1918-05-17

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce.-Sir George Foster.
Report relative to mail subsidies and .steamship subventions.-Sir George Foster.
Report of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. -Sir George Foster.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I lay on the table of the House the second Annual Report of the Canadian War Records Office for the year 1917. It is a very interesting report, and lateT it may be proper to move that it be printed at once. I shall be glad to make that motion if the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, after looking over the report, concurs in my view.



OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE.


Robert Laird Borden: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid upon .the table of the House on the 13th instant, respecting the promotion of Mr. W. H. Dickson to the position of Reporter of the Official Debates of the House of Commons, be concurred in.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Has the Civil Service Commission reported on this promotion?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes, and has given its certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OP MR. J. P. A OHiEVASSU AS TRANSLATOR.
Robert Laird Borden: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid upon the table of the House on the 1.1th instant, respecting the appointment of Mr. J. P. A. Chevassu to Hansard Division of the Translation Staff of the House of Commons, he concurred in.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has this also been before the Civil Service Commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the certificate of the CiVil Service Commission has been issued. The appointee is a returned soldier.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Emily Kathleen Cochrane Lackey.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Alfred Frank Scott.-Mr. Harold.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Alonzo Jesse Chapman.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Margaret Bell Charlesworth.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 106, to amend The Companies Act in various particulars.-The Secretary of State.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I am informed that before his resignation, Mr. W. F. O'Connor, of the Cost of Living Branch of the Labour Department, made a report on the profits of the flour companies of the Dominion of Canada. I understand that that report was submitted about a month ago. Is it the intention of the Government to bring down that report, and if so, when? It is important that it be brought down before the end of the session.


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS:: Mr. O'Connor
has made no report concerning the milling industry of this country. Another officer of the department has collected a large quantity of information and has a report now in course of preparation, but Mr. O'Connor has nothing whatever to. do with that report.



EXPORTATION OF BRAN.

[Stage Direction]
'On the Orders of the Day:
iMr. W. F. KAY (Miesisquoi): May I ask the Minister of Customs when I may expect a return to an Order of the House

dealing with the exportation of bran into the United Sthtee?
Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: That matter is- not
under the Department of Customs. It is under the control of the Department of Agriculture through the Canada Food Board.


Mr. KAY:: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will igive me the information.


Mr. ROBB:: As J understand it, the hon. member for Missisiquoi desires information a6 to the quantity exported.


William Frederic Kay: I put a question on the Order Paper and my question was changed to an Order for a return,


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: I shall look into the matter and 'get the information the hon. member desires.
THE Mil LIT ARY SERVICE ACT.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH AROHAMBAULTf I wish to draw the attention of the House to this item in this morning's Citizen:
Plan to deal with hardships resulting from military call.
The Government has under consideration steps to deal with cases of extreme hardship which would result from the abolition of exemptions, without any exception between the ages of 20 and 22. It is probable that in each military district some one will he delegated authority to deal with such eases and grant leave of absence from service.
I simply want to know if there is any truth in this report.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement to which my hon. friend alludes has not been made on behalf of the Government.



PAYMENTS MADE TO NEWSPAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: If the Secretary of State were in his seat, I would ask him when we may expect returns to Orders passed several weeks ago regarding payments made to certain newspapers in Toronto and Ottawa.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: In connection with the Victory Loan?


Charles Murphy: Yes,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was laid on the table of the House some days ago.


Charles Murphy: Not only payments in connection with the Victory Loan, but payments generally over a stated period of time.


Robert Laird Borden: I really co-uld not give my hon. friend any information about the matter, but I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the inquiry. If my !hon. friend will be good enough to send me a memorandum, so that I shall not forget the matter, I shall be much obliged.


Charles Murphy: All right.



THE CIVIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
BILrL TO AMEND THE CIVIL, SERVICE ACT AND TO BRING THE OUTSIDE SERVICE UNDER ITS PROVISIONS.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 53, respecting the Civil Service of Canada.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe):
That the said1 Bill be not now read the third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with power to amend same by substituting the following for section 3'0.
30. Subject to the provisions of section three of this Act, power to remove or dismiss any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee, shall vest in the Commission.
Before exercising such power, the Commission shall require a statement in writing, from the minister in the case of a deputy head, and from the deputy head in all other cases, giving! the causes, reasons and facts invoked for such dismissal.	. .
Upon receipt of such statement in writing the Commission shall forthwith communicate a copy of same to the deputy head or other employee whose dismissal is sought.	_
The deputy head or employee shall within ten days after the receipt of copy of said statement file with the Commission a statement in writing in answer to such charges in default of which the Commission may proceed on the statement submitted asking for dismissal.
I do not want to make any further remarks on this amendment except this: When the Bill was before the House, it provided that the power of dismissal should be vested in the Governor in Council, hut no power of appointment was provided in the Bill. The only section that had any reference as to Low employees should come into the service was the one providing that, on the request of a deputy head, the commission should, as it saw fit, in its best judgment, supply the proper person. We had the Bill amended to vest the power of appointment in the commission by substituting the word " appoint " for the word " supply." Consequently the amendment which I have just moved should be passed so as to make section 30 conform with the rest of the Bill. When I moved that
amendment the first time I explained my reasons for it. I then stated that it was only fair that the body which had the power of appointment should also, have the power of dismissal, and. I wanted this amendment to carry for another reason. My contention is that even if the power of dismissal rests in the Governor in Council, any one whose dismissal is asked for should have an opportunity of stating his case and submitting his answer to the power which is to dismiss him. My amendment is-, I think, just and fair, and the Civil Service employee is entitled to a certain amount of protection by being allowed, whenever charges are made against him or whenever his dismissal is asked, at least to submit his case. It was argued in answer that this might involve a good deal of work on the part of the commission. Certainly we cannot expect that there will be a trial each time a dismissal- is requested, .but the least this House should do is to give the employee, who is charged with any offence or whose dismissal is requested, the privilege of putting his reason in writing and having them made part of the record of his dismissal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amendment proposed by my hon. friend was very thoroughly discussed when the Bill was being considered in committee, and there is nothing that I can add to what I said at that time. The intent of the Civil Service Act is to provide a different method so far as the appointment of civil servants is concerned. It was not intended that we should change the existing method of dismissing officials.


Jacques Bureau: The purport of the Bill was to abolish patronage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Patronage in the matter of appointing officials.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Not in the matter of dismissals?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend contends that the Civil Service Commission have the power of dismissing even deputy ministers and deputy heads, and I submit that is not a fair proposition and should not receive the support of the House.


Jacques Bureau: On the recommendation of the minister?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On the recommendation of anybody. I wish to repeat what I have already said on more than one occasion in this House, namely, that civu servants are employees of the Crown. They

are paid by the Crown, and the power of dismissal should rest in the Crown and in no other body, the Crown being responsible to Parliament.
The House divided on ihe proposed amendment of Mr. Bureau which was negatived on the following division.

Messrs.
Archambault,	Lavigueur,
Baldwin,	Leduc,
Boivin,	Leger,
Bourassa,	Lesage,
Bureau,	McGibbon (Argenteuil),
Cahill,	McKenzie,
Cardbi,	McMaster,
Casgrain,	Marcile (Bagot),
Copp,	Michaud,
D6ch6ne,	Morphy,
Delisle,	Murphy,
Desaulniers,	Pacaud,
Duff,	Papineau,
DuTremblay,	Parent,
Ethier,	Pedlow,
Euler,	Pelletier,
Fafard,	Prevost,
Fournier,	Read (Prince, P.E.I.),
Gauthier,	Ross,
Gauvreau,	Savard,
Gervais,	Sinclair (Antigonish &
Jacobs,	Guysboro),
LanctSt,	Trahan,
Lapointe	Truax,
(Kamoumska),	Turgeon,
Lapointe (St. James),	Vien,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	White (Victoria).-52.
NAYS.	
Messrs.	
Allan,	Knox,
Anderson,	Lalor,
Andrews,	Long,
Argue,	Mackie (Edmonton),
Armstrong (York),	Mackie (Renfrew),
Arthurs,	Madlean (Halifax),
Ballantyne,	McCurdy,
Ball,	McGibbon ( Muskoka),
Blair,	McGregor,
Blake,	McIntosh,
Bolton,	Mclsaac,
Bonnell,	McLean (Royal),
Borden (Sir Robert),	McLeod,
Boys,	Maharg,
Brien,	Manion,
Buchanan,	Marshall,
Burrell,	Martin,
Charters,	Mewburn,
Clark (Bruce),	Mowat,
Clark (Red Deer),	Nesbitt,
Clarke (Wellington),	Nicholson (Algoma),
Cochrane,	Nickle,
Cockshutt,	Pardee,
Cooper,	Paul,
Cowan,	Redman,
Crerar,	Reid (Grenville).
Cronyn,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Crothers,	Richardson,
Crowe,	Rowell,
Cruise,	Sexsmith,
Davidson,	Shaw,
Davis,	Sheard,
Edwards,	Sifton,
Fielding,	Simpson,

Finley,
Foster (Sir George), Poster (York), Fulton,
Green,
Guthrie,
Halladay,
Harrison,
Hartt,
Hay,
Henders,
Hocken,
Hughes (Sir Sam),
Spinney,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lanark), Sutherland,
Thompson (Weytourn), Thomson (Qu'Appelie), Turriff,
Tweedte,
Wigmore,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wilson (Saskatoon).
-93.

(The list of pairs is furnished hy the Chief Whips.)
Messrs.
Clements,	Molloy,
Stacey,	Sinclair, J. E. (Queens),
Chabot,	Verville,
Douglas (Strath.),	Hunt,
White, Sir Thomas,	Denis,
McGibbon (Muskoka),	McOoig,
Stevens,	Kay,
Ames, Sir Herbert,	McCrea,
Clarke (Wellington),	Fontaine,
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Boys,	Brouillard,
Burnham,	Kennedy,
Kemp, Sir Edward,	Be land,
Elkin,	Lemieux,
Fripp,	Proulx,
Harold,	Tobin,
Maclean (York),	Gladu,
Meighen,	Mayrand,
Middlebro,	Robb,
Munson,	d'Anjou,
Porter,	Fortier,
Wallace, T.,	Devlin,
Stewart (Hamilton),	Seguin,
Armstrong ( Lambton ),	Lafortune,
Best,	Power,
Peck,	Cannon,
Sharpe,	Chisholm,
Tremain,	Deslauriers,
Loggie,	Demers,
Charlton,	Boyer.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 'before the motion for the third reading of this Bill is carried, I desire to repeat what I said in committee that this Bill, instead of abolishing patronage, affords a greater incentive to the exercise of patronage than has existed in this country since 1908. I will prove that by a very brief reference to the old statute and to the Bill in its present form. The Act of 1908, section 42, provided that:
No person shall, directly or indirectly, solicit or endeavour to influence any minister of the Crown or the head of any department with respect to the appointment of any person to the service, or with respect to the promotion or transfer of or an increase of salary to, any officer, clerk, or employee in the public service.
(2) Any person who, directly or indirectly, solicits or endeavours to influence any minister of the Crown or the head of any department in favour of his appointment or promo-

tion or to increase his salary, shall he deemed to be unworthy of such appointment, promotion or increase, and it shall not be accorded him ; and if he is employed in the public service he shall be liable to immediate dismissal.
When the Bill, whose third reading has now been moved, was drafted, the efficacy of that section was .recognized because it was repeated in the Bill as section 9 and a third ! subsection was added in these terms:
Any person shall have the right to submit to the Commission a representation in writing with respect to the appointment of any person to the public service or with respect to the promotion, transfer of or an increase of salary to any officer, clerk or employee in the public service.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Suppose an officer
of a department wanted to be promoted and placed1 a statement before the commission, would he contravene the Act?


Charles Murphy: Not under this. The
question the ex-IMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) asks reminds me that when this matter was under discussion a few days ago the .right hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that the remedy of the official would be the very one suggested, by my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: Perfectly proper.


Charles Murphy: Perfectly proper, as my
hon. friend says, and yet this section, as it has existed since 1908 with this new subsection, was stricken out of this Act at the demand of an hon. gentleman supporting the Government and representing one of the Toronto seats. So that, this Act, not only does not preserve the safeguard against patronage	that the
old Act contained but	it throws
the door wide open to the exercise of patronage. I am of opinion, Mr. Speaker, that had the right hon. the Prime Minister been in the House at the time the demand came from the Government side of the House for the elimination of that section, my right hon. friend would never have acceded to it. However, that demand has been acceded to and the new Act shorn of that protection, coupled with the fact that 15,000 or 20,000 employees of the Outside Service are still left outside of the operation of the Act, and coupled with the dual complexion of the support of this Government, convinces me that this Act not only does not abolish patronage, but that patronage under it will be more rampant than ever. From what I have heard, I am certain that a well known medical principle will he applied in the operation of this Act. It is that when a
person takes poison an antidote is administered. I am satisfied that the principle that will be applied in the operation of this Act in future will be that when a Grit gets an- appointment a Tory will have to get another to wipe out the effect of the first.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has not the opportunity of replying unless he desires to ask the consent of the House. Having moved a motion, an hon. member exhausts his right to speak again.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when the Bill was in committee I called attention to clause 38, which reads:
Nothing in .this Act shall be held to curtail the privileges now enjoyed by the officers, clerks and employees of the .Senate, House of Commons or Library of Parliament with respect to rank and precedence or to attendance, office hours, or leave of absence, or with respect to engaging in such employment during parliamentary recess as may entitle them to receive extra salary or remuneration.
I was told that that clause was in the old Act, 'and I understand it was continued in the amended Act. I made the suggestion that inasmuch as a great many of these employees were only employed during the session, their offices, or their services, might be availed of by the country during the recess, and, perhaps, a large saving to the country effected thereby. I was informed by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean), in whose hands the Bill is, that a report was being prepared by yourself, Mr. Speaker, on this question and upon receiving that explanation I did not press for any revision of this clause. I also took, the opportunity of calling upon you and you were good enough to show me a report which you had prepared, a report which I thought was of very great importance, and, if adopted by this House, would result in a large saving to the country. I think the Acting Minister of Finance was not aware that that report was ready. However, at this stage of the proceedings I would not suggest that the Bill be recommitted and that we take any action, but in view of my information from having had the privilege of reading that report, I would have liked that we should have heard from Mr. Speaker on the whole question, because he, more than any other member of this House, is competent to 'inform the House as to the real situation and to make recommendations.
I would suggest that the report of Mr. Speaker, which will contain suggestions with


Samuel Hughes: Has the Internal Economy Commission of the House made any report to Parliament this year?


Robert Laird Borden: The Speaker is a member of the Commission ^of Internal Economy of the House, and ,in that capacity he has (been making the inquiry alluded to by the hon, member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). The report has not been brought to my attention yet-in fact, I do not know whether it is completedt-tout I have understood from H's Honour the Speaker that he expects to effect very considerable economies in the affairs of the House toy the new dispositions which he will propose.	[DOT]
So far as the observations of my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) aTe concerned, I cannot concur in the view which he has taken. It seems to me a singularly exaggerated view. The subsection which he condemns, as far as I understand his argument, is this:
Any person shall have the right to submit to the Commission a representation in writing with respect to the appointment of any person to the public service or with respect to the promotion, transfer of or an increase of salary to any officers, clerk or employee in the public service.
The purpose of that section, as I understand, is to give reasonable opportunity to men employed in the public service to make their representations, in an open and proper way, to the Civil Service Commission. It seemed undesirable that they should be absolutely cut off from a representation either tO' the minister to whose department [DOT]they belong, or to the Civil Service Commission itself. How this would lead to the increase of patronage in the ordinary sense is entirely beyond my comprehension. The exercise of patronage in the past, as it has been condemned on both sides of the House, is the exercise by ministers of the Crowm of the power of appointment, not in the public interest, as it is said, but in a party interest. The Civil Service Comnrs-sion is an absolutely independent body,

which is bound to make appointments to the public service upon competitive examination, or for reasons which are absolutely in the public interest. To suggest, therefore, that the giving of this right to public servants to make their representations in written form and in an open manner to the Civil Service Commission will lead to the continuance, or the increase, of patronage, seems to me to be absolutely beyond the bounds of common sense.
With regard to the Bill as a whole, hon. gentlemen will realize that it necessarily has been prepared under very great stress, and possibly without the opportunity of giving to it the prolonged consideration which ought to be given to a
12 n. very important Bill of this character. It brings under the control of the Civil Service Commission many thousands of employees throughout the country: I am informed by the Acting Minister of Finance, who has had charge of "the Bill, that the number will not fall short of fifty-five thousand. To undertake that the appointments of so large a number of public servants shall be made under the direction of the Civil Service Commission is obviously a very great step in advance, and I should not be at all surprised if it were found necessary at the next session of Parliament to go over this Bill again, to improve it if possible, and to amend it in the light of the experience which will have been gained in its practical operation during the next six or seven months. There is a desire, I believe, on both sides of the House to make the Bill as effective and as workable as possible. We shall endeavour to join our efforts for that purpose at the next session, in so far as it may be found necessary by reason of the experience which will have been gained by the Civil Service Commission in the meantime.
A reference has also been made in the House to the importance of having the commission strengthened in personnel by an increase of members.


Samuel Hughes: And in salary.


Robert Laird Borden: And in salary also, my hon. friend suggests. Well, those are matters which must be taken into consideration in the meantime. Obviously the extension of the scope of the Commission to fifty-five thousand public servants will entail upon the members of the Commission an enormously increased responsibility and very great additional labour. How those labours can best be discharged

we shall have to consider between now and the next session, if it turns out in the meantime that the Commission as at present constituted is not able to give to all these matters the direct personal attention which will obviously be necessary. In the past when discussing the question of Civil Service reform, and how it would be possible to deal with fifty or sixty thousand additional public servants by means of the Civil Service Commission, the suggestion has been made to me that possibly local boards might have to be established in each province in Canada for the purpose of reporting directly to a central board here. That would be one method. Another method, which has been suggested to the House, is the increase of the personnel of the Board by one or two members. However, the subject will be open at the next session of Parliament.
I need only add this further observation :	Reference has been made to the
desirability of having returned soldiers represented on the 'Commission. If it becomes necessary to increase the personnel of the Commission, I think hon. members may rest assured that the claims of returned soldiers will not be overlooked or forgotten. It is quite proper that they should be considered, and furthermore, that action should be taken upon that consideration. But I know the spirit of the returned men too well to believe that they would desire the personnel of the Civil Service increased un'ess it were in the public interest to do so. It may, and very probably it will, become necessary in the public interest to make some increase, and hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject along that line may rest assured that this matter -which has been under consideration before it was brought up in the House-together with any suggestions which they have made in that connection, will not be overlooked.


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I would like, as a returned soldier, to put myself strongly on record in favour of having a returned soldier on the Civil Service Commission, and my reason for doing so is this: Either we are going to give some preference to the returned soldier when he comes back from the front, or we are not. We say that we intend to give them some preference. Taking that for granted, I think that the body of some four or five hundred tho' sand men who are serving at the front ,t the Tisk of their lives should be represented on the Commission, If they are not to be
so represented then we should quit saying that we mean to give returned soldiers a preference.	.
I wieh to say that I am very strongly in favour of a representative of the returned soldiers on that commission. The Ottawa Veterans Association passed, within the last week, what seems to me to be a very reasonable resolution suggesting one representative. I think there is reason in all things, and that I think is a very reasonable request.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will realize, of course, that a preference has been established by Order in Council, and is confirmed by this Bill.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysboro):: To my mind the great defect in this proposal is the fact that the railway employees have not been included, and there is no branch of the service in Eastern Canada that has been used for patronage purposes as have the Government railways. The Government are retaining the right to continue the old system, which is wrong and out-of-date, as every one admits; not only on the Intercolonial but all the Government railways. We were told the other day that the Intercolonial employs some twenty thousand men. And when the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern are taken in, the number of employees will be increased perhaps to hundreds of thousands. It is of the greatest importance that this question should be considered at this stage. I have not heard any good reason given by any member of the Government why the railways should not be included. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) said in a former speech that instructions had been given to the management of the Intercolonial railway to discontinue the patronage system. , He was asked to produce the instructions and to lay them on the Table, and he was not able to do so. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) himself, was pressed for a clear statement on that question the other night, and he admitted that he did not send out any instructions, that he had had a conversation with the general superintendent of the Intercolonial, in which he had told him that he had a free hand to abolish patronage if he wished to do so. That is no way to abolish patronage. Something more definite than that must be done. Instructions must be sent out. The system has existed so long that it has permeated the whole of Eastern Canada, and patronage will never be abolished merely by having a conversation with an official of the Intercolonial

The Government must announce to every superintendent and every foreman in the workshops along the line that they are to have a free hand to employ the men required. Why should a boy, who wants to be an engineer or a driver on the road, or to start in as a brakeman and grow up to be a conductor, have to go to a member of Parliament or -to a patronage committee before he can be taken on? That is the present system. No young boy can get into the shops unless he is armed with a certificate from a member of Parliament or a patronage committee. That system exists in Nova Scotia, notwithstanding the declaration of the Prime Minister, and it is still as rampant as ever it was. And it is only a pretense to say that there was a conversation with the general superintendent of the road. If such instruction was given, it has never reached the superintendents or the men along the line who are foremen in the shops and who employ the men. If the Government is sincere about this they must do something more than they have done in the past. It is idle to say that we are abolishing patronage throughout Canada if we still continue it on the Government railways.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I was very much pleased indeed to hear the Premier's promise that if it is necessary to enlarge the Civil Service Commission a returned soldier will be placed on it. I may say that I would have been better pleased if one had been placed there already. I think it is absolutely necessary, as the hon. member for Fort William has said, that if we are going to do justice to the soldier, we should bring that justice into the realm of practical politics. Personally, it is very disagreeable to me, and to every boy who has served overseas, to have so much notoriety given in this House and in the newspapers to the returned soldiers. When a man in this House wants to draw applause he simply has to refer to something which has been done on the western front by *the Canadians. I think we are all more interested in the future of the returned men than we are in the applause of this House; and I would like to see this matter brought into the realm of practical politics, where something can be done in a practical way to place these men in the public service. I do not see any way by which it can so easily and so well be accomplished than by having a representative on the commission. I am not pleading that the returned men should get any preference if they are not capable, for that

would be fatal to their best interests, But other things being equal, I think they should have the preference. And if we are going to give 'them a preference, we should start about it in a practical way.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not wish to repeat the arguments set forth by the hon. member for Russell with regard to the disappearence from the Bill of section 9. But I wish to endorse everything he has said in that connection. I consider that section 9 was by far the most important section of the Bill, so far as doing away with patronage and political influence is concerned. I desire accordingly to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie):
That this Bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House to restore Section 9 of the Bill as at first submitted! to the House.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, when we were in
committee on this Bill, section 9 was discussed and the opinion of the committee was that it was not advisable to have that section embodied in the Bill. The reasons for coming to that conclusion were advanced at that time, and, to my mind at least, they were sufficient to justify the leaving out of that section. I have listened to the arguments advanced with regard to the amendment which has just been voted down; and I have listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to what might possibly be done at the next session of Parliament if defects were found in the present Bill, which possibly was drafted' rather hurriedly owing to the amount of work that has been before the Government.
Upwards of a year ago instructions were sent out that only those who had seen service at the front should be considered in the matter of appointments to the Civil Service both the Inside and the Outside service, where such men could be had, and I believe that that course was observed by those sending in recommendations to the Government from that time on. I cannot help but feel, in view of the fact that a Committee on Pensions is now sitting in this House, that this matter should1 have received some attention at the hands of the Government as well as at the hands of the representatives in Parliament. I do think that the soldiers would have felt that their interests were being safeguarded and looked after much better had a returned soldier been ap-

pointed as one of the members of this commission.
Under ithe proposal to reinsert this clause in the Bill, we are justified in considering the present personnel of the commission. It is not a pleasant thing to do, particularly when one happens to he acquainted with these gentlemen and to have a personal high regard for them. But in the selection of the members of the Civil Service Commission I do not believe that care has been taken to obtain men of outstanding administrative ability such as is necessary for the exercising of such tremendous power, influence and responsibility as will devolve upon this body. More than 55,000 men in the public service will be placed directly under the control of this commission. I submit that among returned soldiers men could have been found possessing the qualifications which I have mentioned; yet, for some reason, no returned soldier has been selected to fill one of these positions. The greatest problem of this country to-day is how to look after the men who are returning from the front. This problem will be before us for years, and I do not think that next session is the proper time to consider the matter, nor do I think that a com mission of three is sufficient to look after it at this time. It has been intimated that local boards may have to be established throughout the country in order to facilitate the work of the commission. Under the clause which is proposed to be reinserted it would almost appear necessary that the members of this commission should be arrayed in uniform, or ito have some distinguishing mark to indicate that they are the Civil Service Commission, and that it is not advisable for any representative of the people to go within speaking distance of them; otherwise it may be implied that somebody's interest is to be advanced or jeopardized. These men have ordinary human instincts; they have their social connections, and if a provision of this kind is inserted in the Bill many deserving applicants will be placed at a disadvantage . and the cases of others will be advanced because of their social connection with the members of this commission. The representatives of the people should not be deprived of all responsibility in matters of this kind.. Judging from my experience in the county from which I come, I do not believe that abuses have arisen in connection with appointments. When the subject was being discussed on the hustings members of the present Government referred more particularly to the expenditure of money involved under the patronage
system than to the advisability of having all appointments made by the Civil Service Commission. In one of the first meetings held in Winnipeg the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. T. A. Crerar) said, as reported in the Manitoba Free Press, that he had already been approached by some one who wanted to dispose of a patent for certain purposes and by some one from Ontario who wished him to use his influence respecting an appointment to the Upper House. These were the things uppermost in his mind, apparently, when he wa6 referring to patronage. Yet under no measure that has been introduced are the Government being freed from, this patronage so condemned by them at that time. Under this provision the representatives of the people will not dare place before the Civil Service Commission their views respecting the qualifications of any candidate or applicant for a position, in the Civil Service.
I do not think it is possible to make a more severe reflection on the representatives of the people than is embodied in the clause which it is now proposed to reinsert in the Bill. I do not believe that it was in the public interest to introduce a Bill of this - kind. You are creating a class corporation in this country. You are erecting a wall of protection around them. You are placing the most absolute power in the hands of this commission, and, under this clause, you seek to deprive the representatives of the people of the right to go. near this body, upon whom you have conferred such vast powers, for an applicant to advance his or her claims for consideration. I do. not think it is in the public interest that this clause should be reinserted in the Bill.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: With some of the .features of this Bill I do not agree, but a body of opinion throughout the country is in favour of some such measure as this. Never having had great reverence for the doctrine of infallibility, however, I shall allow my judgment to give way to. what I believe -to be the judgment of the vast majority of the people and of most of the members of this House. No great harm can be done in. the next six or eight months by allowing this Bill to go through now. I am satisfied that next session it will come up for reconsideration and, with our larger experience, we shall probably be able to improve it.
But I rise principally to endorse the remarks, made by the members for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), and Muskoka (Mr. Peter McGibbon), who supported the suggestion that a returned

soldier should toe appointed to the Civil Service Commission. I think that should be done now. We have to consider the cost of all these things; it is right that we should be economical. But I will tell the Government where they can get the money to pay the salary of this returned soldier for at least a year as a member of this commission. They have only to make a certain gentleman whose name I dare not mention here refund $5,000 that he looted from the Treasury and that he did not earn. That will pay the salary of this returned soldier on the board for one year, and next year we may consider where we can get the salary for the future.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens):: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment were that no person should approach the Civil Service Commission in the way indicated, I should be rather inclined to vote for the re-insertion of the clause, but the clause, as it appeared in the original Bill, was that no person should approach a minister of the Crown. I must say that, on careful consideration, that looks like an interference with responsible Government. Almost anybody should have the right in a respectful way to approach any minister of the Crown on any matter of public business. If, however, it were deemed necessary to move an amendment to insert a section that no person should approach the Civil Service Commission in that way, I am inclined to think I would support it, because the Civil Service Commission is supposed to be a judicial commission, and we would not, for one moment, tolerate the idea of any person approaching the judges of the land in order to exercise undue influence. But as respects the right to approach a minister of the Crown and discuss any matter with him and even to ask or advise him respecting appointments to any public office, I should not like to interfere with that right or privilege, although apparently that has been done in the past. I know that section has not been respected in the past, and I do not think it would be respected in the future.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to endorse the view of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) as regards approaching ministers of the Crown. I take this ground regarding lobbying in this House in respect to appointments to positions, that it is the privilege of any citizen in the Dominion of Canada to approach any minister of the Crown, member of Parliament or member of the Civil Service Com-

mission and to tell him about his -qualification for such position; but it is the privilege of the minister of the Crown-, member of Parliament, or commissioner to exercise his own judgment, show his toack-bone and show that there is some manhood in. him. Why should any person be -suppressed? Why should he -be chloroformed? Why should he be prevented from looking *at a minister except through s-moked glasses or at a Civil Service commissioner except through glasses equally opaque. Why should *a minister of the Crown, member of Parliament or commissioner not have the back-bone to say:	Here are the facts-;
I regard you as a proper person for the position, and I do not so regard the other party. Many of us can remember certain pre-election promises. If we get in, -such and such a person will get the position; and then if the wheel of fortune turns, we find that the same promise has been made to ten other people. We want backbone on the part of ministers and other high officials. Then, let any person approach them in any manner, -and the result will be all right. So far as the judges of the land are concerned, there are all sorts of stories in regard to people consulting judges in advance, but the judges, to their eternal credit, do n-ot yield- to such importuning, but rather count it against those who exercise undue influence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for Kamouraska -((Mr. E. Lapointe) is quite within his right, but nevertheless I am sorry he is going to divide the House upon this matter. Personally I would have preferred that this section ha-d been left in the Bill. I withdrew it because that seemed to be the unanimous opinion of the House at the time. I do not recollect any single person suggesting that the section should remain in the Bill. I think sometime afterwards the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) expressed his regrets that the section was dropped.


Charles Murphy: I objected at the time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Had I not been left with the impression that it was the unanimous view of the House that any person should have the right of approaching ministers of the Cr-own, I should not -have dropped the section, and T regret the hon. member -for Kamouraska is going to inconvenience the House by dividing it on this matter.


Charles Murphy: I made my view at the time as plain as words could make it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I was
not in the House at the time.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that I am not in full sympathy with this Bill, although I do not purpose voting .against it. I believe it will do no harm to try it out for at least six or eight months, and then, if necessary, it may be amended. But I feel that the Bill, as it at present exists, will not greatly improve conditions in this country.


Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.) :: Mr. Speaker, I want to give expression to my unqualified support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr Fielding). If there is anything this House ought to do, it is to make the Civil Service Commission absolutely independent of every outside influence, to surround it with all the safeguards vouchsafed to the judiciary of this country. It should not be permitted to be approached by any other than, at any rate, the ministers. T hope, therefore, my hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) will amend his motion so as to make it conform with the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens.
The salaries of the commissioners are not high enough. Instead of having $5,000 a year, they should have $7,000. You cannot expect judicial service unless you pay a man a proper salary. The commissioners should receive the salary of a Supreme Court judge, and they should: have all the sanctity that can be given to a commission that is absolutely judicial in its capacity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E Lapointe) rose, I was under the impression that he was entitled to speak upon the main motion, and after consultation with the authorities, I find I was correct in that assumption. But, having seconded the first amendment moved, he is not competent to move this [DOT]amendment. I, therefore, after a consultation, propose Mr. Parent as mover of the motion, to be seconded by Mr. McKenzie.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: I desire to submit an amendment, and as I do not want to prolong the session I should like a division on it as soon as possible, but, of course, if other hon. gentlemen wish to speak to it, that is their privilege. The great majority of the members of this House owe their seats to the soldiers, and more particularly to the ladies. I have urged on the Government the advisability of giving representation on the commission to the ladies, and particularly to returned soldiers, but they have steadily declined, and I therefore propose to move, if I can find a seconder in the House-


Mr. PEDLOW:: I will second the motion.


John Allister Currie: I beg'to move:
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the Bill so as to give representation on the Board to returned soldiers and ladies.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have much pleasure in seconding that motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask my hon. friend if he intends that these representatives on the board shall serve without salary?


John Allister Currie: Why, certainly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was just going to point out that if they were to be paid, the amendment would not be in order, but inasmuch

as it may follow that they may serve without salary, I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I submit that as the Bill provides that the members of the commission shall be paid a salary of $5,000, the amendment is clearly out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the point of order is well taken, inasmuch as if the commissioners were appointed an increase in expenditure would be involved, and it is not competent for an hon. member to move a motion which involves an increased grant.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker-	-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member wish to speak to a point of order?


John Allister Currie: I made a similar proposal to that contained in my motion when the Bill was under discussion, and I stated distinctly then that I knew the rules of the House' precluded me from making a motion that would involve an increase in salary. I now desire to amend my motion so that it will read that these representatives shall serve without pay and let the Government provide for them. May I be permitted to do that. I should like this motion to be voted on, and for that purpose I will insert the words " without pay," so that the motion will be in order. We will see whether the returned soldiers have friends here or not.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think it is competent for .the hon. member to make any such motion, because the Bill provides that members of the commission shall receive a salary of $5,000, and it would serve no purpose for the hon. member to- have his motion put, leaving it to the Government to fix a salary, because the salary is already fixed by the Act, and there is no way of getting around it. Each of the commissioners must receive a salary. Therefore, I claim my hon. friend's motion is entirely out of order.


John Allister Currie: May I not be permitted to amend the motion to the effect that notwithstanding anything heretofore contained in the Act, these representatives may occupy positions on the commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is competent for the House of Commons, which passes an Act, to amend it in any form it desires, but at the moment I am charged with the duty of deciding whether the motion in my hands is in conformity with the rules of the House, and I feel disposed to rule that the point of

OTder raised toy the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is well taken.


John Allister Currie: 'May I be permitted to amfend the motion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is permitted to submit an amendment, but I doubt very much if he can get around the difficulty.


John Allister Currie: It is quite, competent for members of this House to move to strike out salaries, but not to insert them, and I think it is quite competent for me to submit an amendment that does not involve an increased grant.


Wilfrid Laurier: I appreciate, as everybody does, the motive of my hon. friend, but surely he does not suggest that a soldier, and particularly a lady, would undertake such onerous duties as are imposed by this Bill, without salary. I think his remedy is first to convince the members of the Government, who may then bring in a motion to the effect that he desires.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Section 3 of part 1 of the Bill says:
The chairman shall he paid a salary of six thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners five thousand dollars.
So it is very clear that if we appointed other commissioners they must receive salary.


John Allister Currie: That section limits the commission to three members.


Robert Lorne Richardson: No, it says: "each of the other commissioners."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am of opinion that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Halifax is well taken, and that the amendment submitted by the hon. member [DOT]for Simcoe is not in order, and I so rule. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. COPP:: I desire to endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) with reference to withdrawing the employees of the Intercolonial and other Government railways from the operation of this Bill.
At one o'clock the House rose.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When we separated at' one
o'clock I had just risen to express my very great regret that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who is piloting this Bill through the House, was unable to persuade his colleagues to bring
135i
the employees of the Government railway system under the operation of the Civil Service Act the same as those of other departments. 1 am sure that any one who has any knowledge or experience of the great evil of patronage that seems to be in the mind of every hon. member of this House, must realize that if there is one department more than another in which it is present, in the greatest possible degree, it is that of the Government railway system. If, in order to abolish patronage the Civil Service Commission is to take practically complete control of the appointment and promotion of civil servants, I cannot understand why the employees of the Government railway system should not also come under the direction of the commission. The hon. the Acting (Minister of Finance, during the past two or three years, took very .strong ground against the evils of patronage and demanded that they should be abolished. The hon. gentleman's own constituency, and the Maritime Provinces generally, must be more affected by the Intercolonial than other parts of the Dominion and therefore, my hon. friend being a representative of that part of the country, has complete knowledge of the great disadvantages arising from the existence of the patronage system as applied . to the Intercolonial.	.
Personally, I have very little confidence that the Bill will have any great effect in doing away with the patronage evil. But it will be of some use to the ministers because they will be able to employ it as a sort of buffer between themselves and the applicants when they desire to do so and they will use the Civil Service Commission as an excuse when they do not themselves wish to deal with any particular application. When asked to make an appointment or a promotion they will be able to say:	"We have nothing whatever to
do with this; the Civil Service Commission has charge of it." The hon. the Minister of Railway and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid) says that in epite of the fact that Government railway employees are not to- be brought under the Civil Service Commission, he has given instructions to the general manager that patronage must be abolished and that no influence may be used by any candidates, friends of the Government or otherwise to impress upon the general manager the advantage of appointing this, that or the other man. The general manager is given authority to appoint men to positions without regard to political influence or to pressure from any person whatsoever. I naturally accept that

statement, of the Minister of Railways but it places the general manager of the Government railway system in a very peculiar position. Personally, I have not a great deal of acquaintance with him, but as far as I know 'he is a man of splendid ability and I believe he is very anxious to make a success of the railway system. It is hard for one to believe that a iman occupying that position would stoop to petty political partisanship and patronage in connection with the operation of the road. Yet, during the past two years, men in the employ of the Intercolonial, who would naturally be entitled to promotion, have been kept in their same positions while men new in the service have been put over their heads. That is not only true in regard to more important positions, but also in regard to the very lowest employees. Even in regard to temporary employees, the patronage curse is being forced upon the people in that portion of Canada. A man who comes with his saw and hammer, and who wants a job to help to erect or repair a small building, is not recognized by the man who has charge of the work unless he is armed with a certificate from the man who has the patronage. As evidence in support of that statement, I want to draw the .attention of the Government to a case that happened during the past winter in my own town. The Intercolonial required to erect a small roundhouse, or engine house, and the foreman was particularly anxious to get the work in progress as rapidly as possible. If the work were not proceeded with the engines would be left out in the cold and would suffer damage. The foreman tried to get men to go to work on that building. Finally he got a few men, and amongst them one man in particular who worked for four or five days. Then the foreman told him that unless he got a letter from the chairman of the patronage committee in the town of Sackville he could not continue on that work. How can the Government or the Minister of Railways and Canals expect us to accept the statement as to what they are going to do when we have such facts before us showing that instead of abolishing patronage, or making any attempt to abolish it, patronage is more rampant than ever and it is getting worse every day. In order to prove to this House the extent of the patronage evil in connection with the Intercolonial railway, and as an evidence why the Government railway system should be placed under the operation of this Bill, I will read the following affidavit:

Province of New Brunswick,
County of Westmoreland,	N.S.
I, Bernard Bowser, Builder and Contractor of the town of Sackville in the aforesaid county of Westmoreland, province of New Brunswick, being duly sworn make Oath and Say:-
That having been advised that skilled carpenters were required by the Canadian Government railway in the erection of a Roundhouse building at the railway yards in the town of Sackville aforesaid, I personally applied at the aforesaid premises of the railway for employment on or about the Thirtieth day of January A.D. 1918 and was employed and set to work by D. A. Seaman, foreman in charge of the said work, and continued at the said work for some five days.
That on the fifth day of my employment as aforesaid I was visited by the said Seaman, the foreman of the said work, and the following conversation took place between him and me:-
Seaman (foreman) "Can you get a recommendation?"
Bowser (employee) "It might be according to whom I got."
Seaman (foreman) "It is all right if it passes. Who are you going to get"?
Bowser (employee) "I might get Mr. Copp or Mr. McCord."
Seaman (foreman) "That won't do at all you will have to get some one from the Conservative Committee. Get Mr. Trites, some one that will pass it. It looks as if some of the party have written to Moncton saying you can not work without a recommendation. Can't you get Mr. Trites to give you a recommendation"?
Bowser (employee) "No, I wont ask Trites for any recommendation, the job is not worth more than a day's pay."
Seaman (foreman) "You had better leave your tools and see Mr. Trites, I do not want you to quit."
Bowser (employee) "No, I am not going to see Trites for any job."
Nothing further was said between Mr. Seaman and me on the occasion and I picked up my tools and quit the job and premises.
I am a native of the Parish of Sackville and have been active in my trade as a joiner and housebuilder for many years.
Sworn to at the town of Sackville, in the county of Westmoreland, province of New Brunswick this first day of April, A.D. 1918. Before me,
(Signed) Bernard Brown.
(Signed) A. W. Bennett.
A Commissioner for taking affidavits to be read in the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.
My reason for reading the affidavit is to demonstrate to my hon. friends who, I believe, are in, earnest in their determination to abolish the patronage evil, what is taking place on the Government system of railways, notwithstanding the fact that we now have a Union Government, and that one of the arguments in favour of the election of such a Government was that through its agency the country would be enabled to put an end to this evil. In the fall of 1917, we had the announcement that patronage was to he done away with, and yet

we find that as late as January, 1918, the system was still flourishing on the Government railways, and more particularly on the Intercolonial. In view of these facts, and, in view of the realization on the part of hon. gentlemen, not only from the Maritime Provinces, but from the rest of Canada as well, of the extent of the patronage evil, in view of the announcement that we were going to have a thorough housecleaning with respect to patronage, the Acting Minister of Finance will not be doing justice to himself, to the employees of the Intercolonial, or to the members of this House, if he fails to make provision whereby the employees of the Government Railway system shall be placed with respect to this matter in exactly the same category as the *civil servants in other departments of the public service.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclearu, Bill No. 87, an Act supplementary to chapter twenty-four of the Statutes of 1917, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 81, to amend the Customs Tariff. 1907, wae read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 3-Commencement of Act:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before passing on clause 3, I would like the minister to explain the reason for the different rates on coffee and tea. There are two classifications here. Coffee, green, imported direct, etc., 5 cents preferential, and 7 cents intermediate and general tariff. Then there is coffee, green, n.o.p., 5 cents and 7J per cent preferential, and 7 cents and 10 per cent intermediate and general.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The clause referred to 'by the hon. gentleman has already been carried. But with the unanimous consent of the committee we might revert to it. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that we revert to section 2?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 84, to amend the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-Dividends paid considered a reduction of reserves, etc.:
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the minister explain this section?
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the law
as it stood, if a company earned $100,000 in profits during the year and did not dis-
tribute them, they could contend that that was part of their capital and that they were entitled to a deduction of 7 peT cent upon that. This provides that if the profits are later distributed the amount cannot be counted as part of the capital. It is to prevent a possible increase of capital and resulting exemption.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Tax continued for another twelve months:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: When are these taxes
to be paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The main Bill
provides that the tax shall be paid each year within one month from the date of the mailing of the notice of assessment.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: At what time of the
year will these notices be mailed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At all times of
the year. Difficulties are sometimes encountered in determining the assessments of some companies. Departmental officers must determine the capital employed in companies of very large capitalization. Some companies in Canada have a share capital of say $50,000,000, whereas only about $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 of that is employed as capital. In such cases assessments must be made by the department, and this often takes a good deal of time.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The intention is that
the taxes may be collected at any time during the fiecal year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I wish to direct the minister's attention to a method of payment which is under consideration in the United States. Lt is suggested that this tax should be collected not in one payment, but in quarterly payments spread over the current fiscal year. A provision of that kind would be quite an advantage not only to the Government in collecting the taxes, but also to the companies and firms assessed particularly those whose business is very large.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A regulation to that effect was suggested in the United States; but it has been overruled by the Treasury Department; it was decided that the plan was not workable. Their taxes are payable on June 15th of each year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is there any reason why the Canadian Government should be opposed to it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I really do not see any necessity for such a provision. While to some firms it may he hardship to pay promptly, still, I think it is wise to provide that the tax shall he paid in one sum.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is more of an inconvenience than a hardship. The withdrawal from large businesses of amounts assessed by way of taxation may in some cases be a serious matter. Quarterly payments would ibe much more convenient.


James Alexander Robb: In introducing the income tax measure last year the Finance Minister created the impression that the Business Profits War Tax would cease at the end of the period named in the Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the Finance Minister made a statement to the contrary at the end of the session. At any rate, it is deemed advisable that the tax should he continued this year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I quote the following extract, from a firm doing a large business in my constituency, with regard to the methods of obtaining information as to those who come under the Act:
With, reference to the income tax, it seems to the writer that at the present time the matter of making a return for payment of income tax is, apparently, a voluntary matter. There does not seem to he a sufficiently comprehensive attempt to collect from all that should he liable, and if the matter has not been provided for I would suggest that it be part of the duties of the municipal assessor in each municipality to make out a list of all those in his district whom he has reason to think come under the income tax, and forward this list to the inspector of collector of income tax for the district, who could then follow it up. Unless something of this sort is done it seems certain that many will fail to make a return who should properly do so under the income tax law.
Further, the Income tax should cover all classes, special provision in the way of accounting being made to cover the various lines of business and industry.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN I am obliged to my bon. friend for the suggestion contained in the letter from which he has read. Of course, they are applicable to the Income Tax Act, not to this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.	.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Finance), Bill No. 85, to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-definitions:
Wilfrid Laurier: Subsection 1 says:
Paragraph (e) of section two of The Income War Tax Act, 1817, chapter twenty-eight of the statutes of 1917, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
(e) "supertax" means the taxes authorized by paragraphs (b) to (m), both inclusive, of section four of this Act
Will my hon. friend state whait that means so that the public may understand it? It is not clear in the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In section 4 of the Act as it now stands there are paragraphs from (a) to (g) setting forth the tax and the amounts of income. Foi instance, by paragraph (b) the tax is 2 per cent on incomes exceeding $6,000 and not exceeding $10,000; paragraph (c) has reference to incomes exceeding $10,000 and not exceeding $20,000, and so on. Paragraph (g), which is the last clause in the old Act, provides a tax on incomes exceeding $100,000. We have divided incomes in excess of $100,000 into several clauses. For instance, on incomes from $100,000 to $200,000 there is a separate tax, and on incomes from $200,000 to $400,000 there is separate tax. That necessitated amending the paragraph.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be better to explain in general terms what is the meaning of .the word " tax " and what is the meaning of the word " supertax."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The present Bill provides for a normal tax of 4 per cent, which runs right through the whole list of taxable incomes.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has reduced the amount which by the Act of last year was exempted from taxation.

That exemption was $3,000 in the case of married persons and $1,500 in the case of unmarried persons without dependents. Those amounts are now reduced from $3,000 to $2,000, and from $1,500 to $1,000 respectively. Does not my hon. friend think, if he requires additional revenue that the small incomes should) be left just as they are and the higher incomes should be more heavily taxed? My hon. friend is aware that the cost of living is every day becoming a more and more anxious problem for families with average incomes. I do not know that the policy is wise of reducing the amount of exemption on incomes.
Mr. A. K. MA-CILEAN: My right hon. friend will remember that the tax is only 2 per cent upon incomes between $2,000 and $3,000 in the case of married persons, and between $1,000 and $1,500 in the case of unmarried persons. If he were considering this matter from the standpoint of revenue, it is quite clear that on the -smaller revenues we would derive the greater revenue. That is true, I think, of all countries in the world. Our rates of taxation on -the smaller incomes are less than they are in most -countries except the United States.
Sir WI Ll'RI I) LAURIER: Last year we agreed that the -average family should have a certain portion of its income exempt from taxation, and we placed that exemption at $3,000 in the case of a married person and $1,500 in the case of a -single person without dependents. My hon. friend is reducing that exemption, and it seems to me that in these days when the -cost of living is becoming increasingly heavy, he is going to get this revenue at the- expense of a good deal of comfort on the part of families with average incomes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is absolutely necessary that we have a revenue, and the Government were of the opinion it was desirable to reduce the amounts of exemption.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why not increase the tax on the larger incomes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My right hon. friend must not forget that the rate of taxation on the smaller incomes is very light, and that there is also a provision for granting an exemption of $200 for each child under sixteen years of age.


Mr. COWAN:: If it is in order at this point, I -should like to have a statement from the minister regarding the organization which he is providing for the collection of this tax. The organization which

he has already provided in our section of the country is wholly inadequate, the result being that I am satisfied the Government is going to lose thousands upon thousands of dollars this year and is going to create against this tax a sentiment which does not at the present time exist. There should be created from the very beginning an organization which will bring the very best methods to bear on the collection of this tax, and that, I contend is not being done. The gentleman who has been appointed as our collector in my district is one of the most competent men one could get in Canada, and he is doing his best to see that this tax is collected properly. But what are the conditions? I find to-day in his office in Regina from twenty-five to thirty thousand letters remain unanswered, simply because the staff and equipment is not sufficient. I understand the inspector has not been authorized to increase his [DOT]staff, and his quarters are wholly inadequate for transacting the business that is to be done in that province. The result has [DOT]been- -that when the returns come in, a great number of them are incorrectly made out, and the officer of the department, not [DOT]having the necessary staff and equipment to reply fully, -simply -sends bac-k the return, *and the recipient very often becomes rebellious and says he will not pay the tax at [DOT]all. I am satisfied that the people of -Saskatchewan are quite willing to pay this tax; in fact, they w-ant to pay it, but at the present rate of progress I do not think this tax will be collected in Saskat-4 p.m. chewan until next year's tax be

becomes due. I do not know what conditions are in other provinces, but that is the state of affairs in Saskatchewan. We [DOT]have the very best man possible at the head of the organization and he will do everything he can, but, without assistance it [DOT]will be quite impossible for him to give the results we want. I should like to know whether it is correct that the department do no-t expect to get this system of taxation- into complete operation for four or five years. I see no reason- for such a long delay as that, although I admit the Act will be difficult to administer, especially [DOT]in our part- of the country where probably more than a third of our population are foreigners, many of whom are liable to this tax. They are farmers, however, and are not banking their money, and some very complete organization will have to be devised to reach them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I aim instructed by the officers of the department that the

inspector for Saskatchewan has ibeen given all the assistance he has asked for. There has been some trouble in obtaining suitable premises, and I shall be very glad to take into consideration what my hon. friend has said, and ascertain whether additional help is required. The department, of course, proposes to enforce the Act at once. My honourable friend's suggestion that it is going to take four or [DOT]five years to put the Act into effect is not correct. Probably he has heard some one remark that it will take a long number of years to have the Act working properly, [DOT]but that has been the experience in all countries. It is stated that it took Great Britain twenty-five years to approximate efficiency in the administration of their Income Tax Act, and the same is said of the United States. Difficulties and confusion will doubtless arise m Canada for the first few years, but I hope that gradually we .shall be able to develop an efficient and capable organization for the administration of this Act.
(Mr. COWAN: I am not blaming the Finance Department altogether. I have seen the deputy minister several times about the conditions out there, and I wish to repeat that the quarters provided are not at all satisfactory. Last year the same quarters were hired by the Imperial Oil company, and they got out because they could not keep the place heated. They had seven coal oil stoves going all winter to keep the place warm, and the staff naturally fell sick. Now we do not want anything like that.


John Howard Sinclair: Why is the unmarried woman on a different footing from the married woman?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no inequality. The unmarried and the married woman have the same exemption. " Married " includes both male and female. The married woman is exempt up to $2,000 and the unmarried up to $1,000.
iMr. J. H. 'SINCLAIRs I understand that, but I want to know why an unmarried woman should have to pay a larger tax than a married woman. A married woman has a husband to take care of her, and is in a much better position to pay than the unmarried woman.
Mr. DuTREMRLAY:	Paragraph (i) of
section 1 says:
"Dependent child" means a child under twenty-one years of age dependent on his parent for support. *
In some provinces, in Quebec, for instance, there is a law compelling children to provide for the support of their father or mother or grandfather or grandmother. Would it not therefore be wise to add a definition of the word " dependent " somewhat to this effect:	"relatives who are
dependent upon the taxpayers for support according to the law of each province."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That matter was considered very thoroughly at the last session of Parliament when the income tax was introduced. It may be possible that the tax may be onerous on unmarried persons who may have to support relatives or other persons, but it is- impossible to draft a provision providing for these exceptional cases.


Mr. LALOR:: Is the income of a man and his- wife regarded as one income or as two separate incomes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As two incomes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-par, relating to- payments at source:
Mr. McKENZIE:: How are you going to determine whether the child undeT sixteen years of age is dependent upon the taxpayer for support? Would it not toe toetter to take for granted that every child under sixteen is dependent on his parents for support? Otherwise the onus is thrown on the parent or on some one else to prove that the child is dependent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There might toe oases where children, were in receipt of a large income from a trustee or something of that kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is one of the difficult cases which the minister says cannot be provided for. If we are going to exempt the taxpayer $200 foT each child under sixteen, why not come out and say so flat-footedly? As the Act now stands, the department must obtain proof that the child is dependent on its parents- for support.
Mr. A. K. -MACLEAN: I think it is clear enough. I do not think it would be wise to- amend the section along the lines suggested toy my toon, friend. There may be other cases than the one I cited a moment ago, tout I really do not think there will be any difficulty in administering the Act in that respect.


Mr. PARDEE:: Will the minister tell me why, under section 27, judges' incomes are not taxable?

Mr. A. K. MAC'LEAN: Would my hon. friend renew his question when we come to that section?
Mr. McMAiSTER: )I notice that by section 2 there is an exemption of $200 for every child under 16. Might I ask the minister whether he has considered the advisability of raising that age to, say, 18? There are a great number of people of moderate means who are doing their best to have their children finish their high school courses and it is rarely that children of 16 have finished with the high school. I would suggest that it would be advisable to Taise the age to 18. The minister would still be protected to the extent that the child must be dependent on the parent. The loss of revenue would not be considerable and it would be a great help tr people of moderate means who are endeavouring to give the best possible education to their children.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That matter was considered by the Government. A great deal could be said in favour of the suggestion but all exemptions and rates of taxation are arbitrary as a rule and suggestions are easily made in regard to them. The Government were of the opinion that 16 was the proper age to which to apply the exemption.
On section 3-income tax:
Mr. NIiCKLE: Will the minister be good enough to give me an explanation, because I have not been able to think of one, why it is that the incomes of husband and wife are treated as one. I think that in the working out of this Act, the country is losing considerable money owing to a married couple being entitled to double exemption. If there is any reason for the law being drafted as it is now, I would like to know what it is, and if the reason does not seem to be one that the House should approve, I would like to know if the minister would consider an amendment to the provision so that the exemption given to married people is only applicable to the income of one and not to the income of both.	,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a matter that had the consideration of the Government in the preparation of this Bill and they concluded that it was not advisable to amend the Bill in the direction suggested a;, tnis present session of Parliament. The chief reason is that a woman is a separate individual, as is a man, and in a country where we propose giving woman the franchise, just as we do a male person, I think

the argument is very strongly in favour of treating their incomes as separate. That is the general principle upon which the Government decided not to treat the incomes as one.


Mr. NICKLE:: I do not think the philosophy of the minister's statement will stand criticism. He says the reason the exemption is given is because a woman is a separate entity before the law, as is also a man.


Mr. McMASTER:: Might I ask the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) to speak a little slower and) a little louder because we want to hear what he is saying on this side of the House?


Mr NICKLE:: I say that I do not think the philosophy of the minister's statement will stand criticism. If I understood him correctly, he said that the reason that a separate exemption was given to a married man, and also to a married woman, was that the married woman was an entity before the law as was also the man. I cannot dispute that because to dispute it would lead one into a ridiculous position. We all accept that, but if a married woman is an entity before the law, and also a married man, why should the married woman get a married woman's exemption and the married man also get a married1 man's exemption when the responsibility for the maintenance of the family is on the married man and is not on the married woman? As the law stands at the present time, if a woman is unmarried, and has therefore no family responsibility, she is entitled to an exemption of $1,000, but if she marries and has an income, I think under the present Act, of $1,450, or of less than $1,500, she is entitled to exemption up to $1,500 and her husband is similarly entitled to exemption. I opposed this principle of the Act when it was introduced last session, emphasizing, as best I could, that I thought in exemption given to married people the exemption should only apply up to .the aggregate of the two incomes. In other words, if the combined income amounted to $1,500, exemption would 'be given under the present Act up to that amount. But if the combined income reached $2,000 then an income tax should be paid on the difference between $1,500 and $2,000. My experience during the past summer has convinced me that the contention I raised in the House last year is sound if the object of the Government is to get money.
Suppose there should be a couple, a man who had an income of say $3,500, and whose

wife had an income of something over $2,500. The combined income, we will say, was $6,000, and under the law as it stood last year each was entitled to an exemption of $3,000. That is .the woman paid no income tax, and the man only paid income tax on $500. Let us suppose the particular family I mention had no children, the result would be that a married man and woman without children get an exemption of $5,500, whereas these same people if unmarried would only get a small exemption granted to them, under the Act as d^awn last year, $1,500 each, and this year, of $1,000 each. I eay it is not sound finance and it is bad in principle, if the object is to get money, and I say it for the reason that I believe this income tax has come to stay, and in my judgment if the practice continues of treating ae separate the incomes of married men and women, there are going to be a good many incomes in this country divided into two parts to the extent at least of the exemption granted the woman, for the purpose of saving the income tax which she otherwise would have to pay. For instance, let me give an example: Suppose for the sake of my argument, a married man's income was just over $10,000 and suppose that the husband wants to get rid of the surtax, he transfers securities of such a value that it will bring an income to his wife of $1,450, and in that way she is entitled to exemption because being a married woman her income is less than $1,500, and he gets rid of the extra tax because he has $1,500 of the income applied to the wife, and leaves himself under the $10,000.
Mr. A. K. (MACLEAN. There is a provision in the Act against that.
Mr. N1CKLE:	There is a provision in
the Act against it, a provision in the Act does not amount to very much, because you cannot draw any Act to-day by which a husband cannot give to his wife a certain number of securities as a gift. I admit the principle of the Act says you must not do it, but there is no principle you can put in any Act which is going to prevent a married man, if he wants to do so, transferring certain securities over to his wife. The hon. gentleman says there is a provision in the Act against it. The forms that we had to sign last year certainly had nothing in them requiring one to declare that there had not been a transfer of property for the purpose of escaping the tax. As the practice, and as the law is at present, I submit the whole tendency is to deprive the State of some money that it legitimately should have, and to raise in
the minds of the people who have a taxable income, that they should look about in the hope that they may see a way of relieving themselves of some of the taxation. If the minister tells me he will not consider an amendment, nothing would be gained at this late hour of the session, by my moving an amendment, but I would like to urge upon him, as I did unsuccessfully urge upon his predecessor, that he give this matter consideration and impress upon him that I am looking at it from the point of view' in a part of the country where incomes are not large, and where people feel that all should bear equitably, the burden that is cast upon them, by this war.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be very difficult now to amend the Bill so as to cover the points raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle). But I assure him that during the recess the matter shall have consideration by the 'Government. Personally, I am disposed to agree with the remarks of my hon. friend, and I think that probably at the next session of Parliament an amendment will be proposed to carry that idea into effect.


William Folger Nickle: I am satisfied to have
bent the line, even if I have not broken it, but I hope that next session I shall succeed in breaking through.


John Howard Sinclair: The tax on corporations is embraced within this clause. Suppose the tax is paid by the corporation, does that give an exemption to the man who holds the stock? To make myself clear I will give an example: Suppose John Smith has $5,000 of capital invested in Canadian Pacific stock, and the Canadian Pacific in the first place pays a tax of six per cent. Now, is any allowance made to Smith by reason of the fact that the corporation owning the stock has already paid that tax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The income in that case is exempt from the normal tax only, which is four per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not the tax six
per cent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Four per cent is the normal tax upon incomes, as will be found in subsection a of section 4 of the Bill. The income tax upon corporations is six per cent, and when the corporation pays an income tax, the individual is exempt from the normal tax.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London):: Before this clause carries I think we should pro-

test against the method prescribed of increasing the tax upon a corporation and not giving credit to the stockholder, which means ithe imposition of an extra tax on the latter. There can he really no question on that point. A corporation, under this clause, is called upon to pay six per cent upon its total net income. It distributes part, perhaps the larger part, of that income among its stockholders, some of whom are not liable to income tax. The Government gets six per cent from the corporation, and to that no objection can he raised. But is the stockholder, who is liable for income tax, prepared to have a two per cent tax imposed upon his income in addition to whatever tax he may be subject? The man who holds bonds, mortgages, or other securities, is not subject to this disability; it is one peculiar to the holder of stock, and I cannot see the logical justification for such a measure.


Mr. PARENT:: Has the Acting Minister of Finance taken any measures so as to protect Americans residing in this country from paying a double tax? I understand that at the present time there are a good many American citizens living temporarily in Canada who are earning wages and paying taxes in this country, and at the same time paying taxes in the United States; so that they are paying a double income tax. Has the Acting Minister of Finance had any communication with the United States Government so as to prevent the imposition of double taxes upon such persons?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That matter was a subject of negotiation between the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and the officers of the Treasury Board at Washington a few days ago. The Minister of Finance advises me that he anticipates reaching some arrangement with the United States whereby persons might be relieved of the double income tax. And he also had a conference with the same officials in respect of the business profits tax, as there are instances where companies pay the business profits tax in Canada and in the United States as well. There is no provision in the Bill in respect of the matter, and it can only be overcome by arrangements reached by negotiations between the two countries. The matter of the double income tax received consideration at the last Imperial conference, and I understand it was decided to let the matter stand in abeyance until after the conclusion of the war. There is no doubt in the world that it is a great hardship, and should be eliminated in some way or other.


Mr. CROWE:: If I remember aright, the Acting Finance Minister in his Budget told us that the Government received practically ?385,000 from the insurance companies. I received the insurance blue book the other day, and looking over the statements of the insurance companies, I figured out that they were doing business to the extent of 8110,000,000 annually in Canada, and paid out in losses $43,000,000, leaving about $67,000,000 for expenses of operation. Of this the Government received only $385,000. It seems to me that is a very small amount.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The insurance
companies pay one per cent upon their net premiums.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: The net premiums for fire, life and other insurance amount, I figure, to $110,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Life insurance is not included.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: Why should it not be included as well as fire and other insurance?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I imagine it was deemed to be an unjust and unnecessary tax, and perhaps would do an injustice to people who were insured. The amount of the tax would probably have been added to the premium.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: On the point raised by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), the minister has not yet given a satisfactory explanation. In the income tax of last yeaT, where corporations were taxed at the rate of 4 per cent on all their profits and the balance distributed to shareholders, this 4 per cent was carried forward to the credit of the individual shareholder upon the dividend he had received. The present Bill raises the rate from four to six per cent. But on the two per cent additional the principle introduced into the Bill last year for some unexplained reason is now dropped. If it was good business and fair, even-handed justice to carry forward to the credit of the shareholder of the corporation or company the 4 per cent the argument is absolutely unanswerable, in my judgment, that now that 6 per cent is levied that 6 per cent should be carried forward to the credit of the shareholder, and he should not be subject to this extra 2 peT cent, which does not fall on any other class of the community only on corporations and joint stock companies. As the member for London said, if a man's income is invested in bonds, mortgages, or real estate, ot anything of that kind, it escapes. But, undeT this provision, as I understand

it-I may be wrong, but I have not heard anything to the contrary-while the tax is raised from 4 to 6 per cent, the shareholder in these corporations is only credited with 4 per cent instead of 6 per cent, which his stock has already paid before the dividends were distributed. I should like to ask the minister to justify that position if he can, so that I may be clear why the principle involved in the taxation of last year is being deviated frotm.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: The point made by the hon. member for London is very substantial, indeed, and I am much impressed with it. I think probably at some future session of this Parliament some consideration will have to be given to that point. The necessities for revenue will justify the difference between the income tax-


William Foster Cockshutt: It does not justify the inequality.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: All taxation measures contain inequalities.


Mr. MORPHY:: I would like the acting
minister to consider the phraseology of section 3, subsection (1), which reads:
There shall be assessed, levied and paid, upon the income during the preceding year of every person residing or ordinarily resident in Canada or carrying on any business in Canada, and upon the income received by any person from any source within Canada, the following taxes:
I put to the minister the case of a gentleman having an income of $10,000 arising in [Scotland and who is living in Canada. I would assume that that income is not taxed a second time. It is taxed 25 per cent, I think, in England. I notice that the minister said a moment ago

but do not know that I clearly grasped his meaning-that at the Imperial Conference it was. decided to prevent double taxation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Efforts are 'being made to evolve some scheme to avoid double income tax, but no scheme or plan has yet been worked out. The purpose of the words "from any source" in the Bill is to make it possible for us to tax persons who earn an income within Canada, Ibut who live outside of Canada. We want to put ourselves in the same position as the United States in this respect.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If that is the intention, the Bill seems to Ibe unfortunately worded. The section as it Teads provides that the income must be obtained from any source within Canada. If it is obtained from a source in Scotland, it is not taxable?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Mr. NESBITT:: I was going to ask also if that is the intention of the Act. "From any source within Canada" would mean derived from a source within Canada, or as long as he received it while he is in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was intended to impose taxation, upon incomes earned in Canada (by persons who do not live in Canada.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Since the hon. member for Kingston made his point in regard to the working out of this Bill, I have been doing some figuring, and would like to know whether the results, are correct or not. Take for instance the income of $10,000 in the ease of a married man. There would be an exemption, deducted from that of $1,500, leaving $8,500 subject to a 2 peT cent assessment, which would be $170. Then the income would Ibe subject to a .further tax after another exemption of $3,000 of 4 per cent on $5,500, which would be $220. In addition to that there would be a supertax of 2 per cent on $2,500, the balance of income over $6,000, .amounting to $50. Adding these three amounts, $170, $220 and $50, the tax on a married man with an income of $10,000 would :be $440.
Suppose a man's estate is in stocks and bonds., half of which he transfers to his wife. Each has then an income of $5,000, and would pay 2 .per cent on $3,500 and 4 *per cent on $500, or $90 each, a total of $180 *as against $440 if the estate had not been divided. The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), who is a good lawyer, says that it [DOT]is possible to drive a wedge into the Act in [DOT]this respect. Is the argument of the member for Kingston sound, and are my figures correct?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: The member for *Kingston properly stated the facts, but I [DOT]was unable to follow the figures given by [DOT]my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow); I did not [DOT]hear them. Section 4 of the Income War [DOT]Tax Act provides that any person who after *the 1st day of August, 1917, reduced his [DOT]income by transfer or assignment of any property, real or personal, to Ms wife or [DOT]to any members of his family shall nevertheless .be as liable to the tax as if such [DOT]transfer or .assignment had not been made. [DOT]The income from any property so transferred is treated as the income of the husband, notwithstanding the transfer.
Mr. MeMASTER:	In view of the fact
that we have to get money, the larger incomes should be more heavily taxed than

they are -by this proposed measure. The reply made by the Acting Minister of Firn-ance the other evening when I brought this [DOT]matter up was that although the British taxes are a great deal heavier than ours- $3,000 on an income of $10,000 in Great [DOT]Britain as against $400 or $500 on the same income here-we must not forget that the customs tariff imposes a very substantial indirect burden upon the people. In that I agree, but that is not the question. Money has to be found, and after we tax certain yearly incomes more or less lightly, we are in respect of taxation on the higher incomes, really taxing the luxuries and superfluities of life which a few people have but which the great masses of the people have not. To tax more heavily these higher incomes is the proper system of direct taxation to be followed at this time. I urge the Acting Minister of Finance to amend the Act so that the larger incomes will he taxed, perhaps not as heavily as they are in Great Britain,but at least more heavily than they will he taxed if this Act is passed in its present form. The minister will probably say that there is a great deal in my argument and that next year he may have to adopt my suggestion. He is running the risk of becoming known as the minister of good intentions rather than the Acting Minister of Finance. The poor people of this country, who are paying taxes on tobacco and tea, expect the Government to carry out the promise they made at the last election to stand for the conscription of wealth as well as for the conscription of men, and to carry it out as fearlessly with regard to wealth as they seem inclined to carry it out with regard to men. I believe that in this respect I voice, however feebly, the views of the people at large.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Being one of those who may be classed among the poor men who will help to pay these taxes-, in any arguments that I make I shall not be accused of defending the rich man. The Acting Minister of Finance read a statement the other evening showing the amounts paid here by way of income tax compared with those paid in the United States. We must not forget our geographical relation to the United States. England's large incomes have been worked up during a long period of years, while large incomes in this country are of very recent date. If you make the income tax in Canada lafger than it is in the United States, those who receive the larger incomes here may go to the United (States-it is just as warm there as

it is here; it is quite as comfortable a place to live in, and we are accustomed to the habits of their people. ' Most of the large incomes earned in this country are *derived from industrial pursuits. If a man whose income is very large is taxed too heavily, he is induced to put his money into Government bonds, which are not taxed, and to let the wheels of industry stand still. No greater calamity could overtake this country than that these large incomes should he put into Government bonds and the wheels of industry not kept moving after the war is over. Heavy taxes are now imposed under the Business Profits War Tax Act. If we continue to increase that tax we hamper a great many industries which have not yet been able to build up sufficient reserve to carry them through the hard times which will prevail after the war. So with income tax; there is a limit to the tax that we should impose on the income of the so-called rich man.
From the table which the acting minister put on Hansard the other evening, I noticed that the taxation on income up to $1,000,000 is higher in Canada than in the United States. Practically no one in this country is receiving an income of $1,000,000; indeed, there are in this country very few people receiving an income of more than $100,000, and yet our taxation on incomes up to $100,000 is considerably above the tax in the United- States. Nearly all the men in Canada who are deriving large incomes are deriving them from the risks they have run and the strenuous exertions they have made to establish industries in this country. The man who is prepared to take chances in investing his money to build up industries in this country deserves what he gets. I would ask any of my hon. friends who are anxious to see how much money they can make in industries, just to invest money in them, and see what happiness they will have after they have been in the business for a while. I give credit to men who have put their money together and started an organization. I do not understand the feeling that exists in this country against corporations. Corporations are only unions of individuals who have had faith enough to put money into one man's hands for investment in an industry which he manages. If he makes a success of it and they begin to make money they deserve it, 'because they have taken a risk. For one corporation that succeeds in this country three fail to accomplish their purposes, so that there is a big risk in putting your money into industries. It is unwise for us to keep harping against the so-called

large incomes and to keep taxing them out of this country, because it will be a great detriment to Canada to drive men into investing their money in Government bonds or out of the country altogether.
(Mr. McMA-STER: I have mo desire to tax capital out of this country, but I have a desire to see some basis of equality of sacrifice between the people of smaller incomes, whose sons have gone to the front and who remain and are taxed on their simple luxuries at home, and those .people of large incomes, whose sons have also gone gallantly forward,	but who remain
with as many luxuries, as great incomes from a	material standpoint
as they had before the war, and many of whom find that their fortunes have been enormously increased on account of the war. We ought, as far as possible, to have an equality of sacrifice between the different classes of this country. Suppose I said to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should judge of the sacrifice of men between ourselves and the United States. We would point out that they should send overseas an army of 5,000,000 men to be on an equality with the man-sacrifice demanded in this war. The argument is, therefore, not altogether sound that we should look merely to the United States to see whether our taxes are on an equality with theirs. I think better of the wealthy men of this country than to imagine that they will object to heavy taxation so long as that heavy taxation is distributed justly and evenly, and I do not think, if they are heavily taxed, they will skedaddle to the United States.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend has much greater faith in humanity than 'I have.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Perhaps I have.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So- far as the sacrifice
of the rich man since this war started is concerned, II venture to s-ay that if my hon. friend picks out man for man in this country, he will find that the so-called rich man has sacrificed just -as much, both physically through his family and so far as his means are concerned, as any other class of people. Not only is that the case, but the rich men have been the great subscribers to all the benevolent funds that have been started in this country. Otherwise, those funds could not succeed. Let my hon. friend pick out, if he will, the so-called rich men in this country, and he will see how many of them have sent their sons and brothers to the front just as freely as the poorest man in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I said that they had
gallantly sent their sons to the front.


Mr. CANNON:: The question raised by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and -the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is a most interesting one, and I am much surprised that no hon. member from the Western Provinces has so far taken, part in the debate. Before the last elections were held, there was a convention, which was forgotten by most people, but which I remember. I refe-r to the convention held in the city of Winnipeg. I understand that certain members of this Government and certain other hon. members sitting in this House were present at that convention, at which one of the main planks of the platform of the so-called western party was conscription of wealth. Where is conscription of wealth? How has that promise been fulfilled? The Acting Minister of Finance makes the proposition of taxing incomes up to 50 per cent and not above. That is not sufficient. Conditions throughout the world are to-day most extraordinary and exceptional, and a Government that wants the actual condition of things and order to be maintained in this country must see that the burden of taxation is evenly and fairly distributed amongst the different classes of our people. Is that the case to-day? I claim it is not. After this Bill is passed, whenever a poor man who earns a few dollars a day goes to the grocery store at the corner, he will have to pay taxes for -al'1 kinds of commodities of which he is in absolute need. He will have to pay taxes on tea, matches, tobacco, playing-cards. This poor man who, by working probably . ten or twelve hours a day, is able to earn $2.50 or $3, will be spending practically one-half of his salary in paying taxes. In comparison with that man, let us take a man like Sir Joseph Flavelle. How is he taxed by this Government? How are Mackenzie and Mann taxed by this Government? How are those millionaires who bought and bribed the press of this country during the last election taxed? How is the wealth of our country taxed? How are those people who claim to own this country taxed by the present Government? They are not taxed at all-and why? Because this Government does not dare to do its duty.
The Acting Minister of Finance, whose Liberal principles are well known, who used in this House to profess real Liberalism, who last year got up in this House and said in reply to the Minister of Finance in the then Tory Government, "Taxation is not

t
equal in this country"-what changes has he brought about? I have listened to all his speeches this year, and from a Liberal speaker he is changing into a speaker more Tory than his predecessor ever was. We do not want any more Tory theories in this country. 'The Canadian people stand for Liberalism and democracy. The only Tory country left in the universe to-day is the one against which we are directing all our efforts-Germany-and the only Tories left in the world to-day are the Germans. I do not wish to join them. I wish to remain with the real Liberals, the Liberals who say that when people are to be taxed, they shall be taxed according to their means and not according to their power or influence.
When it comes to the poor man 5 p.m. in this country, with little money and1 no influence, the Minister of Finance .goes into his pockets and takes a few pennies he has, taxes his tobacco, his matches, his tea and his other necessities. But when Sir Joseph Flavelle walks along the corridors of this Parliament, his pockets bulging with the profits he has made out of the sweat of the people of this country, the Acting Minister of Finance is only too glad to bow to him. And why? Because Sir Joseph Flavelle represents wealth. Mr. Chairman, I do not represent wealth in this Parliament; I do not represent robbery; I do not represent thievery. T represent democracy and Liberalism and I warn the Government: they can vote us down this year, they can vote us down next year, they can drown our voice and defeat our proposals, but never will they drown the voice of real Liberalism in this country because this country is Liberal to the core. The Government have bought the press of the country, which can no longer express its views freely unless the President of the Privy Council has O.K.'d the articles printed. We in the province of Quebec and other Liberals in other provinces cannot speak freely any more. Why? Because by Order in Council the Government have tried to stifle freedom of speech in this country. Members of Parliament cannot express their views because this Government does not bring measures before the House, but on the third floor of this building, behind locked' doors, passes Orders in Council, tears up our constitution, and-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member, I am afraid, is not speaking to the clause before the committee. His arguments concerning the taxation of wealth

were, I thought, in order, but I would ask him to confine his remarks to that subject.


Lucien Cannon: I was just saying that if this Government wishes to meet the views of the country, if the Liberal's who have joined this Government wish to maintain their principle, if the members from the West wish to stick to their principles as expressed at the Winnipeg convention, let us have conscription of wealth. Let us see that Mackenzie and Mann, foT instance, pay something into the exchequer of this country; let us see that they give back some of the money they have stolen from the Government and people of this country. Let us see that those new-rich we meet on the streets of every large city and on every train in this country, men who have made millions in shells and bullets and rifles made under war contracts-let us see that these people pay not a small tax like the Government imposes, but a real tax, because those people are exactly like the birds of prey seen on the 'battlefields at night after the strife is over. They swoop down to the ground, and for what? To eat those who have died. If we have birds of prey in this country, if they wish to feed on the Canadian people, the least we can do is to tax them when we find them out.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know whether there is enough water in the Rideau canal to drown the eloquence of the hon. member (Mr. Cannon), who has just taken his seat, but I am quite certain there is not enough in the whole St. Lawrence to drown his voice. He has just given demonstration of the fact that we have in this Victoria Museum- to-day a Cannon which can carry three thousand miles, if we are to judge by the volume of sound it emits. If democracy and Liberalism have to depend on the hon. member for Dorchester, then God help democracy and' Liberalism. This is the: gentleman who speaks of sacrifice, and be dwells on the sacrifice of money. Is that the only sacrifice? The greatest sacrifice which this country has made is not the sacrifice of dollars, but the sacrifice of men, and when he speaks of equality of sacrifice in taxation I should like him to: direct his vehement attention to the inequality of taxation in the men of this country. I ask him what he has done in the past to bring about equality of taxation in the men of this country for the purposes of the war? What sacrifices has he induced the people of Dorchester to make in the past? This is the gentleman
, MAY 17, 1918
who appealed in a picayune,* peanut style for the votes of his electors on the ground that the Government was putting a tax on a bottle of patent medicine. This is the high-minded gentleman from Dorchester county who undertakes to read a lecture to the Liberals of the West who have recog- . nized their responsibilities as citizens of this country, and undertaken to carry them out. It is not possible for the hon. member for Dorchester to realize what, are the responsibilities of a true Canadian citizen. Far be it from him then, to undertake to read a lecture to men in this House whose shoe latchets he is not worthy to unloose. Sacrifice? Why, when my dear Lucien appealed to the people of Dorchester, did he appeal to them on the ground of the sacrifices they should make? Not at all. His appeal was of the most inflammable nature, just as was his speech this afternoon.
With regard to taxation, I have said before that I think the higher incomes should be more heavily taxed. I have given a reason for that, but, nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise for this Government to impose all at once as high a tax as I think will in time be imposed on wealth in this country. I can see reasons why it would be inadvisable just now. I should like the hon. member for Dorchester, who preaches about sacrifice, and talks about Sir Joseph Flavelle, Mackenzie and Mann, and so on, to tell us some of the sacrifices he has made towards winning this war or towards paying the debt of this war. Let him tell us what he has invited his constituents to do in the way of meeting their obligations, not only in regard to taxation, but in the way of standing on Flanders fields and doing their part. The hon. member is on record in this country. Long before he had a seat in this House he did everything he possibly could to prevent equality of sacrifice in this country on the part of men to take up their responsibilities on the battlefield. It ill becomes him, and it becomes him less than any other hon. member in this House, to get hd and read a lecture to men on this side of the House for their political affiliations, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives Mr. CANNON:	In my province-and I
am sure the hon. gentleman who has spoken before knows nothing about it- history reminds us that long ago the French regime Quebec was attacked and the voice of Frontenac was heard. When I mention the voice of Frontenac in that instance I may tell the hon. gentleman that it would take only a very small river to drown his voice but that after many cen-1 136
turies the voice of Frontenac is heard even to-day. I do not wish to enter into a discussion with the hon. member as to what he might have done to win the war, or as to what I might have done to win the war. When a man really does something he does not boast about it as the hon. member for Frontenac has been doing this afternoon. The hon. gentleman mentioned the by-election in Dorchester. I am sure' the information that he has about that by-election comes from the same source as that from which he derives most of his information; that is the Orange Sentinel and papers of the same colour. But I will give this House some real information about Dorchester and I hope it will be broad enough to counteract the effect of the narrowmindedness of the hon. member. The byelection in Dorchester was brought about by the appointment of Mr. iSevigny as a member of the Borden Cabinet. I am not afraid to say that I ran against him and I did so because I was a Liberal and because Mr. Sevigny was a Nationalist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lucien Cannon: Some hon. gentlemen
are calling me to order. I am simply answering the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac. I have always been in favour of Canada taking part in this war. I fought for that policy. I expounded the same principles during the Dorchester election and if my hon. friend wants to know what the candidate whom he supported, and the candidate of the Government which he supported, was doing, I will tell him that he and hie friends were taking the National Service cards, throwing them into the stove and telling the people to pay no attention to them, and that they did not amount to anything. I do not wish to go into these details, but if the hon. gentleman believes for one moment that I belong to his school-


John Wesley Edwards: I do not.


Lucien Cannon: If he believes for one
moment that my mind is of the same gauge as his


John Wesley Edwards: I do not.


Lucien Cannon: I am grateful to the hon. member. If the hon. member thinks for one moment that in the province of Quebec we could produce a school of extremists, fanatical, narrow-minded men, and parochial politicians, like the bon. gentleman, he is making a mistake. I understand British principles-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it.


Lucien Cannon: Sit down; I stood it
through.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Frontenac is rising to a point of order. I must ask the hon. member for Dorchester to take his seat.


John Wesley Edwards: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if 'the hon. member was in order in referring to me as a narrow-minded, fanatical, parochial politician?


Georges Henri Boivin: Such an expression should not be used with reference to an hon. member in this House, and I must ask the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) to withdraw it.


Lucien Cannon: I regret that my knowledge of English gives me no opportunity of expressing in parliamentary words the same idea. I therefore withdraw the last words if they are not parliamentary. But to continue, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the hon. member for Frontenac that extremists in this country, like the hon. member and his friends, are too numerous even to-day, but, thank God, they are vanishing from the field of our politics, and I -could wish that the hon. member would be the last of them.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must ask the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) to confine his remarks to the clause under discussion. We have had a very interesting little trip into Dorchester county, but it is entirely out of order. I did not call the hon. member for Frontenac to order when he started on that excursion, and therefore I did not think it right to call the hon. member for Dorchester to order when he answered the hon. member for Frontenac, but I must .ask both hon. members to return to the item under discussion.


John Wesley Edwards: I want to express to you, Mr. Chairman, my extreme appreciation of the advice gratuitously offered. I was not aware that I had made any trip to Dorchester in what I siaid in reply to the hon. member, and, as a matter of fact,
I never used the word " Dorchester." I think I might he permitted to refer to the allusion made by the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) to the source of my information. One of the sources of my information, I am proud to say, has rMr. Cannon. 1
been the Orange Sentinel and others have been the Toronto Globe, the Toronto Mail and Empire, and various other newspapers throughout the country, all of which without exception have, in -unmitigated terms, condemned the stand taken by the horn member for Dorchester on more than one occasion. But in sd far as his little slur in regard to the Orange Sentinel is concerned, I may say that there are overseas to-day some 60,000 representatives of the Orange order fighting for the good people of Dorchester whom he has time and again told it was their place to stay at home instead of going overseas.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order, iMr. Chairman I said nothing of the kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. -Mr. EDWARDS:	1 would


Georges Henri Boivin: Order; the hon. member for Dorchester has risen to a point of order.


John Wesley Edwards: Let him state his point. Mr. DEVLIN: He did.


The CHAFRMAN:: Would the hon. member for Dorchester repeat his point of order?


Lucien Cannon: Inasmuch as the hon.
member for Frontenac is making a statement as to declarations that he says I made, I wish to state that I never made any such declaration and I wish him to take note of what I am saying now.


Mr. ED WARDS:: With regard to the declaration of the hon. member I must respectfully decline to take careful note of anything he has s-aid. I do not think it is worth taking note of.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. gentleman is obliged to accept the statement of the hon. member for Dorchester.


John Wesley Edwards: I beg your pardon; I
am not obliged by any rules of this House to accept a false or incorrect statement.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The rule of
order is that the hon. member for Frontenac must -accept the statement made by the h-on. member for Dorchester concerning his own statements outside this House.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was proceeding to state that it ill became the hon. member for Dorchester -to cast any reflection upon an order some 60,000 of whose members are overseas fighting for him and people whom his whole course

has led to stay at home and let others do the fighting for them.
We have the records of this House, as a matter of fact, showing that there were only some fifteen, soldiers' votes recorded in the county of Dorchester election, so I think I am not very far astray when I say that every man who went overseas is putting up a fight for the member for Dorchester and his constituency. I say further that the whole attitude of the hon. member for Dorchester has been one to discourage his constituents from taking their proper part in this war. If that is not the case, then we must conclude that, notwithstanding the hon. member's own high estimation of himself, he has absolutely no influence in the county he represents, because that county's record -bears out my statement that it has done practically nothing in the way of sending men overseas. With regard to the hon. member's opinion of myself, I think I can afford to let that pass. The hon. member for Dorchester's opinion of me will not cause me any worry, and I presume what I think of the hon. member will not cause him any concern as far as that goes. With absolute confidence I place my record, and any sacrifices which I have made in connection with this war, alongside the record of the hon. member. I have not made any boasts in that connection in this House, and I do not intend to do so, but I have made sacrifices, and my people also, that count for something in this war. I am proud also to say this: That there is not one of my blood relatives in this country but has done everything he could do to assist in carrying on the war, even to the extent of risking life . overseas. I have not a single blood relative to-day of military age who is not in uniform overseas, or in this country preparing to go over.


Mr. VIEN:: I rise to a point of order, and it is this. You, Mr. Chairman, have repeatedly asked hon. members who have taken part in this debate to discuss the question which is at issue. I think that the hon. member for Frontenac has wandered 'far from the subject, and if discussion is permitted to continue on such lines we shall have to follow him, which would not be in Order


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause be
adopted?


Mr. HOCKEN:: Would I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in, speaking as one having some authority on the question of the veracity of the Sentinel; a point which has been raised by the hon. member for Dorchester? '
136*
The 'CHAIRMAN: The hon. gentleman would be entirely out of order


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If I had the opportunity I would tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cannon) that he can not -quote anything from The Sentinel which would prove his assertions against it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: Am I too late to say a wrord or two?


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 3 has been carried.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member can make his observations when we have completed the consideration of the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is that satisfactory to the hon. gentleman?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes.
On section 4-Judges' salaries, retiring allowances or annuities exempted-:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The language in paragraph (k) is rather complicated-, does it mean that the salaries of judges are not taxable?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the Judges' Act the incomes of judges are exempt from taxation, and it was desired to state that exemption in the present Bill for the guidance of the officers of the department who will be charged with administering the Act when it goes into force throughout Canada. This provision does not change the law in any respect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The provision has been framed in a rather roundabout and complicated way. All I want is to make it perfectly clear what is regarded as income and what is not regarded as such. In this connection I do not think any definite judicial opinion has been expressed as to whether the indemnity of members of Parliament is regarded as income for the purposes of taxation. It would be well perhaps for members to know whether it is or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The indemnity of members is subject to the income tax. Section 3 of the Judges' Act, which grants exemption from taxation, is as follows:
The salaries and retiring allowances, or annuities, shall he payable by monthly instalments, and shall be free and clear of all taxes and deductions whatsoever imposed; under any Act of the Parliament of Canada.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Under that I would apprehend the allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick of $5,000 a year for acting as deputy

of the Governor General-that is, he comes down, I believe, once a year and nods his head to a few Bills, for which he gets $5,000-will escape taxation although it is income.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I hardly think that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, it is not salary in the real sense of the term. And his allowance of $2,500 will escape taxation also. Why should judges' salaries be exempted from taxation? I am opposed to the whole thing. I do not believe it is democracy at all. Why should a judge's salary escape taxation? Can he not stand on the same plane as anybody else, and pay his share of the burdens imposed by the war. It seems ridiculous to me; I am opposed to it, and will test the sense of the Committee by a vote if I can get the necessary support.


Mr. DUFF:: As every member of this House has to pay income tax, there is no reason why the judges should be exempt. The ordinary man has to go out and earn money to help to pay the salaries of judges, and it seems to me they should be made subject to the tax just the same as anybody else. I intend to move that paragraph (k) in clause 4 be struck out.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would not help the situation any to strike this paragraph out.


William Duff: It would show that we are opposed to this exemption.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; Under a separate Act of Parliament the salaries and retiring allowances or annuities of judges are not subject to any taxation by this Parliament. Paragraph (k) was inserted in the Bill to make all the officers who will be engaged in the administration of the Act cognizant of the fact, and if the paragraph is struck out it does not change the situation at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was not the
purpose or intention of this section to remit taxation. Under the Judges' Act their
salary is exempt from taxation under thie or any other Act. At any rate I propose asking the committee to permit me to withdraw this paragraph (k) altogether. I propose. submitting the matter on an amendments of the Judges' Act to my colleagues.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear. hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I have often wished that I had studied law. If I ever get time I intend to study it just as a pastime. The Judges' Act has been quoted as a reason why salaries of judges cannot be touched.
I do not suppose that the Judges Act, providing that their salaries should be exempt from taxation, while it had reference to Acts already passed, was intended to apply to Acts that might be passed in all futurity. Surely it never meant that.
If you can provide in any Act that a certain thing can be done notwithstanding anything in any other statute, surely you can put the same proviso in this Bill in regard to the salaries of judges, and say that they shall be taxed notwithstanding anything in any other statute. Apart altogether from that, under the War Measures Act, by which it seems we can move the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the Pacific to the Atlantic, the Rocky mountains to the sea, and the plains down to the ocean, there is power enough to put. a tax on judges salaries. Why should not a tax be placed on their salaries? That is a question which every person will ask.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Even on the salary of a Chief Justice.


John Wesley Edwards: Even a Chief Justice- if I might even mention that title-should be taxed, and a certain five thousand dollars should have a supertax on it. However, I won't talk about that, I may be called to order. Allow me to point out what sacrifices men are making in this country. Take', for instance, a farmer who, with the help of his only son, and of his whole family as well, by working from daylight until dark, is making possibly $1,500 or $1,600 a year. That son has to go to the war as .provided by the recent order. That is all right. But that will mean for that farmer and his family a lessened revenue by five or six hundred dollars a year. He is not only sacrificing his flesh and blood, or at least offering it for sacrifice overseas if that may be necessary; but his revenue is being depleted by the absence of his son by five or six hundred dollars, and he is a poor man, W^hile he is making that sacrifice not only on the battlefield hut in a monetary way as well, we are told that we must

not touch the salaries of these gentlemen who remain and sit on the Bench. I, for one, .say it is not democratic, fair, or reasonable in any sense that if those gentlemen do not voluntarily contribute as other men contribute, then I say by an Act of this House they should be forced to contribute as other men drawing like salaries are forced to do. Their future has Been well 'looked after by Parliament. A certain number of lawyers in the House of Commons are always anxious to look after any .of the fraternity. They have provided fair-sized' salaries for the judges, and they have made provision for the time when those judges reach old age or think that they should retire-and some of them have retired on good, fat allowances and have taken, up much more strenuous work than that which they performed on the bench, and at larger salaries than they formerly received. It is said that men who occupy judicial positions should not pay anything by way of taxation towards the expenses of this war. That view is absolutely indefensible, and, if put to a vote of the people, would not get the support of a corporal's guard outside of those members of the legal fraternity who look forward to the day when they shall occupy a position on the bench.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This question, is not at all one-sided. For a time I was a judge in a small way, but I am a judge no longer, so I cannot be accused of partiality. It is m the interests of this great, democratic country that judges should be absolutely independent. Judges are paid high salaries so that, as far as money is concerned, they shall be absolutely beyond temptation. That is a good thing for the country. Our judges are splendid men; they give fair decisions and administer the law as they understand it. T know of no case in which money con- . siderations has influenced any of ' our judges. They get good, fat salaries, and they are absolutely independent. Another thing that is in the interest of democracy is that the judges should not be dragged into political controversies. We have stripped them of the franchise; they may not express their opinion at the polls. It is highly desirable that they should' be absolutely independent. Considering them as a class, there are but a few judges in this country, and the few dollars that we would get by imposing a tax on their incomes would not amount to very much. I do not express these views because I believe that the judges should, be allowed to keep the few dollars which the imposition of the tax 
would involve. There is therefore another side to the matter which is of more importance to the country than the small amount of money we would get by assessing their incomes for this tax.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is not a question of the few dollars that we would get; it is a question of the principle that'is involved. Why should the man earning a small salary be required to pay taxes while the judge, who is earning a large salary should be exempt? The unfairness of the suggestion will surely impress itself upon the people. The member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) believes that judges are given the large salaries so that they will not be subjected to temptation with regard to money. I recall a case where a judge was required to make restitution of $5,000 .that he had taken improperly. Moreover, we have the case referred to recently in this House- that of a gentleman, whose name I am not allowed to mention, who took at least $5,000 to which he had no claim. The payment of large .salaries to judges does not change their sense of humanity; so that the argument of the member for North Cape Breton does not hold. The man who draws a Government salary of $10,000 has just as much right to pay taxes as the man who draws $3,000 from an industrial organization. We want to be fair and just. The member for Kingston suggests that we should in a delicate way suggest to the judges that they pay these taxes, although they are not required to do so. I am afraid we would not increase the revenue very largely by that process. If the principle is right, then everybody should be taxed under the law. The amount of revenue we get in this case is not the point at issue, there is an important principle at stake.


William Folger Nickle: I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Hocken) .that a principle is involved; if I did not feel that I should not be on my feet again. If I understand anything about the constitutional position of the judges under our British system, particularly in a democratic country, it is this: judges are supposed to be above and beyond governments and parliaments in so far as either governments or parliaments can in any way indirectly influence them by .passing legislation affecting their financial position in relation to their salaries. The very principle upon which the stability of our judicial system is based is this: when you appoint a judge you appoint him for life. You give him reasonable remuneration to prevent the possibility of his de-

siring to secure further financial assistance by improper methods, and you lay down in your statute that he shall not be taxable by the Government by virtue of any legislation passed subsequent to his being appointed to the bench.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: When was that provision adopted-many years ago?


William Folger Nickle: I am referring to the Revised Statutes of 'Canada, 1906.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That section is perhaps twenty-five or fifty years old.


William Folger Nickle: If we should trace the section in all its history, I should not be surprised to find that it was taken from some British statute perhaps two hundred years ago.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: We are at war now.


William Folger Nickle: In the working out of our constitution to define the position of the judiciary, of the executive and of the legislature, an effort was made to put the judicial powers far beyond the interference either of the Government or of the legislature and the object sought was to give the judge sufficient remuneration to make him immune from temptation and to put him in such a position that no adverse Government, no body of legislators opposed to the man, could by duress-that is, by threatening to interfere with his salary by a tax-do something to impair his administration of justice. I argue that because by statute we said that the salary of a judge should be exempt* and because men were on that condition appointed to the bench, that that national obligation should be respected-because it is, in my judgment, a national obligation. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) says that it is not a contractual obligation. I meet my hon. friend by saying that it is a statutory contractual obligation, and that we should respect that obligation so far as the position of the judges now appointed goes. And the argument of the member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) falls to the ground when he says that members of the legal profession always rush to the defence of the judiciary because they hope sometime to reach the woolsack. My position is that I am willing that the Act be amended to provide that this income tax shall apply to the salary of any judge subsequently appointed. But I should be sorry to see this House or this Government lay down the principle that an obligation of the nation to the judges should be interfered
with, unless the judges were prepared to acquiesce. It is fundamental and a protection to democracy that judges should feel that their tenure of office is secure and that their promised emoluments are not subject to attack either by Government or by Parliament.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
John Wesley Edwards: I want to refer to just one point in the argument of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). The hon. member put forward two grounds. One was a statutory ground, namely, that those salaries were granted to those men, and that there was a contractual or statutory obligation in connection therewith. I think that was the legal phraseology used to describe the operation. There was also a contractual or statutory obligation to pay certain members of the Civil Service who went oversea? their salaries in addition to their pay of rank as soldiers. Those civil salaries *were paid for a time when those men went overseas, but it has recently been, thought wise to break that contractual or statutory obligation to those men, who are overseas fighting and risking their lives for the judges who are here in safety and who, God grant, will all live to be one hundred or more years of age. The point was raised by the hon. member ifor North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that the salaries of the judges were fixed at an amount which would place them above temptation. That point was also mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston. I am glad to hear that given as a reason. It throws a great deal of light on past history and past action in this House, because at various times, the salaries of judges have been increased.
I presume at the time the salaries were first fixed, the amount, for instance, $5,000, was considered sufficient to keep them honest; but when in the wisdom of Parliament, that was raised to $7,000, I presume it was thought absolutely necessary to give them another two thousand dollars if we wanted to keep them honest and to remove temptation from them. The simple explanation of any increase in the salaries of judges is: We must keep those judges above temptation; we must remove all temptations from them by raising their salaries so that they will not be tempted to go elsewhere for money. Has that been the result? Not that one would notice particularly. I have in mind a judge whose salary is fixed at a good figure-at least I would consider it a good figure if I was getting it. Of course,
I would not say that I was competent to earn any such salary. I do not object to judges getting generous salaries; I would like to see them all getting good salaries. But that was not considered, according to the argument of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, sufficient to keep this judge honest, and, therefore, he was given an additional sum for certain work which did not take him five minutes in the year, 
fcr signing his name once or twice for another party who might happen to be away fishing for the time being. Some four or five thousand dollars was given to him in that way to keep him above temptation. One wrould have thought a salary of $10,000, plus the additional amount to which I have referred, would have been sufficient to lift him clear above any possible temptation; but it did not, and another salary was created for certain duties which he had to perform in a far distant country. He was not to get this salary unless he performed those duties, it should not have been paid to him. There was only one reason why it should be paid to him. I am glad to note that it was not because he was justified in getting it or because he earned it, but it was granted and paid to him for two years in. succession in order to keep him above temptation. Read us not into temptation, but deliver us from judges.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understood the hon.
member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to say, in a very fervent manner, that taxes should, be imposed in accordance with the ability of a person to pay. That is a pretty sound Liberal principle; at least, it has been enunicated in that way here to-day, and it i-s one that I am entirely willing to accept. If we are going to proceed along that line, surely those men who are getting $10,000 :a year and who are relieved of many financial responsibilities which other citizens have to bear, should be willing to submit to this form of taxation. Am ordinary man, in business or in any profession, has sometimes to pay up to $1,000 or $1,500 a year for life insurance, if he wishes to take care of his family after his decease; but here we have a set of men who drew full salary as a pension, and who are not under the same financial obligation to take care of their families, because they may be expected to live at least until all their children are settled. There is another consideration. Most of the men who are appointed to the judiciary are men who .have been eminent in the legal profession. A man, who has had a good practice of the kind that most men have who get to be judges, should be able to put away a large sum of money. Such men are usually able to amass a considerable competence before they are appointed to the bench, so that on the_ grounds of relief from financial responsibilities that other men must carry, and on the salary they receive, and on the probability that they are fairly

well off to begin with, I do not see why we should exempt every one of them to the extent of $360 a year. My opinion is that any self-respecting man occupying the position of judge in this country would be not only willing but anxious that he and hie class should not be taken out of this Act' and exempted when all the other people of this country are being taxed in this time of national stress.


William Stevens Fielding: I brought up this matter at an earlier stage when the resolution was under diseueion, and I was met by the statement that there was a guarantee in the Judges' Act that the judges should be exempt from taxation. I have a profound respect for vested rights; I have a profound respect for a promise that has been made by a man, a Government or by anybody else, and since we have given the judges, foolishly I think, this exemption, I would not advocate the violation of our pledge.
I think the only reason why this exemption has been tolerated in the past is that we never understood it. There1 was no subh tax from which they could be exempt. They were not exempt from customs, they were not exempt from excise, but there was: a clause that they were exempt from taxes which had no existence whatever then. That being the case, there was nothing to draw public attention to it. I am content that we should keep faith with the judges. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, for I would have offered the suggestion that he should now at this session introduce a Bill to repeal that exemption clause in the Judges' Act, not as respects the judges of to-day

I would keep faith with them, because a bargain is a bargain, and even if it is a had bargain, or an imprudent bargain we must nevertheless stick to it-but to abolish that exemption as respects, any judge who may hereafter be appointed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to move:
That paragraph (k) of section 4 be struck out, and the word "paragraph" be substituted for "paragraphs" in line 24 of said section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, amendments read the first and second time, and concurred in.
At eix o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93 respecting a patent of Jacob David Wolf.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 94, to incorporate l'ordre des Dom-inieains ou freres precheurs au Canada.
Mr. Chabot.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100 for the relief of David M. Sloss.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 101. for the relief of Lillie Mabel Billing.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Emily Kathleen Cochrane Lackey.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Alfred Frank Scott.-Mr. Harold.
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Alonzo Jesse Chapman.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Margaret Bell Charles worth.-Mr. Fripp.


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr Boivin in the Chair.
Canadian Government Railways-Construction and betterments, including equipment, $18,000,000.
Charles Murphy: Does the Minister of
Railways and Canals intend to make his promised statement on this item?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Chairman, it has been customary for the Minister of Railways and Canals to make a statement in connection with the operations of the Government Railway system from year to year. Following that custom, I desire to present a detailed explanation of those operations to the Committee.
For long the Government Railway system consisted of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Halifax, with branch lines to Fredericton, St. John and Sydney, and the Prince Edward Island railway. In recent years we have taken over the Transcontinental railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, and have leased from the Grand Trunk Pacific their line between Superior Junction and Fort William. We have also absorbed additional branch lines. So that now there are slightly more than

4,130 miles of railway under the direction and control of the Department of Railways and Canals and comprising the following systems:
Miles.
The Intercolonial, including branches to St. John and Sydney, and the
Canada Eastern	 1,518.39
The Prince Edward Island Railway	275.20
The Transcontinental Railway, Moncton to Winnipeg	 1,811.28
The Lake Superior Branch	 191.75
The International Railway	 111.30
The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway	  36.05
Dartmouth to Dean's Branch	 67.00
St. John and Quebec Railway	..	..	'119.87
4,130.84
These figures, of course, do not include the 'Canadian Northern Railway system to which special reference was made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) yesterday.


Jacques Bureau: The minister has mentioned the St. John and Quebec railway. He does not refer to the Quebec and Lake St. John railway which was acquired from the Canadian Northern company?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the hon. minister permit a question? Have the freight rates 'been increased in the last fiscal year over the preceding year?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the freight rates were exactly the same. The order of the Board of Railway Commissioners, granting the railways an. increase of 15 per cent, became effective on the railways on a certain date, and on the same date a similar increase was made on the Government railway system. That was two months, ago. We got no benefit last year from that decision.
(Hon. gentlemen are aware that during the past year the several large railway corporations have been pressing the Railway Commission to allow them an increase of rates. From the statement I have presented in connection with the Government
railways, it must be apparent to every member of this House that they were justified in asking an increase. The Government railway system increased freight rates equally with other railways. Even though we have increased rates. I am not looking forward to any surplus; we expect to have a loss, and perhaps a very large one, during the coming year.
During the past year we have not undertaken any extensive new work, although we have been endeavouring to complete the works in process of construction. I am pleased to be able to say that we expect that the Halifax ocean terminals will be practically completed during the present fiscal year.' I am also glad to say that last year we used those portions of these new terminals which have been made available. Had those works not been undertaken, we would not have been able to handle the traffic that has developed at that port during the present war. I desire to emphasize that fact-it would have been impossible to have handled the freight and passenger traffic at Halifax if we had not had the new terminals now nearing completion. Then again, when the disastrous explosion occurred on December 6, last year, which destroyed the major portion of the other *docks, the fact that we had available a large portion of the new terminals saved the situation.
It has been customary to bring down certain statistical information of interest to many hon. members, more especially to those from the Maritime Provinces. I will include now a statement showing the earnings and expenses of the Canadian Government railways for the last fiscal year compared with the two preceding years. With the consent of the committee I shall place this statement on Hansard without reading it:


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Months.
April. . . . May.. .. June.. . . July.. .. August. . September October. . November, December. January.. February. March. . .

[Stage Direction]
Working Expenses.
1915-16.	1916-17	1917-18	953,805	43	1,707,384	23	2,071,993	141,069,036	77	1,946,267	31	2,304,049	731,198,582	18	2,014,967	07	2,114,690	751,406,541	10	2,031,315	98	2,647,213	011,279,678	37	2,153,436	90	2,6*5 4,689	161,419,230	16	1,993,351	10	2,761,536	991,433,492	73	2,232,079	49	3,127,664	572,054,739	55	2,149,125	72	3,0.84,303	881,578,430	81	2,137,306	89	2,608,269	341,586,369	96	2,160,271	12	2,924,537	031,520,210	70	1,776,470	83	2,845,000	0-0*2,296,943	35	2,325,295	74	3,155,000	00*17,797,061	11	24,6.27,271	48	32,208,947	601,483,088	42	2,052,272	62	2,691,578	66Total	
Average per month
[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-ALL LINES-Continued...
April	42	Earnings. 1,737,658 90	2,1S1,474	7 4 ,May	81	2,144,039 81	2,471,189	98June	79	2,018,450 66	2,223,000	80July	79	1,999,001 87	2,287,789	40August	06	1,973,970 77	2,477,074	81September	
1,648,064	10	2,089,373 02	2,237,839	92October	01	2,237,536 88	2,623,927	£.2November,	2,190,151	23	2,321,585 48	2,454,306	37December	
..	42	2,138,239 03	2,133,672	82January	21	1,653,019 47	1,993,389	95February	20	1,262,722 05	1,729,000	00*March	41	1,894,301 05	2,192,000	00*Total	
18,373,143	45	23,468,998 99	27.004,666	61Average per month	41	1,894,301 05	2,192,000	00*Surplus	
Deficit	34	1,158,272 49	5,294,280	99
Estimated.
I merely point out that the total working expenses for the year 1915-16 were $17,.797,061.11 compared with $32,298,947.60 in
1917-18, Hon; gentlemen will note that they
have nearly doubled. The earnings were $18,373,143.45 in 1915-16 as compared with $27,004,666.61 in 1917-18.
Early last spring the Department of Railways and Canals ordered the following equipment:-
Cars.	Ordered from	Number ordered.	Contract Price.	Total.
			$ cts.	' $
40 ton steel frame Box. 	Canadian Car & Fdy. Co...	1000	2,417 00	2,417,000it H ....	2000	2,047 50	5,295,000n it	2000	2,647 50	5,295,000Eastern Car Co	1000	2,417 50	2,417,000* *	National Steel Car Co	1000	2,047 50	2,647,50030 ton stock	Canadian Car & Fdy. Co ...	1000	2,271 00	2,271,000Locomotives.	Mikado type	Canada Locomotive Co ....	50	48,750 00	2,437,500Montreal Locomotive Works	30	48,750 00	1,462,500Pacific type	ii ii ii	10	47,300 00	473,000Santa Fe type	m ii ii	10	£6,000 00	560,00025,275,560Airbrake equipment and couplings suj:	plied by Government at cost	per car of on	5000	102.50 each	$737,500A total Cost of 	$26,013,000In addition to this new equipment we Prince Edward Island	Railway.
purchased, a number of second-hand engines and cars, without which we should not have been able to show such good results. Not only were we able to meet the requirements of the Canadian Government railways, but we were able to come to the assistance of other railways.

The deficit on this- railway during the last year amounts to $488,172, the largest in the history of the road. It has never been possible to make this railway pay, but at the time .of Confederation it was taken over and the Government has to operate it for the accommodation of the

public. No doubt the members all know that it was decided to construct and operate a car ferry between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. I am pleased to say that this car ferry is in operation and is doing good work, it has been suggested that the railway on the island be changed from the present narrow gauge to the standard gauge, and I may say that it was the intention of the Government to consider this, in order that commodities shipped to and from the island could go through to their destination without transhipment. But owing to war conditions making the financial situation so, serious and so greatly enhancing the cost, it is impossible for the Government to go into the widening of the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway while the war continues. It is not merely a question of change of gauge; it practically means an entirely new railway, the complete replacement of all motive power and equipment, and the revision of curves and gradients so numerous on the island, and which, while suitable for the present light equipment, would never do for the heavier main-line motive power and rolling stock. It would mean an expenditure of at least $2,000,000, which cannot be entertained at this time.
Provident Fund.
The provident fund, which is an employees' pension department, to which the railway contributes $100,000 per year, had on its rolls 1,096 ex-employees, covering a period from 1907 to 28th February, 1918. Of this number 363 have died, and the remaining are receiving pensions which amount to $254,201.50.
Employers' Relief and Insurance Association.
This is a life and accident insurance organization supported by contributions from employees and $10,000 per annum contributed by the railway. During the past year 197 death claims and three total disability claims were paid, amounting to $76,000. Sick benefits to employees, medical and surgical attendance and other expenses in connection with the organization show a gross expenditure on this account of $30,783.51. These amounts are larger than previous years, owing principally to loss of life and injuries to employees in the Halifax disaster.
Canadian Railway Association for ' National Defence.
It might be well to mention at this point that, in my opinion, the operation of all the railway systems in the Dominion of Canada during the past year was the equal of, if not better than, that of any other railways on the continent; and I believe that the reason of this was the action of the ia,rge railway systems!-the Canadian Pacific railway, Grand Trunk railway, Grand Trunk Pacific railway, Canadian Northern railway and the Canadian Government railways-in joining together and forming an organization known as the Canadian Railway Association for National Defence. The association's executive committee on war and national defence is composed of the following persons: Lord Shaughnessy, Canadian Pacific railway; Howard G. Kelley, Grand Trunk railway; Sir William Mackenzie, Canadian Northern railway, and Alfred H. Smith, New York Central railway. In turn they organized an administrative committee to deal with the situation, composed of the following:	U. E.
Gillen, chairman; D. B. Hanna, A. E. Warren, C. A. Hayes, Sir George Bury, F. F. Backus, E. D. Bronner, J. H. Walsh and A. E. Warren, the -latter representing the Minister of Railways.
The Prime Minister explained this organization on Wednesday last, and I will not go into further details. We have reports from this organization day by day. During the past year the different railway companies have been working together practically as one organization, and the results have been as stated by the Prime Minister.
Equipment for 1918.
We require a good deal of equipment for the present year. In fact, all the railways are short of equipment. It was necessary for us to order equipment not only for the Canadian Government railways, but also in order to protect some of our other large railway systems. The following equipment purchases have -been authorized for 1918:
[Stage Direction]
Cars.
Ordered from.
Number	Contract	
ordered.	price.	Total.
	$ cts.	$ cts.
40	ton steel frame box	
ii	ti		
41	foot 40 ton flats	
50 ton coal cars	
Hart Otis side dump only	
Hart Otis side and centre dump...
General service tanks	
Water service tanks	
Refrigerator cars	
Sleeping cars	
Dining ears	
Canada Car & Foundry Co.. National Steel Car Car Co... Eastern Car Co	
Hart Otis Co	
Pressed Steel Car Co____ ...
Canada Car & Foundry Co.. Pullman Car Co	
1000
650
200
25
14
2.750	00
2.750	00 2,370 00 3,179 50 3,040 00 3,125 00 5,398 25 5,183 75 4,097 00
35,890 00 34,100 00
13,750,000 00 2,750,000 00 1,777,800 00 2,066,675 00
760.000	00
625.000	00 139,956 25 129,593 75
. 1,024,250 00 502,460 00 238,700 00
Locomotives.
Consolidation freight....
Switchers	
Pacific type	
Mikado type	
Switching	
Narrow gauge superheated.
Montreal Locomotive Works and Canada Locomotive Oo.
"	H
Canada Locomotive Co.
10
60
4
58.000	00 40,500 00
60.000	00 62,000 00 41,000 00 34,020 00
2.900.000	00
405.000	00
1.800.000	00 3,720,000 00
246.000	00 136,080 00
Total cost.
32,966,515 00
All orders have been given for cars and engines. Before ordering these cars, I conferred with the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Government railway management, and they all agreed that this additional equipment should be ordered and secured at the earliest possible moment.
I shall now refer, very' briefly, to other phases of departmental activity.
Halifax Ocean Terminals.
The work on the Halifax ocean terminals has been continued, the present status being as follows. Grading is practically completed; overhead bridges carrying streets across the railway are all practically completed. Sufficient trackage has been installed to serve the two temporary sheds built last year, and two large temporary sheds on pier A, which were rushed to completion after the explosion of December 6 last, and which are now in use, together with a 100-car team track yard for serving the north end of the city. The placing of concrete blocks for quay walls is practically completed, and there remains only a small quantity of concrete work and granite facing in order to finish the quay walls. The filling has been proceeded with, but there still remains over 500,000 yards of filling to be placed behind the quay walls. Arrangements are being made for the erection of a temporary station and the construction of coach yard with coach-cleaning and repair facilities for the handling of the passenger traffic business of the city,

as North street station and facilities are not suitable since 'the explosion for the carrying on.of this work.
I may also state that the .station was very badly damaged, and that we must get away from it at the earliest possible moment. The contractor claims that the new station will be ready for ue about the month of September next, when iwe shall run all trains into the new terminals.
Halifax Disaster and Restoration.
In the disaster of 6th December, 1917, at Halifax 56 employees and 10 pensioners of the Canadian Government railways were killed, and 2 employees afterwards died from injuries received in the explosion. Thirty employees were killed while on duty. Of the 1,078 employees of the railway living in Halifax and Dartmouth at the time of the explosion, investigation showed that only-157 were comparatively unaffected by the disaster; 107 who owned their own homes, and 165 who were tenants had their property totally destroyed; 432 had properties more or less, damaged, requiring at least considerable repairs. Later on, the Rehabilitation Branch of the Relief Committee, in their housing programme, agreed to provide at least 84 temporary houses for employees of the railway. The following railway and 56 freight oars of other lines, valued at $50,000, were destroyed.
Removal of wreckage and clearing tracks and replacing various electrical lines throughout Richmond yard and North street

station "will have cost, .when complete, roughly, $100,000.
One hundred and three Government railway cars of passenger class, and 9 cars of other lines' of the same class were damaged to an estimated extent of $60,000.
Thirty-seven Canadian Government railway and 56 freight cars of other lines valued. at $50,000, were destroyed.
One hundred and twenty Canadian Government railway and 222 freight cars of other lines were damaged to approximately $54,000.
Four Canadian Government railway locomotives suffered, damages estimated to amount to $6,000.
Canadian Government railway steamer McKee was also damaged and is now under repair.
The Willow Patk shops, consisting of roundhouse, machine shop; power plant, planing mill, car repair shop, coaling plant and ash pit, and stores and office 'building suffered severely. These damages have been estimated at $130,000.
The shipping facilities at piers Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the adjacent freight shed and other buildings, are all much damaged, but they have been nearly completely repaired. The elevator has been repaired.
The piers at Richmond are all wrecked and some are totally destroyed. Pier No. 9 has been repaired and is in use.
In order to obtain relief as quickly as possible from the effects of the damage to the various shipping facilities, the construction of two large sheds on pier A at the ocean terminals site was rushed to completion at the same time as repairs were being made to the previously used wharves, etc. These sheds are now in operation and the repair work is also practically complete. In addition to the work on the railway properties, the Restoration Organization have carried out the repairs to H.M.C. naval dockyard and to the naval hospital, under arrangement with the Department of the Naval Service. This work will co^t about $205,000. The estimated cost of reconstruction on Canadian Government railways' properties is estimated to be about $1,250,000. Of this amount $850,000 will have been spent by March 31. Or in other words, the loss to the country on account of the Halifax disaster, so far as the Canadian Government railway system is concerned, is $1,250,000.
Hudson Bay Railway.
We have expended upon this enterprise up to February 28 of this year, the sum of $20,161,000, of which $13,814,000 was on
account of the railway, and $6,347,000 was on account of the harbour and terminals at Port Nelson. The latter .sum includes expenditures incurred in the purchase of steamships which are now in general service throughout the year, as well as the valuable plant at Port Nelson. During the past year the construction of the bridge over the Nelson river at Kettle rapids has caused the suspension of tracklaying. The north and south arms of the bridge were connected up in December and tracklaying can be continued this season. The grading between Kettle rapids and Nelson was completed and train-filling and ballasting at various points along the line was continued. At Port Nelson a restricted programme was- followed, in which materials and supplies.on hand were utilized. Owing to the general shortage of ocean tonnage no further shipments were made to the Bay during the season. The island crib-work was extended and dredging continued.
Prince Edward Island Car Ferry.
The total amount expended upon this work has been about $2,875,000. We are asking for a further appropriation of $65,000 to cover certain minor additions which have been deferred until actual operating conditions could be observed. The main contracts for the construction of terminals were completed during the season of 1017 and the steamer " Prince Edward Island " was placed cn the route in the beginning of October. All freight offering has been satisfactorily handled since that time.
Canals, General.
But little new construction work was done on the canals during the past year, and even minor improvements and works of maintenance were restricted to essentials. Our only appropriations on capital account for the year just closed were for the Welland ship canal and the Trent canal. Upon the ship canal the work done during the year was of an emergency repair nature, being occasioned by clay slides, one of which destroyed the temporary crossing provided for the Queenston road, and the other, by its proximity to the existing canal, was considered so menacing as to require immediate attention. Construction work under the several contracts was suspended throughout the year. As there appears to be no possibility of resuming this work for some years, the several contractors have requested that they be relieved of further responsibility with respect thereto. Equitable arrangements have been concluded with several of them for the surrender of their contracts, and it is hoped
[Stage Direction]
that mutually satisfactory arrangements will shortly be completed with the others.
On the Trent system we had a number of contracts nearing completion on the On-tario-Riee lake division, upon which work was continued with some hope of clearing them up during the year. Owing chiefly to labour conditions, slow progress was made, and although we shall be able to open this division for navigation this spring, each of the contractors has a few months' work to do. The Grand Trunk railway are proceeding with their high-level bridge at Gampbellford, and the barrier created by their present low-level structure will be removed during the early spring.
On the Severn division, two contracts were in force. As this division cannot be brought into service until another section, not yet under contract, has been completed it was deemed advisable to close down work upon section 3, which connects Lake Couchiching with the Severn river. On section 2, all efforts were concentrated upon the completion of the power house and dam at Swift rapids, with auxiliary works related thereto. This structure was completed with great benefit to the power situation in the surrounding neighbourhood.
I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said, hut I shall ba very glad, indeed, to give full information on any questions that are asked.
Mr. BOYCE :: Was that large tract of land at Rideau junction included in the bargain with the Canadian Northern railway?


John Dowsley Reid: That land was purchased by the Canadian Northern Railway system; it was deeded to that railway, and is now owned by the Crown.


George Boyce: I am very glad to hear that, as it is one of the most valuable pieces of land in that section of the country. I trust the Government will not allow it to lie waste as it has done for the last five years. It has been nothing hut an eyesore in the past. The buildings that were on it were pulled down, and the land could not have looked worse if the Germans had passed over it. Part of the land has been cultivated this year, but very little, and I trust the Government will see to it that this valuable tract of land, comprising eight or nine hundred acres, will be used not only for railway purposes but cultivated to the very best advantage. I should also like to know whether any improvements will be made through that section.


John Dowsley Reid: Any improvements along the Canadian .Northern will be made

through the board of directors which is now operating the Canadian Northern Railway system, and not through the staff of the Railway Department at Ottawa.


George Boyce: The sooner the improvements are made the better, because that part of the road is in a very bad state.


John Dowsley Reid: At the present time the Government would have no say in such matters as the hon. member has mentioned. But I would suggest that from now on, as. this railway belongs to the people, any hon. member who thinks improvements should be made on the line in any part of his constituency should communicate with the head of the Canadian Northern Railway system. Later on, of course, he should communicate with the head of the reorganized board, which the Prime Minister said would be constituted at a date not far distant.


George Boyce: I can assure the minister I will cheerfully do anything I can for the benefit of the road.


Charles Murphy: What use is (being made of the land my hon. friend spoke of just now?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern directors will use it as they think best, but I was suggesting that if any hon. member sees land going to waste belonging to the railway, or the necessity for 'mprovements on the line in his constituency, he should communicate with Mr. Hanna, the general manager of the Canadian Northern Railway system. Of course, if he .should write to me as Minister of Railways and Canals I shall be very glad, indeed, to forward the communication, but -I wish to emphasize that the management will be by the board, and not by the Department of Railways and Canals.


Charles Murphy: I think my hon. friend mentioned .something about buildings at Rideau Junction.


John Dowsley Reid: No, there are only ties there.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I think the statement that has been .made by the minister is .satisfactory. I should like to know whether the Government railways have charged the same rate for the conveyance of troops as the other roads. In other words, is the deficit on the Intercolonial and other Government roads partly attributable to the fact that Canadian troops have been carried at a lower rate than on the other roads in Canada?	-


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the Government railway system charge.- the same rates as the other roads, with this exception, that ours is the longer haul, and consequently the proportion we get of the through rate is greater. The amount, we receive is in proportion to the haul.


James Arthurs: Is the minister sure of that? The Government haul may or may not be the longer haul. Let us suppose the traffic originates in British Columbia, comes partly over the Government road, and then over the Grand Trunk to Montreal, and is there transferred to the Intercolonial. Will the minister say that that traffic is in the ordinary proportion as between two privately owned roads?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the information I have from my officials.


Mr PEDLOW:: I have been informed that a number of cheques were issued by the Department of Railways and Canals during December last in settlement of claims for right of way through Carleton county. Is that information correct, if so, how many of such claims were settled, and had these claims reference to the pieces or sections of land that the hon. member for Carleton referred to?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member must be referring to the Canadian Northern Railway system?


Mr PEDLOW:: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no information in connection with that. I never heard of the matter before.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood the minister to say there were something like 1,200 participating in the Provident fund.


John Dowsley Reid: I said there were 1,096. But 398 have died.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Provident fund has been in force since 1906 or 1907. At that time it was an experiment. This fund was arranged by the then Minister of Railways and Canals and quite a large number of employees of the lower-paid classes went into that fund, their participation entitling them to the minimum amount of $20 a month. There are quite a number of these men living in Moncton and I know a number who have absolutely nothing to live upon except this $20 a month. They are in destitute circumstances, after they have given their lives, to work on the Intercolonial. We must not forget that the wages paid to these men were very much smaller than those paid to-day and notwithstanding the greatly increased cost of living they have only this small monthly allowance and they have to pay the same for whatever they purchase as the men who are working on the road and receiving higher wages. I wrote a letter to the minister in the early part of the session and I trust that the department will enter into negotiations by which fair treatment may be meted out to this class of retired Intercolonial employees. It is ridiculous to expect men, living in a city and some of them with families and without any other income, to live on the pittance that they receive from the Provident fund.


John Dowsley Reid: The contribution is made half by the Government and half by the employees and the Provident fund is administered by a committee composed of employees and some of the officials of the Railway Department. The whole matter was brought to my attention by my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) and I think also by one or two of the employees who were superannuated under that fund and who asked me to take the matter up. The Compensation Act has gone through this session, and it is necessary that we should take up this whole matter of the Provident fund in connection with it. It is being looked into, and as soon as the session is over, and I can get an opportunity, I intend to go into the whole matter. The point which the hon. gentleman has mentioned will have to be brought before this committee to see if something cannot be done for the old employees. I realize that their pension is very small and that something should be done. I had a gentleman to-day appealing for a larger retiring allowance. He has a pension of $20 a month, he is 80 years of age and he was on the road for forty years. But, it is not within the power of the minister to deal with the matter; the committee must agree to any changes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The trouble is that the matter has been taken up in a half-hearted way by some members of the Provident fund board, but- there has been no one to take hold of it actively, meet the men, consider the case. I would suggest that the minister give it to some particular man in his department as part of his work, and let him look into the matter, visit the different localities and see if some scheme cannot be evolved by which fair treatment can be given both to the railway and to the men.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the minister said that the Government contribute $100,-


EEVISED EDJTTON
[Stage Direction]
000 to the Provident fund and that it has been a fixed sum for a number of years.
Mr. J. D. -REID: That is right.
Mr. FIElLD/IN'G: If the principle of making such a grant is a sound one-and I think, on the whole it is, although I have some reason to believe that there is a difference of opinion on that-it seems to me that the grant should bear some proportion to the number of employees. The idea that there should be a fixed sum given for a .smaller number of employees and no larger sum when the number of employees has increased, does not seem to me to be consistent with sound business. There may be room for doubt as to whether or not this is the best form of dealing with the problem, but I think the sum to be contributed ought to bear some proportion to the number of employees and the contributions of the men.
Mr. J. D. REIlD: When the scheme was started the contributions, by the Government and the employees, were to be on a fifty-fifty basis. The Government's .contribution did not start with $100,000 but it was limited to $100,000, and it has reached that amount. Now that the Compensation Act has been passed, the matter will likely be taken up and some change will probably have to be made in the whole organization.
Mr. BENDERS:: Will the House be put in possession of the whole history of this Provident fund scheme and will hon. members have an opportunity of .studying the question, not only from the viewpoint of those having it in charge but also from the purely business standpoint; and will they .have an opportunity of fully discussing it before any definite policy is laid down?


John Dowsley Reid: The Provident fund
required an Act passed by Parliament to legalize it. This Act will require amendment if there is any change proposed and therefore it will come before the House. It can then be thoroughly discussed and hon. members will have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the matter.


Richard Coe Henders: Will all the information in connection with it be in the department and shall we be able to secure it by making application?
/


John Dowsley Reid: We have in the department full information in connection with all those matters, and we submit to the House the annual report of the department,

which contains the information the hon. gentleman wishes. We are at all times pleased to give such information as we can. Sometimes, of course, there are matters that perhaps, we may consider of minor importance which a member of Parliament or the public may deem to be of greater value. In such a case, if our attention is drawn to the matter, the department will give explanations by letter, or by a statement to the House, or communicate with the public in any way that is asked for.


Joseph Read: I want to make a few brief observations concerning the Prince Edward Island railway before the session is too far advanced. I am quite aware that the veteran members of Parliament know the history of that railway, but this is a new Parliament, and the new members may not be quite so well informed. To review the whole history of that railway would be too long a story to relate to-night when we are so anxious to close Parliament and return to our homes. I shall, therefore, not discuss the history of the building of the railroad in Prince Edward Island, which was one of the greatest political conspiracies ever carried out in the civilized world-a conspiracy which cost the province of Prince Edward Island its liberties, .and which robbed .the people of that province of their birthright for a mess of pottage. I am simply making the present statement as an introduction, to the speech which I propose to deliver next year if I live to return, and you will give me the hearing such as you have always accorded. First of all, let me draw the attention of the committee to the fact that Prince Edward Island paid for its own railroad. The Dominion Government does not own the Prince Edward Island railway; it holds it. in trust for the benefit of the general public. However, I am not going to enter upon a discussion of this truth to-night, because some of us are in too big a hurry to get away to Europe. All that will come up next year.


Richard Coe Henders: May I ask a question?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, if the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Read) consents.


Joseph Read: The hon. gentleman can ask his question.


Richard Coe Henders: I suggest that if Prince Edward Island owns the railway it would be a very proper thing for this House to hand it back to that province.


Charles Murphy: That is not a question.


Jacques Bureau: That's a conclusion.


Joseph Read: The Government would
never take it back and pay us what they owe us through Confederation. The present deficit on, the Prince Ediward Island railway represents the interest on the money that belonged to Prince1 Edward Island when it entered Confederation. Those of you who have studied the history of Confederation know that when the four original provinces of the Dominion-'Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick- united, they did so on the principle of funding the whole of their public debt and then crediting it on a per capita basis to be held as part of the funded debt of Canada on which they would pay five per cent per annum for all time to come. When Prince Edward Island entered the union our proportion was one-fortieth. The public debt of the four big provinces was $240,000,000 and one-fortieth of that would be $6,000,000 due to the province of Prince Edward Island, provided it had any public debt. But as a matter of fact it did not have any such obligation except the railway debt. That was imposed upon us by the connivance of the Imperial and Dominion Governments,, and the set of politicians that sold, as I have already told you, our birthright for a mess of pottage. I want the House to be seized of the fact that the money which is absorbed by the present deficit on the Prince Edward Island railway really belongs to that province. That deficit amounts this year to about $470,000. Why is that debt so great? There is no part of 'Canada which yields so, much traffic to its railway as Prince Edward Island. In the name of goodness then, why should there be a deficit? I will tell you why. I have received a letter from home to-day, a business letter, and1 the complaint made in that letter-and the complaint which has been made for the last twelve months by every business man in Prince Edward Island is that they cannot get t-heir produce carried away, they cannot get sufficient cars for the purpose and the Minister of Railways knows that. HoweveT, I am not blaming the Government for it, because, as the minister has pointed out, they intend to, widen the gauge, and they do not want to expend a considerable sum of money on, a system that is going out of use. But I am still hoping that the minister will bring down, Supplementary Estimates before the present session closes that will make provision for widening the gauge between Port Borden, Summerside and Charlottetown, and consequently obviating
137i
the present great necessity that exists for cars and locomotives. The Government has had Dr. Robertson in Prince Edward Island telling the people to increase their production, and they are going to produce more. But what are they 'going to do with the food that is produced i,f no provision is, made for transporting it to the markets, of the mainland? That is the condition of things which exists- there to-day. Hon. gentlemen who are in the habit of reading the newspapers -will have noticed that the Food Controller has been advising the people of Peterborough, Ontario, to sell their potatoes instead of feeding them, giving, as the reason that the Prince Edward Island people are feeding their potatoes to hogs because they had not- the necessary transportation facilities to move them. The Minister of Railways has pointed out that it will take $2,000,000 to widen the gauge of the whole of the Prince Edward Island railway, with its 275 miles. But we are not asking him to undertake that work this summer. We are only urging him, between now and next September or October, to widen the gauge for a distance of sixty miles, and the bulk of that is over level country, with easy grades and bridges .already constructed.


Charles Murphy: Between what points
does the stretch of railway to which you allude extend?


Joseph Read: Between, PoTt Borden and Summerside and Charlottetown. The name "Port Borden" was bestowed in recognition of the leader of the Government because he was good enough to inaugurate the car ferry system, for which we are much oj^iged to him and to the Government. There are some 49 miles between Summer-side and Charlottetown, and then there is a branch that runs down to the car ferry from Emerald Junction, some 11 miles. If we had the railway in such a shape that between now and next September or October we could use the wide gauge cars over the 60 miles referred to, it would obviate the necessity of purchasing any more narrow gauge cars or engines beyond the three or four that have been already ordered. I am not criticising the Government for the purchase of these narrow-gauge locomotives; it had to be done unless we were to go into the cellar altogether.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Government could not
run the new private car on the narrow gauge system.


Joseph Read: I hope the Minister of Railways -and the Government will consider our position and endeavour to make some provision for meeting our necessities during the coming summer. I asik this House to be fair to our little province, for we have been the "staggering bob" on the Dominion for -many years.
Sir Richard Cartwright used to claim that Ontario was Canada's milch cow. We are the " staggering bob," the poor little sister bled white, though not by any intention on the part of the big provinces, who have not understood our situation. When we , went into Confederation the Government put in the terms certain statutory promise; -or, rather, not promises merely, but statutory contracts. And one of them was that we were to have uninterrupted steam communication, summer and winter, so as to connect the Prince Edward Island railway with the railroad system of the Dominion. After forty-five years of waiting this contract was only fulfilled last October. I am proud to think that the Government has found a way to overcome the difficulties. All governments have made an honest endeavour at one time and another to give us winter communication, and have provided -the Stanley, the Minto, the Earl Grey and all those beautiful ships. But they could not do the trick. Now they have a vessel that can. All I am pleading for now is that the Government will take into consideration the situation in-our province and appropriate at least $300,000 or $400.000 to widen the gauge on the sections of the line I have referred to. I believe It will cost only $2,000,000 to standardize the gauges on the whole line, and the $400,000 I am asking for is a mere bagatelle in these days when we are talking hundreds nf millions.


Mr. McISAAC:: I am pleased to notice that the Minister of Railways has an item of $65,000 in his estimates fbr the completion of the terminals at Port Borden and Cape Tormentine, where the car ferry steamer Prince Edward' Island plies between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I need not say that I deeply regret that the minister has not found it convenient to include an amount in the estimates, at least to commence the standardization of the gauge on the Prince Edward Island railway. I would not suggest to the Government, as my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Read) has done, to standardize the gauge from Port Borden to Summer-side and from Port Borden to Charlottetown. That would only be a piece-meal pro-
11 Mr. Cop;).]
posal. I would not dictate or suggest to the Government where they should begin. But I sincerely desire that they shall make a beginning -as soon as . reasonably possible. And when they do begin to standardize, it should be done in such a way that all portions of the province traversed by the railway will be benefited. As I had occasion to say before, in consequence of the dearth of coastal steamships, the removal of the products of Prince Edward Island will be a very difficult problem this very year. Notwithstanding that a great many of our sons, I am proud to say, have gone to fight our battles at the front, I am satisfied that there will be a very considerable increase of agricultural production in Prince Edward Island this year. That being so, we shall have much more to export to provide food for the soldiers fighting our battles. We have scarcely any idea of how productive Prince Edward Island is, for the very fact that we have never had sufficient facilities to ship our products from the Island. The car ferry steamer "Prince Edward Island" is a splendid ship. In my opinion, she is the greatest product of marine architecture of her class. During the past winter, which was unprecedently severe and arduous, she made daily trips across the Straits; several times a day, sometimes. As I said before, the question of winter navigation of the Straits has been solved. The * solution of that problem, which had caused so much difficulty, hardship, disappointment and uncertainty to our people, has caused a revolution of feeling, and the matter of winter navigation of the straits is now accepted as beyond any question. Consequently we feel exceedingly grateful to the Government for what they have done in furnishing this magnificent steamer, and solving this difficult problem, and placing us in continuous communication with the Intercolonial and other railway systems of the Dominion, which was written in the bond at the time we entered Confederation. It was the lack of this understanding which prevented Prince Edward Island from going into Confederation with the original four provinces in 1867. In 1873 the Imperial Order in Council contained what the Island asked for, -but it is only now that we have succeeded in gettiqg the link across the Straits. As the minister knows, the standardization of the gauge is the complement of the ear ferry -steamer. I think I can thus speak, though I have no warrant for it:	As we all know, the people of Prince
Edward Island are not poor, although it is a small place. They have, contributed most

generously to the loans that Canada has floated. I feel I am safe in saying that if the Government would issue a special loan of $2,000,000 for the purpose of broadening the gauge on the Prince Edward Island railway, . the people of Prince Edward Island have the money; and they would buy the bonds and furnish the necessary funds to complete the work. If the Government take that departure, they will solve at least one difficulty in connection with the problem of standardizing the road. If the Minister of Railways, in his supplementary estimates, provides a sum for the commencement of this work he will do something that will be dear to the hearts of the people of Prince Edward Island, something for which the people of tha-t province will never cease to be thankful, and something which will be a benefit to the whale Dominion as well.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the matter of the acquirement by the Government of the Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway in Gloucester county. I hold no brief for the company which operates that road; my brief is for the people of Gloucester county. Indeed, this is a national as well as a local question; it affects not only the interests of my county, but the larger interests of the Dominion. During the last two months the Minister of Railways has received many petitions on behalf of th: people of Gloucester county requesting that the Government take over that road. I do not wish to 6ay anything in disparagement of the company which operates that road, but if I point out that through lack of initiative, of wise administration, or if ability to raise the necessary capital the road is in an embarrassed condition and the people of Gloucester cour.ty are thereby suffering inconveniences in the matter of transportation of their products to the markets which are clamouring for them, I do so only in order to put the case as it is before the Government. I wish to read only one of the many petitions which have been sent, as indicating the gravity of the situation to-day in that distrief^the most potential district in the matter of resources not, only in New Brunswick, but, considering its size, in the whole of Canada.
Caraquet, N.-B., March 22, 1918. O. Turgeon, M.P.,	.
Ottawa, Ont.
At a public meeting held here last night the following resolutions were unanimously passed :
Whereas petitions pointing out the dilapidated and unsafe condition of the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway and its unfitness to satisfactorily perform the public service required of it were
signed 'by a large number of the residents and ratepayers of this county, and forwarded to the Hon. P. B. Carvell, Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, respectfully asking that the Government acquire the railway and "operate it as part of the Government railway system in the interest of the people; and, whereas the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway represents the only system of transportation on the south side of bay Chaleur from Bathurst to Shippigan and Tra-cadie, a distance of more than hundred miles on which is dependent the traffic resulting from the agriculture, lumbering and extensive fishing industries along the coast; and whereas the service performed by the railway, which for some time has been most unsatisfactory and irregular, has become entirely inadequate to handle the increased traffic, notwithstanding the equipment recently obtained from the Government; and whereas the Government has taken no definite action thus far to acquire the railway and operate it in the interests of the people;	.
Therefore resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting, representative of the industrial, agricultural and fishing interests of the community, the time has now arrived when serious loss and injury will occur to these industries unless the railway is taken over by the Government at as early a date as possible and operated as part of the Government railway system.
Dr. F. X. Comeau,
Chairman.
The minister has received many such petitions from residents of the districts traversed by that railway. Since I first became a member of this House it has been my duty on many occasions, on behalf of my constituents, to request that this road, which for some reason has never been operated as it should have been in the public interest, be taken over by the Government and operated as part of the Canadian Government railways. The main line of the Government road passes through the head of the Gloucester peninsula. Sir Sanford Fleming had a survey .made m 1873 and 1874, and it was his plan at that time to construct a branch line in that county as part of the Government road. Had this proposal been accepted, direct communication with Newfoundland would have been afforded and Newfoundland would have undoubtedly entered the Confederation. It was understood by the people of Canada that the construction of branch lines in that county as well as on the other side of 'Chaleur bay should not be left to private enterprise, because a branch line cannot be expected to pay unless it belongs to the company holding the trunk line. The Government made a great mistake when they allowed this branch line railway in Gloucester county to be constructed by private enterprise. However, a few men were trying to get sufficient capital together in order to build branch lines, and they got-

a charter for the construction of this road. As far back as 1882, as an independent candidate I was advocating the construction of that line by the Government. My Conservative opponent, a man of wealth, advocated the construction of the line by a private company under subsidy. He got ' the subsidy and built the road-and died from worry. Although, that line is in a dilapidated condition, if the minister acquires it he will not be getting a road which has no value. If it has not great worth as a road, owing to its condition, it has great value because of the potentialities of the district through which it runs. 'It is not a line of railway ten or fifteen *miles in length, a distance over which traffic might to-day be readily carried on *by auto-trucks; it is 88J miles long, and serves one of the richest districts of northern New Brunswick with its wealth of resources of land and sea. The lumber industry there has grown tremendously in the last year. A few years ago that industry . was not of much value to the road, because the price of lumber was low, and the lumber cut along that road could be transported by water. To-day there is no more transportation by water, while there is at present an immense demand for lumber in the American market, and it commands a high price. There is no limit to the thousands of cars of lumber the district [DOT]along this road can produce. The transportation of this means traffic not only for the road itself but for the Intercolonial railway from Bathurst to Montreal as well *as from Tracadie to Bathurst. The Government, therefore, should look after its interests by taking over this road. The fishing industry in this district has doubled 'and trebled, and even quadrupled, in the last few years on account of the market in the United States and in the Old Country. Transportation has, therefore, been transferred from water service to railroad service, and consequently the hundreds of carloads of fish that the* district will provide, from 'Shippigan and Caraquet to Bathurst, will be freight for the Intercolonial from Bathurst to 'Halifax or St. John. The road of which I speak has been *a feeder for the Intercolonial, although not *to such an extent as it can be made today. But of late years, notwithstanding the unsafe and dilapidated condition of *the road, the freight which it has procured for the Intercolonial has increased from $50,000 in 1905, to $80,000 in 1917. I say, with knowledge, that if the Government take over that road, putting it into safe condition for this year and improving it PMr. Turg-eon.]
later on, it will double its productivity as a feeder to the Intercolonial from Bathurst to Montreal as well as from Bathurst to iSt. John and Halifax. These are the figures as to the length of the road:
Miles.
From Gloucester Junction to Shippigan..	68
From Pokemouche Junction to Tracadie. .	16
Sidings	 3j
87J
The road was built between 1884 and 1887, and the cost of construction at the time was $1,163,826.12. It will be remembered that in those years railway construction [DOT] did not cost one-quarter of what it costs to-day. Labour was worth 90 cents or $1 a day, and lumber and everything else was very cheap. I have had a statement prepared by a man who knows the products of the country and who has interviewed men engaged in the lumber business and men engaged in the fishing industry as well as the leading fishermen, and this is the result at which he has arrived as to the traffic that will be forthcoming. From the Bathurst company's mills the output is 20,000,000 feet of lumber, or a thousand cars -to be transported to Gloucester Junction, a distance of five miles. The minister is aware of the big interests which, during the last six or seven years, have developed at Bathurst by the erection of immense pulp and lumber mills, which have increased the amount of freight from Bathurst to Montreal and also to St. John. This industry has increased the revenue of the customs at that port by thousands of dollars. Bathurst is to-day a station which, outside of the great cities, produces one of the greatest revenues along the Intercolonial. This is the statement:
Large Saw Export Lumber.	Railway
Mills at.	Output. Transportation,
Bathurst	..	..	20,00-0,000	feet.	LOOf) cars.Burnsville . .	.	.	5,000,0'00	"	300	"Infeerman	. .	..	3,0'00,0'00	"	ISO	"Tracadie	5,0'00,00l0	"	3001	"Total	1,750,	"Pulp Wood. .	.. 1,000 cars*Stone	
100	"Potatoes	
300	"General merchandise	
50	"
Grand total .. 3,200
In Tracadie a large sawmill was closed down this spring, operations being stopped during the winter, just because they had lumber ahead, due to the fact that they could not ship last fall, ,and could not under existing conditions rely upon having

their goods transported. In addition to the traffic which I have already enumerated, 750 carloads of hay, flour and other goods could be got. I wish to call the minister's attention to the figures which I have given, in order that he may see the necessity of taking over that road. For the last ten days or so I have had a question on the Order Paper, which the minister has not yet answered. If he had answered it, he as well as the committee would have been spared this address to-night. As, however, he has not made up his mind upon this subject, I wish to impress him with the good results which will ensue to the Government from taking over this road. The Prime Minister, in his statement on Wednesday, said that, although the acquisition of the Canadian Northern will for the moment impose a terrible burden upon the people of Canada, that road will eventually prove to be a benefit, because, in the course of some years, it will yield a profit. I will admit that railroads in their inception do not pay, no matter where they are built. I believe that this Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway, when the Government operates it properly so that the various industries will have confidence that their products will get adequate transportation, will prove a paying proposition. It will produce more traffic year by year for the Intercolonial.
I understand the department claim' they cannot pay much for the road on account of its dilapidated condition, and that they have not . agreed on a price with the owners. If they cannot agree, why not submit the matter to arbitration, as is usually done in cases of this kind. If either party could be said to have the advantage in an arbitration it would be the Government, because public opinion in New Brunswick i6 against the company operating the road. The cry all over New Brunswick is that the company have allowed the road to get into a very dilapidated condition. I hope the minister, therefore, will take steps immediately to acquire the road and let me know to-night what has been decided on.


Mr. KEEFER:: Before the minister answers my hon. friend I should like to ask whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of the town, of Sioux Lookout requesting that the name of the railway station 'be changed to the name of their town. The matter might have the appearance of having politics in it, but I can assure the minister that there are none. The name of Sioux Lookout is an old name that wae given to the place long before the
railway went through. It is the junction point of the waters by which the Indians from lake Superior used to travel westwards, and the Sioux on a high hill could see them coming a long way off, and so the town got its name, just as Medicine Hat got its name. When the railway was built, the place began to grow and eventually became a divisional point. The station wae then called Graham. But the town, name is still Sioux Lookout; the post office is Sioux Lookout; the registry office plan is under the name of iSioux Lookout, and if you wish to write a letter to a person there you have to address* it Sioux Lookout; but if you want to send a telegram it has to be addressed, to Graham, and it is exceedingly confusing. It would be a pity to see the name of Graham disappear from the Transcontinental, but one of the other divisional points east or west, Armstrong or Redditt, for instance, might take that name, or if it was desired to give the name to a junction point, why not call Superior Junction, where the railway comes down to lake Superior, Graham? But to continue the name of Graham for the railway station and Sioux Lookout for the post office is certainly confusing to business life. The people will not give up their name of Sioux Lookout, all their deeds and conveyances being under that name in the registry office plan, and that being vlso the name of the post office. I should like to know whether they have asked the minister to change the name, and whether he can see his way clear to do so, giving the name of Graham to some other divisional point.


John Dowsley Reid: I have received petitions and numerous requests to change the name of the station. The petitioners if I remember rightly, stated that Sioux Lookout was the name of the town, an incorporated town, I believe, and the post office and registry office was also in that name. Every reason appeared in the petition why the name of the railway station should be changed to Sioux Lookout, but I will frankly admit that I have hesitated to change the name of the station because it was named after the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He had a great deal to do with the building of this railway. He lives within a few miles of me, and we have always, been friends, and I have hesitated, and hesitate now, to change the name for that reason, because- it might be thought that since I had become Minister of Railways I had some other object in-changing the name.


Francis Henry Keefer: Why not name one of the other divisional points Graham?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Onésiphore Turgeon: I believe that if the minister takes over any of these branch lines he will find that the Caraquet and Gulf Shore traverses a district having the greatest potentialities and from which he will in future get a more profitable traffic than from any other part of the country. None of these roads travels through a .wealthier district than that traversed by the Caraquet and Gulf Shore. If he once gets possession of that line he will find its operation profitable. It is for that reason that- we are so anxious to have it transferred from the company to the Government. The minister tells me that he has made an offer equal to that which he has made to the other companies in New Brunswick and that while the others have accepted offers made to them, this company has not accepted. I do not wish to say that the minister has not offered enough. I am not an engineer and I wdll not put my estimate upon the railway itself. I can indicate the value of the road better by estimating the traffic that is to come to it in the future than I can by putting any value on the road itself. Meanwhile I would say that perhaps if he were to put. in his Estimates the price which he offers the owners of the road might be disposed, or induced, to accept it.


John Dowsley Reid: I could not do that.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Then why not leave it to arbitration?


John Dowsley Reid: No; if they do not take it now I will not put it in.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The minister is willing to pay the price that he says he has offered the company. The company ask for a little more.


John Dowsley Reid: The company ask double what I offered them.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Even if it is double, let it be referred to arbitration and it is most likely that the decision trill be on the side of the Government. If the minister is willing to spend so much for bridges, repairs and so on to put it in good condition, is it worth while, for the sake of a few thousand dollars, separating the county of Gloucester from the rest- of the Dominion?


John Dowsley Reid: They are not anxious to sell and I am not anxious to buy.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The minister may not be anxious to buy but in the exercise of his duty he should consider the interests of the north shore of New Brunswick as well as the interests of any other portion of the country. It is well known that in 1911 the Government of that day, at my insistent request and at the request of other members from New Brunswick, gave some attention to this question. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) coming into the House and I am very glad. I missed him during my first remarks. I wall ask him to corroborate the statements I have made in his absence. I was asking if it was worth while, for the sake of a few thousand dollars, to differentiate from the rest of the country the county of Gloucester or the northern part of New Brunswick whose advantages, from the railway point of view, will, <in the future, exceed those of any other district. I stated that the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway traversed an immense district in the eastern portion of Gloucester which is the wealthiest district in New Brunswick to-day.. Railway traffic is assured in the abundance of those products which are the most profitable in the operation of a railway, more particularly the lumber traffic. The lumber traffic is certainly one out of which the railways can make more money than they can out of any other kind of business.
This railway traverses a district, as I have already said, where there is as yet virgin

forest, and; where the great industry of agriculture has been progressing rapidly, more particularly for the last few years. As .the Minister of Public Works knows, that railway, starting from Bathurst runs for a distance of 20 or 25 miles through a long-settled agricultural district inhabited by an active and enterprising population who have progressed in agriculture for the last forty years. The salmon fishing industry needs prompt railway transportation in order that its yield may be placed on the market as rapidly as possible. It is now separated from the main station at Bathurst by distances extending anywhere from ten, fifteen, twenty and thirty-five miles. The Minister of Public Works knows of the operations that are- going on at Stone Haven where there is a <quarry with one hundred carloads of stone ready to be transported to the province of Ontario, and which could easily double and treble its output if there was only certainty of getting those transportation facilities which have been lacking. At Caraquet there, is the great fishing industry requiring the services of 256 schooners daily, and with a catch of fish easily estimated at $1,000,000 a year. No one can over-estimate the importance of this industry in helping to feed our soldiers at the front. Then there is the great lumbering industry, between Caraquet, Burnsville and Tracadie, which also is in need of proper transportation facilities. The Minister of Public Works knows that there are vast forest areas which are capable of supplying millions of tons of pulp-wood to the industry at Bathurst, which has furnished a large amount of traffic for the last five or six years in that district. He knows the increased prices which the pulp company has had to pay owing to the condition of the railway, and that it has thousands of cords of pulpwood lying alongside the line which cannot at present be transported because the freight charges are too high. He knows that every statement that I am making on this subject to-night is correct, and he knows the potentialities of that district just as well as I do. He cannot say that I am exaggerating	at all	the possibilities of the	district of	which
I am. speaking. If, in the Prairie Provinces there was a stretch of eighty-eight miles in which a good railroad service hud Ibeen lacking during the last twenty or thirty years, so that the development of the district was retarded, the farmers would long ago have insisted on the Government taking over that line and giving them a proper service for the carriage of their wheat.

If to-day the branch lines in New Brunswick are in a dilapidated condition, successive Governments of Canada in the past which allowed these companies to build the small branch lines are responsible for it, and during the past few years the people living in the districts through which they pass have Ibeen encouraged to hope that the Government would take these roads over. In 1911 the late Goveftiment introduced a Bill which passed its first reading and was awaiting the return of Parliament to undergo its second reading, providing for taking over the road of which I have been speaking, together with others. During that election the present Prime Minister, at the request of his supporters in New Brunswick, wired to Mr. Fowler, now a member of the Upper Chamber, who was at that time a candidate in Kings county, declaring that if his party were returned to power he would not depart from the Liberal policy in regard to the acquisition of branch lines in New Brunswick, but that his .administration would also take over these branch lines.


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Onésiphore Turgeon: That was an election promise, and it has not been carried out. During the last two or three years I have constantly urged this, matter on. the Minister of Railways, amd have received the reply that owing to war conditions it was impossible to get the necessary money to take over these lines. I would like to say that the advent of the present Government preceded the outbreak of war. There was a period of three years before the war during which opportunity was afforded of carrying out its promise. Let me say that the conditions last winter on these branch lines were almost intolerable. It is hard enough in the case of passengers, but where freight is concerned it is almost impossible to secure any transportation. I would urge the Government, in view of the fact that it has decided to take over branch lines elsewhere,, to see whether it cannot do something for New Brunswick, even if it involves some sacrifice.


Mr. GARVELL:: I did not know that this item was under discussion, having been . very busy in another part of the building, otherwise I would have made my appearance earlier. HoweveT, I am very glad to have listened to the, remarks of my hon. friend from Gloucester (M. Turgeon) and I want to assure the committee that he is absolutely sincere in every word he has

stated. With his statement of facts that the condition of affairs which has existed with respect to the branch lines in the province of New Brunswick has become almost unbearable, I have very little quarrel indeed. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when railway construction in Eastern Canada was fairly in its infancy, when railway communication was beginning to be called for, and the Government of the day refused to build branch lines, the people organized small companies and built them themselves.
The Intercolonial through New Brunswick, as you will observe by looking at the map, does not follow the seacoast where the settlements are, but runs some twenty-five or thirty miles away. Unfortunately, a very great portion of the central part of New Brunswick on the eastern side is not very valuable land. But along the seacoast it is valuable land, .and there is a very dense population, the descendants of the old French settlers who came there a hundred and fifty years ago or more. It became necessary then to -build branch lines from the main line running down to the seaboard and the Bay of Fundy, as well as on Northumberland strait and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There were six of these roads altogether. There is another small road, built from Cross- Creek, on what is now a portion of the Government railways, to the town of Stanley, in the county of York, but it is not of the same class as the six roads I have referred to. These road's all received *small subsidies, probably $6,000 a mile would be the maximum amount of assistance, and in many cases much less than that. In some cases they got a Dominion subsidy of $3,200 a mile and $2,500 a mile from the province of New Brunswick. For. a number of years after their construction they got along very well, until the time of replacement arrived. They had no reserves, and were not in a position to charge sufficient rates; in fact, there was not sufficient traffic to justify them in keeping the roads up to standard and they commenced to deteriorate. The result was that about ten or fifteen years ago, or a little before that period, practically all these roads went under the hammer; they were foreclosed by the bondholders and bid in by certain parties. Many of the owners of these roads have fairly large amounts of money invested in them-I know-as my bon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) s-ays regarding the road in his constituency, that the Oara-quet railway has cost the present owners quite a large amount of money; I don't know how much. We had several representatives before us
a few days ago, who said they could not tell us what it did cost. However, there is no doubt that the roads cost a great deal more money than the Government is offering for them. When the late Hon. Mr. Emmerson was Minister of Railways and canals a very strong agitation sprang up to have these roads taken over by the Intercolonial, as it was then called. I have *always supported that proposition, and I am on record a great many times in this House during the last fifteen years as advocating the acquisition of all branch lines by the trunk line, for the simple reason that under modem conditions it is impossible to operate branch lines successfully. I do not believe there is a place in Canada in which a branch line could he economically operated. It must become part of the main trunk line. That policy has been laid down by the Grand Trunk, the iGrand Trunk 'Pacific, and the Canadian Northern, and by the Government railways to quite an extent. Unfortunately, however, the acquisition of these roads from the very beginning of the agitation down to a few months ago was simply used as a. .political football. Not an election, *either provincial or federal, 'has been run in the province of New Brunswick in the last ten or twelve years, I am safe in saying in which the question of the acquisition of these lines has not been an issue, and both parties have used it as a football for political benefit. I do not think I am going too far when I say that some of the gentlemen who purchased these roads did -so with the idea of selling them to the Government. I do know that when an attempt was made within the last five years to take over some of these roads, there was always the inevitable grafter who had to have his thirty-three and a third ,per cent. But the -Government .would not pay that and I give them all credit for not doing so.
When I became Minister of Public Wotks, last October, the representative of practically every one of these roads came to me to exact a promise that these roads would be taken over, and I absolutely refused to have anything to do with it or to make any promise whatever. I told them I would not be a party to holding out the purchase of these lines as an election promise, hut that I would see that they were operated during the coming winter, because I believed that was necessary. 1 discussed the matter with my colleague the Minister of Railways, and an Order in Council was passed giving the Govern-

ment railways the right to operate these roads and supply whatever was necessary in the way of equipment, men, and even money, on the principle that the roads must be kept open. Probably it was the worst winter for railroading we have had in the Maritime Provinces for the past twenty years. But, through the activities of the railroads themselves, assisted by the Government railways, they were kept open with very few intervals. There may have been a week or two when one or another was closed down. After the election was over I asked my colleagues to adopt the policy of purchasing these branch lines, and I do not think I am revealing any confidence when I say that it took a great deal of persuasion on my part to bring them to consent to it. However, they agreed, and the Minister of Railways and myself were appointed a committee to purchase them under certain restrictions. Now, Mr. Chairman, we were bound to approach the question of the purchase of these lines, not from the standpoint of what the people had put into them, not to consider any set of men who were losing or making money, but on the principle of what the Government could afford to give. I have no hesitation in saying that they did not put back into these roads anything like what would be required by ordinary railroad management in the way of replacement. The roads had gone down in their physical condition until they were the veritable "one hoss shay"; they were ready to fall to pieces. Yet the people who owned these roads, or their predecessors, had put into them very large amounts of money. We were obliged to approach the purchase of these roads more from the standpoint of necessary accommodation to the people who lived in the locality, and anything which we offer to the owners of these roads is more in the way of a bonus for the purpose of giving accommodation to the people than as a purchase price for the railways themselves. I hope there will not be any misunderstanding as to the principle on which we approached the purchase of these roads. I admit that the amount of $2,000 a mile, which is probably the average price offered, is ridiculous when you consider what the roads have cost. I admit that every -one of these companies, could tear up their rails and sell them for two or three times what we are willing to pay for the roads as they stand. I believe my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) is right. However, it is a fact that they could take up the rails at the present price of steel and get-	,


Onésiphore Turgeon: Double.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. But we admit at once that we are not purchasing these roads from the standpoint of what they cost at all. If men in the United States and Canada have been unfortunate enough to put their money into an unprofitable venture, that is their misfortune and not ours, and we cannot under any consideration whatever attempt to reimburse these people because of their unbusinesslike venture.
We have offered these companies virtually $2,000 a mile-really only a bonus to get rid of them, and to provide that the people living along these lines may have the necessary accommodation. I think I am safe in saying that within the next two years the Government will have to spend another $2,000 a mile to make these roads passable. But the Government can operate them very much better than local companies can, because large quantities of second-hand and light equipment, both motive power and cars, which are not fit for use on the main lines, can be used on these branch lines. These small roads have practically no rolling stock. They have engines of an obsolete character, but they have practically no cars. Shippers along these lines cannot get the accommodation to which they are entitled because they cannot get cars. Naturally, the Canadian Government Railway authorities supply their own shippers with cars before they devote their attention to outsiders, and the result is that the industrial life of the northern and eastern portions of New Brunswick have been absolutely stagnant for the last ten years because of the lack of railway facilities. 1 make no apology, even under present financial conditions, for the policy which I have asked my colleagues to adopt in connection with these roads. Wg have entered into agreement to purchase four of these roads, and the matter will- be submitted to the House for consideration in the form of supplementary estimates. The prices vary, but they average $2,000 a mile. The price offered for .some is a little less than that; in one case, because the road was in very much worse physical condition than the others. In two cases, I think, the price slightly exceeds $2,000 a mile; in one of these cases the road is very much better equipped with rolling stock and motive power than the others. One has 67-pound rails, practically new, which will last for the next fifty years; the others have 52 and 56-pound rails. We took these things into consideration to some extent, but not wholly, because if we had regard to the value of t\ie rails as they are to-day for

junk, we should have to pay twice as much as we are offering. We have bought three of the roads running from the main line of the Intercolonial to the sea. We have bought a fourth running from Cross Creek to Stanley in the county of York, which is not in the same category as the others; it is simply a small branch line. Then there are three others, two in Kent-the Moncton and Buctouche and the Kent Northern.-and the Caraquet Railway referred to by the member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). I admit, that we have offered to the owners of the Caraquet Railway an amount which is probably less than the road cost them. But the difficulty is that the Caraquet Railway to-day is practically impossible of operation; at least $2,000 or $3,000 a mile will have to be expended on the road in order to make possible the running of a freight train over it, let alone a passenger train. We are therefore compelled to approach this subject from the standpoint not of what the road cost, but of what is the lowest amount of money which will give the 25,000 or 30,000 people in that portion of New Brunswick the railway communication to which they are entitled. Although the amount which we have offered is practically in the form of a bonus, it is really more than the Gov' ernment ought to offer, from a strict business standpoint. The member for Gloucester has given this matter more consideration, probably, than any member of the House, during the last ten or twelve years, and he is entitled to my views on the subject. I have certainly been very frank with him. I hope that the owners of the road running through his good county will see their way clear to accept our terms. Not one of these roads has made a dollar during the last ten years, if you take into consideration the amount necessary for replacements. They have made a little money-from $1,000 to $5,000 a year-but they have made it only by starving the roads and putting them in such a condition that they are now practically impassable. The question for these gentlemen to consider is whether they will hang on to a venture in which they have put a good deal of money and from which they get no revenue, or whether they will transfer them to the Government for a very small amount of cash from which they can get a revenue. Of course, if they will not take what we offer them, we will not buy. But we shall have to adopt some measure to keep these roads going. As long as I remain in this Government, those roads are going to run, in prder that the people in that part of
the province may get proper railway communication. If we cannot deal with these gentlemen in one way, we will deal with them in another. In any case, we are not going to make them a present of a large amount of money.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Very strong powers are conferred under the War Measures Act. Anyway, I repeat, these roads shall run, and we will not pay the fancy prices they want for them, either.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) for the frank statement which he has made and for his corroboration of what I have said concerning the wealth of the district through which the Caraquet railway rune and the necessities of the people in that part of New Brunswick. He says that these roads must be operated. I submit that the county of Gloucester has as much right to consideration at the hands of the Government in this respect as any other portion of the province. I shall not repeat what I have said on this subject. The minister knows the needs: of the district, he knows the conditions, and I can. only hope that this matter will receive his consideration, his attention and his sympathy. But if the Government cannot come to terms with the company, expropriation proceedings should be commenced and a board of arbitration appointed to, determine the value. Then, if the company are to be. the losers, let them be the losers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have offered the Caraquet Railway Company more money per mile for their road than we have offered the owners of any other branch line in New Brunswick. My bon. friend, therefore, may feel assured that no discrimination has been exercised against the railway in his county. I can go further and say that none of the seven roads is in as deplorable a state physically as the Caraquet railway.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I understand that the minister does not desire to discriminate. The Prime Minister pointed out only yesterday that when it came to acquiring and determining the value of large railway systems in which enormous amounts of money have been invested, arbitration was the best solution. This principle applies to small

lines as well as the 'big ones, to a matter of
11,000	as well as to a matter of $1,000,000. The Department of Railways, in the interest of the people, should expropriate the road. The company have charters by which they are bound to operate the road, and they have received subsidies in order that they may be able to construct and equip the road so as to give satisfactory transportation facilities to that district. If the . Government expropriate the road, the company will have to accept whatever sum is decided upon under the expropriation proceedings. If the Government should put the matter into the hands of Judge Cassels or Judge Audette, of the Exchequer Court-I care not which-or anyone else, the result will be satisfactory to the people and to the Government.,
Mr. G.AUVREAU: I was surprised to hear the Minister of Public Works speaking about acquiring branch lines. We have as a feeder for the Intercolonial the Temiscouata railway which, as the minister knows very well, is a paying road connecting River du Loup with Connors, New Brunswick. I remember a commission was some years ago sent down to the Maritime Provinces to investigate which lines should be acquired as feeders for the Intercolonial as being paying concerns for the road. If I am not mistaken, the Temiscouata railway was one of the best paying roads, and it should have been acquired at the time.
I do not know why it has not been purchased. The farmers along that road are at present obliged to pay very high rates for transportation, and if the road was acquired by the Intercolonial, the people along the road would be benefited as well as the Intercolonial itself. I want to ask the Minister of Railways why that road was not 'acquired. 'He has in contemplation the purchase of branch lines which are not paying propositions. It is true the acquisition of those roads will be of benefit for the people, but they will mean an expense to the Intercolonial. On the other hand, the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway will be a paying concern as a feeder for the Intercolonial.
I wish to draw the minister's attention to a little! matter in connection with the Intercolonial which is causing annoyance. This particular case will give him an instance of what is going on along the Intercolonial in my constituency. A fire started at Isle Verte on the Intercolonial some three years ago, and fences were burned. During those th^ee years I have asked and written and done everything possible, but while the posts have been put 
up, the wire is rusting on the ground and the fence is not yet completed.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that on the Intercolonial?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Yes. Last fall I took the trouble to go to the station, .and I asked the roadmaster to put up the fence for the protection of the cattle, because the farmers did not dare to put their cattle there, as they might be killed by passing trains. The roadmaster said: We have no- orders for that work; we have men for work on th-e tracks, but we have not labourers to do that work. Surely the Intercolonial can find labourers to fix a little piece of work like that. Although it is a small matter, it is annoying to the farmers and to the member, and we are, therefore, obliged to annoy the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: ' What station is that- at?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: At Isle Verte, the chief place in the county of Temiscouata. I hope, when I get home -on the 22nd day of May, after prorogation, I shall find that orders have been given to procure labourers to complete that small .piece of work,
Mr. J. D. -REID: I do not know whether the hon. member brought this matter to my -attention before.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I would not bother the minister in regard to such a small matter as that.


John Dowsley Reid: I atm glad my hon. friend has brought the matter to my attention now. I shall take it up with the management and ascertain the facts and see why the work has not been done. I do not agree with the hon. member that he should not bring it to my attention. After three years there must be some good reason why they have not gone, on with this work, and I agree with the hon,. member that within that period there surely must have be-en a time when they could have got some one to do the work.
With reference to the purchase of the Temiscouata Railway, the hon. member says that that railway is kept in good condition and operated successfully, and that the people in that locality are well served by the road. I am not going around trying to buy railways. The trouble is that these railways that we are -taking over are in such a condition that they cannot operate, they must close down unless assistance is given. We were compelled, therefore, a-s I stated a few minutes ago, to pass an Order in Council authorizing -the Canadian Government Railways to operate them on their behalf.

Those railways are really going to close down unless something is done, and that is the reason why we are compelled to take them over. As the Temiscouata Railway is being operated' successfully in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, we are quite satisfied that the company should continue to operate the road and make money out of it. If it is a paying road, the shareholders will not want to part with it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What about the farmers?


John Dowsley Reid: The farmers, as the hon. member states, are well served by the road, and so far as the rates are concerned, I suppose the Temiscouata railway is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and, therefore, no exorbitant rates can be charged. My hon. friend probably feels that rates are lower on the Intercolonial. I think the rates are about the same on the Intercolonial as on other roads. If not, they should be, and so far as rates and protection from fire service on the Intercolonial are concerned, we are in about the same position as the other railways, and during this war we do not want to buy the Temiscouata Railway or any other road if they can operate without assistance from the Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not notice in the statement made by the minister any reference to the number of accidents and collisions on the Government railways, and the loss of life and the damage to property thereby occasioned, during the last year's operations.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not those figures with me, but I could have them here when the Supplementary Estimates are up.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think it would be well
to have statistical information in regard to those matters. Referring to the minister's statement, I presume that in "construction betterments " includes improvements to station houses, railway yards, and things of that kind. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, replying to the hon. m'ember for Gloucester, told us that he made a promise to the electors of New Brunswick during the last election that the branch lines would be operated last winter. I do not know how fully he has implemented that promise, but I do know that a number of the branch lines were not in operation throughout the winter, and I presume my hon. friend the *member for St. John, who during the election campaign was forced to drive from
(Moncton to the county of Albert, will agree *that the line running into part of his constituency was not very much in operation during that period. I am not blaming the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Railways, but I should like to have the minister assure us that the main line of *the Intercolonial at least will be kept in [DOT]operation next winter. It certainly was not kept in operation last winter, and I presume the Minister of Railways will say that that was because they were short of motive power.


John Dowsley Reid: We had all the motive power we wanted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If that is so, the minister
did not make a very great success of the operation of the road last winter. Of course it may have been impossible to do any better. I am not a railway expert, but I know that the conditions in our part of the province of New Brunswick were very unsatisfactory indeed. So much by way of general criticism.
Now I wish to call the minister's attention to what is. going on at Sackville, which is the junction point of the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway that was recently taken over by the Government. That road was in bad condition when it was taken over, to connect up with Cap Tormentine and the car ferry running to Prince Edward Island, but improvements, which were very much needed, have since been made in order to handle the freight between Sackville and Cap Tormentine over this thirty-six miles of road. When communication was established last fall, the Railway Department was not in a position to handle the traffic. I suppose it did not realize how great the volume of that traffic was going to be. As my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island said, it perhaps little knew the great productivity of the province at the other end of the car ferry. At all events, the road was simply overwhelmed with traffic, and there was no place to put the freight cars. Passenger trains were held up for an hour at a time because the main line was blocked with freight cars. I am not complaining, because as I have said, no doubt the officials of the railway did not realize the amount of traffic that would come over the line. What I do complain of is that now, when preparations are being made for that traffic, when new sidings and roundhouses are being constructed, exactly the same thing is being done in the town of Sackville as occurred in the city of Moncton. The terminal facilities that are being provided are

not one-quarter the size they should be to handle the traffic that will develop in a very short time. To-day, shunting engines and trains are holding up traffic in the principal streets of the town of Sackville. It is a nuisance already, and the Board of trade and the town council of Sackville are taking steps to remove the nuisance. The work that is being done there now will have to be thrown away in a few years, and new arrangements made for the traffic to go overhead or by subway. I tell the minister that his officials are only half doing the job, because the traffic, instead of decreasing, will increase year by year. I would urge the minister to have this matter investigated, because I can assure him that before the snow flies next winter delegations will be waiting on him to insist that something be done to overcome this nuisance of the trains crossing the main -streets of the town of Sackville, and now is the time, before the Government has spent a large sum of money, to make adequate preparations for the traffic that will develop down there in the next two or three years.
There is another matter I wish to refer to, and I am sure the minister does not know anything about it. I was very much surprised, when I went home last week for a day or two, to find contractors already on the ground at Sackville excavating for an extension to the station house. Some seven or eight years ago the old station house was burnt down and a splendid stone building was erected in its place. Imagine my surprise the other day when I found that to provide additional accommodation the Government were excavating for a common wooden building as an extension to the beautiful stone station at Sackville. The , stone building was practically fireproof, but now the Government are going to put up a wooden building and run the risk of it burning down the whole station. That seems to me most unbusinesslike. I am told-I cannot vouch for this, but I have no doubt it is true-that the Sackville Board of Trade went to the city of Moncton and interviewed the railway authorities there, and what do you think that delegation was told? I hate to repeat it, because I cannot realize how a member of any board of trade would listen to-such a thing. The railway officials told them they were going to put up a wooden building now, and build stone around it at some other time. When I was leaving the station the other day I said to the man who was doing the excavating, " I suppose you are putting in a very solid foundation." He said, "No,

it does not require a heavy foundation, because it is only for a small building." I said: " They are going to build stone around this?" He said, " Are they? That is all you know about it." That is what is going on. It is a small matter and the minister does not know about it probably, but it does seem a ridiculous proposition to build a wooden extension to a stone building. It destroys the beauty of the surroundings and' I doubt if it will not cost more to build it with wood than to continue it with stone.


John Dowsley Reid: I know nothing about the situation. I have never been in Sackville.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Come down with me when I go home.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall make inquiries as to what they are doing there. I have not had an opportunity of going over the Intercolonial system, but as soon as the House prorogues, or within a few days afterwards, it is my intention to take a trip over the road and this is one of the things I will look into.


Mr. LEGER:: I am not here to represent the speculators or the branch-line owners, but I am here to represent the people who are served by these branch lines. The answers given to the questions put before the Government were not altogether satisfactory to me, with the exception of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) that these branch lines would be operated. I understood the Government had power to force these companies to run these roads to the satisfaction of the people and of the Government. If that is the case it will be satisfactory. The people who live frotti twenty-five to one hundred miles away from the Intercolonial are certainly entitled to some consideration on the part- of the Government. I am not here to discuss politics, but I am here to discuss the interests of the people whom I represent, and who contributed their share to the building of the Intercolonial, which serves those living within a certain distance of each side of the road. But those living at a distance from the road and on. the shores, farmers and fishermen who are trying to make a living out of their industry, should have the advantage of railway transportation in order to be able to market their products to the best advantage. They have to sell their products at a lower price because of the high freight rates. If it is left in the hand's of the owners of these roads, and if nothing is

done to better the situation, I cannot see how it is going to end'. I would suggest that the Government take charge of these roads, as they have the power to take over any property that in- the public interest it may he necessary for them to acquire. If they cannot agree upon the price they have a way of taking over these roads by expropriation. Let them, then, expropriate the roads. Whether people are engaged in fishing or agriculture, we are anxious to give them every encouragement. I believe it is the duty of the Government to- take steps to serve the people throughout the country as- best they can and in such a way as to promote their interest and the public welfare generally.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to criticise the Minister of Railways for his generosity towards the branch lines in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He 'has not touched Nova Scotia yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have heard discussions dhirimg every session I have been in Parliament about acquiring branch lines in New Brunswick. But my hon. friend does not move very fast. He remains in the Maritime provinces and does not seem to reach *Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: I started at the eastern end.	,


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are not coming on the flyer. I happen to represent, concurrently with the county of Maisonneuve, the county of Gaspe, and I consider Gaspe a9 one of the Maritime Provinces. In the beginning of the last century, Gaspe was a province by itself. It was only by the Act of 1791, if I mistake not, that Gaspe was annexed to the province of Quebec, and for a certain length of time I think it was a part of New Brunswick. We had a governor in Gaspe at one time. It is a very large and a most beautiful peninsula. We have the Baie de Chaleur, another Mediterranean sea with the Alps in (the background. If my hon. friend goes there next summer we will prepare a fine reception for him. Unfortunately we have no Monte Carlo for his enjoyment.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been at Gaspe.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 

ministered, the trains are running regularly, and under the present management the line is paying its own expenses, but the first 100 miles would have to be practically rebuilt, and this work ought to be done by the Government. While the present war conditions prevail, I do not wish to impose on my hon. friend's shoulders an additional burden, and I do not ask the Government to take over that road now, but there is on the statute book legislation which would enable that to be done. I hope that when the war is ovier and financial conditions have improved the Government will accord that section of the country what is due to it. There are a number of thriving industries in that district. First of all, we have the fisheries, then there is the pulp industry- which is developed to a considerable degree-and of late a group of Montreal financiers, I think it is the Lyall syndicate, have been exploiting a copper mine which was discovered some few years ago between Newport and New Carlisle, and which promises to create in that locality a very prosperous mining enterprise. If the Government intends to follow up the policy of acquiring branch lines- and I do not begrudge what is (being done for New. Brunswick and for the western prairies-it should not lose sight of the fact that the peninsula of Gaspe is entitled to consideration. For, let it be remembered, it is the oldest section in the country. When Jacques Cartier ascended the river St. Lawrence he planted a cross at Gaspe at a spot which I have visited several times. So it seems to me that if we are to consider the proprieties, the oldest spot in the country should be best served. But we are not so ambitious as to press that point. We realize that in. view of the present war conditions we should not be unduly insistent, and we are willing to wait until the present great struggle- is ended. But I would like my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to inspect that road some time this summer, and judge for h-im-.self of the conditions of that section of the country. It is the most interesting section of Canada, and I am quite snre that whenever the policy of acquiring branch lines is brought to a head, my hon. friend will make up his -mind that the peninsula of Gaspe should receive his attention.
Another point and I shall .have concluded.
_ Some years ago -an- old gentleman, a friend of the Minister of Railways, named Paradis, was the owner of a sawmill in the vicinity of St. Joseph of Levis, in front of Quebec. This old gentleman was very well off .,nd very enterprising, and was engaged, as is
[Mr. Lemieux.l
the French Canadian custom, in raising a large family. He was mayor of his parish, warden of the county, and had once or twice 'been offered the Conservative nomination, hut had declined because of business reasons.
One night a train passed his property and some sparks were emitted from the engine which destroyed the property, razing it completely. Between the evening and the morning this old1 patriot wa-s- completely ruined. He came to Ottawa and a commissioner was appointed to investigate the cause of the fire. Mr. Justice Audette, who was not then, I believe, .in the Exchequer Court, was appointed commissioner. He made a report which I read two or three years . ago, and he found that the fire had been caused >by the sparks from a locomotive belonging to the Intercolonial Railway; indeed, he specified the hour of the night and gave the number of the locomotive. It was proven beyon-d the shadow ol a doubt that the department wa-s responsible. Now this old gentleman is very persistent I must say; he belongs to the Norman race.


John Dowsley Reid: No doubt about that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He would not yield very easily. He is now eighty years old. The fire occurred eight of ten years- ago. My hon. friend, I must say in good faith, after having listened to him, after having read the evidence and the report, offered him, I believe, $10,000. First, he was offered nothing, as u-snal, not by my hon. friend, but by his predecessor in office. Then he was offered, I think, $5,000.


John Dowsley Reid: It was $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The old gentleman refused it. And this year, I am informed, my hon. friend, honest as he is, offered the old gentleman $20,000. The old man has again refused; he is more persistent than I am, because I think I would have accepted the $20,000. But his persistency shows the good faith and honesty of this ol-d gentleman. He has been waiting all these years. It seems to me that my hon. friend1 should not wait until this venerable man goes down to his grave before a settlement is- arrived at. And I hope that the Minister of Railways and Canals will see to it that a fair settlement is made and that the old man can return to Levis and- live happy until the Lord calls him to his bosom. I leave it at that, expecting my hon. friend to settle this case as soon as possible.
(Mr. J. D. REID:	With reference to the
first matter the hon. member mentioned.

Of course, the Gaspe railroad is operating and has not asked us for any assistance. I agree that after the war, when the proper times comes, we should look into the question of acquiring that road. I have been at Gaspe and know the locality. It is certainly an industrious place. lI will take up the question, when the opportune, time arrives. With reference to the case of *Mr. Paradis, as the hon. .member has stated, this gentleman is very persistent. When I first had to do with this case, my predecessor had offered him $10,000. 'Mr. Paradis came along and I raised it to $12,500. Last year, when he was at me again, I raised it to $15,000i. This year he came to Ottawa within the last two or three *weeks, and I was willing to submit $17,000 or $17,500.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The cost of living is
going up.


John Dowsley Reid: However, I feel that it is a claim-
Mr. LE.MIEUX: An equitable claim.
Mr. J. D. REIlD:-and it should be dealt with. But really the amount asked for by the .old gentleman every time is so high that it is almost an impossibility to come down to any reasonable amount.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is his last offer?


John Dowsley Reid: I think that $76,000
was what he asked me the other day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, he had a
splendid property.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that he had
a good property. I proposed to him the other day that I would submit this matter to a subcommittee of council, and consider it with some of my colleagues when we had time to go into the whole matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What does he say to
that?
iMr. J. D. REID:	He went away perfectly satisfied. It was an impossibility to deal with it before the session closed, so I told .him that I would bring it before a committee of council and go thoroughly into the matter so that I could explain it to council, and then we would come to a conclusion as to what we thought was fair [DOT]and just.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you let me select
the subcommittee?
Mr. MiORPHY: How many acres is the old' gentleman working, and what buildings were burned?
138*


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was in the lumber business.


John Dowsley Reid: The claim is for a very large sawmill, and a very, very large quantity of lumber. He claims that $45,000 represents the loss, and he has added interest at compound rates during the ten years or so. There is no doubt at all that Mr. Paradis lost at that time equal to about $45,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Why did the previous Government not adjust it?


John Dowsley Reid: I think according to the law he could hardly claim it. It is hard to prove that the fire originated from a spark from an engine which passed at the time. A train passed through his property half an hour before the fire, and he could not prove that the fire was caused by a spark from the engine.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What did the commissioner find?


John Dowsley Reid: He found that the fire was caused by a spark from the engine.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What did he find the loss was?


John Dowsley Reid: He was not asked to bring in a statement as to the amount. If I remember correctly the commissioner was simply asked to report whether the fire was caused by a spark from the engine and it was to be left to the department to decide what amount they should pay. That is the way the case has remained ever since.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps I might explain. As the law stood at the time of the fire, under the Government Railways Act, the Intercolonial was not responsible unless the fire originated on the right of way and extended to the property destroyed. About two months, I- believe, after this loss occurred, the law was changed to bring it into conformity with the general law of Canada. My hon. friend will probably remember that there was a case in Ontario between the Grand Trunk and another party whose name I have forgotten, *which went through the courts, and in which it was held that the railway company was responsible. About two months afterwards, following out the decision in that case, the law was changed so far as the Government railways were concerned. Had that fire taken place two or three months later than it did, there would have been no question whatever about the old man's right to recover.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: In looking over the items for public works and improvements, I find that no -amount has been provided for the works in Quebec city, although we are asked to provide many millions for works in different parts of the country. It has been said that the works in Quebec as well as other works throughout the country should not be proceeded with during the war. But surely some of the important works in Quebec city should be proceeded with. An agreement was made between the Federal Government andi the city of Quebec in August, 1910, under which the city of Quebec handed over to the Government a property valued at over $2,000,000 in connection with the works in that city. 1 submit that these works are urgent and essential, in the interest not only of the city and the province of Quebec *but of the whole of Canada as well. Large sums of money have already been spent on the terminals in Quebec for equipment of the Transcontinental and for the building of the Transcontinental shops. These shops have now been finished nearly two years, but are lying idle. Some time ago I learned with pleasure that the Government bad decided to give contracts for the supplying of 7,500 cars for the Transcontinental railway. I hoped at that time that some of these cars would be built in the Transcontinental shops at Quebec, which were designed for the purpose of doing such work. But all the contracts were given outside; nothing was provided for Quebec. The citizens of Quebec and the board of trade of that city have sent many requests to the Government in this matter during the last few years, but nothing has been done. We had the pleasure of having in our city in October, 1913, the Prime Minister and his colleagues, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Hazen, who all conceded that these works were of great importance and should be proceeded with at once. On that occasion the Prime Minister laid the cornerstone of the St. Malo shops and .of the works on the St. Charles river, and visited other important works. But all these works have been stopped and nothing is provided in the Estimates for their continuation. The city of Quebec is not asking for any favour. We aie simply asking the Government to give that portion of the country its rights and to carry out the agreement made. At least a reasonable amount should be placed in the Supplementary Estimates to carry out some of the works, to provide equipment for the Transcontinental Railway

at Quebec, to proceed with the terminal works, in order that the Transcontinental may take care of the great traffic from the West which should pass through Quebec.' It is well known that two-thirds of the grain from the West is now shipped through United States ports instead of through Quebec or other Canadian ports, because of lack of proper terminal and other Canadian ports, because of lack of proper terminal and other accommodation. I ask the Minister of Railways to look into this matter and see that justice is done to the city of Quebec.
Mr. J. D. REIlD: I realize that the St. Malo shops would be much better if we had them working, but I could not see my way clear, under present war conditions:, to spend a lot of money on these shops at this time when the work could be satisfactorily done in many other places. Matters in connection with railways at Quebec will have to be taken- up and dealt with now that we have taken over the Canadian Northern Railway system. I have not had an opportunity yet of looking over the matter, but I shall be in Quebec within the next four weeks and will look into the whole situation there with a view to seeing what should be done in the interests of the railways as a whole.


Georges Parent: 
John Dowsley Reid: It cost about twice as much as that to operate it. There is a big loss.


Georges Parent: Some years ago I had a seat in this House when the question of the Transcontinental was very much debated, and there was a good deal of opposition to that part of the line from hon. gentlemen who were, at that time, sitting on the opposition side of the House. Remarks were made in particular to this effect, that the line running through the northern part of the province from Quebec to Cochrane would never prove a paying proposition. Since that line has been built it has opened up a very wealthy part of the province of Quebec, where thousands and thousands of settlers have already established themselves and where immense wealth in the way of pulpwood lies ready for the market. If this line has not brought better results, I think the minister will probably find that the reason is that the equipment is not sufficient to take care of all the traffic coming from that part of the country. The settlers of the Abitibi region have complained over and over again that it is impossible for them to ship their pulp-wood. All along the line from La Reine, Amos, and the different settlements in that district, thousands and thousands of cords of wood are lying, unable to be shipped. If we had had a little more equipment, much more revenue could have been derived from that Toad. The revenue obtained by the road has been obtained without the railway having had an opportunity to meet either of the two purposes for which it was built. These purposes were, first, to decrease the cost of freight on wheat from the West, and secondly, to ensure ocean freight for our Canadian ports. Has this been obtained? I say without the slightest hesitation, no. The figures in regard to exports have not been given by my hon. friend from Quebec county, but I have a few here which I want to place upon Hansard. The exports of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur are as follows:
To Canadian		To United States
	Ports.	Ports.
	Bushels.	Bushels.
For the twelve months ending December 31, 1914	91,000,000	138,000,000For the twelve months ending December 31, 1915	88,000,000	117,000,000For the twelve months ending 1st September, 1916	:	138,000,000	193,000,000
How is it that the line in question has not been equipped so that the grain of the West could have been shipped through Canadian ports? In my opinion, the Government which came into power in 1911 deliberately conducted matters so as to discredit this line against which they have [DOT]always had a grudge, and they did not take *steps to equip properly this part of the *road, in order that the grain might be diverted to United States ports to the detriment of Canadian ports. Of the ports of Halifax, St. John and Quebec, the one that has most reason to complain is Quebec. We have year after year had promises from different Governments, and every time that the matter seemed to be about to come to a head, a change of Government occurred', and the new Administration immediately upset all the doings of the previous Administration. In 1911, the whole situation in Quebec was very clear and well prepared for the future of the city, when suddenly the Liberal Government went out of power and the new Government that took office afterwards changed the whole situation. We have that instanced especially in the case of the Transcontinental terminals at Quebec. As my hon. friend (Mr. Lavigueur), who is the *mayor of Quebec, stated a few minutes ago, the city of Quebec in 1911 entered into a contract with the Government of Canada by which a beautiful property situated on the St. Lawrence front, a property which was valued at least $2,000,000, was handed over to the Transcontinental Commission for the very modest sum of $100,000, on the condition that the Government would spend in the city of Quebec a sum of not less than $2,000,000 in the way of repair shops and other equipment. The engineers of the Government and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, which was vitally interested in the *project, had given their consent to all those proposed improvements. They had decided that the shops of the Transcontinental would be on the heights of St. Foy. The

land had already been prepared; a roundhouse had already-been constructed; everything- was settled; when suddenly in 1911 the Liberal Government went out of power *and the Conservatives took office. . At. once the agreement entered into between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental Commission was thrown aside. The whole project was changed and the shops were diverted from St. Foy to St. Malo, six miles from the main line. I am not complaining about the shops being at St. Malo, although the wisdom of that is disputed, but as they have been built there, the least we can expect from the Government is that the shops shall not remain idle. The shops were erected' two years ago, yet they have no machinery in them yet. I say the shops should be working for the benefit of the Transcontinental Railway. The Prime Minister stated in a speech delivered in the city of Quebec in 1913-at wnich time the present Minister of Railways was in the Cabinet-that the shops would be of benefit to the Transcontinental and the city of Quebec. The only thing that was required to be done, he said, was to build a tunnel from the St. Lawrence water front through the mountain in order to reach the St. Malo shops. In order that there may be no doubt as to what the Prime Minister said at that time, I quote his actual words:
The site originally selected at St. Foy will nevertheless be utilized in the first instance for a large through freight yard which is necessary at that point in order to provide for the distribution of cars on different roads. Moreover, a large handsome station has been completed at St. Foy as well as an eighteen stall engine house and every building necessary for the efficient operation of the railway. Between the Quebec Bridge and the Champlain Market a double track has practically been completed. There is also a connection with the Canadian Northern Railway at Cap Rouge, which permits entrance to the St. Charles side of the city, and which can be utilized for this purpose pending the completion of the tunnel that will connect the St. Lawrence waterfront with the new Ur.ion Station on the Palais site. While that tunnel is essential to the National Transcontinental railway for effective access to the Union Station and to the St. Charles side, it will be equally necessary to other great railway systems which will naturally require access to the great frontage terminal of the St. Lawrence.
The Prime Minister in those words pledged himself to the construction of a tunnel with a view to giving access to the St. Malo shops. I would ask any member who wishes to satisfy himself whether the pledge of the Prime Minister in this respect was carried out, to come to the city of Quebec and see conditions for himself. No CMr. Parent]
tunnel has been built, and I venture to say that no tunnel ever will be built, f would urge the Minister of Railways to take a special interest in that matter, for there is no other city in Canada that would tolerate the situation that exists in Quebec at the present time. The shops are there without machinery and with no work for them to do; it is an intolerable situation. The minister can do what he likes with the shops. If he prefers to hand them over to the Canadian Pacific railway, which was apparently the intention in connection with all railway improvements in the city of Quebec, let him do so, and then we shall not have to complain, because tbe Canadian Pacific railway will use the shops.


Mr. CAHILL:: 
John Dowsley Reid: Tlhe Dominion Government must, of course, protect any securities that are against the Canadian Northern. As to the general policy of the Government the hon. gentleman cannot expect any announcement from me at the present time. When we sit down to consider the whole situation, questions of this kind will naturally arise, and during the recess we shall have time to consider them, and then at another session we .shall be able to give more information on the whole situation.
I would like,to emphasize this point: When the Government takes over the stock it takes over the whole road and must assume any obligations that are against the Canadian Northern railway, and it will do that. If there are any claims against the Canadian Northern of any kind, they will have to ibe dealt with either by the courts, by negotiation, or by settlement if the accounts are fair and just. I do not think I could add anything to what the Prime Minister has said as to the general railway policy. We want to- get a good board of directors, of able men, and lay the facts before them, and then the questions can be dealt with as they arise.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I regret that the discussions we have on this side of the House seem to be regarded by hon. gentlemen on the other side only with Christian toleration. I see a somewhat amused and contemptuous smile on their -faces whep we talked about the Intercolonial and railway matters in the far East. I want to remind-my hon. friends from Ontario and the West that they have no better customers- in the world than the miners and steel workers of Cape Breton and the lumbermen of Nova Scotia, that their pork, beef, bacon, flour,
farm .implements- and everything they manufacture goes down to these very excellent customers from whom they get their money and to whom they get their products by means of these railways. When we are discussing railways hon. gentlemen from the West and from Ontario must not^ suppose that we are discussing a matter in which they have no concern. We hear uneasy " hear, hears " about passing these items because they do not understand exactly the importance of the subjects that we are discussing. I congratulate the province of New Brunswick upon having a minister who looks after the interests of that province. I hope he will have some success in railway matters. I am sorry that in Nova Scotia it is left to an 'Opposition member like myself to say anything in the interest of that province. We have the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) but he is too busy, of course, to give any attention to such small details as the railway affairs of that province. We have the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) whose world affairs also are of such a character as to remove him from being concerned about such trifling matters as the accommodation of the people in the way of railway facilities. It, therefore, falls inevitably upon such men -as the Opposition members, who have no very great power with the present Government, to get such votes and such considerations as are necessary for railway development in Nova Scotia.
. We are now developing largely as railway owners in our country and the management -and working of railways is a matter that every member should know something about. It is getting to be important. The minister tells us that we have something' like 4,000 miles of road apart from the Canadian Northern railway.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is important for the people that we should have some conception of what we are doing. If this were a meeting of directors it would not he a very cheerful one. The directors, and shareholders would have discovered that we were spending away up in the millions in the development and working of the road but that we have made no money. We are in debt. If we were ordinary directors and shareholders of a road- we would have to put our hands down in our pockets to find money in order to make betterments and to run the road, and that would not be a cheerful prospect. 'However we are new beginners in this enterprise. I was never in favour of

Government ownership; I am not in favour of it now; as I think private enterprise will do better in these matters. Particularly in colonization and development, will private enterprise and private energy do much better than Government ownership. But, by the force of circumstances, we are in this net and we must stay in it and make the most of it that is the way X view it. While a great railway like the Canadian Pacific is being conducted privately we have something to compare our works with. It would be interesting for myself as a citizen of Canada and a member of this House to know how our expenses per mile of operation, for merely running the road, compare with the expenses of the Canadian Pacific. It would be interesting to know how our expenses for betterments, for keeping the road in repair, for rolling stock and all other requirements, compare with those of the Canadian Pacific. Everybody admits that their road is well managed and1 that it is well equipped. It is making money. It is in the same country side by side with ours, and there is no reason why we should not have just as brainy and as capable men to run our road as they have. I would expect the Minister of Railways to come to this House and make a favourable comparison between his railway and the privately owned line and to be able to show that he is making money. There is no reason why the Canadian people should not " make one hand wash the other," or should keep in debt to the extent we are in debt this year. Of course, we are new beginners and we have, to pay for our experience. I do not wish to say anything disagreeable to the minister about the operations of this year. But I must say, in justice to the county and to the part of the province I represent, that we are not treated properly in railway development. We have heard about had railways, poor railways, narrow gauges and roads which are not properly equipped. That is had enough and it is to be hoped that something will be done to better that condition. But I come from an old county, the county in which the famous discoverer landed some three or four hundred- years ago-Cabot is supposed to have landed in Victoria. We have had settlers in that county since then, hut we have never had a mile of railway. My settlers and my people are 100 to 120 miles away from any railway. That is the condition-not a had railway, which is had enough, but no railway at all, which is worse. We thought that in 1911 we had the whole thing in our fist, that we were 
all ready to start building the road: The very first item that the minister mentioned to-night in connection with Nova Scotia reminded me of our old conditions. In 1911, the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government and myself were pulling in the same boat, happy friends. I had my railway and he had his-. I helped- him. He was then in Opposition. He got money for his railway and I got money for mine. The change of Government took place. The Prime Minister went on and built his railway, but he threw me to the wolves-myself and my railway. I do not think that was very fair comradeship or- companionship. I have often chaffed him about it since, but he does- not answer, and there is no answer for it at all. The money was voted for my railroad in the -county of Victoria, jus-t as it has been for the Dartmouth and Dean branch. But I was not prime minister, and the road in Victoria county was not built. The Prime Minister had the power to secure money for a very much poorer section of the country than is to be found in the county of Victoria. I was told at the time by the then Minister of Railways- that something would be done. I moved a resolution in the House that the time had arrived when the non-railway counties in Eastern Canada should be provided with railways. That resolution was accepted, and is to be found embodied in the records. I have been keeping quiet since, but nothing has been done, and, to my surprise and consternation, a couple of years ago six or seven millions of money was invested in a new railway enterprise altogether-in the Quebec and Saguenay railway-and in a new part of the country. What justification was- there to pass over Victoria county, where the enterprise was right in hand, and to undertake a project in a new county as to which nothing had been said about the need of railways at all, and spend this money as it has been spent, more especially in view, of the fact that in the district referred to a railway is not needed half as badly as it is in my constituency? I think I have reason to complain that we have not been properly treated. We have a magnificent country in North Victoria, where there is the finest of fishing, and splendid agricultural land-in fact, everything that is necessary to make of it a great and prosperous district-hut we .have no railway accommodation, although every other part of Canada seems to he getting what it requires for development and receiving proper attention. While I do not hope for very much from anything I say to-night, I

would not be doing my duty to my county if I did not once more impress upon the minister that we have been neglected. The minister remembers well that I am not talking of something which occurred since our party has been in opposition. He remembers well that I kept pounding away at the former Government, of which I was a supporter, until I got them to agree to the building of this railway, and also that I assisted in getting them to agree to build the Guysborough road and the Dean Settlement road. But the present Prime Minister got his own railway built, and1 threw the hon. member for Guysborough and myself, as I said before, to the wolves.
I do not wish to pursue the subject any further, except to say thai, when we from Nova Scotia occupy time in talking about the Intercolonial and railway matters. we have nothing to apologize for. There is one constituent of mine who pays $350,000 to $400,000 to the Government railways.. If the minister will look into thei freight accounts of the Novia Scotia Steel and Coal Company, he will find that one concern pave something like half a million of money into the coffers of this railway, in addition to the large sums paid by other very excellent customers of the railway in that part of the country.
Now, there are a few other local matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. Last year I spoke about our station at North Sydney. That is where the Newfoundland traffic is handled, as the minister knows. The trade with Newfoundland during the summer time, when the steamships, on that route are alble to run, is simply enormous. An immense number of passengers travel by that route, and there is a large amount of freight carried, and the money that goes, into the coffers of the Government railway from the terminus at North Sydney must be very large indeed. Unfortunately, the station at North Sydney is a very small one, containing only one small room, and is not at all fit to accommodate the traffic of which I have spoken. I wish to impress upon the minister-and he will remember that I spoke to him last year upon, the same subject-the necessity of providing better accommodation for the public. The existing traffic will amply justify whatever expenditure may be involved in making the accommodation more adequate. The minister will find, if he makes inquiry, that there are no .modern facilities at the station for the needs of the public. The station is but a little bit of a place for a town of the size of North Sydney, and
especially in view of the immense traffic which passes through it. As the member for that constituency, I have often felt ashamed that we did not have better accommodation.
The minister will also recall the fact that I have brought to his attention two or three times the need for better facilities at a place called Molnnes' Harbour. In spite of the poor accommodation the' man in charge has to stay there all the time, and I am sure that if the minister could see the place he would realize that it is not at all suitable. Accommodation for passengers is also lacking, and yet this, is one of the places in the district which pays the road well.
I also, spoke to the minister last year about the need of proper facilities for handling freight at a place called Christmas Island. At that point there is a large amount of freight, but no person to handle it, and no proper station house, and yet the traffic is one that pays well. I sincerely hope that the .minister will give some attention to these matters to which I have drawn his attention. I am talking at a rather unseemly hour, owing to giving way to other hon. gentlemen who had representations to make, but I can assure tlhe minister that I am very much in earnest in urging upon him the imperative necessity of meeting the needs of the people whom I represent. The fact of this being war time compels me to be brief, otherwise I would assure the minister that it would take him three weeks or more to get his. estimates through the House.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has acted rightly in bringing these matters to the attention of the committee, because they are now on record, and it will afford me an opportunity of looking into them thoroughly. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that since I have been administering this department I have been, anxious to take the necessary time to make a trip over the Intercolonial railway and look into all such matters as be has spoken of from one end of the road to the other. Perhaps it was hardly fair on my part not to have carried out that intention before, but owing to vPaiiiament being in session, it has so far been an impossibility. However, I have made my plans to take a trip over the Intercolonial, which will include a visit to Sydlney. I wish1 to go to Sydney to see the works, there, and also to visit other parts of Nova Scotia, which, as yet, I have riot had an opportunity of seeing. When I go- bo .Sydney I will discuss matters with

the hon. gentleman and1 come to some conclusion. with respect to some of the things he has mentioned, as well as any other points which need to be dealt with. If there are things that are really necessary, notwithstanding the fact, that this is war time, I will take them up and give them my best consideration. It is only the prevailing war conditions which prevent the Government from doing many things that, we would like to do. However, the hon. member knows the situation as well as l do, and' the difficulties which confront us. Nevertheless I am glad that the hon. member has ventilated these matters this evening, and I repeat that when I am in Sydney I will look into the whole situation. I shall be very glad then to discuss each and every matter that he may bring forward, and endeavour to determine exactly what we should do under the existing conditions.


Georges Parent: Does the item of $1,600,000 for the Quebec bridge include the amount of $1,000,000 supposed to be paid as a bonus to the St. Lawrence Bridge Company.


John Dowsley Reid: It is only the amount to be paid to the contractor, the St. Lawrence Bridge Company, for building the bridge. No bonuses, other than building the bridge.


Georges Parent: I suppose my hon. friend Teinembers that there was a bonus of $1,000,000 to be paid to the contractor if the bridge stood up. Has that $1,000,000 been paid?


John Dowsley Reid: No. This is simply to return the deposit and any little bills the Bridge Company has.
Progress reported.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1917-18.	.
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1918, was presented by Hon. A. K. Maclean ((Acting Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the House and referred to the Committee of Supply.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these all the Supplementary Estimates?
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	They are the
Supplementaries for the past fiscal year. The Supplementary Estimates for the current year will be (Submitted possibly tomorrow.
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid 'the House adjourned1 at 12.32 .a.m., /Saturday.
fMr. J. D. Keid.] '
Saturday, May 18, 1918.