1919-10-20

[Stage Direction]
Hon, N. W. ROWELL (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) laid on th« Table a copy of the Treaty of Peace between the allied and associated powers and Austria, signed at St. Germain on September 10, 1919. He then moved:
That 1,000 copies of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria signed at St. Germain on September 10, 1919, laid on the table of the House this day, be printed forthwith in English and 500 copies

in French, and that the provisions of rule 74 be waived.
Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion can only
he entertained at this stage by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ,D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Some weeks ago I moved for some papers in connection with a contract between the Government and the Dominion Canners. Limited. I should like very much to get these papers before the end of the session, if possible.
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no papers bearing on any contract 'between this company and the Canadian Government, but I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a more definite answer. I shall inquire, and if there be any such contract I shall bring down any papers that bear on it that are properly subject to be brought down before this House.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Has the Government received a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of St. John, New Brunswick, to the effect that they view with great apprehension the acquisition and operation of the Grand Trunk system by the Government?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. There is no objection to the hon. member asking whether the resolution has been received, but he should not cite the contents of the resolution. This question might more properly be placed on the Order Paper. There is no objection to the question whether the resolution was received.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have no knowledge of any such petition.



TIME OF VOTING ON SECOND READING OF GRAND TRUNK BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: I heard a rumour this morning to the effect that the Government would press for a vote on the second reading of the Grand Trunk Bill tomorrow night. This would be in direct opposition to the declaration of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), who
stated that the fullest opportunity would be given hon. members to discuss this question. - Is there any foundation for that rumour?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I hope it is true.


George Green Foster: There has been no arrangement made looking in that direction. It has been repeatedly stated that the House shall have all the time it wants to discuss this question. I hope, however, that its wants will be reasonable, because we do want to get away in fair time. We are not going to force the matter to a vote, however, until the House is reasonably ready for it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: My hon. friend really wants to get away this time.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, (from the Senate), for the relief of Millie Wettlaufer.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 32 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur LeRoy Eastcott.-Mr. Green.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the Minister of Justice aware as to whether or not, in the districts comprising the counties of Temiscouata and Kamouraska, the chief of the Federal Police retains the services of a lawyer from RiviSre-du-Loup in his raids against defaulters, and that he pays him $10, which is charged to the said defaulter if the latter pleads guilty, and $21 if he enters a plea of not guilty before the magistrate and is not successful?
2.	Could not the chief of the Federal Police procure for himself forms from the Clerk of Peace, without the expensive services of a lawyer?
3.	If so, will steps be taken to stop this exploitation of defaulters which forces them to put a useless and expensive defence?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY :: 1.	The minister has learned as a result of inquiries made since this question was pro-poundecj that Mr. E. H. Cimon, advocate of Riviere-du-Loup, appeared as representing the prosecution in a number of prosecutions against military service defaulters conducted before Mr. Corriveau, the magistrate at Riviere-du-Loup. There is a question of fact between Mr. Cimon and Mr. Herman, inspector of the Dominion Police, Mr. Cimon claiming that he was instructed by Mr. Herman to appear upon terms that

the Government would not be responsible for his charges, while Mr. Horman claims that he gave no instructions to Mr. Cimon, who appeared at the suggestion of the magistrate, but after Mr. Horman had intimated to the magistrate that the Government did not intend to engage counsel or become responsible for any charges of counsel in the prosecutions. The further fact appears to be not in dispute that costs were adjudged to Mr. Cimon in the convictions amounting to $10 in undefended cases and $20 in defended cases, which were recovered from the convicted persons for Mr. Cimon's benefit in the cases in which the latter paid the pecuniary penalties and costs imposed. The department did not authorize Mr. Cimon's enpayement upon any terms and had no knowledge that he was acting or receiving fees until notified by this question. The minister in view of the facts as disclosed has intimated to Mr. Cimon that he should repay the amounts received as illegally exacted.
2.	Yes.
3.	Certainly.


NATURAL RESOURCES OP PRAIRIE PROVINCES.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Was any definite promise ever made by the Government or any member thereof to transfer the natural resources of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to these provinces?
2.	If so, was any condition attached to such promise which would affect other provinces by way of re-adjustment of subsidies or otherwise?
3.	Is the Government of the opinion that the other provinces have any interest or equity in the resources of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?
4.	If such promise was made is it the intention of the Government to carry out the terms thereof? If so, when?
5.	If not, does the Government not think that
it would be in the public interest to make a definite statement to this effect and thus put an end to the uncertainty which at present exists?	*
6.	Is the proper development of the natural resources of these provinces not being seriously handicapped and retarded by delay and uncertainty in this connection?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The policy announced by the Prime Minister was and is to transfer the natural resources of the provinces on such fair terms as can be arranged. The necessity of fair terms and the interests of other provinces arises from the fact that when the provinces in question were created in 1905 a special subsidy in lieu of these resources was granted them.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.

4.	Yes, as soon as possible.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	The Government is not aware of such retardation.


GUELPH NOVITIATE-JUDGES' REPORT.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Has the report of the judges who heard the investigation of the Guelph Novitiate been received by the Government?
2.	If so, when will it be laid1 on the table of the House?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DAMAGE FROM RIOTS IN ENGLAND.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Was the Government of Canada assessed for the pay men! of the damages resulting from the riots at (a) Kinmel Park; (h) Whitley Caimp ; (c) and other places where riots took place in England ?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: This information is not available in Canada, but a cable is being sent overseas for the desired information.


DOCTORS IN PERMANENT ARMY.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many positions are there for doctors in the permanent Canadian army?
2.	How many applications are there for the said positions?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	There are sixteen vacancies for doctors in the permanent Army Medical Corps.
2.	There are thirty-two applications for appointment to commissions.


ARREST OF ARTHUR LAPIERRE.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Dominion Police, who on the 30th of September, 191S, entered the domicile of Arthur Lapierre, Montreal, a conscript bearing the number 3157100, and arrested him?
2.	Is the Government aware of the fact that in making this arrest, the police used a revolver against the said Lapierre, who has since died from the wounds inflicted by them?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to hold an inquest in this matter?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No members of the Dominion Police force participated in this arrest.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN DOCTORS-POST GRADUATE COURSE.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1. Is it true that a few months before the Armistice was signed, the Government asked the doctors in the Canadian army if they desired to take a post graduate course after the war?

2. If so, how many doctors have signified their desire of taking such a course, and is it the intention of the Government to defray the expenses of the said course?


William Findlay Maclean: This information
is not available in Canada but a cable is being sent overseas for the desired information.


SS. CANADIAN ADVENTURER.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Does the Government own a steamship named the Canadian Adventurer?
2.	If so, what is her net, gross, and dead weight tonnage?
3.	What are her measurements, giving length, breadth, and depth of hold?
4.	What water does she draw forward, when light and when loaded, and what water does she draw aft when light and when loaded?


William Findlay Maclean: 1, 2, 3 and 4. This vessel is still in the hands of the builders, The Port Shipbuilding Company, Ltd:.. Port Arthur, Ontario. The information asked for, therefore, is not yet available.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is Brigadier-General J. G. Langton at present Acting Paymaster General?
2.	Has he seen service overseas in the European War?
3.	Was he an officer in the Canadian Militia at the time of the South African War?
4.	If so, did he see active service in South Africa?
5.	When was he appointed Acting Paymaster General?
6.	Prior to his appointment had he had any experience in pay duties, or was he ever an officer in the Canadian Army Pay Corps? If so, when?
7.	What special qualifications did General Langton have to be given this appointment?
8.	Does he administer the Pay (Branch only?
9.	What pay and allowances, including separation allowance, or salary, was he given on appointment?
10.	What pay and allowances, including separation allowance or salary, does he draw at present?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Mr. TOBIN:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, plans, schedules, drafts of classification, and all other documents respecting the re-classification of the House of Commons permanent employees of all grades, sent by any official of the House of Commons to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, or to the experts engaged by the said board to re-classify the Civil Service of Canada.


SHAREHOLDERS OF THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Joseph Archambault: (Cham-bly and Vercheres) moved:


Joseph Archambault: For a return showing the names of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as they appeared in the books of the said company on the 9th of October, 1919, with the address of each shareholder, the number of shares possessed by each and the date upon which said shares were purchased.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: The information here asked for is the names of all shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. While convinced, as I think every hon. member ought to be, that the list of these shareholders, aggregating an immense number, and all, so far as we know, in England, can be of no possible service; and convinced also that the order will cost the country a great deal, involving an expensive return, nevertheless, if the hon. gentleman desires it, the Government will not oppose the motion. It may pass and the names will be secured as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 11 to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Hon. A. L. SIFTON (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the amendment of the Senate to Bill No. 11 be not concurred In for the reason that it prevents the application of the Bill to the whole of the navigable waters of Canada; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.
He said: The amendment consisted in the substitution of " tidal waters " instead of " navigable waters."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved the second reading of Bill No. 35 to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


William Findlay Maclean: I have already explained this Bill to the best of my ability, and I do not think the House should press me for further information until we are in

committee. The purpose of the Bill is to fix a standard can for the packing of lobsters, the sizes being 3, 6, 9, 12 and 16 ounces. The Bill will provide that when lobsters are sold in Canada they must have a label showing the exact contents of the can; that is, the dry lobster meat and not the gross weight of the contents. The law at present provides that a pound can shall contain 14 ounces and smaller cans are based upon that standard, so that we have 3i, 7J and 101 ounces. This is undesirable from the standpoint of the consumer. Those who are engaged in the packing of lobsters also object to it because it subjects them to the charge of possible fraudulent practices on the public.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the resolution
was introduced I noticed that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) said that the weight was to be not printed on the label but stamped in the tin receptacle. I had no time to read this Bill and I do not know whether this provision is in it or not. That statement, coming from the chairman of the committee on fisheries, il took for granted to be so. Now I understand from the minister that there is no provision of that kind and there is nothing to show what the weight of the contents will be. There is a statement as to the quality or kind of shell fish contained in the tin but there is nothing on the label as to weight. Is that correct?


William Findlay Maclean: Cans of lobster sold within Canada mlust contain a label showing the weight of lobster meat regardless of the liquid contained in the tins. If this Bill passes as it is and our lobsters are exported to the United States they will then conform with the American law which requires that the weight of the tin or can must be printed on the label. There is no provision as far as I know requiring that the weight be stamped on the can. I think the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (iMr. Fielding) was in error when he made that statement. I quite recollect his making the statement but at the time I was not sure whether he was right or wrong. I do not think there is any law requiring the weight to be stamped on the can. The great proportion of our lobsters are exported to Europe, largely to the English market, whence they go to various European countries. There is nothing in the British law requiring a label, or the statement of the weight on being imported into England, but when the cans are sold in England they must have a label and

the wholesale dealers attend to that in England. If English merchants sell these canned lobsters in France the labels must be in French and that is done in London. If they are sold in Belgium or Greece, the labels must be in tbe language of the country to which they are shipped. I think there is no way of avoiding that as our export lobsters reaching the London market are largely shipped to European countries.
Mr. MelSAAC: If I understand aright, the cans provided for in this Bill are such as have been hitherto used by lobster packers?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.
Mr. McI'SAAlC: I understand there is no change contemplated in the arrangement which existed prior to 1917. That is the desire of the packers in the province from which I come. They desire that no change shall be made and they favour the arrangement for putting three, six, nine and twelve ounces in the can. As to the other arrangement, they say that fourteen ounces of lobster meat cannot possibly be put into the cans they have. The cans they are now using have become standard, the manufacture of them goes right along and a change in the cans would involve a great amount of expense, new standard's and new machinery. If this carries out the arrangement which prevailed hitherto it is, I think, satisfactory to the packers all over the province of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Why does the minister depart from the usual weights of a pound, half pound and quarter pound?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would remind the House that we are not in committee. The minister has already spoken. If, however, he should desire to answer the question it will be in order to do so.


William Findlay Maclean: I am only too anxious to give my hon. friend the information he desires, but if he is willing to allow us to go- into committee I shall endeavour to satisfy him.


Mr. DEVLIN:: In past years the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr, Loggie) has been cited in the House as an authority on this very subject. I understand that he knows a great deal about canning and is interested in the canning business. The minister has made the statement that this Bill is acceptable to the great majority of canners. I, for one, for the purpose of information, would like to hear from the hon. member for Northumberland to know just how the canners look upon it.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to- be able to say that the proposals before the House are the findings of the packers, or a majority of them. In reply to a question by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), I would say that the present law enacts that lobsters may be exported -without labels, and I understand this legislation does not in any way change that. What is done in this case is that when shell fish are imported into Canada for consumption a label must be put on the can indicating the net contents. But when Canadian lobsters are packed for export it	is not
necessary under the present law to have the tin stamped, although some packers do that for their own protection. As far as I understand the situation, it is the desire of the packers that the weights prescribed here be made the standard weights irrespective of what you call the can-each containing three, six, nine, twelve and sixteen ounces. These will be known as standard sized cans. I do not know whether or not the packers will make them known to -the trade as numbers three, six, nine, twelve and sixteen. I know I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen present are aware that a .No. 2 fruit can contains only about twenty ounces or a pound and a quarter. A gallon can is known to the trade as a No. 10, but it does not hold an Imperial gallon.


Mr. OOPP:: It is very interesting to hear from the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) in regard to the views o.f the packers on this question. I have no doubt that the view he has expressed coincides exactly with the packers' views in regard to the packing of lobsters, .in which my hon. friend is deeply interested. I -am not very well informed in tegard to this matter, but it might toe interesting to the House if the minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean)-or if he cannot do so he might get somebody else to do it for him-would explain whether the partners in this business-I refer to the consuming public-have been considered and how they feel about the .question of reducing the weight of canned lobsters.
Bill read second time, and the House went into Committee on the Bill.
On section 1-"Dry lobster meat and dry meat."


Mr. DUFF:: It seems to me that "dry
lobster meat" is a misnomer; there is no such thing as dry lobster meat. Lobsters are put .in a can with pickle and then the
can is sealed, consequently, when the can is opened, the meat is not dry. It seems to me that the word "dry" should be left out of this section; it would be sufficient to say "lobster meat."


William Findlay Maclean: There probably
might be something to be said in favour of my hon. friend's suggestion, but it will do no harm to leave the clause as it is. The word "dry" is used in many other clauses of the Act, and if my hon. friend's suggestion is adopted it -will involve the amendment of other sections which are not in this Bill. No harm can be done by leaving the clause as it is. My hon. friend- may toe literally correct in saying that lobster meat is not dry, but it is necessary to give a definition of lobster meat after it is removed from the liquid contents of the can. In view of the effect it will have upon other clauses in the Act, I hope my hon. friend .will not -press his amendment at the present time.


William Duff: I do not think the minister has sufficiently answered the point I raised. There are other fish to which this applies as well as lobsters. For instance, nobody can s.ay that mackerel put up in pickle in a barrel is dry fish. The minister ought to see that the language employed in the Bill is correct; there is no necessity for the term which is now to be found there. .Even if the amendment involves -changing other clauses let us do it and have the nomenclature right.


Mr. TURGEON:: I must confirm what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duff) has said in reference to "dry lobster meat." If -that term is insisted on it will create confusion in the minds of the people of the Maritime Provinces who are accustomed to regard "dry fish" as fish which -has undergone the process of being dried.


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot appreciate the point which my hon. friend makes. I do not think it at all relevant to this section of the Act, which applies to shell fish, and does not refer to fish dried by any other process in the Maritime Provinces or elsewhere. When the lobster is in cans it is contained in a liquid and in order to determine the weight of the lobster meat free of the liquid, the statute proposes to designate it as "dry lobster meat. When the liquid is drained from that -meat it, relatively speaking, is dry lobster meat. It is necessary to use a term which distinguishes between the lobster meat after it has been drained and taken from the liquid and

the lobster meat when it is in the can with the liquid-some term which is in contradistinction to the meat in the liquid. I do not see what better term there could be than the one used in the clause, and therefore it had better stand.


William Duff: Why not have the clause read that one minute after the can has been opened and the meat turned out that meat shall be drained? As the hon. member (Mr. Turgeon) says, there is a term in the fish trade which designates dry fish and another term which designates pickled fish. Dry fish means fish that has been sun-cured or cured by artificial means. The term " dry fish " must appear in other paragraphs of the Act.


William Findlay Maclean: It may appear in other clauses of the Act, but we are now dealing with a section which has reference to shell fish, which must be treated differently from other fish.


William Duff: The ordinary person who
reads this clause where "dry lobster meat" is spoken of, and then notices that the term "dry fish" is used in other sections, will surely be greatly confused unless some change is made in the wording. If the word "dry" were omitted, leaving the designation as " lobster meat," it would cover the point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-description of contents and minimum weight to be marked on cans.
Mr. CAHILL:: Will the minister explain how the can is to be marked-whether it is the can itself or the label on the can?


William Findlay Maclean: Will my hon. friend renew his question when we come to the next clause of the Bill?


Frank S. Cahill: We may never come to it.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope we will. If we do not, then my hon. friend's question is of no avail.


William Duff: It surely is possible to leave out the word "dry" in the eighteenth line of this section and have it read, " the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the meat in the can plainly printed in a conspicuous manner."


William Findlay Maclean: I think my hon. friend's case was much stronger when, he was discussing the previous section .than it is now. I was about to point out to him that this clause discloses the fallacy in the argument he was making a moment ago.

The purpose of this clause is to the effect that the weight in avoirdupois of the contents of the can containing fish other than lobster shall be the weight of the contents of the can.
No liquid is added to salmon when it is canned, a little salt may be added, but an oily substance is exuded gradually from the fish, and therefore it would be unfair to say in the case of salmon and many other kinds of fish that the contents should be the exact weight of the fish meat. In the case of lobsters it is absolutely necessary to place in the can some preservative liquid, and the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the weight expressed on the label shall be the weight of the lobster meat, not as in the can with the liquid, but as dried meat-that is, after opening the can and allowing the liquid to drain away for the space of one minute. For that reason we distinguish between lobster meat in and out of the preservative liquid, and in the latter case we call it dry meat and give it a statutory definition. Therefore, my hon. friend"s point is not so strong in this as in the other ease, and rather confirms the position I took when this Bill was before the House last week.


William Duff: I cannot agree with the minister. It is quite evident that although he has lived in the fish country for a number of years he does not know the way fish are packed or he would not give the committee such information. It is a well known fact that when a fisherman packs fish he allows' a certain amount for the pickling


William Findlay Maclean: I was not talking of the packing of all fish, but of certain kinds of fish.	[DOT]


William Duff: Certain kinds of fish are fish all the same.


William Findlay Maclean: Take the case of salmon. Probably I have seen as many packed as my hon. friend-and I suppose neither of us has seen any.


William Duff: I have seen a few salmon packed in cans and in barrels. I do not pretend to know much about salmon, but I certainly know more than does the introducer of this Bill. The minister said that when salmon was packed a certain amount of oil exuded after a certain time. I was proceeding to say that there are other fish in the same position as salmon in that regard. The difference between my hon. friend and myself is that I know, and he does not know. For instance, when a

fisherman packs a barrel of mackerel, instead of packing 200 pounds he packs 205 pounds to allow for a certain amount of wafer or pickle. So my hon. friend's argument in relation to salmon is not a good one. He argued that this first clause could not -be changed because there were so many other clauses in the Act that would also have to be changed. Now he has taken another tack altogether in regard to the second clause.


William Findlay Maclean: No, it is my hon. friend who has taken another tack.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the particular effect of the amendment in clause 2? From a hasty comparison of the amendment with the Act I see very little difference.
Mr. A. K. MAOLEAiN: The language of the Act might be construed as requiring that upon the label upon a can of fish, say salmon, the weight of the contents should he simply the weight of the fish, minus oil or other substance exuded from the fish while it was in the can. That was not considered fair by the department. Let me illustrate. For instance, in the case of a pound can of salmon over 16 ounces is put in as a matter of practice. If the salmon remains in the can a certain time a quantity of oil is exuded from the meat. This amendment will permit the weight of the oil so exuded to be comprised in the weight of the contents of the can. The oil is not lost; it can be used with the fish. But in the case of lobster it is desired to make a distinction, so that one cannot include in the weight of the contents the weight of the liquid. In the case of lobsters liquid is added; whereas in the case of salmon no liquid is added, it comes from the fish, and therefore should be computed as part of the weight of the contents of the can.
Mr. CAHILL' In the case of lobster packed in Canada will the weight have to be stamped on the can or on the label, or on both?


William Findlay Maclean: The weight will be printed upon the label on all cans of lobsters for domestic consumption. It will be printed upon the labels of all cans of lobsters shipped to the United States, because their law requires it, and if these sections are agreed to, our law iwill be in conformity with theirs. There is nothing in the statute which requires that the contents be stamped upon the tin itself. If our lobsters are exported to Europe they usually go to the London market, and the English law requires that when retailed in the United Kingdom the label
must contain the contents of the can. But the London importers handle a great deal of our product, which is sold on the European continent, and they .put the labels on according to the country to which the fish is going. They, of course, desire to print the labels in the language of the country to which they reship the lobsters.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In reference to the last couple of lines'of clause 2, " the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the dry meat in the can, plainly printed in a conspicuous manner;" is that in respect of lobster meat, canned for domestic consumption onJy?


William Findlay Maclean: It would include other fish beside lobster.


Arthur Bliss Copp: As I understand, on what is exported we do not need to have any labels?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The clause continues, " and the name of the place where the same was packed." Does that mean the name of the province, the town, or the packer? I think we ought to have that defined. The packer's name must be on the label?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And if the fish is packed in any county the name of the particular locality must be stated?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It says here, " the name of the place." That might be Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.


William Findlay Maclean: That would be a " place," I hope.
Mr. COpp: Yes; but my hon. friend treats it as a joke.


William Findlay Maclean: No. What does my hon. friend really want to know?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does " name " refer to the particular locality where the fish was packed, or merely to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia?


William Findlay Maclean: " The name of the place where the same was packed." That would mean that if the fish was packed in Sackville, N.B., that name would be placed on the label.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And by So and So?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is not so stated in the amended section. I think it ought to be more clearly defined in that regard.


Mr. McISAAC:: I do not think it would be practicable to put on the label of the can lor instance "Packed in New Brunswick" ; "Packed in Nova Scotia"; "Packed in Prince Edward Island," as the case might be. There are many factories in each of these provinces, and the idea must be that there shall be stamped on the label the name of the locality where the. packing is done.


William Stewart Loggie: Some packers have one head office and a number of branches in different parts of the country. I do not think it is intended that the name of the-particular place where the can was packed should be put on the label; all that is required is the name of the chief place of business of the packer. That, I think, is the intent of the law.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That would be ridiculous. A man whose chief place of business is in New Brunswick might pack at various places in Nova Scotia. I think that the label should state where the goods were packed and by whom.


John Howard Sinclair: The only object of this law, I understand, is to punish packers who do not put the proper weight in the can, and in order to have the proof that a certain man packed a certain can of lobsters, I suggest that the minister amend his Bill so as to require that the name of the packer shall be stated on the label. The name of the place is not worth anything, hut the name of the packer is important.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a clause in the Meat and Canned Foods Act as amended by Chapter 33 of the statutes of 1917, which covers the point. It reads:
All fish and shellfish canneries shall be inspected as provided by the regulations. All fish and shellfish packed in cans shall be subject to inspection during the whole course of preparation and packing, and all such cans shall be marked with-*
(a) the Initials of the Christian names, the full surname and the address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporation name and address or the name and address of the packer or of the fish dealer obtaining It direct from the packer.	*


William Duff: Why would it not be better to provide that the name of the packer and his address shall be stated on the label instead of the name of the place where the same was packed?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think that would he quite as suitable as the clause as it now stands, which provides for the full name of the packer. This [air. Copp.l
clause (b) which I am now amending is intended to cover only the statutory requirements respecting the designation of the contents of the can and the name of the place where packed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It has been suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) that in the ease of a corporation with branches in different places, it should' be necessary to state on the label only the name of the place where the head office of the corporation is situated1. That does not seem to be satisfactory, but that is the effect of subclause (a) of the section in the original Act. If the head office of a corporation is at Halifax and they have branches at various points throughout Nova Scotia, it would he necessary for them only to state the name of their head office on the label in order to comply with the provisions of this clause.


William Findlay Maclean: 
William Duff: Large packers of lobsters in Nova Scotia may purchase and put- up lobsters in fifteen different places; would it be necessary for them to have fifteen different labels on each can? It should be necessary for the firm which has its head office in Halifax to state only the name of the place where the headquarters are located. Certainly they could not state the name of every place from Cape North to Cape Sable where they packed their lobsters.


James McIsaac: If you simply put on the name of the firm which does the packing, you will be face to face with this condition; where a firm has a dozen different packing plants throughout a given province a difficulty might arise. If some of the lobsters turn out to be bad' or improperly put up, how can you tell where any particular cans were packed1? On the other hand, if you put on the can the name of the place where the lobsters were packed, then if there is any difficulty afterwards, the particular packages can be traced, up and investigated. Therefore, I think the two clauses as they stand are necessary.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend say
Chat if a packer packs lobsters at seven or eight different places he has to use seven or eight different labels?


James McIsaac: He has to put on the
name of the firm. I think it is desirable as well that the place where the fish is packed should be shown on the label, so that any shipment can be traced in case of complaint.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think I am right in my contention that a corporation in the province of Nova Scotia need give but one address, even if it packs at different places. Subsection (a) of section 12A of the Act of 1917 says:
The Initials of the Christian names, the full surname, and the address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporation name and address.


William Findlay Maclean: But the next subsection requires that the label must state the name of the place where the fish is packed. Now that provision is either good or bad. It should either be in or left out. It is an old section, and we have kept it in this Bill.
As Parliament has already decided that these labels shall show the name of the place where the lobsters are packed, I am going to assume that Parliament thought it was doing the right thing, and I do not propose to change that. That is not the purpose of this Bill.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the minister said
this was in the Act of 1917.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. I do not
know whether it was on the statute-book prior to that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Parliament decided in 1917
to make the weight fourteen ounces. You are changing that, so why not change the other?


William Findlay Maclean: I am asking Parliament to change the weight, and unless I am able to convince Parliament that it should be changed I do not suppose Parliament will do it. I am not prepared to ask Parliament to change the other provision. We have a law requiring packers of food products to state upon the label the name of the place where the packing is done, and if it is inconvenient for the packer who may have half a dozen canneries, he must put up with the inconvenience.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would meet the case if we were to insert the words " and packer " after the words " -the place " in the twentieth line.


William Findlay Maclean: I am afraid I have not made myself clear to my bon. friend, or he would not have made that suggestion. The requirements with respect to the label are contained in section '12A of the Act -of 1917. That section is divided into subsections (a) and (b). We are not amending (a), which reads as follows: " All shellfish packed in cans," and so on. That is applicable to lobsters, which is the. fish we are dealing with. Then subsection (b) says " the initials of the Christian names, the full surname and the address, or, in the ease of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporation name and! address or the name and address of the packer," and so on. Subsection (b) also requires that the name of the place where the packing is done must be shown.


William Duff: If the minister will ask any hon. friend (Mr. Loggie), who is helping him steer this Bill through, I think he will find that no packer of lobsters or any other fish has ever put on the label the name of the place where the fish are packed. That is quite right-, and I am not finding fault with it. All that goes on the label is the name of the packer and the head office address, not the place where the lobsters are packed. That is what is done in my own business, and in the canning of all kinds of fish. The fish are brought from different localities and the cans are labelled with the name of the firm and the head office address only. I think this Bill was brought down in a hurry without sufficient consideration. I am not opposed to the size of the cans, but i'f the present law is wrong let us put it right now, so that we shall not have to make further amendments next year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-contents and size of cans of lobster:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely we ought to he able to pass a little Act fixing the weight of a can of lobsters, without leaving it open to the packer to bother the minister for an Order in Council. As it is, the packer can go to the minister and get him to pass regulations by Order ini Council saying what the weight shall be. No minister wants to be bothered with a thing like that. The weight should be fixed by statute. We have had years of continuous wrestling ip this House over the lobster question. My hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) will remember that once we took a whole winter trying to pass legislation as to the weight of lobsters that should be in a can and) so forth, but we knocked off j ust where we began, and were

no wiser. There seems to be no finality about lobster regulations or lobster legislation. We ought to fix definitely by statute what the weight shall be, and not leave it open to the packer to come to Ottawa in the midst of the packing season to ascertain what the weight shall be. Are we changing the size of the cans, and providing for new sizes? I understood that the great difficulty was that we were departing from the standard can, and that the legislation of 1917 with respect to. the size of the can was a great inconvenience to the trade. Shall we have cans of different sizes from the present ones?


William Findlay Maclean: There is a little difference in the size, and I shall refer to that point again. My hon. friend suggests that it should not be within the power of the minister to grant permission to pack lobsters in cans of sizes other than those mentioned. The position he takes is very largely a sound one, but as regards the size of cans you cannot compare canned lobsters with any other kind of canned fish I know. You can always fill a can with the required amount of herring or trout, but this is impossible with lobsters. One always desires to have a whole lobster, and you cannot fill a can with nothing but lobster tails or lobster claws. Experience shows that it usually takes two lobsters to fill a three-ounce can, more for the six-ounce can, and, because lobsters sometimes have abnormal claws, a still larger can is required'.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but as a matter of fact there are very few 16-ounce cans of lobster in the market because no one will buy them. It is a very expensive fish. Twenty-five per cent of the lobsters canned are contained in 3-ounce cans and 60 per cent in 6-ounce cans, so that it is unlikely that the 16-ounce can will ever be used very much.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has it ever been used?


William Findlay Maclean: Years ago it was, when lobsters were cheaper. The 16-ounce can, however, really contains more lobster than the average family requires.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister is mistaken. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: Well, more than they will buy.


William Duff: Does the minister think it necessary to provide that no other size of can shall be used "without the written permission of the minister "? I think there is a clause in the Fisheries Act which gives the minister power to regulate the sizes of cans, so that there is no necessity for this clause.	,


William Findlay Maclean: It does not refer to shellfish.


William Duff: Then, how did the department last year pass a regulation fixing the sizes of cans of lobster at 12, 9, 6 and 3 ounces, under that clause of the Fisheries Act?


William Findlay Maclean: They did it under this very section of the Bill before us, under the Act of 1917, which contains the very words to which the hon. member refers.


William Duff: I think they did it under the Fisheries Act.


William Findlay Maclean: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Did the minister not take advantage of the special clause in the Bill and change the weight from 14 ounces, as decided on by the House, to 12 ounces ?


William Findlay Maclean: That was really the effect.


John Howard Sinclair: That is what was done.


William Findlay Maclean: The 1917 Act contains this very provision, but the section of that Act did not represent the depart-

mental view nor the view of the House of Commons. The section, as regards the size of can, represented a compromise between the Senate and the House of Commons.


William Duff: What was the view of the department at that time?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not remember, but it was not the departmental view that the statute should state that a pound can should contain fourteen ounces.


William Duff: What was the view of the House of Commons?


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot say what it was, but I know it was not that expressed in this Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Section 12-D reads:
There shall he five sizes of cans for canning lobsters. The cans of each size shall contain not less than three ounces avoirdupois, six ounces avoirdupois, nine ounces avoirdupois, twelve ounces avoirdupois and sixteen ounces avoirdupois respectively, of dry lobster meat.
I submit that the section should stop there, because we have never provided, as the next four lines do, that the minister in the middle of a season should have power to change the weights and sizes of cans entirely. There should be some degree of certainty and stability in the trade, and for that reason I move that all the words after the word "meat" in the 29th line of section D be struck out. These words are:
No other size of oan shall be used for packing lobsters without first obtaining the written permission of the minister, etc.
That means that one packer will get permission to do something, another packer will be allowed to do something else, and there will be endless confusion. If we have a standard can there can be very little difficulty. It is one of two things; the fixing of the size should be left entirely to the minister or not at all.


William Findlay Maclean: It is immaterial
to me; I am quite willing to accept the judgment of the committee but I would prefer the legislation to stand as it is. It would have been better, particularly in the case of lobsters, to have allowed the packers to pack their lobsters just as they saw fit and to place upon the label the contents of the can upon the ground that you cannot treat the packing of this particular shellfish as you would any other kind of fish that I know of unless it should be crabs. Certainly you can fix the size of a can in which is put salmon. herring, codfish, or any other kind of fish which differ from shellfish, but apparently the public and Parliament have got it into their heads that lobsters must be packed in certain sized cans. I think they are wrong but we should try and meet them in so far as it is reasonably practicable. I am not trying to enforce my personal views upon the committee. But, it may happen once in a while that in some locality or another a lobster packer may have brought to his factory a particular size of lobster which cannot be placed properly in any of the cans which are authorized by statute and this provision is only for the purpose of enabling the minister to- give him authority to get another can. The lobster packer does not desire to do it. He would like if possible to have only one can because it becomes standardized and (he has only one size to buy. If this Bill becomes law cans will only be made of the size stated in the statute and if the canner desires to get a smaller size, or a size other than that which is in the Act, he will find it quite costly to get anything but the standard size. Consequently, packers are not very anxious to come to the department to ask for special permission to use a smaller size.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should the temptation be there?


William Findlay Maclean: It is just to meet an exigency which may arise at some time or place. We have many statutes giving the department or officers, powers to vary their general provisions.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister say what the quantity is in the case of salmon, herring and other fish which are put in cans? He promised to give me that information the other day.


William Findlay Maclean: I am sorry I have not it here. It is in the statutes of 1907.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the minister to say that there is no such regulation as this varying the ordinary pound and half-pound in the case of salmon, herring and the other fisih that are packed. Assuming that such is the case, I want the minister to make it clear to the committee why lobster is different from other kinds of fish.


William Findlay Maclean: I thought I had made that clear, 'but perhaps due to my inability to elucidate the matter the hon. gentleman may not have understood my explanation.


John Howard Sinclair: The explanation the minister has given is that there are various sizes of lobsters, that they do not all grow alike; one is a six ounce lobster



and another is of a different size. There are as many sizes of lobsters as there are of herring or salmon and he is attempting to fix the regulation according to the weight and size that lobsters grow when they are caught. That is impossible. He would want 500 cans instead of five cans to do that; it cannot be done. I do not suggest that you could put a whole lobster in one can for you cannot do it. It is very seldom that you will get a half-pound lobster to fill a can. You will require two or three lobsters to till one of these twelve ounce cans. I think the minister is a little astray on this question. If he is, the hon. gentleman sitting beside him will put him right. It is not a question of putting all of a lobster in a can, and there must be some reason why the minister departs from the sixteen, - eight-, and four ounce cans. I would like to hear it.


William Findlay Maclean: There is no reason for departing from it except to have established and fixed in the Act that size of can, for the purpose of canning lobsters, which conforms most exactly with the experience of those engaged in the business. Their opinion has been asked about it and departmental inquiries have been made, the result being that it is believed that cans of the size indicated in the Bill are those which would best meet the requirements of the trade. As I have said already, to-day twenty-five per cent of the lobsters canned are three-ounce cans, sixty per cent are six-ounce cans, the rest being other sizes. There is a great distinction between canning lobster and canning salmon. Very obviously salmon of one class or grade must he packed in the same can. But my hon. friend can easily see that you might have 100 salmon of the same type and put a one-hundredth part of each into the same can; at least, you might have samples of every one of the one hundred put into the same can and you would have a can containing salmon of the same type. The lobster packers inform me that that is not their practice and that it cannot be done. If the lobster packer would desire to place in any one can parts of two or three lobsters, it would be hardly practicable to be filling a can with the cla\fs of one lobster, the tail of another, and so on. It does seem absurd. I think the distinction is quite obvious.
Amendment (Mr. McKenzie) negatived.
Section agreed to and Bill reported
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean for the third reading of the Bill:
, 
Mr. McKENZIE moved in amendment:
That the said Bill ibe not now read a third time, hut that it he referred back to Committee of the Whole House with power to amend by striking out from paragraph 12 (d) of section 3 the following words:	" No other size of can
shall be used for packing lobsters without first obtaining the written permission of the minister. Such written permission shall state the minimum amount of dry lobster meat that is to be packed in each size of can so authorized."
Amendment negatived.
Motion of Mr. Maclean agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


OPIUM DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, Bill No. 34, to amend the Opium and Drug Act was read a second time, considered in Committee, reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
Onésiphore Turgeon: heard that great financial expert, the exMinister of Finance (Sir Thomas White)- *whom I respect as much as' does any other anember-say that' the financial condition -of Canada is serious, and that we are not in a position to assume further liabilities-mot even for .the payment of bonuses to our returned heroes, who to-day are clamouring for some assistance. But, Sir, if there is one form of exipenditure that we should endeavour to assume to-day it is whatever may be necessary to help our returned heroes who risked their lives for us on the bloody fields of Flanders and Belgium. No one need tell me that the soldier who spent many months under fire in the trenches, whether or not he may now seem to be as healthy as he was before, is in as good physical condition as he was before he enlisted. His nervous system has suffered more or less and he requires all the assistance and encouragement and opportunity that we can give to him.
The report of the board of arbitration as to the value of the shares of the Grand Trunk is to be final; the representatives of the people are to have no opportunity of passing judgment upon it. I contend that that report should be submitted to the people, through their representatives in Parliament, for consideration and decision. The day of rule by commissions and Orders in Council should now be passed; we should revert to democratic principles in the administration of our affairs.
It is said that the connection of the Grand Trunk with the Grand Trunk Pacific gives us the reason why the Grand Trunk is today in the condition that it is. It is my opinion that the Grand Trunk should be dealt with separately from the Grand Trunk Pacific. I admit that the position of the Grand Trunk Pacific is such that we have had to take it over; it has been put under receivership by the Government. Hon. gentlemen speak of receivership for the Grand Trunk as being a calamity, but they did not hesitate tb put the Grand Trunk Pacific under receivership. If it is practicable and desirable to have the Grand Trunk Pacific in receivership, I submit that it would be equally practicable and desirable to place the Grand Trunk, the parent company, in the hands of a receiver, as was the case with the Grand Trunk Pacific.
No doubt appeals will be made on behalf of the thousands of shareholders of the Grand Trunk, many of thein people of small means in England and on this continent, who bought the shares on the strength of -I will not say false representations, but

hasty representations, in many cases, to say the least, while the Grand Trunk were not looking after the interests of their road as they should have been. I shall always sympathize with holders of stock who were induced by exaggeration to enter into such speculation. But we must remember that our first sympathy is for the three or four hundred thousand returned men who fought our battles overseas and who need every possible assistance from us.
During the period from 1906 to 1916 $36,000,000 was paid by the company in dividends to the shareholders. Had they applied that amount to the improvement and maintenance of the road it would not be in the condition that- it is in to-day, and the company, instead of trying to load the railway on the country, would be refusing to part with it. My advice to the company is : Let your shareholders do without dividends for another ten years and during that time direct all your energies to the operation, maintenance and equipment of the road; put into it every dollar that you can raise, and after a while you will be able to commence paying dividends to the shareholders.
There is another reason why I am opposed to the taking over of the Grand Trunk Railway system to-day. If one speaks of the East, or of the West, or on behalf of any particular portion of the East or of the West, that does not mean that he looks at these matters from a narrow or sectional point of view. Our country is one of immense territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and naturally the conditions in its various parts are diversified; the products of the different sections vary. It is only by harmonizing the different elements of the country, facilitating the production and distribution of commodities throughout the whole country, taking full
5 p.m. advantage of the different strategical positions, so to speak, occupied by different portions of our land, that we can possibly adjust conditions satisfactorily and do what is best for the national good. One of the reasons, then, why I am opposed to. this project is that it is against the interests of the Maritime Provinces, more particularly against the interests of the ports of St. John and Halifax. I do not make this assertion from any provincial point of view. I believe, as I have already said, that the ports of St. John and Halifax have been placed where they are on the maritime coast of Canada by the hand of Providence for the well-being and prosperity of the whole of our country. In the words of George Etienne Cartier at the time of

Confederation, when he advocated the construction of the line of railways which would have for its purpose the linking together of these different parts of Canada, the presence of these ports on the maritime coast have a tendency to rid Canada of the necessity of being under the whim of the collectors of customs of the United 'States.
What reason is there to-day for the taking over of the Grand Trunk? The Transcontinental brings the products of the great Prairie Provinces from Winnipeg, the centre of the grain production of the West, by the shortest route to our national open ports, shortening the distance of carriage by four hundred miles. This line has not been given the fair trial that it should have been given by the Government since 1911; but notwithstanding that neglect it carried the grain of the West last year to the Maritime Provinces four cents a bushel cheaper than it was carried by any other railway. If that road had been given a fair chance we would not to-day be under the necessity of sending out the greater portion of our wheat through American channels.
It is said by some that we have too many railroads in Canada; that we do not need all these transcontinental lines.
We need these three transcontinentals. It may be that the present railway situation is due to different governments of Canada having refused to adopt the principle of the nationalization of railways simultaneously with the construction of the Intercolonial forty years ago. In consequence, the private railroads have all been looking for communication with the great centres of distribution, Saskatoon, Winnipeg,- Port Arthur, and so on, which has led to much duplication. Nationalization of the railways years ago would have avoided this duplication. It was in the interests of Canada that the Transcontinental railway should be built, because it brought the maritime ports four hundred miles nearer to Winnipeg.
There is another matter I wish to refer to in connection with this legislation. The ports of Halifax and St. John will be brought into competition with Portland, Maine. We have spent or are spending $40,000,000 on improving the port of Halifax, and $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 in improving the facilities at St. John. In passing I might say that one of the hon. members for Halifax stated when he was on this side of the House that the location of the facilities at Halifax was not the best. However, we are spending these great sums on these two maritime ports, and now we
propose to take away their trade and send it to Portland, Maine.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No truck or trade with the Yankees.


Onésiphore Turgeon: No, we must not send our wheat, our horses or our cattle to the United States where we can get a better price, but we are to give Boston, Portland and New York the advantage of our export trade. When the Liberal party had approved of the construction of the National Transcontinental from Winnipeg East, and of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the Pacific Coast, there was another proposal submitted to Parliament and the people of Canada, for securing the shipment of goods through Canadian ports, thereby building up the business of those ports and of our own railways. A resolution was passed by the Liberal administration in 1906 or 1907 by which importers of goods from Great Britain enjoyed the British preference only in case their importations came through Canadian ports. That was done, first, to develop greater trade with the British Empire, and secondly, to encourage the railroads we were building in Canada. To-day we * hear of public opinion in Ontario in favour of the nationalization of the railways, but for years men did not dlare mention that principle. It was also from Ontario that the resolution I have spoken of met with the greatest opposition, some two or three Ontario members on the Liberal side going so far as to vote against their leader and against the resolution. In view of such strong opposition to a measure of national interest, what opposition may we not expect to-day to a proposal to divert Canadian trade from our own ports to the ports of the United' States? The present outlet of the Grand Trunk is not one of our maritime ports, but Montreal, and thence to Portland. Now trade does not always follow the flag; it follows the streams that are open to it, and if you open the streams of trade from Montreal to Portland, as against Montreal to St. John and Halifax, trade will follow the stream and will be diverted to Portland. That applies not only to the roads west of Montreal, but to the roads east of Montreal. The money that has been spent on improving the ports of Halifax, St, John, and Quebec is apparently a secondary consideration with this Government.
When the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) was speaking the other day, my hon. friend from Royal (Mr. McLean) asked

as ito the possibility of trade being diverted from St. John to Portland. The minister's answer did not satisfy me, and I put the same question to him in a more concise form. I used as near, as I remember, the words. of the resolution of 1906 or 1907. I asked whether ocean traffic collected on the Grand Trunk west of Montreal and designated for ocean ports would continue to go to the ports of Halifax and St. John, and the minister replied that he could not add anything to the explanation he had given to my hon. friend from Royal. What was his answer to that hon, gentleman? He said:
Of course, when we are on the Bill, I shall be glad to discuss that matter, but I might say this evening that the ports of .St. John and Halifax have been and are being still further developed for our own Canadian ocean terminate, and the Government intend using those ports to their fullest capacity. There is no doubt about that. We have now the Transcontinental which. was originally built for that purpose right into St. John. But Portland is a portion of the Grand Trunk system and the hon. member will understand that a large portion of the Grand Trunk is In the United States. There is the Central Vermont and other portions of that line, so that Portland will have to be used to a certain extent for portions of the Gtjpnd Trunk railway system. But X want to impress upon the hon. member that there is no intention of not carrying out the policy of the Government in the past of developing and keeping our traffic in our own Canadian ports so far as it is possible to do that.
The maritime road was a masterpiece of railroad construction and was a credit to the entire Dominion. It was built for heavy transportation, having more particularly in view the shipment of western products to maritime ports with a minimum. of cost. But, I repeat, owing to a disastrous turn of events in 1911, there was a change of administration, with the inauguration of a policy which threatens to rob us of the full benefit of our national ports. The Minister of Railways, who' I regret is not present, tersely says: "You have the Transcontinental running from Moncton." The policy of the Government has been to bring all possible traffic from the prairies and from the West via Winnipeg, not to Quebec or Moncton, but to Cochrane, diverting it towards Toronto and giving it to the Grand Trunk, and sending it to the ports of New York, Boston and Portland. It is with considerable apprehension that I view this condition of affairs. Possibly, Mr. -Speaker, hon. members may think that I exaggerate, but let me assure my hon. friend, the member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that there are others in the Mari-
[Mr. Turgeon.l
time Provinces who are equally as concerned as I am over the possibilities of the legislation now before the House. Only last Friday night the St. John Board of Trade passed a resolution in connection with the subject, expressing their opposition to the acquisition by the Government of the Grand Trunk railway in the absence of more reassuring information than they at present have. That resolution reads:
Resolved, that this council views with grave apprehension the acquirement by the Government of Canada of the Grand Trunk Railway, including that feature which would involve the owning and operating of a railway in a foreign country, and in the absence of fuller information would oppose the plan. The council would, however, welcome any person that the Government might feel disposed to depute to explain to the board the advantages to the country of the action proposed, and in the meantime would maintain an open mind on the subject.
A copy of this resolution was sent to the Government for their information. I regret that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Wigmore) is not in the House. If he were I would ask him if he has not already been deputed to convey to the people whom he represents the views of the Government in regard to the railway situation. At the beginning of the session I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that there was not a representative from New Brunswick in the Cabinet, and expressed the opinion that it was a matter of vital importance to that province that it should have such representation, at least to the extent of one member. Two months have passed since I made that representation, but no one from New Brunswick has been invited to join the Cabinet. And when I learned that this resolution would come before the House I thought that my hon. friend from St. John would be sent by the Government to pacify his constituents and give them every assurance that the interests of the country would not suffer as a result of this great undertaking which is contemplated by the Government. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Board of Trade of St. John is by no means a political body, and certainly it is not Liberal in its sentiments. It is purely and simply a commercial organization, and the consensus of its influence tends, if anything, to the exclusion of Liberalism. When therefore that council in St. John appeals to the Parliament of Canada upon such a vastly important proposition as this, its representations, in my opinion, deserve every possible consideration. Now, the .Minister of Railways said the other day that he would give an explanation. Well, Sir, there are some

explanations that, strangely enough, do not explain anything, and we are yet to learn from the hon. minister that the commercial value of our own national ports will not in reality depreciate. We have been told that our national debt is so vast as to stagger the imagination and that it will tax our greatest ingenuity to make both ends meet. We are faced with a yearly expenditure on interest aggregating some $175,000,000; yet we are going to undertake, by the acquisition of the Grand Trunk, an enormous annual expenditure.
Now, I appeal to my western friends who have left the Government because of their disagreements with them in regard to tariff questions. The farmers of the West, as well as those of the East, have been expecting a reduction of the tariff from day to day, and from year to year, in order to be able to revive their activities in the further production of food npt only for our country but for the countries in Europe. They have claimed that they cannot produce to advantage because of the tariff exactions made upon them. They are clamouring for a reduction in tariff duties. They have been told by the Government to wait for another year or two. They were told last session to wait for the ministerial commission which would be appointed to travel over the country, take evidence and see what could be done in regard to the reduction of the tariff. The session ended the first week of July last, the summer is over but another session was called without regard to the work of this commission. We have been here for two months and the ministerial commission has not started out yet. We have been told to take as much time as we desired for the consideration of this question. We may be here if we -wish until November or December but in the meantime the tariff commission remains in Ottawa and the producers of the West will have to wait for another year. How does that situation agree with the demand for tariff reduction from the West? The farmers of the West have no interest in this railway. It is the people of Ontario who want to make further connections between the Grand Trunk and Winnipeg. They want another outlet to the West and they will have to get that outlet either through North Bay or Port Arthur.
The situation is serious. I know that the Grand Trunk Pacific has to be 'administered. 'in some way or other by the Government. Let us decide at once that we will take over the Grand Trunk Pacific, add it to the Transcontinental and have one national railway. In doing this we will
certainly add again to the debt of the country but the country is confronted with a situation, not with a principle. Let some means be devised by the Government so that they can come to an arrangement with the directors of the Grand Trunk to relieve them of their responsibilities in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let us relieve them from these responsibilities and let the country assume them, take the road over and have one line from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Time will reveal that when the Grand Trunk Pacific was constructed it was constructed in the interests of the country. The requirements of the country demanded it and if the policy in regard to it had been maintained, if we had refused to duplicate that line from Edmonton to the Pacific coast by aiding the Canadian Northern to the extent of 800 miles we would not be confronted with the position that we face to-day. I think this is the best possible solution of the situation. Let some means be devised by which some arrangement would be made to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific and tell the directors of the Grand Trunk that they will have to exercise economy, raise means in all available ways, stop paying dividends to the shareholders that are not earned, and put every; dollar of receipts into the maintenance and improvement of their road.
This project, since its introduction a few days ago, has been receiving the earnest consideration of thinking people throughout Canada. As we have seen by the resolution passed by the Board of Trade of St. John, and expressions coming from other directions, the people of Canada are considering the situation and are averse to putting any further financial burden upon the country. There are others who do not partake of the views of the Government but who are offering the Government every possible assistance in taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific and stopping at that in order not to plunge the country into a more serious financial condition than that in which it finds itself to-day. If we go on a few steps farther we may find the situation not only dangerous but disastrous.
My attention has been called to a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen the other day from one whom I consider an authority upon the resources of the country and the way in which they should be developed. In his earnest devotion to Canada he takes second place to none. The fact that he is a Liberal does not mean that he is not a Canadian. His suggestions merit the attention of the Canadian people and more particularly of those who are conversant

with his activity, his energy, his success in life and his devotion to his country. I refer to the Hon. Senator Edwards, of Ottawa, who to-day, unfortunately, is not permitted to come to the Senate and explain his views, and suggestions, patriotic as they are and worthy of the commendation of the Canadian people. He expresses my views not only upon the question of the nationalization of railways, but the position of the country and the future of our resources, resources which are immense, but which may be wasted as they have been in some directions in the United States, where they have exhausted their timber resources and to-day have to come to Canada for their supplies. If we pay no more attention to our resources than the Americans have done we will in the future regret the unwise freedom which we have taken in their development without consideration of the future needs of the country. After explaining his views, Senator Edwards arrives at certain conclusions. LeLme read his words so that there will be no misapprehension:
No one should criticise to any extent without offering some alternative to that which is suggested. As I understand, it is the purpose of the Government to take over the old Grand Trunk Railway system and add it to the many miles of existing railway which are already under the administration of the Government of Canada. Now, so far as I am concerned, I see no justification whatever for taking over the Grand Trunk Railway proper. It is a railway having a great portion of its trackage in the United States. It was constructed and is owned by British capital. It is true that the affairs of that railway are complicated by reason of its having undertaken responsibility with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. In my judgment the Government should not go beyond making arrangements to relieve the Grand Trunk system of that responsibility. That done, the old Grand Trunk system would be in its former position.
This is what I claim should be done. Let the Government make the best possible arrangement as to the Grand- Trunk Pacific, from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. Let them secure a good transcontinental railway, under Government ownership and control, and then allow the Grand Trunk themselves to do the best they possibly can, and direct their energies into the improvement of their road, and in time they will be able to surmount the difficulties which confront them without forcing Canada into a state which approaches a dangerous crisis, not to say any more. Our resources are well known in England. Let the directors and- the shareholders of the Grand Trunk place before the capitalists of England the value of those

resources and the necessity for extending temporary assistance. That assistance will then be obtained from the . capitalists of England and also from the capitalists of the United States, where the Grand Trunk likewise operates. In the general interests of Canada I cannot support the Bill now before the House. I cannot support the project for taking over the -Grand Trunk, because I see no national necessity for it. If it is not ar national necessity it must consequently be against the interests of the Maritime Provinces; and it is opposed to the very idea of Confederation which brought together the Canadian East and the Canadian West, and had for its object freedom of trade throughout Canada under every possible circumstances which could have been foreseen fifty years ago. To-day we live on peaceful terms with the United States, and I hope that condition of peace will continue for centuries to come. The United States will undoubtedly do everything possible for the improvement of their own railroads and the development of their trade and their wealth, regardless of the needs of any other country. We also have our own interests to guard, and I fo-re-' see the danger in this project of a diversion of Canadian trade to United States seaports. For that reason I regard this policy as not only opposed to- the best interests of the Maritime Provinces but highly prejudicial to Canada as a whole. If Canada as a whole is not prosperous, happy, and contented how can any portion of the Dominion be in that desirable state. It might be an advantage to Toronto to centralize the traffic and the offices of a great railway in that city, but that would not necessarily be in the national interests, Toronto does not constitute the whole of Canada. I have every possible respect for Toronto and the press but when that press make representations that are of a deceptive character, we must call upon the people outside of Toronto, and even outside of Ontario, to see that Canadian interests shall be preserved for the East as well as for the West, and that we shall embark upon no policy that will mar the prospect of having a happy, contented, and prosperous nation. For .the reasons I have given. I shall vote against the Government's project.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: The
question that is under review by the House at the present time is unquestionably, one of the most important-if not the most important-that has come before this Parliament. It is important for several reasons. It is important because it means the incurrence, of a very considerable addition to

the public obligations of the country. It is important also, because if this legislation is passed, one of the oldest railroads in Canada shall disappear. Now in any consideration of the question we have, I think, from the very force of circumstances, to take into account what the position of the Grand Trunk is at the present time. It is a matter of certainty that to-day the Grand Trunk railway is in a very difficult-and in reality when one surveys all the circumstances of the case-an almost, if not quite hopeless position. This is due to the obligations incurred by it in the building of the Grand Grand Trunk Pacific in order that it might have a through line to the prairies of the West and an outlet to the Pacific ocean. An argument has been put forth by the directorate and management of the Grand Trunk that it should be relieved of any liability in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. In the face of all the circumstances I think it is impossible for this Parliament to concede that position for a moment


Mr. ROWELL:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and the best evidence of this is found in the report of the Royal Commission on Transportation that was appointed a few years ago to investigate the whole railway situation of the Dominion. What is the judgment of this commission in respect to that particular point? Let me illustrate by reading a brief excerpt from the report of the commission. This is taken from a letter which was sent by Mr. W. H. Biggar, K.C., General Counsel for the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific railway. In that letter Mr. Biggar states:
The construction by the Grand Trunk interests of a line into the western provinces appears to have been first suggested by Mr. Hays to the late Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, then -President of the Grand Trunk, early in 1902. The correspondence between these two officials clearly shows that the chief purpose was the construction of a line to connect the Ontario dines of the Grand Trunk with the western provinces. The general outline of the scheme having received the approval of the directors of the Grand Trunk in London, Mr. Hays, on October 23rd, 1902, submitted it to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister.
This is the statement of the General Counsel of the Grand Trunk railway, and I think clearly establishes the fact that the idea of building this transcontinental line originated in the minds of those who were then associated with the management of the old Grand Trunk railway. And of course, Mr. Speaker, for very natural reasons. The Grand trunk lines were confined to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec so far as
Canadian mileage was concerned. The management realized it was handicapped in operating a road within this circumscribed area, and that if the road was to reach a position of strength in the country it was necessary to reach out into the western provinces and get, as it developed, a portion of the profitable business that originated in that portion of the Dominion. Consequently, for very good reasons, they approached the Government of the day with the proposal that- this road should be built.
Now, in face of that how can we consider for one moment that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be relieved of its liabilities in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific? I dismiss its responsibility for the operation of the National Transcontinental for the reason that the Government a few years ago, when that matter was under consideration, according to the Royal Commission I have referred to, practically relieved the Grand Trunk of any obligation to operate this portion of the system. But when we come to consider the position of the Grand Trunk in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, we find, according to the statements of this same Royal Commission that. investigated our railway situation, that its present liabilities in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific reach $5,000,000 a year, and at the end of 1923 will reach $7,000,000 a year.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Grand Trunk was not under any obligation to operate the Transcontinental; it was the Grand Trunk Pacific that was under that obligation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was a slip of the tongue; I meant the Grand Trunk Pacific but in any event it amounts to the same thing. The existing obligations of the Government in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific amount, according to the statement of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), a ferw days ago to probably $145,000,000. We have therefore in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific this situation: that the old Grand Trunk, through its guarantees, is liable for the interest on the moneys invested in that road to the extent of over $100,000,000, and the Canadian Government is interested to the extent of over $140,000,000. The information placed before the House a few days ago in respect to the position of the old Grand Trunk indicates clearly that it is an impossible position as far as the payment of the interest on its investment in the Grand Trunk Pacific

is concerned. I will admit that the last two years of railroad operation in Canada have been difficult years, and that it is perhaps unfair to take those as a true index of the business of the Grand Trunk; but even if we take the history of the Grand Trunk back for the last 15 years, we shall find that it has not at any time earned sufficient net revenues to meet its obligations on the Grand Trunk Pacific in addition to its own fixed obligations. Consequently I think we are perfectly safe in arriving at the conclusion that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is in the position where it cannot meet its obligations on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific. In fact, it requires no argument to demonstrate that fact, because it has been admitted by the Grand Trunk Tailway itself.
Now, what is the position of Parliament and the.country in respect to this? It seems to me there are only three courses open to us. First, to relieve the Grand Trunk -of its obligations in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and leave it as it was before this enterprise was undertaken. That, Mr. *Speaker, let me say, is a condition that- in my judgment will not be tolerated for a moment by the Canadian people. I do not think, in view of the fact of the part that the Grand Trunk Railway Company played in the initiation of this enterprise, that it should be relieved of its responsibility in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. What, then, is the next course? It is for the Grand Trunk to go into liquidation. There are several reasons why that is not desirable. In the first place, it might seriously damage the financial credit of Canada. We must bear in mind that our country is a developing country, and that for many years we shall have to go *outside for assistance to finance our public enterprises. We have a large country with a population of only 8,000,000, but we hope that in 15 or 20 years we shall have a population of at least 15,000,000, and in order to carry on our national development it is necessary that Canada's credit be maintained unimpaired in the markets of the world. And in any case it is perhaps doubtful what would be the outcome of liquidation proceedings so far as the responsibility of the Dominion is concerned. It is doubtful, in my mind at any rate, whether it would relieve us entirely of our liability in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. What, then, is the other course to be pursued? To my mind it is the course that the Government have proposed in this resolution which we are now considering, and which commends itself to my judgment as CMr. Crerar.]
the best way out of an extremely difficult situation.
We are not now discussing, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether this country should or should not commit itself to the principle of public ownership of railways. That question has been settled for us-settled, if you like, by the very force of circumstances that have developed in the last few years. We own to-day, independently of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, some 15,000 miles of railway mileage, and we are operating that mileage to-day-operating, it is true, through a company, but nevertheless the people of Canada in fact own and operate these roads. It is not a question, then, of the practicability of Government ownership. It' is, in my judgment, a matter of making the best of a bad situation.
What is the position of our Government railways? We have the Intercolonial, the oldest Government line in Canada, running from the Maritime Provinces, to the city of Montreal; then we have the Canadian Northern lines, the National Transcontinental, and the Grand Trunk Pacific. But a study of the situation reveals this fact, that'we have two Transcontinental lines, with a large number of branch lines in Western Canada-and I may say, those are located through the best territory in the West-with comparatively little branch mileage in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Now, if we are going to operate to the best advantage the existing mileage that the country possesses, is it not necessary from a sound business point of view to get additional mileage in the province of Ontario and also in the province of Quebec?
When the National Transcontinental was undertaken at the requestor at any rate, at the suggestion-of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, one of the arguments advanced in favour of it was that it would be a complementary system to the old Grand Trunk in Ontario; that the Grand Trunk required these extensions into the Western Provinces, required the transcontinental line, in order that they might more effectively carry on their business. If that argument was sound then-and it was considered sound-is it not equally true to-day that the Canadian people, having the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental, finds it necessary to 'have the old Grand Trunk as complementary to these systems? I think the question is beyond argument from a practical business point of view.
Some objections have been raised, particularly in a portion of the public press

of Canada, to the principle of public ownership. While I recognize that the question has much opposition, I say frankly, Sir, that I believe in the principle of public ownership, and there are strong evidences throughout the world that all democratic peoples are coming to a belief in it, But one of the strongest arguments advanced outside of this House against the public ownership of' railways in Canada is that it cannot be made to pay, and the experience of the Intercolonial is cited as evidence of this. I have taken the trouble to make some inquiry into the relative rates of the Intercolonial and Canadian Pacific railways in the past. In the year 1918- my authority for these figures is Mr. Payne, statistician of the Railway Department- the average freight rate on the Canadian Pacific railway was eighteen per cent higher than it was on the Intercolonial, and the average passenger rate was twenty-four per cent higher. I venture the assertion that if the Intercolonial had enjoyed during the past thirty years a parity of rates with those of the Canadian Pacific, we would not have had the deficits that have occurred in connection with the operation of that road.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When the House rose at six o'clock I was discussing the experience1 Canada has had with the Intercolonial railway and had referred to the arguments advanced against public ownership based on our experience with the Intercolonial as a road that had not been profitable. I pointed out that had freight ratps on the Intercolonial during the year 1918 been similar to those enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific railway probably an altogether different result would have been obtained. There is, however, this fact to be borne in mind, that the Intercolonial was not built- with the expectation of its being a paying railway. It, was part of the bargain of Confederation, and when one bears in mind that the Intercolonial has had to compete with cheap water rates during the whole of its career it is not much to be wondered at that deficits have occurred on the road. I submit that it is not fair to -cite the Intercolonial's failure to earn profits as evidence of a lack of virtue in the principle of public ownership.
There is another factor in connection with the Intercolonial that we may as well consider. There is no doubt that during its whole history the Intercolonial, up until very recent years at any rate, has been the subject of political management to a very great degree. I adduce these facts in support of my contention that the Intercolonial was never at any time considered seriously as a going business concern. The experience of Great Britain and the United States during the past few years has also been cited as evidence against the virtue of public ownership and the possibility of making public-owned roads pay. That also is not quite fair.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Are we not now discussing this matter because private ownership has failed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are. In the case of Great Britain and the United States the public operation of railways has been carried on under conditions of extreme stress during the war period, when operating costs were high, and when the full advantage of systematic operation could not be had; but even in Great Britain such a competent authority as Sidney Webb, who is an economist of repute in the United Kingdom, argues, and I think with considerable force, that government operation of railways there during the past few years has not been a financial failure, -and that if everything is fairly and evenly balanced up the railways of Great Britain under government operation have returned a very fair profit. I think it will be admitted by close observers that public operation in the United States during the years of the war has not had a fair trial. Those who argue that public ownership does not pay must surely have overlooked the experience of the railways of the United States during the past decade or more. I find on inquiry that on June 30, 1915, the latest figures I have, although I believe later ones have been published, there were 23,800 miles of railway in the United States exclusive of terminal and switching companies that were in receivership, embracing over 85 carriers. So it is not fair to argue that public ownership does not pay when we have striking evidence of private ownership failing to pay in a country like the United States. But what is the result of private railways going into receiverships in the United States? It is to create a public opinion through the newspapers and every possible public agency that- is available in support of a demand for increased rates in order that

private companies who have increased their capitalization through stock jobbing and other processes of that kind might earn dividends on an inflated capital value.
We can oite some evidence of public ownership in the Dominion of Canada to show that public ownership can pay its way. and I should like to direct the attention of the House briefly to the experience of the city of Winnipeg in the development of its city light and power. Ten years ago the citizens of Winnipeg were paying to a corporation controlled by Mackenzie and Mann ten cents per kilowatt hour for electric light, and a proportionate charge for electric power to drive the wheels of industry in that city. Efforts were made to get this privately-owned corporation to give 1be people a fair deal in the price of electric light and power, but without success, and a. very strong demand developed among the citizens that the city should under:ake the development of its own hydro electric system and the sale of light and power to the citizens at a lower rate than they were then paying. That proposal met with opposition, and with the same kind of opposition that public ownership of railways is meeting in Canada to-day. Financial authorities throughout the country argued that the city in undertaking this expenditure of millions of dollars was committing financial suicide, and that nothing but bankruptcy could eventually result. Nevertheless, when the by-law was submitted to the people it carried by a large majority and the project was undertaken. What has been the result? That enterprise to-day has invested in it more than $7,500,000, which all will agree is a considerable amount for a city of 200,000 people. During the last six years it has returned a profit of over $430,000, after caring for all proper charges in the way of depreciation and maintenance. This was fully established by an independent audit of the books of the city in respect to its light and power. But what else happened? The moment the city turned the switches on to deliver light and power to the city of Winnipeg it reduced the rate from ten cents to three and one-third cents per kilowatt per hour. The people of that city have for the last six or seven years enjoyed that reduced rate, and there has been a revenue, after caring for all charges, as I have ' just stated, of over $430,000. We have also the case, on a much larger scale, of the hydro-electric in Ontario.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: May I inform the hon. gentleman that it also compelled the

competitors to reduce their rates from ten cents to three and one-third cents, and the people of Winnipeg were saved two or three million dollars every year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not mention that fact because I am anxious to get through as quickly as possible. I know that there is a keen desire on the part of hon. gentlemen to get out in order to learn the election returns,' and I am indeed grateful to them for giving me an opportunity to conclude my remarks, since I am 'obliged to leave shortly to catch a train. Of course, the private corporation that previous to that time had been selling light and power at a much higher rate immediately made a reduction to meet the reduced rate of the city.
I am aware that there has been considerable criticism directed against the hydro-electric in Ontario, and I know that supposedly competent financial authorities have criticised the administration of that enterprise, and have stated that it imposes immense financial burdens upon the people of that province. But, Sir, there is no danger of imposing financial burdens upon a province like Ontario in a matter of this kind, if in the sale of the article produced, sufficient revenue accrues to meet interest on investment and provide a sinking fund to retire at their maturity the bonds 'by which the money is raised. And from what information I can get, that- is .precisely the situation in Ontario. Let us consider the advantage it has been to that province in the matter of cheap light and power, and the advantage it has proved to the rural parts of Ontario. I have discussed this matter with many farmers , of Ontario and they tell me that the introduction of hydro-electric into their municipalities and the consequent sale of electric energy on the farms is very largely changing the character of their agricultural work on the farms. Whereas hitherto the farmer's wife had to drive by hand a washing machine or chum and the other equipment in a farm house, this work is now done by electrical energy and the labour on the farm is correspondingly reduced. This is all accomplished after such provisions have been made as to make the enterprise pay its own way at every step of the journey.
The cases of the city of Winnipeg and of the Hydro in Ontario illustrate a fundamental difference between private ownership and public ownership in the operation of those utilities that are in their very nature natural monopolies. Private ownership is based on the principle of gain; it is an investment for profit. I do not find any fault

in proper limitations with that principle, which is perfectly laudable. On the other hand, public ownership is based on the idea of service at cost to the people, and I submit that in the case of great natural monopolies, such as railway transportation or the development of electrical energy, where by the very nature of the thing an individual or small group of individuals cannot carry on the service for themselves, it is in the interests of the State and of its citizens that the principle of public ownership should apply.
Another argument advanced against public ownership and operation of our railways is that it will provide a tremendous leverage to any political party in power to retain itself in office; that through the agency of your public railways an engine will be created whereby an existing party can maintain itself in power irrespective of the popular will. I do not know that public ownership offers any more danger in that respect than what we have suffered from under private ownership of our railways in this country, I think that all impartial students of the history of Canada for the last forty years will come to the conclusion that there has been no more potent influence operating in the public life of the country, operating on the legislation that flows from governments, than our private railway companies. We know the conditions that existed at the time of the Canadian Pacific railway forty years ago. I do not wish to criticise the legislators of those days. We know that the Canadian Pacific railway is a great railway and one that is well managed, but it is well to bear in mind that the people of [DOT]Canada have been very good to that railway, which has secured altogether in cash subsidies from the provinces and municipalities and governing bodies of Canada over $70,000,000, besides some 26,000,000 acres of rich and valuable land, and also, in British Columbia, some $38,000,000 worth of [DOT] completed road. Altogether, if you calculate in actual dollars and cents to-day what the Canadian Pacific railway has secured from the country, you will find that the total does not fall far short of $300,000,-[DOT]000 or $325,000,000.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am informed that the land grant alone has realized nearly $150,000,000 and that they consider that what they have yet is worth $100,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That would depend, of
[DOT]course, on the value placed upon the lands,
but I wish to be conservative in my estimates. Here is another aspect of the question :	Suppose the Canadian people had
built the Canadian Pacific railway; suppose it had not been built by private enterprise. We could have lost some ten or twelve million dollars a year during the whole period of its operation, and so far as the balance sheet of the country is concerned we would not be further behind than we are at the present time. Take the Canadian Northern railway. We all know what a bad influence it exercised on the public life of the country. We know how it lobbied in the Parlia^ ments of Canada, and in some of the provincial legislatures as (well, where it wished to extend its lines and get railway bonuses and guarantees and land grants. I know that I am on safe ground when I say that there has been no more unfortunate influence at work in the public life of the country than that of our private railway companies.
In considering this question, I would offer this suggestion to the Government, that in drawing up the agreement with the Grand Trunk railway upon which arbitration proceedings are to be based, they should be exceedingly careful to guard the public interest in every way. This is absolutely essential. The people of the country demand it and will hold the Government to strict account if it fails in this. For instance, the Grand Trunk should not be permitted to advance as an argument in the arbitration proceedings the plea that other railways were built that detracted from its business; nor, in my judgment, should its value be based on the existing values of equipment, buildings, rolling stock and all the other paraphernalia that goes into the operation of a railway. We know that the cost to-day of locomotives, cars, buildings, is almost double what it was prior to the war.
These conditions are not going to continue in this country; it may be four, five, or eight years, but eventually we will get back to something like pre-war conditions in reference to the cost of materials necessary to construct a railway and the equipment necessary to maintain it.
What will the position of the country be if we get this mileage? We will be, as some one said in the debate a few days ago, probably the largest owners of railway mileage on the continent of North America. I believe the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) estimated that we would have something like 21,000 or 22,000 miles of railway, if Parliament approves of the proposal of

natural resources. When the Government is carrying on its immigration policy I would suggest that it direct these immigrants as far as possible to lands adjacent to our own railways, with a view of building up business for those railways in the future. We have the lands and if we can get people to settle along our national railways will be creating a potential business for these roads in the future that will help to get us out of the difficulties that we have to surmount. There is good reason for hoping that a system of national railways can be made a great influence as a unifying power throughout Canada. Reference is frequently made to the character of our country, to its scattered population, the difficulty that exists, for example, in the people of the western provinces understanding the hopes and aspirations of the people of the Maritime Provinces and of Quebec. The same is true of the western provinces and of Ontario. Unfortunately, we have not a free interchange of newspapers between these portions of the Dominion. May we not entertain the hope that by means of this system of national railways we can create a national spirit of public pride in them' that will have a unifying effect among our people and give them something to be proud of from one end of *Canada to the other. It is not an impossibility-it is, in fact, a very possible and practical thing.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I would add this: Canada is facing great burdens and the railway situation is admittedly a difficult one. The course that is being taken, while it, perhaps, affords much room for criticism, is, on the whole, the best course that we can follow. When we have our lines completed it will then be for the Canadian people, and for their representatives in Parliament, and for the Government who are entrusted with the administration of the country's laws, to use every legitimate means in their power to make it a success. I believe we can make it a success. I believe we can hand down to posterity an example and a tradition in this respect that will be worthy of the country .and worthy of the sacrifices Canada has made in the last four or five years.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency): Mr. Speaker, in 1911 the *Government that immediately preceded the present administration cherished the ambition to do better than the Laurier ministry. At that time the press of the country heralded the new Administration as a saviour which would keep Canada faithful to the flag and make the country prosper-

ous. The incoming ministry were pronounced a new broom that would sweep clean; sweep away all that- was bad in the previous administration of public affairs, and do better than their predecessors. But what happened? In 1911, when the Borden Government assumed office, our national debt was in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000. Six years afterwards it had mounted to about $336,000,000, and at present it approximates $2,000,000,000. It is true that the war largely increased our public debt and for the addition attributable to that cause there is perhaps not much criticism to be offered. Nevertheless, we notice that although the Government who were returned in 1911 constantly preached economy have overmanned all the departments of the Government- and increased by over 15,000 the number of civil employees, notwithsitanding their denunciation of the Laurier administration on the very same ground. As to railway matters, when the Borden Government assumed office they blamed the Laurier Administration for the existing railway situation and yet what do we find them doing? After assuming office in 1911 they continued the very same path that the preceding administration had been following.
That is to say, subsidies were lavishly granted to different railway companies, moneys advanced to them, and flheir bonds guaranteed in different ways. We saw the Canadian Northern people asking favours of the Government just as before, and finally forcing upon the Government the famous deal of 1917; and a year after we saw the stock of that company, which was declared valueless by the Drayton-Acworth Commission, valued by a board of arbitrators at about $10,000,000. This Canadian Northern railway, coupled with the other railways of the Government, according to a recent answer laid before the House in answer to a question put by an hon. member, had a deficit last year of about $9,041,464.62. The Canadian National railways to-day have a total interest paying debt of $460,225,148.93, and the amount of interest payable annually on this debt is $19,073,387.08. In view of this vast national indebtedness settled upon the country by different Administrations, and especially by the consummation of the Canadian Northern deal, is it wise to take another step towards completion of the nationalization of all our railways as now proposed? I say no, Mr. Speaker. The Government would be wise to " stop, look, listen.'
Let us see what certain authorities on railway problems have to say on the sub-

jeet. Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific railway, recently stated;
I am not attempting to persuade you to my views, they are not unalterable, but I am not convinced of the expediency nor wisdom of any such policy, because none of the advocates have been able to show ground for the faith that is in them, and before we change from a system which we understand, and which in the case of some companies at least has worked to the distinct advantage of Canada, we should be very sure that an improvement will be made and the results to the people, the owners, such as to warrant the extraordinary obligations they would assume.
It would be a pity, Mr. Speaker, to change, from 'a system we know to a system of which we know very little. The ex-president of the Canadian Pacific railway, Lord Shaugh-nessy, made this statement not very long ago:
We shall within a short period learn the experience of our neighbours to the south of us in the management of railways in that country, and we may have some exiperience of our own in that regard. I do not wish to have it understood that I am taking a stand opposed to the nationalization of railways. If the people of this country want it, and if the Government decide that the people want it, this Is a democratic country and they must have it. But whenever we start out upon that avenue, we should be very, very sure of our footing, or we may have a serious problem.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to those words:	,
If the people of this country want it, and it the Government decide that the people of this country want it.
The election of 1911, if I am not mistaken, was fought on the Navy and Reciprocity issues; there was no question of the nationalization of railways. The election of 1917 was fought on the Win-the-War policy, and nothing else; there was no question then raised as to the practicability of Government ownership. I am not aware that this Government holds any mandate to impose such a policy upon this country. Let us see, for example, what was done. In 1904, when the Laurier Administration proposed a new policy in the way of railway construction, and wanted to launch the famous Grand Trunk Pacific agreement, which is now so much criticised, they went to the people on that very issue, and as a result , of the election that policy was sanctioned by a majority of the electors. In 1911 the same administration wanted to go a step further and give to this country reciprocity with the United States. The same procedure was followed, and the result of that election is that to-day we have
the present Government administrating the affairs of the country. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be said that the present policy is . as democratic as the policy of the Laurier Administration. But there is one thing we may be sure of, that whether the people have decided that they want nationalization of railways, certainly the Government want it and has decided that the people want it, and we are going to have it at all costs.
Let us see what another authority said on the subject on the nationalization of railways. Sir William Hoy, general manager of South African railways and harbours, stated:
The wide conflict of practical evidence renders it extremely difficult to decide as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of State and private railways. On the whole, it would seem that the problem is one to ibe determined according to the geographical position and industrial, economic, political and social conditions of the country concerned, rather than according to the merits claimed for either system in other countries. The success or otherwise of State railways is influenced largely by the extent to which the management is freed from political influence. It is thus manifest that the problem is governed by many elements other than the purely economic.
Mr. Speaker, experience shows that politics always do creep into State management, irrespective of the statutory or other safeguards applied thereto, as in the case of Australia and Italy, and that the only managements immune from interference are the autocratic governments of Germany and Austria. The experience of England, France, Italy, and lately that of our neighbours, the United States, should suffice to convince us of the value of Government ownership. That is so true that President Wilson recently, upon his return from Europe after attending the Peace Conference, advocated that the railways which had been taken over and operated during the war under government control, should be handed back to their original owners. We find also that the United States Congress is taking action to avoid the injustice of the government operating railways in competition with privately owned railways; while here we find our own Government planning to build up a great railway system for the avowed purpose of attacking a privately owned railway which, every one will admit, has since its inception been giving most excellent service to the country and"is well able to continue doing so.
Is there anything more dangerous and more serious than this tendency to use government powers for the purpose of attacking



and injuring private industry? In certain quarters, especially in the western provinces, this policy is finding much favour. The protection of the vested rights was always one of the first principles of Anglo-Saxon legislation. Are we going to embark upon a policy of confiscation?-because, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion that is what this project amounts to. If this policy is followed opt as the Government propose it, there is reason to believe that sooner or later, due to the fact that the railway rates will have to be decreased because of competition with the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Pacific itself will have to be absorbed and come also within the Canadian National Railway system. I am afraid that that may happen if this project is carried out. I do not say that it will happen, but it is a possibility-so many strange things have been done during the last few years that that is quite liable to happen.
The complications which will result from the increase in the expenditures of the Government if this project is carried out places its acceptance beyond the limits of reason; because it is evident that should the Government operate all these railroads, especially the Canadian Pacific, they would not be able to attain anything like the standard of service which this company is now giving to the people of Canada or obtain a revenue which would enable them to pay anything like the dividend which the Canadian Pacific is paying at present to its shareholders.
Experience has taught us that under government control, and partly because of it, the cost of operating railways and telegraphs increases heavily and that in regard to the former there is a reduction in the service offered to the public. The public pays more heavily for what it gets, and very often what it gets is not up to the standard.
In glancing over the report of the' Dray-ton-Acworth Commission I find that it makes the following observation with regard to the Canadian Pacific:
There was given to the Canadian Pacific at the outset direct aid with a generous hand and the aid was continued up to the point when
the company could stand alone	The
people of Canada, in our view, have had good value for their money.
In my opinion the same should have been done with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk as was done with the Canadian Pacific. The only thing these companies want is to be left alone that they may pursue their own course; let them work out their own salvation. If
TMr. Cassrain.l
they cannot do it now, in a few years they will be able to make both ends meet and to pay to their shareholders the amounts to which they are entitled having regard to the capital invested. But the Government, under the pretense of needing this company's railways to complete its system, wants to get control of the Grand Trunk in order, it is said-of course, we have no proof-to promote the interests of a certain faction which is back of the Government.
Let us see what, certain newspapers which are friendly to the Government have to say in reference to the matter. In the Ga-. zette of December 2nd last, editorial reference was made to a certain article which appeared in the Globe on a previous occasion. The Globe had stated very frankly and openly its opinion regarding this deal, as follows :
Canadian speculators, led by a former minister of the Crown, who had a good deal to do with the formation of the Union Government, are seeking to obtain control of large blocks of the common and preference stocks of the Grand Trunk railway in the belief that should the Government determine to take over the railway the value of these stocks will be greatly enhanced and a handsome profit will result from their forethought. A more sinister version of the same story, which may be no more than a slanderous invention, is to the effect that the group of men engaged in the alleged speculation are powerful enough to sway the decision of the Government, and are, therefore, not gambling on a possibility, but investing in a " sure thing."
That is the article that was published in the Gazette of that day, and both the Gazette and the Globe are, or were at that time, friendly to the Government; in fact, they helped to put the Government where it is to-day.
Last spring, if I mistake not, the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario was on. the job, urging the Government to take over the Grand Trunk Railway system. If I remember correctly the reports in the press at that time, Sir Adam Beck came to Ottawa and tried to force upon the leader of the Government the policy of the Hydro Electric Commission. But apparently the leader of the Government, Sir Robert Borden, took a strong stand in the matter and did not accede to the suggestion. Nobody thought at that time that the people who were promoting this deal would succeed.
We have another authority on this subject, a man who used to be a minister of the Crown and who expressed himself as entirely opposed to the policy which the Government is following to-day. I refer to the former Minister of Public Works, Hon. F. B. Carvell. He said:

Possibly the present Government may succeed where others have failed, but It is a lamentable fact that Government operation of railways has been one of the most tragic farces in this country that we have ever seen.
Sir Henry Drayton, who, I am told, is Minister of Finance-the newspapers now report that he has been elected-says in the Dray ton-Acworth report:
In our judgment it is not in the interests ot Canada that the operation of its railways should be in the hands of the Government. We know no country in the world where a democratic State owns and operates its railways, and the railways have not had an injurious influence on politics.
Another expert in political economy, one of our foremost economists, Professor Mavor, has said-and I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) to note this:
It is possible that only by repeated and costly failure, such as the Manitoba Government telephones, will the public realize that the proper function of Government is not the conduct of industries but the impartial inspection of them under intelligent laws, adapted to the character and conditions of the community and the country.
Another authority in this matter is Mr. Acworth himself, who says that we can expect higher rates under nationalization than under the company system. In his book "The Railway and the Trader," Mr. Acworth supports Professor Hadley in saying:
It is a mistake to expect lower rates or better facilities from Government than from private companies. The actual results are just the reverse. The State is more apt to tax industry than to foster it; and when it attempts to tax industry, it is even less responsible than a private company. State management is more costly than private management, thus much capital is wasted. State management is demoralizing, both to legitimate business and politics.
This is the generally accepted view of economists. It was the view of statesmen up to 1896 who always preferred private ownership operation to government ownership. We may say that the Bill which is before the House is for the purpose of buying outright the Grand Trunk railway system. To me it seems the greatest and most complicated undertaking that has ever been urged on such weak grounds. The railway has a length of about 4,000 miles, its tracks measuring about 6,300 miles. It extends into the United States, >to Chicago in the west, and Portland in the east. The capital invested is about $420,000,000.	.
One of the reasons advanced by the Hydiro-Electric Commission for this deal is that it would be in the interests of a
74}
great number of municipalities who are responsible for the operation of the HydroElectric system. Another argument advanced in favour of the Bill is that it would give the Canadian Northern railway, already under Government control, terminal facilities which otherwise the Government would have to build or.acquire. The sponsors of the Bill claim that the Grand Trunk will also serve as a feeder to the National railways in the West.
In order to attain the object of this Bill the Government will have to raise more money on the credit of the people of Canada, whose burdens have already reached nearly the limit. In my humble opinion, not a cent more can be added to their burdens without causing great danger, if not disaster, to the country. We find that in recent years nearly $367,000,000, or one-third of our national debt has been ' spent on our railways, while the operation of these roads by the Government has produced a deficit of about $13,000,000. Not a cent of interest on capital expenditure has ever been earned by these government roads. Calculating at the rate of 4 per cent we find that the interest on capital expenditure on government railways no<w approximates $15,000,000 annually, and that it grows from year to year. That to my mind is not very reassuring.
All these questions of terminal facilities and feeders for the Government system can be solved by making arrangements for interchange of traffic between the Government system and the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk railway in central Canada may be made a feeder to the National Transcontinental, and the latter a feeder to the Grand Trunk railway. The Grand Trunk terminals can be made available to the Government roads. By these easy business methods the taxpayers can be relieved of assuming this great new obligation. The whole people of this country have their eyes on Ottawa. They are begging and clamouring the Government not to consummate this gigantic deal. We can gauge the feeling of the country at large by the views of the press. The Gazette said recently:
It is the worst news that has come to us since the war. This means that the Grand Trunk railway will be undermined and put on the same level as the Intercolonial railway.
There is no doubt that the operation of a new line of railway by the Government would largely increase1 our national debt and create additional deficits which the country will ultimately have to pay. In


Mr. McCREA:: It may be found that some of them are residing in Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
Mr.  A. K. MAGLEAN@: Is my hon. friend addressing himself to the Government?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No, I am addressing the House generally.


William Findlay Maclean: I quite appreciate the difficulty of addressing the House at a time when one is not receiving attention. Would my hon. friend object to continuing

until ten o'clock? We will all promise to listen to him attentively, and at that hour we might adjourn.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would not the minister
be willing to call it ten o'clock now?


William Findlay Maclean: If my hon. friend will promise to be as brief as possible tomorrow.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I assure the minister that I know I cannot be too brief for him.


Air.  A. K. AIACLEAN@: I consent to the adjournment of the debate.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Air. Speaker, I beg to
move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Alaclean the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
Tuesday, October 21, 1919.