1918-05-14

CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the question asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for North Simcoe, I beg to state that the proper manner for the House to express its disapproval with regard to any order passed by the Governor General in Council is to move a humble address to the Crown. The authorities are as follows:
"The subjects upon which addresses are presented are too varied to admit of enumeration. They have comprised every matter of foreign or domestic policy; the administration of justice; the confidence of Parliament in the ministers of the Crown; the expression of congratulation or condolence, and in short, representations upon all points connected with the government and welfare of the country." (iMay, p. 546).
Bourinot is to the same effect, as follows :
"It is now the usage to move for addresses only with respect to matters affecting Imperial interests, the regal prerogative, or the Governor in Council." (Bourinot, p. 2456).
"The subjects on which the two houses may address the sovereign or his representative in this country are too numerous to be detailed at length. They may relate to every matter of public interest, to the administration of justice, to commercial relations, or to the political state of the country; in short, to all subjects connected with the Government and the welfare of the dominions." (Bourinot, p. 259).



PRIVILEGE- MR. McQUARRIE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. ,G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the privilege of the House to refer to a report which appears in the two Ottawa papers this morning in reference to the debate on the Civil "Service Bill.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member
rise to a question of privilege?


Mr. McQUAERIE:: Yes. I find in the Journal-Press of to-day, an article reading as follows:
Appointments Within Province.
W. G. McQuarrie, New Westminister, moved an amendment providing that, except as to the city of Ottawa, appointments in any province should, in so far as possible, be made from residents of that province. He said that, within the last few days, application had been made for an additional stenographer in the Government offices at New Westminster. He had been informed that one would have to be sent from Ottawa. He thought his amendment a reasonable one. It would not be advisable, of course, to have all the appointments made in Ottawa from Ontario.
Sir George Foster opposed the amendment on, the score that its tendency would be to cultivate provincialism. The country, he said, should not be cut up into sections. There was no valid reason why a man from British Columbia should not have an opportunity of serving in any part of Canada.
H. H. Stevens (Vancouver Center) said that residents of British Columbia were not afforded proper opportunity to take part in competitive examinations. Owing to the short notice given it was impossible to compete and there were no examinations held in British Columbia at all.
Sir George Foster agreed that there should be equal opportunity given to residents of all the provinces.
Unless there were some safeguards provided, Mr. Cockshutt remarked, all the plums would go to residents of Ottawa and the large cities.
This is the particular part:
Sir Sam Hughes stated that when positions in the Civil Service were vacant they should whenever possible, be filled by men residing in the constituencies in which the vacancy occurs.	-
An amendment to this effect was moved by Mr. Maclean and carried by the House. It had no reference to the inside service.
Mr. iMcQuarrie's amendment stood over.
As a matter of fact, the last part of that report to the effect that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) was accepted is not correct. I have in Hansard of yesterday the amendment which was finally proposed by the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) and adopted. It is this:
Excepting as to the Inside Service, all appointments to any position in a province shall, so far as practicable, be made from bona fide residents of such province.
The point being in regard to the province and not to the constituency as had been suggested by the hon. member for Victoria. The remarkable part of this is that the other paper, the Ottawa Citizen, publishes an exactly similar report in almost the same words. It seems to me a most re-matkable thing that two papers of such
standing as the Citizen and the Journal Press


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is not in order for the hon. member to discuss the why and wherefore of the publication of certain articles in newspapers. If the hon. member wishes to take exception to any statement published in the press it is competent for him to do so.


William Garland McQuarrie: In another part of
the Citizen of yesterday, on the front page, there is a statement to this effect:
Mr. McQuarrie of New Westminster wanted soldiers to be exempt from examination, but Hon. A. K. Maclean, who is piloting the Bill through the House, thought that this would not be in the best ' interest of the service, although declaring that the returned soldier must be looked after. In withdrawing his amendment, Mr. McQuarrie expressed the belief that the House would be willing to adopt it next session.
I wish to deny that I made a proposal of that kind. What I suggested was in the form of an amendment to the effect that the Civil Service Commission should be given the power in certain cases, at their discretion, to exempt soldiers from taking this examination. I might afso point out in this connection that this morning's edition of The Journal-Press has exactly the same paragraph, also on the front page.



DELEGATION OF CANADIAN FARMERS.


Mr. T. VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the conference of farmers now assembled in Ottawa have communicated with you requesting the favour of being received by this House. I would like to know whether my information is correct, and if so, whether it is your intention to communicate that information to the House for immediate consideration, as the conference is likely to conclude its work during the day, and if the House intends to appoint an hour to receive the farmers it must be done right away.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In answer to the hon. member, I may say that I have just received a communication from the Chairman of the meeting at the Russell Theatre.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: What is the gentleman's name?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: R. H. Halbert. It would perhaps be in order for me to communicate the letter to the House.

Russell Theatre,
Ottawa, Ont,, May 14th, 1918.
The Honourable
E. N. Rhodes,
Speaker, House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir:
On behalf of several thousand Ontario farmers, I beg to transmit to you the following resolution just passed, and to say that, encouraged by the reception recently accorded the President of the American Federation of Labour, we are confident the request will be granted.
"That this meeting instruct the chairman respectfully to ask the House of Commons to receive him and two delegates he shall name, at the sitting of the House this afternoon, to hear their address upon the situation in the country and asking that democracy be honoured in the prosecution of the war and all other matters of Government."
The messenger who brings this will respectfully await an answer.
I am,
Most respectfully,
(Signed) R. H. Halbert,
Chairman.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Mr. Speaker, did you say the letter is from the Ontario farmers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Ontario farmers. It is, of course, for the House to determine as to what its desire may be in the premises, but .so far as I am aware there has not been a case where the course asked for in this communication has been followed. The reference to the presence in this Chamber of the President of the American Federation of Labour is hardly in point, because he was the representative of a .great organization in another country. The right Hon. Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Viviani, were also received by this House. In all three oases the privilege was accorded to gentlemen from outside Canada, and it seems to me, with all deference to this organization, that it is a precedent which it may be somewhat dangerous to establish. If I may venture to say so, the receiving of one organization in this country will open the door for similar cases in great numbers to follow. However, I leave the question to the House.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Do I understand the communication comes from the farmers of Ontario, or from the farmers of the whole of Canada?
Hon. R. LEM1IEUX (Maisonneuve) It comes from the President of the Ontario farmers.


William Findlay Maclean: My understanding is that the request was to come, and did come, from all the farmers assembled in 
this city representing not only the farmers of Ontario but those of other provinces.


Right Hon.   S@: That makes the case all the stronger. There can be no doubt that Mr. Speaker, having given communication to the House of the request made this morning by the farmers who are assembled in the city, has discharged his duty. Mr. Speaker has no further power in this matter. If action is to be taken it must come from the House itself, and that action, of course, is expected to be directed by the leader of the House for the time being. .
Your statement, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labour, 'belonged to another country, does not constitute a good precedent. I imagine that the representatives of a Canadian association should have as much privilege here as the representative of an association of another country. I would further point out that in 1910 the Canadian House of Commons received a delegation of farmers from the West who presented a petition on the subject of reciprocity with the United States. It is true that delegation was not received with the Speaker in the Chair, but they were received in the Chamber of the House, the Government and their supporters, and members of the Opposition, being present, But, of course, the matter is in the hands of the Government for them to take action.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to the delegation of farmers from the West, I was a member of the House at the time and I distinctly recall that they were not received by the House in session. The delegation merely had the privilege of entree to the House of Commons Chamber, and there they addressed the Government. That is an entirely different matter. However, we cannot dispose of the matter on the Orders of the Day.


Samuel Hughes: I think at the time the delegation came from the West they were given full control of the Chamber, and the ministers and members of the House were merely there for the time being as visitors.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point is that the
House was not in session.


Samuel Hughes: That is' correct.
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	The Speaker
was not in the Chair, that is all the difference there was.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I quite concur
with the remarks made by the Speaker

with reference to this matter. The leader of the Government is at the present time engaged with the same delegation at another place, and whatever action is taken should not, I think, be tsfken in his absence.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


George Green Foster: I will communicate this request-or if not I, the Speaker of the House will communicate it- to the leader of the Government, and an intimation will he made at the opening of this afternoon's session aa to what action will be taken. For myself, I would, have no objection at all to the delegation 'being allowed, with the Speaker's concurrence, the opportunity of addressing the members of the House for a time after the House rises at six o'clock. That would place the present privilege on a parity with that granted on the occasion of the western delegation (which I remember perfectly well), of addressing members of the Government and members of the House.



DAYLIGHT SAVING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster, Bill No. 86, to amend the Daylight Saving Act, 1918, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Bill considered in committee, reported and read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
RENEWAL OR POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS OF [DOT]	THE COMPANY.
On the order to resume the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Maclean (Halifax) for the second reading of Bill No. 87, an Act supplementary to chapter twenty-four of the Statutes of 1917, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system.
Wilfrid Laurier: At the conclusion of last night's sitting it was announced that we would proceed to-day with (the Railway Bill, which was to be the first Order of the day. We were prepared to discuss that Bill this morning.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: May we not advance this Bill a bit?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection at all, but that was not the Order which was set down. Yesterday we inquired what was to be taken up to-day, and were told the Railway Bill.


Mr. J. D. REID:: It was the intention to fake up the Railway Bill, but the Acting
Minister of Finance thought it well to advance the Canadian Northern Railway Bill before we proceeded with the Railway Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: All right.
On motion of Mr, A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 87 was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-Guarantee on renewal or postponement of payments.


Mr. CAHILL:: Before this clause carries,
I think the country is entitled to further information on the subject of the Canadian Northern railway. From the statement furnished by the Acting Minister of Finance on Miay 10th, as of September 30, 1917, the total liabilities are shown in round figures as $592,000,000. After deducting from that amount the total capital stock of $100,000,000; the stock of subsidiary companies, some $5,900,000; the reserves of $4,900,000; the affiliated companies advance account of $9,000,000, and the surplus of $34,000,000, there is a balance remaining to be assumed by the country of $437,000,000. According to the statement submitted to the Government by the Drayton-Acworth Commission appointed by the Government to investigate the value and assets of the Canadian Northern railroad, the maximum possible cost of the road would be $370,000,000. From this amount should be deducted the cash subsidies of $38,000,000, the land grant on which cash has been received to the amount of $16,000,000 and land on hand, making a total of $75,000,000. If we deduct this $75,000,000 from $370,000,000, it leaves a balance of $295,000,000 as the total investment in the road, exclusive of the cash subsidies and the land grant. Deducting that amount from $437,000,000 would leave a profit to the promoters of $142,000,000. This road comprises some 9,600 miles, which, divided into the total amount of $437,000,000, would make the cost $46,000 per mile. According to the Drayton-Acworth report, the cost should be $31,000 per mile. In other words, there is a profit to the promoters of $15,000 a mile. Sessional Paper 237, giving a statement of the Canadian Northern railway as o'f June 30, 1916, shows unguaranteed securities at $147,000,000, and from these reports, both the report submitted a few days ago and last year's report, it is apparent that there is a matter of $142,000,000 of promoters' profits.



It may be interesting to the committee and to the country to know if this $147,000,000 of unguaranteed securities represents the amount of water which has been injected into this capital of $142,000,000. The statement last year showed total liabilities of $578,000,000; the statement submitted on May 10 shows liabilities of $592,000,000. The property investment has also been written up $16,000,000 since the last statement was submitted to the House-from $494,000,000, to $510,000,000. No explanation has been offered of what these amounts represent. The committee is entitled to know what are the total assets of the Canadian Northern Railway company, the total assets and liabilities of the subsidiary companies, and the names of the stockholders and holders of securities. Apparently $140,000,000 of the country's money is going to somebody-the people would like to know to whom. We should also be informed who are the holders of the other $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 of common stock. This information has been asked for repeatedly in the House but has never been submitted. In their statement of May 1, 1918, the Canadian Pacific Railway company say:
The total capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railwav Company's transportation system, comprising 13,400 miles of railway in Canada operated directly by the company, with the rolling stock equipment and steamboat craft on inland waters, its splendid terminal stations and facilities, and other accessories, is $6*3,000.000.
If you divide 13,400 into the amount of capitalization of this company, you find that $46,000 a mile is the cost of the Canadian Pacific railway, containing over one thousand miles of double track, and including terminal facilities, hotels and steamships. We are asked to pay for the Canadian Northern Railway system an amount equal to the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway company. It may be asked how the promoters of the Canadian Northern got this amount of money or these securities above the actual cost of the road. The answer is quite simple. The Government auditors, investigating whether Mackenzie and Mann made any money out of the Canadian Northern, come to the conclusion that they did not. But the auditors did not go as far as the Northern Construction company, which is another Mackenzie and Mann organization. This is the procedure. The Canadian Northern made a contract with Mackenzie and Mann at a certain amount per mile. Mackenzie and Mann let a contract to the Northern Gon-
[Mr. Cahill. 1
struction company at the same price, and the Northern Construction company, in turn do some of the work and let contracts to sub-contractors. The Mackenzie and Mann Northern Construction Company get the profits; the Mackenzie and Mann Construction Company get the common stock-but the Mackenzie and Mann Northern Construction Company and the Mackenzie and Mann Construction Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company are one and the same people. According to statements furnished by the Government and by the Canadian Northern, they have loaded this enterprise to the extent of $15,000 a mile, practically the cost of the road through the whole prairie section. We are told by the Prime Minister that the Government have safeguarded the interests of the people by appointing their own directors on the directorate of the Canadian Northern. Let me call attention to the names of these Government directors. There is Mr. William K. George, of Toronto, who has been in the Standard SilveT Plating business, and I believe, is somewhat of a political acrobat. Then there is Mr. Graham Bell, an accountant, I understand, in the Civil Service, under the title of financial comptroller-a glorified name for bookkeeper. Then there is Mr. Ediward Rogers Wood of Toronto, who is president of the Central Canada Loan and Savings Company, vice-president of the National Trust Company, vice-president of the Brazilian Traction Light and Power Company, director of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, director of the Toronto Street Railway Company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He is not a Government director.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend has stated that he is.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Christie, Mr. George and Mr. Bell. '


Frank S. Cahill: That is not the information given on Hansard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Hansard may be wrong.	[DOT]


Frank S. Cahill: It should be correct.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The difference is not very serious, anyway.


Frank S. Cahill: The difference is not serious, because all the directors now on the directorate of the Canadian Northern Railway Company might be put in a bag and shaken up-and it would not matter which

one the Government put their hand on and named as their director, for they are practically all the same. The information as to the Government directors was given by the Acting Minister of Finance during the course of his statement a few days ago in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway system. If we have no further interest in this enterprise than to appoint such men as these on the board of directors, at least we should, before we vote any further moneys, have a complete statement from the Government as to where these moneys are going and where we expect to end up in connection with this Canadian Northern Railway system. We seem to be getting in deeper all the time. Our liabilities have gone up $13,000,000 to $16,000,000 since last year, on account of this railway system-and the end is not yet. We have not taken over the road; we have not appointed directors who are taking an active part in its management. We are still handing millions to Mackenzie and Mann, and unless we can shake Mackenzie and Mann loose of this proposal the country will not stand for the payment of any further money to it. We should eliminate Mackenzie and Mann from the board of directors, lock stock and barrel, and put in charge men who can manage and operate the road in a businesslike way.. You may say that Mackenzie and Mann are in a better position to manage the road than any new persons coming in. I submit that Mackenzie and Mann built the Toad for the profits that they made out of its construction, and the figures given by the Acting Minister of Finance prove this. Before any further money is voted, the committee should have full information on this subject. The Government have made no statement about what they intend to do in the matter. The question was raised yesterday whether the Government were going to appoint a commission to manage the road, and it was stated that they had formed no plan. Before we make further investment in the enterprise we should form some definite plan of management of the road.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I explained to the House on a previous occasion the purpose of this resolution and of the legislation which is to be based on it. Securities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company mature this year, which they desire to renew, with as small a payment upon principal as possible. That is a businesslike re-
121}
quest, and I cannot understand why there should .be any objection to it. Legislation was passed last year enabling us to make advances to the Canadian Northern Railway Company to an amount not exceeding $25,000,000. .
That amount was disbursed largely in maturity and interest payments. A detailed statement of the expenditures was placed on the table of the House at an early date in the session. Hon. gentlemen will understand that, if the Government can assist the railway in renewing notes or securities maturing during the year, it is in the interest of the road and of the country. My hon. friend wants, some more information. I thought I gave him all the information he could possibly require, and I really do not know of any other information I can give him.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister can give the names of the owners of the $9,000,000 worth of stock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I purpose doing that.


Frank S. Cahill: He can also give the names of the owners or pledgees of the securities. He can give the names of the people to whom this money is to be paid, and he can give the whole policy of the Government in regard to this railroad.	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not understand what my hon. friend1 means when he says I might give information as to whom the money wae paid.


Frank S. Cahill: The graft money, $25.000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The information with reference to the $25,000,000 is to be found in a return submitted to Parliament.


Mr. BUREAU:: The return simply gives the name of the subsidiary companies on account of whom it was paid, but not to whom it was paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We could get that also.


Frank S. Cahill: The return says: Canadian Northern Railway Company, $9,000,000; Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, $2,000,000, and so on. It is Canadian Northern right through. The total is $25,000,000, and the dates on which it was paid are November 19, 1917, $12,500,000; November 28, 1917, $2,000,000, and so on down until February 4, 1918, making a total of $25,000,000. Where did this money go to? Who stands between the treasury

and the people who are getting this money, if it is not the minister?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The authority for the payment of the amount referred to by the hon. member is to be found in an Act of Parliament of last year, and the amount was largely expended in respect to securities of the Canadian Northern railway which matured last year.


Frank S. Cahill: To whom was it paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: One cannot tell that. I suppose it is possible to tell who were the holders of the securities and who presented them, but that would be of little information to ihe House. If my hon. friend thinks it is important to him to have that information, I suppose we can get it for him. But these payments were made by the Government, of course, after investigation and audit, and the Government was satisfied that they were obligations which they had authority to pay.


Thomas Vien: The minister said that the amount was expended largely in the payment of securities maturing. Did it cover them entirely or only in part?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was expended in paying bonds maturing, interest, equipment notes and some construction work.


Thomas Vien: We should like to have information in detail in regard to that, how much was for bonds maturing, how much for equipment, how much for interest, how much to banks for commissions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall endeavour to have that on the second reading of the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have passed the second reading of the Bill. When shall we have the information?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Jacques Bureau: How many shares has each of the three last named on the list?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Twenty shares each.


Jacques Bureau: Is that what is required by the by-laws?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assume so.


Jacques Bureau: When was this stock transferred to the Government? When did the Government become the owner of the stock by transfer? That question has been on the Order Paper in various forms, and the date has never been given.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: $40,000,000 worth of the capital of the Canadian Northern was in the hands of the Government some two or three years ago. On October 1, 1917, the balance of its holdings was transferred to the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty.


Frank S. Cahill: Can the minister tell me the standing of the $40,000,000 worth of stock, whether we have acquired that completely, or whether it is still the property of Mackenzie and Mann?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We hold it completely, and have held it for several years.


Frank S. Cahill: As security.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, as proprietors.


Frank S. Cahill: Out and out?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is under the old Act.

Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the minister give us an idea as to how much money will be required to renew certain of those obligations and on what dates he expects they should be renewed? That would be very important to know.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: During the present year?
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We estimate an amount not greater than $6,028,000. That was contained in the statement I gave to the House on Friday last. It is, however, possible that the Canadian Northern railway may be able to renew in full the obligations maturing this year.


Thomas Vien: Has the Government paid to the Canadian Northern or any of the shareholders thereof any amount on account of the price to be paid for the expropriation of their shares?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Frank S. Cahill: In reading the names of the holders of the $9,000,000 worth of shares, I see that they all sound familiar, as being among the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The names of Mr. Lash, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Horne-Payme were mentioned among others, as being the owners oi the balance of the stock. Why is this $9,000,000 worth of stock not being taken over with the rest?
iMr. A .K. MACLEAN: The Government have authority to acquire it at any time. Section 2 of chapter 24 of the statutes of last year says:
Upon the making of said agreement, at least five-sixths of the said six hundred thousand shares shall be transferred to the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, and if there be any of the said six hundred shares not transferred as aforesaid, the Governor in Council may declare the said shares to be the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, and the same shall thereupon become the property of His Majesty and shall be paid for pro rata with the shares so transferred.


Frank S. Cahill: On what basis would that be?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would depend upon the award made hy the arbitrators.


Frank S. Cahill: Why should we let Mackenzie and Mann hold out any of the *stock?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are not holding it ou't. My hon. friend forgets that this country owns the road. Parliament practically unanimously decided last year to take the road over; I do not think more than two members of Parliament were opposed to it. The only difference of opinion was as to the amount which should be paid for the equity. The road belongs to the people of this country.


Frank S. Cahill: The debts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are assuming the liabilities. As Parliament almost unanimously adopted last year the policy of taking over the road, vre must, of course, assume the obligations of the road.


Mr. ROBB:: Does the minister claim that the Canadian Northern Railway legislation .was put through unanimously last year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I speak subject to correction, but I think the policy of taking over the road was almost unanimously adopted by Parliament, the only difference being as to the amount paid for the equity.


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that the
legislation was put through, toy closure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not that part.


Mr. MURPHY:: The whole thing.


Frank S. Cahill: If we own the road, why should we not manage it? Why should we leave Mackenzie and Mann and that ring still in control and coming to Parliament for further money? Apparently we own only the liabilities, and we have the privilege of handing out more money. The management of the road is a big business proposition and we should handle it ourselves. The management should have been taken over when the stock was acquired'.
(Mr. BUREAU: They run the country so they might as well run the road.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of
Finance last year, speaking, about the appointment of a commission or a board to manage the road instead of the present board, said .that the Government thought it advisable to leave the management as it was until the arbitrators made their award. In any event it will not toe long before the Government will have full control of the road. It is undoubtedly a very important matter for deliberation as to how the road shall be managed. I do not know that the interests of the country have suffered by reason of the old directors remaining on the hoard up to the present time. We have representatives on that board.


Frank S. Cahill: Is that a statement of the Government's policy, that this same bunch

shall operate the road? The minister says the road is not losing any money.


William Findlay Maclean: No. I said that possibly the country's interests were not suffering by reason of the old hoard 'continuing to manage the road. However, it is the intention of the Government to select its own hoard very shortly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does not my hon. friend believe that it was the intention of the Government last year to select their own board? Does he not believe that this is the time for the Government to make a statement as to their policy on this very question? We shall have a statement as *to their policy in a very few days, so why not now? If we cannot have it now, why not postpone the Bill? Why put off from day to day the statement of the Government's policy in this matter? These are supposed to be the last days of the session. The Government expects to prorogue this week or next, and in a matter of this importance we are told that we shall have the information some time later. What is the objection to giving the information to the House now? I must say the Government is not treating the House with proper respect. They are not giving us the information which is due to Parliament on this very Bill. We were to have the information, but we have not got it. We were to be informed how this 525,000,000 had been spent, but we have not got that information. This sheet the minister has prepared is not satisfactory; it is not such a statement as we should have. The Government last year determined to acquire the stock of the company, and that stock is ours to-day. The only thing that remains to be done in connection with it is *the fixing of the price, and that matter is now in the hands of the arbitrators. Until the arbitrators have made their award the Government, after acquiring five-sixths of the stock, may make advances to the company. Here is the law:
Upon the making of said agreement, at least five-sixths of the said six hundred thousand shares shall be transferred' to the Minister of Finance.
That stock has already been transferred. Then what takes place?
So soon as the said five-sixths of the said shares have been transferred as aforesaid, the Governor in Council may assist-
Mark the words:
-may assist the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any company included in the Canadian Northern Railway System, in paying
[iMr. Cahill,]
and settling any indebtedness of such company or postponing the payment thereof on such terms as may be agreed upon, and for such purposes may make advances out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; Provided, however, that until authorized by Parliament, the total of such advances shall not exceed the sum of twenty-five million dollars.
Mark those words:	The Government
may make advances to settle any indebtedness of the company or to postpone the payment thereof. Under that section the Government have advanced: to the road 525,000,000. The section continues:
A statement of any such advances, showing in detail the purposes for which they were applied, shall be presented to Parliament by the Minister of Finance within twenty days after the opening of the next ensuing session thereof.
There has been advanced to the road under that section 525,000,000, and a statement has been furnished to the House. What should have been in that statement? We should have been informed of the transactions which took place, and how much money was expended on each by the Government for the benefit of the country. All we know is that the company has received $25,000,000, as follows:
Nov.	19,	1917 	00Nov.	28,	1917 	97Dec.	10,	1917 	00Dec.	27,	1917 	47Jan.	9,	1918 	00Jan.	18,	1918 	00Jan.	24,	1918 	00Jan.	30,	1918 	77Feb.	4,	1918 	79

That statement shows the payments that have been made, out we want to know for what purpose those payments were made. Were they made to extinguish liabilities or simply to pay accounts. Were they made, as specified in the statute, in order that the money might be used.
-in paying and settling any indebtedness of such company or postponing the payment thereof on such terms as may be agreed upon.
What have we now? We have made them a loan of $25,000,000. Has that been used for the further construction of lines? No, it has been used to meet the following payments :
Principal of Construction Loans:
Central Trust, Co., New York,
Loan repaid	 $1,750,000	00
Guaranty Trust Co., New YOrk, payment in reduction
of loan	 300,000	00
Columbia Trust Co., New York, payment in reduction
of losn	 1,500,000	00
We have a right to know upon wha\ terms this reduction of loans has been made Was

it upon the terms of the statute? There is not a word about that here. Is that treating the House with respect?
[Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: I think that the return gives the right hon. gentleman a good deal of information. That return has been on the table of the House for two months and if it were not satisfactory it would have been easy for him to have moved for more detailed information.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the contrary, we should know how this money was applied. We should know whether it was used in payment for the redemption of securities?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The statement shows that.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the statement does not show upon what terms the payment was made. Was it for increased interest? We have a right to know all this. There is no information upon these matters. Then we have:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does my right hon. friend mean to say that we should present the name of the holder of every bond which was retired?


Wilfrid Laurier: I say that you should give a full statement of the transaction showing how you applied that $35,000,000.
Mr. A. K. iMACLEAN: I submit to my right hon. friend that if this statement is not entirely satisfactory a request should have been made two months ago for further information.


Wilfrid Laurier: No board of directors of any private corporation would be satisfied with such a statement as you have here. You should give full particulars of this whole transaction before you [DOT]come and ask Parliament for further favours. I repeat that the Government is not treating the House with that respect to which it is entitled and is not giving it the information that it has a right to obtain.
Payment of principal of equipment bonds.
Payment of interest on equipment bonds.
.$ 4,976,500 00 1,075,002 50
Interest and sinking fund on mortgage securities ranking prior to Canadian Northern Railway 4 per cent debenture stock guarantee by Dominion Government and interest on loans, etc.
Canadian Northern Railway Canadian Northern Pacific Railway.
Canadian Northern Alberta Railway .
Canadian Northern Western Railway	
Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway.. .. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway	
Canadian Northern Ontario Rail
way	
Central Ontario Railway..
Bay of Quinte Railway. .
Mount Royal Tunnel & Termin
Co. Ltd	
Canadian Northern Quebec Railway.
Quebec and Lake St. John Railway	
Total.
al
$ 9,	,136,083	182,	,117,301	76165,374	91622,619	83202,056	00570,552	871,	,028,053	8057,012	9990,500	00582,741	58420,359	76172,363	32233,467	50,$25	,000,000	OO
Were all these securities extinguished?
Mr. A. K. MAC-LEAN: Certainly; that is what the statement shows, in part at least.


Jacques Bureau: The acting minister says that we have all the information that we require in this statement. I would like to ask him how much of the debenture [DOT]stock has been transferred by the holders to the Government? Can he give us that information?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much of the debenture -stock?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What debenture stock?


Jacques Bureau: The debenture stock you mention in your return, page 2, you say that the money is being used to pay " interest and sinking fund on mortgage securities ranking prior to Canadian Northern Railway 4 per cent debenture stock guaranteed by Dominion Government." Has this debenture stock been assigned?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When you pay debenture stock that has matured, it becomes extinguished.


Jacques Bureau: When did this debenture stock mature?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A certain amount matured last year.


Jacques Bureau: Of the debenture stock?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not Mr. BUREAU: I do not understand that, what the statement say3.	In our part of the country debenture stock

is regarded as stock. It carries a certain rate of interest, but it does not- depend on the fluctuations otf the market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, that is right, I had in mind bonds.
flVTr. BUREAU: How much of that stock has been assigned to the Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: None of it has been assigned to the Government.


Jacques Bureau: Where is it? That is not a mortgage or a bond?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is held by the public.


Jacques Bureau: It is perpetual?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly


Jacques Bureau: And the Government has no assignment of it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, and we do not expect to have.


Jacques Bureau: And it is going to be outstanding?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing under the bylaws of the Canadian Northern Railway Company the holders of this debenture stock are considered as -stockholders instead of being considered as bond holders and should have a say in the administration of the railway.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It has no voting power.


Jacques Bureau: That is information that this House ought to have. If the minister says it has no voting power I am willing to believe it, but there is nothing before the House to show the position of the ten or twelve railways which are subsidiary to the Canadian Northern or what special charters they may have. I have seen charters under which people holding debenture stock were entitled to have a say in the administration of the affairs of the company the same as those holding common or preferred shares. We know nothing about these companies. I submit, as has been said by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), this statement is absolutely incomplete and unless the person who made it thought we were better informed than he was, he must have come to the conclusion that we were such ignoramuses or know-nothings, that we did not deserve the information that is being sought. The comment made by my right hon. leader with reference to

this statement is perfectly justified. May I be permitted to make a suggestion to the minister? This is one of the few Bills which I have seen which has come before the House without a preamble. I should like to have the date inserted in the Bill showing when the last amount of stock, making up the five-sixths, which was transferred to the Government. I would suggest that the following preamble be inserted in the Bill:
Whereas the five-sixths of the shares mentioned in section 3 of chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 1917 having been transferred under agreement on the first day of October, 1917, as required by the said Act; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
I think that would be better and would show the object of the Bill in addition to which we would have the distinct date of the transfer something that we have been seeking to get for such a long while.


John Dowsley Reid: The date was given to the House in answer to a question some little time ago. The stock certificates for the five-sixths of the stock were transferred to the Minister of Finance on October 1, 1917. I witnessed the transfer myself; in fact, I accepted it on behalf of the Government. The stock certificates were then transferred by letter officially to the Department of Finance and they have those stock certificates for five-sixths of the stock in their own vault in the Eastern block together with the stock certificates for the $40,000,000 of stock which was transferred to the Minister of Finance some two or three years ago.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there a subsequent agreement?


Mr. RICHARDSON:: I am not going to offer any remarks on this Bill at the present time because my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) has promised, when he introduces his estimates- and I understand he is going to do it this afternoon-to make a statement to the House which I trust will cover the ground referred to by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I want to say to my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance that I think he slipped a cog. He is usually very cautious, moderate, and careful in his statements. A moment or two ago he said the country, or at least Parliament, seemed to be anxious and practically unanimous in its desire to acquire the Canadian Northern railway. I did

not understand that that was the position at all. The Canadian Northern and, in fact, all the railways of Canada have been indulging in an orgy for the past twenty or twenty-five years and the people of Canada have been blind to the fact. And now we find the Canadian Northern dumping on the people of Canada against,
I think, the will of the people, this appalling mess-I have thought the words over and I think they -are moderate-a load of $400,000,000 of liabilities that the people have got to shoulder. It is only fair to say that one party is no more responsible for this mess than the other. Both parties have been to- bl-aime, and the people themselves have been to- blame, but we have got to nurse the baby now, and we might just as well -at the start face the issue, which has been dumped upon us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no more milk; we cannot nur-se the baby without milk.
Mr. RI-CHAKDSON:	The milk may be
thoroughly exhausted, ,but here we -are with the system on our hands, and we have got to make the best of it, -although one hon. gentleman -suggests that we should wean the baby. There is no- object in one side of the House indulging in criticism of the other side, because all politicians in the Dominion have been equally responsible for this railway mess, and I repeat that we may just as well make the best of it. I intend to wait until the Government makes its statement before indulging in some comments that I want to make to the House. In the meantime I have some sympathy with those who think that this railway should not be left in the hands of Mackenzie and M-ann and the Canadian Northern directors. Why, all hon. gentlemen need do is to read the press for the last two or three months, and we- find that practically the entire board have overlooked the operation of the road, and they are consumed with eagerness over the arbitration in order that they may bleed the country for the last dollar they can get out of it. After unloading liabilities on this country to the extent of $400,000,000, they -ar-e awaiting results of the arbitration to see whether we cannot give them some more money. The situation is an appalling one, as the Dominion will find very soon, -when i;t undertakes to deal with these enormous liabilities.


Thomas Vien: An amazing statement has been made to this House by the Acting Minister of Finance, who says that the policy of the Government cannot be given
now, but that it is advisable to withhold it until the -arbitration board now sitting to adjudicate upon the compensation to be paid to the shareholders, has given out its award. Why is this delay taking place? What is the connection between the award of the court now sitting and the administration of the road? And if the gentlemen interested are not satisfied with the judgment which may be Tendered by the board, and take appeal to the Supreme Court, and -from that court to the Privy Council, will we leave these thieves to administer this railway and bleed it in the way they expect to bleed the Canadian treasury by getting the -big award that they anticipate? Will we leave them to bleed the Tailway and bleed this country until the Privy Council has given its judgment?
I think that the hon. member who asked the Government for a definite statement of its policy before entering upon the consideration of this Bill, was justified in his question. The members of the House should not permit the Government to shunt their policy and sidetrack hon. gentlemen and refuse to give them that proper information which we should have before we are asked to give them a blanket authorization to spend money and to renew the liabilities. Before we give such a blanket authorization we should be told what the policy of the Government is to be, and I repeat it, there is no connection whatever between the award of the board of arbitration now sitting and the administration of the road; and if, as the Acting Minister of Finance has just said, the country owns the road, it should -manage it, and not leave the management in the hands of those people who have wrecked the railway after having received from Canada more money than was required to build and operate the system.


Mr. MORPHY:: I cannot conceive it possible that the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) can possibly have any effect at this juncture in the history of this railw-ay proposition. If I thought that the great Canadian Northern Railway system, which the hon. member fo-r Springfield (Mr. Richardson). calls an abominable mess, was to be left in any uncertain position as to its management, I would certainly feel like withholding this Bill until the Government's policy was declared. I look upon this road as the people's road. It has got to be the people's road and to run independently of the Canadian Pacific railway, or any other large interest. Just here I would like to put a query to the Government,

which they can answer when they like. -whether or not they propose to handle the Canadian Northern system, with its ten or twelve thousand miles of railway, running through a beautiful country in the West and having good connections, a road which brought forty per cent of the grain grown in the West out to the seaports last year, and thirty-three per cent for the last two years; whether they aTe going to run that system as an entity and run it independently, or whether they are going to link it up with the existing Government Railway 'systems? I think the country ought to know that. I think the country ought also to know the principle upon which the Government intend to operate the Canadian Northern system, which, to my mind, should be operated in the meantime independently of other Government roads, until it is put into the position where the publio will be able to ascertain the facts', both as to the condition of the roadbed, and the value of the holdings, and determine what the future policy ought to Ibe. Personally, I am not a pessimist in regard to this great railway. There may have been mistakes made in its administration in the past, but I believe it will yet be a great asset to the country. I have been over the system, I have looked at it with independent eyes, and have ascertained from personal observation that the most fertile country in the world, from an agricultural point of view, is served by this road. The Canadian Northern system has built up large sections of the West, and I look upon it with a great deal of hope in connection with the development of the country. It will be a great asset, and I am not going to deny to Mackenzie and Mann the courage and the vision they had-and the courage and vision of those who assisted them-when this road was built. I believe that there has been a mistake made in our railway policy. That mistake, however, did not lie m the Canadian Northern, but in the duplication of railways by the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental. I want to ask the Government whether this railway is going to foe really a people's road, and whether their policy will have the effect of eliminating political influence from it? Will there be an independent board-which I submit there should foe; an independent entity from the Railway Commission, presided over by either a strong railway man, or a man who has had to do largely with railway legislation, litigation, operation and work, whether in a real opera-
five capacity, or as having had to do with large affairs through parliamentary life? Because herein lies the principle that can safeguard the situation. And in speaking of that, I come right back to the place which the road occupies: the Canadian Northern will be a competitor in the public interest with every other large railway corporation, both on this side of the international boundary line and on the other. This road will be a competitor to the Canadian Pacific railway. I hope the Government will not in any way relax their view of the people's interest by appointing a board which will be subservient to pressure from the Canadian Pacific railway. I think the safety valve for the future public interest in railway matters will be an absolutely non-political and independent board of administration. May I suggest to the Government what I think would be the proper basis? We have asked-I have not myself, but I have heard it asked four or five times this morning-if the Government have a policy and what is their policy.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have all asked that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have heard it asked. We have had no answer. If the Government were prepared to say that they had not framed a policy, that would be an answer, and the natural reply to that would be that this Bill should not pass until the Government gave the House some idea of its policy. My idea of the way to run this road-and it seems probably presumptuous that a man should set up his idea, but I think that constructive criticism is fair criticism-would be to adopt the principle applied on the Suez canal. That principle was international, and was based on what ought to be the charge for tonnage passing through it. The charge at first was ten francs per net ton. In 1869 there were three million dollars collected in tolls on tonnage passing through the Suez canal; in 1916 there was over sixteen million dollars in tolls. The object in running that canal has always been to reduce rates. From 10 francs, the rate came down to 7f francs' at one time; then it went back to 8|. But the law-it is the French company law that administers the canal-provides that if the percentage of profit reaches 25 per cent, the surtax on rates which they have applied in the principle of operation shall be reduced until it is wiped out, and ultimately it is hoped that the rates will be reduced to 5 francs per ton. That is a real principle which has been operated by an administra-

tive board of thirty-two, ten of whom are English appointees, because the English tonnage and interest are very large on the Suez canal. Such a large board would be very cumbersome, no doubt, here. The reason it is so large, to my mind, is that there are so many countries interested that they must have representation.
I would not fix such a large board for Canada, but that principle should be applied here so that this system can be and shall be worked independently by the Government through an administrative council or independent board, which will have but one thing always in its eye, the reduction of rates, consistent with proper maintenance and expansion by branch lines, and so on. The public interest is in reduction of rates, both for the farmer in the West and for the industrial man in the East. I do not take very much stock in the cry about Mackenzie and Mann; I do not believe the Government are guilty of anything wrong in the fact that their name has to come up in this House, because I thoroughly believe that financially and so far as the management is concerned, they have been eliminated entirely, and that the Government have a free hand, as free as the air, in dealing with this railway. What I complain of is that the Government have not let the country know their policy; they have brought themselves under some opprobrium by creating, for lack of giving information, a suspicion that Mackenzie and Mann do own the Government. That is not so, and I do not believe it. But the sooner we get a statement of the Government's policy and the form the administration of the railway will take the sooner will the country's mind be settled and satisfaction will reign, particularly if such principles are applied in the railway policy as will result in a reduction of rates, by competition if necessary.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Lotbiniexe (Mr. Vien) a few moments ago made the statement, if I understood him correctly, that no information had been given as to when there would be a change in the directorate of the Oanadian Northern railway.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. minister will let me correct him, I said that the Government did not give any information as to the policy they intended to follow in the administration of the road.


John Dowsley Reid: A few days ago the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) complained as to there not having been a change in the directorate of the Canadian Northern since the transfer of the stock in October last. I replied to that hon. member that a change in the directorate would take place as soon as the arbitra-torsi' award had been made. I think he raised the question that perhaps the award might be appealed to the Supreme Court and then to the Privy Council, and that it might be a year or two' before a final decision was arrived at. I replied that there would be no time lost after the award, that even if there was an appeal a change in the directorate and a reorganization would take place.


Thomas Vien: What is the reason for waiting until that award is made?


John Dowsley Reid: I might say to the hon. member that the Prime Minister explained the reason *a few days ago in the House. The reason, as I understood him then, and as we all understood, was that at the time the Canadian Northern was transferred, it was understood that the organization of the directors would remain as it was until the arbitrators' award had been made.


Thomas Vien: Understood between whom?


John Dowsley Reid: At that time we did rot think it would take so long, we expected that the arbitration would have taken only two or three months and would have been over long ago. Complaint has been made several times this morning that the railway policy of the Government has not been given to the House before.
(Mr. LEMJEUX: Why not give it this afternoon when the farmers are here?


John Dowsley Reid: Let me say to the hon. member that this is really the first opportunity that we have had. We have not been on any railway estimate yet.


Jacques Bureau: Yet you want to close the session on Saturday?


John Dowsley Reid: I would say to hon. members that if the Prime Minister had not been engaged at the meeting with the farmers this morning he would, no doubt, have announced the railway policy.


Charles Murphy: Then my hon. friend cannot make the announcement in the absence of the Prime Minister?


John Dowsley Reid: The reason it is hardly fair to ask me is that it has been asked to give the policy for the whole Canadian railway system. I am dealing entirely with the Oanadian Northern system, and the

Prime Minister is the person upon whom the duty of giving the whole railway policy of Canada devolves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will he give it this afternoon?


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister will be here. So far as the operation of the Canadian Northern is concerned, some hon. gentlemen have asked what the intention of the Government is: Will it be operated as a separate system; will the other Government railways be kept separate from it; will political patronage be kept out of it? I think I made a statement here a few days ago that the Canadian Northern Railway system is a separate corporation. It is' the intention of the Government to see that the operation of the Canadian Northern is carried on free from patronage in any shape or form. In its operation it will be kept as far from the Department of Railways as possible. We will re-organize the board of directors, the members of which, in respect of future operations of the Canadian Northern, will be selected by the Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is the board to be elected by the shareholders under the charter of the company, or does the Government propose to institute a form of administrative council entirely apart from that?


John Dowsley Reid: The directors would be selected under their charter by the shareholders of the company, being the nominees of the Government. I do not see the difference between naming a body as a board of directors and appointing a separate commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can you organize a new system without legislation?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not necessary to
organize a new system'. You can appoint directors who would have the same powers as a Government-appointed commission. Of course, the Government must be responsible for the men they name as directors. Every charter specifies the length of time during which the board of directors shall operate. It does not make any difference, whether we appoint this body as a board of directors or as a commission.
It has been asked whether the Government intend to operate the Canadian Northern railway system separate from the Canadian Government railways. My own opinion is that, so far as possible, the Canadian Northern railway and all roads owned by the Government should be tied

up together and operated as cheaply as possible. It is my view that any railways that we own should be put under the same management as that of the Canadian Northern Railway system-under a commission, if you wish to call it that, or a board of directors. Why should the terminals of the Government railways and the Canadian Northern at Winnipeg be operated by two separate staffs? 'Why should they not be operated under one system? Why should not the same apply to other terminals throughout the country? Why should not the two roads running between Winnipeg and Quebec, one the Government-owned road and the other the Canadian Northern-the latter owned by the Government through the stock-he under one management in the matter of operation, but, in their relation to the department, as distant as the poles so far as political patronage is concerned? That is the way I feel about it. When the matter is taken up and discussed in Council, that is the position I shall take as a member of the Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the minister say that the matter has not yet been taken up by the Cabinet?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not taken it up as to the personnel of the new board; the time for that will not have arrived until we have reorganized the board of directors. The present directors and their officials are operating the road in the interests of the country. They are not permitted to spend any money in new works or to make any abnormal expenditures' without the sanction of the Department of Railways and Canals. In other words, they are operating the road with the least possible expense, pending the reorganization of the board. I feel that it would be much better if we did not do away with the identity of t'he Canadian Northern Railway system at the present time. The Government must go out to the markets of the world and renew the securities that are now falling due. We may have to borrow more money on the system, and, if we do, it may be necessary to raise money on bonds and securities of the Canadian Northern, which the Government must endorse. It would not make good reading for those to whom we apply for loans if expressions of opinion should go out indicating that members of the House have not the same confidence in the noad that, perhaps, the Government have. The impression that might be conveyed is that

the whole off the $400,000,000, representing the expenditures on the road, have been squandered. I have great confidence in the future of the Canadian Northern Railway system. Expressing my own private opinion, I believe that that system in years to come will prove to be one of Canada's greatest assets. Having Tegard to the $400,000,000, it is to be remembered that the construction of the Canadian Northern throughout the Northwest and in other parts of Canada has enormously increased the value of the lands and property through which it runs-practically to the extent of half the value of the road. This system is virtually bringing into the country $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 a year in the products that are raised in the vicinity of its lines. This the country would not have had if the Canadian Northern Railway system had not been constructed.


Frank S. Cahill: Or some other system.


John Dowsley Reid: If the Canadian
Northern system had not been promoted and carried on by those who constructed it I doubt whether other systems would have done the same work. Certainly they would not have done so without coming to this Parliament and getting the financial assistance that the Canadian Northern got.


James Alexander Robb: Is it the policy of the Government to acquire any of the other railway systems in Canada?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but he has asked me a question that I would like him to leave until the Prime Minister gives a statement in regard to the whole railway question. The hon. member has asked me to go outside of the Canadian Northern Railway system at the present time. I stated a minute or two ago that I would like that to be left until the Prime Minister makes to the House the statement that was promised at the time we went into the railway estimates. By the way, the right hon. leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago raised the question as to why we did not take up the Railway Bill this morning. Some of the hon. members say that they may have to. leave soon. We thought it would probably be better, before we took up the Railway Bill, to have a statement on the whole railway question, and for that reason I intended, if we had got through with this matter, to have seen the Prime Minister and perhaps have that statement made this afternoon, and then we could go on with the Railway Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: An excellent intention.


John Dowsley Reid: This is, as I stated a few minutes ago, the first opportunity we had, and, therefore, I do not think there is any fault to be found at the present time. I think I have answered the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), and the hon. member for Lotbinifere (Mr. Vien). If not,
I shall be very glad to give any further information.


Thomas Vien: I shall again put my question, because I do not think the minister has answered it. I asked why the Government was waiting, before determining upon its policy, until the award was given by the Court now sitting in arbitration upon the Canadian Northern. The minister has replied that, because an agreement was entered into between the Government and the managers of the railway, those managers would continue to administer the affairs of the railway until the award was given. That is no answer. That is no reason. Why was such an agreement entered into? Why did the Government enter into an agreement with the managers of the road to leave them in charge of the road until the award was given? The Government becomes the owner of the road and yet leaves the management of the road to persons who have no longer an interest in it. Will the minister kindly tell us the reason for making such an arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sure, if the hon. member considers for a moment, he will see the unfairness of his statement.


Thomas Vien: I do not see it.


John Dowsley Reid: Supposing the hon.
member was entering into an agreement to buy a piece of property, he surely would not expect to take possession of the property without even paying for it or saying what he will pay for it. We cannot take possession until the arbitrators come to some final decision. The agreement was made.


Thomas Vien: The minister knows perfectly well that the moment the Government expropriates a thing, that thing is vested in the Crown by the mere expropriation of it, and the Crown takes immediate possession before the award is given. When the Crown, for any public purpose, expropriates land, it takes immediate possession. The land is vested in the Crown, and the owner has no longer anything to do with it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member, who, I understand, is a lawyer, knows the differ-

ence between expropriation and agreement. He has read this Bill. He knows that we did not expropriate the railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Government cannot get away from the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: We have not expropriated the railway at all; we have taken it on an agreement, and we are going to carry out that agreement. The agreement is that we are going to take a transfer of the road, have the ownership in our name, and take over the absolute reorganization of the board of directors as soon as the final award is made.


Charles Murphy: Where is that in the statute?


Thomas Vien: What is the reason for that agreement? What reasonable ground is there for waiting for the award /before taking over the management of the road? I cannot get an answer. What is the reason? Why is the Government waiting? I cannot get any answer to that.


Jacques Bureau: Did I understand the minister to say that, as soon as the award is given by the arbitrators, the Government will take control of the road? There was an objection raised as to that, that the award might be carried to the Supreme Court or to the Privy Council. The minister said that would not make any difference, that the moment the award was given, reorganization would take place.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I said.


Jacques Bureau: Then the minister says the Government cannot take over its property until it is paid for, and it cannot be paid for until the price has been settled by some tribunal. The minister answers himself. He destroys the reason that he gives. If the Government is to take over the road after the first tribunal has given its award, the Government does not know what it is going to pay. The award may be reversed or modified by the Supreme Court. The reason given by the minister does not stand, and if that is the reason, it is no explanation to the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien).


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the section pass?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Murphy: Certainly not. The matter was opaque when the Acting Minister of Finance got through with it; it is now further obscured by the verbal fog which has been raised by the Minister of Railways, and which it will take all the in-
TMr. J. D. Reid.]
genuity of the Government to dispel. The question that has been asked is a perfectly proper one, one that suggests itself to the minds of those who were members of the last Parliament, perhaps more readily than to the minds of those who are members of the new Parliament, although our new colleagues must be asking themselves the same question-why do the Government not take over the management of the road? Just for a moment let us look at what has happened- The Minister of Railways and Canals in one breath speaks of a statute under which it was provided to take over the stock of this company, and in the next he says that there was an agreement, thereby conveying, possibly not with the intention of misleading any one, an intimation that at the same time as the statute was enacted, an agreement was made or was embodied in the statute that the management was not to be taken over until the award was made and the amount paid. There never was any such agreement. Had such an agreement been mentioned at the last session, when this Act was under consideration, not even closure would have succeeded in getting that Act passed. There was no intimation that there was any such agreement. If anything of that kind has been done, then it has been done outside of the terms of the statute passed, at the last session; it has been done without the authority of Parliament. What is going on at the present time by reason of the road not being taken over and by reason of the Mackenzie and Mann organization being left in charge of affairs just as they were last year? This is what is going on. This is the spectacle that is being presented to this country. An arbitration is taking place in the city of Toronto, the parties to the arbitration being on the one side the gentlemen that are interested in this road, and the parties presumed to be on the other side, the people of Canada, represented by this Government. By the fact that Mackenzie and Mann are Left in charge of the organization, the people's side is being presented: by Mackenzie and Mann. That is what is happening. There is no adjudication; there is no litigation being carried on with parties on opposite sides, with opposing interests, with their interests being represented through different counsel and so on. That is not being done. Mackenzie and Mann are left in charge of the situation. They are in charge of the books and records and all the information connected with this road. The people's interest's are not being conserved or properly presented

before this Board of Arbitrators, and this committee is entitled to know whether that is the reason why the management of this road has not been taken over by the Government. Is it because the Government are willing that all the information should remain in the hands of Mackenzie and Mann, that the people's case might be either improperly presented or not presented at all before that board of arbitrators, so that Mackenzie and Mann would get an award to which they would not be entitled if the people's case were properly presented? If the Government were in charge of this road and had possession of all the records of the company and knew all the details and ramifications of the workings of that organization, the people's case could be properly presented before the board.


John Dowsley Reid: The Government's
counsel, Mr. Tilley, had free access to all the books of the company and to all the officials of the company. They furnished him with all the information it was possible to get concerning the Canadian Northern railway. The whole Canadian Northern organization was working with him, that he might present his case to the arbitrators in the fullest possible manner.


Charles Murphy: I have the greatest possible respect for Mr. Tilley; I have great admiration for his legal ability, but that does not alter what I am saying or affect the situation in the slightest degree. The people's case, I maintain, is not being presented before that board of arbitration as it should be, and it is not being presented as it should be for the reason that the Government has not taken possession of the road and of the books and records of the company, showing all the details of the workings of that organization. Everybody who has had anything to do with the proceedings of the' board of arbitration speaks of the situation in exactly the same terms as those I am now using.
At one o'clock the committee rose.
The committe resumed at three o'clock.


Right Hon.   S@: I was prevented from being here this morning; otherwise I should have arranged to make a general statement in regard to the general situation as a matter appropriate to be considered in connection with this Bill. I shall make that statement to-morrow morning. In the meantime I beg to move that the committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. We will take it on this Bill tomorrow morning.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
FORMATION OF FRENCH BRIG AIDE ADVOCATED BY MR. DuTHBMBLiAY.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Finance) for the House to go into committee of supply:
Mr. P. R. D uTREMBLA Y (Laurier-Outremont): Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into committee of supply, I would like to put before it a question which is considered of very great importance and that is the desirability and propriety of forming a French Canadian brigade for overseas service, commanded by officer® speaking the French language. In the province from which I come this question is considered as being of paramount importance and as one affecting the best interests of the country. That is why I ask the indulgence of the House while I briefly present the reasons for the request which I shall make to the Government. I submit that the number of French-Canadian soldiers actually at the front, together with those who are in England and those who will be enlisted under conscription, will be sufficient to justify the organization of a French Canadian brigade; and therefore I -strongly urge upon the Government to take this matter into their immediate and favourable consideration. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a brigade is composed of four regiments, or battalions, of 1,000 men each. There are actually, from the province of Quebec, seven regiments of which only one regiment is composed entirely of French Canadians and commanded by officers speaking the French language. The other six regiments are English regiments and are commanded by English speaking officers. The recruits that go from the province of Quebec to England are sent to a single unit depot and from that depot the seven regiments at the front secure the drafts necessary to keep their ranks filled. Whether they are English or French Canadians they draw from that unit depot all the soldiers they need. A few weeks ago a regiment in England composed entirely of French Canadians, the 150th Regiment, was disbanded. That regiment was commanded by a very competent and brave officer, who organized a regiment in Canada at the beginning of the war; he had been
[Stage Direction]
in France* had been wounded, came back tQ Canada, raised another regiment, and went with it to England. That is the regiment which has now been disbanded. Four hundred of the French Canadian members of this regiment were merged into English regiments from the province of Quebec. Only 100 of these men remained to fill the ranks of the 22nd, which is the French Canadian regiment commanded by French officers.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Did the hon. gentleman say the 107th regiment?
Mr. DuTREMiBLAY: The 150th regiment commanded! by 'Col. Barre.
Sir SiAM HUGHES: It was in the 5th division.
iMr. DuTREMiBLAY: I would like to put before the House a copy of a letter that was sent by Col. Barre to Sir Edward Kemp, Minister of the Overseas Military Forces. It gives certain reasons why the French Canadians should be grouped together in their own battalions and I think it would help my request if I put this letter before the House. It is as follows:
Witley, Surrey, February 14th, 1918. Sir Edward Kemp,
Minister of the Overseas Military Forces, London.
Sir,-
If I take the liberty of writing' you this letter, it is not to protest against the military decisions or plead my personal case, but I have in view the prevention of a wrong to .my men which is as useless as undeserved. It is therefore with confidence in your sense of fairplay and in the justice of niy case, that I submit to you the following:-Canadian Headquarters have ordered the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion to be broken up and its effectives disposed of in a certain way. I am convinced that this step, and the trend it exhibits, constitute a grievous error. And I would be remiss in my clear duty if I did not put forward certain considerations -which militate against that step being taken.
If it had been intended to punish me and my battalion for a breach of discipline, no more drastic measure could have been adopted than the order to break it up and disperse its men, without their Officers, through the cadres of four different English speaking battalions.
I am now under orders to draft out five hundred men. Of these, only one hundred are to go to the only French Canadian battalion in the fighting line; the rest are to be posted to English Canadian units from the province of Quebec. Even if the necessity of breaking the cadre were conceded, from every point of view, the dispersion of the men is indefensible. The great majority of my command have a very poor command of English. As a direct consequence, many of them will have to carry out, and risk punishment for inadequately carrying out orders, the full1 purport of which they cannot gather. I urge upon you that this
IMr. DuTremblay.I
would work actual injustice, to say nothing of the resulting inefficiency.
Either the English Canadian battalions from Quebec have exhausted their proper recruiting sources, i.e., the English speaking population of the province, or they have not. If they have not, there can be no necessity for supplying them from other sources. If they have, they should be gradually withdrawn from the line and broken up to supply the remaining battalions fed from the same source. The only escape from this dilemma, under the territorial supply establishment, is by invoking sentimental reasons.
Now, on sentimental grounds the breaking up of my battalion is open to question. The proposed dispersion of its effectives is still more questionable. It can be proven, and after the war is over it will be, proven that the provision of inadequate distinctive cadres for such French Canadians as offered to enlist was a potent check on recruiting from that element in Quebec. When French Canadian battalions were authorized, recruiting picked1 up somewhat but was again severely checked when unit after unit was broken up after arrival in England and their effectives dispersed through several different battalions. I noticed an immediate decline in voluntary enlistment when this was first done. A similar and proportional cooling off has followed the successive dissolution of French Canadian units until recruiting sank to zero.
At present, French Canadian minds are rather exasperated. It is not for me to seek the responsibility for their attitude. It is sufficient to note it as a fact, and to draw attention to it as a factor. Is it wise to furnish fuel to the incendiaries of public opinion in the province of Quebec, who will not fail to point out that this dispersion is like that of the Acadians, that it is made in pursuance of a determination to shed French Canadian blood without credit to the French Canadians, that it is dictated by a resentment of the recent vote cast by the province on the issue of conscription, and so forth?
May I suggest that if, as I am assured is the fact, the 1st Quebec Regiment and B. C. Reserves are not in a position to carry the burden of six battalions each at the front, the situation could be remedied by placing my battalion in the fighting line instead of a Montreal or British Columbia battalion on the point of growing too weak. This reasonable increase of French Canadian cadres would provide a reasonable and pleasant outlet for the French Canadian conscripts.
If this is too much to grant, might the battalion be drafted by companies, to which French Canadian conscripts could1 afterwards be sent, thus avoiding the injustice and inefficiency to which I have already drawn attention as resulting from lingual differences? I believe that this has been done in the case of one battalion ordered to be broken up.
This appeal to you is made with the greatest certitude that it shall have your serious consideration and dealt with the high spirit of justice and diplomacy which an officer who has been doing his duty since the first day of the war, can expect from his Minister of Militia.
This letter is signed by Hercule Barre, LieutenantnColonel 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion. A similar letter was sent to

Sir George Perley, and to Baron Beaver-brook, but without any result.
A few weeks afterwards this battalion was disbanded and merged into English battalions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I lay down the principle that it is necessary to group French Canadians together for >a strong Teason which does not exist in the case of the men from the- English-speaking provinces, namely, because of their speaking and understanding best the French language. Most of the French Canadians do not speak, and do not understand English;
I know that English battalions from some of t!he other provinces were disbanded and broken up upop their arrival in England, just as was done with a number of battalions, or regiments, that came from Quebec. But the language difficulty which necessitates preserving intact the French Canadian regiment, does not exist in the case of the English-speaking battalions. I!f it is desired to secure to the fullest extent that discipline and that esprit de corps thai is essential in all regiments and in all armies, and to achieve success in military measures, men from the same city, or from the same village, must be placed together. This principle, or what is called the territorial idea, is not new. It exists in France and in Switzerland, and it was accepted by Lord Roberts, and afterwards by Lord Kitchener. It is a principle of general acceptance, that men from the same village should be formed into a company, and men from the same district into a Tegiment, where their numbers permit. It is necessary when these men are at the front that pride of race and pride in their regiment should be aroused in them to such an extent that they are prepared to die, if need be, for the honour and glory of their flag.
The French Canadians come of a rade that appreciate to the utmost what is meant by courage, honour, and sacrifice. In speaking thus, I do not wish to reflect on the other nationalities of 'this country, whose qualities I admire and recognize, but I am speaking now on behalf of my own people. The people of Quebec know full well the history of such famous regiments as the Legion Etrangere, the Turcos, the Zouaves, and the Alpines, whose bravery is renowned the world over, and whose regimental flags have been decorated time after time by the Government of France. They know, too, that it Is the greatest punishment and the greatest dishonour for a regiment to be debarred from attacking or defending [DOT] a position of danger. And what
has developed those ideals? It is the esprit de corps which prevails in those historic battalions and the desire to perpetuate their glory. Therefore, if we are to have amongst the sons of Quqbec the highest efficiency, if it is desired to treat justly, the men of my race, the suggestion which I am making should be given effect to by the Government. The desirability for forming a French Canadian brigade is fully concurred in by the people of Quebec. Nearly all the men -who have been closely identified with recruiting in my province, and almost all the newspapers, are in favour of this scheme, and I submit in this connection a splendid patriotic article which I read in Le Devoir a few days ago. I have translated this article, though I am afraid the translation will not do it justice. It is as follows:
For our Conscripts.
Our young- men have come by hundreds to enlist during the last few days. Considerable groups have already voluntarily enlisted in the Flying Corps and in other dangerous services. They will go bravely. All will do their duty, as did the boys of the 22nd Battalion.
General Mewburn, Minister of Militia, noted specially the conduct of these boys, some days ago, and declared himself sympathetic with the idea of grouping them as much as possible from the start, and of keeping them together [DOT] also on the battlefield. That would indeed be an excellent means to keep up their esprit de corps ; it will encourage them if they are merged in one combatant unit, so that they will not feel themselves too far away from their country, and alone in a strange land. This is well understood in the English military centres. An English catholic chaplain, the Rev. Father O'Gorman, according to a despatch from London published by the Globe, wrote to the Times on the 15th of April as follows : "That it was urgent to increase the number of French Canadian battalions in France." This opinion comes at the proper time, now that thousands of our French Canadians entering under the conscription law, or voluntarily, are preparing themselves to go across the sea.
To give them officers of their own blood and language would be equally an excellent measure. The Gazette correspondent in London said the other day, on the- occasion of the merging of the 150th French Canadian regiment with an English regiment, that it was regrettable that these men had not been merged in a regiment commanded by Quebec officers. The Toronto News the other day was scandalized and astounded because certain Austrian soldiers had German officers to command them; so that newspaper will now understand the attitude of its English confrere and also the good sense of the words in the Star the other day, of Rev. Father Doyon, military chaplain, who said in London, on May 1st: "All that we desire is that the French Canadians as much as possible shall stay together and have officers speaking the French language."
It is also time to consider the question of the
formation of a French Canadian brigade to



form part of the Canadian divisions in France. For a long time, this project has been before the people without any result; circumstances were against it; it would appear also that it had the hostility of the .higher functionaries. But, as the project* of putting French Canadian conscripts in regiments commanded by officers speaking their language is highly commendable, the more ambitious project of forming a brigade of our men to be commanded by a general from our province should also appeal to the military authorities, if they are looking first and foremost to the best way of putting -their conscripts in the best frame of mind before sending them to the front.
One of our European correspondents, well informed as to what is going on in the Canadian camps in England and in France, wrote us this authentic fact:	" At Witley, a boy from
Quebec province, being ridiculed, badly treated and unable to obtain his transfer from the Ontario Artillery to another unit where he could speak French and be well treated, committed suicide in a moment of despair." It would not be right to put our conscripts in such a position and expose them to such a temptation.
So we hope that General Mewburn, who seems to have good intentions, if he desires to be just, will take the necessary steps at London for the welfare of the French Canadians in ' the army. It is surprising also, -as someone said, that it is at London and not at Ottawa that these details are settled. But, whatever the reason may be it is the duty of the military authorities to see that our conscripts are in charge of officers coming from their province.
These men are going on the battlefield. Numbers of them will meet death. They will fight with courage and with valour, and will prove to those who discredited them that they are not cowards and that what has kept them here far from the European front, were highly respectable motives. Surely, they have the right, at this supreme hour, to hear the language of their land to encourage them to go through fire and death; and we cannot refuse them at this last moment the right of French Canadian comrades to surround them, help them, and receive from their dying lips the last message to their families who are far away.
May it be that on the soil of France, these brave men will have the impression that they are fighting not among strangers but among friends and comrades who will recall to them their native land.
There is another article from L'Evene-ment, a Quebec organ friendly to the Government, of the same tenor as that I have read from Le Devoir, asking that a French Canadian bridgade be organized. I would also read to the House a letter sent to me by Colonel Mignault, who is well-known to the military authorities in Ottawa, who helped to organize the 22nd Battalion, who also organized the French Canadian hospital unit in France, .actually operating in France to-day in St. Cloud. The letter says:
Montreal, April 29th, 1918.
P. R. duTremblay, M.P.,
House of Commons.
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Referring to our recent conversation with reference to the drafting of the French Can-

adians into the English regiments, I have consulted with friends of prominence down here who understand the situation, and we feel most strongly that it is our duty to ask you to lay before the authorities the justice of the claim of the French Canadians to a brigade of their own at the front, or failing this, at least a new battalion. If only on the score of the more efficient work that will be derived having the French Canadians under officers speaking their own language, the request, should commend itself, and as we are all working for a speedy and successful termination of the war, this argument would seem unanswerable. The sentimental aspect of the situation also is a very important one, as it is known that to-day the French Canadian recruits, as well as going to the 22nd Battalion, are also sent to the 5th C.M.R., the 13th, 14th, 24th, 87th and 42nd.
It is a simple calculation for the authorities to see how, with conscription, a French Canadian brigade could now be kept up, and the English regiments should, as has been done in the past, if they cannot keep up their own reserves, be merged.
Can anyone in fairness be asked to risk his life and the life of many others in taking instructions in a language he does not understand? This must happen in the near future if the present policy is continued. I could write much more on this subject, but as we have discussed it very fully, I must leave it to you to place before Parliament this most important and vital question to our people.
Of course, as I have already mentioned to you in our previous interview, it has always been, and still is to-day, my ideal that all French Canadians should be sent to the French Army.
Very truly yours,
Arthur Mignault.
This question of putting French Canadians in the French army has been discussed	before. I	know it	was
discussed with the President of France. The Prime Minister had an interview on the subject with Colonel Mignault. I understand that the Prime Minister, if not in favour of the suggestion, -was at least inclined to look upon it as a, good one. For one reason or another, however, the matter was dropped, and we did not hear any more about it.
In this connection I want to read a letter from a gentleman in Montreal who has done good service in the cause of French Canadian recruiting:
May'2nd, 1918.
My dear DuTremblay:
Having, as you know, taken a great interest in the French Canadian recruiting ever since the war started, having been one of the organizers of the 22nd., 41st. and other Battalions, to the 22nd, (I sent over six hundred men from this district), and being also a member, appointed by the Government, of the French Canadian Recruiting Committee, I write to you, as a member representing one of the largest French and English constituencies of our City.
I would like to bring your attention very

strongly to your duty, as pointed out by myself and the gentlemen that met you recently, of how necessary it is that the Government at once announce a strong policy of giving to these French Canadians, officers of their own, speaking their own language, and promise another French Canadian regiment at the front at once, with a French brigade in the near future, a wonderful step forward will be made. The fullest publicity of the French press, however, should be given to this. The whole situation has, however, been explained to you by French Canadians who have the welfare of their people at heart, military men and others. You, therefore, should be well posted and, apart from the justice of the claim, can lay the facts before the House, so that every fair minded man will understand the situation. It should be quite clear that a French Canadian, not speaking a word of English, cannot in a short time before he is sent into the firing line hope to learn enough English to understand the difficult explanations that he will need to be given, nor can be bring back and give in English the information he will gather. We understand that the authorities on the other side have many important questions at present to settle, and as they are over there in charge should be interfered with as little as possible, but in this case do they understand the present position and situation in the province of Quebec, and can they view it as we do? I think not, as otherwise there should be no hesitation in, at once, granting the French Canadians what they ask. The record of the 22nd needs no comment and, as you are aware, their commanding officer, Colonel Tremblay, a Kingston graduate, has a splendid record. He has, under him, officers who have been there since the beginning of the war, whose records, we understand1, are of the best. Surely, in the question of the formation of a brigade. Colonel Tremblay could be asked if this could be done. He has the welfare of his people and his men at heart. This is only a suggestion, but might be brought forward, as I see by the press that the claim is made that there is no material for a brigade. With the recruiting that is now going on of the French Canadians, and taking the percentage of wastage at 2,500' a year for each battalion, this statement cannot stand. Sufficient reinforcements from this province can easily go forward to maintain a brigade, and if a school for young officers is formed in this province, a wonderful stride forward in the development of the situation will be made. Look into the enlistment of the young men, of French Canadians that have gone into the Flying Corps and the Tank Battalion in the last month, and you will see that now that conscription is the law it is going to be obeyed, but please do not hesitate to show the Government that the people of this province must be given men speaking their own language to command, and that they be put in a position to do their best and work up, if possible, the organization that will be a credit to the province and what they will be proud of. Understanding their mentality as you do, you know that it is far better to appeal to them than force them. They are law abiding and can fight if they wish, as the record of the 22nd shows. Do not hesitate to give them a full chance. We are all watching down here and will be glad to do anything to help the Govern-1221
ment and yourself in this matter, if we are' needed.
Your sincerely,
M. Scarth Stevenson. P.R. DuTremblay, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
It is so obviously fair that the course which I have suggested be adopted, that hon. gentlemen will, perhaps, wonder why some action has not already been taken in the matter. One of the arguments made by the Prime Minister the other day was that we had not the material necessary to the formation of a French Canadian brigade.
I shall not discuss the reasons why a French Canadian brigade was not formed, but I wish to point out that under the compulsory service law the men can easily be found, and one Teason against it therefore disappears. How can the formation of a French Canadian brigade best be accomplished? Two suggestions have been made, one of which, I think, was considered the better by the Prime Minister in the interview which 1 had with him some weeks ago. On the battle line in France there are. seven regiments from Quebec, one, the 22nd, composed entirely of French Canadians, and the other six commanded by British officers, each containing 200, 300 or 400 French Canadians. One way of forming the French Canadian brigade would be by furnishing reinforcements of French Canadians as these are needed. In this way, the units would soon become composed of French Canadians. The Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister are, I know, disposed to favour the grouping of French Canadians, but difficulty is met with in England because the military authorities there do not want to send raw recruits to the front; they want to send seasoned men.


Samuel Hughes: What does the hon. gentleman mean by speaking of meeting difficulties in England? Who present the ' difficulties, the British Government or the Canadian Government, in England?
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: The hon. gentleman might better direct his question to his own side of the House, and seek a reply from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Militia. However, it is true that it may not be desirable to send to the front as a complete unit men who have never been under fire.


Samuel Hughes: What I want to make clear is whether the British Government is the origin of the difficulties to which my hon. friend refers. If there is any opposition, it is not from the British Govern-

ment. I do not want the British Government branded as interfering in Canadian affairs.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) is quite right. There *was no suggestion from the British Government on the subject.


Samuel Hughes: I should think not.
Mr. DuTREMBiLAY:	I understand that
these regiments must be composed of men who are prepared to fight in the battle line, and the difficulty would be in changing the officers. But officers competent to command French Canadian regiments may easily be found in large numbers. These seven regiments from Quebec could easily be constituted entirely of French Canadians, because under the present military service law four-fifths of the recruits from Quebec speak the French Canadian language. It is well, therefore, that the military authorities should decide this question at once and take the necessary steps to ensure that these regiments shall be reinforced by French Canadians and that men speaking the French Canadian language shall be in command of them.
A few suggestions were made to me by a French Canadian officer of high standing who went to the front and was wounded, regarding the formation of a French Canadian brigade. He suggested:
1.	The initial step to toe taken is to appoint a director of personnel .and personal services in Canada and in England. This position is of great importance and must be Ailed by an officer of high rank and one who has full knowledge of past methods of dealing with these matters and intimate knowledge of present conditions in Canada. He must be given the rank of brigadier-general in order to afford him the necessary prestige and protection it is an absolute necessity that he have a good record. Lieutenant-Colonel La FlSche, D.S.O. Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, is one of the few suitable to fill this mission. Owing to his wounds he is not fit for duty at the front, and being decorated by both the English and the French Governments, makes an ideal liason between the two races. Special duty: to look after French Canadian man-power in Canada.
2.	Brigade organization. Complement: officers 140, men 4,000.
He suggested that the command of that brigade be given to Lieutenant-Colonel Tremblay, D.S.O., officer of the Legion of Honour, who should be given the rank of brigadier-general. As hon. gentlemen are aware, Colonel Tremblay is the hero who to-day commands the glorious 22nd in France. He has already had the experience of commanding a brigade in France on different occasions, though he has not had the 
rank or the pay of a brigadier-general. It is evident that Colonel Tremblay would be well competent to fulfil the duties suggested. The officer further says:
Colonel Tremblay has commanded the famous 2.2nd Battalion for over two years, is known as one of the very best and bravest officers in France, and has on several occasions commanded the brigade. This officer is loved toy all who have fought under him and who have known him. He, of course, should have full power to choose his own officers. The names of the following officers are given to prove that there are easily enough senior officers to supply a brigade:	(Major A. E. Dutouc, D.SXX,
Chevalier of the Legion of Honour; Lieutenant-Colonel H. Barre, Chevalier of the Legion of Honour; Lieutenant-Colonel Desrosiers, Lieut-tenant-Colonel L. R. LaFlSche, D.S.O., Chevalier of the Legion of Honour; Major Vanier, M.C., Chevalier of the Legion of Honour; Major Henri Chassfi, M.C.; Lieutenant-Colonel Piuze. Major R. L. Calder; Major DeSerres ; Major L. Gauvreau ; Major J. P. U. Arch'ambault, Lieutenant-Colonel Dansereau; Captain Leo M. Duval, (M.C.; (Major Asselin; Lieutenant-Colonel Verret, D.S.O.; Lieutenant-Colonel Lefebvre.
There are at present enough officers with experience at the front to fill the positions of company commanders and platoon commanders. Most of the officers are in France or England, though several are now in Canada. To meet the wastage amongst junior officers, a school of officers should (be organized in Canada.
We should have a French Canadian officers' training corps in the province of Quebec. I make the charge against the Government that if it wanted to have a fall measure of enlistment from amongst the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, it should have established, since the beginning of the war, a school for officers in that province. The officer goes on. The letter continues:
Applicants to toe very oarefully chosen. They should he tried1 out in Canada, and when proven to be likely subjects to be sent to England, to complete their course where they would he ready to proceed to France to fill vacancies. This measure is most important, as many young men have not enlisted, and knowing that under present conditions they must go as privates, they are not satisfied. By overcoming this difficulty, a remarkable change will be felt regarding the Military Service Act, and while cultivating the very necessary esprit de corps, these men will bring popularity to the brigade, thereby creating a needed strength and sympathy for our fighting army and its members.
One thousand men, seasoned warriors now fighting in France (22n<3 Battalion) to he withdrawn and divided into four groups of 250 men. To each group 750 trained men who have not been under fire are to be added to form a battalion. Given that a. sufficient number of trained men are now available in England, or If not, they should shortly toe (draftees recently sent over), this organization should take between six to eight weeks. Recruiting under the present arrangements fully provides for

wastage as French Canadian draftees are now expected to keep up over four English-speaking Quebec province Battalions, now at the front. All officers and men destined for this -brigade should be recruited and .trained in French-Canadian units, viz., Depot Battalions in Canada, and training battalions in England. This for maintenance of esprit de corps, development of self-confidence, pride of race and standardization of training.
As I have said, had this request been acceded to by this Government, certain misunderstandings in the province of Quebec would have been cleared away, because I am informed that French Canadian officers at the front would rather serve with their own people. The methods by which this end is to be obtained cannot be roundabout; they must be direct and to the point, and the Government should announce to the public that it is their intention to form a French Canadian brigade so that confidence may be restored to the people of the province of Quebec, and the Prime Minister knows well that confidence in the people begets confidence in the Government.
There is a special reason why a French Canadian brigade should be authorized in the province of Quebec, and that is the reason of language. The same reason does not apply in other provinces where there is unity of language. The Prime Minister seems to have good intentions in regard to this matter. If the Prime Minister will put aside criminal appeals from fanatics and follow his own good inclinations; if he will put himself on a high level of patriotism, then he will go dow.n in history with the other great prime ministers as having been able to rise above petty questions of party and politics when a question of national unity and justice to the minority is at stake. I conclude with this appeal, that on this question the hon. members of this" House will be true to themselves, aye, and above all, true to those brave boys who are fighting.for us in France and Flanders, for our liberty and our future happiness.
tSir ROBERT BORDEN: My hon. friend (Mr. DuTremblay) has spoken very earnestly on this subject, and I can assure him that, so far as his object can be carried out in conformity with military exigencies at the front, there is every disposition on the part of the Government to aid in every way. I am not altogether sure, and I think my hon. 'friend would not be altogether sure, that the mixing of men from other provinces with men from the province of Quebec in one company or one battalion would he without advantage. The difficulty
in the past has been that men from different provinces have not been associated so as to know each other, to understand each other, to realize each other's viewpoint, and the good qualities of each other. That lack of understanding could perhaps, be obviated in the most effective way by putting men from different parts of the country side by side in the same company or the same battalion to fight for the same common cause. But I realize the force of the considerations to which my hon. friend has directed attention. We are not in the least unmindful of them, and we realize further the splendid courage and the fine achievements of French Canadians at the front, notably the 22nd Regiment. I speak particularly of that regiment at Ooureellette, because, when Courcellette was captured, side by side with the 22nd Regiment fought a regiment from my own province. It unfortunately has been necessary to break up a good many units that have gone overseas, when it seemed almost cruel to do so. The Minister of Militia and Defence informs me that the city of Hamilton, from which he comes, has raised 10,000 men, and it is not represented at the front at present by a single distinctive unit.


Samuel Hughes: Nineteen is the number of the Hamilton Battalion. It is still in harness.
Major-General MEWBTTRN: Only a company and a half.


Robert Laird Borden: We have had the same experience in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotians raised a very fine body of men called the Nova Scotia Highland Brigade. They went across the seas as a brigade, but it was necessary when they got overseas to break the brigade up. One regiment went to the front, another joined the 5th division and two others were used as depot regiments.
I would like to say that the idea of raising a brigade of Canadians of French descent is not by any means new, and I would like my hon. friend to know this, and perhaps my hon. friend' the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) can tell him something further; I remember that in June, 1916, I had a personal interview with General Lessard and asked him to undertake the raising of a brigade of French Canadians, and to take command of it and lead it to the front. He found himself unable to undertake the task at that time and it has never been under-

taken since. My horn, triend (Mr. Du Tremblay) has alluded' to a conversation which he had with me on the subject, in which I expressed, as I felt then and feel now, a great deal of sympathy with the purpose that he has in view. If French Canadians would like to have a greater number of distinctive regiments, and a French Canadian brigade, then so far as. military exigencies will permit we ought to do everything possible to facilitate their formation. But my hon. friend will realize that it would be .most unwise for the Government of this country to impose upon the military authorities at the front an undertaking which in the judgment of those authorities might be productive of disaster. It might be not only unfair, but positively cruel to send into the trenches a .brigade of troops with only such training as they could get in camp, and without that acquaintance with the methods of trench warfare which is all essential. I was told in France a year ago last month that some of the methods of warfare in vogue a year before that had been absolutely discontinued. New conditions are developing all the time and new needs have to be met. Men have to be trained to the utmost limit before they are put into the trenches. I think, although I speak with no great knowledge of the subject, the usual practice is to put a portion of a new battalion in with men who have had experience in the trenches, in order that the new men may learn from their more experienced comrades how best to. perform their duty and to meet the enemy.
But. there is a possibility that something along the line of what my hon. friend suggests might be accomplished through the methods to which he alluded, or through some method analagous to that. I sent a telegram to the Overseas Minister, who communicated with Sir Arthur Currie with regard to it, and. I received a reply giving expression to what Sir Arthur Currie thought might be done. The suggestion, in part at least, was this: that reinforcements for battalions and .regiments at the front which at the present time contain a considerable number of French Canadians might Ibe provided out of men of French descent who are now going forward from the province of Quebec, and in that way, by a gradual process such as. my hon. friend has described, regiment after regiment now containing a certain proportion of French Canadians might be so supplied with reinforcements that eventually they would attain a distinctive character as French Canadian units, 
and in that way very probably a brigade might be formed. I do not know whether it would be practicable to form it in any other way. My hon. friend, who was good enough to communicate to me .privately his own views which he has- expressed on the floor of the House to-day, will realize, I hope, that I have the utmost sympathy with the purpose he has in mind, but he wild also realize, I trust, that in respect of all these m/atters the Government must naturally take into account the judgment of the military authorities, at the front, who are much more capable of judging what is possible and what is not possible in these matters than I or than any other member of this House could possibly be. So I leave the matter at that for the moment, subject to what my colleague the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) may say with regard to it. I emphasize once more my desire, so far as military exigencies will permit, to assist in the purpose which uny hon. friend has at heart.


Wilfrid Laurier: May we hope to have a further communication from the Government on this subject before the end of the session?


Robert Laird Borden: I have given really about all the information that has, up to the present time, come from Sir Arthur Currie, but if there is anything that I can usefully add before the end of the session I can assure my right hon. friend that I shall be only too glad to communicate it to the House. I shall use any further endeavours of which I am capable to assist in accomplishing this purpO.se.


Samuel Hughes: I would respectfully dissent from the suggestion that the arrangement of these matters should be left to the Canadian command at the front. That practice should never have been followed in the first place, and should not be followed now. I know of one Canadian battalion which in three months after Lens wasted upwards of four thousand men. The 50th Battalion of Calgary in one year lost' nine thousand men and one hundred and eighteen officers. The gentleman who so informed me is in the gallery to-day and was one of the unfortunates who were bowled out. It is this kind of generalship that has prevented not only the formation long ago of French Canadian brigades, but of a sixth division and two army corps ip the field. In the summer of 1916 we had a plan for six division, two army corps, and a French Canadian brigade. The whole thing was thoroughly planned, One battalion was

from the Eastern Townships; I forget the commander's name, but he was a cavalry officer, an Englishman; I think it was Colonel Gilbert. Nearly half of that battalion were French,- and they were perfectly satisfied to come ini with the other three French Canadian battalions. We were going to organize them into a brigade, but the whole .plan was knocked on the head. It was not necessary, of course, to break up these battalions. The Nova Scotian Highlanders, one of the finest brigades that ever wore uniform, were broken up after the solemn pledge of the Prime Minister that they would go forward as a unit. It was. some officer or power in England-
I know what it is but I will not discuss it -that was responsible for the breaking up of this brigade, just as it was responsible for preventing the formation of a sixth division and two army corps, instead of one army corps and four divisions. Our losses with two army corps would not have been any heavier. Take the case of the Calgary battalion that I mentioned a moment ago. It lost nine thousand men in twelve months and was filled up, filled up, filled up, and filled up again in the twelve months. What difference would it have made if those nine thousand casualties had been spread over three battalions instead of , one? I maintain that if my plan had been followed we would have had at the front to-day six divisions and two army corps, and then we would have avoided the troubles the Prime Minister will find among those men when he gets over there this summer. We would also have had a French Canadian brigade commanded by a French Canadian officer. There are scores of gallant French Canadian officers, without dragging in General Lessard, who have covered themselves with glory and were not afraid to face the music. We could have had all this in 1916 if the plans I laid down had been followed.
The right hon. the Prime Minister referred to the new Conditions of warfare. General Rawlinson, with one man to a yard and a half, held back 25 Germans to the yard, trimmed them to a finish and held the trenches. He defeated the Germans 25 men to a yard and did not seem to have much trouble in doing it, and there was not a man between Rawlinson and Calais. These men were armed with Lee-Enfield rifles. The Canadian corps at St. Julien and at the second battle of Ypres with practically a similar number of hien, one Canadian to every two yards, held back from 12 to 25 Germans to the yard.
It chanced that the Canadians were armed with Ross rifles on Ithat occasion. I am sorry to say that the conditions of warfare are very much changed since that time, that rifle shooting seems to have fallen back, and that bombs, hand grenades, and ail those side shows have taken its place, with results that are not altogether too satisfactory, as is shown by the loss of Cambrai and St. Quentin, where we did not cover ourselves with too much glory. There is one thing more and that is that if you train the men to feel their own power there is no power in Germany that can drive them back.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present when my hon. friend (Mr. DuTremblay) spoke, but I should like to say one or two words because he was good enough to speak to me yesterday regarding his suggestion as to forming a French Canadian brigade. It would be very easy for me to get into a critical mood and go back to the early stages of the war and find fault with the organization of our Canadian forces. It would be an easy matter for some to play the old game of criticising my good friend the former Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). But I must say that he is entitled to every credit for doing the utmost that any human being could do, and for the wonderful effort he made in raising the first and second contingents. I always objected to. the methods by which he did it, and I do not hesitate to say so here. I have no hesitation in saying that, if he had allowed the old .militia units, which had been in existence for many years to have gone over, and held their original designations, and to raise one, two, or three battalions within themselves for reinforcements, it probably would have been better all round. We might have got better results if that policy had been adopted, but I shall not go into that now. I am trying to view the situation as it stands .to-day.
Sir .SAM HUGHES:	Would my hon.
friend have had each battalion of the old militia force represented at the front as a corps? If so, he would have had about 200 battalions.
Major-General MEWBURN:	We have at
the front today in the four divisions 48 infantry battalions, not including the pioneer battalions and line of communication troops. We had in Canada autogether about

120 infantry battalions including the rural corps. I believe it would have been a very-simple matter to have allowed a certain number of city battalions, and also some rural battalions which could have been made into composite battalions, t.o have been trained and to have gone to the front under their own regimental numbers, allowing these units to have raised as many battalions within themselves as they could. Those were my views and the views of some other members of the militia at that time. In the fall of 1915 a good many of us asked the. then Minister of Militia and Defence if he would permit us in Military District No. 2 to raise an Ontario division for the front. He agreed and promised a division from Ontario. It was raised and organized in all its component parts, except the Howitzer brigade, but the military situation -was such that it did not work out as we had hoped it would, and we were told it was not possible to carry out the scheme as we had supposed. We still "carried on," did a lot of work, got men, and we did achieve very good results.
It is not within my power to-day to say that a French Canadian brigade may be raised from the province of Quebec; that it shall go overseas as a bridagde; and that we shall take out one of the brigades at present at the front and substitute for it a new brigade. But I think my hon. friend will agree that I have gone out of my way [DOT]-and it has been a pleasure to me to do it -to meet in every way possible the views of my hon. friends who have shown such a magnificent desire to get men from the province of Quebec. I have done everything in my power to meet that situation, i realize the fact that not only in their interest, but in the interest of the service, it is most desirable that men coming from the same localities and men of the same condition in life should be kept together, and have opportunity of associating together both in training and at the front.
Let me refer to the formation of the first Tank battalion that has been raised in Canada. W|e received instructions from overseas to raise a tank battalion. We thought it well to immediately get in touch with the various universities in Canada, we communicated with them, and the result is that we have in the city of Ottawa to-day the first Tank battalion raised in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Nearly 800
men. It will be the privilege of the members of this House to see that Tank batta-[Major Genera] Mewburn.]
lion on parade in front of the Parliament Buildings on Friday afternoon before- they leave for overseas. That is the first battalion of that kind that has been raised in Canada and it is most creditable to my friends from the province of Quebec that they rose to the occasion and raised their quota for that corps. The result has been so gratifying that the question has been asked me by some members, " Could we not attempt a second Tank battalion." I did not hesitate to say that I thought we could, and I have already cabled overseas to see if -we can get permission to raise a second Tank battalion in- Canada.
As to a French Canadian brigade, I may say we have been in communication with the universities in the province of Quebec, and I am glad to say that Laval University both in Montreal and in Quebec has met us in a splendid spirit, and has undertaken to raise two companies from the C.O. T.C. I shall do all in my power not only to secure further reinforcements for our troops but to promote that solid unity of sentiment that should exist between the people of the different provinces of Canada.
That is my fond hope and desire and just as soon as I can get away from Parliament I shall take a trip through the province of Quebec to see what further can be done to put that plan into effect. I hope and sincerely trust that the C.O.T.C. to which I have referred, will not be the only one in the province of Quebec. As to whether a French Canadian brigade can be authorized and raised, or as to whether -a French Canadian brigade can be sent to the front, it is not for me to say. That must be left to the Commander of the Force in France.



SUPPLY-DELEGATION OF FARMERS.

Thomas Vien: May I remind the House that a communication was made to us this morning from the convention of farmers now in session in Ottawa? These farmers have asked us to give them an appointment so that two or three representatives from their conference might address this House. I have been advised by one of the members from Ontario of -the executive committee, that they will be in session at the Arena from two o'clock until six this afternoon and that their executive is expecting the answer that was promised by your letter, Mr. Speaker, in reply to their communication of this morning.
I venture to suggest that it may be proper to determine, first, whether we are going to receive these farmers, then fix the hour

for doing so; and then inform them of cur decision without delay so that they could make arrangements to meet us at the appointed time.


Robert Laird Borden: I rise to speak with the permission of the House, because I have spoken already. I had the privilege this morning, for two hours and a half, of attending a meeting with the delegates to whom my hon. friend has made allusion, and it does not seem to me desirable at this stage of the session that the proceedings of the House should be interrupted for the purpose' which he has mentioned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
iSir ROBERT BORDEN: I am in a position whenever the House so desires to make it acquainted with the views which were expressed at that meeting, and under the circumstances I do not feel that the House ought to interrupt its proceedings for the purpose referred to. If these gentlemen would like, between the hours of six and eight o'clock, to address any members of the House who would wish to be present to hear them, there is not the slightest objection to it, but to interrupt for that purpose, the proceedings during the ordinary hours at which this House meets, seems out of the question under present conditions.



SUPPLY.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to the manner in tvhich the expropriation of land for Camp Borden was carried, out. A motion in my name in regard to this matter has been on the Order Paper from the beginning of the session until lately, when, as it could not be reached, owing to the advanced state of the session, by agreement with the right hon. leader of the House, I allowed it to be dropped with the understanding that I should be free to bring the subject up on going into Supply. My remarks on this occasion will be short and to the point.
The matter in itself is of some importance. Prior to the war, Mr. Speaker, the military authorities in Canada had secured
359,000	acres of military camp ground. After the war my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, acquired for the Government, and. rightly so, the now famous Valcartier camp, which brought the total acreage of military camp grounds to
372,000	acres. Later on, in May of the year 1916, the Government further acquired what is now known as Camp Borden in the province of Ontario, comprising in the neighbourhood of 16,200 acres. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Militia Department controls other areas of land known as the Dorval property, the old La Prairie camp, and the Rockcliffe and Connaught rifle ranges. The contract between the Minister of Militia and Defence and the would-be owner or proprietor of the property which has since become well known as the Borden camp, was made on the 10th April, 1916. The contract was entered into between the Hon. Edward Kemp, now Sir Edward Kemp -who was then the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence,-and a gentleman by the name of James Barr.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out [DOT]that it was not the Minister of Militia and Defence, it was the acting minister who entered into that contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad to be corrected by my hon. friend.. It was the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence. The contract was for the delivery of 17,300 acres of land for the sum of $207,600, at the rate of $12 per acre. James Barr obtained the land. He was the owner of a certain portion, but obtained the balance from divers owners at the rate of $8 per acre, and in some cases even less. Barr represented himself as the Government agent, and offered to many of the parties, as I will show in a moment, from $3 to $8 per acre for the land which he sought to acquire, he. himself having an agreement at that time with the then Acting Minister of Militia and Defence under which he was to receive $12 an acre. At first the owners resisted and protested when asked to dispose of their property. Some of them had enlisted and gone overseas, and the bargain wrns made with their wives or relatives. As there was on their part a fear of the law and of long drawn-out litigation and proceedings before the Exchequer Court, with consequent delays and appeals to the courts, most, if not all, of the owners, agreed to accept the amounts which were offered to them.
Now in order to make this case very clear and to show how those poor people were duped, I will first of all read the agreeement entered into between the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence and James Barr. I need not describe the lands themselves, which are well known in char-


Samuel Hughes: Who signs that as witness?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The witness is F. B. Poucher, evidently an old French name.


Samuel Hughes: Is he the land valuator of the National Trust Company?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have seen his name connected with the National Trust, but as to that I cannot vouch. Mr. Poucher could vouch, I suppose. Now, Mr. Barr evidently had in mind to get the balance of the property at as cheap .a price as possible. He was already in possession of 8,000 acres. He retained the services of a gentleman named G. A. Radenhurst, solicitor, barrister, notary public and conveyancer, of Barrie, Ont. I will give the letter which this barrister wrote to the various parties owning the balance of the lots:
Barrie, November 25, 1916. Dear Sir,-	[DOT]
I enclose you herewith the formal tender on behalf of the Crown-
You -see, he represents himself as acting for the Crown, that is, for the Department oif Militia and Defence.
-for the lands expropriated as part of Camp Borden. I would be glad if you would let me know whether it is accepted or not, and if not accepted the name of any solicitor who would accept service for you of the Information to be lodged. Also if the lot named in the tender is not the property you are interested in, or if you are interested in any other property in the said site not settled for, please let me know. The Crown is only anxious-
Always speaking on behalf of the Crown, for the Department of Militia and Defence.
[iMr. Lemiieux.l
and in the name of the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence.
-that what is fair and just shall be done, but as the purchasing agent and you differ as to values this is the only course we see that can be fairly taken to ascertain the value of the lands.
Yours truly,
G. A. Radenhurst.
Many of the unfortunate proprietors, fearing long-drawn out expropriation proceedings' before the courts, yielded to the demand made by this would-be counsel for the Crown, and it was only after they had received the pittance presumably offered them by the Crown through Mr. Radenhurst, who, in fact, was acting only for James Barr, that they addressed a petition to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, then Governor General. ' I have that petition here, * and shall put it on Hansard:	.
Mimico, Ont., September 26, 1916. To His Royal Highness The Duke of Connaught, Governor General of Canada.
May it please your Royal Highness:
My husband, John Jepson, is a private in the 124th Battalion now in England, and my eldest son is at Camp Borden, and I am living here with my younger children. Four years ago we bought twenty acres which is part of the land taken for Camp Borden. We were well satisfied with the land and intended making our home there, paying for it by hard savings. We have already paid $333, and owe about $25 yet before we get our deed. A man saying he is the purchasing agent for the Government tells us that the Government has taken it and won't pay more than $160. This is a cruel injustice that the Government should rob us of $200, when the only wage-earners of the family are fighting for Canada.
X humbly petition your Royal Highness to [DOT]save my family from this shameful robbery. My husband cannot attend to this himself and I do not know what to do ; so I take this liberty which I hope you will pardon.
Your obedient servant,
Ada Jepson.
Simon Street,
Mimico, Ont.	[DOT]
The secretary of His Royal Highness acknowledged receipt of that letter, and said that it had been referred to the minister-the acting minister I suppose-who would see that justice was done. Mrs. Jepson, however, was nevertheless awarded $160, while James Barr, under his contract with the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence, got $80 profit out of it.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member says that this lady was awarded a certain amount. Who awarded it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Exchequer Court. Mr. Radenhurst got a deed signed by this ladv in the absence of her husband, who

was lighting in France for Canada, and fearing that it would come before the courts, and being under the impression that Raden-hurst and Barr were acting for the Crown, she yielded.
Let us take the case of William Russell, . No. 29 Rusholme Park Crescent, Toronto, County of York, also on the matter of Camp Borden. I have here his affidavit. He was the owner of twenty acres, Mr. Speaker, in that site taken for the Government for Camp Borden. He had paid $17 per acre for it, had bought it after personal inspection for his summer home, and was well satisfied with it. What took place in his case? He will recite the facts:
That in order to get me to sell for less than it cost, a man named James Barr claiming to be the Government agent offered me $8 per acre, stating that was all the Government would pay, and if I did not take that price it would be confiscated by the Government. Previous to that, he offered my wife $3 per acre, using the same threats to her and stating that he had got lots of the land at that price, which I quite believe if he used the same means to acquire it, especially when his conduct was endorsed by Radenhurst, the Government solicitor, who referred to Barr as the purchasing agent and repeated his offer at $8, stating that the Crown is only anxious that what is fair and just should be done, but as the purchasing agent (Barr) and you differ as to values, etc. I have since ascertained that at the time Barr tried to compel my wife to sell for $3 he had already sold my land to the Government for $12 per acre.
So there was a clear gain of $4 per acre inuring to James Barr. Russell continues:
My son bought the adjoining lot at the same time. He is now fighting with the Canadian army in France and he is treaied in the same way as I am. We each are offered less than half our cost and have both costs to pay, while Barr's costs are paid by the Government. I have two sons in the fighting line including the one they are trying to rob.
(Signed) W. Russell.
Then there is another case in which the Government paid $160, by the same device, for land which had cost the owner $670, J-ames Barr making quite a profit on the deal. A man by the name of George Behe, of Toronto, solemnly declares:
I am nearly sixty years of age, working in a factory for my daily bread, and bought this land by hard savings, to live oq when too old for factory work. I am well satisfied with the land, and diq not wish to sell it. I have sent three sons to the war; my eldest, George, was killed at Ypres ; my second, Harry, was wounded four times, twice whilq acting as doctor's assistant and continued dressing the wounded after the doctor was killed, for which he received the D.S. Medal, and I have to-day received# a telegram that my third son; Tom, of the 204th regiment is severely wounded. I am told that the Canadian Government have taken my land without my consent and offered me
$160 for it. Canada, not content with my giving three sons to her defence, proposes now to rob me of $520.
(Signed) J. G. Behe.


Mr. BOYS:: What are the numbers of the lots and concessions in the cases referred to?


Rodolphe Lemieux: This man Behe said that in November, 1911, he bought twenty acres in lot 28, fifth concession, Tossorontio, paying for the said lot $320. He says that wire fencing, clearing and putting under cultivation cost him $350, a total of $670. In the other oases the numbers and descriptions of the lots are not given, but my hon. friend may obtain the official numbers from the department. My object in moving for the papers in this case was to get the titles and papers generally from the Exchequer Court proceedings.
In another case the property of a soldier at the front was sacrificed to make a profit of $80 for this man James Barr. The affidavit in this case is given by a lady, Isabel Tubb, who solemnly declares:
Henry Herbert Tubb was the owner of twenty acres included in the site taken by the Government for Camp Borden, which cost him $16 per acre. That in order to get him to sell It for less than it cost, a man claiming to be the Government agent wrote to me from Barrie and offered $8 per acre and stated that was the highest amount the Government would pay. The said party making the offer was the Crown Solicitor acting for the Government in the matter. The said Henry Herbert Tubb is now overseas and all business has been transacted through me, his wife.
That is, through herself. She declares that she has full knowledge of the matters in question.
Another case was that of George Buxton, who was the owner of 20 acres, being part of lot 27 in the fifth concession included in the site taken by the Government for Camp Borden. It had cost George Buxton $350 and for it he was offered by James Barr and a man named C. F. Wright, both claiming to be Government agents, $8 per acre. Both said that the amount offered was all the Government could pay and that unless George Buxton would take that price he might have to fight the Government for three years and finally get nothing. According to Buxton's affidavit, both these men, Wright and Barr, stated explicitly that they were employed by tne Government and that the Government would not give more than $8 per acre. Of course Barr was pocketing the difference between $8 and $12 per acre
Another case was that of I. F. Berry, of
Toronto, who solemnly declares:

On the 16th August 1911 I went up to Lisle with a friend and selected the forty acres after full inquiry and personal inspection. My friend bought forty acres at the same time. We tested the land and considered it worth a great deal more than the $15 we paid for it. It was better than the advertisement said as we found qualities which had not been mentioned. We went up alone and paid our own expenses. On February 1, 1916, I paid my last instalment after much saving and self-denial, intending shortly to go on the land. The forty acres has cost me altogether $700 and represents all my savings for six years, But my land had a special value. It was near the river and in developing the water power my land would be absolutely necessary. Mr. Radenhurst, the Government's solicitor, -wrote me that the Government would not take my land without just and fair compensation and advised me to see Wright and Barr, College Street. Wright and Barr sent a man named Barnes to see me and said Wright and Barr had been appointed by the Government to buy the land and -would give me $8 per acre and if I refused I would have to fight the Government and that such cases lasted for years.
He also said- the Government was getting land for less and would not in any case pay over $8. I have since learned that Mr. Barr had already sold my land to the Government for $12, expecting to compel me by threats to sell for $8, so he could make $160 at my expense. Mr. Radenhurst helped him all he could to compel me to sell my land at a loss of $450. The Government should at least give me what I paid for the land1 and order Barnes, Wright and Barr to be arrested, if the sentiments of right and justice have any influence. The land is assessed for $400, and I have paid taxes on that valuation.
The mulcted third parties have, through His Excellency the Governor General in Council, petitioned the present Government, and I sincerely hope the Government *will live up to that sense of fair play and justice which must animate every true Britisher and Canadian. Here are men whose sons are at the front, some of them having been wounded; here are men who have given as many as three sons to the cause of liberty and justice; here are women whose only support is a husband or a son at the front, and during the absence of those dear ones, speculators have the audacity to represent themselves as being Government agents and Crown solicitors, and 'by their representations they get signatures from those unsuspicious, honest people, because the latter fear that if they plead with the Government before the courts of the land, their cases will take many years to decide and thus they sacrifice the earnings and the properties which they have acquired after many years of hard and unremitting toil.
I hope the sense of British fair play which ought to animate the Government in the present instance will exhibit itself, and that, after investigation, those people will
[Mr. Lemieux.i
be reimbursed the moneys that have been snatched away from them by those agents. I do not accuse; I make no charge against the Department of Militia and Defence; I make qo charge against the Government; but I say that, now that I have made public the facts and that they are known officially, it is the Sbounden duty of the Government to hold an inquiry into those matters and to see that justice is done.
This is the petition which has been forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General in Council by the aggrieved parties:
Whereas, by a certain -agreement entered into between the Hon, A. E. Kemp, Acting Minister of Militia for the Dominion of Canada, and James Barr, of the city of Toronto, province of Ontario, dated April 14, 1916, the Government of the Dominion of Canada undertook to purchase -at $12 an- acre some 17,300 acres described in the aforementioned agreement as situate, lying and being in the county of Simooe and known popularly as Camp Borden.
And Whereas, after entering into this agreement, the aforementioned James Barr, as the representative of the Minister of Militia, acquired possession of much of this land at $8, and less, .an acre from soldiers in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, their wives and widows, and farmers in none too opulent circumstances ; and- whereas, by the sale to the Government of this land at $12 an acre in pursuance of the aforementioned agreement between Hon. A. E. Kemp and James Barr, the said Barr realized an enormous, and altogether unjustifiable profit.
And Whereas, in the Exchequer Court of Canada, at a session in Toronto on May 17 and 18, 1917, the price paid by the said Barr to the original owners was ratified at expropriation proceedings, the learned trial judge holding .that what Barr had obtained from the Government for the land had nothing to do with the value of the land and the price he paid for it:-
Now therefore, -the following petitioners hum-bly pray that His Majesty's Government may in a spirit _of justice deem it meet and right to order a" further and more thorough inquiry into the transaction in all its ramifications with a view to determining what may be done further towards an equitable adjustment and award.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Though I make no charge against the (Government, I wish however to qualify my statement by saying this, that the Government should never employ go-betweens as between the Crown and the party whose property is to be expropriated. An agreement was made in this case between the Acting MJinister o-f Militia and Defence and Barr by which -a certain piece of property was to be bought by the Government for $12 an acre. Why should the Crown have made such a bargain with James Barr, when the Crown knew perfectly well that Barr was

the owner of only 8,000 acres? The Crown knew perfectly well that the balance was the property of individual owners. The Department of Militia and Defence should have seen to it that the transaction * took place directly between the Crown and the individual owners. From past proceedings and past evidence the department knew very well that any go-between would mulct the third parties in that instance. That is the fault I have to find with the Department of Militia and Defence. But cannot something be now done to right this wrong? We, the representatives of the people, are being asked by this Government on this very day to pay enormous sums to Mac-zenzie and Mann, to the Canadian Northern Railway company; we are being asked to be generous with a company which has	already received millions at
the hands of this Parliament. Mackenzie and Mann are presently claiming before a Board of Arbitration in the city of Toronto, one hundred cents on the dollar as the pretended value of stock which has officially been declared valueless by, commissioners appointed under this Government. It was stated in the Senate at the close of the session last year that the Government was ready to pay up to $10,000,000 in satisfying the claims of Mackenzie and Mann. Surely, if this Government can afford to be so generous as, that with an opulent syndicate, it can afford, not to he generous, but to do what is just and right for the unfortunate wives and young men who are being deprived of the ascertained value of their property at Camp Borden. I would appeal to the sense of fair play and justice in the Government. I do not know these individuals, but if any one in my own province had been treated as these British-born-I am ttold they are British born-have been treated, in the province of Ontario I would be grateful to any one who interceded for my compatriots thus mulcted in the province of Quebec. I say it is a crying shame to let these agents get away with the money of the poor lads who .are fighting our battle in France.


William Alves Boys: Owing to the fact that Camp Borden is within the limits of my riding it may be proper that I should offer an observation or two respecting the matter the bon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) has just raised. I am sorry I did not know this matter was coming up to-day, for I have considerable information that would have been of great assistance to me, to cite, and which I think
would have assisted this House in coming to a proper conclusion in the matter. I have therefore to speak purely from memory, with, perhaps, a reference to one or two matters that have just been placed in my hands by the minister. In the first place, if what my hon. friend says is strictly correct, not a very strong case has been made out. He refers to $80 in one case, and to about the same amount in another. But he entirely overlooks a feature which I think is a complete answer !to what he has said. He has said that Mr. Barr-may I incidentally remark I hold no brief whatever for Mr. Barr, and have nothing whatever to do with him in any shape or form- he says that Mr. Barr stole eighty dollars. He proceeds upon the assumption that when Barr gets twelve dollars under the contract and only gives eight he is enabled thereby to pocket the sum of four dollars on each acre. If that were so, I would admit at once that, while the figures are not large, the ratio of profit would be exorbitant. But my hon. friend cannot have knowledge of the facts, or I do not think he would have taken his seat leaving any such false impression with the House. If Mr. Barr was not .compelled to give more tliam $12 for some of the lands he bought, or did not have to give more than eight in any case, his argument .might be sound. I myself have a personal knowledge, ll think I may say, of every case of a bona fide settler within the limits of Camp Borden. I have not a knowledge of the three or four cases my hon. friend refers to, nor have I a knowledge of perhaps the most important case, that of Enoch Thompson, a speculator in the .city of Toronto, who had a large acreage within the limits of Camp Borden. But 1 think I have a knowledge of every case of a bona fide settler, for nearly all of them spoke to me and complained they were not getting what they thought was right. In one case a settler got $8,500-I may be two or three hundred dollars out because I am speaking from memory-another one got $7,000, another $6,500, and a number of others got all the way from $1,500 to the figures I have mentioned, all of which averaged more than, far more than $12 an acre. The question this House would require to be answered is to find out whether or not Barr was getting that to which he was not entitled reasonably: How much did he get for the total acreage at Gamp Borden and how much did he pay? Figures were given to me-I cannot say whether they are absolutely accurate or not but if [DOT] they are

accurate I venture to say that no member of this House would have taken over the contract Barr had, and gone to the trouble be did for the profit there was in it. We cannot judge by an odd case here and there; we must have the price that was paid in every case, and perhaps the fairest test as to whether or not the Government have been dealing fairly with the owners of Camp Borden is the fact that out of the whole 16,000 acres only eight or ten claims have not been settled satisfactorily to the owners. In three of these cases there was hardship I admit, but no hardship so far as the action oif the Government is concerned. The hardship was that eight or ten or twelve years ago these innocent, and as far as land values are concerned, ignorant people were induced by somebody, I know not whom, to purchase twenty-acre blocks of land. I know what I am talking about, because I have lived within fourteen miles of this very property all my life. It is pure sand, blow sand.
Mr. LB^IilEUX: If, as my hon. friend says, they are ignorant people is not that all the more reason why the Government should protect them against the wiles of speculators?


William Alves Boys: When I said ignorant I had reference to their lack of knowledge of land values in that part of Ontario. They may be cultured people in other respects, but they certainly had no knowledge of the value of this land or they would never have bought it. They were induced by speculators to buy this land at $16 or $20 an acre, not by Barr as far as I know'. In expropriating this land does my hon. friend say it was the duty of the Government to accept las the true value the amount paid. In expropriating proceedings it is the actual value, I understand, not figured too closely, it is true, but rather a little on the generous side that should govern-would my hon. friend say that no matter what a man gave for his property that should be the price paid when expropriating it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The least the Government could have done would have been to give these- people the price allowed to Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr got more than the property cost these people.


William Alves Boys: My hon friend cannot have appreciated the argument I made, perhaps feebly and inadequately. Mr. Barr had to give a great deal more than $12 for a great deal of the land he bought. If he had to give $12, and never less, for every acre 
he bought, and sometimes as high as $25 and $30 and $40 an acre for land where there were improvements or barns

there were not very many of them it ie true-he would, have been a loser in the transaction and could not possibly have carried it through. Therefore, he had to acquire some of these lands at less than $12 an acre to be in a position to pay -more than $12 for other lands he had to buy. So after all, it comes down to the question, what has Barr made? Unless we know that, we do not know whether this thing is iniquitous or not.
The hon. gentleman says that there were very many cases. There were, all told, fourteen cases. He says that these will take years to dispose of in the exchequer court. Let me tell him that these fourteen eases have all been disposed of long ago. They went before Mr. Justice Cassels in the exchequer court, a judge in whom I am sure my hon. friend has every confidence. If the matter were of sufficient importance, and time would permit, I would go through these cases. In only two out of the whole fourteen were they successful. In many of the cases the demands were considered -so exorbitant and the land so worthless that his lordship even saddled the claimants with costs. He heard evidence and he found the amount tendered was ample. Unless my hon. friend is prepared to contest what hi-s lordship Mr. Justice Cassels has concluded is the proper way to dispose of values in expropriation cases, that is by giving the actual value and not what these people gave through their ignorance, that puts an end to the case. I do not -think he will go so far as to say that what they paid should be the test. In each case my hon. friend has referred to I asked where the lands were. J visited the location and I found that they were at the west side of the camp in the township of Tossorontio.
I found that the land was blow sand. That is also what was found by Mr. Justice Cassels. Since I have been a member of this House I do not believe there has been any purchase put through a department in the service of this country cleaner or fairer than the Camp Borden transaction and it will stand any investigation that my hon. friend may ask for. You will not find any irregularities there. On the other hand, you will find that there are only a few cases- of dissatisfaction and in these cases these unfortunate people ' gave too much for their land. Mr. Justice Cassels held that what they had given for the land was not a fair test of what it was worth. My hon. friend has forgotten to

state that Mr. Barr had to give more than $12 an acre for some of the land. I think it is hardly fair to accuse him of stealing $80, or the difference between $0 and $12 per acre, because he had to give far more than $12 for a very large acreage in the camp.
My hon. friend, I take it unintentionally and without knowledge, has done a great injustice to Mr. Radenhurst in this connection. If my hon. friend knew Mr. Radenhurst he would never have thought of doing such a thing. If he had not referred to the fact that Mr. Radenhurst was the agent of the department and assisted Barr I would not have: thought it necessary to have dragged his name into this case because he is too respectable and well known in the town of Barrie to be brought into a discussion of this kind. But as my hon. friend has referred to Mr. Barr as stealing, and has coupled Mr. Radenhurst's name with the transaction, 1 feel called upon to protest in defence of one of the most respectable solicitors and gentlemen in the county of Simcoe. If my hon. friend will make any inquiry whatever in the town of Barrie, he will find that there is no one in that locality more honourable and more highly respected than Mr. Radenhurst. He is a man of the highest standing at the bar of the county of Simcoe, is President of the Simcoe Law Association apd is as well known for his honesty and integrity as any man in that county. I think, in view of these facts, that my hon. friend will feel disposed t'o withdraw any insinuations he had made in regard to Mr. Radenhurst.. The only way that my hon. friend can introduce him into the matter is by referring to his letter which he read, but I deny that this letter warrants any such insinuations as my hon. friend has made. In his capacity as agent of the Government, he did what was usual with regard to expropriation proceedings and answered enquiries of land owners felling them if they were not satisfied with the tenders made, the true value could be ascertained by expropriation. When I recall the investigations in the Public Accounts Committee, with regard to Valcartier, I am glad to be the representative of South Simcoe, of the conditions surrounding the purchase in which Camp Borden is, and I derive considerable satisfaction from a comparison of the conditions surrounding the purchase of lands for these two camps. I recall that men from the province of Quebec appeared before that committee and asked $35,000 for farms that were assessed for $900. We had nothing of that kind in the county of Simcoe. The bona fide settlers there were reasonable. Some of them, I thought, asked more than they were entitled to, and I told them so. Mr. Barr was in the office and so was his solicitor. I felt they were 'asking too much and I said to Barr: "As far as I am concerned I want this to be clean, to go through without criticism and without scandal. I don't want excessive prices paid. On the other hand, I want you to be fair to these people." The bulk of the settlers on these lands were humble settlers, although there were five or six good farms in one part. I asked him to loosen up a little bit and do the decent thing. I found Barr willing to do that, and he did it, but he did not do it to excess, in the cases my hon. friend referred to where the land was largely sand.


Samuel Hughes: With reference to this particular case that has been referred to, were these not little blocks of land that had been sold as a summer resort some years before, where people thought they would have nice little orchards and gardens? There were 25 acres of this land.


William Alves Boys: That is absolutely correct.
The man who promoted that scheme must have hadi some faith in it because I found waterpipes laid down across the land, a gasolene engine and a private waterworks system installed. These lands on the west side of the camp were laid out in blocks and evidently he must have felt that something would grow on them but when I was there there were no signs of vegetation at all. Even the grass would not grow. It Was, as Mr. Justice Cassels found, all blow sand. An effort wae made to show that it was a sort of game preserve. The Pine river goes through some of this property and it was claimed that it was a fishing preserve, that mink, deer and wild1 animals of various descriptions were to be found, and that this represented a certain amount of value. Every conceivable method was devised to add value to this property. 1 do not think any .hon. gentleman will say for a moment that Mr. Justice Cassels had any idea of putting a lower value upon this land than the actual value. If my hon. friend will take the time to go through the six or seven typewritten pages of the judgment of Mr. Justice Cassels the ideas which .he has as to the situation at Camp Borden will be very quickly removed with this one exception which I am free a.t all times to admit, and that is that a hardship exists owing solely to the fact that they paid too

much when they bought years ago. If you are to lay down the law that because a man has given $20 per acre for his property, even if it is only worth $3, he should get $20, these men should have received more money. But I do not think my hon. friend can find any such law. Mr. Justice Cassels found to the contrary. There are some other features but I do not feel that it is desirable that I should take up more time at this stage. I want to point out in conclusion, for the benefit of those gentlemen who have not seen Camp Borden, that I do not believe there is any place in 'Canada where the 'Government could have secured 16,000 acres for anything like the same money more suitable for a military camp than the land within	the limits	of	that camp.
And in doing that I am not going by my own judgment. I have talked with officers who have been in the camps of Great Britain, and have been in all the camps in Canada-in Ontario and Quebec, at all events-and they have told me that all things being considered there is not a better camp in England or in Canada. There is, for instance, an abundant supply of the purest water that could be got anywhere. Artesian wells were sunk six inches across -one of them eight inches across-to a depth of 125 feet, thus securing an abundant flow of as fine drinking water as you could possibly get, and that is a most important feature in connection with such a camp. It is true that on one particular day of extreme heat, more than a year ago, there was considerable 'dust, mainly caused by the burning of hundreds and thousands of stumps, but you did not hear that complaint last year, and I do not believe you will hear it again. I only want to say here that I regret that the Minister of Militia and the department are not able to use Camp Borden to a fuller extent than it is going to be used this year. The Plying Corps, with a strength of some four to five thousand men, which is quite a good number, are located there, but there is room enough at the camp to accommodate thirty thousand-in fact, I think, fifty thousand-troops. The camp is well equipped and fitted to receive men at any time for training while this war goes on. I unhesitatingly say that, although there were some persons who suffered by reason of paying more for their land than they should have done, Camp Borden will bear any investigation that may be intituted and it is refreshing to hear of a case where the Department is accused of not paying enough TMr. Boys.]	.
money, generally the accusation is extra-gance.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: I have some personal knowledge of this matter through the fact that the legal firm with which I am associated represented some of these parties in the Exchequer Court proceedings, over these lands before Mr. Justice Cassels. I do not wish to approach this case from a sentimental aspect at all. It is purely from the legal point of view that I would like to say a word or two.
I would draw the attention of the House to a very extraordinary clause in the agreement between the Crown and Mr. Barr- the agreement which was referred to by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux). It is in a letter addressed to the Hon. A. E. Kemp, Acting Minister of Militia and1 Defence, and signed by James Barr on the 10th April, 1916:
If I am unable to procure any portion of the said property so as to convey the same to you on or before the 10th of May, 1916, you are then to exercise expropriation proceedings in regard to the said property.
"You are to exercise expropriation proceedings in regard to the said property." This is an agreement made by Barr with the Crown. The Crown agrees to pay $12 per acre for this land, and Barr, in order to secure himsellf, makes an agreement containing the proviso that if he should not be-able to secure this land the Crown would give him the machinery of the Exchequer Court, which has hitherto always been reserved to itself, and with this machinery Mr. Barr would wrest from these poor English settlers the land, at the price fixed by the Exchequer Court.


William Alves Boys: I 'think my hon. friend is aware that the proceedings in the Exchequer Court would have to be initiated, not by the department at all, but toy the person who believes that his or her land is worth more than i'S offered.
Mr. JACOB'S: These proceedings were instituted by the Crown.


William Alves Boys: Oh, no.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am surprised my hon. friend would say that, 'because I acted myself in the case for the parties against the Crown, and >Mr. Badenhurst appeared for the Crown.


William Alves Boys: After the offer had been refused.


Samuel William Jacobs: Certainly.


William Alves Boys: I agree with the hon. gentleman, hut not until the party concerned was unwilling to accept- the amount offered-.


Samuel William Jacobs: Certainly, but Mr. Barr offerer! $8 per acre to these people and they refused to accept it. He then threatened them with .Exchequer Court proceedings, and when they still remained bbdurate, we find the Crown appearing as- plaintiff in the case, (although they had made arrangements with Barr to purchase that property from him for $12 an acre. They gave him the machinery of the Exchequer Court so that he would obtain the land from these -people at the price fixed by the court. The case came on and the Crown, mark you, that had made arrangements to pay $12 an acre for -the land a few -months before, placed witnesses on the stand to prove that the land for which it had agreed to pay $12 an acre was not worth more than $8 an acre, and the Court so found, and further found- that some of the land was not even worth $3 an acre. It maintained Mr. Barr in his contention. My complaint against the Crown is this : Had it not made this arrangement to give Barr the machinery of the Exchequer Court to obtain this land, Barr would have been in the same position as any other man, and owners could have held their land against the world; they might have asked $10,000 per acre, and Mr. Barr would not have been able to take it from them. But under this agreement the people found they had to part with their land, not to the Crown, but to a private individual, and the quarrel I have with the Crown is that it should have prostituted its position, and handed over the machinery of the Exchequ-qer Court to a private individual, for his own gain, so that these men had to part with their property for $8 when they could have held it for any price they liked. That is- the position.	*


Samuel Hughes: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order to speak on the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the hon. member has already spoken.


Samuel Hughes: Not on this question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Samuel William Jacobs: Is it a fact that Mr. Barr paid in any one instance more than $12 an acre for that land?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: He owned some
5,800 acres, but what -he paid for it I do- not know. This much I do know; that before the Crown determined' to buy the entire site at that aggregate price it h-ad the land valued by two outstanding valuators of the city of Toronto, whose reputations certainly are above suspicion, who valued the entire area and put upon the land the price that was paid for it, taking one lot with another. We are not undertaking to say that each particular lot w-as worth $12. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Jacobs) asked if Mr. Barr paid more than $12 for any one acre. As I said I do not know what he paid for the land, but I would point out this fact, which establishes beyond peradven-ture that some thousand's of acres of the land included in the original quantity were worth more than $12 an acre; that subsequently to that contract there was a further arrangement entered into in virtue whereof the -Crown could abandon any part of the land- which it found not to be required, and there was found to be a very considerable portion of it not to toe required or, (at least, nob to be desirable to take, -because it was crossed by roads that would have to be suppressed, and it was not considered proper that that should be done. Those were abandonedi. But when they were abandoned there was a valuation made on those lots which figured them out to be worth $13.62 an acre, and there was deducted from the price to be paid by Mr. Barr, not $12 an acre for those lots, but $13.62 an acre, which shows that those lots -and I think there were about 4,000 acres in round figures of that land-


Samuel Hughes: North of the Mad river.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. As I say, there never was a purchase lat $12 an acre of the land of these 'particular people referred to at all. There was a purchase of that whole block tat a sum total price, which if you divide it toy acres, would figure out at $12 per acre; and that price was made after the most careful valuation by men of the very highest repute. The interest of the Crown to acquire that as a whole is perfectly obvious, as Mr. Justice Cassels points out in his judgment.
It is quite true that Mt. Barr did not own all the land, and it is quite true that it was agreed that whatever portion of it Mr. Barr could not acquire the Crown would; itself expropriate, ae it did itself expropriate it. We have heard something about the prostitution of the rights of the Crown. Why my hon. friend, who is a very distinguished lawyer, will quite realize that if we had not bought from Mr. Barr we would have gone out and expropriated the entire property.


Samuel William Jacobs: And saved money.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I ibeg the hon. gentleman's pardon. It was. precisely (because it was established to us by the valuation that I spoke of that it would be more economical for the Crown to pay this, price which these valuators stood behind than to take the chance of exaggerated values in the expropriation that the transaction was carried out in the way in which it was. And the mere stipulation-this stipulation which the hon. gentleman qualifies as prostitution of the Crown's rights-it is hard to keep serious and so describe it-that, if Mr. Barr failed to deliver to us any of the property he had undertaken to sell to us we should exercise the methods which we had of acquiring it and charge him the difference in the price. If it cost us any more to expropriate it, we would charge him the difference; if it cost us less to expropriate it, of course then we had no damage to claim from him and he took his whole original price. I would like to point out that this price all through was $207,000, the price for the entire property. We deducted from that $13.62 an acre for the acres that were abandoned, and we set off against that whatever was paid when we expropriated the property.
What was this awful thing that was said to these people who complained? Mind you, I understand the people who complained. I do not as readily understand the indigna-

tion of the hon. gentleman, to whom I give credit for having, perhaps, a clearer apprehension of the actual facts. These people were very unfortunate victims, but they were victimized when they bought, not when we acquired the property. Mr. Justice Cassels points that out in his judgment. He makes reference to "what might mildly be termed the highly coloured literature" that induced these people to buy these "blow sand" hills for orchards and all sorts of purposes which on its face would give them an extraordinary value.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that they purchased those very lots from Barr originally?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware whether they did or not. And I am not interested in the slightest degree in the question whether Mr. Barr is a saint or a sinner. What I am trying to point out is that these people, so far as this Government is concerned, got absolutely every dollar that they would have got if we had proceeded in the ordinary course to expropriate, and as we did with regard to other lands and that, they were not injured one iota, because if you figure out the total price which we were to pay Barr for the whole amount it would have been $12 per acre. We did not pay Mr. Barr anything for that acre; we charged over against the price that we were to pay Mr. Barr whatever the courts said we ought to acquire that property for at the expropriation rate. So that I fancy that if I am capable of making anything clear I have made it quite clear that under that contract there never was bought the land of those particular people at $12 an acre.
Now as to what is complained of that these people were told. In so far as Mr. Barr may or may not have said that he was the agent of the Government-if he so said I do not think he correctly described himself-but in so far as Mr. Radenhurst or anybody else told these people that if they would not accept the price that the Government offered them they would have to be subjected to expropriation, why they were told the simple truth. That is described as an awful threat. Well, it is what happens to any proprietor when for public purposes the Crown believes that it is necessary for it to take their property. These people were offered, I think, $8 an acre, which was the price mentioned with regard to these particular cases. I know a number were offered $8 an acre, and some were offered less; and som^ of the lots were

found when it went before the court to be worth less than that. If I followed correctly the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), he was speaking of the people who did not go to court. It is very unfortunate for those people, because they were told, which was the truth, that inasmuch as the Government required that land, if they would not accept what was offered they would have to resort to expropriation proceedings. If, because they were told that, they parted with their particular properties at anything less than they were worth, that is very unfortunate. But that is something that is not peculiar to them; that is what happens to any man whose property is expropriated by the Crown when the Crown does not feel justified in offering him an amount which he is willing to accept. The cases which did go before the court, as my hon. friend has pointed out, and as the judgment of Mr. Justice Cassels which I have before me shows, demonstrated that the offers made to all of these people were, in the words of Mr. Justice Cassels, "generous offers."
His lordship deals with the question of how he is to proceed to value. He endeavours not to fail to be as liberal as a man can be, but he does not think it ^proper for him to be generous with the money of other people. He points out what I am sure both my hon. friends will riot dispute, that the mere fact that these people had bought their lands at a price vastly more than they are worth did not justify him in allowing-nor would it, I think, justify the Crown in paying-more than they were worth. Looking at the facts of the case, therefore, I fancy that my two hon. friends will realize that their indignation was at least a little over-warm. Most assuredly the Crown had no desire to do these people out of one dollar of value that they owned. Reference has been made to the fact that some of them were soldiers and that some had soldier relatives. Surely it is not suggested that that would be a reason why the Crown would not want to do them justice. We were acquiring this property on behalf of the country and it was our duty to take the best available method of securing it at a reasonable value. We did secure the entire property at a reasonable price. We acquired it as a whole and were able to deal -with it as a whole. No individual was thereby placed in any worse position than he would have been in had we exercised our undoubted Tight of expropriating without any transaction with Mr. Barr at all.
123i


Samuel William Jacobs: $75,000 might have been saved if the Crown had expropriated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was because of the very best advice we could get on the subject-advice to the effect that we would save a large sum of money by making the acquisition in this way-that we proceeded as we did. My hon. friend has had enough experience in expropriation proceedings to know that what has happened in this particular case is rather the exception than the rule in expropriation proceedings. If the Crown had proceeded to expropriate this entire 17,300 acres, there was danger. ot its finding itself mulcted for more than the valuation put upon it. That is the experience of most people who have had to do with expropriations. Having been in touch during the last seven or eight years with the expropriation proceedings of this Government, I know that it is only rarely that on expropriation proceedings we do not pay more than in the judgment of our valuators the property is worth. The price fixed for the land we abandoned goes to demonstrate that, for a very large proportion of it at all events, we certainly would have paid more than $12 an acre had we proceeded by expropriation. I can understand that the situation of these people is such as to command our sympathy and very easily-with a little goodwill, perhaps-to arouse the very warm feeling that has been expressed. But with the facts before us, it must be clear that no wrong or injustice has been done any party in this connection save that which was suffered by those unfortunate people when they were induced to purchase this land at absolutely fictitious prices. I hold no brief for Mr. Barr; I do not know him; I never saw him. Whether he has had anything to do with the selling of the land to these people I am not in a position to say. If he had; if he is the author of " highly-coloured literature " of Which Mr. Justice Cassels speaks, he certainly would be open to grave reprehension for his action in misrepresenting the property he was selling to these people. I do not say that he is deserving of that, because I do not know what his connection with the matter was.
The hon. gentleman has appealed to us to reconsider cases. I am not in a position to speak as to a particular case where a man made a settlement. It is, perhaps, possible that in some particular case a man took less than his property was worth because he preferred not to be expropriated. If there fce room for consideration of cases

of that kind I shall be glad to look into them. But the facts as established by the documents on the file, by the judgments of the court and by the result itself to Mr. Barr, all tend to negative the idea that anybody was deprived o'f his property without getting full value.
I hold in my hand a statement of how this thing petered out. The hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) spoke about our prostituting the powers of the Crown by lending them to Mr. Barr. What was done with regard to the lands that had .to be expropriated was this: the Crown expropriated them and charged up against Mr. Barr whatever it paid for the expropriation .


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend read from the judgment of Judge Cassels?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That would not bear upon the result to Mr. Barr, but this is what Mr. Justice Cassels says, speaking of the purchasers-he had a great number of cases before him:
There are different classes of purchases of these Camp Borden lands. A considerable number of acres were laid off Into twenty acre lots, and influenced' no doubt by what might be mildly termed very highly coloured literature issued by Messrs. Wright and Barr and by Mr. Enoch Thompson, numerous people were induced to purchase these twenty-acre lots at prices averaging from $15 to $16 per acre. These purchasers, needless to say, were persons living at a distance from Camp Borden. As for /Mr. Shook, a witness much relied on by the defendants, he states in answer to a question :-
"Q.-Can you tell us what the value of these lands are, say as orchard Lands? A. Well, I can scarcely give you the value of them; from their surroundings I would not like to because the people there are pessimistic about the value of that land and do not think it worth anything.
As lands for a Camfi they may be very suitable. As lands for agricultural or fruitgrowing purposes or vegetable gardens I would agree (except as to a portion of lands in Essa Township and perhaps a small quantity of acres in Pine River flats) with the ".people there."
*He is speaking of the particular lots that he had before him, not of the entire land; and he makes his exceptions. Further on he refers to/ the prices they paid, and points out what in law and in common sense must be perfectly clear; that the value of a land is' not necessarily what a man may have been deceived into paying for it.
I was going to refer to the result of the transaction. Hon. gentlemen have spoken about an $80 profit on every lot. As I say, the process was that Mr. Barr, being credited with $207,000, was charged up with what we paid for tlje lots as we expropriated' them.

Being credited with $12 an acre, the price agreed upon with Barr, on 14,596-6 acres, or an amount of $175,159.20, the Crown charged up to Mr. Barr $138,977.04, being the amount that we paid in acquisition of the land. We also charged up to him advances made to him, amounting in all to $22,000. Those two amounts deducted from $175,159.20, leave a balance of $14,182.15 available for the acquisition of the land still remaining to be acquired, which is 490-6 acres, which at $12 an acre would amount to $5,887.20. To be deducted from that $14,182.16, is $2,818.52, being what was coming to us for the land abandoned. That is what we were entitled to charge up. Over and above dropping $12 an acre from the price for those lands, we were entitled to an additional $1.32 an acre because they were worth more than $12. There was also to be charged up an estimate on account of buildings disposed of by Barr, amounting to $1,400. That makes a total deduction of $4,218.52 to be made from $14,182.16, leaving a balance of $9,963.64 to cover the cost of the lots still to be acquired. It is to be pointed out that, in the acquisition of these lands, Mr. Barr had to incur considerable expense in connection with agents and one thing or another, so that those figures do not represent a profit going to Mr. Barr. He had to pay out of that all the expenses involved in the acquisition of such lots as he acquired or endeavoured to acquire, so that when one speaks of getting a profit of $80 a lot on those particular lots, it is quite manifest he did not. It all comes down to this, that Mr. Barr sold us a block of land at a block price, and that therefore, you cannot conclude anything ' fro'm the fact that, by dividing that amount by the number of acres, you get a price of $12 an acre, and that was so stated. You cannot deduce from that that each acre was worth $12 an acre, nor that he got $12 an acre for each acre of that immense block of *land. Not only was it shown at the time of the abandonment of the property, hut the fact was notorious to all at that time that all of this land had not an equal value, and it is quite obvious that a tract of that size would not have an equal value throughout.


Mr. FIELDING:: The strangest part of this transaction, a part which has been lightly touched upon by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. .Lemieux), and which has not been touched upon by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) or the Minister of Justice, is this: It is quite conceivable, under the circumstances de-

soiibed by the minister and by the hon. member for South Simcoe that Mr. Barr may have made a loss and not a profit on his transaction. The hon. member for Mai-sonneuve has rather conveyed to us the impression that Mr. Barr must have made a great deal of money, and it has been contended on the other side that Mr. Barr may possibly have lost money by having to pay more than $12 an acre for some portions of the land. That is quite possible, but it is not at all probable that that took place at all.	[DOT]


William Alves Boys: I did not wish for one moment to say I thought Mr. Barr lost money, but I did say that the'figures given to me showed that the profit he made was not a profit that would induce any member of this House or any business man to interest himself in the transaction.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not question that for a moment, but I think it was intended that Mr. Barr as a business man should make a profit out of the transaction. I think it will be an equally fair assumption that the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence intended that Mr. Barr should have an opportunity of making a large profit, a profit he would have to make at the expense of either the owner of the land or the public treasury. But the question that strikes me as the most extraordinary part of the matter is-why did the Minister of Militia have anything to do with Mr. Barr in regard to anything that Mr. Barr did not own? Mr. Barr owned 8,000 acres. It would be right and proper for the Minister of Militia to bargain with Mr. Barr to buy his land; but why did the Minister of Militia bargain wth Mr. Barr for land belonging to other people? The Minister of Justice said they did not buy any particular acres; that they bought from Mr. Barr a tract of 16,000 acres of land. Mr. Barr did not own that quantity of land. They bought from Mr. Barr that which he had no right to sell. They gave Mr. Barr what was in effect a license to go around all those people representing himself as an agent of the Government, make bargains with them and, in some cases, acquire land at prices which they considered were too low. If the Government had actually paid $8 an acre, I do not suppose those people would have complained. What they seem to complain of is that the Government paid $12 an acre, and they got only $8, and it is not satisfactory to say that the Government paid an average price which was fair all around. Why did they have any "Barr" in this transaction? Why was Mr. Barr brought into the matter at all? My hon. friend says the experience of the members of the Government is that expropriation proceedings generally lead to considerable cost. I agree with him in that respect. Evidently he did not need to be alarmed in this case, because we have had the expropriation proceedings carried on under the peculiar circumstances described by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) and the judge of the Exchequer Court has placed: a low valuation on those lands- It seems that, if the case had from the beginning been taken into the Exchequer Court, a very high price could not have been allowed for those worthless sand lands or "blow sands," as my hon. friend describes them. There dia not seem to have been any danger in expropriating; but, danger or no danger, this is a method of buying land for the Government which is open to the utmost possible abuse. Why should there have been any "Barr" middleman in this transaction? Why did the Government not buy from Barr that which Barr had to sell, and in some way, by an authorized, disinterested agent, paid for his services as an agent, meet those other people and buy their land on fair terms? This is the serious error on the part of the Government-buying from Barr something he had not to sell, giving him the equivalent of a license to beat down those people and compel them' to sell their land for what seemed to them to be low prices. That part of the transaction, irrespective of gain or loss, is_open to very gTave censure.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not here last week when the Budget was under discussion, and as I am still anxious to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes in discussing some features of the Budget and some features of the war, I would ask you to call it six o'clock, and I shall endeavour to take up not more than half an hour of the time of the House on the resumption of business afteT dinner.
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, respecting the Protective Association of Canada.-Mr. Demers.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 89, respecting the Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Demers

Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
On section 1-Extension of time:
Jacques Bureau: This Bill is not on the Order Paper.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might perhaps explain that this Bill, and Bill No. 75, respecting the Protective Association of Canada, were reported from the Banking and Commerce Committee this morning, and under the motion made yesterday by the Prime Minister, were placed on the Order Paper for consideration in Committee of the Whole to-night.


Jacques Bureau: They do not appear on
the Order Paper.


Georges Henri Boivin: I,t was impossible to print a new Order of the Day this afternoon, but the Bills were added to the official Order which is in the hands of *the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. The motion of the Prime Minister to which I have referred reads as follows :
That owing to the advanced period of the Session the following Rules relating to Private Bills be suspended for the remainder of the Session, viz.:-Rules 28, 28A, and 103; and that Private Bills reported on Private Bills days (by any Select Standing Committee be placed on the Orders of the Day of the same day for consideration in Committee of the Whole amongst Private Bills, or if reported on days other than Private Bill days then immediately after Routine Proceedings.


Jacques Bureau: The leader of the Opposition, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when the motion was made, took the ground that the Bills should not be passed until we had had an opportunity off considering them. The Order Pa,per is the only guide we have to .the business of the day, and we did not know that these Bills were coming up this evening. However, if the Bills have been reported by the Banking and Commerce Committee I have no objection, but I do not want 'this to constitute a precedent.
I think it is only fair to the House that we should have some explanation of the Bill.
* Sir HERBERT AMES: It is merely granting an extension of time to a fire insurance company. The company was granted a charter in 1916 and was expected to fulfil all the requirements within two years, but on account of war conditions, 
was unable to do so and is now asking for an extension of time.


Jacques Bureau: Were any objections made in the Banking and Commerce Committee to this extension being granted?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: None whatever.
iSection agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 96, to incorporate the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood.-Mr. J. F. Reid.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: Ordinarily, a Bill respecting the incorporation of a company might be spoken to, ao far as the attitude of the Government is concerned, by the Secretary of State, but as this Bill has to do with a community that has been more directly under the administration of the Interior Department, perhaps it is as well that I should say a word with regard to it. There is a measure of much importance; in some respects, it is an extraordinary measure as far as this House is concerned. There is in Western Canada a community holding, in which, a large percentage of what are commonly called Doukhobors, are the owners; they hold community rights in it, and no particular individual has any special individual asset. As everybody knows, the property of the community stands mainly in the name of one of their leaders, Mr. Peter Verigin. I believe a share of that property stands in the name of a corporation which was incorporated under the Companies' Act, and which has a name practically the same as the name intended to be given to this community, save only that the word " Limited " is added. A portion of the assets have been conveyed to that corporation. The stock of that corporation, I understand, is held by certain trustees for the benefit of the community, or if not the whole community, for the benefit of certain members of it. The purpose of this Bill appears to be to enable the whole community to organize in a corporate capacity, and to provide facilities whereby the assets of the people will be held by the whole corporation, but also whereby the communistic right of any individual in the corporation may be withdrawn and become an individual asset. I did not think Parliament would likely

'favour the principle of the incorporation of a community in so far as commercial enterprises are concerned; but as regards this community, there have been urged certain claims and certain rights which the individuals of the community might seek to exercise and which they could not exercise if some such incorporation does not take place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What rights are they?


Arthur Meighen: The right to withdraw, inasmuch as the assets are now held by Mr. Peter Verigin in the name of the community. With respect to the rights of any individual member of the community, there is no way, unless the incorporation takes place, by which an individual member of the community can withdraw from the corporation and take his place as an ordinary citizen of Canada. This is not a matter of small concern. The community numbers about 7,000 souls. The assets run into the millions of dollars, and the position of these assets, it is very strongly urged, is not by any means on as secure a basis as it should be, having regard to the rights of individual members as against the rights of the community.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the community applied for the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the first incorporators are named in the petition and in the Bill. While I do not object to the passing of the second reading of this Bill, I want it to be understood that I do not favour the granting of extraordinary powers to a community of this kind. I do not oppose the second reading because I am not convinced that there will be any way by which an individual may withdraw his rights and become entitled to his individual assets unless some such protection as this is afforded him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do you object to the land tenure?


Arthur Meighen: There are certain clauses of the Bill that I commend most earnestly to the consideration of the Committee to which the Bill will go. I refer particularly to sections 3, 11 and 14, and I ask the Committee to consider carefully whether it is wise on the part of Parliament to extend the principle which we already have adopted to the incorporation of* communities for other than commercial purposes, and if it is necessary, in this individual case, to consider whether or not it would be well to restrict the powers given to this community so that no more than the imperative
necessities of the day will be met and the prevention of injustice secured.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.



SUPPLY-CANADA AND THE WAR.

William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, I said I purposed to avail myself of this motion to discuss two or three questions that are of extreme importance at this stage of our country's career and in connection with the war. The first thought to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that expressed by the London Times of yesterday in an article discussing war and condition of affairs in Europe.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) intend to speak to my motion?


William Findlay Maclean: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, the debate is not concluded. My hon. friend, from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) intended to say something.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is entirely a matter for the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean); he has the floor.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) had the floor. I waited for him all afternoon and I do not see any reason why the hon. gentleman should ask me to give way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


William Findlay Maclean: A significant thing was stated by the London Times of yesterday in discussing the condition of the war, or the entry of the United States into the war. It was dealing with the declaration that that country, which had. refused up to recent times to concern itself with European questions, had gone into the war because it believed the rights and liberties of civilization to be ini jeopardy and is opposed to autocracy and to the military system of Germany. The London Times, in discussing that declaration yesterday said that it was the most significant political incident that has happened in the history of the world since the French revolution. We are now voting money in connection with the war and I take this opportunity to say that I also regard the entry of the United States into the war as a matter of supreme importance. We find ourselves today, a great democratic community on the American continent, joined up with the

United States in asserting the rights of civilization as against autocracy and the German military system. Mr. Balfour, when he accepted that embassy to the United States, came to America, to Canada, to this House, and what he told us constituted an appeal from the progressive, constitutional governments, especially the British government, to the democracies of America to join with them in the great struggle. Mr. Balfour spoke here for his ' government, and) for the British people, and he presented to us the view that a supreme issue had' arrived in the history of the world and that the allied countries of Europe, through the missions which came from Great Britain and France appealed to the democracies of America to assist them in this great conflict. The glory of Canada is that the Canadian democracy, a Dominion under British constitutional rule, the day that it went into this war, assumed the leadership of America in asserting the rights of democracy and in showing that it was worth our while to take part in this struggle. We have been true to that. The United States have seen that we were right; they have joined up in this struggle, and the most significant thing flowing out of this important union between the two great democracies is that the old hatred that had been developed between the original Thirteen Colonies and the Mother Country, which had been nursed and had grown, in a way, for over a hundred years, suddenly ceased, and you find to-day Britain and her Dominions and the great American republic united in giving the whole of their resources to the defence of democracy and civilization. That is the great event of this war so far, which is making more and more impression on the people, and that is the reason why I say that I think we ought to readjust our views in regard to our position on this continent. Whereas formerly there was a disagreement between the United States and the Mother Country, and Washington was the champion of the republic as against the Mother Country, you see now that Washington is identified with the old democratic principle that was asserted by Cromwell: you see a union of the principles for which Cromwell and Washington stood, you . see Lloyd George as the leader of the English democracy, and men like Mr. Balfour claiming a connection with Lincoln and Wilson in a way that surprises all the world. That is a great advance, and it shows a new unity and a new strength on the part of democracy: you see the 
LTnited States asserting ii and ourselves asserting it, and putting all our resources into this war.


Samuel Hughes: Are wre living true to it?


William Findlay Maclean: We are trying to do our best, but perhaps we have not done as well as we might have done. Still, we are now putting all our resources into the war, and the reason we are going to win eventually, and the reason we are going to win the world to our view, is the existence of this new condition that has brought about so great a change. What is the one thing that the German Kaiser failed to allow for, and failed to make any calculation in regard to? He never believed that the - democracies of Europe and America would be united; he never believed that the United States and Britain would go hand in hand, and he thought he could defy the United States and could defy Britain; and the one thing he is up against now is this new and powerful union.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of that union between Great Britain and the United States, would my hon. friend revise his view's and ideas about the reciprocity treaty?


William Findlay Maclean: That is always in the hon. gentleman A mind. I stood on the floor of this House and defended, and am prepared now to defend, my record in regard to reciprocity. I was -the first man in this House, session after session, to demand, for public reasons, the free entrance of the wheat products of the Canadian West into the United States-
Mr. LEMIEUxk'feut not in 1911.


William Findlay Maclean: -and Canada is to-day the leader of democracy in America, except that in that reciprocity issue we decided to keep our independence on this continent. '


William Stevens Fielding: Will the hon. gentleman define in what way the reciprocity treaty interfered with our independence?


William Findlay Maclean: I will answer the hon. gentleman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Speak, for the farmers are listening.


William Findlay Maclean: It is very easy to answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sidetracked.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not sidetracked, and I cannot be sidetracked on an issue of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Wait a minute. I hope the hon. gentleman will listen to me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.
Mr. W. F. iMACLEAN: I am not in the habit of interrupting the hon. gentleman when he is making an argument. At any time that he presents arguments he is listened to by the House. Why are we going to win this war? Because we have united and consolidated our efforts and our resources, and this is the surprising thing that the Kaiser never counted upon. The great American Republic has put into this struggle the resources of the great Mississippi valley-ail their vast industrial resources; and we in Canada have put in the resources of the great Saskatchewan plains, with all their food products, and now we find that Germany will not be able to maintain against the consolidated Ameri-* can democracy their insolent assertion that civilization must how to them, that the rights of smaller peoples must yield to them, that German military power must govern the world. Now that- we have reached the point where all the resources of the United States and of Canada are bound together a new view has come to the people of America ito this extent: They know now-and this is what I want to impress upon the House-that the continent of America to-day is the home of democracy, it is the place where the battle of democracy has to be fought, the place from which the food and all the resources to uphold democracy must come. That is why the United States have gone into the struggle, that is why they aTe putting all their resources into the fight, and that is why we are going to win. And, as I say, we of Canada, and the people of the United States, must take a new view and make a new alignment in regard to these great world questions. A while ago we would have said that our whole case for democracy and for the rights of civilization was our connection with the Mother Country. That was true, but it is still more true now that the rights of democracy depend more and more on these new political forces that have come together and that [DOT] are asserting themselves in this great war. We *must realize that to-day America, the midcontinent, the continent that by its Atlantic aspect looks on Europe, and by its *Pacific outlook, takes Asia in view; America, the centre ef the world and the
centre of democracy, with that outlook, and with its resources controls the situation, and if it believes-as it does believe- in democracy, then we shall win. We have a great cause to vindicate, because, as all now admit, this war is not a European war, it is a world-wide war against German autocracy, and German domination It is a struggle into which America has entered, and which America has got to win, and practically the appeal in France and in Britain to-day is to America, " Come over and help us." And America has responded. Now, that is a matter of the greatest moment to democracy, and Canadians must fake it in that light. There has been preached in this country the doctrine of what was called " The Round Table." We have heard a good deal of that Round Table, and that organization in England which was trying to educate us, and to lead us into what they call an Imperial Federation, in which Canada-if *the idea were carried out as they proposed it-might lose her identity, and become one in some kind of confederation in which this country would have a certain number of votes as against a great many others. I am rising here to-night to object to anything of that kind, and I say that Canada must maintain her autonomy, her system of having a free voice in all these matters. And inasmuch as America hereafter is to have the controlling voice as to democracy, we must be careful that we do not drift into a system by. which we might have our liberties restricted if we connected ourselves too closely with the political organizations of Europe, and especially with a political organization, perhaps an Imperial Confederation, as has been proposed to us by the Round Table organization in Britain. Not only that, but if the resources of America are now all devoted to this war, and there is to be great new adjustment, and if peace is to be maintained after this war, it must be done from America. And if there is to be a peace police, which is the ambition now of the most progressive men who are discussing this waT, if there is to he a peace patrol, a police organization to keep down organizations like that of the German Kaiser, it i6 going to be in America and we will be part of it, and we want a very free hand in very considerable degree in regard to what we are to commit ourselves to in the future construction of the British Empire. My contention is that, instead of committing ourselves to a system of Imperial federation, we had better keep our autonomy as it is, remain in the Em-

pire as one of the Dominions of the Empire, but not to commit ourselves. And we are being invited to commit ourselves, and speeches of a certain trend that I do not .quite agree with have been made in England in connection with this war. I want to discuss that matter or call public attention to it as I a-m doing now, and to see that Canada keeps her position and her autonomy on this continent free, to join with the other Dominions of the British Empire and with the British constitutional organization as it is, and with the great American Republic.
Mr. LEM'IEUX:	Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: That is dangerous.


William Findlay Maclean: Does my hon.
friend, the late Minister of Militia, not think that we should have supreme control -of the Canadian forces as the other Allies have?


Samuel Hughes: I was merely saying that it was dangerous to hear the applause coming from the direction it is. I have had it myself, unfortunately.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: That is good1 Liberal common sense.


William Findlay Maclean: Sometimes Liberals do not talk common sense. Since the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lem-ieux) has referred to this .question, I would ask what is the one reason why there was a certain holding back in the province of Quebec in regard to the great war and the

participation of Canada in it? It was probably the suspicion the people of Quebec had that they would be led into some kind of European alliance which perhaps later on would prove objectionable to them. I believe the new view of it to the province of Quebec-and I want to congratulate that province on the splendid wave of patriotism sweeping over it now, .and on the way its young men are coming forward and enlisting; they are going over as much from this Dominion as from America to maintain the liberties andi the civilization of Europe-


Rodolphe Lemieux: We will follow you as
long as you talk that way.


William Findlay Maclean: The ideas of
what the Empire ought to be have been expressed, as I said before, by a kind of mediaeval Round Table, and they have a great propaganda out, and they are preparing a program for us of what the future Canada ought to be in regard to conditions in Europe and questions of that kind. I do not prefer that we should be led into these proposals ox accept! them in any sense until we discuss them fully in this country, know what they are, and whither they lead. I think I am fully justified by reason of what has taken place. A word of warning should be spoken in this House on this great issue, and the people of Canada and of America should say now that inasmuch as civilization and the liberties of the world and democracy are at stake, and that the Kaiser of Germany, if he had his will, would destroy not only the liberties of Britain and of France but-the liberties of America as well, we ought to take that wider and greater view and keep our autonomy and our resources and our organizations here, ready to join with all the other British democracies and with the United States, and to recognize at last that with America-free Amerioa, that America which has made itself the dictator of the world, that America which to-day controls the situation by reason of the magnificent resources of the Mississipppi basin and plains of the Saskatchewan- we must use all our powers to maintain the liberties of the world, and are not to be inveigled into any arrangement, even if we call it an Imperial confederation, in which we do not have absolute liberty to decide what we are to do. When I say that, I am only re-echoing the statement of Sir John A. Macdonald constantly repeated in this House, that above all things, while Canada was associated with the Empire and with the Mother Country he, for one, wished that Canada should

always retain her autonomy, and that when she spoke in any Imperial gathering she would go there free, not to be governed by a vote of them all, but go as a free [DOT]Government to express her assent or dissent and to withdraw if she saw fit and to keep her autonomy and independence on every matter.
The dreams of the Kaiser have been suddenly dispelled. He finds that this great free, democratic America is organized against him. He sees the handwriting on the wall; he knows that he will not succeed. Millions of Americans are being sent to the front; all the resources of the United States are being brought to bear against the enemy. Who, having read the farewell speech of General Washington, would have imagined that the United States navy would go to Europe in defence of the liberties of Europe? But it has happened-and the Kaiser did not expect it. We have maintained our sea supremacy; Britain and France and the dominions of the Empire have held the Germans back, on the western front. I do not think Germany will succeed, and that is why I believe that this country ought to make use of all its resources to carry on the conflict. Our people ought to stand for conscription; our farmers ought to stand for it. We should put everything we have into this war, into the maintenance of the rights of democracy. I sympathize a great deal with the farmers' deputation which is in the city to-day, but I am strongly of the opinion that our farmers must do their share of the fighting as well as of the production, as I believe the Prime Minister told them to-day. The farmers having been told that production is almost equal to military service, the Government must expedite their enumeration of the man-power of the country not engaged in war, and if the farmers are unable to reap their harvests the Government must find a way to get them all the assistance they can from those now engaged in unnecessary occupations. With the enforcement of the -Military Service Act, there must go registration, conscription and a direction of the man-power of the country, in order that persons engaged in unnecessary occupations shall assist the farmers and take up any war work that has to be done. We have made some headway; it has taken a long while, but we have got that far. I believe that the farmers will accept this decision of the Government and that they will allow their boys to go. I know that they are going from my part of the country. We are presenting a united front

Canada, the overseas dominions, the Mother Country, the United States-in upholding the liberties of the world against the dominion of Germany.
In making this fight against the common ene-my we have to -alter some of our economic laws. The United -States is becoming not only the strongest factor in the war, but the nation of greatest financial resources. This financial strength of the United States is practically d-ue to their national system of currency and of banking. I have advocated on the floor of this House-and I advocate now, with still more fervour-that we should not let this -session pass; that we should not let this war pass, until we have established the strongest possible financial organization. Immediately on the outbreak of war we should have had a national currency instead of a bank currency; a national system of banking such as they have in the United States, a -great system of re-dis-counting by national banks. The United States by the adoption of this system, has stood the great strain of the war, spent -billions of money, and kept down the rate of interest. We have to go to the United- States for assistance in the matter of credit and money, and it is time that we put ourselves in good standing with them by following their example in the matter of currency and banking system. I make no objection to the Canadian -banks or to what they are doing for the building up of the country. They are doing all right, but they are working under an obselete system which ought to be -modernized-, especially in view of our position on the American continent. If we had taken steps in thi-s direction we should have been able to do a great deal more, than we have done. The -proo-f of my contention is found- in the fact that the moment Britain went into the war she adopted some of the methodis which have been adopted in the United States, Leading bankers of England in recent meetings affirmed that before the waT is over Great Britain will have to revolutionize further her system of banking and currency and follow that of the United States-, -and if it is necessary there, it is necessary here as well. If we had a national currency instead of a bank-note currency, the rate of exchange as between this country and the United State-s would not to-day be against us, and the discounting of our bank notes in the United- States -would not prevail. In so-m-e cases it is two per cent; in some cases our notes are not taken- at all, although they are just as good as United States notes. For years we have accepted notes of the

United States amounting to millions, constituting practically a loan from the Canadian people to them, and we have not had a corresponding advantage. I had hoped that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), who is not now in. this country, would have taken steps this session looking to the esta/blishment of a national currency and a national system of hanking such as they have in the United States.
I am not going to touch on the tariff, but I am going to touch on one thing in connection with the war. The war has clearly proved that a pastoral people, when its liberties are assailed, is quite able to take caTe of itself. Every nation, in order to maintain its liberties when they are threatened, must see to it that hereafter it is not only able to produce food, but is highly organized industrially. It must be just as strong a people as is the strongest nation in this war, that is, Great Britain. I am not asserting that as a reason for a tariff or for protection; but the new view that will sweep the North American continent is that any country that thinks it is its duty to uphold democracy and to fight for the liberties of the world must have universities with men highly qualified in the technicalities and sciences, and most of all, its education must be such that -it will turn out not only soldiers, but scientists, professors, engineers and other skilled men who will be able to organize and utilize the resources of the country for the maintenance of its liberties.. We must have factories, iwe must have engineers, we must have mechanics, we must have a high organization of our industries, we must have diversity of employment. The United States, which has all these things, is our neighbour, and while I am not, for one moment, advocating anything in the direction of protection, one of the great lessons of this war in which we are now engaged and in which we are putting our all is that we .should have our industries organized to the fullest extent.
The people of Canada feel that in this great war the transportation of the country must and ought to be nationalized. The day that Great Britain went into the war she nationalized, her railways. The day that the United States went into the war the railways of that country were practically nationalized. When we went into the war we should have nationalized out railways. We are now in process of doing it partially. If the war is to continue-and it is not over yet-it is not too late to begin,

and I hope the Government will, in a day or two, be in a position to announce to this House that they are entering upon a policy of nationalizing all the railways. I have no sympathy with the legislation recently passed in this House that out of the profits of the Canadian Pacific we shall take a percentage which shall be devoted to war purposes. How much of that is contributed by the people of Canada in increased freight rates? I do not believe that is the right way to use the railways in.
9 p.m. order to help to win the war, and I regret that the Government advanced the freight rates, instead of boldly, at the beginning of the war, taking over the. railways. By taking over the railways they could have affected consolidation and co-ordination, and, consequently, economies, which would have made possible a reduction in freight rates-and the greatest relief and encouragement that the farmers of the West can receive is to have the freight rates reduced to the lowest possible limit.
It had been my hope that by this time we should have a national system of railways, a national telegraph system and a national telephone system; that the telegraphs and telephones would be centred in the national post office, and that the central life of every community, large or small, would be in the national railway station and the national post office. If you had that, you would have in every little village, in every big town and city this splendid institution which would be the centre of national life and service. I had hoped that we would have in the Union Government a Postmaster General with instructions from his colleagues that the telegraphs and the telephones were to be taken over and concentrated with the post office and the railway ticket office in each community; that a good salary would be paid to the man or woman in charge of the office, and that it would be kept open night and day if the business of the community warranted that being done. The war would have given us a pretext for entering upon a policy of nationalization. But the war has been going on now for four years, and we have not got very far yet in nationalizing our railways. But we are making some headway.
I hope the Government will tell us that they are going to take such further steps as are necessary to the establishment of the conditions I have indicated. We have been delayed a long time in getting national railways. Those of us who years ago advocated the nationalization of our railways

did not think it would ever arrive, but like [DOT]other unexpected things, it is beginning to arrive. I appeal to the ministers from the West that we have right away in this country national railways, run absolutely free from politics, and with the main object to create a great central service in every community and to give service to the people. We should have started with taking over the Canadian Pacific. I do not believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will ever again have an opportunity of getting what they could get now, during war time, for that organization coming in as the foundation of a national system of railways. But they have seen fit to maintain their independence. If I interpret aright the speech delivered the other day by Lord Shaugh-nessy, it was an intimation to the people of Canada that if they wanted to take over the Canadian Pacific for war purposes or anything else, they would have to pay $200 for $100 worth of shares; or, what is the same thing, guarantee the shareholders ten iper cent. I am not prepared to say that I would guarantee the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific ten per cent. I would be quite willing to see them guaranteed eight per cent, if the road was made the backbone of a great national system of railways-. Sir Adam Beck in his proposal to electrify the railways of Canada, and especially of Ontario, should have included not only the Grand Trunk and any railways the Government may take over, but the Canadian Pacific as well. I am sure that if we had a great national system of railways we should be stronger for war purposes- and stronger for the development of our own country.
While on this question I would point out that Lord Shaughnessy, and the management of the Grand Trunk Railway who have spoken about the amount they have invested in railways in Canada, have also invested largely in railways in the United States, and when they appealed to the Canadian people to do certain things in this war they forgot to tell us that only one-fifth of the mileage of the great Canadian Pacific Railway had been taken over and is controlled to-day by the government of the United States. One-fifth of the mileage of the Grand Trunk has also passed out of the hands of the road, and is now under the control of the United States government. Inasmuch as the American government have taken over the portions of these roads lying in the United States we should' take over what is left in Canada, and then with portions of Canadian roads under the control of the United States government and
the balance under the control of our government a great continental system of transportation would evolve. That is coming. I will never believe that the American government will give up the control of those roads. The whole tendency is in the direction of public ownership, and as we are taking over some of the railways in this country we ought to take over them all and nationalize them. We ought to urge on the people and government of the United States, and on our people and our Government, that private ownership of railways is not in the public interest.
There is one other thing I should like 'to touch on, which concerns the war and is on the line of democracy, and tha; is the presence in Canada of an irresponsible Senate. The time has come-certainly now that we are engaged in war-when the Senate as constituted in this country must cease. Th-e people of the United States, if they believe in anything, believe in electing representatives -responsible to the people, and their Senate is responsible to the people through election by the State legislatures. There is no such thing in that country as an irresponsible Senate, nor has there ever been made in any other country, but this is a declaration such as I am told was made in another place in Ottawa not long ago, that the Senate of Canada was the custodian and protector of vested interests in this country. It is the people of Canada who has the right to. say what are and what are not vested interests, and the people, as an outcome of -the war, want a reorganized Senate which will be a responsible body, and then democratic principles will obtain throughout -the whole organization of Government in this country.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the .appointment of Senators should come under the Civil Service Commission?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say
anything of the kind, and I hope the hon. gentleman has never said- anything so foo-lish. I said the Senate of Canada should be responsible to the people of Canada. Does the hon. gentleman object to that?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope I have
the support of the ho-n. gentleman when I say the -Senate of Canada should be reorganized. They are reorganizing the House of Lords in Great Britain. England is the most progressive country in the world, so far as putting into practice democratic

principles is concerned. A report has been made to the British H-ouse that the hereditary principle in the House of Lords must be abolished, and that the interests of the nation demand that the people should be represented not only in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords as well.
Mr. RICHA1RD18ON:	Can the hon. gentleman tell us something about that report?


William Findlay Maclean: All I know is that Lord Bryce presented a report in the British Parliament the other day recommending the reconstitution of the House of Lords, and that the hereditary principle and the domination of the House by the aristocratic families should be wiped out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.
Mr. iV. F. MACLEAN: My hon. friend says "Hear, hear." He supported a party for many years that could have accomplished a similar reform in our Senate, but I am not blaming him so much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was young.


William Findlay Maclean: Youth is no cloak for wrong views. I say that, inasmuch as they are reorganizing parliamentary institutions in England and making them more progressive; inasmuch as the American republic has representative institutions and has no hereditary principle in their Senate -and life appointments are the next thing to hereditary appointments, and we have life appointments in this country-the people of Canada not only demand the reforms I have urged to-night, but they want Senate reform fight away so as to give us a parliamentary organization that will be truly democratic.
I have asked the attention of hon. members for a short time, but I thought it was my duty on this occasion to say that inasmuch as we are engaged in a war we ought to take a new view of the war-the American and democratic view. We should have more national organization in this country; the nationalization of our railways and telegraphs; we should have Senate reform, and banking reform and a national currency. We cannot get all these things at once, but we ought to set our hearts on some of them and go after them. We have now a Union Government, and as we are in a position to deal with Civil Service reform and things of that kind, we ought to deal with these greater questions, and deal with them in the presence'of this great war.
[Mr. W. F. Maclean.1	v


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I had intended to say a few words on the motion of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), but as I have just been trying to follow the meanderings and excursions of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), perhaps I had better say a word first on the very interesting discussion in which as usual the hon. member has indulged. For-* tunately or otherwise, there are usually long intervals between the deliverances of the hon. member. His deliverances are always exactly the same.
But they are exactly the same. There is not the slightest conceivable difference between them, but by reason of the fact that they are not 'delivered very close together they are always more or less interesting. I think a man finds the Ten Commandments almost interesting when he reads them over, but they are ancient literature. I would rather think, without meaning the slightest offence, that the speeches of the hon. member smack somewhat of the Ten Commandments in so far as ancient literature is concerned.
Mr. W. F. MiACLEAN: They are good Commandments, and- the hon. gentleman might well observe them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was one part of his speech that struck me as somewhat interesting, and that was the part of it in which he was so strongly in favour of reciprocity. He was a strong reciprocity man and emphatic in the assertion that intercourse should exist between ourselves and the United States. It just occurred to me that perhaps the hon. gentleman was getting out his flying topsails for the time when the reciprocity gale passes over. He rigs his little Tory craft and trims it to the breeze when it is necessary to carry him through the Tory storms and to bring him safely to the Tory harbour. But when that passes away and when we come to the blue skies of common sense and free breathing in regard to trade again, he pulls out these old sails that he has temporarily stowed away and plays around with them again. But, from time to time, when anything like a storm appears on the horizon, this, the most agile sailor who ever trimmed his sails to meet Tory conditions, is again on the yard-arm and his little Tory oTaft is fitted out- and made ready to carry him to a safe haven.
The hon. member was talking to the farmers who are here to-night. I did not intend

195ff>
to say anything had he not invited me into that realm of discussion. It is exceedingly interesting to me as a farmer-(not a fanner now, but a farmer's son brought up on the farm-to see the farmers around here. It reminds' me of home and friends and the conditions of my early days. I have the greatest sympathy with and respect for the men who come here looking for their rights and a hearing of their case. The hon. member for South York told us the reason why they were here. I do not think he made the reason why they are here plain enough.
I will tefll him why they are here. I wish my hon. friend would torn his mind hack to the third day of December last when there was something going on in this, country in which he was interested. While he, no doubt, was practically secure in his county, I imagine that he still had an interest in his friends making a safe harbour, and I have no doubt he had a hand in passing this Order in Council. Here it is:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden, the Prime Minister, and under and in virtue of the provisions of The Military Service Act, is pleased1 to order and it is hereby ordered that in any case where a person engaged in agriculture has applied for exemption and such exemption has been refused-the Minister of Militia and Defence, if he is of the opinion that the services of such person are essential for promoting agricultural production may, by order under his hand, discharge such person from military service.
That was the promise that was made to the farmers of Ontario.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman
quotes there the simple fact that "if he is of the otpinion," which implies "if he is not of opinion" as well.


Mr McKENZIE:: This Order in Council speaks clearly and distinctly for itself. I have the greatest respect for the outbreaks of the hon member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and I must say we are never sure as to where he is going to break out next. But, I have greater respect for the deliberations of Union Government. When, - acting together and in the name of the Governor General, they reach a certain conclusion and put that in writing and publish it to the world, I prefer to take that as against the hon. member for West Peterborough. Because of the necessity of encouraging production to wipe aside the Military Service Act and make provision for the exemption o<f men engaged in agriculture, every Tory candidate in the province of Ontario from the third of December until election-day preached the doctrine:
"Come unto me all ye that labour and are' heavy laden and I will give you rest; my yoke is easy and my burden is light; po-body shall go to the war if he comes to me and supports the Tory candidate in the province of Ontario; this doctrine of conscription is intended for Quebec; it is a Quebec nostrum; it is not for you; you have done all you should do; this Order in Council is to let you out and- to bring in the-men from the province of Quebec and elsewhere; therefore, do not be afraid, come and vote for us and we will do you good." Well, the Government found themselves elected. They found that these farmers in Ontario voted1 for them and now they say to the farmers: "We are here and you are there; we have no further use for you as voters, we want your sons for the front and to the front they shall go." The farmers of Ontario are reasonable and sensible men and when a farmer in Ontario or elsewhere promises a thing it means that he is going to do it. This Union Government, or the Government of the day, promised that they were going to exempt the farmers' sons and the people of Ontario believed that that was true. Because they are insisting on that promise is why they are here to-day, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) did not know it. And I hope they will be successful in impressing upon the Government the weight and force of a promise. When the name of the Governor General and the name of His Majesty are introduced into a promise and when that promise is published in the form of an Order in Council which has the force of a statute, the Government, I hope, will think seriously before they forsake their promise, ot treiat it as a "scrap of paper," or take the position before the country that they are not bound by it. That is about all I propose to say with respect to the speech of my hon. 'friend. There is no man in the House or in the country who can speak with greater ease upon general questions when we are at a safe distance from an election. But when he gets close up to the wind a chicken never ran under its mother's wing quicker than the hon. member gets under the wing of the old Tory hen.



SUPPLY-CAMP BORDEN.

Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now, my purpose in- addressing you this evening, Mr. Speaker, was to offer a few observations in connection with this Camp Borden land purchase.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who is not here this evening, amused me rather this afternoon in discussing this very innocent case of land purchase that he found at Camp Borden, which is situated somewhere in the vicinity of the town of Barrie in the county of Simcoe. It is marvellous, Mr. Speaker, the extremely innocent cases that the Minister of Justice will find. I was trying to think out for myself some other conceivable purchase of land that could by any possibility be as innocent as this purchase of the site of Camp Borden, and being .somewhat of a Biblical scholar, my mind reverted to the fact that Adam had a piece of land in which he was cultivating trees. I have no doubt he bought that land from somebody, I do not know who it was, and as he bought it in the days of his innocence, before he took to dealing in apples, I have every reason to believe that it was a most innocent transaction, perhaps the most pure and stainless transaction that ever took place in the world up to this; tout, nevertheless, as compared with the innocence, beauty and purity, the crystal-like brightness of this transaction at Camp Borden, it is dark and forbidding. Perhaps the Minister of Justice made himself believe that everything in connection with this transaction was innocent. Let us ask ourselves first the question, why was this man Barr bothering with the thing at all if it was the child-like transaction that it is sought to be made out? If there was no money to be made out of the deal, why were the great money-making barons of the city of Toronto bothering with it? We find in connection with this sale of land names which suggest transactions which are somewhat lucrative. We find that this agreement was likely made in the office of the National Trust Company, because one of the men connected with that company is a witness,-one name I find on the contract is that of Mr. Poucher, of the National Trust Company. The same man, Mr. Poucher, witnesses the signature of Sir Edward Kemp, evidently in the office of the National Trust Company. Apparently too, Mr. Barr is present in the office, because the same gentleman witnesses his signature also. Knowing who the directors of the National Trust Oom-'pany are, I realize that they would not be playing with a matter of this kind unless there was some money in it. I am informed, Sir, by a gentleman from Toronto -I am not vouching for the statement which was sent to me in writing over the signature of a certain man who- may be, 
and I have no doubt is, a respectable resident of that city-that $60,000 or $90,000 cold cash wa3 made out of this transaction, and if the National Trust Company, and the other parties mentioned that appear in connection with this agreement had anything to do with it I can well believe they would not bother with any matter in which much less money was made.
If I correctly remember the statement ot the Minister of Justice, he said there was nothing in the papers which would indicate that there was a guarantee of $12 an acre for Mr. Barr. If he did not say that, or if Hansard does not show that to be correct, my statement will have to be regarded as not having been uttered, because I am' basing my assertion on my recollection of what the hon. gentleman said. The agreement, however, discloses that the statement of the Minister of Justice is not correct. That there was such a guarantee is disclosed by the agreement which I find on page 2 of a pamphlet *which was sent t,o me. The agreement, which is signed by Hon. Mr. Kemp and by Mr. Barr, and is dated April, 1916, declares that Mr. Barr is to have $12 an acre for the land, whether he can buy it for that price or buy it for less, and he is not to pay for the cost of any expropriation proceedings. If it was found necessary to go to court a condition of the agreement is that Air. Barr is not to pay any. costs. He is sure of $12 an acre, and the Government undertakes to pay whatever it cost to expropriate the land. I submit to yoiu, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a fair proposition. If Mr. Barr had land of his own that he wished to sell, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) said, it was perfectly right and proper for him to give the Government an option on it and to state how much he would take; but, as far as the rest of the agreement is concerned, I submit it is an absolutely new and novel procedure-at any rate it is absolutely new and1 novel to me. I never heard before of a man going to any Government and saying, "You want to buy a certain area of land, I have some land that I will sell you, and I know where some more land is to be got; I do not own a foot of it, but I will try to buy it, and if I do I will sell it to you at a profit. If I cannot buy the land you will expropriate it for me, and I will sell it to you at a profit.'' That, in brief, constitutes the agreement, and it is one of an extraordinary character. It is a transaction that should be fully

sifted, and upon which the full light of day should be thrown.
Now what happened, and was this transaction fair to the poor men who owned the land? The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) said that a man should not get for land all that he paid for it. Well, I have had a good deal of experience in connection with the expropriation of land and I have never heard, until this extraordinary case came before us, of any man who sold land getting less for it than he had paid. As a rule, you go up against the Government; you show them your titles and the price of your land. You say: " There is a piece of land; I paid $20 an acre for it;
I do not want- to sell it at all; you are taking it from me; is it not li'ttle enough for you to give me what I paid for it?" Most men representing the Government would say: " That seems to be a fair proposition, it does not look out of the way; so long as we are satisfied you paid that for it, we will give you that amount." That is what these poor men would have got for their land but for the interference of Barr. It was to his interest to beat down this price and get as much below $12 as he could, and he, no doubt, corralled into that court and brought to bear upon that judge all the sharpers he could gather round him to run down the price of that land, and they got it well below $12, and that enabled him to make a profit. I submit, jSir, that there is nothing of the square deal about that. It looks to me as if there was an understanding by which those representing the Government entered into an arrangement with Barr for the purpose of helping him out, and what was to be done with the money at the heel of the hunt I do not know. All the information and evidence we have is that Barr received all of this money, but we do know on accasions it does happen that in transactions of this kind more people benefit than those whose names appear upon the surface. And I do submit to the Government and to you, Sir, that transactions of this kind should not be permitted to pass without some notice; that when the Public Works and other departments of this country want land they should have the courage to go straight to the owners themselves and make their own bargains, and if they cannot make a straight bargain themselves, if they cannot get the land for the price they think is fair, then the Exchequer Court exists, and they can go there and fight the thing out" openly before the people. If they do that the people will stand with them and have greater satisfaction than if they play a 124
hide-and-seek game of some kind through a middleman. The people of this country are not anxious to do business in that way, they are anxious to do business in a straightforward, square manner in the open market. Although my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Boys) spoke very highly of the solicitor whose name appeared in this affair-and I have no doubt in the world but that he is as excel-jent a man as he is represented to be- nevertheless in a letter written by that gentleman on November 25, 1916, there are two inaccuracies. In the first place, he holds up this man Barr as the agent of the Government which he is not, and says he is the purchasing agent of the Government, which he is not. He says:
I enclose you herewith the formal tender on belhalf of the Crown for the lands expropriated as part of Camp Borden.
The tender which Mr. Barr made was not on behalf of the Crown but on behalf of himself. He was trying to get the land himself and sell it to the Crown, and any tender he made was not on behalf of the Crown. Another statement in this letter is misleading. He says later on:
The Crown is only anxious that what Is fair and just shall be done, but as the purchasing agent and you differ as to values, this is the only course we see that can be fairly taken to ascertain the value of the lands.
So far as I can gather there never was a purchasing agent of the Government who went to the owner of the land at all, except the man who went for the purpose of getting the land for himself. If any further proof were necessary to show that this land was to be $12 an acre to Mr. Barr, no matter whether he bought it for $1 or more from the owners, I quote from page 6 of the reasons for judgment given by the Judge of the Exchequer Court:
It was strongly and repeatedly pressed during the course of the trial that the Crown having agreed to pay Barr $12 an acre for his lands and those to be acquired by him is estopped from disputing the fact that the market value of the lands is at least $12 an aore.
The judge found there was an agreement by which Barr was to" get $12, and there is no question about that at all. He said so; it appears in the evidence, and the judge so finds. I repeat that statement because I understand that the Minister of Justice stated that it was improper for us to make the argument that this man had a fixed price oi $12 an acre. I say, Sir, and I do not want to take any more of the time of the House, that this is a transaction which



should not have taken place; that powers were placed1 in Barr that should never have been placed in him; that agents and men were used to get hold of this land and to make a big profit for the middleman, to the detriment and disadvantage of the owners of the land. I am glad that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) brought this matter up, and that it has been aired in the House, and I believe that letting daylight in on these things will have a tendency to cheek departments from getting entangled in shady transactions of this kind in the future.


Mr. THOMAS  POSTER@East York: I wish to express my sympathy with the large numlber of people whose property was virtually confiscated in this Camp Borden undertaking. I have had many letters 'and a great number of declarations from these people, and it was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) that the real estate men a short time before subdivided into ten or twenty acre farms a great deal of this property, and it was virtually exploited1 by these real estate men; and in that way these people were induced to purchase land at an exorbitant price. I do not agree with that statement. There were many acres of land there that were sold at a price that the people were satisfied to pay, which ran at $10, $15 andi $20 an acre. But if these real estate men were accused of exploiting that territory, what about those who came after and exploited it from those people or confiscated the property they were satisfied with? I have been over many hundreds of acres of land that was so condemned. There are some parts of it, as has been stated, with drift sand on it; there are other parts with considerable forest, good land and splendid running streams. For those people who purchased that land with the intention to build bungalows, or summer homes and who did not want to farm, it was perfectly satisfactory. I will admit that if a farmer had to occupy that land as farm land with the idea of making money out of it, he would perhaps have had difficulty with it. But for the purpose most of them purchased it, for it was worth all they paid for it. Then if these exploiters who came after and said the land was only worth $3, $7 and $8 an acre-and it has been suggested by the hon. member for South Simcoe that they paid m some cases more than |12 an acre; perhaps they did, but they had to make that up by squeezing the smaller men to get it down to an average-they did that with the men who had

no other alternative, on a threat, than to give up their holdings at a great sacrifice. Why should they have been treated in that way when it is admitted that while many got very good prices, others did not get anything like what the property cost them? I believe that the Government had no desire. that these peopl-e should receive that treatment.
Apparently somebody who was on the inside took advantage of the Government and exploited this land. I consider that these people who sacrificed the earnings of many years in order to purchase this property have a grievance. They feel that the matter ought to be gone into. If, according to the various declarations and communications sent to members of this House, it is evident that these people have been taken advantage of by agents of the Government, then the Government should make good. If, on the other hand, the Government was not responsible for these agents, who, perhaps, got an inside inkling that quantities of land would be required, then it is not for the Government to make good. It is said that some gentleman connected with this transaction had eight thousand acres of land. The question is, did he own that some years previous to this transaction, or did he become the possessor of it at this particular time? It looks as if he must have got some inside information which caused him to secure certain land. To make the transaction complete he had to get other lands and even had to do considerable squeezing. A statement has been made on the floor of the House that a considerable profit was realized out of these speculations by some person at the expense of the poor people who were not in a position to go to the courts and fight their cases. Some of those who were able to go to the courts and fight their cases got better prices than those who were not in a position to do so but had to give up, you might say, under threat.
I wish to read another case which has not been brought to the attention of the House and which will show the position in which some of the people were placed. Not merely one or two but quite a large number have the same grievance. This appears to be one of the extreme cases where advantage was taken of a person who was not in a position to fight his case. The following is the declaration of David McClelland, of Toronto:
I,	David McClelland, of the city of Toronto, in the County of York, do solemnly declare:
1. That in August, 19IK5, I purchased 20 acres in Tosorontio for live hundred ($500) :

I paid seventy dollars ($70) on account of purchase and undertook in wrtting to pay four hundred and1 thirty dollars ($430) the balance thereof.
2.	That I expended the sum of $731.20 in cash on said lands for lumber and materials for a dwelling house which I erected thereon and outbuildings, and for clearing and fencing said lands.
3.	That said lands with Others were on the 11th day of May 1916, expropriated for the purpose of a military camp or training ground for soldiers and now called "Gamp Barden," though I got no notice of such expropriation and knew nothing whatever of my having to give up the lands until I was called upon by Mr. Wright (of Messrs. Wright and Barr, real estate agents, Toronto) who told me that Mr. Barr had purchased my interests in said lands from a Mr. (Smith who had sold the land to me and that the lands had been expropriated by the Government for the purpose of a military camp, and he offered' me $200 for my title therein, saying if I did not take that sum I might get nothing iat all, but later on he sent me word, to meet him at Barrie where he, through Sir, Radenhurst, the Government solicitor, served me with a notice, offering me $300 for said lands.
4.	That my family were living in said house on the lands and in the latter end of July, 1916, we were told to get out and away or we would be shot as we were in the firing line, and were compelled1 to leave, and after taking the furniture away I went back for the window hanging and floor mgs left behind but the house had in my absence been partly broken down and the rugs, etc., taken away and I was refused permission to take away anything further off said lands.
'5. Thiat in the expropriation proceedings before the Honourable Sir Walter Cassels I claimed $1,810 including my cash payments for my expenditure in material and labour in fencing and preparing said lands for crop, for loss of season's crops, and for compensation for trouble, inconvenience and expense in moving to and from said lands.
6.	That the Honourable Sir Walter Oassels heard the evidence but though I testified to my expenditure of $7311.20 and asked him to look at. my receipts therefor, he refused to do so, saying he was appointed to try the value of the land on the lllth of May, 1916, and afterwords gave his award for the $300 offered me, and I was to pay my own costs, which amounted to $130 leaving me a balance of $170 in lieu of all the money I paid out for said lands, etc., although he expressed himself (page 283, lines 13 and 14 of the evidence) that in all fairness I should have my expenditure but whether he could allow it or not as a matter of law is another matter (and on lines 19, 20 and 21) "I will consider it as he is entitled to whatever I can give him legally" and in delivering judgment said "The case is a hard one and under all the circumstances I think each party should bear his own costs."
7.	That after payment of the $731.20 above mentioned I am still' liable for the sum of $430 being the balance price of said lands, and I submit that it is neither just, fair nor reasonable that I should be put out of my holding and not he allowed the money It cost me, and I feel it in a worse sense than Naboth's Vineyard as in that case the King offered the full value but the Crown has taken mine and robbed me of the price thereof.
124i
That is surely evidence that injustice was done, and that the matter should be looked into. Why should agents or anybody elee take advantage of a few people in a district like that who have invested their life's earnings in these lands anid do not wish to sell them? They could not be considered as real estate subdividers of ten or twenty acre lots, because the land was worth what they paid for it; in some cases it was worth more than they paid for it. My sympathy is, therefore, entirely with those people who have in that matter been treated under conditions that should be investigated.



COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the Housfe went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital -Welland ship canal construction, $1,86'0,0,00.
["Opportunity for the further discussion of this matter will be afforded when w'e again go into Supply on the Railway Estimates.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.\nWednesday, May 15, 1918. ,"]
John Dowsley Reid: The work of construction on the Welland ship canal was closed down about a year ago. This amount is required to pay salaries of staff and miscellaneous expenses incident 'to the suspension of construction and the maintenance of work, and also to settle the claims of contractors. There were on this work four large contractors whose claims we had to pay. In, settling their claims, we took over their plant. We are practically reselling that plant, and we shall get the money back for it. That is why we are asking for this appropriation. It is not for the purpose df proceeding with the work.


Charles Murphy: Has the minister settled with all the contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: Of the four contractors there is one, the Dominion Dredging Com-pamy, with whom we have not yet settled. In settling with the different contractors we took over the plants, engines and cars and so- on, that were purchased for this particular work. There is no dispute with the Dominion Dredging Company except that they have a dredging plant and tugs which we did not consider we should purchase because the company had them prior to this work. The amount involved is about $375,000, and there the matter stands. Otherwise, we could have settled with them at any time. Their claim is under consideration with the Government.


Charles Murphy: I understand that the minister said that the plant that .was taken over was to be disposed of.


John Dowsley Reid: A great deal of the plant which the other contractors had came in very useful in connection with the Government railway system and the Canadian Northern Railway system. There were, for instance, engines and cars used for ballasting. The other machinery used in connection with the work we are disposing of to contractors and others, and my assistant chief engineer tells me they are selling it at a profit over the prices paid by the Government.


Charles Murphy: Will this appropriation cover the claims that are settled as well as the claim that is not yet settled?


John Dowsley Reid: This will pay the claims that have been disposed! of together with the claim of the Dominion Dredging Company, if we come to a decision in regard to it. This will clean the whole thing up.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: I wish to draw the attention of the committee to a matter that has been generally overlooked in connection with the little province down by the sea.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. gentleman is certainly out of order.


Joseph Read: No, I am not,


Georges Henri Boivin: The Welland1 canal has nothing to do with the little province down by the sea.


Joseph Read: I am talking about the Welland canal. I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a few years ago the canal systems of Canada charged tolls on all vessels that went through them, and an agitation was set up by the people of Ontario and some of the western sections of the country that the canals should be made free. The canals were made free, with the result
10 p.m. that the Maritime Provinces, which had contributed to and assumed their proportion of the consolidated debt of Canada invested in the canal systems practically made a present to the western provinces of $100,000,000 worth of canals. The reason I mention this matter in this connection is so that, when the minister comes to look after our little province down by the sea, he will see that we get our fair share of the public funds, and that it is not all monopolized by that big octopus, the province of Ontario.
Oanals-capital-Rideau canal, towards construction of bridge on Rideau canal at Pretoria Avenue, Ottawa, $8,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This work has progressed to such a point that a payment of

$3,200 has been made on account, and the balance will be paid over on completion of the work to the satisfaction of the chief engineer of the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: Our dealings are with the city authorities, who pay the contractors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very good. The city is well administered.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- canals-Trent canal construction, $500,000.


John Hampden Burnham: I should like to have the privilege of congratulating the Government on the approaching opening of this splendid work. It is true that only four-fifths of the canal is now completed, but it means the opening of the canal to all that vast arterial commerce of central Ontario upon lake Ontario. The upper part, which *connects with Georgian bay is, of course, not yet finished. It is progressing according to war conditions. That is the best that can be said, and we do not expect anything more, but it will necessarily be completed in a very few years. It is a fine thing to think that this great work, which has been under construction for no less than seventy-eight years, is about to be opened.' It must have been a great proposition, or it would have died a natural death or been slain by criticism many, a long year ago. Of course, in recent years, the population of the country, and of central Ontario, has very considerably increased. The consequence is that, as in all countries where population accumulates, industries have arisen, and favourable opportunities such as exist along the line of the Trent canal are sure to be taken advantage of. Places like Trenton, Campbellford, Peterborough, Lakefield, Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Orillia, Barrie-all of those places have become centres of industry. The Hydro-Electric has an opportunity of developing 150,000 horsepower. That opportunity has arisen in consequence of this canal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the available
horse-power?


John Hampden Burnham: That will be the available horse-power. The consequence is that you will have a cheap waterway which will immediately serve the interest of no less than 2,000,000 people. More than forty-three constituencies are directly concerned. It is only necessary to quote an instance or two to show how important the opening of this canal is to the whole district to whichlrefer. The Quaker Oats Company have just com-

pleted the reconstruction of their factory in Peterborough. The manager of the firm, from Chicago, told me the other day that the work had cost them $2,250,000, and he assured me that the minute the other end of the canal was opened and they could bring in their grain from the West in their own barges, they would treble this expenditure, and factories! totalling not less than six or seven million dollars would immediately arise. He said the people of Canada, especially in that district, had no idea of what was in contemplation and of the industrial development that must take place as soon as the canal was completed. There are at present 615,000 bushels of oats of the company at Port MicNicoll awaiting transportation. The grain cannot be shipped becaufee of the shortage of cars. Last year, the year before, and on several other occasions this immense factory had to be shut down because they could not get transportation facilities. This great industrial concern is capable of elevating 288,000 bushels of grain a day, and they turn out in one day a hundred cars of their finished product. It is an immense concern, backed by enormous American capital,, and such enterprises as these have sprung up solely because of the Trent cahal. At last we have a very respectable means of conveyance. Right up as far as Peterborough it is eight feet four inches on the sill, and in the course of time we shall have it all the way through. This will enable a long stretch of territory from Peterborough to Lake Ontario to be well served, and the people all the way up to Washago will be able to get by cheap water transportation from Lake Ontario and the waters tributary thereto the goods they need. Therefore, I say I cannot let this milestone in the progress of that district pass-and a milestone also in the progress of Canada for this is a great national undertaking- without directing attention to this great event. On or about 1st June the minister, accompanied by all the members who care to go, will take a boat here at Ottawa, will sail through the Rideau to Kingston, will leave Kingston for Trenton and on up to Peterborough and into the Georgian Bay- the loveliest as well as the most serviceable water route that I know of anywhere in Canada. I am well aware that in the Bast and, needless to say, in the Rockies, there is some beautiful scenery.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did my hon. friend ever sail around the Bras d'Or lakes?


John Hampden Burnham: They are very fine. The hon. gentleman was not quite so appreciative of his own district the other day when he said, speaking on the Civil Service Bill, that composition in Qape Breton was considered decomposition in Ontario.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say that.


John Hampden Burnham: The Bras d'Or lakes, the Annapolis valley and many other portions of the East are extremely beautiful.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We do not require canals to beautify the country.


John Hampden Burnham: The flowery eloquence of its representatives is enough. In calling attention with my humble voice to the completion, so far as I have outlined it, of this really splendid and important undertaking, let me thank the Government for what it has done. The work has been done under war conditions, which has meant that it has crawled rather than proceeded at the speed we otherwise should have liked to see. I should like further, in the name of that whole district, to invite all hon. gentlemen to accompany the minister on his trip through the canal. The House will then be closed, at any rate until August possibly-I have no authority for saying that, but I fancy it may happen-and I hope all who can will come and see for themselves what I have endeavoured to call attention to, and I can assure them they will be surprised at the importance and greatness of the undertaking to Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Does this item include the works for storage dams?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is under items chargeable to income.


Samuel Hughes: I heartily endorse the very charming address given by my hon. friend from Peterborough, arid join in wishing a speedy opening of the canal.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would gather from the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me that this canal passes through their constituencies. I understood that it was the policy of the Government not to	construct	any new
work during the war. The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) told us that the question of building the Trent canal has been mooted for the last seventy-eight years. That being the case, do not you think, Mr. Chairman, that the work could very well have stood over until the end of the war? Five hundred thousand dollars is quite an item to expend on a work which is not absolutely essential, and I understand this amount is only a small

item compared with the. entire expenditure on the canal. I do not know very much about this canal, or about the district through which it passes. All I know is that in our part of the country we only hear about the construction of the canal during an election campaign, when, I understand, the Government always sends out a corps of engineers to make reports and lead the people of the district diredtly to be bene-fitted to believe that some work is actually going to be done. Am I to understand that the inclusion of $500,000 in the estimates for this work is an indication that the Government contemplate an election in the very near future? With regard to the expenditure of large sums of money, I made inquiries the other day as to the cost of piling certain ground in the city of Montreal. Ground was being piled which was not to be used for any building the Government had in contemplation; it was merely piled because the Government were piling, at that time, other ground on which they were going to construct an extension to the examining warehouse in Montreal. What do you think, Mr. Chairman, the piling of this ground cost? You will he surprised to hear it cost close on to $500,000, to be exact, some $470,000, and that was for piling unused ground on which the Government did not know whether it was ever going to erect a building or not. That was a criminal waste of money, during war-time, when we are .paying six to eight per cent interest. We have now before us an item for another $500,000 for a work which I believe could very well stand over until after the war, when we could get the money at a reasonable rate of interest.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does my hon. friend say that this work has been under construction for seventy-eight years? ,


Samuel William Jacobs: I said the question of the building of the Trent eanal had been mooted for the past seventy-eight years, according to the hon. member for West Peterborough.


William Cameron Edwards: You could hardly call it a new work, then.


Samuel Hughes: If the jion. gentleman will do- himself the honour of going over to the Chamber of Commerce or the Board of Trade- in his own city and will consult any clerk there, he will get all the data about this canal and will find out that both those bodies in the city of Montreal have again and again strongly endorsed the building of the canal.

He shows how badly he is posted on the needs and wishes of his own city. I am not going to defend this work because it is ancient .history now. The work was dropped for a number of years until 1893 when it was revived and continued until the defeat of the Liberal-Conservative party in 1896. From that time onward nothing was done until shortly before the general election of 1908. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) can tell you about it. I had the honour of inducing that hon. gentleman to make his first speech in the province of Ontario long years ago, and he did it very nicely. 1 was also partly instrumental in inducing him to make a trip through the charming waters of the Trent system, visiting Peterborough and other towns. He came to the beautiful village of KiflkfieJd in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and he made one of the most delightful addresses to a vast assemblage there. He told them how this work had been neglected by the great Libeiral-Conservative party and how the great Liberal party had thrown all its energies into it. The people just laughed. That evening my hon. friend was very sad. He and I were sitting holding hands on the deck of the vessel and, in the absence of any one else I endeavoured to console him. He said: " Tell me frankly what happened to-day, that I fell so flat." '1 said:	"'The first thing is that
you read a speech prepared for you by a couple of gentlemen, whom I shall not name. In the second place you told them that the rocks had been thrown out by the Liberal party and that this work was being pushed forward by that party when there was not a man or a woman sitting on those rooks who was not familiar with every one that had been blown out long before the Liberal party came into power." I happened to have an old campaign sheet of the election of 1896 showing a photograph of the spot that he had been sitting on and1 talking and preaching about that day. He appreciated the situation and he realizes the non-sense of the stuff that has been talked by the hon. member sitting at his right to-night. We have a staunch advocate of the Trent canal here in the person of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve.
Chamibly oaraail-renewing, in concrete, top of Wharf-iSt. Johns, $9,2i0'0.


John Dowsley Reid: The upper part of this wharf is in very bad condition, so much so that it is not safe for barges to tie up there. The work has been delayed an ao

count of building the bascule bridge between Iberville and St. John's which has just been completed.
Mr. McMIAlSTER: Is an expenditure like this charged to capital or to income?


John Dowsley Reid: It is charged to income.	'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The income from the
canal?	'	1


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister did not
hear me or he [DOT]would1 not have answered me in that way. He siaid "yes." Does he stand by that "yes?" I did not think there was any income.


John Dowsley Reid: The canals are free; it is paid out of consolidated revenue account.
Carillon and Grenville canal-protection walls -Cake St. Francis, $2,00'0.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: In Ontario. This amount is required to do the following necessary work: Rebuilding lower entrance pier, lock 23, Rapide Plat canal, $26,000 and a similar work, lock 25, Galops canal $17,000. These old timber entrance piers, the tops of which are proposed to be rebuilt in concrete, were constructed at the time of the enlargement of the canals, and are so badly decayed above water line that it is impossible to keep them in repair and any expenditure for ordinary repairs would simply be wasted.


Charles Murphy: How is that work to be
done?


John Dowsley Reid: By contract.
St. Peter's canal-improvements, $4,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the old contract been completed?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole contract is completed and/ this item was supposed to pay for the final completion but I find that we shall need about $3,000 more and that will be put in the supplementary estimates.


Samuel Hughes: Is that on Lake St
Peter?


John Dowsley Reid: This- pier which forme the north side of the lower entrance is completely decayed, and unless attended to at once will fall into the entrance and block navigation.
Lachine canal-dredging, $15,000.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Charles Murphy: Is this going to be done bv the department or will it he let by tender?


John Dowsley Reid: By our own dredging fleet.
Ontario St. Lawrence canal-improvements,
Mr. J D. REID: No, that is ca St. Peter's canal in Nova Scotia. This is to pay the Weller contract.
Trent canal-Improvements, $57,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is to do the following work:
(Dredging Otonabee '(River	
Dredging Bobcaygeon	
Lock gates, Burleigh & Fenelon. .	..
Concrete, Superstructures, upper entrance pier, Fenelon Falls	
Concrete entrance piers above and below Peterborough Lift lock.. .. Dam keepers' house at Nassau.. ..
Canal shop at Peterborough	
Concrete dam at outlet of Redstone
Lake	
Rebuilding repairs to Reservoir Lake dams


Charles Murphy: Why are concrete piers required1 above the lift lock? Are they to replace others or is that new work?


Samuel Hughes: What is meant by "Ontario St. Lawrence canal?"
M<r. J. D. REID: That would ibe the Galops, the Rapide Plat and the Cornwall canals.


Samuel Hughes: It means the St. Lawrence canals in Ontario.


John Dowsley Reid: It is new work.


Samuel Hughes: What work is to be done above Bobcaygeon, dfedging or rebuilding the lock? I need not tell the minister that the lock needs to be rebuilt.


John Dowsley Reid: The expenditure at Bobcaygeon is for dredging some stone that was blasted last year, and is still there.

Sir SAiM HUGHES: His officers will re port to the minister that there is absolute ' necessity for a new dam at Bobcaygeon. The current there is so strong that it is practically impossible to get a boat through the locks. Besides, it has completely ruined the property below. Perhaps the minister has some other item dealing with it.
Hon. J. D. REIIlD: I am informed by the officials there is quite a current at the point mentioned, but that we cannot do anything but rebuild the whole lock, and that has been postponed.
Sir SiAM HUGHES: Why not rebuild the whole lock? 'It is much more essential than some of the works being carried out on the Otonabee. It is absolutely necessary. Now that the banal is going to be opened out into Lake Ontario it practically prohibits any traffic above Bobcaygeon, from Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Orillia or Barrie, unless the lock is completed this summer.


Hon.  J. D. RETD@: I am informed they can get the lock in operation during the present year, and for that reason we have postponed the large expenditure for another year.


Samuel Hughes: It is a very small expenditure. I see the minister is building a new dam at the outlet of Red Stone. That is well.	.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: What is the name of
the company that has the $2,100 claim?
Sir .SAM HUGHES: John Carew and Co.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not find any items in the Estimates for the Drag Lake dam, or this other work. However, I will take the matter np to-morrow with the chief engineer and see if it is possible to put an amount in the Supplementary Estimates.
Sir SiAM HUGHES: I will be greatly obliged to the minister if he will do that. The town of Haliburton is going to put in works and it means double the cost if they have to construct this special work in connection with their electric light and power plant. If the dam is built it will go a long way to provide facilities and save money in that way. It is a very necessary item, and if the minister carries this out he will greatly oblige the people of Haliburton.


John Dowsley Reid: I will look into the
matter to-morrow, and also the other matter which the hon. gentleman spoke of.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: An item of $500,000 has already been accepted by the House, and another of $57,000. If I remember well it was stated here a few days ago by the minister, when I asked him about going on with works on the St. Charles river in Quebec, that all permanent works would be postponed until after the war.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Samuel Hughes: Yes, and you will save three hundred miles on the journey from Port Arthur to Montreal. .


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and the result is that a number of large towns and cities will have the benefit of water transportation, a thing that they have been looking forward to for many years. Had it not been that they are really nearing completion these works would have been closed down like the others. The result of their being open to navigation within the next thirty days means that vessels will be able to sail from Lake Ontario up to the Georgian bay, thus giving the benefit of transportation to a well settled country. It would hardly have been fair to have closed such works down when it did not involve a very large amount of expenditure.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: If I draw attention to these items, it is not in any spirit of opposition. The Government is perfectly justified in continuing works that were started some years ago. But they should adopt the same policy in regard to works that were begun some time ago on the St. Charles river, in Quebec, and for which a contract has been granted. Not only is that the case, but the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), in 1913, speaking in Quebec, made the declaration that the works on the St. Charles river were of great importance and would be proceeded with. I also think that work in connection with the Transcontinental terminus in Quebec should be continued. The Government have spent millions of dollars on those works, but they have not been touched for a couple of years. Workshops have been erected at a very large cost, but they have not been equipped as was promised in an agreement signed between the Government and the municipal authorities of Quebec. The Government also bought three miles of frontage on the River St. Lawrence at Quebec, for the purpose of the Transcontinental railway, on which they have spent millions. For a small additional outlay these works could be proceeded with and result in great benefit, not only to the city of Quebec but to the whole of Canada. I respectfully call the minister's attention to the fact that if there is money available to proceed with works on the Trent canal in Ontario it is equally .proper that money should be forthcoming for the completion of important undertakings in the city of Quebec which are of national importance.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I should get into a discussion on. the Transcontinental railway on an item dealing with canals.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I only wanted to draw the attention of the minister to the works on the St. Charles river.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman, if it is in order that I should discuss on .a canal item the reason why we are not going ahead with work on the St. Charles river which has to do with a railway item, I will answer the 'hon. member. I do not want to go outside of the rules. Am I in order to discuss the River St. Charles matter?


Georges Henri Boivin: I fear that the hon. gentleman would be out of order. I under- , stood the hon. member for Quebec County (Mr. Lavigueur) merely to refer to the St. Charles river works by way of analogy, and for that reason I did not call him to order at that time. But any lengthy discussion o'f the St. Charles river works which pertain to the Public Works Department, or of the Transcontinental which comes under another item, would certainly be out of order.


Jacques Bureau: The amount voted in 191718 was $25,000. The department could only have spent $15,000, as there is a revote of $10,000. This year the minister is asking for $57,000. May I ask if conditions have changed now? How does he expect to spend $57,000 this year when he could not spend the whole of his appropriation last year?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, another year has made these conditions referred to very bad, and we really must proceed with the work. There is some dredging along the river that must be done when navigation is proceeded with on and after the first of June.
Welland canal-Heavy repairs, $35,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This appropriation is for: (1) renewing three old canal weir foot bridges in concrete, $1,500; (2) replacing four old canal lock gates with reinforced concrete gate bars, $5,000; (3) placing stone protection along certain portions of Summit Level between Thorold and Port Colborne, $15,000;	(4) to clean
out and deepen entrance to Port Dal-house, $6,500;	(5) unforeseen expenditures, $7,000. The bridges to be renewed in item (1) are in a very decayed and unsafe condition. This amount will complete Old Canal weir bridge renewals. Item (2) is a

continuation of work commenced last year, authorized by letter from the chief engineer. With regard to item (3), continued high water and' heavy traffic on the summit level between Thorold and Welland have caused the banks to become badly undermined and eroded. Portions of the towpath, which is the main travelled highway between. Port Eobinson and Welland, have slid into the canal, and immediate rip-rapping is essential to preserve the road. It is estimated that about 9,000 cubic yards of stone protection will be required. No stone protection has been placed on this part of the ' canal since 1914. Item (4) is to be done by contract. Owing to continued abnormally high water in lake Ontario during the past year, it was not found necessary to carry out the work.
Railways and canals-Collection of revenue -Canals-Staff and repairs-Statistical officers, $1,642,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this vote apply only to canals?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. This amount is required to pay the wages of the staff on all the canals throughout the Dominion. The hon. member will see that last year the vote for staff and repairs was $1,440,000; this year it is $1,600,000. The item for statistical officers, $42,500, remains the same as last year. We have to increase the salaries of the men on the canals staff, and there is an increase in the cost of materials required to keep the canals in repair.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the increase over last year?


John Dowsley Reid: It is $160,000. It applies to our whole canal system.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the increase in wages?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not any detailed statement of that increase. The employees are increased from time to time. We intend taking that matter up as soon as the .session is over, and to see that an increase is given to the canal employees throughout the whole system.


Mr. TOBIN:: Will the increase be uniform for all employees, or will it apply to just a few?


John Dowsley Reid: You have to consider each individual class. No uniform system has been adopted1.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister might as well give on this item, as on any other, his policy with respect to the patronage system

on the canals of Canada. Last night he told us that he would announce his policy on this matter when he was on his estimates. When he comes to the railway estimates, we shall expect him to tell us his policy with respect to railway patronage. He is now dealing with the canals, where there must be large patronage because a large number of men are employed, and heavy purchases are made. I believe the Government is making an honest attempt to eliminate patronage, but as the railways and canals do not come-as I understand the minister-under the Civil Service Bill, the hand of the minister and of his officers will be upon these matters^ to a greater degree than in other works coming under the Civil Service Act. If the minister is prepared to tell the country what his policy is with respect to matters of that kind, perhaps he can do so on this item.


John Dowsley Reid: I think I explained' my policy last night. The hon. member understands that the Railways and Canals Department comes under the Civil Service Bill which is now going through the House; in fact they are now practically under it, as they have been under it since the Order in Council was passed a couple of months ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will pardon me: Does he say that the railways and canals come under the Civil Service Act?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I do not; I say that the Civil Service Act excepts railways. It does not except employees of the Railways and Canals Department. It does not say that it excepts the employees on the railways and canals. If the hon. member will read the Bill he will see that it excepts employees of the Government railways. So that the canals are under the Civil Service Commission. Since that Order in Council was passed, all appointments in connection with the canals and the other branches of the department, excepting the Government railways, have been made by the Civil Service Commission. For some years purchases in the Railways and Canals Department were made (by the purchasing agent of the department, but they are now made by the War Purchasing Commission. It would be impossible to put the railways under the Civil 'Service Commission, for the reasons which I gave last night.


Joseph Read: Under what department are the docks and approaches at Port Borden and Cape Tormentine?


John Dowsley Reid: They are under the
direction of the general manager of the Canadian Government Railways at Moncton.
.Mr. JOSEPH READ: Dredging is absolutely necessary there; probably the minister knows it.


Edmund William Tobin: Who makes recommendations to the minister for increases to employees on canals?


John Dowsley Reid: The Chief Engineer and the Superintendents of Canals go into the matter and make recommendation to me. I have always approved these recommendations; I have no douibt that it will be satisfactory to proceed in that way.


Edmund William Tobin: Will the lower-salaried men get larger increases than the higher-salaried men?


John Dowsley Reid: That would be taken up when the reports of these officers are made. The larger-salaried men would be statistical officers, and it will (be observed that we have not put in any increases for them.


Edmund William Tobin: The increas d cost of living bears more heavily on the man whose salary is from $800 to $1,500 than it does on the higher-salaried man. I would ask the minister to consider this.


Jacques Bureau: The minister has said that the Order in Council of 13th February applies to labourers and employees on the canals. Is that Order in Council being enforced ?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I am aware, it is, in every way.


Jacques Bureau: The Order in Council recites that a doubt existed in the mind of the Prime Minister whether, under the War Measures Act, such an Order in Council could be passed, and that, in the view of Parliamentary counsel and other legal officers of the Government, the Government had no power to pass such an Order. 1 was wondering whether the minister, who wants to stick to the rules so closely, would enforce an Order which was illegal or issued without authority.


John Dowsley Reid: A doubt was expressed-


Jacques Bureau: Not a doubt, a certainty.


John Dowsley Reid: In the Department of Railways-indeed, in all the departments we have lived up to that Order in Council. In every case the Chief Engineer takes the matter up with the Civil Service Commission. I am trying to live up to that
Order in Council just as if it had been an Act of Parliament.


Mr. SIMPSON:: I desire to corroborate the statement made by the minister with reference to patronage, at any rate, so far as the ship canal at Sault Ste. Marie is concerned. Two vacancies recently occurred in the staff there, and I know that instructions were sent out that applications for appointments to fill these vacancies should be made to the Civil Service Commission. I am glad to hear the minister say that after the work of the Session is over the question of increases to employees of canals will be given consideration. Many of the men employed on these canals are not receiving sufficient salary to maintain their families, particularly in these days of high cost of living.


Jacques Bureau: This year we had before us a Bill to create a bureau of statistics under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Department of Agriculture has a statistical branch; so has the Department of Labour. Will the statistics taken m this -case go to the Department of Trade and .Commerce f-or compilation and publication, or is the work of these officers of a special or technical nature?


John Dowsley Reid: This name, "statistical officers," applies to men, formerly designated as collectors of canal tolls, who issue passes to vessels going through the canals and obtain particulars as to the destination of the vessels, their cargo, and so on. In this way a record is kept in the department. The name of those officers was changed some years ago and they are now called " statistical officers." One copy of the passes is sent to the department at Ottawa, and in Ottawa are collected the statistics in regard to the vessels passing through the canals. A copy of the passes- and the information obtained by those statistical officers will not be sent to the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the Department of Trade and Commerce will get from the Department of Railways and Canals a detailed statement showing the quantity of grain or any other article of -commerce that the vessels take on board while going through the canals.


Jacques Bureau: How many canals have
we?
Mr. J. D. REI-D:	Eighteen. That, of
course, does not mean only one -collector on each canal. For instance, ^ for the Rideau canal there is a collector in Ottawa for this end, and there is another at Kingston for that end, so that on some of the

canals there is more than one collector. There must also be a night, man. Take for instance the St. Lawrence canals. Vessels are going up and down these canals day .and night, so that there has to he a double staff.


Edmund William Tobin: What salaries are allowed to those men?


John Dowsley Reid: From $750 to $1,200
a year.


Jacques Bureau: There are eighteen canals which are open for about six months in the year. If we multiply eighteen by two, that would mean thirty-six men employed, say at an average salary of $1,000, or $36,000. As the canals were not numerous, I was wondering, when I saw the amount of the appropriation, whether there was a man at each lock instead of a man at each canal.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-miscellaneous-Canadian Government railways-compassionate allowance to the widow of the late Harold E Robeson, who died from fatal injuries received in Mulgrave yard on November 4, 1916, $2,000.
'Mr. COPP: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to some correspondence I have had with him in connection with the late Mr. Edmund Cole, who was killed on the Intercolonial railway in February or March last. He was a section foreman on the railway for a number of years-I forget exactly how long-and during the very severe storms of last winter, 11 p.m. when the roads were blocked, he was out assisting in getting trains through. During a very severe storm a train, while going around a curve, struck and killed him. I wrote a letter to .the minister in -connection with the case. Mr. Cole had a small farm. His son is overseas, and his widow is left entirely alone in poor circumstances and with very little *support. While I am glad to see these items in the Estimates, I hope the minister will be able to put an item into the Supplementary Estimates to provide a compassionate allowance for Mrs. Cole.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned this matter this evening, because the Supplementary Estimates are being considered. I remember the names of at least two men on the Intercolonial in connection with whom compassionate allowances are to he voted. I shall take this matter up to-morrow, and if it has been overlooked I shall then be able to place it in the Supplementary Estimates or give a good reason for not doing so.
[(Mr. J. D. Reid.]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope one of the cases for which the minister is asking compassionate allowances is a very touching case, in regard to which I was corresponding with the department, from River Dennis, in the county of Inverness. A young man was killed on the .train there some time last summer. They were filling one of the big cuts at Macdonald Gulch between West Ray road and the Strait of Canso. They were hauling the material from some gravel pit at River Dennis, and they had a long train of gravel cars coming up a heavy grade, to the east of West Bay road.


John Dowsley Reid: Was the man's name Campbell?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, it was McGinnis. A freight train was behind and it began to push the gravel train, and the trains were so long that, when the pressure came upon them, the cars piled up in some way or another and the boy who was working on the train was killed. I wrote the department about the matter. He was an only son, indeed, I think, the only child, a bright young boy of about seventeen years of age. This is a very deserving cas-e, as the minister will see from the correspondence, and something should be done to compensate the father so far as the department can do by the payment of a fair sum of money.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. member has brought up this matter also to-night, because I shall take it up and see if the father of this young man should receive a compassionate allowance. It strikes me, from looking over the Supplementary Estimates to-day that the name River Dennis is familiar. I am under the impression that we have this man's name on the Supplementary Estimates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I forget the young man's name, but his father's name is John McGinnis.	.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall take the matter up. I was glad to bring in the Bill to provide compensation for Government employees, because the way in which we have been dealing with these matters in the past has not been satisfactory. It is much mo,re satisfactory, in cases of this kind, to he able to deal with them immediately an accident occurs. Now that we have this Act, we shall be able to deal immediately with cases like this instead of having to put the amounts in the estimates.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister ought to be congratulated on the generous way in which he deals with such cases. In the old days, when, other ministers were handling the department, when I had cases of this kind, I got some money, but I think $750 was the biggest allowance I ever got, and I am. only sorry my people were not killed now instead of ten years ago.
Quebec Bridge, construction, $700,000.
Mr. J. D- EEID: I thought we could take up this item and then perhaps go on to the item for construction on the Quebec and Saguenay railway.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was not understood that we were going into railway matters to-night.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that some hon. gentlemen wanted to discuss the railways =when these items were called, so I will not press the matter to-night. We could, however, leave one item on which any railway matter could be discussed.


Mr. McMASTER:: I should like to bring before the committee, if I am in order, the matter of the rate on soft coal from points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to points in Quebec.


Georges Henri Boivin: That could only be done with the unanimous consent of the committee. Discussion of that question would be entirely out of order on this item. Is it the unanimous wish of the committee that the. hon. gentleman shall have the right to speak on the question of soft coal? The hon. gentleman may proceed.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am informed that for many years the rate of $1.80 per ton prevailed on the Intercolonial for the transport of soft coal from points of origin in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to points of consumption in Quebec. In the year 1916 the Minister of Railways and Canals almost doubled this rate by raising it to $3.20 per ton. This works a very great hardship to the province of Quebec, because the rate is practically prohibitive. It is more than fifty per cent of the cost of the coal in the lower provinces. We have from the minister's own lips, in reply to questions in the House, information ffom which we can calculate how much it costs the Government railway to carry a ton of coal for the four or five hundred miles between points of origin in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to points in Quebec. On 18th April last the minister, in reply to a question, told the House that the cost of
transporting a ton of coal for some four hundred miles was $1.65. If we add another hundred miles, which might easily occur between points farther distant from each other, that would add one-fourth to the cost, which would bring the rate to just over $2, to be exact, $2.06. Bjr a curious coincidence if you add 15 per cent to the old rate of $1.80 per ton, you get $2.07, and $2.07 would appear to me to be a fair rate per ton for coal from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia points to points in the province of Quebec. I should like to know whether there is any sound railroad reasop for charging $3.20 per ton to carry coal which must cost a little over $2 per ton? What is the reason that has led the minister to raise the rate that has prevailed for so many years from $1.80 to $3.20 per ton?


John Dowsley Reid: Between what points?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have no exact points, but was taking the minister's statement in reply to a question which appears on page 906 of Hansard this year, and which shows that the cost of transportation from St. Hyacinthe, Montreal, and St. Lambert down to Campbell'ton, a distance of 406 miles, was $1.65. Now to be perfectly fair
i.n my argument I have assumed that there may be another 100 miles between the point of origin of the coal in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and the point of consumption in the province of Quebec. Therefore, by taking one-fourth of $1.65, we get $2.06, which amounts to the old rate of $1.80 plus 15 per cent. I would take it that it was quite fair for the Minister of Railways to raise the old rate of $1.80 to something over $2 in conformity with the 15 per cent increase which was granted to the other railways, but what I want to be enlightened upon iis why the rates should have been raised from $1.80 per ton to $3.20 per ton, because it is a practically prohibitive rate and shuts out the province of Quebec from the enjoyment of coal from Nova Scotia.


John Dowsley Reid: Why does the hon. gentleman say that ia rate of $3.20 from Nova Scotia to Montreal by rail would be prohibitive?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It would add more than fifty per cent to the average price of the coal at the Nova Scotia points where the coal originates. I have some figures here given in answer to questions asked by the Hon. Mr. Tanner in another place. A member of the Government gave these as the average prices for coal charged by the different coal companies in the Maritime provinces:

Acadia Coal Co...	Screened. . .. $6.60	Run of mine. $6.35Nova Scotia Steel	&	Coal	Co	. . . 5.50	5,25Inverness Railway	&	Coal	Co	5.50Bras d'Or Coal Co..	. ... 5.75	5.50I presume that	is	at the mine.	I would
say that a freight rate which represents more than half of the price in most of these instances is a very heavy rate, and extremely heavy when compared with the former rate of $1.80 per ton.


John Dowsley Reid: It is hard for me to give the hon. gentleman an answer to the question which he raised without making inquiries as to the reason. The hon. gentleman states that the increase has been from $1.80 to $3.20. When the 15 per cent increase went into effect on the other Toads the rates were increased on the Government railway. I shall make inquiries and be able to answer the hon. gentleman when we take up the estimates again. Three dollars is not a high rate for that haul; I claim it is a low rate. Vessel tonnage is supposed to be carried at a much cheaper rate from Nova Scotia to Montreal than the same tonnage carried by rail. If they were to charge the rates that they are charging now it -would almost make the traffic prohibitive in normal times. The rate to-day from Nova Scotia to Montreal, if we could charter vessels, would amount to at least $3 per ton. Vessel rates have increased very considerably. You cannot get vessels to go from Nova Scotia to Quebec or Montreal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would hardly think it fair to compare the rates obtaining today by water with the railway rates, because we all know that the shipping situation is quite abnormal.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that, but we have had to increase the rates on the railways on account of the increased cost of operation. The water rates should not exceed those of the railways. Surely, to bring coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal by rail, the railways should get an amount equal to the vessel rate. The same thing applies to coal which is being transported from Lake Ontario and Lake Erie ports to Montreal. The rate in normal times was about 50 to 75 cents per ton. To-day the rate on coal is about $3.50 per ton from Lake Erie ports to Montreal. That shows the way in which freight rates have been advanced by the vessels. They have also been advanc -d from time to time by the railways. If the 
rates are not raised the railways are going to lose a large amount in the cost of opera-t'on. The hon. member might have read in the press within the last forty-eight hours that the American railways are going to raise their freight rates on account of the high cost of operation. When the 15 per cent increase was ordered by the Board of Railway Commissioners for the other railways the Government railways simply increased their rates 15 per cent the same as the others did. I am not familiar with the whole situation but this little discussion will give me 'an opportunity of becoming thoroughly posted, and when the item comes up again I will be in a better position to give my hon. friend the answer to which he iis entitled.


Joseph Read: I know a good deal about this question and perhaps I can throw a little light on it. In ante helium times it did nut cost the Dominion Coal Company more than 35 cents a ton to bring coal from the Cape Breton mines to Montreal. I .am speaking of those large ships that carry
10,000	tons such as the Storstadt. No. railway can compete on a long distance haul with that rate. To-day, with the high cost of ships and the high freights you might send coal from North Sydney, where it originates, to Montreal for $3 ot less. The trouble is that the ships are not available at any price.


John Dowsley Reid: Nor are cars, for such a long haul.


Joseph Read: Under the present condition of things in regard to the high price of coal for use on the railway, and the high working expenses by reason of increased wages, $3 is not too much from the Cape Breton mines. That is the only place where there is any considerable quantity of coal available. There is some coal shipped from Springhill in Cumberland! county, Nova Scotia, also mined by the Dominion Coal Company, and that is 300 miles nearer Montreal than the Cape Breton mines. No other coal company, except the Pictou Coal Mines, is'producing coal there. They are charging about $6 a ton for coal at the mines to-day, which practically means that the Montreal people, have to take coal from Pictou county laid, down at about $9 as the first cost, regardless of profit, and from Springhill mines the charge would probably be $8.50. I do not know what is going to happen if we have to rely upon the Sydney coal mines,


John Dowsley Reid: Until the war broke
out about two million tons of coal per

annum' were (brought from Nova Scotia to Quebec and Montreal !by vessel. In fact that is the only way that coal can profitably be transported to Levis and Montreal; in normal times it wouldi not pay to bring that coal by rail-the railway could not possibly compete with the water rates. Since the outbreak of the war, I do not think there has been any coal brought into Montreal from the Maritime Provinces, the demands of that city for coal having been supplied from the United States. Last year the only coal that came from Nova Scotia to Quebec was brought by two small steamers that the Department of Railways and Canals purchased the year before, vessels of 2,500 or
3,000	tons, respectively, and they altogether carried less than 100,000 tons. This year I do not think we will take any coal from' the Maritime Provinces to Quebec or Montreal -it must all come from the United States, for the reason that no vessels can be secured. The Dominion Coal Company have no- vessels, their fleet having been taken by the British Admiralty. That company lost the Batisea the other day, and have also lost the Louisburg, and they cannot 'get any other vessels; they cannot even take coal to St. John. We are being asked to use the little vessels that we purchased in order to supply the cities of St. John and Halifax. The Intercolonial railway is really taxed beyond its capacity on account of the shortage of cars. The cars are being used to move lumber, pulpwood and other products. If we could only spare the cars it would pay us much better to carry pulp-wood and lumber to the United States, which is profitable, and transport coal from Nova 'Scotia to Montreal in vessels if the necessary ships could ibe obtained.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the Quebec bridge open for traffic, and has it been accepted 'by the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: The Quebec bridge has been in operation for some months, and I had the opportunity of going over it, 1 think, in November last. Trains are operating backwards and forwards over the bridge, in fact, there is an express'train that runs along the south shore. On the local trains there is a great deal of traffic going to and fro. The good old car ferry Leonard has been disposed of, and we now have the bridge to depend upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would urge upon the minister to have arrangements made with respect to the train from Montreal to the Maritime Provinces so that passengers
travelling to Quebec might cross by the bridge instead of using the ferry.


John Dowsley Reid: What the hon. gentleman suggests is that the train should run across the bridge at Quebec and out again?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I do not suggest that. A local train might meet the Maritime express somewhere near the bridge, and convey the Quebec passengers direct to that city.


John Dowsley Reid: I purpose taking that matter up, but I had intended leaving all such questions until we came to consider the votes for the Government railway systems.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the bridge been delivered?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it has not been taken off the contractor's hands, because there is some painting and other small things yet to be done. Mr. Montserrat, the chief engineer, tells me that probably the bridge will not be taken over officially until about September. We are responsible, however, for the bridge now.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am glad that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) has raised this question, because it is a very important one for the city of Quebec. I hope the minister will give this matteT his attention, so that passengers may be taken to Quebec across the bridge as suggested.


John Dowsley Reid: I will take the matter up as promised. Of course, it means an eight or ten mile run from Quebec via the bridge to Levis to meet the train. However, when I am considering the whole railways situation I will take that matter up and see what can be done.


Mr. POWER:: Have any arrangements been made with any of the other roads, except the Quebec lines, with a view to giving them running rights over the Quebec bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: No oitheT roads have asked for running rights over the bridge, and until they do so we cannot force them to use the bridge. If other lines want the privilege we will be only too glad to make the necessary arrangements with them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are other railway companies that will want to make such an arrangement after the war is over. I can speak for the Delaware and Hudson com-

pany, because I happen to be a director of
the subsidiary companies in Canada. This company had built along the south shore as far as some point in Lotbiniere county [DOT]vhen the first collapse of the bridge took place, and then they stopped work. Then the war came on. I know the company intend to run via the Quebec bridge, but are not in a position to announce their plans until after the war.
. Mr. LAVIIGUEUR: Other railways would like to enter Quebec, but the proper facilities are lacking until the works that have been projected are carried out. That is the pity of it. All the other companies, like the Delaware and Hudson, and the Grand Trunk, would run into the city of Quebec if the required facilities were available.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Opportunity for the further discussion of this matter will be afforded when w'e again go into Supply on the Railway Estimates.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.
Wednesday, May 15, 1918. ,