1919-10-14

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA THIRD SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Volume I; Pages 1-992	Volume II; Pages 993-2011


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACHE

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Hebates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 14, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President «f the Privy Council) laid upon the table of the House an Order in Council of the 6th September, 1919 requesting that His Majesty should appoint Hon. Sir George Halsey Perley, High Commissioner for Canada in London, and Sir Edward Kemp, Minister of Overseas Forces, as commissioners and plenipotentiaries for Canada for the purpose of executing the Austrian Treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
He said:	The purpose of the Bill is
to add to those matters over which the Exchequer Court has exclusive jurisdiction, questions that may arise in connection with the liquidation under the Peace Treaty of the property of German nationals, and in that connection of such claims .as they may have and of claims as may be advanced against them, which latter claims under the terms of the Treaty we are entitled to meet out of the proceeds of the liquidation. The Exchequer Court, under the Bill, is to be the court having jurisdiction to deal with these matters.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved for leave [DOT]to introduce Bill No. 31 to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, with respect to the salaries of certain postmasters and assistant postmasters.
He said: Under the .statute as it at present .stands, subject to some amendments by Order in Council under the War Measures Act, the salaries of certain postmasters in the country are governed by the total revenue of their respective office*. Owing to the receipts derived from the sale of special war tax stamps the total revenue of these offices was largely increased, and as it was considered to be incompatible with the spirit, intent and purpose of the .special War Revenue Act .to permit the diversion of any portion of this special *revenue towards the payment of the salaries of postmasters, an Order in Council was passed on the 8th January, 1918, under the War Measures Act, giving the Postmaster General the power .to determine what percentage of the increased revenue should be computed as a part of the .salaries, of postmasters and assistant postmasters. It is desired to perpetuate by legislation the effect of this Order in Council, and such is the purpose of the Bill.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
_ Bill No. 29 (from the Senate) for the relief of Millie Wettlaufer-Mr. Sheard.
SIR HENRY DRAYTON'S CANDIDATURE .	IN KINGSTON.
On .the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my
duty to bring to your notice a letter which *appears over the .signature of J. M. Hughes on the first page of the Daily Standard, .a newspaper published in the city of Kingston. The letter is very .short, and if your honour will permit me to read it, it will be the shortest way to dispose of the matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the letter is a mauoi of sufficient importance to be brought to the attention of the House on the Orders of



the Day and a question i-s to be directed to .myself I do not anticipate an immediate answer can be given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I merely wish to base a question to the Minister of Railways on the letter after I have read it. It is addressed to the editor of the Standard and is *as follows:
Sir,-I wish to announce that I have retired from the contest for the seat in the House of Commons. My reason for doing so is that it is reported that the Hon. J. D. .Reid made the statement to a number of representative citizens that if Sir Henry Drayton was given the seat Kingston would he well looked after and that the Harbour Improvements would be assumed. Being a loyal and true Kingstonian and as I have always worked for the interest of the city I felt that I could not take the responsibility of going on with the contest, and in any way interfering with the material progress of the city. I sincerely hope that Sir Henry Drayton will see to it that work will be started in a very short time and Kingston will become the eastern terminal of the Great
I thank the many citizens who assured me of their support and ask them to put their shoulder to the wheel and work for a bigger, better and more prosperous Kingston.
(Signed) J. M. Hughes.
In view of the seriousness of what is implied in that letter, Sir, I wish to ask if the Minister of Railways and iCanals (Mr. Reid) undertook to make any promises to the citizens of Kingston as to what would happen if Sir Henry Drayton were not opposed.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see
the letter in the Kingston Standard, but I did see it in the Toronto Globe, where the item is headed, " Says it's a bribe to Kingston city. Statement attributed to the Hon. J. D. Reid matter for controversy," and the letter is quoted. The leader of the Opposition will notice that Mr. Hughes in this letter states "it is reported," but he does not give the information as a fact of his own knowledge. I think the best answer I can make to the letter is to quote the last part of the Globe article, which reads thus:
Unionist leaders here say that Hon. Mr. Reid made no promise of anything to Kingston.
' And that is correct.



RESIGNATION OF MR. ERNEST LAPOINTE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E, LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):	Mr. Speaker, I give notice, under section 5, chapter XI of the Revised Statutes of Canada, that I do resign my seat in this House as representing the county of Kamouraska.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. iSir George Foster Bill No. 21 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 18 to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918 was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:	Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 3, an Act for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers (the Prime Minister).
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minster of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill is to extend the provisions of the Bill empowering the Government to take the necessary steps for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the Treaty of Peace signed with Germany, so as to make them applicable to the Treaty of Peace which has since been signed with Austria; and, further, to such other treaties with any of the other nations with whom His Majesty is or has been at war as may be signed on behalf of His Majesty acting for Canada.
After careful consideration we have decided to ask this House to concur in the amendments of the Senate in so far as they refer to the Treaty which has been signed with Austria; but not to ask the House to concur in so far as the amendments extend the powers conferred by the Bill to the carrying out of and giving effect to the provisions of such treaties with other nations as may be signed on behalf of His Majesty acting for Canada.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Has the Austrian Treaty been submitted to this House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It 'has not been submitted to the House. I was going to explain the position with regard to the Austrian Treaty. On the 22nd of September, the following question was put by the hon. mem-be for St. James (Mr. L. A. Lapointe):
1.	Is it the intention of the Government to submit to Parliament, for its consideration, the Treaty of Peace signed between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria and which was signed on behalf of Canada by Sir Edward Kemp?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, why?

4.	Will a copy of this Treaty and all documents appertaining thereto be available to the members of the House?
To which I made the following answer:
The Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria, signed at Saint Germain on iSept. 10, 1919, follows in general the lines of the Treaty with Germany, which has already been approved of by Parliament, while in the most important features, namely, the League of Nations Covenant and the labour sections, it is identical therewith. If the authenticated copy of the Treaty with Austria arrives in time, the Government will submit the Treaty to Parliament at the present session; if not, the Government would not feel justified in summoning another special session for the purpose, but will take the responsiblity of advising the ratification of the Treaty in view of the action of Parliament above mentioned. In any case copies will be distributed to members of Parliament as soon as available.
We have not as yet received the authenticated copy of the Treaty as it was actually signed, but we have received a copy of the Treaty as prepared, and also a cable communication, from which it appears that this copy differs in no material point whatever from the document as actually signed. That document, as was stated in answer to the question which I have just read, is entirely on the lines of the German Treaty. The two parts of the Treaty dealing respectively with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the labour sections are in identical terms with similar parts of the German Treaty.
The Austrian Treaty is divided into some fourteen parts; there are fifteen parts in the German Treaty. As I have said, the first part of the Austrian Treaty, the Covenant of the League of Nations, is identical in its terms with the first part of the German Treaty.
Part II of the Treaty with Germany dealt with the boundaries of Germany; Part II of the Treaty with Austria deals with the boundaries of Austria. These parts, therefore, in the respective Treaties are necessarily different, but in each case the boundaries of the respective countries are fixed and have been accepted by the respective countries.
Part III of the Treaty has to do' with political clauses affecting conditions within Europe. These clauses in the two Treaties are necessarily different in their details, because the two countries were respectively contiguous to, bounded by, different countries and out of their respective territories such part as was separated from them was allotted to different countries. So that the political clauses as applicable in Europe necessarily differ by reason of these dif-
63i
ferences of situation; but wherever it is a question concerning the same countries in both Treaties the provisions of these political clauses are identical. It will be readily understood that there are some countries which are affected in the German Treaty and unaffected in the Austrian Treaty, and vice versa, on account of the different relations existing between them and these two countries.
Part V of the Treaty, containing the Military, Naval and Air clauses, proceeds on the same principle as the similar section of the German Treaty. The reduction in number of troops to be allowed Austria, however, is more considerable, the number allowed being very much smaller. I think it is safe to say that in all other respects the principles upon which these restrictions are imposed are identical with the principles of the German Treaty.
Part VI, which has to do with Prisoners of War and Graves, is substantially the same as the corresponding section of the German Treaty. There may be a difference of words, but there is really no difference of effect.
Part VII, which deals with the question of Penalties, is similar in both Treaties, with this exception: In the German Treaty provision is made for the indictment and trial of the German Emperor; that of course does not appear in the Austrian Treaty.
Part VIII, dealing with reparations, proceeds also on the same principles as those laid down in the German Treaty. It defines the similar classes of damages which are to be taken into account in establishing reparations; provides for a similar commission to be appointed to consider the different claims that may be -made and to determine the amount that Austria ought to pay and the manner in which the payment shall be made. There are one or two differences in detail. For instance, the commission is to determine what proportion of the entire damage Austria should bear, taking into account the amount determined upon as that which Germany is in a position to pay. Furthermore, there are in the German Treaty provisions for certain specific issues of bonds to be made from time to time by Germany; in the Austrian Treaty the amounts to be so paid from time to time are left to be determined by the commission.
Part IX, which contains the economic clauses, is entirely on the same lines as the corresponding section of the German Treaty. There are some modifications in detail resulting from particular conditions prevailing in Austria, particularly, perhaps,

on account of the numerous countries the territories whereof formed part of Austria, but which have become independent by the operation of the Treaty and whose relations in regard to these matters call for being specially dealt with.
The provisions for dealing with property and rights are on similar lines and substantially the same. The provisions with regard to ports, railways and rivers are, with the changes necessary by reason of the different territories concerned-, similar to those- of the German Treaty. The labour conditions are identical.
Taking the instrument as a whole, the principles and the lines upon which it is drawn being precisely those on which the German Treaty was drawn, while we would be quite disposed, if the Treaty arrives before this session of Parliament is terminated, to submit it to Parliament, it did not seem that it would he necessary or that we would be justified in calling a special session to deal with it, in view of the action of Parliament on the substantially similar Treaty \l$ith Germany.
Now, by the effect of the present amendment there is not expressed approval of this Treaty, but in anticipation of its being ratified the power is conferred to do such things as may be necessary to carry it out and give it effect. Of course, to its ratification will be essential the advice of His Majesty's advisers, the Government of this country. Were it not for the action that Parliament has already taken in approving the substantially similar treaty with Germany, it might, perhaps, be suggested that it would be necessary, or at all events desirable, to submit this one separately. But in view of its absolute similarity, that appears to be an unnecessary proceeding which, if it involved an additional special session, would be also a very expensive proceeding. All that the House is asked in this regard is to accept the Government's statement of the similarity existing between the two Treaties and the statement already made that it is on that basis that the Government would take the responsibility of advising the ratification of the Treaty.
With regard to the other Treaties which have not as yet been entered into or signed and concerning the effect of which the Government is, of course, not in a position to make any statement, it seems to us that in so far as the amendment adopted by the Senate confers powers for the carrying out of Treaties which have not yet been signed-treaties which may deal with matters not necessarily dealt with in the German 
Treaty and matters which it is difficult for us to foresee in any way at the present time-we would not be justified in asking Parliament to deal with such prospective Treaties even so far as to confer powers to be exercised under them, assuming that upon their being entered into they would be found suitable for ratification and would be ratified.
Therefore, as I have said, we purpose asking this House to accept the amendment of the Senate in so far as the Austrian Treaty is concerned, but to decline to -accept it in so- far -as the other treaties referred to a-re concerned. I beg, in consequence, to move;
1.	That the first five amendments made by the Senate to the said Bill foe concurred in.
These five amendments are simply putting the word " treaties " in the plural instead of. the word " treaty " in the singular.
2.	That in the amendment to the preamble all the words after " the plenipotentiaries therein named " he struck out, and that the amendment as amended foe concurred in.
3.	That the amendment made by the Senate in the title of the Bill foe concurred in.
This amendment consists simply in using the word " treaties " in the plural instead of the word " treaty " in the singular.


Mr. VIEN:: Is the minister -aware of the fact -that this Bill as amended by the -Senate has n-ot been reprinted nor distributed to the -members?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I dio not think it is customary to reprint and redistribute Bills that come b-ack from the Senate. We are proceeding in regard to this Bill in- the usual way. I asked to have some copies made of the amendments -and to have them furnished to the leader of the Opposition, and I hope they have reached him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have received them.


Mr. ANDREW ROSS McMASTER (Brome):: It would appear to me
that what the Government asks the House to do this afternoon creates a very unwholesome precedent. By passing .the amendments made by the Sem-ate which the Government desires us to pass, we practically, although not in so many words, -approve, if we do not ratify the Treaty of Peace with Austria. I would lay it down as a principle, when we are starting, so to speak, our dealings as a nation with other nations, that if the approval or ratification of this House is to be sought on any treaty between Canada and any other power whatsoever, that Treaty should be before the House, so that every member, no matter

how humble his position, may have an ample opportunity of considering and studying it. That is a reasonable attitude to take, and as we are at the beginning of what you might call our international history as a nation, we should be careful to see that we start aright. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has told us that this Treaty of Peace with Austria is on all lines similar to the Treaty of Peace with Germany. We accept his word; but, after all, Germany and Austria are two very different countries. There are many of us who feel that certain of the nations that went to make up the Austrian Empire were not and are not animated with feelings of hostility to Great Britain; Penal clauses which may or may not have their place, but which may have their place in a Treaty of Peace with Germany, may be quite out of keeping in a Treaty of Peace with Austria. For instance, the other day I read in a paper-I do not know whether it was a British paper or not -that the British ambassador at Vienna had been the subject of a most sympathetic and enthusiastic reception when he went to the opera house in that city the other day. I do not know whether such a thing would be possible in Berlin, but I presume it would not be. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I do not think it is the right thing for him to ask this House to consent -for that is what this amounts to-to making this treaty with Austria. If our approval or ratification be desirable-and in my humble judgment I believe it to be desirable-then it should be as^red for only after a perfectly adequate opportunity is given to the members of this House to consider the treaty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As a general principle, I concur entirely in what has been stated by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), that is, if the consideration of this House be at all necessary or recognized, that before we are asked to take any action upon an international document or agreement, this House should have an opportunity of seeing it. I am sure the minister will not, for a moment, say that that is not a sound principle. I do not see how we can justify any other course than to stand by the principle that, before we ratify or concur in so important a document as a Treaty of Peace between ourselves an<J the Empire of which we form a part and one of the enemy powers with which we have been fighting for the last five years, that document should be laid upon the table of the House, a copy of it put into the hands of every member who has to pass judgment
upon it, and after he has had an opportunity of doing so, that he should give an opinion regarding it. That is the only sound principle upon which we can act. The Minister of Justice asks us to forego all that and to take his word for the contents of this document, which he says has been signed and which no doubt has been signed. That is good enough in its way, and no person in this House will, for a moment, contend that the Minister of Justice is concealing anything that is in the document. Nevertheless, that does not mend the situation. If a member of the House, or even a minister of the Crown wants to move the first reading of a Bill, the practice of this House will not permit him to do so until a copy of that Bill is handed to the Speaker. If that be regarded as a good and sound rule in the House of Commons as regards a Bill which, as the very next step, must necessarily be printed and put into the hands of every member, I think it would be regarded as more so in respect to so important a document as a treaty. For that reason, speaking for myself, and for hon. members on this side of the House who may not express their own views, I think we must express ourselves as opposed to the principle involved in the whole of the amendment made by the Senate and also as disapproving the parts of it which the Minister of Justice announces as having been accepted by the Government. It is perfectly constitutional for the Government of Canada to advise His Majesty to approve of this Treaty, without its being submitted to Parliament at all. That principle was laid down in this House when we were discussing the Treaty some weeks ago, and it was laid down from our general knowledge of the constitution of the British Empire. Our friends opposite did not think it proper to accept that doctrine, and insisted that the Treaty should be laid on the Table, and that every hon. member should have an_ opportunity of reading it and passing judgment upon it. That was a sound democratic idea, and we are not finding fault with it at all. It was a good beginning in a new direction, the turning over of a new leaf in the constitution of the British Empire. At the same time, it was not necessary upon sound principles of constitutional law, because 'the King upon the advice of his ministers, and as far as the colonies are concerned, upon the advice of his colonial ministers, would have been absolutely within the constitution in giving his assent to the Treaty wthout consulting any one else. If the King chooses, however, to extend to us the courtesy asking

the approval of the Dominion Governments, it is quite proper and constitutional for him to approve the Treaty with Austria without troubling this Parliament at all.
There was laid on the Table a week or so ago some correspondence that took place between the British Government and the Canadian Government on this question of what action was necessary by Parliament before the Treaty should be finally ratified and confirmed. One of the despatches, dated London, July 23, 1919, signed by Lord Milner, and addressed, I take it, to the Governor General of Canada, reads in part as follows:
X have now consulted with Prime Minister and the cabinet with reference to your most secret telegram of July 9. Our view is that early ratification, especially now that Germany has ratified, is of the highest importance. In the British constitution there is nothing which makes it necessary for the King to obtain the consent of Parliament before ratifying Treaty. With perfect constitutional propriety the King can ratify on the advice of his ministers. For a treaty of this far-reaching importance, and one embracing the whole Empire, the King certainly ought only to act at the instance of all his constitutional advisers-the Dominion Ministries as well as that of the United Kingdom.
The cable is long and I shall not tax Hansard with the rest of it. There Lord Milner lays down the principle that it is not necessary for .any Parliament, not even for the Parliament of Great Britain, to deal with the Treaty at all, but if there is any sentiment in the Dominions, or if it is regarded as essential by them that the Treaty should be submitted to their Parliaments, the British authorities are willing to give way; but from the constitutional standpoint it is entirely unnecessary. Lord Milner, who no doubt was advised by the law officers of the Crown of Great Britain, lays down the principle that it was not necessary to consult even the Dominion governments, but as a matter of policy and of constitutional usage it was thought better to do so. I am not pretending to tell the Government or the Minister of Justice any law, but am simply reminding them that they believe, I think, that it is absolutely within the power of the King to ratify this Treaty without consulting the Dominion Government at all, not to speak of the Dominion Parliament. In submitting the matter to Parliament the King has done more than the constitution in its original form requires. I submit, therefore, that it is perfectly consistent with constitutional rights and constitutional usage for His Majesty to ratify or concur in the Austrian Treaty without consulting this Parliament at all.
[Mr. McKenzie. 1
The Prime Minister, however, told us at an early sitting of this Parliament that he had committed himself-I do not know exactly to whom, possibly to the Canadian people -that the Treaty, the Treaty with Germany for that was the only one we were talking about then, would be submitted to Parliament. Very good; he was carrying out his promise in submitting it to Parliament. Now if it was not regular or constitutional to deal with the treaty with Germany except upon the advice of this Parliament, by what reasoning can we waive the submission to Parliament of a treaty with another power, which is to all intents and purposes exactly on all fours with Germany as far as we are concerned? I submit further that Bill No. 3, which the Government submitted to this Parliament, was word for word the same as the British Act implementing the treaty with Germany. We have not changed one word of it except to use the word "Canada " instead of "the United Kingdom " wherever it was necessary. The British Government has not introduced any such legislation as these amendments. They may have introduced another Bill, but I am not aware of it. I submit, to the Government and the Minister of Justice, unless a Bill has been introduced in the British Parliament going beyond the terms of the first Bill, it would not be proper for us to go further than the Mother Country has gone in legislation along that line.
I do not for a moment suppose that we are taking any grave risks in accepting the word of the Minister of Jaistiee as to the contents of this document, but he is a very foolish man who signs a deed, for example, with his eyes closed, and without knowing the terms of the document.
I do not think that the minister's business judgment would permit him, however credulous he might be, to sign blindfolded a deed which I might present to him as conveying a lot on Sparks street 40 by 100 feet, with my assurance that there were certain stores and buildings on either side. If in a small transaction, such as the signing of a deed, such uncritical action would be inadvisable, I think it will appeal to the minister himself that it is not (proper to ask this House and the Canadian nation to close their eyes to the contents of a treaty with Austria and pass legislation by which we shall undertake all the financial responsibilities that are necessarily involved in the carrying out of that treaty. I do not think we should be asked to assume responsibilities for the rest of our natural lives with-

-out very grave consideration, and I submit, as a principle of constitutional law, that the step which we are seeking to take is not a sound one.


William Stevens Fielding: the character of a treaty without having that document on the table of the House is a most extraordinary proceeding, and I entirely agree with the 'hon. member for Brome that in taking such a step we are establishing a very dangerous precedent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not altogether clear that the Minister of Justice is entitled to reply, but I am sure that the House would in any event concede him that courtesy. I wish, however, to direct the attention of the House to the fact that, while I know that this motion was prepared by a responsible officer, I think an error was committed in not having included in the motion the reasons for the nomconcurrence in the amendment of the Senate.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: They are all mixed up.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move an amendment by inserting the following reasons, namely:
That the treaties referred to in the portion of the amendment to the preamble of the Bill hereinafter proposed to be struck out have not as yet been signed, and the Government is not in a position to put 'before the House the provisions that the same may contain, even in substance; nor to affirm that the same will be on the lines of that with Germany already approved by the House.
It can go in the second paragraph.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As this is in effect a nonconcurrence in the amendment of the Senate, under our rules it is essential that the reasons for the non-concurrence ought to be included, and therefore the Minister of Justice is desirous to add these words to his motion.
Amendment agreed to and resolution as amended agreed to.



MANUFACTURE AND IMPORTATION OF OLEOMARGARINE.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie, the House went into Committee on Bill No. 28, to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada.
Bill considered, reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: House again in Committee on Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal (lode (Electrocution).-Mr. Mowat.
Mr. MOWAT:: Before the House goes into Committee again on this Bill, I desire to make a short statement. The Bill as it now is-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not entitled to make any statement upon the calling of the Order, excepting it is to discharge the Order, inasmuch as the Speaker leaves the Chair without the question being put. *


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: May I be permitted-this Bill having been called from time to time and allowed to stand-to give the reason for it? It is this-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman ask that this Order stand?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I am giving an explanation why it should stand for the time being.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Order stands. INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.



PROPOSED EXTENSION INTO NON-RAILWAY 'SECTION'S OF MARITIME PROVINCES.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration of the following motion of Mr. D; D. McKenzie resumed from October 6:
Whereas on the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, this Honourable House passed the following Resolution which was accepted by the Government,-
" Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway." See pages 17!3'6, 1737, 1738, 1739 and 1740 of Hansard for the said year, A.D., 1914.
Be it therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester):	Mr. Speaker, from time to time the people of the Maritime Provinces through their representatives in this House have asked the Government for better railway facilities, and it is my desire to support the resolution of the hon. leader of the Opposition for the extension of the Intercolonial railway into the sections mentioned by him, for I believe that such extension would very greatly contribute to the development of trunk line traffic. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia we have in the Intercolonial railway our only trunk line, and, of course, it cannot be expected that capital will be attracted for the construction of short local lines, which by themselves cannot be operated at a profit. Branch lines are not built with the primary object of securing dividends on local traffic; their real purpose is to act as feeders to trunk lines. The hon. gentlemen who have already taken part in the debate on this resolution have mentioned that the districts re-

ferred to would all produce freight from which the trunk line would derive great profits on the long haul. Such railway construction would encourage the fish industry on the Atlantic coast-an encouragement that would be not merely for the benefit of the localities themselves, but would be pf national advantage, as it would increase our food production and at the same time provide additional traffic for the Intercolonial portion of our national railways. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Leger) has mentioned a proposed line between Buc-touche, in Kent county, and Loggieville, in Northumberland county, which would connect two districts at present isolated for lack of railway communication. It was thought a few years ago that a company might build that line. But, as I have already stated in this House, I have been opposed to the construction of branch lines in the Maritime Provinces by private corporations and unless connected with the Intercolonial for they could not maintain themselves. This proposed line would traverse a fine country in proximity to the best fisheries and would be of great benefit to Canada at large as well as to the Maritime Provinces.	.
I regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) is not in his seat, as I wish to again bring to his attention the necessity to our national railways of taking over the old branch line called the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway on the North shore, which I drew more particularly to the attention of the former Minister of Public Works, Hon. Mr. Carvell, in 1917. At that time the Government were taking over a number of branch lines, connecting with the Intercolonial Railway between Moncton and St. John chiefly, but they left out one branch line which would be an excellent feeder for the Intercolonial on the ground that there was a dispute of a few thousand dollars regarding the value of the road. As I stated at the time, I did not make the request with the assurance that there would be an immediate additional revenue derived from its operation in conjunction with the Intercolonial, but looked more particularly to the benefit that such a line would give to the main line between Halifax and Montreal. I pointed out its freight possibilities, and stated that altogether about 1,750 cars of lumber a year would reach Gloucester Junction not for distribution in the neighbourhood, but to be sent through in Montreal, a distance of 533 miles; and in addition, every year we have a large number
of carloads of fish to be transported from Bathurst to St. John, 220 miles, or to Halifax, 300 miles, due to the geographical situation. Therefore by reason of the long haul traffic the Intercolonial would receive during the year a revenue of $200,000 to $300,000 as contrasted with only about $80,000 of revenue to the branch line itself. I said at the time that the receipts of that road could be increased very considerably, and that therefore the main line revenue would also be increased two or three times. That fact has to be considered, and in drawing it to the attention of the Government I submit that the interests of our national railways are being neglected by our continued refusal to take over that line. The Government are losing thousands of dollars every year on (account- of tljeir neglect to take over this line. The acquirement of these branch lines in northern New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia is a matter of great national interest and necessity. The only reason that the minister has ever given for the Government's failure to take over the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway is that they could not come to an agreement with the owners of that line as to the amount for which it could be bought. I suggested when -the matter was up on a previous occasion, and I suggest again, that arbitration should be resorted to. The owners of this line have intimated to the Minister of Railways their willingness to accept the decision of any board of arbitration appointed by the Government to look into this matter; they would have accepted in advance the decision of the former Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners, now the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I thought at the time that the Minister of Railways would accept that proposal. The owners of this line are willing to-day to accept the finding of any man who has a knowledge of railways whom the Government may select as arbitrator, whether he be a judge of the Exchequer Court or any one else.
The Government lare |always prepared to accept the principle of arbitration when it comes to dealing with large corporations and when large amounts are involved. They did it in the case of the Canadian Northern, and they are proposing to do it in the case of the Grand Trunk in connection with the proposals which they now place before the House. Why not apply the same principle to the acquirement of small lines? Why not do it in the case of the line which I mention and thus do justice to the section of the community
[Stage Direction]
through which this line runs? It may he said that this line is not worth much in its present condition, or was not worth much in the condition that it was in last year or two years ago. I admit that the road was run down, but it is not only the actual physical value of a railroad which is to be considered; one has to take into account also the potential value of the road as a feeder of the trunk line. The districts through which these branch lines run may be so productive as to make the branch lines of considerable value as feeders of the trunk line. If the Intercolonial railway had been owned by a private company, the Caraquet and Gulf Shore line would long ago have been taken over; the owners of the trunk line would have recognized the value of the territory through which this branch line runs and its value as a feeder of the trunk line. I hope that the Minister of Railways and those members of the Government who hear me to-day will take this matter into very serious consideration and that they will decide to take over the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway and to construct those new lines which have been referred to by hon. members who have preceded me in this debate. To do so would be in the interests of the districts concerned as well as to the advantage of the Canadian National railway.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is my duty t6 remind hon. members that the leader of the Opposition is about to exercise his right to close the debate upon this motion and that other members will afterwards be precluded from speaking. If any hon. member, therefore, wishes to speak to this motion, he should do so now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Government takes so little interest in a resolution which was passed by the House and accepted by the Government some four years ago with regard to the building of lines of railway in parts of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and possibly Prince [DOT]Edward Island. No member of the Government seems to think it worth while to say a word about the matter. .1 was hoping that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) would be here at some time when this matter was being dealt with, to show that he takes some interest in the development of these very important sections of our country. But although I have postponed the discussion of this motion
[iMr. Turgeon.l
several times in the hope that the minister would be here, and although I asked him as a special favour on one occasion to be present when the motion was called, I find that neither he nor any other member of the Government thinks it worth while to gay the slightest attention to the interests of these very important sections of Canada.
On the 16th of March, 1914, the House adopted this resolution, moved by myself:
That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway section of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.
That resolution was accepted by the Government at that time. During the war period I did not think it would be proper to embarrass the Government in any way by dealing with these matters. But now that the war is over and the Government appears to have lots of money-millions and hundreds of millions-to spend upon railway projects, I did think that I was only doing justice to the grand old provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in asking that some attention be given to such portions of those provinces as have been without railway facilities. But evidently my appeal has fallen upon deaf ears; the matter has been dealt with as one of such perfunctory character that no member of the Government deigns to take the slightest interest in it. .We on this side are accustomed to treatment of that kind. We shall continue, however, to advocate what is in the interests of the various parts of the country which we represent and to hope that the day will come when there will be a Government in charge of the affairs of Canada which will consider it worth while to give some attention to the provinces that I have mentioned.
I did not bring forward this resolution looking for any consideration for those provinces beyond the lines of good business. I have always submitted that the development and extension of those lines would bring splendid business to the main trunk lines of the Intercolonial railway or whatever lines of Government-owned roads may be found extending through this country. I pointedfout that the lumber business, the coal business, the trade in plaster-stone and more especially the fishing industry would be developed to such an extent as to make the road a good paying proposition. It was largely for the purpose and with the hope that the line into my particular county of Victoria should be extended along the fishing ports of that county that I brought the matter up. We have in the

county of Victoria a long string of fishing ports and towns beginning with a fishing place called North River, North Gut, South Gut, Englishtown, North Shore, South Bay, Ingonish, Neil harbour, Dinwall bay, St. Lawrence, Meat Cove. All of these villages along the coast of the county of Victoria are most magnificent fishing places, but they have no railway, and consequently the fishing trade is really in its infancy and has no opportunity of development. If a railway were run through these fishing villages, there is no limit to the wealth that might be developed. On the Inverness side of the island we have several Acadian villages on a settlement called Cheticamp, with magnificent fishing possibilities. Then there is Margaree harbour and another point called Site. Rose. Of course, there is a railroad from the Strait of Canso along the south side of the island, which railway I understand the Government intends to take over one of these days. That railway touches many of the harbours along the south side of the island; but the fishermen were never given any opportunity to take advantage of it because it is merely a coal road, that is, it is owned by a coal company; it is equipped only for the carrying of coal, and there was never anything done to connect it with the fishing towns, villages and harbours on the south side of the island of Cape Breton. But when the Government take it over, as I hope they will, there will be an opportunity for them so to equip it that it will be a means of assistance to the fishermen of that side of the .island and will enable the fishermen to produce this excellent food for other parts of Canada. On the south side of the island we have a railway extending about thirty or thirty-five miles from the strait of Canso to the St. Peter's canal. That railway is well known to the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster), who has possibly travelled over it. It is a good, road so far as it goes, but it should be extended along the south coast of the island of Cape Breton to Louisburg, where it would connect with the railway of the Dominion Iron and Steel.
I am glad now that after many efforts we have the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) in the House listening to part of what I have to say in regard to this railway. I am pleased to tell the minister that it was the intention of the railway company that owns the road from the strait of Canso to St. Peter's to extend it to the harbour of Louisburg along the south coast of the island of Cape Breton, and that it was my
pleasure, as a practising barrister, to purchase, on behalf of that .company, magnificent terminals for that road on the site of the old town of Louisburg. If he will take in hand the extension of that road he will find owned by that company one of the most magnificent terminal sites on the whole of the Atlantic coast, and he will have the novelty and. pleasure of knowing that in the lands which can readily be owned by the Government is the site of the old town and the old wharf that the French people owned when they owned the town of Louisburg. He will also find that foundation of that wharf, good and sound as ever it was, within the land which this company owns. The towns through which this road would run if extended along the south side of the island would be St. Peter's itself, l'Ardoise, Grand River, Forchou, Gabarus, Louisburg, Lorraine, Mainadieu and Mira bay. All of these towns are struggling .along endeavouring to make a living at fishing, .but they have no railway facilities. As I have pointed out before, it is. impossible to give railway facilities to the two sides of this great island of Cape Breton simply by running a line through the middle, because the island, which is about 125 miles long by 90 miles wide, is cut into two parts by an arm of the sea and the St. Peter's canal. One can, therefore, understand that one line of railway running through the centre of that great stretch of country is not going to give proper accommodation, much less can it give good accommodation to the fishing industries along the coast. I am to-day merely supplementing what I said the other day, and I am merely reminding the minister now that he is. in the House-I am sure he is a busy man. and found it impossible to he here before-that he was sitting in this House when this resolution which I am about to read was .accepted. Hon. Mr. Rogers, who was then Minister of Public Works, was leading this House, and he was the .man who gave the word [DOT]that the Govern men>t was accepting my resolution, but I clearly remember that the present Minister of Railways, who was then Minister of Customs if I remember correctly, was sitting in the House at that time. The resolution, which was moved by myself and which was accepted by the Government, reads:
Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.

What I am now moving is this:
Be It therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should he carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
The railroad that I am talking about in the county of Victoria was practically started in 1911 - along with several other lines of railway in Guysborough, Pictou and Halifax counties and other parts of eastern Nova Scotia: They were dropped with the promise that later on they would be taken up again. I trust that " later on " has arrived and that before long the Government will take such steps as may 'be necessary to carry out the proposition involved in my present resolution and the resolution which was accepted by the Government on the 16th March, 1914.
I trust I have made my position perfectly clear, also the position of the people of the island of Cape Breton, Guysborough and Inverness counties, of western Nova Scotia, as well as the sections of Quebec and New Brunswick particularly concerned in the scope- and purpose of the resolution.
I do hope that the day is not far digtant when the minister will be able to gladden the hearts of these old settlers who have been in this country, they and their forefathers, nearly two hundred years, and who have been looking from time to time for the benefits of railway extension. I trust the minister will have the satisfaction of feeling that he ia the one who brought this great benefit to this very excellent class of Canadians, who have too long been left out in the cold, without the facilities which have been properly extended to other parts of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the hon. gentleman rises to a question of personal explanation, the debate is concluded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Importations.
Quantity.	Amount.
[Stage Direction]
Cocaine. .	.	1,3'61
Morphine. . .	7,181
Crude Opium 21,818
30,360
1919	1915	1919Oz.	$	$29,470	2,224	227,040125,317	15,602	640,30463,898	105,566	82-3,512218,685	123,792 :	L,690,856
3. If not approximately correct, what are the facts?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The importations of cocaine and morphine for the four year period ending March 31, 1919, are much in excess of those for the four years ending March 31, 1915. With respect to opium, however, the importations during the four years ending March 31, 1919, are not abnormal, as 139,645 pounds of opium were imported in the four year period ending March 31, 1911.
2.	Yes, as to cocaine and morphine, but not as respects opium.
3.	The importations during the two four-year periods were as follows:
Quantity	Amount
1915	1919	1915	1919Oz.	Oz.	$	$Cocaine. .	.	1,36>1	29,470	2,224	227,040Morphine. . .	7,221	125,317	15,602	640,304Crude opium	21,818 lb. 63,8981b. 105,566 823,512



PUBLIC DEBT, EXPENDITURE, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the question (Mr. McKenzie) respecting the public debt, annual expenditure, etc.:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For some mysterious reason this question was dropped from the Order Paper	the	other day.	It has reappeared, and' I	should like	to get an
answer as soon as possible. I notice a mistake in the first paragraph of the question. The year should be 1919 instead of 1917.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I .shall see that the necessary correction is made.
Question stands.



CLASSIFICATION OF HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
[Stage Direction]
*MR. MOW AT:
1.	Has the importation of opium' derivatea and cocaine into Canada during the la-st four years 'been abnormal?
2.	Is it a fact that in the four fiscal years ending March 31, 1915, and the like period ending March 31, 1919, the following figures are approximately correct?
Mr. J. A. ROBB (for Mr. Tobin) moved:: 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.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: Does the hon. member ask for a return giving the names of all the permanent employees in the public service?


James Alexander Robb: In the absence of my hon. friend from Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin), I moved the resolution just as it appears on the Order Paper.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hardly like to accept the motion as it is, and I would ask that it stand until to-morrow. I will undertake to get any information that may reasonably be asked for, but I think this is hardly reasonable.
Motion stands.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: For a return showing all the Royal or other commissions to investigate and report on any matter, appointed by the Government since October, 1911, giving the following tabulated particulars in detail:-[DOT]
(a)	Date of Order in Council or other authorization.
(b)	Names and post office addresses of commissioner or commissioners.
(c)	Purpose for which same was appointed.
(d)	Number of days in session.
(e)	Outlay on the part of the Government as payment or allowance to the commissioner or commissioners.
(f)	All other expenditure for witness fees, travelling expenses, printing, typing and disbursements of every description in the case of each such commission or investigation.
(g)	Date of official report.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House xeturned to the order of Motions:
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I believe it was understood that I would make p statement on the third reading of the Bill that passed to-day with reference to the Canadian Wheat Board's extension of powers. I intended to make some explanation in regard to the charge of 15 cents, .which has been the subject of some discussion in the House. As the Bill slipped through without my having made that explanation, possibly the House will receive it now. There was another question as to whether wheat, bran and shorts were limited to maximum prices or not. I shall answer the second question first. An agreement exists between the Canadian Wheat Board and the millers. At the time of the first meeting of the board the millers applied for an advance on the price of flour. They urged the increased cost of consumption, and asked for fifteen cents a barrel in advance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the date ol
the first meeting?


George Eulas Foster: The date of the first meeting was about the middle of August.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I mean the date at
which the millers made that demand?


George Eulas Foster: I understand it was at the first meeting of the Wheat Board. An agreement was made, and still exists, that the price of flour should not be advanced beyond the price which was current at that time. This runs to a maximum of $10.10 on flour milled from Ontario winter wheat, and $10.90 on flour milled from Manitoba hard and spring wheat. These prices are free on board track at Montreal, and the prices in other districts are based on the Montreal price, taking into consideration the railway differential. The statement has been made to me that these maximum prices have not in all cases been conserved, and that at the present time flour is being sold, owing to competition amongst millers, at considerably less than the maximum. As to bran and shorts, the prices agreed upon were $45 and $55 respectively, and no export was allowed except under permit; and for the major part of the time no export has taken place. Of late, however, the supply of bran and shorts seems to- be larger than the demand in Canada, and the Wheat Board are giving permits for a certain amount of export to the United States.
With reference to the charge of 15 cents, this is not a tax, as it has been described in the House, and the reason will be apparent when we take into consideration the purpose of the Wheat Board and the two classes of purchase,-one for export by purchasers, say, in the Old Country, and the other for domestic use by purchasers in Canada. The price was fixed at $2.15, based on Fort William, and' at the end of the transaction the price- over and above that which' was obtained, after cost and charges had been deducted, was to be divided amongst the principal sellers. -So t-ha-t the farmer gets at once, as regards the basic price, $2.15 less carrying charges and [DOT]commissions which are common under all' -systems of conducting the grain trade. He will receive at the close of the transaction -a certain amount, greater or less, from the sum remaining from the total sale of our Canadian wheat at World prices. That portion of the vheat which is sold for domestic use must also bring to the farmer the market price. It does not go across the -seas. It is consumed in Canada, and consequently the prices paid by the miller

must cover, as nearly as the Wheat Board can estimate it or arrange it, the full market, price. So that the price fixed for millers was $2.30; that is the basic price. When the miller buys from the dealer he pays that sum. The sum of $2.15 has already been paid by the dealer to the farmer, and the miller is therefore not allowed to pay .the other 15 cents of the $2.30 to the dealer for that would make a profit to the dealer. That 15 cents is returned to the Wheat .Board and put into the pool, so to speak, .and is therefore a counterpart of the extra price which will be received from the sum of the export grain to the purchasers in Europe. The House can easily .see that unless there is something of that kind' the farmer does, not .get the world market price for his wheat. The miller, therefore, having to pay the $2.30, fifteen cents of which goes into the Canadian Wheat Board for the purposes which I have explained, there must be supervision and control to prevent that portion of the wheat, or any considerable part of it, which proceeds from the farmer's hands directly into the hands of the millers from not getting its increase along the line of the world's market or the world's price. As I have stated, it is so arranged that fifteen cents of the $2.30 that the miller pays goes into the fund of the Canadian Wheat Board. Now there are millers who conduct customs milling as well as outright milling-that is they take in grists from the farmers in their localities as well as buy wheat for general milling purposes-and in those esses it is impossible to make a difference between the two. Otherwise there would be imposition and the farmer would not realize the amount which is his due. So that with reference to the customs, miller altogether, or the customs miller who carries on customs work along with his general millinr, the precaution has to be taken that the fifteen cents over and above the fixed price to the farmer goes into the fund of the Canadian Wheat Board. If the smaller miller simply grists the load that is brought to his mill by the farmer, and for the purposes of 'chat 'aimer's own consumption, the board, as far as possible are trying to carry out their work so that they shall not interfere with that. But it would be manifestly unfair to allow the custom miller to grist the grain which afterwards in the .shape of flour went into the general sale of the country without the payment of the full market price. Such impositions were attempted, and the fifteen cents payment is designed by the board to prevent that imposition. Special com-[ISlr George Foster.]
mittees have been appointed in Ontario and Quebec to carry out the rule of the board with the least possible dissatisfaction and trouble to the small farmer who grists his grain, or gets his grain gristed, for the purpose of home consumption. In carrying out a general rule you may find that it is troublesome to parties who do not intend really to break it; but in this respect the Canadian Wheat Board are doing the best they can to reduce that trouble to a minimum.
In the case of the seller for export, when the fifteen cents is paid into the Canadian [DOT]Wheat Board a participation ticket is to be given to the producer or seller and that certificate is his warrant after it has been registered by the board for claim to his share of the surplus that may be left. Where the miller does custom milling, and this safeguard is necessary to prevent imposition, a participation ticket or certificate is also given in that case so that the seller or the grister of the grain will ultimately receive, just the same as the original seller for export, his share of what remains in the pool. This is a somewhat lengthy explanation, but I can quite see by the intelligent appreciation of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that it has gone right to his heart.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do I understand that the farmer-let us say in the Eastern townships where the farmers are very intelligent -who goes to the mill and gets, for instance, ten bushels of wheat ground into flour for his own personal use, pays the fifteen cents, and that he will have a right to a refund from this pool ? Am I right in that understanding?


George Eulas Foster: Well, partly right -right in essence, I think. Really it is the miller who has to pay that fifteen cents; he pays a set price and the farmer must get that-the set price for export. He pays fifteen cents over that set price-that is $2.30-and he must see that fifteen cents gets into the fund of the wheat board. In that case, if he exacts payment from the fanner then the farmer gets his. participation ticket and has his recourse in the end to the pool. But I want to say one word more: Where it is a bona fide case of small gristing on the part of the farmer the purpose of the committee is to make the thing as easy as possible.


Mr. PROULX:: If the miller does not buy wheat from the farmer but only grists it, does he charge that farmer fifteen cents and put it into the pool ?


George Eulas Foster: No. He pays a certain amount, which is $2.30 on the basic price. But whatever the basic price is, fifteen cents of it goes into the pool. Then the farmer gets his participation ticket.


Edmond Proulx: But in most cases there is no sale; A farmer goes to the grist mill with a load of wheat and gets it gristed. Then he receives back his flour and the offal less the toll?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: In that case would the farmer have to pay fifteen cents per bushel to the miller and would the miller put that sum into the pool ?


George Eulas Foster: The farmer has not, by the order of the board, to pay any fifteen cents. The miller has to pay his price, and of that price he has to see that fifteen cents goes into the pool. Now the miller in many cases, in some cases, is simply a buyer although he grists the farmer's wheat-that is, he takes and mills it and gives a certain amount of flour back. But he retains the bran and the shorts, and these go into the market and in competition. Now it would be manifestly unfair if he should be allowed to do that without the extra payment.


Thomas Vien: Does the minister contend that the miller is going to pay fifteen cents a bushel to the fund, or to the pool as the minister calls it, without being repaid by the farmer who brings his wheat to be gristed.?


George Eulas Foster: That rests between the farmer and the miller.


James Alexander Robb: The Acting Prime Minister
has made a statement which he intended to submit on the third reading, so I presume it is not out of order for me to speak now.


Georges Henri Boivin: Any debate on the statement of the Acting Prime Minister would be out of order. With the unanimous consent of the House, the hon. member could reply to the statement, but not otherwise.


George Eulas Foster: I will be very glad to answer so far as I can any ques * tions that may be asked.


Georges Henri Boivin: A debate
would not be in order without unanimous consent.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that the minister (Sir George
Foster) made a very carefully prepared statement from the point of view that the millers throughout the country are running their business along the same line as is the Government-with a surplus of clerks to do a lot of work that is quite unnecessary- and in answer to my contention that for many years the business of the companies has been carried on satisfactorily to their customers. Notwithstanding the explanation of my right hon. friend, the fact re-, mains that he has made the custom millers the collectors of a tax of from 68 to 75 cents a barrel on the farmer's own product ground for the use of his family. He cannot get away from that. I do not wish to abuse the permission given and to initiate a debate along these lines, but I do wish to point out that the right hon. gentleman made the statement that the millers had asked for an increased price on flour, which was refused by the Wheat Board. That is quite correct so far as it goes. But there was something more connected with it. The millers did ask for an increased price on flour for export, not for the domestic trade, and they pointed out to the board that they had to make a certain profit out of the wheat. Seventy per cent of the product of a bushel of wheat goes into flour, thirty per cent into bran and shorts; and the millers pointed out that it was better in the interests of Canada that we should have a higher price for our export flour so that they would be able to sell bran and shorts to the dairymen of this country at a lower price; but this was refused by the Wheat Board.


George Eulas Foster: Mjf information is that the increased price was asked on all flour.


James Alexander Robb: Well, my understanding is that it was only for export. But nevertheless, in connection with that, it was pointed out that if there was an increased price for flour, there would be a corresponding reduction in the price of bran and shorts.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the Table the correspondence that passed in connection with the negotiations resulting in the final understanding as to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway. The House will observe when the correspondence goes on the Table that it contains four or five cables that passed prior to the

letter of 11th July, 1918, which was intended to be an official summary of the negotiations. These preliminary cables were of a confidential character and were so marked, hnt for the reason that the first cable is referred to by Sir Alfred Smithers in his reply to the official letter of 11th July, it was thought well that these cables should be given to the Mouse as well. Conseciuent-ly, although of that character, and although indeed following verbal conversations between representatives of the company and the Government, they are none the less now made public.
I also lay on the Table certain memoranda, being in the nature of statements and information relative to the Grand Trunk Railway System. That the House may have an idea at the outset of the character of the data now furnished, I will detail briefly the contents of this document. On the first page is a summary from which horn. members will be easily able to turn to whatever specific information they require. Then follow in OTder: A historical account of the system; the territory covered and the districts served; the mileage, a table of mileage in Canada and the United States and of subsidiary tracks ( with map reference numbers); mileage and local relations of companies (with map reference numbers); balance Sheet of the Grand Trunk Railway to December 31st, 1918, ini sterling; balance sheet of the Grand Trunk Railway to December 31st, 1918, in dollars; capitalization December 31st, 1917, Grand Trunk Railway in dollars; funded debt Grand Trunk Pacific fixed charges, whose guarantee and months interest due as at December 31st, 1918; Grand Trunk Pacific Railway branch lines company balance sheet; earnings and expenses Grand Trunk Railway six months, 1919; income account Grand Trunk Railway, 1912 to 1918, in dollars; revenues combined Grand Trunk Railway System without Grand Trunk Pacific for 1917; income account Grand Trunk Pacific; traffic statistics Grand Trunk Railway; guarantees by Grand Trunk Railway; dates of maturities short (term paper Grand Trunk Railway; deficits Central Vermont and income cost of Atlantic and St. Dawrence Railway; deficits Western American companies; dividends paid; voting power of stocks; maps of the Grand Trunk Railway System in the East and of the Grand Trunk Pacific System. The brief summary thus given is extended in more detail on the next page, but that I do not need to recapitulate now. This information is furnished by the Government officials upon 
sworn statements and annual reports of the company itself.
I desire to move:
That four hundred copies of the two sets oi papers now laid upon the Table be forthwith iprinted in the English language, that two hundred copies he forthwith printed in ths French language, and that Rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
Mr. THOMAS V1EN (Lotbiniere) : May I ask the minister if in the traffic statistics now given a distinction is made as to traffic originating in the United States and as -to that originating in Canada? If there is no such distinction, can it not be furnished?


Arthur Meighen: I think that, generally sjpeaking, the distinction that the hon. member asks for can ibe drawn from the traffic statement.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, the documents just deposited by the minister are part of the information which I was seeking. I do not think it would he fair for the House to be called upon to examine the resolution in Committee of the Whole before we have been handed printed copies of these documents according to the motion that has just been passed. Moreover, it appears to me that at least twenty-four hours should be given hon. members to become acquainted to a certain extent with the contents of these documents before we begin discussing the motion. I hope we may have the declaration of the minister that we shall not be called upon to discuss this matter until the documents have been printed and we have had at least twenty-four hours within which to consider them.


Georges Henri Boivin: This question is not relevant to the motion now before the House. The question could be asked upon the motion for adjournment in connection with an inquiry as to the business which is to be taken up to-morrow; by unanimous consent the answer could be given immediately.


Arthur Meighen: As to proceeding with the resolution, it will be realized in a moment that the fundamental features of the resolution can be fully discussed without the mastering of all the detail which is set forth in the data now furnished. At the same time, the House will not be asked to come to a final conclusion as to the terms until there has been opportunity for study of the details. But we would be foolish, I think, to waste time, unless there is other business that the House can do, by discussing such features

as are now well known and as have, indeed, been before the country for about twenty months.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir George Foster the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
W/ednesday, October 15, 1919.