1916-04-26

PAYMENTS FOR PRINTING AND ADVERTISING.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: How much was paid by the Government or any department thereof for printing and advertising during the calendar year 1915, to
each of the following newspapers and companies : The Halifax Herald, the Evening Mail, the Weekly Homestead, and the Royal Printing and Lithographing Company, all of Halifax, Nova Scotia?


Mr. BLONDIN:: Department of Customs: The Halifax Herald, $14; the Evening Mail, $14; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.
Department of ' External Affairs:	The
Halifax Herald, $55.30; the Halifax Mail, $16.10; Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., $134.50.
Department of Indian Affairs: The Halifax Herald, $32.60; the Evening Mail, $14.
Department of Interior:	The Halifax
Herald, $2,625.65; the Evening Mail, nothing; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.
Post Office Department: The Halifax Herald, $124.80; the Evening Mail, $156.50; the Weekly Homestead, $111.10; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery: The Halifax Herald, $7,582.48; the Evening Mail, nothing; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.
Department of Public Works: The Halifax Herald, $75.40; the Evening Mail, $75.40; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.	1
Department of Railways and Canals: The Halifax Herald, $7,646.35; the Evening Mail, $1,281.84; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., $3,269.06.
Department of Marine:	The Halifax
Herald, $347.70; the Evening Mail, $335.10; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., nothing.
Department of Militia and Defence: The Halifax Herald, $183.78; the Evening Mail, $57.75 the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., $356
Department of Naval Service: The Halifax Herald, $569.88; the Evening Mail, $337.45; the Weekly Homestead, nothing; the Royal Printing and Lithographing Co., Limited, $16.


John Howard Sinclair: With reference to an item of $3,705.52, charged in Auditor General's Report, volume 1, page K-61, paid to the Halifax Herald for printing, etc., was this work advertised for tender?


Mr. ROCHE:: The above payment was
for 102,000 " Nova Scotia " pamphlets, 64 pages and cover, with double page coloured insert map. This pamphlet, without coloured insert map, was originally printed in 1908 at $55.20 per thousand. A reprint of same being required, The Halifax Herald were asked to state their price for this work, and their offer of $3,487.50 for 100,000 being considered a fair price, they were given the order.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	With reference to an item of ?1,000, as charged on page K-62, volume 1, of the Auditor General's Report, for ten pages of advertising matter in Evidence of Industrial Ascendency of Nova Scotia, to whom was this money paid?
2.	In what paper or other publication did this advertisement appear?
3.	Was this adv3rtis:ment published more than once? If so, how often?
4.	(a) If Evidence of Industrial Ascendency of Nova Scetia is the name of the pamphlet, who printed same, (b) how many pages and; (c) how many copies were printed, and (d) what was the total cost of the preparation and printing?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Halifax, N.S.
2 and 3. This publication is a pamphlet.
4.	(a) Printed by Imperial Publishing Co., Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; (b) 84 pages and cover; (c) 50,000; (d) Department of Interior paid $1,000 for ten pages of advertising in this pamphlet, but has no information as to total cost of publication.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CLERKS.

Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many c'erks are there in th Public Works D r ai tment who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the department?
5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	7.
2,	3, 4, apd 5. S. Fortin; salary, $2,400; from 4th Sept., 1914; no examination.
F. G. Smith; salary, $1,800; from 17th Nov., 1914; no examination.
A. E. Cross; salary, $2,100; from 18th Jan., 1905; no examination.
Jos. Aube; salary, $1,000; from 15th May, 1911; certificate from Civil Service Commission.	*
J. R. Tobin; salary, $1,200; from 20th June, 1910; no examination.

H.	M. Davy; salary, $2,300; from 21st May, 1905; no examination.
W. J. Hickey; salary, $1,060; from Dec., 1909; no examination.



SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT.

Mr. DEVLIN:: I.	Is there a director of supplies and transport for the Canadian service in England? If so, what is his name?
2.	Where does he come from?
3.	Is he a British subject? If so, by birth or naturalization?
4.	If naturalization, when was he naturalized what is his rank, and when was he appoint?
5.	When was he appointed?
6.	Why was he appointed?
T. How many officers has he on his staff?
8.	How many clerks, stenographers and civilians are employed under him?
9.	How many troops were in Shorncliffe and surrounding camps in July and August, 1915?
10.	How many officers and men were required to carry on the work of transport and supplies, etc., for the number of troops then at Shorncliffe and surrounding camps?
11.	How many troops are at present in Shorncliffe and surrounding camps?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes, Colonel Alexander Duncan McRae.
2.	Vancouver, B.C.
3.	He is a British subject, born at Glencoe, Ont., November 17, 1874.
4.	Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel, 6th Regiment, 11th September, 1912; Lieutenant-Colonel in the C.A.S.C., 21st November, 1914; Lieutenant-Colonel in the C.E.F., 11th May, 1915; Colonel in C.E.F., let November, 1915.
5.	1st November, 1915.
6.	Such an officer was considered necessary, and the D.O.C., M.D. 10, recommended Colonel A. D. McRae as most useful in connection with the transport and supply branches of the service, particularly the former, as he is thoroughly conversant with everything connected with that work, especially in regard to horses, automobiles and motor freight trucks.
7.	24 officers.
8.	68 clerks, 12 stenographers, 1 civilian employee. (This includes 27 casualties fit only for light duty.)
9.	43,098 on 3let July, 1915; 44,950 on 31st August, 1915.
10.	There was no Army Service Corps training school work done in July and August last, owing to its personnel and that of 2nd Divisional Army Service Corps being engaged in supply and transport work. This aggregated 75 officers and 1,249 other ranks. In addition, hired civilian transport was much employed.
11.	57,494 on 20th April, 1916.



WAR SUPPLIES-GROCERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who were the persons or firms who tendered for the supply of groceries called for by the Department of Militia in British Columbia?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The hon. member was asked to give some further particulars and promised to write a letter to give such particulars. Up to this time that letter has not been received. If some hon. gentleman on the other side will remind him of it, we will have that question answered. It cannot be answered in its present form.



DR. N. P. FREEMAN.

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is Dr. N. P. Freeman, of Lunenburg county, employed as a medical examiner, or in any other capacity, by the Department of Militia?
2.	Has he any rank in the militia?
3.	Has he received any pay from said department for any services since August, 1914? If so, how much?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes; $525.80 to otst January, 1916.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MEN FROM OTHER RAILWAYS. )

Mr. COPP:: 1.	How many men have been taken from
other railways and given employment on the Intercolonial railway, between the first of January, 1912 and the thirty-first of December, 1915?	'
2.	What are the names of said employees?
3.	What salaries are being paid said employees, respectively?


Mr. REID:: 1.	TwentyJthrec.
2.	Engineering Department: C. B. Brown, $500 per month; A. T. McDonald, $110; F. S. Wilkins, $100; G. C. Lightner, $165; L. H. Robinson, $150; A. D. W. Cuthbert, $90; James Pullar, $90; H. T. Ruhl, $200; L. Brousseau, $140; T. L. Landers, $125; G. C. Perkins, $85; A. H. Jonee, $125; J. E. Long, $225; Thos. Jas. F. King, $100.
Operating Department:	J. K. McNeillie,
$500 per month; A. C. Barker, $215; William Charles Roberts, $125; Wm. S. Bryhe, $50.
Traffic Department: C. A. Hayes, $833.33 per month; Eugene Legasse, $105; Thomas Cree, $95; Harry Russiere, $90.
Mechanical Department: George E. Smart, $300 per month.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



ADVANCES FOR SHELL OR FUSE MAKING.

Mr. PARDEE:: Were any advances made by any department of the Government to any persons or firms In Canada to enable them to start manufacturing either shells or fuses? If so, what persons or firms?


Robert Laird Borden: No.



REV. J. A. SPIDDEL.

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is the Rev. J. A. Spiddel a recruiting officer for Kings county?
2.	What rank does he hold, and what pay does he receive?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What is the total amount received by him, including his expenses, for services as such recruiting officer?
5.	Is the department aware that he is re" ported as having accepted nomination as Conservative candidate for Kings county, N.S. ?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue to employ Mr. Spiddel in such service?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No Militia rank. $3 per diem from November 9, 1915, to January 4, 1916.
3.	November 9, 1915.
4.	$164.
5.	No information.
6.	No.



ROMAN CATHOLIC MILITARY CHAPLAINS.

Mr. LANOTOT:: 1.	Is there a Roman Catholic Chaplain with the 25th Regiment at the front?
2.	If so, what is his name and home address?
3.	If not. why was there no such chaplain sent with said regiment?
4.	Were Rev. J. McPherson and Rev. R. McGillivray taken from the battalion to which they were attached'' If so. why?
5.	(a) Has the 64th Regiment left Halifax, and (b) who is the Roman Catholic chaplain attached to said regiment?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	No. There are no battalion chaplains at the front. All are brigade chaplains and detailed for duty by brigadiers. There is one Roman Catholic chaplain to each brigade.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Rev. J. McPherson wias sent to the Mediterranean as the only Canadian Roman Catholic chaplain available at the time. Rev. R. McGillivray was never posted to a battalion, and is now with the 4th Infantry Brigade in France.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) Honorary Captain and Chaplain P. McQuillan is Roman Catholic chaplain to the 64th Battalion, C.E.F.


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Was there any trouble among the men of the 64th Regiment at the time of embarking for overseas? If so, what was the cause?
2.	Was the 85th Regiment called out to assist the authorities? If so, why?
3.	Is there a Roman Catholic chaplain now with the 185th Regiment at Broughton?
4.	How many Roman Catholics are there in the 185th Regiment
5.	How many Roman Catholic officers are there in the 85th and 185th Regiments, respectively?


Robert Laird Borden: 1 aud 2. There was trouble between men of the 64th Battalion and Garrison Military Police on night before embarkation, and a piquet was called from 85th Battalion, but all was quiet before the piquet arrived. A few of the men were under the influence of liquor on embarkation, but nothing serious occurred.
3.	No, nor any other denomination.
4.	No information. Attestation papers have been telegraphed for.
5.	No information.



STONE PURCHASED PROM ERNEST DEMPSY.

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What number of tons of stone did the Department of Railways and Canals purchase at different times from one Ernest Dempsy?
2.	What price per ton was paid?
3.	What use was such stone put to?
4.	At what date and in what year was such stone purchased?


Mr. REID:: 1.	2,325.86.
2.	Five cents per ton, was paid to Mr. Dempsy, and the department did the quarrying, loading and hauling at a cost of $1.72 per ton, making the total cost to the department $1.77 per ton.
3.	Building protection walls along the north shore of lake St. Francis, between Coteau Landing and St. Zotique.
4.	March 1 to 28, 1913; February 2 to 28, 1914, and March 3 to 25, 1916.



SHERBROOKE DRILL HALL. .

Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Were all or any of the following persons employed as sentries in guarding the drill hall and armouries of the 54th Regiment at Sherbrooke : Alexander Goulet, Joseph Morin, David Lamontagne, Thdophile Noel, Alfred Vadebon-cceur, Adelard Bouffard, Cleomene Jaffroy, and Joseph C6t6?
2.	If so, how long did they, respectively, act in such capacity?
3.	What rate of pay per day did each receive for such services?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Our records show the following on duty: Joseph Morin, David Lamontagne,

Theophile Noel, Alfred Vadeboncoeur, Cleomene Jaffroy, Joseph C6te; no record of Alexander Goulet or Adelard Bouffard.
2.	Joseph Morin, May 1, 1915 to June 30, 1915, 61 days $112.85; David Lamontagne, November 16, 1914 to July 31, 1915, 258 days, $477.30; ITheophile Noel, August 11, 1914 to September 30, 1915, 385 days, $714.10; Alfred Vadebonccoeur, November 16, 1914 to December 31, 1914, 46 days, $85.10; Cleomene Jaffroy, August 1, 1915 to September 30, 1915, 61 days ,$112.85; Joseph C6te, August 1 to 31, 1915, 31 days, $57.35.
3.	The Militia Department paid $1, field allowance 10 cents, subsistence 75 cents.



UNMARRIED OFFICERS-SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.

Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Do the relatives of unmarried military officers serving in Canada in any case draw separation allowance?
2.	If so, what degree of relationship is necessary to enable relatives to draw separation allowance?
3.	What rate of separation allowance do they draw?
4.	What officers as above ha ye relatives drawing separation allowance?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Only in a few cases.
2.	Officer must be sole support of widowed mother.
3.	The rate provided for the rank they hold in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
4.	Those who are unmarried, have widowed mothers, and are the sole support of same.



FUEL PURCHASED FROM MR. ZEPHIRIN MARCHAND.

Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	What quantity of firewood did the Minister of Militia purchase from Mr. Zfiphirin Mar-chand, of Three Rivers, during the year 1915, and what price was paid for such wood?
2.	What quantity of coal did the Minister of Militia purchase from Mr. Zdphirin Marchand, of Three Rivers, during the year 1915, and what price was paid for such coal?


Robert Laird Borden: 1 and 2. Public tenders were called for wood and coal at Three Rivers, and contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Mr. Zephirini Marchand, at following prices:
Montenegrin Camp, Three Rivers: 75 cords softwood at $2.90 per cord, 199 cords hardwood at $3.90 per cord.
86th Regiment, Three Rivers: 21 cords softwood at $4 per cordi, 60 tons grate-size coal at $7 per ton.



ALLEGED OMISSION FROM HANSARD.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I called your attention to the official report of an address in this House by the Minister of Militia. I understood that the matter was to be referred to the Debates Committee. I call your attention to it again.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Orders have' been given to have a meeting of the Debates Committee to-morrow.



PUNISHMENT OF PRIVATE SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: 
William Erskine Knowles: 
John Howard Sinclair: There is account of a
similar punishment at Trenton in Nova Scotia, published in the Nova Scotia papers. I do not know whether or not that is the usual military punishment, but the indignation is so great there that, according to the newspaper statement, after the officers had started the punishment they refrained from it and allowed the man to be released.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon.
gentleman give me the number of the regiment and the name of the man who was punished?


John Howard Sinclair: No, I cannot do that. It was at Trenton, N.S. The statement is in the Eastern Chronicle, which is on file in the reading room.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend know the number of the regiment?


John Howard Sinclair: I can ascertain that for the right hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will direct my attention to the particular number of the Eastern Chronicle in which this article is to be found, so that I can advise the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, I shall have that inquired into also.


John Howard Sinclair: I will do that.



PRINTING OF ELECTORAL LISTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I am asked by several candidates in the coming provincial election in Quebec whether it is possible to have printed electoral lists. Some people say they are printed and some say they are not. The other day I inquired about the county of Rouville, and the

Secretary of State was kind enough to send me a typewritten copy of the list, for which I am very thankful. Would the hon. gentleman say whether it is possible to have the printed lists?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Most of the lists are ready now.
Mr., LEMIEUX: Printed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Typewritten, for the use of members of the House of Commons. Those that are not ready now will be ready a couple of days hence.



CAMPBELLTON-GASPE SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a position now to give an answer to the question I put yesterday about the service between Campbellton and Gaspe?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have been able to secure a vessel which will make weekly trips from 'Camipbellton to Gaspe and from Campbellton to Paspebiac, one service through to Gaspe and one service through to Paspebiac each week.


Charles Marcil: What is the name of the vessel?


George Eulas Foster: The Elaine.


Charles Marcil: What is the tonnage, and what the subsidy paid?


George Eulas Foster: I cannot give the exact figures with reference to the tonnage, but I can say that the tonnage provided is amply sufficient for three or four times the amount of traffic that has developed along that route during the last four or five years.



CANADA'S TRADE AND COMMERCE.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Committee of Supply:
Hon.   S@: Before the House resolves itself into Committee of Supply, as intimated previously, I am taking occasion to say a few words with reference to questions involving transportation rates, control of rates and such like, which were discussed while the Estimates of the department were under consideration. In the remarks that I propose making I shall try to look at all sides of these knotty and troublesome questions which have been
. 
thrust upon us largely by conditions arising from the war. I am going to make what little contribution I can make to a discussion of these points, with the idea of interesting the House and of provoking suggestions and opinions which will tend to explain if not to solve the conditions under which we are labouring.
In the discussion of these matters by gentlemen on the other side of the House/ the Government has been held responsible for several things. Mainly it has been held responsible for the increase of freight rates across the Atlantic, for scarcity of tonnage for Atlantic transport, and for utter neglect or negligence in respect of both these matters. Although most of the members of this House may be thoroughly conversant with what I shall bring out this afternoon, and may, therefore, look upon it as being an iteration of what is already known, I am convinced that	such is not the	case
amongst the people at large. These questions with reference to freight rates, control of freight rates, and transport across the Atlantic are not easily understood by the majority of the people, and consequently, in view of the statements that have been made as to what the Government has not done, there may easily be raised in their minds the presumption that things could have been very different from what they are if the Government had taken an active interest in these matters or had been possessed of capacity to deal with them. A good deal of this will probably be old matter to many of you who sit in the Chamber this afternoon; but I am addressing my remarks not only to the members of the House, but to the public outside, in the hope that a little more light may be thrown upon the matters under consideration.
The scarcity of tonnage is the key to the whole situation. Rates have advanced because of the scarcity of tonnage, and they have advanced in proportion as this scarcity of tonnage has become more pronounced. The \ lack of transport and the control of rates is connected with the general transport of our products overseas. How has this scarcity of tonnage which, as I say, is the key to the whole position, been brought about? In the first place, the commercial marine of the world has been sadly confused and hardly dealt with. The mercantile marine which belonged to the Teutonic nations has been absolutely swept from the seas. A

large proportion of it has been kept in home ports, mainly in Germany and in Austria; a large proportion of it has been interned in neutral ports where it happened to be when the war broke out or where it happened to find refuge shortly after the outbreak of war in order to avoid capture. When you put these two elements together you account for the disappearance of a very large proportion of the commercial tonnage of the world-tonnage which was absolutely and immediately abstracted from carrying capacity and power. Then, too, there has been the destruction of enemy tonnage through the activities of the war. Ships have been sent to the bottom; ships have been destroyed in different ways. When you take this into account you have one great factor accounting for the scarcity of tonnage Which has been felt all over the world; because this commercial tonnage of the Teutonic nations went everywhere and was not confined to any one or two routes. These had been so developed by Germany during the last fifteen or twenty years that German lines of communication extended to every quarter of the world.
The next factor in producing scarcity of tonnage is the weight of work that has to be performed by the commercial marine of the allied powers and of the neutral nations, in supporting the active operations of the war. The transports and naval vessels of the allied powers have been engaged in the transport of troops and munitions from the bases of supply to the fields of action, many of them in taking care of that ceaseless stream of war traffic between Great Britain and France, and a large portion of them in caring for those distant operation which are being carried on in every part of the world by the British and allied nations. These operations have been conducted on an extensive scale in the Mediterranean, in the far East and in South Africa, and they have made a very great demand on commercial tonnage. In proportion as the war ha3 extended and has developed in intensity and in the numbers of men engaged, particularly on the part of the British Empire, the naval transports have proved unequal to the added work and the call upon the British commercial marine has been accentu-ate.d and made greater, month by month, and year by year. Supplies and troops have had to be transported to the scene of the war from far distant countries,-New Zeafand, Australia, South Africa, and the 199
dependencies of Great Britain all over the world. Owing to the great length of the voyages in such cases the demand upon the mercantile marine is very much greater than where the troops and supplies have to be transported only a short distance. No one, without actual investigation, can comprehend the amount of commercial tonnage that has been required to carry out this work. Not only have multiplied munitions of war had to 'be carried from far distant countries, very largely from the United States, but it has been necessary to provide transportation for immense quantities of supplies, food, provisions of all kinds and great numbers of horses and mules. It must also be remembered that Great Britain has had to look after not only her own wants but she has had to supply commercial tonnage for France, Italy, and other Allies. So, when we sometimes feel almost like finding fault because Great Britain requisitions ships which are engaged in mercantile operations, we must take into account not only the vast needs of Great Britain for her own purppses but also that she has to supply commercial tonnage to a very large extent for the war purposes of her Allies.
It must be remembered, also, that at all times during the war, and particularly of late, there has been a certain destruction of tonnage by the enemy. It would surprise any member of this House if he were to total up the quantity of commercial tonnage which has been destroyed by mines within the two years of the war, and, of late, by enemy submarines. Outside of all accidents and casualties common to the sea there have been these influences which have taxed to the utmost the commercial tonnage, not only of Great Britain, but of the neutral countries as well. Coincident with the destruction and internment of tonnage there has been going on in Great Britain and in the allied countries a certain amount of shipbuilding. It would not be far from the truth to say that the tonnage built for commercial purposes since the war began has been sufficient to offset the destruction by mines and submarines, and by casualties, and even with, perhaps, a slight surplus up to within a very recent period. I think the truth is that just now the new shipbuilding from month to month will hardly replace the actual destruction of tonnage by warlike operations.
Added to that destruction of tonnage there has been a demand for the carrying of products unprecedented, possibly, in the

vessels and run them at a lower rate of freight, in order to give to Canadian shippers and producers the advantage of that lower rate. Now, when we have these three vessels with a combined carrying capacity of 15,000 tons, we have Canadian shippers and producers with hundreds of thousands of tons of produce to be shipped. To which one of those shippers will you allocate those vessels at a low rate of freight? You cannot discriminate. The wheat man wants the wheat carried; the lobster man wants the lobsters carried; the cheese man wants the cheese carried; the manufacturers want their products carried, and so on with the asbestos man and the paper man: all have equal rights to be considered. How are you going to discriminate between the lines of goods you will carry at a lower rate, and provide no tonnage for other lines at a like rate? How are you to discriminate between the parties who own the line of goods you decide to carry? Take wheat, fot instance. You have a carrying capacity of 15,000 tons. To what wheat shippers will you go and say: here is a chance for you to get 5,000 tons of freight carried at a lower rate than you can get it carried by another ship. You would discriminate in favour of one and against others in that way. Your only refuge is to maintain the normal rate, and let your ships carry all that you can possibly pack into them at that rate, so that no one will be discriminated against. I do not see any Gther way Out of it. That faced me immediately I went into the market to attempt to charter vessels. I could not accede to the demand that in chartering a vessel I should bring the rate down, because then I should be faced with this problem who is it that you are going to favour and carry his goods at a lower rate, while hundreds of other men about him cannot get a chance on your ship at that lower rate? That was the difficulty and it was impossible to face it successfully on any other ground than this: that you charge the current normal rate, and let whoever might be able take advantage of that much space on your ship. That is the position that I think some of us fail to take into account when we ask the Government to charter vessels to bring down the rate, and engage, so far as we possibly can, in the carrying of what, after all, would be an infinitesimally small proportion of the freight offering. The very same difficulty is met in the purchase of vessels. There seems to be no escape from the position that, if you are to help out in this emergency by purchas-
ing or chartering vessels, you can do it under present conditions only by charging the current rates; and if you are to submit to that condition, then somebody else might just as well charter those vessels and put them on the route as the Government. Nothing is gained in the matter of carriage capacity, nothing is gained in the matter of rates. The Government did face that difficulty, and did make very serious and general inquiries into the possibility of chartering vessels; but it was met with these conditions, which made it difficult for the Government to alct beneficially. And, what was the necessity of incurring responsibility unless some good could accrue?
Leaving that branch of the subject for a moment, one very marked criticism has been made-I have seen it thousands of times, in the papers, in platform speeches, and I think it has been made in this House by members on either one or the other side -and it is this:	A man in The West today sells his grain-taking grain as an illustration-in Winnipeg at a dollar, we. will say; it can be sold for more than a dollar, but we will take that figure. The statement is made that he has to pay 45 cents for the' grain to cross the ocean, plus whatever it takes to get the grain from Winnipeg to the ocean, which we will assume to be 20 cents. There is 20 and 45 cents that the man has to encounter before his bushel of grain can be delivered at Liverpool, and the statement is very commonly made that but for these iniquitous rates the western farmer would get very much more for his wheat at Winnipeg; that is, he would get. the difference between the old transporation rate and the present rate, which would be in the neighbourhood of 45 cents per bushel.
The argument is made and the lesson is sought to be taught that on account of those high freight rates the western farmer gets that much less for his wheat, and that if the ocean rate were brought down from 45 cents to 10 cents, the western farmer would have the difference of 35 cents to put in his pocket. My hon. friend (Mr. Turriff), who is looking at me, may be guilty of having used that argument himself; he smiles as though he were; but if he is not guilty of it, many people are, and I could almost vouch, if he heard any one putting forward that argument in the West, he would not sweat very much in an endeavour to get him away from that argument. On the other side, in Liverpool you have the

man who wants the bushel of grain. He says:	Grain is so much at normal value
in Winnipeg; but I have to pay 65 cents on that bushel to get it to Liverpool; if that rate were reduced 45 cents, I would have the difference to put in my pocket because I would pay that much less for the bushel of grain when it was delivered to me at Liverpool. Now, you cannot have the thing both ways. My own opinion expressed before the House to-day is that it is a case in which the consumer pays, if not every red cent of it, almost every red cent of it. The man who has to have the flour made from the grain and who consequently must have the grain at Liverpool, has to surmount that chasm between the place of production and the wharf at Liverpool where the grain is to be delivered to him, so that he has to pay the expense of having it delivered to him at that point. I do not know whether my remarks will go so far as that deadly criticism, that somewhat partisan criticism which is smiled at by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and which is actively presented by many of those who sit behind him. If only it does go that far, I hope it will have the effect of getting people to look all around the situation.
Sir .WILFRID LAURIER:	The freight
then is of no consequence?


George Eulas Foster: The freight is of consequence in one respect, but the freight, to my mind, makes no difference as regards another and important part of the question which I have just been discussing. There is no doubt that the freight adds to the ultimate cost. If there is a piece of neutral territory with a man on one side with a bushel of wheat in his barrel, iand if he says to me: you can have that wheat if you pay me $1.09, and if some intervening factor on that neutral territory puts up a charge of 45 or 65 cents 'before that bushel of wheat can be delivered into my hands, then I say that if I want that wheat I have to satisfy the claims of the man on the neutral territory and pay the charge that is necessary to have the wheat transferred from the other side of the neutral territory to my side. That, however, is another form of the argument which I have been trying to advance.
My hon, friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) has been very profuse in his criticisms of the Government. He has said that the business of the Government was to provide
transportation; that they have 4 p.m. not provided it; that they have been heartless; that they simply smile and laugh at the difficulty. That, of course, as my hon. friend knows, is persiflage. He says that the Government have done nothing and that therefore upon them you must vent your indignation. I think I have said sufficient to make it apparent, to reasonable people at least, that there are two sides to this question, and that there are to-day conditions and difficulties with which we are confronted which create the trouble, and that the trouble will be with us until the cause of it is mitigated by peace and the conditions which follow peace.
My hon. friend says: If the Government had been alive and awake to the situation they could have procured vessels. I have dealt briefly with the question of chartering and purchasing vessels. Let me come now to the other question. The only way in which real relief can be given in this whole matter of transportation is by bringing new tonnage into operation; that is, by building *ships. To charter vessels or to purchase vessels that are already in service is simply a transference, and neither would add to the carrying capacity. The addition to the carrying capacity will and can only be made and relief can only be afforded, other conditions remaining, by building new vessels and putting them into the transport service. In regard to that, says my hon. friend, you have been lax; the Government either has not seen its duty, or, having seen it, has not performed it. There are some difficulties in the way of building. It is all very well for us to be wise after the event; but in the whole course of this war, in the management of the war, in the preparation for the war, in everything in connection with dt, all anticipations have gone by the board, and with every party to the war controversy-less with the German power than with any other because for fifty years it was preparing itself for all these things -anticipations have been trundled over time and time and time again. What was at one period of this war thought to be sufficient provision for anything that could come up, has, in the course of one or two or three or four months proved itself to be away below what the actualities of the case, as they have developed, demanded. Therefore it is quite a fair argument to use with the War Office, or the Admiralty, or with any other body, that this war has been of
3i06

such a kind that it has upset all reasonable calculation of provision for occurrences that would be likely to take place. If on August 1, 1914, this Government could have put itself in the point of view that, it has to-day, -it could have bought vessels and chartered vessels at very low prices, ahd it could have made over and over again its money put into those vessels and done probably a real service to the carrying trade of the Dominion. But the Government had no more knowledge of what would be the condition of things as they developed in the progress of the war than had any human being. Consequently it is not a fair criticism to say: You should have foreseen this and provided for it years ahead. When the exigency and the conditions which make the exigency are upon us, how do we stand with reference to shipbuilding? My hon. friend says: If you have a mind to, you can call 'for tenders and you can build steel ships and wooden ships now. There are certain conditions that we have to take into account. A Government is asked in the midst of this emergency to build vessels. Let us see what that means. In point of cost of materia], you would be building those vessels at the peak price. You would be building vessels which, in the time that it took to finish them, might have found the period of peace to have intervened and a great slump to have taken place in the cost of building. It is somewhat of a responsibility for the Government to take millions of the people s money and put it into either the purchase or the building of vessels at the peak prices pf to-day, prices which, so far as competition is concerned, might put them entirely out cf the market should prices be reduced by the coming of .peace. The Government did not purchase the vessels; they did not build them. Further, my hon. friend seems to think that all you have to do is to give an order at night and the next morning you will find a vessel afloat and ready for a cargo. That is impossible. You cannot go into any shipyard in Canada to-day and make a. contract for two steel vessels to be delivered earlier than late in the fall of 1917. This is 1919, and early in the summer. To go into the market and contract for a vessel costing from 3750,000 to $1,000,000, which can be delivered to you only late in the fall of 1917, will not afford much relief in the present emergency.

We tried also to get wooden vessels built. To parties who might be able to build wooden vessels, we said: " Tell us what amount of tonnage subsidy you will take and construct wooden vessels of a capacity which will be economical, say 2,000 to 2,500 tons." That proposal was considered, and I will give the House the results. We received only one answer, which was to this effect: " We will undertake to build wooden vessels of the capacity you name, if you will pay us a subsidy for construction of $6 a ton a year for fifteen years, or, in all, $90 per ton." That is the offer we got; it is an offer we did not accept. Even had we accepted it we could not have brought these vessels into service before the early or middle part of next year.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The offer was $6 a ton spread over fifteen years?


George Eulas Foster: No, it was $6 a ton a year for fifteen years.


John Howard Sinclair: Gross ton?


George Eulas Foster: No, ton dead
weight.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know that that sum would build a ship of that kind many times overSir GEORGE FOSTER: Well, where does the hon. getleman get to now?


William Pugsley: I will get twenty men
in St. John to make :*n offer.


George Eulas Foster: Well, why does not the hon. gentleman do it?


William Pugsley: The hon. m'liister has
not come down with any proposition


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman has been something of a promotei, and has large moneyed connections. He has seen the difficulties about tonnage; if he thinks there is money in it, why has he not in some way interested himself and his friends in making a proposition for this shipbuilding? But no proposition has come from him; he has satisfied himself with criticising and finding fault, and has not put within the reach of the Government a single proposition that would be reasonably acceptable. Let me tell the House how the man looks at it to whom you talk about a tonnage subsidy. In order to build .wooden vessels I have to make certain preparations, and for that purpose put in certain money; and I cannot turn out a vessel until seven, eight, or ten months from today. I get my wooden vessels built. But

you do not give me any assurance that the vessel-building business in this country will not by that time be absolutely different from what it is to-day-that peace will not have intervened with all that that involves. That contingency is ahead of me, and I cannot afford to go into the building of wooden vessels except with a very heavy-tonnage subsidy to protect me from possible loss. That is the way this man reasons. Capital, under present conditions, is chary about going into the building of vessels with the uncertainties that face it within the next year or year and a half. The position has been so difficult that we have not received one single reasonable offer for the building of wooden vessels.
We have an offer for the building of steel vessels, and the general terms of that offer I will state to the House. Two steel vessels could have been built for this Dominion Government at a rate of $125 to $135 per ton, with delivery in the middle part of the year 1917. That is the best offer we got for steel tonnage. The amount asked for, of course, is very large; but the time of delivery is also a factor in the case which must be considered. What we must do in Canada is to divide this thing into two. There is a period of emergency, and there will be a period to succeed this emergency. Having canvassed, to a certain extent, the emergency period, let me now say a few words with reference to the work of shipbuilding in Canada on the basis of permanency, that is, with reference not to the present emergency but	to
the conditions and the needs of	the
future. It goes without saying, to my mind, that a country of such large productive capacity as Canada, and with production constantly increasing, occupies an undesirable position if it does not produce and have at command a very considerable commercial tonnage for its own use. That becomes apparent in times like this when, with no commercial marine, the country is at the mercy of the disturbing conditions of war. Altogether, it is a fair axiom that a country with the producing capacity of Canada ought to have a reasonable and growing mercantile marine; and I believe that Canada can have it. It ought to have it, for these potential reasons; it ought to have it because commercial tonnage taken year in and year out, is a profitable investment for a country. Great Britain's wealth is largely built up on. the earnings of her commercial marine. Holland, and formerly Belgium, are notable examples of the wealth that comes to countries from large commercial marine, employed year in and year out, having their periods of prosperity and their corresponding periods of adversity, but bringing on the average a good return to the country in earning power. Canada as well ought to try in some way or other to build up a good commercial marine. How is it possible to do that? One may say: let capital run its own course; if capital sees that it would be profitable to invest in building commercial tonnage for Canada, it will do it; on the other hand, if it cannot see its way clear to do that; if it feels that it should depend upon the carrying capacity of outside vessels, it will take its chance in the open market of the world and charter or procure its tonnage as it has necessity for it. I believe that this argument should go along the line of a country having a good, strong, commercial marine of its own, and I do not think you can bring that about by leaving the matter entirely to corporate and private enterprise without some form of aid. Now, what are the forms of aid which can be given? There is a tonnage construction subsidy, whereby for every ton of capacity of vessels built in Canada under certain conditions the Government-the Treasury, the people generally might pay a certain amount in order to give an impetus, at least in its early stages, to the building of a commercial marine. That is one method that can be employed, and it has its disadvantages. In the first place, a vessel that you subsidize by tonnage construction subsidy may be in your employ a year after the vessel is built or it may be sold and be in some one else's employ -thereafter. This is liable to happen unless you hedge the subsidy around with conditions requiring that the vessel shall make itself available for Canadian trade, and that stipulation is difficult to append to a simple tonnage subsidy agreement.
There is a scheme which, has been adopted and which has in it, I think, a good deal of merit; I am going to give the outlines of it this afternoon, but I shall first call attention to what the United States Government is now proposing. Hast year a Bill was introduced in the United States Congress for the promotion of shipbuilding in the United States. This year the Bill has been modified, and the lines of the present Bill, which has the administration behind it, and is being pressed in the United States, are something of this kind: an appropriation of $50,000,000 is to be made and

secured upon Panama canal bonds; that $50,000,000 so secured is placed in the hands of a committee, or commission, consisting. of certain members of' the United States Cabinet, a naval architect and other persons chosen by the President, with the assent of the Senate, and these men so selected are to be thoroughly conversant with shipping matters and shipbuilding. This governmental commission is in charge of shipbuilding under this scheme. It says what kind of vessels shall be built, how they shall be built and their tonnage, and it has general direction over such matters. The shipbuilding which is carried on under this scheme-and this includes purchases of vessels-is subject to these conditions. This commission shall have charge of shipping matters so far as they relate to that proposition, and they have also the right to license vessels trading to the United States and to control rates as far as possible. That $50,000,000 being at their disposal, they may enter into contract with parties to build or purchase vessels in the United States, and to purchase vessels outside of the United States, these vessels to be placed upon the United States register of tonnage and to become United States vessels. Entering into contract with' these parties for the purchase or building of ships, the commission is empowered to subscribe stock to these ships, in building or in purchase, taking care always to have a majority of the stock so as to enable them to keep the control. On that basis the whole proposition, outside of the financial aid which is given, looks at the acquisition by the United States-by building in and out of the United States and by purchase out of the United States-of vessels'on certain standard lines, which vessels shall be built or purchased and operated under the regulations of this commission. They have also in the United States a mail contract law, by which vessels of twenty knots and upwards get $4 per mile on approved routes for carrying the mail, while vessels of sixteen to twenty knots get $2 a mile. These are the propositions which are to-day before the United States 'Congress looking to the upbuilding of a commercial marine in that country.
The Chamber of Commerce in New York, which is a very influential body, has criticised that scheme, and has put forward another scheme. I purpose giving that scheme in brief to the House this afternoon, and in order to bring it down directly

to ourselves I will translate it into the form.it would take if it were applied to the Dominion of Canada. Applying to Canada that scheme, which was debated and unanimously approved by the New York Chamber of Commerce, it would work out something like this: You would appoint in the Dominion of Canada a commission consisting, we will say, of three members of the Cabinet whose departments aTe interested-for instance, Commerce, Navy, and Finance. The Government side of that commission would be the ministers of these three departments. Add to these a naval instructor and three practical and experienced men in shipping matters, selected by the Government, and you have the commission which would operate in Canada. That commission would have general oversight and direction of the classes of vessels to be built under the scheme; how they should be standardized, how they should be manned, everything in connection with them, and, to the extent that it would be possible, the regulation of the rates as well. That committee would then be empowered to enter into contracts with shipbuilding companies, , to build according to the plans and regulations laid down in Canadian shipyards, and the builders of the ships would be allowed the difference between the cost of construction in Canada and in European ports, that difference having been carefully ascertained by the commission. The object would be to enable the Canadian shipowner to have his ships built in Canada with exactly the same cost to himself as if he had them built in a European port. If the tonnage could be built in a European port at a certain percentage per ton cheaper than in Canada, then the subsidy for construction'would be that difference in cost, whatever it was, so as to put the Canadian shipowner on an equality, in the after competition, with his competitor who had ships built in European snipyards. The time during which this should be carried out would be limited to a period of say 10 years, so that during that 10 years this operation of building would go on. Then the commission would be empowered to enter into contracts with the ship owners, when the ships were built, and to guarantee to the owners the difference in cost of operating'the ships under the Canadian flag and under a European flag, that subsidy to continue for the life of the ship. The commission would possess itself of accurate information on the difference both in cost of construction and in cost of operation, and would pay that

difference, and that difference alone. In that connection we should place at the disposal of the Commission the sum of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000, and empower that commission to guarantee the bonds upon the ships built up to 50 per cent of the value of the ships. Such bonds would be 5 per cent bonds, and the Government Commission would get one-half of one per cent on those bonds returned to its treasury for its work and its supervision.
What would that mean? It would mean that for 10 years you would have shipbuilding tried out under the advantage of a bonus equal to the difference in construction cost in Canada and the difference of operation cost; the latter subvention to extend to the life of the ship. Capital would be attracted and induced to invest in steamships owing to the Government guarantee of bonds, which would, of course, be given under a proper amortization scheme by which those bonds would be provided for and paid off during a certain period.
On the Great Lakes you will find a very large and prosperous American mercantile marine, and I am told that almost every vessel in that fleet has been built under a guarantee of bonds, not a guarantee by the Government, either state or federal, but on that same system; and I am informed that those bonds are considered so good a security that banks, including savings banks, are anxious to get them, and that, in the late history, at least, of those transactions, there has not been an instance of failure with reference to the amortization of the bonds or to the security in any way. But we must recollect that lake marine business is a very different thing from ocean tonnage business. However, that is simply an illustration of what has been done along that line.
Let us see what would be the advantage to be obtained if that system were carried out? In the first place, the Government would make its equitable, yearly contributions, not on a supposed or an imaginary or a favoured basis, but on the actual difference of cost of construction and operation. And, in the next place, it would guarantee bonds of the ship to one-half its value, getting	back	one-half of one
per cent, with arrangements for proper amortization. If you take the history *of lake shipping, there is fair ground for stating that system that would work out satisfactorily and successfully. It is impossible to say what the subsidy would amount to in actual figures; the only
certainty we would have being that it would amount to the actual difference and to ni more and no less. In that way, if it worked out successfully, at the end of 10 years you would have a very substantial commercial ocean marine and you would have the certainty of its operation for 20 years from the time that each steamship went into actual service. By such a plan capital would be attracted to that kind of investment, to which our people in Canada are not very much used; and if you could bring it about that capital would become interested, as construction went on capital would more and more come in, so that the private capital of the country, without Government aid, would afterwards be able to look after its commercial marine. You would have a valuable earning power, proportionate to the amount of tonnage, which would accrue to the people of this country. Our people would have the advantage of the expenditure of money for wages and materials in connection with these ships, and I am assured that if such a policy, based on permanent conditions, were inaugurated in this country, Canada would make the steel necessary for the building of those steel ships, and that we would thus have the benefit of a further development of the steel industry. We would derive many other advantages, which I shall not take time to enumerate, but which would come from a more or less steady supply of ocean tonnage, somewhat commensurate with the needs of a great producing country, requiring large ocean transportation facilities.
I am sorry that the short tale I started to tell has developed into a longer tale than I had supposed it would. You turn to me apd say: "That is all very good, but what does the Government propose to do?"


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I am simply
coming to this committee, as I have come without very much encouragement on tw^ previous occasions-


William Pugsley: From the Government.


George Eulas Foster: I came once and put a proposition before the House in an absolutely businesslike and non-partisan way and I asked my hon. friends on the other side to give us, the Government and the House, the benefit of their suggestions and their criticisms? What did I get? The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) went back to Genesis, the first chapter of

that the great object of having Government-operated railways is to keep down the rates to what is reasonable and fair profits. Does not the minister see that the very fact of the Government railway keeping down its freight rates compels the private railway companies to reduce their freight rates, or to keep them within reasonable limits, as otherwise the traffic would toe earsied by the Government railways? If this Government when war broke out had chartered or bought, at the low rates which the minister says were available to the Government, fifty or a hundred steamers, and put them into the carrying trade at reasonable and fair rates, it would have been an enormous factor in preventing the private shipping companies from increasing their rates. All that the Government ought to look for would be that the rates would give a reasonable and fair return upon the money invested. But what is the result to-day? These great shipping companies are making one thousand per cent more than they were satisfied with before the war broke out-one thousand per cent more than reasonable and fair profits upon the capital they have invested. And the minister tells us to-day that even the great shipping companies that are subsidized by this Government-even the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Allan Steamship Company, which receive a subsidy of $1,000,000 a year from this Government-have been permitted to increase their rates one-thousand fold beyond what is reasonable and fair. And the minister allows them to do it, because he thinks they might take their ships away somewhere else if he did not give them a free hand in increasing their rates just as they pleased. I am unable, I regret to say, to follow my hon. friend. I am unable to recognize that he has been able to give the slightest possible excuse for the failure of this Government to charter or buy the steamers which he says they could have bought at low prices when the war broke out. I am unable to acquit him and his colleagues of want of foresight. I think they should have recognized that the war might continue for a very considerable period. The minister has given a graphic picture to-day of the great difficulties which have arisen in connection with ocean tonnage. He has told you. Sir, of all those difficulties; but they were difficulties which were not unknown to you or the members of this House. They are not difficulties which could not have been foreseen by the members of this Gov-
ernment. Did not the minister know when war broke out that vessels would be required to transport for the use of the armies of the Allies the products of those countries which produced grain and cattle and other natural products. Did he not know that there would be a great demand for vessels to transport these goods? Did he not know that the Allies would naturally look to America for large quantities of ammunition, clothing, boots, shoes, horses and of everything else required by the armies at the front? Did not the minister foresee that? If he did not why didn't he? Did not he and his colleagues look forward to just that state of affairs which has arisen to-day? If they did not, why didn't they? Were they of the men who thought this war was going to end in six weeks? Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce like the Minister of Militia, who thought this war was going to be such a simple affair that Germany could be beaten by the Canadians alone, without any assistance from England or France, as he stated on one occasion when he was interviewed in New York on his return from the old country? Did the minister look on this as a trifling war that would terminate in a few weeks and would not be likely to produce the results which he sees to-day and which are becoming worse and worse as the war goes on? I am obliged to say this because the minister sought to defend himself and his colleagues from the charge of want of foresight and from the charge which I ventured to make against the Government for not doing what they ought to have done in the way of providing for the transportation of the products of Canada to the markets of Europe. I am unable to see that he has made any defence whatever, and I think the confession he -has made to-day that the Government could have acquired by charter or purchase at low prices ships which would have been of great advantage to Canada, is a confession that the Government are guilty of the charges which have been brought against them.
The minister says that if the Government had gone into this business it would not have solved the difficulty, because they wpuld have had to follow the example of the private companies and squeeze everything they could exact out of the producers or the consumers of the country. As to that, I think most men- who give any thought to the subject will differ entirely from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then the minister says that the next thing

to do and the only other thing which might be done in order to increase the tonnage, would be to engage in the business of shipbuilding, and, he says, that is a serious matter also, because we cannot tell when the war will end. The minister has stated that if the Government were either themselves to undertake the building of steel ships, or to encourage others to build, if a steel vessel were laid down to-day she could not be ready until the fall of 1917. I doubt very much whether the minister is correctly informed on that. I believe that vessels of five, six, and seven thousand tons have been built upon the Great Lakes in less time than the minister states. I believe that -at the new shipyards at Port Arthur one of the very finest vessels navigating the lakes was built in less time than that, and I would like some evidence that the minister has received his information from reliable sources before I would be ready to accept it without reserve. But, supposing that his statement is true; if the Government had commenced when the war broke out they might have had to-day a large number of steel vessels ready to be placed in commission and to do their work as a factor in the transportation of Canadian produce. With regard to wooden vessels, which, of course, can be built much more quickly than steel vessels, I am told that $60 per ton would be a good price for building them, even at the high prices which prevail to-day. The minister states that a fair size for a wooden vessel is about 2,000 tons. He may be right in that, but I had the impression that it might be desirable to build wooden vessels of larger tonnage.


George Eulas Foster: 2,000 to 2,500 tons.


William Pugsley: Put it if you like at 2,000 tons. The minister said that he had an offer from one person to build a wooden vessel for a bonus of $6 per ton per year spread over a period of fifteen years. The minister did not state from whom he received that offer, nor did he state What inquiries were made of practical shipbuilders in Canada as to the terms upon which they would be willing to build wooden vessels. What would that proposition mean? A bonus of $6 per ton on a wooden vessel of 2,000 tons would be $12,000. If that amount were spread over fifteen years, it would mean a bonus of $180,000 for a vessel which, at the very highest prices prevailing to-day, would not cost over $120,000; in other words, it would be asking $60,000 more than the cost of the
vessel. We all know very well that at the present time, and probably for a number of years to come, those vessels will be able to earn very large profits, and that is why I stated that the suggestion which was apparently made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce was a most 5 p.m. unreasonable one, and that if this Government were bona fide in putting before the people of this country the idea that they were willing to give assistance for the building of wooden ships as well as steel ships, I could not imagine for a single moment that they would not receive much more reasonable offers. Not very long ago a gentleman in the ciT,y of St. John with experience in shipbuilding and in the operation of ships told me if reasonable encouragement had been given, including taking off the duties on the machinery necessary for providing auxiliary power, men could be found who would engage in the building of wooden vessels, and that it would not be very long before a large number could be turned out. Two hundred wooden vessels, with a capacity of
2,000	tons each, would mean a very great addition to the mercantile marine of Canada. Even if you had 100 vessels, that would mean a tonnage of 200,000, and in the course of a year those vessels vould be able to transport from Canada to the markets of the Old Country and to bring back upwards of 2,000,000 tons of produce, which would be a large quantity and would prove of enormous assistance. The total cost of those vessels, if my information is correct, would not exceed $10,000,000; and, in view of the necessity of increasing the production of Canada, and in view also of the necessity of getting a market for that production, and of getting it to that market at a reasonable rate, # would	it be
unreasonable that the Government, for the purpose of making a start on a mercantile marine in Canada, should appropriate $10,000,000 of the sum of $200,000,000 which Parliament is voting for war purposes, for the purpose of increasing transportation facilities or of carrying out any other object which the Government may think reasonable in view of the conditions which exist? What we want to do, dt seems to me, is not to look forward to what may be done in five or ten years from now, after the war is over, but to consider what shall be done now to relieve the present necessities. The minister, if I understood him aright, has argued that after all the Canadian producer is not injured very much by the high freight rates. He argues very eloquently that the

farmer gets, Tinder any circumstances, a reasonable price for his grain. I suppose he would argue that the buyer gets a reasonable price, and that the freight on the railway and across the Atlantic is added to the cost to the consumer. My hon. friend may be right as to that, but I do not think so. One might argue as well that, if the milling companies earn enormous profits so that they are able to pay, not only a dividend upon their preferred stock which represents actual capital, but enormous dividends upon their common stock which represents no capital at all, but only water, that does not come out of the wheat producer but out of the people who consume flour. I would rather think it comes out of both the producer and the consumer. If the miller would be content with a less profit, the consumer would pay a less price for the flour and the' former would get a higher price for his wheat. We know that hundreds of the tramp steamers which are upon the Atlantic to-day pay for their cost in two or three voyages, and it seems to me therefore that those extra and unnecessary profits are paid both by the consumer in England or other European countries and by the producer of the grain in 'Canada. If you reduce the rates of freight you are conferring a benefit not merely upon the consumer but upon the Canadian farmer. It does seem to me that the minister is hardly justified in saying that the Canadian producer does not suffer from the increased rates. Take the case of lumber. When war broke out there was a very good demand for lumber in Europe, but, except in the case of lumber which is specially required, the high rates of freight have checked that demand, and so people in different p^rts of the province of New Brunswick are notable to send their. lumber forward at prices which would enable them to pay the high freight rates.
I do not wish to take up more time than is necessary. Nor do I wish to unduly criticise this Government, for I realize that they have many difficulties to contend with. But I do hold very strongly that they have not given to this question of transportation the care and attention which they ought to have given to it. I do not think the Government is doing credit to itself, nor has it measured up to the responsibility it owes to the people. The minister does not present any policy which his colleagues have approved of and to which he can ask the concurrence of this House, but he comes here as an individual 
member of the Government and asks us to make suggestions and give him the benefit of our opinions. Let him come down with a scheme for building up a Canadian merchant marine-not, as I have said, for building vessels ten years from now, or five years from now, but at the present day- and he will find support. Mistakes have been made, and, in the end some money may be lost. But the object is so important and the benefits to accrue from increased tonnage operated under the control of the Canadian Government are so great, as, I think, to justify us in running some risk of making mistakes. I say again that if the minister will come down with a matured policy which can be put into operation without unnecessary delay, I for one I cannot speak for others-will be prepared to give that policy my heartiest support. It affords me no pleasure to criticise my hon. friend under present circumstances and in the trying position in which he is placed. But he comes to us with a statement that he gets no sympathy from the members of this House,-he speaks as if he gets no sympathy from his colleagues, as if he were " ploughing his lonely furrow." He turns his back upon his colleagues and in effect says: " I get no sympathy, no support, no encouragement, from the men by whom I am surrounded; " and he looks over to us with an appealing glance in his eye and asks us to stand by him and not only give him support but tell him what he ought to do under these trying circumstances. Let him come down to-morrow with a policy for engaging at once in the building of ships, both steel and wooden, to the number really necessary to meet present conditions and to take the place of the waning ocean merchant marine as far as Canada is concerned, and he will receive from us, even if he does not receive it from his colleagues, earnest consideration and hearty sympathy such as, I am sure', will warm the cockles of his heart. And from many private members on the other side of the House, I am sure, he will receive support and sympathy.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I wish to compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the broad-gauge speech he has made this afternoon on this important question. It is true, his speech is open to criticism in some respects; but in the few minutes I shall occupy I shall not devote myself to criticism so much as to an expression of my delight with the
AP&IlL 26, 1916
way in which the minister has brought this proposition before the House. He has appealed for national consideration of a great national question; he.has appealed to the Opposition and to all the members of the House practically to' go into Committee of the Whole to deal with the transportation question, especially with the question of ocean transportation. The minister made another notable speech this session. I did not happen to be here on that occasion. He made an appeal to this House to do away with the system of patronage, and asked the Opposition and the whole House to take that matter into serious consideration. I think he is proceeding on the right lines. We have had too much party government in this country, and, in view of the present crisis we ought to have more national government iand less party government, and we ought to try to deal with these great problems from a national point of view. I cannot but recall what happened in this House when the Naval Aid Bill was before us. I made, an appeal then to the House, pointing out that the opportunity was then afforded for the two parties to co-operate in working out a system for the defence of the Empire. We were not successful in that; the proposal was practically abandoned at that time. My contention to-day is that, the great problems which this war has created cannot be solved by a single party, and will not be solved unless the House and the country approach them as a nation from a national point of view and irrespective of party. And if you apply this to part of a question you must apply it to the whole question. If the minister asks far the cooperation of the whole House and the whole country in regard to transportation by sea, the same course must be followed in regard to transportation by land. My contention, therefore, is that the only solution of these problems of transportation is the co-operation of both parties in the adoption of a national policy supported by a national Parliament. We cannot deal properly with the railway question now before the country if we deal with them from the party point of view. We are confronted by the most serious problems in connection with railways that we have ever had before us; for the fact that these problems have arisen, both parties may be responsible. If that is the case, we ought to correct our mistakes by dealing with these matters from a non-partisan standpoint. Unless both parties co-operate in
considering these problems, as was pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. to-day, we should not be able to solve them. In the matter of ' transportation both by land and by sea we must arrive at some kind of united policy; the country expects us to deal with these questions from a non-partisan point of view. The member for St. John city made a rather reasonable suggestion to-day, although the method suggested had a tendency to be somewhat partisan. I understood him to intimate that he and his friends were disposed to co-operate in matters of this kind. While not much has been done in the House in the matter of national co-operation concerning these questions, there is a good deal of feeling in the country in favour of that idea. There has been cooperation of parties in the Mother Country with a view of solving the difficulties that have arisen; if they have not quite succeeded over there, I believe that at least they have improved the condition of affairs. None of these questions can be approached and settled in any other way than by some kind of co-operation. Will the question of Civil Service reform in Canada ever be settled by each party in this House putting up the Tecord of the other and pointing out the mistakes of the other in connection with that matter? No; you will arrive at a new and progressive measure only by some kind of co-operation. The remarkable thing about the speech of the minister to-day is not that he did not quite come forward with a substantive policy for dealing with the transportation problem so far as ocean traffic was concerned, so much as it is that he came forward with an appeal to both parties to cooperate in their efforts to deal satisfactorily with the question of shipbuilding. I simply want to content myself with saying to-day that, having regard to the great problems now before us, we should not 'be doing our duty to this country or to the Empire if we do not have this co-operation. Further, if there is to be co-operation in connection with shipbuilding and transportation at sea, there must be co-operation in connection with railways and many other things.
Speaking on broad lines, what is the solution of the transportation problem in Canada? It is that we must have a national policy with regard to railways, which means public ownership of our railways; and we must have a national policy with regard to transportation at sea. To my mind the difficulty will have to be approached by

national1 ownership or national control of ships, very much along the lines outlined by the minister to-day. Great evils havie arisen from the manner in which transportation has been carried on in the past, especially through tbe operations of private monopolies. Private monopolies have taken advantage of the public on every occasion in. the past, and they will do it in the future. A proper national policy supported 'by all the people would build up a transportation system both by land and sea that would seek to serve the public rather than to take advantage of it. The greatest advantage that has ever been taken of the public has been by the shipbuilding and ship owning interests of Great Britain. They have soaked the public right and left in transportation, charges. It has been argued that because these ships were privately owned and operated under a different flag they could not be controlled by Canada. I have never subscribed to that doctrine. I do not agree that we should lie down before them; that we should not seek to control them by some kind of legislation.. That may be an- expensive and roundabout way of doing it, but it is a comparatively easy thing to start a national policy on the line of national ownership, or national control of shipbuilding, and in that way -bring immediate relief to the transportation conditions in this country. As I pointed out in this House when discussing the railway question some time ago, what is the use of our appointing a Railway Commission to regulate railway rates- if we cannot also regulate the charges at sea by the ship monopolies? All the advantages- if there were advantages-accruing to the people from the subsidies- paid in connection with the construction of railways, and from the passing of the Act creating the Railway Commission havie been taken away from them by reason of the fact that the shipbuilding interests have been allowed to charge what they liked in connection with transportation at sea. As a consequence rates were increased not a thousand-fold, as t-he last speaker -said, but to -an amount from four to eight times as high as the rates -that formerly obtained. I do not quite agree with the minister when he says that the consumer paid the larger portion of the increase on these rates. Perhaps what he intimated was that the increase was equally divided between the consumer and the producer. In any case, if we had had- national control of the rates' at sea as well as by land, especially in connection 
with ocean transportation systems, we should be able to give the Canadian producer the bes-t advantage that he possibly could get both by land and by sea-by land especially-and we should be able to give the consumer also the best advantage that he could get. After sixty years of railroad building and experience in matters connected with shipping, the public cannot obtain that measure of advantage to which th-ey are entitled otherwise than by national ownership and national control on new and progressive lines. There has 'been a failure up to date, no matter how much, we have spent in getting improved transportation in this country. The United States, judging by the evidence brought forward this -afternoon, are coming to the idea that they must have a national system of transportation by sea. If they are to have it by sea they must have it also by land. This all goes to show that the trend of public opinion these days is that relief from high transportation charges, whether by land or by sea, must come by national ownership; it will never be attained as long as private control of monopolies prevails on this continent. Owing to the war, England has taken over her railways, and has practically commandeered all the ships -at sea for the service of the public. But the trouble is that the number of ships is rapidly declining o\ying to attacks and destruction at sea, and we do not know when that is going to end. So it is up to the Government and up to the House, in view of this condition of affairs, to inaugurate forthwith some kind of national policy, or party policy if we must have it, looking to the establishment of a great Canadian merchant marine. One reason why I supported the idea of naval aid four years ago was that it would have started a great shipbuilding industry in this country. While it would have been primarily and in the first instance for the building of w.ar ships, it would have ended in the production and the building of a commercial marine. That did not quite come then. It should have been started four years ago, before the war came on. But the war is on now; it is in its second year, and the best judges say to-day that next year will not end it. Then, I say, the_ responsibility is on the Government to' inaugurate forthwith a policy in the direction of encouraging shipbuilding in this country.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: It must be not only
an encouragement to get the ships built,

but to control them when they are built, and to cons-ecrate them to -the trade of the country and the development of that trade. What is the use of inviting settlers to come to the great Canadian West, to locate there and to develop the land, if the transportation charges are to be so heavy that they will absorb all of the products of the farm except enough to keep the farmer on the land. We are not going to settle our lands, we are not going to get the right people there and to have them develop our country as it should be developed, no matter how much we spend on an immigra-tiorf policy, unless the Government and Parliament, representing the people of this country, control the system of transportation both by land and sea, absolutely. We have tried private ownership of railways now for 60 years and what have we got to show in the way of rates? We have a magnificent service which has been of great benefit to the country. But as regards rates our conditions are not at all what they should be. We have three transcontinental lines, it is true, but for the same amount of money a much better service could have been secured if the transportation question had been handled from a national point of view. We would thus have avoided the duplication of construction and, a still worse evil, the duplication of service. Of the three transcontinental lines now existing there are miles and miles that are mere duplication and which are practically a waste of money. We have the other problem before us and must deal with it, perhaps this session, that is the problem of the unnecessary duplication of service. We have failed in regard to railways, and we will fail in regard to ships unless we have a real national policy, which implies co-operation. I do not care how this great reform is effected. You may say that under our system it must be by party Government. But is party Government to exist forever in this country, after the fruits we have had from it in the past? Is there not a need and a call for some *kind of co-operation? We are asked now for cd-operation in regard to the war, at the most critical point in the world's history. Well, if co-operation is necessary in time of war, are we not to have it in time of peace in regard to trade and transportation, the development and the settlement of the country, and in dealing with financial problems, including banking and currency? I compliment the minister on his speech.
I know it has the weakness that it has not presented a constructive policy. But the 107
minister has gone so far as to say: We are prepared to sit down together and consider the question. That is not a bad policy. Judging from what I can read of the past, good results have followed where men have sat down and joined together and decided on a policy that meant progress for the whple nation. I hope there will be some expression of opinion on this problem, although perhaps not here to-day.	The
leaven is- working and it can be seen in the country; you can see from the press what the people are talking about. They know that we have had too much politics and too much partisanship in the past, and they know that partisanship has not produced very favourable results.	The
Americans, after their experience	with
party Government and partisanship	are
getting rather tired of it. All the evidence goes to show that, in the new time after this war, the only thing possible for a nation is national organization of its resources and its transportation, its educational system, and everything of that kind. A nation will not be in it from this day forth unless -it is nationally organized and unless lit abandons the mistakes that have grown up in the past in dealing with public problems. New times, new methods and nationality must be the governing idea "deling with these great questions. While I throw these statements out, just off the hat as it were, they are convictions that I have reached after careful study of the conditions that have existed here and in other countries. I believe that, if we are to be a nation fit to play our part under the new conditions that will obtain and are already in sight, we shall be able to do it only by listening to such appeals as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has made to-day and on other occasions. He recently warned us of the danger of the excessive influence of party considerations in the matter of patronage, and a great many other things. We are all to blame for conditions as they exist to-day; both parties are to blame, the public are to blame. But the public expect a change. They expect relief from somebody, or perhaps from some new party that will arise in this country, some new, national party that will have a real national programme and some kind of national leadership, and that will appeal to all the people of Canada for a cessation and abandonment of the present method of working out our problems -and will ap-



proach them on the newer and broader lines which have been indicated here today. The public expect it, and the public will not be satisfied with this Parliament and with our political institutions unless they are modified and changed to some extent, in the direction I have indicated.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: With much of what my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has just said I have a great deal of sympathy. I think that after this war is over we may have less partisanship than we have at present. I am prepared to give my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) this [DOT]much credit, that in many cases what he advocates to-day is the policy of the party in power to-morrow. His policy may not be taken up within a few months or even years, but we have seen the adoption by the party in power of more than one of the principles he has advocated.
The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken me to task for bringing up the subject of free wheat, and he has said that I have brought it up very often. I can only say to my hon. friend that 1 have not brought it up any oftener thta he has dodged it, for he has dodged it every time it has been brought up. Hearing the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak this afternoon, you would think it was a crime for one of the representatives of a million and a half, or two millions of people, on the prairie, whose principal business it is to grow wheat, who are looking for a market for their wheat to bring this question up, and to bring it up again, in the effort to secure a solution of it. This is a question that it is up to the Government to deal with and it will always be before the Government until it settled. Therefore, no representative of the West is to blame in the slightest degree if he does bring this question up again and again until we get a settlement and a right settlement. My hon. friend makes a statement that is very far from the fact when he says that the freight rate does not affect the farmers in the West, that it does not matter whether the freight is high or low, he gets the same price anyway and that it i3 the consumer across the water who pays the extra freight on the wheat that the farmer grows. I have been a grower of, and a dealer in, wheat in my time and I know that if you are on the market buying wheat at any point on the prairies where wheat is grown, and the freight at Fort William suddenly goes up, we will say from three to

five cents a bushel, just as quickly as the message can be flashed over the wires, down goes the price of wheat to the farmer two cents a bushel. That happens in every case; you cannot get away from it. How is the merchant going to pay the same price for wheat if it costs him two cents a bushel more to send it across from Port Arthur to Montreal? He has to reduce the price paid to the farmer. The freight has everything to do with the price that the farmer gets. Under the present circumstances, occasioned by the war, the freight on wheat across the ocean has gone up from five cents a bushel to 35, 40 and 45 cents. I am not going to be so extreme, or unreasonable, as to claim that if the freight was suddenly brought down to a normal rate the farmer Would get all the advantage of that reduction. I do not think he would under the circumstances, but it certainly would be greatly to his advantage if the rate came down. He would not get it all but he would get part of it. You can. lay it down as a principle which cannot be got over that the cost of freight on wheat between the farm which produces it and the city of Liverpool, or Chicago, or New York, or Minneapolis, or any place where the wheat happens to be sold, is and will always be, one of the most important factors. If my [DOT]hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that it makes no difference to the farmer what the rate is, he will find that he has very few followers in the West who will subscribe to his doctrine. During the past ten years there has been a wonderful change .in the knowledge of the farmer on those particular questions relating to the marketing of his crop, to freight rates and everything in connection with the sale of his wheat. He is as well posted in a general way as most men in Canada and just as well posted along the lines of his own business as are other men along the lines of their own particular business.
My hon. friend has dealt at consider-ablfe length, very moderately, with the question of tonnage, but there were two points that my hon. friend avoided, or overlooked, in his discussion that I thought would have had a bearing on the subject and would have been well worthy of mention by my hon. friend. If we are going to secure the building of ships in Canada, would it not	be	well to	put all the
material that goes into the building of these ships on the free list? Would not that be the easiest way to pay a part of the bonus, if a bonus is necessary, to secure the building of ships? Would it not be easier to

simply take the duty off the material that goes into the ships than to pay an extra bonus per ton in connection with the building of ships? There is another factor that would enter very largely into the question of securing tonnage to carry the produce of our farms from this country across the water, and that is the question of securing return freight. If my hon. friend said: We will take off the extra 7J per cent that we put on British goods last year, that would induce trade between Canada and Great Britain, and therefore there would be more tonnage to carry our wheat and other products to the Old Country. It seems to me that that would be a cheaper way of securing tonnage than offering a bonus. If you pay a bonus on tonnage, what will be the result? Take the case of the farmer, and this .applies equally to every man who is a consumer, and we all are consumers. The farmer has to pay the extra duty on goods coming from the Old Country. Then he has, in addition, to pay for the bonus on the building of ships, and in that way he is paying double. In the case of the w-estern farmer, who is refused the right to sell his wheat in the best market, or to have the choice of selling his wheat where the market happens to be best at the time, has to pay three times to secure that extra tonnage. If my hon. friend, instead of just taking off the extra 7J per cent put on last year, w'ould come down with a definite policy, supported by his colleagues, and say that in order to encourage tonnage to come to Canada, and in order to avoid paying a special bonus to secure that tonhage to carry the products of Canada to the Old Country, we will put British goods on the free list-


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would my hon. friend be good enough to say if he would advise anybody to go into the West, settle down and start growing wheat?


John Gillanders Turriff: If the Government would come forward and say: We will put British goods on the free list-


John Hampden Burnham: That is not the point.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, then, I misunderstood my hon. friend.


John Hampden Burnham: I want to know, with the state of things as it is now, if he would advise people to go into the West and start farming, or chuck the whole thing up?


John Gillanders Turriff: That is, if goods were put on the free list?


John Hampden Burnham: Now, at the present time.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend is very
pessimistic. The West is all right.


John Hampden Burnham: Answer the question.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would advise my hon. friend to settle in the West.


John Hampden Burnham: What's the trouble?


John Gillanders Turriff: The trouble is that the Government will not give us the best market for our wheat. My hon. friend would have to work if he came out West, but he is a husky lopking man.


John Hampden Burnham: You have knocked
your own case on the head.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not wish to be
diverted from my argument. I was saying that if the Minister of Trade a!nd Commerce would put British goods on the free list', there would not be nearly so much difficulty in getting tonnage to carry our products to the Old Country, because that would be an inducement to shipping to come to Canada. If the Government would do that, my hon. friend would not have to ask questions about people going to the West. If people could get their goods right and sell their products in the best market, you could not keep them out of the West with a club. Free wheat does not mean that all our wheat would go to the United States. If the argument of hon. gentlemen is sound, that the Canadian price is better, our wheat would never go to the United States, not one bushel of it. But if we had that extra market, we could take advantage of it exactly as our cattle raisers in the West do. Cattle enter the United States free now, and practically all our cattle are going there, simply because they fetch a higher price than in eastern Canada or across the ocean. Money counts with the farmer when he is selling his cattle, and it would count when he was selling his wheat. If he could get a better price at home he would not sell outside.	.
I entirely agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that a country should have a mercantile marine of its own, to carry products to and from the country. The question is, how best to bring that about. I have never been much of an advocate of bonusing industries, but a bonus has this advantage: you know exactly what you are paying. And when it is a question of giving a bonus or putting a duty on an article that is produced in Canada I prefer the bonus, simply because it is more easy

to regulate, and everybody knows exactly what is being paid. But I do not know that a bonus is the best way to secure a mercantile marine. It may be; I do not profess to know very much about this subject; but I think it rather unreasonable for the minister to come here without any proposition whatever to offer to the committee, and then ask my hon. friend from St. John to outline his proposal. Let the minister work out a proposition that will receive the assent of his colleagues first of all, and then submit it to the House, and if it is reasonable I am sure it will receive considerable support from this side of the House. But I do not think it is up to the Opposition to work out a plan for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not say that we should not be able to satisfy him, because I have a pretty good opinion of his reasonableness-a much better opinion than I have of the Government as a whole. But while the minister might agree with a proposition coming from this side of the House, his colleagues might not, and it is for that reason that a proposal of this kind should be put forward by the Government in power, and have behind it the weight of the Cabinet's approval.
I have said what little I wanted to say, and I do not apologize to anybody for (bringing up the question of free wheat. I .-shall bring it up just as often as I think .necessary, and shall keep on doing so until we secure that boon for the western farmers; at would be a boon not only to the West font to the whole of Canada and would hurt nobody. I should like to see the minister take a tour through the West, not meeting out-and-out supporters of the Government in the large cities, but attending a few of the farmers' big conventions, the Grain Growers' and the United Farmers' conven- . tions for instance. Let the minister get their view on the free wheat question, and he will soon find that his colleague the Solicitor General was very far from the mark when he said in the House that he was satisfied that ninety per cent of the agitation for free wheat was political, and the other ten per cent mistaken economics.
SUPPLY.	,
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
If Mr. Turriff.]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $1,000,000.


Mr. OLIVER:: Before six o'clock there was a general discussion in regard to ocean rates and freights, and I presume the minister does not object to that discussion being continued on this item.	t


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister tell us what amount of grain has gone across the ocean during the period between the close of navigation on the lakes and, say, the middle of this month?


George Eulas Foster: Tb,at question is pertinent to this item, but the whole question of grain carriage, transference,- routes, everything like that, will come up when we *take up the item covering the grain system in the West. I intend to take that item up to-morrow, when I will have my notes here and will give full information. The hon. member is perfectly in order in asking a question on this item, because a good deal of grain does go by this route.


Frank Oliver: The Minister of Railways and Canals was not altogether clear in his explanation yesterday as to the disposition that had been made of the grain carried forward on tfie Transcontinental during the past winter.


George Eulas Foster: That will come under railway transportation.


Frank Oliver: If it were convenient for the minister to get that information from his colleague it would be of great advantage to have it.


George Eulas Foster: I want to get that information myself, so that we shall have it when the item comes up.


Frank Oliver: I had it in mind to give some consideration to those questions that were discussed this afternoon on the basis of the information for which I was asking just now. That information, however, will be quite acceptable to-morrow, when the matter is up for discussion.


George Eulas Foster: It will be up tomorrow o-r the next day.


Frank Oliver: Following the argument
of the minister when he set out the reasons for the present lack of shipping facilities, I remember that he laid considerable stress on the fact that on the outbreak of war the mercantile marine of Germany and Austria was automatically eliminated from the

carrying traffic of the world, that is, all except such portion as was under seizure in British ports which, I presume, was turned to use in due course. Since then, some of that shipping which was interned in the ports of Portugal has been dealt with in the same way, and I think Italy has done the same with enemy shipping interned in her ports. I do not know what proportion of the total mercantile marine of the two central empires was comprised in that which was interned in the ports of Great Britain and her Allies, but it must have been a considerable percentage of the total, so that that part is not now out of commission by reason of the war. That part of the mercantile marine of the two central empires that remained in their own ports or is interned in neutral ports, of course, is out of commission; but on the other hand the traffic business of the two central empires, of the Turkish empire and, in large measure, of the Russian empire is also out of commission. Therefore, the loss in shipping facilities to the Allied and neutral nations is not nearly as great by reason of the war as the case as presented by the minister would indicate, because, whilst we have lost the shipping, the business is not there to be done by that shipping owing to the blockade. I emphasize this phase of the case for the purpose of establishing what appears to me to be the most serious and deplorable feature of the present condition of trans-Atlantic traffic, and that is that, having given full credit for all the legitimate reasons arising out of the war as an influence in increasing ocean freight rate's, I am compelled to the conclusion that the great reason is the fact that the owners of shipping on the Atlantic ocean have taken advantage of the necessities of the world as it stands to-day and are so using the power that is in their hands as to create and constitute a menace to the Allied powers and to civilization at large. In my opinion, the owners of shipping on the Atlantic, to say nothing about any other part of the world, are to-day in the strongest and the most conscienceless combine that the world has ever seen, especially when all the circumstances are taken into consideration. When we are discussing this question, it is worth while to realize that the conditions that we face are not altogether natural, but artificial, and, being artificial, permit of drastic treatment that would not be in order were the conditions as to ocean rates the natural result of the general world conditions arising out of the war. I will admit that there is a certain percentage of reason for the increase in freight rates; but, taking everything that the minister has said at its full value, I still cannot admit that that constitutes a sufficient reason for the increase in ocean freight rates on the short haul between Canada and Great Britain of three, four, five, six, eight or ten hundred per cent that has taken place since the war began. The increase is out of all proportion to the change of conditions. A great part of the cost pf ocean transport is the wages of men employed and the cost of the support of those men. Sailors' wages have increased, and the cost of living has increased. But the wages have not increased more than one hundred per cent-I doubt that they have increased fifty per cent-and the cost of living has not increased more than one hundred per cent; yet we are face to face with an increase of from eight hundred to a thousand per cent, and for this, for my part, I can find no justification.
That brings me to this point: that while I am not favourably disposed towards the minister's suggestion of a future policy of subsidized shipbuilding in Canada, I am of the belief that present conditions are such that if Canada, as a part of the great alliance, and the Mother Country are not to be absolutely strangled in this war by reason of the rapacity of owners of -shipping on the Atlantic, some drastic and immediate measures will have to be taken- -to supply the mutual needs of Canada and Great Britain. Dp to the beginning of the war, there had never been a complete shipping combine; there had been partial combines, limited combines; but in the period -since the beginning of the war, in effect the whole shipping business of the Atlantic has become a combine, and it i-s merely a question of how much these people can get without regard to -the service that they render, knowing that the absolute necessities of the case, life or death for the whole country on either side of the Atlantic, depends upon their say-so. They have their hands on the throat of civilization and they are strangling it to death. The minister was at some pains to explain that the producer did not pay the freight; he was strongly of the opinion that the consumer pays the freight. But whichever pays the freight, the allied world is carrying that additional load. The shipping people are taking it out of the allied world beyond what would be fair and just under all the circumstances, and are stupendously increasing the burden which has to be carried, without proper

justification. I do not wish to argue at any great length the point of who pays the freight, because it- is not material to the argument I iam making; but my impression is that, the circumstances being as they are, it is the 'Canadian producer who pays that freight. One reason why I believe that is this. When the freight was lower and when the price of grain at Liverpool was not so high as at present, the Canadian producer received a higher price for his wheat; but since that time in 1914, the price in Liverpool has increased but the price in Canada has gone down, while the cost of transport across the ocean has gone up. It seems to me there is no question that, had the cost of transport across the ocean remained the same, we in Canada would have received the benefit of that increase in the price of wheat in Great Britain. But whether we lose or whether the consumer loses, we know that we are stupendously handicapped in this terrible struggle by reason of the fact that freight rates across the ocean have been so greatly increased.
The minister asked the House, and asked the Opposition, to give their best opinion as to what should be done under these circumstances. I do not know that that, under our system of government, is exactly the business of the party of the Opposition. Having become seized of the existence of a certain condition, it is the business of the Government to find means to meet that condition. If our discussion were to run along that line, I should be compelled to follow in some degree the argument of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and to say that, had the responsibility rested on this side of the House, notice would have been taken at an earlier day of the conditions as they then existed, and due preparation would have been made to meet these conditions as they now exist. My hon. friend will see that we do not get anywhere when we begin to argue in that way, becauSe that is not a matter that is capable of proof, either one way or the other. But we can, I think, reach this agreement, that the condition that exists could have been measurably met, or, at any rate, it would have been right and proper to take steps to meet it when it began to arise or when it became evident that it would arise. That, however, is not what I want to say.
What I want to say is this, that we in Canada, as well as the people of the United Kingdom, are faced by a terrible crisis, as I am given to understand the situation to

be, in regard to the cost of transport and the facilities for transport from this side	of the	Atlantic	to	the other.We	are faced	with a	crisis	which willhave to be met	without	delay.	While Iwould	not wish to be	considered for a
moment as agreeing to a permanent policy of subsidized shipbuilding such as my hon. friend suggested to-day, I would say that in view of the crisis which we are facing I would be prepared to support the Government in almost any measure they saw fit to take, if it was feasible, in order to meet that condition of affairs and to give transportation across the ocean with assurance as to accommodation being available at reasonable rates. War conditions being as they are, I do not think that we are well advised in making calculations as to what may take place after the war. My impression is that the conditions to-day are such that the best thought of the allied nations, this Dominion included, should be brought to bear upon the single object of winning the war. If and when we win the war, we shall be in a position to lay our plans and take consideration of the future, but until the war is won the first essential is that it shall be won, and won under circumstances that will leave no question as to the result or as to the winning. I know that many great minds in Canada have given much thought to what we will do after the war. I repeat that in so far as these ideas draw us away from the concentration of our best minds upon the winning of the war, to that extent they are not really to our benefit. We had better put these things aside for the present and concentrate our thought and attention on winning dhe war.


John Howard Sinclair: I
had intended before the Speaker left the Chair to say a few words on this question, but I was called out' of the House, and perhaps this would be as good a time as any to express briefly my views on the subject. I was pleased to hear that the minister had decided to take some action on this very important question. It is not a new question in this House. I have had the honour of sitting in this House for twelve years and I do not think that a single session., has passed without a discussion on shipbuilding. Although the subject has been looked at' from all angles it is apparent that up to the present time no decision has been reached.
It is not a party question, and I trust that it will not become a party question.

It is purely a business nuestion, and I see no reason why both sides of the House should not deal with it as such and endeavour to reach some conclusion. Coming from the province of Nova Scotia, I take a special interest in this matter. We look back upon the time when our province was a great shipbuilding province. It is not a great while ago since we were able to boast that no country in the world, not even Great Britain, had as many tons of shipping to its credit per head of population as the little province of Nova Scotia. We lost that proud position, and we began to lose it very shortly after 1867. You will remember that soon after Confederation a high tariff was introduced into Canada in place oX the old 10 per cent tariff that we used to have in Nova Scotia. One of the reasons, according to my view, why we were driven out of the business of shipbuilding was because this high tariff increased the price of production. It cost more to build the ship, and when she was launched she had to compete with the whole world; she had to compete with the ships built on the Clyde, and on the Humber, and elsewhere in Great Britain where everything is cheap and where they have made such great progress in this industry. Another reason was the change from wooden to iron ships. In those days we built wooden ships successfully, but when the change took place from wood to iron and tnen from iron to steel, we had our own difficulties to meet. Our people who had money in the shipbuilding business took their money out and invested in the industries which promised large returns under the national policy, but many of them were disappointed and lost their money. The question now arises: can we get back to a workable system; can we get again the old supremacy on the sea that we have lost? Every Nova Scotian is ambitious in that direction. We like to look upon ourselves as a maritime people, sweeping the seas and carrying cargoes from far-off countries. That has been the tradition of the province in the past, and it has not yet died out. I am sure that in the province from which I come any steps that can be taken to waken the shipbuilding industry will be welcomed. I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not seen fit to come to us with some kind of a clean cut proposal from the Government, which if we thought was genuine, we could look upon seriously and give our views on. But if it is only
talk, if it is only a discussion which is not intended to end in anything, there is little use in our taking very much interest in it. We have had so many of these illusory suggestions in the past that we would like to feel that this time the minister is leading us to a bona fide movement with regard to this matter. We are not able to forget that in 1909 the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a great speech in this House in which he drew a delightful picture of what was to happen in the years to come when we should embark on naval construction in this country and when the construction of mercantile ships would follow. We believed him at that time; we thought that his forecast was correct, and he was able to win the assent of both sides of the House, 'but for the last six or seven years the minister has been busy trying to explain away the position that he took on that particular occasion. If there is one man in Canada who is responsible for our failure in that matter it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself. I am sorry to have to say that, but we must speak the truth on matters of this kind.


George Eulas Foster: Speak the truth as we see it.


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad, however, if he is going to turn over a new leaf; if he *is going to make a sincere and honest effort to blaze the trail for the country in regard to this important matter. We would all be very pleased if the picture drawn for us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce could he realized, and I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) 'that the question has become so urgent that it demands immediate attention from the Government. I do not agree that it is an the Atlantic alone that this trouble exists. The high rates prevail not only in the North Atlantic, but in the Pacific, in the South Atlantic, and all over the world. The ship owners cam secure just as profitable trade in carrying cargoes from the Argentine to the Mediterranean as from Halifax to Liverpool. The peculiarity about the ocean shipping business is that the ship owner has the whole world for his market; he is asking only for the market . price. When there is a cargo to be carried it is put up in the exchanges in the big cities like London and New York, and the ship owner who undertakes to carry that cargo for the lowest figure will get it, and bidders are there from all over the world.

Wherever the cargoes are owners of vessels in that pant of the world are represented at the exchanges in London, or wherever the business is done, and the cargoes are carried at the market price. I do not think that any one can substantiate the theory put forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Olivet) that there is a combine.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think there is any combine. The world's shipping trade is too large a business -for a combine to be formed. The whole world is interested.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there not a North Atlantic combine?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think so.


William Findlay Maclean: I think there is.


John Howard Sinclair: At least I do not know of any. I never heard of any.


William Findlay Maclean: The Canadian Pacific Railway is in it for one.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not see what advantage it would be to have a combine in the north Atlantic. There was, a few years ago, a shipping company in New York that was said to be endeavouring to combine all the shipping of the country; but that fell down, and at the present time I do not think there is any large company that controls the rates in any way. If there is I am not aware of it; but perhaps my hon. friend has better information. If he could enlighten us on that matter, I should be interested. There is in the whole world about 50,000,000 tons of shipping and the British Empire owns about
20.000.	000 tons of that shipping. I am now talking of gross tonnage. The next largest owner is Germany. Germany 'has over
5.000.	000 tone, and the United States also has over 5,000,000 tons, a very large part of which is coasting tonnage. Of course, the whole German tonnage is now tied up. The United States has very little deep sea tonnage. In Canada we have quite a respectable tonnage, but in Canada, under our system, we count everything in the tonnage, the little boats that ply on the lakes, the scows, and all these small craft.


Mr. GRAHAM:: We have big boats on the lakes.
Mr. SINCLAIR.: Yes, but they are all put in the one list, and they form the tonnage of Canada, which is about 700,000 tons or perhaps a little more. Very little

of that is ocean tonnage. We have some ocean tonnage, and while the 'minister was speaking on that point I thought of interrupting him to make a suggestion. He said there was nothing the Government could do to affect the rates. I felt like suggesting that they could have done what the Government of- Great Britain did which commandeered the tonnage that they required for war purposes and for commercial purposes, and forced the owners of that tonnage to turn- in and work for them, and the owners are now carrying cargoes for the British Government at about one-third what they could get in the market if they were free to go and work for the ordinary merchant. That is to say, the British Government give on tramp vessels' about 12 shillings per ton per month, whereas an owner can earn from 35 shillings to perhaps 40 shillings a month in the market if he was free from the requisition of the British Government. The British Government in that way have controlled the rate of a certain amount of the tonnage of Great Britain, I think about 33 per cent, according to the last statement I saw. The Canadian Government could have done the same thing. They could have commandeered all the boats that are registered in Canada and turned them into the Canadian service, to do the work of Canada at a reasonable rate. The way the British Government arrived at their rate was by taking an average of the profits of three years prior to the war and making a certain allowance for the increased cost of manning the ship and the increased insurance. They fixed a rate on that basis, and the traffic on all commandeered vessels is controlled by that rate.


Mr. BROJDER:: Do not the English Government run all risk of the vessel being lost?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, in a sense. The ships are all insured under a system which the English Government, have organized with certain companies in London, and they pay the insurance so that if a ship is sunk by a submarine or lost in any way the owner gets the value of his ship. They also make some provision for the increased cost of the running of the ship, so that it works out fairly well for the owner, while the British Government have the advantage of getting their work done at a fair and reasonable rate. My hon. friend could have done that,

but lie failed to do so. He also, as I understand, allowed the British Government to commandeer Canadian ships, which I do not think should have been permitted by the Canadian Government. Ships registered in Canada should be under the control of 'the Canadian Government, and if any commandeering or requisitioning is to- be done it should toe done by our own Government. We are loyal to Great Britain; we are willing to help in this great struggle, and we are helping; we are sending our best to the other side, regardless of money, regardless of life; we are willing to do our full share in winning the war. At the same time, we do not expect the British Government to come here and order us to send our men overseas; we want to send them voluntarily. We have free government in this country, and I should expect our Government to take the stand in regard to this matter of commandeering ships that an independent, free Government should take, and to say: No, if any requisitioning or commandeering of Canadian ships is to toe done we will do it ourselves, and if it is necessary to turn our ships over to the British authorities in order to help in the war we will do it, but we will control every shi^ that is under Canadian register. That is the position the Canadian Government should have taken.
I said a moment ago that we had not been able, during a great many years, to make any progress worth while in the building of ships, and I attributed that to two reasons. One of those reasons has disappeared. We have now in this country a greal, steel industry. We are able to produce steel in large quantities. We have rolling mills in which we can roll steel to produce the ships. We have a large number of skilled men who are able to do the work. We have all those things in Canada now that we did not have twenty years ago. But we still have high protection; that stays with us, iand in my view we shall not be able to compete with free trade Great Britain in ship building unless something is done -to assist the Canadians who embark in this business. Take France, for example. The people of France have an extensive coast line, and they have always been very anxious to toe the owners of a mercantile marine.	No
Government has done more than the French Government in that direction. They have paid large bounties, they even paid so much, a mile for the voyage that the ship makes on the
ocean, in order to induce the French people to embark in shipbuilding. They have spent vast sums of money, but they have had no special success in France. They do not own to-day much more than about 2,000,000 tons of shipping out of
50,000,000 tons that are owned by the maritime nations throughout the world. Two million tons i>s all they have been able to put on the water with all the protection that they have given in France. What is the reason? The reason is that France is a highly protective country, and everything is so expensive that they cannot build a ship, launch her and compete with the rest of the world in that business. Hon. gentlemen must not think that it is all easy sailing in the shipping .business. Before the w.ar ship owners were having a very hard time of it, and many of them had to go under. In -many cases they did not make more than 5 per cent on their money, and their property was disappearing or becoming less valuable year by year. That is what happened during all the years of hard times before this spurt came on. 1^ you .are going to embark in the shipping business you must be prepared for a dull spell as well as for a profitable time, and in order to do that you have to build your ships with as little capital as possible, because you have to pay dividends on every dollar that you put into it. If it is going to cost the Canadian more to build the ships than the Englishman, or the Scotchman, 'he must get that money from some source, and that is the question the Government have to settle.
The scheme they have in the United States, and which was put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-day, does not seem to be a practical one. No capitalist will want to embark in partnership with the Government. I understood him to say that under that scheme, which is proposed before the United States Congress to-day, the Government would provide the largest part of the capital, that the Government would require to own the controlling interest in the capital that would be put into the ships, and that they would invite private enterprise to go in with them. I venture to say that capitalists, or those engaged in private enterprise, will not embark in business with the Government. The experience of the United States is like our own. The Government have not been successful in managing commercial matters. I fear they will not be successful in this

and I do not think that the scheme will be found 'workable.
The last proposition made by the minister strikes me, without having had much time to consider it, as more likely to be of some use. I hope he will follow it up and work it out if he can. There is great activity in the United States at the present time in the matter of shipbuilding. The United States own about 5,000,000 tons of shipping already. They have, within a year, reduced their tariff. They have made it easier to embark in the shipbuilding business. They have never paid any bounty, but they have opened the registry in the United States to foreign shipping, which, is of great value,


George Eulas Foster: For seven years.


John Howard Sinclair: For seven years. Any
man who chooses can go abroad, buy a ship, bring her to the United States, register her under the American flag and sail her as an American ship. He could not do that until recently. That has increased the tonnage of the United States largely during the last year or two. From the last statistics I have seen, and which are contained in the Report of the Department of Commerce for the present month of April, it appears that there are 360 vessels on the stocks of the United States of an aggregate tonnage of 1,067,856. You can see that there is great activity in the United States in reference to the question of shipbuilding, and I am inclined to think that if the United States reduce their tariff and become practically a free trade country she would very soon become a rival of Great Britain on the seas. She was a rival of Great Britain away back about the middle of the last century, before she adopted high protection as her policy.


George Eulas Foster: This new tonnage is almost entirely coastal.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: I wish to make a few remarks on the question now under consideration, namely, assistance by the Government in some manner or other towards shipbuilding in Canada. I assume that any assistance given would be equally applicable to ships on the Great Lakes as on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It is to be regrettaed that a large quantity of our Northwest grain has gone through to Buffalo in the past. I saw it stated in to-day's papers that the hon. member for St. John-had alleged that some 80 per cent of our grain for export had gone through Buffalo while the Minister of Public Works stated that it was somewhere around 50 per cent. Speaking for myself, I heard the statement frequently made last fall that about 75 per cent of our Northwest grain for export went through Buffalo; indeed so great was the quantity that went through that port that at the close of the year there was no less a quantity than 30,000,000 bushels of export
grain lying at Buffalo in vessels which were waiting to take their turn at the elevators.
At the outset I want to point out the great disadvantage under which Canadian registered vessels labour on the Great Lakes. Contrast the position of two vessels, one owned by an American and registered in the United States, and the other owned by a Canadian and registered in Canada. With the New Year the large American freighter, or any American freighter as far as that is concerned, lying at some point near Buffalo is loaded with coal for either Duluth or Port Arthur. The Canadian vessel has the same privilege of taking coal up, but after the first run of coal is through, and after the grain at the head of the lakes either at Duluth, Port Arthur or Fort William has been carried east, a lull comes in the trade for the Canadian vessel. The American vessel is pressed into the ore carrying trade, and any man who ever stood at Detroit or Windsor and saw that wonderful procession of huge freighters passing, by, all bearing the American flag, must have been impressed with the enormous ore carrying trade these American boats do. The Canadian vessel is debarred from that trade because all the ore that is carried from the North is taken from the Missanabie range or from some point on Lake Michigan, aud it would be a contravention of the coasting laws for a Canadian vessel to engage in that trade. There are, it is true, some iron industries on the lakes, the one at Hamilton, for instance, requires a certain amount of iron ore, and the iron ore it uses is in the main carried by Canadian vessels, but while the Hamilton concern is relatively a large one, yet the quantity/ of ore it uses during the whole season can be supplied by two or three vessels. The result is-and I have frequently seen this-that at Midland, Goderich, and other lake towns, Canadian vessels are tied up during the summer months while American vessels are carrying ore. That of course is a great handicap on the Canadian lake shipping.
Another point to be remembered is that the growth of the Canadian vessel in carrying capacity has been comparatively small. While I do hot profess to give the exact figures, I think I am well within the mark when I say that to every vessel of Canadian registry on the Great Lakes there are in .all probability forty ox fifty American vessels, and the American vessels are also of much greater tonnage. The experience has been such that no man will invest his

to contemplate it within the next fifty years. What does that bring us to? In the first place, you must have a large vessel to carry grain on the Upper Lakes if you are going to make money-and unless that vessel can make money no man will invest in it. And in the next place that vessel cannot be taken out of the Upper Lakes in winter, it must lie lifeless, and, instead of a money-maker, it will be a money-loser. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to let the Americans carry the balance of the grain and make it an even one hundred per cent to Buffalo? They have the advantage of taking it out in the winter months by way of Philadelphia, New York, or other points along the coast, while we are driven to bring it to some point on Georgian bay and carry it out by way of the Grand Trunk tp Portland or by the other line to Halifax or St. John-and we all know how we are handicapped on account of the great mileage to Halifax, St. John, or Portland. We must have vessels on the lakes if we want to control the trade; and so I was pleased to hear the minister say that he hopes to see that done." My bon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) spoke of the question of steel production in relation to shipbuilding in Canada. I assume that in Sydney, with their enormous production, and probably also in Hamilton, if vessel building on a large scale were guaranteed in this country, they might go into the manufacture of shipping plates. But the manufacture for the few vessels building to-day in Canada would be the height of absurdity; no people with capital wouid invest in it, I understand that this business of rolling plates is a very variable business, so variable indeed that I have known Harland & Wolff, the great British shipbuilders, to carry over through Midland shipping plates rolled in Chicago and then take them to England for use in building ships. That, I assume, was when shipbuilding in Britain was very brisk, so that they could make a profit even paying freight for that long distance. So far there has not been a large amount of ship construction in Canada. I venture the statement that only one kind of vessel will be built in Canada for the future, and that will be the large vessel that cannot possibly pass through the Canadian canals and go out to sea, and, as it will be tied up during the winter months, it will be greatly handicapped. The Canadian vessel is 
handicapped in every way you look at her. Take, for instance, the question of coal. It is true large quantities of coal are taken up to the head of the lakes at Port Arthur and Fort William, for I assume that all the coal going as w.ar west as Winnipeg is carried to the head of the lakes by vessel. The Canadian vessel has no monopoly of that trade, for it is no contravention of the coasting law to carry that freight from Cleveland or some other point on Lake Erie to a Canadian port. Then, at a point called Byng Inlet, a little north of Parry Sound, on Georgian bay, the Canadian Pacific handle an enormous quantity of coal. They have splendid appliances for handling it, and they carry it from Byng Inlet to Fort William .and from Fort William back towards Toronto. That is American coal and consequently the carriage of it is not restricted to Canadian vessels. These are handicaps that will always be faced by Canadian vessels. With the hope that shipbuilding in Canada may be promoted, I trust that at an early day the ' Government may be pleased to enact legislation along the lines suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I will not refer to the other phases of it and to the advantage to the country that they would bring. But I do believe that the payment of the difference between what the vessel would cost if constructed in Great Britain and what it would cost if constructed in Canada would have a good effect, and for that reason I would welcome with the greatest possible pleasure such a proposal as has been indicated.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I just wish to refer
to one phase of the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding this country paying the difference in cost between a vessel constructed here and constructed, say, in Europe. It would be necessary to provide for the case of wooden vessels as well as steel vessels. In the case of steel vessels, I think, the minister should find out the cost per ton of a vessel built on a certain specification on the Clyde and the cost of the same vessel in the United States-because I assume that a vessel could be built in Canada as cheaply as in the United States. Having arrived at this difference, I think it would be better to give a bounty per ton yielding the same amount instead of agreeing to pay the difference in cost. In effect it would be the same, but, to my mind, the carrying out of the proposal would be

easier. In regard to wooden ships I should say the reasonable thing would be to find out the cost per ton of a vessel of a certain specification, say in Riga, and also the cost in say Bath, Maine, for I assume that we can construct a wooden ship as cheaply as it can be constructed in the United States. Or, no doubt, the minister could find out what would be the actual cost of construction in Canada. Then, I think it would encourage wooden shipbuilding all over the Maritime Provinces if the plan I suggest were followed and a bounty per ton were paid. I am not sure that the minister will think that practicable, but I am confident that if you give a shipbuilder in the Maritime Provinces a bounty per ton equal to what the minister has suggested, the work will be more easily overtaken and the plan more effective in encouraging the industry. When the minister addressed the House in 1909 on the subject of the navy he declared strongly that he wanted something tangible. I regret that he did not insist that the contracts entered into for the starting of a great shipbuilding plant in the city of St. John were not carried out. I have no doubt whatever that if that had been done we should have the ships afloat to-day and the same plant engaged in mercantile shipbuilding. But we must forget the past and lay hold of the opportunities before us to-day, when an increased-mercantile tonnage is absolutely necessary in the interests of this great dominion that sends so much of its products across the ocean.
The minister ought to take this matter up seriously and get down to something tangible, so that a man who wants to build a 500-ton vessel will know how much aid to expect from the Government. Hundreds of Riga vessels, built in Russia, have been plying in the river in my county since the war started. They are vessels of 400 to 600 toms register, mot as large as the ordinary vessels of British register, and they are very useful in the timber trade. Before the war these vessels did not ply very much across the ocean, because they were engaged in the Baltic trade. Perhaps they are rather small to make the ocean trade profitable, but the principle remains the same; you must put the Canadian builder in as good/ a position as the man in Riga who puts capital in a vessel and sends it here to compete for our trade.


John Gillanders Turriff: In the early part of the session the Minister of Marine stated that the Government had secured from the
British Government for the Atlantic trade between Canada and Great Britain three enemy vessels that had been captured and taken to Great Britain. I would judge from what the minister said this afternoon that if those vessels are still carrying freight between Canada and Great Britain, they are charging the ordinary freight rates.


George Eulas Foster: Three sailing vessels were got hold of. One sank, another foundered, the other one got to this side and her charter was revoked.


John Gillanders Turriff: By whom was her
charter revoked?


George Eulas Foster: By the British
Government, from whom we chartered it. She was a very small vessel and the amount that she could have carried would not be very great. The British Government required her for their own use, and we let her go.


Frank Oliver: Last fall a very strong
campaign was carried on in a number of Government papers in the West on behalf of action by the British Government in the commandeering of vessels for the carrying of Canadian grain to Great Britain. Demand to this effect was made upon the British Government, who were held responsible by these newspapers supporting this Government for just the same condition that my hon. friend to-day objects to his Government being held responsible for by the Opposition. The campaign was carried on for some considerable length of time, until it developed into a measurable degree of hostility to the British Government for its inaction in the matter. Am I to .assume that the British Government will not take such action as was spoken of and urged at that time, am I to assume that the Canadian Government will not take action to commander vessels as was suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough? In fact, has the Government any project or proposal having in view the object of actually facilitating and cheapening the transport of grain across the ocean during the present season?


George Eulas Foster: Whatever may have been stated as matter of discussion or of controversy in the papers looking towards bringing influence to bear on the British Government to commandeer vessels and send them out here to carry Canadian

wheat, I do not think there ever was any very strong ground for the hope that that could have been done. If the British Government had bought grain in Canada for their own purposes, they would have had fair reason for obtaining vessels to carry it over. But the proposition to commandeer vessels and send them to carry grain from / Canada to Great Britain for commercial purposes would be followed by a similar demand from Australia and New Zealand or any other country that might have a surplus. I think anyone who would consider this proposal would hardly expect the British Government to carry it out. Similarly, as to the statement made by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite that the Canadian Government could have commandeered Canadian vessels and set them at certain kinds of work, I do>
not consider that a feasible proposition. Canadian vessels have been carrying everything that they could possibly carry, taking Canadian products from Canadian ports. They could not have stowed any more into their holds if they had belonged to the Government than they did in the possession of the companies themselves.


Frank Oliver: The answer is, then, that there was never any probability of the British Government taking the action that was suggested in these newspapers, and there is now no possibility of the Canadian Government taking such action?


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: No one can tell what may happen, but as things are at present there is no intention of doing that.


Frank Oliver: Aside from the somewhat tentative suggestions made by the minister, has the Government any other proposal to deal with the present situation, which, I am bound to say, from what the hon. minister told the House to-day and yesterday, is certainly a critical situation?


George Eulas Foster: The Government is very seriously .considering the whole question, and before the session ends it may be able to lay some proposals before the House. I have nothing to speak of about that now. The hon. member for Edmonton carried on a discussion with reference to this matter, and traversed ground which was interesting. I listened to his remarks very carefully. We have been a long time in debate on this matter and I do not care to traverse the ground again, but I do not want my hon. friend to think that I was not
	{
interested in the remarks he made. With some of them I agree. I think that more careful examination into some of the others would scarcely lead me along the same line as my hon. friend.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member for Guyshorough (Mr. Sinclair) pointed, out that the British Government in commandeering vessels pay a certain price, which he says is a very good price, so that the vessel owners aTe doing fairly well. If our Canadian vessels are charging ten times the normal price, which is an unreasonable profit for them to be tak;ng from the people of this country, it seems to me that this Government would be absolutely justified in commandeering those vessels .and fixing a price at which they would make double or treble the profit they would make in ordinary times. That is a phase of the question well worthy the attention of the Government. If things become worse and worse, as appears likely, we have no guarantee that, if it is left absolutely to the consciences of the owners of vessels, they will not next year charge double what they are charging now for the carriage of wheat or other products across the water. Would it not be feasible for the Government to commandeer these vessels in order to bring some relief to the producers?


George Eulas Foster: It is to be borne in mind that when the British Government commandeers vessels it is not commandeering them for commercial purposes. It commandeers for purposes of war alone. It commandeers them to do what is necessary, in order to carry munitions, provisions, troops and so on. The British Government has not commandeered a single punt in order to carry on commercial business. In fact it is not a parallel case. I am not able to say what compensation is given by Great Britain on vessels commandeered for war purposes. I know that Great Britain pays generously for every vessel commandeered. But I should be surprised if, when Great Britain commandeers vessels and uses them, she is not paying very close up to the rate of freight prevailing at the time the commandeering is done. I agree absolutely with the member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) that there is not at the present time a combination of shipowners which causes this condition of high rates. Whatever there

may have been amongst shipping companies before the war, the war has cut in like a sledge hammer and knocked them hither and yon and there is no possibility, to my mind, and I think there is no indication of anything like a shipping combine which forces the hand of the Government. Let us take the cases' of two of the largest companies. Of the vessels owned by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, nearly 80 per cent have gone out from the possession of that company and have (been commandeered by and are used by the British Government. Of the vessels owned by the Elder Dempster Company, another widely established owning company, 75 per cent or more have been requisitioned by the British Government. Then no British vessel to-day can trade without license from the Board of Trade, so that the British Government has its hands upon-but for war purposes-the British commercial marine. My hon. friend from Guysborough spoke of Canada not allowing the British Government to commandeer Canadian ships. Well, when war is on and Great Britain wants a ship, so far as I am concerned, she shall have it. I am not going to stand up for one single half minute when the British Government say necessity calls, when the troops need food and fodder, and cavil as to rights or anything of that kind. I may say first, that when vessels from our merchant mercantile marine have been commandeered by the British Government, it has always been after negotiations and communications between the two Governments. But I hope the day will be distant when we shall, any of us, want to prevent the taking of a vessel. When the vessel is necessary the commandeering has got to be done.
Another thing: a man gets up in this House and raises a hullabaloo because somebody has cut his letter open when he should not have done it, under a censorship which has been asked from us for Imperial war purposes by the British Government; another man raises another hullabaloo because there is not a vessel at a certain point to carry what he wants carried. I should like to put the words of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) right before every one who raises that kind of a row, namely that the first thing to do is to carry this war to successful conclusion. And if it is necessary, in order to do that, that lobsters, and wheat, asbestos, and pulp paper have got to stay and wait for carriage, let them wait. I think we make a mistake, sometimes, when we
criticise the British Government so much in connection with matters of this kind.


Frank Oliver: I am always glad to see evidences of Christian charity in this House, and I am glad to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is thoroughly satisfied that' there is not any combine amongst the ship owners of the Atlantic at the present time, a combination which, if it exists, certainly is a combine the effect of which is to operate against our winning the war. I say I am glad that he is of that opinion; but I regret that it appears to me that the weight of evidence is entirely against him.


George Eulas Foster: Where is the
evidence?


Frank Oliver: The evidence is an increase of 1,000 per cent in freight rates, which, I think, is all the evidence any of us want that this has come to a point when the shipping interests in the Atlantic are making potential war upon our country. When according to the statements made by the minister yesterday, our wheat needed in England just as we need the money, has been tied up in our country, when it is impossible to get it across the Atlantic, even at the stupendous rates that are being paid. This is a condition that is of tremendous danger to the Empire and to the winning of the war, and we must not ignore it; at least we are not doing justice to ourselves or to the cause in which we are engaged if we do not realize that, just as the submarines of Germany expect to win the war for their Empires by cutting off the access of wheat to the British Islands, so that agency which, during this past winter, by reason, of its high rates and its handling of this business, has kept our wheat' from going over, has been aiding the German submarines in their project of starving the British Empire. We must realize the situation as it is, as we have to face it, as we know that our enemies realize it. Their whole hope, ever since they started their submarine campaign in the early part of 1915, has been to starve Great Britain. And I say that that alleged peaceful agency which increases freight rates 1,000 per cent, which fails to meet the needs of transportation, is in effective alliance, whether directly intentionally or not, but in effect it is in alliance with and giving assistance to the German submarines in their effort to starve the United Kingdom.


George Eulas Foster: There may be
an effect which is a very strong one and a



very striking one, but that does not carry out the argument or tend to prove the assertion of my hon. friend, that this effect is brought about by a combine. The simple, solitary Norwegian, who boasts his one vessel and has no more idea of what a combine means than a child of five years of age, owning that vessel, and having it, can get the highest rate on the market. He does not have to combine with the monopolist or with the great capitalist. Every man, every small company, every private owner- who has a ship-all he has to do is to go on the market and ask where he will go for his load. He will find his load there and he will find his price for it. Everybody knows that he is getting a mighty high rate and making more than normal profits. Nobody is going to say he is not, but there are two things to think of. In the first place, a vast amount of the tonnage that is ploughing the seas and getting these big rates is chartered tonnage. Any one can test the market by going to the market to-morrow and trying to charter a vessel for any particular route and he will find out what he will have to pay. I venture to say that the man who charters that vessel will find that by the time he pays the cost of the charter and the expenses as they are at the present time, he is not making any more profit out of the chartered vessel than he would have made in normal times three or four years ago and probably not as much. I expected to have had two or three statements bearing actually on the ship chartering business and I will have them before we get through with the discussion. If there is a man who owns a vessel to-day and keeps it running, that man is making money hand over fist but he makes it because there is a need, a call and because there is a man standing in Australia, in New Zealand, and in every quarter of the world, with his hand open and the money in it holding it out and saying in the face of that freight rate: Come and get this load, here is your money the moment you come. You do not need to have a combine to bring about that condition when you are dealing with the necessities of the world to-day.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1916, between Gaspg Basin and Dalhousie or Campbellton, $20,000. -


Charles Marcil: Would the minister give
me more particulars of that item?


George Eulas Foster: I want to drop $5,000.


Charles Marcil: How much is to be paid?
[Sir George Poster.!


George Eulas Foster: $15,000.


Charles Marcil: For a fortnightly trip?


George Eulas Foster: For two trips a week between Campbellton and Gaspe and return, or between Campbellton and Pas-pebiao and return.
. Mr. MARCIL: What is the name of the steamer?


George Eulas Foster: The Elaine.
Mr.'MARCIL: Is that a St. John boat?


George Eulas Foster: St. John or Halifax-Halifax, I think. I beg to move that item No. 79 be reduced by $5,000.
Item as amended agreed to.
Steam service between Sydney, N.S., around the east coast of Cape Breton to Hastings and return to Sydney, via the Bras d'Or lakes, $5,500.


George Perry Graham: I suppose you will not object to the member making a few remarks somewhere about this?


George Eulas Foster: We will have one or two supplementary items and there will be an opportunity.
Supervision lake and ocean freight rates, $6,000.


George Eulas Foster: With that item passed I reserve one item, which takes in the grain business. I-will take that up either to-morrow or next day, and the commandeering business will be discussed on that.


George Perry Graham: Was an attempt made to secure supervision of ocean freights some time ago? I think the Chairman of the Railway Commission visited Europe and had some negotiations. Could the minister tell us what the result of these negotiations was?


George Eulas Foster: The matter was very ably presented by the Chairman of the Railway Commission, and it was discussed between himself, the Board of Trade, and some of the British ministers. The whole subject w'as, at the request of the British Government, left to the Dominions Royal Commission and the Dominions Royal Commission made that one of the subjects of their inquiry in each country as they .passed through. Unfortunately, their labours were interrupted when the war broke out.


George Perry Graham: You were on that?


George Eulas Foster: I was on that. A portion of the work in reference to Can-

ada remains to be done. In the meantime the matter stands there. Under the present war conditions there is no possibility of it being taken up.
Salaries, rent, wages and contingencies under the Canada Grain Act-further amount required, $35,000.


George Eulas Foster: As the main item on the grain business is retained, there will probably be no objection to passing this. I will explain the whole thing when we come to the main vote. On Thursday I will take up the one remaining item under the Grain Act.


Frank Oliver: This item is a supplementary vote for last year?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: It is a very considerable supplementary. A word from the minister might show us what the reason of the extra expenditure was.


George Eulas Foster: There was a considerably larger amount of grain that had to be inspected, weighed and cared for.


Frank Oliver: It was simply increased traffic?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board -contingencies-clerical and other assistance- further amount required, $5,000.


William Pugsley: Ie this supplementary, something that was not anticipated?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Yes. On account of the war loan we have had to engage a large amount of extra temporary help.
Departments Generally - contingencies-care and c'em'ng of departmental buildings-further am unt required, $10 000.


William Pugsley: This requires some explanation. The war cannot account for this.


William Thomas White: The war is responsible for it in a large measure, because there has been an increased number of buildings occupied by the Government. The total number now occupied is 64. Since last year's Estimates II additional buildings have been occupied by the Government. My hon. friend understands that this item largely represents the wages of charmen and charwomen who take care of the additional buildings.


William Pugsley: I really think that during the war, when so many civil servants are leaving the departments and going to 119ft}
the front, it ought to have been possible to get along without any additional buildings. With the exercise of reasonable economy I think that would have been possible. I can understand that in times of peace, when the country is prosperous, the Government might like to give the civil servants as much room .as possible, perhaps to save the necessity of two clerks occuping one room	giving each a
separate apartment. But why it should be necessary, during this period of stress, to rent II additional buildings I am at a loss to understand. [DOT]I think on reflection the minister must see that the desire to rent buildings from friends who may have had them to rent has been more potent with the Government than the necessity for increased accommodation.


William Thomas White: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. As I pointed out the other night, the war has cast additional burdens upon almost all departments of the Government, and it has been necessary to provide additional space. The staffs of many departments have necessarily been greatly increased.


George Perry Graham: What wages do you pay these poor women?


William Thomas White: One of my first official acts was to raise their pay from 75 cents to $1 for a portion of a day.


William Pugsley: A good idea.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
would be surprised at the number we have on the waiting list. There are many people interested in securing work for these poor women for a portion of a day. It is rather lowly service, but it is worthy-


George Perry Graham: And clean.


William Thomas White: Clean in the
moral sense, and in the physical sense, too. They are very worthy women. It seems an anomaly this item should be 10 p.m. under the Finance Department, but I am told it was placed there to avoid the possibility of patronage.


George Perry Graham: The information given
you could not have been well founded.
Miscellaneous-to provide for the expenses of commission to prepare plans relating to the cities of Ottawa and Hull-further amount required, $2,800.


George Perry Graham: Has any definite action been taken following the commission's report on the making of Ottawa and Hull into

a federal district, somewhat on the line of Washington?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is aware that an honorary commission was constituted for the purpose of preparing plans for the beautification and improvement of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. The members of the commission were Sir Herbert Holt, Sir Alexander Lacoste, Mr. Frank Darling, Mr. Home Smith, and the mayors of Ottawa and Hull. They did a great deal of work themselves, especially Mr. Darling, and engaged architects and engineers, and consulted town planners in the United States. After giving the work a great deal of care and attention they presented their report, which I am happy to say has, so far as I can learn, met with the general approval of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. *The report is very comprehensive, and its object is to devise a scheme by which the two municipalities and the Dominion Government, the railways and the public utility companies, may all work together looking to a greater Ottawa and Hull in the future, as the federal capital of Canada. My hon. friend asks what action has been taken. The report has only been recently received. The drawings are on exhibition, and if my hon. friend has not already seen them I would suggest that he take the opportunity, because I am sure he will find them very interesting indeed. After the session is over it is my intention to look into this report very carefully, and go over the ground. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that a committee has been appointed by the city of Ottawa for the purpose of interviewing the Government with a view to giving consideration to the plans. Some large questions were raised in the report, notably the federal administration of the Ottawa district. That is a matter which would have to receive very careful consideration, not only by the Government, but by the other bodies interested. I am unable to say anything further except that I am gratified at the way in which the report has been received, and I am satisfied that if all parties will work together we shall, in the years to come, have a capital which will be a credit, in an artistic sense, to the Dominion. A great deal has been done in the planning of various cities throughout the world, Washington being a conspicuous example of what can be done by working to a plan. In Abraham Lincoln's time Washington was a very insignificant 
city indeed, but to-day it is one of the most striking cities in the world.


George Perry Graham: And one of the cleanest.


William Thomas White: Washington, of
course, has a better administration and Washington also had the advantage many years ago of a town planner or architect, and the result is the Washington of today.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And he was a good
Frenchman, too.


William Thomas White: I spoke of the
artistic nature of the plans, and I do not know from whom we would be more likely to obtain artistic plans than from a distinguished representative of the race to which my hon. friend belongs. However, this is a start which has been made by the Government getting a plan to which all parties can work, and I think the result will be good. Personally, I desire to give the matter a great deal of attention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a resident of Ottawa, I am pleased to hear that my hon. friend will take some interest in this town planning movement. I have glanced at the report published a few weeks ago and I had occasion to discuss this exhaustive report and plan with one of the leading authorities in the United States who was in Chicago a few weeks ago as one of the guests of the Railway Engineering Association, Mr. Brunner, an architect of the city of New York, anp one of ,the leaders in .the movement for town planning in the United States. At present he is engaged in the town planning movement at Cleveland. Mr. Brunner, who by the way delivered on that evening a very able address on the relative position of engineers and architects, told me that in -his judgment that report was a most remarkable one and that the Government had been very fortunate in securing the services of the gentleman who made the plans.
The allusion I made a moment ago to the engineer who made the plan for the city of Washington came to my mind because we have had lately in Montreal a very distinguished French bishop, Monseigneur L'Enfantj who has preached for several Sundays at Notre Dame church. He is a descendant of Colonel L'Enfant, who at the time of the Revolutionary period settled in the United States. He had come with Rocbamtoeau and Lafayette, and he was selected by the authorities of the new republic to lay out a plan for Washington.

He made the plan; it was accepted, but unfortunately he died very poor. He never received a cent for the work that he did for the Republic, although he might have benefited by the expropriations.
Coming back to Ottawa, I may say to my hon. friend that although the plan of the commission is not yet accepted as decisive and final, it is to be expected that it will be finally accepted. My hon. friend and the Government should insist that the municipal authorities at Ottawa should respect the suggestions which are made in that report. . I brought to the attention of the House the other day the question of the height of the new buildings in Ottawa. In the report it is recommended that the buildings should not exceed HO feet in height, and to please a very enterprising gentleman of this city, the city council or the board of control a few weeks ago altered a resolution which had been adopted a few months before following on the lines of the report that the height of the buildings should not exceed 110 feet, and gave permission to that enterprising citizen to build to a height of 130 feet. Since then I notice that the building license has been withdrawn and that .the city council will not allow any permit to be given for buildings exceeding the' height suggested in the report. The Government, however, should have an understanding with the city of Ottawa that the general features of the plan be accepted as final by the city although the Government is not ready to take action on the report. On the whole, I think the Government are to be congratulated on having obtained such an excellent report on what is destined to be the model capital of a great Dominion.


George Perry Graham: I suppose then the Government is not considering the suggestion made to them some months ago that the capital might be removed to Winnipeg?


William Thomas White: We have not had the matter under serious consideration.


William Pugsley: Will the minister pardon me if I propose here to ask a question which perhaps would not be raised if this were the only amount in the Supplementary Estimates? I find that the Supplementary Estimates amount to the very considerable sum of $4,485,537. The minister will remember that in his Budget speech he stated that while the Main Estimates showed a proposed expenditure of $189,000,000, yet in
making provision for the coming year he thought that the expenditure would not be over about $160,000,000. I may say to my hon. friend, who was not in the House when I was speaking on the matter, that I took occasion to call the attention of different ministers whose Estimates were under consideration to the assurance which had been given by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and I was not able to ascertain from any minister except the Minister of Public Works that there would be any substantial reduction in the Estimates of the various departments, and the reduction which the Minister of Public Works stated he would be able to make amounted to only $10,000,000. There is a great difference between $10,000,000 and $29,000,000. The Minister of Finance might now, as we are getting near the end of the session, desire to put himself Tight with the country by telling us how the other $19,000,000 was accounted for.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: I do not admit
the necessity of putting myself right with the country, because I think I am usually in that happy position. I may say to my hon. friend that upon three separate occasions when he was absent from the House, I took up the matter to which he has drawn attention, namely, the difference between the estimated expenditure for the coming year and the Estimates, and I pointed out that there were always lapses in connection with Estimates varying from 5 to 20 per cent, and I gave instances to show that during the years of the late Administration it was a usual occurrence to have five, ten, or fifteen million dollars of Estimates unexpended at the end of the fiscal year. For example, when the present Government took office in 1911, the Estimates amounted to about $158,000,000, but the expenditure for the year was only $135,000,000, a difference of $23,000,000. My hon. friend might say: Why were the Estimates so large if your expenditures were only $135,000,000? One reason was that the Supplementary Estimates were very large. At that time they were looking for an election.


George Perry Graham: Does that oceount for these?


William Thomas White: I will not say that. If my hon. friend will look at the Estimates and expenditures for the previous year, and the year before that, he will find a similar condition of affaire, but

not quite such a disparity. My hon. friend, in dealing with the question, said that the Estimates amounted to $189,000,000 and that I estimated the expenditure at $160,000,000, and he asked: Where does the $29,000,000 come in? He assumed, of course inaccurately, that the $29,000,000 represents items that will not be gone on with at all. My hon. friend knows very well that lapses occur. There will be in the Estimates many items that will not be gone on with, but in many cases the work will be gone on with, but the amounts that stand opposite those items in the Estimates will not be completely expended. The result will be that $160,000,000 will be approximately the expenditure for the coming year I desire to put this before my hon. friend because I hold strong views as to what the Government will do in the way <of retrenchment in time o'f war. When this wax broke out, I was very glad that *eve were handling a large programme of public works, because there was a very serious dislocation of business, and when there is a serious dislocation of business it is a great advantage in preventing unemployment that there should be a fair programme of public works under way. That was the condition and therefore we refrained at the outbreak of the war from discontinuing expenditure upon public works. I think that was a proper policy at the time; but during this year and so far as I can see for the year that is to come, because the end of this war is certainly not yet in sight, there will be practically no unemployment in Canada. On the other hand there is a demand for labour skilled and unskilled and that demand is likely to increase. The public expenditures in connection with the) war are large, and therefore there is not the necessity for public expenditures in the interest of employment. When I say public expenditures, I mean, of course, useful public expenditures. Therefore the policy which has been laid down by the Government and to which I have referred in the last two Budget speeches is, that while we should go on with works that are under contract, we should not proceed with new works unless such new works are indispensable in the public interest. In a country such as this there are always works which are necessary in the public interest. For example, take the elevators to which my hon.Nfriend sometimes refers. In connection with the grain business, the movement and the storage of the grain, expenditures have to be made for elevator accommo-
dation. Expenditures have to be made on the Intercolonial for rolling stock and expenditures have to be made at various points in Canada for purposes more or less immediately connected with the war. Those expenditures we are making, but a number of expenditures which will be made for public works in times of peace are not being made during the war. There are many items in the Estimates which have been voted-some of them for two years- that will stand in abeyance in the meantime. If the war should come to an end, and if the financial situation and the economic conditions were such that we should feel justified and warranted in proceeding with those expenditures, why, of course, I think it would be proper for us to do so, but as I have stated they will stand in abeyance in the meantime.
Just to show in a word the position for the coming year, because it is a matter which daily engages my attention, I being more intimately connected with the question of providing money than an/ other, I may say that whereas two years ago, that is to say for the fiscal year, 1914-15, our expenditures were about	$187,090,090,
for the coming year our .expenditures will be $160,000,000, as my hon. friend has stated. There is a difference there of some $27,000,000. But included in the expenditures for the coming year is a very large item representing interest on our increased debt. Two years ago the interest charges upon the debt of Canada were about $14,000,000 or $15,000,000, but this year's Estimates include an item for interest of $37,000,000, a difference of some $23,000,000. Then there iwill 'be the outlay for pensions. When my hon. friend takes into consideration the fact that the $160,000,000 includes some $25,000,600 of expenditure necessitated by increase in the public debt and by expenditures on pension account, he will see that the comparison is really between $135,000,000 of expenditure for the coming year and $187,000,000 for two years ago. I may say that that $135,000,000 is about the same as the expenditure for 1911, notwithstanding that our trade this year is the greatest by far in the history of Canada, amounting to some $1,400,000,000. So, I think it goes without saying that the Government is exercising every possible economy. We realize the burden of the war and that that burden ^ill increase- that it will be heavier six months hence than it is to-day, and probably heavier next year than this year. Therefore we are

on common ground in desiring to keep down our expenditures. But it has seemed to me unwise for us (as I stated, my hon. friend not being in the House at the time) to discontinue work upon, let us say, the Quebec bridge. There would, of course, be great loss in connection with such a structure partially completed, and the plant is on t'he spot. Then, the Welland canal work is under contract. The general estimates are less this year than last, 'and we are doing all we can to keep down expenditures, But I do not think it would command public approval if we were to discontinue expenditure on such works as I have mentioned. In the same way the National Transcontinental railway had to be completed, otherwise there would have been great loss. My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) frequently brings to attention the necessities of St. John, in which he is* interested. I have always observed that he is a great advocate of economy in the abstract, but when it comes to the concrete he will always bring before the House expenditures which he thinks ought to be made. Now, with regard to the Supplementary Estimates for 1915-16 to which we have called attention, they are very moderate, $4,485,000.


William Pugsley: Can the minister give us any idea how much the Supplementary Estimates for next year will be?


William Thomas White: I cannot say offhand, but I think they are comparatively small because we are pursuing the policy I have indicated. In connection with the Supplementary Estimates for 1915-16, now before us, my hon. friend will observe that there are several large items. For instance, there is the relief for seed grain, $1,550,000. That has already been provided for by Governor General's warrants, and this Estimate is not strictly or legally necessary, because a Governor General's warrant is a perfectly legitimate means of providing funds. But I thought it well-and it is an innovation-to include in the Estimates amounts raised by Governor General's warrants in order that the House may have before it the total expenditures made. Then we have a further item for working expenses of the Intercolonial amounting to $1,500-
000.	The scope of the operations of the Intercolonial has been largely increased by the war. On the other side of the Intercolonial account will be found a very gratifying increase in earnings, in fact I have be$n surprised and much gratified
that the earnings have been so large within the last year or so. So, this amount is by no means wasted but is a necessary expenditure in connection with the Government road. Having regard to all the considerations I have mentioned, I am sure that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), with his usual fair-mindedness, will agree that he has been entirely mistaken as to the Government pursuing a policy that even savours of extravagance, and that we have exercised the most rigid economy since the outbreak of the war. The hon. gentleman himself has been a Minister of Public Works, and looking over the Estimates that he presented to the House in the past, as I have done, I have never found any evidence of that economical spirit which he now exhibits from time to time. But I do not charge that against him, for this is war time and I quite agree with what I conceive to be his view, that in war time, so far as the ordinary expenditures of the country are concerned, it is the duty of the Government to exercise all possible economy consistently with carrying on the business of the country. But there is a point beyond which if you carry economy you become parsimonious and the public interest undoubtedly suffers. There is another feature which I touched upon on one or two occasions in the House, and it is this:
It must not be assumed that while the war is on, the expenditures of departments of Government other than the Militia Department, which, of course, is immediately concerned with the war, will if an economical policy is- observed, be necessarily less than they would be in times of peace. My experience has been that in nearly all departments since the war broke out there is an added burden by reason of the war. Take the Customs Department, for example. In connection with the collection of revenue and with the embargo upon various classes of goods and commodities much additional work is entailed. A great deal of additional work has been thrown upon the Commissioner of Customs; I was talking to him about it yesterday. In other departments, my own, for example, the work has increased very greatly and the expenditure has increased correspondingly. Men are working day and night at the same salary that they received before-working uncomplainingly and zealously in the interests of the department, of the Government and of the country at this time. Nearly all the

staffs are increased. We have endeavoured, so far as we have been able to do so consistently with proper administration of the public business, to cut down our ordinary and capital expenditures since the outbreak of the war.


William Pugsley: The reference which the Minister of Finance has made to the necessity for building elevators to give aceommo-dation for grain even during war times is an unfortunate one. It happens that in connection with the whole system of Government railways there is only one small elevator with a capacity of 750,000 bushels, and this Government apparently has given no thought to the matter of providing increased storage accommodation in connection with the Intercolonial railway or the Transcontinental railway, which the Government is operating. At the port of St. John, one of the two chief winter ports of Canada, where the grain elevator formerly operated in connection with the Intercolonial railway .was burned down some two years ago, no step has been taken to build a new elevator. I say that this reference of my hon. friend was unfortunate, because his colleague the Acting Minister of Railways Tather sought to make the excuse that while the war is on he did not think it desirable to rebuild the elevator, though he said that as soon as possible after the war is over steps would be taken to that end. My hon. friend says that in the year 1911, during part of which the Liberal Government was in power, the actual expenditure was $135,000,000. That included, he says very truly, all the expenditures in connection with the items that were contained in the Supplementary Estimates of that year, which , were, as he says, pretty large, as well as those in the main Estimates.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not say that the $135,000,000 included the items in the Estimates. I said that the Estimates, including the Supplementaries, were $158,000,000.


William Pugsley: And the expenditure was $135,000,000. My hon. friend said that the total Estimates, main and supplementary, amounted to $158,000,000, while the actual expenditure was $135,000,000. These were times of peace, plenty and prosperity. This Government came into power towards the middle of that fiscal year, when prosperity was abounding in the country. The reflex action had not taken place. There was every reason why the Government should go on

with all necessary public works. For the coming year, notwithstanding the dreadful condition of distress which prevails throughout this country, affecting practically all classes of people except those engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war, this Government comes down with main Estimates to the amount of $189,000,000, or $53,000,000 more than was expended out of main and supplementary Estimates in 1911. That is an enormous increase; it is double the total revenues of Canada at the time of Confederation. The minister has not come down with his supplementaries; he says they will be comparatively small. If he means that relatively to the Estimates of this year, they will be comparatively small, certainly they will run up to quite a number of millions of dollars, and to the $189,000,000 would have to be added the total amount contained in the supplementary Estimates. I am a little suspicious, if the minister will pardon my saying so, when the minister cannot tell us what his Supplementary Estimates for the current year will be. He must have given them very careful consideration by this time, because if it had not been for certain unexpected disclosures and for certain demands by various railway companies, prorogation would probably have taken place before Easter. When the minister at this late date in the session cannot tell what the Supplementary Estimates will amount to, it gives rise to the suspicion that they will be considerably larger than he would like to let the committee know at this time. The hop. gentleman spoke of myself when I was Minister of Public Works; he is not able to see, in looking back over the Estimates, that I was very economical. At that time my hon. friend belonged to a party that was economical; therefore he would view my Estimates through the glasses of economy. But if he would look at them to-day he would find them very economical as compared with the expenditures of his colleague, the present Minister of Public Works. The total expenditures of the Department of Public Works during the last three years of the late Government were only about $37,000,000 as against a little over $80,000,000 during the first three years that the present Minister of Public Works, had full charge of that department. What, does the minister think of that? He says that I was very extravagant. What does he think of the action of the present Government in expending in the Department of Public Works during a certain period two

and a half times as much as was expended during a similar period when I had the honour of having charge of the department? My hon. friend says that this Government has not gone on and made any great increases in expenditures, notwithstanding the fact that the trade of Canada amounted to $1,400,000,000. Does the minister put the enormous amount of that trade forward as a reason why the Government would have been justified in going on with great expenditures, just as if these were glorious times of peace and as if that trade was the result of peaceful development of the country? Surely not. Does not the minister know that the enormous trade of $1,400,000,000 is the result of war conditions? Does he not know that it is the result of the enormous demand for clothing, provisions, and all kinds of supplies needed at the front? Does he not know that included in that are the supplies sent forward by this Government to supply our own men? That they all go in and fill up the total amount of the trade of this country? Does he not know that all the money that comes in in payment for the manufacture of many of these war supplies and so on, not only for our own men but for the Allies, goes to swell up the imports, and' that these altogether make up this $1,400,000,000 ? Much of that trade' results from unfortunate circumstances of which no Government ought to be proud, and by which no Government ought to be made happy. Yet the minister at times cannot help boasting of this enormous increase of trade, and he takes it as an evidence of proper and legitimate and desirable prosperity on the part of the people of this country. That very condition, the fact that we are sending away, for the use of our men at the front, these vast quantities of goods, ought to be an incentive to greater economy. The fact that we have before us the evidence of the ravages which this war is making, not only upon the Allies but upon Canada, the way in which it is sapping the energies and taking away the prosperity of the people, ought to make us more economical than if there was no war. I hope the minister will not talk any more about the economy of this Government. Think, with 8,000,000 of people this Government is coming down with a proposed expenditure of $189,000,000! I have asked the minister' how he accounted for the $29,000,000 difference. We have asked every minister whose Estimates have been before
us, even the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and with one accord, with one voice, they all, in effect, said that the Minister of Finance did not know what he was talking about, that they were going to expend practically every dollar contained in the Estimates of their different departments. That is why I call the attention . of the Minister of Finance to the fact that he is $19,000,000 out of the way, according to the evidence which we have before us from the various ministers whose Estimates have been discussed. The only min- 1 ister who gave us the slightest aid, who sought to bolster up the credit or reliability of the Minister of Finance, was the Minister of Public Works, and to the extent of $10,000,000 he acted like a man, he stood right at the back of the Minister of Finance. But every other minister went back on him with the exception of the Minister of Marine, who threw off about $5,000.
Royal Mint-further amount required, $13,000.


William Thomas White: The Royal Mint has had a great deal of additional work thrown on it this year for the Imperial Government. I am not at liberty to give details, but of course any expenditure which we make will be returned in the charges which are made by the Mint for their services.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be under Order In Council, and a detailed statement to be laid before Parliament within fifteen days of next session, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: Do we get that statement always?	[DOT]


William Thomas White: Yes, within fifteen days after the opening of each session a statement of the unforeseen expenditure item is laid on the table.
Grant to the National Battlefields Commission-
(a)	For expenses of administration, $7,200.
(b)	For maintenance of the National Battlefields Park, $26,560.
(c)	For maintenance of Martello tower No. 4, $400.


George Perry Graham: Could the minister tell us anything about that Battlefields Commission? My right hon, friend the leader of the Opposition takes a great deal of interest in it and usually asks a series of questions about it.


William Thomas White: This year I asked them to confine their expenditure practically to maintenance. There is really no new work being carried on. They have cut down their Estimate.


George Perry Graham: There is an increase of $11,560 over last year.


William Thomas White: There was another item in last year. Their Estimate is undoubtedly out down. It ran as high as $100,000. The total amount for this year is about $37,000. There must be some item left out, or not embraced in a, b and e, because, as I have said, they are keeping their expenditure down to a maintenance basis. When the war broke out I asked them to go slow on that work.


William Pugsley: But you have an increase of $11,560.


William Thomas White: There is some item that is not mentioned in the Estimates for this year. But if my hon. friend is interested especially in the matter I will be glad to allow the item to stand and get a full explanation. It is much less than last year.


George Perry Graham: I would like to have it stand that the leader of the Opposition may have a dhance to say something in regard to it. He may not want to make any comments on it, but he takes a deep interest in it, and it is one of the items that he probably will have something to say upon. I will call his attention to it in the morning, and if he does not wish to have any discussion upon it I will tell my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) and he can bring it up and put it through.


William Thomas White: Very good.
Grant to the Medical Council of Canada, $15,000.
Mr. PUGrSLEY: How is ihat expended?


William Thomas White: It is paid over to, and expended for the purposes of, the Council. This grant dates back two or three years. At that time they were considering the . matter of a uniform qualification for physicians throughout Canada. I made inquiry and I found that it is entirely required for the purposes of the Council. There may come a time when it will not be required, or when so much will not be required, but it seems to be necessary now.
Contribution to aid in carrying on the work of the Astronomical Society of Canada, $2,000.


William Pugsley: I think that might very well be dropped this year. It is not large, but what is the urgency of it during war time ?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has nothing of the Philistine in him, and,

after all, we must continue to assist some of these societies. It is a very small grant and for a very worthy object.
Royal Academy of Arts, $5,000.


William Pugsley: How is this expended?


William Thomas White: By the Academy for the promotion of its objects. It is the annual grant which has been made for years past.


William Pugsley: Where are the headquarters of the Academy?


William Thomas White: I think in Montreal, 'but if my hon. friend is interested I will allow the matter to stand and get full information.


William Pugsley: I might tell my hon. friend why I am interested. I find here a great many items of a miscellaneous character which could all stand over, or all be omitted, without the slightest injury to the public service. I do think that in these war times they ought to be allowed to stand. Take the grant to the Medieal Council as an illustration and which amounts to $15,000; the minister cannot tell the committee what is done with that. Surely if that grant is made just to pay the expenses of a meeting They might defer their meeting for one year or until the war is over.


William Thomas White: It is for examinations.


William Pugsley: The medical councils of the different provinces carry on the examinations.


William Thomas White: But this is for the whole Dominion and for all the provinces.


William Pugsley: It would not take anything like $15,000 to pay the expenses. Then take these other societies-the Astronomical Society, and the Royal Academy oft Arte; these items could stand over without the slightest injury to the public service. They all run up to a large sum. We have to take some action in reference to these items. We may offend somebody by doing so but it is our duty. It is not a matter of $2,000, or $5,000 or $15,000, but it runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars and if the minister would look these items over carefully he can see where a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars can be made. These amounts have nothing to do with public works, they have nothing

to -do with ordinary labouring people who need employment but they are largely for scientific and social purposes. They are on a par with the $100,000 which was voted for the Geodetic surveys and which are no more needed to be kept there than a horse requires to have five legs.


William Thomas White: Carried.


William Pugsley: "Carried," says the minister. No effect on the Minister of Finance at all. Can he not find his way to moving to strike some of these items out?


William Thomas White: I cannot believe my hon. friend is serious, because he is an . intellectual man and should have sympathy with these scientific objects. It is not only the tangible and material that we should be interested in, but we should not lose interest in science, literature and art even though war is on.
.Contribution to McGill University towards the maintenance of a Regional Bureau for Canada, for the International Catalogue of Scientific Literature, $2,000.


William Pugsley: What is the object of
this?


William Thomas White: This grant has been in the Estimates for some years. My hon. friend can understand the importance of having these scientific publications properly catalogued.
Grant towards the erection of a monument to Samuel de Champlain at Orillia, Ont., revote $7,500.	' j'	. y 4ti


William Thomas White: This monument
has been in the hands of the statuaries for some time, and the $7,500 will be required almost immediately to pay for the work. The item might have stood over had the work not been commenced.
Towards meeting any d flc'ency arising in connection with the election of the Champlain monument, Ottawa, $3,000.


William Pugsley: What is the obligation
with respect to this?


William Thomas White: This is in connection with the monument at Nepean Point. The Dominion Government made a grant towards that monument, and there were also a number of private subscriptions, but on account of the war a certain number of these subscriptions could not be collected. They were all made in good faith, and would have been paid but for the war. A year ago it looked as if we should have to put in a much larger item than this $3,000, but since then some contributions that were not expected have come in, making the deficit now about $3,000.


William Pugsley: I suppose it goes to the sculptor?


William Thomas White: I am not quite
sure, but if it does, it is serving a very worthy purpose, for the sculptor must be paid.


George Perry Graham: I think for the peace,
harmony and good-will of the Minister of Finance and his successor, the different bodies that get these grants, small though they be, should send informa-
II p.m. tion with respect to them to the Minister of Finance. He is compelled to handle these Estimates in the House, but is afforded little or no information with respect to them. Doubtless when the grants were originally made there were good reasons for them, and the reasons were given. I think the different associations should be asked to send in a memorandum of what they do with the money.


William Thomas White: I think there is a good deal in what my hon. friend says. These applications for grants are looked into very carefully by my deputy, and we receive, I suppose, about twice as many applications as appear here. The one that appear in the Estimates are those about which no question arises, the different bodies doing good work and being altogether worthy. I am inclined to think that the information my hon. friend has in mind is in the department, but of course neither I nor any other minister would carry these details in his head, knowing that if any serious question arose about them in committee the information could be obtained from the department.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.
Thursday, April 27, 1916.