1916-05-16

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Telegraph statistics for the year ended June 30, 1915.-Hon. J. D. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MACDONALD:: I am desired by prominent gentlemen in Nova Scotia who are interested in the question of daylight saving to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the passing of any legislation in regard to this matter. It is pointed out that Great Britain, Denmark, and Sweden have passed such legislation. As the right hon. gentleman is probably aware, in the city of Halifax and some other municipalities in Nova Scotia this has been put into effect.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Very few representations have come to the Government on this subject, and we have not yet considered it very fully. It seems that the local authorities, in most of the provinces at least, have the power to deal with it themselves, and if that be the case it may be that the matter had better be left to public opinion in the various localities.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The difficulty suggested by those interested in the project is in regard to the official closing of public institutions under the control of the Dominion Government, more particularly in connection with railways, which would not be under the control of the local authorities. It therefore might require Dominion legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all
sure that legislation will be necessary, because it may be possible for the departments of the Government, if it is thought desirable, to have regard to the local determination of the matter. However, I shall give my hon. friend's suggestion the best consideration I can between now and the next session.



PROHIBITION OF PAPER EXPORTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is the rumour prevailing in Montreal this morning to the effect that the Government intends to pass an Order in Council to prohibit the exportation of paper and pulp to the United States true? I am told that a deputation met the Government yesterday or this morning.


Robert Laird Borden: It has not been considered, so far as I am aware.



THE DAVIDSON COMMISSION.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: In the absence of my right hon. friend yesterday, I inquired if it was the intention to give the Opposition the privilege of counsel before the Davidson Commission on the charges brought the other day by the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie).


Robert Laird Borden: I think it was announced by the Minister of Justice and also 'by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria, or my right hon. friend, should desire to be represented by counsel before the Davidson Commission, we would not only suggest, but recommend to Sir Charles Davidson that such counsel be allowed to appear. The position up to the present has been that Mr. John Thompson, K.C., was selected by Sir Charles Davidson to represent the people of Canada before that commission. So far as I am aware, he has discharged his duties with great ability, thoroughness, and impartiality. It may further be observed that he has done so without any remuneration whatever except an ordinary allowance for travelling expenses when he has been absent from the city of Ottawa. He has regarded hie work as a patriotic duty. I am informed that Mr. Thompson, in view of the criticism that has been passed upon him in this House, does not feel it coneis-

tent with his self respect that he should continue to discharge those duties. It may therefore be necessary for the Government to take some action towards appointing counsel to take his place. So far as counsel to represent the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria is. concerned, as I have already said, we shall not only suggest but recommend to Sir Charles Davidson that counsel be allowed to appear.
Sir WILFRID T,MIRIER: On the same terms as Mr. Johnston?


Robert Laird Borden: As far as remuneration is concerned? We shall not make any undertaking with regard to that at the present time. I think it should be left for future consideration as was the case in connection with the Tarte-Langevin charges. There was no undertaking in advance, on the part of the Government at that time. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria undertook at once, in the same motion, to censure the Government and to demand an inquiry. He is at liberty to appear before the commission by his counsel and to proceed as he deems fit. The other question which my right hon. friend raised will be considered afterwards. Possibly some gentleman will be found on the other side who will undertake the duty upon the same terms as those upon which Mr. John Thompson undertook it.



EXTENSION OF TERM OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
The Orders of the day:
Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend made inquiry yesterday during my absence about the joint resolution passed by this House and by the Senate in regard to the extension of Parliament. I have no further information than that which I gave some time ago. The joint resolution of the House and of the Senate went forward from the office of His Royal Highness the Governor General in the ordinary way, very shortly after it was passed. As soon as the revised Hansard was- available, containing the debates in both the House of Commons and in the Senate, I despatched them in a letter to Sir George Perley, stating to him that they contained the grounds upon which this House and the Senate had thought it desirable to pass the resolution, and directing him to place that information at the disposal of the Colonial Secretary.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER:	Has there
been any further communication?


Robert Laird Borden: I have had no further communication except an acknowledgement from Sir George Perley of my letter, and a statement that the information so afforded would be communicated to the Colonial 'Secretary. If desired, I shall send a cablegram inquiring as to the present position of the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly I
think that should be done. We want to know where we are with regard to this matter.	,



QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY AND LOTBINIERE AND MEGANTIC RAILWAYS.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals), the House went into committee on Bill No. 101, to authorize the acquisition of lines of railway between the city of Quebec and Naim Falls and between Lyster and St. Jean des Chaillons; Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Mr. TURRIFF:: In accordance with the
arrangement that was made last night, I wish to discuss briefly a matter which is really more connected with the Customs Department than with the Department of Railways.


Mr. REID:: The arrangement was that
as soon .as we got through this Bill the other Estimates would come on, and then we could take up the other matter which has been mentioned.


John Gillanders Turriff: That was not the arrangement, as I understood it. The minister asked if I was ready to go on, and I said I would leave it altogether to the minister whether I would go on last night or this afternoon. It will not take very long to discuss this matter, and I have been waiting now for about two months to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: I wanted to proceed with this Bill last evening and I said that we would get through with the Bill last night and take up the Estimates to-day, and on the Estimates of any department we could take up this matter relating to the Customs Department I never had in mind that we would bring up on a Bill of this kind any matter connected with the Estimates; and I say now that as soon as this Bill is passed we can take up the matter on one of the items in the Estimates still remaining.


John Gillanders Turriff: This Bill may never
pass. I do not want the item that I wish to discuss to depend on the passing of this Bill. I have been waiting here, attending closely to the sessions of the House in order to bring the matter up when my hon. friend had his Customs Estimates under consideration; but, unfortunately, although I have been away only two days during this session, I was not here when that item was passed. I have been present here day after day for the last month or so waiting for this item to come up, and I would like it to be taken up now.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope my hon. friend will see the impossibility of discussing Estimates on a Bill of this kind. Even if this Bill did not pass, the Estimates must pass, and there are some items remaining upon which my hon. friend will be at full liberty to discuss the subject which he has in mind.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: With Tegard to this Bill, I would hope that the Minister of Railways has considered favourably the suggestion that the judge of the Exchequer Court should allow only the actual, reasonable and necessary cost of the railway, less the cost of putting in order the road which has been in a large measure destroyed toy nonusage, which cost the engineer estimates at about $350,000, and also less the Dominion subsidies. I think that if the roads are to be taken over, that would be a fair basis on which the judge of the Exchequer Court could determine the amount to be allowed. I stated yesterday the reasons why I thought that the same action should be taken as is taken under the Act of 1915; but, if some basis of value is to be laid down for the guidance of the judge of the Exchequer Court which is to a large extent to tie his hands, I think he should be limited in the way I have suggested.
This is especially desirable by reason of what appears in the correspondence which has been brought down toy the Acting Minister of Railways this morning. That correspondence discloses a somewhat unusual condition of affairs, in that we have here an offer made by the Quebec Light, Heat and Power Company to give a clear title to the railway, free of all liens or liabilities whatsoever, for the sum of $2,500,000. That is dated 20th October, 1915. There is another offer from the same company to sell the Quebec and Saguenay railway in its present condition for the sum of $3,473,000 free of all encumbrances, and to sell the road upon

the south side known as the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway, free of all liabilities of every kind, for the sum of $330,000. The total of these three amounts upon which the companies offered to give a clear title would be in the vicinity of a million dollars less than what the acting minister proposes.


John Dowsley Reid: No, $622,000.


William Pugsley: Well, $622,000 less; that is a very large sum. I observe, too, in the correspondence that there is a letter dated 2nd May from the President of the road, in which he says that some mistake toad 'been made. It seems extraordinary that, when the companies were making a formal offer to the Government for the sale of the road, they should have asked some $620,000 less than they subsequently discovered they ought to 'have asked for these roads. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will agree that that very circumstance requires some careful consideration, particularly when it is proposed to tie the hands of the Judge of the Exchequer Court and to lay down for him a basis upon which the amount shall be assessed. My hon. friend the Solicitor General pointed out reasons why the Judge of the Exchequer Court should not be required simply to fix the value of the railway, and indicated the difficulties which would confront the judge if he were to determine the amount upon a basis like that. It would be difficult, toe pointed out, to determine what the actual value of-the road was. Therefore the minister proposes that it should be upon the basis of cost. If it is to be upon the basis of cost, and the Judge of the Exchequer Court should be so limited, it seems to me that it ought to be upon the basis of actual, reasonable, and necessary cost, because in that way he would toe able to fix approximately the value, whereas, if he is to be guided by the actual cost of the road, one can very readily see that that cost might go away beyond what would be the fair value, and away beyond what would be the reasonable and necessary expenditure.
With regard to the Quebec and. Saguenay road, it certainly seems to me extraordinary that the cost of this uncompleted road, because it is very far from completion, should have reached, as suggested by the figures of the Acting Minister of Railways, the enormous sum of something like $80,000 per mile, That cost is certainly very large, and the figures are somewhat startling, because the road is not there; the report of the engineer

says that the road is in a very bad condition, and would require the expenditure of a considerable sum of money to bring the work which has been done up to what it was before work ceased in 1911 or 1912. I would therefore urge this upon the Minister of Railways, and I do so from no desire in any way to obstruct or delay the passage of the Bill. I know nothing at all as to the merits of these roads, and, as I stated yesterday, I do not desire to interpose any objection to their acquisition; but as to the mode in which the judge of the Exchequer Court shall determine the amount to be paid, I think that if the minister sees an objection to the judge fixing the value in the ordinary way, which would enable him to determine the value of this road upon a just and equitable basis,-if there are difficulties standing in the way of that, I think the judge should be required to fix the amount at what, in his judgment, was the actual, reasonable and necessary cost of the road so far as constructed. If that course is adopted, Parliament will simply be following the principle which it has laid down in the Acts relating to the granting of increased subsidies for railroads in which case the extra amount can only be given upon determination by the minister, from the report of his chief engineer, of what has been the acutal, reasonable and necessary cost of the construction of the road. That would be following the principle which was laid down years ago, and upon which Parliament and the Government have been acting ever since.


John Dowsley Reid: Before answering the hon.
member, I wish to correct the impression he has with reference to the Bill which I submitted to the House, and which was passed, relating to the Exchequer Court. The hon. member stated last night that that Bill, having been introduced this session, and late in the session, had the appearance of being introduced by reason of the Government taking over these railways. I may explain for the information of the hon. member why that Bill was introduced this session. The Government was disposing of a small piece of canal property at Sault Ste. Marie.
The price asked by the Government was considered larger than the parties purchasing thought it was worth. They agreed that it should be submitted to Judge Cas-sels of the Exchequer Court and I secured the passage of an Order in Council. Judge Cassels approached me and stated that this was not an Exchequer Court case, that
he would not act as arbitrator, but that if it were within his jurisdiction he would gladly take it up and of course without any cost or remuneration whatever. Acting on his suggestion, and after discussing the matter with the Minister of Justice, I submitted a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court to take in cases such as the sale of lands by the Government. The Minister of Justice prepared a Bill to cover the matters contained therein. There was no question of this railway at that time.


William Pugsley: The two merely synchronized.


John Dowsley Reid: Synchronized, that is true.
However, I am glad the Bill does give the Exchequer Court that jurisdiction because I believe we all have confidence in that court. I have never heard it criticised since I have been a member of this House. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. member, it does seem to me that the amendment which I propose covers about all that the hon. gentleman wishes and safeguards in every way the interests of the Government. As was stated by the Solicitor Gen-er last evening, the judge of the Exchequer Court, no doubt, after reading this Bill wished to have some basis in order to arrive at a proper valuation, and he, without any suggestion from any member of the Government, or any other person as far as I am aware, for it was never discussed with any one in connection with the Exchequer Court, wrote to the Minister of Justice suggesting that some basis be put in the Bill in order that the court might arrive at a proper valuation. The basis in the amendment I am suggesting is this:
Said value to' be the actual cost of said railways less depreciation-
That covers the point of the hon. member. *
-but not to exceed $4,465,000, exclusive of outstanding bonded indebtedness which is to be assumed by the Government, but not to exceed in all $2,500,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that outside of the
$4,465,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. As I said last night, we are purchasing three different railways, one on the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix, for $2,500,000. That includes the terminals at Quebec which, I am informed, represent a very large sum of money, which has been placed at $1,000,000 or $2,000,000.

They are located in Quebec city and they are a very valuable asset in connection with this railway. This railway represents $2,500,000 and we assume these bonds. The $4,135,000 is the maximum price that we have to pay the Quebec and Saguenay in case the Exchequer Court comes to the conclusion that that amount has actually been expended.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Do the Canadian Pacific get any of these terminals?


John Dowsley Reid: No, they do not.


George Perry Graham: Have they got any?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say, I am sure. I do not know. Perhaps I could find that out and let the hon. gentleman know. The $4,135,000 will be paid for the Quebec and Saguenay railway and $330,000 for the Lot-biniere and Megantic. The proprietors of the Quebec and Saguenay must show that $4,135,000 have been actually expended on this railway and they must show that that expenditure has been in cash. They tell me that the books of the company have been audited by Messrs. P. 8. Ross & Sons, Montreal, and that the audit will show that a much larger amount has been expended on the railway. If the property has been depreciated in any way on account of washouts, or by other causes, it must be put in the condition in which it was at the time this expenditure was made. The Government feel that in taking these roads over in this way, the proprietors must in every case, even in the case of the Quebec and Charlevoix, show that the values are actual and not inflated. For instance, with reference to the Quebec and Charlevoix, they must prove to the satisfaction of the Exchequer Court that they have expended $2,500,000. If they do that we are willing to assume the bonds,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the Government going to take the bonds at par?	.


John Dowsley Reid: We are going to take the $2,500,000 bonds at par.


John Gillanders Turriff: What are they quoted at to-day?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what they are quoted at but these are guaranteed bonds.


John Gillanders Turriff: They have been going up within the last month or so on the prospect of handing over this proposition to the Government, but why should the Government pay more than they were worth three months ago?


John Dowsley Reid: There are a good many things that go up on the prospect of things happening 'in this country and they may have gone up the same as anything else. The hon. gentleman knows that on the prospect of tariff changes many things go up. Probably the hon. gentleman has (benefited in that way in the past.


William Pugsley: Who gets the tip?


John Dowsley Reid: We cannot help giving a tip when we introduce 'a Bill of this kind. That is the position as far as the Quebec and Charlevoix railway is concerned. They must show that the amount which I have stated has been, actually expended on the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway; otherwise the price will be decreased. We have put in the maximum amount. They tell me that instead of $4,135,000 they will be able to show that the actual amount that has been expended on the Quebec and Saguenay is more than $2,500,000 over and above the subsidies. This railway being in this condition, and the people requiring the service that they are entitled to along that shore, we feel that this railway system should be connected up with, and that it will be an acquisition to the Transcontinental railway. There has been considerable profit on the roads that have been in operation. The Quebec and Saguenay will pay its way in the same way 'as these other roads will. That is the reason why we would like to see this Bill go through and the matter placed in such shape that the people in that part of Canada will have the benefit of a service that they should have had many years ago.


William Pugsley: Did the companies give to the minister any explanation of the fact that in October last they offered to give clear title to these roads for $620,000 while in May of this year they ask the amount that is proposed to be paid them and which must have been quite a surprise to the minister? Did they give any explanation of such a very large figure.


John Dowsley Reid: The only explanation I got
was that, when I was discussing the matter with them, they said that they had made a mistake in figuring out the amount, and that they had put into the roads about $1,000,000 more than they had stated.


William Pugsley: Men must be very rich to make a mistake of that kind.


John Dowsley Reid: Mistakes of that kind are
sometimes made. We do not want to pay

any more than has gone into the road, and they must show exactly what that amount is.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the minister intend to pay for promotion expenses? I understand that these three companies have had a stock-jobbing career for some years, and that their promotion expenses are very great.


John Dowsley Reid: I have already stated that we ' only proposed to pay the amount that has actually been spent on the construction of the road. That will not include any promotion expenses whatever; it will include nothing outside of what has actually gone into the road, and the Judge of the Exchequer Court will decide what amount that is.


John Howard Sinclair: Why does the minister dispense with the usual requirement that the certificate of the General Manager of the Intercolonial shall he obtained before any branches are taken over?


John Dowsley Reid: It has been the custom to obtain the certificate of the General Manager and his engineers in the case of roads that have been completed and are in operation. But this is a road that has not been completed. If we were to get the General Manager to make a valuation it would probably not 'be as satisfactory as an independent valuation would be, made by the Judge of the Exchequer Court.
'Mr. GRAHAM: That is not what the General Manager was to do. He was to recommend to the Government that the purchase of a certain road would be in the interest of the public and of the road of which it was to become a branch. My opinion is that the General Manager will not do anything of the kind with regard to these particular roads, and he is right. I am not going to waste any time discussing these propositions. They are indefensible from beginning to end, from every point of view, and it is no use going into details. I know, and the Government knows I know, a great deal about these roads, and I make the statement that their purchase in the heyday of prosperity, when we had an overflowing treasury, would be very questionable. But to-day, in the face of out present fihancial condition, when every man is bearing all he can in the way of taxation, the purchase is nothing short of monstrous to my mind. The road on the south side, exclusive of the line from
Quebec to Ste. Anne de Beaupre, is the best of the lot. The line from Quebec to Ste. Anne de Beaupre is run by electricity, and is all right. My judgment is that the line on the south side is a better purchase than either of the otheT roads that are being purchased on the north side; and yet when I was minister I refused to consider the purchase of this road as a branch line of the Intercolonial. It was owned by a very warm personal friend, but I did not think the purchase could be justified. I am not going to. discuss this any further, as I have now made my protest. At this time, when our finances are in such a condition that the Finance Minister has to impose special taxation on the country for war purposes, it seems to me nothing less than an outrage on the business enterprise of Canada and on our taxpayers to take part of the money that the industries of Canada are paying in taxes to put into these schemes. My hon. friend knows that, although only $4,000,000 is mentioned here, he is really committing the country to an expenditure of more than $10,000,000; and that is a small estimate of the amount that will be required to meet the liabilities incurred in the purchase of rolling stock and the completion of these roads, and getting them into running shape. The minister does not expect that the line is going to pay, but I am not going to discuss that side of it, because there are some districts that should be supplied with railway facilities even when we do not expect to make any money out of them; I have always taken that ground, and I do still. But at this particular time, when we do not know what out financial condition will 'be in the future, and when financial conditions are so strenuous for all the people of Canada, it is unspeakable that the Government should ask this Parliament to commit the country to an expenditure of more than $10,000,000.


William Pugsley: There is one point to
which I should like to direct the minister's attention. In this estimate, which is to tie the hands of the judge of the Exchequer Court-there is no getting over that-and which is to convey to him the opinion of this Parliament that he can safely adopt, the figures mentioned in the amendment of my hon. friend, the amount that is to be assumed by the Government is put at $2,500,000; that is, to provide for the bonds on the electric road. And yet in this very report which has been brought down to Parliament, the total cost of replacing that electric railway is put at $1,115,200.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I think the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has not quite the correct basis in his mind when he makes his criticism. The duty of the Exchequer Court, under the Act as now before the House, would be, not to assume that the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix road was worth $2,500,000, because these bonds were against it, which we must assume, and then pass on to the other roads and value them. On the contrary, the principle is this: the Exchequer Court will take one road at a time and ascertain the cost of that road, irrespective entirely of what may be against the road.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why not take the value?


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that
again if the hon. gentleman desires. Having dealt in this way with the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix road, the court would then come to the Quebec and Saguenay and find the actual money which has been invested there-not the money that may have been paid out by the company, but the money that has found its way into the property. The same would be done with respect to the Megantic and Lotbiniere road. The three would be added to ascertain the grand total. From this would be deducted the $2,500,000 bonds which must be left against the entire property though in fact it rests only against the first property. Then, if the balance should exceed the figure allowed, the balance would be reduced to that figure. If, on the contrary, the balance should be be-

low the maxi mum figure, that balance alone is what the country would pay. There is not in the Bill the slightest intimation to the judge of the Exchequer Court that he would be safe in allowing $4,465,000. If the net cost is less than that amount after deducting $2,500,000, that net cost is all that can possibly be charged against the country for the total purchase. It is argued -by one hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)-that whatever might be the claims of this locality in ordinary times, those claims should not be heard because of the strained financial conditions of the present time. I cannot but recognize that there is some force in that contention, and only unusually great necessities should impel us at this time to the taking over of these properties by the Government. But there is greater necessity than could be pointed out in any other part of the country, by one cardinal consideration to which I am about to refer. As regards two of the roads: the Montmorency and Charlevoix and the Lotbinifere and Megantic, I do not think there can be any doubt that, from the point of view of earning power, as a good business purchase, they are very desirable for the country to acquire. Their earning power in the past has been given, and one of them particularly is of value to the Intercolonial. It has been admitted by the hon. member for St. John that the criticism that has been offered could not be applied to Uiese roads, and the same is admitted by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). While I am on the subject of these two roads, I might state that as to them the basis of valuation that is offered to the Exchequer Court in this Bill is very decidedly to the advantage of the country, because it would seem to me that probably a much higher figure would be allowed on the ordinary legal basis of value upon which the Exchequer Court rests its verdicts. However, the extraordinary feature to which I have referred comes when we consider the Quebec and Saguenay. Here is a road in which a great deal of money was invested. It was subsidized by the Government of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1910, and so had the sanction of that Administration. It is a road that was necessary for the service of the district into which it was to extend. As the result of the assistance given by the Government of Quebec, by the former Dominion Government as well as by this Government in 1912, very 253
considerable progress was made and very considerable moneys were expended.
The road was built from Cap Tourmente right on to Murray Bay so far as acquiring the right of way and the building of the actual roadbed was concerned. Dikes were built along the river St. Lawrence to protect the structure from- the inroads of the river; indeed, from Murray Bay to Nairn Falls the road was completed and is now in actual operation and carrying traffic. May I mention in passing, for fear I forget it, that the first road mentioned in the Bill, the Montmorency and Charlevoix, carried last year, my information is, no fewer than 1,800,000 passengers. Such, then, is the work that was done in connection with this Quebec and Saguenay line.


William Pugsley: What js the average
fare?


Arthur Meighen: Just what would apply to a 30 mile trip-most of it for a 20 mile trip, I presume, to St. Anne de Beaupre.


Mr. OLIVER:: Is the road in operation
to Nairn Falls?


Arthur Meighen: The Quebec and Saguenay is in operation from Naim Falls to Murray Bay. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not for passengers.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether for passengers; chiefly, I think, for the carrying of pulp. Passengers are carried on the Montmorency and Charlevoix.


Wilfrid Laurier: What kind of operation is it?


Arthur Meighen: I really could not
answer that. There are pulp mills at Nairn Falls and it serves them.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the production of those mills?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot give the
figures, but they can be given in the course of this discussion in committee.


Frank Oliver: I understood that Nairn
Falls was the terminus of the Quebec and Saguenay?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I understood that the
Quebec and Saguenay was not completely railed?


Arthur Meighen: It is not, but a portion between Murray Bay and Nairn Falls is railed.


Frank Oliver: Then there is no connection between Murray Bay and St. Anne's.


Arthur Meighen: No. I think about six or seven miles are railed between Murray Bay and Nairn Falls.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But not for passenger
business.


Arthur Meighen: 
Frank Oliver: The committee is to be congratulated upon having heard from a member of the Government the Govern-

merit's justification for the proposals now under consideration, looked at from a national standpoint. We heard from the Postmaster General yesterday a justification of the proposals from the .standpoint of the people of the locality affected. That was natural, right and proper; every one could understand and appreciate the standpoint of the Postmaster General and of those for whom he spoke. But when the Solicitor General undertakes to justify the proposal upon national grounds on identically the same basis as the reasons given by the Postmaster General, I cannot agree that the grounds offered by him furnish any justification whatever for the proposals; rather do I say that those grounds condemn them absolutely. There are 30,000 people, he says, who need railway communication. As I stated yesterday I can find him many places throughout this Dominion of Canada where 30,000 people need railway accommodation just as much as do the people along the route of this railroad. Nay, I can find people who need it ten times, a thousand times more. The people along the route of this road, during half the year at any rate, have the advantage of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, which certainly can take any product that they have to sell or bring to their doors any requirement that they may have to buy, and do it just as cheaply and just as	readily as any railroad will.
I will admit that it would be desirable that these people should have a railroad, and, no doubt, if the circumstances were favourable, they would have one. No doubt aid m behalf of such a railroad was warranted at the time1 it was given; but, the conditions being as they are, I am afraid we shall have to suggest that the money !has not always been wisely expended. The fact is that the' people have not a railroad, and the people of Canada are called upon to give them a railroad. As I have said, equal numbers of people, in tens, or dozens, or hundreds of other localities throughout the country, are in just as great need of a railroad, and could be supplied with railroad facilities for very much less money. How much is this sixty-two miles of railway going to cost the Dominion of Canada? We are buying forty-two miles of the Quebec, Charlevoix and Montmorency railway, and some thirty miles of the Megan tic railway. Whether we buy those railroads or not, the people and the interests served by their existence and operation will continue to be served in 253i
the same way. The people along those two sections covered 'by the proposal now before the House are not in the same position as the people along the line of the Quebec and Saguenay railway. The plea made by the Solicitor General, the plea upon which the Government rests its demand upon Parliament for this sum of money, is based upon the requirements of the people living along the sixty odd miles of the Quebec and Saguenay. It cannot be based upon the requirements of the people living along the Quebec, Charlevoix and Montmorency, or upon the claims of the people living alorfg the Megantic railway, because those railways are in existence and in operation. Therefore, taking the Solicitor General's own argument as it has been presented to the House, we are paying out the amount of money that we are called upon to pay for the benefit of the people living along the sixty odd miles of the uncompleted Quebec and Saguenay railway. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) says that the total amount will be in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000; and, as nearly as I can figure, that $10,000,000, if considered as being the expenditure necessary to afford railway accommodation to the people living along the Quebec and Saguenay railway, comes to about $130,000 a mile that this country is being called upon to pay in order that these 30,000 people who are living along that sixty-one miles of. railroad shall have railroad accommodation in addition to the water transportation which they have now.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
places the figures at about double what they should be.


Frank Oliver: I am saying that it comes to $130,000 a mile if we consider the whole expenditure as being made necessary in order to afford accommodation to the people along this 61 miles.
My hon. friend made a plea as between conditions in the West and in the East. I happen to have knowledge of a locality, not in my own but in the adjoining constituency, where a larger population than that along the line of the Quebec and Saguenay, a population having no river navigation to aid them, are living at a distance, not of 10 miles, 15 miles, 20 miles, or 30 miles, or 40 miles from a railroad, but living at a distance of from 60 to 120 miles from the nearest railroad. I have brought the condition of these people before this Parliament on a previous occasion.

Their position is that the Provincial Government guaranteed aid to a line of railroad to be built for their relief. That line is in an uncompleted condition, just as is the Quebec and Saguenay; but this Government has seen fit to take that piece of road as a part of the property on which it holds security against the Canadian Northern Railway.


Arthur Meighen: Is the road uncompleted In the same sense as the Quebec and Saguenay? Is it not completed as far as it goes?


Frank Oliver: It is in the same position as the Quebec and Saguenay; it is graded, but there are no rails.


Arthur Meighen: What is the line?


Frank Oliver: It is the St. Paul de Metis branch of the Canadian Northern Railway.


John Gillanders Turriff: The same condition
exists in Saskatchewan in two or three cases.


Frank Oliver: The population of which I speak are largely French-speaking, just as are the people below the city of Quebec. This railroad is taken by the Government as a part of the property upon which it holds security against the Canadian Northern company for the guarantee given two years ago. In the proposals which the Government have placed before the House for a loan to the Canadian Northern railway, they have included money to pay the interest on the bonds issued by the company, guaranteed by the province, for the construction and completion of that road. When the matter was brought to the attention of the Government, my friend the Solicitor General said that the amount realized from the sale of bonds was not sufficient to complete, and that additional money would be necessary in order to complete. In my judgment it would be business on the part of the country to find the money to complete in order that that railroad should earn the interest on its bonds, instead of the interest being paid out of the Treasury on an uncompleted road. In addition to that, the people would get the benefit of facilities for traffic, and the country would be developed because of those facilities. But the Minister of Finance said that that was not possible-that they had gone as far as they could in appropriating money for the aid of railroads at this session, and that he could not reconsider the Government's position or consider the claims of this particular railroad and of 
the people whose rights and interests depend upon its completion. There is another railroad in my own constituency, the Peace river branch of the Canadian Northern railway, which is graded for about 100 miles, and on which about 30 miles of track has been laid. The trains are in operation on that portion of 30 miles, and for the balance, of something over 50 miles the grading has been completed, but there are no rails. This grading was completed, I think three years ago, and the condition is absolutely identical with that of the Quebec and Saguenay. The grading, trestles, etc., are being damaged or destroyed by the weather.
I brought that case to the attention of the Acting Minister of Railways and the answer 'he gave was that he could do nothing, that there was no money available to supplement the aid that it was proposed to give to the Canadian Northern, and that would enable these roads to be completed.
I did not ask for it in the interests of the Canadian Northern; I asked for it on the one hand, in the interests of the people whom I represent, and who need facilities for the traffic which these roads would give if they were completed, and on the other in the interests of the country, which to-day is paying interest on bonds on roads which by reason of not being completed are not able to earn interest on these bonds, and which, if completed, would earn interest. Under these circumstances, it strikes me, as it must strike a great many other people, anything but favourably that $130,000 should be taken to supplement what has been done already in the way of giving aid for the completion of this railroad, while these other railroads, and the people who are dependent upon them, receive no consideration whatever.


Mr. MORPHY:: Along the road to which the hon. gentleman refers, are there any towns say of 2,000 or 3,000 population, any settled conditions such as there are in the area of the railways under consideration?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What towns are they?


Frank Oliver: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I thought he meant settlements. There are no towns such as there are at Murray Bay.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then the position is
different.


Frank Oliver: The position is different and very much worse, because ours is a

rural population producing from the land, who, unless given railway communication, cannot produce, and cannot live there and do any good. It is a question of the progress of the country, of the development which we ail talk about, of our immigration policy, and of the necessity of settlement. Instead of spending our money to redeem the conditions as they exist there, we are going to spend $10,000,000 upon a project in regard to which we have no obligations, and which certainly is not going to produce results in proportion to the amount of money expended. In a time like this, we have to consider that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I take it from the hon. gentleman's argument that if the times had been propitious he thinks that these roads should be built in 'both places, in the West and also in this portion of Quebec, to give relief to the people.


Frank Oliver: If we had plenty of money, I would not object at all, everything else being proper. But if we are short of money where a great necessity exists, we seem to have abundance of money where the lesser necessity exists, and I cannot recognize that as a sound principle, or one that I can support.
Since my hon. friend has projected a certain idea into this discussion very delicately and very cleverly, that is to say, the suggestion of a divergence of interests between the East and the West, let me say that in the matter of railway transportation there is not only no divergence of interests, but there is an absolute inter-dependence of interests. The development of the West demands railroad facilities in the East just as the development of the West is necessary to make the railroads in the East of advantage. We are proposing to spend $10,000,000 on 61 miles of railway, because that is what it amounts to, so faT as national benefit is concerned. I admit the private benefit to [DOT] the gentlemen who own these enterprises, which while they earn more than will pay the cost of operation, do not earn enough, I understand from the statement of the Acting Minister of Railways, to pay interest on the cost of construction. I believe that is correct, that the Quebec, Charlevoix and Chicoutimi railway while it earns more than enough to pay its operating expenses does not earn enough to pay interest on the capital cost as well.


Arthur Meighen: My information is that it does.


Frank Oliver: If it does, we are not in any way called upon to spend any money upon it.


Arthur Meighen: Except that the other road cannot 'be operated without it; the other road would be isolated. It is for our advantage that we are taking the Quebec and Charlevoix railway. I do not see how my hon. friend can add that to the country's burden..


Frank Oliver: That proves exactly what I was saying, that the burden of the country is in respect of the sixty-one miles of the Quebec and Saguenay railway. That is the 'burden upon the country. If we have $10,000,000 to spend on railway development, and we want to spend it in eastern Canada, I would make a suggestion to the minister-I have had occasion to make it before, and I shall make it again-by which we could spend that money in a way that would produce enormous results to the city of Quebec, and to every interest that depends on the city of Quebec, and that would be of enormous benefit to western 'Canada as well. When we were discussing this matter before the Acting Minister of Railways intimated, as the Minister of Finance had intimated, that only the limitations of finance prevented his dealing with the problem as I presented it. Quebec is the great Atlantic deep water ocean port of Canada. Quebec is the Atlantic summer terminus of the Transcontinental road. Quebec has advantages as a port which no other city in the Dominion of Canada has. We have built a railroad from Winnipeg to Quebec, at a cost of nearly $200,000,000, for t'he purpose of handling traffic through the elevators at that city, and we did not handle it there during the past winter. Although we have the traffic, although it needs to find its outlet at Quebec, we are not handling it there, partly because we have not the equipment on the railroad, but, more than anything else, because we have not elevator accommodation at the city of Quebec. The success of the Transcontinental railway enterprise depends upon the establishment at the port of Quebec of adequate elevator accommodation more than upon any other consideration. We have there an elevator carrying 1,500,000 bushels.


Arthur Meighen: Has it been filled?


Frank Oliver: It- has not been filled. Will my hon. friend suggest that it was not

filled because we had not the grain to fill it with?


John Dowsley Reid: They would not ship it there.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend told us that he had not the oars to haul the grain with, and, if he had had the cars and had hauled the grain there he would not have had any place in which to put it, because they have not the elevators. When I asked why lhe was not providing greater elevator accommodation at Quebec he said it was because the Government could not afford the money, but it can afford the money to relieve our friends in regard to this uncompleted sixty-one miles of Quebec and Saguenay railway. It can do that, but it cannot afford the money to build elevators at the city of Quebec, which would make Quebec the great ocean port of this Dominion during seven months of every year, which it cannot be unless that elevator accommodation is provided there and provided on a scale similar to that which now exists at the head of lake Superior.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that any grain was offered for transcontinental shipment that had to be refused for lack of equipment, or that any grain was offered for the elevator at Quebec for which there was not room?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: All the grain offered
was shipped on the Transcontinental railway, and there has been room in the elevator at Quebec.


Frank Oliver: I do not know anything
about that, but I do know that in several cases in the Prairie West railway companies refused to take grain from the farmers and from the elevators, I presume, because they did not have the facilities to send it east.


Arthur Meighen: It was not through our lack.


Frank Oliver: It was not through the
lack of hon. gentlemen opposite? They are in control of the affairs of this country at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Not of the railways?


Frank Oliver: Of the Transcontinental railway and the elevator at Quebec, and if that condition exists my hon. friend may find any reason he pleases for it; but on this Government must rest the responsibility, and when they come and ask this House to pay $10,000,000 for 61 miles of uncom-

pleted railway to accommodate 30,000 people, I ask them how they can expect us to vote that money without a protest, when the money is so urgently needed to establish elevator accommodation at Quebec, so that the $200,000,000 sunk in the Transcontinental railway may earn interest and so that the people of the prairies, upon whose industry and success depend the earnings of the Transcontinental railway and the development of the city of Quebec, shall be able to progress and develop as they must, or else the whole enterprise falls to the ground. They are in control and, instead of them spending the money of this country in establishing at that port these facilities that will enable it to do the trade of the country, they take untold amounts of money, spend them for other purposes, and refuse these facilities to the port of Quebec. My hon. friends do not seem to like Quebec for some reason, because, while they had a road from Quebec to Winnipeg completed, they did not see fit to give a service on that road last winter. They gave a service from Toronto to Winnipeg over roads that did not belong to them for 500 miles, where they competed with the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific-a very good thing for Toronto, but not a very good thing for Quebec, when every reason suggested that they should put on a service between Quebec and Winnipeg.
If they do not like Quebec, if they propose to put it on the side track, if they propose that that great ocean port of Canada shall be ignored in their policy, notwithstanding the fact that $200,000,000 has been spent on the railway to bring the business to that port, we havte another port -the port of Montreal. We have a railway which is proposing to establish terminals in the city of Montreal. The Canadian Northern has a line uncompleted from Montreal to Capreol. Unless and: until that line is completed to Montreal, with suitable terminals in Montreal, the Canadian Northern railway system cannot be a successful enterprise. No matter who is at the head of the enterprise, no ^natter what shall happen, unless and until it secures terminals and facilities to enable the trade to reach Montreal over a completed line, it cannot be a success. I mentioned the matter to the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) when the Canadian Northern Bill was up. The answer was that there was not enough money; we could not take that matter into consideration; we

could loan the Canadian Northern $15,000,000, but we could not do anything to see that the money was spent so that the railway would be a completed enterprise, and, to that degree, able to earn interest on its cost. So that, for the ports of Quebec and Montreal, for the vast interests that centre in each of these great cities, for the transportation interests that are involved in the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, and for the great interests that are behind them in the prairie West, dependent on these railways and upon their access to these ocean ports, there is no consideration at the hands of the Government, but 30,000 people along the shores of the St. Lawrence, where they have navigation during seven months in the year, cowering a distance of sixty-one miles, are to have the benefit of an expenditure of $10,000,000 by this Government. We are to be saddled with $500,000 a year interest by reason of the proposition that our friends put before the House to-day. But we cannot get elevator accommodation at the port of Quebec, and we cannot assist the Canadian Northern into Montreal more than we have assisted it. We are able to pay interest on the bonds of the branch lines in the prairie West, guaranteed by the provincial governments, in order to hold our securities, but we are not able to complete the lines so that the people there will get the same facilities as we are offering to these people below Quebec at this cost. My hon. friend the Solicitor General, I presume, has made the best plea that he can on behalf of the Government for the expenditure that they propose to make, but it is not a plea that appeals to my mind as being in the national interest.


Mr. NESBITT:: Yesterday the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) gave the capitalization of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway at about $3,000,000 and he gave the earnings for 1914 as being $83,000, for 1913, $76,000 and for the years before that about the same. The Solicitor General says that that pays.


Arthur Meighen: On the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would much rather
have my hon. friend for my law partner
than for my business partner if he thinks that that pays on $3,000,000 of capital stock.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that it
paid on the capital stock.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You said that to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: My information was
that it paid the interest on the bonds.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend asked
that question, and you said that you thought it paid the interest on the capital stock.


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not say that. What he asked about were the fixed charges.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He said the capital
*stock.	.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he will say that himself.


Frank Oliver: I think I did, but I am
not sure I meant it in the sense in which my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) does.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I still say that if the
Solicitor General says that is a paying road, I would rather he put money into it than that I should. We come next to the Lot-biniere and Megantic. Last year they made the enormous profit of $1,255 with a capitalization of $349,000. There is nothing in this return to show how much money was spent on repairs or maintenance. In this return there is an engineer's report showing that improvements and repairs must be made upon the road. I notice in one case that 6,000 feet of filling has to be done. Everybody knows that a railway or any other enterprise depends entirely on how you keep up the property. On maintenance depends whether you make any net profits out of it or not.
If you starve the road for the purpose of showing a net profit, you may get the net profit all right, but very much to the detriment of the road. My hon. friend thinks that as there are 30,000 people in that district, the road might pay. Now it is estimated by the best American railway statisticians that it takes 2,000 people to the mile to make a railway pay.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I made any statement as to whether the road would pay; I do not think I am competent to judge.	,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How can a road with
only 500 people to the mile pay?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows that besides population bringing railroads, railroads bring population.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It depends on the country. You cannot dig rocks and grow wheat.


Arthur Meighen: I have done it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You did not make much at it. It would be much better for you to let the farmer dig the rocks and you advise him as to the law. I absolutely agree with my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that there is no human excuse for taking over these roads nor foT building that new piece. The Lotbiniere and Megantic railway already has connection with the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk, and can therefore already feed the Intercolonial, if that is what the minister wants. The road could not 'be better located, so far as connection with other roads is concerned. There is no earthly excuse for taking over these roads or for building that new piece. There is not even the excuse that this road has a Dominion charter, for it got its charter from the Quebec legislature. We have always been opposed to interfering with provincial rights, and now we have the opportunity of putting our theory into practice. If it is necessary that this road should be built, let the province of Quebec build it by all means, but I do not think we should build it, or take over this other little piece of road. It is an imposition on the people of Canada to ask them to do it at this time of financial strain and stress, and I do not believe there is a man in the Government although they are defending this proposition, and putting it through, who really thinks in his own heart that the road should be taken over. For my part, I want to raise my voice in opposition to the Government's spending one dollar on this proposition this year; we cannot afford to do it in any shape, manner, or form. There is no possible way of showing that any of these roads will pay; they never have paid in the past, as their reports show.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that while the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway did not pay last year for some reason connected with the management; in previous years it paid a very good return.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The net earnings in 1913 were $6,905, and" in 1912 $5,577, on a capitalization of $349,000. As I said a moment ago, we do not know how the maintenance of the road has suffered through the net earnings. If there is anything to earn in that district the road should have earned it before this time, and I have no doubt it has been in operation for some years.

As far as I am concerned, I am absolutely opposed to the Government spending one dollar on these roads this year.


Sir RODOLPHE FORGET:: Knowing
something about this road and the district through which it runs, perhaps I might say a few words. The Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway runs from St. Paul street, in the city of Quebec, to Cap Tourmente, a distance of about thirty miles. Part of the road is double-tracked, eighty-pound rails being used. There is no' better roadbed in the Dominion. Last year this road carried 1,843,000 passengers, but the average fare was about 124 cents, due to the short haul. A great number of pilgrims come every year to the shrine of Ste. Anne de Beaupre, coming over the American lines, over the Canadian Pacific railway, the Quebec Central, and so on. These roads get the biggest percentage of the fare, and we get about forty cents per passenger. This road runs through a thickly populated district, and the right-of-way is very expensive. The hon. member for St. John said a moment ago that the engineers had estimated the cost of this road at $1,300,000. I do not think that figure took into account the right-of-way and the rolling stock.
Mr. PUGSLEY- They are both included.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: I have the
statement here. There are 22 stations on this 30 miles of road. The station and other buildings-I am not taking into account the land-cost $134,000, and they could not be replaced for that amount to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the names of the stations?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Quebec, Limoi-lou Junction, Maizerets, Park Maufils, de-Salabery, Monument, Beauport, Everell, St. Gregoire, Montmorency Falls, Boischatel, Riviere de Fer, L'Ange Gardien Station,. Petit Pre', Lemoine, Laverdiere, Chateau Richer, Visitation, Riviere Aux Chiens, Ste. Anne de Beaupre, Beaupre, St. Joachim. The rolling stock and the stations and other buildings are worth $409,000. The terminus at the city of Quebec comprises about 135,000 feet of land and is worth nearer $2,000,000 than $1,500,000. If you put it at $10 a foot, it would be worth $1,350,000. The Government has already taken over about 40 per cent of these terminals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At what cost?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: The Canadian Pacific railway contributed their lands at $12 a foot. The reason why this land had to be taken over in this way was that the Canadian Pacific railway had not sufficient room for the Union station and freight shed, and also our railway stood between their tracks and the St. Lawrence basin, where their Empresses dock. The Canadian Pacific railway, of course, could not expropriate our railway, so the Government took it over and then turned it over to the Canadian Pacific railway. Our road is double tracked part of the way, making the total mileage 43 miles. The cotton company at Montmorency does not benefit this road very much, as the haul is short, and the freight is turned over to the Canadian Northern railway or tne Canadian Pacific railway; but when the Government acquires this road the freight will be turned over to the Intercolonial railway. The Saguenay railway was incorporated in 1905 at the request of my Liberal friends of Quebec; I may say that they are nearly all Liberals in Quebec city. The incorporators were: Hon. E. B. Garneau, Hon. Charles Langelier, George Tanguay, M.P.P., Narcisse Rioux, Hon. Alex. Taschereau, William Price,
Mark Workman,'McLeaWalbank.W. G. Ross,
They tried to raise the capital in 1907, but did not succeed, owing to the financial crisis. In 1909, being encouraged by the late Government, who gave us the subsidies, and encouraged also by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who said he would do all he could for me, but advised me to see the Prime Minister, now leader of the Opposition, we started work in 1911. Work was stopped in 1912-not 1911, as stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) last night.


John Gillanders Turriff: It was the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) who said that; I only quoted his words.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I said it commenced in
1911, and that work was suspended in 1912.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, he said the work
stopped in September, 1911.


John Dowsley Reid: Hansard will show what I
said.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Work was
stopped in 1912. About 87 per cent of the road is completed; the ties, fishplates and spikes are all along the road, and part of the rails. There is a population there that has been waiting for railway communication a little longer than some of the west- . ern population of which the hon. member for Edmonton spoke-these people having been waiting for 150 years for transportation facilities. They have paid their taxes for the development of the railways of the West. They do not begrudge that; but we think that they now are entitled to means of transportation. From the- 10th of November to the 10th of May in each year, the people are absolutely cut off from civilization. There are no roads-nothing that can be properly called roads-through those mountains. There are severe frosts, extending to 45 degrees below zero, and so transportation by road is almost impossible. The late Government in 1904 established a ferry between Riviere Ouelle	and	Murray	Bay,	fromthe south to	the	north	shore,	andbuilt a line	nine	miles	long	fromRivifere Ouelle	junction to	the wharf.
That service cost l-ast year, as shown by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, $53,240.66. This amount can be saved by the completion of the Saguenay railway. The transportation of mail Costs $6,918.69, by railway, boat and team, of which the railway gets $1,500-that is, from Quebec to St. Joachim. The maintenance of the branch from Riviere Ouelle junction to the wharf, according to the Railway Department, cost about $22,000. These sums make a total of $82,159. The earnings of the Montmorency railway are $83,031 above expenses, and of the Lotbiniere and Megantic, $3,889. These are all actual figures. The only estimate of earnings is of the Saguenay railway, which is estimated -by Mr. E. Evans engineer, of Quebec, at $315,511. These earnings, actual and estimated, together with the savings, make a total of $484,590. Take from this the steamer Champlain's earnings of last year, $7,093.90. The balance would represent about 5 per cent 0-n $9,000,000 of capital. So these roads would not be by any means a "white elephant' far from it. In my opinion, as soon as the Quebec and Saguenay is completed,.the Government should have at least 5 per cent on its investment, which would not be ten millions, nor would it be nine millions, but would be closer to seven millions than eight millions. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said last night that he at one time lived about one hundred miles east of Murray Bay,-I do not know whether on the south shore or on the north shore,-and he could not believe in a winter port on the St. Lawrence. I would advise him to read the report made on the winter port of St. Catherines bay by Ad-

miral Bayfield in 1882, by engineer J. C. Tache in 1904, and by Edward Evans in 1912; also the report of the commission for exploring the Saguenay in 1829; notes on the Saguenay country in 1829 by Andrew Stuart and by Lieut. Baddeley and Commissioner Ollebar in 1860, and also by the former Deputy Minister of Public Works, Mr. Gobeil, who gave a conference in the city of Quebec; and also a report of Judge Langelier. He will learn from these documents that even at low tide you have in St. Catherine's bay 71 feet of water. It is shown in Mr. J. C. TachAs report that you	can	take a	steamer to
within 50 feet of the shore of St. Catherine's bay, and you can winter there in open water all winter. I have my summer home at St. Irenee, and I go there in winter when I can. The north shore channel is always free of ice. The prevailing winds in winter are from the north, and the ice piles up on the south shore. That is why the ferry established in 1904 has not given the service to the north shore. Last winter I tried four times to get there, but unsuccessfully. I went from Montreal to Riviere Ouelle, slept two days at the Riviere Ouelle wharf and returned to Montreal, having made a round trip of 592 miles without reaching St. Irenee. The steamer that is now used in this ferry service is quite obsolete. I have here a letter from Mr. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which he says:
The usefulness of the boat is pretty nearly gone, and if this department is to continue the service, it will be necessary, without delay, to take steps to provide a suitable boat. It is estimated that a suitable boat will cost, at the present time, no less than ?175,000.
As to the money spent on the road, the sum may look large, but every cent of it has gone into the road. There were no sideshows, no subcontractors, so far as the company was concerned. The contract was given to two contractors. From Cap Tour-mente to Murray Bay was given to M. J. O'Brien, at prices which could not be had to-day, and from Murray Bay to Naim Falls was given to the Bishop Construction Company, which failed while building the road, and the work was completed by M. J. O'Brien. The road is operated today, not for passengers, but for freight. It is paying the expense of maintenance, and something over.
Now, with regard to the Montmorency bonds. These were issued about 18 years ago. I do not know of any of them having changed hands since they were issued. They 
are in the hands of insurance companies, of such men as F. W. Ross, of Quebec, and of wealthy estates in Quebec that have kept them from the beginning. There is no market; they are not listed. There has been no promotion money expended on the Quebec and Saguenay railway. Not one five cent piece has any director received either as fees, or as salary, or even as expenses, either directly or indirectly. I am not interested in the Quebec and Saguenay, the Lotbiniere and Megantic, or the Charlevoix and Montmorency railways.
So far as that error of $3,473,000 as against $4,465,000 is concerned I am the guilty party. When I came back with the Minister of Railways, he asked me to write a letter on this subject. I was in my office, in Montreal, in communication with the controller in Quebec, and he gave me the figures. So, I wrote the letter. When the matter came before the Government, I went to Quebec to check the figures, i I talked the matter over with him, and the only explanation he gave me was that he was under the impression that we were working under a deed of trust which would give a clear title to the Government if 67 per cent of the bonds of the railway were handed over to the Trust Co. and cancelled.
Every one in the city of Quebec, including the Board of Trade and the city council, have asked for this road and believe that the people .are entitled to it. From the 10th of November until the 10th of May the north shore is without service. During the last two yeare they have asked the Government to go to the rescue by sending the steamer Montcalm there to try to help them.
The population of Charlevoix is 22,000, Chicoutimi and Saguenay 65,000, Montmorency 15,000, city of Quebec 90,000, Quebec county 27,000. The city of Quebec will certainly be a feeder of that railway. There is no means of communication below Quebec, because the boat leaves at 8 o'clock in the morning and summer residents wishing to go down there-clerks, merchants, bankers and so on-cannot leave by that boat. If there was a train the whole district would be populated in a comparatively short time. The cost of these railways was $8,921,476.37, of which amount the cost of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix was $2,992,209.89, and the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway, $349,208.85. This railway was bought from the hon. member

for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) and we were assured that it earned 5 and 6 per cent all the time. If it is not earning that much it is due to the shortage of cars caused by the Grand Trunk being unable to supply cars to go over this Lotbiniere and Megantic line. I think it is the only branch line which the Intercolonial has not taken over in the province of Quebec. It runs from Lyster in the county of Megantic to 'St. Jean des Chaillons in the county of Lotbiniere. At Lyster it connects with the Grand Trunk railway, at Villeroy with the Intercolonial railway and at Fortierville with the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway. Surely these people are entitled to some direct railway communication. The member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortier) told me a few days ago that although he lives only thirty miles from the city of Quebec, it takes him two days to get there and back. The Lotbiniere and Megantic railway consists of thirty miles of main line and about two miles of sidings. The county of Megantic has a population of 31,000, and the county of Lotbiniere a population of 22,000. The villages along the lines include Lyster, Lourdes, Villeroy, Kingsbury, Fortierville, Parisville and St. Jean des Chaillons.


William Pugsley: In the engineer's report the total population served by the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway is stated to be only a little ovier 5,000.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: I am taking the census and the statement made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. The census gives the county of Lotbiniere a population of 22,000.


William Pugsley: In his report, the engineer mentions the villages referred to by my hon. friend, and gives the total population as 5,220.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: There may be some villages back from the railway which have escaped the engineer's notice. As to the possibilities of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, I may say that it is not very encouraging for people to try to develop industries in the district when they have communication for only six months in the year. The Mount Mur-4 p.m. ray Pulp and Paper Mill Company, which is controlled exclusively by the New York World, was established in that district. They havie bought, during the last four years, in the
county of Charlevoix, timber lands for which they have paid over $600,000. For the last three years they have produced over 150,000 cords of pulpwood each year, but have been unable to get a cord of it	out owing to	the
lack of railway facilities and narbour accommodation. They proceeded to spend their own money in making the necessary improvements, and this year they will be able to get out some. The Baie St. Paul Lumber Company, which is controlled by some Americans from Syracuse, New York, obtained from the seminary of Quebec certain timber rights in that district, for which they paid $280,000. They have spent a .large sum of money there, but they have been discouraged because of the lack of transportation facilities. They can get schooners, but they cannot get steamers, because the water is not deep enough in the bay.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Can they not get ordinary schooners to carry their pulpwood?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: It would take schooners a long time to carry out 60,000 cords of pulpwood. Besides, they do not navigate in winter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They can use teams in winter.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: I wish my hon. friend would come down to that district with me in the winter, and see the conditions.


John Gillanders Turriff: All the way along the St. Lawrence there are scores of big ships that carry timber, sawn timber, and deals all the way from Metis to Riviere du Loup. These vessels do not go into the harbours; they anchor a mile or two outside and are loaded by barges.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: You are
talking of the south shore, where they have the Intercolonial railway wharves, and all that they want in that line. On the north shore the only wharf at which there is water deep enough to accommodate a steamer is at Murray Bay. There is an iron mine in the county of Charlevoix in which at least $250,000 must have been sunk. I know that some of our Quebec friends are only waiting for the construction of this railway before commencing to exploit that mine.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I could tell the hon. gentleman about a lot of mines in which

more money than that was sunk, and in which I myself put some money.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: The man in charge of the Quebec and Saguenay construction was the engineer, Arthur Bruce. The estimates w^re based on reports by Edward Evans and Beresford Fox, of Sir Douglas Fox and partners, of London. Other engineers engaged in the work were J. G. Guay, S. A. Demeules, and E. S. Lovelace. They were absolutely wrong in their estimates, which were just as bad as the estimates of the cost of the Transcontinental. The railway is absolutely level; there are no grades and the roadbed is largely solid rook. I would call the attention of the committee to the terminals which it is necessary for the Transcontinental to have at Quebec. Without terminals you cannot run a railroad, and the same may be said of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix and the Quebec and Saguenay railroads.


Wilfrid Laurier: How will this railway benefit the population of Chicoutimi and Saguenay?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: It will do that when it is taken down to St. Catherine's bay.


Wilfrid Laurier: How will this railway benefit the county of Megantic? If the railway is projected through Sherbrooke it will assist the county of Megantic; otherwise it will be of no value to that county.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: I am simply taking the statement o| the hon. member for Lotmniere.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I asked if the bonds
would be paid at par by the Government. He said, " Yes." Does he mean the bonds of the Quebec and Montmorency and the bonds of the Quebec and Saguenay?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What bonds?


John Dowsley Reid: We take the road clear of all encumbrance, and the $2,500,000 of bonds are the original bonds, ae stated by the hon. member from Charlebois.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does that apply to the two sections?
Mr. M'EIGHEN: No, just the one section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The object of my question is that I understand that the Quebec and Saguenay has been built; the eurvey-

ing, the locating of the line and the grading, has been done with money invested by the French people. I understand that this money was obtained on the Paris market to the extent of something over $4,000,000. Is that right?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Oh, yes, more than that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think that any Canadian money was invested in that section from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls, and Surely the people who have invested their money, with whose savings you have built the road, are entitled to reimbursement if the Government are going to absorb it. Personally I am not opposed to the Government taking over that section of the railroad which runs from St. Joachim to Murray Bay. I wish to explain, however, that the Quebec, Lotbiniere and Megantic should not be taken over by the Government. This road was built some years ago by some very enterprising lumbermen for the purpose of exploiting their timber limits. In 1902, if I mistake not, it was bought by Messrs. Tobin, McRae and Pennington for $235,000. This included 60,000 acres of timber land. A few years afterwards, when the limits, had been practically exhausted, the road was sold to the Quebec Eastern for $285,000. As was stated a moment ago by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the road is connected with the Intercolonial. It is not a highly paying concern, but still it pays its way. I do not see why, in these days of hard times, when the people of Canada are called upon to pay such heavy taxation as they will this year, they should be asked to saddle themselves with this railway, especially when we are told by the Minister of Railways and by the Minister of Finance that the Transcontinental railway, to which this Toad is going to be added, is already a dead weight on the Government. I may be told, it is true, that I should be perhaps more provincial; and that as it is a matter which concerns my own province I should keep silent and let the Government acquire this railroad. My answer is that 'I am elected to the Parliament of Canada not to represent one county or one province, but to represent the people of Canada; and I care not what may be said about the advantage which might accrue to a special locality by the gift of a railway, or rather by the acquiring by the Government of a certain railway. The people of Canada at the present moment are not in a mood

to pay any such amount ot money as this. The war will cost this country an enormous amount of money. The national debt is increasing by leaps and bounds. The people will pay it cheerfully because the people understand that the war must be ended and ended victoriously and that all legitimate sacrifice must be made towards securing that end. Therefore, I think the Government might well ponder and pause before deciding to acquire this small bit of a railroad. As regards the other part of this scheme, that is the railway running from Quebec to St. Joachim. I know that section of the country; it is a rich territory; the railroad runs through alluvial lands, and really I think it is a paying concern. But it is a tramway, and the people are well served as there are twenty-twc or twenty-five stopping places; not stations exactly but stopping places. It is the continuation of the tramway system of the city of Quebec. It pays its way and I think that if it was disconnected from the other stretch of railway which was added to it, the Quebec and Saguenay, there would be no need of acquiring it. Therefore I say that there is no reason for the Goverment acquiring the Quebec and Lotbiniere section of the railway. There is no reason for them to acquire the tramway from Quebec to 'St. Joachim, which pays its way. But I would say to the Government, as being interested in the welfare of the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, that the Government should help towards the completion of the road from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls. Really I cannot object to that, because there is a large and old settled population in that district, and that population really requires some mode of transportation. In that respect I may say that I have received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade of Quebec, a well known gentleman, Mr. J. G. Scott. I shall read his letter:
Quebec, 9th May, 1916.
Dear Mr. Lemieux,-May I take the liberty of writing you a line with regard to the Quebec and Saguenay railway.
I think the people of Quebec are pretty nearly unanimous in approving the course of the Government in making this railway part of the Transcontinental. I know that in the Board of Trade-of which I am the president, and we have a very influential board of nearly 600 members-there has never been a dissenting voice, when the matter has been discussed as it often has. Our people feel that the people of Montmorency, Charlevoix and Saguenay, a large population, have as good claims as those of the Northwest to railway facilities and that this project will help towards winter navigation, or at least the prolongation of the season, a matter which is very dear to us in Quebec.
Moreover, a great many people in Quebec are interested financially, and the failure of this project would not only cause them to lose their money, but it would injure the city generally and perhaps cause us to pay dearer for gas and electricity-We pay too dear as it is.
Yours truly,
J. G. Scott.
I have not the copy of my answer, but I wrote back to Mr. Scott that I was certainly not opposed to the Government helping towards the completion of the road between St. Joachim and Murray Bay, provided the people who had invested their good, sound money in that enterprise were recouped. I may be treading on dangerous ground, but I wish to say that this part of the Quebec and Saguenay, which runs from St. Joachim, the terminus of a good paying tram line, to Nairn Falls, was financed in France.
I do not think that any Canadian money was invested in that section. If I am wrong my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Sir Rodolphe Forget) will correct me.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: About $1,250,000 of Canadian money was invested and $4,600,000 from France.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the various prospectuses which were issued in France at the time when this enterprise took form, and the people in France were induced to-invest their money not only in that enterprise, but in a series of enterprises, which were known as the Quebec merger, and which included the Quebec and Saguenay railway, the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway, the Quebec Public Utilities, that is, Gas, Electricity, and so on, and the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway. As my hon. friend from Charlevoix said, they parted with their money on the strength of the statements made in these prospectuses. We know how people abroad are induced to invest their money. The French people thought that this would be quite a remunerative enterprise, and they paid their good money in the hope that they would get good returns.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Is my ihon. friend aware that these good French people got back their good money plus 6 and 8 per cent of interest?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The whole enterprise was guaranteed by the Quebec merger, and the bondholders of the company received their interest, if I am well informed.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: And the
money for their bonds.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the point. I am informed-my hon. friend knows better than I do-that the French bondholders were offered 40 and 50 cents on the dollar for their bonds, and that afraid, as they were, at the failure of the company to proceed with the work, and discouraged, as they were, by the reports of their engineer, they parted with their bonds. It seems to me that in all fairness, and in all justice, these French bondholders, who very cheerfully and very willingly invested their money in that enterprise, should be reimbursed up to the figure which they paid when they subscribed for the bonds of the concern.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Have they not sold their bonds outright, and lost possession of them ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, that is what I am stating. The French public admittedly-my hon. friend from Charlevoix says so, and he knows better than anybody else-subscribed to the amount of over $4,600,000. They paid that amount in hard cash. The money was spent on the roadbed, on the grading on the small section of the railroad which runs from Murray Bay to Nairn Falls. Nobody will deny that since then French investors have seen their folly. They have been acquainted with the fact that the enterprise was a failure and I say that without any disparagement. It was a serious failure; they were induced to sell their bonds to a committee of purchasers.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: By whom were they induced to sell?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the information here.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Would my
hon. friend say that the French people who invested in Canadian Pacific railway stock at 280 and sold it at 165 should be reimbursed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not speaking of
the Canadian Pacific railway. I believe that the bondholders of the Canadian Pacific railway in France and England, and all the world over, are quite satisfied with their stock even at the low figure to which it has fallen, because it is a gilt-edged security. There is no comparison.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Yes, there is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the present instance the French people were induced by rosy prospectuses to invest their good money in this enterprise when the name of Canada was very prominent and very popular in the French money market. I have all the various prospectuses here, but I will not read them. Those people invested their money, and now the Government of Canada proposes to acquire these lines of railway. The Government declares that it will buy the bonds at their par value for the section running from Quebec to St. Joachim. Why not pay the French people the par value on their bonds for the. section from St. Joachim to Nairn's Falls. That would be dealing out equal justice. It seems to me that the French people should be treated by this Government in a fair way. Why one policy for one section of railway, and another policy in regard to the other section? My hon. friend from Charlevoix asked a moment ago who offered to purchase the bonds.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Who induced them to sell?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have here a copy of
L'Office National des Valeurs Mobilieres, a financial review published in Paris. I will translate the paragraph into English. It reads as follows:
The Defence Committee-
They appointed a Defence Committee in Paris.
The Defence Committee of the bondholders of the Quebec railway, Saguenay and Eastern, have been offered the total purchase of their bonds in Prance at the cost of $60, plus payment of all the coupons due.-
[DOT]-the committee has consented to present that for the bondholders, but as requested, before their doing that, indisputable guarantees are to be given which guarantees have not yet been given by the group.
I do not know what that group is but I answer that my hon. friend induced the French bondholders to accept $60 for their bonds. I do not say that originally they paid $100 for their bonds.


John Dowsley Reid: They paid $82 and some $84.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, certainly, offers
were made by a Canadian group through the Committee of Defence of Bondholders in Paris, at $60 for each bond for which they paid, as the minister says, $82.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I wish I could get the same amount for some bonds I have now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to know where the protection will be for the people

who have built that section of road. How will they be reimbursed? I am not opposed to the Government aiding that section of road but I am opposed to the acquisition of the Lotbiniere and Megantic. I say that this last proposition is absolutely indefensible because this road occupies a territory served by the Intercolonial railway for many years past and nobody in that district has made a demand that the Government should acquire that road. As regards the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix, I do not see why the Government acquires that tramway. It is a good tramway and it pays well.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: It is not a tramway; it is a railway with a federal charter, run by steam and electricity, and it has a telegraph office in many stations. There is a tramway to serve local traffic.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it double-tracked?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Doubletracked and both tracks 'are electrified.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says that this road is not in need of help. It serves a large population, and the people are not anxious that their railway should be absorbed by the Transcontinental. The people I am caring for particularly are the people on the line from St. Joachim to Murray Bay. Let the Government help to complete the line. I would not object to that, but I say that if they are still determined to acquire that line the least they can do is to recoup those who have built it. The hon. member for Charlevoix himself admits that the French investors have sunk in that railway $4,600,000.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: They got back their money and they got 6 to 8 per cent interest on it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did they get their capital back? Surely my hon. friend does not contend that the French investors have had returned all their capital invested?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: The road
must be given free of encumbrance; that is, the lien on that road must be released.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: By the Quebec Railway Company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That comes to exactly what I said a moment ago. The French investors were induced to put their money into the construction of that road, the Canadian company accepted their money, they located the road, they surveyed it, they graded it; to-day the Government will acquire that road free of encumbrance. I am told and my hon. friend says that the Quebec Railway Company will wipe out any encumtoranc existing on it. It means, therefore, that the Quebec Railway Company has purchased the bonds from the French investors.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will
make the matter clearer I will thank him for it. All 1 have in mind is to protect the rights of those who have invested their money.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman,-


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will pardon me; I would like my hon. friend from Charlevoix to give me an explanation. Who has disinterested the French bondholders and how much was paid to them?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: They disinterested themselves by getting rid of their bonds.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who purchased the
bonds?


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: I do not know; they were sold on the Paris Bourse, and I do not know who bought them. A great part of them were exchanged for Canadian bonds at 50. The Canadian bonds are now selling at 70, which gives them a premium of ten francs on their money, plus 6 to 8 per cent interest. That came about because friends of mine in Paris asked, as the value of the rentes stood at the ratio of 94 to 60, if we could give 60 for these Canadian bonds, as it would help to bring the French rate of exchange up to 60. I said that I would do so. We got some of our friends together, and we m-ade that offer, but it has never been taken advantage of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Even on the statement made by the hon. member for Charlevoix, there is the admission that the French investors, although they invested their money in good faith for the building of a Canadian enterprise, will be deprived of a part of the value of the bonds which they secured. I am not opposed to the completion of that section of the railway. I am in favour of it, but I do not say that the Government should acquire the road. The Government has not the means to acquire any railway,

especially when the Government comes before Parliament with the declaration that before long this country may be obliged to nationalize the three transcontinental railways. But I say:	let the Government
help substantially the Quebec and Saguenay portion of the line and they will get my unreserved support. If the Government acquire that railway, which is not built, but which is graded, and in which the French people have sunk so many millions of dollars, the least the Government can do is to protect those unfortunate bondholders. My hon. friend from Mont-magny (Mr. L'Esperanee) smiles. Unless I am a simpleton, I do not see how else the Government can conscientiously act. Is it fair-I put it to my hon. friend, as a friend of the Quebec district-that the people in France who have invested their money after having read the alluring prospectuses which were distributed throughout France should be eliminated and that they should only save a part of their investment5 Is it fair for the Government to take over the road and return to the French investors only a portion of the money they invested? My hon. friend from Charlevoix has admitted that the bonds of the road were undersold to a Canadian group of financiers.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Were exchanged.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend would only be as frank as he usually is and unravel the whole thing, he would tell us that a group of financiers in Montreal and Quebec, knowing that the bonds would largely increase in value later on, induced the French investors to sell their bonds at a low figure.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: The company has never induced anybody to sell their bonds. The bonds are quoted on the Paris Bourse, and I know that some have been sold on that exchange. This is no more unfair than when I was induced to buy 500,000 francs of the Est Parisien Tramway Company and only got back 5,000 francs. My hon. friend might as well say that the Grand Trunk shareholders and bondholders who invested their money in this country thirty or forty years ago ought to be reimbursed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may think what he likes about that, but I am loath to believe that the French would induce foreigners to invest their money in an enterprise under false pretenses.
[Mr. Lemieux.3


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: You know the Est Parisien Company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know about that. I know that they are very severe in France on schemers.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: 'Your friend ex-Controller Macdonald of Montreal was manager of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is more your friend than mine. I understand that ex-Controller Macdonald was employed by my hon. friend when he was 'Connected with the Montreal Tramways. I think the Government should see that the French are reimbursed for the money they have invested in this enterprise. I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Railways whether interested parties will be able to bring their claims before the Exchequer Court when this matter comes up?


John Dowsley Reid: The Exchequer Court will determine the value of the properties, also any claims, I suppose, against the road. The owners must give us a clear title.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
must acknowledge that whatever money is paid for the Quebec and Saguenay railway must go to those who have first claim on it; that is, the bondholders. Therefore, the bondholders will 'be paid in full up to the purchase price of the road, and the only way to pay them further, if the purchase price is not sufficient, would be to-add to that purchase price, and we do not feel we can do that.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think any one will object to the building of a road that is a reasonable proposition, and that the country is well able to afford. In the last few days it has frequently been impressed upon the House by hon. gentlemen on both sides that we have overbuilt in this country, and that the time had come when we should cease to extend our railway mileage. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) pointed out yesterday that there are in this country 2,500 miles of track that should be taken up and laid elsewhere. The Minister of Finance also touched upon this subject yesterday, and his whole argument was that the railway companies should go to the provinces for assistance in completing their lines. The Minister of Finance is not here to-day, and I do not wonder at it.


John Dowsley Reid: He was here a moment ago.


John Gillanders Turriff: He is ashamed to be present and countenance this proceeding.


John Dowsley Reid: That is absurd. He was here only a moment ago.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Minister of Finance said yesterday that if the company wanted assistance for its incomplete line in Alberta it ought to go to the Government of Alberta, and similarly with Saskatchewan, and the Solicitor General took the same ground. He said that if the provinces wanted the roads completed they should assist them, because we were not in a financial position to do it. One point that has not been touched on, I think, is the assistance these roads have received from the province of Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned that last night. The road was granted a subsidy of $3,000 a mile, but nothing was ever paid on it.


John Gillanders Turriff: Was there not a land grant?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but nothing was ever given on it.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know why.


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps the hon. member for Charlevoix can tell us.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: This was granted in March, 1912, and the road stopped in August, 1912; so nothing was earned.


John Gillanders Turriff: On account of the railroad falling down in its construction they have not received anything from the province of Quebec. But they have received a subsidy from the Dominion Government.


John Dowsley Reid: They have received $132,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: On a railway that is incomplete; that is the great objection. Why should the Government at this time, and with financial conditions as they are, take over a tramway running out of the city of Quebec? The hon. member for Charlevoix and the Acting Minister of Railways tell us that the proposition is paying its way. But why take over this particular tramway, even though it has a railway track on which cars can be run? Why should we have anything to do with the Lotbiniere and Megantic, which road, as I understand, is running? The only part that we ought to deal with is that which is uncompleted, the part from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls, a distance of 62 miles. I understand from the statement of the hon. member for Charlevoix that people in France put in $4,600,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the par value of the bonds. They were sold at 82.


John Gillanders Turriff: But the hon. gentleman is proposing to pay the face value of the bonds.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: In addition to the
$4,600,000 put in by the people of France; $1,500,000, the hon. gentleman says, was put in by the people in Quebec province.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: In Montreal.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, in the province of Quebec. That money was put in for this sixty-two miles of railway of which only 87 per cent of the grading is done, and a lot of that washed out. That amounts to $98,000 a mile for grading 87 per cent of a railroad. Either the money was practically taken out of it, or else the country is so rough that it should not have a railway. If the grading of 87 per cent of this mileage costs $98,000 a mile, it will cost $125,000 a mile to put the road in running shape. Now, $125,000 a mile may be a paying proposition in such country as the state of Pennsylvania, where they have trains running every five minutes of the twenty-four hours, but in a sparsely settled country a railway cannot get the traffic that would justify the Government in paying so much money for it.
Why not get down to the facts of the matter? This whole proposition, in my judgment, is nothing but a political steal. And the thirty thousand people along this line are not going to get the advantage. Hon. gentlemen opposite are going to get the advantage, <or the Government i? simpiy paying for the political support they got the other day-that is what it amounts to. At a time when the Minister of Finance says that we are not in a position to go on and build railroads we are called upon to put in ten millions of dollars, and all we get is sixty-two miles of railroad. We are actually told that we are to pay $98,000 a mile for a road on which not a bridge is built, on which not only the rails are not laid, but the grading is not completed, on which there is not a station house, for which there is no telegraph line-absolutely nothing but 87 per cent of the work of grading done. The Minister of Railways has the nerve to come to this House and ask us to put ten millions into such a scheme as that. Of all the propositions that have ever been



put before this House in connection with railroad building-and I know there have been many bad ones in the past, and I am not going to say that one .side is worse than the other-there was never such an outrageous proposition as this. Yesterday we voted $8,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific and $15,000,000 for the Canadian Northern. Are you awaTe, Mr. Chairman, I opposed these grants? But there is this to be said in connection with the Canadian Northern-that the provinces of Canada and the Dominion of Canada combined have already put in $208,000,000 into that system. So, we were committed to a certain extent. But here is a gigantic piece of folly, simply a political proposition, by which the Government wants to recoup some of its political friends and supporters, and to that end asks Parliament to vote $10,000,000 to add 62 miles to the railways of Canada. I have never heard anything like it; and if this Government persists in such a proposition, especially in these times, it should be driven, from power.
See what this proposal means. The Minister of Finance is putting a business impost on the people of Canada by which he proposes to tax every business man coming within the scope of his Bill 25 per cent on what he earns in bis business over 7 per cent. By this tax he expects to raise about $25,000,000 a year. And now it is proposed that a sum equal to more than one-third of this special tax for a year is to be paid for a railway 62 miles long serving a country with only 30,000 people. ,
Let us put it in another way. From the Atlantic to the Pacific the people of Canada, men, women and children, have been busy since this war began paying, working, doing everything that was in their power to maintain the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross Fund and others intended to. alleviate the sufferings of our men at the front. And the whole of that amount so contributed in a year, if I remember the figures correctly, would not amount to what this Government here proposes to hand over to a few men. Montreal put up a million or two, Toronto a million or two; the provinces put up large sums of money, and all this money is taken with one hand and thrown into this concern with the other. With this money it is proposed to take over railroads that, at the price suggested, will be a millstone around the neck of the Dominion of Canada^as long as the Dominion of Canada lasts. I am not opposed to helping railroads in the province of Quebec. Quebec is my native 
province. There I was bom and brought up and I have always had the kindliest feelings for my old province of Quebec. If this road is in the condition that it is represented to be in, let the Government come forward with a sane, reasonable proposal to put that 62 miles of road on its feet and add it to the mileage of the railways of Canada. No man would support that quicker than I would, because that would be a reasonable proposition. This company got hold of French bonds at 60 cents on the dollar, for which they are now going to get 100 cents on the dollar from my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways. Then, we are going to issue $4,400.000 of securities that can be turned into cash; these we are going to hand over to the present stockholders, a little group of men who have manipulated the French bondholders and every one else. In this political deal they are now going to draw $4,400,000 out of the Treasury for their own purposes. And that is not the end of the trouble. In addition to that, the Acting Minister of Railways has to complete those roads. He has to add to the roads that are now operating and also to complete this 62 miles of road.
I have pointed out on more than one occasion that within five years we shall have a debt of about $2,000,000,000, with an annual interest charge of $100,000,000. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways now deliberately proposes to add another half million to our yearly interest account. I say again that if this Parliament passes this measure they will have to take the responsibility before the people of Canada, and I venture to say that the people of Canada will not justify that action in any shape or form. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) suggested a much better way to spend this money and at the same time get value for it-by building up transcontinental railway facilities in the city of Quebec. If you do that, and this railway is as advantageous as hon. gentlemen opposite say it is, the province of Quebec will come to the rescue of this railway company and see it through. But the Government and the Legislature of the province of Quebec, who know the circumstances much better than we do, would not justify what has been done in connection with this road, would not justify the expenditure of $98,000 a mile on an uncompleted grade. The thing is too absurd for argument. That is one reason why this

Bill should be defeated-so that members of the House and the people of the country should have an opportunity of getting some information on the' subject. We have not been able to get any information worth speaking about from my hon. friend the acting minister or from the Solicitor General. The very fact that the Acting Minister of Railways has to get the Solicitor General at his elbow to wiggle and twist and turn this thing around is 5 p.m. enough to .make the people suspicious as to the merits of the case. The Solicitor General i6 very adroit on railway matters and when we see the Solicitor General take his place at the acting minister's elbow, we know that the acting minister is in deep water. Not knowing what to do, he send3 out an S.O.S. call and the Solicitor General rushes to his rescue. Well, the Solicitor General may be able to engineer this legislation through, but he will have to take a good deal of responsibility for it.
The hon. member for Charlevoix spoke about a winter port. I am free to admit that the hon. member ought to know more about that than I do, for it is now over forty years since I left the province of Quebec. But I have seen twenty vessels frozen in the ice in the month of November.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: On the south shore?


John Gillanders Turriff: On the south shore. If my hon. friend is right in saying that Murray Bay can be made an open port-I think it is'only 40 miles from Quebec, is it not?


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: 90 miles.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: From St.
Catherine's bay, 130 miles.


John Gillanders Turriff: Of course, the further
you get down the easier it is to navigate in winter. Ice-breaking steamers have had a great deal of difficulty at times in navigating the St. Lawrence during the winter months. I do not know of any vessels other than ice-breakers that have navigated to any considerable extent during the winter months, and you cannot have all your freight steamers built as ice-breakers. In my judgment it will be many years before you will have a winter port any place along the St. Lawrence where it is as narrow as it is at St. Catherine's bay. I will not be too sure about that, however, because I am not as well posted as my hon. friend is.
If the Government does intend to carry out this proposed legislation why do they
254i
not do it in a businesslike way? What is the reason why the Railway Department should not deal with this matter? I will tell you the reason: it is right there among the papers that have been brought down. Their own engineer gives the value of thd property a trifle over half what my hon. friend the Solicitor General and the Acting Minister of Railways are prepared to pay. This is not a matter that ought to go before the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court, as I understand the matter, was established in order that any one 'having a claim against the Government might go there to have that claim settled. Who has a claim against the Government in connection with these three railways? We gave them a subsidy; we do not owe them a dollar. The Intercolonial doe's not need the roads, nor does the Grand Trunk Pacific need them. We have no liability; we have no responsibility, therefore why go to the Exchequer Court? This Government is losing all the power of government that it ever had-and it never had much. Commissions are appointed for everything, and now, when they want to take over about 70 miles of operating road and 62 miles of grading, they cannot trust their own engineers and they cannot trust themselves. They cannot trust themselves, and so they pass a Bill here in order to have an excuse for handing the matter over to the Exchequer Court to have that court pass on the value of the road. They do not even trust the Judge of the Exchequer Court, because they tie his hands behind his back. If this Government are going, to take over this road, why do they not say to the Judge of the Exchequer Court, if they are bound to put it up to him: " Here, go out and value the road, find out whiat it is worth "? My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways and the Solicitor General say: No, we must find out how much it cost. When you find that $98,000 per mile was put into 87 per cent of the length of line graded, I do not wonder at the hon. member for Charlevoix (Sir Rodolphe Forget) not wanting the road to be paid for iat its value. I can quite understand how he would prefer to have paid back what the road has cost, or what they claim it has cost. Supposing that, in the locating of that road, as in the case of the locating of a great part of the Canadian Pacific railway when it was first constructed, the worst possible iroute was chosen, -although there were much better routes near at hand, why should this Gov-

eminent, in taking over the road, pay for the mistakes made by those who built the road? Or why should they take it over at more than whiat it is worth to them? We are buying this for the people of Canada.
I ask, is there one man who is sitting on the Government benches to-day who, if he was putting his own money into this road, would take it over on such a plan as this? Would he say: "Well, I will pay you what you put into it with interest on your money "? Or would he say: " I will take the road over at what it is worth to me"? There is the whole position. My hon. friend is putting it to the Judge of the Exchequer Court instead of trusting his own officers. One of his officers has made a Teport showing the value of the road to be about one-half what the Acting Minister of Railways proposes to pay. But the minister refuses to go by that, because it would not enable him to put in a large sum of money to those supporters who sit behind him, and put it in, not to the advantage of the people of the country, but for political advantage and nothing else. I hope that when this matter comes to be fully considered by the Government we will have this Bill withdrawn, and I would ask my hon. friends on the Government benches to consider well what the effect of this will be. If this road is bought under such circumstances, how are the Government going ito get out of taking over the branch lines of the Intercolonial, many of which they have promised to take over? Will the owners of those roads not also demand that they be taken over, not under the Bill that was passed not long ago for the purpose of enabling the Government to take over branch lines, but on the same terms as this road. Do you not see where it leads us? It will be just one thing such as this after another, and that at a time when the Government of the country cannot afford it. We have heard the ministers talking of economy. What economy are they practising? They are bringing forward now, in the dying days of the session, when members cannot post themselves fully on the enormity of what is proposed, legislation of a most important character. I venture to say that we do not know one-half about this matter yet, and they are coming forward 'with a proposal to add another $10,000,000 to the debt of Canada for an enterprise that, I venture to say, will never pay one cent of interest. It will be just like the Intercolonial; if it pays working expenses it will be doing mighty well. So

we shall hlave added $10,000,000 to our debt, which will involve half a million dollars each year for interest as long as time lasts, unless we pay off the principal.
As I said before, this is the most vicious proposition that has ever come before Parliament, and I ask the Acting Minister to take it into his further consideration and decide if, in the interest of the people of Canada, he should not withdraw the Bill; because I know perfectly well that my hon. friend the acting minister cannot go into his own constituency and, before any audience, justify the handing over of this $10,000,000. He cannot go into any .constituency in Canada, except perhaps those that will immediately benefit, and justify this course. I say again I am quite willing that the Government should give the necessary aid to secure the completion of this road; but they should not buy it.
I trust that if anything is done it will be done along the line of assisting the road, not of purchasing it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member who has just spoken has made complaint that we have not provided the House with sufficient facts. Of all hon. members of this House, the last who should complain of the absence of provision of facts is the hon. member for Assiniboia. I have never been able to discover that facts are of the slightest value to him; in fact, they seem to impede the progress of his rhetoric rather than to help him. His first task, whenever he gets on his feet, is to divorce himself from anything in the nature of facts and truth, and to. substitute the figments of his fancy, and to proceed with a very well-stocked supply of superlatives to denounce the Government from every standpoint. If I could add to his armoury of adjectives, of superlatives in particular, I know that I would be doing him a great deal more service than if I attempted to supply him with facts on any subject at all.
We have got to that stage of the argument where hon. gentlemen opposite recognize the necessity, from the point of view of the interest of the country itself, of in some way, taking care of the situation with respect to the Quebec and Saguenay railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The uncompleted portion.


Arthur Meighen: The uncompleted portion of it, the Quebec and Saguenay is all uncompleted. For the moment I leave out the other two roads, the Lotbiniere and Me-

gantic and the Montmorency and Charlevoix, which are admitted to be paying concerns by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who, of all hon. gentlemen opposite, should know beet. The duty of the Government, according to hon. members opposite, is to take care of the situation in respect of the Quebec and Saguenay by reason of the necessity of providing railway service for the inhabitants of that country, numbering not a few thousand but very many, .something in the neighbourhood of 100,000, depending on how far back from the line you go.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not 100,000.


Arthur Meighen: And from the further
point of view of saving to the country the tremendous amount of money already invested in that line and avoiding the necessity of repeating that expenditure when the road comes to be coippleted.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. member
suggest that that is the position taken on this side of the House?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.	.


Frank Oliver: I would like to dissociate myself from that position.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
ready to lead his friends all to their fate. He prefers, instead of serving the people along the banks of the St. Lawrence, to build more elevators where those already built are unfilled, and to put a Pullman caT service between Quebec and Cochrane. I understand he wants the Government to operate a Pullman service there, although the prospects are that such a service would get about one passenger a month. That is the alternative proposition put forward by him.


Frank Oliver: You could get more traffic between Edmonton and Cochrane' than between Quebec and Nairn Falls.


Arthur Meighen: I question that myself. I would rather undertake to operate six miles than to operate several hundred.
Of course, we all know the railway policy of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He was a member of the late Government. We know the railway policy of the late Government. He, of all men, has the right, of course, to talk about a blockade in western Canada. The hon. member for Edmonton should know what a blockade in western Canada is, because every year during which he was a member
of that Administration we had a blockade of western wheat.
Every year, during which he was a member of that Administration, the wheat was sent back to the farmers' doors, and they could not get it out for months, yes, sometimes for a year. It was a regular occurrence right up to 1911 and including 1911, and in those days they did not have half the crop that we had last year. The Government, of which my hon. friend was a member, spent millions of dollars on lines that could not be of service for many years to come. What was the railway policy of my hon. friend from Edmonton and of the 'Government of which he was a member? It was a policy of waste and want. Not a dollar to assist 100,000 people on the banks of the St. Lawrence, but millions for the wilds of the north where no human being could live. A policy of freight without railways in one half of the Dominion, and railways without freight in the other. Wheat rotting in Alberta, rails rusting in Quebec. An annual paralysis in western grain; an annual orgy of eastern contractors. That was the railway policy to which the hon. member for Edmonton for seven years adhered. I do not wonder that we dismiss rather hurriedly any suggestions which he offers at the present time.
However, I will take up the more reasonable proposal which seems to be adhered to very generally by hon. gentlemen on the other side, that, in respect to this Quebec and Saguenay railway, instead of taking the railway by virtue of expropriation at a price not to exceed $4,135,000, or not to exceed the actual cost, we should loan sufficient money to enable the owners to complete the road. Let me take that alternative proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite- and they all seem to agree on this, even the hon. member for Edmonton.


Rodolphe Lemieux: the completion of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, which runs from St. Jean des Ohaillons to Naim Falls.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly the alternative I was referring to. Hon. gentlemen opposite want an estimate by way of loan to the Quebec and Saguenay railway for the completion of that line. It would have to be by way of loan, unless we took over -the line. Now hon. gentlemen opposite say that this Bill means an investment of $10,000,000 before the road is complete. It means, first of all, an investment -ithe way we are taking it-of $4,135,000 to get down to details, for the Quebec and Saguenay line, and from that sum comes off $116,000, which is in the trust account, making virtually $4,019,000. There is $330,000 for the Lotbiniere and Megantio line, making a total of $4,349,000, to which add $2,500,000 for the Quebec and Charlevoix line, or a total of $6,849,000. That is the total for the three roads at the outside under the-present Bill, and it will be less unless it is shown that actually that money or more than that -money has gone into the road. Let us suppose that it will reach the maximum of $6,849,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that, before this road is completed, the total will have reached $10,000,000. There [DOT] is only one road to complete, the Quebec and Saguenay road, consequently they claim that it will take $3,251,000 to complete the Quebec and Saguenay line, and they >ask this House to put in the Estimates a sum of $3,251,000 by way of loan to the Quebec and Saguenay railway.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did not suggest any method, but he wanted aid to be given to complete the Quebec and Saguenay railway, and he said it would take $10,000,000 altogether, or, in other words, that it would require $3,251,000 to complete that line.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why n-ot the usual subsidy!'


Arthur Meighen: How are you going to complete it with the usuial subsidy, if, as hon. gentlemen opposite say, it will take $3,251,000 to complete it?


John Gillanders Turriff: Let the owners do something.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
said that he would supply a liberal allowance to complete the road, and you cannot

-complete it unless you supply the money, and that, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, is the amount of money that it will take. There is no other way of getting it. The proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite is to loan them $3,251,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is not.


Arthur Meighen: Then, where would we
be? We would have $6,100,000 in bonds against the road according to the figures given; $4,600,000 of French bonds, and $1,500,000 Canadian, making a total of $6,100,000. We would have a total charge against the road, therefore, of $9,351,000, and we would have a second mortgage.


John Gillanders Turriff: I wish to state absolutely and positively that I for one did not say, and I did not hear any one else on this side say, that we ought to put in the Estimates three million, and some odd thousand dollars to complete the road. The hon. member is putting words in our mouths that we never uttered, and he knows it.


Arthur Meighen: That is the only contention the hon. member could make unless he was talking absolute nonsense. What is the use of talking about voting $3,000 a mile when he says it will take $10,000.0 to complete the road. Our maximum is $6,849,000, and, according to the contention of my hon. friends, that leaves $3,251,000 as the balance necessary to complete it. You cannot complete it in any other way.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does my hon. friend lay down the proposition that the owners should not do anything?


Arthur Meighen: I am laying down no
proposition; it is the hon. member's proposition that I am dealing with. I say that there is no way of completing the road except by providing the money, and when they come before Parliament and talk about voting $3,000 a mile, hon. gentlemen opposite are talking nonsense, and transparent nonsense.


Frank Oliver: Might I suggest-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will have time to make any suggestions he pleases, and I will commend him for doing so.


Frank Oliver: What the hon. member for Assiniboia said was, as I understood him, that he was willing to aid the road. He did not say that he was willing to build it. I take it that he meant he was willing to

give the ordinary railway subsidy, and it would then be for the owners to find the money and to finish the road. It is their road, not ours.


Arthur Meighen: The ordinary subsidy has been given, and it has failed to complete the road. Nothing else w'ill complete it except the provision of money; the company are at the end of their tether. The position of hon. gentlemen opposite was as I have stated, until they saw that they were caught.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. member's pardon, he must not assert a position that does not exist.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member for Edmonton did so; I did not charge him, but the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) advocated that we should provide the money to complete the road.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: I state absolutely that I did not, and that the Solicitor General is deliberately putting words in my mouth that are absolutely false.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will withdraw that statement when the Solicitor General withdraws his, and not before.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think that the conduct of debates in this House will be assisted by the hon. member taking up that attitude, and I think the hon. member will be the first to realize it. If there is any. point of order to be raised in regard _ to anything that the Solicitor General said,
' I will be very happy to deal with it. As I understood him, the Solicitor General was making an argument on a general statement which he assumed had been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I did not understand his remarks in any other way. I must ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to withdraw his remark, as it is clearly out of order.


John Gillanders Turriff: In deference to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and as I do not wish to trespass on the rules of the House, I will withdraw the statement, and I will now ask that the Solicitor General withdraw the statement which he made and which I absolutely deny. I say that there was not one word of truth in the statement
which the Solicitor General made. I ask him to withdraw the statement.


Arthur Meighen: If I have in any way mis-stated what the hon. gentleman said, all I have to say is that the way I put it was much more sensible than the way he put it, and the way that does far more credit to his intelligence.


John Gillanders Turriff: I want that statement
withdrawn.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not apprehend that the Solicitor General refused to accept the statement of the hon. member for Assiniboia. Will the hon. member for Assiniboia state what particular remark of the Solicitor General he objects to.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Solicitor General stated, referring to. me, that the members on this side of the House proposed to advance to this uncompleted road from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls over $3,000,000. I never made any such statement, and I would like the Solicitor General to acknowledge that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand, the Solicitor General never said that the hon. member for Assiniboia did say so. I understood him to say that that was the logical effect of the argument made by the hon. gentleman, and if that is so, I do not see how any complaint can be made.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, I will let it go at that. We have one sort of ruling for one side of the House and another for the other.


Arthur Meighen: What the Chairman says I was arguing is exactly what I was arguing, and, unless the hon. gentleman's statement means that, I am afraid it does discredit to his intelligence. In the interval, I have been doing a little figuring to ascertain what the hon. gentleman's contention would really mean. He states to the House-and these are hi's figures, not mine-that it will take $10,000,000 altogether to these roads complete, and $3,251,000 to complete the Quebec and Saguenay. The $10,000,000 is his own figure. That, I find amounts to about $55,000 a mile. He proposes to get a $55,000-a-mile road completed by a grant -of $1,200 a mile. That is the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman
knows better than that.


Arthur Meighen: I know that I know better, but the hon. gentleman does not.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend knows as well as any member of this House that the subsidy give'' a railway that costs ias much a9 has already been expended on this is $6,400 a mile.


Arthur Meighen: I will help the hon.
gentleman out to that extent. That would be $6,400 a mile, which would leave about $49,000 a mile to be provided, and he wants to suggest to this House that we would be taking care of the situation and be providing to complete the road by supplying $6,400 a mile out of $55,000.
Mr. TURRIFF; I never said anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the hon. gentleman see the almost childish nonsense of such a suggestion?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, I do not; my hon.
friend is still mis-stating everything I said.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
own way of putting it means that we would supply $6,400 more per mile in the vain and delusive hope that we would acquire from some one else the $49,000 or $50,000 a mile still necessary to complete the road.
Mr. OLIVER; This is not our road.
Mr, MEIGHEN; I know it is not, but hon. members behind my hon. friend say that it is our duty to see it completed. We could only get it completed by giving the company a loan of money. Every other means have been exhausted. There are against the Toad to-day some $6,100,000 in , bonds; at all events there is about $5,000,000 against it in bonds, and the rest is against it in some .form or other. But, take it at $5,000,000: it means that we would be taking a second mortgage for whatever sum we advanced subject to a mortgage of $5,000,000. Now, we are getting the whole road in its present condition for a trifle oveT $4,000,000 from the owners. I appeal to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to say if that is not better business, if it is not better policy, than to advance against the road with a $5,000,000 mortgage ahead of us the sum of $3,251,000. Is that policy not preferable to the one advocated by the hon. member for Rouville?
I believe the hon. member for Rouville wants to be fair. I do. not think that he saw when he was arguing that it would take the money that he said it would. What would become of it according to hie own argument? As a matter of fact it would not take that money because we do

not propose to invest $10,000,000. These are the figures of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, it would never pay this country, and it would never be business, to make a loan on this Quebec and Saguenay railway and have that loan subject to the mortgage indebtedness that is now against it when we have the other alternative of getting the line for $4,019,000. I appeal to the business- sense of the members of this House if it is not better to take over this Toad at a cost to this country of $4,019,000 than to advance money into the hands of these people-the Quebec and Saguenay Railway Company-and take a lien against it subject to a charge of $5,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: As we are now in the dying days of the session, I think it might be well that we should try to come to a perfectly solid basis for discussion of this very important question, because a great many of the arguments which have been presented are irrelevant and unfounded in fact. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) has stated that these three railways which are to be acquired by the Government, and which are to be made part of the Government Railway system, will assist 100,000 people. He is altogether in error as to that. Take first the Lot-binifere and Megantic railway. That railway extends from the St. Lawrence up to the Grand Trunk in the county of Megan-tic. Some hon. gentleman stated, I think the hon. member for Charlevoix (Sir Ro-dolphe Forget), that the county of Megantic would be assisted by this road. The county of Megantic has a population of about 20,000 souk, but this road is of no use at all to that county. The people of Lyster, which is at the extremity of the county, going to Montreal and Quebec, are better served by the Grand Trunk than they will be by this railway. This railway would be useful to part of the population of Lot-biniere, a small number; but, as far as that goes, I do not object that it should be made part of the Government system. Now, we come to the other side of the river. The two railways on the north shore, the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix and the Quebec and Saguenay, will serve part of the population of the county of Quebec, perhaps 20,000, and of the county of Charlevoix, perhaps 20,000. The line will be of no assistance whatever to the people of Chicoutimi and Saguenay unless it is extended from Murray Bay to the Saguenay river. Then, of course, it will be of some

use to the people of that district; hut otherwise I do not think it will serve anybody. An argument which has been presented here, and which has etruck me as having force, is that there are in that part of the country people who are amongst the oldest settlers in the country, and who have no railway communication at all. But the railway will not serve the purpose which I heard mentioned yesterday by the hon. Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid), who said that it would develop agriculture in that part of the country. It cannot be developed more than it is. The country is- mountainous, but it ie pretty well settled now. It might develop the lumbering industry somewhat, but I doubt if the lumbering or any other industry would be better served than it is served at the present time by the river. But people, in these modern days, want to have railway communication, and the people here have been for a long time led to believe they would have railway communication. They have been deceived in that expectation.
It is very unfortunate for the people of that locality that the company has found itself unable to complete the enterprise. I do not know the circumstances very well, but it was not for lack of funds, because according to the statement made by the Acting Minister of Railways yesterday, the company had expended upon that part of the railway between Quebec and Saguenay a little over $5,000,000. The distance from St. Joachim to Murray Bay is about 62 miles, and from Murray Bay to Nairn Palls about 6 miles; say 70 miles altogether. Surely $5,000,000 was ample with which to complete a railway of this character. I know the locality very well, and it is not a difficult country to build through, except in one part when you come to Cap Tourmente. The rest of the road is per fectly level, and where that obtains Tailway construction is always easy. Labour was also at hand and there were no obstacles of any kind. So, in my estimation, the company had ample means with which to complete the road, but they have failed to do so. I do not want to be severe or to pass judgment. I only know that the people of that locality for want of the company extending this railway, are without . communication for the greater part of the year. The usefulness of the railway has been recognized by all Governments. The Dominion Government subsidized it in the ordinary way to the extent of $6,400 a mile, and the Quebec Government also gave subsidies to a large amount; I do not know the precise amount, but I understand it was fairly generous. With all this assistance the company should have been able to construct the road and have it in operation to-day. But it has not done so. However, the people must not suffer; I admit that.
I am prepared to take a generous view of this business and give the assistance to which the people in that part of the country are entitled. It is true we are living in strenuous times, and that perhaps now is not the most propitious time we could choose; it is true also that we should be as careful as possible about launching into new enterprises. Unfortunately, this is not a new enterprise, and for my part I should like to see it completed. .
But I should like to know why the Government are proceeding in this way. Last year they introduced a Bill [DOT] for the acquisition of branch lines. Why do. they not proceed under that Bill to acquire the roads in question? Why are they changing their mode of procedure? The present method is full of difficulties. Let me read what the Bill says:
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize and empower the Minister of Railways and Canals to acquire, under the provisions of an Act to amend the Government Railways Act and to authorize the purchase of certain railways, chapter sixteen of the statutes of 1915, and upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, the railways described in the schedule hereto, together with such equipment, appurtenances and properties used in connection with such railways as the Governor in Council may deem necessary for the operation thereof.
2.	The consideration to be paid for each of the said railways and for any equipment, appurtenances and properties that may be acquired as aforesaid shall be the value thereof as determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada.
The price is to be determined by the Exchequer Court. It may be $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or $4,000,000, whatever the judge decides. So far, so good. Then the money is to be paid to whom? The price so fixed by the Exchequer Court is to be paid by the Governor in Council to parties who are not even mentioned here. If we pass this Bill everything is uncertain; we are parting absolutely with all control of the money, we do not know what the price will be, to whom it will be paid or how it will be paid. Once this Bill is passed we shall have no say whatever. Now this is a matter of some importance. Let me now read the amend- meat which has been proposed 'by the minister:
Said value to be the actual cost of said railways less depreciation, but not to exceed $4,-

465,000 exclusive of outstanding bonded indebtedness which is to be assumed by the Government, but not to exceed in all $2,500,000.
We know that on the Quebec and Saguenay road there is outstanding bonded indebtedness to the amount of $4,480,000; that is a fact. We also know that upon the Quebec and 'Montmorency there are certain bonds outstanding, but just to what amount I do not know.
. Mr. MEIGHEN:	$2,500,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is nearly $7,000,000 altogether. The bonds of the Quebec and Montmorency railway aTe not listed. As stated by the hon. member for Charlevoix, they are in the hands of wealthy owners in Quebec, who, I am sure, will not part with them for less than 100 cents on the dollar; I think they are worth that too. But not so with regard to the bonds that are outstanding of the Quebec and Saguenay railway. Those to-day are quoted at 70. We are to take the road free of all indebtedness; all the bonds are to be wiped out, and we are to pay to the company who owns the road $4,465,000. That, as I understand it, is the price we are to pay the company. In addition to that, we are to pay the bonded indebtedness, but not to exceed $2,500,000.


Arthur Meighen: The $2,500,000 is intended to lie still against the Montmorency and Charlevoix railway only; the other is to be cleared entirely; and, of course, the money for the purchase price must go to -these bondholders.


Wilfrid Laurier: I quoted that simply to show how unsatisfactory the Bill is. It is " intended " to do this, that and the other thing; whereas if you had proceeded under the Bill of last year the agreement would have been down in black and white, and we should have known exactly where we were. But under this procedure everything is at the discretion of the Governor in Council, and I submit that that is not the way. My hon. friend the Solicitor General had a good deal to say last year on the Bill for the acquisition of branch lines. That Bill provided that the contract should first be made by the Minister of Railways, authorized by the Governor in Council, iand then brought to Parliament for ratification.
Why do not you follow this practice this year? Why ask Parliament to vest in the Government so much power as will give them control over the whole matter? The 'best wiay to have the question looked into

and properly disposed of is under the terms of last year's statute. The Government has come to the conclusion, and I find no serious objection raised to it on the part of anybody, that the situation is such that we must come to the rescue of the people who are served by this railway. But the fairest way, the only way, to dispose of a matter which is already so much complicated, is under the terms of the Bill passed last year.


Arthur Meighen: I have not in mind the clause to which the right hon. gentleman refers, under which the contract must come back to the House for ratification. I do not deny that it may be there. But, speaking without very careful thought on that phase of the subject, I would say that, inasmuch as this Bill provides that we may acquire this road under the statute of last year, we are not relieved from any of the obligations imposed upon us by this statute. So, if this statute provides that such a contract must 'be ratified by Parliament, then we shall be obliged to come to Parliament for that purpose. W'e do not ask for more authority. We thought-in our innocence-that- we were really limiting rather than extending our powers by this Bill. We wished to acquire the road under the statute of 1915, and under whatever obligations and limitations are provided by that statute. Our desire was to still further limit ourselves by providing that we are not permitted to pay any price until it is not only voted by Parliament, but ratified by the Exchequer Court on a fixed basis.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-values fixed by Exchequer Court:


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to move that this clause be amended by adding the following words:
Said value to be the actual cost of said railways less depreciation, but not to exceed $4,465,000 exclusive of outstanding bonded indebtedness which is to be assumed by the Government, but not to exceed in all $2,500,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: In answer to what has been stated by the hon. Solicitor General, that the, money has to be voted by Parliament, I submit to my hon. friend that Parliament would not be free to refuse to vote the money, because this Bill binds Parliament. We refer the matter to the Exchequer Court, but only on the question of price. If Parliament were to go back

upon the price so made, and refuse to pay, that would be a repudiation of a contract.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot see that Parliament's hands would be tied in the slightest, any more than they already are tied by the statute of 1915. Under that Act the agreement is made by the Government with the railway concerned, and the money must subsequently be voted or the agreement falls. The mere fact that on arriving at the price the assistance of the Exchequer Court is asked in no way ties the hands of Parliament or adds to its obligations to vote the money. The obligations are the same-no more and no less.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. Let me
read the statute of the last year:
Provided further that no contract for the construction of a line of railway exceeding twenty-five miles in length shall be entered into or the purchase price of any such railway or other work be paid until after a sum of money for the purpose has been appropriated by Parliament.
In that case you take your appropriation and then you make your contract; but here you make your contract and then provide for the appropriation. I submit very seriously to my hon. friend that if he would agree that the matter be referred to Parliament, he would remove a good deal of my objection. Let it be provided that 'this contract shall be subject to ratification of Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: I am speaking solely
for myself and without consultation, but I will say this: If it is in the Act of last year, I am very strongly of the opinion that it is necessary and that it will be done. I do not feel any doubt about it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why not provide to make it clear?


Arthur Meighen: I will after eight
o'clock.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Martha Isabella Kenny.-Mr. Nickle.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of William Thomas Craig.-Mr. Pardee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate to acquaint this House that the Senate doth not insist on its amendment made to Bill No. '91, an Act to amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act, to which the House of Commons hath disagreed.



QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY AND LOT-BINIERE AND MEGANTIC RAILWAYS.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 101, to authorize the acquisition of lines of railway between the city of Quebec and Nairn Falls and between Lyster and St. . Jean des Chaillons; Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 2-values fixed by Exchequer Court:
Arthur Meighen: Just before six o'clock I understood the leader of the Opposition to intimate that under chapter 16 of the statutes of 1915, under which, with the additional clauses that are inserted, it is proposed to acquire the railways in question, we would be obligated to come to Parliament later for ratification of the agreement that we might enter into with the owners of these railways for the purchase. He asked whether, if that were the case, we would come back to Parliament later with the agreement that we would make in this case. My reply to him was that, while I did riot recollect such a clause being in the Act of 1915, I felt that, as we were proposing to act under the authority of that statute, we would be subject to all its obligations, and that if that were one of those obligations, we would be subject to it. I promised to let the committee know at eight o'clock. I find, however, upon reference to the statute, that, if I understood the right hpn. gentleman aright, there is no such clause. The statute of 1915 provides that we may acquire roads by purchase or by expropriation, gives certain powers to and imposes certain obligations upon the minister and makes certain conditions. Among the conditions is this: No purchase shall be complete until the money is voted by Parliament for the purpose. But there is' no provision to the effect that the agreement so made, embodying such terms and conditions as it may emibody, must afterwards be ratified by any special act or

action of this Parliament. We are in just the same position now. We come to Parliament with this Bill; we propose to acquire by this Bill certain railways, the acquiring to be done under the provisions of the .statute of 1915. We shall be obligated by all the provisions of that statute; but there is no provision that we should come back to Parliament with our agreement, whatever the agreement might be. We do, of course, have to come to Parliament for the appropriation, and we shall have to come to Parliament for the appropriation in this case just as in the other.


Wilfrid Laurier: The clause to which I referred is in these words:
Provided further that no contract for the construction of a line of railway exceeding 25 miles in length shall be entered into or the purchase price of any such railway or other work be paid until after a sum of money for the purpose has been appropriated by Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: That applies in this
case.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not sure that it applies in this case. You depart from the statute. If you had proceeded under the statute the Minister of Railways should have made an agreement with the company for the purchase of that road, and then you would have to come to Parliament. But here, as I understand the Bill, the contract is complete the moment this Bill becomes, law. There are two conditions-the fixing of the price, which is left to the Exchequer Court, and the application of the price so determined. When these two conditions shall have been fulfilled, in my judgment this Paliament will have lost all its control. Of course, the money will not be paid until it has been appropraited by Parliament; but when this Act has been passed, when the court, acting under this legislation, has fixed a price, would it be within, the power of this Parliament not to make the appropriation? This would be a contract binding upon Parliament, and that is why I say that we should provide here that in any case the contract which is to be made, the application of the money, and all the conditions of the purchase should be referred to Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman said that under our Bill we have two conditions to be fulfilled, and he apprehends that these will be all we need to fulfill. Well, I do not know that I could limit them to two. Certainly one condition is

very essential: that the price must be ratified by the Exchequer Court.


Wilfrid Laurier: Must be fixed.


Arthur Meighen: Must be fixed by the Exchequer Court. And necessarily there will be conditions, as to the purchase, because certain matters in respect to power and the possibility of competing lines, etc., have to be taken care of in the interest of the country, and these conditions are especially provided for in this Bill. But, none the less, all the provisions and all the conditions that are in chapter 16 of the statutes of 1915 are binding upon us; there is no doubt about that. The condition as to the precedent of a vote by Parliament is just as binding in respect of this purchase as in respect of any purchase or acquirement under the Act of 1915-just as binding, but not more binding. There is nothing in the statute of 1915 as to when the appropriation shall be made by Parliament; but it must antecede the going into effect of the acquiring contract. The same is true here: the appropriation by Parliament, whatever it may be, must antecede the going into effect of the acquiring contract. We are under all the obligations of the Act of 1915 and the additional obligations of this Act. The obligations of the Act of 1915 apply with exactly the same, and no more, effect to this acquirement as to any other acquirement under that Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Howard Sinclair: Before this Bill passes I want to enter my protest against this measure. I have not hitherto participated in the discussion, chiefly because I was not very well acquainted with the facts. I biave been listening to the discussion last night and this afternoon, and have learned something with regard to the proposal, and I think that I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not place myself on record as opposed to it. The condition of our finances in Canada is becoming alarming. Everyone will admit that we are face to face with a very large expenditure. The appropriations already made in conneo tion with the war, and the enormous expenditures in which we shall have to share, that are now being incurred in Europe for war materials and for other purposes in carrying on the war, will probably, at the end of the present year, amount to at least one billion dollars. The interest on

this enormous sum will exhaust more than one half the current revenue of this country; and, in the face of these enormous expenditures that are confronting us, it appears to me to be most reckless for the Government to embark upon an expenditure of this kind. The credit of the country will be affected by the liabilities that we are incurring during the present session. Our credit is not as good now as it was three or four years ago. The little province of Nova Scotia is able to-day to secure money in the United States at a lower rate of interest than the Dominion of Canada. That was not the case five years dgo, but it is the case to-day, showing you that the way in which we are embarking on these extravagant liabilities i& affecting the credit of this Dominion to a very alarming extent. One would suppose that the liabilities that are being incurred at the present time would have acted as a check upon the Government in regard to incurring further liabilities; but during the present session our proposed capital expenditure amounts, if I remember rightly, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000,000. That is an enormous amount to add to our liabilities in one year, altogether independently of the war. That strikes me as unjustifiable and as endangering the future credit of the country. In my own constituency, when railroad extension was asked for, the Minister of Railways told me that it was impossible to do anything in that part of Canada at the present time, owing to the fact that the Minister of Finance was unable to provide the funds. He said that if the Finance Minister could provide the funds there would be no question at all about going on with that very necessary expenditure. This was the answer he gave me.
Mr. Sinclair: I understand that the minister says he would build these branch lines this year if the Minister of Finance could furnish the money.
Mr. Reid: I said that while the war was on I would not ask for money for this railway.
I was satisfied with that reason, because the war is on and we are incurring enormous expenditures in connection with it. I intended to explain that to my constituents, and I felt that it was a fair explanation. But what am I to say now? Am I to go back and tell them that since this statement was made to me by the acting Minister of Railways, he has asked this House to vote $15,000,000 for the Canadian Northern railway, $8,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and is involving us to-day in a liability which it is estimated will amount in the end to about $10,000,000? The large appropriations to the Canadian Northern railway and to the Grand Trunk Pacific can be justified on national grounds. It may be said that these are great national undertakings and that they must be kept up. I see the force of that argument. But that argument does not apply to the railways that we are proposing to take over under this agreement. I fear that we shall not be able to accept the sincerity of the acting Minister of Railways, who assured me that the only reason why he refused to entertain any further railway extension in the province of Nova Scotia was that there was no money available for that purpose. The minister should explain why he discriminates in this way between one province and another. The statement has been made by the Solicitor General that this railway will accommodate some 30,000 people. The railway that was proposed in eastern Nova Scotia, to which I am referring, would have accommodated more than 30,000 people. It is estimated that it would accommodate about 40,000 people, and it could be built for about one-quarter of the expenditure we are proposing to make in connection with this railway.
The Prime Minister himself gave a promise some few years ago that that railway to which I am referring would be - built. I would expect the Prime Minister, before embarking on a wild -scheme of this kind, to think of the pledges he had given in my constituency. Those pledges ought to be kept. I fear, Sir, that the true reason is not a public reason. The true reason dates 'back to the election of 1911. My hon. friend from -Charlevoix (Sir Rodolphe Forget), as every one knows, was a very prominent supporter of this Government in that election. He came back after September, 1911, to this- House with quite a number of scalps in his belt, and now the people of Canada -are expected to pay this very large price for his services on that occasion. I have heard that several men have been claiming the leadership of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. At one time we were told it wa3 Mr. Bourassa; another .time Mr. Armand Lavergne claimed that honour, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) has also been named in connection with it. But I think, we may say that the real chief of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, the one who has stood behind that party and who has brought its members here, is my hon. friend from Charlevoix. $10,000,000 is a very large

price to pay for about 20 Nationalists who support the Government in this House. That is about half a million dollars apiece that the people of Canada are asked to pay for their services. The Prime Minister himself will admit that half a million dollars is a very large price to pay for a Nationalist.
In the other Chamber a discussion took place a few days ago in regard to the war, and an hon. gentleman there, who has been very prominent in connection with this scheme of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, made a speech in which he condemned the Government for spending so much money in connection -with recruiting and the war.
He said it would be far better to put the money in the Quebec and Saguenay railway than to spend it in assisting the Empire in this war. I thought that that was a very impertinent proposal when I read it in the Hansard of the other chamber, but it never entered my mind that within two or three weeks the Government would accept the advice of that hon. gentleman and do what he told them to do with the public money. If we were building railways, I could make a great many comparisons showing the necessity for railway extension in other parts of Canada; that is, if we were building railways in the public interest. But, as we are paying political debts with this appropriation, and not building railways at all, it would not be worth while to enter into any discussion as to what might be done with this $10,000,000 in other directions. Comparisons would be useless in face of the fact that we are all aware that this money is not being given in the public interest, but for the purpose of settling an old score with my hon. friend on the other side who is so prominent in this matter. My purpose in rising was to place myself on record against this measure, and to enter my protest against this measure, which I regard as the most unjustifiable proposal that was ever made in the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. GIRARD:: (Translation.) (Mr. Chairman, before the Bill carries I wish to give my opinion on the matter now being discussed and reply to my hon. friend from Guys'borough (Mr. Sinclair), who has registered a protest against the measure now before this House.
I want to place on record that I am in favour of the Government proposal regarding the Quebec and Saguenay railway.

I understand that the subsidizing of that Toad dates back to a period previous to the advent of this Government. Many years ago subsidies were voted, but conditions became such that the work had to be delayed for a time. It must be said that the enterprise was launched in proper time, but there came a stringency which resulted in the work being suspended.
I am free to state that the hon. member from Charlevoix (Sir Rodolphe Forget), who is a man of note in the province of Quebec, a French Canadian who has reached a foremost place in the world of finance, has undoubtedly helped in a great measure the development of the province of Quebec by different schemes, some of which he has himself launched, and others which he has pro,moted with all the energy for which he is noted. But if this proposal anent the Quebec and Saguenay railway is before this House it cannot be said to be in recognition of political services rendered, because the- question had been agitated long before this Government came into power: As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Charlevoix had undertaken, in common with people from the city of Quebec, to put through this, railway scheme in order to help the people of Charlevoix, who are cut off during winter from the rest of the world on account of their particular situation. Furthermore, the idea was to show that it was possible to secure a winter port on the coast of the province of Quebec as elsewhere in Canada. That is the point I especially want to make. Is the scheme nothing but a dream, or is it feasible? This Government, by their policy incorporated in the Bill now before the House, have solved the question.
That policy was entered into by the late Government, and the present Administration now seeks the means to carry it out. Should this great undertaking materialize it will open up for the province of Quebec immense commercial possibilities.
Some hon. gentlemen, during this debate, have raised doubts as to the possibility of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. I Will not deny any of my fellow-members the right of giving their opinions on that point, but I have the honour to represent a constituency part of which, the Saguenay district, is deeply interested in that road, because that district extends over the whole north shore from Tadoussac to Belle-Isle.
I know that seven years ago the Department of Marine had a special survey made of the ice situation on the St. Lawrence be-

tween Belle-Isle and Murray Bay, on the north shore, and Cape Race and river Ouelle, on the south shore, in order to determine the possibility of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. The survey was continued the next winter, and demonstrated clearly-the report is on file at the Department of Marine-that for 98 per cent of the season the north channel is open, because during winter the prevailing wind blows from the north, and, of course, drives- the ice against the south shore. I have not to-night the official reports here, but anyone can see them at the Department of Marine.
For a century previous to the last twenty-five or thirty years the fishermen of the north shore, in small wooden schooners, more or less seaworthy, used to make their way every winter through the ice floes of the St. Lawrence in search of the sea-wolf; they came back with a fair catch and without ever an accident. At that time the price of oil made the venture a paying one. But twenty-five or thirty years ago, I think I said, oil so dropped in price that the fishermen, who could no more make a living out of it, quit that pursuit, which was reputed dangerous. In the last few years the price of oil rose up considerably, and the fishermen put to sea again after the sea-wolf.
This morning I had a letter from one of the leading men of Sept-Iles, stating that the fishermen had just returned to the village, after a three-months' cruise through the St. Lawrence floes, with a catch of 35,000 sea wolves, without having encountered the least danger; the trip means a haul worth about $200,000.
When the poor fishermen-I mean no disparagement-with their meagre means, can encounter 'in the gulf the dangers of the ice floes the best part of the winter to earn their living and their families' without any loss of life or vessel, is- there not sufficient reason for this Government to introduce a Bill with the aim of solving the important problem of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence? True it is these are war times, but the war will not be everlasting, at least so' we hope, and, when the end comes we have reason to hope that Canadian trade and industry will spring into renewed life; should not, therefore, the Government get ready to meet the new conditions that will arise?
For my part, that is the main motive underlying the Government's policy to-day. They are not paying any debt of gratitude
to the hon. member for Charlevoix; his worth is well known, and requires no tribute from me. We are face to face with a problem which concerns the future of the province of Quebec, which is of the utmost importance, and which will be solved by the Government measure now before the House. ' Therefore I will vote for the measure.
Doubts have been raised as to the possibility of a winter sea port on the St. Law' rence. Let us see. At St. Catherine's bay, the proposed terminus of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, the Government has subsidized for the last twelve years a small wooden steamer, which plies regularly twice a day between Tadoussac and St. Catherine's bay, without the service ever suffering any accidents or delays. This same boat has, moreover, taken successful trips, four to eight per month, from Tadoussac to Fraserville, on the south shore, a distance of thirty miles. At that point, the crossing being further east, is considered more difficult than the crossing between Murray bay and river Ouelle.
Every one knows that the straits of Belle Isle are open all winter. The surveying party I have spoken of have reported that the northwest channel, in the Belle Isle straits, are always open to navigation. Now, if account is taken of the additional protection afforded by the vessels, and different points along the coast being provided with the wireless, thus- providing telegraphic communications with the Government line on the north shore, it will be understood that at any time the captains of vessels can always be warned of the presence of ice floes and be given information as to the state of the channel; in that way all possible safety is insured. '
As a result of the enactment of this Bill the city of Quebec will become, through the contemplated railway, a winter terminus, which, compared with other Canadian winter ports, will shorten the distance to Europe by several hundred miles, to the general benefit of the country, and especially to the benefit of the city of Quebec, the capital of my province, and a subject of pride to all French Canadians.
Those considerations demonstrate the unfairness of the suggestions made here, and spread throughout the country by party OTgans that the only object of the Government is to be kind to its political friends and reward the hon. member for Charlevoix for services rendered. The Administration's sole purpose is to do justice by Quebec and

to build new roads, shorter and easier roads, for the large trade that Canada may expect after the war, I must congratulate the Government on the courage it has shown, at the present juncture, in having had the courage to put through this undertaking.
If the Quebec and Saguenay railway weTe a mere convenience for the people of Quebec and Charlevoix, the scheme might be open to objection, but the terminus at St. Catherine's gives it national importance for Canadian trade. The Government's policy looks to the whole country and is nothing if not national. All those reasons should secure its acceptance without further discussion.	*
I noticed that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has departed from the position taken by some of his followers, and appears to favour the project. I congratulate him on his stand.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard) rightly, he said that he knows that it is the intention of the Government immediately to extend that road to St. Catherines bay on the Saguenay river. If I did not understand him correctly, then I can be corrected; but I certainly understood him to say that.


John Dowsley Reid: I certainly did not understand it in that way.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, do 1
understand that the Government has no such intention?


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly not; we have no
such intention.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am afraid I am in
the same box as the acting Minister oi Railways, in not being able to follow very closely the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay; but I take it for granted that he was not criticising the railway policy of the late Government.
In those days we remembered his association with that party and his love and fidelity to the Laurier Government. If anybody was to receive consideration with regard to this railway, as has been hinted by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), when considerations were being passed around, I would not be surprised if the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard) heard something about it. I understand that in the latter days of the last election he saw a great

light, and that all of a sudden the things that were beautiful and strong and good became everything that was dark and dreary and forbidding. Posters and manifestos setting forth his real and true heart up to election day were immediately scored off, and a new proposition was submitted to the people of the county. If the hon. gentleman who is supposed to be leader, and whom my hon. friend from Guysborough referred as the leader, of the Nationalist party, has made any proposition to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, I would ask him to be cautious, to carry out this part of the deal, if deal it ba. on the instalment plan, and to be pretty careful about his sinking fund, because this hon. gentleman will not stay bought.
With that preliminary information, I simply wish to put myself on record, like my hon. friend from Guysborough, in regard to this railway. The right hon. the Prime Minister knows better than any other hon. gentleman sitting on that side of the House our attitude towards railway building in eastern Canada, particularly in .Nova Scotia. During the years 1908-9-10-11 the then leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, and the members from eastern Nova Scotia, were pulling on the same oar for the purpose of getting railway extensions in that part of Nova Scotia. We succeeded in 1911 in having an amount of money granted by this Parliament for the purpose of certain railway extensions in that province. Everybody from Nova Scotia was satisfied, and things went along first rate. The moneys were voted for Victoria, the county which I have the honour to represent, the county of Halifax, represented by the then leader of the Opposition, and the counties of Pictou and Guysborough, represented by the hon. gentlemen who represent them to-day. But what a change has taken place in the policy of the right hon. gentleman in reg,ard to the building of railways! I have on several occasions taunted the Prime Minister with having built his own railway and having left us out. I think he should have built the railways in Guysborough, Pictou and Victoria, because we were all pulling together, and I suppose the fact that he was pulling with us helped to get the Government of that day, the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to commit themselves to the policy of building these roads. Without repeating that charge too often, I submit that when one of the roads went on, the road in Halifax county from Dean Settlement to Dartmouth, they

all should have been placed in the same category and dealt with in the same way. However, matters, have gone otherwise. In 1912, 1913 and so on, we were told that it was only a matter of a short time when the same policy would be carried out in the other counties. In the county of -Victoria, the gentleman who ran against me in 1911, the candidate of my right hon. friend, and those who were supporting him, said: Do not vote for Mackenzie, because it would procure this railway; but defeat Mackenzie and defeat the Government and the road will be built all the same. The Conservatives in Victoria believed that, stood to their guns and voted for that gentleman. But they have discovered since that the promises made to them were not carried out by the Government and party which they supported. I, and other gentlemen, have been told during the last two years that proposals of this kind could not be carried forward because the finances of the country could not stand it on account of war conditions. That is a fair proposition, that is something that -we can tell our people and the people can understand. The Government have found it necessary to put extraordinary taxation on the poor people of this country, taxes that they can ill afford to pay. We might very well understand that new enterprises would be allowed to stand until we were better off than we are to-day. But this is a new proposition. There was never a word of this railway during the later years of the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I never heard the Prime Minister, when he vas leader of the Opposition, or any of his friends- from Quebec, or any other part of Canada, put this forward or mention this road as a scheme that we might look forward to as a part of the railway system of Canada. There was never one word about it.
Now, it is most extraordinary that railways which were expecting to receive consideration years ago, and for which moneys were voted unanimously by both sides of this House, are passed over, forgotten and neglected, and a new proposition altogether is brought forward which is going to involve an expenditure of some $10,000,000. When an expenditure of this kind is proposed, it gives colour to the statements made by my hon. friend from Guysborough. It looks as if some sinster motive, some reason more urgent than the building of an ordinary piece of road, were behind it, when the Prime Minister and his Government break away from a line of policy that
they have laid out for themselves in the last two or three years and come in asking for an expenditure of this kind. I can only tell the people of Victoria that the Government of the day and the Prime Minister broke faith With them, that they did not carry out their promise to them, and that other people were stronger in the affections and regard of the Prime Minister than they are, for some reason unexplainable to me except that which was set forth by my hon. friend from Guysborough. Whether it is true or not, I suppose we shall not be able to find out1; but there is no other satisfactory reason. This reason having been given, I am content to leave it there until some more satisfactory one is afforded. We have for thg past few years been leaving public works in different parts of Nova Scotia idle and dormant, and no progress has been made.
We were not asking for them to be built, because we were told there was no money. I am sure I am within the mark when I say that there are dozens of places in the county I have the honour to represent where an expenditure of public money is more needed, and would be more in the general interests of Canada than the expenditures which the Government are making to-day, not only in connection with railways, but other public wmrks. But we have been silent because we thought the Government did not have the money and were in earnest when they said that nothing could be done, as all our energies and all our finances had to be concentrated on the main purpose, the winning of the war. It looks now as if the poor people were to be taxed not only for the war, but for other purposes that were never mentioned when the war taxes were imposed, and when explanations were given in that connection not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister of Finance.
My purpose in rising was to protest against the Government going on with a work of this character when other under takings of a like character which had the inside track, so to speak, and which were spoken of long before there was ever a word said iabout this road, were more urgently needed. I submit that when any thing of this character is undertaken by the Government the question of going on with all these other branches should be considered at the same time. They should all be dealt with under the same policy, sc that all sections of eastern Canada where' railway extensions of this kind are neces-



sary should receive the same consideration and at the same time. I am not saying that these people in Quebec should not have this railway; I am not saying anything about that; I assume that they should have it. But' not a whit more do they require railway facilities, not as much indeed, ae the people in the county of Victoria who live, not thirty or forty, but some places over a hundred and twenty miles away from a railway, and in which county are some of the oldeet settlements in America. After I have been pressing hard to get these people a road, and when I had hopes at one time that all the provisions were made and that the road was at hand, you will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I feel disappointed now that I see we have been passed over, and other places-not a bit more deserving receiving the consideration which is given by this Bill and by the vote which it involves.
Mr. LEMIiETJX:	The right hon. the
Prime Minister was not in his seat this afternoon when I was speaking on this Bill. Of course, I understand that he is very busy and cannot be here every moment; 'but now that he is here I wish to make an appeal to him, for I look on him as a friend of France. I stated very briefly this afternoon that I opposed the Government in acquiring the line from Lyster to St. Jean des Chaillons and the line from Quebec to St. Joachim, but upheld the aid to the line from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls, as I thought it would he better to do something towards the completion of that road. However, the Government has decided to acquire these lines, and the Acting Minister of Railways ha6 stated that the bondholders will he paid at par for their holdings. I asked whether the bondholders in France, who had sold their bonds at below par, would be allowed the difference between the price they sold at and what they had originally paid, and the answer was in the negative. The reason why I insist upon the right hon. gentleman taking a favourable view of this question is this: as I stated this afternoon, aild as was confirmed by the hon. member for Charlevoix, nearly all the money for the construction of that section of the line from St. Joachim, in the county of Montmorency, to Nairn Falls, was obtained in the French financial market. The hon. member for Charlevoix stated this afternoon that $1,000,000 odd had been subscribed in Canada, and $4,600,000 in the ' 
French market. To be accurate, I must istate that the bonds were sold at 82. Later on, when the French bondholders, got discouraged at the failure of the company, they were induced to sell their bonds at a low figure; this was not denied. These bonds were bought up by a Canadian group of financiers, and, if I understand the situation correctly, this group will be paid the face value Of the bonds which they secured at so low a figure. The reason why the Canadian Government should view with favour the suggestion I make is this and I direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman particularly to this: first of all, we are the allies of France, and we must play fair in our financial dealings with them; secondly, this money was secured after some very alluring prospectuses had.'been issued on the French market-; nobody will deny that. Among the names that appeared on one prospectus was that of an ex-member of this Government, the late Postmaster General, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier. It is true that after a while bis name disappeared from the prospectus because he found it inconsistent with his position as a minister of the Grown to figure in any financial venture in a foreign market. Among the inducements which were held out to French investors, they were told, for instance-and it was quite an inducement-that this line of railway would run not merely to Nairn Falls, or even to St. Catherine's hay, hut as far as Cape St. Charles, on the Labrador coast.
This was a great inducement; for they were told that the ocean trip between Europe and Canada would be greatly shortened; that in three days at most the steamers would cross the ocean and would reach the terminus of this railway. All this, stated in the prospectus, no doubt did much to influence French investors to put their money into this enterprise. Another inducement which certainly had its effect in getting money from the-French investor is to be found in the statement of the assets and the revenue of the company, which was published broadcast. It was stated that a subsidy of $400,000 would be paid by the Dominion Government, and that the land subsidy from the provincial Government was valued at $840,000. As to the revenues of the road, it was stated that 160,000-passengers would be carried at $1 per passenger, giving an annual revenue of $160,000. It was stated also that the road would command freight traffic to the amount of
420,000	tons, yielding a revenue of $630,000. The expenditure was represented to be only

$528,000, leaving a net profit for the investors of $264,000. Now, I quite understand that this was only a calculation made by the Canadian promotors. JBut here is wheie the Government, it seems to me, is morally responsible for the inducements offered to the French investor.


John Dowsley Reid: That is, the Quebec Government?	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they were granting so many acres and also $3,000 a mile.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. gentleman say that this inducement was given by the Quebec Government?


John Dowsley Reid: I say they were to give
180,000	acres of land and $3,000 a mile.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Quebec land subsidy was valued at $840,000 and the Ottawa subsidy was represented at $400,000.


John Dowsley Reid: And the Quebec Government gave $3,000 a mile besides the land.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, only a land subsidy.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Both statements are true. The land subsidy was valued at $840,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But it was a land subsidy, nut a money subsidy.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: A land subsidy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where the federal Government is perhaps still more responsible is in this, that besides these assets which were advertised broadcast, it was stated that a postal subsidy of $50,000 would be paid by the Dominion Government, So, tire French investors were led to believe that there would be a total net revenue cf ft314,000. I have here a copy of the prospectus; the date of the issue is not given.
Now, bearing these facts in mind, it seems to me that, as the Government has now decided to acquire the railway and to pay the bondholders the face value of the bonds, those who advanced the- money to build that section of the road which is being taken over by the Government, those who were discouraged because the enterprise failed and were induced to sell their bonds-


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: Induced by
whom?	i


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were induced by
the Canadian group.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How do you explain
the fact that a Defence Committee was ap-
2551	'	|	.
pointed in Paris in order to protect these bondholders when an offer was made to them of $60 for bonds which, the hon. member for Charlevoix stated, cost them $82 four or five years ago? They sold at a low figure because they were discouraged. They saw that the enterprise had failed, and they thought they might as well take the sum offered them instead of keeping their bonds. I appeal to the right hon. Prime Min-' ister as -a friend of France. We are all proud of the fact that last year he was honoured by the French Government, being made Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour. I believe he would not remain silent knowing that the French bondholders would lose, when they were really the people who put the money into the enterprise. My hon. friend from Charlevoix has stated that the French investors put into that road more than $4,000,000. If the Government is going to redeem these bonds at face value, and if the Exchequer Court is going to adjust all these questions of value, it seems to me that the bona fide bondholders should be recouped the difference between what they paid and what they sold for.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: A bond is payable to bearer. Suppose that Mr. Smith had a bond, and sold it, by what means are you going now to find out Mr. Smith? What proof would be required that Mr. Smith held this bond and ought to be recouped for the difference between the price at which he bought -and the price at which he sold? Would you take his word?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not take his
word. But there are means of finding out who are the bona fide bondholders. The first French investors were induced to invest by the representations that were made to them. I do not qualify these representations, but I have stated some of them; they were told that this road would reach Cape Charles on the Labrador coast; also that it would have subsidies from both Governments; also-which was not a fact, I am informed-that the Dominion Government would give a mail subsidy of $50,000. On the representations made they invested their good money in a Canadian enterprise which is to-day absorbed by the Government. I say that we should find out who were the real builders of the road by virtue of the money which they invested in it for its construction, and see that they are not made to lose in the enterprise. With two scratches of your pen, Mr. Chairman, you could insert in the Bill such an
4M8

amendment as would give a Judge of the Exchequer Court the right to determine who are the real bondholders and what amount should be paid to them for the difference between what they really paid in at the beginning of the enterprise and what they were induced to sell for when they got discouraged. It may not seem business-like-I see that the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) smiles. I can assure him, however, that in my judgment this proposed action is nothing more than honesty. Here are people who, upon the inducements offered, have disbursed
54,600,000	to build a Canadian railroad which will belong to the Canadian people. Let the Canadian Government pay them What they have disbursed; it seems to me that that is only fair.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: These gentlemen were business men, I understand. They sold their bonds on the open market; they parted with their securities. They had the money, invested it, livted on it ever since. It would 'be ridiculous that they should come back now after some years and ask to be recouped when they dealt with their swn money, on their own responsibility and in their own way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is true that they have parted with their securities, but at a very low figure.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They were of age; they were business men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were of age, but can any Government worthy of its name and reputation honestly make the answer made by the hon. gentleman, knowing *what representations were made to these French investors? They were told that this little bit of a road from St. Joachim to Nairn Falls was practically another transcontinental railway; that it would run as far as Cape Charles on the Labrador coast. It was on the assumption that this road would be built that they invested their money. I must say that it is not the first time that that has happened. We have heard the history of the Chignecto railway; I do not know whether the member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) has heard of that scheme. I suppose that every year the right hon. gentleman sees a ghost in the person of a certain gentleman who represents the bondholders of the Chig-aecto Ship railway, who has been waiting very patiently for the last thirty or thirty-five years. The English people of that 
day were induced to invest their money in that scheme; the scheme fell through and the investors lost their money. In the present instance *the amount involved is, perhaps, not so large, yet it represents a considerable sum, and it seems to me, now that the Government is referring the whole matter to the Exchequer Court, that means should be taken to recoup , the French investors to the extent of the total sum that they disbursed in this case. It is not fair that their good money should go .to the speculators who bought these securities knowing that some day the Government would take over the road.


Robert Laird Borden: It is hardly
necessary to appeal to any one in Canada on the score of the relations between our Empire and France at the present time. We all know that these relations are of the warmest character, and we are giving very good evidence of that in this country through the splendid expeditionary force which is fighting for the liberties of France as well as for those of the Empire in the battle-line at the front at the present time. When my hon. friend suggests that we should enter into some inquiry with a view of making good to all persons who have become interested in the bonds of this railway the amount that they may have originally invested, he asks the Government. to embark upon a proposal that would have very far-reaching consequences. On various occasions when I have visited Great Britain during the past ten or twelve years I found people over there who had invested in some enterprise in Canada which had not proved remunerative. Many of these persons would have been, glad to get even 10 cents on the dollar in respect of some of the enterprises into which they had put their money. I have no doubt that my hon. friend himself can look back and see in the course of his career some investments made by him in respect of iwhiefr he would be very glad to get 10 or 25 cents on the dollar to-day. If a paternal Government would come to his .assistance and make that good, I have no doubt that he would be very much gratified; but he could hardly expect it. This road runs [through an old, long-settled 'Community which is shut out from all communication with the world for five or six months of the year. The late Administration gave this enterprise its sanction and its imprimatur by granting it a subsidy. The .Legislature of Quebec did the same thing

under the condition that the enterprise .should be somewhat greater than that which we have now under consideration, and should extend to a point farther down the coast. A great deal of money was invested in the construction of the road, and for the last three or four years all the money so invested has lain absolutely idle. .More than that, the work which it represents has been deteriorating from year to year. So that the prospect of having the enterprise, as originally proposed, completed for the benefit of those people, .has seemed to be getting farther and farther .away. The late Administration or this Administration would no doubt have been very glad if those who had invested their money in the enterprise in the first instance, when they realized that there was not enough money to finish it, had undertaken the burden of completing it, taking .the chance of saving their money to the fullest extent by making it a success. But there was no disposition of that kind. *There has been no attempt on the part of bondholders, so far as I am aware, to raise money for the purpose of completing the road, and it has been in the condition which I have described from year to year. Under the circumstance, it did not seem desirable in the interests either of the district or of the whole country that an enterprise of this kind, designed to serve a very considerable community in a district which had been settled so long, should be almost nine-tenths completed and remain in that condition for a number of years to come. ,We were not prepared to embark upon the proposal which my hon. friend suggests, which would have involved a great deal more money, perhaps twice as much as we are proposing to expend. My hon. friend observes the reception which our more .modest proposal has had from some of his friends on that side of the House We were not prepared to embark upon that plan; but we were prepared to propose to the House that what might be called the reasonable value of the road should be paid, and that the road should be completed and made to serve the purpose for which it was originally designed .by the late Admin,-istration when it subsidized the road and by the Government of the province of Quebec when it extended aid. The proposal which we make to the House is in effect that the reasonable value of the road, a certain sum of money not exceeding the amount named in the Bill, should be paid for the road, and that in determining that sum
the cost of the road and subsequent depreciation should be taken into consideration.
I regret that we could not go to the extent that the hon. member for Rouville suggests. The proposal which the Government has submitted to the House is designed, on the one hand, to do justice, so far as justice can be done, to those who are the holders of the securities, by paying the reasonable value of the road, and, on the other hand, to carry out the proposal as it was first sanctioned by Parliament, involving the completion of this line in order that it may serve the purpose for which it was originally intended. That, in a word, is the proposal of the Government, and it is. one, .which, it -seems to me, ought to command the approval of hon. members. I do not wish the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for North	Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr.	McKenzie),	to imagine
that the interests of the communities to which they have referred have been overlooked or will be forgotten. This enterprise stands in this position. It had been sanctioned by the late Administration; it had been subsidized, it had been endowed with a subsidy Dy the Provincial Government, and a very large sum of money had been expended upon it. Yet the road was lying as an uncompleted affair, of absolutely no use to any person in the world in the condition in which it has been during the past three years. More than that, it was deteriorating all the time by the action of the elements, making it worth less and less each year. For these reasons the Government, while it would have greatly preferred that the persons interested in the road * should come forward and undertake the additional burden necessary to complete it and make it a success, nevertheless, seeing fhat that apparently could not be done thought Parliament should interpose in the ,way now proposed by this Bill and should .complete a road which has been lying almost completed for three or four years.


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that the basis on which the amount to be paid will be fixed will be the reasonable value of the road. I was somewhat misled by hearing members say that the basis was to bfe the expenditure that had been made, up to a certain amount. But if it is to be the reasonable value of the road, that is a very different matter. I have been puzzled over the enormous amount expended on the road, according te the hon. member for Charlevoix, who informs us that $4,600,000 was received from

the French investors and that Canadian investors put $1,500,000 into the enterprise. That makes $6,100,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is not taking into consideration the fact that the bonds were not sold at anything like par.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At 82.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend says they realized 82; so that the amount actually available for the road was very much less.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know the
amount of the subsidy. The subsidies were not included' in the amount put in by Canadian investors, and would probably make up the difference. If that is correct, the enormous amount of $98,000 a mile was expended in the construction of this road. Even if you take off the discount on the bonds, you will find that the expenditure is still $85,000 per mile, which is an extravagant expenditure for the amount of work that seems to have been done. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway cost only about $100,000 a mile at the very outside, with interest to date and everything. There we have a completed road, one of the finest grades in the world, with stations, heavy steel and all the appliances of a completed enterprise. Here we find that almost the same amount per mile has been expended on 62 miles of road; and what have we got? Only seven .miles of it have rails, inferior rails at that; the rest of it is a track through the woods, with no bridges, no grades, no rails, no sleepers, no stations. Where did all of this'enormous amount go? I think some hon. gentleman opposite should give the committee some explanation in regard to the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I forgot to point out that I think the sending of this to the Exchequer Court is not a very good way to arrive at the price. We all know that judges are honourable men and desirous of doing the very best they can; but, while a judge may be a good lawyer, he is not a rail. road man. As a rule, he knows nothing about the construction of railways, nothing about engineering, and, taking it all in all, it is a fair proposition to say that judges are not railway men. I cannot understand why a railroad, particularly one of this kind that is in a half-finished condition, and one that has been allowed to deteriorate for the last few years, with the embank-

ments wearing away, should be submitted to a judge for valuation. Where the railroad was raised to grade level some years ago, no doubt these grades have washed away; and I am sure I am right when I say that no part of that road is up to grade now. I know something about the grading of a railway, and I am sure that a railroad, particularly on an embankment, that was graded four years ago and since then has been subject to the upheavals of frost and the action of weather, etc., is nothing like up to grade. I venture to say it is in very poor condition. We are going to ask a judge to take into consideration all these things which appertain particularly to the judgment of a railway man. I would suggest that the Railway Department, with any assistance they might wish to obtain, would be far more capable than a judge sitting alone to determine the proper value of this road. I submit further that human nature is human nature. Who are the two sides to this controversy about this road's value? Who are fighting it out? We have the Prime Minister and his colleagues fighting their friends. They have clearly come to the assistance of their friends in this case. They are willing to give them money to help them out.
Atc they going to fight them very vigorously when they get before the man who is to name the amount? I have seen these trials before. I have seen judges with the very best intentions trying to arrive at the true value of lands taken for right of way when politicians were concerned in the value of the lands, and when it was impossible for the judge to get evidence because nobody would give it; nobody was anxious to cut down the value of the land. Those representing the Government were anxious 'that the politicians who owned that land should get big value for it, and no witnesses were put- on the stand at all. This House should have the strongest assurance that this action, for -action it is, will be properly defined and placed before the judge, and that the issues, in one form or another, will be fought out. We should have the assurance that this matter is to be fought out the same as if the party w'h-o is going to get the money were not a -friend and supporter of the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as ascertaining the value- is concerned, the evidence of experts must-, of course, be given. If the Government undertook to fix the value themselves, my hon. friend realizes, and has indeed said, that their estimate would

depend on the valuation of persons who are familiar with such matters. Members of a government could not personally undertake to value such a road. In arriving at the value the Judge of the Exchequer Court will have to depend, I suppose, on testimony of the same kind. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria says he would prefer to have the Minister of Railways and Canals fix the value. We thought it would be fairer and more reasonable, un-,der all the circumstances, that a Judge of the Exchequer Court should fix it. That is very frequently done by a government, even in cases where the value is less difficult of determination than in the present case. For example, one of the latest acts of the late Administration was to pass an Order in Council by which certain land in the suburbs of Calgary, belonging to the Northwest Mounted Police, should be transferred to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The Government did not undertake to fix the value themselves; they directed that it should be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada for valuation. Unfortunately, they had overlooked the fact that the1 Exchequer Court of Canada had no jurisdiction to do anything of the kind, and so we had to take the matter up at a somewhat later date. The only way in which the matter could be worked out was to appoint one of the Exchequer Court judges as arbitrator for the purpose of estimating the value, and that course was taken. We agreed with our predecessors that it was better that the value should be fixed by a judge of the Exchequer Court as valuator than that the Government should attempt to determine it themselves. There was the question of prospective value and considerations of that character, which it would have been unfortunate, probably, for the Government to determine; and so in this case. I think there are considerations connected with the value of the road and the reasonable price to be paid for it which, under the circumstances, might better be determined by a judicial inquiry than by the Government themselves.


William Pugsley: I agree with my hon.
friend that the tribunal of the Exchequer Court would be a very good one to determine the value if that question were left to the judge of the Exchequer Court. But it is not. If my right hon. friend will look at the amendment he will see that the judge of the Exchequer Court has not a word to say about the value. He is simply to take
the cost,>
and, so long as the cost does not exceed $6,849,000, he is bound to allow it under the statute. That obligation is imposed on the judge; there is not the slightest discretion left to him to determine the value. To my mind, it is the most extraordinary proceeding which I have ever seen taken. Parliament purports tq leave to the Exchequer Court the fixing of the value, and then tells the judge of the Exchequer Court how he is to fix the value-that he is to take the cost, whether it is twice or three times the value of the property, and be governed by that cost provided it does not exceed a certain amount. Section 2, as amended, would read as follows:
The consideration to be paid for each of the said railways and for any equipment, appurtenances and properties that may he acquired as aforesaid shall be the value thereof as determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada.
That would have been all right if the section had been left there. That would have met the view which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has presented to the committee, as .affording a good reason why the judge of the ' Exchequer Court should be appointed to deal with the matter. But the amendment proposed bjr the Acting Minister of Railways ties the hands of the judge of the Exchequer Court in this manner:
The said value to be the actual cost of said railways, less subsidies and less depreciation, but not to exceed $4,349,000 exclusive of outstanding bonded indebtedness, which is to be assumed by the Government, but not to exceed in all $2,500,000.
My right hon. friend will see that if the total cost, less depreciation and less subsidies, does not exceed $6,849,000, the judge of the Exchequer Court must, allow this company that amount of money even although, in his own opinion, the value of the road is not one-third of that amount. That is the objection which I see to this amendment. The very first thing to do-no doubt it was the first thing which the Minister of Railways thought of doing when the proposition was made by this company to sell these railroads to the Government- was to refer the matter to the General Manager of Government Railways; and it is a very singular fact that there is no recommendation of the general manager in respect to the taking over of these three roads. But the matter was referred by him, evidently at once, to his chief engineer, and the chief engineer, Mr. Beckwith, made an examination of these three lines of rail-

way. The structural value of what is called the Quebec and Montmorency line, that is the line which is in operation, is put at $1,115,200, and that includes the terminals, equipment, the whale completed railway. That is the value which is fixed by the Government's own engineer. My hon. friend will find it on page 6 of the report made by Mr. Beckwith to Mr. Brown, the Chief Engineer of Government Railways at Moncton. But I understand that that line is bonded for $2,500,000, and, presumably, that is the cost which the company will be able to show to the judge of the Exchequer Court.
Then, if we take the Quebec and Saguenay part, the engineer in his report, which was submitted to the Government by Mr. Brown, the Chief Engineer of Government Railways, puts the total value of that property at $2,813,500.
There we get the valuation of these two principal roads, made by the engineering department of the Government railways at a little over $3,928,000. Then, if you take the small road on the south side of the St. Lawrence, the statement of the engineer is that the fair cost would be $466,000, of which subsidies were received to the extent of $240,000, leaving $220,000 as the money which was put into the road. If you take the total cost of $466,000, you have about $4,300,000 as being the value of these three lines of railway, or as being the amount of money which it would cost to construct them when this report was made in 1915. Yet this amendment requires the judge of the Exchequer Court to allow these companies, not what the engineering department says they are -worth, but if it is shown that they have cost that much, the judge is bound to allow them $6,949,000, or $2,600,000 more than the engineering department of the Government railways declares these roads are worth. This is not proper legislation. Surely the judge of the Exchequer Court ought to be allowed to call witnesses before him and the Government ought to be able to submit evidence. The judge of the Exchequer Court ought to be permitted to allow the companies what these three roads are fairly worth. So far from that being the case, his hands are tied, and if these companies show the judge that the cost may have been $6,949,000, the judge is bound to allow that enormous sum when the roads ought to have cost only what the engineer states. In other words, the judge is not limited to the fair or necessary value or cost, but is bound to allow them $6,949,000 even al-

though that amount is $2,600,000 more than the Government's own engineer says is the value of these three railways.
On the preamble:
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	The Acting
.Minister of Railways told us a moment ago ,that it was not the Government's intention to extend this railway farther than Murray jBay. Is it the intention to at once proceed with the completion of the road?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, certainly.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no
appropriation for it in the Estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: We will provide for that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: WTien-this session?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, this session.
Bill reported.
On the motion of the third reading:


Wilfrid Laurier: That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred again to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it by providing that any contract made by the Government under this Act shall not be valid and binding until submitted to and ratified by Parliament.
Amendment negatived, on division, motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time, and passed.



ENCOURAGEMENT OF SHIPBUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Committee of Supply:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are getting near the end of the session, and an important matter has been brought to the attention of Parliament in regard to which I think it would be desirable, in the interest of the country, to know whether the Government have any proposals to make or any policy to announce. I refer to the encouragement of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I need not go into detail or repeat the many arguments that have been advanced in favour of encouragement being given to the shipbuilding industry.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the
hon. gentleman would be kind enough to allow his observations to await the presence of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who has been giving the subject a good deal of attention.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no desire to
press it to-night.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand
the minister proposes, to make some statement in regard to it. However, I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no desire to proceed to-night, but we do not know how much longer Parliament is going to sit, and I shall not detain the House. My reason for speaking on the subject at all is that I notice that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking at Montreal yesterday, referred to the question of aid to shipbuilding in a manner which I think it would be quite desirable to quote. Any one who reflects for a moment must realize that the time has arrived when Canada must begin to prepare for transportation by the sea. We cannot leave it until another year has gone by. The mercantile marine of the nations of the world is gradually being dimished by the events of the war, and the needs of shipping facilities in Canada are becoming more acute. A year's delay will only make the problem very much more difficult of solution tnan if some action were taken now before the House prorogues. At the present time we have in operation three transcontinental lines of railway. We boast of our tremendous production of natural products, and look forward with hope and confidence to the time when, after the expenditure on war supplies in Canada has ceased, we shall be able to cope with the conditions that will then present themselves, by reason of the great natural and industrial productions which the country will furnish. But if when that time comes we are without means of transportation by the sea, we shall be at a very great disadvantage indeed. The Government of British Columbia Where the situation is very acute on account of the inability to get facilities for the transportation of the lumber products of that province, is trying to solve the prooiem. I read in the Monetary Times of a few days ago:
The British Columbia government's measure to aid the building of ships in the province and to subsidize them when completed has just been placed before the legislature for its consideration. The Bill constitutes a shipping credit commission with power to loan money for the construction of ships, to subsidize them after the war is over, when charter prices will not be so high, and to guarantee the bonds of shipbuilding concerns to the extent of 6 per cent. The proposed shipping credit board will be organized on the same principle as the agricultural credit commission.
Among other things it also provides that, after the war, freight rates on these particular vessels shall be no greater from British Columbia ports' than the rates charged in the state of Washington. There is ajso a provision to guarantee 55 per cent of the actual cost of construction and repair of ships. The necessity which has been recognized on the Pacific coast is equally great, if not greater, on the eastern seaboard, because naturally the products of this country east of the Rockies, whether *agricultural, mineral or industrial, if exported, must find an outlet through our Atlantic ports. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking at the launching of the ice-breaker1 from the Canadian Vickers yard, Montreal, yesterday, is reported in the Montreal Daily Star as follows :
Sir Robert made the announcement that the Canadian Government favoured the subsidizing of shipbuilding in Canada. There would come a time, he said, when the Canadian Vickers, Ltd., would surpass the parent from which it was sprung and when Canada would have a shipbuilding industry equally as great as that in Great Britain.
" I am sure that both political parties are thoroughly in sympathy with that development," said Sir Robert, " and I am absolutely satisfied that both political parties will be willing to pledge themselves to give all reasonable assistance to help bring about that end."
There was a time not so long ago when it was stated and reiterated in this House that the idea of Canada engaging in the manufacture of steel ships was absurd. Without raising in any way the old issue, I am quite sure that any one who will reflect on the subject for a moment will realize that suggestions of that kind are absolutely absurd. It has been proved in the last two years, in respect of munitions of war and other manufactures that we have developed since the war began, that the assertion we on this side of the House made some three years ago to the effect that the Canadian manufacturer and artisan could construct anything that was made by the manufacturer and artisan of any other country, was absolutely correct.
There is no profound mystery in the building of steel ships. It is a legitimate industry, based on the iron and steel industry, and it is because Great Britain had many years start on us in the iron and steel industry that they are able to build ships as they are to-day. When we recall that twenty years ago there .was no steel industry in this country that was capable of producing steel ingots, we shall at once realize how it is that Great Britain, which had developed the steel industry thirty years before that time, when we were

in our very infancy, is able to build ships as she is to-day, and manufacture everything else arising out of the iron and steel industry. But to-day Canada has reached the stage where our steel institutions are capable of producing everything that is required in the iron and steel trade. Any one who has made inquiries on the subject knows that the rolling of steel plates in any one of the three or four great steel industries in Canada is just as easy for them to do as to produce steel ingots out of which shells are made, or to make steel rods, or anything else in steel. The steel industry has grown to a wonderful extent in Canada, and a tremendous num-ber-of artisans are now employed in developments of that industry. Montreal, for instance, launched an ice-breaker yesterday which had been built in the yards there. Ten submarines were turned out there and went across the Atlantic under their own power last summer and are now fighting on the other side. These facts show that we have passed the preliminary stages, and that the time has now arrived when Canada must develop a steel shipbuilding industry in this country.
The suggestion has been made in some parts of Canada that aid should be given to the building of wooden ships, but with that I do not agree. Modern conditions demand the utilization of steel vessels, more particularly as regards the carriage of freight. Steel ships are very much in advance of the old wooden type, and have many advantages which I need not go into now. I do not propose to elaborate at great length on the manifest necessity of action. The hon. member for St. John-and other hon. gentlemen on this side of this House have spoken frequently on this matter since this session began, and I have no doubt the subject is engaging the attention of the Government. I am bringing this matter forward, not in any partisan spirit, but because I regard it as one of the greatest problems the country has to grapple with, and it should be grappled with at the earliest possible moment. Any hon. gentleman in this House, no matter on which side he sits, would be lax in his duty who, realizing the condition that will confront us in the days to come, did not urge on the Government the necessity of immediate action in this matter. I feel that before this House prorogues we should have some assurance from the Government not merely that the matter has received their attention, but that this nation is going to go ahead and provide something in the way of transportation on the sea-some-
thing which we absolutely lack at the present time, and which is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our country.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect
to the ability of Canada to build steel .ships, I am not aware that that ability has been denied in the way that the hon. gentleman has suggested. On the occasion to which he has made allusion there was a comparison of the cost at which steel ships could be built in this country and in Great Britain, and also a comparison of the expedition with which they could be constructed. A country that has a great iron and steel industry, as Canada has, could undoubtedly engage, and must at some time eventually engage-and- I hope that in our case it will be in the immediate future- in the construction of steel ships. That industry is undoubtedly associated with many others, the steel industry itself as well as a number of subsidiary industries. The question of transportation is a very important one to Canada, and that points to the desirability, and indeed the necessity, that the industry of building steel ships should grow up in this country. My hon. friend, however, seems to me to confuse two ideas. If I understood him correctly, he confuses the future development of the shipbuilding industry in Canada, and the necessities of Canada, in common with the whole Empire and the whole world, for tonnage at the present time. I have not yet discovered any one in Canada who is prepared to construct steel ships of a considerable size within a period which would probably make them available before the end of this war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But unless they
start some time, they will never get them built.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand:
but there is something else to be said about that. If you begin the construction of steel ships when the cost is at its highest, and are not sure -that you will have these ships .available at a time when tonnage is mostly needed, there is room for consideration as to whether the enterprise should be entered upon. At least, it has impressed the members of the Government that way, and I am inclined to think it would impress any hon. hon. gentleman in that way who would give to it much reflection. If we are to build ships when they cost at least double what they would under ordinary conditions, and if, after paying double for them, or subsidizing them to the necessary extent, at a time they are not

to be available when tonnage is most needed, of what advantage would a proposal of that kind be? The want of tonnage has been felt by all nations of the world, more or less, during the past eighteen months. On the whole,
10 p.m. however, the arrangements by the Allied nations aimongst themselves, particularly by the British Admiralty, have helped the situation a great deal, and I think, on the whole, the available supply of tonnage has done all the work that we could expect it to do. During the past winter I have had occasion to refer to the daily reports sent out by the Department of the Naval 'Service with respect to Halifax and St. John, and I have found eight, ten, sometimes twelve, transports loading at each of these ports-I think hardly ever fewer than half a dozen-except within recent weeks. So that the supply of tonnage, considering all the conditions imposed by the war, has been better than we could have anticipated, although not all that we could have desired.
If such action could be taken at once as to insure the delivery of ships at the time when tonnage is most wanted, no one would hesitate very much as to the question of the cost, because the importance of transportation is most imperative at this time, notwithstanding all that I have said as to the arrangements made by the Admiralty. But in what form, one might ask, should that action be taken? The Government itself might embark in the project of constructing ships in Canada. But all that could be constructed in Canada at the present moment, with any possibility of making them available before the conclusion of the war, would not amount to very much in proportion to the needs of the country as a whole. On the other hand, the Government might consider the proposals of corporations or syndicates which have come forward with the idea of building ships if subsidies were granted by the Government. Up to the present time we have not received any proposals of that kind which were of so reasonable a character that we could feel ourselves justified in proceeding with them further.
Then the hon. gentleman speaks as if, when the war is over, the demands for tonnage and the lack of tonnage will be very much, as they are at present. I do not speak at all with the authority of an expert, tout I think that any of us who desire to apply common sense to the anticipation of conditions as they will then
exist must reach one conclusion. Two considerations impress me-doubtless other considerations would impress those who speak with more authority on the subject than I can. One of these is the enormous amount of tonnage now diverted from commercial purposes which will be released and will be then available for commercial purposes. That will take place within a very measurable period after the conclusion of the war. In the next place, the world's demand for tonnage will, I suppose, be reduced also by the termination of the war, for the reason that an enormous quantity of stores and enormous numbers of troops must now be transported for the purposes of the war, and such purposes take precedence over all others. With the conclusion of the war there will, for a time, be less work, I should think, for the tonnage of the world to do. So that, looking at it in that way, you will have a much greater amount of tonnage available, and on the other hand, I suppose, you will toe confronted with a smaller demand than confronts the nations of the world at present. So it is not absolutely clear that there will be a dearth of tonnage when the war is over-although the considerations that have to be taken into account are so vast, so intricate and complicated in their character that one, speaking with as little authority as I do on the subject, would not venture a very confident prediction. This, in one sense, is beside the really important question the hon. gentleman has raised.
Leaving out other considerations, I agree with the view the hon. gentleman has put forward, that Canada ought to be a country in which the business of building steel ships will be carried on. We have the material for it, and we can soon train our men, I think, to undertake the work. In the past the difficulty has been the cost. Some four or five years ago I met delegations of the shipbuilders of Canada and discussed the subject with them. There has always been the suggestion of a tonnage subsidy. About eight or nine years ago, I think, I asked them frankly to give me a statement as to whether or not they could name any period within which the industry could be made self-sustaining, so that after that we might expect the business of building ships in Canada to be carried on without any tonnage subsidy. I cannot recall that on either of those occasions they were able to give me a definite statement on that point, which I regarded as a somewhat

important one. There is this to he said in that connection: the impression which I got from those with whom I discussed this subject upon the occasion of a visit to several shipyards in Great Britain four years ago next summer-I discussed it with a great many of the leading shipbuilders- was that the cost of building ships in Great Britain and the cost of building them in Canada would yearly tend to approximate. One very experienced man with whom I discussed the subject told me he believed that within twenty years at the outside the cost of building steel ships in Canada would be approximately the same as the cost of building them in Great Britain. If that opinion could be relied upon, it would afford an answer to the question which I put to some of the shipbuilders of Canada on the occasions to which I have alluded. However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been giving the subject very careful attention, and I am under the impression that he expected to make some statement to Parliament before the conclusion of the present session. He is chairman of the subcommittee of Council, which has been de-' voting a good deal of attention to the subject, and I hope that on some other occasion before we prorogue he may be able to speak at greater length and in more detail than I have been able to do to-night, as I was not aware that the hon. member for Pictou intended to bring the subject to the attention of the House to-day.


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether my right hon. friend is aware of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did make quite an exhaustive statement.


Robert Laird Borden: How long ago?


William Pugsley: About a week ago.


Robert Laird Borden: It was since then.


William Pugsley: I regret to say that while his statement was a very interesting one, it looked forward rather to what might be done in the somewhat distant future than to some measure designed to meet the present necessities. I am very sorry indeed that my right hon. friend has been able to see so many difficulties In the way of encouraging shipbuilding. Apparently he is not able, at the present time at all events, to present to the House any policy which the Government is prepared to adopt. It has been stated, I think by the Minister of Trade and Commerce,that one or two gentlemen have been asked for the figures which they would regard as sat-

isfactory for the building of ships-I think he was referring more particularly to wooden ships. But I think the best procedure would be to determine upon a policy; to determine whether or not they would give bonuses, and then let it be known publicly so that the people would be in a position to take advantage of it. The Prime Minister states that in consequence of the high prices of materials and of the uncertainty as to how long the war will last, it might not be very good policy to do what would be necessary to ensure the building of steel ships at present. Well, Sir, we have heard a good deal as to the probability that the War will last only a short period. The Minister of Finance stated not long ago, to my astonishment, that when the war broke out it was thought that it would not last more than three or four months.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I said that it was thought by some, or by many.


William Pugsley: The way the minister
made the statement would rather imply that that view was entertained by some in whose judgment he had confidence, because he was putting it forward as a statement of opinion which had been greatly disappointed by the subsequent results. Having regard to the great preparations which had been made by our enemies for many years, one might reasonably expect that the war would last for a considerable period. I think, however, that in the matter of shipbuilding and everything else connected with our part in the war, we ought to proceed upon the theory that the war may last not for one year or for three years, but for five years, and if the war should come to an end at an earlier period, we shall all be thankful. I say that we ought to make preparations ahead and do everything that is necessary to enable Canada to do her part, no matter how long the war may last. My right hon. friend has truly stated that owing to arrangements which had been made by the British' Government with this Government, there has been no undue complaint in the matter of transportation, or, rather that the conditions have not been as bad as they might have been. That is very true,, although the cost of transportation has increased from 800 to 1,000 per cent beyond what it was when the war broke out. But it must be remembered that ships are getting scarcer every week, every day almost. The submarine menace is a very great menace to shipping, and British ship-

ping is feeling' the effect of that menace. Ships are becoming scarcer and the question of transportation i= becoming more difficult day by day. Canada should look at the matter in this light; not that the time will come, but that the time may come when in the interests of Canada and m the interests of the Empire there will be absolute need of having greater ocean tonnage than we shall have if Canada does not do her part in the providing of transportation. Suppose we do pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars more than might be necessary if the war should come to an end quickly. Suppose the amount should even run into millions; if in that way Canada is better able to supply the Empife with her needs in the-way of foodstuffs, it will be money well expended; nobody will regret it. I do not want to find fault, but we have lost very nearly two years of time upon this important question. It does seem to me-and I say this in all sincerity and all kindness-that when this war broke out the Government ought to have anticipated the very state of affairs which exists to-day. A condition of war between England and her Allies and a strong resourceful enemy such as Germany and her Allies must necessarily exhaust the resources of the Empire. Knowing, as everyone knows, that the submarines would be effective in the destruction of shipping, we ought to have anticipated that the ocean ' tonnage would become scarcer as the months went by. But let us not criticise too much as to the inaction of the Government in the past. Let the Government, if it is a,t all possible, take hold of 'the question now and submit its policy to Parliament and the country. I venture to say that if a broad, liberal policy of assistance is laid down it will be found that the people of Canada are resourceful enough to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them and will engage upon the building not of steel vessels only, but of wooden vessels, which would prove of enormous advantage and would be fairly profitable for a good many years to come. Canada was once one of the greatest shipbuilding and shipowning countries in the world, if not the greatest of these in proportion to her population. Ships built by our own mechanics were found upon every sea, and performed a great part in the carrying trade of the world.
I believe that, were reasonable encouragement given, we would be able, in a comparatively few months, to have in Canada a large number of wooden vessels which
would be capable of doing a great deal in the way of transportation. In addition to giving aid by way of reasonable bonuses, the Government should, assist the ship builders to provide auxiliary powers for wooden sailing vessels by admitting machinery, the most modern engines for use as auxiliary power, free of duty into Canada. This would prove of great assistance, because the duty which has to be paid on this machinery is very heavy, and proves a serious burden upon the ship builder. I have quite recently received a great many telegrams from gentlemen who believe that wooden ship building ought to be encouraged, and that if it were encouraged it could be made very successful. I have talked with people who are interested in the subject, and I do believe that if the Government would come down with its policy, if it was a reasonable policy so far as giving assistance by way of bonuses and the* admission into Canada, free of duty, of machinery of a class not made in Canada, we would yery soon see shipyards established upon both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, upon the Gulf, and upon the Great lakes; and that before many months rolled by we would find a large number of vessels upon the stocks. It would not be many months before Canada would be able to do her part and a very creditable part, in the transportation business of the Empire.


Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.):: I wish to say just a word or two on this matter, and to join my voice with those of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) in urging upon the Government the desirability of giving some aid to shipbuilding. It is a very vital matter with us on the Pacific seaboard, particularly since the war; although I may say that the shortage of tonnage was felt on that coast even before the waT commenced. As 'the gentlemen of the House are undoubtedly aware the interests of the province of British Columbia are very vitally bound up with the prosperity of the lumber trade. The great difficulty with the lumber trade there is to get overseas tonnage. There is no doubt that probably the finest stand of timber left in the world is found within ihe confines of the province of British Columbia. The difficulty we find there is that nearly all the ships that are in the lumbercarrying trade are under charter, and that the charters are controlled by San Francisco interests, which, naturally, send them to their own lumber mills on Puget Sound, with the result that our mills stand idle on

account of the difficulty of getting tonnage for the export trade.
I find that the Government of British Columbia has, within the last few days, brought down a Bill in the Legislature for the very purpose of aiding the shipbuilding business. The contemplation is, I think, largely to build wooden ships out of good British Columbia timber. We have demonstrated beyond question that ocean-going vessels of the very finest kind can be built out of timber on the coast.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Henry Barnard: The idea is to get the people interested in the lumber business to contribute timber for the building of the ships, and to take payment for it in stock in the ships. I may say that I received a copy of this Bill only to-day, and I have not yet had an opportunity of perusing it with any great care; but the main idea of it is that a commission is to be appointed which will give loans to persons building ships, to the extent of 55 per cent of the value of the ship, the balance of the loan to be guaranteed on very stringent conditions as to operation, etc. The Bill also proVides for a subsidy, or loan, to shipbuilding plants, of 55 per cent of the value of the plant. The total amount the province proposes to set aside for this purpose is some $2,000,000, and with that it is hoped to build up a .home-carrying trade. The conditions of the subsidy are that the. ships must return to a British Columbia port to re-load. It seems to me that if the Government could see its way to further this policy in some direction it would be of great benefit not only to my friends in the Maritime Provinces, but very much more even to us on the Pacific coast, and for my part I would be very glad, indeed, to see some action taken along these lines.


John Howard Sinclair: I have listened with' great interest to my hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Barnard). I quite agree with him that this industry is of the greatest importance to that .province. It will be impossible to develop the lumber industry of British Columbia and the coal-mining industry of that great province without transportation facilities on the sea. My hon. friend, along with his colleagues, form a solid representation from the province 6f British Columbia supporting this Government. They have been here now for several year^. This question has been discussed in this House

year after year, yet nothing has been done. If my hon. friend has to go home at the end of the session without the Government having done anything at all in regard to this important question I fear it will be felt in the province of British Columbia that the influence of my hon. friend and his colleagues from that province is not felt as it should be by the present Government.
I take a very special interest in this question, coming, as I do, from a province by the sea, a province that has a great interest in the shipbuilding industry. And I am glad to inform the house that while we are talking here in regard to this matter, and doing nothing more than talking, in the town where I live an enterprising firm is laying a yard, preparing to build a steel steamer, and is starting the industry. That is being done, though under a great handicap, owing to the tariff that we have in this country. That, to my mind, is the great difficulty in regard to steel shipbuilding. There is no special difficulty so far as the work is concerned. Any person who visited Montreal yesterday and saw the splendid shipyard of Vickers, Limited, and the fine ship that was launched there on that occasion, could see that the workmen in this country are well able to do that kind of work.
I was sorry that we did not have Lord Churchill, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, yesterday with us in order that he might see that we already have done in this country what he advised the Prime Minister we could not do in fifty years. The foundations were all right; they appeared quite solid, although we were told that there was not on the coast of Canada any place where the foundation could be found solid enough for a shipyard. The cranes were, I doubt not, able to carry the 50 tons weight, although that gentleman said it would be found impossible to have such cranee in Canada. The way the rivets were driven and the general manner in which the ship was built, was a great credit indeed to the workmen of Canada. All tho.se things that we were told by that English Lord could not be done .seemed to have been well done. We saw none of those disheartening things that were. read to. us a few years ago by the Prime Minister of this country, who was cheered by his supporters at the time. These matters are now settled, and we have at least one good shipyard in Canada that has produced ships that

are now being usefully employed in the navy. A fine fleet of mosquito vessels is also being built in that same yard, and everything looks very prosperous indeed, and it looks as if it might grow into a great industry. A6 I said, the great handicap is the tariff. It costs more to get steel in Canada than it does in Great Britain. It costs more to get engines; and, if you have to import them from the United States, as we might have now to do, the tariff on these engines would be enormous.
As I understand our present tariff, articles that are not made in Canada are admitted free for the construction of a ship. If the plates are not made in Canada, and they are not, they can be imported free for ship construction, but most of the articles that go into the construction of a ship, and they are numberless, are subject to a very high duty, and in that way the Canadian builder starts with a very heavy handicap. If a ship cost about $20 a ton more than on the Clyde you have to pay a dividend on that additional capital, and she has to compete with the ships that are built under free trade conditions in the yards of England. That might be overcome to a large extent in Canada by a rebate, and it is an amazing thing to me that this Government, and the late Government, have not dealt with this question.


William Thomas White: Does the hon.
member think that that would be sufficient to establish a ship-building industry in Canada?


John Howard Sinclair: I fear it would not be
sufficient; at the same time there are ships being built in Canada. On the Great Lakes quite a fleet is being built; ships are also being built in a small way, on the Atlantic coast, and, as I have said, they are being built in Montreal. But they are all subject to that very heavy handicap which should not exist at the present time. It does not exist in regard to other manufactures. The manufacturer of agricultural implements who imports steel from the United States for his reaper or his mower, and exports it to a foreign country goes, to the Custom house and gets back, I 'think, 99 per cent of the duty he has paid. But the shipbuilder gets nothing; he gets no rebate, and that is a condition of things which should not exist, and which might be rectified by an Order in Council. I trust that the Minister of Finance will see that the very next time the Government meets an Order in Council is passed that will
' enable shipbuilders in Canada to import their material from abroad and give them a rebate. I see no reason why it should not be done, and I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance sees no reason why it should not be done. It would be some encouragement, and everybody will agree that encouragement ought to be given to the shipbuilding industry in a greater degree than to the industry of Which I have spoken, because when a ship is complete she has to compete with the whole world for business. If there is any product that ought to have an even chance it is the ship that carries freight on the ocean. If there is any freight to carry in any part of the world, the ship has to compete for it, and all the other ships in the world are competing for it. The brokers in London, New York and other great centres throughout the world know that there is freight to carry from Australia, for example, to London. They are all trying to get it in normal times, and each one is competing against the other. Consequently when you launch a ship on the sea, she has to compete with the whole world for business, and she ought to be free from those charges which make ships so expensive in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but he knows that articles necessary for shipbuilding are on the free list.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. minister was not in the House when I explained that. I think I understand what the tariff is. There are a large number of articles on which no rebate is given. On articles that are produced in Canada, and that go to the construction of ships, there is no rebate. For example, if you produce marine engines in Canada, you cannot import marine engines from the United States and get a rebate.


John Dowsley Reid: The articles are:
Masts, iron or steel, or parts thereof, and iron or steel beams, angles, sheets, plates, knees and cable chain, for wooden, iron, steel or composite ships and vessels; and iron steel or brass manufactures which, at the time of their importation are of a Class or kind not manufactured in Canada, when imported for use in the construction or equipment of ships or vessels, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs.


John Howard Sinclair: That is what I said; articles that are not manufactured in Canada. Nolt only the iron and steel, but the paint, bolts, locks, the articles for finishing the inside of ships, and innumer-

able other things, are all subject to heavy duty under the present tariff. Dulty must be paid to the Government by the manufacturer if a Canadian is going to embark in the shipbuilding industry, and that must be evened up in some way if the shipbuilder is to have a chance. I hope the Minister *of Finance will look into this question and endeavour to deal with it.
There is one phase of the shipbuilding question which I have brought repeatedly tc the attention of the present Government, and why it has not been dealt with passes my comprehension. Sailing ships on the eastern coast of Canada are not allowed at the present time to sail further south than 5 degrees north latitude. The most profitable business for the ships at the present time is in South America. 'There are good freights for the river Plate and for Rio and other ports on the coast of South America, but the coasting vessels of Canada cannot engage in that trade because we have a silly and absurd clause in the shipping law whieh does not allow a coasting captain to go further south than 5 degrees north latitude. The captain can go as far north as he likes, he can go to the North Pole if he can get there; he can sail in the most dangerous [waters in the world, but when he gets in the [waters of the sunny south, where the trade ;winds are and everything is favourable he must stop at 5 degrees north latitude. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has struggled to justify this several times, but he has not been able to tell the House why the Government maintain that regulation in the shipping law. Each session during the last three years, I have introduced a Bill [to correct that condition, and to enable the Canadian coasting vessels to earn money by going as far as the river Plate. In old times they went round the Horn. I remember the time very well when the coasting vessels of Nova Scotia went round to California. A coasting captain never had any trouble in navigating; ,he could go anywhere on the ocean, but in the Marine Department at Ottawa they ,have the absurd idea that a coasting captain sails along the coast, sees a lighthouse at one point, watches for the. next one, and prawls along in that way until he gets to his destination. When these men were examined in the room upstairs, the Marine .Department officials could not understand how it was that a coasting captain could cross the gulf. of Mexico because there were .no lighthouses to guide him. ]That is the idea entertained in the .Marine Department regarding coasting 
,captain3. The people who know anything about the matter are laughing at the notions which they have in the Marine Department in regard to that matter. Why should the coasting captains not be allowed to go where the business is profitable? In the whole history of shipbuilding in this country there was never a case of a coasting captain who did not get to his destination. The Deputy Speaker knows that. None of the captains who sailed for any of the ports in the south ever failed to get there because it was too far away. But that is the idea they have in the Marine Department. I have been trying during the last three or four years to get this amendment passed. The Bill now before this House has passed the second reading stage, and it has passed the Marine and Fisheries Committee, but it is at the foot of the list of Bills, and, of course, being a private member, I cannot proceed further unless it is adopted as a Government Bill. If there are any members on the Government benches who take the slightest interest in shipbuilding, or in transportation by sea, I wish they would look up the amendment and ask why it has not been passed into law. It would take only five minutes to pass it. It would be a great relief to the shipping industry of this country, and would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars during the coming year to the people who own coasting vessels.
We like to have vessels sailing under the Canadian flag. We are proud of the Canadian flag and we are fighting to maintain it. But we are driving the coast shipping of this country away from the Canadian flag. Every year a number of vessels that were formerly registered under the Canadian flag and owned by Canadians, are driven outside and forced to seek a home somewhere else in order that they may carry on their business. Some sixty coasting vessels from Nova Scotia are registered in Barbadoes because they could not remain under Canadian register and carry on their business or go to these southern ports. Some are registered in the United States. When American registry was opened no less than fourteen Canadian vessels were registered in a short time in the United States, but when the war came the British Government passed a regulation, and the Canadian Government a similar regulation, that Canadian vessels could not be sold or registered in a foreign country during the war. Consquently, that was stopped. Otherwise many of these vessels

sailing under the Canadian flag would have gone under the American flag. That is the condition in regard to coastal shipping. If there is any one in this Government who takes an interest in this matter I wish he would look into it and try and rectify it. I wish we could have something done in regard to it because this is the most important question that is before the Canadian people to-day. The question of the Quebec and Saguenay railway is a small question compared with this. I have no doubt that the expenditure would be small and that if you had a bounty for the first few years, it would not amount to very much. The money we voted a few minutes ago to a worthless property in Quebec would keep the shipyards of this country busy as far as construction is concerned for the next five years and produce a large number of Canadian ships. That would be something big for the Canadian Government to do. I do not know whether they are big enough to do it or not, but at all events I think it is time the Government formulated some policy that would be a credit to themselves and that would promote this great industry which is so important for the future of Canada.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
(Mr. Sinclair) has raised the question as to whether this Government is big enough to do anything to( encourage the shipbuilding industry. That implies that the Government of which he was a follower for many years was not big enough to do anything, because nothing was done. My hon. friend suggests that a bounty for the encouragement of the shipbuilding industry should be provided. The very item of the tariff to which my hon. friend has drawn attention was either inserted at the instance of the late Government, or remained through its term of office, because it is not a new item. The *item that my hon. friend called attention to provides that the materials used in shipbuilding shall be subject to a duty if made in Canada. The object of that provision of the tariff is quite obvious. It is tor the purpose of giving Canadian steel and other manufacturers the business, of supplying the material which may be used in connection with the building of ships. My 'hon. friend has suggested that the duty should be removed. Without passing for the present upon the advisability of such action on the part of the Government, I desire to say to my hon. friend that that would not afford sufficient encouragement for the establishment on a 256
large scale of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. My hon, friend, I think, agrees with me in that, because I understand him to say that that would not be sufficient, but that further steps should be taken. .This matter can be looked at from two points of view: In the first place, from the standpoint of the desirability of establishing upon a large and permanent scale the shipbuilding industry in this country; and, secondly, from the standpoint of providing for the transportation needs of Canada in addition to the ocean tonnage available for carrying Canadian produce to foreign markets. In so far as that is concerned, it is a very important question. I have given very careful consideration to the question of how to establish on a large and permanent scale in Canada the shipbuilding industry. We have coal, we have steel and iron manufactures, and what would seem to be a desirable adjunct to these great industries would be the shipbuilding industry on a large scale.
It is to be pointed out that in the establishment of an industry like the iron and steel industry, or an industry such as the shipbuilding industry, the usual mode of encouragement is by bounty in the first instance. But it has been demonstrated that a bounty in itself is not sufficient unless it is supplemented by a protective tariff. The iron and steel industry has been built up in this country by the granting of a bounty in the first instance, and by a protective tariff, and there we have the case of an industry which has been .established in a large way. But, in so far as the shipbuilding industry is concerned, it does not seem possible to encourage it by a protective duty, because, as I understand the situation-I am not absolutely clear as to this^I am speaking .from memory-there seems to be a difficulty under the Merchant Shipping Act in the way of the Government of Canada giving protection in so far as ships are concerned as it has been able to give protection in so far as manufactured products are concerned.
Great Britain has an enormous advantage over Canada in shipbuilding. There is a labour market that gives her an advantage. I mean to say that labour in normal times is cheaper in the TJnited Kingdom, that capital is cheaper, and, besides, that shipbuilding is an old-established industry. By reason of doing an enormous business, doing the shipbuilding of the world, she is able



to observe economies that would not be possible in a new country embarking upon the shipbuilding industry. The United Kingdom possesses that advantage over Canada in the building of ships. That 'difficulty might be overcome in whole or in part by the granting of a bounty for the protection and encouragement of shipbuilding. My own view would be that such a bounty would have to be one extending over a long period, much longer than has been the case in connection with industries which it is possible to protect by protective duties. Therefore one way of assisting in the establishment of a shipbuilding industry would be by the granting of bounties to get it established, and to maintain it until such period as it would be able to compete with the shipbuilding industry of Great Britain.
There is another .aspect of the matter-and I am only referring to these to show that it is a question that cannot be solved without much patient thought and consideration. In the case of the bounties which were given upon iron and steel, it was provided that they should only apply where the iron and steel was sold for domestic consumption and not to iron and steel exported. The reason is obvious. Foreign Governments would have ground to complain if steel and iron upon which a bounty had been granted in the country of manufacture entered into competition with the same products in the country in which they were sold. A countervailing duty in such a case might be imposed by the Government of the country to which such products were exported. Once a ship is built it may be used for home trade or it may be sold abroad. The result is that the granting of a bounty for the encouragement of shipbuilding, while it might build up a large shipbuilding industry, would not necessarily have the effect of ensuring that the ships so built would be available for the purpose of Canadian trade, for they might be sold to ship-owners of the United States or of some other country.


John Howard Sinclair: You would not favour any restrictions in that respect?


William Thomas White: That is a point for consideration, and personally I shall be glad to have any views that will be helpful in the. solution of this question. I do not see how it would be possible under the bounty system so to fetter the disposition of a ship after it had been built that it could be ensured that that ship would be available for the purposes of Can-

adian trade and would not be sold abroad.
I am the first to admit that the building up of a great Canadian shipbuilding industry is in itself a desirable object, provided we can secure that by the giving of a reasonable bounty, for it does not seem possible to impose protective duties upon ships trading to Canada.
I have been speaking about the desirability of establishing a shipbuilding industry in normal times. As to the present situation, I have talked with many men who are competent to give advice, and whose opinion is worth having upon this question, and it seems perfectly clear that any ship bui'lit at the present time will command a price which will give a handsome profit on the cost of construction. Having regard to the freights that can now be obtained it also seems clear that it would be profitable for any shipbuilder to build a ship at the present time, supposing that the war lasts another year, because the freight,-, that he would earn would largely liquidate the cost of the vessel. But, while what T have stated is correct, it must be borne in mind that at the present time the cost of material is twice or three times as much as normally and there is also a scarcity^ of labour. For these two reasons shipbuilding is exceedingly expensive. My own view is that if at the present time the shipbuilder is not attracted by the high prices which he could obtain for the ship when built, or by the high freights he could obtain when using the ship, he is not likely to be encouraged to build ships by reason of a bounty only. The bounty would have relation to the establishing of a shipbuilding industry looking to the future. So far as the present is concerned the shipbuilder will be largely governed by his view as to the length of the war. These are two aspects of this exceedingly important question.
I much regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in the House to-night,, but he was not aware that this subject would be brought up. I think, however, that the Prime Minister has explained that the matter is under consideration by a subcommittee of the Council, and we hope to go into it thoroughly with a view to considering what policy would best encourage the shipbuilding industry in Canada, and tend to increase the tonnage available for the movement of Canadian produce. It seems clear, as the Prime Minister has said, that the two questions are separable. The building of ships is in itself a great national industry. As to the tonnage available for the moving of Canadian products, one does not like to offer a conjecture as to the

length of the war, but unless the war lasts for a much longer period than most expect, it seems hardly probable that any large ships built at the present time would have any appreciable effect in increasing the ocean-going tonnage.
I have offered these observations rather at random. The problem is one which appeals to every member of the House and will undoubtedly engage the best attention of 'the Government, with a view to the solution of both questions to which I have adverted. As to the question of controlling ships built in Canada, for the purpose of Canadian trade, I was struck by the remarks of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) just now, to the effect that the Government of British Columbia had brought down legislation under which it would make loans up to a certain percentage of the cost of the vessel, and I understood .him to say that there were conditions attached to the loan which would ensure that the ship would 'be available for the carrying of the products of British Columbia. No doubt that legislation had in view the point I touched upon earlier in my remarks, that is, the desirability of coupling the aid with a condition which would make ships subserve the purpose of Canada's export business. I have offered these observations without having given this matter consideration in the expectation that the debate would be brought on to-night; but I can assure the House that the Government is entirely agreed as to the desirability of the establishment of a shipbuilding industry in Canada, and of adding to the fleet which must carry Canadian products to Europe and other countries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is just one observation made by the Minister of Finance which I think should not pass unchallenged. It is difficult for him to make any observations without a political fling; he seems to think that nothing has the proper zest unless it has the leaven of partyism thrown in. He could not say anything about this great national question without a fling at the Liberal party, alleging that they did nothing when they were in power along the line/ of encouraging the shipping industry. In that I must take issue with the Minister of Finance in the sharpest possible way, and point out to him that the policy of the Liberal Administration was to establish shipbuilding plants in this country of the very best 256J
class and on the very largest scale. It is true that the intention of the Liberal party ' was to encourage and commence the building of warships in this country; but if we were capable of building warships, which are of the highest class of vessels afloat, we certainly should be able to build commercial vessels. Once we had the shipyards and plant in this country it would follow as the night the day that when they were not engaged in the building of war vessels they would give their attention to the building of ships of other classes. In that way the policy of the Liberal Government, if carried out, would of necessity have established first class' shipbuilding plants in this country, and not only shipbuilding plants, but drydocks as .well. The drydock policy of the former Administration was a well matured policy and would have been carried out in connection with the other. Every prophecy put forward with regard to that policy, and every excuse1 offered by the present Administration for refusing to carry it out has fallen through. As the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said, it was suggested, for one thing that we had a vacuum under the ground, and so did not know what weight we could safely place upon the land at Montreal, Halifax, St. John or Sydney-that Providence had not propped up the earth enough in v Canada to support a shipbuilding plant-I am surprised that the Minister of Finance seems to have been willing to father these excuses.
As to the part of the Dominion from which I come, there was every prospect of a first class shipbuilding plant being built in Sydney, and nothing took it away except the policy of this Government. Had the policy of the Liberal Administration been carried on, there is not a question but that a shipbuilding plant would have been erected in Sydney. We have in this country an enormous shipping of our own. On the coast of Nova Scotia we have a great coal carrying business from Sydney to Montreal. But we cannot keep the Norwegian ships out of the business until we have ships of our own. We have legislation enough on the Statute books to prevent foreign ships from carrying on our coasting trade, but the Government has seen fit to suspend its provisions from time to time by Order in Council because we have not ships to carry on the business. This is not because we have not the men or the material, if they were properly handled. We have in Nova Scotia the finest sailors in the world, and

I assume that on the Pacific coast our men are almost as good as on the Atlantic coast. But we must have something more than a mere wish to see the business carried on. It is quite unnecessary to point out what has been done by wooden ships. The age oi wooden ships has not altogether passed away. Since the war broke out wooden ships have been built in Nova Scotia and I think it would be worth while to encourage the building of those ships there unless we are able to carry on the building of a larger class of vessels. Had the policy of the former Government been supported, as it should have been, it would have resulted in a vastly different state of affairs from what we have to-day. There is just one observation of a party character and relating to the Minister of Finance which I wish to make. I am glad we have the hon. gentleman with us this evening. But I presume he was very much occupied during this afternoon, last night and yesterday afternoon when the extraordinary financial proposition was before the House from the consideration of which we have just passed. That was an important measure from the point of view of the country's finances, and I am sure we should have been glad to have heard from the minister upon it. When propositions of that kind are before the House he should be on deck.


William Thomas White: Is the hon. gentleman making the statement that I have not been present during the discussion of the .Quebec and Saguenay matter?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have not heard the hon. gentleman's voice upon that subject.


William Thomas White: Because the Bill was in charge of the Minister of Railways. I was in the House yesterday afternoon, and have been here three or four times to-day. The hon.' gentleman is making an absolute mis-statement, and he knows it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know whether it is worth while to take notice of that or not. If the Minister of Finance thinks that that is big enough for him, it is big enough for me. If he thinks that he can stand in his place in this House and say that I am making a false statement and know it, I ean only leave it for the Canadian people, who know us both, to say how large we are.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman made the statement that I was absent from the House last evening and to-day. That statement is incorrect, and I ask him to withdraw it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have nothing to withdraw. I say the Minister of Finance should have taken part in the discussion of this financial question in connection with a railway. By all means he should
11 p.m. have told us where the country was going to get the money, and also how it was going to get value for what it was to give. If he had any knowledge about it, the House was entitled to that knowledge. He did not express an opinion upon the matter, and if he was here it was but for a short time. If he thinks it worth while-


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The Speaker cannot see what connection there is between the remarks of the hon. member for North Cape Breton and of the Minister of Finance and the subject under discussion. I think it would be better for the hon. gentleman to come back to the consideration of the shipping industry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am talking of the shipbuilding industry, and also on the motion that Your Honour leave the Chair. I do not know that there is anything else before the Chair, and I think that on that motion I can talk about anything. I like to talk of the Minister of Finance; he makes a good subject, perhaps the best on that side. Although we do not always see eye to eye, yet generally we get along all right. I am so constituted that when I can get a fling at a good, big man, I am tempted to take it.
I say again to the minister that we had a policy which would establish shipbuilding in this country beyond peradventure, and that hon. gentlemen opposite got hold of that policy and tore it to tatters, not having the courage to carry it forward. Hence we have no policy in regard to shipbuilding to-day. .


Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place with reference to shipbuilding. I must say that if there is any hon. member of this House who should try to dissociate himself from politics when he rises to speak, it is the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) for I have seldom heard him address this House without dealing in pretty bitter partisanship.
In reference to shipbuilding, if I were to make the bold statement that hon. members from the Maritime Provinces do not deserve to have ships built, I think I should be only saying what has been borne out by their own speeches in this House. When

this question was under discussion a few weeks ago hon. gentlemen opposite disagreed among themselves as to the policy under which shipbuilding should take place. One wing of the party opposite wanted ships built under a free trade policy and another wing of the party wanted ships built under a protective policy. What Government under the sun could build ships to suit some hon. gentlemen opposite? As to free trade, of course, all hon. gentlemen opposite are not of the same opinion. The catechism of the hon. member for Assi-niboia (Mr. J. G. Turriff), for instance, is one which is based on free-trade wheat, although he knows well that there is no such thing and can be no such thing so far as Canada is concerned as granting free-trade wheat. Then, the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) wants ships built under a free-trade policy. The Minister of Customs has told the member for Guysborough that most of the articles of iron and steel that enter into the building of ships are admitted free of duty. In the interests of the great iron and steel industries of Nova Scotia, why should such steel as is manufactured in Nova Scotia be admitted into this country free so long as we have a general policy of protection? Why /should we discriminate against that great industry in Nova Scotia, which it 'has cost the Governments of this country a considerable sum of money to put in its present shape? I ask some hon. gentlemen opposite: What encouragement do they give to Canadian manufacturers to launch out upon new industries? What encouragement was given to Canadian manufacturers when they started to manufacture shells for the protection of our own. country? They were derided by hon. gentlemen opposite from one end of the Dominion to the other. How many bon. gentlemen from the lower provinces have engaged in the manufacture of shells or in- the manufacture of anything else, for that matter? If they want ships; if they think that the building of ships would be such a great improvement to their own part o'f the country, why do they not build some? Why do they come to this Government begging them to build ships for them? If -it is a profitable industry, why do they not engage in it themselves? The great trouble with many hon. gentlemen opposite is that they preach too much free trade to encourage any men. to launch into new enterprises. Nobody feels like investing in a new industry when
there is such a strong feeling on the part /Of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to free trade. Let them drop those ideas and join in with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in devising some scheme to encourage shipbuilding in this country. As the Minister of Finance has said tonight, you could not start to do this in a more unfavourable time than the present on account of the enormous cost of the raw material that enters into the manufacture of ships. I think it is time that some hon. gentlemen on the other side should look .at these questions from a different standpoint from that of finding fault with everything the Government does. One hon, .gentleman made the statement that if the Government were to come down with a policy designed to encourage the building of ships, their proposals would meet with the hearty approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. I doubt, however, if the Government could frame a policy to build ships or to do anything else, for that matter, that would meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr.W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton): Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who take a keen interest in the matter of shipbuilding. I am glad to see the subject before the House again, and I hope that the discussion to-night will bear some good fruit. I am sorry to hear the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. William Thoburn) say that members from the Maritime Provinces do not deserve to get shipbuilding down there because in some few details in the matter of shipbuilding we do not agree. Some of us, he says, want ships built undeT free trade, while others want them built under protection. For my part, I do not care under what system, whether protection or free trade, ships are built; what I say is that this Government should do something to encourage shipbuilding in Canada at the present time. The hon. member for North Lanark says also that we on this side of the House are asking the Government to build ships. We are not asking the Government to build ships; we are asking the Government to do something to encourage the people to take up the business of shipbuilding. This Government and every Government in the past have done something towards encouraging industry in Canada. They encourarge industry by building up a tariff to protect certain manufactures-woollens and that kind of thing.

I suppose the hon. member for North Lanark finds no fault with that.
The time has come when the Government should do something to encourage shipbuilding. Some hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House s.ay that any encouragement which might now be given to shipbuilding would not be well advised as to time, because ships which might be built in the neaT future could not be used to make up for the lack of shipping resulting from the present scarcity of ships. Let us look for a moment at that phase of the question. There is going to be a great change in this country after the war. In the first place, .all those who aTe at present engaged in the manufacture of munitions will have lost their means of earning a living. Two things will be affected by that. First, labour will be affected; the people who are at present engaged in the manufacture of munitions will have to look elsewhere' for work in order to support themselves and their families. Secondly, thousands of returned soldiers will come back to this country, many of whom will be able to take their part in the industrial activities of the country. They will be looking for something to do, and they will have to be placed. Another aspect of the case is that a great deal of our iron and steel is being used in the manufacture of shells. All that will be taken away and our steel makers will have to look elsewhere for a market in Canada. Railway construction will not be carried, on in the future on such a large scale as it has been in the past, and there will be no other chance for our steel companies to get a market for their steel.
Taking all these things into consideration, is the time not opportune for this Government to do something, to formulate some plan whereby shipbuilding, steel or wood, .would be encouraged? I think it is.
, The Minister of Finance has said that, if bounties on shipbuilding were given, they .would have to continue for a long period of time. There were people in this country, ,who, 12 or 14 years ago, thought that the steel industry of this country could not be built up within the space of a quarter of a century, that it would have to be bonus sed for that length of time before it could get a standing, first to supply the home market, and then to compete with other Countries in the foreign market. That is not correct. The steel industry of this country began to come into boyhood between ,1900 and 1902. It had reached such a state

in 1910 or 1911 that the Government of this country thought the time was ripe to remove the bounty, and they so acted. ,The bounties were removed, but the steel industry still flourished to a great extent, except in times of stress.
, Sir THOMAS WHITE. At the time the bounties were discontinued there was a protective duty upon steel and iron.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Very moderate.
, Sir THOMAS WHITE:	The point I
made was that bounties on shipbuilding /would have to be continued for an extended .period by reason of the fact that it would not be possible to protect the shipbuilding /industry by a tariff as in the case of the iron and steel industry.
. Mr. CARROLL:	When my hon. friend
.says there was a protective duty on iron .and steel in 1910 and 1911, I rather disagree .There was a duty, but I do not think he .will say it was a protective duty. This .Government did undertake to increase that .tariff to a considerable extent a few years ago. I venture to say that we have not yet ,what would be called a protective duty on jron and steel in this country. But, be that as it may, there is no doubt that had .it not been for the bounty which the late .Government gave on the manufacture of steel in this country, these great industries which has been developed in Ontario and in Nova Scotia in steel-making would not have been as successful as they have shown themselves to be. There were people in those days in my own province who said it would be an impossibility for us to manufacture steel and compete with the great corporations of the United States. Time, and may I say the bounties which were given to these industries in their infancy, have shown that these men were mistaken. I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance say that the Government is giving this question some consideration. I hope that their consideration will have such a result that in a very short time they will have formulated some plan to encourage this industry, which must be a great industry in this country if other industries are to flourish.
Another argument made against encouraging shipbuilding in this country was that in Great Britain shipbuilding was more advantageously carried on than in Canada, I presume from the standpoint of cost. If we pursued that argument we would not be building anything at all in this country;

we would not be building locomotive engines, we would not be manufacturing woollen goods, because I believe there is not one article manufactured in this country to-day that could not be and is not being more advantageously manufactured in Great Britain. I fail to see the strength of the argument that because shipbuilding can be more advantageously performed in Great Britain we should not undertake it in this country. The same argument extends to the manufacture of any other article we can mention. Everybody knows that if we could possibly build ships in Canada to-day it would be a most profitable industry. But let us lay the foundation for shipbuilding in this country, notwithstanding that we are not in normal times. We should lay plans now, if we are to compete in the markets of the world after the war is over; and if we are to take our correct place in commercial business, we must have ships to carry on that business. There are only two ways by which we can get those ships: we must either buy them abroad or build them in this country. Is there a man who calls himself a Canadian who will say that, in the long run, even if he oould buy a ship and pay a thousand dollars less than it could be built for in Canada, it would be more profitable to Canada to buy than to lay the foundation of a great shipbuilding industry in this country? I say that, notwithstanding the fact that you can buy them cheaper in England, it is for us here, representing the people of this country, to lay the foundation, to do everything we can to encourage shipbuilding in this country, so that when the war is over, and even before the war is over, we will have something to lay before the capitalists of this country which will encourage them to put their capital, their time, their ability into shipbuilding within the borders of Canada.
I do not discuss this matter from the standpoint of there being a steel and iron industry in my constituency. I do not care, so far as shipbuilding is concerned, whether steel is allowed to come in free or not. I say. that, in whatever way we get the steel, it will not affect the question in my mind. I believe that there are some parts used in the manufacture of ships that, notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Customs, bear heavy duties. It might be well for the minister to look into that more deeply, and I am sure he will find that the hon. member for
Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is quite correct in saying that a reduction or abolition of duties on certain materials used in shipbuilding might tend to encourage that business. To my humble way of thinking, there is no better plan for building up this industry, or encouraging our moneyed men in this country to take up this work, than by the method of bounties. I do not think it would hurt the faith of our high protectionist friends, because, after all, bounties are the most logical kind of protection, according to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), who is always right in matters of trade policy. Therefore, I do not think that my hon. friends opposite will be, after all, Tunning away from their policy of high protection if they give a substantial bounty to encourage shipbuilding in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do the Government regard this question of assisting the shipbuilding industry as 'coming within the purview of the War Measures Act, or as one on which they could take action by reason of the $250,000,000 vote that is given for certain purposes?


William Thomas White: Very wide powers are given to the Government under the War Measures Act, sufficiently wide, I think, to enable them to deal with a part of the question, if it should be thought expedient to do so. My hon. friend has asked whether any portion of the war vote would be available. I think it would, provided that the action of the Government was connected with the war. or deemed to be a measure taken by reason of the state of hostilities now continuing. But, so far as the matter of granting a bounty is concerned, it would be possible to do it by legislation or by announcement subject to legislation being obtained later. As I stated to my hon. friend, and I think the Prime Minister stated likewise, the matter is under the consideration of the committee of the council, which is charged with the duty of considering the question in all its bearings, that is to say, the bearing it has on the matter of the establishment of a shipbuilding industry, and upon the question of increasing the tonnage available for the carriage of Canadian products.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Department of Public Printing and Stationery -to appoint Frederick Cook Assistant King's Printer and Controller of Stationery, at $4,000 per annum, from July 1, 1915, $3,000.
['We can take that up after we get through with Concurrence.']
Mr. MACNUTT:: 
John Dowsley Reid: 
Thomas MacNutt: That is what they were.


John Dowsley Reid: But if they were imported under the other class, that is under the manufactures of lead, the duty would be 30 per cent. The collector of customs at Winnipeg, evidently made a mistake in the reply which he sent. Of course, ia the interpretation of the various items, mistakes often do occur, in which case they are remedied. As I understand it, the Rumely Company added 30 per cent to the invoice. The goods were imported by the Rumley Company, and they paid the duty to

the Customs and then invoiced the repairs to Mr. D. J. Lowe, HarrowJbv, Manitoba Rumley Bros, are the ones that have put on the invoice the amount of duty they paid. I would .suggest that in a case of this kind Mr. Lowe, without reflecting at all upon the Ru'mleys, could write to the department, or if the hon. member will let me have the invoice on which the 30 per cent w.as charged, our officials will trace that very entry fox the repairs imported by Rumley Bros, and see if the 30 per cent was actually paid. If the Messrs. Rumley paid 30 per cent on these repairs for portable engines, they are entitled to a refund but they .may have imported babbit or bushing for some other purpose and paid the 30 per cent. With the invoice, I think our officials' will be able to trace this entry and get full information. We will take this matter up at once( in the regular way and have it traced up. If a mistake has been made the duty will be refunded. If there is no mistake we Will be able to give a full explanation so that Mr. Lowe will be thoroughly satisfied as to the way in which the matter was dealt with. But we will send the information to the hon. member and he can forward it to Mr. Lowe so that he will see that he has given his attention to it.


Thomas MacNutt: The most important feature is the valuation upon which the duty is applied, that is the retail price at which the article is sold to the customer, Whereas it cannot be possible that the department apply the duty, no matter what the article may be, upon the retail price. It must be upon the wholesale price


John Dowsley Reid: The regulation as to value is this: The duty is paid on the value for home consumption as shown by the invoice at the time the goods are imported into this country. If I understand it, Rumley Bros, went across the line and purchased these things and the price at which he purchased them will be the value fox duty even though it may be the retail price. The duty must be paid on the price that is paid for the goods on the American side at the time the goods are purchased and exported into this country. If Rumley Bros, brought in a carload of parts of engines, or any other goods, whatever they paid for them at tlhe time of export is the value for duty.


Thomas MacNutt: They would have to pay the freight. These Tepairs came from their own 'factory, but in reporting them
they charged more than the factory price and they would have to add the freight. It does not seem possible that the duty was applied on ithe Winnipeg retail price.


John Dowsley Reid: No. I can not explain the matter until I get the full facts. I will send a detailed statement to the hon. gentleman's home within the next two or three weeks so that 'he will thoroughly understand the matter.


Thomas MacNutt: Thank you. >


John Gillanders Turriff: A matter of this kind is a far reaching one. In the three Prairie Provinces the amount paid by the farmers for repairs to machinery will run into many hundreds of thousands of dollars during one season. If it should turn out on the minister's investigation that any company is importing goods and paying duty, as they should, only on the wholesale price, and, when they come to deliver these goods to their customers, charging them-because there is no doubt that the bushings were not brought in as lead-an additional 2i per cent over what they had paid, and in addition charging them on the retail price, they are taking a very considerable amount more out of the farmers than they are entitled to. If the minister finds that that is the case, I think it should be made known not only to my hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt), who brings this matter up, but to farmers generally, so that they may know that they are liable to be overcharged. The matter ought to be looked into.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is absolutely right. It would not only be an injustice to the farmer who is purchasing goods if it should happen to turn out ip that way, but it would be an injustice to the Government if these people were charging a higher amount of duty than that which they really paid. Of course, we cannot come to any conclusion until we know what the real facts are. We will take it for granted that everything has been right until we have the facts before us, and then, if there is anything wrong, it will be remedied no matter who is affected.


Mr. YERVILLE:: If I understand the procedure, a member can bring almost anything to the attention of the House, and I therefore have a few remarks to offer you on what I regard as a subject of importance'. In a letter which I received I have been asked to bring some facts in regard to the city of Montreal to the attention of the

House. The conditions to which I desire to call the attention of the House apply generally throughout the country but more especially in Montreal. I will read a letter, and that will be followed by a report in one of the newspapers which I am also asked to read. The letter is as follows:
Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P.,
Montreal.
Dear Sir:
Having in mind the fact that prorogation is near at hand, we take the liberty of asking you to bring to the knowledge of the House as soon as possible an article that appeared in the Labour 'World, of May 13, which is self explanatory.
We are informed that similar circumstances prevail in other centres throughout the Dominion, but are of the opinion that they are more -pronounced in the city of Montreal.
In view of the fact that there is considerable agitation in certain quarters to promote conscription, which we consider unnecessary, and to which we are emphatically opposed, we feel that arbitrary action in turning down, for minor causes, those who have shown their willingness to do their bit, cannot but tend to discourage voluntary enlistment, and is of such importance as to merit the most serious con-.sideration of those in authority.
,	Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
1 might say that this letter is signed by the president and secretary of the Montreal Trades and Labour Council. I want to read this article in order to have it on Hansard, .and, as the letter says, it explains Itself:
You are "Unfit"-More than 25 p.c. of our recruits are discharged in the Montreal Battalions-What are they aiming at?
Great excitement has been noticed lately amongst the local overseas regiments.
The reason is simple. Many of our volunteers have to pass a second medical examination and the number discharged is' considerable. Some battalions have lost as many as twenty per cent, others twenty-five per cent.
Why are these examinations so rigid? At the beginning a young man who did not enlist at once was called a " slacker." If he listens to the persuasive voice of the recruiting officer he puts his name down and to the office he goes. There, despite his modesty, he is stripped naked and closely examined as to his fitness. Not a detail seems to have been overlooked. He is passed. Off he goes to his duties, happy in the idea that he is serving his country and the civilization incident thereto. Finally, after the various stages of routine, he dons khaki, shoulders his rifle, and is ready to die for his home and country.
Dressed in his uniform he attracts the admiration of his friends, his sisters, and sometimes wives, sweethearts and parents, all in the possession of the proud feeling that he is serving his king. Blessed with native enthusiasm he goes forth a real soldier. He is put through all the drills; he is put on guard duty despite

bad weather ; in fact he serves like all soldiers do in all the exercises, the drills and the marching, bayonet drills and what not. In short, he is ready with eyes straight and tightened lips to brave the trenches of Flanders dreaming of hi? return to his country as a hero having done his duty.
After five or six months of this new life, a new inspection from the doctor is ordered. He cannot understand that this is necessary, having already undergone this experience. However, he goes forward in great confidence because he has to use a vernacular, " been there before." And he is the most surprised man in the world to hear the doctor saying: "You are unfit."
Is it that his anatomy is not fit to be destroyed by a machine gun or shot down by a German sniper? What is the matter? Oh! nothing, except perhaps a crooked toe, or an eye that cannot tell an " O " from an " A " at fifty yards, or may be something less important because he has already passed his examination as quite perfect a few months previously.
Is it the time he has spent in the barracks that has caused this degeneration in body?
Is the first medical examination serious, or is it done just to give reason for a second which is just the contrary? One or the other is a farce.
Take then the life of the soldier. He has no doubt left a position before enlisting; perhaps a good one. Having been discharged as unfit, his certificate may militate against him when applying for a new job, wherein medical examination is necessary. There is every probability that he will be classed by certain people among the " Misfits," or in other words a man who has been discharged from the army because of some misconduct. The poor lad has spent four or five months in a training which is of no use to him and which he will never practice. At the same time he is sore on society and disgusted more or less with himself.
Take then the country itself. It has been paying out useless money; costing as it does more than two dollars a day for a soldier, and this is a very low estimate-the cost amounts to the neat sum of three hundred dollars, which is absolutely thrown away. It must be remembered that we have had, during the last weeks, in Montreal alone, more than five hundred soldiers, volunteers, discharged unfit for service and the money goes from-us, the taxpayers- paid absolutely for nothing.
It is money wasted because either the first medical doctor did not understand his business, or the second one did, as one declared the soldier fit and the other unfit.
Why then is that recruiting does not go ahead more rapidly?
How are you going to get young men to enlist?
Have we too many soldiers that we can afford to dismiss them on the slightest pretext?
Why should it be so easy here when it is so hard in the army of France or Belgium?
Is it made easy so that more opportunities may be given to. the young officers of the city to study " High Life " and remain swelling " around the city." We do not believe it to be so.
On the other hand, we must ask, is it a trick intended to belittle recruiting in the province of Quebec? This province has the finest record for bearing children and will it, at the same time, have the poorest recruitng record?
From another point of view, it may be that

many of our boys are discharged because there are far too many battalions recruiting and in their eagerness almost any one is taken.
We do not know the real reason. Who will tell us?
Next week further questions will be asked.
This article appears in the Labour World, a bilingual paper; it is printed in both French and English, and may contain a few typographical errors. As the writer states, a man has to be almost a cripple before the Belgian or the French army lets him go. Let me give a case that came under my notice last Sunday night. Francq, one of the men who sign this letter from the Montreal Trades and Labour Council, has three sons whom he has given to the country. One left eighteen months ago for Belgium, and has been in charge of a machine gun in the trenches for ten months. He has returned, but will be off again shortly in another regiment. Two other . sons joined the 163rd nearly six months ago. I saw these two men on Sunday night; both had had to leave the army. [DOT]
Mr. PARDEE:: Why?


Alphonse Verville: They were unfit; that is all we know. Now, there are soldiers all over the country guarding bridges and canals and other public works. Why should not these men who are discharged as unfit be allowed to take the place of able-bodied soldiers doing guard duty in Canada, for they surely would be fit enough to guard a canalj or a bridge or anything of that kind? Many of the men discharged as unfit have left good positions; I know some myself who have. Now if they had been to the front, they would have some chance of getting their' old positions back, but the chances are slight when they have been discharged as unfit and have never been overseas. Again in large cities the different provinces have opened employment bureaus for returned soldiers, but these men who have been discharged as unfit are unable to get any work through them because they have not got the necessary papers. This kind of thing is going on in other places in Canada but, as the article says, it is more acute in Montreal, and for the life of me I cannot see why it is allowed to go on. Anyone who understands anything about military affairs knows that thousands of men are required besides those who do the fighting at the front, and many of these young men who have been discharged as unfit are quite capable of doing service at home.
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the Government.
I do not kn<jw whether the practice prevails in other cities, but in Montreal, when a man enlists, he has to pay $10 as a guarantee for his outfit. If he stays six months this amount is refunded, but if he stays only five months and twenty-eight days, it is not. I know one officer who paid $28 for his outfit when he joined the army. He was sent out in different parts of the city to help in the recruiting campaign, and he left part of his outfit at the officers' quarters, thinking it would be quite safe there. A short time ago he was discharged as unfit, and! they told him that if he turned in his outfit they would allow him the $28, althougth he had not been in the army quite six months. When he went to the officers' quarters to get his outfit it had disappeared, and he couldn't find it anywhere. So the authorities said "Well, we shall have to deduct $28 from your pay." And they did so. I do not know what the rules and regulations of the Militia Department are, but I do know that that man is out $28. I do not know whether that is made necessary under the regulations of the Militia Department, but it seems to me there is no reason to put down $10 as a guarantee of any kind. Is it a guarantee of good faith.
I do not know whether it is done throughout Canada or not.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Alphonse Verville: I hope not. If they
do it down home, that is enough. In fact, one place is too many. All this does not go to help recruiting in Montreal, nor will it help it anywhere else. In Montreal they are trying to raise a regiment of mechanics, and I have been asked to give my sanction to some extent to a regiment of that kind. But how can you expect to enlist men when you tell them: " Enlist, and you will not have to go to the war." I told the officer who told me that that he ought to be ashamed of himself. I said: " Do you think the mechanics are cowards? If you go on in that way, I hope you will not get a mechanic in all Canada." As a mechanic ' myself, if I were told that I should enlist because I was not going to the front, I would not take the job; for I am not afraid to go. The article says there are about 500. It may be about 500 more inside of two or three weeks. I know there are any number of young men who have enlisted, having been told: " You might as well enlist; you will never get to the front." If that is the way you are going to swell the number of
Commons
soldiers in order to make up a total of
500.000	men, it would be better to have
250.000	men and have them actually go.
This is probably more important than it
seems at first sight. I know as a fact that it is going to hurt recruiting. I would not go so far as the article does when it says that probably this has been done more in Montreal than elsewhere. I do not see why this should be done in Montreal, because ' the men there are as healthy as those elsewhere. To show what is sometimes done, let me give an instance. An effort is made to get a battalion of shantymen. I know some of these men who were refused because they had flat feet. But I would like to find the doctor who rejected any such men who is man enough to walk all day with these woodsmen. This class of men can stand more hardship than any others in the country. The doctor should have known that the work of these men and the conditions under which it is carried on make it necessary that they should be that way, and they grow that way.	But that does	not say thatthey	would not be	good soldiers.
I,call the attention of the Government to this matter, and I hope they will tell us whether this first examination is false, or whether it is because they had so much per head to examine them, or whether it was to increase the number of men for a show. If this first examination is a farce, I hope the Government will stop it. Let us have a good examination, and those that are not fit to pass, let them not wear a uniform at all.


Mr. ROGERS:: I can understand that if there are many in Montreal who share the view of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve that recruiting might be delayed in that portion of Canada. If the statements he presented are such as he believes, I can see that misunderstandings would arise. It is true, of course, that a certain number of soldiers are rejected by reason of physical defects. But, speaking with a somewhat general knowledge of a great
12 p.m. portion of the Dominion, I can say. that I never heard anything about the matters that have been referred to by my hon. friend. I do not understand that those conditions exist even in Montreal, beyond what has been stated in the paper from which he has read. Hon. members know that the Government have taken every step possible to see that we get the largest possible number of recruits. We 
are putting forth every effort to that end, and probably in no part of Canada are efforts more continuously exerted than in the city of Montreal. I am at a loss to understand the statements made by my fion. friend, because I am satisfied from my knowledge of the administration of the Militia Department that it is not their intention to hamper or reflect upon those who so generously come forward and offer their services either in Montreal- or in any other part of Canada. Not only do they not reflect upon these individuals, hut they appreciate their willingness to offer their services. The statements of my hon. friend will be recorded in Hansard, and I will have them looked into carefully. I cannot understand the statement, for example, with respect to a double examination. One gets the impression from what was read that this applied to recruiting in Montreal particularly. I assure my hon. friend that this is not the case. I know the minds of those responsible for the administration of the Militia Department and their desire to afford every facility for every individual who. comes forward in placing his services at the disposal of the country in this crisis. I can only assure my hon. friend and those responsible for that article that that is the position taken by the Government in regard to securing recruits in all parts of Canada. We have to-day something over
300.000	already recruited, and we are most [DOT] anxious to have the number increased to
500,000. I cannot understand the statements of my hon. friend. However, we will have them looked into closely. I should be very sorry indeed to have the statement as placed on Hansard go to the world and be accepted as a statement of the facts, because so far as my knowledge of the facts goes, the statements are far from correct.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to be compelled to say that my knowledge differs from that of any hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. I have the most positive knowledge that the conditions as set out by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve do exist in other parts of the country.
It is only a short time since the Prime Minister, in making a statement to this House as to the number of enlistments, stated that what he called wastage amounted to over 20,000. I questioned him as to what was meant by the word "wastage " and he said, if I remember correctly, that it meant men who had enlisted and afterwards were discharged as being unfit. Over
20.000	instances of wastage of that charac-

[DOT]ter certainly substantiates very thoroughly what the member for Maisonneuve has said. Besides, I am aware of my own knowledge of the fact that officers, being anxious to fill their battalions quickly, were not particular as to the men they accepted and that when they had filled their battalions they proceeded to follow what they were pleased to call the " weeding-out process." Men who were taken on when they should not have been taken on were subsequently discharged, as I suppose they properly had to be. It was a cruel and unjustifiable thing; it was everything objectionable that my hon. friend has. stated it to be, and the effects must necessarily be as he has stated them-a sense of injustice, because an injustice was certainly done. We must admit, of course, that a man may pass the doctor on his enlistment as being perfectly sound, and afterwards, during the period of training, may develop a weakness that would prove his unfitness, and it would not be wise to take him overseas on active service. There is necessarily and properly a re-examination of soldiers before they leave for overseas to find out whether or not anything has developed. There must always be some wastage because of that second examination and the possibility of weakness developing. But I am prepared to support absolutely of my own knowledge what my hon. friend has placed before the House, as well as what the Prime Minister placed before the House, that officers raising battalions have not always been careful in the interests of the men they enlisted only to take those who they were sure were physically fit. In doing so they have ultimately done an injustice not only to the men, but to the service and to the cause.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I think that possibly the gentlemen who are criticising the Militia Department in connection with this matter are rather severe. Certainly a considerable number of men are finally rejected who pass the medical examination on the first instance, and perhaps properly pass it. The officer who would be responsible would be the medical examiner, and I rather think the suggestion that men unfit for service are passed is a reflection upon the medical profession. After a man has passed his examination and is enrolled as a soldier, many causes might affect his final acceptance. It may be the case that some illness or defect may have escaped the observation of the preliminary examiner or that the physical training may have brought out some incipient disease or weakness. Then, men sometimes develop or betray characteristics which render them unfit fpr service, such as mental defects, quarrelsome dispositions, and so on. Sometimes they turn out to be notorious criminals; sometimes they develop other characteristics which makes it impossible for the officers to get on with them. So that out of the total number enlisted the number that are finally weeded out before the battalions go overseas may not be abnormal after all. I do not think it follows that because a considerable number of these men have been weeded out there has been any prearranged plan of padding or filling up on the occasion of the preliminary enlistment, because I take it that the medical examiner would hardly be influenced by the officers to the extent that he would be induced to pass men who were unfit for medical service. I hardly think that the medical profession would engage in that kind of work. I do not see how they could do it, unless they deliberately disregarded the rules and regulations laid down by the Department of Militia, and if they did that to an appreciable extent we would have to weed out some of the medical men that have been appointed. If I understand the matter correctly, the heads of the battalions are largely responsible for the medical men who are appointed and they are supposed to be men who will do their duty. I take it that on the whole they are performing their duties fairly well.


John Gillanders Turriff: The statement that is
made by the member for Maisonneuve that in certain cases soldiers in Montreal have been obliged to put up $10, and under certain circumstances do not get it back is one that my hon. friend the Minister of Public works, who is leading the House should have investigated at once. It is quite possible that some unscrupulous officer might be doing that without the knowledge of the department. It certainly would have a bad effect, if it became known that this was done without the Government's authority, and I would like to see the matter investigated and a public statement made in regard to it as early as possible.


Robert Rogers: I have already stated that the matter will be taken up in the department to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: Is it a fact that a man
must deposit $10 ivhen he enlists as a guarantee of his uniform?


Mr. KEMP:: Did the hon. member for
Edmonton ever hear of such a thing in Edmonton?


Frank Oliver: I have never heard of it, but the member for Maisonneuve has the statement that in Montreal a deposit is demanded, and I am asking whether that is recognized by the Militia Department?


Albert Edward Kemp: I never heard of it.
Contingent expenses in connection with the voters' lists-further amount required, $25,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have a matter that I
wish to bring to the attention of the House; it is pretty late.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is entitled
to go on; of course, the hour is late, and if it could be done to-morrow we might take it up then.


John Gillanders Turriff: It will take me about
half an hour. I do not want to discuss it on concurrence; it is a time when the House does not want to take up any time in discussion. I would like to, discuss it tomorrow if there is some item to be put through.


Robert Rogers: I was hoping to get
through with all Estimates to-night, if not With Concurrence as well.


John Dowsley Reid: There will be another Estimate to-morrow. We will be going into Supply again, even -if all these Estimates are passed. ,


Robert Rogers: We will see that you have a chance to go on on Estimates to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: There is an item which I want to discuss before the last Militia Estimate passes. I can deal with it either now or to-morrow.


Robert Rogers: There will be an opening to-morrow on Supply.


John Dowsley Reid: We will have an Estimate tomorrow, -and on that hon. members can talk on any department.


George Perry Graham: I wish to refeT to the case of C. C. McNab, of Braeside, who was a telegraph operator, I think, in the employ of a private company, during the Northwest rebellion. He tells me that on *account of disease Which was contracted while rendering service at that time, he became blind and has been blind for many *years. He made -application to the late Government and the Militia Department informed him that after investigation they had decided that as he was not in the employ of t'h-at department they could not deal with his case. I think that -probably, speaking technically, ihe may have no claim upon -the Government, but under

iall the circumstances, as the evidence *seems to point to the substantiation of, his claim that 'he -became -blind on account of [DOT]service to the country, although paid by a private company, -the Government might well consider if he could not -be treated in the same manner as a man who had become maimed or afflicted in the country's service. The then acting minister and my-,self had some correspondence, but we never arrived at any conclusion.


Albert Edward Kemp: I remember the question to which my hon. friend Tefers. I took it up with the deputy minister, who looked over the file and directed my attention to the decision already arrived at. I communicated that to the hon. gentleman. I presume the only way that a matter of that kind could be dealt with would be through a special Estimate, a compassionate -allowance or something of that kind. I shall draw it to the attention of the acting minister, the Prime Minister, and' ask him if he will take it up.


George Perry Graham: I imagine it will have to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, because it is admitted that the Militia Department, as a department, is not especially concerned *with this.
Progress reported.	.


FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1916-17.
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General transmitting further Supplementary Estimates, for the year ending March 31, 1917, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers for the adjournment of the House:
George Perry Graham: What will be the business to-morrow? The report of the committee investigating pensions has to be presented. Does the Government intend introducing legislation based on that report? The Prime Minister rather intimated to me the other day that he thought that might be necessary.


Robert Rogers: My understanding of the matter is that legislation will not be necessary to carry out the recommendations of the committee; they can be carried out under the Militia Act.


George Perry Graham: Can the hon. gentleman tell me if any conclusion has been arrived

at as to prorogation-what the Government's idea is as to the time when we can prorogue?	*


Robert Rogers: I think we ought to get through the business very easily to-morrow. We could then prorogue on Thursday at the latest. I was in hopes that we would get through in time to prorogue to-morrow night. If we had got through Concurrence this evening, we could have prorogued to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: The Senate has to deal with all these matters.


Robert Rogers: We have to give them some time, and that is why I hoped to have Concurrence to-night. The Senate meets at 11 o'clock in the morning, and we will be able to hand them over some business.
They 'have some business to take up, and they wlil have the Bill that was passed to-day. That no dou'bt will receive some consideration, and by the time they are through" with it, we will probably be able to present them with Concurrence.


George Perry Graham: I suppose Supply will be the first business to-morrow, in order to get the Supply Bill to the Senate before we take up pensions..


Robert Rogers: We can take that up after we get through with Concurrence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.33 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 17, 1916.