its third reading a motion will be moved to appoint Colonel John Thompson as chief franchise officer. As the committee is well aware, for a number of years Colonel Thompson has been chairman of the pension commission, and there is no provision for superannuation in connection with his present appointment. Under this section he will be entitled to the same conditions as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. Until a judge has served fifteen years on the bench there is no provision for superannuation except for retirement through physical or mental incapacity. An arrangement is being made with Colonel Thompson to place him on a superannuation basis, but in order to do so he will have to make certain payments to the superannuation fund to cover the last fifteen years during which he has occupied his present position. These arrangements are now in process of completion and when completed it is proposed to place him on a basis of superannuation, permitting him to count the time served as chairman of the pension board for superannuation purposes. This need not delay the bill as I believe this arrangement is quite acceptable to the . gentleman.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have no objection to that but in some ways this means to be a discrimination which probably in course of time and in the course of events will be rather hard to defend. It is a discrimination as far as certain other servants in the employ of the government are concerned. This is being done for this particular official and it is to be regretted that the recommendations
74726-286J
of a certain committee were not concurred in so as to permit the same treatment being accorded to other long-time employees in the civil service. I think the government would be well advised to have but one rule for all its employees.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: While hon. members on both sides have worked together, I think very effectively, to improve this measure from the form in which it was originally introduced, I feel it is unfortunate that it is necessary to conclude our efforts by those on this side being obliged to take very strong exception to the change made by the government in the method of the appointment of returning officers. It is not in this bill, but the franchise commissioner is appointed under this bill and the power which was formerly exercised by the chief electoral officer is hereafter to be exercised by the governor in council. I for one had the impression, when the franchise measure was introduced, that it was understood there would be a new officer in the person of the franchise commissioner and that while he would have the appointing of revising officers, the chief electoral officer would remain in control of the electoral machinery and that the appointment of returning officers would continue to be under his direction: in other words, that there would foe something of equality as between these two officers representing in a way the shades of opinion, speaking again very broadly, which are generally prevalent in the country. I do not know why the government has changed from what I believe was its original intention in that regard. Certainly I for one had that impression


Hugh Guthrie: Not after the first
meeting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had very strongly the impression that the chief electoral officer would continue, and I believe it was not until the Minister of Justice himself at a later stage told us in this house of the changes that were to be made in the general election act that any of us had the idea that the appointment of returning officers was to be brought again under the governor in council.	-

Dominion Franchise Act
For many years past there has been a difference of view between the hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves as to the appointment of election officials. We have held that election officials should as far as possible be non partisan and chosen where possible from persons holding particular positions rather than that their appointment should be made on a party patronage basis; and certainly, so far as the Liberal party when in office is concerned, we have proceeded along the line of endeavouring to secure in the appointment of returning officers persons already holding public offices, whereever that was possible, and so far as was possible officials who would be acceptable to members on both sides of the house. I think a most unfortunate departure is being made at the present time.
Under the British North America Act, 1867, section 42, appointment of returning officers was in the discretion of the governor general, which meant of course the governor in council.
Under the first Dominion Elections Act, 1874 (37 Viet. chap. 9) discretion was taken away from the governor general and the writ issued to the sheriff or registrar of deeds for the electoral district. The governor general had power to choose only in districts where there were no such officers. This was, and still is, the position in Great Britain.
In 1892, the governor general was given discretion in the matter of the appointment of deputy returning officers, and that continued until 1925; but in 1925 the law was amended to provide that returning officers, instead of being appointed for the particular election, should hold office during pleasure like other servants of the crown. That certainly is a position which it seems to me this parliament ought to seek to maintain-to secure in returning officers those who will feel that their continuance in office is not dependent on the particular administration in power, but rather that they are like other public servants, holding office during pleasure and, presumably, indefinitely, on the condition of good behaviour and the satisfactory discharge of their duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They only work six weeks in four years,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the
principle remains the same, whether it be six days or six years or sixty. It is a question either of trying to maintain a civil service independent of patronage or of resorting to the patronage method in as many directions as possible. While in 1925 the Liberal administration of that day adopted the practice I have just mentioned, the shadow govern-

ment of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, a year later took office. Though holding office only for a few weeks in that time they changed that arrangement, and under the Meighen government most of the appointments of returning officers made in 1925 were cancelled and new officers were appointed. When the Liberal administration came back into power and before the general election of 1930 the discretion and the power of recommendation was taken out of the hands of political parties and appointments were placed entirely under the jurisdiction of the chief electoral officer. That was evidence of a desire to secure strict impartiality as between all parties in the choice of returning officers, and I think the chief electoral officer did endeavour in making his appointments to see that those who were appointed would be persona grata to members on all sides of the house. The amendments this year take this discretion away from the chief electoral officer and restore it to political partisans. That is a very serious departure from what was an exceptionally good rule to follow. I have in my hand a statement which serves to illustrate the nonpartisan character of the appointees under the late Liberal administration. I will not read it now but it may be given later. What I rise for at the moment, before the bill passes, is to protest as strongly as I can against this return to patronage in the appointment of returning officers. It is conclusive evidence that the government is seeking to get the whole of the electoral machinery into its own hands and under the control of its own partisan appointees, in a manner which cannot fail to occasion lack of confidence in the method of administering the electoral act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Last night I took strong
exception to the passing of the clause which disqualifies among others a sect of the Douk-hobors resident in British Columbia and also the descendants of any such Doukhobors. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what I said then. I feel it is an exceedingly dangerous proceeding. The Doukhobors are not a race but a religious sect. It is dangerous to disqualify certain people because they belong to a particular religious sect. It may be extremely difficult to ascertain just who are Doukhobors because they cannot be judged by their nationality. Further than that, this section seeks to make the descendants of certain religious believers follow of necessity the religion of their fathers, and to disqualify them whether or not they wish to follow that religion. It seems to me an exceedingly dangerous pro-
JUNE 30, 1934	ST 1	4529
Dominion Franchise Act
posal, and without covering the ground again, in order that the matter may be placed before the house for decision, I would move that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend section 4 by striking out (xii) of subsection (1). That motion is seconded by Mr. Jacobs.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume that one can discuss this amendment for a moment or two. I approve of it. I think it will be a standing disgrace to this none too graceful session, so far as legislation is concerned, if this amendment is not accepted. There is one significant matter that I wish to call attention to, without going over the ground I covered last evening. I am not going over the ground that I went over last evening. But, Mr. Speaker, did you notice the two hon. members on the other side who got up to defend this outrage and to defend the government? The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) were, according to my recollection, the only two hon. gentlemen to defend the government's disfranchisement of the Doukhobors. Was there any particular reason for these two hon. gentlemen defending this legislation? Are their seats, as good Conservative ones, in danger? Is this the location of these Doukhobor settlements-in Yale and West Kootenay? If it is, then it would have been very much better for them if somebody other than they had stepped forward and tried at least to defend the government's outrageous legislation in this respect. I feel so strongly on this question I scarcely dare trust myself to talk about it at all. To think in Canada in this day of grace, when we are trying to develop a better civilization, anybody or any government would dare to do such a thing is past my comprehension.
I did not mention all the minorities to whom this legislation might be applied. We have our Mennonite brethren also holding peculiar religious tenets; my deskmate (Mr. Euler), I understand, is a third generation Mennonite. Is the government going to follow these third generation Doukhobors to heaven and gone, I will put if in that way, and disfranchise them all the way ? How many crosses will it take to get the Doukhobor blood out of them and thereby qualify them for citizenship? If peculiar people are going to be disfranchised, how many of us will be left with the franchise? The world is full of extraordinary religious sects. I have heard of
people in a very prominent religious denomination who actually would not worship with other denominations such as the Methodists and Congregationalists. Is the government going to disfranchise them too? It will come pretty close home to the Minister of Justice, if they do. So, I say, beware of establishing a precedent of this nature that because people entertain strange religious views, this entitles them to disfranchisement and they are not to be called citizens of Canada. That is all I have to say; I am merely warning the government, when they make a precedent of this nature, how very far-reaching it is and no man knows for instance, upon whose head the disfranchising axe may next fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must say half a dozen words on this subject. This has nothing to do with religion in any way, shape or form; it has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the people in question in any way, shape or form.


William Richard Motherwell: With what has it to do, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has to do with the fact that these people have openly and successfully, mark you! defied Canada and the laws of Canada. They simply said: We will not be enumerated as citizens of Canada and they have succeeded, I am sorry to say, in preventing their names from being recorded as citizens. If they are unwilling to be recorded as citizens they are not going to vote as citizens. That is all there is about the matter.
Let us look at the situation. In every statute that has ever been passed in this country dealing with the franchise, there have been disfranchisements. It must be within the memory of most hon. members that in Nova Scotia while the late Mr. Fielding was premier of that province, no dominion civil servant could vote; every dominion civil servant was disfranchised in that province.


William Richard Motherwell: If that was the law
then, this shows no advance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the law. In all our statutes concerning dominion elections there are disfranchisements of certain named individuals. In the province of Quebec women cannot vote; they are disfranchised; every woman is disfranchised in the provincial elections in Quebec. Is that a blot upon the civilization of that province? Quebec has said: We do not want our women to vote.
Dominion Franchise Act

They have a perfect right to say that and, what is more, the people have approved that action on more than one occasion.


Mr. JACOBS:: We do not observe that in our dominion franchise with regard to the women of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; that is what I say, but in Quebec they do not permit the women to vote in provincial elections. I am only answering the argument that this is an effort to disbar a person for a particular reason that has to do with religion and to point out that ever since the franchise was established in Canada there have been exceptions to the general rule that all persons vote. It would take too long to deal with the history of the establishment of the franchise down to the days of universal franchise, but it is sufficient for my purpose to say that the Doubhobors are not disfranchised because of religion or politics; they are disfranchised because they have successfully defied the law of Canada to enumerate them as citizens of Canada, and I repeat: If they are not willing to become citizens of Canada and openly defy the law, then they should not be permitted to vote as citizens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of
what the Prime Minister has just said, may I ask him this question: Would not a better way to proceed have been to enact in the Franchise Act that any person who defies the law to the extent of refusing to be enumerated as a Canadian citizen shall not 'be qualified to vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That cannot be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then innocent parties should not be discriminated against, or as Burke says, you cannot indict a nation; no more can you indict an entire race or all members of any religious sect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that it is impossible to work that out, as the right hon. gentleman will see in a minute, because there is no general defiance of the law except by those particular people in the one province of British Columbia. They have simply said: We will not be enumerated and they drove off with pitchforks, arms and missiles the people who tried to enumerate them and succeeded in preventing their being enumerated except by force.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps some of them were willing to be enumerated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not; they
were given a chance.


Ernest Lapointe: Did they refuse to be
enumerated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were given an
opportunity, and refused.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wonder whether
the Prime Minister is aware that some of the Doukhobors themselves assisted in the taking of the last census?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly am not. I
know an effort was made-does the hon. member mean in Saskatchewan?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, in British
Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know in British Columbia as a last resort we endeavoured to ascertain whether we could secure the aid of some of them in taking the census, and we failed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The assistance was
secured.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to admit
that this matter has nothing to do with religion but I am very much afraid it has something to do with political considerations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want
to repeat what I said last night; I am in favour of applying the utmost rigor of the law against any lawbreaker in any part of the dominion, but I tell the Prime Minister and the two hon. members who spoke to defend the government's action-


Robert James Manion: Three hon. members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -that it is the wrong method to punish any person in Canada by depriving him of his vote. The province of British Columbia has punished these men and properly so but it is a pernicious, vicious and iniquitous principle to single out any race by name in any legislation of this country and to deprive them of the franchise because this will affect not only the people there to-day but their descendants to the third and fourth generation. The Prime Minister of Canada by this legislation is visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children who in years to come may be the very finest of our Canadian citizens. This condition is not to be permanent; I trust these people with education and experience in the dominion will do what other races have done and grow up to be the very best of Canadian citizens. But here we are to-day as a parliament representing all free peoples within this country, saying that any man because he is a Doukhobor is absolutely

Dominion Franchise Act
deprived of the franchise and his sons and daughters and their descendants unto untold generations are also to be disfranchised. That is the most Tory measure I ever heard of in any parliament.
I agree with the suggestion of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) that anyone who refuses to be enumerated for the franchise, shall be deprived of it, but we are here indicting the possibilities of a splendidly free system of Canadian education in regard to the descendants of these people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thirty-five schools burned up by them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not defending that for one second.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Bridges blown up and
lives taken!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am in
favour of the law taking its course in such cases.
Mr. BENNET f:	But it did not, it could
not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But are the children of these people to be penalized?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the worst offenders was born in British Columbia.


Charles Gavan Power: The parliament buildings
were burnt by the Tories but they have not been disfranchised for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Here
you are indicting the unborn children who through Canadian education may become first class citizens, who may grow up to be leaders in Canadian public life. We have people in this parliament belonging to races other than Canadian:	We have one from the great
country of Sweden, we have a Ukrainian-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Born in the United
States.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those
who came from other countries are among the finest people in our national life, as a result of applying the best principles of Canadian education. I am not defending lawbreakers in the least, I am in favour of what the Conservative government of British Columbia did in prosecuting these men with utmost rigour, but what I am condemning is that this parliament should apply the punishment not only to the people who may have sinned in the present but to the innocent children who may grow up to be fine citizens of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: I wish to state my position, I
will be brief. If you follow this thing to its logical conclusion it is pure anarchy, in my judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: What is anarchy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What you are supporting.


Humphrey Mitchell: This I maintain as
fundamental, that if any man goes to another country, whatever his race or colour, he should abide by the laws of that country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: WTe agree with that.


Humphrey Mitchell: This House of Commons could not exist if defiance of law were permitted. This house exists because of the cooperation of the people in the enforcement of the laws. I am not going into the history of the struggle for the right to vote, to exercise some control over your legislative destiny, but I believe it would be a good experiment to let these people pass through something of. the same struggle that we passed through to obtain a'voice in the affairs of the country. Of course their struggle will be nothing in comparison with that of the people who went before us, but I believe it is fundamental that before people can be permitted to have a voice in the life and affairs of the country they should cooperate with the government. That is the genius of democracy, the cooperation of the people with the government. I am not convinced that this policy is not sound.


William Daum Euler: Very briefly, and really on one point only I wish to speak, because I have no defence to make of people who violate the law. But I think it is a dangerous principle to disfranchise any group of people


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By name.


William Daum Euler: By name or by race or because of the religious beliefs they may hold. But I want to point out for the cool consideration of the government, what possible justice can there be in disfranchising the descendants of these people, who cannot possibly be held responsible for the sins, if you call them that, of their parents? It is utterly unjust and unfair and I see nothing in defence of it. I am referring particularly to that provision which says that the descendants of the Doukhobors shall be disfranchised. Probably there will be children of Doukhobors now living who will marry into some other sect, become converts to another faith, refusing to follow their parents in sentiment or religion.
Dominion Franchise Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: But such were leaders in disobeying the law.


William Daum Euler: I want to put the thing as practically as I can. Suppose a Doukhobor girl marries a Canadian, say a Presbyterian or a Catholic-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not do that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They do, frequently.


William Daum Euler: It is possible that will be done from time to time, in Canada where racial differences are being wiped out. Surely then that person is no longer a Doukhobor. If you confined it to Doulchobors, the thing would not be quite so bad, but people who are descendants of Doukhobors but are no longer Doukhobors should not be disfranchised merely by the accident of birth, because their parents or grandparents were Doukhobors. I say it is absolutely unthinkable that a Canadian parliament should do a thing like that. Such an injustice should never get into a Canadian statute. I want to protest against that more than anything else.


Ernest Lapointe: The Prime Minister said that they are not disfranchised because of their race-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Their religion.


Ernest Lapointe: or their religion, but simply because they have violated the laws of Canada by refusing to be enumerated at a census. Well, Mr. Speaker, surely this provision should not be adopted, first because if that is the only reason, and the Prime Minister says it is the reason, why not have the law merely state, without referring to any race or sect, that any man who refuses to obey the laws of the country by refusing to be enumerated with the other citizens of the country should not have a vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear,
hear, we are all for that.


Ernest Lapointe: The worst feature of this provision is that just mentioned by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler); that because one man refuses to be enumerated at a census the sentence is that his children are to be deprived of the vote even if they are honourable, loyal and devoted citizens. That is not a law of a free country. I heard my right hon. friend interject, "Well, they are descendants of men who violated the laws."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they have done so themselves.


Ernest Lapointe: How can you say
that those boys have? They are referred to simply as Doukhobors, and because their fathers were Doukhobors the sons, whether they have refused to be enumerated or not, are to be deprived of the vote. I say that is a bad reason. The members of a free parliament should never vote for this measure.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to register my protest against this legislation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Air. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Last year, when I addressed you as Air. Chairman, an hon. gentleman said that I should address you as Mr. Speaker. I now rise to the same point of order.


Vincent Dupuis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to our hon. friend from Temiscouata (Air. Pouliot) I just wish to register my protest against this piece of legislation. The majority of the citizens of this country are in favour of being good to the humble, to the weak and to minorities, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Prime Minister about qualifying minorities or others. It is a principle of our criminal law that it is better to free ninety-nine guilty men than to condemn an innocent one. In this legislation they put in one bag all the citizens who belong to a nationality or race and say that because they belong to such a race they are to be deprived of their right of citizenship-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are not a race.


Vincent Dupuis: -and of the privileges
attached to it. I say this is absolutely wrong, and following that principle of our criminal law, even if there is only one Doukhobor who abides by the laws of the country he should be granted the right to vote. I am sure, like those members who are conversant with these people, that hundreds and thousands of them abide by the law of this country. To govern the citizens of Canada we have criminal, civil and common law. If any citizen, whatever his race, his religion or his allegiance, does not abide by the laws of this country he may be brought into court and, if convicted, sentenced to fine or imprisonment. We have been told that the Doukhobors refuse to abide by the laws of Canada. Let us condemn those who refuse to do so but let us not interfere with those who do abide by our laws.
I am very much in favour of amending this provision because I belong to one of the races that is in the minority in this country. It may happen that I will not come back to this

Dominion Franchise Act
house-which I should regret-due to the fact that I have been deprived of my riding. That has not been done because the county of Laprairie-Napierville is one which should not be represented in this house; that is so because the Prime Minister of this country said, "We are not going to be governed by an arrogant minority." So I feel very keenly the fact that in this legislation the government deal with a whole race whom they have allowed to become citizens of this country. For the sake of argument let us say that the majority of them refuse to abide by our laws, but now the government are going to refuse to allow the remainder to vote and take advantage of the other privileges to which they are entitled as British subjects. If these people refuse to become British subjects let them be deported; so long as they remain here as British subjects they should have all the privileges and rights as well as all the responsibilities of British subjects.


Samuel William Jacobs: A higher authority than I ever hope to be has declared that there is a time to talk and a time to keep silence. Inasmuch as we are about to prorogue at any moment I think I will follow that advice and say what I have to say in a very few words, particularly as I had something to say on this question when it was up last night.
The Prime Minister makes the statement that these Doukhobors should be disfranchised because certain outrages were committed by some of their race in British Columbia. I do not know that we have a clear definition of what a Doukhobor is. I do not know; there is no interpretation of the word in the bill. How is a judge to decide who a Doukhobor is unless he comes into court without clothes? I cannot understand how the Prime Minister, who is a profound lawyer and a man of the world, could agree to a section of this kind becoming part of the law of our country; that is what surprises me. I have always had a very high admiration for the talents of the right hon. gentleman, but this time he has fallen in my estimation. I can only suppose that we have had so much heavy work during the last five or six months that he is slipping a bit, and if legislation of this kind is going to be introduced I think it is high time we closed parliament for this session.
I suppose the race to which I belong has suffered more from legislation of this sort than any other race. This is the introduction of Hitlerism into the parliament of Canada. In Germany, under the laws of the third Reich, it is declared that any person found to have Jewish blood in his veins as far back as the
year 1800 is deprived of his status as a citizen In what respect does that provision differ from this law, except that we are visiting the sins of the father upon the children to the third and fourth generation while they are visiting the sins of the children on the fathers? As between the two I should- say they were the most logical, because we know the history of the fathers while we cannot know the history of the children. I am surprised that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister should say that every Doukhobor now residing in British Columbia, and his descendants to the last generation, should be deprived of the right to vote because of certain incendiarism and other offences which have been committed in British Columbia. Surely that is not the well considered view of the Prime Minister of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither is it the view he puts forward.


Samuel William Jacobs: It resolves itself into this section of the law; that is what it means. It seems that in British Columbia disfranchising people is a favourite sport, because the Doukhobors are not the only people disfranchised there. There are the Japanese, the Chinese and so on, but I do not intend to raise that question. I remember that some ten or twelve years ago I offered some criticism of the system in British Columbia with regard to the disfranchising of citizens, and I walked into a hornet's nest prepared by my good friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I still remember the castigation I received at his hands, or rather at his tongue, at that time. So I am not going into that question, but I say this thing is spreading. To-day we have it to a certain extent in the province of Quebec; only last winter a follower of the Prime Minister, sitting on the government side, made a remarkable statement. I was not in the house at the time, and the two members of my persuasion who were in the house did not understand French. This is what the hon. gentleman said, according to Hansard of February 26 of last year:
I would suggest to them-
He was speaking to the opposition:
-if they are so anxious to work in the interests of their race, to travel down in groups to Quebec so as to request the government of that province to see that the chairmen of the two most important committees of the legislative assembly be French Canadians instead of being Jews, in the only Catholic province of Canada, as the Hon. Mr. Taschereau delights to call it.
There we have Hitlerism exposed in all its hideousness, in the province of Quebec, and now we find this new law coming into force
Dominion Franchise Act

which will only encourage men of the type of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to continue that sort of work. I say a statement of that kind is not becoming to a member of the House of Commons, no matter on what side of the house he sits. It was offensive to me, Mr. Speaker, to see that gentleman invited time and again to act as chairman of the committees of the house in which I had to sit, and to have to address my remarks to him. I say he does not deserve to be in the parliament of Canada. This was the first time any statement of that kind was ever made in this house. Of course he received his just deserts from the premier of Quebec and from others who gave expression to their opinions in the public press. I have not heard any hon. member opposite rise from his seat and protest against that kind of conduct. If we are going to allow legislation of this kind to pass to-day, tomorrow we will have the hon. member for Compton or others of the same frame of mind declaring that in the province of Quebec the Jews should not be permitted to appeal to the electorate for election to parliament. This is how it could be done: Supposing in a moment of madness a man like the hon. member for Compton might have the reins of power-Lord forbid-in the province of Quebec. He would pass a franchise act declaring that no Jew could sit in the legislature of the province of Quebec or the parliament of Canada. He would ask that the law of the province of Quebec should be carried into the dominion franchise act. In such an event where would I be? Where would my colleagues be? Where would the Jewish people, even unto the fourth, fifth, or sixth generations be? They would be in the same position as the Doukhobors.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: But you would still have your clothes on.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, I would have my
clothes on, but I would not be permitted to show them. You would not see me here. That is the sort of thing that happens when we tamper with the franchise, and when we declare who should and should not be allowed to do this or that. The majority can declare whatever they like. It is always the majority that declares the minority is unfit to do this or to do that. AVe had a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) to the effect that this had all been arranged beforehand. He said the Doukhobors had agreed that if they were given exemption from military service they would not ask for the vote, and the franchise would be taken from them. He said they
[Mr. Jacobs.!
were happy about it. They sold their birthright for a mess of pottage; they did not know what they were doing. They were sacrificing their rights as citizens of this country to obtain exemption from military service which service, I understand, is contrary to their religious views. So I think those of us who are fair minded and who look at things from a wider viewpoint than the go'vernment, see that we are quite within our rights in making a protest.
May I point out to the Prime Minister that the great dominion of Australia was at one time a penal colony, and everyone sent there was sent as a convict. Their descendants, the second, third and fourth generations are now at the head of the government. They went out in the first instance in the government's service, and they have remained in the government service-although in different degrees. I think the Australians would be offended if they knew that W'e treat our people in the way indicated to-day. They took their convicts, and developed them into first class citizens-sons of the morning, children of the light, and so on. They consider themselves in every respect the same as we are, and they are quite right. I do not for one moment wish to compare, for instance, Mr. Stanley Bruce who was entertained in Ottawa only a short time ago, with the poor Doukhobors who, without knowledge of the law, offend. Alter all, is it not part of our theory that we are carrying the white man's burden. We are looking after the "silent, sullen people," as Kipling says, half devil and half child-because that is all the Doukhobors are. It is part of the white man's burden to educate them to our standards. Certainly we are not going to achieve that end by disfranchising them and treating them as pariahs. I do not believe that to be the Christian idea of the condition which should prevail-and may I add, in passing, that I do not hold myself out as a teacher of Christianity. But I am in favour of a Christianity which Christianizes people, and it certainly comes with very poor grace from me, the only non-Christian in this house to-day, to tell Christian people what Christianity should be. Particularly is that so in regard to the Prime Minister, a man who has always represented the very best type of Christianity, a man whom I have admired for many years because of his talents, his wide and broad views respecting the Jewish people and the persecutions they have suffered, notwithstanding the views of some of his camp followers who sit behind him'. What surprises me is that the Prime

Dominion Franchise Act
Minister should have allowed a piece of legislation of this kind to come before the house.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had no intention to take part in this debate, but after the reference to me made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) I do not see how I could remain silent.


Samuel William Jacobs: You should have remained silent before.


Samuel Gobeil: May I, at the outset, state that I am absolutely in agreement with this measure. Without elaborating may I say that in my view a man or woman who openly defies the law, who openly blows up schools, and takes part in parades such as have been described, should not take part in the affairs of this country. Hon. members opposite state that we are disfranchising not only those living to-day but their children and grandchildren. I say that if a time comes when these people, as a body or as individuals, understand and realize their duties and responsibilities as citizens, this law could be changed. We are not passing legislation today which could not be changed at the prdper time. For that reason I think the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite to the effect that we are disfranchising not only present day Doukhobors, but Doukhobors of the future, are absolutely silly-and I do not use the term offensively.
I now come to the reference made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Had he wished to quote at greater length from my remarks he would have disclosed that the views he obtained were only incidental to the remarks I made. When I made the remarks to which the hon. member has referred I was referring to hon. members opposite who on the occasion in question were trying, as they have had the habit of doing, to place themselves before the people of the province of Quebec as the great champions of their race, their religion and their rights. I was simply stating that if they were so anxious to render service to their race and their creed, there were many other fields of activity which were more important, so far as race and creed were concerned, than the question under discussion at that time. That reference was only incidental, and I do not consider that I attacked the Jewish people in any way. I simply referred to the condition as in my opinion not being one which should exist in the province of Quebec, which the premier is so proud of stating is the only Catholic province in the dominion. There were only two members
of the Jewish race elected to the legislature yet both were appointed chairman of important committees of that assembly. I do not think there was anything offensive to the Jewish race in my statement because I mentioned other things as well. The hon. member said that fortunately the hon. member for Compton was censured even by the premier of Quebec. I would remind my hon. friend that though the premier came out like a lion on that day and stated he was going to censure me by a motion which would put the ban of the French race on me-


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was of the opinion that we were discussing the Elections Act and the Douk-hobor question, but now the hon. member is with the Hebrews. I pray him to leave them alone. He is trying to get out of a hole but is only getting in deeper.


Samuel Gobeil: I do not think I can be reproached with having taken up too much of the time of the house on this question. I would not have brought up this matter if it had not been for the attack made upon me by my hon. friend. I want to take a minute or two to answer. I should like to remind my hon. friend that the motion of censure against the hon. member for Compton was never moved in the legislature. It never came and I do not think it ever will come. In closing, let me say that I never attacked the Jewish race. I am pleased to assure them that they have the right to live, just as has any other citizen of Canada. I simply stated that I did not think it was proper, or that I thought it to be a little out of place, that such a situation should exist in the provincial legislature of Quebec.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives its third reading I should like to make a few brief observations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make them brief.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I usually do, and to the point. I was going to say that if I am allowed to make these observations without being expelled from the house or sent to the tower, I would appreciate that freedom of parliamentary debate which is conducive to the unhampered discussion of any public question. May I say that at times, as the Greeks said, speech is silver and silence is golden.


An hon. MEMBER:: Right now.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: To-day speech is golden, and silence is silver. And since we are off
Dominion Franchise Act

the gold standard in more ways than one perhaps a few remarks on this vicious bill will be in order. When examining the Doukbobor provisions of this bill one comes to the conclusion that between the policies of the Conservative and the Liberal parties a great gulf exists-the gulf of civil and religious liberty and of fairness and justice to mankind. I should like to range myself with those on this side who stand for freedom whenever that question presents itself. I do not need to say that I belong to a race that has fought valiantly for its freedom; I belong to a race that has never been conquered and never will be conquered while it remains true to the principles of freedom and liberty. I would be ashamed of my race if those who represent it in this house did not stand up on an occasion of this kind to fight for those from whom the right of the franchise is being taken.
Certain outrages have been charged to our Doukhobor friends. I do not think there is an bon. member in the house who is so closely related to one of those outrages as myself. I had a first cousin in the coach in which Verigin was blown to pieces. Some of my direct relatives blamed the Doukhobors for that outrage, but I do not. I investigated the matter and I found out from Canadian National Railways men that that outrage was never committed by the Doukhobors, it was committed 'by the Canadian National Railways authorities carrying loose dynamite from one point to another on the railway. This is a case where the Doukhobors were blamed for an outrage for which they were not guilty. They are blamed for many other things for which they are not guilty. The very reason for this bill is based on such unproven outrages and political fear and to have such a foundation for a bill of this kind is not conducive to good and progressive citizenship. Therefore, I am opposed to it.
I have a few Doukhobors in my riding. I doubt if there is another riding in Canada which is as cosmopolitan as the riding of North Battleford. We have some Doukhobors there, Belgians, French from the old land, Germans, Ukrainians, British, Americans and Norwegians.


Ernest Lapointe: No Scotch!


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, they are everywhere, God bless them. I must say that our Doukhobor settlers have lived up to the law and have proved to be respectable and industrious citizens ever since they came to Saskatchewan. They have prospered on their farms and have brought wild areas into cultivation. They
r.Mr. McIntosh.]
have built splendid homes and have made money. They have not been on relief like many of the British people have been for the last three or four years. I want to say a word for these people this afternoon, and to tell the house that the children of these people will be among the most progressive and law-abiding citizens of Canada. I have the fullest confidence in them and I am only too pleased to stand up this afternoon as a member from western Canada to defend them and to say that the principle of this bill is diametrically opposed to the very principles of freedom. This means I am opposed to subsection 12 of section 4 of the bill respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons. I repudiate the principle of disfranchising and taking away the rights of citizenship from any group of people because of their religious and racial beliefs. I regret the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) have given their support to this measure, because I believe the government by doing so, and the Prime Minister by doing so, have disgraced and dishonoured Canada in the eyes of all good Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That remark will have to be withdrawn at once.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has no right to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) by his action has disgraced and dishonoured Canada. I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement as it is not parliamentary language.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My inference was that this measure dishonoured and disgraced Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask that that language be withdrawn.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If my words are not satisfactory in any way to the Prime Minister, I withdraw them.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled that they are unparliamentary and I ask the hon. member to withdraw them.
Mr. MeINTOiSH: I have withdrawn them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I submit that no hon. member of this house is entitled to place any condition on a withdrawal; it must be an unconditional withdrawal.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not. He said
"if," and I cannot permit that, in the interests of this house. No one who happens to be Prime Minister can permit it.

Dominion Franchise Act
Mr. McINTOS'H:	I am sorry the Prime
Minister cannot understand the English language. I am willing to withdraw the remark without qualification so far as the Prime Minister is concerned but not the government or the government measure before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to direct attention to an erroneous observation made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). This measure does not refer to descendants in the sense in which he used that word. It is a conditional prohibition only.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me. If the law
of British Columbia does not disqualify that person he is not disqualified by this statute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But I may point out that when you pass a law you presume its permanency. We do in British Columbia, and when we pass this law we presume that it will be permanent for the dominion.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Murray MacLaren: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Ontario) (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Layton Ralston: I was paired with the Finance Minister (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Dominion Elections Act


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Irvine: I W'as paired with the hon. member for South York (Mr. McGregor). Had I voted, I would have voted for the
amendment.


James J. Donnelly: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton-North Victoria (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I was paired with
the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

Hugh Guthrie: There seems to be some misunderstanding about Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons, which was reported from committee. With the consent of the house I would move it back into committee as it is said that clause 8 was not passed.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right.


Hugh Guthrie: I was under the impression that all clauses were passed, but for the purpose of considering clause 8 I would move the bill back into committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the bill, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On clause 8-Appointment of returning officers.


Ernest Lapointe: On this clause I desire
to register my protest, as my leader did a few minutes ago, with regard to the change concerning the appointment of returning officers. It is most important that the officers
who are in charge of elections in every constituency in Canada should be, so far as possible, free from political partisanship. My hon. friends opposite do not seem to like this now, but a few years ago when there was another government in office, they were the ones who advocated what I am saying to-day and it was agreed that the government should not appoint the returning officers but that they should be appointed by the chief electoral officer and that he would try to select the best man possible and the one who would be fair to the various political opinions in each constituency. That was done at that time; the system worked well, and to change it now is, I am afraid, a breach of faith. It means that my hon. friends opposite when they are in opposition will ask their opponents to agree to changes which will ensure impartiality in the elections, but as soon as they are in office they repeal those laws and see to it that their own political friends are put in charge of an election. That is a wrong principle; it is a wrong thing to do, and I say again that it is a breach of faith on the part of those who have taken advantage of the agreement which was entered into between the parties a few years ago.


Charles Gavan Power: This is the clause which
provides for the appointment of returning officers. In order to make the matter clear may I just quote as briefly as I can a report of the chief electoral officer pursuant to section 74 of the Dominion Elections Act, made December 1, 1926, in the appendix of which he gave a summary review of the statutory provisions affecting from time to time the appointment and duties of returning officers. I am not quoting in extenso, because I do not wish to take up the time of the committee. He goes back to the British North America Act of 1867, section 42, where the governor general was empowered to issue a writ for the election of a member of the House of Commons to such returning officer in each electoral district as he thought fit, the person selected to conduct the election in accordance with the electoral law of the province in which lay the electoral district for which he was appointed. He goes on to say:
Under the first Dominion Elections Act, passed in 1874, the discretion thus given to the Governor General was taken away, and it was provided that the writ should issue to the sheriff or registrar of deeds for the electoral district or a portion of it. The Governor General had accordingly power to choose the returning officer at his discretion only in a district in which there was no sheriff or registrar or the incumbents of these offices were disqualified or unable to act.
Dominion Elections Act

The position in Canada was thus assimilated to that which then existed and has ever since existed in Great Britain, where the returning officer is always, ex officio, the sheriff, the mayor or the chairman of the local municipal council. This new rule, however, continued in force_in Canada for only eight years. In 1892, by 45 Viet. c. 3, s. 6, the Governor General was again given a discretion-
That is just another way of stating that the appointment was again put under patronage.
-whenever an election was required to be held in any electoral district, to select such person to act as returning officer as he thought fit, and this discretion he has continued ever since to exercise. ...
Until, in 1925, the law was amended in the way to be later mentioned, this power fell to be exercised only on the occasion of the issue of the writ for an election, and it was accordingly inevitable, even apart from the fact that the returning officer had a casting vote in case of a tie, that appointments should, as a general rule, be made, from among the political supporters of the government of the day; in practice each returning officer no doubt was chosen usually on the recommendation of the person or persons by whom the local party patronage was controlled. Though there were exceptions to this general rule, particularly when officers appointed by the provincial government, such as sheriffs or registrars were available to act and were willing to undertake the returning officer's duties, these were not numerous, and a secondary but very natural consequence of the established practice was that the returning officers selected their deputy returning officers from among their political friends, the names no doubt often being supplied from the same source as that from which the recommendation for the returning officer's own appointment had emanated. Again the general rule was subject to exceptions: in some electoral districts there grew up the practice of selecting half the deputies from each political party,-
And let it be remembered that the party led by my right hon. leader was then in power.
-this exceptional practice being no doubt usually confined to those electoral districts in which the returning officership itself was not looked upon as a party appointment. In most electoral districts, however, the political party in power had exclusive administrative control of the election.
... In 1925, however, the law on the last point was amended, it being provided that returning officers, instead of being appointed only for the purpose of conducting a particular election, should hold office during pleasure like other servants of the crown. The first returning officers appointed under the new provision were those who acted at the general election held later in the same year. When, nevertheless. a second general election was required to be held within less than twelve months, most of the appointments thus made wrere cancelled and new returning officers named instead of the original appointees.
Now we come to 1929. In spite of the fact that we on this side of the house were made

well aware by the actions of the majority of the persons representing the party now in power, of their manner of conducting elections, on representations made, especially by persons from the southeast corner, and acting on the recommendations of the chief electoral officer, the committee of 1929 of which I had the honour to be chairman, recommended that from then on the appointing of the returning officers should be taken out of the hands of political parties and placed in the hands of the chief electoral officer. I speak of this with some little feeling because at that time I was being constantly importuned. When we were sitting on the government side, I was being called into corners of the corridors and interviewed in my office and told time and again: You do not mean to say that you will make a recommendation that means that we may have a Tory returning officer, or a returning officer who will not be at our beck and call? I then took the attitude which I take to-day, that elections should be as far as possible taken out of politics. Day after day I was obliged to fight the men of my own side o<f the house, some of them very important men, in order to press the amendment through. I was told at that time by one after the other that if through some mischance the hon. gentlemen who now sit opposite came into power they wmuld see to it that the election act was changed so that it would go back to the good old, bad old, days of patronage. In view of the representations made, in view of the concession if I may so call it, although it was not a concession, it was an amendment made in the interests of justice and fair dealing, in view of the action of one party, I took it upon myself to say I was convinced that for all time in Canada we would take elections out of politics. Unfortunately no sooner had hon. gentlemen opposite come into power than we began to discern that efforts would be made to change the returning officer. To-day, although I suppose that is not of much importance, but I feel somewhat humiliated, I have to face men from my own side of the house who make no bones about telling me they told me so. I think probably my leader feels very much the same way as I do, and that may account for the energy with which he opposes this bill.
It has been said that the Election Act of 1930 did not work well. I quote here the report of the chief electoral officer made pursuant to section 74 of the Dominion Elections Act in September, 1930. On the first page

Dominion Elections Act
of his report to the Speaker of the House of Commons he says:
The recent general election following the dissolution of the sixteenth parliament was the first since confederation at which the administration of the election in all the electoral districts -was carried out by returning officers appointed otherwise than by the government in power at the dissolution.
Then the second paragraph:
The most important alteration in the procedure followed was the abandonment of the use of provincial lists as a basis for the preparation of the federal lists. This affected particularly urban areas in which provision was for the first time made for an enumeration.	The result of the change must be
regarded as wholly favourable; notwithstanding that many errors occurred, the lists as supplied to the deputy returning officers were very much more accurate than they had previously been and clearly included a considerably higher number of the names of persons who were entitled to vote. ...
Then part of paragraph 3:
On the other hand, the number of administrative difficulties and complaints against returning officers showed a notable decrease. From only twenty electoral districts was any complaint received against the conduct of a returning officer, and in most of these cases, as well as in the few additional cases in which complaints were made to me against the conduct of subordinate election officers, the making of the complaints appeared on inquiry to have' been due to misunderstanding.
There was the situation at the end of 1930. We had an election act agreed upon by all parties in this house, which it was hoped would give a fair, reasonable and honest election, and according to the report of the chief electoral officer it did so. And may I say, in case it may be brought up later, that the power conferred on the chief electoral officer was used wisely and in the public interest. I have here a list of the appointments by occupation. I find that in Ontario out of a total of ninety seats twenty-nine were appointments of public officers such as county clerks and treasurers, town clerks, registrars, sheriffs, justices of the peace and crown attorneys.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: And the balance were Liberals.


Charles Gavan Power: Assuming they were, we did more for you than you will ever do for us, you gave us one-third.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The Tories always do that.


Charles Gavan Power: The proportion for Quebec was thirty-two out of sixty-five. In Nova Scotia seven out of twelve were public officers. In New Brunswick two out of eleven. In Prince Edward Island the total number of re-74726-2S7
turning officers, three, were sheriffs. In the western provinces there were no public officers because, as pointed out to the committee of that day, it was impossible to make the electoral districts coincide with those of the sheriffs and registrars.


An hon. MEMBER:: They were all
appointed by the patronage committee.


Alfred Burke Thompson: (Simcoe): What was the agreement about deputy returning officers?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know what happened in other cases, but in my own constituency I went to the Conservative ex-candidate, and we sat down together and agreed on a returning officer. His recomendation accompanied mine to the chief electoral officer, and during the progress of the election the Conservatives received the right to appoint fifty per cent of the deputy returning officers. That was my duty, as I conceived it, in carrying out an obligation which I had undertaken before the people of Canada.


Alfred Burke Thompson: That was not the case in my riding; I never had a look in.


Charles Gavan Power: I can only speak of my own case. Now let us see the reason for all this eagerness on the part of the government to dismiss returning officers and appoint those of their own choice. I received a statement from the chief electoral officer, after I had questioned him in the committee, to the effect that since 1930 with resignations, deaths and removals there had been changes in regard to fifty-three returning officers, and that under the redistribution act there would be sixty new returning officers. There were thirty new appointments made necessary due to returning officers being over the age of sixty-five, and three appointments made necessary by reason of the fact that the returning officer now resided outside of his electoral district. In other words approximately 150 of the 245 returning officers would be dismissed in any case. So all this upheaval, all this change in this act and the franchise act, came about, I am firmly convinced, for no other purpose than to see to it that every single returning officer who was not appointed by the Tories would be dismissed.
There is no doubt that the object was to take charge of the making of the electoral lists, which duty was formerly performed by the returning officers. I say in all sincerity that if, as has been stated by the chief electoral officer, the deputy returning officers could carry on their duties of making up the lists during the time of the election, if they had

Dominion Elections Act

a four year period when there was no election there was no reason why they could not have continued to carry on that work. Instead of that we are naming a whole host of officers to carry on the enumeration. I suppose the Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that something like eighty thousand officers are required to carry on the enumeration of an election, so during the course of this summer in this general registration something like eighty thousand people will be employed by this government, which is another way of bribing the electorate in addition to the public works program. The whole aim and object of these two thick, cumbersome bills was to get into the hands of the government control of the entire electoral machinery, from the time the man goes to register himself on the list until he goes to the poll to vote to put this government out of power. I do not think they will dare do anything to interfere after the ballots are counted.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should read the reports of the chief electoral officer of 1926 and 1930. I should like to quote from paragraph 11 of the report of 1926, in which the chief electoral officer says:
... the fact that appointments are generally made from among supporters of the party in power naturally inclines supporters of the opposite party to think that unfair administrative tactics are intended to be or are in fact resorted to.
To that statement I subscribe, knowing hon. gentlemen opposite.
In some eases, however, the present mode of the selection of election officers does induce on the part of appointees a mistaken idea that they owe a duty to the party to which they belong rather than to the state by which they are employed and paid.
I have nothing more to say on this matter; already I have taken up enough of the time of the house in connection with this legislation. Before I take my seat I should like to thank the minister for cooperating in the minor amendments which were made to the act, in our endeavour to make the act more workable. May I say at the same time, however, that the general principle underlying the act, whereby once more we are bringing the whole electoral machinery under party patronage, to be operated for the benefit of party politicians, to my mind is not a principle which should be adopted readily by this house, particularly when we have had a chance to get away from it and the people of Canada were given an opportunity to see that in some instances the political parties could come together in an endeavour to give to the electorate a fair

deal and an open, above board method of expressing their opinions when elections came on.
I submit that this legislation is in keeping with a great deal of the legislation that has been brought down by hon. gentlemen opposite. It has been said by adherents of and apologists for the government that they have not paid enough attention to the political side of administration, and that their acts have not been motivated by political consideration. May I say that in my humble opinion hardly one piece of legislation has been introduced in this house since 1930 that did not have a political motive and a political purpose back of it. The tariff measures of 1930 were pure politics; the marketing act of this year was pure politics, and the central bank act was pure politics. Ever since this government came into power the relief measures have been pure politics, and they have been administered in the same spirit.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: The hon. gentleman is out of order.
I would ask him to confine his remarks to the bill under discussion.


Charles Gavan Power: The chairman calls me to
order for having strayed a little from the subject. May I say that if all these measures I have mentioned were pure politics the two pieces of legislation we have been considering, as well as the redistribution act of last year, were politics of a kind I could not describe without falling foul of you, Mr. Chairman. Undoubtedly they were of the Tory brand of politics, which they hope will bring them into power at the next election but which I know will not do so.


Charles A. Stewart: I have refrained from saying anything on the floor of parliament with respect to these acts, though I had considerable to do with endeavouring to make them as workable as possible. I am not going to cover any of the ground already covered by my colleague from Quebec South (Mr. Power) and my right hon. leader in our endeavour to have the amendments so constructed that they would work fairly as between all parties, but there is one aspect of this whole procedure that I have not been able to understand. I refer to the necessity for this double staff of officials. If in the opinion of the government the chief electoral officer was not carrying out his duty they had the power, both in this house and in the other chamber, to get rid of him. But what have we done here? We have gone to work and provided for two sets of officials, which seems to me entirely unnecessary. I have said so all the time we have been dealing

Dominion Elections Act
with these two acts. We have set up one group of officials with a chief known as a revising officer; his appointees are permanent officials who will work for a period of six weeks in the year at most. For the life of me I cannot understand why these same officials should not be the returning officers. Evidently, as my colleague has put it much better than I can, there is a desire on the part of the government to give to their political supporters in each constituency the right to name the individual who shall conduct the election, and they content themselves with leaving only the chief electoral officer as a permanent official. In my humble opinion there is no necessity in the world for those two sets of officers. In order to carry out their desire the government have adopted this circuitous route to arrive at their destination. So far as I am concerned the best treatment I ever received was from a returning officer appointed by a Conservative government, I refer to Mr. Wilson who conducted the election of 1926. I have not a word to say against him or against his officers, and if officials of that type are selected by my opponents I shall be satisfied. Again I do protest emphatically against doubling up officialdom in connection with carrying on elections. It is an expense which could easily be avoided. Let me say in passing that I am afraid we will find the proposed system a most cumbersome one. Not only that, but it will be very expensive to every candidate who may have to contest an election under the provisions of this legislation. While a yearly revision of the lists shortens the election period by a few weeks, the candidates and sitting members will be shouldered with a tremendous expense to see that the lists are properly drawn up.
All these years we have managed to get along in western Canada with enumerated lists, and so far as I know we have had a fair degree of satisfaction. The machinery was under the supervision of the electoral officer and the returning officers in the various constituencies. My protest, togther with those of other hon. members on this side of the house, is that there is no necessity on earth for the double-barrelled provisions in the two pieces of legislation we have been considering. While I have tried to see some virtue in the proposed procedure frankly I can see none. There is the exception, however, that no doubt everyone will welcome the shortening of the election period. But to establish two sets of officials when one set could do the whole work in a proper fashion seems to me to be a totally unwarranted expense.
74726-287 i


Alfred Speakman: I cannot but associate myself with the view expressed primarily by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). As in the case of other hon. members I base my convictions mainly on my own experience with the different forms of appointments, and the manner in which elections have been conducted. In passing may I express my appreciation of the extremely nonpartisan attitude displayed by the hon. member for Quebec South when he attributed nothing but the purest political motives to anything done by the government since they came into power. I have heard words more unkind than that used by hon. members in his section of the house.
The question it seems to me is a simple one: Shall the returning officer look upon himself primarily as a representative of one party, or shall he look upon himself primarily as a civil servant responsible to the state for the proper carrying out of his duties. I am aware that appointments by a party should not necessarily, in the extreme sense, be partisan appointments, but it leaves the door open for that to take place. In common with other hon. members I have had the misfortune to contest several elections. Without hesitation I will say that from the point of view of its administration on the part of the returning officer, by far the most satisfactory election was that of 1930. Upon that occasion there was no Liberal candidate in my riding, although the returning officer was not aware of that fact at first. There was a Conservative candidate running against me. I believe I can speak for the Conservative candidate as well as for myself when I say that we received absolute satisfaction. The whole work was carried out in the fairest possible way, and without any regard so far as we could see- and we were in a position to judge-for the interests of any party in the field or which might be in the field, as opposed to those of any other party. The returning officer, although of course originally a party man, took a view which I considered quite correct and one which should be held by the majority of right-thinking men. He said he was not appointed under the auspices of any party. That is, he was employed by the state to see that the people in that part of the country over which he had jurisdiction had an absolutely fair opportunity to express their views, whatever they might be. I did not know the politics of half the deputy returning officers appointed, and I am not certain that my Conservative friend knew. But we did know that practically without exception those men under
Dominion Elections Act

the instructions of the returning officer carried out their duties in an absolutely fair and impartial manner. As I said in the beginning, they carried out their duties in a fair manner, and gave far more universal satisfaction than I had experienced in any other election. When we had a system which appeared to be satisfactory, and when it has been proved not only to the satisfaction of hon. members belonging to the party in power by whom the appointments were made, but to others, that the elections were carried on satisfactorily to all parties concerned, it seems to me to be a retrograde step to go back to the system which obtained before that time, when it was not satisfactory, and to take the risk even if the returning officers did their duty and even if the government had the altruistic motives, of being branded throughout the country as having made an effort to do otherwise and to gain an unwarranted advantage.
I can only conclude as I started out, by saying that I associate myself heartily with the point of view primarily expressed by the hon. member for Quebec South, and I urge the government in their own interests, in the interests of clean elections and in the interests of the people, to think again before taking a step which I am persuaded will be a retrograde one.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Hugh Guthrie: No, no.


John Campbell Elliott: They may not have been
quite evenly divided, but I heard no complaints. Most of the men who are now governing in this house are the men who were dominant in the party at that time. I must say it is a great disappointment to the people of the country as a whole to find that they have so totally changed their views as to what is fair play in regard to elections.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say that I subscribe to all that has been said by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Before 1926 we had adopted the principle of having an officer appointed by this house appoint the returning officers in connection with the elections. This was changed in 1926 when the so-called shadow government came into power. We returned to that system in 1930, and I do not agree with what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite. From all the reports I have had from the province from which I come, that system has worked most satisfactorily. I did have complaints and there were some heartburnings on the part of some of my friends in the constituency when strong Conservatives were appointed as deputy returning officers, but so far as I know they did their duty quite properly. When the election was over there were no complaints whatever.
This government was elected under that system in 1930. In 1934 they come down with a franchise act in which they propose to perpetuate that system so far as the franchise is concerned. They propose to appoint a commissioner of franchise and he is charged with the appointing of the registrars of electors in the various counties. He does the appointing, not the governor in council. So far as the franchise is concerned, this government has adopted the idea of having an officer appointed by this house-supposedly independent-appoint the registrars of electors in the different districts. That officer is to be appointed, by this house which, as at present constituted, is made up of a majority of hon. members opposite. That officer is to make the appointments so far as the franchise is concerned, but in the same breath, at the same session, and on the same day, we are asked to pass a bill with regard to elections whereby the provisions which have been in the act since 1926 and under which an officer of this house appointed the deputy returning officers are to be repealed. This particular function is to be exercised by the governor in council. How can my hon. friends justify the difference in the two systems? For the franchise, the

Dominion Elections Act
registrars of electors are to be appointed by an officer of this house; for elections, the deputy returning officers are to be appointed by the governor in council.
This must be because the chief electoral officer was appointed by a house in which those of us on this side had a majority. Hon. friends opposite now intend to have it both ways. They are going to appoint a commissioner of franchise with their majority and are perfectly willing to have that officer appoint the registrars of electors. On the other hand, they are going to repudiate that principle when it comes to the elections act, and have the deputy returning officers appointed by the governor in council. I submit that my hon. friends cannot justify the difference in these two systems. As the hon. member for Quebec South has said, there must be some sinister motive in this change at this time, in this repudiation of a principle which has been found to work quite well and which my hon. friends are accepting in the Franchise Act. They refuse to accept this principle in connection with the elections act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make perfectly clear what the record discloses as to the understanding given to the house by the minister at the time the dominion franchise bill was introduced. The resolution preceding the bill was introduced on June 13, and at that time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) gave a statement to the house as to the purpose of the measure. This statement will be found on pages 3938 and 3939 of Hansard. I shall read only one paragraph as the rest is simply an elaboration. He said:
It has bean thought by the government that it would be well to devise some improved method to bring on a general or a by-election in this country in much less time than is necessary at present. The proposal is that the government introduce a bill for the purpose of establishing the franchise of electors for dominion purposes and at the same time of providing for the making and completion of voters' lists which shall be regularly revised and kept up to date and which shall be available at a moment's notice in any part of Canada should a general election or a byelection take place. Under the scheme which is contemplated by the motion now before the committee it is hoped a franchise and voters' list act may be passed through this house and that under the new legislation a general or a by-election may be held in not more than twenty-eight days and possibly in twenty-four or twenty-five days.
The succeeding paragraph elaborates those remarks. The minister then said:
Mr. Speaker, I have now made a general statement of the purpose of the bill which it is intended to introduce.
There was in all that the minister said at that time no indication whatever of an intention to deal with the general elections act. The minister stated that the elections act was really three acts in one, it was a franchise act; it was an act concerning the preparation of lists, and it was an act respecting the machinery of elections. He stated that so far as the franchise act was concerned, he proposed to leave it as it was with the exception of the provisions respecting Doukhobors in. British Columbia. He stated also that he intended to leave the elections act as it was. Having in mind what had been said at the conference when the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and myself met the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), I gave to the house what I gathered was the intention of the government. No exception was taken by the Minister of Justice to my understanding of the matter as set forth in my remarks. What I said will be found on page 3943 of Hansard, as follows:
My hon, friend has intimated that the present elections is really three measures combined in one, that it is an act with respect to the franchise, an act with respect to the preparation of voters' lists, and also an act with respect to the machinery for the conduct of the elections themselves. He has stated further that the present measure is to take out of the general act as it now stands those parts which relate to the franchise and to the preparation of election lists. I see no objection whatever to that step being taken.
There was a distinct understanding that the general elections act would remain as it was. Elsewhere it will be seen that the Prime Minister made similar representations. It was understood that we would take out of that act those sections which had to do with the franchise or with the voters' list, but it was never thought by myself or others on this side, nor was it intimated by the government that there was an intention on its part to change the general elections act. As I said when speaking on the previous measure, according to my recollection, the position as presented to us was that these two officers would have charge of the election machinery. There would be the chief electoral officer and the new officer who would be the franchise commissioner and who would have to do with the revision of the lists. The question was raised repeatedly at the conferences as to why we needed these two sets of officers, and their appointment was defended on the ground that it would be evidence of fair play and that the different points of view on all sides of the house would find expression in that way. I agree with what the hon. member for West Edmonton has said as to the extra costs and
Dominion Elections Act

unnecessary duplication. I can see in this nothing other than the purpose he has stated, namely, an endeavour on the part of the government to get control of all election machinery and of all appointments. What I regret most of all having to say is that we have been deliberately deceived as to the intention of the government as expressed both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Justice when presenting this matter to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
William Richard Motherwell: Before the bill is reported I should like to know the length of time estimated by the government to be necessary between dissolution and election day?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Castonguay informs me that under the new legislation an election could be held within twenty-five to twenty-eight days.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see how you are going-where has the chairman gone off to now? This is an example of how they want to run the elections in such great haste.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would inform the hon. member that the motion to report the bill was carried.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no harm in asking a proper question at this stage. You do not need to be in a desperate hurry now, just as the government is in trying to run the election off in twenty-eight days. How will you conduct an election in twenty-eight days in some of the ridings? A government that has a rotten defence as this one has would doubtless like to run it off in twenty-eight minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Order nothing. And the party that has a good policy, a good platform and a good record wants time to get its information to the country. This unseemly haste is just one more attempt to steal the election.
Bill reported.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Guthrie moves that the bill be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am rising at the moment, not to speak on the third reading but to ask a question of the minister before the bill passes. Will the minister advise

the house whether it is the intention of the government to proceed at once with the preparation of the basic list, to do so immediately after prorogation? How soon will the work be undertaken?


Hugh Guthrie: The bill provides that the franchise commissioner shall at once take steps and within six months have all the machinery going and the revising officers appointed. He will have to go over 245 ridings to make appointments and preparations. The limit is six months, but he begins immediately after the bill becomes law.


Angus MacInnis: Before the bill is read the third time I wish to bring to the attention of the house a provision which I think should be included in this measure. An attempt has been made in the bill to make it as easy as possible, within certain limits, for individuals to exercise the franchise, and this was further added to yesterday in committee when the Minister of Justice introduced section 99 which provided for absentee voting. That section provides that fishermen, miners, lumbermen and sailors may vote by use of the absentee ballot if on election day they are not in the riding in which they are registered or within twenty-five miles of the constituency.
During the last few years there has been a development in the life of this country through which there are other people besides those actively engaged in the occupations mentioned who are compulsorily taken away from their homes-I refer to the men in the unemployment relief camps. If we refer to those mentioned in the category as entitled to vote by use of the absentee ballot we find fishermen, miners, lumbermen and sailors enumerated, and they are allowed that privilege because on election day they may not be in the constituency in which they are registered or within twenty-five miles thereof.
Let me give a hypothetical case. Let us say that in the city of Vancouver two men are looking for work prior to an election. One gets work in a lumber camp and goes there and on election day, if he is not within twenty-five miles of Vancouver, he is entitled to vote by use of the absentee ballot. The other man finds it impossible to get work and by force of circumstances he has to go into an unemployment relief camp; and because of that, although he is registered, these camps being more than twenty-five miles outside the city, he is unable to exercise the franchise. I hold that this is a discrimination of the worst kind against a man who, through no fault of his own, finds it

Dominion Elections Act
impossible to obtain work. I submit that those in the relief camps should be put in the same position as those enumerated in the category and who are unable to vote in the riding in which they are registered. Provision was made in bill 101 so that unemployed men away from home would not lose their franchise, but unless we make provision also for them to exercise it-and we have not made that provision so far-extending the franchise to them will be useless. To remove that discrimination I move, seconded by Mr. Mitchell:
That this bill be not read a third time now but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house with instructions that they have power to amend section 99, subsection (1), by adding after (e) a new clause (f):
"Unemployment relief camp workers" means all workers at any unemployment relief camp or at any institution or refuge maintained either by public or private moneys for the relief of distressed or unemployed persons.
And in subsection (2) after the word "sailor" in the fifth line, the words "or unemployment relief camp workers."
I have used these words because they are used in bill 101, rule 9, to make provision for the exercise of the franchise by men in unemployment relief camps. I hope that the house, as a matter of justice to those men who are so unfortunate as to be unemployed at this time, will see its way clear to adopt the amendment. The men in the unemployment relief camps are to-day continually informed that it is impossible for them to change the economic order in this country by means of our democratic institutions. If we do not include this amendment, if we expressly leave them out, we are giving proof positive to them that such is the case.


Hugh Guthrie: When the bill was before the special
committee appointed by this house, this question was very fully discussed and it was then that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made his suggestion about absentee voters. He was not a member of the committee but was present during most of our sittings and heard what took place. After he made the suggestion in regard to absentee voters this clause was again discussed very thoroughly, and my recollection is that the committee was unanimous in confining the suggestion to fishermen, sailors, miners and lumbermen. It may be that there was one dissenting voice; it may have been seven to one but I think it was unanimous. Immediately applications came in from members of the house to include farmers, fruit pickers, teachers and various others. Well,
we felt that if we were going to adopt this provision at all we would have to confine it within some bounds and we confined it to those trades whose members we know go far away from home in response to the demands of their occupations. They have to go far from home and they might ordinarily be deprived of their vote unless some amendment of this kind were prepared. It was the opinion of the committee-and I am going to say it was unanimous, but it may not have been-that this should not be extended.
The question came up again when the matter was before the committee of the house yesterday and I expressed the same view as I hold now, that I would not be inclined to extend the provision. I understand that in some of the relief camps there are very few men belonging to the province in which the camps exist and they cannot take advantage of the clause in any event because it is confined to polling divisions within the province. It was suggested also that it might be broadened out that a man in a relief camp in Ontario might be permitted to cast his ballot down in Nova Scotia. We could not agree to that proposal and I do not accept it now.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to ask the minister a question. There is trouble sometimes in connection with military camps; will any arrangement be made about those?


Hugh Guthrie: They are covered in the act now; they were covered in the old act and we have not changed that clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe all hon. members will hope the relief camps are temporary institutions and not permanent or likely to be permanent. The insertion of a clause of this kind is suggestive of the possible permanency of relief camps. That phase of the matter I feel makes it undesirable to include an amendment of this nature. On the other hand when such a large number of men are in relief camps at the present time and when it is probable that this large number will continue to be in relief camps at the time the next general election occurs, I believe for the purposes of the next election it would be eminently right and just to have this particular clause included. If it were inserted in the bill at this time it could be repealed subsequently if the country found it possible through improvement of economic conditions to be freed of relief camps. I for one, should I be in a position so to do, would seek to bring about such a repeal subsequently if the conditions of the country so permitted. But,

Dominion Elections Act
with conditions as they are at the moment,
I shall lend my support very gladly to the inclusion of this amendment.
I wish to take advantage of speaking on the third reading of this bill to touch again on the question I asked the Minister of Justice a moment ago as to the preparation of the lists and the intention of the government to begin at once on their preparation. The minister replied that it was intended that the franchise commissioner should begin at once with the appointment of the franchise officers and the preparation of the lists. He mentioned that the act gave the commissioner a limit of six months within which to make the necessary preparations. Personally, I think that six months part of the measure is pure bluff. I believe it has been so provided to have it appear that we are not likely to have a general election during the remainder of this year. It is equally true, however, that the law has been so drafted as to enable basic lists to be prepared inside four weeks or, at the outside, six weeks. I hope all who feel as I do about the present administration will take care to see that within the next six weeks they become as busy as they oan to have the lists made as complete as possible.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say just a word as the seconder of the amendment. I do not think these men in relief camps are any different from the soldiers at the war and if I remember aright, provision was made for the exercise of the soldiers' franchise. I believe these men were forced away from their surroundings in just the same manner as were the soldiers and sailors. After all is said and done, the government of this country instituted these camps and in view of that fact they have a responsibility to see to it that nothing is placed in the way of these men exercising their franchise. It must also be remembered that owing to the low wages they are paid, it is impossible for them to return to their home towns or their places of origin in order to vote, and I see no reason why provision should not be made which will enable these men to take their part in the next election.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that these relief camps are temporary institutions. That does not alter the argument. While they may be temporary, as we hope they are, as a matter of fact they exist and an obligation rests upon the government, in view of their direct responsibility in the management of the camps, to see to it that these men are given an opportunity to exercise the franchise.

Mr. A. W. NEILL CComox-Alberni): Under ordinary conditions I would support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), but as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has stated, this matter came up in the special committee that was dealing with this bill. I and those associated with me were extremely anxious to get what we thought was a very necessary amendment made so that absentee voting could take place. A number of classes, other than the four agreed on, were suggested. Finally there was a compromise, which I understood was unanimous, that the committee would agree to the four now in the bill. I concurred in that and I feel in good faith I shall have to support the government in connection with the present motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
motion is put, on a point of order, may I say, after hearing what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said and what I have since learned from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) as to there having been an understanding in the committee on the basis of which there was introduced last night the amendment with respect to absentee voters, I feel I ought to explain to the Minister of Justice and to hon. members that I had no knowledge of that understanding or I would not have spoken as I did in support of the amendment. I shall, therefore, feel it my duty not to vote on the amendment, although I have spoken in support of it. I want to make it perfectly clear that I had not known that the committee had arrived at an agreement as to the basis on which that other amendment would be introduced.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. [DOT]member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Irvine: I was paired with the hon. member for South York (Mr. McGregor). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Onésime Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Layton Ralston: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Houston Spence: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


James J. Donnelly: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton-North Victoria (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the- amendment.


Alfred Speakman: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Picket). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Franklin Smoke: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the hon. member for North Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Michael Luchkovich: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Gardiner: I was paired with the
hon. member for	 Had I voted, I
would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was
paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs may be incomplete) .
Main motion agreed to on division; and bill read the third time and passed.
Criminal Code-Lotteries



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, June 30, 1934.
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber at 10 o'clock p.m. to-day for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. Laseelles,
Secretary to the Governor General. The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 114 to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Lottery sale void.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister explain what is meant by section 7?


Hugh Guthrie: This follows the English act on the subject of lotteries. In the present act an informer may lay complaint or bring an action to recover a prize won in a lottery. In Great Britain they have recently amended their law, providing that any such prize shall be forfeited to His Majesty. We have merely adopted that system instead of what is known as the common informer system.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Right of appeal to continue to expiration of term for filing notice.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the change in section 15?


Hugh Guthrie: It is only to include the words "British Columbia" at the request of the new attorney general of that province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Form 76D agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
[Mr. Bradette.J
Hugh Guthrie: I have forgotten one
amendment, and with the permission of the committee I should like to revert to section 12 of the bill.
On section 12

Intimidation.


Hugh Guthrie: This was my oversight, I am sorry to say. For many years the Trades and Labour Congress have requested that a clause which was formerly in the criminal code, in regard to picketing, should be restored or that the English clause in regard to the same matter should be incorporated in our law. In the statute of 1886 this clause appeared under section 501 of our criminal code, in regard to picketing:
Attending at or near or approaching to such house or other place as aforesaid in order merely to obtain or communicate information shall_ not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.
This was the law until the statutes were revised in 1896, when it was dropped without any repeal by this house. Of course the effect of the passage of the revised statutes would operate as a repeal. I would therefore move that this be added as subsection 2 of section 12, which already amends section 501.


James Layton Ralston: I notice that section 3 of the act comes into force on proclamation. That is a new section which provides for the registration of revolvers and pistols in the possession of anyone, and I have no doubt that the minister has in mind that there should be the widest publicity given to this section before it is proclaimed.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think we will put it into force for three to six months, in order to give due publicity to it.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada-kMr. Stewart (Leeds)- Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 6-Tenders.
John Campbell Elliott: When the committee was last considering this bill we were at section 6. I had asked that sections 6 and 7 be considered together, because I felt that if old

Public Works Construction
section 36 of the Public Works Act were substituted for those two sections we would have a much better act and one which, with regard to draftsmanship and the possibility of being understood, would be very much superior to what we have at the present time. I understand that the minister is not agreeable to considering the two sections together, so I wish to withdraw the amendment which I proposed, making sections 6 and 7 one section, and to move that section 6 be amended by adding the words "by public advertisement" after the word "tenders" in line 4. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon the advantage of doing that. We are now embarking upon a program of public works such as we have never had in this country before, and from the protection that is thrown around the expenditure of that money we are removing a safeguard that has existed ever since we had a public works act in this country. At this stage of the session I do not propose to elaborate on the advantage of receiving public instead of private tenders; that must be known to every hon. member of this house. Therefore I beg to move the amendment I have already read, and which I have placed in your hands.


Michael Luchkovich: The other day the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) brought up a very important question; he suggested that tenders should be confined to the particular localities where the public works are to be undertaken and that local contractors should be given the preference over contractors from outside the city or particular place where the public works were to be carried on. I would go a little bit further; I would suggest not only that local contractors should get the contracts but that those who are unemployed should be given work on these public works rather than men who already have employment. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Public Works if these contractors getting contracts will cooperate to the fullest degree with the representatives of such municipal relief authorities in order to make the works most effective in relieving unemployment. I believe these municipalities are very anxious to cut down relief costs, and certainly this is one way of putting to work a great many of the unemployed throughout Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Elliott) negatived on division.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 7-Cases in which tenders may not be required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have a complete change which I desire to move in regard to this section. The amendment is as follows:
That section 7 be deleted and that the following section be substituted therefor:
7. In case of work of pressing emergency in which, in the opinion of the governor in council, delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in which, from the nature of the work it could be more beneficially executed under the direct supervision and control of the officers and employees of the department in charge of such work, the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister of such department accompanied by a certificate of the chief engineer or chief architect of such department or of the chief engineer or chief architect of the Department of Public Works, may direct that the work proceed forthwith without inviting tenders. Provided that in case of any one work the cost of which is estimated to be less than five thousand dollars, the minister or department in charge of such work may proceed with such work under the direction of such minister or department.
The object of this amendment is to make the section more workable. The bill now provides that tenders must be invited in every instance. There will be a large number of works costing less than $5,000, and every tender would have to be brought before the governor in council. Under the Public Works Act as it exists to-day, works under $5,000 may be let without tender, and I am therefore making that exception. Everything has to go before the governor in council, except works under $5,000.


Charles A. Stewart: You are just
embodying the present provision.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it goes farther.


James Layton Ralston: Is the minister cutting out the word "economically"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and putting in the word "beneficially."


James Layton Ralston: Beneficial to whom?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To the public.


James Layton Ralston: That ought to be said.


John Campbell Elliott: I had indicated to the minister that I intended to move an amendment which in many respects would be the same as the amendment he has now moved. I am wondering just why the words "expeditiously and economically" have been deleted, and the word "beneficially" substituted therefor. I think the effect is quite clear. The economical
Public Works Construction

end is not quite so satisfactory as the beneficial end, to the framers of the bill. I assume there is a good and sufficient reason behind making the change.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will explain it.


John Campbell Elliott: In accepting the suggestion I made the other day in connection with tenders under $5,000, the minister is taking a step in the right direction. I am glad he has seen the error of his ways, and I trust that at a later part of the bill he will not move another amendment, which I understand he has in mind, which would negative the good effect of the amendment he has just moved. I hope he will not kick over the milk pail which he has filled, in an attempt to amend a subsequent section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Assistants.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that the minister ought to delete the words "and other persons." The section reads:
For the purposes of this act, the governor in council may authorize the minister charged with the execution of any work under this act from time to time to employ such architects, engineers and other persons as may be required'.
The expression "other persons" might include all sorts of people, and the effect would be that the money could be distributed among any number of persons-another election device as I see it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The object is to cover the employment of foremen, supervisors, draftsmen, clerks and even messenger boys who are in charge of binding plans, and so on. I think the section should stand as it is. There is no intention to expand it any more than is absolutely necessary, and it is stated that we must go to the governor in council for authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It looks to me like an election device.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Orders laid before house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have an
amendment to this section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably the right hon. gentleman had better wait until eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall submit it to the minister, so that he may have an opportunity to consider it during the adjournment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At eight o'clock we can take the amendments to Senate bills. There are some purely technical amendments. If acceptable to my right hon. friend, we could do that immediately after eight o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 19, to incorporate the Bank of Canada.
He said: The first amendment deals with subsection 1 of section 5, which is amended by adding to the end of the subsection the words, "who shall not as such be a member of the board." That refers to the assistant deputy governor, and I see no reason why it should not be concurred in.
The second amendment is in section 6 where the word "financial" has been substituted for "banking." The section would then read, "the governor and deputy governor shall be men of proven financial experience." I would think that that was an improvement.
The third amendment deals with subsection 3 of section 8 where the words "subject to the approval of the governor in council" are added after the word "shall." I suppose there can be no objection to that.
The fourth amendment is in section 9, subsection 5, where the word "reelection" is substituted for the word "reappointment" I think reelection is proper.
The fifth amendment is in section 10, subsection 2, line 3. The Senate proposes that the following words be added:
. .. and any person nominated for election as a director who is a shareholder of a chartered bank shall if elected divest himself of ownership of his shares within three months of the date of his election and shall not thereafter during the period of his office have an interest, either directly or indirectly, as a shareholder in a chartered bank.

Bank of Canada
I believe the English system is to permit a lapse of time after the date of election, either to acquire the necessary qualifying shares or to divest of shares which should not be held.
William Irvine: I fail to see how a director of a bank could become a director of this bank, since he is prohibited from obtaining shares.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly my view. The point being made by the Senate is that a holder of shares in the Bank of Canada who is also a holder of shares in a chartered bank might be elected, and this is to give him a chance to divest himself of his shares, in order that he may have no interest in a chartered bank while serving as a director. If I had my way about it I would add these words, "and until such time as he has divested himself of such shares he shall not act as a director." That would be the logical and proper wording to add.
The sixth amendment is in section 21, paragraph (i). It is proposed to add after the word "banks" the words "or to banks incorporated under the provisions of the Quebec Savings Banks Act." This amendment will have the effect of authorizing and empowering the Bank of Canada to make loans to a bank incorporated under the provisions of the Quebec Savings Banks Act. There are only two such banks, one at Quebec and one at Montreal. I cannot speak with great certainty about the bank at Quebec, but the one at Montreal is in as excellent a condition as any chartered bank in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Are these
provincial institutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the old act which I think had its origin in pre-confederation days. The Montreal District and Savings Bank and La Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec are incorporated under the provisions of this statute. I suppose there is no reason why the Bank of Canada should not lend to either one of these banks if they desired a loan.
The seventh amendment is in paragraph (m) of the same section. It will be observed that in the third line of that paragraph the word "savings" has been used. The word "Quebec" is being added, so that it will read "incorporated under the Quebec Savings Bank Act." The word "deposits" is spelled with a capital "D", and this should be a small "d".
The next amendment is in section 27. It is proposed to add the following as subsection 7:
Every bank incorporated under the Quebec Savings Banks_ Act shall maintain against its deposit liabilities such reserves in the form of notes of the bank or deposits with the bank or a chartered bank as may be deemed to be necessary by the bank, and shall furnish such information as may be required by the bank from time to time to satisfy it that such reserves are so maintained.
It is within the mind of the house that the question whether or not the two institutions I have named should come within the provisions of this bill was discussed in the committee and I think in the committee of the whole house. If my memory serves me aright, it was stated that if these banks desired to avail themselves of the provisions of this bill, they should make the same deposits as the chartered banks. As the subsequent sections anticipate that the gold of these two banks is necessarily to be transferred to the Bank of Canada, and as the reserve now provided for in subsection 7, which is added, provides that the reserves shall be to the satisfaction of the Bank of Canada, but may be kept partly in the Bank of Canada and partly in the chartered bank, that difficulty is overcome. But personally I have doubts as to whether or not the bank should be permitted to keep any part of its reserves in a chartered bank, because the theory of the statute is that the chartered banks themselves must keep their reserves with this bank; and therefore any bank that avails itself of the benefits of the Bank of Canada Act should also accept the responsibility of keeping its reserves either in the form of notes of the bank or in the Bank of Canada itself. I suggest therefore that the words "or a chartered bank" should be deleted from the amendment made by the Senate for the reasons I have indicated.
The next, No. 10, is found in section 36 and is one in which I think the house can concur. Subsection 4 reads:
The voting of the shareholders shall be by ballot.
The Senate proposes to add, after the word "shall," the words "in the case of the election of directors"-obviously, in my judgment, a very proper correction. And in the twelfth line of the same subsection the Senate proposes to delete the words "by registered post," taking the view that to provide that in every case the writing should be transmitted by registered post might create confusion and difficulty. So that, instead of
Bank oj Canada

reading as it does in the bill that went from this house, it would read:
No person shall vote by proxy except that any shareholder may give to the minister, in writing, instructions as to the manner in which he desires to vote on any business of the meeting.
The words "by registered post" are deleted on the ground that it might cause confusion and difficulty. Personally I cannot see the point, but I have no objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Originally, was it intended to limit voting by ballot to the election of directors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is as to
whether the letter shall be registered or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But originally, was it the intention to restrict the voting of shareholders to voting by ballot on the election of directors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because that is the only thing that the shareholders do, and it was intended always that these words should be implied rather than stated. That is the implication, because there are few cases in which the shareholders would have necessity for voting.
The last amendment will be found in section 43, by adding to paragraph (d) of subsection 1 the following:
And such by-laws may provide for the nomination of directors before any annual general meeting and what constitutes such nomination.
That is a very admirable addition because, as it read, it might be necessary to imply it rather than to have any direct authority as to the manner in which directors should be nominated. We can concur in that also. I would move therefore that we concur in amendment No. 1, in section 5, "who shall not as such be a member" of the board- that is, the assistant deputy governor shall not be.


James Layton Ralston: Did that refer to the
deputy governor or the deputy minister of finance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The assistant deputy
governor. In my opinion it means that now, because, unless there is specific provision that does make him such, he is not anyway; and inasmuch as it is not specifically provided, he is not. But the Senate has added those words.


Charles A. Stewart: The deputy minister and the assistant deputy governor, both appointees of the government, will have no vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Charles A. Stewart: The only
votes on the board which the government directly controls by way of appointment are the governor and the deputy governor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is No. 1, and I
move that we concur therein. No. 2 is the substitution of the word " financial" for "banking," which is an improvement, leaving a doubtful question muoh clearer than it was. No. 3, at the foot of page 3, adds after the word "shall" in the third line, subsection 3, the words "subject to the approval of the governor in council" dealing with the question of salaries. I think it is a 'proper safeguard, and I move that we concur in that one also. The fourth amendment substitutes for the word "appointment" the word "election," and I move that we concur in that amendment, because "election" is an accurate statement and "appointment" inaccurate. The fifth amendment deals with the question of the director elected, who owns chartered bank stocks, divesting himself of them in a period of three months. It seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to provide that until he has divested himself of such shares he shall not act as such director.


James Layton Ralston: Or the board would be
short in the meantime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the board would be short. I am entirely in the hands of the house with respect to that, but I think we can leave it as it reads; it will not make any difference. The next amendment in which we can concur is No. 6, on page 10, paragraph (i) of subsection 1 of section 21, making the act apply to the Quebec Savings Bank Act, to which there is no objection, and adding the words "of Quebec" before the word "savings" on the sixth line on page 11, as well as making a capital "D" a small "d" in the word "deposits." I move that we concur in these six that I have just indicated, because I want to speak specially as to the next one.
The first six amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The seventh amendment, at the end of section 27, reads:
Every bank incorporated under the Quebec Savings Bank Act shall maintain against its deposit liabilities such reserves in the form of notes of the bank or deposits with the bank

Bank of Canada
or a chartered bank as may be deemed to be sufficient by the bank, and shall furnish such information as may be required by the bank from time to time to satisfy it that such reserves are so maintained.


Charles A. Stewart: Does "the bank" there mean the central bank?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I apprehend that the reason for this is that the chartered banks will pay some small interest on deposits made by the savings bank. The Bank of Canada has none. I apprehend that whoever was responsible for the amendment contemplated the possibility of some interest being received.
I will state the case for this amendment and I will state the case against it. In favour of this amendment, which is the logical and complementary amendment, to guarantee all the privileges of the central bank to the savings banks, that is the maintenance of reserves, is to be found this: that they shall be maintained in such a way as to be deemed sufficient by the Bank of Canada. That, I take it, would enable the governor of the Bank of Canada to say: We are not satisfied with the size of your deposit in a chartered bank and therefore you will have to increase your deposit with this bank despite what you have in the chartered bank. Against that is this: the chartered banks themselves are compelled to maintain reserves and it is not the general spirit of the statute that one of the institutions which is permitted to carry on business with the central bank should be maintaining a portion of its reserves with one of the banks that has itself to carry on its business in the way indicated. The other answer in favour of the amendment is this: that inasmuch as any chartered bank that receives a deposit is compelled by law to have a deposit with the central bank, there is inferentially a twofold security, that is the security made by the chartered bank that has the deposit as well as the security of the reserve in notes held by the savings bank to the satisfaction of the Bank of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: As the Bank of Canada is in control, could it not ask for an increased deposit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my judgment. Unless there is some reason in the minds of the house why we should disagree, after looking at the matter from every angle, in view of the fact that the deposit made by the savings bank with a chartered bank will have in itself to be covered by a deposit in the central bank, that makes the matter perfectly secure.


William Irvine: Would it not be quite satisfactory for these two banks for which provision is being made, to be governed in their borrowings from the central bank by the same regulations that govern the chartered banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are. The only addition is this: hon. members will recall that among the powers that the bank may exercise is that of lending money to chartered banks and this puts the savings banks in exactly the same position as the chartered banks, so the only question for consideration is really whether a reserve partly maintained in a chartered bank but in every instance to the satisfaction of the governor of the central bank, is adequate. Frankly, in view of the fact that the chartered bank must maintain its reserve for that deposit, we are quite safe in accepting the amendment.


James Layton Ralston: The only other point about the matter is that I think the method of requiring a reserve from these Quebec savings banks is perhaps more scientific than that which we adopted in the bill itself in providing for a rigid reserve. I am strongly in favour of this kind of provision for a reserve, namely, one which the central bank may increase or decrease as the exigencies of the case demand. That seems to give a better control of credit than to have a fixed reserve of five per cent.
I am in favour of the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you have
been good enough to let us carry on this discussion so as to expedite business. I quite realize the fact mentioned by the hon. member, but there are certain circumstances, to which attention need not now be directed, that arose out of the operations of the Finance Act and of the banks whereby their reserves are at a low figure relatively to the position in England where ten per cent is the figure for large banks, six per cent being in notes of the Bank of England and four per cent being in deposits in that institution. In this instance, when we say "not less than five per cent", we are giving the banks substantial leeway in view of the fact that part of that may be carried in notes of the central bank.
The question is: Shall we accept the amendment? I see no reason why we should not unless there is some reason given against it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other amendments
I think I have sufficiently explained as to the changes which are not important and which, I believe, are in the interests of the bill itself.
Franchise Commissioner


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the surrender of gold, there is no provision for these banks surrendering gold. I do not know whether they have any or not, but I assume they have some. Is it intended that they shall surrender it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill says: "every
chartered bank shall", and they are chartered banks within the meaning of the statute. The words "chartered bank" means a bank to which the Bank Act applies.


James J. Donnelly: Has the Quebec Savings bank any gold?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It probably has not. It might have a little. It is not a rule for it to carry any reserve of gold, but there have been cases in which, according to the bank returns, these two banks have had gold. The name is not the Quebec Savings bank. The banks have their existence under the provisions of the Quebec Savings Banks Act. One bank is the Montreal City and District Bank and the other is La Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec. I think it is contemplated that the gold would be returned over to the Bank of Canada.
I would therefore move that the remaining amendments be concurred in.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



FRANCHISE COMMISSIONER


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the
chair I would like to make a motion now that the franchise bill has been disposed of. I move:
That John Thomas Connolly Thompson, D.S.O., of the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, one of His Majesty's counsel, learned in the law, be appointed dominion franchise commissioner in accordance with the provisions of an act respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons.
I was going to ask my right hon. friend to second the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I
have much pleasure in seconding the motion which my right hon. friend has just moved. All who know him must regard Colonel Thompson as a man of the highest probity and integrity. His honesty and ability cannot

be questioned. I for one am prepared to believe that the qualities of character which have made him somewhat rigid in the work of administration of the particular commission over which he presides are characteristics of a strict impartiality and honesty of purpose which may give him a special fitness for this particular post.


Charles A. Stewart: May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the legislation provides that the salary be fixed as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was fixed this afternoon; it is in the bill and not in this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada- Mr. Stewart (Leeds)-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 9-Orders laid before house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: At six o'clock
I was speaking about an amendment that I wished to move to clause 9 which reads:
All orders in council made under the provisions of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons forthwith after the making thereof if parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within the first fifteen days of the next ensuing session.
This clause is similar to the one which has appeared in some of the acts respecting relief that have previously been passed, but it omits a very significant clause which is in the other relief acts, namely, that if parliament is not sitting such orders in council or regulations or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette. I ask the Minister of Public Works if he cannot see his way to include a similar additional clause to section 9, and to that end I would move:
That section 9 be amended by inserting after the word "then" in line thirty-nine, the words
"said orders in council or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament.
I point out that this measure provides for a total expenditure of forty million dollars, and the greater part of it will be made before parliament reassembles. I think it is but reasonable to ask, particularly as the measure is one purporting to be for purposes of relief, that the same procedure should be followed

Public Works Construction
with respect to advising the country as to such orders in council as may be passed under this measure as has been followed with respect to orders passed under previous measures.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that
this section as drafted is sufficient to meet the requirements of the situation. The activities of the government under this act are not of a special character such as those contemplated by the Unemployment Relief Act. In fact my right hon. friend and some of his followers have contended that many of these items might very well have appeared in the regular estimates of the department. The opposition have contended from time to time that they were prepared to vote practically any sum for the relief of unemployment as long as the government came before the house and gave particulars and details of the expenditures. This is not a blank cheque-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In spots it is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, to a veiy
limited extent. It is an act authorizing the expenditure of specific amounts for particular purposes. There is nothing extraordinary or exceptional in its character. Therefore the reasons which prevail for publication of orders in council under the Unemployment Relief Act, which are of a special and exceptional character, involving activities outside the regular sphere of the work of the dominion government, do not apply to this. These are additional expenditures upon purely dominion undertakings. As my right hon. friend has said, they might perhaps properly appear in the regular estimates. If they had appeared in the regular estimates no one would suggest that any such provision should be inserted. A special provision has been inserted in the bill, section 10, providing that-
The Minister of Finance shall make a report to parliament within the first thirty days of each session during the currency of this act. containing a statement of all moneys expended under the provisions thereof and the purposes to which they were applied.
So I think we have anticipated to a very large extent the purposes which my right hon. friend has in mind. Let me compare that provision with what happens in the case of an expenditure in the regular way by the public works or any other department. These expenditures appear in the public accounts, but they would not be presented to parliament until the year following. We have anticipated that and provided that when parliament assembles we shall present a statement containing the details of these expenditures. They are not of an exceptional character, but are 74726-288
within the scope of the regular expenditures of parliament. It really is not necessary, I think, to go to the expense of publishing in the Canada Gazette a precis of orders in council with respect to the detailed expenditures. For these reasons I submit that the amendment is unnecessary and that every interest has been safeguarded by the provisions of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason
which was given by the minister is really amusing. It is quite funny. He says he does not think it is advisable to go to the expense of publishing a precis of these orders in council in the Canada Gazette. I suppose the cost of publication of a precis would amount to the cost of the setting of the type, because the rest of the cost would be the ordinary cost of getting out the Gazette in any event. It might come to ten or at the outside fifteen dollars an issue. I question if it would come to that. On the other hand the minister does not hesitate to ask us to vote forty million dollars for the purposes named in this bill. He asks us to vote that great sum for all kinds of purposes, and then he says it is rather too expensive to publish a precis in the Canada Gazette. I believe this measure-and I believe so more strongly than ever in view of what the minister has just said-is intended for election purposes. All these sums being appropriated are largely for the purpose of distributing money in different constituencies at a time just preceding an election. My belief is that an election will be held before parliament meets again, and the reason the minister does not wish to have any precis put in the Canada Gazette is that he does not wish the public to know how these moneys are being distributed. I say he must render himself open to that criticism and suspicion unless he is prepared to acquiesce in a very simple and obviously fair and reasonable amendment such as the one I have moved here.
Let me direct attention to the last item in the schedule to the bill:
To supplement where necessary specific amounts hereinbefore provided, upon the authority of the governor in council, $500,000.
That is half a million dollars just to be moved about in differing amounts at the pleasure of the governor in council. This will have to be done by order in council. Why should the public not know how much of that half million dollars is being paid out, when and where, and how much is going to one locality and how much to another? There is no defence for not being willing to acquaint the public with that. This talk about having

Public Works Construction

a report submitted to the next parliament is altogether beside the mark. It is meaningless. The public will want to know how this money which we are being asked to vote for relief purposes is going to be spent from month to month. The minister says that we were prepared to vote a large lump sum. That was always on the understanding that it would be accompanied with safeguards I am proposing which would ensure that the public be kept acquainted with the expenditure. And the attitude of the minister is the more unreasonable in that heretofore this has always been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in mind the bill passed at the last session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was because there
were no details of the proposed expenditures. It was an estimate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are no
details of the half million dollars and other imounts here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The wording of that item is taken from the wording of the regular estimates of the Public Works department year after year. It is an item that has appeared in the estimates of that department right along during all the years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then let us look again at schedule A; here is an item: Harbours and Rivers Generally

Improvements, maintenance of services, repairs and additions, $2,500,000.
Here is another: Interior department, $2,000,000. There is $4,500,000 just in a lump sum. That money will have to be spent, I assume, by orders of the governor in council. If not, it will be departmental expenditure previously provided for by order in council. If this is intended to help unemployment why should not the public have a precis from month to month? There can be only one answer, that the government is seeking to conceal the manner in which it will spend this money. I do not think we should allow this committee to report progress until we get satisfactory procedure on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it the right hon. gentleman desires to be fair. Will he give me any instance in which there has ever been any such provision as this inserted in the law, except where there was a general appropriation? I am just telling what happened. During the last days of his government he entered into a contract with respect to dredging in the St. Lawrence river, for instance, for which we

have had to provide money ever since, and which is not quite finished yet. We knew nothing of it and neither did the public, because there was an item in the estimates providing for dredging.
If you will be good enough to look at the schedule to this bill, Mr. Chairman, you will find that the name is given as to the location of every proposed expenditure. The half million dollars is merely to take care of the fluctuations that sometimes happen in connection with contracts. For instance, one of the contracts that came to this government as a legacy was in connection with a coffer dam in Saint John harbour, for which the contract price was so low that it was quite clear that it could not be built for that amount of money. The coffer d'am went out twice, and for extras that had been incurred before we assumed office it cost us more than the contract price. No one published a precis of that in the Gazette; it was never asked or suggested that this should) be done.
I suggest that if we are going to adopt this as a principle in this house it should be the subject matter of general legislation. I could start at Halifax and go straight through to Vancouver. For instance, I discovered only by accident that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) had raised the salaries of charwomen a few days before the election.


John Campbell Elliott: That was understood
months before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it was not published in the Gazette. Let us be fair with each other. Everything in this bill complies with the provisions that have obtained heretofore in connection with estimates. I will admit that there is one item of $2,000,000 in connection with the Department of the Interior, and a further item of $2,500,000 in connection with harbours and rivers generally. As I said to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) when he mentioned it the other day-and this was one of the matters that influenced the government in making the item so large-there have been severe storms on the Atlantic coast resulting in great destruction of wharves and breakwaters in the little harbours. We could not undertake to sipecify them all here; to do so would have been ridiculous, but this item will cover them. The reason the last section is in this bill is to enable parliament, just as soon as the house meets, to have full knowledge of what has been done. That is unusual, but because we have to spend money for these particular

Public Works Construction
purposes, owing to conditions to which the hon. gentleman very properly referred the other day, we have provided that this house shall be seized of all the steps that have been taken as soon as the house meets, which is unusual. Otherwise we would have to wait for the auditor general's report.
I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will be fair and will not ask us, because we are near prorogation, to do something which is unsound as a principle unless adopted as a new rale in connection with all public expenditures. The hon. gentleman asks that whenever an order in council is passed a precis of it shall be published in the Gazette. The rules require that matters dealing with public policy should be so dealt with but in this case just what would happen? In connection with this legislation, over a period of months, probably there would be three or four hundred orders in council. What would the precis amount to? "Contract let for an addition to a building at Kamchatka for $10,000; contractor, John Smith and Company." That would be all, and what purpose would be served by that? It never has been done before, nor has it been asserted that it should be done. I can only say that I think the right hon. gentleman's sense of fairness, when he looks at the schedule, will satisfy him that we have endeavoured to do what always has been done, and have gone just one step further. I may say that I accept the responsibility for that last section. I felt that with respect to those basket items, if I might call them such, we should give the fullest information at the earliest possible moment, and when the house meets the information will be supplied at once. I think probably that is about as fair a proposal as has ever been made in this house.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); The election will be over then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's
prescience, I suppose, is very great in the sense that he is a Hielander, and no doubt always will have that second sight that is denied to other people, but it will be remembered that coming events cast their shadows before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He can either say that these are ordinary items of departmental expenditure on public works and that the same policy should be followed with respect to them that is followed with respect to the items in the ordinary estimates, or he will have to take the ground, which he has taken up to the present, that these are all
74726-288J
exceptional expenditures, and that they are for the purposes of relief, in which event he ought to follow the procedure that has been followed in the past with respect to expenditures for relief. I am basing my attitude and argument on the allegation of the government that these expenditures are intended for relief purposes; it is so stated in the preamble of the bill. The Prime Minister made reference to what happened in the last session of the previous parliament, and I think he spoke of the items that were brought down before the election.	-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was not complaining about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Evidently something of the kind is in his mind at the moment. My right hon. friend spoke about dredging in the St. Lawrence. I find here in the supplementary estimates presented a day or two ago an item of $1,000,000 for the St. Lawrence ship canal, dredging, and to provide for work performed and to be performed by contract. That looks like the eve of an election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is part of the legacy we inherited under that contract.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); Why did you not vote it in the main estimates?
Mr. BENNETT; Because most of the work has been done. The rest of it is with respect to the St. Augustine bar which is in front of the bridge coming up the St. Lawrence river.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This bill has
been referred to right along as a measure for the purpose of relief, and the preamble
says:
*-and whereas the construction and execution of the works mentioned in the schedule hereto will tend to increase employment and reduce expenditures for relief purposes-
That is the whole purpose of this measure, professedly. From the beginning I have said that I do not think such is the purpose at all but that the purpose is to put the government in possession of sums of money which they will be free to distribute all over the country. I think the public will be very much interested in knowing whether with its money John Smith and Company of such and such a village gets a contract of a certain amount just a few weeks before the election takes place; I think in other constituencies the public will be interested to know who secured the contracts that are let and sums paid out for all kinds of purposes. Unless that is what the
Public Works Construction

government are seeking to conceal why will not the minister come across in this and do exactly as he has done in previous relief measures?


James Layton Ralston: I just want to direct the Prime Minister's attention to what really are the blank cheque items. On page 4 there is an item of $2,500,000 for harbours and rivers generally; improvements, maintenance of services, repairs and additions. An item of that size never has been voted before in connection with harbours and rivers. Here is another basket item, to use my right hon. friend's expression:
Interior Department-[DOT]
To provide for the construction and development of public buildings, camp sites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves, and river protection works; to provide for the development of historic sites including buildings repairs and restorations; also to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke (Big Bend) section of the trans-Canada highway between Golden and Canoe river, further to provide for the purchase and acquisition of building sites, $2,000,000.
That is spread clear across the Dominion of Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver. Then here is another item:
Indian Affairs Department-
For the reconstruction of Indian residential and day schools, and hospitals, $500,000.
That is spread across Canada as well. Then there is another item:
Public Buildings Generally-
Improvements, additions, fittings, repointing, painting, repairs and renewals to heating, floors, roofs, plumbing, electrical installations, improvement of grounds, sidewalks and roadways; and incidental expenditures in connection therewith, $2,000,000.
I submit that those are not ordinary items. There is another item on page 6 of the bill providing for an expenditure of $500,000. It is as follows:
To supplement where necessary specific amounts hereinbefore provided, upon the authority of the governor in council.
Those items are altogether different from the ones voted under the estimates. As is stated in the preamble, they are voted to effect national recovery. The actual words are "for the general advancement of the country and to accelerate recovery to more normal economic conditions". I submit that the Prime Minister ought to be fair, and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will meet my right hon. friend in this regard. I am content that with respect to those items for which there are no particulars, this amendment should apply, but with respect to the others the normal pro-

vision in connection with estimates will be applicable. If the right hon. gentleman will arrange his amendment accordingly I shall meet him. I will say that with respect to harbours and rivers generally, the representations made by the hon. gentleman were not without some force in connection with conditions on the Atlantic, because I had a report, myself, as to the abnormal storms which had created those conditions. In connection with the item of $2,000,000 for public buildings I think the minister proposes to add to it the new constructions, because there are places in which the old buildings have to be torn down entirely, and new buildings put up. I shall be pleased now to meet the conditions stated by the right hon. gentleman, by providing that in all items other than those specifically mentioned the precis should be published in the Gazette.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the circumstances I shall be prepared to accept the Prime Minister's offer. My amendment will then read:
That section 9 be amended by inserting after the word "then" in line thirty-nine, the words:
"Said orders in council or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette, and laid before parliament, in the case of all expenditures the amounts of which are not specifically set forth in schedule A."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am prepared to accept that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jean-François Pouliot: Before the section is carried let us go back to January 2, 1931. I have before me a most admirable speech delivered in the city of Calgary about unemployment. It is reported in the Montreal Gazette. It is not very long, and this would be the most convenient time to-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the rule is that the hon. member is out of order, and perhaps it might as well be enforced to-night. I submit newspaper articles read for the purpose of influencing the action of parliament are and always have been out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that I have no intention of delaying the session. I would not make a long speech. I have tried to learn some speeches by heart. But according to the rules of the house, a number of which I know by heart, let me tell you that it is permissible for a member to quote any speech delivered outside the house. The speech I shall read was not delivered by Abraham Lincoln at

Public Works Construction
Gettysburg, but was delivered by the right hon. Prime Minister in his own constituency of Calgary. It is headed "Bennett Plans Move to Avoid Future Slump. Is Not Satisfied with Temporary Relief."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the date of it?


Jean-François Pouliot: January 2, 1931. The heading continues with the words "Seeks Final Causes." Then, this is a most important point -I am coming to it: Very often in this house I have asked the Minister of Labour to make a classification of the unemployed, in order to cure unemployment. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister answer one question this year, after the numerous questions which for four years I have been asking. He answered that the government was doing its best to classify the unemployed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: And, sir, I quote this
because I am sure that on that occasion the Prime Minister was right. I fully agree with what he said, but the trouble is that he afterwards changed his mind. What he said in Calgary on January 2, 1931, is O.K. He spoke as a statesman, and I did not have an opportunity to congratulate him. I began to congratulate him one day after I had spoken in a debate prompted by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I rose to speak, and I was about to congratulate the Prime Miinster when the house adjourned. Here is the quotation, by the Canadian press:


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order. We are discussing section 9.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I must ask the hon. member to make his remarks as relevant as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute, sir. May I say just one thing before you give a final decision. Section 9 reads:
All orders in council made under the provisions of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons forthwith after the making thereof if parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within the first fifteen days of the next ensuing session.
This section refers to orders in council. The orders in council express the policy of the government with respect to relief of unemployment. Therefore, sir, when I quote the excellent speech delivered in Calgary by the Prime Minister with regard to unemployment, stating his policy at that time to end unemployment, I am perfectly within the rules. I am quite in order because the orders in
council mentioned in section 9 are supposed to contain the government's policy on the relief of unemployment. For these reasons I submit I am perfectly in order.
I do not criticize that speech. I eulogize it, I praise it, and I am sorry that the policy indicated therein has not been the policy followed by the government. I read:
Calgary, January 2. Application of temporary measures to correct present economic conditions will not satisfy Premier R. B. Bennett.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is determined to unearth the final causes of the present depression and lay a secure foundation for permanent future prosperity. So he told' a large gathering of his fellow citizens of Calgary assembled to-day at a luncheon arranged jointly by the board of trade, the young men's section of the board of trade, and the Kiwanis club.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : Order, order.


Jean-François Pouliot: "I cannot make up my mind" he said, "why this country between the lake and the mountains should experience the depression, why people who have lived here for years should now find themselves without any accumulation of goods, sometimes without the bare necessities of life."
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland): Order. I wish to call the hon. member's attention again to the section under discussion, and the fact that what he is reading is not, in the opinion of the chair, in any way relevant to this section. I declare his remarks out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry that the chair is wooden and wrong.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is an insult to the Prime Minister. How can	we praise the Prime
Minister, when we are prevented from doing it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment has been revised in accordance with the agreement with the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is accepted.
Section as amended agreed to.
Public Works Construction

On section 10-Report to parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: On this section I would criticize the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very sorry, sir, that those admirable statements made at Calgary have been forgotten. That was admirable; everyone agreed with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it would be disastrous in the closing hours of the session if we should have to take action provided by the rules to deal with the hon. member for Temiscouata. I hope he will not make it necessary for the leader of the house to take action to that effect. I can say only this, that when the ruling of the chair is given we expect it to be obeyed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, on the point of order: The first part of the discussion was on another section, which has been approved. Now I was about to make another speech, but as it does not seem to please the government I will take the first opportunity to make it outside the house.
Mr, MACKENZIE KING: This section is somewhat similar to the section in the previous relief act, but there is no section in this bill similar to section 11 in the latest relief act which relates to the duration of the act. I think the minister should add a section to the effect that this act shall expire on March 31, 1935, unless there is some special reason why that should not be done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My right hon. friend will observe that several of these items are for the construction of large buildings which manifestly cannot 'be completed by that time. Many1 of the works contemplated will be completed but many of them will not. I submit that we should not limit the operation of the act to a time known to be insufficient for the carrying out of its provisions and the expenditure of money which is authorized. I might say the practice in other countries is to make an appropriation for the carrying out of a certain work without limitation as to .time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the minister knows that the practice in this parliament and in the British parliament with respect to public works is to vote what is necessary only for a fiscal year at a time. That is one of the ways in which parliament maintains its control over expenditures. There is no reason in the world why these expendi-

tures should not be subject to the same control on the part of parliament as all other departmental outlays. I see in this another election device in the desire to give out work which will run over as many years as possible and for which some subsequent government will have to meet the expenditure. I certainly think there should be some section to limit definitely the time for which these appropriations are to be made. If buildings are in the course of construction, a subsequent administration may vote what is necessary to continue the work.


John Campbell Elliott: Just to supplement what my right hon. leader has said:	The same
point was raised when the first relief act was being considered, and I do not think anyone knows as well as the minister in charge of this bill the evils which arose under that act. There is no reason in the world why an estimate should not lapse at the end of a fiscal year. Any reasonable estimate will be revoted by the house. Should a contract be let for large public works which expires on March 31, I think it can be assumed that the necessary money will be revoted provided a reasonable explanation is given. I do not think it is within the experience of any hon. member that such a course was not pursued. I submit that there should be a limit upon these things, and that limit should be mentioned in the bill.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would point out that this is a special appropriation, the object of which is to provide employment over a considerable period of time. It is not in the nature of an ordinary supply vote; its purpose is well defined and well understood, to sustain employment over a period of a year or longer. Any termination of the act at any particular time would be calculated to defeat the object in view.


Vincent Dupuis: Why not let parliament revote this at the next session?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are voting it now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could
the minister give us an idea as to when most of these undertakings will be commenced?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should say that we will be able to commence some of the works within a month. Tenders have been advertised in a considerable number of cases while in others the plans are not yet prepared. It will take some little time to prepare the plans.

Public Works Construction


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it
reasonable to assume that the work in connection with most of the undertakings mentioned in schedule A will be commenced within a month?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think so. Some of these works cannot be carried on during all the year, although construction work on the Pacific coast can be carried on the year round.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just move
formally that the following section be added:
This act shall expire on the thirty-first day of March, 1935.
Amendment negatived on division.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to refer to the adoption of the fair wages policy in connection with these contracts, and I think I am in order under this section. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government in these works to enforce rigidly the fair wages clause in connection not only with construction but with fabrication.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps I should have explained on the second reading the procedure which we have adopted. An order in council has been passed which provides, first, that Canadian materials shall be used where available; second, that if Canadian materials are not available, then materials from within the British Empire shall be used. It is only when materials from either of these sources are not available that the contractor may supply from foreign countries. For some years we have included in all our contracts the schedule of wages adopted by the Department of Labour each year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does that apply to sub-contracts?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These vary from year to year. I will take up the sub-contracts in a moment. This schedule of wages is attached to the specifications and made a part of the contract. It is posted on the work; the contractor must comply with it and we follow up very strictly to see that he does comply with it. With regard to sub-contracts, there seems to be some constitutional difficulty in the way. We go as far as we can go to reach the limits of our power under the constitution.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the use of local labour and materials?
Mr. STEWrART (Leeds): That has been suggested. When you ask a man to sign a
contract containing a provision which enforces him to employ local labour, you are immediately in difficulty. When you- stipulate where he shall get his labour, and that sort of thing, he probably may have some claim for extras. WTe have had a large measure of success in making representations in this connection to the contractors, and we do all we can to see that local labour and local materials are used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That can be done in the large cities.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You cannot do it in the smaller places.


Humphrey Mitchell: May we rest assured that section 5 of the fair wages act will be enforced?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, as far as
we have jurisdiction.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would suggest that
no overtime be permitted to be paid in the carrying out of these contracts.
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): Overtime is permitted only in cases of emergency. Sometimes a contractor makes representation that it is necessary because of the season of the year. Sometimes if the work is carried on to a certain stage the contractor can provide work for his employees, perhaps during the winter time. Each of these applications is considered on its merits, and dealt with accordingly.


Humphrey Mitchell: With so much unemployment, I cannot imagine any job requiring overtime. I have no objection to running a job twenty-four hours a day with shifts, but I think there should be a limit to the hours worked by any one man.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule A.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
trespass for a few minutes on the time of the committee? I am reasonably satisfied with the appropriations for British Columbia, but I want to refer particularly to the $2,000,000 item which I understand is to be under the control of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). I see that a portion of the Big Bend highway is mentioned and I want to recommend to the minister that as far as possible in the interests of Canadian traffic from shore to shore this highway be completed as soon as possible. The minister is aware of the financial difficulties that keep British Columbia at the present time from carrying out its part of the contract, and my recommendation is that if at all possible he should improve^ the highway from Yoho park to Golden in British Columbia and, if it can be
Public Works Construction

r;
done, take over from the province the road up to Revelstoke park. All the boards of trade, automobile associations and business men's organizations are in favour of the suggestion.
I want to commend the minister for the small item for bank protection in Stanley park. It is small but a step in the right direction. And now I wish to submit a human appeal and that is the very urgent necessity to-day for a new tuberculosis sanatorium in greater Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not within our
jurisdiction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I submit that it is, in this way. I believe it is correct to say that in one or two instances the dominion government has provided twenty per cent of the cost of sanatoria, and that is all I ask for in this connection. To-day in greater Vancouver particularly there exists a very grave emergency in regard to tuberculosis. There are 1,600 active cases and probably about 1,000 not yet reported. There are two new cases being discovered every day and there is one death every forty-eight hours. The disease is causing six times as many deaths in Vancouver as are caused by all other communicable diseases, and the mortality is three times greater in that province than it is in Saskatchewan. Outside of Tranquille there are at least 2,000 active tuberculosis cases in British Columbia to-day and it is estimated by the medical authorities that twenty per cent of these originate outside the province. In regard to hospital treatment I am informed that it costs at least $1,000 a year for each patient, and the 400 cases from outside cost at least $500 a day. About ten per cent of these pay, leaving $450 a day to be paid by British Columbia, or $165,000 a year. Let me give briefly the death rate from tuberculosis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Bad advertising.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But the facts must be faced and grappled with immediately by the authorities. The death rate in British Columbia as compared with some of the other provinces is as follows:
Per 100,000
British Columbia	 80 T
Saskatchewan	 28-7
Ontario	 46-4
Alberta	 49 T
Manitoba	 56 [DOT] 3
This matter comes within the purview of the Department of National Health, and one of the deputies made a special report on the situation, submitting comprehensive recommendations with respect to the immediate

necessity of facing this very serious problem and the request for an institution to provide for two hundred beds at a cost of $500,000. It is requested that the dominion government contribute twenty per cent of the cost, as was done in other provinces previously, or $110,000, the balance to be financed on easy interest
terms.
I will not go over all the other details. The Prime Minister knows that we have a very serious oriental problem to deal with in connection with tuberculosis. The death rate from this cause may be graphically indicated
by these figures:
White	
Japanese	
Chinese	
Hindu	
General death rate
Per 100,000 53-2 213-5 270-7 1845-0 65-1
This is a grave situation that does not prevail in any other part of the dominion, and I would ask the Miinster of Public Works that, if at all possible, he try to meet the very urgent request of the province, involving a cost of $500,000, for which the dominion government would be responsible to the extent of twenty per cent only. I would urge upon the minister that, somewhere in greater Vancouver, as recommended by the medical authorities of the Department of National Health, he make provision in this regard. This request is made in an earnest and constructive spirit.


Thomas Reid: Is the $300,000 for improvements in Fraser river for some specific purpose?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is for whatever may be found to be necessary. Conditions develop from time to time requiring attention and unfortunately we have not been able to meet all the suggestions of my hon. friend. This amount is to take care of existing conditions or conditions as they develop. I move the adoption of the schedule with the right of any hon. gentleman to discuss any particular item. I have however some suggestions to make in connection with two or three of them. First, in regard to No. 18, Calgary, $1,200,000, which has been the subject of some comment, I suggest that it be amended to read "Calgary or elsewhere in Alberta." There may be some question as to the exact location of the building.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is satisfactory so far as we are concerned. The minister has referred to Alberta and perhaps I may at once say a word or two with respect to the items for that province, or rather for Calgary. The Calgary item is $1,200,000, bar-

Public Works Construction
racks for permanent forces. That is one of three items that come within the constituency of the Prime Minister. The next is Bow River, retaining walli, $150,000', and the other, Banff, Alberta, post office and administration building, $150,000. The other evening I made a mistake in stating that the Prime Minister's constituency was receiving 50 per cent of the money voted for Alberta; I should have said 88 per cent. The total for Alberta is $1,707,400. Of that amount there is $200,000 to the Royal Canadian Police Barracks at Edmonton and there is an item of $7,400 for a telephone line from Keg river to Carcajou, Alberta, making $207,400, but leaving one and a half millions in the Prime Minister's own constituency. On the former occasion I called attention to the apparent discrimination between Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan there are only two items for the whole province, one for Outlook, Saskatchewan, a bridge across the south Saskatchewan river, $275,000, and the other a new public building in Regina, $400,000, making a total for that province of $675,000 as compared with $1,707,400 for Alberta. As regards the constituencies represented by the Prime Minister and myself, Prince Albert, in Saskatchewan, which I have the honour to represent, receives nothing whatever while the Prime Minister's constituency gets $1,500,000. By way of contrast, may I point out what took place in the last session of the last parliament when the Liberal administration was in office. I was then representing Prince Albert and my right hon. friend, Calgary. He was at the time leader of the opposition. Nothing was voted for my constituency at that time, but for a public building in Calgary there was a vote of $1,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To pay for a building
already under construction. It could not be escaped.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot understand how the Prime Minister has permitted these amounts to go into his own constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will explain, if you will give me a chance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It should be
enough to defeat every follower of his in his own province and in the other provinces. Really, the only explanation I can give to myself that seems at all satisfactory is that the Prime Minister must be contemplating retiring from public life and is making a bequest out of the public treasury to the constituency that has honoured him with its representation in this house. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he has undertaken to vote
$1,500,000 to his own constituency and these paltry amounts to others. He is all powerful in these matters, and this is what the schedule reveals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am simply astounded
that one with the experience of the right hon. gentleman would speak in the way he has to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was more
astounded by what I saw in this schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not reflect credit to this parliament that he should make the explanation he has made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say the same about what appears in these estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my right hon. friend
will take trouble to listen he will have no difficulty in understanding the matter. In the first place the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting beside him, knows the conditions in Banff; he was Minister of the Interior. An opportunity is afforded to secure the old Brett sanatorium property for $20,000, the hotel having been burned. There is no administration building and no post office building in Banff. The town is visited by more people than is any other part of southern Alberta, and the complaints have been very numerous and have been directed against this government ever since we took office that we did not provide a post office and administration building. I felt that under normal conditions it was impossible to do so and this vote which has arisen because of the handing back to the people of the increased value that has come from gold has enabled a national park, which was in no sense looked upon as belonging to my constituency, to benefit. This was an opportunity to establish a decent administration building and a post office on a site that we should have had when the park was laid out, a site across the bridge on the main street of Banff. That is that.
Second, the retaining wall is being constructed because of the negligence of the right hon. gentleman's government. When he transferred the natural resources to the province, despite the protests that we made that he had not vested the waters in the province and had retained them for the dominion, he and his law officers persisted that they were right and we were wrong. They subsequently changed their minds and found out that we were right, that no steps have yet been taken to vest those waters in the province. This involves a very considerable difficulty because the Irrigation Act provides that those waters
Public Works Construction

are the property of the crown in the right of the dominion and the irrigation works that have been constructed lying east of Calgary, enhanced the flow' of water so that the bed has been eaten out by the scouring of the water until there is only a short distance between the water and gas and other pipes in that area. That explains the item, but it may interest my right hon. friend to know that the major part of the work is in East and not in West Calgary, the latter being my constituency. Very little and, in fact, I think under the new boundary none of it is in West Calgary.
The third item, that is the $1,200,000 is one about which I was quite confident that a person who has the attitude of mind of suspicion and distrust the right hon. gentleman has toward problems that affect public life would at once charge me with an effort to give to the constituency of Calgary more than it should receive. These are the facts: For long years the permanent force of this country has been seeking some permanent barracks. I believe the permanent force wd.ll continue to exist as long as governments exist in this country. It is a very small force but it serves to preserve the civil institutions of the dominion in times of civil disorder or insurrection or riot. It is essentially a police force for Canada. A unit of that permanent force has been in Calgary for some years but it has been so poorly housed it has bad to be reduced and it is occupying the armouries that belong to the non-permanent militia, greatly to their detriment and greatly to the detriment of the efficiency of militia headquarters. This work involves the construction of ten or eleven units and it cannot be done to supply accommodation for horses and men for less than that sum of money. Recently the city council by a majority protested against that work being constructed in Calgary and I asked the Minister of Works to provide that the item should read: "or elsewhere in the province of Alberta." That is that that work should be constructed in the province of Alberta which is to be the home of a unit of the permanent force. That is the explanation of the item. Because that has been done it is charged that I have been guilty of many offences in endeavouring to remedy an injustice that has been done to the permanent force for the last ten years, because wherever the barracks are, the permanent force will be. If the building is not in Calgary, the permanent force will go somewhere else. That is the position.


Charles A. Stewart: We tried
to get it to Edmonton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt as to that. But the necessity for the work was the only factor that governed in any of these matters. When the right hon. gentleman referred to the estimates of 1930 he must have known first of all that the public building is not in my constituency. That is number one. Number two is that in 1912 the government of that day acquired the site but the post office building, which it is, was erected originally on lots given to the crown by citizens of Calgary, the other lots being bought, and the site on the corner of Second street east and Eighth avenue was acquired in 1912 with a frontage of 250 feet on Eighth avenue. The contract was let and the sum of $1,000,000 in the estimates was to pay the contractor for the completion of the building which was completed in the fall of 1932. That is the story.
It seems to be idle to endeavour to induce hon. members opposite to believe there are those still living in this country to whom the question of public necessity is the governing factor in determining how money shall be expended. In this case there was necessity and no man knows the necessity better than does the hon. member for West Edmonton with regard to an administration building and a post office at Banff. Those who have read the press of that community and the criticisms made of successive governments because of lack of accommodation will understand what I mean.
With respect to the scouring of the Bow river and the wash-off of the water power, as I told my colleagues, unless we still owned that river, we would not for a single moment suggest that the work be done. On the other side of the river, as relief works were erected riprap works; we are doing this to supplement them and the majority of the work is in East Calgary.
As I said before, wherever the barracks are erected they are for the unit of the permanent force that must be housed and stabled somewhere west of Winnipeg. Thus far that unit has been in Alberta. This proposal is at my suggestion that the minister should move that there should be added the words: "or elsewhere in the province of Alberta."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman says that some of these items are due to the neglect of the previous administration and are necessary to fulfil an obligation outstanding for ten years. Why then was this not done in the first or the second or the third session or the fourth session while the Prime Minister has been at the head of the administration? Why do these items com!

Public Works Construction
into this bill just before prorogation, at this last moment of what I believe is the last session of this parliament? This item of $1,200,000 for a barracks is one that ought to have appeared in the Public Works estimates and should not have appeared in any measure that relates to purposes of relief.
I want to take exception to these enormous sums for military and police purposes being voted under the pretext of relief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members say'"oh, oh;" Have they read the schedule? Look at the large items in this schedule, for military and police purposes: Calgary barracks for permanent force, $1,200,000; Edmonton, Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks, $200,000; Kingston, Ontario Royal Military College, $350,000-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you object to that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not objecting. I am pointing out that these military and police buildings are all being run in under the pretext of being in the nature of unemployment relief. They ought to be in the estimates either of national defence or of the public works department. Then again, a little further on: Montreal, Quebec, armoury, $200.000, and then: City of Ottawa, building to be put up here for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, site acquired, $1,200,000. Finally, Vancouver, armoury, $240,000. Here are large sums being voted in this measure for police and military purposes. I think that instead of spending a couple of million dollars for barracks and police buildings in the west at the present time as relief, it would be much better to spend the equivalent amount in constructing stock watering reservoirs which would be of service to the farmers of Alberta.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a provincial matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the kind of relief that would mean something to the people of the province. This business of always bringing forward some humane or alleged patriotic purpose to do in one way what the government hesitates to do in an entirely different way namely in the open, is the kind of thing in this bill that I object to above everything else.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works. As i understand it he is moving an amendment that the amount of $1,200,000 for a barracks at Calgary be in Calgary or any other place in the province of Alberta. I would suggest
to him that there is $1,500,000 to be spent in the city of Toronto; why not move an amendment that that be spent, if not in Toronto, in some other parts of the province of Ontario.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If there was any specific reason we might do that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I might be able tc point out some specific reason.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the minister is making a mistake in moving thal amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am moving it.


Charles A. Stewart: Or the Prime Minister. If it is going to cost $1,200,000 to construct a police barracks in Calgary, why not spend it and take the responsibility of spending it? This is one of the reasons why I object to the power taken by the government to transfer items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no such power being taken.


Charles A. Stewart: We are
either voting these items as relief or as a straight estimate. I take it we are voting it as relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Relief would be the same.


Charles A. Stewart: As far as I am concerned, as a representative from the province of Alberta I have no particular objection to the expenditure in Banff. I hardly think that the Prime Minister should be charged with discrimination in that regard, because the park is a national institution for the benefit of all the people of Canada. But if these items are for relief, and as the city of Edmonton and the city of Calgary are almost equal in population, with an almost identical relief problem, why are we voting for the city of Calgary as a relief proposition -quite apart from whether it is East Calgary or West Calgary-in the neighbourhood of $1,400,000, and only $200,000 for the city of Edmonton? I have a protest from the mayor and council of that city about this matter, and I would not be doing my duty if I did not bring it to the attention of parliament. Edmonton's responsibility in the way of relief is just as great as that of Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Yet I hear hon. gentlemen saying-and I am not protesting-that it is necessary for these works to be performed by local labour. That leaves Edmonton in a bad position, particularly as
Public Works Construction

the government have announced that they are not going to continue direct relief. Naturally the mayor and council of Edmonton are exercised over this matter. In the city of Calgary, with a population of about 80,000,
81.400.000	is to be spent, which is a vastly different proposition from the expenditure of
8200.000	in Edmonton, provided, as I have said, it is for relief, and that direct relief is to cease. It means only one thing, that this government is discriminating against the city of Edmonton in favour of Calgary. If direct relief were being continued I would not have a word to say, because then the necessities of Edmonton would be taken care of. But if the government say that this is for relief purpose-and they have said it repeatedly-then they are not treating Edmonton fairly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I also had a letter from the mayor of Edmonton, and I wrote a letter to him. The reason that only 8200,000 is allotted there is that there was no other public work or undertaking required in Edmonton for which federal expenditure could be made. That was the position. In consequence of correspondence and negotiations with the provincial government we believe we have plans that will take care of the unemployment situation in the north. I quite agree with everything the hon. gentleman has said; I am fully aware of it. I wrote to the mayor, and I say to the hon. gentleman now, that public necessity was the reason for these items in the schedule, and not otherwise. In view of the fact that the capitol buildings have been constructed to the extent they have and the university buildings to the extent they have, and other public buildings such as the post office, there did not seem to be any building that was suggested by the construction survey or by our own except the barracks for the mounted police. The reason they were included was that it is better than paying rent. As there is no interest payable on the money used in the construction of these works, the whole $40,000,000 being available under the circumstances to which I alluded the other day, and as the amount we pay for rentals is very substantial, this will represent a great saving which will enure to the benefit of the taxpayers of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I would point out to the Prime Minister that there is a very considerable expenditure to be made in the national park at Jasper-I intend to refer to it when we come to it-and would ask that some special attention be given to drafting men from Edmonton for that work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to say a word regarding this shifting of items from one place to another-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is nothing of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the hon. gentleman speaks of that I want to say that the barracks is not a question of shifting, but they have to go some place in the province of Alberta if the permanent unit is to remain in that province. That is the reason for that provision. .


John Campbell Elliott: Then I take it that the Prime Minister's position is that this building shall be built, but the site is not yet settled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That might be.


John Campbell Elliott: If the site for that building is not settled I say leave this estimate until some definite site can be submitted to the committee. That is the way to pass public works estimates-know where you are going to place the building before putting the amount for it in the estimates. The members of this house should pass not only on the site but on the building and the amount.
Then I want to say something in regard to the buildings in Ontario. In Ontario-and it strikes me this is not complimentary to this government-large sums are to be spent in the ridings of certain members of the government. I refer particularly to the grants to the city of Guelph, the city of Fort William, and the city of Kingston-it also I think is large-having regard to other places for which this bill makes no provision at all. I was Minister of Public Works long enough to know that if you have the money you can find plenty of places to spend it to good advantage, but I do not think it is complimentary to the government itself to have these large sums going to the constituencies represented by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and1 the Minister of Railways and Canals. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice here; I happen to have before me his views on these buildings at a time when there was money in this country with which to construct them. May I be pardoned for a moment if I refer the house to Hansard of March 10, 1927, when we were passing estimates not for a few million but for a few thousand dollars. The present Minister of Justice was complaining about an item of some $12,000, and he said:
As I said before, if we had the money in the treasury, if our finances were in a flourishing condition, these buildings might be all

Public Works Construction
right; they might be very appropriate in these places. But these places have waited for a long time without any very great public inconvenience that we know about, and I say there is no warrant 'whatever for the expenditure of $20,000 at this place any more than there is for the expenditure of $12,000 at Kensington, Prince Edward Island.
Those were the days when we were reducing the debt and reducing taxation; we had money with which to construct buildings. I want to tell my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that the people of this country, on whose backs this taxation will fall, are suffering about as badly this year as they have suffered in any year of their existence. That applies particularly to the farming communities, and I see that in this list of buildings those communities are overlooked to the greatest degree.
A couple of years ago the government told us, in regard to unemployment relief, that they would like to have suggestions from all members of the house. At that time I took the liberty of suggesting to the Minister of Labour that he relieve the rural constituencies, in which there were no harbours and which perhaps could get along for a few years longer without public (buildings, by eliminating as many as possible of the level crossings. I directed attention particularly at that time to the work that this would supply to men and teams in rural constituencies, many of which are not receiving a dollar of the money being expended by this government. Nothing of that kind has been done.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is mistaken. We passed special votes for the board of railway commissioners to assist them in eliminating railway crossings. I well remember at least $1,000,000 being voted for that purpose, so my hon. friend is not right in saying that nothing of that sort has been done.


John Campbell Elliott: In what year was that?


Robert James Manion: In 1931 or 1932.


John Campbell Elliott: I direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that these level crossings still exist.


Robert James Manion: There are thirty thousand of them in Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: And there are just about as many now as there were when hon. gentlemen opposite took office.


Robert James Manion: There are a few less.


John Campbell Elliott: Unfortunately, in the county in which I live, and in the adjoining county, there are a great many very dangerous railway crossings. A short time ago in the town of
Rodney we had a level crossing accident in which four or five of the flower of the Canadian nation were wiped out in a flash. This is happening every day; you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading of such accidents, yet we have these large amounts expended in urban districts with very little consideration given the rural districts. I very much object to that.
I notice that in this schedule there are amounts to be expended generally; I want to make a plea to the Minister of Public Works, and I hope he will pay attention while I make it. I do think that, out of the amount he will have at his disposal, he could very well utilize a substantial sum to assist the railways in eliminating level crossings. I say the same to the Minister of Railways with regard to the sum he will handle. The Minister of Public Works was good enough to supply me with the estimates for each department, and after all, while he talks about these not being public works in part, let me call his attention to the fact that of this total sum nearly $30,000,000 is for the Department of Public Works. There is $700,000 for the marine department, $15,000 for national defence, $2,000,000 for interior, $500,000 for Indian affairs and $240,000 for railways and canals. I do think that if you are going to attempt to give work to men and teams in the rural constituencies you cannot do it in any better way or in any way which will arouse less jealousy as between the different parts of the community than by endeavouring to eliminate these level crossings which are such a great menace to the people of this country.


James J. Donnelly: In reading over this schedule I was very much surprised to find such a small grant for the province of Saskatchewan. If this were divided according to population the province of Saskatchewan should receive between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000, but we find only something like $675,000 going to that province. I do not think any part of the world or any part of the Dominion of Canada has suffered as much or needs employment more than Saskatchewan. A short time ago the Prime Minister said that he had in mind only two things in drawing up this schedule, first the relief of unemployment and second the necessity of the work. If he had those two things in mind I would suggest that there is no section of Canada that is more in need of aid than the southern part of Saskatchewan, and the southern part of western Canada generally. For five years these people have had no crops; for five years they have been practically on the dole. The neces-
Public Works Construction

sity for relief of some kind or other is appalling. If the condition existing in Saskatchewan to-day were to come about overnight, like the Halifax disaster some years ago, we would find relief coming from every section of the world, but here we do not find a dollar given to the people in that part of Saskatchewan to help them in any way.
One of two things must be done. Either those people in the southern part of Saskatchewan must be moved out and the land abandoned or something must be done in order to rehabilitate them. I suggest to the government that something should be done to rehabilitate these people on the land. I still have faith in that part of the country, remembering as I do that for twenty years, from 1909 to 1929, it produced an average of something like twenty bushels to the acre. Those people believe they can still produce crops if climatic and other conditions become favourable. To-day they are suffering from three things, first from climatic conditions, second from soil drifting and third from pests of different kinds which have to be combated. I wish to refer particularly to soil drifting. Not one thing has been done to enable these people to combat soil drifting. This condition is spreading from the south to the north, across the open prairies of Saskatchewan. I say this government should do something about it. Something should be done, and done immediately. Things should be taken in hand either by a commission or by a body of men familiar with conditions in the country. They should buy the necessary amount of seeds, such as broom grass, crested wheat grass, rye grass and things of that kind, and those [DOT]grasses should be supplied free of charge. The people should be taught how to use it and what to do in order to prevent soil drifting which is seriously affecting the prairies and destroying our lands.
This question is of paramount importance not only to the citizens of Saskatchewan, but to the whole of western Canada. If something of the kind is not done that section of western Canada will have to be abandoned and the people will have to be moved out. They have depended on one thing, and one thing only, to prevent soil drifting, and that is moisture. Moisture has come at certain times, and to a certain extent it has prevented the drift, but not to a sufficient degree to be effective.
This condition must be studied from a scientific standpoint. I would be out of order if I were to suggest or to move any vote for

these purposes. I have before me a newspaper clipping dealing with this subject.
Saskatchewan's master farmers, agricultural experts and departmental officials will meet in conference to discuss and seek solution for the soil drifting problem.
Hon. W. C. Buckle, Minister of Agriculture, in discussing the need for such a conference said:
"There seems to be too great reliance upon soil moisture conditions alone, to prevent soil drifting. It would appear to be necessary to give greater attention to strip farming and cover crops as tillage methods."
I suggest to the minister that something must be done. There is a grant in the schedule for a building in Regina. I do not know what building it is, but I will say this: Buildings are all right, but invariably when one building is erected another is emptied. That is the condition, unless there happens to be no building in existence. In using an old building the only consideration is the rent which must be paid, and if you are paying too much rent you must cut it down. Some of thiis money provided for in the schedule should be given to the farmers to buy seed, to build dams to preserve the moisture in order to prevent the soil drifting. I urge that the Minister of Public Works should take the matter up with the Minister of Agriculture, that something should be done at on-ce to teach these people what can be done to prevent the drift, and to bring back the conditions which obtained in the past. Knowing that a new grant cannot be made, I have seen fit to move, seconded by Mr. Bothwell:
That item No. 145 of schedule A be struck out and that the moneys therein provided be used for the purchase of grass and other seeds and for such other forms of state aid wdthin the limit of this vote as circumstances and conditions after thorough and competent inquiry may warrant in order to intelligently and systematically assist the farmers in the dried out areas of the west to rehabilitate themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution is out of order. It contemplates a public expenditure, and only a member of the government can move it.


James J. Donnelly: Why is it out of order? I am not asking to reduce the amount. I am simply asking to change it from one item to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It contemplates a public expenditure.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Rule 510 is as follows:
It is not allowable to attach a condition or expression of opinion to a resolution in the committee of supply, or to change the destination of a grant.

Public Works Construction


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to rule the amendment out of order. We are on a roving commission anyway; we are going here, there and all over Canada, in one province and another. We want something before us for a little while besides pork barrels, hogsheads and that sort of thing, do we not? This proposed expenditure of $40,000,000 launched a few days ago was especially to take care of the unemployed. It is now understood that it is for pork barrel purposes, about three-quarters of it. In his defence the Prime Minister mentioned nothing about unemployment. He tried to defend it on another score altogether.
We all remember the time the right hon. gentleman had in getting elected in 1921; indeed he failed to get elected at that time. His back is against the wall as badly to-day as it was in 1921. I hope the Liberals will not join with the Labourites in Calgary as they did in 1921; that would be too dear a price to pay for the defeat of the Prime Minister. But if they did do it, they could defeat him, and he would require this pork barrel and several like it to avoid defeat. That would apply not only in Calgary, but to all the ministers in other parts of Canada. They know what happened in the present temper of the people to their confreres in Saskatchewan. There is not a seed Tory left over in the Saskatchewan legislature for another campaign. They will have to get seed Tory relief through the peace, order and good government provisions passed by this aggregation over here, the so-called government of Canada. It is about time they were asking for another mandate, if I know anything. They are cutting up didos like this, trying to get a few seats by redistribution, trying to swipe a few more seats through the franchise bill, and hoping to retain power by those and other questionable means. And now the pork barrel is being rolled around into nearly every Tory constituency.


James Houston Spence: You had better get out of its way.


William Richard Motherwell: Who is trying to talk? Now the committee has a proposition. My right hon. leader-


An hon. MEMBER:: He knows more about it than anybody else.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Are you calling me to order?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: No.


William Richard Motherwell: I advise nobody to try that trick. I am not in the humour at all. I will bid good-bye to the government after prorogation, and express all kinds of good wishes and good will, but I will not wish them a return to power. I will have lots of good fellowship with them, but I am not in the humour to allow the prorogation of this house without protesting against these almost desperate and heroic efforts made by the government to retain power. That is exactly what they are doing all this session and did most of last. My right hon. leader suggests that instead of all these buildings on the prairies we might better consider the advisability of trying to put agriculture into something like permanently decent shape, especially in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. I would ask any hon. member in this building to dare-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: To dare, I say, to declare out of order or even challenge the appropriateness of this proposition. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) is making a practical proposition, and my right hon. leader did the same. What good would those cities be, anyway if there were no farmers around and about them? I want to risk any reputation I have by stating that much of southeastern Saskatchewan can be rehabilitated. I have studied them and lived on the plains for over fifty years. Not only have I studied the plains in Canada but, not personally but through interviews and reading I have studied the plains of Russia, and I know something about windy farming conditions.
What are my hon. friends grinning about over there?-empty heads that have no knowledge of prairie agriculture. I do not expect them to, nor have they had an opportunity to learn of it. I want to say right now that this government has been looking on complacently for the last four years as if everything was going well on those southwestern plains. And they have never raised one hand to avert the impending disaster rapidly approaching those formerly wonderfully fertile plains, converting those great productive lands into an Arabian or Sahara desert. That condition has come about by soil erosion and through the action of hurricane winds. The government has not done a thing-point to one, and I will apologize. I am going to mention one teeny, weeny, little bit the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) tried to do. He did get
Public Works Construction

some money to start the distribution of clover and grass seed. That might have helped but I have been able to find little if any of it in that vast southwest country. He just got this policy nicely started when his colleagues cut the Minister of Agriculture's estimates to the bone. Now they are putting up buildings and making all kinds of unnecessary expenditure ; they are spending forty millions under this bill, of which three-quarters is for election purposes, and leaving that great country destitute. No one is stretching out a hand to help it at this critical time. It must be either helped or abandoned.


Robert James Manion: Saskatchewan for its population has received more money from this government than any other province, and has received more help per capita than any other portion of Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: Why did they give a million and a half to Calgary and only $400,000 to Regina if Saskatchewan is hit worst?


Robert James Manion: Because we have given $30,000,000 to Saskatchewan already.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are paying good interest on it.


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) is getting a good hunk himself. Outside of the little bit the Minister of Agriculture has provided as already mentioned, nothing has been done towards seeding down and rebuilding that area. It is just a fleabite, what has been done towards permanent cure-something you could put in your eye and not see any the worse for it. That is all that has been done to avert the calamity which has been facing that country since 1929.
The wind is driving the soil all over creation. The reports from Sault Ste. Marie stated that the sun was blinded this spring with the dust from the Saskatchewan and Alberta plains. They had to turn on their gaslights at midday to dispel the gloom occasioned by the prairie dust. Although the average farm may have a mortgage, even that will not hold down the soil if these high winds prevail. Our farms are being strewn anywhere between the Rocky mountains and the Great lakes, and even farther. This government have taken no responsibility in this matter. What steps have they taken? Not one, except the little mite of the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not think any of that found its way into that territory. My right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) has suggested
[Mr. Motherwell.!
that if water supplies were secured it would remedy one serious condition at least. The hon. member for Willow Bunch has suggested that something be could done in the way of giving assistance to the farmers in order to make it possible for them to rehabilitate themselves. They know how but they have not the wherewithal to carry out their know-how. They are down and out; they are out at the elbows and down at the heels. They cannot raise themselves and go under their own steam because they are too impoverished. They must receive state aid for permanent cures. As the hon. member for Willow Bunch has said, there are two alternatives. We must either abandon that vast territory or come to its aid and get it on its feet. You cannot go along the way you have been doing for the last five years with a policy of doles and feed and all that sort of thing, because you will have a charge on both the federal and the provincial authorities in perpetuity. They will never come back enough by themselves to make a new start.
What is to be done? There is only one way to stop drifting. I admire the heroics of my good friend Mr. Bryant who conceived the idea of planting enough carragana shrubs and hedges to stop the drifting. That gentleman was doing his best but I do not know how many years it would take to succeed via that route. I doubt if it could be done in one hundred years, and by that time we and our children will be dead. There is only one permanent way I know of to stop this soil drifting. Take the land held in the hands of the crown and seed it down with broom grass or some other suitable grass. Crested wheat may be used, but I think the broom is better. We should put that wind swept region back in the state in which we found it fifty years ago, restore it to its soddy condition. That would provide a binder to stop the drifting. The other fifty per cent of the land could be taken care of on a rotation basis, including fall rye grass ind clover. There will have to be some sind of a follow up policy, something like a land utilization commission to take charge of this vast area. There would have to be government supervision, there is no question about that. I remember when I had the privilege of being in the Regina house we had district representatives in that stricken area. Doctor Booth at the head of the economics branch was one of them. We knew there were special troubles which required special aids in order to enable the farmer to handle that country to advantage. But there is not one of these things being done.

Public Works Construction
Why? This government does not know enough about prairie agriculture to evolve a policy. How could they know? You cannot teach what you do not know yourself.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Is it not a fact that you brought in professors from the United States to try to seed that land and it proved an utter failure?


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot hear my hon. friend. I am used to the practice of talking just loud enough for Hansard to hear. Shout it out! Here, I will get my periscope on you. I have all the juice turned cun; get up, throw back your shoulders and let me hear you. Has the hon. member nothing to say? Then let him forever hold his peace and not be interrupting me.
This is a very serious matter. I have been a resident of Canada all my life and I have lived fifty-three years in my adopted province of Saskatchewan. What has happened in that vast southwest territory, during the past thirty years? They have grown wheat continuously till the fibre is gone in the windiest part of the west. That country is especially windy right up to the foothills. In hot weather the high winds create a peculiar suction upwards. This is only beginning to be understood. The soil is taken up in fine dust like flour. With another five years like the past, the top five or six inches of soil will be practically all gone-where to, I do not know. It will be in the gullies and sloughs; it can spread it over a thousand miles and yet show very thin. If the top soil is blown off for another five years, ninety per cent of the farmers in that area will be lying on their backs on the hard pan with their tummies and their toes turned up. That is what will happen. I see an hon. gentleman shaking his head as though I was trying to string him, but let me tell him that this is all true and all too true.
I was brought up on a farm in Ontario where the top-soil in one field was removed by fire in the clearing of it. This happened over a hundred years ago but it has never been the same since, although it has been fertilized with ashes, with strawy manure, buckwheat ploughed in, and so on. It is still just blue clay, as hard as a brick. It is bad enough when the top-soil is burned off, and the ashes are left behind, but when the topsoil is blown off nothing is left but the pebbles, which will not blow, and hardpan. That is an infinitely worse condition, and a hundred years of reclamation will not bring it back once you lose the top five or six inches of soil. I cannot see how hon. gentlemen can defend their non-action in endeavoring to meet this 74726-289
condition. This area is one of the most productive parts of the prairies; if it gets seven or eight inches of rain or even less during the growing season it will then produce magnificent crops of thirty or forty bushels to the acre-I have seen crops of fifty or sixty bushels -of the highest quality wheat on what is now a bleak wilderness. If this great period of production had been distributed over the whole period since that country was first settled about thirty years ago, it would average a very nice crop every year, of about fifteen or eighteen bushels to the acre. The farmers thus far have been producing therefore an average of fifteen to eighteen bushels to the acre. But it seems that our predisposition is to plunge, to let money burn a hole in our pocket unless it is spent, expanding and expanding. And can you blame them, having obtained these magnificent crops and being innoculated with the virus of empire farming, undertaking vast areas run by combine and power farming generally. In other words, they invested their money in larger operation. That used to be the right thing to do, the enterprising thing, but it is not setting aside anything for a rainy day or making the fat years carry the lean. We all admit that we have made mistakes, and the more unusually prosperous one is in good times the more likely one will be left on his haunches when the hard time comes due to the policy of excessive exhaustion. I don't know whether this is getting into the craniums of hon. gentlemen opposite, or not, but there are not so many of them just now giving me that senseless grin that characterized them at the beginning of this talk. I am not talking for fun's sake but to point out a danger that hangs over a fine piece of our country which in ordinary years can carry itself. But the people there have had five bad years and this is the sixth, and they can carry on no longer without confronting the whole state with the problem as to whether they will vacate that country en masse with the aid of the government or start in now with something else than putting up city buildings which we have done without all along. The one in Calgary may be quite warranted and the Prime Minister may need it to get elected. And I should like to see him elected, because I do not like to see another shut-out such as there was in Saskatchewan recently ; I should like to see at least one hon. gentleman on the opposite side returned at the coming election. So that if they can succeed in getting one elected by putting in another million in Calgary, go to it. But I say, do something for the rehabilitation of agriculture without which that country,

Public Works Construction

neither urban or rural, can never get on ita feet. That is my opinion, and if I am out of order let hon. gentlemen call me to order. But I challenge them to call the motion of the hon. member for Willow Bunch out of order when such a grave question is under discussion. Don't let the government think they can get away with that sort of thing to-night-when they do not like our proposals, turn them down by brute force by cries of order. With these few observations on my part, somebody else can get up and talk, although I have a lot more to say. We can see a plain path ahead, if there is anyone to take the helm, by following which that country can be got on its feet. I will not elaborate it to-night but I am pointing out the necessity of one of two things: either vacate or get behind and rehabilitate. But what is the government doing? Nothing but pork barrel. They are simply putting money into city buildings to save a remnant of them from destruction when
the electors in their wrath descend on them in the next election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
the national parks, the minister the other evening mentioned certain figures which he said represented expenditures in Prince Albert park. He did not, however, say anything with respect to the other parks, and I find that the expenditures there were infinitely greater than those in Prince Albert. What expenditure there was in the Prince Albert park was in connection with relief. I hope that out of this appropriation the minister will see that Prince Albert park is properly treated, for the Prince Albert national park serves the interests and needs of all Saskatchewan. It is the third largest park in actual area and one of the newest, requiring most in the way of initial expenditure for development. Let me give some figures with regard to national parks, to show the comparative expenditures made in 1932 and 1933:
National Parks
Fiscal year ending
Alberta:	March 31. 1932
Banff	 $303,000
Jasper	  137,000
Waterton	Lakes park	 70,000
Fiscal year ending March 31, 1933 $256,000 115,000 64,000
Total

British Columbia:
Kootenay	
$ 26,000	$ 23.000Yoho park	
51,000	45,000Total	
$ 77,000	$ 68,000
Prince Albert: Total....

These amounts cover salaries, wages, travelling expenses, materials, supplies, repairs, etc., and miscellaneous.
The auditor general's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1934, is not yet available but the figures for that year are lower still. Prince Albert park has not been treated as it should have been by this administration, and I hope that the minister out of this appropriation will see to it that its great need is given due consideration. I have here one or two communications which I will not take the time to read, but which I would ask the committee to allow me to insert in Hansard. One is a copy of a communication that was sent to the government from the Prince Albert board of trade, pointing out certain immediate requirements that should receive attention. I should like also to put on Hansard a wire received to-day from the Prince Albert board of trade with respect to some projects that are very urgently needed and which should be made in part out of this expenditure.
	1	:	^1,


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why have all that put on Hansard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any objection I will read them. I am trying to oblige the house in its effort to get through this evening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen wish to sit again on Monday, well and good, but I have been trying to oblige the Prime Minister and meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen that we might get through to-night. If, however, objections are raised I will read these documents. May I point out that during this session, except at intervals, I have relatively said very little on my own constituency; and if now, when the constituency is being starved in the matter of these appropria-

Public Works Construction
tions, I ask that I be allowed to put on Hansard the representations of the constituents themselves, I expect to be allowed to do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no
objection at all from this side. I am not making any objection whatever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who has objected, that before dinner he asked me whether I would accommodate him in seeing that he had time to make certain representations and I told him I would do what I could towards that end by foregoing much that I had intended to say. I am very much surprised that he should be the one to object to a brief statement of this kind, from constituents who have a right to be heard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not in any way breaking faith with the leader of the opposition nor have I sought from him special favours. I asked him his own plan with regard to a certain matter of to-night's program. I knew we were expected to prorogue at ten o'clock and I told him that some of us proposed to discuss certain matters before prorogation. I do not know that the Liberals have been particularly expeditious, so far, in getting the business of the house through this evening in order that we in this corner should have a chance to discuss the matters in which we are interested. Regarding the reading of documents, I have always had the idea that there should be impartial treatment in this house, and again and again some of us have been prevented from placing on Hansard any document that was not read. I cannot see therefore why three or four documents should be presented by the leader of the opposition at the very close and be allowed to go on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I take up time reading them I am preventing my hon. friend from speaking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We will sit here.


William Richard Motherwell: We are not going to prorogue to-night. I will not sit on Sunday morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are two communications, one a telegram I received to-day, and the other a memorandum which came in a letter from the Prince Albert board of trade, to the ministry. Is there any objection to these being placed on Hansard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Carried.
74726-289ji


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will make a note of it and ask that some members of this house should not be so prompt in refusing other members the right to transgress the rules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think anyone has ever objected1. I will hand the documents to Hansard and trust that their representations will receive due consideration.
Prince Albert, Sask., June 27, 1934. Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Board of trade at meeting to-day decided to wire Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Public Works regarding the need for some project to relieve unemployment situation in Prince Albert and district. City council have suggested grade separation and union station, together with air port and air harbour. If government is considering building a bridge at Outlook, Fenton has much superior claim due to the fact that the crossings are invariably the heaviest in Saskatchewan. The average crossings at Fenton would be nearly twice as great as it is at Outlook. We would greatly appreciate any support which you can bring to bear upon the government to secure a fair share of this work for this city and district.
Prince Albert Board of Trade.
Whereas the estimates for the various national parks in Canada were recently before the House of Commons on April 20, 1934;
And whereas the appropriations for the four western provinces as reported in Hansard are allotted as follows: -
(A)	British Columbia: $147,270-
Glacier park	$ 7,470
Yoho park	 68,000
Kootenay park	 61,800
Mount Revelstoke	park	 10,000

(B)	Alberta: $538,294-
Banff park	$246,500
Jasper park	 156,200
Buffalo park	 57,053
Waterton Lakes park	 57,700
Elk Island park	 19,000
Nemiskam park	 1,841

(C)	Manitoba:
Riding Mountain park	$ 62,500
(D)	Saskatchewan:
Prince Albert national park	$ 48,500
And whereas the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have only one national park located in each province as against four in British Columbia and six in Alberta, respectively;
And whereas the Prince Albert national park is the third largest in area in the Dominion of Canada;
And whereas the Saskatchewan national park had to be developed out of a solid wilderness of forest, lakes, and streams, making development much more costly than in the case of some of the other parks;
Public Works Construction

And whereas whilst the Saskatchewan park is the third largest in point of area in the dominion, it is the lowest in point of appropriation amongst all the larger national parks in the dominion.
And whereas the necessary development work in the Saskatchewan park has been retarded greatly through lack of sufficient appropriations with the resultant falling-off in tourist business largely, we believe, through the failure to provide sufficient recreational facilities;
And whereas in the appropriations for this year the amount is only sufficient to take care of regular maintenance and salaries and allows only the sum of $2,600 for sports' facilities;
And whereas this amount is totally inadequate to hasten the proper development of this park with the result that many important projects are being proceeded with much more slowly than should be the case, such as the completion of the eighteen hole golf course with club house; the erection of a fish hatchery in the park to restock the larger lakes; the completion of the road to the narrows; the establishment of campsites at the other lakes and the provision for an additional campsite at the other end of lake Waskesiu; the completion of Buffalo park, etc.;
And whereas, in our opinion, it is grossly unfair that the province of Saskatchewan, with the largest population of any of the three prairie provinces, should be placed in the position where its appropriation amounts to only about 9 per cent of the appropriation in Alberta and approximately 77 per cent of that allotted to the province of Manitoba;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that we strongly urge upon the federal government, through the Hon. T. G. Murphy, to have the appropriation raised to at least the sum of $100,000 in order that the necessary improvements may be carried out without further delays and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Hon. K. Weir, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and Saskatchewan federal members and T. C. Davis, Esq., M.L.A.


Robert Gardiner: I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the committee to discuss the program now under review. It will probably to some extent take care of unemployment throughout Canada in our cities and towns but so far as a certain portion of western Canada is concerned, which the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) have brought to the attention of the committee to-night, a situation exists on account of which the people need work just as badly as do the people in the cities and towns. This is a problem that the federal government will have to solve sooner or later because I hold the federal government responsible very largely for conditions that now exist since they invited people to settle in a part of the country that should never have been settled. I do not apply that to the whole of Saskatchewan; southern Saskatchewan has been an extraordinarily fertile portion of the west, but because of certain conditions, more particularly because of

the lack or the running out of fibre in the soil, the situation has altered very much from that in the earlier days when the soil there was more productive. But as regards the constituency I represent and a very substantial portion of the country straight south from where I live to the international boundary, I know when it was proposed to open up that territory and to invite settlement there, the officers of the department, and in fact the minister who was responsible for opening it up-and it was a Liberal minister who did this-were warned against opening up that part of the dominion.
What happened was this: a tremendous settlement grew up and people took money in there; they spent their time and labour and to-day thousands of them have been forced out of that area with very little thanks from the people of Canada for their efforts in trying to settle up that territory and make it productive. I still hold that the federal government is responsible for that condition and because of that fact I expect the federal government to take some steps to relieve it. When I communicated with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in regard to certain projects that might be undertaken as relief measures, he pointed out to me very emphatically that the proposals which I had made came under the authority of the provincial government. That is quite true; I admit it. Nevertheless, because of the responsibility of the federal government for opening up that part of the country and because of the need of the people to secure some money with which to buy food, even though they have farms there, I maintain that something should be done and done very soon in those districts.
I remember in 1922 and 1923 we were considering the possibility of rehabilitating that portion of the country because of a couple of dry years. I recall that I suggested to the then Minister of Agriculture, now the hon. member for Melville, certain things which might be done to relieve that situation. For instance I suggested the damming up of all the coulees and the low places for the purpose of holding water for stock. I suggested also the planting of trees along the road allowances and so forth, and also providing for seed for the reseeding of grass in order to put fibre back in the soil. I suggested to the then Minister of Agriculture that I did not expect the farmers to get paid fully for the work they were doing. I suggested that the federal government, in view of the responsibility it had for opening up that part of the country for settlement, might give some slight assistance merely to induce the farmers

Public Works Construction
to do these things which eventually, in my judgment, would assist that area very substantially. The then Minister of Agriculture refused to take any steps or to do anything to save the situation. True, it was not as bad then as it is now and it did not extend to Saskatchewan, but now that he finds the same condition has extended to that province, he begins to think it is necessary to do something to help his people. But I am sure if we had started at that particular time a policy of tree planting, not in small groves around the farms of the people but along the road allowances for miles and miles in order to break the hot winds of that country, and also of damming up all the surplus water that runs off from the melting of the snow in order to create more humidity in that area, I am sure we would not have the condition that we have to-day, but the then Minister of Agriculture did not see fit to do anything in that regard.
I remember that the then leader of the Conservative party, now leader of the Senate, supported me in my viewpoint. I merely take the time now to impress upon the government the necessity of giving some consideration to the problem. I can assure the government that so far as the people on those farms are concerned, they are to-day just as hard up for food as are many people in the cities, true they have some live stock but they have nothing to feed them. While it might be expected that they would be able to produce a very substantial portion of their food supplies, yet when one has had experience of that part of the country and seen how their gardens and everything they have put in after great labour and expense in providing the seed, shrivel and dry up and they get nothing for their labour, one understands the troubles they have and the necessity of giving some consideration to the problem. I therefore suggest to the government that they take any steps they deem necessary to consult with the government not only of Alberta but of Saskatchewan in order to see if something can be done as soon as possible to relieve the situation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I had not intended to say anything at this time because it seems so absolutely hopeless in the dying hours of parliament that any plea we could make would induce the government to alter its policy. In this schedule there are special items for various classes of public buildings and we are told that they are necessary and that that is the reason they are selected. I would say that the fundamental purpose of these works is to distribute purchasing power
among the people, to give work in order that those employed may through their work get money and thus find relief. If we are to have $40,000,000 distributed among the people, there are better ways of spending this amount than by erecting these public buildings. It seems to me that we are thinking altogether too much in the terms of public buildings. I know in the past that is the way in which the Dominion government has spent its money; I know that is the accepted way, but we have reached a stage when that is not the best way of spending this amount. There are other ways that would distribute this $40,000,000 among the people and at the same time would serve the country better than it would be served by the erection of a large number of public buildings. Of course I am very glad that in my own city we shall have one more federal building added, but I would infinitely rather have the government do something to supply the housing needs of the people of Winnipeg. This would mean the same expenditure of money on the part of the dominion government, the same amount of money coming into the pockets of the carpenters, masons and so forth but we would have something that would be of immediate and very substantial service to the people of Winnipeg. Someone may say immediately: That is a municipal or a provincial matter and the federal government cannot do that kind of thing. Why can they not? The municipality or the province would be only too glad if they did. The administrative detail can be worked out. If necessary a corporation might be constituted that would rent the houses In the meantime there are thousands of people in my own city of Winnipeg who are ill housed. A federal building, however beautiful, will not take the place of houses that these people ought to have.
As to this building under discussion, a barracks, it may be necessary-the Prime Minister seems to think it is-that the soldiers should be permanently housed, but I submit that there are many other things that should be done before that. This question of subway or overhead railway crossings, by which lives could be saved, is immensely more important. I do not see how we can do other than make this criticism of each item as it comes along, because only in this way can we point out the need for some other type of relief program.
Now I come to the matter mentioned bj the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr Donnelly). I was very glad that he had, shah I say the courage, to bring it up to-night. I
believe the members of this house are not
Public Works Construction

sufficiently seized of the seriousness of the problem in southern Saskatchewan, in parts of southern Alberta and of southern Manitoba. I overheard some hon. gentleman across the way say we should deal with this problem by ignoring it. Surely that shows lamentable ignorance of the urgency of the problem. There are two things that have to be dealt with, one the transfer of hundreds of thousands of our people within the next few months to an altogether different part of the country. Anyone who has seen these poor people trekking north with their goods loaded on their hayracks, not knowing where they are going and not finding enough grass along the way to keep their stock alive, must realize that it is a desperate condition. Our railways ought to be used, money ought to be advanced to enable them to build homes in the north, to break up land quickly enough that within the next year or two they would have some sort of return for their labour. The actual migration is taking place, but in my judgment there Should be a migration of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of families, from those stricken districts. It is something on which we shall have to spend millions of dollars if an enormous amount of human suffering is to fbe prevented. Then we have the other problem; these large areas of our country in some way ought to be saved; if they are not, the destruction will be extended in every direction, because that soil drifting will not be restricted witlhin the area to which it is now limited but will grow worse. Again I do not think the eastern members realize the difficulty. I saw, within the last few weeks, alongside the railways, fences erected to keep the railway tracks from being covered by the drift, with sand piled against them four or five feet high. I remember years ago visiting Egypt and seeing where fences had been erected in the Roman days in an attempt to keep the sands back from the pyramids, and beyond them other fences erected by more recent engineers. That is precisely the kind of thing that is taking place in Saskatchewan. We are going to have to face it in a very serious form if prompt action is not taken. It seems to me that this government, instead of thinking as governments have always thought so much in terms of public buildings, ought rather to think in terms of the practical problems that confront us here and now. I would earnestly plead with the Prime Minister. He knows something of the west. I have been in the west since I was a child; I went there in 1882. over fifty years ago, and I know western problems, but I never saw conditions such as they are to-day. Housing conditions are bad enough

in many of our cities, and I would plead with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works that even yet they alter their method of providing this relief. I am very glad that they have found the forty million dollars. I am glad that they have come to the point where instead of giving direct relief they are providing works by which people can earn a certain amount of money and for which there will be something to show. All that is to the good. But I submit there are particular types of work that can be done to much greater advantage than the public buildings proposed. I would urge that even at this late stage the government give serious consideration to a complete revision of this program.


Mr. MURPHY:: Before the motion carries
I beg to move-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is another amendment before the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) left the impression upon me that he was saying that somehow or other I preached in opposition something different from what I practised when we were in power. Anyone who thinks that is so has a chance to get up and say so. I say to the hon. member for Acadia in the kindest way I can that I wish he would particularize as to what that was. My then department had not charge of water supply. If anything like that was done, the minister of the interior, or public works, who was a resident of Alberta, did have charge of certain lands, looked after certain weeds; his predecessor drained certain sloughs and he perhaps carried that on a little; certain activities of that nature came under the Department of the Interior. The Indians were, under that same department, and sometimes roads were constructed and that sort of thing. But I cannot think of anything that came under the purview of the Department of Agriculture that Saskatchewan got and Alberta did not get. There is one exception; that is there were no restricted areas established in Alberta to clean up bovine tuberculosis. Alberta was the only province in which they were not established, and my hon. friend knows why perfectly well. Alberta did not want it. He would be the last to say it should be imposed on them. I think the present Minister of Agriculture would be delighted, as soon as they are ready for a restricted area to be established in Alberta, to give them the same treatment the other provinces got in that respect. I would have been the most tickled man in the government if Alberta could have seen its

Public Works Construction
4S79
way to put itself in line with the rest of the dominion in that matter. But they had a perfect right to take the position they did; they were taken up with another method which might prove to have something in it, one that is developing all the time-the B.C.G. test, they call it. Some day they may find an immunizing serum to prevent tuberculosis instead of merely slaughtering the cattle that are found to have it. Science may accomplish that. Meantime until something better is found we were using the other tuberculin method.
When it was decided to establish a seed elevator in Saskatchewan, there was a good deal of dissatisfaction, and I got the consent of my leader to establish a similar institution, or something to correspond to it in Alberta and Manitoba. Because Alberta and Saskatchewan were twin sisters, bom at practically the same time, I was particularly anxious to treat them both evenly and justly. If I overlooked anything or departed in the least from that principle I would have taken it as a great favour if my hon. friend from Acadia had pointed it out to me when I was in a position to deal with it. I recall further that in order to aid in rehabilitating these great plains in the matter of grazing, while the interior department adjusted the regulations to the advantage of the ranchers on more occasions than one, the Department of Agriculture started a demonstration station at Manyberries in southern Alberta for the purpose of trying to rebuild the pastures of that one time great range country. They have been working on that for I suppose twelve years, to see what can be done to improve the pasture land for which that country was once so famous, not only for growing grass but growing high quality nutritious grass.
I think my hon. friend knows about that. However, if he is in the humour I am in, if he can find something that I neglected at that time I will have no hesitation in admitting it, but as my hon. friend says the situation then was not so serious as it is now. That is a big admission. No one ever dreamed that we would see these days. Even in what we called good times there was hard sledding in certain parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, but these difficult times came with the advent of the Tories, and I hope they will go away when the Tories go out of power. That is just by the way; it just happened that way. Other years will come, possibly with better crops and prices. This year it looks as though the world crop would be about five hundred million bushels less than last year, so it would seem that
nature is solving the problem of carry-overs much better than the international wheat agreements are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I expected that from some yahoo over there in the rearguard. Well, it will soon be eleven o'clock, and we are not going to prorogue to-night. I believe in doing things decently and in order not by jamming them though in this way, proroguing in the dark midnight hours as though their deeds were evil.
I was devoting some attention to the well meant remarks of the hon. member for Acadia, which I think left a wrong impression as far as the Department of Agriculture was concerned. I have always found that hon. gentleman a pretty decent hon. gentleman, and I do not think he wants to misrepresent the situation. If he can point to any disparity between my attitude to-day and my attitude then, having regard to the different climatic and economic conditions, I am willing to be exposed. I do not want to take the ground that I am always right; time may prove that I have been wrong in some things this session. I do not think it will; I think time will prove that the stand I have taken this session was the right stand, but I will not feel humiliated if my hon. friend can point to something we failed to do in those days when we had the power to do it, but which we are preaching now. I will excuse hon. gentlemen on the opposite side for a moment if the hon. member for Acadia has anything further to add in that respect. I do not say that defiantly; I mean it in a kindly way.


Robert Gardiner: I could not very well allow the hon. member for Melville to make the statement he has made without replying. He has suggested, together with the hon. member for Willow Bunch, certain things that should be done to rehabilitate the southern portion of Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta. I made the very same suggestions in 1923, not only personally to the Minister of Agriculture but also on the floor of this house. I suggested a policy which the government of that day might pursue in order to rehabilitate small areas then suffering from conditions similar to those existing to-day. The government of that day did not take any steps to remedy the situation, and I must say that if we had taken steps then along the lines suggested to-night we would have had some experience that could have been applied to the larger area where those conditions prevail at the present time.
Public Works Construction


William Richard Motherwell: I am sorry, but my right hon. leader was trying to get something into my head, and I could not listen to the hon. gentleman at the same time. Would he mind mentioning in a word what that specific matter was?


Robert Gardiner: It is only necessary to mention these points: the re-seeding of large areas with grass, with assistance from the government to buy the seed; the damming up of the surplus waters in the spring in order to create humidity in those areas, and the planting of rows of trees up and down the road allowances in large areas in order to protect the land so that the dry winds would not blow the farm from one place to another. Those were the three suggestions I made in 1922 and again in 1923, but the government of the day could not see its way clear to accept my suggestion and give some financial aid in that regard.


William Richard Motherwell: The Department of Agriculture would have been responsible for only one item; that is grass and clover seed. I may explain that every experimental farm-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I can make just
as much noise as my hon. friends can. For two or three years about 1927 the experimental farms in the west were devoted almost exclusively to the growing of reward wheat seed. My hon. friend knows that. Later the necessity arose for those elevators I mentioned. The very fact that in the Moose Jaw seed elevators we installed the very best grass and clover seed machinery that could be found on this continent is an evidence that we had in mind the requirements of that country in that respect. After having used the experimental farms to the fullest possible extent to grow reward wheat seed, when the next period of need came along I was not in charge of the experimental farms. The electors of Canada in their wisdom, or lack of it, decided to elect a new government. It is the prerogative of the people to make mistakes, but it is also their duty to correct those mistakes at the first opportunity. That is just by the way, but I would remind the hon. member for Acadia that we were not in charge in the last half of 1930. Otherwise I feel confident that we would have devoted the experimental farms of the west to the growing of grass seed. At an earlier date I gave the present Minister of Agriculture credit for doing work along that line to the extent that he had money with which to finance it. So I do not think my hon. friend has made out a very serious
CMr. Gardiner.]
case against us, but if there is anything more I will accept the responsibility. I do not pretend that there were no mistakes at all or that coming events were always anticipated.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I have another amendment, that item 135 of schedule A be amended by adding thereto the words, "and construction of new buildings."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Murphy: I beg to move that in
the Interior department item the words "landing fields" be added after the word "highways", and that in the Indian department item the words "construction and" be added, so that the item will read, "for the construction and reconstruction of Indian residential and day schools and hospitals."


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 101, respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons.
He said: The amendments are very minor. The only one of importance appears at page 5, in what we know as the Doukhobor clause. The Senate has transposed the words " in the province of British Columbia " and placed them at the beginning of the clause as was suggested by my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King). Then there is another amendment at page 27 where inadvertently the words appear " in the good opinion of the returning o flic or " and that has been changed to "in the opinion"; they have taken out the word "good". Then, at another point they have taken out the prefix " sub " appearing in front of the word " division ". It was called a sub polling division, and that has been changed.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and con-

Supply-Want of Confidence Motion
currence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons.
He said: The amendments made to this bill are merely changes in the numbering of the sections.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as no doubt hon. members are aware, it had been my intention on the motion for supply to move an amendment to the effect that the present administration no longer enjoys the confidence of the country. I think it is perfectly obvious that such is the case. May I say, however, that I realize all hon. members of the house are very anxious, if at all possible, to conclude this week. I understand if we do not conclude to-night by midnight or before midnight, that we will have to adjourn until Tuesday, as to-morrow is Sunday and Monday is Dominion day, and there being reasons which make it impossible to conclude the work of the session on Monday.
In these circumstances I feel I should be embarrassing the house unnecessarily if I proceeded with the motion to-night which I intended should be the last motion of what 1 believe and hope will be the last session of this parliament. Should I be mistaken, and should there be another, namely a sixth session of this parliament, I shall, if circumstances permit, make it the first motion of that new session. Meantime I think there will be further evidence, both through byelections and probably further provincial elections, that the government no longer enjoys the confidence of the people. I do sincerely feel that this administration has lost completely the confidence of the country, and that it should no longer continue in office. The Prime Minister might well advise us that this being the end of the fifth session of this Parliament, the session will be followed by dissolution. The supply we are voting will be needed in large part to carry on the work of the government through the remainder of the present fiscal year, that is until March 31, 1935. I do not wish to embarrass the government in its effort to obtain what is needed
of that supply. If however parliament should not be dissolved and this government should come back and ask the house to vote supply for the year ending March 31, 1936, I wish to say that the opposition will do all in its power to prevent this government obtaining any further supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure we all greatly appreciate the generous spirit which has been manifested by the right hon. leader of the opposition in foregoing the great pleasure of making another speech with reference to this administration. But I can only assure him that I think he is illadvised in making threats.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not a
threat, it is a duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I laud him for that spirit which prompts him to discharge his duty. I am doubly grateful, as are other hon. members of the government, that he is making it possible to close business to-night, for the reasons he has stated.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Contingencies; further amount required for more efficient conduct of services, $25,000.
James Layton Ralston: I wish to say one word at this time. I had intended to make some extended observations with respect to the tariff board, but under the present circumstances I shall curtail my remarks. In bringing down the bill with regard to the tariff board two years ago the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear, as reported in Hansard at page 3422, that this was to be a court of record. He said:
We are creating a court of record with all that appertains and belongs to a court of record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was Part I, and the hon. gentleman knows it. It has nothing to do with Part II.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend says that was Part I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have made misrepresentations long enough; if we sit here until Tuesday I shall not let those remarks pass.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what the
right hon. gentleman means when he states it was Part I. He provided that it was to be a court of record for all purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.
Supply-National Revenue


James Layton Ralston: He made provision whereby it was to have a seal, it was to have the power of summoning witnesses, and was to have all the perquisites of a court of record. But what did the Supreme Court of Canada say? In the judgment of the court I find this:
The board of customs was, and the tariff board is, in no sense, a court. By force of the provisions of the Customs Act, it is not a judicial body but an administrative body. Its functions were and are purely departmental.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we always said.


James Layton Ralston: That is the court which my right hon. friend always described as a court of record. He told us he was getting a gentleman of the highest judicial qualifications to preside over it. He felt that a court should be appointed for the purposes outlined in his speech on the imperial conference agreement, at page 114 of Hansard, 1932. This is what he said at that time:
We have therefore provided that our tariff board shall act as a judicial body as well as a fact finding body, in so far as their functions of interpreting the agreement are concerned.
That statement is to be found in Hansard of October 12, 1932, at page 114, When the board made a decision with which the government did not agree, instead of my right hon. friend referring to the supreme court the question whether or not the board had made a correct decision, he was careful to make no such reference at all. Instead of that, he referred to the supreme court the question whether the board had jurisdiction. The supreme court expressly refrained from deciding whether the tariff board were right or wrong in their decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly did.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend says it certainly did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Decided it had no jurisdiction.


James Layton Ralston: But it did not decide
whether or not the tariff board were right or wrong in the accuracy of the decisions they made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could not have been right.


James Layton Ralston: Let me read to my right hon. friend what they said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know it.


James Layton Ralston: I read from the judgment of the court:

Copies of the decisions of the board upon the concrete eases mentioned in the order in council, and' also of the reasons for judgment in one of these cases were submitted to the court; but they were placed before us only for the purpose of illustration; and by the questions put, the court is not asked to say if these decisions were right or wrong. It was made clear at the argument that in our answers we are to limit ourselves to the abstract questions referred to us.
The abstract question was not:	Was the
tariff board right or wrong? it was: Has the tariff board jurisdiction? In submitting that case to the supreme court as he did, it seems to me that my right hon. friend intended to discredit the tariff board before the people of this country and the old country. He submitted a question which attacked only its jurisdiction but he deliberately left unchallenged the question as to whether its decision was right or wrong.
I am not going to develop this matter any further although there is a great deal more which could be said. The thing my right hon. friend should have done instead of referring these abstract questions to the supreme court was to make it positive by legislation that the tariff board was intended to carry out the functions which everyone thought it was intended to carry out under Part II of the act. What was the use of saying, as my right hon. friend did, that the tariff board was to be free from political considerations when as a matter of fact it has to go with its hat in its hand and ask the Minister of National Revenue to approve of the decisions which it makes. The right hon. gentleman stated in parliament that it was intended to substitute an independent tribunal for a political tribunal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was dealing with
Part I.


James Layton Ralston: The right hon. gentleman continued:
You have in the one instance a political body, governed by all the considerations that influence political bodies; and we all know just what the pressure of contending interests may be to get a minister to make a recommendation to council. As against that we have this body which is not interested in political matters and makes its decisions free from political influence.
My right hon. friend says he was referring to Part I. Does he mean to suggest that it was to be a political body as far as Part II was concerned? Surely not. My right hon. friend left the impression upon our friends from over the seas, and he left the impression upon this house, that this was to be a board having judicial functions.

Supply-National Revenue


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it has in connection with Part I; the people overseas were not interested in Part II.


James Layton Ralston: Part I simply gives the
power to find facts and suggest to the government what changes might be made in the tariff, and how much tariff should be levied in order to equalize the costs of production. It has no judicial functions in the sense of making a decision which is binding upon anyone. Under Part II it had appeals from the dominion appraiser, and it was expected that it would have some judicial function. What is the use of taking an appeal from the dominion appraiser and solemnly going to this tariff board which has all the paraphernalia of a court, and then after the tariff board has made a decision, coming back to the Minister of National Revenue and asking him if he will please approve the decision of the tariff board? Who will ever go to the tariff board to have that judicial function exercised under Part II when as a matter of fact he would have to go back to the minister to have the decision approved? I do not think my right hon. friend believed that under section 48 the tariff board would have to come back to the Minister of National Revenue to obtain approval of their decision. If he did believe that, then I think he misled the house and the country when he laid down what the functions of the tariff board were to be and when he described the qualifications necessary for the personnel of that board. I say to my right hon. friend that the country was disappointed when he announced in this house that he was not going to legislate to give the tariff board the status to which it is entitled and which it has attained before the people of this country.
I shall take up but a minute more of the time of the house to quote an extract from the Financial Post of June 23, which expresses much better than I can the feeling of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is out of order. Any reference from a newspaper touching the conduct of this house is out of order.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend does not mean that. He knows that anything is out of order which reflects on the proceedings in this house. This is not reflecting on the proceedings of the house, it is expressing the opinion of the country. This journal is stating what should be done with regard to the matter of the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is clear; could I have the ruling of the chair?


James Layton Ralston: Is my right hon. friend going to say that he is afraid to have read in
this house a short statement by a reputable journal which does not reflect upon any member of this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Reflecting on the house.


James Layton Ralston: No, not reflecting on the house but reflecting upon a policy of the government. Does my right hon. friend mean to say that that cannot be read in this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot read anything which introduces another member into this house.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend knows there is no such rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is clear.


James Layton Ralston: The rule is clear that you cannot reflect upon the actions of a member but the rule does not say that you cannot quote a journal's opinion as to a policy laid down by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot introduce into this house another member. You cannot introduce the opinion of a newspaper for the purpose of influencing the opinion of this house. That rule has been so stated from time immemorial because it is adding to the membership of this house another member for the purpose of expressing an opinion and influencing this house.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend has made that statement a number of times but he will find no such rule about introducing another member. The rule he will find is the one which states that you cannot read anything which reflects on the proceedings of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the purpose of influencing the opinion of the house.


James Layton Ralston: I challenge my right hon. friend to read the rule. He will find that there is no rule as to introducing another member. Will the chairman be good enough to read the rule


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Rule 306 reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to. or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


James Layton Ralston: That is the point.


William Richard Motherwell: Seeing that the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is so strong on rules, under what rule are we working at ten minutes past eleven? I do not believe in con-
Supply-National Revenue

ducting the declining hours of parliament by departing from the practices of decency and order in all things, including prorogation. I have seen this trick tried before. It was tried in 1931; I objected then and I object again. I have been here since January 25 without going home, and I am prepared to stay until we prorogue. This working in the dead of night would seem as if our deeds were evil.


James Layton Ralston: I submit that my right hon. friend is wrong, but I am not going to take up time by arguing further. The article reads:
The business community received a tariff appeal court with approval and began, promptly, to make good use of it. Under the impression, untrue as the event proves, that it had judicial powers, the tariff board proceeded to bring order out of departmental red tape and confusion: It nipped political interference in the bud: and it gained the respect and confidence of the business community.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not read any more speeches now.


James Layton Ralston: It continues:
The tariff board, as it stands in the light of the supreme court judgment, can perform only limited services for Canadian business. The government, if not prepared to amend the law-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: It continues:
-and give it the authority of a court, should repeal Part IT of the Tariff Board Act and proclaim, in all honesty,-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I ask the hon. member not to read the article.


James Layton Ralston: It continues:
-that tariff enforcement is to revert to a purely political basis.


Mr. CAHAN:: When we were discussing
Part II of the tariff board bill it was clearly stated to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who invited the statement, that the decisions of the tariff board sitting as the customs board would be subject to the approval of the minister. In order to make it very clear that there was an appeal in certain cases, at the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman I drafted an amendment to that effect. Whatever the opinion of the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) may now be I am quite sure that there was no misapprehension in the mind of his leader to that effect. The discussion is there reported and may be referred to. It is quite possible that the editor of the paper which has been quoted was entirely misled by certain statements that were not in accord-
ance with either the fact or the law which the hon. gentleman had made on several occasions. The hon. gentleman seems to be under a complete misapprehension as to what the facts really are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Peni ten ti aries-
Amount required to carry out agreement between His Majesty and the municipality of the village of St. Vincent de Paul for extension of the present water and sewer system connected with St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, $3,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: I had the floor when this item was up before. I am going to detain the committee only a few minutes. I am compelled to speak to-night on behalf of those guards who were dismissed by the new administration some years ago to promote efficiency. Their notice to go was in these terms: "Guard So and So: Acting under instructions from Ottawa, I have to advise that you will be retired from the staff of this institution to promote efficiency;" or: "Guard So and So: Acting on instructions from Ottawa, I have to advise that you have been retired from your position on the staff of this institution, to take effect from the 25th, to promote efficiency." I have a dozen of them here, notices to men who were dismissed by this new administration to promote efficiency, and now we have information that for eighteen months there has been no efficiency, though these gentlemen have lost their positions. I want to say on behalf of these guards that, at the time the riots occurred, the new superintendent came to my door, without solicitation from myself after he had dismissed about five or six of them, and gave me the promise that these men would be restored. He gave me a straight promise that they would be restored. I went to these men and begged them not to raise any disturbance but to keep quiet because they would be put back in their positions, and I told them that on the word of the superintendent. That word was not fulfilled, but instead of that about thirty more were dismissed. I am speaking to-night on behalf of these men, pointing out the injustice that has been done them. In addition to that, I would point out that if Warden Megloughlin has been dismissed, the people want to know on what ground and for what reasons. Was he dismissed because he was inefficient? Was he dismissed because he had not support from higher up? Or was it because he was carrying out some administration of his own or the administration laid down for him? These are matters that are disturbing to the people of Kingston and to the

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
guards who have been dismissed.. It is too late to discuss the matter to-night, but I can assure the committee that, having waited patiently for some time for an explanation of their dismissal, I am speaking now only in the interests of the penitentiary. No matter what any newspaper or anyone may say, I am expressing my own views, and I have at heart the welfare of these guards and of the people of Kingston as well as of the penitentiary. The people of Kingston are disturbed after the disclosure that has been made to the house that efficiency has not been secured, although a dozen or two of guards have been dismissed. I have done my duty, and though I have not time to-night to discuss the matter further I promise you that I shall return to the subject at the very beginning of the next session of parliament.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Unfortunately it always happens that the penitentiary estimates come up at the very close of the session. I have sat through this session and listened to a good deal of good talk and a good deal that might have been better left unsaid, and I intend to-night to take up as much time as I would two weeks before prorogation.
In the winter the Minister of Justice, discussing the Kingston penitentiary riots, said that they were due to communist activities in that institution. When General Ormond, who was superintendent of penitentiaries in Canada, was listing the causes of the riots in Canada he enumerated eleven, and the last one was the only cause that could be interpreted as communistic. Oddly enough, the riot of October 17-20, 1932, was by no means the only one in Kingston. I take my information from Superintendent Ormond's reports. There was an uprising in Kingston on September 17, 1921; another on January 17, 1923; another on October 3, 1924; another on January 22, 1927, and some sort of disturbance called the conspiracy on August 5, 1931. Then there were the riots in October, 1932. It would be interesting to bear from the Minister of Justice what caused all the other riots, since many of them took place before the communists were in Kingston. It is too thin a reason to give to an intelligent body like the House of Commons, and I think that the events since that speech was made by the Minister of Justice have borne out the contention that the reason simply was not good enough. The minister at that time took the ground that the 50,000 communications he had received asking for an investigation into our penal institutions were from communist sources. I do not know where they came
from, but I do know that the Toronto Globe, which could not by any stretch of imagination be said to be a communist journal, for weeks and even months campaigned in favour of an impartial investigation into the difficulties at Kingston. And not only the Globe, but other newspapers, such a journal as the Whig Standard of Kingston and more recently, since the debate in the House of Commons a few days ago, the Hamilton Herald and many others, have asked for an impartial investigation into all Canadian penitentiaries and particularly Kingston penitentiary, where there has been one disturbance after another. Moreover, such eminent authorities as Archdeacon Scott and Mr. W. M. Nickle, K.C., of Kingston, who had much to do with the defence of certain convicts in Kingston and has for a long time been deeply interested in the conditions in the penitentiary, and whose father was one of three people who made the finest report on penitentiaries we have ever had, have urged such an investigation.
Possibly at this point I might say to the hon. member for Marquette that Major W. M. Nickle, in an interview given the Toronto Globe on Wednesday, June 27, made reference to the hon. gentleman in these terms:
Just to bring this matter to a head, I challenge Mr. Mullins to prove that any instance in my letter to Canon Scott is incorrect or false; and if the government will give me a chance I will prove that what I have stated in my letter is correct in every detail.
His letter, which was read on the floor by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is a terrible indictment of the management of Kingston penitentiary. Surely there should not be required any further urging of the government for an impartial investigation. There should be a royal commission or a special committee of investigation to look into conditions not only in Kingston penitentiary but in all the penitentiaries throughout Canada.
I should like to take some time to give what I think are some of the causes of the riots.
I am going to quote for a moment or two from the decision of Judge Deroche in the Rex versus Kirkland case in which he says:
The men (meaning the inmates) had for months and possibly years been asking for the removal of certain grievances which were in their minds, with little or no response.
Then he goes on to say:
They now decided that on October 17, at three o'clock p.m. they would walk out of the shops and make a peaceful demonstration to impress the warden and through him Ottawa.
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

At the end of the judgment he says again on page 7:
Then to go back to the cause of the riot. This peaceful demonstration which developed into a riot, was for the purpose of emphasizing the demands of the men for redress of certain grievances which had been long and repeatedly denied them. Many of the grievances for which this demonstration was staged have already-
Before this trial took place.
-been granted to the men, proving conclusively to my mind that those demands must have been reasonable.
Those are the words of the judge who tried one of the rioters and in his opinion there was cause-not that the judge wanted a riot- and he gives as proof of his belief that the grievances which' the men enumerated were remedied between the time of the rioting and the judgment made by him. I am, however, inclined to think there has been a slipping backward between that day and this.
Then, too, I want to say something about the number of repeaters. The figures were given the other day by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross), that in Canadian penal institutions twenty-one per cent of all the inmates are serving a term for their second offence; fourteen per cent for their third offence and twenty-two per cent for their fourth offence or over. Using a statement from Superintendent Ormond's report, seventy-five per cent of all the prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries have had previous convictions, for incarceration possibly not in penitentiaries, but, if not, at least in some other place such as a gaol or a reformatory. I remember one time Brigadier General Hughes told me that the average cost of a conviction was SI,200, so if we figure it out on that basis, the repeaters, using the percentage I have just given and the prison population of this year, mean an increased cost to the people of Canada of $6,735,600; that is the repeater cases over and above the first conviction. Therefore, I should think if the House of Commons is not affected by a humanitarian appeal it ought to be affected by a financial or purely material appeal. It is bad business to go on putting men into penitentiaries where they are not reformed, where apparently, after leaving such institutions, they cannot make a place for themselves in life and so return to prison.
I feel the House of Commons ought to take much more interest in this subject than hon. members have shown. It always happens just as it is happening now that this matter comes up at the very end of a session, one gets an indifferent house and nothing is done from year to year. So we have such cases as the

one mentioned in Mr. Nickle's letter and corroborated in Judge Deroche's statement that a man called O'Brien has been in solitary confinement in Kingston penitentiary from August, 1931, at least until July 12, 1933, and is quite probably still in solitary confinement. Since, however, the department guards its secrets so very carefully I cannot say whether that is still the case, but it is quite true that he was in solitary confinement for the period mentioned. Just think of it! a man in solitary confinement from August, 1931, to July 12, 1933! It would have been much more humane to stand him up against the wall and shoot him. The idea of putting a man into solitary confinement for a period running on into two years in a cell three or four times the size of a piano box, to use the term of the report prepared by Nielde, Biggar and Draper, and leaving him there for that length of time, although during that time he has never been tried for the offence for which he was committed to the solitary cell. Whether this has been done recently, I am not prepared to say I would like the Minister of Justice, when he replies, if he does reply, to tell us whether or not O'Brien is still in solitary confinement.
I have also been interested in the case of Tim Buck. There are various reasons for my interest in him. The committee will recall that it was said he was shot at. That was denied, but it was admitted the other day by the Minister of Justice that eleven shots were fired into the cell of Tim Buck. I notice that Major Nickle in an interview which he gave to the Toronto Globe recalled to us all that when crown counsel MacKay was questioning Tim Buck, he, Buck, stated that his cell was the only one of seventy-six cells in D range which was fired at. It would be interesting to me to know on what date he was fired at, whether it was on the riot of the seventeenth or the riot of the twentieth, and whether he was fired at from the corridor directly into the cell or whether he was fired at from the yard outside. It seems rather remarkable that if there are seventy-six cells in range D, one cell should be chosen and eleven shots should be fired into it. We were told the other day that they were fired into it in order to quiet or frighten Tim Buck. I should think it ought to have been a successful method. I do not know whether others in the house feel as I do about the matter, but to me it seems a remarkable action that one cell should have been chosen and these volleys should have been fired into it. The shots were all supposed to have lodged in the ceiling and it is very lucky for Buck that they did. If they were fired from

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
the yard outside they must have been fired by excellent marksmen if they hit the ceiling every time and did not hit Tim Buck.
I am going to quote Judge Deroche again. It was said by the minister that Buck was standing in the door of his cell encouraging the rioters. In this reiport the judge says on page 7:
Buck told them-
That is the .prisoners.
-that the soldiers would not hurt them if they did no violence to person or injury to property.
That does not sound very much like encouraging the rioters or like a terrifically dangerous man who needed to be fired at eleven times in order to cow him. I am going to quote again from page 3 of the same report; it is very much in the same language:
When it was announced that the soldiers were coming, one of the men, Tim Buck, advised the men that the soldiers could not or would not hurt them so long as they did no damage to property or violence to anyone, and instructed the men to gather pails of water and barricade the door, expecting to stand siege.
At the end of this document when Judge Deroche is giving judgment on Kirkland, he gives a modified judgment because he says that they did no injury to anyone. All that would lead one to think that there was possibly as much violence on the part of the authorities as there was on the part of the men.
There is one other protest I wish to make; I feel it is useless and still I want to make it.
I think we have altogether too much military control in penitentiaries. We started off with General Ormond, and then we had Colonel Megloughlin who now has been asked for his resignation. I want to point out that the technique which serves well with normal and healthy men and men more or less free, as soldiers are, would be quite different from the technique required for men who are morally or mentally sick, who are not free and who are embittered and therefore very difficult to deal with. I do not think that the method which works in one case will work in the other. We need to start as soon as possible to handle intelligently our prison population. We need a psychiatrist, as mentioned by General Ross, and we need segregation of prisoners. Possibly the Minister of Justice himself made the best plea for segregation of prisoners of any I heard. I think he said that there were not more than one hundred prisoners in Kingston -he was speaking of Kingston particularly -who were of a violent sort, and that the others were, to use what I think was his term,
law-abiding citizens: I suppose he meant to say they did not give much trouble. One hundred out of something like-I forget at the moment what the population of the Kingston penitentiaiy is; at any rate they are a small part of the total. Superintendent Ormond gave the percentage of incorrigibles as fifteen. In another part of the same report he said that twenty per cent belonged to the bom criminal class. Nickle, Biggar and Draper in the report of 1921 said that fifteen per cent had given trouble, and not more than five percent were difficult to control. From all this I think we can conclude that only a small percentage of the prisoners are incorrigibles. Therefore it would seem a logical and sensible thing to segregate these, and try our best to save the others, not only for their own sake but for the sake of society to which they must one day be returned. Because if these men continue to be criminals they are going to cause destruction to life and property, with a great deal of suffering and misery to people outside the prison.
I feel that the government of Canada should no longer refuse to have an impartial investigation into our penal institutions. If they do, the responsibility must be entirely on the shoulders of the administration. We have done as much as we can do; newspapers and societies and a great number of people as individuals have said there should be an investigation. I believe that the public will never be satisfied until there is one, and I urge upon the government once more that it be held.
Before I resume my seat I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if it is true that Colonel Megloughlin is to be given a position in the civil service, as reported in an Ottawa paper just the other day.


Hugh Guthrie: I know nothing of the report, nor of any foundation for such a rumour.
I should like to detain the committee at some length in regard to the situation spoken of by the hon. member, but as I understand His Excellency is on his way to the parliament buildings, I shall have to reserve my answer to a future occasion, in order that what I think is the desire of everyone may be complied with and the house enabled to prorogue.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has
taken a most remarkable attitude.


Hugh Guthrie: I have given my reason.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has given his reason and I regard the reason as
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

entirely insufficient. The hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) said a little while ago that it is perhaps too late to-night to discuss this, but we have been put off for several years. It is an unfortunate condition, that even a supporter of the government has to admit that he has been put off for several years. We have all been put off for several years. Again and again the government has brought on these estimates at the very latest moment-


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a fair statement. These estimates have been up on at least two previous occasions this session; they have stood from time to time on special request.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) was away.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Last year the estimate was put through at a very late time and without any warning. Often notice is given; last year it was not given. It is true that this year the estimate was held up, or one item, but there is no reason whatever why these estimates could not have been brought down earlier than on the last night.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the welfare of nine hundred men is at stake. They have been neglected for several years. The department has carried on the affairs of the penitentiary in such a way that very serious riots have occurred, riots that have involved heavy expense on the part of the government, and that have shocked the conscience of the people of Canada. I refuse to permit the Minister to say at 11.40 o'clock on a Saturday night that on account of the Governor General coming here he will decline to answer, and that we shall again be put off.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not at all refuse or decline to answer; I gave the reason why I did not at the moment do so. Now I understand that the situation is changed on account of the attitude of my hon. friend who is now speaking: His Excellency will not come, so there will be abundant opportunity on Tuesday.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I congratulate the minister and the government on its good sense in affording an opportunity for the discussion of a most important problem. Now do we go on?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think it would be desirable, in view of the statement made by the hon. gentleman, to discontinue the debate at this hour of the night. It is quite clear that it will be impossible to prorogue before

Sunday morning. I propose to move that the house adjourn until Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would remind the
Prime Minister that he set a very good precedent several years ago for the action we are taking to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to make it perfectly clear that His Excellency is prepared to come at any moment if he is asked to do so, but I will not take the responsibility of asking him to come to this chamber on Sunday morning. It would be within the law, but I will not ask that it be done.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that I took the responsibility, I think twice myself, and it was done once by another, to have the penitentiary items stand over because of the illness of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in order that she might have an opportunity to be present. The thanks that one gets for doing it are found in the observations she made to-night.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I thanked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), on the first debate on this subject this session and I found I did it too soon. Whe have a very good precedent for the house not proroguing on Saturday night but being held over. I remember in 1929 the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, held the house over from Saturday to Monday, and it was then quite the thing to do. I do not propose to have on my shoulders the responsibility for holding it over, because I have sat here constantly ever since the item was discussed on Monday, knowing it had to come up again, I have stayed in the chamber ready to go on ait any time, but it did not come on.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the item carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Chairman, the item does not carry.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I move that when this house adjourns it stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 11.45 p.m. until Tuesday, July 3 at eleven o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Caughnawaga Sanitary Conditions
Tuesday, July 3, 1934