1917-08-29

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)
minister of customs.

Mt. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has a proclamation been issued under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, calling together the County Court Judges of Manitoba to define and establish polling districts in that province?
2.	If so, what is the date of such proclamation?
3.	On what date do the said judges meet?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	By statute, they are required to meet between the 1st of July and the 15th of August in each year.


DR. ALFRED THOMPSON, M.P.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is Dr. Alfred Thompson, M.P., a member of, or employed by, the Military Hospitals Commission?
2.	If so, what is the date of his appointment, and what salary and allowance is paid to him?
3.	What is the total amount received by him since the date of his appointment?
4.	If not so employed, what position does he hold, when was he appointed, what is his salary and allowance, and what is the total amount of each paid to him to date?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes. Employed by the Military Hospitals Commission.
2.	15th April, 1916. Pay and allowances, $7.50 per diem.
3.	$3,547.50 to 31st July, 1917.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
THE 122nd BATTALION, C.E.F.


Mr. WEBSTER:: 1.	Who was the officer commanding the 122nd Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	What amounts were paid to such officers up to date of sailing overseas, for pay and allowance, travelling and other expenses, and separation allowance, respectively?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Lieutenant Colonel D. M. Grant.
2.	Pay and allowances, $3,737.25; travelling expenses, etc., $14; separation allowance, $1,140.


FIREARMS IN QUEBEC CITY HARDWARE STORES.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1. Is the Government aware that on the 23rd instant a press despatch was sent out to the effect that all local hardware dealers in the
city of Quebec who keep in stock revolvers, rifles and ammunition, had been ordered by the Federal authorities to immediately report on the number of firearms and the quantities of ammunition in store?
2.	Did such despatch correctly describe action that has been taken by, or on behalf of, the Government?
3.	If so, have hardware dealers elsewhere than in the city or province of Quebec been asked for a similar report?
4.	If they have not been so asked, why the discrimination ?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1 and 2. No.
3	and 4. Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


RELEASE OF THOMAS KELLY.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved:: 
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: In accordance with a well established practice it will be quite impossible to con-, sent to the production of the papers as they are asked for here. From time immemorial, at all events since the enactment of the Ticket-of-leave Act, it has been the rule to treat documents of this nature as confidential. I shall be very glad to bring down all the documents that are usually brought down in such a case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will leave it to the minister to bring down what documents ihe thinks can be produced.
Motion stands.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing copies of all accounts, memoranda, vouchers, telegrams, letters, etc., in reference to payments to George H. Boyce, of Windsor, N.S., District Foreman of Public Works Department, since his appointment to office.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a return showing the amount paid the James Simmonds Company, Ltd., Halifax, since 1911, by the various departments of the Government.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: It is provided by
subsection 3 of section 6 of the Military Service Act that each local tri-

burial shall consist of two members, one member to be appointed by a Board of Selection to be established by joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons, and the other member to be appointed by the authority indicated in the same section. As was stated in the early discussion of that Bill, it is thought desirable that one half the members of the Board of Selection should be named by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The number proposed, as to which I am quite willing to receive suggestions, is: 4 for Ontario, 4 for Quebec, 2 for each of the other seven provinces, and 2 for the Yukon, making a total of 24 members for the Board of Selection. We cannot very well appoint a smaller number than two for any province, or even for the Yukon, because I desire that my right hon. friend should have the opportunity of naming one half of the members of the board. If my right hon. friend would be good enough to give me his recommendations, I should be glad to adopt them.
Et. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER having risen to speak, he was interrupted by a message from the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General.


THE ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieut.-Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate:
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that the Honourable Lyman Poore Duff, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
An Act for the relief of Rozilla Lamb.
An Act for the relief of John Newton Salter. An Act to incorporate The North American Accident Insurance Company.
An Act to amend The Fisheries: Act, 1914.
An Act to amend The Saint John and Quebec Railway Act, 1916.
An Act to amend the Interest Act.
An Act for the relief of William Henry Bishop. An Act to incorporate The Canadian Division of the Aerial League of the British Empire.
An Act respecting a certain Convention between His Majesty and the United States of America for the protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States.

An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Exchequer Court Act.
Bill 83, An Act relating to The Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Bill E2, An Act to incorporate Canadian Good Roads Association.
An Act respecting The Montreal Central Terminal Company.
An Act to incorporate The English Valley and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Boards of Trade Act.
An Act to assist Returned Soldiers in settling upon the Land and to increase Agricultural production.
An Act to incorporate The Cascade Scenic Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Customs Act.
An Act respecting Military Service.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (respecting jurors).
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.

[Stage Direction]
The business of the House, interrupted by the messenger from the Deputy of the Governor General, was resumed.
Right Hon.   S@: When I was interrupted by the messenger from the Senate, I was just about asking my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) if he would kindly repeat the numbers from each province on the board which he proposed should be appointed by the House of Commons.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: What I had in mind was to appoint a board of 24 members, of whom 4 should be selected from the province of Ontario, 4 from the province of Quebec, 2 from each of the other seven provinces and 2 from the Yukon, making 24 altogether. As to the_ number, I have an open mind. That is what I wduld suggest. I desire to have half of them in each province and in the Yukon appointed upon the nomination or recommendation of my right hon. friend.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The House will not be surprised if I say at once that I find myself in rather a delicate position. It is not in accordance with constitutional usage that a member should assist in any organization in connection with a measure of which he does not approve. The House knows the position I have taken on this Bill. I do not approve of it. At the same time I would say that upon this side of the House, as everybody knows, my opinion is not entertained by all the members of the Opposition. There are members on this

side of the House who approve of my policy and there are others who do not approve of it. But the Bill is of such importance that I consider that, whether we approve or do not approve of the measure, it having now become law with the sanction of His Excellency the Governor General, it behooves us all as British subjects to see that it is carried out as harmoniously as possible. Under such circumstances I deem it my duty to accept the invitation of my right hon,. friend. It will be m,y duty to consult on. this side of the House both those who approve and those who do not approve of the Bill, and I shall communicate the result to my right hon. friend as soon as possible.


HIGH COST OF LIVING-ALLEGED PROFIT ON FLOUR.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: A few days ago my right hon. friend the Prime Minister mentioned that on account of the increased cost of living, it was the intention of the Government immediately after prorogation to take up the question of granting an increased percentage to soldiers as pensions. In this morning's Citizen I observe on the first page an item to this effect:
Port Arthur, Ont., Aug-. 28.-Speaking before the Fort William Board of Trade, N. M. Patterson, prominent grain man and elevator operator, made the statement that the milling companies were getting about five dollars' profit on every barrel of flour.
We hear a good deal these days about the food controller making regulations, delivering speeches, attending public functions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Charles Murphy: I purpose asking a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is pursuing a very devious road to arrive at his question.


Charles Murphy: I have finished my
travels and I am going to ask my question. I desire to know, in view of this circumstance, whether the Government has made any arrangement with the food controller or whether that gentleman himself is going tc take action to reduce prices.


Robert Laird Borden: The food controller already has taken action along several lines. I have no doubt that his attention will be directed- to the item to which my hon. friend Tefers and that he will take
whatever action -may be deemed advisable in regard to it.


Charles Murphy: He has not done anything that I have heard of to reduce prices-.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. KNOWLES.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Saturday last I advocated the principle that members of the Board of Railway Commissioners should not accept personal favours from railway companies. Referring to this, the Toronto Telegram of yesterdky has some observations, and I desire to correct the false impression that may be created by them. On page 2 of the editorial column I find the following:
About the only word of size and usefulness in the many utterances of Mr. Knowles was a well-timed protest against the iniquity of permitting Canada's Railway Commissioners to travel in private cars as the guests of the railways. The chairman of the Dominion Railway Commission travels in a private car.
The impression created by that editorial would be to associate the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners with my remarks. I have never heard that he has accepted any personal favours from railway companies, and I had no reference to him whatever personally. I was referring to the general principle without making any reference to the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. A perusal of my remarks in Hansard will show them to be quite consistent with the explanation I give now.



COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John): Has the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) any further statement to make in regard to arrangements for transportation of -anthracite coal from the mines to the ports of St. John and Halifax? The -season is rapidly passing, winter will soon be upon us, and I know the matter is one of very great interest to the people of St. John. The prices of coal are very high, indeed, reaching $15 per ton, and if anything is going to be done it should be done right off.
['The hon. gentleman from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) raised the ques-', "tion, and the Prime Minister said he would obtain an answer.\nItem concurred in.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN:: I have no further statement to make at the present moment to the House. The matter was taken up for consideration between the fuel controller, the deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries

and representatives of the coal interests of the Maritime Provinces at a meeting which was held at the city of Montreal a few days ago, the day previous to my making a statement on the subject in the House. On the day that I made the statement I gave instructions to the deputy minister to the effect that I was prepared, if the coal dealers could get the coal, to authorize the requisitioning of schooners to bring coal to Maritime Province ports, such as St. John, Halifax, Charlottetown and other ports at rates that would be very considerably less than the rates which are now being charged. Six dollars per ton to St. John and $7 per ton to Charlottetown are the rates, I understand, that are being charged by the schooners at the present time. I do not know how much further the people interested in the coal trade and the fuel controller have got with the matter. I have no further statement to make to the House to-day.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. COPP:: In view of the statement made by the hon. the Finance Minister the other day with regard to $50,000,000 being asked by the Government for the purchase of agricultural supplies, including hay, for the Imperial Government, I would like to know if arrangements have been made for the purchase of hay, and if so, where it is to be purchased and how?


Mr. BURRELL:: The Imperial Government is not purchasing hay at the present time.


THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Doherty for the Third Reading of Bill 127, the Military Voters' Act, 1917.
Mr. GRAHAM:: I have already had a good many inquiries from men at the front for copies of this Bill. More than the usual number of copies will undoubtedly be required.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite appreciate that. It will be necessary that a very large number should be supplied. It is most important that the people of the country generally, as well as the men at the front, should know its provisions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the Minister of Justice explain succinctly the amendment relating to soldiers who come from the United States? There is a distinction; some will vote in the constituency of their origin or where they last resided in Canada. If the minister would explain, in two words, the meaning of this amendment it would be an advantage as there are many inquiries about it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In connection with the officers who will be appointed in England for the carrying out of the terms of this Bill, I wish to point out to the minister that, in an election trial in 1914, certain men in Nova Scotia were found guilty of bribery !by one of the judges of the Supreme Court. Some of those men, who were disqualified by the judge and whose names will be found in the decision, a copy of which I shall furnish to the minister privately, have since been made officers and are members of the force in Great Britain. It would be most improper that these men should have any connection with the holding of the election, and I would suggest that no man should be appointed to any office in connection with the carrying out of this Bill who has been found guilty of corrupt practices by a judge of the Supreme Court.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be better to postpone this order for to-day? We were not prepared for it.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is perfectly right. I had heard that there was an intimation from the other side of the House that there was an objection to the Bill being taken up to-day. It was taken up under a misapprehension, and I move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in concurrence on certain resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply.
Item 99. Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital. Hudson Bay Railway- Construction of railway, terminals and elevator, $3,000,000.
Mr. PUlGSLEY:	Here is an item of
$3,000,000 for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Notwithstanding the importance of that road in the development of our western country, I doubt very much whether in these war times it is desirable

to continue this very large expenditure. I have read the report of the commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the whole question of the railways of Canada, and I notice that, in reviewing the situation, they report very strongly that the expenditure for the Hudson Bay railway should he reduced to the lowest possible limit. I think the Government should take that recommendation into consideration. The financial situation of Canada is growing worse every day. The Finance Minister has already informed the House that the very last loan which he negotiated cost this country upwards of eight per cent per annum, which, even only a few months ago, was considered a very large rate for a private individual to pay. The Government are today confronted with the fact that we cannot go into the money market of either the United States or Canada, and borrow at less than eight per cent. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that this resolution ought not to. be concurred in, but that it should be sent back to the Committee of Supply for the purpose of considering whether this very large sum of money for the Hudson Bay railway should be expended. The matter is of very great importance, and this is only one item out of many. The Government is spending very large amounts of money and does not seem to realize the financial condition which confronts Canada to-day. We are spending money in connection with works at various times which might well be permitted to stand over. There is no immediate necessity in these war times for continuing the work so rapidly on the Hudson Bay railway. Before the road can toe of any advantage, and before it can carry on the work of shipment of grain and cattle from the Northwest there will have to be an expenditure amounting to probably twenty or twenty-five million dollars in connection with the terminals of the railway; and there will have to be steamship lines, and wharf and other accommodations, all of which can very well wait until the war is- over. I ask my hon. friend whether he should ask concurrence of the House in these resolutions, or whether he should not send the matter back to the Committee of Supply and have this item greatly reduced.
Mr. NESBITT:: I was not in the House when this item was passed in Supply, and I rise to endorse what the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has said. I think it is a great pity to spend $3,000,000 on the Hudson Bay Railway this year. I am quite
sure the Minister of Finance realizes what the country is up against, in the way of expenditure, if nobody else does, as the hon. minister has to find the money for these expenditures. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is quite right in drawing attention to the recent loan Canada has made. The rate of interest is very high.
I believe the rate is. as good as can be obtained, perhaps, but, at the same time, it makes us realize the condition we are confronting. This expenditure, in my judgment, is absolutely unnecessary, particularly in view of the fact that we are now taking over, practically speaking, a transcontinental road which will be owned by the Government, if not entirely operated under their supervision. This road to Hudson Bay is completed to a certain extent, I suppose. I think it is a great pity the minister did not take the rails from this road, instead of obtaining them from some other roads, and send them to France when rails were required. I appeal to the Government to save this expenditure this year, if possible. We have to make provision for all the absolutely necessary expenditures and should not go into one that is absolutely unnecessary. I do not think any human being can show any reason why it is necessary at the present time, nor, so far as we can see. for the future. If we had the means, and were not at war, there would not be eo much said against it. Still, it is always wrong to spend money unnecessarily, and, in my judgment, this expenditure is particularly wrong. I hope, even though this item has been passed in Committee of Supply, that the minister will see his way to referring it back to the committee and striking out as much of it as he possibly can.


Mr. COCHRANE:: It is impossible for me to do as the hon. gentleman from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) wants me to do in this respect. Last fall we made a contract for the building of a very large bridge across the Nelson river, and that bridge is under construction at the present time, and it will take another month, perhaps, to finish, before we will be able to pull out. We do not propose to go on with the works down at Nelson any further, and we will let them stand. But we must have a portion of this money, in order to pay for what we have undertaken.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What portion is required for the bridge this year?


Francis Cochrane: About $350,000.
5088	COMMONS
-_____________________ *


William Pugsley: That is only a tenth of the vote.


Francis Cochrane: That does not matter. We do not need to spend it, even if we pass it.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The answer which is continually given the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, when a reduction of expenditure is suggested, is that the Government do not need to spend the money simply because it is voted. If they do not need to spend the money, they do not need to vote it. That seems to be a very ready answer to that argument. When the Minister of Finance talks to the people of this country about economy in their personal expenditure, one sits aghast when he observes the reckless manner in which the country is rushing into debt and extravagant expenditure, and into taxation which will become of a most serious character day by day, on account of the necessary obligations incurred in the conduct of the war. In view of the manner in which my hon. friend has dealt with these matters, he cannot expect the people to listen to his appeals for the exercise of economy. We are asked by the Government to vote a total estimated expenditure of $254,014,238.29, of which the statutory expenditure amounts to $74,000,000, in round figures. The item for interest on public debt amounts to $57,720,000. The country has been asked to respond to the special impositions made upon them, on the ground, forsooth, they are necessary for the war. Instead of coming to Parliament and saying: Give us this money; if we do not need to expend it, we do not have to, my hon. friend himself should give the people a lead by practising economy. In his public financing my hon. friend disregards the very first essentials of economy. For instance, take the ridiculous votes for the Quebec and Saguenay for the purpose of carrying out private arrangements with private parties; the unnecessary expenditures for the extension of railways, which hon. gentlemen know cannot possibly be made use of until the war is over; votes for telephone expenditures in British Columbia intended for election purposes. When hon. gentlemen talk about patriotism and economy and at the same time practise the very reverse, they can hardly expect the people of the country to take them seriously. The matter to which the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) referred is an illustration. Even if the Hudson Bayrailway were completed to-morrow, it would 
be absolutely impossible to get a single vessel to go to Hudson bay for years to come. The transportation services of the country have been so impaired that ordinary products cannot be transported across the ocean; in the Maritime Provinces we cannot get coal from Boston: Gentlemen who live in the centre of Canada, who have the advantage of transportation by rail, have no idea of the conditions that prevail in connection with marine and transportation, particularly in the Maritime Provinces. The expenditure referred to by the member for St. John would, therefore, be absolutely nugatory for years to come, even if the Hudson Bay railway were soon completed to Port Nelson.
The people submit willingly to taxation ti'.aL is necessary for the purpose of maintaining our part in the war, but they object to giving out of their incomes and out of their profits money that is diverted by the Government to unnecessary works that could well be postponed until these larger problems are settled. I pointed out the other day, when dealing with this question, the debt which rests upon Canada- a debt- which is the result of the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to railway and other problems. That debt now amounts to $2,000,000,000, with another quarter of a billion in addition, upon which interest has to be paid. Is there to be no end to this riot of expenditure and extravagance? When the wrar is over, is our financial condition to be such that no man will venture to come to this land of hope and promise because of the tremendous burden placed upon the country by the reckless mismanagement of this Government during the last five years? If the men who come to Canada must pay an impost greater than that which he would have to pay in almost every other country, greater than which he would have to pay in any other part of North
4	p.m. America, what is the use of hon.
gentlemen prattling about the flow of immigration to Canada? If present conditions continue, we cannot look forward with any degree of confidence to Canada's re-establishing herself when the war is over. When the Government are asked why they do not implement their promises to the people, they say: Oh, we do not want to spend the money; yet when they are given the right to spend money, they do spend it. The Government should say to the country: we will not ask a single dollar from the people; we will not ask Parliament to vote a single cent, unless the

money is absolutely essential for the carrying on of the affairs of the country. The moment they go beyond that, the moment they take upon themselves the power to use money that is not absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the country's affairs, that moment they become extravagant; that moment they become criminally responsible for the financial position which is rapidly coming upon Canada. To-day there is only one financial market in the world to which Canada can go for financial aid. To that country the Finance Minister has gone for money and has been compelled to make a loan at a rate of interest and subject to charges greater than ever before. We are making a daily expenditure of $850,000 on the war, and when the Minister of Finance goes to the United States for another loan the bankers to whom he submits his claim for credit will not be insensible of the financial position of this country and of the record of the Finance Minister in respect of expenditures both ordinary and special. He will not be able to get another loan on the terms upon which he got the last one; he will have to pay more interest, more commission, more deductions than those which obtained in respect of the last one.
Hon. gentlemen are not honest with the people of this country when, after imposing taxation for the purposes of the war, they divert the money to building unnecessary works like the Hudson Bay Railway, or give it to Sir Rodolphe Forget in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, or spend it on some of these other items in the Estimates which are of a very extravagant and unnecessary character. If the House agrees to the proposal submitted by the Minister of Railways and votes $3,667,745 for the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, will the Minister of Finance deny that every dollar of that amount was taken from the pockets of the people of this country under the guise of taxation which was necessary to carry on the war? What possible right has this or any other government to divert money obtained from the people for war purposes, to an unnecessary work such as the one I have mentioned, or the one to which my hon. friend from St. John referred? Of what use is it to appeal to the patriotism of our people when they see that the money that has been taken from them under the guise of being necessary for war purposes is being absolutely diverted without any justification whatever to these various items involving expenditures which are absolutely unnecessary, and which in a great many cases show a reckless disregard of conditions in this country at the present time. Is there any limit to hypocrisy in this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What do my ^ hon. friends mean by saying "hear, hear"?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: You will find out in a few minutes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister smiles, but I defy him to deny that the money he is giving to Sir Rodolphe Forget was obtained from the people of this country under the guise of war taxation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Thomas White: The reason hon. gentlemen on this side of the House said "hear, hear," was because we agreed with the hon. member that there was no limit to hypocrisy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement I have just made in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay railway-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The motion before the Chair is that a resolution of Friday, July 13, shall be concurred in. That resolution contains no reference to the Quebec and Saguenay railway, and therefore it is not in order for the hon. member to discuss that matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure, Sir, that on reflection you will not say that I have not the right to present reasons why it is not in the interests of this- country that this motion should be concurred in, in view of the present financial condition of the country and the demands which have been made upon the treasury in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay railway and other matters.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is, of course, competent for the hon, member to refer to the Quebec and Saguenay railway by way of illustration, but he should not enter into a discussion on it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not done so. I was simply referring to it in connection with other items in the Estimates, to show that the Government were improperly diverting money that had been obtained under the guise of war taxation, and I said they had no right to do that. That is why I asked, is there a limit to hypocrisy? Hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about winning the war and bearing the burdens of it, raise money from the people of this country os-

tcnsibly to carry on the war, and then hand it out to political favourites. [DOT] Day by day the people of this country are realizing more clearly that the money that was obtained from them for war purposes is being diverted to works which could very well wait until after the war. My hon.. friend will tell us that certain works must be carried on during the war. The Minister of Railways says that he has made a contract for building a bridge, and the Minister of Finance and other hon. ministers will have equally specious reasons why the other items should be concurred in. Look, for instance, at the items for the Public Works Department on pages 15 and 16 of the Supplementary Estimates. Does the Minister of Finance mean to say that it will help win the war if those items are voted9 Does he mean to say that this Government have any right to divert to these items the money that was obtained for war purposes? My hon. friend knows the financial condition of this country at the present time. He has complained pub-blicly of the .burden that has been placed upon him, as Minister of Finance, in dealing with these questions. We all know that his task is a serious one. It may be that my hon. friend does not sit tightly enough upon the treasury of this country. He is perhaps too ready to yield to the solicitations and other methods adopted by his colleagues when they desire expenditures to be made. I think my hon. friend's serious appreciation of the financial condition of this country-and he must have a serious appreciation of it because he knows the facts-is sometimes weakened by the importunities of the hon. gentlemen who are associated with him. But if that is so, it is no excuse or justification whatever for the minister. There should be no expenditures in this country whatever except upon works that are absolutely essential. Not a dollar should be spent on works involving commitments for the future. As my hon. friend beside me has pointed out, the contract for the bridge referred to by the Minister of Railways was let last year, during war time, with a full knowledge of our financial conditions.
What is the condition to-day in this country? The munition workers are being laid off. One of the greatest sources of revenue that the Minister of Finance has, namely, the customs, is being struck off because of the lessened demand for the raw materials and machines necessary in the production of munitions, and on which duty would have to be paid to the treasury. The plain 
people of this country, who have this source of income stopped, are nevertheless compelled to submit to the various forms of taxation imposed upon them by hon. gentlemen opposite. Does my hon. friend mean to say that under those circumstances the money of the people should be used for any other purpose except to maintain ordinary conditions in this country? My hon. friend must get down to that basis, for that is the only proper basis in these times. To say that, notwithstanding the financial condition of the country, we should vote large sums of money to hon. gentlemen and leave them to decide whether the money shall be spent or not, is absolutely improper. If an item in the Estimates cannot be absolutely justified as being necessary at the moment, it should not be voted by Parliament, but should be struck out.
Mr. I<EMIEUX: The conduct of the Government, so far as commissions are concerned, reminds me of that famous saying of a great orator during the French Revolution : that the Revolution was not unlike Saturn devouring his own children. Tihe Minister of Finance, the watchdog of the treasury, is improperly diverting the revenues of this country at a tremendous rate. Look at the number of commissions that have been appointed by this Government to investigate almost every subject. The latest important commission to be appointed was the Drayton-Acworth-Smith 'Commission. And the Govern merit ignores its conclusions. The Government appointed the best men in Canada, the United States and Great Britain, to investigate the railway situation here. I find in the report of this commission-the Drayton-Acworth report-quite an instructive statement in regard to the Hudson Bay railway, which we are now discussing. At page 82 they say:
We undeistand that construction work on the Hudson Bay line has been suspended. We think that the work should not in any case be recommenced till more urgent needs have been met and money is more easily procurable. And if work on the line is begun again, we think it should be done in the most economical manner possible, and only up to the standard of a local line, bearing in mind that it cannot be expected for many years to come to be self-supporting. Considering the small advantage in rail mileage from the grain-growing areas, which the Hudson Bay possesses over the existing routes to Port Arthur, and that from many districts it possesses no advantage at all; considering further the short and uncertain period of navigation in the bay, and that grain consigned to Port Nelson will consequently always be liable to be detained there for nine months till navigation is again opened; considering that

higher ocean freights may be expected to absorb, if not more than absorb, any possible' saving in rail rates, we cannot believe that this route will ever secure any serious share in the export trade. Still less can we think that it wiil handle an important business. Unless considerable mineral wealth should be discovered in the territory which this line will open up, it must, we fear, continue to be almost indefinitely a burden upon the people of Canada. And everything that can be done should be done to make this burden as small as possible.
At the -end of their recommendations, 1 find the following words:
We recommend that future expenditures on the Hudson Bay Railway be reduced to the lowest possible amount.
I am surprised to find in the Estimates such a large item as $3,000,000 for the railway terminals and elevator at Hudson bay.
I know the answer of the Minister of Finance will be that the railway was started under the regime which preceded his, but that is not an answer; it is a poor excuse. We must not forget that we are at war, and that the bulk of the expenditures are voted, or should be voted, for war purposes. When I see such a large item as $3,000,000 for an enterprise which is looked upon by the royal commission appointed by the Government as a burden on which but a minimum should be expended, I consider the Government is reckless and should not be given an opportunity of spending the money in this way, when it is so much needed elsewhere. When war wa3 declared, the right hon. leader of the Opposition uttered some words of wisdom which should have been of benefit to the Government. Speaking in the House of Commons, he said:
I submit with all deference to the judgment of the free people that economy and retrenchment, not more taxation and more expenditure, is the proper policy under present conditions.
One has only to look at the bulky Estimates which have been laid on the table of the House session after session to come to the conclusion that the Government is absolutely money-blind, so far as concerns the question of expenditure. The words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he sat in Opposition, are still ringing in our ears. In those days, when Mr. Fielding, our very able Minister of Finance under the Laurier Government, would come with Supplementary Estimates ranging from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000, there was a storm of protest from the Opposition benches, led by my hon. friend (Sir George Foster). This year, when we have been bled white by all kinds of taxation measures
in order to meet the war contingencies, the Government comes first with Estimates far above those which have been heretofore presented to the House, and then, during the last days of the session, they come with Supplementary Estimates of more than $50,000,000. I say it is scandalous conduct on the part of the Minister of Finance; he has no regard for the taxpayers of this country.
I know one thing: if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) had his own will, had his own say, in this matter he would cut out this $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay Tailway and this other item of $3,000,000 for the Quebec and Saguenay railway. We know the hon. gentleman. We all admit, Mr. Speaker, that he has given a fair administration of the Intercolonial railway to the people of Canada. He has been able to resist his own friends on the other side of the House in their attempts to raid the treasury. But, Sir, the Minister of Finance has been dabbling in millions and millions. He belongs to the Toronto school, the school of Sir Byron Walker, of Sir Joseph Flavelle, and others. They are accustomed to dabble in millions and millions, and while my hon. friend has transferred his activities to the Dominion, he continues their methods. He is money blind. He does not seem to know the value of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are to him what a few dollars are to humble mortals like you, Mr. Speaker, and myself. Let us remember the words of his leader, who was then in opposition. In 1911, when the hon. gentleman joined the merry-go-round of the Tory party, his leader, speaking in Toronto, used the following words:
The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure of from $36,000,000 in 1896 to $79,000,000 in 1910 is proof of extravagance beyond any possible defence and establishes a prima facie case of corruption.
This was published in the manifesto of the leader of the Opposition in 1911. The increase referred to by the then leader of the Opposition was at the rate of $4,000,000 a year. What, then, is there to be said of an increase of from $98,000,000, in 1911-12, to $135,000,000 in 1914-15, or at the rate of over $12,000,000 a year? If there was corruption with an increase in expenditure of $4,000,000 a year, surely there is extra corruption in an expenditure which has increased at the rate of $12,000,000 a year. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who was very vitriolic in his denunciations of the Liberal


Mr. OLIVER:: Mr. Chairman, while I am quite ready to agree with a great deal that has been said by my hoe. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Lemieux), and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House, {here are certain facts in connection with this Hudson Bay enterprise that, although they have already been discussed, it is necessary to repeat on this occasion so that there shall not he any misunderstanding with regard to the project. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, this particular Hudson Bay enterprise stands in a somewhat different position from a number of other projects that have been compared to it. There is no relation whatever between the Hudson Bay enterprise and the Quebec and Saguenay purchase. The Hudson Bay railway enterprise was inaugurated as a practical matter,
I think, in 1910-that is more that seven years aigo-and it has heen in process of being carried forward ever since as a matter of Government policy to which both parties

. were committed. As far as I know, it has not heen made the subject of adverse public criticism in its administration or execution up to the present time. That is not the position at all with regard to the Quebec and Saguenay enterprise, which I am not discussing at the moment but which had its inception before the House a year ago. One great difference between these two eases is that the Hudson Bay railway enterprise was 'started and was well under way before war conditions occurred. The Quebec and Saguenay enterprise was entered upon long after war conditions had occurred. Therefore, the two matters are not at all in the same class. I recall some criticism of the Hudson Bay enterprise, made, I think, by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). One of his criticisms was* that owing to the shortage of shipping it would not be possible to make effective use ,of the Hudson Bay Railway terminal as it was not possible to adequately supply the present ports of Canada with shipping.
There is another feature of this case, however, that I think is worthy of some attention. Canada has practically only two ocean ports. It has three ocean ports, but for the purpose of my argument the two winter ports are as one. It is possible to blockade the ports of Canada as they stand at present with a minimum of difficulty.- There is no other country in the world which depends for its. ocean outlet on only one port, and that port under such conditions as to line of travel, as Canada in the case of the port of Montreal. The smallest possible naval effort could blockade Canada's trade during the summer months, and only a little greater expenditure of naval effort could blockade Canada's winter trade from the ports of Halifax and St. John. I submit that under those circumstances it is important to this Dominion of Canada, especially in time of war, that we should have another Atlantic port so situated as not to be subject to blockade by the naval forces that could blockade our present Atlantic ports. There is no doubt that -the sea route from the Hudson Bay port is so different and is under such different conditions from the ports of Montreal and Halifax that it offers, in some measure, a means of safety for the traffic of Canada in time of war during the period that the route i-s open. That is well worthy the consideration of the Government of Canada and well worthy of expemdi-ti:re in- order to make the route available for trade.

I have said before, and I am quite willing to agree now, that if, since the outbreak of the war, it had been the policy of Canada to restrict all public works expenditures with a view of concentrating her financial strength in carrying the burden of the war, it would have been quite proper, and I do not think there is a man in Western Canada who would not have agreed that all work on the Hudson Bay railway, although even at that time a very considerable expenditure had been made and considerable progress had occurred, should be abandoned. But that was not the policy of the Government of that day and it was not the policy of Parliament; expenditures on an enormous scale were going on in various parts of the country, and the Hudson Bay railroad was dealt with as were other enterprises, and progress, while it may have been slackened, was not stopped. We must all take some measure of the responsibility foT that condition. We can all agree now that it was unfortunate in the interests of the country that that attitude was preserved by the country. But it was preserved and progress has continued on that work as it has on other great works then in hand, with the result that to-day the Hudson Bay road of 425 miles is completed with the exception of 90 miles, and on that 90 miles, I understand, the grading has been done. I submit that under those circumstances it would be a misfortune if, after having completed nearly 350 miles of this railroad, including the two great bridges across the Nelson river which are very costly, and having completed the grading to Hudson bay, and having also spent $5,000,000 in port development, we should now stop work for the sake of the cost of laying the Tails on that 90 miles of already graded track. I understand that the rails are already purchased. Therefore there seems to me to be no possible Teason why the work should not be continued to completion until the rails reach the bay, at which time the expenditures made on the port will be available for use.
I shall, of course, have to 'agree that under present conditions 'and with the shortage of shipping even to meet the needs of the present Atlantic ports, we cannot expect that the completion of the railway to Port Nelson will give us the traffic by way of Hudson bay that we expected when we entered upon the enterprise and what we would have if shipping conditions were normal, as we hope they will be some day in the future. To that
322i
extent jthe arguments of my hon. friends are good. But let me deal with this other phase of the matter. There are 90 miles of track to be laid in order to bring the waters of Hudson bay into close touch with the prairie West. There is no question that there are possibilities of development in Hudson bay, in the matter of fisheries and of mineral development along the shores of the bay, so great that it would be in my mind a crime against Canada if, being within a step of the possibility of realizing on those resources at this particular time, we should fail to take that step which is merely, ae I understand it, laying the rails on' the 90 miles of graded track. This is a feature of the case of which I think everybody should take cognizance. We could not afford to build 425 miles of railway for the purpose of reaching the resources of the Hudson bay. It would never do to build that road as a local road. But, being within 90 milee of completion,, we would be falling very short of our duty if we did not complete it so as to have the advantage of those local resources; the advantage of the road as a local road. But, further than that, not until the rails reach the bay can the practicability, the advantages and the disadvantages of the ocean route be absolutely demonstrated. When we are within a step of being in a position to demonstrate these advantages, I think it would be a great crime not to take that step and secure the completion of the road to the bay.


Mr. MORPHY:: Has the hon. gentleman any faith in the practical utility of the road as an outlet for the products of the prairie West, apart altogether from the resources of Hudson Bay?


Frank Oliver: That is hardly a practical question before the House at the present time. The Parliament of Canada decided years ago that it was, or would be, a practical outlet for the products of the prairie West. Both sides of the House agreed to that. I maintain that, having agreed to that policy, and having carried construction as far as we have carried it, it is not worth while arguing on that point. We came to a certain conclusion, and acted on it, and being within a short distance of the bay now, it will pay us to complete that small portion of the road as a local developer. It is not really to the point to argue back again on the merits of the original scheme; but, to answer my hon. friend directly, I say that ever since I

studied the question-and I may say I studied it very many years ago and always kept in touch with it-I have always had the greatest possible faith in the advantage of the opening of the Hudson Bay route, to bring the products of the West in closer and cheaper touch with the markets of the world. At the present time, as in past years, anywhere from one-third to one-half of the great wheat product of the prairie West finds its outlet to the European market by way of United States routes and ports. That proportion has been increasing rather than decreasing in recent years. Port Nelson is as close to the centre of the wheat fields, and to everything that lies west of that centre as is Port Arthur, and Port Nelson is as close to Liverpool as is Montreal. These being the facts, surely it is the business of every patriotic Canadian to try to secure for our own country the traffic in our own products. If there were no other reason for the development of the Hudson Bay route, a reason would be found in the fact that our present transportation and port facilities in Canada are not able to hold for us the transportation control of our own products. Under present conditions half of the products of the West find their way to the European markets through the United States.


William Pugsley: Because of insufficient elevator accommodation at certain places.


Frank Oliver: I am not saying what the cause is.


William Pugsley: Because of lack of Government elevators.


Frank Oliver: I agree with the hon.
gentleman from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I will go .as far as the hon. gentleman does in .accusing the Government of all the crimes in the calendar.


William Thomas White: Any more?


Frank Oliver: And then some. They have not provided the elevators, which I think they should have provided at the'ports of St. John and Quebec, and thus more fully employing the railroads running to these ports. I quite agree with him in that, but I am taking the facts as they are, and those facts are that half our grain goes out via the United States. We are not able, under present conditions, to retain the transportation. of our own traffic in our own products. The Hudson Bay route would give us a fair and reasonable opportunity to retain a large proportion of that traffic in our own grain, and for that reason, it
fMr. Oliver.]
seems to me that, under ordinary circumstances, and in normal times, the Dominion of Canada was well warranted in deciding to incur the obligation to construct the Hudson Bay railway.
I have not been arguing upon that question, except as it was raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy); I have been arguing on the question in its immediate and present conditions, and it is under those conditions I would be compelled to support the Government in taking such measures .as are necessary to. get those rails laid to the waters of the Hudson bay-having come within such a short distance, and there being such a comparatively small expenditure to be made to achieve that end. I would have agreed to drop tihe expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway at the beginning of the war, if that had been, the policy of the country, and the Government, but when it was not their policy, I certainly, as a western man, feel like insisting very strongly that the Hudson Bay railway should receive the same consideration as all the other great enterprises upon which the country had entered previous to the wrar. After having agreed, as we did last night, to an expenditure of upwards of $60,000,000 for the relief of the Bank of Commerce, I think it is not a time when we can quibble or quarrel


Mr. CURRIE:: No.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) insists, I do not wish to convey for a moment the idea that that would be all the expenditure that would be involved, for I have no doubt several hundred millions will be ultimately involved, but last night we specifically agreed to pay out of the depleted treasury of Canada, under war conditions, .subject to an award of- arbitrators, a sum of $60,000,000 for the relief of the Bunk of Commerce, and, under these circumstances, I submit that the subject of the completing of the Hudson Bay railway is not a matter of such comparative magnitude as to entitle the enterprise to be dropped.
Resolution concurred in.


William Thomas White: I desire to call attention to the fact that the debate which has taken place is out of order. I only raise the question because I do not desire a precedent to be established. The debate was upon the question of concurrence, and not upon the motion that the report of the committee be received. Under rule 17 (A) the debate is out of order.


William Pugsley: The question raised is one of very great importance as affecting the procedure of the House, and it is one I am sure we would all like to have settled if possible, with a view to having a change made in the rules. I think the Minister of Finance is technically correct, that under Rule 17 (A) we cannot debate concurrence in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper.
It is clear, however, that we can debate the receiving of the report of the Committee of Supply, which is the same thing. But this is where the mistake is made: on the Order Paper the words should be not merely "Receiving report of Committee of Supply, ' but "Receiving and concurring in report of Committee of Supply." If the order is not entered on the Order Paper in that way, there is no item on the Order Paper for concurrence. Rule 40 requires that two days' notice shall be given for leave to present a Bill, resolution or address. This is a resolution, presented by the Minister of Finance, that the report of the Committee of Supply be concurred in. Except with the unanimous consent of the House, he cannot make that motion without giving two days' notice.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This point has been under my consideration since the order was called, but unfortunately I have no precedent to guide me, inasmuch as the point of order has not been raised since the rule was passed in the year 1913. I am compelled, therefore, to give my own int 'r-pretation of the rule.
With respect to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance, Rule 17 A provides that the following motions shall be debatable:	(1) Motions heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings (except adjournment motions); (2) and every motion standing on the order of the proceedings for the day; (3) for concurrence in a report of a standing or a special committee; (4) for the previous question; (5) for the third reading of a Bill; (6) for the adjournment of the House under Rule 39 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; (7) for the adoption in Committee of the Whole, or of Supply, or of Ways and Means, of the resolution, clause, section, preamble or title under consideration.
The motion now before the Chair is that the resolution be read the second time and concurred in. It does not come within any one of the motions which are debatable. I am therefore of the opinion that the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance
is well taken and that the motion is not properly debatable. I did not feel it advisable to raise the point myself without having given it very mature consideration.
With respect to the point of order raised by the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) under the (provisions of Rule 40, I am inclined to think that he is in error, inasmuch as the notice for receiving the report of the Committee of Supply has been on the Order Paper for many weeks. I think that that answers the requirement that notice shall be given.


William Pugsley: The notice on the
Order Paper is simply that the report of the committee be received. The motion that the report be concurred in is supposed to be moved .by the Minister of Finance.
On the order being called:
Receiving the report of resolutions adopted by the Committee of Supply on July 14, 1917.


William Pugsley: According to Your Honour's ruling, if we wish to debate any subject connected with these resolutions we must do so on the motion that the report be received. But we cannot tell what the report of the committee is until it is read; therefore I respectfully submit that the report should be read before the motion is put; that it be read the first time and concurred in.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The items of the resolution are within the knowledge of hon. members; they are entered in the Votes and Proceedings. A copy of the resolution itself is available to any hon. gentleman who wishes to discuss the matter. It would not seem to me to be putting matters in their proper sequence to give the contents of the resolution before the motion is put. Does the hon. member desire that I should .put the formal motion?
Mr. PUGS'LEY: I do not want to press, a technical point, but there are some items oif Supply which I wish to discuss. There are a great many different resolutions, and unless I know which one is referred to I cannot very well discuss it upon the motion for receiving the report. Perhaps it would be satisfactory if I got a copy of the resolution; I could find it in the Votes and Proceeding's.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the hon. member has in mind some particular item that he wishes to discuss, I prefer that he should not now press me for a ruling on the point. It is my impression that there is no record since Confederation of a motion having 'been made in the House for

receiving of the report of the Committee of Supply. The subject is one of great importance, and I do not wish to be called upon to making a ruling without being able to give the matter very mature consideration. If the hon. gentleman has in mind any particular item that he wishes to discuss, he can obtain particulars concerning it by examining the items to be concurred in.


William Pugsley: We might take the same course, simply for to-day, as was taken in regard to the Hudson Bay item, withom establishing any precedent.


William Thomas White: I am entirely
agreeable to that proceeding by consent. I raised the question only because I did not desire that the precedent should be established.
Resolutions read the second time and concurred in.
Public works chargeable to income-Dredging.


William Pugsley: Before this item is concurred in, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that there are large amounts for dredging. I would like to point out that the dredging work in Courtenay Bay in the harbour of St. John has been entirely stopped for a great many months, and all the expectations that were held out about five years ago by my hon. friend have not been realized. The people in my constituency are very desirous of knowing why the work is not being proceeded with. Without going into detail in the matter, I would like to ask my hon. friend if he would give me the name of the official to whom I could make application for information on this most important matter. I would also like to know what is the, amount of deposit the Government has. from the contractors. When I was minister I required a deposit of $500,000. I have been told this has been reduced by one-half. I would like to know, as well, whether the contractors have been released from their contract, and whether or not the deposit is still in the hands of the Government. Am I to understand that the Minister of Customs is acting Minister of Public Works?


Mr. REID:: The Prime Minister has asked me to act for the Public Works Department in the meantime. In the supplementary Estimates there are a large number of items for the Public Works Department, and my hon. friend will have all the information he requires in connection with this matter when we take up the Pub-
lie Works Estimates in committee. I would suggest that the item be allowed to pass. The hon. gentleman will have no objection to this, because there is an item covering that work in the Supplementary Estimates.


William Pugsley: Does the minister say that one of the items is intended for this purpose? If I were assured of that, I would have less hesitation in acceding to the request of my hon. friend. The fact that nothing has been done, and that rumour states the contractors have been allowed to withdraw their deposit of more than half a million dollars and abandon the work.


William Thomas White: Is that not what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was suggesting should be done- stop all works?


William Pugsley: And return the deposits?


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend is wrong in reference to the deposit. The deposit was not given just offhand. As far as I can remember, the deposit was not returned to the contractor. I do not wish it to be understood that this statement is absolutely correct, because it may be subject to revision when I look into the matter again, but the situation as I remember it was this: There were claims of parties for work, and the deposit was used, or is being used, or will be used, to pay off legitimate claims, after investigation, of parties employed on the work. I do not think the deposit would pay them all. I have not had much to do with it; therefore, I cannot remember whether that statement is really accurate.
I may have to change it when I get the whole facts.


William Pugsley: The minister will inquire into it and get the facts?


John Dowsley Reid: It is very difficult for me to speak as to the facts, because it is not in my department.


William Pugsley: It is a matter of very great importance. I have been told that the deposit has been withdrawn and that a great many claims are left unsettled. That deposit ought to be held as security. If the minister will give me the assurance that he will get that information, I will not detain these Estimates further.
Mr. RElt): I will give the assurance that I will get full information on every one of these items.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to know that the minister is acting as Minister of

Public Works, because, on the occasion of the banquet that I refer to, he told the people of St. John that Pugsley's ideas were all too small, and that if they wanted more money for St. John harbour all they had to do was to go to the Minister of Customs.


John Dowsley Reid: That was before the war.
Item concurred in.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $700,000.


William Pugsley: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he will not look nto the question of the rents which are paid out in the city of Ottawa for public buildings. It does seem to me to be extraordinary that, with all the public buildings which are owned by the Government for the accommodation of its employees, the Dominion should be paying rents running up to in the vicinity of half a million dollars-I am not quite sure whether they exceed that or not-for private buildings in the city of Ottawa.
i am told there are men here who make a business of acquiring land and erecting office buildings on it for the purpose of renting them to the Government, and others who rent buildings and then sublet them to the Government, middlemen who do the renting of the Government. Since this Government came into office the rents have become enormous beyond all reason, and that in spite of the fact that the Government has, within the last three or four years, expropriated all that property facing upon Vittoria and Wellington streets, running for half a mile, and containing upwards of one hundred splendid buildings, where many officials could be accommodated. Still the Government are paying out in the vicinity of a half million dollars a year for rent. I brought this matter up on Supply, but received little satisfaction. I would ask the minister to go into the question very carefully, as there is no reason why these enormous rents should be paid in Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: I went into the question of the use of the Wellington street buildings very thoroughly when acting for the late Minister of Public Works a year or two ago, and asked the deputy minister to make a report of all buildings in that district that could be used for Government offices.


William Pugsley: About one hundred of them, are there not?


John Dowsley Reid: A good many, probably one hundred. I gave instructions to the deputy,
which were concurred in by the minister on his return, to see that these buildings were, so far as possible, used for office purposes as required by different departments.
1 believed that this would effect a great saving. The deputy minister agreed with me and at once had the buildings put in repair, so that they would be suitable for office use. He informs me that practically all the buildings suitable for offices are now occupied by the departments. He prepared a statement showing the total feet capacity of the buildings and the total now occupied by the Government, and that information, together with all information about the St. John works, I shall have when we are again on the Public Works Estimates. The hon. member will then find that we are carrying out the policy which he advocates.


William Pugsley: What is the total rental, about one-half million?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it is a very large amount. That will all be shown in the statement. Since the war the number of officials in some departments has so increased that much more space is required.
Item concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Special allowance to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, $2,500.
Charles Murphy: The hon. member for
Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) asked a question when this item was before the committee, and the Prime Minister promised to give seme information. The item has reference to a reduction by one-half of the allowance formerly made to the Chief Justice for travelling expenses.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Deputy Governor
General.


Charles Murphy: The question was whether the amount had been cut in two, and the information was to be given to the committee before the item was finally adopted. Has the hon. gentleman obtained the information?


William Thomas White: No, I have no information about it. The hon. gentleman might raise the question when the supplementary estimates are under consideration.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) raised the ques-

tion, and the Prime Minister said he would obtain an answer.
Item concurred in.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Department of Customs-to provide for the promotion of ten clerks, from third division, subdivision A, to second division, subdivision B, and for the appointment of three additional clerks in second division, subdivision B, as follows:-9 at $1,200, 1 at $1,150, 3 at $1,000, in lieu of ten clerks in third division, subdivision A, already voted in the main estimates-further amount required, $3,000.
['The Minister of Finance has said that the debate upon this Bill has lasted two weeks. I do not know that it should have lasted any shorter time than that. The question is one of the most important that we have ever had before us; it is full of complications; it is full of figures. We were given information from time to time as the debate went on. Even if the debate should require one day more, I think the Government might very well be satisfied. I know that Friday is not a very convenient day to take up such business as this, but there is other business before the House. The Government cannot complain that we have in any way delayed their business. Perhaps my hon. friend will reconsider the matter, and decide not to press this motion to-morrow.\nOn motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.', 'Thursday, August 30, 1917.']
John Dowsley Reid: Under the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1917, there are ten clerks who become eligible for promotion from the third division, subdivision A, to the second division, subdivision B, of the Inside Service. It is proposed to promote these clerks to the second division, subdivision B, from April 1, 1917. In order to do this it is necessary that these clerkships be provided for in the Estimates in the higher division. It is also proposed to provide three additional clerkships in the second division, subdivision B, at the minimum salary. These extra clerks have been employed temporarily and continued since April, 1916, owing to the increase in the work of the department. The names of the clerks to be promoted are as follows: nine at $1,200-F. M. Bradley, Miss F. M. Burt, R. L. Byron, Colquhoun Fergusson, J. F. Lessard, B. A. Neville, H. A. O'Doherty, A. O. Rocque, Miss B. F. Sixsmith; one at $1,150-Miss K. M. Cherry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This item is to provide for the promotion of ten clerks from the third division, subdivision A, to the second division, subdivision B. That, I suppose, is done under the Civil Service Act. Should not the lump sum of money voted in the general Estimates or the main Estimates for the Inside Civil Service provide for this? Before the main Estimates are prepared each department should know what moneys it will require in respect of promotions during the year. Is there not sufficient machinery in the Civil Service Act to provide for these promotions without my hon. friend's coming here year after year, sometimes twice a year, for special votes for special promotions?


John Dowsley Reid: We voted a total amount for the Inside Service. The Civil Service Act gives the permanent employees in the Inside Service an annual increase of $50 per annum until they attain the maximum of their class.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All that we are dealing with now is the Inside Service.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The increase that the officials are entitled to under the Civil Service Act is added to their salaries, and in that way we arrive at the amount we require for the Inside Service during the year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But this is a special vote.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is on account of the Civil Service Amendment Act of June, 1917. Section 3 of that Act says:	.
Sections twenty-nine and thirty and subsection one of section thirty-two of the said Act are repealed, and the following are substituted therefor:
29.	In the second division the minimum and maximum salaries shall be as follows:
In subdivision A, $1,600 to $2,100 ;
In subdivision B, $1,000 to $1,600.
30.	In the third division the minimum and maximum salaries shall be as follows:
In subdivision A, $1,000 to $1,300 ;
In subdivision B, $600 to $1,000.
We have, therefore, by legislation this session increased the maximum and minimum salaries of these different divisions, and we have to provide for that. Subsection 3 of section 2 of the Civil Service Amendment Act provides:
Any person in the Civil Service who was placed in the third division under the provisions of this Act and who had theretofore passed the qualifying examination or had been appointed under the authority of sections thirty-seven or forty of the Civil Service Act, chapter sixteen of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, may be promoted from the third division to the second division by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the head of the department, based upon the report in writing of the deputy head.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this amount, of
$3,000 required to carry out the provisions of the amendment this session to the Civil Service Act?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, that is the object.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will not be necessary in future to come here for a special vote for these salaries?


John Dowsley Reid: No. The officials, for instance, whose names I have just read will get their increase next year without my having to ask for a special vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there anything in
this vote for the temporary help the minister spoke of?


John Dowsley Reid: We are appointing permanently, "when this vote is passed, three officers who have been assisting us temporarily.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are they being appointed in conformity with the Act? Have they passed the examination?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes.


Mr. BUREAU:: Does every one who ha*
reached the maximum in his class and has passed the qualifying examination get his promotion?


Mr.   RETD@: Yes, every one of them.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act-further amount required, $300,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I have received very many
complaints from the officials of the Outside Service in regard to the salaries they are receiving. Owing to the high cost of living the salaries in many cases are much lower than I think they should be, hut I cannot grant increases without a vote, and I have asked the Finance Minister to place this amount in the Estimates ^ to provide for an increase for these officials. This vote provides for the salaries of appToxi-nately 3,000 officers, many of whom are receiving less than $1,000 yearly salary. In view of the increased cost of living, owing to the war, it is desired to grant a general increase to these officers. It is estimated that this further amount of $300,000 will be required as the present appropriation is insufficient for this purpose. The commissioner and I went into this matter, and we felt that the least we could give was an increase of $100, which accounts for the item of $300,000.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and preventive service, Including salaries and expenses in connection with the Board of Customs-Further amount required, $50,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote provides for the
salaries of approximately 230 officers, many of whom are receiving small salaries. In view of the increased cost of living owing to the war, it is desired to grant a general increase to these officers. It is estimated that this amount of $50,000 will be required, as the present appropriation is insufficient for this purpose. The high cost of living is affecting very many of the officials very
seriously. The commissioner and I have provided for increases to those getting the smallest salaries, to the full amount of the vote last year. We can do no more until a further vote is passed, and I can assure the House that if this vote is passed we will see that it goes as far as possible towards assisting those drawing the smaller salaries.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I quite agree that a good many men in the outside offices are getting very low salaries, which they have difficulty in living on at the present time. How much of an increase would the minister give to a man drawing, say, from $850 to $1,200? Will these salary increases be distributed regardless of party politics? Complaint is heard sometimes that the older officers who have been in the service for some time do not get their increase the same as the others.


John Dowsley Reid: In the Outside Service there is no stated statutory annual increase, but a maximum is fixed. The policy that was followed by my predecessor and by myself is this: The commissioner and the officials of the department make a list of what they think all of the officials in every office in the Dominion are entitled to, and then submit it to the minister for approval, and it is only in an exceptional case that the minister interferes. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that the hon. member could cite many case" of political interference. I think you will find that in cases where such interference is alleged, there is some reason why the increase was not granted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 1 did not accuse the minister of that, but I said I understood that complaint had been made.


John Dowsley Reid: There are many cases like this: A man may be appointed as a landing waiter in the city where my hon. friend lives, at a salary of $850 or $900, and another man working alongside of him may be getting the same salary Often you will see a man has been increased probably $50, and the man beside him has not had any increase, but you will find in every case that the man who has not received an increase is getting $300 or $400 a year extra.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What does the minister mean by " extra?"


John Dowsley Reid: Overtime. The regular hours of the customs office in my hon. friend's city are from nine to four, for which the officers are paid probably $900 a year each.

If the landing waiter, for instance, is doing work at a railway station, he may have to go out at any hour. If there are several of them they take it in turns, one starting at seven o'clock in the morning and remaining on duty until four o'clock in the afternoon. From seven o'clock until nine o'clock in the morning he counts as overtime, and the same thing applies from four o'clock in the afternoon until six. Take the case of a man on duty at a river port, such as my own town, or Brockville; the officers there are on duty until twelve o'clock at night, on account of the ferries. They get thirty cents an hour overtime.


Mr.   BOSS@: The minister must have figured out the increase to be granted to each office. He speaks of an average of $100 for each office. What is the largest increase given under this arrangement, and what is the smallest?


John Dowsley Reid: I have to depend a great deal on the officials to decide as to the increases. One hundred dollars is the average. There will be very few who will get more than that, because it is our desire to give increases to as many as possible. In some cases where the men were getting $750 we gave them an increase of $150. We want to give a little more to the men who are getting the smaller salaries.


Mr. ROSS:: There is a customs officer at Glencoe, one at Strathroy, and one at Park Hill, in the county of Middlesex. Can the minister tell me what salaries these men will get under this arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say offhand. What I am doing in this case is what I did before; the commissioner, the assistant commissioner, and the inspectors at Ottawa take up the whole list, and when they reach Glencoe, for instance, they will see what the staff there is getting, and will decide as to what increases should be granted, taking into consideration present salary, length of service, and so on.


James Hamilton Ross: My reason for asking is that the minister said the increases were being granted on account of the high cost of living. I hope he will recognize the fact that it is costing more to live in the county of Middlesex than it has in the past, and that consequently all these men should get something. Can the minister tell me the largest increase that will be given to any officer? Who is going to get the plum?


John Dowsley Reid: The smallest increase is $50, and there are no great plums.

Mr. ROS'S: What is the largest increase?


John Dowsley Reid: I should say $200.


James Hamilton Ross: Who will get that, or where will it be?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know where it will be. Of course, an increase of $100 a year in Glencoe would probably be of a great deal more benefit than the same amount in a large city. I think $200 would be the outside limit of any increase, and there would be only very few instances in which this amount will be given.


James Hamilton Ross: What is the salary of the present custom house officer in Park Hill, and what was the salary of his predecessor? .


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say offhand. If my hon. friend wishes, I will send him a statement of it to-morrow. The officer at Park Hill was appointed within the last six or eight months, I believe. If I remember rightly, this officer filled two positions, postmaster and sub-collector of customs. We separated the two offices because we found that the official filling two positions could not do satisfactory work in either.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister might well anticipate questions on an item of this character. I have no intention of spreading my inquiry very widely, but I would like to ask about the towns in my vicinity, which may Iffi, perhaps, a fair sample of what is taking place in other towns and cities. Can the minister tell me the number of officers in the customs house in the city of Sydney; the salary each is receiving; if their salaries are to be increased; and how much they will get under- this arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry, I could not give my hon. friend that information to-night.
I have asked the commissioner to prepare a full statement showing the proposed increases, and to be fair to every person from one end of the Dominion to the other. That statement has not been submitted to me yet. If my hon. friend would like me to give him further information along the lines he has suggested, or to show him how we are dividing up this vote, I have not the slightest objection to do so
Of course, when increases are granted, we shall have complaints from some who say that they have not received the advance they expected or from others who have not received any increase at all. If, in dividing up this amount, there are cases that we have overlooked, we will take them up

and where any mistake has been made we will correct it. If the hon. gentleman would like further information I have no objection to allowing the item to stand. I think that on the whole the way in which the amount has been divided up has been pretty satisfactory.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister is going to allow the item to stand, perhaps I might state the information I want. I would like the names of all officers either directly or indirectly connected with the customs house staff in Sydney, the salary that each is receiving now and the increase that he will receive. I want the same kind of information with respect to North Sydney, Sydney Mines, Baddeck, Glace Bay and Louisburg, so that I may be enabled to see if they have all been treated fairly.


Mr. KYTE:: Are these increases to be shared in by all officials of the department in the Outside Service in all the provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that I could say that every officer will get an increase. There are many places where men are getting pretty fair salaries.


George William Kyte: Will it be shared in by those who are getting salaries under $1,000?


John Dowsley Reid: I think it would practically cover all of these men. In every province increases are granted. But there are men with salaries of, say, $850 or $900 and making $300 or $400 of overtime, while others in smaller towns have salaries of $800 or $900 with no overtime. Three hundred thousand dollars will not allow of a very large increase to any person and there may be some cases where an increase cannot be granted to men who are getting $1,200 or $1,300. But I am willing to go into the case of any locality with any member of this House and show him what the commissioner, and his staff have recommended with regard to the officials there. If there is any one who has not been treated fairly, or if I cannot explain any case to the member satisfactorily, I will be willing to revise the recommendation made to me by the commissioner and the staff. I do not think that there has been any case in which I have interfered with the recommendations made to me with regard to increases.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can readily understand that the minister would not have the time or the knowledge to go into details about every officer of his department. I should be wasting time in asking
him to give information now about any stated office. But if he will give me the information I am asking for I will be able to judge for myself as to how he has dealt with persons within my own knowledge.


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the /information.


George William Kyte: I naturally had in my mind more particularly the officials in the counties of Richmond and South Cape Breton. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has asked for information with regard to South Cape Breton and that will suffice. But with regard to the county of Richmond, there are not many officers, but there is the col lector at Arichat and the collector at St. Peter's. The collector at Arichat has a salary of $800, and I do not think he gets any overtime. The collector at St. Peter's has a trifling salary of $500. He has to maintain a house and devote all his time to the duties of his office. I certainly think that his case is one which should be taken into consideration in the increase of salaries. The number of officials in Richmond is very small, and I think I am not asking too much when I request the minister, when his Estimates are again before the committee, to have a list of the salaries of these officers and the increases he proposes.


John Dowsley Reid: I think we might let the item stand, and the next time we go into Committee of Supply I will have a list of all the officers, with the salaries they are getting at the present time, and a statement showing how it is proposed to divide up this amount, so that every hon. member may know what is to be done in his constituency.


George William Kyte: I think that will be very satisfactory.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the minister intend to bring this into force as soon as it passes this House or is it to be made retroactive?


John Dowsley Reid: If this item passes and is concurred in, I would think that we might start on the 1st of September.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Would the minister
bring down a list of those officials of his department who have enlisted for overseas service and are getting the difference between their military pay and their Civil Service pay?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The last time we were dealing with the minister's Estimates we

had a talk about some vacancy in the county of Annapolis, or perhaps in the town of Annapolis. I forget exactly what it was, but the appointment was not made permanent at that time. Somebody was acting temporarily, and there was some talk as to whether a returned soldier would be appointed if a returned soldier were found in Annapolis county. I have since then received a letter from a gentleman in the county of Annapolis-I am sorry that the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) is not here-stating that there were at least two returned soldiers in the county of Annapolis, well educated men, either of whom would be eligible and qualified to fill the office that is now temporarily filled. I-would suggest to the minister that he might inquire from the hon. member for Annapolis, or from some private source, if there is a returned soldier in the county who would be a suitable man to fill the office.


John Dowsley Reid: I will have that information at the same time.


Jacques Bureau: Will this vote be applied to new appointments?


John Dowsley Reid: Appointments will be. made
out of the general vote and this vote too. It is all added together.


Jacques Bureau: Is this to be used for
increases, or to pay the salaries of new employees?


John Dowsley Reid: We are going to use it for increases.


Jacques Bureau: The pay for overtime of
officials is included in the ordinary estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The minister said that
three thousand civil servants received less than $1,000 a year. What provision in the Civil Service Act does he desire to overcome by inserting the words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act?"


John Dowsley Reid: You cannot pay a man more than a certain salary under the Civil Service Act.


Mr. MARCILE:: The minister promised
last winter to rectify an injustice done to Mr. Hamel, of Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that since the discussion in the House I gave an increase to this gentleman. If I did not I will this time.


Jacques Bureau: How many of the civil
servants who are to receive increases out of

this vote have reached the maximum of their class?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say offhand.


Jacques Bureau: Will the overtime received by officials be reckoned as salary in deciding on the apportionment of the $300,000?


John Dowsley Reid: You have to take each case into consideration and do what you think is fair and right to those in each port. If in a port one man receives $900 per annum and no overtime and another receives $900 per annum and $350 overtime, or $1,250 altogether, if I had only a limited amount to divide, I would increase the man with the $900 and try to help him out in these strenuous times.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: A very obliging preventive officer, Mr. McCutcheon, was dismissed at a small port on the coast of my constituency, Sonora, and a friend of the minister's party was appointed in his place. I asked why the change was made and the minister replied that it was done in the public interest. I was not satisfied with this reply, because it was not done in the public interest but in the interest of the Conservative party in that district, which is a different thing altogether from the public interest. It would be more frank and honest for the minister to tell the exact truth and say that the man was dismissed in order to give a position to a friend of the party supporting my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: I think a return was asked for in that case. I shall bring it down. I do not see that I could have given any other answer than that it was done in the public interest, because it must have been in the public interest or it would not have been done.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Would the minister bring down the names of any preventive officers in Inverness county? I ask this because there was a preventive officer there until 1911. The position was then promised to six or seven men. None of those men knows whether the other fellow is appointed or not, and I cannot tell them. I should like to be able to settle the minds of these men on this point.


John Dowsley Reid: I promised a minute ago that I would bring down a list of all the customs officials on the Outside Service. I will have the names of those in the province of Nova Scotia, and will be able to give the information when the item is before us again.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The hon. minister said , that the minimum increase would be $50.
A man with a salary of $500 ought to get the maximum increase. Has he any chance?


John Dowsley Reid: It depends upon circumstances. We have men getting $200, $300, or, perhaps, $500 a year. They are customs officers at small places where it would hardly pay to keep a permanent officer to do the work, and they do not give their entire time to the work. These men are not as likely to get the increase as those who depend entirely on these salaries for a living.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I would like to say a word to the minister with reference to the duty on pure alcohol, which is used in public hospitals.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman is referring to a change in the tariff, that relates to the Finance Department, and not to my department. The Finance Minister makes the tariff.


George Ewan McCraney: Does the minister in his department not deal with the question of free alcohol, as well as the Inland Revenue Department?


John Dowsley Reid: We only deal with it as stated in the tariff. We do not change the tariff. The hon. gentleman can see the item, and that item has been passed by Parliament


George Ewan McCraney: I want to discuss a memorandum which I have received from the superintendent of the Saskatoon Hospital, if I may do so. I have a resolution on the Order Paper calling for correspondence, but I shall not be able to get on with that, and perhaps the minister will permit me to place this memorandum on Hansard, and he may give me some an-9 p.m swer when the item comes up again. It appears the duty on proof alcohol is $2.42 per proof gallon to wholesale liquor houses, and charitable institutions pay $3 per proof gallon.


John Dowsley Reid: That is imported alcohol.
"Mr. McCRANEY: The letter does not say whether it is inland revenue or customs.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. gentleman is referring to the Inland Revenue Department.


George Ewan McCraney: That may be so.


John Dowsley Reid: But it is all right; the hon. gentleman can make his statement.


George Ewan McCraney: The chairman of the Board of Governors of the Saskatoon Municipal Hospital sends me this memorandum giving reasons for remitting duties on alcohol :
(1)	All hospitals throughout Canada are finding it a great hardship in paying the prices demanded for pure alcohol, one of the most necessary drugs used in the preparation of patients for surgical operations, in the treatment of wounds, and for bathing purposes.
(2)	The reason given for the exorbitant price demanded is the excessive excise duty imposed on same by the Dominion Government.
(3)	Hospitals are losing huge sums every year in the treatment of the sick. In our own small hospital (100 beds), we have an annual loss of from $15,000 to $20,000.
(4)	Statistics show that the average cost per patient per day to hospitals throughout the Dominion runs from $2.15 to $2.50. The Dominion Government have only paid $1.50 per day for soldiers, their wards. They have not allowed extras for operating-room fees, or expensive drugs.
(5)	Where alcohol is used in any quantity, or any other expensive drug, hospitals are compelled to charge the patient for same, therefore it increases the? cost to patients, and thereby puts a penalty on sickness.
(6)	Thirty to forty per cent of patients treated in public hospitals are unable to pay anything, and in consequence the hospitals have to bear the entire burden.
(7)	Is it necessary to obtain revenue from the sick and afflicted, particularly when our universities are allowed the privilege of imparting anything they require for experimental and teaching purposes? Public hospitals, we consider, should have the same privileges extended them as our universities are receiving.
(S) The United States Government allows all hospitals alcohol tax free	
(9) From the good work our public hospitals are doing, more especially as they are losing thousands of dollars annually, we consider the Dominion Government should allow, not only alcohol, but all hospital supplies to be imported free of duty.
That is signed on behalf of the board of governors by John A. Valens, M.D., chairman, and John Ryan, secretary. At Saskatoon we hanre the University of Saskatchewan. which imports alcohol for experimental purposes in its laboratory. The hospital authorities have sent me a copy of an invoice of a barrel of alcohol. It reads:
Purity Distilling Co.
Division of
U.S. Industrial Alcohol Co.,
915-955 Cambridge St., East Cambridge, Mass.
1 barrel ethyl alcohol, serial No.
138343-proof 190-48.10 gallons
at .80	$ 38.48
Duty paid in Saskatoon, 02 O.P. gallons at $3	186.00
7$ per cent war tax on $38.48 .. ..	2.85
Freight from Boston	 5.57
Delivery charges	50



[Stage Direction]
Price laid down in hospital,
48.10 wine gallons	$ 4.85
38.48 imperial gallons	 6.07
Best price we could obtain from Winnipeg, imperial gallon	 6.75
Price to University of Saskatchewan is:
48.10 gallons at 80c	$ 38.48
Freight	 5,57
Delivery charges	50
[Stage Direction]
The charge to the hospital is $6.07 per gallon, and the charge to the University $1.16, or an excessive charge of $4.91. The hospital doctors point out to me that, while the Dominion Government sells to hospitals methylated .spirits at 50 cents, yet the hospitals do not care to use them, they say that the injurious effect on the sight should be sufficient to debar their use in any hospital. I w'>h the minister would ascertain if it is .possible to devise means by which the .public hospital of Saskatoon, which is carried on at a very considerable loss each year-particularly during the war when a good many soldiers have to be treated, the allowance for soldiers, being very small- could get some relief. Could arrangements be made under which public hospitals might import alcohol duty free, for their own purposes?
John Dowsley Reid: I will take this matter up
with the Minister of 'Inland Revenue, .and see if anything can be done.


Jacques Bureau: As the minister proposes to let this item stand .for further information, could he ascertain how many inspectors there are in the Customs Department, and how many other officers are employed on inspection?


John Dowsley Reid: I will give the lion., gentleman that information when the item is before us again, because I shall have a detailed list before me of all the officers in each port and of the different inspectors for each province.


Jacques Bureau: " Different " inspectors
for each province?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. In the province of Quebec they have three inspectors and three assistants. I will have a full list of these officers, and will be able to give the information.	.


Jacques Bureau: I should like to know
more particularly as to the other officers of inspection. Who are the officers who go on inspection other than the regular inspectors, and their assistants?


John Dowsley Reid: I will have the information for the hon. gentleman.
Item stands.

Department of Public Works-to provide for an increase in the salary of the assistant chief architect to $4,000, $700.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the Civil Service Act the present salary for this position is $3,300. This vote is to attach to the position a salary of $4,000. There is not any Assistant Chief Architect at the present time. I have no idea who is to fill the position; that will be dealt with by the future Minister of Public Works.


Jacques Bureau: Why is the increase asked for?
IMr. REID: These Estimates were prepared by the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), who intended filling the position. I do not know why he has not filled it; perhaps he could not get a good man.


Jacques Bureau: How long has the position been vacant?


John Dowsley Reid: About two years and a half.


Jacques Bureau: In view of the fact that we have to pay $700,000,000 to the Canadian Northern, to say nothing of our war expenditure; and in view of the fact that the department has got along during the last couple of years without an Assistant Chief Architect, I think we could well dispense with this item of $700. Having regard to tlm strenuous times through which we are passing, I do not see how the acting minister can justify this vote for increasing the salary attaching to a position which has not been filled during the last two and a half years. Public works are not now being carried on very rapidly; the Government is tightening every string and advising the people to tighten their belts to help carry on the war. I repeat that this item might well be struck out.


John Dowsley Reid: I promise the hon. gentleman that I will not fill it while I am' Acting Minister of Public Works.


Charles Murphy: Who was the last Assistant Chief Architect?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. R. C. Wright, a good man.
If I were filling the position, I would give it to him.


Charles Murphy: Why is he not there now? Mr. REID: He resigned.


Charles Murphy: I would not have made any observations about this item were it not for the explanation, given by the hon. minister in reply to the inquiry of the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), that this item was prepared by the late Minister of

Public Works. Anything that is not quite regular and that is attributed to the late Minister of Public Works will, I think, bear some looking into. Here is a position that has been vacant for over two years, as the member for Three Rivers has pointed out, the work of the Department of Public Works has been curtailed since the war; and there is certainly no immediate prospect of the work of that department being suddenly enlarged. In the face of these facts, it is proposed not only to continue a position which has not been filled for over two years, but to provide for an increase of $700 in the salary attached to that position. I do not think- the hon. gentleman can justify that before this committee. I entirely concur with the suggestion of the member for Three Rivers that this amount should be struck out.


John Dowsley Reid: I have obtained information from the deputy minister that will, perhaps, explain this matter a little more fully. Mr. Wright was filling this position at the time the former Minister of Public Works took charge of the department. As I have said, he was a good man, and the minister appreciated his services. Mr. Wright severed his connection with the Public Works Department of his own free will to take a position with a firm in Montreal. Subsequently he came back to the d'partment and asked for a position, and the late minister so valued his services that he gave him an appointment as superintendent of Postal Station A in Toronto. When he left the department Mr. Wright was receiving $3,900; if he had remained in the position he would now be receiving $4,000, the maximum of his -class. The late minister was anxious to get Mr. Wright back to Ottawa again, and the only way he could do it was by paying him the salary to which he was entitled and which he would be getting if he had not left the position. The $700 wa3 put in in order that Mr. Wright might he brought hack to Ottawa where his services are required. There is nothing to hide in the matter. Mr. Wright was an appointee of the late Government, but he attended to his work -and his services were valued. If we struck out this item Air. Wright could not be brought back to Ottawa to take up the duties of this position.


Charles Murphy: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that it is his intention to bring Mr. Wright back and to reappoint him at this salary?


John Dowsley Reid: I said that that was the intention of' the late Minister of Public Works. That is what the vote is there for.


Charles Murphy: I am asking if it is the hon. gentleman's intention to do that.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I am concerned, I am not filling any positions in the Public Works Department unless they simply have to be filled. Mr. Wright will have to remain where he is until a new Minister of Public Works is appointed, who will deal with this matter as he sees fit.


Charles Murphy: If that is the case, you do not need this vote?


John Dowsley Reid: If Mr. Wright should he brought back it is only fair that this item should be passed, so that the new Minister of Public Works, whoever he may be, can deal with the matter.
Mr. A1URPHY:	He may never have
heard of Mr. Wright, or may have no intention of appointing him. If, as the minister alleges, this item is in the Estimates because it was the intention of the late Alinister of Public Works to re-appoint Mr. Wright, I want to know if the minister is going to re-appoint him. What salary is he receiving?


John Dowsley Reid: Three thousand six hundred dollars.


Jacques Bureau: If the minister says that this amount is intended for Mr. Wright, and that Air. Wright will get it-we are all satisfied that he is a good man, and that $4,000 would hardly be paying him enough-I have no objection, but I want an assurance from the minister that this money will be paid to a good man like Mr. Wright.


John Dowsley Reid: I have given all the assurance I can.


Jacques Bureau: No assurances at all.
Air. A1URPHY:	The hon. gentleman
must recognize that he has given the committee no assurances at all, but rather thrown out a suggestion as to what may be done-which he has made plain he has no intention of doing. If the minister wants to be fair, if it is really his intention to give this salary to Mr. Wright, let him say so, and the item can go through. If not, the item will be passed under false pretences.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I can say anything more. The late Alinister of Public Works put the item in, so that he could bring back Mr. Wright from Toronto to this position in Ottawa. Mr. Wright is a very valuable official, but if the hon. member thinks that Mr. Wright may be deprived of this money, if he will move that the item be struck out, I will not object.


Jacques Bureau: That is not putting the case fairly. This position has been vacant for two and a half years, and the minister says that so long as he is Acting Minister of Public Works-which, for this country's sake, I hope will not be long-he will not fill this position. It looks to me as if the minister was quibbling. If he is going to appoint Mr. Wright let him do so and pay him $4,000. Mr. Wright deserves that amount, and the country will be the gainer by it. But if the minister tries to get the additional vote for $700 through the House by saying that he does not know who the new Minister of Public Works will be, I object to the item passing in that way. For the good of the Public Works Department, Mr. Wright ought to be appointed to this position. The minister should not be taking any risk in saying that he will see Mr. Wright gets this money if the vote is passed. The only conclusion we can come to, from his not giving us that assurance, is that he has no intention of appointing Mr. Wright.


John Dowsley Reid: The item wias put in the Estimates by the late Minister of Public Works, with the intention of bringing Mr. Wright back to Ottawa. I am merely acting temporarily until some new minister is appointed. That new minister may say that he prefers leaving Mr. Wright where he is.


George Perry Graham: Have you any idea who the new minister will be? We might then be able to judge whether he would appoint Mr. Wright.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sure it will not be the hon. member, because he is on the wrong side of the House.


George Perry Graham: Not necessarily, judging by the events of the past few weeks.


John Dowsley Reid: I think those events show that the hon. member will be on that side for some time to come. If he feels there is any danger of Mr. Wright not getting this money I have no objection to having the item struck out, if he will move accordingly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the minister is going to be Acting Minister of Public Works for only a short time, it seems to me only reasonable that this matter should be left to the incoming minister, who will no doubt take into consideration what was intended by the outgoing' minister. I do not know whether Mr. Wright will be appointed or not, but if this salary is required to get a proper man to fill the position, I would pass the item.


Jacques Bureau: The minister knows what the intention of the former minister was. There must be some correspondence 'between the department and Mr. Wright. The minister can easily find out from his deputy whether any negotiations have been going on, how far they havie gone, and whether or not Mr. Wright has agreed to accept. Has Mr. Wright agreed to come back if this $4,000 is voted?


John Dowsley Reid: The late Minister of Public Works valued Mr. Wright's services and found him, as I have always found him, willing to go any place or to do anything in connection with the work of the department that the minister wished him to do.


Jacques Bureau: That is not answering-my question.


John Dowsley Reid: This item was put in the Estimates by the late Minister of Public Works for the purpose of bringing Mr. Wright back to Ottawa, Mr. Wright being agreeable to coming if the minister desired. My hon. friend must see that the new minister might decide not to fill this position until the war is over, and in the meantime leave Mir. Wright where he is. On the other hand he may decide to bring Mr. Wright back to Ottawa, and then we should require this vote. Or he might desire the services of Mr. Wright at some other point at a larger salary. I cannot commit the new minister any further than that. I am not going to fill the position, but am leaving it to the new minister. I think under the circumstances this item should go through.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any necessity for filling a position in the Public Works Department which has been vacant for the last two and a half years? We are told 'by the Government that they are not putting up any new public buildings this year. Consequently, no new architectural work will be required. If the Government really desire to economize here is an excellent opportunity.


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister tells me that Mr. Wright has been recommended to the Civil Service Commission for this appointment. The matter has also been before the Treasury Board, so that Mr. Wright could be appointed. But I repeat I do not ' want to waste any time on it, and if there is any objection to it I will strike it out.
Public works-chargeable to capital. Public buildings-Ottawa eastern departmental block -new fireproof roof, etc., revote, $125,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This money is to be applied towards the fireproofing of the old portion

of the East Block and re-arrangement of the offices on the top floor, including a new elevator at the stair-well entrance to the south wing. The estimated cost of the new fireproof roof, etc., is as follow's:
Secretary of State Department.
new roof	and	office layout... . $ 69,000.00
Elevator	 6,000.00
Remainder	of	roof	 163,000.00
Total ..		$238,000.00
Deduct:-
Revote applied for in Supplementary Estimates, 1917-1S.. $125,000.00 Additional amount required.. .. 113,000.00
Appropriation for 1916-17-addition	$ 17,000.00
Appropriation for 1916-17-new
fireproof roof, etc	 240,000.00
Total	$257,000.00
Deduct:-
Expenditure re pay lists, materials, etc., for alterations to drainage, plumbing, renewing galvanized roof over boiler room, etc	$ 11,025.00
Amount lapsed 1st
April, 1917	 120,975.00

Revote required for use in
1917-18	$125,000.00
The fireproofing and alterations to part of the southeast corner of the top floor, including a new elevator at the stair-well entrance to south wing, were recommended by the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin).


Charles Murphy: Have tenders been called and has the work been started?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it is not proceeding, and no tenders have yet been called for.


William Pugsley: I think this item might well be allowed to stand over. The only recommendation for it is the recommendation of the Postmaster General, and he is not now an occupant of the East Block. The Finance Department does not recommend it; the Minister of Justice has not applied for it; the PrivY Council have not applied for it. There are a great many officials there, and it seems extraordinary that the work should be done now on the recommendation of the Postmaster General. It is not urgently required, and l do not think the item should pass.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a fact that the work was not proceeded with last year, and it may not be proceeded with this year.


William Pugsley: I\think it would be better to strike it out.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not feel it would be well to do so. It will be necessary to go ahead with tnis work some time. The East Block is really a fire-trap. Within the past two or three weeks there was an alarm of fire there. If any accident happened, we would not have the slightest hope of saving the place. It is absolutely necessary to do this work, as soon as we can reach it, and I do not think there should be any objection to passing the item.


William Pugsley: If anything happens the Government would not hesitate for a single moment to obtain a Governor General's warrant. This Government never hesitates to do that on the slightest provocation. Does it not seem absurd that this work, which is not urgently required, should be asked for at this time, when the Minister of Finance really looks weary as a result of the tremendous burdens imposed upon him in looking around for money? Is it fair to throw further burdens upon him? Nothing has been done in connection with this work for a couple of years, and latterly we have gone to very large expense in the East Block, fitting up splendid vaults and making great improvements for the Finance Department. The offices of my hon. and gallant friend (Mr. Blondin) are not in the East Block; they are in the Langevin Block. The other ministers do not seem to require an additional elevator. Two elevators are apparently sufficient for them. As was stated to-day so forcibly by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), now is the time when even in small matters the Government should show some economy.


William Thomas White: Economy in everything except in connection with dredging in Courtenay bay.


William Pugsley: We db not get very far with the dredging.


John Dowsley Reid: I would net like to take the responsibility of striking out this item. The money is being voted to make the building fire-proof. This question was brought up during the time my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) was Secretary of State.


Charles Murphy: That is so.


Mr. GERMAN:: Will that amount of money be sufficient to make the building fireproof? My opinion is it will not cover more than one-quarter of the cost.


John Dowsley Reid: Those are the figures supplied by the architects, and I have full confidence in them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the building any less fireproof this year than it has been for the last fifty years?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it is not, but there have been times when it was in danger of fire. I was going to say to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that I would like the committee to let this item pass, so that I might move that the committee rise and report progress. I want to go on with another Bill which is on the Order Paper, in regard to which we have been waiting for the hon. member from St. John.


William Pugsley: Which Bill is that?


William Thomas White: The Canadian Northern Railway Bill.


William Pugsley: I Understood it was to stand over until to-morrow.


William Thomas White: No. We have been waiting for my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman wishes to let it stand, I am willing to let it stand. Is there any objection to letting it go through to-night?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has made no case for the passing of the item. He is asking us to take this money which has been raised by taxation, divert it from the war and use it to make some repairs upon a building which has been in existence for many years, on the ground that the Postmaster General would like to see those repairs made.


John Dowsley Reid: That was not the reason at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blondin) was Secretary of State at the time, and he recommended that this work should be done. I am quite satisfied the work is necessary, and my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy), who at one time occupied the office of Secretary of State, knows the danger of those buildings. I have no doubt he fully appreciates the necessity of making them fireproof. My hon. friends know that since the beginning of this war the East Block has been used more than ever for holding the most valuable securities.


William Pugsley: But, those valuable securities are in a new part of the East Block, which is absolutely fireporof.
Progress reported.


CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE moved the third reading of Bill No. 125, providing for the

acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I am going to invite the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and the House to an amendment which I desire to have made to this Bill. Before proceeding with what I may have to say, I move:
That the Bill he not now read a third time, but that it be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole with instructions that they have power to amend the same by inserting between the words "may" and "acquire" in line 1 of section 1 the words "subject to the approval by Parliament of the award hereafter provided for."
It seems to me that every one who is disposed to take a fair view of the rights of the people of this country, no matter what view he may entertain as to the undesirability of proceeding in this way, will agree that if it is determined to acquire the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and to submit the question to arbitration, as proposed, before Parliament is finally committed to any payment the award of the arbitrators should be submitted to Parliament and should be approved of.
Before I proceed to present the few arguments which I intend to present to the House in favour of the amendment, I desire to say that I regret that the matter is coming up this evening, because, before recess, I rather supposed that it was to stand over until to-morrow. I know that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was desirous of being present .and an intimation to that effect was conveyed to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I was informed by my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) that the matter -would stand until to-morrow if there was any assurance that the debate would be likely to be finished to-morrow. I can assure my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that there is no disposition on this side of the House to prolong the discussion beyond what is absolutely necessary in order to get our views fairly 'before the country. There was some misapprehension on the part of the Government ias to the intention of the Opposition in connection with the discussion while the Bill was in committee. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no desire and no intention to obstruct the Bill. I will tell you why. This is, from the financial standpoint, the most important measure that this or any previous

Parliament has ever had to deal with. Taking the amount which may have to be paid under the arbitration and adding it to the liabilities which this country will assume if it takes the stock, this measure involves a sum in the vicinity of $650,000,000, an enormous burden for the people of Canada. It involves the adoption of a principle which has never been submitted to the people, and this Parliament, whose life has been prolonged by our own votes and at our own request with a view of enabling the Government to do the most effective work possible ini carrying on the war, has no mandate, no authority, to commit the people to that principle. The people never dreamed that during its extended life Parliament would undertake to deal with a matter of such vast importance.
I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, . to the fact that the committee first began to consider this Bill on the 16th August and that it went out of the committee yesterday or only thirteen days from the time that it was first referred to the committee. If you bear in mind that during that time the Soldiers' Voting Bill was also considered and passed, and that a considerable portion of the Estimates was also passed, I think you will agree with me that there was no undue amount of time taken up with the consideration of this Bill. When you consider further that there were some sixty members upon this side of the House who had not had an opportunity of speaking upon the Bill, I think you will see that the view I present that there was no undue prolongation of the discussion is amply warranted. True, the closure was applied by the Minister of Finance and some bitterness was created which I think came largely from the undue desire to press the matter without having proper consideration for the rights of the minority. I think the Government would get along very much better and *could greatly facilitate the carrying on of the business if they had a greater regard for the rights of the minority than they have shown in this case.
This Parliament has been in session since January last, upwards of eight months. Before the recess there was ample time to introduce this Bill and there was a great deal of time after recess to introduce it before it was actually introduced. During the three months that some members of the Government were in England, the members of the Government and of Parliament who were at home might very well have had their time occupied in the consideration of this and other important mea-3234
sures. But it all comes down to this, that only thirteen days elapsed from the time the Bill was put into the committee until it was reported out of the committee. However, 1 have no doubt whatever that, as mentioned to the Minister of Finance before recess, in one day the discussion upon the third reading would be entirely completed. I do not know if the minister wants to bring the third reading on tonight with a view to giving notice of the closure. He may decide to do so, but I think he is hardly well advised to give the country the impression that by means of the power that is vested in the majority-by the votes of the majority-they intend to force through this Bill without an opportunity for discussion. I think hon. gentlemen opposite would jbe very badly advised if they took that course.
Now, with regard to the amendment, I contend it is. not fair to the people of this country to impose on them the obligation of paying to Mackenzie and Mann and the interests allied with them, who are the pledgees or holders of this $60,000,000 of stock, this vast sum of money without the matter again being presented to Parliament after it has been investigated by these arbitrators and without having their report, because their award would be in the nature of a report. This position is enormously *strengthened by the fact that in 1914 there was a statutory agreement made between Mackenzie and Mann, the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Government, by which statutory agreement it was provided that if Parliament would authorize the Government to grant further assistance to the extent of $45,000,000 Parliament would have the right, if it chose to do so, to authorize the Governor in Council by order, to foreclose the equity of redemption in this property.
Since that time, although the default which is provided for by that statute has occurred, this Government has given further assistance to the Canadian Northern Railway to the extent of $15,000,000. To-day, instead of the country being placed in the fairly advantageous position in which it would be placed if the provisions of the Act of 1914 were carried out, under this legislation the question is to be submitted to arbitrators, not from the standpoint of the Canadian Northern Railway Company being in default, not from the standpoint that they are obliged to sell, not from the standpoint that the country has lent them vast sums of money and aided them by guarantees and they are in default; but, I think any

Bill, it might make the advances. The arbitration then goes on, and it could be provided that,, unless, at the session of Parliament succeeding the award, Parliament did not approve of it, and did not authorize the Government to take the property over under the award, then all the stock would be returned to the parties entitled to it and any money which the Government might advance with interest would form a statutory lien upon the property of the Canadian Northern railway. The Government could provide that the cost to which Mackenzie and Mann and their associates had been put in connection with the matter might be paid by the Government. If it is decided to send it back to the committee for the purpose of making the change as specified in my amendment, it could be worked out so as to do no injustice to the Canadian Northern interest, but it should also leave Parliament and the people of this country free to act upon the award and free, if deemed in the public interest, to acquire the property in that way. I submit this amendment with all confidence, believing that it will commend itself to every one who is desirous of seeing the Canadian Northern taken over and made a government-owned system, and at the same time of doing what is fair towards the people of this country. We ought not to forget that it is not our money tnat is to be paid for this property. We are sitting here merely as trustees for the people of Canada, and we ought to give the people every reasonable opportunity of knowing what they will be called upon to pay for the property which, it is alleged, it is in the interests of the country to purchase. That opportunity will be afforded to the people if the amendment which I propose is carried into effect, and there will be no delay that will be injurious. The Government can assist the road, if it wants to, in the meantime, just in the same way as if they had taken the property over; and after the valuation placed upon the property by the arbitrator is known, if the people, with their eyes open, and Parliament acting for the people with its eyes open, decide it is not in the interest of the country to pay the award, then no one can complain But to-day, if the Bill passes unamended, without a provision such as I have asked the House to adopt, the country without being consulted, without ihe question having been submitted to them, without the electors at large having had an opportunity to pass judgment at all, will be committed

to a transaction which, as has been stated already, will run into an enormous sum of money. I think that will be most unjust and most unfair to the public. By adopting this amendment which I suggest, no injustice will be done to anybody; the course taken will be fair to the people of Canada, who will have to foot the bill and upon whom great responsibility in connection with the purchase of this system will rest.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker,
the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) labours under a great many misapprehensions about the measure now under consideration. Among other things, he is suffering from a very serious misapprehension as to the length of time during which the Bill has been before Parliament. On the first day of August, just four weeks ago to-dlay, notice was given of the resolution upon which this Bill was founded, and considerable discussion took place. The Bill has on many occasions since that time been under consideration, and my hon. friend will admit that whatever may be said1 about other members of the House, there has not been any lack of opportunity on his part to discuss the Bill very thoroughly and on all occasions. He very suavely informs us that there was never any intention on the part of hon. gentlemen on the 'other side of the House to obstruct the measure. I think he is in a position to speak in that respect for a good many hon. members on the other side, but not for himself. My hon. friend seems to be under another extraordinary misapprehension. He observes that this Bill ought to have been introduced before the recess which began early in February and continued, I think, until April 19. Does the hon. gentleman know that during that period the Commission which had been appointed to investigate the whole railway situation was continuing its deliberations, and that the report of that Commission was not presented to the Government, until sometime in April? The astonishing suggestion of my hon. friend is that, while a number of eminent gentlemen who had been appointed by the Government to make this investigation were still continuing their inquiries, the 'Government should have come before Parliament and introduced this Bill.
My hon. friend makes reference to various supposed occurrences of an unfortunate character, in his estimation, which will take place if an arbitration is proceeded with. May I call his attention to the fact that he evidently overlooked those possibili-

ties when he himself, in 1914 and again in 1916, strongly urged on this House that the property should be acquired through the acquisition of the stock and that the value of the stock should be determined by arbitration?
-Mr. PUGSL'EY:	I dislike to interrupt
my right hon. friend, hut he is entirely in error when he say-s that I strongly urged upon the House the desirability of taking over the property by arbitration. What I did say in 1914 was this: I urged that as a condition of guaranteeing the $45,000,000, the stock should be reduced to $30,000,000 and placed in trust for a period of five years so that if there was default the Govemr ment could at once take control of the property. If, on the other hand, the company pulled through for five years, then Parliament would have the right, if it chose to do so, to take the property at a valuation not exceeding $30,000,000. That is a very different thing.


Robert Laird Borden: That is only
another of the remarkable misapprehensions under which my hon. friend is labouring in regard to this Bill. I am really at a loss to account for them. On the second day of June, 1914, as I have already pointed out to this House, my hon. friend seconded this, resolution and spoke strongly in favour of it:
That the said Bill he not now read a third time, hut that it be resolved that under existing circumstances no assistance should be given to the Canadian Northern, Railway company unless at the same time it is provided that the Government have power, within a reasonable time to acquire the ownership of the entire stock of the company at a price to be fixed by arbitration, but not to exceed thirty million dollars.


William Pugsley: If my right hon.
friend will pardon my interrupting him again, may I ask him if he has read the resolution that I myself moved a short time before that?


Robert Laird Borden: I am reading
the resolution which the hon. gentleman seconded and in support of which he spoke very strongly. I have not the slightest objection to any interruption that my hon. friend may see fit to make; in fact, the more he interrupts me, the better I am pleased. There is his proposal; it was moved by his leader and supported by him in a strong speech. I reminded him on the - 14th day of August of what he had said in support of that resolution, but I will venture to trespass upon the time of the House by reading his remarks again, not so much for the benefit of the House-as,
I imagine, every other hon. gentleman remembers it-as for the benefit of my hon. friend himself, who seems to have forgotten it. Here is what he said:
My right hon. friend ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moves as an amendment that as a condition of granting this aid the Government shall be allowed to take control of this stock and control of the enterprise until it is completed, and that the country shall have leave to take over the entire stock of the Canadian Northern railway within a reasonable time at a price to be fixed by arbitration but not to exceed the sum of $30,000,000. Is not that a reasonable proposition? Is not that a proposition which is fair to the people of this country who are called upon to assume this enormous liability? Is it not fair to Mackenzie, Mann and Company who are asking this country, for the fourth time, to help to complete this enterprise? It is fair to Mackenzie, Mann & Company, and it is a fair and reasonable proposition on behalf of the people of this country.
My hon. friend has forgotten to-day what he said in 1914, but when we came to Parliament with a proposal on this subject in 1916, my hon. friend had a most vivid memory of what he had proposed in 1914, referred to it in terms of appreciation and commendation, and said that he was prepared to stand for the same thing at that time. He will agree that under the circumstances the extraordinary misunderstandings under which he seems to labour with regard to the proposal now before the House must detract from the authority which his words on ordinary occasions command in this House.
I shall take up in a moment the real point of my hon. friend's amendment. But first I should like to observe in that connection that if it is so obvious a proposition as ne has described it, it is a remarkable thing that it never occurred to him either in 1914 or in 1916. But it is a still more astonishing thing that during all the time this pioposal ha6 been before Parliament during the present session it never occurred to him until the moment when he arose to address the House half an hour ago.
What is our proposal? Our proposal is that we should appoint a Board of Arbitrators precisely in accordance with the method which he himself proposed in 1914 in the motion which I have read-according to the mode which in 1916 he declared to be eminently in the public interest. But he now proposes that after appointing a Board of Arbitrators to make an award which shall be subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and after the Board of Arbitrators and the Supreme Court of Canada have

spent months in determining a question of very considerable complexity, we in this Parliament, by some means which he has not defined, shall sit in further appeal, not only from the arbitrators, but from the Supreme Court of Canada itself. I do not know quite what he means in that regard. Does he mean that there is to be a real adjudication by this Parliament sitting as a judicial tribunal? If he means that seriously, how does he propose to work it out? Does he propose, after this matter has been gone into before the arbitrators upon evidence and with counsel, that we shall take their award here in Parliament, appoint a committee of Parliament, and traverse the exact ground that has 'been traversed by the tribunal which this Parliament has created for that purpose? Does he mean to say that any committee of this House would deal with this matter in the same businesslike and effective way that a Board of Arbitrators would deal with it? If he means a mere mock inquiry by Parliament into these matters, that is one thing. His proposition dismisses itself in the statement I have made, if that is his proposal. If on the other hand, he means that there is to be a committee of this House to do the work whieh the Board of Arbitration and the Supreme Court of Canada will already have performed under this Bill, then I venture to say that the work need not be done twice. His proposal in that case should be that a committee of Parliament ought to deal with the matter in the first instance, and that we should have no reference to arbitrators or to the Supreme Court of Canada, but have a committee selected from both sides of this House sit for months and hear evidence and the testimony of expert witnesses-go into all the intricacies of this question and arrive at a conclusion. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who believes that such work and the determination which it involves could be done as effectively by a committee of this Parliament as by a board of arbitrators? I venture to say there is not a single one-not even excepting the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) himself-who believes for one moment that such would Ire the case.
Let us have either the one or the other. If we are to have an inquiry by arbitrators, let us get arbitrators appointed whose award will be respected. If there is any doubt about the award, let us, as this Bill proposes, have the award inquired into by the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us not em-

hark upon the absolute foolishness, in my judgment, of having that done by the Board of Arbitrators in the first instance, by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second instance, and then set up a tribunal in this Parliament and do it for many weary months in the third instance.


William Pugsley: If the award was unanimous it would not go to the Supreme Court.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good, I am willing to meet my hon. friend on that ground. I say that after a board of arbitrators-the arbitrator for the company, the arbitrator for the Government, and the third arbitrator-have made a thorough and exhaustive inquiry into the questions which arise in this matter, my hon. friend would hardly be prepared to stand in his place and say that we ought to embark on the same inquiry before a committee of this House. Upon what ground does he base any such proposal? He has given no reason in favour of it.
We might have left the proposal he has submitted to-night to the judgment of the House without any answer to his address on the subject, because he has not advanced one substantial argument from first to last; and if there is anything that could be called a vestige of argument in what- .he has proposed in support of his amendment, I am prepared to show that on repeated occasions in the past he has thought no such proposal worthy of consideration for a moment.
There is this further to be said about his proposal, that it would render the Bill absolutely unworkable, as I understand it. Section 1 as amended by my hon. friend would leave everything in the air; it would practically declare that the stock was not to be immediately acquired in an absolute way. But section 2 declares that it may be so immediately acquired. His proposal conflicts also with section 3. He saw that, and in the course of his remarks he proposed some elaborate and complex amendments by which the people of this country were to provide money for aiding this road in the event of Parliament eventually determining that the road ought not to be taken over at the price fixed. What would that amount to? Simply this: The Government of Canada would aSk Parliament to vote $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 out of the public exchequer for the purpose of keeping this concern alive-for, if Parliament should not approve of the awrard, my hon. friend says the stock is to be handed back. Now what is the net result of that? In the

first place, it leaves the whole problem absolutely unsolved. We want to get this matter closed up and to have some policy determined upon in the interest of the people by which these applications for aid shall not come to Parliament any more. We practically said that to Parliament a year ago; I am inclined to think we said it in 1914. But whether we said it in 1914 or in 1916, we say it now. We say that the time has come when money ought not to be provided out of the public exchequer for the purpose of keeping this concern alive. And therefore, on that ground I reject the proposal of my hon. friend, because it simply means, as I have already said, that the public treasury of this country would be drawn upon to the extent of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 for an undertaking three-fifths of the stock of which, amounting to $60,000,000, would still be vested in private ownership.
There is another thing I should like to call to the attention of the House in connection with my hon. friend's proposal. I cannot understand his proposal as anything other than an attack upon state ownership. He has already said that he does not believe the country ought to acquire this road until after a general election and until after the people of Canada have passed upon the proposal. I might observe in passing that my hon. friend was not troubled with any scruple of this kind in 1914, or in 1916, when he supported and advocated proposals looking to the immediate acquisition of this road through the acquisition of the stock. The Minister of Finance has already pointed out with great force that there are only three alternatives so far as this road is concerned. One is liquidation, of which I will speak a little later,-for the present, 1 need only say that the proposal of liquidation has been rejected by every prominent member on both sides of the House who has spoken on this subject; and although my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) read some public statement the other day advocating the placing of the road in liquidation, I observed that he was careful not to commit himself to any defence of that proposition. The other two alternatives are ownership by the 'State and ownership by some other greet railway corporation in Canada. There is only one. other railway corporation in Canada that would be capable of dealing with so laTge an undertaking as that which is now under consideration^ this House. It, therefore, practically comes down to this: shall the Canadian Northern railway pass into the ownership of the people of Canada, or shall it pass into the ownership of the Canadian
Pacific Railway company? I am not here to attack the Canadian Pacific Railway company; I fully acknowledge and appreciate the great service which it has rendered, the great service which it is now rendering, and the greater service which it may render in the future to the people of this country; but I'have no hesitation whatever in saying that in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the people of Canada, between those two alternatives, the road ought to pass into the ownership of the people of Canada, and not into the ownership of the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation.
If the road is to pass into the ownership of the people of Canada, as the only one of the three alternatives which is in the public interest, what is to be the method of its acquisition? We have made a very plain and simple proposal to this House. This proposal has been attacked as to method, rather than as to principle. The chief attack which has been made upon it is that the Government ought to acquire the ownership of the physical assets of the road, and ought not to .acquire the balance of the common stock. It is said we should do that by utilizing the legislation of 1914. I have pointed out, and it has been repeatedly pointed out by hon. members on this side of the House, that if the Government utilized the legislation of 1914, it would be absolutely impossible, unless we desired to wreck the credit of this country, to proceed on any other principle than' that which is embodied in this Bill. That is to say, if the persons who own the equity of redemption in the Canadian Northern railway and its subsidiary companies claim with any show of reason at all that there is some value in that equity of redemption, it would be impossible for this Parliament, for this Government, or for any other Parliament or any other government having due regard for the public interest, to deny to the persons raising that claim the right to be heard as to the merits of their claim before some properly constituted tribunal. If you depart from that principle, you might just as well bring into Parliament a Bill which would authorize expropriation of the property of any citizen, or firm, or company in this country, without compensation, or with one-half or one-tenth of the compensation that might be found by any court as the value of such property taken by the Crown for public purposes. It is impossible to do it. It is absolutely im-

possible to deny the right to be heard to any man whose property is taken and who makes a reasonable claim that it has some value. Therefore, I say, under the Act of 1914, if the owners of the equity of redemption were able to show-as I think they have shown-that there is some reasonable claim for some value in the property over and above the encumbrances, we ought not to deny them the right to be heard. It, is an elementary principle of common justice embodied in all the provisions of the British Constitution that no man shall have his property taken from him, his rights taken away, or his liberty interfered with, unless he shall have had the opportunity of being heard before a competent tribunal in respect of his claim. Therefore, the principle upon which this Bill is founded is precisely the same as the principle upon which any government would have been obliged to proceed in acquiring this property under the Act of 1914. We prefer this method, for a very good reason which has been explained over and over again-for the reason that by acquiring the stock, although acting upon the same principle which we would have been obliged to follow if we had acquired the physical assets themselves, we do not disturb the corporate entity; we do not interfere with the organization of the road; we do not interfere with its efficiency; we do not interfere with the service which the railway is at present rendering to the people of Canada. And, more than that, instead of bringing the road under the direct administration of a department of the Government, we have its administration carried on by the same corporate machinery which has been employed for the purpose for many years past. I cannot see any fault or any fallacy in that reasoning. We are acquiring absolute control of the road and absolute ownership of the road to as full an extent as if we had acquired the physical assets. We are doing that by the acquisition of the stock, so as to prevent any interruption of the service of the road, or any impairment of its efficiency, and to keep its staff and its organization together, to prevent it from being brought under the direct administration of the Government, and to enable the system of administration which has carried on its work in the past to carry it on in the same way in the future.
There has been some criticism as to the method of arbitration. It is said we should have referred the question to the Judge of the Exchequer Court. No one has a higher 
respect than I have for the Judge of the Exchequer Court; but I would like to point out the authority upon which we based our action and the reasons which led us to the conclusion embodied in this Bill. The method of arbitration has the authority of the Drayton-Acworth rdport which it pleased some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House to commend most highly, and which I do not pretend for a moment to criticise. Let it be remembered, that report made two recommendations, first, that the country should acquire the Canadian Northern railway, not by the acquisition of its physical properties, but by the acquisition of its stock. The report said something more than that. It declared that the compensation, if any, to the holders of the stock should be determined by arbitration. That is the proposal which the Government- has embodied in this Bill and which is now before this House for decision. The only difference between what we propose here and what Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Acworth propose is this: Under the Drayton-Acworth report the holders of the stock were to be compensated by an allowance in stock. The amount of the allowance was to be determined by arbitration. One of the arbitrators was to be appointed by the trustees representing the Government, one by the Canadian Northern railway shareholders, and the third by the two arbitrators so appointed, or, failing an agreement, the third arbitrator was to be appointed by the senior judge of the Exchequer Court. One significant sentence was added which I will give to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) for his consideration. The Drayton-Acworth report recommended that an arbitration tribunal should be established for the purpose of making an award between the Government of Canada and the shareholders of the Canadian Northern, but it did not propose any reservation of the right of this Parliament to determine whether or not the award made by that tribunal should be accepted. No, the Drayton-Acworth report adds this significant sentence to its recommendation: " The decision of the board- should be final." We say here, for the same reason, and practically under the very same conditions, that the decision of the board appointed under this Bill should also be final, subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if the award should not be unanimous. If the decision was to be final with respect to the compensation in common stock, what reason can be urged for the argument that

it should not be final if it is to be paid in money? We do diverge from the Drayton-Acworth report in one respect. We say that the whole of the stock should be owned by the people of Canada, and if there is any value whatever in the stock owned by Mackenzie and Mann, that value should be paid in money and not by an allowance in stock. We think that the people of Canada should be the sole shareholders of this concern, and that the question as to any value in the stock should be determined by an award of arbitrators and that award should be final.
But if the hon. member for St. John is not satisfied with the authority of the Drayton-Acworth report, he may be satisfied with an authority which I am sure he will regard as equally high and that is the resolution which he seconded and to which I have just alluded. I will not trouble the House to read that resolution again. But let me point out just what that resolution did advocate. First, the Government was to acquire, not the physical property, but the stock. That was my hon. friend's resolution in 1914. That was his declaration in 1916. Second, the resolution declared that the stock was to be acquired at a price to be fixed by arbitration. Third, the price so fixed by arbitration was not to be subject to the approval of Parliament. He declares now that the price fixed by arbitration must be subject to the approval of Parliament. Why is it that the approval of Parliament is in the estimation of my hon. friend, necessary now, whereas it was not necessary, according to the view that he took in 1914 and again in 1916? Why was it reasonable and proper in 1914 to propose to acquire the stock, to fix the price by arbitration and to make the determination of the rbi-trators final, if to-day the acquisition of the stock is an improper course, if to-day a reference to arbitration is undesirable, and if to-day the determination of the arbitrators is not to be final? My hon, friend answered himself by anticipation in 1914 and again in 1916. His attention having been directed to his own opinion, frequently expressed, in approval of the course which the Government now proposes to pursue, it might reasonably be supposed that the hon. gentleman would at least have thought it worth while when he was addressing this House to indicate some reason, if any exists, why his views to-day differ so materially from those which he entertained in 1914 and again only a year ago.
I think I have pretty fully answered what my hon. friend has said in the way of argument in support of his amendment. But there are just one or two other matters upon which I may say a word to the House. Questions have been raised as to the information in the possession of the Government. A publio statement was read by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) a day or two ago, and although an answer has been given by the Minister of Finance, I think it worth while to make the members of this House and the people of this country generally understand what the real situation is in that regard. In the first place, even if the chaTge that the Government had not sufficient information to enable it to fix the price were true, it would have little relevancy, for the whole matter ie to be threshed out before the arbitrators. The Government is not fixing the value of this stock. If we were fixing the value, and if information were lacking, the Government would be open to charge and worthy of censure. But the Government is not proposing to do anything of the kind, the Government is proposing to leave this question to be determined by a fair, capable and impartial board of arbitration; and if any information were lacking to the Government as to assets or liabilities, all that information can be supplied, and must be supplied, in the presence of the board of arbitrators. Thus, the argument is meaningless, is it not?
But, I have to say that the Government is in possession of full, complete and absolute information as to the assets and liabilities of this road, and I will endeavour to impress that upon the House and the country as earnestly and as forcibly as I can. In the first place, there has been an examination and audit of expenditure during the construction of the road by Government engineers and that information, available in their reports, is at the command of the Government and has been analysed. In the second place, when we came to Parliament in 1914 with our proposal for enabling the road to be completed, we selected the three best men we could find in the public service for the purpose - Mr. Graham A. Bell, Financial Comptroller of the Department of Railways and Canals; Mr. Saunders, an exceedingly capable officer in the Department of Finance; and Mr. Shannon, Comptroller of the Intercolonial railway-and sent them to make a complete examination into the affairs of this road. They made it and they submitted a report in writing. That report was sub-

mitted to the Government and, if I remember correctly, it was laid on the Table of the House at that time. In the next place, pursuing the policy which was laid down in 1914, we had the most capable man at our command for the purpose, Mr. Graham A. Bell, maintain a continuous audit of this road from 1914 to 1916. He is thoroughly familiar with all the affairs of the road, with its assets, with its liabilities, with every detail of its operation. In the next place, in 1916, when the very great burden of duties imposed upon Mr. Graham A. Bell rendered it impossible for him to continue that work, we took one of the most capable firm of auditors we could find in Canada, the firm of Marwick, Mitchell, Peat & Company, and directed them to continue the work which Mr. Bell had carried out from 1914 to 1916, and so from 1916, when that firm undertook the work, up to the present time, there has 'been a continuous audit of the affairs of the Canadian Northern Railway company by that firm and continuous reports from month to month by them to (Mr. Bell. But that is not all. We then had the elalborate investigation, made by the commission of which Mr. Smith of New7 York was chairman-the commission which was composed of Mr. Smith, Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Acworth. Hon. gentlemen in this House know the vast amount of information with regard to this road contained in that report. We know that it embraced among other things, a physical valuation of the road made by one of the greatest experts in the world, probably the greatest expert for the purpose known on this continent; and then, in addition to that, there is available to the Government, if it should desire to use it, the elaborate investigation by New York experts, occupying months I believe, made by iMr. Loomis and. /Mr. Flatten. Mr. Loomis is president of the Lehigh Valley Railway company, and Mr. Platten is president of one of the greatest trust companies in New York. So, taking all this together, is it reasonable or fair to say that the Government has not very full and complete information, not only as to the assets and liabilities of the company, but as to the most minute details of all its affairs?
A suggestion has been made outside of this House that the proper method of dealing with this road would be to put it into liquidation. There has not been any serious argument raised on either side of the House that would lead us to 'believe that that is a wise or reasonable course.
 *
Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1916 we found this situation.: There was the parent company, the Canadian Northern Railway company, and there v7ere five subsidiary companies. There .is also a subsidiary road in Nova Scotia. We brought them together, under the Act of 1914, with a view to making this one complete system, and rendering its service more efficient than it otherwise would be. The portions of the physical property of the Canadian Northern Railway .system which are owned by these different companies are situated in different provinces. These different roads have been separately financed; there are different mortgages, there are different trust deeds. Suppose this road should go into liquidation, what would be the situation? The result would be that we should undo all the work w7e accomplished in 1914, when we brought all these roads into one effective system. If these roads should go into liquidation, what kind of situation would arise? Some of these different concerns might be in liquidation, others might not. Assuming that you got them all into liquidation, what would be the result? You would have seven receiverships in the seven different provinces. You would have seven courts at work. You would have seven sets of lawyers. You would have conflicts as to earnings. You would have the road broken up intd fragments. You would have it rendering an inefficient and practically useless service at a time when its service ought to be most effective and most efficient. You would have a paralysis of the service when it should be in its most vigorous operation. Conflicts as to the apportionment of earnings would arise. The rolling stock of the whole system is almost wholly owned by the parent company, whose road extends to only three of the provinces. The parent company owns property in only three provinces. If you finally succeeded in getting all these companies into liquidation, you might have two or three separate receivers in one province. What would it all amount to? What would be the result in the end? Could there be any good result? If the Government of Canada proposed, as I think we all do propose, to protect the .securities of which it is guarantor, then, after all that confusion, after all that paralysis of the service, you would practically have to come back to the same proposal we have before Parliament to-day. That would be the net result.
But there is another difficulty that might arise. Suppose you succeeded in getting

all these roads into 'liquidation, what would be the further result? I believe that the securities outstanding on the road at the present time are about $380,000,000. Whatever else may be said of the Canadian Northern railway, I do not think any one disputes that they did their financing in a very thorough and skilful wav. They placed their securities at from three to four per cent. If you succeeded in getting all these companies into liquidation, I am informed that under most of the trust deeds the principal would beccv/ e due. Suppose vou had $380,000,000 of principal coming due, or say that only part of it would become due-suppose you had $250,000,000 of principal coming due under these trust deeds. Does not every hon. gentleman see that it would be to the direct interest of every one holding those securities that the principal should become due? For what reason? Their securities are worth to-day from 80 per cent to 90 per cent.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: The three and one-half per cents are from 75 up.


Robert Laird Borden: They would immediately go to one hundred cents on the dollar, and, further than that, when we went back the next day to borrow that sum of money for the purpose of keeping the concern going, we should pay between six per cent and seven per cent instead of between three per cent and four per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Their last loan cost them seven per cent.


Robert Laird Borden: Is any one going seriously to propose that we shall put this property into liquidation for the purpose of creating the confusion, dislocation, and paralysis to which I have alluded, with no good Tesult in the end? You would have to come back 'to some proposal like that embodied in this Bill if you intend to protect the guarantee of this country. I'f, as I have pointed out, liquidation will increase the annual fixed charges to about $22,000,000, instead of $15,000,000, as they are at present, I would not suppose that so absurd a proposal would l)e seriously put forward by any person who had given consideration to the real problem that is before the country and the Government at this time.
It really seems to me that my hon. friend's amendment has an air of unreality about it. It is inconsistent with all practice and precedent. It is essentially inconsistent with the Drayton-Acworth renort. I contend that, except as to the
question of operation, to which I will come in a moment, we are substantially, in this Bill, following the principle laid down in the Drayton-Acworth report. We are following it in three respects: first we are acquiring the stock; second, we are fixing its value, if any, by arbitration; third, we are providing that the arbitration shall foe final. Those are the essential features of the Drayton-Acworth report.
There is something to be said on the question of operation. I do not propose to go into that fully to-night; I siaid something about it on a previous occasion, when the Bill was first introduced. There is absolutely no question that in this country we have a serious situation upon our hands in the railway problem that lies before us.
I do not want to dwell too insistently on the origin of those problems, but I think my hon. friends on the other side of the House will not be prepared to dispute- indeed they have not disputed-what I said the other day in that regard, when I pointed out that they had given both these railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, the status which they now occupy, before we came into power. The only question that lay before this Government, after we came into power, was to decide whether we should sustain the situation which had been created, or whether we should inflict upon the country, particularly at a time of business depression, a dangerous blow by permitting the roads while in process of construction to go into liquidation, and by thus .announcing to the world that Canada had embarked upon a policy of railway extension, in view of her great resources, which, in the end, she found she was not able to carry out. Rightly or wrongly, we decided to sustain this road, and we are dealing with the matter as best we can. But the situation that was created by my hon. friends^on the other side of the House, and for which they were responsible in the first instance, has brought us to the question of how we are to provide for state-operated or II p.m. state-owned railways in this country in the most effective way. No one is more conscious than I am of the immense difficulties and tremendous importance of that question. It is for the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada in the immediate future, to make or mar the future of state-ownership in Canada, and so far as I am concerned, I shall bend my best energies, so far as they may be called into service, to make the operation of this road


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, and as we sat rather late this morning discussing this Bill, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
William Thomas White: I beg to give
notice that at the next sitting of the House I will move that the debate on the third reading of Bill No. 125 shall not be further adjourned'.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend think it is fair to give notice of that kind, in view of the address just made by the Prime Minister? Does he think that the address of the Prime Minister is one which the House ought not to consider?


William Thomas White: This Bill has now been under debate for two weeks. Friday
night is not a convenient night to take the vote, because so many members go home.
If the leader of the Opposition desires to speak, as far .as this side of the House is concerned, he will not be confined to twenty minutes. But I do not see how we can be assured that this debate will be brought to an end to-morrow ni'ght unless this notice is given and the necessary motion moved to-morrow. Having regard to the convenience of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, I think that this vote should be taken to-morrow night, not Friday night.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is not paying his leader a very great compliment when he asks the House to dispense with consideration of that right hon. gentleman's address.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend need not worry about my views in regard to that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose these are the last terms imposed by Sir Clifford Sifton.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no desire to be unfair to my hon. friend'. If we get any assurance that the debate will conclude to-morrow we are prepared to go on in the ordinary way. As we cannot get any such assurance we have to give this notice. With the consent of the House, the remarks of the hon. gentleman might be continued; I should not for a moment dream of raising objection if consent of the House was given.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Finance has said that the debate upon this Bill has lasted two weeks. I do not know that it should have lasted any shorter time than that. The question is one of the most important that we have ever had before us; it is full of complications; it is full of figures. We were given information from time to time as the debate went on. Even if the debate should require one day more, I think the Government might very well be satisfied. I know that Friday is not a very convenient day to take up such business as this, but there is other business before the House. The Government cannot complain that we have in any way delayed their business. Perhaps my hon. friend will reconsider the matter, and decide not to press this motion to-morrow.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

Thursday, August 30, 1917.