1919-03-20

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting Estimates foT the year ending March 31, 1920, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

Mr. STEVENS:: 1 How many bushels of wheat, oats, barley and flax were moved during the season of navi-

gation on the Great Lakes from Fort William and Port Arthur for the years 1916, 1917, 1918?
2.	What portion of shipments of wheat, oats, barley and flax shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur during open season of navigation of 1918 was of the crop of 1918?
3.	What portion of the wheat, oats, barley, flax and corn in storage in elevators, or in storage on ships in Canadian ports east of Lake Superior is Canadian grain, and what portion of American origin p
4.	How many ships carrying grain cleared from Fort William and Port Arthur during season of navigation of 1917, and how many in 1918?
5.	How many charters for grain carrying ships were granted during season of navigation of 1917, and how many in 1918, by the Board of Grain Supervisors?
6.	Were any application for charters for grain shipments'refused by the Board of Grain Supervisors during season of navigation 1918? If so, how many were Canadian or British register and how many American, and why were such charters not granted?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: 1.	Grain moved from Fort William and Port Arthur during season of navigation 1916, 1917, 1918.
	Wheat.	Oats.
1916		Bush. 181,685,991 138,574,037 63,295,048	Bush. 57,821,239 47,686,685 10,290,510
1917			
1918			
		
Barley.	Flax.	Total.Bush.	Bush.	Bush.8,887,282	5,574,987	253,969,4996,810,834	6,358,096	199,429,6523,174,393	2,036,308	787,96'259
_ 2. Lake shipments of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur during .season of navigation 1918, which were of 1918 crop.
Bushels.
Wheat	 50,565,345-40
Oats	
3.	'Grain in storage in elevators or on ships in Canadian ports east of Lake Superior on February 14, 1919, showing what portion is Canadian grain and what portion is American.
Barley	 373:202-31
Flax	 530,347-46
Wheat.	Oats.	Barley.	Flax.	Rye.	Corn.	Total.Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.Canadian-	16,464,296 American- 4,244,606	1,047,130 1,805,655	714,572	14,776	106,373	141,585	18,347,147 6,191,846
4. Vessels carrying grain which cleared from Fort William and Port Arthur during the years 1917 and 1918.
Canadian vessels. U.S. vessels.
1917	
622	5071918	
317	1185.	Charters are made between the shipper of the grain and the vessel agents direct, and the Board of Grain Supervisors has no official record of the number or nature of charters made either for the season of navigation 1917 or 1918.6.	Answered by No. 5.


LT.-COLONEL PICHE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What position is occupied overseas by Lt.-Colonel Pichfi, of Montreal?
2.	By whom was he recommended for such position?
[Mr. Stevens. 1
3.	Has he ever served in any capacity in France?
4.	If not, what special qualifications justify his appointment to a position in England?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Overseas representative of the Director of Records, Militia Headquarters, and, in addition to these duties, at the request of the Overseas Minister, is acting as liaison officer.
2.	Adjutant-General.
3.	No.
4.	This officer, throughout his service in the Canadian Militia and Canadian Expeditionary Force, has shown excellent administrative ability, has a thorough training in Records as required in Canada, and is possessed of considerably more than 'the average amount of tact,-an essential attribute in carrying out his present duties.


P.E.I. GREATER PRODUCTION GRANT.
Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens, P.E.I.):: 1. What amount of money, if any, was granted or given to the Province of Prince Edward Island or to the Government of said province during the year 1918 for the purpose of promoting greater production of agricultural foodstuffs?
2.	Was the said grant absolute or conditional?
3.	What disposition of the grant was made by the Government of Prince Edward Island?
4.	Was it agreed between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island that promissory notes or other security should be taken from the farmers, to whom such grant was made, for a return of the money?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	85,000.
2.	Conditional.
3.	(a) To pay salaries and travelling and other expenses of men employed by the Provincial Department of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island in connection with this work, (b) To pay for newspaper advertising, (c) For the purchase of supplies necessary for the work.
4.	It was agreed between this Government and the Government of Prince Edward Island that such arrangements should be made as would insure that farmers or others short of seed would get the necessary supplies. It was not stated that notes would be accepted.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has the Quebec Harbour Commission during the year 1918 sold any harbour equipment, tugs or dredges?
2.	If so, to whom, at what prices, and under what conditions?
3.	Were prices asked for from any others than the actual purchasers?
4.	If so. from whom?
5.	Is the property of the Quebec Harbour Commission insured against fire?
6.	If so. through what agents are risks placed?
7.	Were any other agents asked to give prices?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes, Dredge No. 1.
2.	To La Cie. Generale d'Enterprises Pub-liques for $185,000, to be paid cash in full before dredge left harbour of Quebec. Payment was made as agreed.
3.	Yes, inquiries and offers of sale were made without avail by ithe Quebec Harbour Commissioners, before the agreement was entered into with Purchasing Company, through the:
4.	Marine Department, Ottawa; ithe Canadian Salvage Association, of Montreal and
Quebec; T. A. Scott Company, New London, Connecticut; The Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co., New York; War Department, United States Government; The Clinchfield Navigation Co., Ltd., New York; J. Ellwell & Co., New York.
5.	Yes.
6.	Dominion Brokerage, per Douglas T. Taylor, Arthur Scott; 0. & W. Champion; C. J. Lockwell; P. A. Boutin; Belleau & Auger; H. B. Bignell; Oliver & Coolican; Barry & MaeManamy.
7.	No. Prices are regulated by Underwriters.


AYRSHIRE AND HOLSTEIN BULLS.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many Ayrshire bulls were purchased and distributed by the Government in Canada in 1918, and what was the average price paid for them?
2.	How many Holstein bulls were purchased and distributed by the Government in Canada in 1918, and what was the average price paid for them?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	45.	$140.77.
2.	12. $144.16.


PAYMENTS TO MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. KAY:: How much money was paid to the respective Military representatives on the Tribunal Boards, 1917-18, at the following places:	Ormstown,
Que.; Huntingdon, Que.; Knowlton, Que.; Adamsville, Que.; Quebec City, Que. ?


Major General MEWBURN:: Ormstown, $562; Huntingdon, $442; Knowlton, $411; Adamsville, $584.35; Quebec City, $9,586.


MR. WILLIAM T. GREGORY.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the military standing, if any, of Mr. William T. Gregory, of Leamington, Ont.?
2.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Gregory has appeared in public many times under the title of Colonel, and in uniform?
3.	Is it within the knowledge of the Government that Mr. Gregory appeared in uniform in Halifax, at or about the time of the embarkation of the 241st Battalion, wearing the red band of the Headquarters' Staff around his cap, and was be ordered to remove this insignia by some official?
4.	Have any returned soldiers or others been punished for wearing uniforms or for assuming officers' titles without authority?
5.	What steps, if any, have been or will be taken in the case of Mr. Gregory?


Major General MEWBURN:: 1.	None.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	None.


COMMON'S THE BRONZE STAR.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: Referring to a statement published in the Canadian Official Record of January 21, 19il 9,, why is the Bronze Star for Naval Service confined to men who were mobilized and served prior to December 81, 1915?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: The Bronze Star is a decoration granted by the King to all those on Active Service in the Imperial or Dominion Navies during the Greal War prior to December 31, 1915
Mr. JAMES I. HART.
"Mr. PROULX:
1.	Did Mr. James I. Hart, of Orillia, receive an appointment with the C.E.F.?
2.	If so, with what battalion, what was his rank, and what is it at present?
3.	What active service did Mr. Hart perform outside of England?
4.	What was the date of his return to Canada, and did he return on leave?
5.	After being in Canada, did he return to active service in England or France? If so, when, and in what capacity?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	With 177th Battalion as Honorary Captain and Paymaster. Present rank, Major on Reserve of Officers, C.E.F.
3.	In France from June 22, 1917, to January 21, 1918, and from' May 8, 1918, until returned to Canada in August, 1918.
4.	Returned to Canada on leave for session of Ontario Legislative Assembly, January 31, 1918.
5.	Yes. Returned to England April 22, 1918. To France May 8, 1918. Promoted to temporary major May 28, 1918.


CANADA FOOD BOARD LICENSES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How many licenses for the sale of foodstuffs, were issued by the Canada Food Board up to December 31, 1918?
2.	How much was charged in fees for these licenses?
3.	Are these licenses still in force?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the issue of such licenses?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	78,016.
2.	$336,261.69.
3.	Millers' licenses still in force; also packers' licenses, under Order in Council No. 580 of date March 9, 1918.
4.	Not beyond expiration of present licenses.
[ Major-GCineral Mewburn. ]


CANADA FOOD BOARD EXPENDITURE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough);
1.	What was the total expenditure of every kind made by or on behalf of the Government in connection with food control since the ap- [DOT] pointment of W. J. Hanna on June 21, 1917?
2.	How many employees did the Canada Food Board have in its employ during any part of the year 1918?
3.	How many employees are now in the employ of the Board?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the operations of the Canada Food Board.
Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Total expenditure from June 21, 1917, to December 31, 1918, $623,111.91.
2.	February 11, 1918, 109; September 1, 1918, 210; December 31, 1918, 177.
3.	Forty-one.
4.	No.


PORT GEORGE POSTMISTRESS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Who is the postmaster or postmistress at Port George, Annapolis County, N.S.?
2.	When was said position filled?
3.	Was said position filled by application through the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Was any recommendation made to the [DOT] Civil Service Commission? If so, by whom?
5.	How many applications did the said Civil Service Commission receive in connection with this appointment?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Miss Vera M. Slocomb.
2.	March 1, 1919.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, Miss Vera M. Slocomb, recommended by W. E. MacLellan, Post Office Inspector, Halifax, N.S.
5.	Post Office Department advised that two applications had been received.


ENLISTMENTS IN HULL, PONTIAC AND WRIGHT COUNTIES.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Do the counties of Hull, Pontiac and Wright form part of Military District No. 2, Kingston-Ottawa, for military purposes?
2.	How many men belonging to said counties of Hull, Pontiac and Wright were enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, tinder the volunteer system?
3.	How many men belonging to the said counties were recruited by virtue of the Military Service Act of 1917?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	252.
3.	2,444.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: In the statement given to the House on the 25th of April, 1918, In connection with the number of volunteer enlistments by provinces, were the men belonging to the counties of Pontiac, Hull and Wright, included in this statement, credited to the province of Quebec or to the province of Ontario?
Major-General MEWBURN:
In April, 1918, separate figures not being available, they were included with total reported by Military District No. 3, which is in the province of Ontario. As soon as separate figures were obtained, they were credited to the province of Quebec.


Joseph Archambault: In the statement given to the House on the 25th of April, 1918, in connection with the number of men who were recruited by virtue of the Military Service Act of 1917, were the men belonging to the counties of Pontiac, Hull and Wright, included in this statement, attributed to the Province of Quebec or to the Province of Ontario ?
Major-General MEWBURN:	In April,
1918, separate figures not being available, they were included with total reported by Military District No. 3, which is in the province of Ontario.
As soon as separate figures were obtained, they were credited to the province of Quebec.


' MASSETT GOVERNMENT WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Lt.-Col. PECK:
1.	Did a Government wharf at Massett, B.C., collapse?
2.	If so, did this wharf belong to the Dominion Government?
3.	Had the Government received any requests for repairs to this wharf prior to its collapse?
4.	Were any goods belonging to merchants of the district lost when the wharf collapsed?
5.	Have any claims been made to the Minister of Public Works or other members of the Government for payment for the loss of these goods?
6.	Is it the intention of this Government to give any recognition to such claims?
Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.


ROYAL NAVAL CANADIAN VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
Mr. MAYRAND:: 1.	Did the British Government at any time during the war make any request or suggestion regarding Canada recruiting or sending overseas a division of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve?
2.	If so, by whom was the request made and when?
3.	Was the request acted upon?
4.	When was the division of the R.N.C.V.R. sent overseas?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1, 2, 3, 4. In the spring of 1916 Imperial authorities suggested that recruiting be carried on in Canada for service in the British Navy. The British Admiralty sent Captain the Hon. Rupert Guinness to Canada in charge of a recruiting party. As it was not feasible to recruit for entry in the Royal Navy owing to the different rates of pay in the Imperial and Canadian services an agreement was arrived at between the Canadian Government and the British Admiralty whereby a division of the R.N.C.V.R. should be recruited for overseas service to form a part of the total forces that Canada proposed to put on active service in the war. Captain Guinness delivered addresses at different points throughout Canada for the purpose of stimulating recruiting. Between the spring of 1916 and December 1917, 1,715 men were enrolled for the R.N.C.V.R. Overseas Division.


Mr. MAYRAND:: 1.	At any time during the war did the Hon. Rupert Guinness visit Canadia for the purpose of recruiting a division of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve?
2.	Did the Hon. Rupert Guinness bring a request from the Admiralty or British Government asking Canada to recruit a division of the R.N.C.V.R.?
3.	If so, was the request acted upon?
4.	Did1 the Hon. Mr. Guinness tour Canada?
5.	If so, what was the purpose of the tour?
6.	Did the Hon. Mr. Guinness make any report regarding the enlistment of a division of the R.N.C.V.R.?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1, 2, 3, 5,
6.	In the spring of 1916 Imperial authorities suggested that recruiting be carried on in Canada for service in the British Navy. The British Admiralty sent Captain the Hon. Rupert Guinness 'to Canada in charge of a recruiting party. As it was not feasible to recruit for entry in the Royal Navy owing to the different rates of pay in the Imperial and Canadian services an agreement was arrived at between the Canadian Government and the British Admiralty whereby a division of the R.N.C.V.R. would be recruited for overseas service to form a part of the total forces that Canada proposed to put on active service in the war. Captain Guinness delivered addresses at different points throughout Canada for the purpose of stimulating recruiting. Between the spring of 1916 and December 1917, 1,715 men were enrolled for the R.N.C.V.R. Overseas Division.


ST. LOUIS ROAD PROPERTY.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Government taken possession of the property situated on St. Louis Road, bequeathed by the late Gustave Stuart, K.C., of Quebec?
2.	For what purpose was this property bequeathed ?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to make any use of it? If so, what?


Mr. CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


WELLAND CANAL LOCK TENDERS.
Mr. FRASER:: New Brunswick:
Montreal and European Short
Line	 $
International Railway of New
Brunswick	
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway .. Carleton Branch Railway ..
333,942.72
13,031.96
391,454.27
48,410.48

Quebec:
Quebec bridge	$14,175,861.85
Drummond County Railway 1,464,000.00 Quebec and Saguenay Railway	 1,703,589.90
1.	What are the names and what were the former occupations of the various lock tenders appointed on the New Welland Ship Canal since April 1, 1918?
2.	By whom were these men recommended?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The new Welland Ship Canal is under construction-no Jock tenders have been appointed and will not be until canal is completed for operation.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CASH SUBVENTIONS TO RAILWAYS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What is the gross amount expended in cash subventions to aid in the construction of railways in each of the provinces of Canada since 1867?
2.	What is the gross amount expended on Government owned railways in each province of Canada since 1867?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 

Prince Edward Island:
Prince Edward Island Railway	 11,829,557.44
Manitoba:
Hudson Bay Railway	 20,233,887.37
British Columbia:
Stikine Teslin Railway		283,323.55
Railways Covering Several Provinces :
Intercolonial Railway .... 116,366,437.51 National Transcontinental
Railway	 164,488,236.85
' Canadian Pacific Railway .. 62,789,776.09
Expenditure not Apportioned to any Particular Railway:
Canadian Government Railways General; rolling stock 31,148,529.09 Construction and betterments (1918-19) to Dec. 31, 1918..	8,055,229.65
Sundries: (1918-19) to Dec. 31,
1.	The Dominion Government, up to 30th June last, had paid $111,428,695.38 in cash subsidies to railways; but it is quite impracticable to show the distribution of that aid among the various provinces.
2.	This question cannot be answered in a practical manner, except as shown in the following statement:


CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia:
Canada Eastern Railway .. $ 819,000.00 Gape Breton Railway .. .. 3,860,679.14 Eastern Extension Railway .. 1,324,042.81 Oxford and New Glasgow
Railway	 1,949,063.21
European and North American
Railway	 88,363.18
Nova Scotia Railway .. ..	208,509.72
Annapolis and Digby Railway	   660,683.09
[Stage Direction]
Governor General's cars 71,538.82 Sundries	 103,986.57
A grand total to Dec. 31,
1918, date of last adjusting
[Stage Direction]
entries	$442,411,135.27

Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Are the elevators, formerly owned toy the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific Railways, at Fort William and Port Arthur, now operated toy the Government?
2.	If not, by whom are they Operated, are they held under lease, and from whom were such leases obtained?
3.	If leased from the Government, what is the amount of annual rental?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Canadian Northern elevator at Port Arthur operated by the Port Arthur Elevator Company, under lease from Canadian Northern Railway Company.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

3.	Annual rental is $127,876, plus one quarter of a cent per bushel for every bushel entering said elevator in any year in excess of 10,000,000 bushels.


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the Dominion Government acquire the Grand Trunk Pacific elevator art: Fort William?
2.	If so, was it by expropriation, lease or otherwise?
3.	If purchased, what was the price paid?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What appointments in connection with the Board of Pension Commissioners have been made by the Civil Service Commission since the coming into effect of the Civil Service Act of 1918?
2.	What number have been made by the Pension Commissioners?
3.	How many of these positions have been given to returned soldiers who have served in the actual theatre of war, and how many to men who have not?
4.	What are the aggregate and average salaries attached1 to the positions mentioned in questions 2 and 3?
Mr. iCLARK i(CPafliamentary Secretary):
1.	193.
2.	8, all approved by the Civil Service Commission.
3.	190 returned soldiers (zone of service not available); 11 civilians.
4.	Question 4, aggregate $23,600, average $2,700; Question 3, aggregate, $309,800, average $1,630.52.


QUEBEC ORIENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Aire negotiations pending for the acquisition by purchase, lease or otherwise, of the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway as feeders and branches of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, with whom are these negotiations carried on?
3.	Has any decision been arrived at? If so, what is it?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Did the Board of Internal Economy meet during the last session, or at any time since the beginning of the present parliament?
2.	If so, why have not the mlinutes of these meetings been laid on the table of the House,
as prescribed by Rule 9 of the rules of this House?
3.	Is it the intention of the Speaker to lay them on the Table in the near future?
4.	If the Board of Internal Economy has not yet met, what are the reasons?
' Mr. SPEAKER:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Partly because the bulk of the business of the commissioners was in connection with the staff of the House, matters now almost altogether in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, partly because no important matter arose to be dealt with, and partly because the pressure of business upon the ministers in consequence of the war has been very heavy, and the Speaker did not feel justified in calling the commissioners together except for very important business.
1 have to thank the hon. member for calling my attention to Rule 9 of the House, as there was a meeting of the commissioners in February, 1917, which should have been reported to the House last session. My attention had not previously been drawn to the rule, and so, by inadvertence, the necessary report was not made. I now, however, lay the report upon the Table.


INTERCOLONIAL PENSION FUND.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. GAUVREAU:
1.	Has the Honourable the Minister of Railways received applications, petitions or letters from the superannuated employees of the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and Halifax for an increase of pension over their present allowance?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Honourable Minister, during the present session, to take favourable action upon such requests and grant increases respecting the minimum and maximum amounts of pension now granted?
3.	Is the Honourable Minister aware that the present rates of pension respecting the minimum and maximum amounts granted are based upon salaries paid many years ago when the cost of living was much lower than at present?
4.	If so, does the Honourable Minister propose to increase the contributions! rates to pensions fund with a view to enable present and future pensioners to receive a reasonable allowance in keeping with present-day necessities ?
Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Intercolonial Railway is now being operated as a part of the Canadian National Railway System. This matter will be considered and dealt with by the management of such system.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


COMMON'S STEAMSHIP HOCHELAGA.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Was the Steamship Hochelaga purchased by the Government during the period of the war?
2.	If so. from whom?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Was the Hochelaga employed in connection with the Naval Service work?
5.	What have the refit repairs to the ''Hochelaga" cost each year since being purchased bv the Government?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Randal Morgan.
3.	Seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).
4.	East Coast Patrol.
5.	On purchase, $22,642.18; 115-16, $19,650.10;	1916-17,	$10,214.29;	1917-18,	$29,-
547.44.


CANADIAN OFFICERS IN GRAND FLEET.
Air. DELISLE:: 1.	Did any of the Royal Canadian Navy Officers, graduates of the Naval College of Canada, serve in the British Grand Fleet during the period of the war?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Are these officers with the Grand Fleet at the present time?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to bring these officers back for duty in Canada?
5.	Have any communications been exchanged with the Imperial authorities with regard to these officers?
6.	Have the Imperial authorities signified their desire to have these officers remain with the Royal Navy?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Fifty.
3.	Yes, except 7 (5 who lost their lives and 2 now serving in Canada).
4.	When required.
5.	Yes.
6.	No communication has been received from the Admiralty on this point.


LIFE SAVING STATIONS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many life saving stations in Canada are directly under the supervision of the Canadian Naval Service?
2.	In what condition are these stations at the present time?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Twenty-nine.
2.	These stations are regularly inspected and suitably maintained. At the presenti time many of them are closed down for the winter.


Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	During the first month of the war, August 1914, was the H.M.C.S. Canada despatched to a point off Glace Bay, N.S.?

2.	If so, who gave to Canada the instructions to proceed to this point?
3.	Was the Ottawa Naval authorities informed of any trouble at Glace Bay at that time?
4.	If so, what was the nature of the trouble?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department of the Naval Service.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


H.M.C.S. CANADA.
Mr. DUFF:: Referring to the Report of the Auditor General, 1916-17, page ZZ 262, item of expenditure charged to H.M.C.S. Canada paid through the High Commissioner for Canada, British Admiralty, Welsh coal at $8.45 per ton -$561.41.
1.	From whom was this coal purchased?
2.	When was it received on board the Canada?
3.	At what port was it received?
4.	Who negotiated for the purchase of this coal?
5.	Who signed vouchers for its receipt?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1,	2, 3, 4. This coal was not specially purchased for the " Canada," but was drawn from the large stock of Welsh coal maintained in Halifax dockyard by the Admiralty for the use of their own cruisers calling at that port. The issue price was the Admiralty contract price plus freight to Halifax and handling costs. The superintendent of the dockyard authorized the issue for special duties to be performed. The date of issue was June 28th, 1915.
5.	Alfred Ross, engineer.


NEWFOUNDLAND RATINGS IN NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	At any time during 1917 and 1918 were any Newfoundland R.N.R. ratings serving in the Canadian Naval Service?
2.	If so. how many?
3.	Why were they taken in preference to Canadians ?
4.	Were these Newfoundland ratings, while serving in the Canadian Navy paid Imperial rates of pay?
5.	Did they at any time receive Canadian rates of pay?
6.	If so, when?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	188. _
3.	They were not taken in preference to Canadians but were entered at the same time as the Canadian ratings to make up the required number of trained men.
4.	No.
5 and 6. While serving in the Canadian Navy they were paid Canadian rates of pay.


PROCLAMATIONS BY SIR ARTHUR CURRIE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many proclamations were issued by General Sir Arthur Currie to the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force and to the people of Canada during the year 1917?
2.	How much has been expended by the Government to have these proclamations cabled to Canada?
3.	How much has been expended for their publication in Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN:
The following cable has been received from the Overseas Minister of Militia and Defence:-
Your 1964 Proclamation. General Currie states answer to first question is None. Second question is answered by Number One. Third question answered by Number One.


NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL.
Air. DUFF:: 1.	Since the outbreak of hostilities how many courts martial have been held in connection with the Canadian Naval Service?
2.	How many Canadian Naval Officers have either presided or attended as members of the court at these courts martial?
3.	At what time and at what place were said proceedings held?
. Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:
1.	Eighteen.
2.	At 15 Courts held in Canada one Canadian officer sat as President and four other Canadian officers sat as members on each Court.
3.	At Davenport, Eng., 14tn Jan., and 6th May, 1918; at Halifax, N.S., in 1918, 8th May, 12th June, 25th August, 25th September. (2); 4th October, 18th December; in 1919, 29th January, 30th January, 31st January, 4th February. At Sydney, N.S., 6th August, 15th August, 15th September, 31st October, 1918. At Bermuda, 18th November, 1918.


INCREASES OP PAY IN CANADIAN NAVY.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	In view of the fact that officers and men in the British Navy have recently received a substantial increase of pay, is it the intention of the Canadian Naval Department to correspondingly increase the pay of the officers and men serving in the Canadian Naval Service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The matter is now under consideration.


CANADIAN SEAMEN AND PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Do the officers and men who have served or are now serving in the Canadian Naval Service participate in all prize money the same as officers and men serving in the Royal Navy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


BOYS IN CANADIAN NAVY.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Are there any boys now undergoing training in the Canadian Navy Service?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Where are they undergoing this training?
4.	What rate of pay are they receiving per diem?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eighty-three.
3.	H.M.C.S. Shearwater, on the Atlantic coast.
4.	Fifty cents per diem.


CANADIAN VESSELS IN ACTION.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Have any of the vessels of the Canadian Naval Service ever been in action?
2.	If so, when and where?
3.	Did the steamer Hochelaga during the month of August, 1918, sight or believe she sighted an enemy submarine?
4.	If so, what was' the action of her commanding officer?
5.	Was the commanding officer tried by court martial? '
6.	If so, under what charge?
7.	Was he dismissed from the service in disgrace?
8.	If so, was any additional punishment meted out to him?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes, on 25th August, 1918.
4.	He altered course and steered towards his senior Officer's ship.
5.	Yes.
6.	That he did not from negligence or other default, on sight of a ship of the enemy which it was his duty to engage, use his utmost exertions to bring his ship into action.
7.	He was dismissed Hi,s Majesty's service by sentence of court-martial.
8.	No, the Naval authorities have no power over an officer when he has been dismissed the service.


MR. J. K. FORAN.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Is there a person employed in the House of Commons named J. K. Foran?
2.	If so, how long has he been in the employ of the Government?
3.	What is his salary or other remuneration?
4.	How many days was he present at his office duties between 15th October, 1917, and 20th February, 1919?
5.	If absent, did1 his pay go on during his absence, and what was the cause of his absence?
6.	Is the above J. K. Foran the party who organized the Sein Fein meeting in Montreal on the 9th February, and took the chair at the said meeting?

7.	If the allegations in question No. 6' are true, what is the Government going to do in the matter, seeing that the above meeting was of a rebel character?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since June 1, 1902, permanently.
3.	$2,800 per annum.
4.	There is no record showing the exact number of days, but he was absent most of the time during the session of 1918.
5.	Yes. Leave of absence was granted him on account of illness of his wife and two children and the state of his own health in consequence.
6.	He did not organize the meeting but he was chairman.
7.	The Government has not considered the matter, but as soon as I saw the newspaper accounts of the meeting I expressed very strong disapproval of any officer in the employment of the House taking an active part in any meeting which could be considered as of a political character, and directed that Dr. Foran should be at once ordered to resume his official duties. The matter will be considered at the first meeting that is held of the Board of Internal Economy of the House.
In justice to the official who is the subject of the question, I feel that a letter which he has written, addressed to myself, ought to be in possession of the House. It is somewhat lengthy, and perhaps not of such importance as to call for its publication in Hansard; I therefore lay it on the Table.


COMMANDERS THURSTON AND ISEDDON.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	During the summer of 1917, were Flight Commander Thurston and Winig Commander iSeddon, of the Royal Navy Air Force, detached to Canada with two baby seaplanes and entire equipment for the purpose of protection duty in Canada?
2.	If so, by whom were these two officers sent?
'3. Were they sent at the request of the Canadian Naval Service?
4.	Did the Canadian Naval Department utilize their service?
*5. If not, why?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	These officers were sent to Canada in March, 1917, to advise as regards a seaplane service in Canada. No information is available as to what equipment they brought with them.
2.	By the British Admiralty.
Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Yes.


SERVICE OF CANADIAN NAVAD RATINGS.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	At any time during the war, did the Government of Canada make any requests to the British Admiralty to he allowed to send Canadian naval ratings to serve in the British Grand Fleet?
2.	Did the Government attempt to disband the Royal Naval 'Canadian Volunteer Reserves at Esquknalt shortly .after the outbreak of hostilities in 1914?
3.	Did the Government disband a company of R.N.C.V.R. in the city of Quebec shortly after the outbreak of hostilities in 1914?
4.	If so, what officer gave the instructions for the disbandment of these reserves?
5.	On whose instructions was the officer acting?
,Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:
1.	In the spring of 1916, Imperial authorities suggested that recruiting be carried on in Canada for service in the British Navy. The British Admiralty sent Captain the Hon. Rupert Guinness to Canada in charge of a recruiting party. As it was not feasible to- recruit for entry in the Royal Navy owing to different rates of pay in the Imperial and Canadian services, an agreement was arrived at whereby a division of the R.N.C.V.R. should be recruited for Overseas Service to form a part of the total forces that Canada proposed to put on active service in the war. Captain Guinness delivered addresses at different points throughout Canada for the purpose of stimulating recruiting. Between the spring of 1916, and December, 1917, 1,715 men were enrolled in the R.N.C.V.R. (Overseas Division).
Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. No.


'STEAMER BAYFIELD.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government a boat by the name of Bayfield?
2.	If so, what department has control of this boat?
3.	Was she ait any time turned over to the Pilot Commission at Halifax, N.iS. ?
4.	If so, on whose recommendations, and on wh-at conditions?
5.	Is the Bayfield now in commission?
6.	If not, why?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The ship is owned by the Department of the Naval Service.
3 and 4. The ship was loaned temporarily to the Marine Department in April, 1918, for pilotage duties at Halifax upon the request of the Marine Department.
5.	No.
6.	It is now at Halifax awaiting refit and is to be returned to the Naval Department

for service in the Great Lakes upon the opening of St. Lawrence navigation.
STEAMER HOfOHlEtt,AiGiA.
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	Did (Lieutenant Jarvis, RjCJN., at any time during the war, make a report in regard to the condition of the steamer Hochelaga, purchased by the Government?
2.	If so, is a copy of that report on file in the department?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENTS MAY-DECEM-BER, 1917.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
What were the total voluntary enlistments for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December, 1917, respectively?
Major-General MEWBURN:
The total number of voluntary enlistments in Canada for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the months of (May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December, 1917, were as
follows:
May	6,406
June	6,314
July	3,871
August	3,110
September	3,512
October	4,871
November	4,012
December	3,909
36,006

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MiAiROEL:
1.	Are there any indications that there will be, this year an increase in Eastern Canada of the areas reserved for the artificial culture and cultivation of the oyster? If so, in what provinces?
2.	Has any progress been made in this work lately and what has it consisted of?
3.	Is the condition of the oyster industry In Canada deemed satisfactory at the present time?
4.	Does the Government intend assisting it by new methods? If so, what is proposed to be done?
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1 and 2. The Department of the Navkl Service has no information. By virtue of agreements made under the provisions of section 61 of the Fisheries Act, Chapter 8, of the Statutes of 1914, leases for the private culture or cultivation of oysters in the three Maritime Provinces are granted by the provincial authorities.
3.	This is a matter of opinion and the Department of Naval Service does not wish
to express an opinion on a subject which is controlled by the provincial authorities.
4.	The Federal Government is not in a position to do more than assist by affording information and advice to those desiring it, and to prosecute investigations into the life history of the oyster, etc., which are being done.
fisheries jurisdiction.
Mr. M ARCH..
1.	What progress, if any, has been made since last session towards a final settlement of the questions of control of fisheries claimed by the Dominion and the provinces?
2.	Is any legislation to be introduced this session on this subject?
Hon. A. K. MAiOL'EAK:
1.	This question has been settled by the Privy Council decisions of 1898 and 1913 on Fishery References, except so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. It is expected that the appeal from the decision of the 'Court of King's Bench (appeal side) in the Quebec Fisheries Reference, will be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council during the next July session.
2.	No.


LOBSTER HATCHERY, PORT DANIEL WEST.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the lobster hatchery at Port Daniel West, Quebec, to be operated this year? If not. why?
2.	If so, who is to be placed in charge?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1 and 2. No. Experience and investigation have shown that lobster hatching is not the best method of developing and maintaining the lobster fishery. Consequently all the lobster hatcheries have been closed. EMPLOYEES ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS.


Mr. MARCIL:: (a) Is it the intention of the Government during the present session to accede to the request made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on April 6, 1914, in a memorandum relating to their salaries sent him by the captains, deck officers, wireless operators and engineers employed on the vessels operated by the Government, (b) And will such employees be brought under the operation of the Civil Service Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: (a) Since the receipt of the memorial in 1914 the salaries of nearly all the officers and crews of the steamers operated by the Marine Department have been increased, (b) It is not proposed to bring the crews of the ships under the operation of the Civil Service Act.


RESTIGOUCHE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. MAROIL:: 1.	Has any application been made within the last twelve months for the purchase or



alienation of any portion of the Micmac reserve at Restigouche, Que.? If so, by whom?
2.	Has any action been taken? If so, what is it?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to lay on the table of the House, at an early date, the report of the classification of the civil service employees of the Dominion, made by the special commission appointed last year?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the said Commission?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	It is anticipated that the report on 'classification of the civil service will be laid on the Table of the House during the Session.
2.	The recommendations will be submitted to Parliament for approval.


M.S.A.-SOLDIERS IN ACTIVE SERVICE.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many soldiers enlisted under the Provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, were in active service In France before the signing of the armistice?
2.	How many were killed or wounded?


Major General MEWBURN:: 1 and 2. This information is not available.


OFFERS OF LAND TO GOVERNMENT.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Have any individuals or companies owning or holding land in Western Canada offered to sell same to the Government?
2.	If so, what are the names of said companies and individuals?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: The Department here has no information on the matter referred to. Presumably the information could be obtained by a very prolonged and laborious process of searching every office of the Department throughout the Dominion; but no record is kept in such form as would enable the information to be produced easily. Being at a loss to know of what service it would be at the present time, I would like to suggest to the questioner that perhaps if he has any specific case in mind he might put the question in that form, or not press the question further. It would mean considerable expense to obtain the information.


DEFAULTING RECRUITS.
Mr. LESAGE:: 1. How much did the registration of the defaulting recruits cost per head in Military District No. 4, from January 20, 1918, to May 1, 1918?

2.	To which Department of the Government was the control of such registration given?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: These questions are open to various interpretations. The term " defaulting recruits " may mean all apprehended unregistered defaulters of physique or apprehended unregistered defaulters of physique that warranted their being put and kept on military strength, or it may mean Group III. defaulters, that is, registrants who disobeyed Registrars' orders to report for duty. The expression " registration " of defaulting recruits is not understood. Does " registration " as used in this connection mean apprehension or does it mean the registration of registrants Who later defaulted Registrars' orders? Does the term " cost " used in this query mean the cost of apprehension, that is, police cost, or is the enquiry for the total expenditure under the Military Service Act distributed per capita over the total number of " defaulting recruits " ?
Part 2 of each question cannot be answered unless meaning of " registration " and " defaulting Teeruits " is defined.


SHIPS BUILT BY GOVERNMENT SINCE 1917.
Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What is the total number of ships built by the Government since 1917?
2.	What is the total tonnage?
3.	How many of these were steel ships?
4.	What was the cost per ton?
5.	How many were wooden ships?
6.	What was their cost per ton?
7.	Were they built by contract or day labour or on a percentage basis?
8.	If by contract, what steps have the Government taken to prevent profiteering?
9.	What steps have the Government taken to ascertain the total cost of labour for construction, total' cost of material used, total overhead expenses, gross profit and net profit, respectively ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the hon.
gentleman (Mr. J. F. REID) in mind an inquiry in respect of the ships now under construction as well as those that we have constructed?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Question stands.


BUILDING AT DORVAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEDUC;
1.	Has the Hon. the Minister of Public Works called for tenders for the erection of thirty-four buildings at Dorval, in the province of Quebec, of which one-third was to have been erected in sixty days and two-thirds in ninety days?
2.	Has the Hon. Minister received any tenders therefor with cheques accompanying same amounting to ten per cent of cost, respecting said buildings?

3.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what are the names of those who tendered?
4.	Has the contract for such erection of buildings been given? If not, for what reason?
Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Seven tenders were received as follows :
Quinlan & Robertson, Montreal.. ..$389,000 00
*2 00
The Atlas Construction Co., Montreal	 439,500 00
*1 38
Russell-Navin Construction Co.
Montreal	 439,700 00
*1 50
The U. Pauze & fils Co. Montreal.. 448,000 00
*1 25
Bate, McMahon & Co., Ottawa... 455,427 00
*1 50
The James Shearer Co. Montreal. 476,000 00
[DOT]1 25
(Alternative offer of 5 per cent commission plus costs.)
Leger, Charlton & White, Montreal. 557,471 52
*1 00
[DOT](Price per cubic yard for grading site.)
4.	(a) No; (b) It was found that the buildings were not required.


POOD BOARD REVENUES.
William Frederic Kay: How much money was collected through licenses issued by the Canada Food Board in 1918?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: Amount collected, $3bo,261.69.


PENSIONS BOARD EMPLOYEES.
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Does the staff of the Military Pensions Board, for the District of Montreal, use the two official languages?
2.	If so, how many of such staff can becomingly speak and write the French language?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to remedy the situation so as to enable the Board to furnish the information requested in French, and have better knowledge of the conditions which are of interest to the French-Canadian families, who very largely make up the population of the vast district where such Board has Jurisdiction?
(Hon. Mr. CALDER:
1.	Yes.
2.	Total staff, 35. 1 rench-Canadian born, 16; English with a working knowledge of both languages, 14.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS.
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Has the Government received payments under the Income Tax from persons who are being paid superannuation pensions, namely, retired judges, magistrates or officials of any category?
2.	If so, what were the amounts received from the Judges of every Jurisdiction?
39i
3.	What is the annual payment of each member of the Government, based upon salary received ?	.
4.	What amount has been received by the Finance Minister from each of such members1?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes, to the extent to which they were legally liable.
2.	Subsection 3 of section 27 of the Judges Act provides that,-"The salaries and retiring allowances or annuities shall be free and clear of all taxes and deductions whatsoever imposed under any Act of the Parliament of Canada."
3.	The amount determined in accordance with the rates and exemptions provided for in the Income War Tax Act, 1917.
4.	All members of the Government have paid the amount assessed against them with the exception of one who is overseas. In the case of another minister who has been ill it has not been possible to finally adjust and make the assessment owing to his illness.


WAR TAX ACT INCOME EXEMPTION.
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Were any persons exempted, during the last fiscal year, from paying the income tax under the Act of 1917?
2.	If so, who are such persons? What is their occupation and where do they reside?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Section 5 of the Income War Tax Act, 1917, enumerates the persons whose incomes shall not be liable to taxation under that Act.


COAL USED BY GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many tons of American coal were used on the Government Railway east of Montreal during the year 1918, and what was the cost per ton?
2.	How many tons of American coal were purchased and used by the Department of Marine and Fisheries east of Montreal during the year 1918, and .what was the price paid per 'ton?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	To be answered by State Department.
2.	The steam coal used by the Department of Marine and Fisheries during the year 1918, was purchased from the Dominion Coal Company, whose head office is at Glace Bay, N.S., and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, whose head office is at New Glasgow, N.S. The department has no information as to where the coal was mined.


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. 366,393 net tons American coal for the calendar year 1918, were

used on Government railways east of Montreal. Cannot give the exact cost of this coal per ton; but the railways purchased from companies 516,624 tons of coal at a total cost of $3,837,216.76, which- will give average price per net ton $7.43 f.o.b. cars on line of Government railways, this price includes freight duty and war tax and cost of discharging from boats to cars at Levis.


FUEL CONTROL.
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it the intention of the Government to maintain the present commission on fuel control?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.
(Mr. MARCIL: I would like to ask if copies of these answers are being supplied to members as formerly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As far as I am aware, I have not had my attention called to the fact that answers were not being supplied.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Mine are in duplicate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mine also are in duplicate.


Charles Marcil: I am informed that two copies of the answers to questions are sent to the officers of the House. One copy is sent to Hansard; the other goes to the Votes and Proceedings Office, but none are furnished to members. It was the custom in past sessions to supply members with copies of answers given to questions. If this practice is carried out, answers will have to be prepared in triplicate instead of duplicate, for the reasons which I have given.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall make inquiry, and if the custom that obtained heretofore is not being complied with, I shall endeavour to see that it is.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS DIRECTORS.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	How many persons comprise the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways, and what are their names?
2.	When were said Directors appointed, and what were their respective occupations immediately prior to their appointment?
3.	Where did said Directors reside immediately prior to their appointment, and where do they reside at present?
4.	Do said Directors give their full time to work in connection with said railway? If not, in what other business are they engaged?
5.	What salaries do they receive, respectively, as Directors of said railways?
6.	Were said Directors appointed btecause of their experience in railway operation? If not, what qualifications were required?

7.	How many assistants, secretaries, stenographers and other officials are attached to said Board of Directors and- what are their respective salaries?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Board consists of eleven directors, as follows: D. B. Hanna, Major Graham A. Bell, A. J. Mitchell, E. R. Wood, Robert Hobson, F. P. Jones, R. T. Riley, C. M. Hamilton, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Colonel Thomas Cantley, A. P. Barnhill.
2.	D. B. Hanna, December 26th, 1914, railway official; Major Graham A. Bell, November 5th, 1916, assistant to Minister of Railways and Canals; A. J. Mitchell, September 6th, 1918, railway official; E. R. Wood, 'September 17th, 1916, banker and director various financial companies; Robert Hobson, September 17th, 1918, president Steel Company of Canada, etc.; F. P. Jones, September 17th, 1918, vice-chairman War Trade Board and vice-president Canada Cement Company; R. T. Riley, September 18th, 1918, financier and managing director Trust & Loan Companies; C. M. Hamilton, September 18th, 1918, farmer; Sir Hormisdas Laporte, November 22nd, 1918, chairman War Purchases Commission and Merchant; Colonel Thomas -Cantley, November 22nd, 1918, chairman Nova Scotia Steel Company;
A.	P. Barnhill, November 22nd, 1918, barrister.
3.	Residence of directors as follows: D. B. Hanna, Toronto; Major Graham A. Bell, Ottawa; A. J. Mitchell, Toronto; E. R. Wood, Toronto; Robert Hobson, Hamilton;
F.	P. Jones, Montreal; R. T. Riley, Winnipeg; C. M. Hamilton, McTaggart, Sask.; Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Montreal; Colonel Thomas Cantley, New Glasgow, N.S.; A. P. Barnhill, St. John, N.B. No change has been made in residence since -appointments.
4.	Directors with the exception of Messrs. Hanna and Mitchell do not give their full time to railway.
5.	The directors receive no salaries as such, but receive an annual honorarium of two thousand dollars ($2,000) each.
6.	Messrs. Bell, Hanna and Mitchell were appointed because of their long experience in railroad matters, but the others were appointed because of their wide experience in various financial and business enterprises.
7.	There are no assistants, secretaries, stenographers or other officials attached to the Board of Directors.


BUILDINGS OCCUPIED IN TORONTO.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	What building or buildings, in the City of Toronto, are occupied by the officials of the Canadian National Railways?

2.	What rental is being paid for such buildings?


John Flaws Reid: 
MR. FRANK GRIERSON.
Mr. LANG:: 1.	What position in the Civil Service is held by Frank Grierson?
2.	When was he appointed to the service?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	How many hours per day does he work?
5.	What salary does he receive?
6.	What increases has he received, and when?
7.	Is he President of the Civil Service Federation.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Clerk.
2.	1st July, 1901.
3.	Clerical.
4.	Those prescribed by the Civil Service regulations.
5.	$2,700.
6.	Salary at appointment $800 per annum. 1st January, 1902, promoted to second class clerk at $1,100 per annum. 1st April, 1912, promoted to Division IB at $2;100 per annum. In addition he received the usual statutory increases each year.
7.	Yes.


NEWSPRINT CONTROL.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What has been the total cost to the country, to date, of the Commission appointed to investigate the price of newsprint, presided over by Mr. R. A. Pringle?
2.	Has the commissioner finished his investigation? If so, what has been his finding?
3.	In what manner and to what extent has this investigation contributed to the winning of the war?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	The total cost to March 12, 1919, $75945.26.
2.	No. Various interim reports made from time to time all approved by the Governor General in Council.
3.	It enabled the various newspapers to continue by regulating the supply and cost of paper thus making it possible for the Government to give greater publicity to the various war loans and other necessary measures.


COMMISSION TO SIBERIA.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Economic Commission to ISiberia?
2.	What salary is paid to the chairman and members of said 'commission?
3.	What allowance is made for travelling and other expenses of this commission?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Col. J. S. Dennis, chairman; Liaison Officer of the Canadian Siberian Expedition. C'. F. Just, Chief Canadian Trade Commissioner in Russia. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian Trade Commissioner at Vladivostok. Ross Owen, Transportation Officer in Russia of the C.P.R. A. D. Braithwaite, late of the Bank of Montreal.
2.	None; although Mr. Just receives $4,000 a year, and Mr. Wilgress $3,500 a year, as Canadian Trade Commissioners.
3.	Such actual travelling expenses as may be incurred. Col. Dennis and Messrs. Owen and Braithwaite also received their actual living expenses.


COST OF REPATRIATION COMMITTEE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the work of the Repatriation Committee?
2.	How many persons are employed in this work at the present time?
3.	What is the total amount of salaries paid up to date in connection with this work?
4.	What is the total amount paid for advertisements to date?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: -
1.	The total oast to March 11, 1919, is $60,720.43.
2.	Fifty.
3.	$20,364.13.
4.	$234. The committee's advertising account is not yet paid in full.


CANADA FOOD BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. COPP.
What has been the total cost of the Food Controller and the Canada Food Board to date?
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Total cost of the
Food Controller, $131,143.34; total coat of the Canada Food Board to March 13, 1919, $569,417.93.


CONTRACTS TO SHIPBUILDING FIRIMS.
Mr. VIEN:: 1. How many shipyards are there in operation in Canada to-dav?

2.	What contracts did the Canadian Government let to the various shipbuilding plants, giving, (a) The date of contract; (b) The tonnage of the ships contracted for; (c) The amount paid per ton ; (d) The date of delivery in each case; (e) The name of the ship; (f) When completed or to be completed?
3.	Is the Government contemplating the letting out of other contracts to shipbuilding firms?
4.	If so, what is the shipbuilding programme of Canada, present and future?
'5. lHave there been any restrictions imposed by the Canadian Government on the shipbuilders of Canada preventing them from contracting for other countries or other concerns than the Canadian Government?
6.	If so, under what authority were these restrictions enacted, and what are they?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Nineteen steel shipyards, of which 13 are constructing vessels under the Government shipbuilding programme.
2.	Attached schedule laid on the desk of the Clerk of the House.
3.	Matter under consideration.
4.	(a) Answered in No. 2 above, (b) answered in No. 3 above.
5.	Yes.
6.	By Order in Council 23rd January, 1915, prohibiting the exportation of vessels from Canada to all destinations, except to the United Kingdom, or any British possession.


ENLISTMENTS BN CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY (FORCE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VIEN;
1.	How many people enlisted In the Canadian Expeditionary Force: (a) Under the voluntary system; (b) Under the Military Service Act?
2.	How many of these were British born and how many Canadian born?
3.	How many British born members of the Canadian iExpeditionary Force enlisted in each province: (a) Under the voluntary system; <b) Under the Military Service Act?
4.	How many Canadian born members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force enlisted in each province: (a) Under the voluntary system; (b) Under the (Military Service Act?
5.	How many French Canadians enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force in each province: (a) Under the voluntary system; (b) Under the Military Service Act?
Major General MEWBUEN:: l.The number who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force: (a) Under the Voluntary System, 465,984, (b) Under the Military Service Act, 83,355. In addition to the above, under the Military Service Act, there were:-1. On leave without pay under the' Orders in Council relating to Compassionate and Hardship cases, or subsequently discharged, 24,933.-II. Struck off strength and returned to Records of Registrars

appointed by the Military Service Branch of the Justice Department as liable only to non-combatant service (either as conscientious objectors or by reason of the Wartime Elections Act), or as being of a category which ought not to have been ordered to report, 16,300.
2.	British born, 228,751; Canadian born, 286,705.
3,	4 and 5. No attempt has been or is being made to maintain a record of the Canadian Expeditionary Force by nationality by provinces. To procure the information required to answer these questions, it would be necessary to scrutinize the records of every individual of the C.E.F.-a task which would entail the employment of an additional staff of some 200 clerks for about two weeks at night at a cost of approximately $5,000. The records so obtained would be inaccurate, inasmuch as the entire First Contingent was attested at Valcartier.


SHIPMENTS OF GOLD.
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many shipments of gold were made by the Canadian Government during the years 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919: (a) from the Canadian Treasury; (b) from the deposits held in trust by the Canadian Minister of Finance?
2.	[DOT]'What were the respective dates, amounts and destinations of each shipment?
3.	What was the reason of each shipment?
4.	How many Shipments of gold were received in this country during the same years, giving: (a) the date; (b) the amount, (c) the name of the shipper; (d) the purpose of the shipment; (e) the use to whioh it was applied?


William Thomas White: This question refers to the gold held in trust by the Minister of Finance for the Imperial Treasury. It is not in the public interest to give publicity to this information.


CIRCULATION AND RESERVE.
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What was the amount of gold in reserve pertaining to the Dominion Exchequer, on the 1st March instant?
2.	What was the amount of Dominion notes in circulation?
3.	How much gold should be held in reserve by the Government in order to guarantee the Dominion notes that are in circulation?
4.	Has the Government always held specie in reserve, as provided by law?
5.	if not, for what reason?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	$121,062,418.15, of which $5,154,841.50 is held against deposits in Government savings banks and $115,907,576.65 against issue of Dominion Notes.
2.	$306,405,399.

3.	Of the total issue $136,528,000 is against approved securities under the Finance Act and $16,000,000 against Railway Securities under Oap. 4-Geo. V. Gold required to be held 'against balance of issue, 75 per cent= $115,408,049.25.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by Number 4.


CANADIAN TROOPIS AT SANTA LUCIA.
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	Has the Government given attention to the question of repatriating the Canadian garrisoned troops who are now at Santa 'Lucia, in the West Indies?
2.	If so, about what date will they be repatriated?


Major General MEWBURN:: 1.	Yes. Attention has been given to the repatriation of troops composing St. Lucia Garrison. By an arrangement with the Imperial Authorities, this Garrison is to be taken over by details of the Royal Garrison Artillery, to be supplied from Jamaica.
2.	The return of the Canadian troops composing this garrison was intended to have taken place at the commencement of the year, but on the advice of the Director General of Medical Services, it was decided to defer this movement until April or May, owing to the danger of bringing the men from a tropical climate to Canada during the winter months.


STEAMER PRINCESS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government disposed of the
steamer Princess?
2.	What is her gross and net tonnage?
3.	How many tenders were received, from whom, and for what amount?
4.	Whose tender was accepted?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 
MILITARY SERVICE ACT-REGISTRATION.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Are young men who now attain the age of nineteen years obliged to register under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, as amended by Order in Council?
2.	If not, since when has this registration been dispensed with?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	December 16, 1918.


POPULATION LAST CENSUS AND TO-DAY.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the total population of Canada at the time of the last census?
2.	What is the total estimated population of Canada to-day?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	7,206,643.
2.	8,835,000.


GENERAL GUY CARLETON JONES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoGIBBON (Muskoka):
1.	Is one General Guy Carleton Jones in the employ of the Canadian Government? If so, what are his duties?
2.	Did the said officer visit Toronto a few months ago for the purpose of inspecting the Military hospitals there, and report everything in a satisfactory condition without being inside or inspecting the said hospitals?
3.	If so, does the Government intend to continue the officer in his position?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes, he is the Officer in charge of Hospitalization under the Director General of Medical Services.
2.	No.
3.	It is the intention of the department to continue this officer in his position so long as his services are required.

Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	Are there any patients belonging to the
Canadian Expeditionary Forces still in England? If so. how many?	-
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to remove these to Canada? If so, when?
3.	What provision has been made in Canada for receiving and treating the same?
4.	Is it a fact that the St. Andrew's College. Toronto, is not to be fixed up for a military hospital?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes, on February 28, 1919, the number was 19,828.
2.	Yes, they are arriving at the rate of about 1,500 per month, and this rate of return will be maintained.

3.	There are 12,000 military beds available in the various military hospitals in Canada,
4.	No.


PRINCESS PATRICIA'S REGIMENT.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Is the Princess Patricia's Regiment to be officially reviewed in Ottawa at an early date on its return?
2.	Are members of that battalion, resident in Toronto, Montreal and points even more convenient to Ottawa, to be given the privilege of re-joining for the time being, their old battalion ?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	There is to be no official " review," but the regiment will be inspected and ad-, dressed by His Excellency the Governor General, and a welcome will be given by the city authorities.
2.	Yes.
More, $200, damages by water; Cleophas Boutin, $500, damages and destruction of bridges; Philibert Lamontagne, $200 damages by diversion of a ditch; Omer Garant, $100, damages by water; Nap. Laclerc, $400, damages caused by diversion of a ditch; Onesime Marceau, $250, damages by water; Joseph Leclerc, $150, damages by diversion of a ditch; F. X. Fournier, $375, damages by water. Parish of St. Isidore, Octave Fontaine, $650, damages for lack of farm crossing. Parish of St. Malachie, Jos. Beaulieu, $300, damages by flooding and destruction of bridge; Pierre Beaulieu, $100, damages by flooding and destruction of fence; Sol. Bilodeau, $100, damages by diversion of water. Parish of St. Anselme, nil.


GOVERNMENT STEAMER CHAMFEAIN.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES- HALL STARRER.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is Hall Starrar, of Spa Springs, Annapolis County; N.S., a member of any branch of the C.E.F. at present?
2.	Was he ever at any time in such service?
3.	At what date was he discharged and for what cause?
4.	Was he ever called up for service under the Military Service Act?
5.	If not, why?
6.	Is he at present taking any course for returned soldiers at the expense of the Government?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	There is no record of any man of that name serving now or heretofore in the C.E.F.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4. No record in the Militia Department.
5. No record in the Militia Department.
6.	For Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Commission.


N.T.R.-CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has the Government paid out certain amounts to various persons in the Parishes of St. Anselme, iSte. Claire, St. Malachi arid St. Isidore, in the County of Dorchester, for damages caused by construction, maintenance and repairs along the National Transcontinental Railway, during the year 1917?
2.	If so, what amounts were paid, to whom, by whom, on what dates, and on what account?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Parish of St. Claire: Eugene Roger, Jan. 23, 1917, $150, damages by water and all other damages; Hilaire Roy, i$l,000, damages and destruction of a bridge; Joseph
fMajor-General Mewburn.l
1.	Have the boilers of the Government steamer Champlain been duly examined and inspected this year?
2.	If so, is it true that they have not been found in a good state and condition?
3.	Is It the intention of the Government to substitute new boilers on the said steamer?
4.	Why was this steamer taken suddenly from
her route in the first week of the month of December last?	.


Hon. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	For overhaul to put in good condition for winter service.


ISSUES OF DOMINION BILLS.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
William Thomas White: One Dollar Bills.
Fiscal year 1915-16 Fiscal year 1916-17 Fiscal year 1917-18 Two Dollar Bills. Fiscal year 1915-16 Fiscal year 1916-17 Fiscal year 1917-18 Four Dollar Bills.
Cancelled and de-Issued. stroyed during same period.

None issued during last three years.


NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many aliens received naturalization certificates during 1918?
2.	-How many people of German birth received naturalization certificates during 1918?
3.	How many people of Austrian birth received naturalization certificates during 1918?
4.	How many people of Russian birth received naturalization certificates during 1918?


Martin Burrell: .
1.	189.
2.	1.
3.	None.
4.	9.
STEAMER W-EHLIHiAD.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonislr and Guys-borough):: 1.	Did the steamer Willihad clear from the port of Quebec in 1914? If so, on what date, and for what destination?
2.	Where was this steamer registered?
3.	Who were her owners at the date of such clearance?
4.	What cargo did she have aboard?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Steamer Willihad did not clear outward from the port of Quebec in 1914 but cleared from the port of Montreal on August 1, 1914, for Hamburg and Rotterdam via Portland, Boston and New York.
2.	Hamburg.
3.	North German Lloyd Cojnpany.
4.	Flour, wheat, oil cake, barley and acetate lead.


CIVIL, SERVICE COMMISSION.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How many committees have been appointed by the Civil Service Commission during the past year?
2.	For what purposes were said committees appointed and what was the personnel in each case?
3.	Were the members of said committees paid for their services? If so, what amount per day in each case and what has been the total amount so paid?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Thirty-five.
2.	(a) To act in an advisory capacity to the commission in the consideration of applications for positions advertised.
(b) The personnel in each case was as follows:
Assistant to Chairman, Public Archives- Prof. Wrong, University of Toronto; Dr. Doughty, C.M.G., Dominion Archivist, Ottawa; Hon. T. C. Chapais, Quebec; Professor C. C. Colby, McGill University, Montreal.	[DOT]
Assistant Director, War Purchasing Commission-Ralph Connable, Gen, Mgr. F. W. Wool worth Co., Toronto; F. W. French, Chief of Staff, Canada Food Board, Ottawa; Major George Stiff. S. A. and A. P. Branch, Departmeent of Militia, Ottawa.
Assistant Receivers General, Department of Finance-D. M. Finnie, Gen. MgT., Bank of Ottawa, Ottawa; Tanorede Bienvenu, Gen. Mgr. and Vice-President, Provincial Bank of Canada, Montreal; J. C. Saunders, Asst. Deputy Minister of Finance, Ottawa.
Assistant Entomologist, Department of Agriculture-Dr. Gordon Hewitt, Dominion Entomologist, Ottawa.
Assistant Chief Engineer, Irrigation Branch, Department of the Interior-E. F. Drake, Superintendent of Irrigation Branch, Department of the Interior.
Ornithologist, Department of the Interior -Dr. Gordon Hewitt, Dominion Entomologist, Ottawa; R. M. Anderson, Dominion Zoologist, J. B. HaTkin, Commissioner Dominion Parks Branch, Department of the Interior.
Motion Picture Editor, Department of Trade and Commerce-B. E. Norrish, Director of Exhibits and Publicity Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce; W. J. Sykes, Librarian, Carnegie Library, Ottawa. Jobson Paradis, Department of Mines, Ottawa,
Officer, Seed Branch, Department of Agriculture-George H. Clark, Seed Commissioner, Ottawa.
Photographer, Natural Resources and Intelligence Branch, Department of the Interior-F. C. C. Lynch, Superintendent Natural Resources and Intelligence Branch, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.
Still Photographer, Department of Trade and Commerce-Dr. Deville, Surveyor General-, Ottawa, B. E. Norrish, Director Exhibits, and Publicity Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; W. de C. Topley, Photographer, Ottawa.
Engineer, Hydrometric Survey, Department of the Interior-R, Bruce, Superintending Engineer, Ottawa river works, Ottawa. N. Cauchon, C. E., Ottawa. J.
B.	Challies, Superintendent Water Power Branch, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.
Chief Trade Instructor, Department of Justice-Professor Ramsay Traquair, McGill University, Montreal. Paul Beau, Beau & Beau, Metal Workers, Montreal. E. L. Wren, Bromsgrove Guild, Montreal.
Process Photographer, Topographical Surveys Branch, Department of the Interior- H. K. Carruthers, Photographer, Topographical Surveys Branch, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.
Clerk, Statistical and Research Branch, Department of Labour-R. H. 'Coats, Dominion Statistician; W. C. Clark, M. A., Ph. D., Kingston, Ont. Bryce M. Stewart, Editor, Labour Gazette, Department of Labour, Ottawa.
District Inspector, Forest Reserves, Saskatchewan, Department of the Interior- T. .W. Dwight, Acting Director, Forestry Branch, Department of the [Interior, Ottawa. Clyde Leavitt, Chief Forester, Commission of Conservation, Ottawa. A. Graham, Chief

Fire Inspector, Lower Ottawa Forest Protective Association, Ottawa. .
Public Analyst, Trade and -Commerce-Dr. McGill, Chief Analyst, Ottawa.
Laboratory Assistant, Department of the Interior-Dr. F. T. Shu It, (Dominion Chemist; Dr. Hollingsworth Chief Inspector of Foods and Medical Health Officer, Ottawa.
Assistant Engineer, Dorchester Penitentiary, Department of Justice-George Scott, Superintendent Electric Light Plant, Moncton, N. B.; J. iMetcalf, Electrical Engineer, Moncton, N. B.; A. D. Pipes, Warden, Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester, N.B.
Assistant Engineer, B. C., -Hydrometric Survey, Department of the Interior-J. M. Challies, C. E., Superintendent, Water Power Branch, Department of the Interior. John Murphy, Electrical Engineer, Department of Railways and Canals; Thos, Shanks, Assistant Surveyor, Gen. Topographical Surveys Branch, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.
Superintendent of Penitentaries, Department of Justice-Dr. -C. K. Clark, Superintendent, General Hospital, Toronto. F. H. Chrysler, K. -C., Ottawa. Dr. J. D. Page, Quebec. Surg. Gen. J. T. Fotheringham, Acting Director General, Medical Services, Ottawa. C. A. Macgrath, Fuel Controller, Ottawa.
Female Clerk, Department of Labour- R. H. Coats, Dominion Statistician. F. A. Jones, Principal, Normal School, Ottawa. M. J. Patton, Chief Editor, Commission of Conservation.
Indian Agent, -Department of Indian Affairs-D. -C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs, Dr. F. T. Shutt, Dominion Chemist. Dr. J. H. Putman, Inspector of Public Schools, Ottawa.
Superintendent Agricultural Instruction, Soldier Settlement Board-G. C. Creelman, B. S. A., L.L.D., President Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario.
Two Agricultural Engineers, Department of the Interior-Professor Wm. Lochhead, B.A,M.Sc., Macdonald College, Quebec, J. H. Gri-sdale, D. Sc. A., Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Hydrometric Engineer, Department of the Interior-N. -Cauchon.C.E., Ottawa; E. F. Drake, Superintendent Irrigation Branch, Department of the Interior, R. Bruce, Superintending Engineer, Ottawa river works, Ottawa.
Departmental Solicitor, Department of Public	Works-Hon.	Justice Audette,
Ottawa; W. D. Hogg, K.C.; Ottawa; J. F. Orde, K.C., Ottawa.

Analyst, Halifax Laboratory, Department of Trade and -Commerce-M. J. Connor, Chemist, Department of -Mines; J. G. A. Valin, Assistant Analyst, Department of Inland Revenue; C. -H. Robinson, Assistant Chemist, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
7 Press feeders, Printing Bureau-J. de L. Tache, King's Printer.
Assistant, Motion Picture Division, Department of Trade and Commerce-H. K. Carruthers, Chief Photographer, Topographical Surveys Bran-ch, Department of the Interior; A. G. Pitbaway, Photographer, Ottawa; B. E. Norrish, M.Sc., Director Exhibits and Publicity Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
Superintendent of Construction, Department of Public Works-J. A. Ewart, Architect, Ottawa; W. E. Noffke, Architect, Ottawa; J. P. McLaren, Architect, Ottawa.
French Assistant to Dominion Poultry Husbandman, Department of Agriculture-Dr. Robert Barnes, V.S., -Chief Meat Inspector, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa; F. C. Elford, Dominion Poultry -Husbandman; W. A. Brown, Poultry Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Mechanician, Department of the Interior
Dr. Robert Klotz, Dominion Astronomer; Capt. R. J. Durley, Imperial Munitions Board, Ottawa; A. H. W. Cleave, Superintendent of the Royal Mint, Ottawa.
Publicity Agent, Department of Immigration and Colonization-Sir John Willison, Toronto; P. D. Ross, Editor, Ottawa Journal-Press; W. W. Cory, Deputy Minister, Department of the Interior; A. D. DeCelles, Parliamentary Librarian, Ottawa.
Two Assistant Engineers and one Fireman, Department of Justice-H. Chandler, Master Plumber, Ottawa; Paul Marchand, Electrician, Ottawa; R. A. Henry, Assistant Engineer, Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Engineer, B. C. Hydrometric -Survey, Department of the Interior-C. F. X. Chalo-ner, Engineer in charge of Geodetic Levelling, Department of Public Works; W. E. Reid, Water Power Branch, Department of the Interior; R. C. F. Alexander, Assistant Engineer, Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Plumber, Government Buildings, Department of Public Works-John McKinley, Master Plumber, Ottawa; S. Doughtrey, Master Plumber, Ottawa; J. Shearer, -Superintendent Public Buildings, Department of Public Works.
Eleven -Superintendents and two Assistants, Department of Labour-Bryce M.

Stewart, Editor, Labour Gazette, Department of Labour; C. G. McNeil, Dominion Secretary, G.W.V.A., Ottawa; R. H. Coats, Dominion Statistician.
3.	With one exception, no. Total amount paid, $70.


PRINCESS RADZIWELL.
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a woman, calling hersolt Princess Radziwell, is presently touring Western Canada delivering lectures, in which she charges Jew's generally as being in alliance with the Boisheviki?
2.	Is the Government aware that the woman in question is a convicted felon, and served a term of imprisonment, at the time of the South African war, for forgery and attempted blackmail, and that her victim w'as the late Right
Honourable Cecil Rhodes?
3.	Is the Government aware that the delivery of lectures such as those mentioned above, in districts where Jews reside, is calculated to stir up strife and produce breaches of the peace?
4.	Will the Government state why the woman in question was permitted by the Immigration authorities to enter Canada?
5 Does the Government intend -to take steps for the expulsion from the country of this so-called princess, should the matters hereinbefore cited, after investigation, be found to be correct?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Information was received by the department on the 10th of January last that Princess Catherine Radziwell, accompanied by a maid, would apply for entry to Canada at Niagara Falls, with the object of lecturing under the direction of Ellison White Dominion Lyceum. It was stated that Princess Radziwell held a permit from the British Government. This information was conveyed to the Immigration Inspector-inCharge at Niagara Falls, Ont., but so far as the department is aware, Princess Radziwell did not enter 'Canada at that port and there is no information available showing when or where Princess Radziwell entered
Canada.
5. If Princess Radziwell is shown to have entered Canada illegally, or if, having entered, she is shown to have conducted herself in such a way as to bring her within any of the deportation provisions of the Immigration Act, her deportation will be considered.


STRIKES IN CANADA.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	How many strikes have there been in Canada during the year 1918?
2.	How many men were involved?
3.	How many working days were lost?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	196.
2.	68,489, approximately.
3	. 763,341, approximately.


GOBEIL-SIMARD INVESTIGATION.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Order of the House issued last session, on the 24th of April, 1918, for the production of copies of all documents and correspondence, concerning the Gobeil-Simard investigation, held before Mr. Justice Duff in December, 1917, in Ottawa, been complied with?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to lay before the House these documents at an early date this session?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	The papers may be laid on the Table to-day.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


COLD STORAGE ON STEAMERS.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many steamers are furnished with cold storage apparatus?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: To what steamer does the hon. gentleman refer-Government steamers or privately owned vessels? If Government steamers, what department has the hon. gentleman in mind?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1. What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Toronto Globe for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918?	,


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Ottawa Journal for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918?


Hermas Deslauriers: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Hamilton Spectator for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915,
1916,	1917, 1918?


Hermas Deslauriers: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Ottawa Citizen for printing, advertising, Job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916,
1917,	1918?


Hermas Deslauriers: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Toronto Star for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Have the Canadian authorities heen in supreme command of the Canadian Naval vessels since the outbreak of hostilities?
2.	How many vessels comprised the Canadian Naval Service on December 31, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, respectively?
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1. What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Toronto World for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Act 1917 are now in Siberia?
2.	Did any of the said soldiers object to doing military service in Siberia?
3.	If so, to whom were such objections referred?
4.	What ruling was given upon said objections?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Who are the officers employed on the Headquarters Staff of Military Districts Numbers 2,
L 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, respectively?
2.	When was each appointed?
3.	What are his particular qualifications for the position?
4.	Has he seen service overseas (a) in England; (b) in France? If so, in what capacity, and with what battalion?
5.	If he has not seen service overseas, for what reason is he retained in the position which he now occupies?
6.	What are his pay and allowances per month?
7.	What is his military record?


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Who are the officers employed on the Headquarters Staff of Military District No. 1?
2.	When was each appointed?
3.	What are his particular qualifications for the position?
4.	Has he seen service overseas (a) in England; (b) in France? If so, in what capacity and with what battalion?
5.	If he has not seen service overseas, for what reason is he retained in the position which he now occupies?
6.	What are his pay and allowances per month?
7.	What is his military record?


*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was a man named Cooke employed by the Immigration Branch of the Interior Department, or by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, during the past year?
2.	If so, what were his duties, and what remuneration did he receive, or is he to receive?
3.	Did the said Cooke, in the capacity of a Government employee, visit Immigration Offices and Immigration Officials in the West? If so, did he make any changes therein?
4.	What changes were made, what are the names of the officials who were retired, given different positions, or newly employed?
5.	Under what authority did the said Cooke perform the mission referred to?
[Mr. Deslauriers.j
- _sa*id Cooke still in the employ of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization? If so, what duties is he now performing?
7.	Is the said Cooke the Sheriff of Regina?


Mr. MAYRAND:: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Montreal Star for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918?


Hormidas Mayrand: What amounts, if any, were paid by the Government to the Montreal Gazette for printing, advertising, job or other work, for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916. 1917, 1918?


Hormidas Mayrand: What amounts, if any, were paid by the Government, to the Winnipeg Telegram for printing, advertising, job or other work, for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915, 1916 1917, 1918?


Hormidas Mayrand: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Manitoba Free Press for printing, advertising, job or other work, for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914 1915
1916,	1917, 1918?


Mr. PROULX:: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Halifax Herald for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914	1915	19161917,	1918?	'	'


Edmond Proulx: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Halifax Chronicle for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914, 1915. 1916 1917, 1918?	'


Edmond Proulx: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Toronto News for printing, advertising, job or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 914, 1915, 1916
1917, 1918?	'


Edmond Proulx: What amount, if any, was paid by the Government to the Toronto Mail and Empire for printing, advertising, job, or other work for each of the following five fiscal years: 1914 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many of the men who enlisted under the Military Service Act are to-day still in service in Canada?
2.	What number of these are from each military district?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many Civil Servants, permanent or temporary, including the supernumeraries, were employed by the Department of Militia and Defence during the years 1915, 1916, 1917 and
1918,	giving the number per year:	(a) At
Ottawa ; (b) At London, England?
2.	How many officers of the Canadian Militia or the Canadian Expeditionary Force were em-

ployed by the Department of Militia and Defence during the same years: (a) At Ottawa; (b) At London, England?
3.	How many officers, non-commissioned officers and men were employed by the same Department during the same years, in the Pay Branch: (a) At Ottawa; (b) At London, England?
4.	How many Civil Servants were employed in the same branch during the same years : (a) At Ottawa; (b) At London?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What was the amount of the public debt of Canada on the 21st September, 1911?
2.	What new loans were made by the Dominion of Canada since said date, indicating for each of said loans: (a) the date; (b) the amount; (c) the rate of interest; (d) the name of the place where such loan was floated; (e) the date of purchase; (f) the object for which said additional loans were made?
3.	What was the amount of the public debt on the 10th March, 1919?
4.	What was the result obtained through the last National Loan in Canada, indicating the amount subscribed in each Province?
5.	Of the amount raised through the last National Loan, what sums were expended (a) for war purposes; (b) for other purposes?
G. How much did the floating of our last National Loan cost giving the figures in detail?


Mr. TOBIN:: [DOT]
1.	How many times was the Military Service Act, 1917, amended by Order in Council?
2.	What are the dates and the numbers of the said Orders in Council?


Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	How many medical officers are employed in Ontario who have not been overseas?
2.	How many of these doctors hold the rank of Captain, and how many the rank of Major?
3.	How many medical officers who have served overseas are junior to these officers?
4.	How many officers who have been wounded are junior in Canada to men who signed up after these officers went overseas?
5.	Is it the intention of the Militia Department to still subordinate medical officers who have served in France?


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount has been paid the Bridgewater Bulletin, of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, for advertising since January 1, 1912?
2.	What amount has been paid the Daily and Weekly News, of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia for advertising since January 1, 1912?


Mr. DUFF:: 
Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	How many propaganda publications are now issued by the Government, and what is the annual cost of each?
2.	How many of these publications concern the Canadian soldiers at home and overseas?
3.	What is the remuneration of their editors and how many of them are former journalists?
4.	How many newspaper men are now employed by the Government in the various Departments arising out of the war, and what are their names and present salaries?
5.	How many newspaper men are employed in the Publicity Department of the Repatriation Committee and Employment Committee, and what are their names and salaries?
6.	Do any of them hold other positions outside the Government Service? If so, what are their names?.


Mr. PEDLOW:: 


Mr. BLAKE:: [DOT]
1.	What was the total number of men recruited during the war, combatants and noncombatants, (a) in the whole of Canada - (b) in each province?
2.	What was the total number of men recruited during the war in Canada, (a) as per nationality; (b) as per religion; (c) as per nationality provincially; and (d) as per religion provincially ?
3.	What was the total number of men dervfnC^iSed,i.in. Canada, (a) in the whole of Canada; (6) m each province?
4.	What was the total number of men and
women engaged in war work, (a) in Canada-(o) in each province?



UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
1.	How much money has the Government spent during the last twelve months advertising in the daily and weekly papers and periodicals or magazines (a) in Canada, and (b) outside of Canada?
2.	Did the Government pay a higher rate for this advertising than if they had placed it through the regular advertising agencies?
Mr. BOYCE:: I- "What are the names and present addresses of the last three hundred appointees to the Inside Civil Service, whose appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission?
2. In what Department were they placed when appointed, and what is the salary paid in each case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: * V . -	oeiween the
Minister of Trade and Commerce or any officials of the Government and the Board of Grain Supervisors and Board of Grain Commissioners regarding the oomman-deering of wheat -in 1916, and a copy of the Order in Council authorizing same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Copy of the Order in Council authorizing; the Board of Grain Commissioners to investigate county and pubLic terminal elevators, transportation, etc., of Canadiian grain, and also a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams referring to same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Copy of the Order in Council authorizing the audit of public terminal elevators and copy of the Auditor's report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Copy of the Order In Council instructing the Board of Grain Commissioners to investigate the commandeering of Canadian grain and all settlements or adjustments connected therewith.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Copy of the Order in Council appointing the Board of Grain Supervisors for Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: Return showing the names and post office addresses of all postmasters appointed in the Province of Nova Scotia since June 1, 1917, along with a copy of all correspondence with the Post Office Department or with the Civil Service Commission relating to such appointments.
Air. STEVENS-
Copy of a memorial submitted by Dr. McGill, Secretary of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, to the Right Honourable Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, setting forth some reasons for the appointment of a Board of Grain Supervisors, which was later given effect hy Order in Council.


Mr. McMASTER:: Copy of all correspondence had between the Customs Department and the Customs House authorities at the port of Sutton-Abercorn touching the dismissal of William Dassonde.


John Ewen Sinclair: Return showing the names, post office addresses, length of service, date of appointment, and yearly remuneration of all fishery guardians in the Province of Nova Scotia, along with a list of the names of the parties by whom the said guardians were recommended.


John Ewen Sinclair: Return showing the names and home post office addresses and date of appointment of all employees of the Department of Railways and Canals engaged in the ferry boats or otherwise connected with the transfer service on the Straits of Canso; and also, a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the said Department, or in possession of the Civil Service Commission, relating to the appointment of the said employees.


John Ewen Sinclair: Return showing the age, names, tonnage, port of registry, ownership, rate of speed, original purchase price, and in separate columns the gross amount paild each owner under each separate charter, and also separately, the cost of repairs of all vessels and boats of every description, chartered, purchased or built by or on behalf of the Government, for purposes connected with naval or coastal defence since August 4, 1914.


Edmund William Tobin: Return showing the number of boats rented, loaned or chartered hy the Naval Department during the period of the war, giving the name of each boat, from whom it was Purchased, rented, loaned or chartered, the purchase price or the rental paid, and the total expense for refits and upkeep for each boat, and on what service employed while in the service of the Navy Department.


Edmund William Tobin: Copy of the Marconi Wireless Company's contract with the Department of Naval Service, showing the date the contract was made and! signed.
Mr. KAY.
Copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents exchanged between the Government or any Department or Commission thereof and Lieutenant Commander J. K. L. Ross, relating to appointments to the staff of the Board of Pension Commissioners, hy the Ciivil Service Commission.


Edmond Proulx: For a return showing the names of all persons employed up to March 1, 1919, in connection with the work of the Repatriation Committee, giving the class of work each person is doing, their salary or wages, the living or other expenses paid, and the former occupation of each person, along with a statement showing what other work, if any, said persons are employed in.


Air. CHISHOLM:: Copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in any way referring to a proposed mail route from Eden Siding to Marble Mountain, Inverness County, N.S.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Copy of all correspondence between the Militia Department and C. N. Davidson, of Vancouver, having reference to the illness and death of Pte. Davidson, Cadet Pilot, No. 173757, at Toronto, and also correspondence with the officer i/e Records, R.A.F., Toronto ; also copies of evidence and findings of coroner's inquest in the death of said Pte. Davidson.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Copy of all papers and correspondence regarding the Commissions granted to Canadian officers during the present war.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: '
Return showing the total cost and general expenses of the 1918 Victory Doan, including detailed statements of the amounts paid to brokers, banks, newspapers, advertising agencies, and all other persons, corporations, firms and agencies to whom payments were made, giving the names of such persons, banks, newspapers, agencies or firms in each case.


Matthew Robert Blake: Copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any Department of the Government and any person or persons, relative to charges of sedition made against Bishop Budka, of Winnipeg.


Mr. STEELE:: Copy of all correspondence during the year 1918 between the Government or any member thereof and representatives of the Inside Civil Service relating to increased remuneration for Civil Servants.



WIRELESS ON GOVERNMENT STEAMERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) moved for a copy of all papers and correspondence concerning the installation of wireless equipment upon the steamers built or to be built for the Government, as well as a copy of all tenders submitted and contracts executed in that connection. He said: It has been suggested to me that I should amend this motion as it would cause too much inconvenience in the preparation of the information asked for in its present form. I am willing to amend the motion by adding the words "since 4th August, 1914," if I am in order in so doing.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There cannot be any objection to the resolution being so amended.
Motion as amended agreed to.



VESSELS ENGAGED BY GOVERNMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOBIN moved for a return showing the number of boats rented, loaned or chartered by the Naval Department during the period of the war, giving the name of each boat, from whom it was purchased, rented, loaned or chartered, the purchase price or the rental paid, and the total expense for refits and upkeep for each boat, and on what service employed while in the service of the Navy Department.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to ask my hon. friend if he would be content to have his motion combined with the one moved by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). They really cover the same ground, although strictly speaking, the present motion asks for some additional information.	*


Edmund William Tobin: I am quite satisfied for that to be done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The information brought down will be in answer to both the motions combined.



MAGDALEN ISLANDS AND PICTOU STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other papers concerning the steamer service between Magdalen Islands and Pictou, N.S.
He said: We are peculiarly situated in the county of Gaspe, which comprises the
peninsula on the Baie des Chaleurs and the river St. Lawrence and also the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, about one hundred miles from the coast. The Magdalen Islands were, in former years, served by a steamer running between Pictou and the islands, touching en route at two or three ports of Prince Edward Island. Twenty years ago we had a weekly service, and I had that service changed into a semiweekly one. For many years we had an excellent steamer-I forget the name now,- for passengers, mails, and freight. At the beginning of the war the steamer was chartered by another company and was, I think, finally sold to the British Government. There is, on the Magdalen Islands, a very interesting fishing population, comprising about 7,000 people who are living and prospering there.. .Since the war began the service has unfortunately been exceedingly bad. I do not wish to blame the Government at all for the steamer service to the islands since the outbreak of the war, because the Government called for tenders and had to accept whatever boat was pffered. During the winter season, which begins generally around Christmas, and continues until the end of March or the beginning of April, there is no navigation between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands. It is, therefore, important that during the early spring, the summer months, and the fall of the year, there should be a regular service of the best kind for that population of 7,000 Canadians.
During the last four years it is regrettable, but it is not the fault of the Government, that the islanders have had practically no steamer service. A very small boat was put on the route, but it was not of sufficient capacity to transport the freight and the passengers. So much was that the case that I had to appeal every year to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be so good as to divert from its service the steamer Stanley, a good ice-breaker, or the steamer Laurentian. And I must offer my sincere thanks to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who, last year and this year, was kind enough to send the Stanley and the Laurentian, much to the advantage of those islanders. During the last fall, on account of the influenza which broke out on the Magdalen Islands, the situation was very difficult and awkward. I, therefore, appealed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and he sent on board one of his steamers, doctors and nurses, and also a supply of medicine. Even during that time the regular service was maintained, but it is such a poor service that it is of no ad-

vantage at all to the islands. Many articles of consumption are imported into the Magdalen Islands from parts of Canada, chiefly from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. When there is a poor steamer service, as there has been during the last four years, the Government must rush to their rescue, and during the two or three weeks before Christmas, the Stanley or the Laurentian has to make several hurried trips, and even then at times, on account of weather conditions, the goods cannot be landed. Therefore, having conferred with the leaders on the islands, I have come to the conclusion that it is time for the Government to give to the islanders a steamer sendee controlled by the Government themselves. I do not believe in privately-owned steamers. A large subsidy is paid for the carriage of the mails, and there is general dissatisfaction as to the way in which those private owners conduct the service. That has been the case during the twenty years I have had the honour to represent the islands. I would ask the Government to treat the Magdalen islands, with their population of 7,000 people, as they treat Prince Edward Island. There is a regular service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and the Government could 'well afford to put a steamer on the route between Pictou and Magdalen Islands.
I have not the figures before me, but the islanders are great producers in this sense that they are splendid fishermen, and the best fish of the Dominion comes 3 p.m. from Magdalen Islands. The Government should take into consideration the fact that during several months of the year the islands have no communication whatsoever with the mainland, and, during the season of navigation the best service should be given to those taxpayers. I appeal to the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Maclean) again to put the Stanley or the Laurentian on the route, because I have received from the warden of the county, Mr. Gaudet, a telegram which I have referred to the deputy minister. On the 8th of March last, this telegram was sent to me:
Have wired O'Hara-
The Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce.

to-day as follows referring' yours fourth instant. Delay in collecting freight was caused by goods having been landed at different points of these islands other than their intended desti-ation and the difficulties of communication from one island to another at that particular season. The goods have not yet all been delivered, but people are paying their freight in the regular 
manner as they get delivery of their goods. I can definitely state this to be true as I am the freight agent at Amherst Island notwithstanding any report you may have received. The trip of the Stanley is urgently required and there would be no justification for your department to refuse sending her for reason quoted. Therefore our request being so much needed we hope to have a prompt and favourable answer. Please use every effort to have Stanley sent down.
(Sgd) A. J. Gaudet,
Warden.
I have received ten such telegrams from the different merchants and business men of the Islands. Surely, it is not fair to exclude these seven thousand people from the favours of the Government. They should have good and frequent communication with the mainland, as early as possible in the spring. We are unable to get an ice-breaker for the Islands, as the Stanley is in the Government service. I trust that the Government will do for the people of Magdalen Islands what they are doing for the people on the north shore below Quebec. I spend the summer at Murray Bay every year, travelling by the Intercolonial to Riviere Quelle; and from there an excellent service is provided by the steamer Champlain which plies between the north and the south the whole year round. I think it would be an easy matter for the Government to put one of their best steamers on the service between Pictou and the Magdalen Islands. I would again urge upon the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries the absolute necessity of sending the steamer Stanley at the earliest possible moment to carry the goods which were left last fall on the wharves at Pictou, and to distribute the freight among the different ports of the Islands.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):: I am interested in this particular service, as it touches two ports in my riding. It is a very important service, as a considerable amount of business is done on this route, particularly between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands, and between Pictou and Prince Edward Island. Prior to the war there was an excellent steamer on this route, but during the war the Government have not been able to provide us with a suitable boat. Last year the Enterprise, a small steamer which had formerly plied between Pictou, Georgetown, and Murray Harbour, was put on this route, but she was too small for the service. The Government also sent the Stanley in winter time, and She certainly did wonderful work. I am glad the hon. member for Maisonneuve

(Mr. Lemieux) has brought this matter up, and I trust the Government will provide the people of the Islands this year with a suitable boat large enough for the business. There are ports other than those of the Magdalen Islands which would be served by such a steamer. The service is of very great importance, indeed.
Hon. Mr. MACLEAN- I am sorry I am not at the moment in possession of such facts as would enable me to inform the mover of the resolution (Mr. Lemieux) as to the probable service that will be provided this season between Pictou and the Magdalen Islands. Of course, no objection whatever can be taken to his statement that this is an important route. During the war the subsidized coastal steamship services have been very much demoralized, and it has been impossible to keep them up to normal. I trust, however, that in the near future the services will be restored to something like their pre-war standard. There is generally considerable difficulty in the spring and fall of the year in securing suitable boats to carry to the Magdalen Islands the freight required at those7 particular seasons. It is also true that a great deal of the difficulty is due to the fact that the merchants of the Magdalen Islands postpone until a very late date getting in their goods; but I suppose there may be a very good answer to that from their standpoint.
Let me say on behalf of the Department of Trade and Commerce that we are very heartily in sympathy with the observations made by the mover of the resolution, and we shall do everything possible to give a proper service between Pictou and the Islands. I shall be very glad to confer with the hon. member privately with respect to this matter. I know that there has been a request for the steamer Stanley or some similar boat to convey certain goods from the mainland of Nova Scotia to the Magdalen Islands, the goods consisting chiefly of fishermen's supplies which will be required for their fishing operations in the course of the next few weeks. The Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Trade and Commerce are doing everything possible to meet this request of the people of the Magdalen Islands. I assure my hon. friend we shall give -this matter constant attention, and if at all possible this request will be complied with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must thank the minister for his sympathetic hearing of my 40
request. The Islanders, as I stated a moment ago, are very grateful for what the department has done during the last two or three years. For the present I shall content myself with urging upon my hon, friend the necessity of providing a boat early this month to relieve the present situation. Will the department or the Government also consider favourably the suggestion I have made that in order to obviate difficulties in tire future they undertake that service themselves, as they do between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I think that would be the only satisfactory thing to do for that population.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think there is a great deal to say in favour of the suggestion of my hon. friend and between now and the time when the Supplementary Estimates are before the House possibly I may have an opportunity to give fuller consideration to the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
-On the motion of Mr. Stacey, Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act of 1914, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: I understand the hon. member in whose name the Bill stands is not present. I do not think we should proceed with the Bill until he is present, and I therefore beg to move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Belt Act.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 4, to amend the Yukon Act.- Hon. Mr. Calder.
Bill No. 16, to amend the Statistics Act.- Hon. A. K. MACLEAN.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
That it is expedient, to make provisions respecting advances for the purchase of seed grain, and to provide, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed on with any bank advancing moneys for the purchase of seed grain, that a guarantee by the Crown may be given to the said bank for the payment of the principal sum of such advances and interest
[Stage Direction]


thereon at five i>er centum per annum; and that upon payment of the principal sum, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, the security held by the bank shall be endorsed to the Minister; and further, to prescribe the nature of the security to be taken for loans, the rate of interest thereon and date of payment thereof, the form of application for loans, and the officials to whom application is to be made and by whom the application shall he verified and approved, the commission to he paid to the banks, and such other provisions as may be necessary for the better securing of the advances.
Mr. McKENZIE:: We should have a very full explanation from the minister of the necessity for this action on the part of the Government and the steps that they propose to take in connection with it.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, hitherto, and for many years, the Department of the Interior has advanced moneys which were essential in necessitous cases to the holders of unpatented lands for seed grain purposes. In each case they have taken security on the unpatented land which was still in their possession; that is to say, on the Government title which the entrant had not yet earned. In the year 1915 the Dominion Government was compelled to extend its activity in seed grain distribution to the holders of patented lands as well taking in that case the same security upon the title under the authority of the provincial legislature. When the subject had to be attacked for the year 1919, it was my desire that the Government of Canada should confine its responsibility to unpatented lands only and that the responsibility for providing seed with regard to patented lands should resit upon the local or provincial authorities. At a conference of the representatives of the Governments affected an arrangement to that end was made. Thereupon, we being concerned only with unpatented lands, it occurred to us that a better arrangement could be made by co-operation with the banks for the distribution of this seed grain and particularly for the collection of the returns, than under the system which had hitherto prevailed whereby we advanced the money ourselves and took the means and the responsibility of collection. Consequently an Order in Council was put through ratifying an agreement which was to the effect that wherever seed grain was necessary on unpatented lands, the homesteader would make application to the agent of Dominion Lands within whose district his homestead lay. The agent of Dominion Lands, if necessary, would send a homestead inspector to ascertain the facts. If it was not deemed necessary he would certify without such in-
vestigation. Upon his certificate being presented to the bank as to the amount required and the character of each grade, certifying such requisites as the form prescribed, the bank was authorized to advance to the homesteader the money and take his note and a seed grain lien in accordance with the Bank Act as security therefor. The Government guaranteed the bank that the money so advanced would he returned with interest at five per cent. The note itself, and the lien, bore interest at seven per cent which amount the bank were authorized to collect and which they had the security for. The arrangement also provided that in so far as the bank collected, they would receive one per cent on the amount collected; consequently, when the bank collect, they get eight per cent. Where the bank does not collect it gets five per cent. This is an arrangement resulting in a very considerable inducement to the bank to collect the money. It eliminates from the Interior Department the rather expensive mechanism by which we have endeavoured in the past to collect these advances. Of course as yet, it cannot be said to have been fully tried out, but we hope that it will result in much better collections and at much less cost to the country. The resolution authorizes legislation looking to the implementing of the Order in Council passed and the provision of such machinery for the future on a permanent basis.


Mr. NESBITT:: I think that the minister explained that the Government have the right to take over the security given and he said that the security would he in the form of a note and a lien taken under the Bank Act on the seed grain. The Government take a lien on the land, do they not? The banks cannot take a lien on the land? Therefore, the Government are dropping that portion of the security that they otherwise had.


Arthur Meighen: No, the land is unpatented land; consequently, we hold the land as security just as before if we take it over.


Mr. FIELDING:: I think it is necessary that there should be some limitation of the amount. This appears to give a blank cheque to the Government, or to grant authority to advance for this purpose an unlimited sum. It may be that there is something in the preceding legislation to limit the outlay of the Government. I only draw the minister's attention to it. This is am authority to pay or guarantee money and there must be some limitation to the amount.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the previous legislation is different in that respect.
I have not the exact terms of that legislation in my mind, but it enables the Government to advance money on unpatented land. Necessarily, we will have to have a vote of Parliament to pay the amount. The amount advanced in each case must be limited as it is only to be for the seed, certified by the agent of Dominion Lands, required for a man's homestead and not for any other purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) brought in legislation asking for an unlimited amount for railway equipment. The amount was not mentioned and when the question was raised by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) he withdrew Iris resolution and came back with a stated amount.


Arthur Meighen: This is very different.
One might estimate what would be required to acquire a railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was for railway
equipment.


Arthur Meighen: Whatever the case may have been, hut we do not know what amount will be required to provide seed grain in any particular spring. It all depends on the conditions of the previous year and the condition of the farmers in any district. It has varied from year to year. I do not presume there has been anything like uniformity. I know there has not been. We have had to advance amounts beginning with almost nothing and running up to $12,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Cannot you suggest an
average?


Arthur Meighen: The average would
be $5,000,000 but I would never suggest to Parliament that it would amount to $5,000,000 in any one year. I do not think the amount can he suggested.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The wording here is:
" Any part thereof remaining unpaid." How long .a time are the hanks authorized to loan for?


Arthur Meighen: The notes all fall due
on or before the first of January.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In the succeeding year?
40i


Arthur Meighen: In the succeeding year and the bank has a certain time, unless it is extended by the minister, within which to call upon the department for payment. If the bank calls upon the department for payment, it then gets five per cent.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: My recollection is that when we embarked upon the policy of advancing money for the purchase of seed grain to western farmers we were told that it was to be temporary and only to meet an emergency. It seems now to be renewed eveiy year. I would like to know what view my hon. friend takes of the matter. Is it intended that this shall be a permanent advance, year afteT year, or is it only for a limited time?


Arthur Meighen: The first question my hon. friend raises has reference to the advance of 1915, which was on a wholly different basis from any other advance. That was on patented and unpatented lands, and reached a total of between twelve and thirteen million dollars. Every year for I do not know how many years-I have no doubt for thirty-advances have been made on unpatented lands-that is on our own lands -to homesteaders, and that is all this legislation contemplates. Consequently there is no change at all. As to the second question, namely, that relating to repayments, I can answer that in so far as the large advance of 1915 was concerned. We have met with very considerable delay and not wholly satisfactory results in repayment. The sanguine hopes of many have not been met,
' and at the same time the pessimistic expectations of others have been surpassed. Of that $12,000,000, I think I am safe in saying, we have received between eight and eight and a half millions; it is not below that figure, it may possibly by this time have come up to about $9,000,000. That money, however, was not wholly advanced for seed grain-I will give the exact figures to the House at any time-it was advanced, to the extent of I think about five millions, for relief, the other seven millions being for seed grain. The relief money has been the most difficult to collect. All the security we were able to get was a lien on the land, over and above all registered liens at that time, therefore the difficulty in collecting. The lessons we have learned as the result oi our experience in connection with seed grain liens has resulted in my decision to try this experiment.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is it the intention of my hon. friend to continue the payment of 3 per cent for the collection as formerly?


Arthur Meighen: There is no rate of 3 per cent, and there never has been.


Charles Murphy: I understood my hon. friend to mention 5 per cent and that 3 per cent was collected in addition to that.


Arthur Meighen: All that the farmer pays is 7 per cent, no matter to whom he pays. If he did not pay the bank the bank calls upon the department, and the department collects 7 per cent from the farmer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Government only pays 5 per cent to the bank?


Arthur Meighen: The department guarantees 5 per cent to the bank, and for what it collects the bank receives 1 per cent.


Mr. ROBB:: Is there any intention on the part of the department to handle seed grain throughout the country? For instance, the Department of Agriculture has a commission buying and handling seed grain. Has that any relation to the policy now under discussion?
IMr. MEIGHEN: No. The commission in connection with the Department of Agriculture-I know something of its operations, as I was Acting Minister of Agriculture for a time-has to do with the selection of seed grain and its distribution for cash to municipalities and others. It has nothing to do with the distribution of seed grain to homesteaders on liens. It simply selects, tests and issues when the seed grain from a germinating standpoint is good, and sells that seed grain at the price paid for it-sells for cash.


James Alexander Robb: Or less?


Arthur Meighen: On the only occasion of which I am able to speak definitely, on account of the rise in the price of grain, the department came out very considerably ahead, although that was not intended.


Mr. CAHILL:: I think the objection of the member for Queens and Shelburne is worthy of some consideration, and might be met by the minister making an estimate of what he expects will be required in the coming season. There is no doubt this matter should be brought before Parliament from year to year, and the amount voted which is expected to be required or to be guaranteed. It seems to me that the present system is rather loose. In the first place, the Government is a very poor collector at any time. The inducement of the bank is not very great and its responsibility is nothing at all; the bank simply lends the money and is guaranteed 5 per cent in any event, the same as if it were making advances to
[iMr. Murphy.]	'
the Government. I think the bank should be made responsible in some way and assume some share of the responsibility if it is being guaranteed the money. It has a chance to make 8 per cent if it looks after the collections, but it gets 5 per cent in any event. I think it would be better if the bank were made responsible for the collection of this money. It will not sue any person under this arrangement, and there is no provision for it; it simply hands over the security when it gets tired of the arrangement to the Dominion Government, and leaves it to the latter to collect. If the Government were to guarantee the bank 80 per cent of the advances made, and stipulate that there should be no interest paid on what it did not collect, it would have some chance of getting a little better security and loaning it to a better class of people. If this were limited to the homesteader it might not involve so much money, but there is nothing in this regarding unpatented lands. A friendly immigration agent would manage to get a good deal of money at 7 per cent invested in Canada at the present time. If the banks loan money, and are not saddled with any greater responsibility than is here provided and can hand their securities over to the Dominion Government for it to take action at some future time, it seems to me such loans would be pretty easy for the banks to make, and the fellow who gets the money is not in any worse position but in a much better position than ever before.


Mr. SHEARD:: May I ask the minister if he can give us any idea of the losses which have been incurred by the Government in connection with those advances? ,


Arthur Meighen: There is virtually no loss with respect to advances on unpatented lands, because in every case we have the land, and if the homesteader abandons it the seed grain lien is charged against it and must be paid by the next entrant. I know I am safe in saying that there is no need for consideration on the part of the House of the iquestion of loss so far as our past history is concerned. There will be losses in connection with relief and seed grain advances on patented lands, particularly with relation to relief. Personally, I am very confident that loss will amount to a very small proportion, and even if we lost a substantial share of the sum that was advanced in 1915 the investment on the part of Canada would well have been an excellent one because the results to this country were pretty nearly in the Scriptural proportion of a hundred fold. I would like to meet the

point raised by the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne, if I could see any.way of doing so, although that was not what was really discussed by the hon. member for Pontiac. I do not see any way to do so for this reason: Presuming we were to fix a figure, say of $1,000,000, and when the spring came that amount would not provide seed, thousands of acres of land are going to go unseeded, or else we would simply have to take the money by Governor General's warrant; we could not do anything else, we could not possibly stand by and see the land go unseeded. Therefore no very great object would be gained by fixing an amount for such a peculiar cause as this. However, if the resolution passes I will give further thought to the question, and when the Bill is before the House there will be an opportunity for an amendment to that effect.
Resolution reported, read the first and second times, and concurred in.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, respecting advances for the purchase of seed grain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	,

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 7, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the explanation of this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: I can give no explanation of a general character that would be of advantage to the committee. The Yukon Placer Mining Act was passed in 1906 and has never been amended. This Bill makes certain amendments of more or less technical character. I do not think any of them are of major consequence, but they are considered important by the Yukon branch of the department. Each amendment will have to be discussed upon its own merits.
On section 1-definition:


Arthur Meighen: This is merely to take care of the case of one stream meeting another and the intention of the Act that no claim shall extend over 500 feet. Further, the special meaning attaching to "base line" in mine surveying is given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-side and end boundaries:
Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon):: This is to provide for the running of the base line up the creek valley, but not the side lines, as the Act now provides. It has been found that the base line itself is sufficient. The end lines of the claims may be run at right angles to the base line, but it is not necessary to put the Government to the expense of running three lines parallel to the base line.


Arthur Meighen: As a consequence of that, section 24 of the Act has to be repealed; and this is done by section 3 of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-size of discovery claims:
Alfred Thompson: As it stands, the Act penalizes discoverers of mining claims if there are more than two in the party. If there are two in the party they are entitled to 1,250 feet each, but if more than two, each member of the party is entitled to only 1,000 feet. It is the wish of the people of the territory that discoverers get 1,250 feet each for the claims which they locate. The idea is to induce prospectors to go into a new territory and discover new mines.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-right to relocate after forfeiture.
Arthur Meighen: This is to enable the former owner to relocate a claim after the lapse of a year. Under the law as it stands he cannot do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-appeals.
Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon) This section is self-explanatory. There is no court en banc in the the Yukon Territory at the present time. The court en banc has been abolished. The only court to which appeals may be made is the Territorial Court,
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning ol the expression " court en bac?"


Alfred Thompson: My hon.
friend is a better authority on that than I am.


Arthur Meighen: We always call it the full court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, court en banc. That makes a great difference. The word "bac" means a certain kind of boat.


Arthur Meighen: The word should be
"banc," not "bac."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have not had very much time to look over this Bill. Does it provide for an appeal? If so, where?


Arthur Meighen: There is in the Yukon only one judge, Judge Macaulay. It appears that at one time, when the Act was passed, there was a court en banc. That was abolished. This is simply to strike out the words in the Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This discussion may be interesting and even amusing to those who are taking part in it. We, however, sitting at the back of the Chamber have not the pleasure of understanding what is going on.	,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-when owner does not renew claim, claim may be relocated, etc.
James Alexander Robb: This appears to be a section which may work great hardship at this particular time. We have been told by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. 4	p.m. A. Thompson) that many men from the Yukon went overseas. I can see where a soldier having gone overseas and abandoned his claim temporarily, may return to find some other person in possession of it, and it may be a valuable claim.


Alfred Thompson: My hon.
friend will see, a little later on in the Bill and in these amendments, that soldiers' claims have been protected by the Bill.


James Alexander Robb: What section is that?


Alfred Thompson: Section 10, of this Bill, subsection 45, under the heading "co-owners, one of whom served in war." This amendment provides simply for payment in the event of expenses having been incurred because of the claim owner's neglect to renew. It was drafted as the result of the experience of the Gold Commissioner, the man who administers this law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to ask a
question as to the latter part of section 4 with reference to advertising. Is the advertisement sufficient to give every person notice? The section does not state what the extent of the advertisement shall be.
Mr. MEIGHEN .-The section provides for the survey being published in the Yukon Official Gazette for twelve successive issues, and remaining unprotested during that period.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not in any local paper?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There	is no Yukon
official record?


Alfred Thompson: There is a Gazette.
Mr. MdMASTER:	There	is no Yukon
official record similar to the Canadian official record?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the
people there can expect comforts of that kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice provision is
made here for the reinstatement of a person who may have lost his right to a mining claim, provided that he pays certain expenditures that may have been made by the parties who took over the claim. I find no provision for the adjustment of those expenditures. The man who made the expenditures may say that there were very large, and the man has to pay them may [DOT]say that they are not just. Unless there is some provision already in the Act, there should be some competent authority to adjust the amount of those expenditures, that is to fix the amount that a man would have to pay in order to be reinstated, whether those expenditures are for betterments of the claim or anything else in connection with it.


Alfred Thompson: I am not
sure whether this was specifically provided for in the original Act, but the way it works out is this, that the Gold Commissioner sends his inspector out to measure up the work done on a claim, and as the value of work done on these claims is fairly well-known, no trouble has, so far as my knowledge goes, occurred as the result of that method. Of course, with regard to the cost of relocating a claim, the fees and travelling expenses are easily verified. I think the Gold Commissioner himself determines the amount.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can readily understand he would be the proper authority to do so, but whether he has that jurisdiction I do not know. If not, I think we should insert in the Act a clause that the claim should be adjusted by the gold commissioner.


Alfred Thompson: I feel sure
the gold commissioner has that power, and from his decision there would be an appeal to the Territorial Court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-proportionate contribution of-work, etc., in case of co-owners:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister understand this section to be of practical value?
Mr. MEIOHiEN: The Act as it stood provided only for payment by co-owners of their share of the fees. This provides that each co-owner must also do his share of the work, and in the event of a co-owner not doing his especial work, the interests of the defaulting ooTOwner shall pass to those co-owners who remained and performed his share of the work.


Alfred Thompson: I may say that in order to hold these claims certain fees have to be paid and certain work must be done annually. The Act calls this work " representation work." As the law now stands, there is no provision for dealing with the owner who refuses to pay his share of the renewal fees, but only with the owner who fails to do his share of the work. The proposed amendment makes it necessary for a oo-owner not only to do his share of representation work but also to pay his share ol the fees. In the case of a defunct interest the intention is to give the claim to the coowner or co-owners who actually did the work of the co-owner in default, and not to those co-owners who performed and paid only their portion.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is the decision of the gold commissioner final? I can easily imagine a case where a man might be absent from his claim on business for some time, and when he comes back he finds that his two co-partners have in the meantime done certain work and paid certain fees, [DOT]and in consequence have been vested with the whole claim by the gold commissioner. Now there might have been an arrangement made between these three men before this particular man went off, and what I want to know is whether the decision of the gold commissioner is final, or whether the matter could be opened up judicially or otherwise by the returned co-owner who had lost his interest.


Alfred Thompson: Of course,
these amendments do not affect whatever rights of appeal there now are from the decisions of the gold commissioner to the Territorial Court. This Act has been in operation for many years, and, as in the case of all other Acts, certain defects have been found in its operation. The defects were discovered by the gold commissioner and his officers, and the proposed amendments are the outcome of the experience of the gold commissioner and his staff in administering the Act for a number of years. Ordinarily, there is an appeal from the
gold commissioner to the Territorial Court, and I feel sure there would be the right of appeal in the case my hon. Mend has suggested. The decision of the gold commissioner is not final in any of these matters. .Subsection 3 is rather important. In the past a man holding a claim has sometimes been able to prevent a dredge working up or down on either side of his claim, and I might say just here that the dredging industry is a very important one in the Yukon .at the present time, most of the gold being won by that method. This subsection is to prevent a man from holding up dredging operations, on either side of him. It makes it possible to lassess the damages occasioned by going across the claim. It gives all the gold extracted to the claim owner, and provides for an appeal from the gold commissioner's findings to the Territorial Court.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Does this appeal provided for in subsection I apply only to subsections 2 and 3, or does it apply to the original section which is now subsection 1? In the original subsection there was an appeal to the Board of Arbitration, and now the appeal is abolished by the present section.
Mr. TH0M1P80N (Yukon) : The practice of appeals to the Board of Arbitration to which the hon. member refers has been found unworkable, hence this amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this dredge a local dredge?


Alfred Thompson: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have in the province from which I come a law-although not in connection with gold mines-very much like this, in connection with other minerals. Our law provides that a man through whose property one has to pass, or on whose property he has to perform certain work, will be asked for permission, and if he refuses then there is an application. I think it would be well, unless provision is made already, that the permission should be obtained, and in the event of refusal, notice could be served on the owner that upon a certain day an application would be' made before the commissioner; so that the owner of the property would be given an opportunity of being heard when that application was made; and if his property should be passed through, it might be done at a place where the least damage would occur. I think the general common law principle should be observed, that no person's property shall be interfered with without his permission; and there should

be some provision that the owner of property through which passage is to be made should have an opportunity of being heard when the application is being made before the Gold Commissioner.


Alfred Thompson: That is a
fair criticism, and perhaps it might be well to insert a time clause, within which the dredge owner should notify the claim owner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12; subsection 1.-Board of Arbitrators to determine disputes.
*Mr. G. *W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg): No provision is made as to what form the notice shall take, and I think it might leave the operation of the Act open to a good deal of dispute in some cases as to whether or not notice was given. Nothing is said about written notices, and J think the words "in writing" should be inserted.
Arthur Meighen: I see no objection to
that. The section as it stands provides for notice, but does not provide that it shall be notice in writing. The purpose of this amendment is merely to express more clearly the intention of the old Act. No difficulty has arisen in the past with regard to notice, or the Gold Commissioner would undoubtedly have recommended the very amendment my friend proposes. I see no objection to accepting the words " in writing," because I cannot conceive that it could have been the practice that notification should be given in any other way.


Mr. ANDREWS:: Whatever the other Act may have contained, it is now repealed, so that there is no provision of any kind except what is contained in this section; and it appears to me that difficulties might possibly arise. A man might claim that he had given notice, say, last Thursday at the hotel, and a denial might follow, and I think it would avoid any possibility of such a difficulty if the form of notification is definitely fixed.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection
to the words " in writing " being inserted, but I am a little apprehensive that in some other section of the Bill it will be provided that all notices shall be in writing.
Mr. MoMASTER: I suggest that it might be advisable to make provision at the end that all notices shall be in writing.


Arthur Meighen: I think we had better leave the matter for the present, and if there is no provision for notice in writing I shall move it by way of amendment in the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
	i
On section 15-Pcwers of Commissioner over property of deceased or insane owners.
Alfred Thompson: As the Act now stands, if a miner owning even a small fraction of a claim dies the whole claim is exempt from renewal. Advantage has been taken of this section to hold very large blocks of ground. It is to prevent this sort of thing that this clause has been drafted.
On section 16-assignee of property of deceased or insane owner to apply for grant within two months:


Mr. MORPHY:: What provision have you for giving notice in a country like the Yukon of an enactment of this land so that the public may understand it? This is a most drastic section. A man may be out of the bounds of civilization and yet by the terms of this section he may have his claim taken from him without reasonable notice whatever.


Arthur Meighen: Reference to the original Act as it stood will show there is nothing more drastic in this clause than in that for which it is substituted. It does sound, of course, somewhat drastic. But the working of it must have shown that it is necessary. In the Act as it now stands there is no penalty prescribed for a person who refuses * or neglects to apply for a renewal of his claim. The amendment does prescribe such a penalty. Otherwise, it merely makes clear the law as it is.
Bill reported.



IRRIGATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Irrigation Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is possibly a new subject to most of the members of the House and perhaps the minister might give us an explanation of the Bill before the House goes into committee upon it.


Arthur Meighen: Inasmuch as this Bill contains only individual and isolated amendments, there is no general explanation that can suitably be given. While I am on my feet, I might as well explain the first section. The Irrigation Act has been in effect, of course, for many years. Canada, by that Act, asserted its control over all waters which might be utilized for irrigation purposes. Virtually, it asserted its control over the power to divert water within the area covered by the Act. The Act just covers a certain defined area in western Canada. Clause 1 of this Bill makes the following provision:

No person shall divert or use any water from, and no person shall construct or cause to be constructed any dam or other works for the impounding- of water in any river, stream, watercourse, creek, spring, ravine, canyon, lagoon, swamp, marsh, or other body of water, otherwise than under the provisions of this Act, except in the exercise of a legal right existing at the time of such diversion or use or construction.
While the Act as it stands prevents a diversion, the Justice Department has given the opinion that it does not extend to cover a dam, or work in the nature of a dam, for impounding water, although in one sense it is a diversion and, I think, was intended to he covered by the Act. This is to take care that the purpose of the Act shall not be defeated by the impounding of water by means of dams unless the right to do so existed at the time of such diversion or construction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The last part of subsection 2 appeals to a lawyer as likely to create some difficulty about the existing legal rights. Will the minister make clear what is meant by " existing legal rights?" For instance, one man has a legal right to erect a dam, and somebody else has no right to do so. Wherein consists the legal right of the one over the other?


Arthur Meighen: I would presume that there might be a Crown grant by provincial or other authority of such legal right placing the man in a position to build the dam irrespective entirely of the rights of proprietors downstream or upstream. At all events, whatever it may mean, if the builder-the diverter by means of the dam of the water-is able to establish that he had the right to do so by a specific grant, or otherwise, he of course is free. But if he has not, then this prevents him doing it, and makes him subject to the penalties of the Act if he does it, and does not leave the matter merely to the action of some one else, by way of injunction, who may have an interest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On subsection 2-grant of lands not to convey water rights.
Arthur Meighen: As to the reason for this I have not the explanation before me, but I can remember it, I think, accurately. The Act was first passed on the 23rd July, 1894, but subsequently, on the revision, that date was not carried forward as the date of the prohibition, and it has been held that the date fixed in the revision, or rather the date not fixed, but the date of the Act after the revision, is the date which takes effect. This is to make certain that the original date prevails and the prohibition dates from the date the Act was passed.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Should there not be
some saving of any rights acquired meanwhile?


Arthur Meighen: There could not have been any legally acquired.
Bill reported.



EXCESS CIRCULATION CHARTERED BANKS.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE moved
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the proclamation dated the third day of September, 1914, made under the authority of toe Provisions of the Finance Act, 1914, and Published in the Canada Gazette of the fifth day of September, 1914, except paragraph (e) thereof . (hereinafter specially provided for) shall continue in force and effect until the end of two years after the conclusion of peace on the termination of the present war, unless an earlier date is proclaimed for the termination thereof; and that the provision of paragraph (c), of the said proclamation authorizing the chartered banks to issue excess circulation, as in the said Act defined' from toe first day of March, 1915, to and including the last day of August, 1915, shall apply to the period from and including the first day of March, 1919, to and including the last day of August next ensuing, and to the same period in 1920, and the chartered banks may issue such excess circulation accordingly, subject to termination on toe same date as is proclaimed for the termination of toe operation of the said proclamation.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely the Government should offer some explanation as to the necessity for this resolution.


William Thomas White: During the war, and at the present time, certain provisions of the Finance Act of 1914 have been in operation under the authority of a proclamation issued by virtue of that Act. That proclamation authorized the making of advances by the Government to the chartered banks, and to certain savings banks, by the issue of Dominion notes upon the credit of securities deposited with the Minister of Finance of such kind and amounts as should be approved by the Treasury Board, such advances to be repayable at such times as the Board might determine, with interest at a rate of not less than 5 per cent per annum.
The proclamation also authorized the chartered banks to make payment in the


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
leaves that point, will he explain to the committee how the percentage of gold as compared with the circulation of Dominion notes in 1914 compares with the percentage of gold as compared with the circulation of Dominion notes to-day?	.


William Thomas White: 
Frank S. Cahill: Did we not, at the last session, make a permanent extension of credit to the banks, or something similar to this? The Government is proposing now to give them a fifteen per cent increase in circulation. Last session, it seems to me, we made a fifteen per cent increase in circulation permanent, the expansion being for the purpose of moving the crops. The Government is now proposing to give them authority to inflate the currency further by another issue of flat money. Our gold deposits are small enough as against the note circulation we have now, and we are simply adding to the difficulty by increasing the issue of fiat money, because this does not seem to be anything else. It means increasing the high cost of living, mak-
5	p.m. ing money cheaper and commodities dearer.
I should also like to ask if there is still an embargo on gold going out of Canada, and if it is still against the law for the banks to pay out gold. If so, how long is this provision supposed to last, in order to regulate our exchange?


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend must have reference to action taken to continue the provisions of the Finance Act in operation last year. The Finance Act, as I pointed out, contains provisions which can be invoked only in time of war or real or apprehended financial panic. The proclamations which have been issued and the action taken so far would come to an end with the official conclusion of the war. The result is we should be where we were before the war broke out in 1914. For the reasons that I have mentioned, the general unsettled financial conditions of the world and the necessity of conserving gold reserves, it is undesirable that we should revert to that condition. We, therefore, ask that the measures which have been so effectual during the war-and they have been exceedingly effectual and in the national interest-should be continued for a period not exceeding two years after the war, subject to being terminated by Order in Council at such time as we think they are no longer necessary. 1 think it is undoubtedly in the national interest that this legislation should be passed.
My hon. friend speaks of fiat money. I have no hesitation in saying that of all the belligerents that have been in the war since the beginning, the financial position of Canada is undoubtedly the best. There is no question about that. The United States, as I pointed out, was in the war for nearly two years. The position of the United

States with regard to its circulation is as I have indicated, but I do not believe it is more favourable than that of Canada in that respect.
My hon. friend has asked with regard to the regulations against the export of gold from Canada. Those regulations are still in effect, and will be continued in effect so long as we think it necessary to protect the gold reserves of the country. At the present time gold would be shipped to Asia or to other parts of the world where it might be in demand, for the purpose of building up gold reserves, and it is very necessary, by reason of the expansion of note issues in Great Britain, the United States, and this country that gold should be conserved. Generally speaking, with regard to restrictions and regulations, it has been the policy and is the policy of the Government to cancel them just as rapidly as in our judgment the national interests of the country will permit. Almost immediately upon the declaration of the armistice we removed the restrictions against issues in our market by provincial and municipal governments. A little later we removed all restrictions upon issues, when the Government no longer needed the market, and when it was clear that those issues would be made without any detriment to the national interest. I can assure my hon. friend that no one desires more keenly than I do to get rid of all restrictions imposed by Order in Council, and I am sure that would be the view of other ministers, because one effect of these Orders in Council is to increase our administrative duties. With regard to gold and silver, for instance, applications are made for license to export, and these applications have to be considered and decisions given upon them. My happiness as a minister will be greatly increased when all restrictions are removed. There is no object in the Government keeping in force any Order in Council a day beyond the time it is actually needed in the national interest. I realize, of course, there may be a difference of opinion as to just when an Order in Council should be cancelled, but the Government must exercise its discretion with regard to that having in view the national interest as it sees it at the time.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Pontiac seems to be under the impression that the facilities of the banks for issuing circulation are being increased .by this legislation. I do not understand it to be so. What I understand is that the emer-
gency provisions ought to be extended for a period after the war, and, speaking generally, in view of the very uncertain conditions prevailing and the large business enterprises that will have to be carried out in the reconstruction period, I think it is well that the power of the Government to assist the banks in that way-it is not a new power-should be extended for a reasonable time after the war. Did I hear my hon. friend read, amongst the securities against which we issue Canadian notes, Canadian treasury bills?


William Thomas White: Yes, but not owned by the Dominion of Canada; owned, let us say, by a bank.


William Stevens Fielding: Issued by the Dominion Government, and coming back to us as the property of others?


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a man putting his own note in the safe and thinking he was richer. With regard to the fifteen per cent excess circulation, the origin of that goes back some years, I think to 1907, when there was a very disturbed financial condition in the United States, and for a while it seemed as if we would have a very disturbed financial condition in Canada, particularly in the West The banks were largely restricting their credits, business men were becoming very much alarmed, and altogether the situation was very dangerous At that time, the Government of tbe day took upon themselves-straining their authority, I admit-to issue excess circulation, not bank circulation, but Dominion circulation, and to loan it to the banks if they wished to have it to meet the demands of the occasion, particularly with regard to the moving of the crop in Canada. My recollection is that the amount authorized to be issued, if you call it authority, was $10,000,000, and of that I think little more than half was actually issued. It was another case of the old lady who heard the bank where she deposited her money was in trouble and went to the bank and asked for her money, and when it was given to her, said: " Now I know you have it, I don't want it." When it was known that the Government of the day had the facilities and were willing to help the banks, the banks themselves loosened up and there was no need to issue the full amount proposed by the Government. Of course, it was a straining of authority, and at the following session of Parliament legislation had to be introduced

to authorize and indemnify those who were concerned in the issue of those notes. But out of that experience wisdom was learned. We learned that while our arrangements for circulation as between the Government and the banks were satisfactory for ordinary business, in the case of stress or emergency there was need of some greater power, and the result was that at the following session an Act was passed to provide for what might for convenience be called emergency circulation. In that case it was proposed that the circulation should be issued by the hanks. In the actual transaction that had taken place just previously the circulation was issued by the Government. It was proposed that the banks during a certain period of the year,-the crop period,-should he allowed, in addition to their ordinary powers of circulation, to issue excess circulation to the extent of fifteen per cent of their combined paid-up capital and rest. That worked out, I think, very well. Some bankers at the beginning did not like it. I remember one very eminent banker who said that no self-respecting bank would ever use it, but I think his own bank saw fit to use it afterwards. I understand that the Finance Minister is proposing to continue for two years after the war that scheme, which was only intended in the first place to meet the emergency of the crop season. I think it is very desirable that the extension should not be made for a longer period than is absolutely necessary, but I do think the minister is wise in keeping this power in his hands in view of the very disturbed financial conditions which may reach us in the reconstruction period.


Mr. ELKIN:: I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that the American Government are trying to gather in all the gold they can. Not long ago I had the experience of taking some gold across into the United States, and at the border the gold was taken from me, as it is from everybody else, and American bank notes were given in exchange for it. The security may be just as good, but the object of the American Government is to strengthen their note issue by gathering in gold from every one who is passing into or out of their country. I do not see any effort of that kind being made in Canada, though possibly Americans are bringing across gold to this country and taking it over to Europe with them. There are no doubt many of our people who are holding a certain amount of gold, perhaps two or three hundred dollars, which in the aggregate would amount to quite a lot if we
gathered it in to strengthen our gold reserve as the Americans are doing.


William Thomas White: I am interested in what my hon. friend has said. Perhaps I should inform the committee as to the gold holdings of the banks, before the resolution passes. I have pointed out that the gold holdings of the Dominion have increased from $97,000,000 in July, 1914, to $121,000,000 at the end of January of this year; an increase of $24,000,000. The gold held by Canadian banks has also been substantially increased. In July, 1914, it amounted to $54,000,000 roughly speaking. On January 31st, 1919, it amounted to $91,000,000, an increase of $37,000,000. So that we have come through the war, both the banks and the Dominion Government, with a very substantial increase in the gold reserves which we hold.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



CURRENCY ACT 1910 AMENDMENT-BRONZE COINS.

William Thomas White: cisely similar, to the American piece, but it approximates it. The weight of the American bronze cent is 48 grains and it is thought by the mint that a weight of 50 grains would be more convenient for handling. It is a little larger than the ten-cent piece, and thicker, so that it can be easily distinguished from that coin by touch. The Bill will also provide that the present one-cent piece will continue to be a legal coin as at present. The Act which we have in mind will be brought into force by proclamation. For the information of the committee I have had my office prepare a statement showing the total issue of bronze coins in Canada, less the smooth and mutilated coins which have been redeemed. From that statement it appears that up to January 31, 1919, there have been issued, less coins redeemed, an aggregate of $1,578,904 in bronze coins. As to the amount of bronze cent coinage struck in recent years I find that in 1896 the amount was $20,000; in 1906, $41,000; in 1911, $54,480; in 1914, $35,100; and in 1918, $112,200. I thought that was all the information the committee would require to enable them to consider the resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the committee would like to know something about the intrinsic value of these coins. There is a certain value in a cent.. The metal composing the present cent has some intrinsic value apart from its being a coin. Perhaps the minister can tell us if there is any difference in the value of the two coins. Would one be as valuable as the other? The minister no doubt understands what I mean as to value. Our five-dollar gold piece might be changed in such a way that it would not have the amount of gold in it that it has at present. Of course, the change from one-cent coin to another is on a very much smaller scale, but it might be asked if the intrinsic value is there.


William Thomas White: With regard to
gold coins, of course they are full value, and legal 'tender in ordinary times really is based upon gold standard, and gold or Dominion notes may be asked for. But with regard .to 'the subsidiary coinage, silver and bronze, they do not represent the intrinsic value which they appear to have in gold. It is desirable they should approximate, particularly in the case of silver. The value of silver, of course, fluctuates from time to time, and the intrinsic value of our fifty, twenty-five, ten and five-cent pieces is not at any time equal to their face value, much less are our bronze one-cent pieces. The smaller coin has less intrinsic value;

but having regard to the fact that it is in general circulation, and is a convenience to the public, I think no serious question is likely to arise on that score. Of course, reducing the amount of bronze in it reduces its intrinsic value, but I do not think that is a serious objection to the change which we propose. Ours 'weighs a little more than the American bronze coin. As my hon. friend is interested in the subject when the Bill comes for second reading I shall obtain information as to the intrinsic value of the one-cent piece, if it is possible to estimate it, as I think it is. It is not intended to withdraw the existing coins. The Bill will provide for their continuance as legal coinage of Canada, and only as they become smooth or mutilated will they be redeemed. They will remain in circulation, for the reason I have mentioned, until they gradually disappear.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a two-oent piece?


William Thomas White: That suggestion
has been put forward but I have not thought it necessary. There may be a difference of view as to that but it occurs to me that if we improve our one cent piece by making it smaller, as proposed in this resolution, we shall have a very excellent coinage. It has been put forward for consideration from time to time by some that the five cent piece is too small. II think there is something to be said for that but I like the five cent piece myself. Our ten cent, twenty-five cent and fifty-cent pieces, seem to me to be beautiful silver coinage. I am not prepared to say that it cannot be improved upon but I should not like to change the five cent piece except for good reason and it has not appeared to me up to the present time that there has been any public sentiment in favour of the change.


Mr. JACOBS:: It does not go far enough.


William Thomas White: The five cent
piece?	.
.Mr. JACOBS: Yes.


William Thomas White: George Washington could not have thrown it as far as the silver dollar that he threw across the Delaware. I think the five cent piece is a pretty good coin. There is another feature here. It is undesirable, unless for good cause, to change your coinage at all. It is not well to meddle with coinage unless for reasons strongly in the public interest. My view has been that though we might improve the one cent piece, our subsidiary coinage is very good indeed. But I would

be prepared to hear the views of hon. members as to the desirability of any further change.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I suggest that if we are going to strike new coins they be made more distinctively 'Canadian than in the past and also that the artists who are employed on the work be Canadian if available.


William Stevens Fielding: What is wrong with
them?


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the minister say
that a new issue of coins will yield a profit to the department?


William Thomas White: There is a certain profit called seigniorage on subsidiary silver and bronze coinage. There is a certain profit on our silver coinage because it is not worth in terms of gold its face value. That is more the case in regard to bronze coins on which there is also a certain profit. But the total circulation of our bronze coinage is so comparatively small that the amount of profit is not a serious consideration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
'Sir Thomas White moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25 to amend the Currency Act, 1910.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



RECLAMATION OF DOMINION LANDS BY DRAINAGE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9 to authorize the reclamation of Dominion Lands by drainage.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 'Before the Bill is read a second time, perhaps the minister will explain whether he thinks it desirable in view of the large quantities of land which we are supposed to have in this country, to go to any very great expense for reclaiming land. Perhaps the minister would explain whether this is going to be an expensive process or whether it is desirable, in view of the very large tracts of land which we have, to go to any large expense in reclaiming swamp lands.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the purpose of the department to go into the reclaiming of swamp lands on an extensive scale; at all events, at first. I do think it desirable though that we should commence now to do some work in the way of reclaiming our reclaimable lands that are not at present in
use by reason of their water content. The area of our land available for farming purposes while great is not so great as the terms in which we have been accustomed to speak of it. The amount of land found available, or immediately suitable, for Soldiers' Settlement is indeed rather disappointing. But aside from the question as to the amount of land available the country should, in so far as it is our duty, as distinguished from the duty of the provincial authorities, endeavour to reclaim and make available for cultivation any lands of this character that can be economically dealt with in this way. Very often they are situated in districts whose development is retarded simply by reason of the fact that these swamp lands are there and that the duty of reclaiming them, on whomsoever it may rest, has not been undertaken.
The United States of America has, through its Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane, thrown out a very large programme as being under contemplation at least by that Government. We do not contemplate a programme as extensive as that contained in the manifesto of Mr. Secretary Lane. The way this Bill comes to be introduced is this: We have constitutionally, and we have asserted it, by our Irrigation Act, passed many years ago, control of the surface water and that control we have exercised in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the added portion of Manitoba. While we had that control, the control of drainage and the whole jurisdiction as to drainage were in the hands of the provincial authorities. As a consequence of that dual 'control the development of the country through drainage has been held up in the districts in which the Crown lands were ours. I may say as a premise, now, that the cardinal principle that I keep before me in this discussion i,s that our duty in regard to drainage arises by virtue of our ownership of the Crown lands.
Under those circumstances certain conferences were held before I was Minister of the Interior, between the authorities of the three Prairie Provinces and the Dominion, with a view to arriving at a division of responsibilities with respect to the various classes of drainage projects between the provincial governments and the Dominion Government. As a result of those conferences the drainage projects were divided into four separate classes. I might denominate those classes as follows: First of all, small drainage projects involving an expenditure not exceeding $2,000-merely

the drainage of say small lakes. The second were a class covered within the scope of a drainage project by a provincial government looking to the construction of highways- such drainage work as was necessary in its highways programme-and which drainage affected Dominion lands and could not he done unless provision was made either for a charge against the Dominion lands, *or for some other arrangement that would get over the difficulty. The third class were those that were on a scale that should best be taken care of under the drainage district laws of the province-not under the highway laws, hut under the laws which provided for the establishment of drainage districts, in which, of course, the Dominion had certain lands. The fourth class were those in which the Dominion owned the great area of the lands, and consequently upon the Dominion would be the great body of responsibility. A division of duty was arranged between the provinces and the Dominion with regard to those four distinct classes, and certain legislation became necessary, both on the part of the provinces and on the part of the Dominion, to carry out the arrangements agreed upon as the result of the conferences. The province of Alberta responded to its duty in this respect by the passing of its Reclamation Act in April, 1917. The province of Saskatchewan took similar action in, I think, December of the same year, and also by certain amendments to its Highways Act. The province of Manitoba has not yet acted, but its Government has now appointed a drainage commission whose duty it will be to report on this as on other drainage matters. The Government of the Dominion, on its part, first of all provisionally accepted the arrangement by an Order in Council, and then last session passed legislation amending the Dominion Lands Act so as to enable sales of Dominion lands to be made to the provinces for the purpose of embracing those lands within drainage schemes, and thereafter selling such Dominion lands on certain terms. That legislation was in accordance with the arrangement arrived at as to the disposition of the second and third classes of drainage projects that I have just described. All that now remains for us to do, in order to carry out the full intent of the agreement arrived at, is to pass legislation to enable the Dominion to assume its responsibility with respect to that class of drainage projects where we initiate and carry out the enterprise-that is to say, in those cases where the great area of lands is ours, and consequently where the great benefit is ours. What is necessary is to 
enable us to come in, just as a private person or as a district \*)uld, and operate under the drainage laws of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan-and Manitoba also when the requisite legislation has been enacted-and to reelaim land thereunder. That is the purpose of this Bill. I may also say that provision is made for assessments against privately owned lands tha't come within the purview of any scheme of reclamation we may undertake-assessments against them for their share of the cost of the undertaking-and likewise provision whereby we can take advantage of the provincial laws that look to the maintenance of the works after they are completed.


Mr. ROSS (Middlesex):: I should judge from the explanation of the minister that the purpose of this Act is to secure land for the purpose of settlement,-to some extent, at any rate,-by returned soldiers, and farmers as well?


Arthur Meighen: That enters into the object, although I do not wish to hold it out as the immediate object, because land for settlement cannot be very quickly got by reclamation measures. It will take some time for this to become fit land for settlement.


James Hamilton Ross: That is the very point upon which I desire to get information. Some time ago I read an editorial in the Globe which gave some figures purporting to have been used by Premier Martin in connection with land settlement relating more particularly to the soldiers, and, as far as I can recall the premier's statements, there were available in the surveyed area of the Dominion only about twenty-three million acres of land.


Arthur Meighen: Available where?


James Hamilton Ross: That there were only about twenty-three million acres of land available in the surveyed area of public lands. Premier Alartin went on to point out that of over 200,000,000 acres of surveyed land, so much was granted to railways, 8,000,000 acres were covered by water, 5,000,000 acres were under grazing leases, and so'on. I can see, as the minister says, that any reclamation scheme of drainage is going to be very slow in its operation. I would therefore ask him if any policy is to be adopted by his department whereby lands can be reclaimed more quickly. I understand that certain representations were recently made to him, as head of the department interested, under which lands would be reclaimed for the purpose of settlement by the soldiers in

a much more rapid way, by taking areas that had been burned by forest fires, or in other ways, and which settlers would not like to take up at present on account of the unclean condition in which the land was left. I understand it was pointed out to the minister that by the department adopting a scientific system, and at the proper time of the year, these areas, which are very extensive, could be very rapidly reclaimed and made available for settlement by soldiers and farmers. I presume that this Bill does not cover that sort of reclamation at all. Therefore I would like to know if any steps are being taken by the department over which he presides along the lines suggested by the Dominion land surveyors.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is right in his view that this Bill does not contemplate that class of reclamation. That subject, however, has been under consideration. There are areas of land that have been burned over that, in the opinion of many who should be in a position to judge, can be more quickly and expeditiously made available for actual and immediate settlement by means of a system of burning. But there is a difference of opinion as to that. I may frankly say there is a difference of opinion among the officers of the department as to the wisdom of undertaking such an experiment. I know of no method that has been suggested except a re-burning, and there are scientific methods of doing that. Against those who say that it can be done at this season of the year,-because we are now approaching the season when that should be done if it is going to be undertaken,-it is argued, and argued very strenuously, that on account of the nature of the material that will be deposited on the ground,-that is now deposited there, and would be deposited in greater quantities by a system of slashing,-but heat produced by burning would consume or remove material, and so would affect the value of the soil for farming purposes.
As between the two schools of opinion 1 have not come to a conclusion. I do not like to launch upon an experiment of that kind unless I feel the ground very safe beneath me, and I do not feel it safe just jet. There may be differences of opinion between members of the House on this subject, and I am sure that there are other members whose views based on experience, would be more valuable than mine.


James Hamilton Ross: Does the minister propose to undertake investigations along that line immediately?


Arthur Meighen: We have the land selected and the men selected to go, but authority to go has not been given, for the reason which I have stated.


Mr. GREEN:: The Dominion owns a large belt of land in the Peace River district in British Columbia, as well as a railway belt. It is possible that lands in these sections of the province might come under the category intended to be controlled by this Bill. Has the minister considered the question of extending the authority of this Act to British Columbia?


Arthur Meighen: The conference took
place only between the Governments of the three Prairie Provinces and the Federal Government, I am disposed to think that the same principles could scarcely be made to apply to British Columbia. I do not think any progress has been made toward an arrangement with the Government of that province, nor can I speak very hopefully as to the likelihood of our being able to make such an arrangement. At all events, this Bill does not contemplate doing work in British Columbia. If an arrangement with the Government of British Columbia would be possible, we should be very glad to come to that arrangement. At present, however, I think we have quite enough in front of us. I would like to make a success of the undertakings we have in mind in Alberta and Saskatchewan before going further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it worth while beginning at this late hour? We cannot possibly conclude now. Besides, quite a number of members may wish to take part in the discussion.


Arthur Meighen: I accede to my hon. friend's suggestion. Perhaps I should say further in reference to the question put by the member for West Kootenay (Mr. Green) that the Irrigation Act applies only to Alberta and Saskatchewan and to the added portion of Manitoba. We have never asserted control of the surface water of British Columbia, nor do we control the land of that province except in the Peace River block and in the railway belt. 1 scarcely think that any Act analogous to this could be considered with regard to British Columbia.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In my experience, the cost of clearing up burned-over land is greater than the cost of drainage.
' Mr. BOSS (Middlesex): The Dominion Land Surveyors say that is not so.


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion Land Surveyors, or such of them as I have come in contact with, are in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross).
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thursday, March 20, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to draw the attention of the House to the following Address of the Senate, which was delivered to me during the recent recess:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will cause to be laid upon the table of the Senate a return of copies of all papers, letters, telegrams, memorials, petitions or other communications or documents in the possession of the Government or in that of His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons, which may be available, in connection with the recent delegation from the farmers of Canada to present certain public and national questions and issues to the attention of the Cabinet and of the Parliament of Canada.
It appears to me that this Address constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, and that if it is obeyed without protest it might be treated as a precedent that would in the future be a source of inconvenience and embarrassment. I would point out that the authorities on parliamentary procedure are all agreed that where one House of Parliament desires communi-catioh of any papers or documents belonging to the other the proper course is to send a message asking to be supplied with the papers in question (see Bourinot, 4th edition, pp. 281, 282; May, 12th edition, p. 563). This practice, too, has, as far as I can ascertain, been invariably followed in all similar communications between the Houses. I beg to submit, therefore, for the consideration of the House, whether it would not be proper to send a message to the Senate drawing attention to the Address, pointing out the uniform practice that has hitherto existed between the two Houses, and stating that the Address, being a breach of a very important privilege of

the House, might, if unobjected to, form a dangerous and objectionable precedent.


William Thomas White: Whereas this House having been informed by the Honourable the Speaker of an Address of the Senate of the 22nd May, 1918, which was delivered by His Honour during the recent recess of Parliament and which is as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will cause to be laid upon the table of the Senate a return of copies of all papers, letters, telegrams, memorials, petitions or other communications or documents in the possession of the Government or in that of His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons, which may be available, in connection with the recent delegation from the farmers of Canada to present certain public and national question [DOT] and issues to the attention of the Cabinet and of the Parliament of Canada.
Resolved,-That a Message be sent to the Senate drawing the attention of their Honours to the uniform practice that has hitherto existed of transmitting a request by Message to the House of Commons whenever their Honours desire communication of any papers or documents belonging to the House, and that the issuing of an Address praying that his Excellency ithe Governor General will cause copies of papers and documents in the possession of the Speaker of the House of Commons to be laid upon the table of the Senate is a breach of an important privilege of this House which might, if unobjected to, form a dangerous and objectionable precedent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to see a copy of the decision which you have submitted to the consideration of the House, and I may say at once that I fully concur in the conclusions which you have reached in respect to the order which was passed by the honourable the Senate. It is, of course, of the highest importance that each Chamber should maintain its full and absolute autonomy, and that there should he no encroachment whatever by one body upon the rights, privileges, powers and immunities of the other. It is also equally true that nothing in the way of obstruction should exist which would prevent the members of either branch of the Parliament of Canada froni obtaining the fullest possible information respecting any public matter. If that object can be attained-and I think it can-without any infringement of the rights of either, and without the creation of any friction between the two great bodies which govern the country, it is of course proper and well that the ends sought to be attained should he reached without difficulty, and that there should be no clash between the two Houses. As the practice in the past has furnished ample provisions for the obtaining of such

information, and as there is no precedent for refusing any request that has hitherto been made by the Senate upon this body, or by this body upon the Senate, there is no reason to believe that anything but the greatest possible harmony will exist in future in regard to the supplying of such information. And I know that the Government and the officials of this House and yourself, Sir, will always meet any reasonable and proper demands that shall he made for such information as may be sought by the Senate. Knowing that the machinery in existence, and the constitution and rules which have been recognized hitherto have been ample for such purpose, I think it would be well to stand by these old rules; and I am of the opinion that your decision. Sir, is proper and constitutional, fully conserving the rights and dignities of this Chamber.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the question raised to-day has a good deal of width and breadth to it, to my mind, and that is, that in a formal manner we are objecting to an invasion of the rights of this House by the action of the Senate. I want to take the opportunity on this occasion to say that the people of Canada think that the Senate of Canada has invaded in a very important way the rights of the people and of this Chamber, and the question may come up later on. The pretension has been put forward-and the people of Canada think-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: The people think, Sir,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is going far beyond the question before the House. It is not competent for him, neither is it desirable, that he should now enter into a general discussion as to our constitutional relations with the other Chamber. He will please confine his remarks to the motion before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I bow to your decision in that respect, Sir. But it has been stated in the remarks to-day, and probably in the resolution, that a dangerous precedent was being created. Later on I may address myself to the House on that subject, but I take advantage of this opportunity to say that when a dangerous invasion of the rights of this House, or of the people of this country, is made by the Senate, it ought to be corrected, and I am going to vote for this motion before the House to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of an Order in Council passed on the 14th of March, 1919, in reference to separation allowance in the Canadian Naval Service.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the House of Commons Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is designed to correct an abuse which has existed for many years in this country, whereby the Government in power can keep an electoral seat vacant as long as it suits its purpose. Unfortunately, this abuse cannot be attributed entirely to the present Government because Governments that have preceded it have been equally guilty. It is proposed by this Bill that within sixty days after a seat is declared vacant a new writ shall issue for an election. The rule in England is exactly in line with this. As many hon. members know, within a remarkably ghort period after a seat is declared vacant, I think it is three weeks in England, the writ issues for a new election. By this Bill it is proposed that sixty days shall be allowed before the election takes place. Because of geographical conditions we cannot very well fall in line with England and prescribe a similar term; otherwise I would have moved to introduce the same law, as to the delays.
Another provision of the Bill is that no member of Parliament may sit for more than one seat. There is a standing order of the House that no member shall sit for more than one seat, but, as Bourinot remarks, it is a rule that is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. This Bill proposes to make a statutory enactment that no member may sit for more than one seat, and that if he persists in doing so, he shall incur a penalty of $200 a day. It is provided further that he is not to make election, or declare his option, until the delays for protesting his seat have expired, because, without such a provision, a member might escape an investigation into the manner in which the election was carried on. After the delays have expired for protesting the seat, the member must declare his option in order to escape the penalties mentioned in the Bill. I am sure that the'Bill will appeal to the good sense of the House, and I hope to see it carried.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



EXCESS CIRCULATION CHARTERED BANKS.


[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to provide for the continuance in force of certain proclamations made under the Finance Act, 1914.
He said: The Bill is founded on the resolutions which were adopted in committee yesterday.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	What is the total number of ships built by the Government since 1917?
2.	What is the total tonnage?
3.	How many of these were steel ships?
4.	What was the cost per ton?
5.	How many were wooden ships?
6.	What was their cost per ton?
7.	Were they built by contract or day labour
or on a percentage basis?	.
8.	If by contract, what steps have the Government taken to prevent profiteering?
9.	What steps have the Government taken to ascertain the total cost of labour for construction, total cost of material used, total overhead expenses, gross profit and net profit respectively?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	One vessel in commission; 6 vessels will be ready for commission by the end of May, 1919; 38 under construction in various stages.
2 . 263,950 tons dead weight.
3.	All.
4.	The attached schedule, which is official, gives in detail the costs per ton dead weight of the various types.
5.	None.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Steel vessels built by contract.
8.	(a) By inspection in order to determine if the specifications are being adhered to.
(b)	All steel materials are purchased by the Marine Department.
(c)	All other sub-contracts let by builders are submitted to the department for approval, these wherever possible, being confined to the Dominion.

9.	The total cost of labour for each branch and the total cost of material entering into construction is estimated by the technical officers of the department before contracts are awarded. To the above is added overhead charges of the various firms, in some cases estimated, in others known from audited returns, to which is added approximately 10 per cent for profit. Extra allowances are made for British Columbia districts where labour and other conditions differ from conditions in Eastern Canada.


FRENCH-CANADIAN CASUALTIES.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. PREVOST:
How many soldiers of French-Canadian nationality belonging to the Canadian Expeditionary Force have been killed at the front, or died of their wounds, since the beginning of hostilities?
Major-General MEWBURN: This information is not available, as the attestation paper of a soldier does not state positively whether or not he is French-Canadian, and to judge from the spelling of the names would be very misleading.

Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Trade Commission? v
2.	Who is the Chairman of said Commission?
3.	What salary is paid per annum to the Chairman, and what salary is paid per annum to each member of the Commission?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Sir Charles Gordon, Mr. H. B. Thomson, Mr. C. B. McNaught.
2.	Sir Charles Gordon.
3.	The salaries have not yet been fixed.


PAYMENTS TO SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS.
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Have any separation allowances or assigned pay been wrongly paid to dependents or relatives of soldiers or other persons?
2.	If so, to what amount, during each of the years: 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes. Assigned pay and separation allowance have in some cases been paid (a) improperly; (b) in error, to dependents or relatives or other persons. This may be caused through (1) incomplete records; (2) wrong or incomplete information furnished by or on behalf of applicants; (3) loss of records at sea; (4) clerical errors; (5) payments made in England and France while payments were being made in Canada. In most cases they are being recovered, and separation allowance to all dependents

other than wives is now authorized by the Pay and Allowance Board, who carefully consider each case individually.
2.	I't is not possible to collate this information at present, as records are in England, in Headquarters files, and in all the military districts throughout Canada. Any over-payments which the Pay and Allowance Board consider should be refunded are being recovered, but the percentage of overpayments is very small. As announced in the House last session, all these over-payments are being transferred to suspense account, and an Act will be submitted to Parliament when the work is completed.


MAPLE SYRUP AND SUGAR.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What was the total number of samples of maple syrup analysed during each of the years: 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, respectively ?
2.	How many of such samples during each of the years were found (a) pure; (6) normal; (c) doubtful; (cl) adulterated?
3.	How many prosecutions were instituted by the Government during each year against those persons who transgressed the law?
Hon. Mr. MACLEAN;
1.
Fiscal Tear.	No. of Samples.
1913-	14	
1381914-	15	
361915-	16	
3071916-	17	
2311917-	1S	
81918-	19	
151Total	
871
2.
Fiscal	Adult-.
Year. Pure. Normal. Doubtful, erated. Total
1913- 14	98	. .	3	37	1381914-	15	26	. .	.	.	10	361915- 16	256	4	1	46	3071916-	17	174	6	.	.	51	2311917- 18	8	. .	. .	. .	81918-	19	123	14	.	.	14	151Total	
871
3.
1913-	14	
371914-	15	
101915-	16	
151916-	17	
511917-	18	1918-	19	
14


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What was the total number of samples of maple sugar, analyzed during each of the years: 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, respectively?
2.	How many of such samples during each of the years were found (a) pure; (b) normal; (c) doubtful; (d) adulterated?
3.	How many prosecutions were instituted by the Government during each year against those persons who transgressed the law?
Answers:
1.
Fiscal year	No. of samples.
1913-	14	
831914-	15	
311915-	16	
2651916-	17	
211917-	18	
71918-	19	
160Total	
567
2.
Fiscal	Adult.
Year. Pure. Normal. Doubtful, erated. Total
1913- 14	45	3	1	\	34	831914- 15	27	..	1	3	311915-	16	230	5	.	.	30	2651916-	17	21	..	..	..	211917-	18	7	..	.	.	..	71918-	19	69	6	.	.	85	160Total ..399	14	2	152	567
3.
1913-	14	
341914-	15	
41915-	16	
291916-	17	1917-	18	1918-	19	
66


PROTECTIVE WORKS IN BATISCAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DESAUENIERS;	!
1,	Has the Government been made aware that a portion of the Parish of Batiscan, in Champlain County, is being threatened with complete destruction on account of the waters of the St. Lawrence river, which are wearing away the bank opposite the village properties?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to construct, this year, some protective works which would prevent such destruction?
Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This work does not come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT EXPENDITURE.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What is the total expense incurred to date in the administration and enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917?
2.	What is the total amount of claims yet unpaid in connection with the said Act?
3.	Will any further expense be incurred in connection therewith?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	To January 1, 1919, $3,661,417.20.
2.	Practically none.
3.	The wages and expenses of the Military Service Branch and the outside Registrar's offices which have been cut down to skeleton staffs, but wthioh have to be kept open for the present for the purpose of furnishing information required by Parliament.


CHARGES AGAINST BISHOP BUDKA.
Mr. BLAKE:: 1.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not Bishop Budka (Ukrainian), resident at Winnipeg, was charged with sedition at Hafford, Sask., in July, 1918?
2.	Has the Government any knowledge of any accusation being made against the said Bishop?
3.	If so, has the Government taken any steps to inquire into such accusations?
4.	Has the Government taken any steps to prosecute the said Bishop for his said alleged utterances?
5.	" Has the Government any intention of deporting the said Bishop? If not, why not?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes, but the charge was subsequently withdrawn.
2.	He has been accused of disloyalty on several occasions.
3.	Investigation has been made but no evidence to substantiate the accusations has been submitted.
4.	No grounds disclosed to prosecute.


ROYAL AIR FORCE AND SOLDIERS' BUTTON.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Are Canadians who have served in the Royal Air Force and who have also been at the front, entitled to wear the " Returned Soldiers' Button?" If not, why not?
Major-General MEWBURN:
Canadians, members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, seconded to the Royal Air Force, are awarded War Service Badges in the same manner and under the same regulations as members of the C.E.F.
Canadians who are not members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force but who joined the Royal Air Force directly are not, under the present regulations, eligible for Canadian War Service Badges. They are eligible for badges issued by the Imperial authorities.
The question of issue of Canadian War Service Badges to Canadian citizens whose service has been exclusively with the Imperial Forces has received extended consideration. There were a number of objections to issue of Canadian badges to soldiers whose services was not with the Canadian farces; the principal one being that no record of service of such soldier is available at Militia Headquarters.
These difficulties have, however, been met, and an Order in Council which provides among other things for award of Canadian badges to those Canadians who resided in Canada on August 4, 1914, and who served in the Imperial Forces and have returned to take up their residence in Canada, has been prepared and is expected to he passed shortly.


RECRUITS FOR NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: 1.	Was any person employed in Prince Ed-Tyard Island in 1917 or 1918 to secure recruits for the Naval Service?
2.	If so, what is the name of such person?
3.	When did such employment begin?
4.	What salary or remuneration was paid for this service?
5.	Is such person employed in this service now?
6.	If so, what salary does said person receive?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	George H. Holbrook.
3.	December 1, 1916-November .30, 1917.
4.	$150 per month.
5 and 6. No. *


REBATES OF CUSTOMS DUTY.
James Alexander Robb: What was the total amount of duty refunded or rebated during the years ending December 31, 1917 and December 31, 1918?


John Flaws Reid: Amount paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on account of Refunds and Drawbacks:	1917, $17,720,-
925.84; 1918, $10,334,691.96.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Are all the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, still in force?
2.	If not, how many of the said provisions have been abrogated?
3.	If any of the provisions have been abrogated, how and when was the Act so amended?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Certain M.6.A. Regulations have been suspended.
2.	Regulations and Orders in Council bearing on seven important provisions connected with the enforcement of the Military Service Act have been suspended.
3.	P.C. 3090 December 16, 1918, suspends the Regulations and Orders in Council referred to in "2."
COMMISSIONS CREATED BY: GOVERNMENT.
Mr. CAiSGRAIN:	[DOT]
1.	Has the Order of the House issued hist session, on the 26th March, 1918, for a return showing all commissions created by the Government since 1911, been complied with?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Is it The intention of the Government to comply with the said order at an early date this session ?


Martin Burrell: The return asked
for was tabled yesterday.


ALCOHOLIC CONTENT OF MEDICINES.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government, during the present Session, to pass a measure

respecting patent medicines, repealing the Act which is now in force?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to efficaciously inspect the preparation and sale of medicines which contain basic properties of copious doses of alcohol and other ingredients to produce abortion?
3.	If so, will the Government appoint a Committee to be composed of physicians, irrespective of politics, and not associated in the manufacture of patent medicines, except in the case relating to the preparing and revising of said proposed measure, before presenting it to Parliament?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is proposed to establish a board qualified to pronounce finally upon the character of patent medicines as regards the content of alcohol and their toxicity.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount, if any, was paid by the Government for advertising to the Moncton Transcript, Acadian Recorder, Morning Chronicle Halifax Herald, and Evening Mail, during the year 1918?
2.	What amounts, if any, were paid to the said newspapers during the same year for printing?


Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many men of military age have been condemned to terms of imprisonment for infractions of the Military Service Act 1917, in each of the nine provinces of Canada?
2.	How many of the said men have been released from prison before the expiration of their terms?
3.	What are their names, where were they imprisoned and what was the length of their respective sentences ?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What quantity of soap was purchased by the Government from the Palm Olive Company in 1917 and 1918?
2.	What was the price paid for same? PRACTICE IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At the last sitting of the House the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) put a question to me with respect to the practice in bringing down answers to questions. I have had the matter carefully inquired into, and I find that practically the custom for years has been only to bring down one copy of the answer, and only one copy is called for under our rules and practice. It has, however, been usual for ministers to present an additional copy, and in the past it has been the general practice where members desired immediately a copy of an answer to have it prepared by the sessional clerks. I can see that it would be a great convenience to
members if a more uniform practice of having an additional copy of the answers brought down could be adopted, and I shall take the matter up with the various ministers and endeavour to see if that cannot be done in future.



STATEMENTS OF LT.-COL. PRATT, M.L.A.

[Stage Direction]
-THE HIGH COMMISSIONER.
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government has given consideration to the statements contained in an interview published in yesterday's papers alleged to have been given at Halifax by Lt.-Col. Pratt, Conservative member of the Ontario Legislature, in which certain severe strictures are passed upon members of the Government, particularly upon the High Commissioner for Canada? Is there any connection between the statements in that interview and the report in to-day's papers that the High Commissioner is about to resign? Further, is it a fact that the High Commissioner is about to resign, or has resigned?


William Thomas White: The statement to which my hon. friend refers has not come to my attention. I can assure him that so far as I know the High Commissioner is not about to resign, nor do I know that his resignation has been suggested.



DAYLIGHT SAVING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: Has the Government come to any decision with regard to the re-enacting of the daylight saving legislation? As a change in time is to be effected in the United States at the end of the present month, this matter is one of much interest to the people generally.


William Thomas White: The matter has been and still is under consideration by the Government.
DISEMBARKATION OF CANADIAN *SOLDIERS AT PORTLAND.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: Press reports say that returned Canadian wounded soldiers are to be disembarked at Portland instead of at our own -Canadian ports. Is that correct?
Major-General MEWBURN: I do not think that is quite correct. During the last month we decided to transfer to Portland two hos-

pital ships with cot cases, owing to the congestion at Halifax and Saint John, and to the fact that these cases can be moved from Portland to Montreal in twelve hours as against thirty-two hours from Halifax, and at a considerable saving. We are transferring to Portland only two hospital ships a month, as a temporary measure.



INQUIRIES RE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['I think all rights are preserved.\nResolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.\nSir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved . for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to confirm an order of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system.']
Mr. POWER:: I wish to call the attention of the House to an answer given to a question which appeared on the Order Paper yesterday. The question is as follows:
1.	Has the Government taken possession ot the property situated on St. iLouis Road, bequeathed by the late Gustave Stuart, K.C., of Quebec?
2.	For what purpose was this property bequeathed ?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to make any use of it? If so, what?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is not in order for the hon. gentleman, on the Orders of the Day, to enter into what would in effect be a discussion of an answer to a question. He will have opportunity of doing that in due course, when the Estimates of the department concerned are before the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is a question of privilege. The Government has given me two answers to the same question; one, " Yes," and one " No."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is not competent for the hon. gentleman to enter into this question on the Orders of the Day.


John Ewen Sinclair: Will the leader of the Government define the principles on which questions are answered? A good deal of doubt exists in the minds of the members whether they should, in particular cases, move for returns, or ask questions. A return is a very slow process; the minister has presented returns to-day that were moved for a year ago. On what principle do the ministers decide whether the information sought should be given in the form of a return or in the form of an answer?


Sir THOAIAS AVHITE:: It would take quite a year for the Government to obtain the necessary information to enable them to answer properly some of the questions on the Order Paper. It is the desire of the Government to answer all questions, if it is possible to obtain the information. If some inquiry is necessary, involving considerable delay, the Government, in its
[Major-General (Mewburn.l
discretion, is entitled to ask that the questions stand as orders for returns. I do not think it is possible to lay doivn any hard and fast rule. The desire of the Government is to answer the questions, if it is possible to do so properly, within a reasonable time, and without extended inquiry.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Air. A1URPHY: Alay I avail myself of the desire just expressed by the Acting Prime Minister to ask whether his attention has been drawn to an interview with Lord Shaughnessy at Montreal with reference to the presence of his colleagues overseas, and, if so, whether the Government has any statement to make with regard to Lord Shaughnessy's criticism?
William Thomas White: I am sorry that Lord Shaughnessy's statement has not come to my attention; therefore I cannot make any comment on it.
Air. AiURPHY: I will send it to my hon. friend.


ENTERTAINAIENT AND OCCUPATION OF TROOPS AWAITING EA1BARKATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Richard Smeaton White: I desire to read the following message from the Overseas Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp):
Following are some of the things provided for entertainment and occupation of troops whilst awaiting embarkation.
General training. Upon cessation of hostilities it was immediately decided to eliminate the more particularly offensive training from the syllabus. Maintenance of health of troops and their preparation for demobilization became (Paramount thought. Syllabus has been laid down for daily physical training, discipline, ceremonial parades and route marches to limited extent. Remainder of time has been taken up in instruction by Khaki University of Canada in all areas and sports and athletics with object of maintaining health and contentment of troops as far as possible and fitting them for their civil duties.
Education. A concentration camp in connection with the work of Khaki University has been opened at Ripon for the purpose of assembling and giving instruction In more advanced educational work to suitable students. Establishment of this camp has proved very popular, and keen competition has been apparent to gain admittance. At present there are in session between 750 and 800 students. Approval has been given for attachment of officers and other ranks who have studied for at least two years at a University in Canada prior to enlistment, to enable them to continue

m
their studies. This privilege has been extended to some 300 students with creditable service overseas. Total attachment to date 307. Battalion schools organized for men seeking elementary education comprise elementary agriculture and commercial arithmetic, etc., area colleges in each area for men to study who have studied higher matriculation, etc. At concentration camp, Ripon, matriculation first and second years arts, applied science and first year pre-medical studies is given. Men attached to British Universities who require third and fourth year work in graduated studies.
Literature is distributed amongst Canadian troops, such as Booklet number 2, information regarding land settlement and agriculture. Copies Canadian Government pamphlet entitled " Canada and her soldiers," have been despatched to France for distribution to Canadian troops.
Athletics. Teams selected from Canadian personnel in England and France will compete in International events in England during spring and summer of this year, embracing boxing, pushball, baseball, soccer, football, lawn-tennis, and athletics; field and track events. Sub-committees have been formed for each sport comprising officers and other ranks. Canadian boxing championship, O.M. F.C. in British Isles was held at Witley on February 27, before a very enthusiastic audience. Sum of five thousand dollars has been authorized from a special fund in connection with expenses incurred in training of Canadian teams buying surplus sporting equipment, extra messing where necessary. Sunday travelling expenses, etc.
Activities of Canadian Y.M.C.A. An officer has been placed in charge of athletic work in interests of Y.M.C.A. and prepared to co-operate fully in matters of athletic programmes. Distribution of boxing gloves and footballs, etc., has been made to all Canadian areas. Complete list of sport equipment it is expected will be required to carry out extensive athletic programme contemplated during coming summer; has been prepared to cover wants of Canadian troops in British Isles. In each area there are from four to six Y.M.C.A. huts which are supplied with concert parties, luxuries, cinemas, table games and free stationery. There are also canteens in each area selling various goods such as cleaning kits, etc., etc., at cheapest rates. Pamphlets on citizenship have been distributed among troops numbering approximately fifty thousand copies. During the year 1918 the sum of sixty-eight thousand dollars was expended out of Y.M.C.A. fund in purchasing equipment for troops in England, total comprising England and France amounted to one hundred and sixty-four thousand dollars.
In London a Leave Bureau has been established to take care of Canadian soldiers in England on leave who have no homes on this side. Man is put up for six days in London, including bed, meals, tour every day of city, four theatres and comforts of private home twice during this period for two pounds, five shillings or eleven dollars. About twenty thousand men per month pass through Leave Bureau. Free coffee bars are established in England at points at which troops arrive from France, where they are supplied with free coffee and food. On board ships a Y.M.C.A. officer is supplied to each conducting staff. He has with him magic lanterns and slides for entertainment purposes, gramophones, tables, games, athletic material, writing paper, etc., and organized entertainment on board.


YUKON PLACER MINING ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Oil motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 7, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act, was read the third time and passed.

William Thomas White: That the House do go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to ratify and confirm,-
(1) The Order in Council of the seventh day of March, 1919, which provides as follows:

"Whereas under the authority of "The Appropriation Act No. 2, 1918," the Governor in Council advanced the sum of $7,471,399.93 or thereabouts to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for certain purposes in said Act defined, including the meeting of "deficit in operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System," such sum being in addition to other large sums previously advanced under previous authority for similar purposes.
"And whereas a letter dated 4th March, 1919, from the Vice President of said Company was received by the Minister of Finance, as follows:-
"I am instructed to inform the Government that in view of the fact that the increased rates applicable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have not been sufficient to meet the increased operating expenses, dt will not -be possible for that Company to continue its operations when the present funds have been exhausted, which will be about 10th instant. May I ask you to be so good as to acknowledge receipt of this letter."
"And whereas should the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System be discontinued, great detriment to the public interests would ensue, and the intention of Parliament in authorizing the said advances would be defeated.
"And whereas the continued operation of said system is essential in the present position of Canada resulting from the war, which has not yet been terminated by Peace, especially in connection with the transport of returning Canadian Troops and of supplies and equipment and freight, and other services made necessary . by the war.
"And whereas for the protection of the public interests and for the purposes aforesaid, it is essential that the operation of said system should be continued without interruption.
"And whereas the duty of continuing such operation is thrown upon the Government of Canada inasmuch as there are no effective provisions in existing laws whereby such continued operation could be otherwise secured.
"And whereas immediate action by the Government is imperative.
"Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under the authority of the War Measures Act, 1914, and of all other authority in that behalf, is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered as follows:-

"1. In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires:-
"(a) 'Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System' means and includes (1) the lines of railway and their appurtenances and the undertaking and works of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company and of the Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan Railway Company, (2) the lines of telegraph and their appurtenances and the undertaking and works of the Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company, (3) the steamships, vessels and their appurtenances and the undertaking and works of the Grand Trunk Pacific Steamships Company, (4) the properties, hotels, and appurtenances and the undertaking and works of the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company.
"(b) 'Officers' means and includes Directors, President, Vice-Presidents, Managers, Secretary, Treasurer, Clerks, Servants and employees.
"(c) 'Books and papers' means and includes books of accounts or of entries relating to the business or operation or maintenance of the said lines of railway or telegraph or steamships, vessels, hotels, properties or works, or any of them, or any part thereof, also* records, statements and documents relating to such business, operation, or maintenance or any part thereof.
"(d) 'Exchequer Court' means the Exchequer Court of Canada.
"(e) The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular, the male gender includes the female, and the female the male.
"(f) * Person ' includes corporation.
"(g) 'Government Receiver' means the Receiver appointed by this Order.
"2. The Minister of Railways and Canals is hereby appointed Receiver of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, and such Receiver shall have and exercise with respect to the said system and every part thereof and to the companies included therein, powers and duties similar to those of a receiver under Section 26 of the Exchequer Court Act.
"3. On the application of the Government Receiver the Exchequer Court of Canada may make such orders respecting such Receiver and his powers and duties and the carrying out thereof including the issue of Receiver's Certificates, as the Court may deem necessary or expedient in the public interest.
"4. Subsections 5 and 6 of section 26 of the said Act shall apply to the Government Receiver and to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System and every part thereof and to the companies included therein-except that no remuneration of the Receiver shall be fixed by the Court.
"5. The Government Receiver may, on or after the 10th day of March, 1919, or on such earlier day as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or any Company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific System, may cease to operate efficiently its undertaking and works, or any portion thereof, take possession of such undertaking and works, and the Exchequer Court may from time to time make and enforce such orders in aid of the Government Receiver with respect to taking of such possession or otherwise as the Court may deem expedient for carrying out of the provisions of this Order according to their true spirit and meaning.
"6. Each Company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System and its officers shall facilitate the carrying out of the powers and duties of the Government Receiver, and all books and papers, real or personal property

of each of the said Companies, in its possession or under its control or the control of its officers or any of them, shall without delay be handed over to the said Receiver or his nominees or placed under his control in such manner as he may direct.
"7. Any officer of the Company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, who obstructs the Government Receiver in carrying out his powers and duties, or fails to hand over to him or his nominees, or to place under his control, any book or paper, real or personal property in accordance with the foregoing provisions, shall incur a penalty for each breach of said provisions of the amount hereinafter stated, viz., in the case of a President, a VicePresident or a Director, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) ; in the case of a Manager, with the authority of or similar to that of a General Manager or of one acting for or assisting a General Manager, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) ; in the case of a Secretary or of a Treasurer, or of one acting for or assisting a Secretary or Treasurer, the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) ; in the case of any clerks, servant or employee, the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000).
"8. Any penalty incurred under the foregoing provisions may be sued for and recovered, with costs, in the Exchequer Court, by suit or proceeding in such Court instituted by the Attorney General of Canada.
"9. Nothing in this Order contained, and nothing done or to be done under the authority hereof, shall render the Government of Canada or the Government Receiver, or any one acting under the authority of the Government Receiver, or of the Exchequer Court, liable to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or to any Company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, or to any creditor, or holder of any bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities of the said Companies or any of them, for any claim by reason of the making of this Order, or of anything done or to be done under the authority hereof, or under the authority of the Government Receiver or of the Exchequer Court, nor shall afford any defence to, nor shall prejudice any claim, action, or proceeding of the Government of Canada which the Government might lawfully make or take had this Order not been made.
" 10. All Officers except the Board of Directors of any Company included in The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System shall continue to discharge for the Government Receiver, till further orders or directions by him, duties in connection with the operation and management of the undertakings and works of any Company included in The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, similar to their present duties, so that no interruption in the operation and management thereof may occur.
"11. Nothing herein contained or done, or to be done hereunder shall prejudice the exercise by the Exchequer Court or by any Court of any Province of Canada of its present jurisdiction under the Exchequer Court Act, or under any other law of jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or to order or decree a sale or foreclosure of any railway, or section thereof, or other property affected by this Order; provided that before any such sale or foreclosure is ordered or decreed or any Receiver is appointed by any such Court, notice of the application shall be given to the Minister of Railways and

Canals of Canada, and he, or counsel for him, shall be heard upon the application ; and the Court in granting, or refusing or postponing the application, shall take into consideration the public interests involved, and shall make such order as shall in the opinion of the Court protect the public interests.
"12. The Minister of Railways and Canals mentioned in this Order means the Minister for the time being, and upon a vacancy occurring his successor shall become the Government Receiver. The powers and duties of the Government Receiver may be exercised by such member of the Government as may from time to time be the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals.
"13. Should it be made to appear to the Government Receiver that any book or paper is or has been used for the purposes of the operations of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, as well as the operations of any company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, and that for such reason the same should not be handed over to the Receiver or placed under his exclusive control, the Government Receiver may, on such terms and condition as he may deem necessary, allow the joint use of same to be continued. The Government Receiver may open such books and accounts as in his opinion may be necessary, to separate and transfer from any such book or paper, jointly used, accounts and entries relating to any of the companies included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, and may so separate and. transfer the same; and the said Receiver shall keep the accounts of his receipts, expenses and disbursements in connection with each of the companies included in the said System and their works, undertakings and properties, or parts thereof, in such manner that one may be distinguished from another, and that the interests of the various parties interested therein may be ascertained.
"14. The Governor in Council may, from time to time, under the Order of the Exchequer Court, and upon the security of Receiver's Certificates, or otherwise, advance to the Government Receiver such sums as may be required to enable him to exercise his powers, and to perform his duties as Receiver; the sums so advanced shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
"15. No transfer of any shares in the Capital Stock of any company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System shall, after the appointment of the Government Receiver, be made, and no such transfer shall be entered on any register or transfer book. Any transfer contrary to this provision shall be null and void; provided that the Government Receiver may, on the application of any person interested. or of his own motion, permit any transfer to be made or completed."
(2) And also the Order in Council of the thirteenth' day of March, ^1919, which provides as follows:-
'HVhereas through inadvertence, there were omitted from the definition of 'Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System,' in Section 1 of the Order passed by His Excellency in Council on the 7th of March, 1919, providing for the appointment of a Government Receiver for the said System, the necessary words relating to Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company Limited;
"Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered that the said Order in Council of the 7th March, 1919, shall be and the same is hereby amended by inserting at the end of the definition of 'Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System' in Section 1 thereof, the following:-
'(5) The properties, elevators, terminals
and appurtenances, and the undertaking and
works of Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company, Limited.'
"And (His Excellency the Governor General in Council is further pleased to declare and doth hereby declare that the said Order in Council of the 7th March, take effect from the passing of the said Order of the 7th March, 1919."-The Minister of Finance.	*-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As this resolution is a very important one, I think it is proper for me to point out that, while we may agree to this resolution going through, before the Bill is introduced, there should be furnished to hon. members of this House certain information in connection with the very important transaction with which this resolution undertakes to deal. The railroad referred to in the resolution is an enterprise in which the Canadian people have taken a great interest, ever since the first steps for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific took place in 1903 during the various years down to the present time. Now that this railway is getting into these financial and other entanglements, it is proper that the Canadian people, whose money has, to a very large extent, entered into this enterprise, should have from the Government the fullest possible information as to its exact condition. Therefore, as this is a new Parliament, I think, before the Bill is introduced, every member of this House should be furnished with a copy of the original agreement, which is not a very long one, between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government; that is the agreement under which the company started in 1903, and the Government of the day undertook to furnish certain moneys and to comply with certain conditions in respect thereto. This agreement was, if I remember correctly, further amended in 1904, and a statute was passed confirming that agreement. I presume the agreement as finally confirmed and ratified in 1904 is the agreement that hon. members should have an opportunity of perusing. We should also be put in possession of the correspondence which passed between the former Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that company, or aft least any such correspondence as has a bearing upon the reso-

lution now before the House, and also all the correspondence which passed between the Administration of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden and that company, in particular in reference to the section of the road that is now concerned, and also the section of the road between Winnipeg and Moncton. It is alleged that the Government of the day have not complied with the agreement entered into in 1904, and that they have made it impossible for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to carry on the enterprise. For those reasons, I think that before we deal with the question, the particulars I have enumerated should be put at the disposal of hon. members. We should also have a statement of all the financial aid, by endorsation, or guarantees of bonds, or otherwise, given by this Government or the former Government to this company, also a statement of the cash subsidies or aids granted by the different governments, from 1903 to date, to this company. The Government should give the House as clear a statement as possible as to the financial standing of the company on the 10th day of March, 1919, the date on which the Government, as I understand it, took charge.
I do not at all agree with the steps taken by the Government in regard to taking charge of this company. The War Measures Act was never intended to be used for purposes of this kind. That Act was intended only to be a ready instrument in the hands of the Government to carry out any purpose for which there was no legislative provision on the Statute Books of this country. That was a proper and necessary thing to have. But now that the war is over and there is no urgency in connection with the measure; when we have a statute of our own solemnly passed by the Parliament of this country and acted on practically since Confederation in connection with cases of this kind; when the courts of this country have a well established practice and procedure in connection with putting bodies of this kind into liquidation, it is an innovation of a most undesirable character to start a proceeding of this kind, which is bound to create entanglements and difficulties which are far-reaching and which the Government may, later on, find it very hard to remedy.
The only section in the War Measures Act that could possibly be used for an action of this kind is section 6. This section of the War Measures Act, which is Chapter II of the Statutes of Canada, 1914, reads:
The Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regula-

tions as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem it necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the Governor in Council shall extend to all* matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-
(a)	Censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communications ;
(b)	Arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation ;
(c)	Control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada, and the movement of vessels;
(d)	Transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	Trading, exportation, importation, Production and manufacture;
(f)	Appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof.
2. All orders and1 regulations made under this section shall have the force of law, and shall he enforced in such manner and by such courts, '[DOT]Hirers and authorities as the Governor in Council may prescribe, and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order oa-regulation; but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder, shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, acoruing or incurred thereunder be affected by such variation, extension or revocation.	-
All these powers could be exercised by the Government in view of the immediate danger of war. Fortunately, Sir, the danger of war is over, but the machinery was at hand whereby the Government, upon a motion before the judge, could have had a receiver appointed by the Exchequer Court instanter. That was the proper way to deal with a matter of this kind, for I submit, with all due respect to the body of men who are here to govern the affairs of this country, that this Parliament should not usurp the functions of a judge or court. I repeat, an order could have been made by a judge of the Exchequer Court and a receiver appointed in a twinkling, and when that course is followed, both the party moving for the order and the party going into liquidation has an opportunity to be heard. But in this case the pompany has not had an opportunity of being heard. The company was thrown into a receivership whether it liked it or not. For these reasons it is a very grave question for the members of this House to consider whether they will sanction this method of procedure, which is drifting away from the well-established rules that have been observed in this country at least for the last fifty years. I trust that before the Bill is introduced and we

are called upon to deckle whether the Government has taken the proper course in connection with this company, full information will be given to the House and ample opportunity provided for digesting its various phrases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: The request of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition for correspondence or other information relating to this resolution, and the Bill to be founded upon it, is reasonable, and before the Bill is introduced we shall be glad to produce such correspondence as we may find which is relevant to the proper consideration of this question.
With regard to the agreement to which he has referred, namely, that which was entered into in 1903 between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government of Canada, bon. members will find that agreement in the statutes of 1903, chapter 71, an Act respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway. The agreement which had been entered into is found in a schedule to that Act. In 1904, further legislation was introduced into Parliament validating an amended agreement, and making further provisions with reference to the transaction. Therefore, such members of the House as may desire to familiarize themselves with the legislation, and with the agreements between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government of Canada, will find all necessary information in the statutes of those years.
It had been my intention, on consideration of this resolution to give a brief resume of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway transaction, and to furnish to the committee a considerable part of the information for which my hon. friend has properly asked.
In 1903 an agreement was entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government of Canada for the building of what is known as the National Transcontinental Railway. That National Transcontinental Railway embraced two divisions: the Eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg, and the Western division from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert. The Eastern division was built by the Government of Canada upon plans and [DOT]specifications agreeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and was built through a commission. The intention was that when that Eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg was completed, it should be leased by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, [DOT]which was to construct, own and operate the Western division, that is to say, the main line from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert and the subsidiary undertakings. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was to lease the Eastern division from Moncton ito Winnipeg for seven years, and was to pay no rent, but only the operating expenses. After a period of seven years it was to pay three per cent on the cost of construction of the Eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, the lease being for a period of fifty years altogether.
With respect to the Western division of the National Transcontinental railway, the construction of the line was to be financed by the sale of bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada and by the sale of bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company; and here I may say that the proprietary interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which was to own and operate the Eastern division, and lease that division, was in the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was to own all the stock, and does as a matter of fact own all the stock, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. So that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and indeed the entire National Transcontinental railway, became a part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company's system. The Western division was, as I have said, to be financed by the sale of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, guaranteed by the Dominion Government, and guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The Dominion Government was to guarantee bonds of the Prairie Section (which, roughly speaking, extended from Winnipeg to Edmonton) to an amount not exceeding 313,000 per mile.
The Dominion Government was to guarantee the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company required to construct the Mountain Section, extending roughly, from Edmonton or thereabouts to Prince Rupert, to an extent of three-quarters of the entire cost of that Mountain Section. The Dominion Government was given first charge upon the undertaking from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company which I have referred to, guaranteed by the Dominion, being secured by trust mortgage covering the enterprise. Next after that charge came the securities of the

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, to an amount of about 520,000,000. The House will, therefore, readily grasp the plan of finance which was to ensure the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. Just let me summarize.
The Dominion Government was to build the Eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg. With respect to the Western division, the Dominion Government was ^ to guarantee bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific secured by first mortgage. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was to guarantee second mortgage bonds of ibe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and it was thought at the time that the proceeds of bonds so guaranteed would be adequate to construct the Western division. As it transpired, the proceeds of the bonds mentioned were not sufficient, and in 19o9 legislation was introduced into Parliament whereby the Dominion Government made an advance of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The proceeds of that loan were found not sufficient, and in 1913 a further loan of $15,000,000 was made by the Government of Canada to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon tne guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The proceeds of that loan were found not sufficient to complete the enterprise and here a departure took place. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, which, as I have stated to the House, has a proprietary interest in the Grand Trunk Pacific Kailway Company, declined to guarantee any further loans made by the Government to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the purpose of its completion. It was put forward that the finances of the Grand Trunk Railway Company would not permit the Grand Trunk Railway Company to increase its guarantees of loans made by the Government to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It was considered desirable in the national interest, and having regard to the fact that the enterprise had been carried on so far, that the undertaking should be finished, and a further loan made by the Government. And in 1914 a loan of $16,000,000 was made by the Government of Canada to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, such loan not being guaranteed, as had been the case with the two previous loans, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The proceeds of that last loan were adequate to complete 
the line, which was finished at the end of 1915.
The position then was that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had completed its enterprise by the financing which I have mentioned. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada owned, and still owns, all the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The Grand Trunk Railway Company then, through its president, notified the Prime Minister that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to use his own terms, had " come to the end of its tether," as far as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was concerned. In 1916, in order to provide for the payment of interest upon securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and to provide for deficit in operating expenses-because there has been, with the exception of one year, a continuous deficit in operating expenses on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,-the Government voted in the Estimates the sum of $8,000,000. That was in 1916.
Now, I desire to point out to the House that the Dominion Government, since the original agreement was entered into, and without being obliged to do so under the terms of the original agreement, in 1909 made a loan of $10,000,000, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company; in
1913	made a loan of $15,000,000 guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company; in
1914	made a loan of $16,000,000 direct to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; and in 1916 Parliament voted $8,000,000 for the purpose of providing for the interest upon the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,- guaranteed not only by the Dominion Government but by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada,-and, further, to meet deficit in operation expenses, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada taking the view that they should not be called upon to furnish any money for the operation of that railway company. In 1917, the situation continuing as it was, Parliament again voted the sum of $7,500,000 for the same purposes. Of that sum about $5,000,000 was expended. Last year Parliament again, at the instance of the Government, voted the sum of _ $7,500.000 for the same purposes.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Were these loans or gifts?


William Thomas White: These three I have last mentioned were loans-$8,000,000 in 1916; $7,500,000 in 1917, of which $5,000,000 was paid out, and $7,500,000 voted last year.

These were loans to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company secured by blanket mortgage upon their enterprise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were these advances also made on the expectation of the Grand Trunk being able to carry out its original agreement with Canada?


William Thomas White: The Government has never expected any thing else than that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada would carry out the bargain which it entered into with the Government of Canada. At the same time, the present Government of Canada, like the Government which preceded it, has been desirous of assisting in the completion of the enterprise and adopting a generous attitude not only towards the Grand Trunk Pacific undertaking but towards the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada itself; the Grand Trunk being a pioneer company whose operations have meant much to this country.
Mr. LEM.TEUX: Was the interest always paid?


William Thomas White: The interest was always paid but it was paid from the money which Parliament voted. Parliament voted the money which paid interest upon the Grand Trunk Pacific securities, guaranteed by the Dominion Government and guaranteed by the Grand Trunk, and paid also the deficit in the operating expenses. The interest has been paid only because the Dominion Government, over and above any obligation which they had under the agreement, have provided all the money for the purpose.


Frank S. Cahill: Was this $8,000,000, $7,500,000 and $7,500,000 guaranteed by the Grand Trunk?


William Thomas White: No, it was a direct loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific, not guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but secured by a blanket mortgage on the entire enterprise. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has not been able to pay its fixed charges with the exception of one year, and then only to a small extent. There has also been a deficit in operating expenses, which is to-day and will be for the coming year a larger amount than it was last year.
In order that the committee may understand the attitude of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada towards its obligations with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, I desire to refer to what is known as the Drayton-Acworth report. The Government saw the railway situation developing in a way that required attention and action, and in 1916 they appointed a commission to look into the entire railway situation of Canada and make such recommendations as they thought proper respecting the transcontinental railway systems. That commission consisted of Sir Henry Drayton, chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, Mr. Acworth, an eminent London financier and railway authority and Mr. Smith, President of the New York Central Railway System. They made a report, Mr. Smith dissenting from the conclusions of his colleagues.
The Drayton-Acworth report has been before the House and is available to any member who may desire to read it. To those who take an interest in the railway situation in Canada and especially those who want to know something about the rr>blem before us, I cannot too earnestly commend this report of Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Acworth in respect to the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway situation. The report deals, amongst other things, with the question of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and with that of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which, as I have stated, is a subsidiary of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. At page 26 the report calls attention to the fact that the chairman of the Grand Trunk Railway, writing to the Prime Minister, states "they are at the end of their tether," and that "it is quite impossible for them to meet the extra liabilities arising from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company." That is to say that Mr. Smithers, who is the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, wrote to the Prime Minister, as I stated a little while ago, to the effect that they were at the end of their tether and that it would be impossible for them to meet the extra liabilities arising from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. What these liabilities are, I shall explain to the House in a moment. At page 26 of the report I find a statement expressing the opinion of the commissioners upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada towards their liability with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The commissioners say:
"We cannot think that this is a reasonable proposition, or one that we could advise the
Government to acoept

We think the Grand
Trunk Company cannot thus escape the consequence of its own action. We quite agree that the Grand Trunk Company cannot meet its Grand Trunk Pacific liabilities. But, if the Government is to relieve the Grand Trunk Company of liabilities which it voluntarily incurred.

but which it now finds impossible to meet, it is for the Government, not for the Company, to fix the terms."	*
To show further the attitude of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I read from the report an extract from the examination of Mr. Chamberlin, who was president of .the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and also of the Grand Trunk Railway Company:
Sir Henry Drayton-Doesn't it really come down to this thait the statements in your letter mean that in your view, in order to protect the finances of the Grand Trunk, and as a corollary to protect the finances of the country the Government ought to relieve the Grand Trunk itn regard to its investment; isn't that the whole thing?
Mr. Chamberlain-That is the whole thing.
Sir Henry Drayton-There is nothing else to it?
Mr. Chamberlain-Nothing else.
That clearly shows that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, proprietors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, had come to the conclusion that they would not continue to be responsible for the payment of the interest upon the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific; that they would not be responsible for the deficit in its operations but would cast the entire burden of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon the Government of Canada; in other words, wash their hands of the entire transaction.	,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister
think that the Grand Trunk Railway could by any ipse dixit, or action of their own, relieve themselves of their responsibility under the original agreement?


William Thomas White: 
Samuel Hughes: The Grand Trunk
Pacific?


William Thomas White: Thd Grand Trunk Railway. That is to say if the Dominion Government took over the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, and strict regard was
had to its legal liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the amount which should be paid by the Government in compensation to the shareholders would, in the language of the report, be very small.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not paid by the Government, paid by the company.


William Thomas White: The Commissioners are discussing here the question of the Dominion Government taking over the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, and they say that if regard should be had to the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the amount which the Government of Canada should be called upon to pay for that stock would be very small. But the Board of Commissioners took a rather generous view of the situation, as the Government of Canada has taken and is prepared to take of the situation. Neither the Commission nor the Government has ever had it in mind to deal harshly, to exact the pound of flesh, as the saying is, from the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Now let me read to the House what the Commissioners said on that point:
But we do not think this is the only basis on which the people of Canada should proceed. We think this is a case for generosity rather than strict justice. Canada is under obligations to the Grand Trunk shareholders, who, in the early days, with hut small Government assistance, and in competition with the railways of the United States, with their vastly greater resources, built up the first Canadian railway system. In, later times the Company has had further to meet the competition of heavily subsidized Canadian rivals, and it cannot be said that at any stage of its history the shareholders have obtained excessive profits on their enterprise. On the whole we recommend that on condition of the surrender, by the Grand Trunk Company of their entire share capital, guaranteed, preferred and ordinary, the trustees grant a certain annuity, charged as a working expense on the whole undertaking of the Dominion Railway Company, for the first seven years, increasing at the termination of that period by something like 40 or 50 per cent. We have left the figures blank, as there will he questions of cash in hand, value of stores, etc., which must make the precise figures subject to negotiation. But our meaning is that the first figure shauld be a moderate but substantial percentage of $3,600,000 (the average dividend payment for the last ten years).
The Commission say, from a strictly legal point the share capital, by reason of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company toward the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, has but very small value, but dealing with them generously they recommend that for the period of seven years there should be a moderate but substantial percentage of $3,600,000, in-


WBVISCD ED1TIOX COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
creasing at the termination of that period by something like 40 or 50 per cent.
In ordeT that the Committee may realize the financial interest which the people of Canada and the Grand Trunk had in that Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise, let me make a statement with respect to its financial position.
Frank S. Cahill: In any action which it is taking with regard to the railroads of this country, is the Government being guided by the Drayton-Acworth report?


William Thomas White: I stated at the time the Commission was created, when the same question was put by the former Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Graham), that it would be for the Government of Canada to exercise its discretion and judgment as to what policy would be followed. We appointed a Commission, but we did not give them plenary power to determine the policy of the Government. Nevertheless, the report is an exceedingly valuable one. In the three years which have passed since that Commission was created and in the two years since the report was made, I have come more and more to the conclusion that the Drayton-Acworth report is one of the most valuable reports that has ever been made upon railway matters in this country. I am perfectly satisfied, speaking for myself, that in the administration of railway enterprises which come under the control of the Dominion Gevernment, the machinery recommended by the Drayton-Acworth report will be utilized. In my opinion, it is the best for the purpose.
Now, I was going to show the financial position of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The figures are staggering. The members of the House are generally familiar with the situation, but the public do not understand it, and I am satisfied that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company do not understand it. I do not believe that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have been made fully aware of the extent of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company towards the Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise. 1 will give the figures slowly so that hon. gentlemen can dwell upon them, because they are very large indeed.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-which has about 1,700 miles from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert and about 1,000 miles in the Grand Trunk branch lines system; and which has also its subsidiary Development company, owning lands, hotels, steamships and other assets-has outstanding securities guaranteed by the
'
Dominion Government to the extent of $84,000,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who are the holders
of those securities?


William Thomas White: That $84,000,000 includes the securities, to which I made reference earlier in the course of my remarks, guaranteed by the Dominion Government and secured by a first mortgage upon the line from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert. It includes also a portion-I think, speaking from recollection, about $7,500,-000-of the $16,000,000 issue of 1914 guaranteed by the Dominion Government. But the $84,000,000 are bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific bearing the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada.
My hon. friend asks who holds these securities. The Dominion of Canada holds $33,000,000 of them; they are in our vaults. We took them under what is known as the implementing agreement, which the Committee may recall; and instead of having them sold on the market at a low price, the Dominion Government took them at par. It is a good thing we did, because of the $84,000,000 outstanding we hold $33,000,000 ourselves. Nevertheless, they are outstanding; the money was advanced; the interest is payable; the legal liability on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific exists precisely as if these securities were in the hands of holders in England, United States or Canada. The remainder of the securities are in the hands of bondholders in Great Britain principally; I think comparatively few of them are held in this country.
In addition to that $84,000,000 the Dominion Government made a loan of $10,000,000 in 1909 and another loan of $15,000,000 in 1913, a total of $25,000,000 guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. One would think that that guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada would be sufficient to relieve the Dominion Government from any anxiety with regard to the $25,000,000. But the Dominion is concerned in that $25,000,000, because it loaned the money, notwithstanding the fact it is guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. I have mentioned the votes which were loans secured by mortgage-$8,000,000 in 1916, $7,500,000 in 1917, of which $5,000,000 were paid; and $7,500,000 in 1918, a total of about $20,000,000. So that the Dominion Government, on top of the figures I have mentioned, is interested to the extent of $20,000,000 further by reason of votes made by Parliament during the last three years.

In addition, the Grand Trunk Pacific lines in Alberta and Saskatchewan have issued ooiids to the extent of $13,000,000 guaranteed by Alberta and Saskatchewan. Just consider the amount of public credit that is involved there. $84,000,000, $25,000,000, $20,000,000-$130,000,000 represents the extent to which the Dominion Government is, by its guarantees or by the obligation of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway Company as guarantor, interested in the finance of this system.


William Folger Nickle: Has the Minister not omitted to mention the $16,000,000 issue in 1914?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is right; I have inadvertently omitted to mention that. If ycu add the $16,000,000 to the amount which I have mentioned, you get a total of $145,000,000 of interest which the Dominion Government has in. the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and in the guarantees which I have mentioned of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Is it the intention of the Government to take over the branch lines and pay the provinces-for the amounts guaranteed by them?


William Thomas White: I will come to that a little later.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose the guarantee or endorsement. of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is good; what is still our direct liability in respect of our own guarantees?


William Thomas White: That can easily be calculated. The Dominion Government would be liable as guarantor? in respect of $84,000,000, upon which the interest charged per annum would be about $2,400,000.
Those are, I think, the figures shown in the Drayton-Acworth report, but there must be added the interest on the loans made during the last three years for the purpose which I have mentioned, and the rate of interest being high, there would be a substantial increase-in round figures, I should say a total of $3,000,000 at least. In addition to the Dominion Guarantees in respect to this enterprise, I desire to place the committee in possession of information respecting the guarantees of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada lias guaranteed securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to a total amount of $97,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not overlap the Dominion guarantees?
42}


William Thomas White: No, it overlaps only the $25,000,000 I have mentioned. I will tell my hon. friend how this is made up. There is $20,000,000 of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company secured by second mortgages on the western division, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and $25,000,000 representing two loans made, one in 1909 and the other in 1913 by the Dominion of Canada, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. That makes $45,000,000. In addition to that there is $48,000,000, representing debenture stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. In addition to that, there is some further liability which makes a total of about $97,000,000. That $97,000,000 means an interest liability of about $4,000,000 per annum on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in respect of its guarantee. There is some overlapping, and in order that the House may not be confused by the overlapping, I should say that the total securities outstanding of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company guaranteed by both the Dominion Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, aggregate something over $200,000,000.
I think I mentioned the fact that there were guarantees on the branch lines by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That brings us down to the present year. We had the Drayton-Acworth report, recommending that in order to meet the difficulties of the railway situation, the Government of Canada should take over the Canadian Northern, as we did, and should also take over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Early in 1918, there were some negotiations with respect to the matter, but they came to nothing. Last year when the Prime Minister and certain of his colleagues were overseas, the question was taken up with the Grand Trunk Railway Company which, I may say, desired some assistance from the Government about July of last year. It transpired afterwards that they were able to arrange otherwise; but the matter was taken up with Mr. Smithers and the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, by the Prime Minister and his colleagues overseas.
I desire to inform the House as to the offer which was then made by the Government of Canada and as to the counter-offer which was made by the Grand Trunk Rail-

way Company of Canada. The House will then understand the situation practically down to the present time. As I said to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) if, when I have concluded my remarks in the course of this discussion upon the resolution, there is further information that he requires and I can get it, it, of course, goes without saying that I shall be only too glad to give it to the House. I do not know what correspondence there was in the time of the Government which held power up to 1911, and personally I cannot see that it has much bearing on the question before us to-day, because agreements were entered into which were validated by legislation. It, therefore, appears to me that the legislation discloses the situation, and the correspondence would not be helpful. If, however, my hon. friend has in mind any particular correspondence, I shall be glad to endeavour to get it. This is the offer made on behalf of the Government of Canada last July by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). It is a little long, but I hope the House will have patience:
Dear Mr. Smithers:

Some time ago the Government of Canada was informed on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that this company would not be able, without Government assistance, to meet certain maturities falling due on the 1st and 15th of the present month.
It was thought of advantage that representatives of the Government should, on the occasion of their visit to England, to attend the Imperial War Conference, take the opportunity of conferring with yourself and your directorate on the general subject of Grand Trunk obligations and finance. Accordingly, the Hon. Mr. Calder and myself have had four conferences with you, at two of which you were accompanied by certain associates on the Board.
At the last conference you suggested that I should lay before you in writing the position taken by the Government and, in as definite a form as possible, its concrete proposals.
It may be assumed that the difficulties in which the company now finds itself arise from two main causes:-
(1)	The obligations into which the company entered in 1903 and 1904 with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company;
(2)	War conditions as to operation and finance.
As to the latter cause it is not unfair to say that its incidence has fallen chiefly, if not wholly, in the years 1917 and 1918. On the contrary, the difficulties of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which are the direct outcome of its Grand Trunk Pacific obligations, are of much longer date. This latter company is in every sense subsidiary to, and its stock is wholly owned by the Grand Trunk Company. To this subsidiary company the Government of Canada came, by way of assistance, as far back as 1909, with a loan of $10,000,000. Another loan of $15,000,000 was made in 1913. A further loan of $6,000,000 was made in 1914 on a pledge of bonds. Its securities were further

guaranteed by legislation of that year to the extent of $16,000,000. In 1916 a loan of $8,000,000 was made. In 1917, a loan of $7,500,000 was authorized and advanced, and in the spring of this year a further loan of $7,500,000 was authorized by Parliament. Mean-tirne, the ever-increasing interest obligation binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company towards its subsidiary company were not paid by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but were taken care of out of the proceeds of loans thus made by the Government of Canada. These obligations at the present time amount to very considerably over $5,000,000 per annum and in January 1923 increase to over $7,000,000 per annum.
Those are the figures given in the Dray-ton-Acworth report.
In the same conjunction it must also be remembered that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company has not assumed or attempted to discharge its rental obligations to the Government of Canada with respect to the National Transcontinental Railway, which obligations while not formally assumed by the Government, have in practice been shouldered by the Dominion. This extra burden is a matter of very considerable magnitude.
I refer to the outstanding facts related in the preceding paragraph for the purpose of indicating what has through recent years been the attitude of the Canadian Government and people toward Grand Trunk enterprises.
It is at this point that the Canadian Government is invited to enter upon a still wider field of assistance by assuming the liabilities in respect of Grand Trunk securities themselves.
We had been asked to render some assistance in July.
Through the course of the' various steps recalled above, public opinion in our country has become more and more opposed to a continuance of the practice of assisting financially railways that were in private hands. Consequently, at the opening of our negotiations we stated to you that we did not believe that continued further assistance under present conditions could be justified.
In order, however, that there might be reasonable opportunity for negotiations, we recommended to the Minister of Finance that funds be provided to enable the company to meet maturities falling due in July. This has been and is being arranged.
I may say that it was not necessary to go on with it.
Throughout the negotiations and indeed prior thereto, it has been made clear to your Company that the obligations of the Grand Trunk Company to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company could not be ignored and that the Government could not undertake to assume the indebtedness of and to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific and branch lines thereof, and to relieve the Grand Trunk of responsibility therefor, while the Grand Trunk Railway itself, as a subsidiary of which and indeed as an extension of which the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, remained In independent bands. Accordingly, in the month of February last, after careful consideration and in pursuance of the recommendation of what is commonly known as the Drayton-Acworth Report, there were made to your Company the following proposals:

(1) The Government to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and branch lines and the Grand Trunk Railway Company; to acquire all assets, and to assume all obligations of both Companies.
(2 ) The Government to make annual payment of $2,500,000 for the first three years, $3,000,000 for the succeeding five years, and $3,600,000 annually thereafter; such sums to be distributed by the Grand Trunk management, as they might determine, among holders of 4 per cent Guaranteed and other stocks.
It was intended that the taking over should be by rental over a long period of years, as might be agreed, with a provision for purchase.
Should such terms not be accepted, it was suggested that the amounts in question might be submitted to arbitration. These proposals met with no acceptance.
Our present conference, extending over the past months have resulted in little progress- the only practical step being indeed the assistance referred to above as advanced by the Government. As intimated above, such assistance cannot under present conditions be continued.
We are now prepared to abide by the proposals submitted to you in February last as to acquisition or we are prepared on behalf of the Government to submit the entire question of remuneration to a Board of Arbitration on the following general terms :

(1)	The Board to consist of three persons; one to be appointed by the Grand Trunk Company, one by the Government of Canada, and the two so appointed to select a third, or, if they fail to agree, the third to be selected by a majority of the following: the Judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Chief Justice of the Province of Ontario.
(2)	The Board to have full power as to the procuring and acceptance of evidence
(3)	The award to be by way of annual rental for a term of 999 years; the Board to have power to vary the rental for two or more periods of years. The Government to have the option of purchase on the basis of and during the term of the final rental at the end of any year and on one-year's notice at twenty-five times the annual final rental.
(4)	Conditions arising or that have arisen out of the war not to be taken into account in determining the rental value.
Should the Company desire, the Guaranteed Stock may be treated as an obligation in the same way as the Company's Bonds.
I would be glad to be advised whether the above specific proposal is acceptable or if not, whether the general terms of arbitration outlined above are satisfactory. Should either alternative be favourably received we may then enter upon discussion and negotiation as to further necessary details.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) Arthur Meighen. Alfred W. Smithers, Esq.,
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Grand Trunk Railway Company,
9 New Broad Street,

That was the offer of the Government of Canada-an offer along the lines suggested in the Drayton-Acworth report. But in addition to that, in case that offer was not
acceptable to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Government of Canada offered to leave to arbitration the question of the rental to be paid. I have seen some reports emanating from London to the effect that the Government was not dealing as fairly with the Grand Trunk as with the Canadian Northern. Well, the Government had the question of wh'at it should pay for the stock of the Canadian Northern determined by arbitration, a maximum being fixed as a safeguard against an unduly high award. But here we are not setting any maximum amount; we offered to arbitrate as to the price we should pay.
On August 8, 1918, the counter offer of the Grand Trunk Railway Company was received. Mr. Smithers writes:
Rt. Hon. Sir R. L. Borden,
Savoy Hotel,
Strand, W.C.
Dear Sir Robert Borden,

At the meeting yesterday between you and Mr. Ballantyne and General Mewburn and a Committee of my Board and' myself, I made a proposition which, after a long discuteslon, you asked should be put in writing.
I think in order to put it in its true perspective, I should just put down the propositions that have passed between the Government and the Company. You have all the particulars of those propositions, and therefore I only shortly put down tihe bare figures.
At your request on the 25th January, conveyed through the High Commissioner, asking the Board to say on what terms they would recommend the sale of the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Paoifio to the Government, I replied with a statement of terms which at the end of 1930 would have resulted in an annual payment by the Government of 1,609,000 pounds.
About $8,000,000.
On the 7th Maroh you replied on the part of the Government, with an offer which at the end of eight years would have involved am annual payment by the Government of 739,000 pounds

About $3,500,000.
-or you were prepared to leave the whole question of the amount to he paid to arbitration. At our meeting yesterday I proposed that the Government should pay a net annual sum of 977,000 pounds-
About $4,500,000.
-being the amount of net earnings for the year 1913, the last normal year before the war, and thus following the course pursued by the British Government towards the British Railways, and leave to arbitration what further sum if any, the shareholders are entitled to in respect of the prospective value of the undertaking that must arise from the development of the Dominion. This offer I now repeat. But, it was alfeo suggested that an alternative offer should be made of a definite sum without arbitration, and I am authorized to say, the Board would recommend to the shareholders the payment of an annual sum of 1,163,000 pounds.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: Was the offer made by the Government intended to relieve the Grand Trunk of their obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Thomas White: It was so stated. The Government said: "We realize the Grand Trunk Railway Company cannot meet its obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific." Everybody realizes that. The Drayton-Acworth report says so; it says: "Deal generously with them." We say so too. The Government said: "We will assume all the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company (and, remember, we have been carrying them), assume all the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, take a lease for 999 years and pay you the amount mentioned in Mr. fSIr Thomas White.]
Meighen's letter by way of rental; or, if you are not satisfied with that, we will arbitrate."
The Grand Trunk said, " No, we will not do that, but we make you a counter offer in which we ignore altogether our liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific; we want the Government to take care of that, and, in addition, to pay us on the basis of what we regard as the value of Grand Trunk shares, without the slightest regard to our liability towards the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway." Now, the negotiations ended. I read to the House the other day the correspondence which had taken place with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company with respect to two matters: First, default which was apprehended on March 1, and second, the discontinuance of the operation of the Grand Trunk Railway system.


Frank S. Cahill: That is default in payment of interest?


William Thomas White: It was apprehended. Now, let me say with regard to the last vote of $7,500,000 made last year by Parliament, that the Government, after Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues had returned, and after we were aware that an impasse had been reached, felt they must continue to pay that $7,500,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, because it had been voted by Parliament. It would have been legal on the part of the Government to have discontinued payment under that vote last fall, because all votes made by Parliament are really subject to the Government paying them out. But when Parliament votes a certain sum the view that governments take-at least, the view that I have always understood they should take-is that Parliament intended that the money voted should be devoted to the purposes for which the vote was made. Therefore, the Government has paid out to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the $7,500,000 which was voted last year, tthe proceeds of which have not been entirely used.


George William Andrews: May I ask if you deduct from the $7,500,000 the interest charges for which the Grand Trunk was liable for the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Thomas White: No, the $7,500,-
000 paid the fixed charges on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; that is to say, the interest upon the securities guaranteed by the Dominion Government and guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and also the deficit up to the time the vote was exhausted. The $7,500,000 was not sufficient for the

past year. In February the vote was exhausted and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company notified the Government that they apprehended they would have to make default on March 1 in respect to interest upon securities maturing due in London, and called the attention of the Government to the serious situation which would arise if funds were not provided for that purpose. The reply which I made to them is contained in a letter which is on Hansard. We stated that the last of the money, about $1,000,000, had been paid over to meet deficit on operating expenses in accordance with the certificate of the Grand Trunk Railway officials themselves, approved by the Deputy Minister of Railways, and that no question could arise as to that money being properly applied to meet deficit on operation before application was made of any part of it to meet interest upon securities; and I said further that it would be for the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to consider what were their , responsibilities towards that interest which was falling due in London upon securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company which they had guaranteed. Now, the Government was prepared for default, if it had occurred, because we had made up our minds that as long as negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada -to use the language which I employed- " remained in their present unsatisfactory condition," the Dominion Government would not ask Parliament to vote any further sums.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: We had taken that view, not hastily. The matter had been under deliberation for weeks and months and the Government had come to the conclusion, and had notified that conclusion to the responsible officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, that when that money became exhausted the Dominion Government would not bring down a further vote, as had been done during the last three years, by way of loans to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the purpose of meeting fixed charges and deficit on operating expenses.


James Alexander Robb: The inference from the letter of Mr. Smithers, in January, 1918, is that the Government at that time, in January, 1918, had opened negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway to purchase the Grand Trunk Railway and all their system. Was that the unanimous policy of the Government in January, 1918, to purchase all those roads?


William Thomas White: Having regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific situation and the liability which it involved, and the fact also that we had been asked for assistance by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in July negotiations were taken up. But at an earlier date, in January, 1918, the Prime Minister had made an offer to the Grand Trunk Railway Company practically in pursuance of the Drayton-Acwotth report.


James Alexander Robb: Negotiations were opened by the Government?


William Thomas White: Yes. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company were coming every year to the Government and saying, "Vote us $7,500,000 or $8,000,000 to keep the Grand Trunk Pacific going, but don't call upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company for anything." Now, that could not go on, and the Government therefore opened negotiations with a view to clearing up the entire situation. The Government had been bearing all the responsibility of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada expected it to continue bearing all the responsibility. The situation had to be cleaned up. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) says he thinks there was a communication from the Grand Trunk Railway Company prior to our offer. I shall inquire as to that; but at all events, I do not know that it is indispensable to the discussion of the matter because the situation speaks for itself.


Frank S. Cahill: Before you get away from the responsibility of the Grand Trunk, may I ask, how did they get relieved of responsibility with regard to the Transcontinental?


William Thomas White: I am coming to that. I will summarize later. That interest was paid on March 1st, I believe-I did not hear anything to the contrary, and I should have heard if it had not been paid. Now, that difficulty was overcome, and the next thing that happened was, without any previous intimation or discussion at all, a notice-which I described in a cable to Mr. Smithers as peremptory-a notice on Thursday,! think, that on the following Monday, by reason of the fact that the freight rates in the West were not high enough to enable _the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate without "a loss, they would have to close that system. Without any discussion, without any previous intimation, the ultimatum was served

upon the Government. " We are going to close down the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system unless-" it was not so stated, but the inference is irresistible- "-unless the Government does what the Government said it would not do, namely, give us a further vote to enable us to carry on." Now, it is a pretty serious thing to close down a transcontinental railway system of 2,700 miles of main line and branches. The notification was in explicit terms: " We cannot go on." They knew that the Government had taken the view that it would not recommend to Parliament to vote any further money. What was the Government to do? I am frank to say that I do not believe the Grand Trunk Railway Company officials, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway officials believed that the Government had power to deal with the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: I do not like to impute motives, but it is my opinion that they did not realize that the Government had power to deal with the question, notwithstanding that Parliament was in session. Why do I say that? In adverting to that, I reply to the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition about the courts affording an adequate remedy. We did not overlook the courts, but the courts afford no adequate remedy to the cessation of operations on a system such as the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. If my hon. friend, who is a good lawyer and who has been a judge, will take the trouble to look at the legislation upon the subject, and upon the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, he will find that what I have stated is absolutely correct. He will find further, that even as to the jurisdiction, if it does not exist in the Exchequer Court as to the appointment of a receiver, it must be on an application for foreclosure and sale. Before application can be made for foreclosure and sale of a railway company, default must exist, and a certain time elapse under the provisions of whatever mortgage or other instrument has been taken as security. The Dominion Government was not in a position to make application to the Exchequer Court for a receiver, because it could not prove default. The position was then that the Government could not resort to the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court would have no jurisdiction to make an order.
We had to consider what we would do to prevent a great railway system from closing down with inconvenience not only to the people of the West but to the people of Canada generally. We did not hesitate 
to make a clean-cut case of it, and the Dominion Government fell back upon the War Measures Act, which gives jurisdiction in the matter of railways, and appointed my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) a receiver.
Why did we appoint him a receiver? To ensure the continued operation of a system so essential to the convenience and welfare of the great communities which it serves. Let me say further to the leader of the Opposition that the Exchequer Court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of a telegraph company. Embraced in a system such as the Grand Trunk Pacific there is not only the railway system itself but the telegraph system, the development company with the assets I mentioned previously, the steamship company, and all those other auxiliary or subsidiary enterprises.
There is a great lack in the railway legislation of Canada which some day will have to be remedied by this House in regard to the jurisdiction of the court to deal with a system as compared with an individual [DOT] railway. Some day that will have to receive attention.
Now, the Government appointed a receiver. Lest it should be thought that further negotiations would have resulted in bringing about an understanding


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the minister understand this section 6 of the Winding-up Act, which says:
"This Act applies to all corporations incorporated under the authority of an Act of the Parliament of Canada."
I would suppose that would be sufficiently comprehensive to include a telegraph company, or any company incorporated by this Parliament, or under the authority of this Parliament, and that this company would come within a section of that kind.


William Thomas White: I am informed on the highest legal authority that there is no jurisdiction in the Exchequer Court to deal with the question of a receivership for the system. There is this further consideration : Supposing that in several of the provinces of Canada applications were made to the courts for the appointment of not a receiver, but many receivers, for a railway system of this character and for all its subsidiaries, what a situation you would have! tit would paralyse the operation of the system. There is not to-day any existing legislation providing for any effectual remedy through a receivership for a railway system such as the Grand Trunk Pacific and its subsidiaries.

In order that there may not be any doubt in the minds of any of the members of the committee that the Grand Trunk intended that notice to mean that they would close down by reason of lack of funds, I may state that I received a further cable from Mr. Smithers, in which he stated-I am afraid I cannot lay my hands on it just at the moment-that the fact that they had no funds made it necessary that they should notify the Government as they did. There is no question about it; the issue is clear-cut-the Dominion Government to furnish the money or the Grand Trunk to cease operations.
That brings us down to the present time and to this resolution that is before the House. Although the Government has plenary jurisdiction under the	War
Measures Act, action having been taken when Parliament is in session, it is of course proper that Parliament should deal with this Order in Council, validate it, approve it, and translate it into an Act of Parliament, in order that no question can arise whatever with regard to its validity.
Let me summarize the National Transcontinental railway situation including the Grand Trunk Pacific railway which is embraced in it:
An agreement made in 1903 to build a line from Moncton to the tide-waters of the Pacific-a great enterprise.
The Government of Canada to build the line from Moncton to Winnipeg, which cost in the neighbourhood of $170,000,000 without interest.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to construct the lines and its subsidiaries from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company to lease the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway for a period of 50 years after seven of which they were to pay an annual rental and also any deficit on operating account. That was to be 3 per cent upon the cost which would amount to about $5,000,000 or 3 per cent on $170,000,000. Let us say $4,000,000 to be conservative, because it may be said that I have overstated the amount. I do not think I have but I do not desire to raise any controversy as to that.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company would be the proprietor of the entire system by holding all the stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
What happens? The Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as a party in the matter, say: We cannot lease the National Transcontinental railway. They put it on various grounds
but the ground is perfectly obvious; they could not lease the National Transcontinental railway and pay the rental of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. They simply could not do it. The Dominion Government gives its guarantees, the Grand Trunk gives its guarantees, the western division is built at a cost of something all together, if you include deficits and fixed charges for the past three years, over $200,000,000. The Dominion Government is interested in this to the extent of $100,000,000 and the Grand Trunk's interest almost a like sum. The Grand Trunk Pacific had said to the Dominion Government: We cannot lease the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway. The Grand Trunk Railway Company say to the Dominion: We want to assume no responsibility for the Grand Trunk Pacific; take the whole thing off our hands from Moncton to Prince Rupert That is the statement. Now I do not believe that this is a position which the Grand Trunk Railway Company can hold.


William Findlay Maclean: It should not be allowed to.	.


William Thomas White: I do not believe that is a position the Grand Trunk Railway Company should hold. The Government and the people of this country are very friendly to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as they are to all British enterprises in this country so far as I know. But the people of Canada, I believe, will not support the Government in continuing the generous policy which it has pursued during the last three years of loaning seven and a half or eight million dollars yearly to pay off the liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific, including the interest upon the securities guaranteed by_ the Grand Trunk Railway Company-I do not believe it. That is the position to-day. The Government is in possession as receiver. The resolution indicates the powers and duties of the receiver, and enlarges the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court to deal with whatever situations may arise. It is not the intention of the Government to bring down a further vote while, as I stated in my communication to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the negotiations between that company and the Dominion remain in their present unsatisfactory condition. It seems to me that the next move is on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the hon. gentleman closes his very clear and excellent speech, would he be good enough to tell

the committee what the Government proposes to do? The Government has taken the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway-the hon. gentleman has dealt with that fully in his speech-but what does the Government propose to do now that it has the line in its hands, or what is it thinking of doing?


William Thomas White: What we are doing now is passing this resolution, but my hon. friend wishes to know what will be the policy of the Government?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


William Thomas White: The policy of the Government, speaking frankly to my hon. friend, will be what it has been in the past. There have been negotiations between the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Dominion, and in our view the attitude of the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Company has not been a reasonable one, because they have steadfastly refused to recognize the liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; and I say that negotiations with the Grand Trunk Company are not possible until that company's liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are regarded as a factor, an important factor, in those negotiations. I do not go the distance of saying-I have never gone so far as to say so-that this matter Should be looked upon in a hard and fast business way; that is to say that we should set off against any net earnings of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, actual or prospective so far as we can estimate, the full amount of the deficit for fixed charges and operating expenses of the Grand Trunk Pacific, because if we did, it would wipe out absolutely all equity in Grand Trunk Railway shares. We have never taken that view.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister did not
answer my question. What I meant is what is the Government going to do now that it has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in its hands?


William Thomas White: We are going to carry on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What are you going
to do?


William Thomas White: I repeat that we are going to carry on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are you going to own the railway?


William Thomas White: We are carrying on as receiver at the present time. We are maintaining the service upon which great 
communities of this country depend from day to day. That is the immediate reason for the appointment of a receiver. What we shall do later on will be as we may determine, but I may say to my hon. friend that unless a satisfactory situation ensues the Dominion Government will be obliged to have recourse to whatever legal remedies it may have, and it has many.


William Findlay Maclean: And it may be
a receivership for the Grand Trunk?


William Thomas White: I pass no opinion as to that. I have endeavoured to expound to the House as clearly as I could, and I am afraid at too great length, the situation, because this is an important transaction. Do not let me give the House or the country the impression that the Government desires to deal harshly with, or to exact the pound of flesh from, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada; we have not done so, and we do not intend to do so; but we do not intend to negotiate upon a basis in which all the prospective earnings are to be capitalized, for the Grand Trunk, and all the liabilities of that company, in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, are to be ignored. As I said the next move is from the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.


Mr. EULER:: The hon. gentleman has
stated that the next move should be on the part of the Grand Trunk. It seems to me that the Government should hold the Grand Trunk Company liable for the obligations which it has not met in the past, and therefore the next move should be on the part of the Government, in order to hold the company to its obligations which the hon. gentleman states it has absolutely ignored.


Frank S. Cahill: The action taken by the Government so far, does not seem to be very consistent, lit passed an Order in Council and took possession of the railway before it had actually made default.


An hon. MEMBER:: Done deliberately.
Mr. GA'HILL:	The receiver stated that
he had taken possession on the morning of Monday, March 10, at one o'clock, and the company had notified the 'Government that it might default on and after the. 10th of March.	*


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman is
wrong. The company notified the Government that it would default on or before the 10th of March.
Mr. CAiHOjLL:	Was it not on or after
the 10th?


John Dowsley Reid: No, on or before the 10th.


Frank S. Cahill: But the Government did
not give the company any opportunity of ceasing on the 10th. It took possession before, and this makes it appear to the overseas investors that the Government is adopting summary action and trying to force the company's hand. It looks very much like a horse trading operation, where one side is trying to take advantage of the other.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frank S. Cahill: It looks very much like
it. The Acting Prime Minister referred quite frequently to the Drayton-Aeworth Report and advised all hon. members to read it, and I think it is very good advice. I think that Report should be read by all of us; there are very many passages in it that are well worthy of careful perusal. The Acting Prime Minister said the commissioners recommended that the Government should take this road over, but he omitted to read one further paragraph. I will supply the omission:
1.	That the Government do not acquire or undertake to operate any further railways; but
2.	That these three railways, Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk, and Grand Trunk Pacific, be transferred by Act of Parliament to an independent Board of Trustees (incorporated as a company), constituted as we shall hereafter describe.
These recommendations, from our point of view, hang together and must be regarded as inseparable. We do not recommend the transfer of the three companies at all, unless our recommendations as to the method to be followed are also substantially accepted. That the Government should Itself take over the railways, and they should then be operated under the control of a Parliamentary Minister of Railways, is a policy which in our judgment would not be in the best interest of Canada.
The commissioners pointed out in various places through the report that they would not under any consideration recommend the Government taking over the road and operating it. I think the Prime Minister is somewhat in error in saying that the Government railways are being operated as recommended by the Drayton-Aeworth report, because they are actually being operated by a board of about fifteen directors, whereas the recommendation of the Drayton-Aeworth report was that the directorate should consist of five members. The operation is carried on as a political proposition. The directors are appointed by the Minister of Railways, and I think I am safe in saying that one qualification all possess is that they supported the Union Government at the last election. There i3 not a known railway man in the whole aggregation of directors, outside of Mr. Hanna, Mackenzie and Mann's appointee, who was associated with Mackenzie and Mann in practically all their undertakings in this country during the last twenty years. Mr. C.	M. Hamilton, of McTaggart, another of the directors, is a farmer, and I believe, a very good man; but I understand also that he made way for his Conservative opponent in the last election and was a supporter of the Union Government. Apparently this is his reward. Mr. Thomas Cantley, of New Glasgow, and Mr. Barnhill, of St-. John, N.B., are presidents of steel companies. Sir H. Laporte, of Montreal, who is on practically all the Government commissions, is a wholesale grocer. Mr. Jones, of Montreal, is in the cement and steel business. Then there are Mr. Bell, of Ottawa, Mr. Riley, of Winnipeg, a broker; Mr. Hobson, of Hamilton, president of a steel company there. The others were the former directors of the Canadian Northern.
The grabbing, as it were, of these railways does not solve the railway problem of Canada. The great difficulty is that we have not sufficient traffic to make the railroads pay, and the reason why we have not sufficient traffic is that we have not sufficient population.


William Findlay Maclean: Why did we build them?


Frank S. Cahill: That is a question I would like the Government to answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank S. Cahill: The Drayton-Aeworth report says:
We may put the same thing in another way. The growth of the mileage has far outstripped the growth of the population. In 1901, with a population of 5,371,315, Canada had 18,140 miles of railway in operation; roughly, a mile of railway for every 300 inhabitants. In 1911, the population had increased 34 per cent to 7,206,643, while the mileage had increased by 40 per cent to 25,400 miles; a mile of railway to every 284 inhabitants.
Mark you, in 1911 we had a mile of railway to every 284 people. There was an election in that year. The report goes on to say:
Since 1911, the population has, it is understood, not much increased, but the railway mileage open and under construction has grown to 40,584 miles. In other words, Canada has today, taking the present population as 7,500,000, only 185 inhabitants to support each mile of railway. Taking the four western provinces by themselves, there are only two-thirds of this number for each mile of railway.
That refers to the period between 1911 and 1916, in respect of which hon. gentle-

men will not attempt to put the responsibility for railway conditions upon members on this side. It may be said that before 1911 a railway policy had been inaugurated, and so on. That is quite true as applied to the period from 1896; but at the same time a policy of immigration and colonization was carried out by the Government which went out of power in 1911. That policy, which caused the country to be settled as railways were built, continued from 1896 to 1911. The railways did not get ahead of the population, nor was the population much behind the railways; the ratio -was properly preserved. But between 1911 and 1917, hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to forget all about the immigration and colonization policy, and they constructed railroads all over the country. The friends of railway operators and contractors were in power at that time.
It does not make much difference whether you hand this money over to the Grand Trunk Pacific and let them pay it out to cover operating deficits, or pay it out yourself. The difficulty is that you may pay a great deal more to operate the road as a Government undertaking. The question for us to solve is: How are we to handle those railroads? The first consideration should be: What management do you propose? How do you hope to manage these roads? The Lrayton-Acworth report goes very fully into that; in no sense does it recommend that the roads be taken over by Canada if they are to be operated by the Government. The report recommends that they be operated by a commission, and points out how the commission should be formed. I do not say that I agree with everything in the Drayton-Acworth report, but apparently the only things in that report that the Government agree with are the things that suit them and their friends. There is no mention in the report of paying the Canadian Northern people $10,800,000 for a portion of their stock; on the contrary, that stock was condemned as of no value. We have the farce of an arbitration proceeding in Toronto which decides that we shall pay out this $10,800,000; yet we have not acquired all the stock; we do not know who are the owmers of ten per cent of that stock. It is understood, however, mat this stock is owned by some of the friends of the Mackenzie and Mann interests.
Last year the Prime Minister announced that negotiations were to be started for the taking over of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Various members of the Government carpet-bagged back and forth across the ocean 
last year; our esteemed friend Clifford Sif-ton also was on these tours. If that speaking tube that he uses so well could tell a tale, it could inform us very much better about this railway situation than we have been informed this afternoon.
The chief trouble in connection with our railway situation is the land question. The Canadian Northern runs through millions of acres of vacant lands held by speculators throughout Western Canada and by competing railway companies. If our railroads run through vacant lands and produce no traffic, necessarily we must lose money on the operation. Until this land question is satisfactorily settled, the roads which run through these unoccupied areas cannot possibly make money. Even the tariff enters into railroad operation. If you sweep the tariff wall away in Western Canada and inaugurate a sane land policy, causing the land held by speculators in the West to be put into use and to create traffic for the roads which we own, we would have very little trouble with the railway situation. If you have people on the lines of the railways, the railways will take care of themselves. We have one prosperous railway system; the Canadian Pacific is making money. In fact, we are forcing money on them that they do not require. They are earning so much that we expect to get part of it back, because they are, earning more than the country is supposed to allow them. But that line runs through territory that is developed. We have not too much railway mileage; we have too little population, and no policy which would have the effect of increasing it.
If the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) would spend more time in looking after the colonization of the country and less in convincing himself that he is a Liberal, it would be much better for the railways of this country. On the Transcontinental east of here, from Cochrane east, all through the province of Quebec, there is the poorest kind of service, a service that is heart-breaking to settlers going into that country. The pioneers going_into that country cannot get cars to handle their wood. Here is an undertaking that cost from $50,000 to $60,000 a mile to build, and sufficient rolling stock is not provided. The road is well built; the country is fairly well settled; but how can the road ever hope to pay if you do not handle the .traffic on it and do not encourage the traffic there. If the Minister of Immigration and Colonization would take a trip through that country if he would look after the traffic of that country and see that the railroad gave pro-

per facilities for handling the wood and other products of that country, instead of losing thousands of people from Quebec and Northern Ontario. If that were done, that road, instead of losing a great deal of money would, in a few years, prove a profitable enterprise. But if you start out with the avowed intention of killing the settlement, of course, the road cannot pay. That is bound to be the result if you will not give a proper service, and people are, therefore, afraid to go in. I know of instances on the Transcontinental last year where people drew out wood, having been promised that they would get cars. The wood was worth $5 a cord. They took out the wood, but they could not sell it, because there were no cars to take the wood away. In the spring of the year, the brokers and lawyers oaime along and bought that wood at from $2.50 to $3 a cord, and a few weeks afterwards they were able to secure cars. Such occurrences will kill settlement in any country. There has been no attempt to give service on the Transcontinental since it has been built, and unless you give service-


William Findlay Maclean: The Grand Trunk undertook to do that.


Frank S. Cahill: The Grand Trunk undertook to do that, and the Dominion Government, of which my hon. friends are members, relieved the Grand Trunk of their responsibility, and when they relieved them of that responsibility, I think the Grand Trunk was quite justified in believing that they would also be relieved of the Grand Trunk Pacific responsibility.
Mr. NICKLE. Why?


Frank S. Cahill: The Transcontinental is
the connecting link between the old Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk are now in the position of owning a railroad in the west with no connecting link from Winnipeg to the East. That connecting link was taken from them by the Government of this country, and when that wias done, I think the Grand 'Trunk were quite right in assuming that the Government were also going to relieve them of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Mr. MANION:: Does the hon. member
think that the Grand Trunk should be relieved of its liability or not?


Frank S. Cahill: I am not debating the
point whether it should be relieved of its liability or not. If it should not be relieved, the Government should have taken action when they relieved that company of the Transcontinental. They relieved the Grand
Trunk of the connecting link. It is a debatable question whether they should be relieved or not. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada have not received from the Dominion of Canada $10,000,000 altogether for the construction of railroads in Canada. The Grand Trunk was a pioneer road during its whole career. It is owned by British people in the old country who invested their money here for the development of Canada. The Canadian Pacific came along and got in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000 from the Treasury of Canada. The Grand Trunk got a few million dollars to build a conecting link from the boundary line down to Portland.


William Folger Nickle: 
Frank S. Cahill: The report here will show that they did not get anything which they
did not pay back except a few million to build a road from Portland to the boundary


Mr. LALOR:: They had assistance from the municipalities through which they went, and they did not pay anything back.


Frank S. Cahill: I am not speaking about the municipalities; I am speaking about the Government. My own county of Pontiac has assisted roads by bonuses, and I do not think that is quite the right thing to do. I think it is a mistake. But we are not speaking about the assistance they got from the various municipalities; we are speaking about the assistance they got from the Government. As they have not received nearly as much assistance from this country as the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern has, I think they are justified in asking for fair treatment in this matter. I think they are justified in asking that they be released from the Grand Trunk Pacific obligation, especially as they have been released from the Transcontinental obligation, as that leaves them without any-connecting link whatever. We are rushing into this thing haphazard with apparently no policy. The Government say that they are being guided by the Drayton-Acworth Report, but, apart from the matter of taking over the road, they are not following the report in regard to management or operation or payment for the road. They are simply taking the road and throwing it into the hands of the Canadian Northern crowd, the Mackenzie and Mann outfit, who apparently want to grab the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. If there is an obligation on the part of the Grand Trunk, that obligation should easily be determined between the railway company

and the Government. It is only in connection with the Grand Trunk guarantees, and has nothing to do with the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself, because the Gr nd Trunk Railway Company claim that they are able to operate. They have never made default in their operations or in paying interest on their bonds. The only operation they are being " crowded " on is their guarantees of the Grand Trunk Pacific bonds. It seems that the Government think the Grand Trunk should be [DOT] relieved of that-and the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) apparently thinks so himself, because he says the Government offered them a certain amount of money which would relieve them of the obligation. He says: If they insist on taking up the Grand Trunk Pacific obligation, they have no equity whatsoever. Yet he says that they should be relieved of the responsibilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Thomas White: No.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, it is practically that, is it not? The Acting Prime Minister says that the Grand Trunk, if they are held responsible regarding their obligations to the Grand Trunk Pacific, have no equity. Yet he says that the Government is willing to pay them an equity in the road. And he also says, if I understood him correctly, they would claim the relieving of the liability so far as the Grand Trunk Railway Company was concerned.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend misquotes me. I did state that if the liability of the Grand Trunk in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific were taken fully into account, the value of the Grand Trunk shares would be practically nil; and I said, and said it with emphasis, that in our negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, their liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific must be regarded as an important factor bearing upon the question of what we shall in our generosity allow them.


Frank S. Cahill: If the Acting Prime Minister admits the principle that the Grand Trunk have no equity in the 'Grand Trunk Pacific, then why does he offer them this money at all? It seems an unreasonable proposition that he should offer them some $3,000,000 a year for something in which they have no equity, unless he admits the principle that he should relieve them of the Grand Trunk Pacific liability; and if he admits that principle, then I think they can justly state whether they want to sell the Grand Trunk 
Railway to the Government or not. I think they would be justified in saying: We will put a price on it, or we will not, just as they see fit, so long as they are not in default. The Grand Trunk themselves are probably anxious and quite willing to get rid of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I think that, by this action taken by the Government, they have done so, because the Government have jumped in summarily and taken possession, without the Grand Trunk making default. I think before the Government gets through they will find they have relieved the Grand Trunk of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and they will have no further hold on the Grand Trunk.
With regard to the earnings, the minister says that it will take from $7,000,000 to $8,000,000 a year to pay the deficits. I have here a statement of the Canadian Northern gross earnings. For September, 1918, the gross earnings were $4,050,700, as compared with $3,341,500 for the same period in the previous year-an increase of $709,200. Operating expenses were $4,109,000 compared with $2,915,800 for the year previous, so that net earnings of $425,900 for September, 1917 have been turned into a deficit of $58,100 for the same month of 1918. The operating expenses work out on a similar basis. So I think it might have been better to wait a while and leave the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the Grand Trunk until some amicable arrangement had been arrived at whereby the Grand Trunk would acknowledge their obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific or be relieved of them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the public ownership of railways, the point that I am most particularly interested in is the policy of the Government with regard to the management of the road. Reading again from the Drayton-Acworth report, I find this:
The railway touches the life of the country at innumerable points. It can almost make one city and unmake another. It vitally affects the question whether an Industry in one place Is more or less profitable than in another. Every city wants to become a railway centre, to have railway works located within its limits. And the local member invariably wants it too. Every citizen wants the railway station placed where it best suits his own personal convenience, and wants that every express train shall sto-j at it.

I have in mind a case which I think will apply to this condition. The Canadian Northern had at Calgary some twenty or twenty-five engines operating from Calgary on the Goose Lake line. The company transferred them to Hanna for some unknown reason. They also transferred some seventy-five employees of the road. They took them from Calgary where they had every convenience as regards water supply, coal facilities and facilities for the men, and transferred them to Hanna where they are hauling water some fifty miles to supply the engines. There may be a sufficient reason for this transfer there, but it is not apparent to the people along the line. It seems to be an additional cost to the service; and it might account for some of the figures which I have quoted of the earnings and expenditures in connection with the running of the road since the Government took it over. I am not opposed to public ownership of railways, although there has never resulted any great success from such ownership, principally for the reason that the roads are always brought into politics; and if the great railway systems of this country are to become a political football and a patronage outlet for the Government we shall undoubtedly lose a lot of money. It has cost a great deal more to run the Canadian Northern this year, than before the Government took it over, and no doubt it will take more to run the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Drayton-Acworth report specifically says that it will under no consideration recommend railways to be taken over and managed by the Government, and suggests that there should be a commission appointed, and this seems quite reasonable. There are a great number of people in this country who are very anxious to have public ownership, but apparently there are very few who are giving any attention to the question of management. I fear that we will be confronted with difficulties, after we have expended a lot of money, and find ourselves in deeper water in this railway problem. We had an instance in the Railway Committee the other day. The Grand Trunk were asking to be allowed to sell some more securities, many of the members of the committee objecting strenuously. Some other promoter had a railway starting from nowhere in particular and ending anywhere, and there did not seem to be an objection to his getting an extension of time. There are some one hundred or one hundred and fifty railways projected by promoters who hope at some future time to unload them on the Dominion of Canada; and just as soon as these railroads
are allowed to pass the Railway Committee, get a charter, and get organized, and sell their securities, and get a subsidy from the Dominion Government, there will be difficulties. I think the whole question should be seriously considered by the Government and the entire system worked out on some basis of public and private ownership. It seems to me that the ideal condition would be to have our present public-owned railways properly managed and leave the Canadian Pacific railway as it is. I think the Canadian National railway might form a working arrangement with the Grand Trunk that would save the country from taking over that end of it. A traffic arrangement might surely be made with them. They need the outlet in the West, just as much as the western lines need the outlet in the East; and there might be some arrangement by which the Grand Trunk and the Government railways could co-operate. They would have as competitor the Canadian Pacific railway. We would then have a private-owned road and a Government-owned road, and we could test the two plans and ascertain which is the better. But apparently the Government has given this matter no thought whatever. The Prime Minister at the last session said that it was his intention that there should be a commission, and that this matter should be taken as far as possible out of politics. Since that time, however, we find that ten new directors of the Canadian National railway have been appointed, and I have been unable to find any special reason for their appointment. So far as I can learn they had no qualifications to recommend them as railroad men. This undertaking is a large one. It embraces some 15,000 miles of railway and something over a billion dollars of investment, and should therefore surely merit the most earnest consideration of the Government. The whole problem must be carefully worked out if the situation is to be saved. There can be no advantage in taking over these railroads if the cost of operation will be more than at the present time. The people of the Dominion must pay the charges no matter whether the railways are privately or publicly owned. If the Grand Trunk Pacific as a company system cost only $7,000,000 of the people's money to run, and it would cost $10,000,000 as a public-owned proposition, we would be losing some millions. It cannot be an asset if it is a losing proposition, and it would be just as well to leave it as it is; and until we realize the importance of the management and work out a system whereby

we shall get the best possible results, we shall continue to lose money. I fail to understand why a grocer, and a broker, and a steel magnate, should be directors of a railway system; and I think that we might follow the Drayton-Acworth report and appoint the best railway men we could get in Canada, giving them a free hand and paying them good salaries. I think also it will be necessary to adopt some system of co-operation with the employees of the road, some profit-sharing system, in order that we may obtain the best service from the employees. As things are at present, under political management, they are uncertain as to the future. There may be changes of government, of management and of directors, and, naturally changes of employees, unless we can take these roads out . of politics. The question of the extensions of the railroads should also be taken into serious consideration. There are places where the railroads must be extended, and there are places where we have too many roads already; and that question should be dealt with by some other body of impartial men who would not be at the beck and call of a member for any district. A road may be needed for the development of territory where it will not yield interest charges and operating expenses at first. There should be some system by which such a road could be subsidized to a certain extent, after it had been passed upon by some independent body. We should also establish the capitalization of these roads. We have the Intercolonial without capitalization, and the Canadian Northern with heavy capitalization. We should establish the capitalization on which roads within a reasonable period of years would be in a position to earn money. Hand the roads over to a commission and let them state to the Government, if you will, what they expect to require in the way of cash assistance from this country in order to put them in good shape, and what they expect to require before they can be made to pay, and how long they expect to operate before getting any returns. If we go on in our present haphazard way, however, reaching out and taking a railway here and another there, we shall certainly have difficulties. The last night of last session, about ten o'clock at night, there was brought uip the question of some four or five railroads. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid), a great public ownership man, turned to his friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), who was more or less of a private-ownership man, and with their 
co-operation we gobbled up four or five railroads.
I do not know how much work has been done on them since, nor what system has been adopted to put them into shape. The railway situation will never work itself out until we adopt a policy of colonization to get people along the lines of road and to get the land that is being held out of use into such a condition that people can go and settle upon it and produce traffic for the railways.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) but I cannot agree with him. I am an absolute believer in the public ownership of railways in this country. I came into this House on that doctrine. I have seen it expand and grow and take possession of the hearts of the people. The people are determined that the old system must end forever and a new system take its place. That new system is public ownership. One of the first war measures of the Mother Country was to take over the railways of Great Britain. They will never part with them. The United States have taken over the railways. They have had difficulties, but they are trying to surmount them. They are co-ordinating the roads, they are licking them into shape, and while they have not made any profits, and people say it has 'been expensive to run them, the real fact is that the roads had been allowed to run down and they required immense expenditures to restore them to a profitable basis.
The people of the United States have justified that expenditure. They have a body in the United States called the Council of Agriculture. That council, represented by its chairman and prominent members, waited upon the Senate Committee, discussing the railway situation, and said: We come here representing the farmers of the United States who, in their organized capacity, are in favour of public ownership and who believe that this is the only way of getting substantial relief from their transportation difficulties. They are going to continue public ownership in the United States. They have it, as a matter of fact, in England although there is some legislating yet to do. Germany held her predominence in the war largely because of her state-owned railways, all Europe has been converted to state-owned railways and no country there proposes to abandon the principle of state ownership.
We believe in it in the province of Ontario. I have watched closely the develop-

ment of public opinion on that question,
1 know what the people there are thinking and I have no hesitation in saying that they are in favour of public ownership. We have a provincially-owned railway. It is doing good work, it is well administered and it has opened up a new portion of the country. While it has not paid any dividends yet, it is a splendid asset for the province. We have also another fine example of public ownership in the Hydroelectric system of Ontario, which supplies the people with heat, light and power. They have made a great success of it there, and they are going to extend it to local radial railways.
I was up in the West taking part in a little campaign on that question. Those who fought the idea of public ownership in connection with the radial system were not in it when the votes were counted. The workmen and farmers in Ontario are all for public ownership when they are asked to pronounce upon local proposals of that kind. When the next election comes around the people will demand by their votes that we shall have a well-established system of public ownership. So far we have had to take the lean ends, the failures, and the roads that have been exploited by capitalists of all kinds. After the capitalists and contractors have made fortunes for themselves, and the public have spent immense sums of money, the people are compelled to come along to recover these roads and take them over.
What have we paid for this whole adventure in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific? Not less than half a million dollars-1500,000,000 has gone into this railway proposition extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Then, when we take it over, we will have to pay $25,000,000 a year, which means $5 for every man, woman and child in this country, notwithstanding what we have already spent on the road. It has not been organized, it is not serving the people, although the money has been paid out. Somebody has got a lot of money, but we have to pay for it. We not only had to pay for it the first time, but now we have to take it over and do the best we can. There must be no more of that kind of thing. If any one comes into this House while I am a member of it and tries to get the people's money paid out for the construction of a railway, which railway will sooner or later be dumped on the public to be taken care of by them, I am not going to vote for it. Nor will I ever vote for another dollar of public money for any privately-owned railway.
They talk about the public not being able to administer a railway. Was there ever such incompetency in the history of the world as that which has been disclosed by the record of the railways in the United States and Canada under the management of private companies? Nearly every one of these roads has become bankrupt? Nearly every one has gone through the profits, has failed, and the people who put their money into them have been looted and ruined by the so-called executives of these railways. The public have never been served. Competition never did anything for the public, but the money was spent. The exploiters had control. They did the contracting in one way and another, with the result that the roads have been wrecked. The net result on the American continent is that private ownership has wrecked the railway systems of United States and Canada, with the single exception of the Canadian Pacific.
My opinion is that the people of Canada have determined that there shall be no more exploitation of the public in this respect, and ieast of all are they prepared to take the advice of the hon. member for Pontiac, who says: Appoint another commission and allow this thing to continue; let us find out what we can do. The thing is to do something now.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me. I said: Appoint a commission to manage the present Canadian National Railways instead of the liovernment managing them.


William Findlay Maclean: I know that the hon. gentleman is no advocate of the proposition before the Govefnment. But, we have to deal with this question now. We cannot go out, get information and appoint a commission; we have to deal with the facts before us. Here is a great railway system in default. The Government and Parliament must deal with it, and the Government have come forward with a proposition. My only criticism is that they are not going far enough. When we are winding up the Grand Trunk Pacific is the time to wind up the old Grand Trunk. Perhaps that will come in a few days. That, I expect, will be the result of the provision which is being made now. I also agree with the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) when he says it is up to the Grand Trunk to say something and do something now. The next move is theirs.
But in the meantime we are going to put an end to all this exploitation in connection with the old Grand Trunk Pacific. We will take it over if we have to. We will join it



up with the Canadian Northern, and will take over the ragged ends. As I said before, if we take the Grand Trunk Pacific we want the old Grand Trunk, which, if joined up to the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the other roads that we have taken over, will make a Canadian national system which can be linked together and co-ordinated, and all unnecessary trackage perhaps thrown out. If that is done a great saving can be made. When we begin to do things like that we will really have public ownership, and we will find people in this country who can administer railroads. The people of this country will stand no longer for an administration of the public railways being made a part of a political machine-the day for all that has gone by. They administer the railways in England without politics, and for the time the Government had them they did so in the United States under the administration of Mr. McAdoo. There was not much politics in connection with the administration of the railways there, and there will be no politics in the administration of the railays in this country: we will find the men who will administer our railways properly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the hon.
member propose to have responsible government, and yet have the management of the railroads not responsible to Parliament?	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
there is much in that point. We will have the railways administered by public ownership, perhaps by commission. Parliament must take the responsibility, under our system of government, eventually, but that does n,ot mean that there will be any interference with the men who are administering the railways. I will undertake to find people in this country-any one would undertake to do so-who can run these roads. What a pitiable situation it is to se in this country the railroads already in existence -the combinations that are in existence (and they are always conspiring) [DOT] they want to see public ownership defeated. That great system, the Canadian Pacific, which has been a success, what is it doing to-day? It is doing its best to prevent the Government from getting hold of the Grand Trunk. It does not want to see a success made of a national system of railways, for it knows that is coming and that it will be here in a very short time.
I approve of this Act of the Government in dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but I think it must be followed a little later on by taking over the Grand Trunk and

consolidating it with the railroads we now have. I would be prepared now, and I believe the people of Canada largely would be prepared, to take over the Canadian Pacific and give it a reasonable arrangement whereby we would have one national system. We are a poor nation, Mr. Speaker, after what we have done from a national point of view-from the point of view of fighting, and one thing or another

if we cannot run our own railroads in the interest of the public. I hate to hear men in public life talking about putting the administration of our railroads into the hands of politicians. I propose to put them into the hands of Canadians, I propose to have them take the administration of the roads and make a success of it. It has been made a success in Australia, in New Zealand, all over the continent of Europe, and the British Government are doing it all over Africa. India has national railroads, France has national railroads, and there is not a country which is preparing to depart from that principle. They are all coming to it, and we are coming to it-we have arrived at it. Here in Canada the people are in favour of it, and I hope it will not be long before we have, not only the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the Grand Trunk proper, in our national railway system.
Now who is it that objects to taking over this Grand Trunk 'adventure, after the _en-ormous expenditure in connection with it? You will always find there are three interests in connection with railroads. First of all there is the public that is served; then there are the people who have their money invested-the shareholders or the investors-and there are always another clever lot who have the executive power in their hands. And that comes home to the men in London who have been administering the Grand Trunk for a great many years. They do not care for the public, or for the 'shareholders; they have been exploiting the shares of the Grand Trunk in its various forms for fifty years in the London market; and they would like to keep that power as long as they can, they would like to dabble in Grand Trunk securities, and they would like to have the patronage and the handing out of the contracts in connection with the Grand Trunk. Therefore I do not take any stock in this objection to public ownership of railways that comes from the executive of the Grand Trunk. I would make this suggestion to the Government: If it wishes to make this campaign effective, the first thing it should do is get a list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk and send them a copy of this debate, and let the shareholders of the

Grand Trunk know what has been concealed from them, so far as I can gather-that is the actual commitments to which those shareholders have been pledged by this, so-called, executive in London. How many of them know what this country has already paid for that road-what we have paid on their account, and what commitments and obligations they have failed to perform? They do not know it. Instead of that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk in England have been told that in some way the people of Canada are robbers, that we are confiscating their property. All we have asked the company to do is to make good their undertakings. Why do they not make good their undertakings? We loaned them money, and the credit to build the Grand Trunk Pacific. The money has been spent and the roads are there, but the steel is rusting, and the farmers want the service which these railways should provide. Let us give them that service. Let us help to open Quebec and Northern Ontario with this great transcontinental system. How many millions were put into the Quebec bridge? Was it thirty millions? And the expenditure is not yet over. That is an adventure, that was not done by public ownership-that is an adventure of private ownership connected with politics. That has all got to stop. Now that we have paid the money and got these roads, we should tell these men who have made a mess of things to step down and out, and let the people run these railways.
Could there have been a worse mess than the Grand Trunk magnates in London have landed this great Grand Trunk Pacific railway into? I have heard what the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said some time ago with respect to that scheme in which he took so much interest. I saw him introduce the project into this House, and I have followed it from its inception to the end. Apparently Sir Wilfrid put his faith in one individual, in Mr. Hays, for the carrying of it out, and when Mr. Hays died, Sir Wilfrid said it would have a bad effect on the fortunes and the future of the road. But whether that be so or not the fact remains that the people of Canada put half a billion of money into this one proposition. They put up the money, they signed the agreements, and yet these magnates in London, who made those solemn agreements, are dodging the responsibility, are trying to evade it-they want to leave the baby on the doorstep of the people of Canada. Now there is to be no more of that in connection with our railroads. We will 434
take them over, we will try and run them, and we will put these railroads on their feet.


An hon. MEMBER:: On wheels.


William Findlay Maclean: Very well, on * wheels-and we will make them serve the people, but we want no more adjournment of the matter, and no opportunity given to the Grand Trunk to continue its plotting.
Now here is what is going on in Montreal largely: The great thing that I read in the papers there is that in some way we should not wreck this poor old Grand Trunk and we should not confiscate this property. While that argument is advanced, two things are going on: First, the Canadian Pacific has been trying for months to get control of the old Grand Trunk. I do not think anybody will deny that. The other thing that has been observed going on is that - the Canadian Pacific would like to see delay in the nationalization of the railways, they would like to see it fail, and they would like to see Canada loaded up with the poor ends like the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial, possibly, and the Transcontinental, which some people say goes through a wilderness. But now that we have paid this money, give us one good railroad in Ontario, where the main mileage of the old Grand Trunk is to be found, and let the people run it. If you do, it will be a success; it will help to carry the other roads along, and you will have a good national system of railways.
I have heard the grievances of the farmers in connection with the tariff. I have studied the tariff question, and I have studied also the transportation question. You can give real relief to the people of the West, you can settle up that part of our country, you can bring about lower freight rates, by the establishing of a national -system of railways better than you can in any other way. And we must also own a national system of transportation on the sea; we are cdming to that. Every time the railway commission get a reduction of freight rates for the farmers, the men who control our steamship services, especially the Englishmen, who have no special regard for this country, jump up the ocean transport charges. We do not get the benefit of reduced freight rates or of the money that we vote to secure railway competition. But when we have a national system of railways devoted to serving our people, opening up settlement and reducing the rates of transportation, our country will go ahead. If the mem-

(2) Loan:
The Dominion Government made to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, many years ago, a loan, interest on which has never -been asked for or paid, amounting to	$15,142,633
Total	$28,145,693
That, I think, sufficiently refutes the position taken by the hon. member for Pontiac. Then he says: Who is responsible for the railway situation in Canada to-day? I do not know that it very much matters who is responsible. The railways in Canada, like the poor, we always have with us; but there is one thing perfectly certain, and that is that neither the Unionist party nor the Conservative party were in power in 1903, when the contract between the Grand Trunk 'Railway Company and the Dominion of Canada was made that led us into the difficulty in which we find ourselves. Nor were the Conservative party in power in 1911, when the Canadian Northern Railway system, by a subsidy granted by the then Minister of Railways, Hon. George P. Graham, was permitted to leave the Western Provinces >
and get an eastern connection, and to take the first step towards making what had been a local railway system into a transcontinental railway system. But I want to be just; I do not want to endeavour to place the responsibility altogether on hon. gentlemen opposite, because if they were responsible in 1903 and again in 1911, there is one thing quite sure, namely, that the Conservative Government of later years were, in my judgment, responsible when they permitted the Canadian Northern Railway system to be extended from Winnipeg to the coast, because it was a national crime to allow the parallelling of the Canadian Pacific from Kamloops to the Pacific coast along one side of the Fraser and Thompson rivers while the Canadian Pacific ran down the other side. But who were to blame? We were all to blame, because the people of Canada allowed themselves to be bribed with their own money. We were to blame because the people of Canada were led to believe that this railway expenditure and development were going to make good times, and the majority, or a great number of the people of Canada thought there was going to be something in it for them. The people allowed themselves to be bribed with their own money, and fate brought them to punishment, and we are paying to-day for our irregularity and our weakness of a few years ago.
The construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific brought great industrial activity in

Canada; the recognition by the Government of 1911 of the right of the Canadian Northern to become a transcontinental railway brought further great development, and between them we had competition in expenditures. Wages rose and the cost of materials rose. Instead of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental being built at the estimated cost of those who had launched the schemes, prices .were greatly enhanced. The original estimate of the National Transcontinental was about $61,000,000. The real cost was approximately $160,000,000, $99,000,000 over the estimate, or 150 per cent.
The Grand Trunk Railway engineers had the right to draw the specifications, they had the right to supervise and the right to inspect, and yet this country in the inauguration of a public-owned system of railways is burdened down with part of a national transcontinental railway at a cost of $99,000,000 beyond what it should have cost. Now, Sir, I have said that the inflation and the competition between the two railroads tremendously increased the cost, and the members of this House have a right to ask: "How does he know it? Why does he say it? Is it a fact? Can he prove it?" I think those are fair questions, and I want to prove it, not by any isolated fact that I might produce of my own knowledge, but out of the mouth of Mr. Chamberlin himself. There is one unfortunate thing when a man takes an oath and swears to tell the truth-that is, unfortunate, possibly, from his point of view when the evidence turns against him -and that is he has no reason to complain when the people believe him and have reason to suppose that what he said was a fact. What did Mr. Chamberlin of the Grand Trunk Railway Company say when he was giving evidence before the Drayton-Acworth-Smith Commission in Montreal on the 24th February, 1917, as to the cost of the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental? He said-Page 82:
Mr. Chamberlin: In the first place, all our estimates were made on the basis of $1.50 for labour, $1.75 to make it safe. Labour is the principal part of the construction of a railway. The result was that with the other road working right alongside of us, especially west of Edmonton, we had to pay $3.50 a day right along, and even then the men would not work. If we tried to crowd them and make them work, they would simply climb over the fence, so to speak, and go to work for the Canadian Northern.
Sir Henry Drayton: But your position would be no worse in that respect than that of the Canadian Northern.

Mr. Chamberlin: Not in that respect. Still, it tremendously increased the cost of the road. In addition to that, all material was increased in price. The Canadian Pacific Railway was constructing feverishly all the time to keep up with the other two. That increased the cost of material away beyond any expectations. There were also duties put on everything after that contract was made-
That is the contract for the construction of the two roads.
-such as $7 a ton on rails. So you see everything counted.
Tnat simply goes to prove that the construction of those two roads at the one time created an inflation, increased prices, and made the cost infinitely more expensive than had originally been estimated
But the hon. member for Pontiac st.ll seems to be willing to excuse tl e Grand Trunk. As I said, I want to be fair. I want to view this thing as if I were to an extent a shareholder in the Grand Trunk Railway Company. As a shareholder in the railroad I should feel myself estopped by the conduct of my management, and although I had made a loss I do not believe I should be justified in saying that what the management had done and what I as a shareholder had approved, I now had a right to claim to be freed from. When the Grand Trunk came to the Government of this country-I want to emphasize this point: the Government of the day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government, did not go to the Grand Trunk and ask them to build this railroad, but the Grand Trunk came to the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and endeavoured to enter into a contract to. permit of the building of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, because the Grand Trunk Railway wanted a western outlet, wanted a long haul and a western connection-when the Grand Trunk came to the Government they asked the Government only for a railroad from North Bay westward. That was a sound policy and probably if that arrangement as contemplated by the Grand Trunk had been adhered to, the difficulties we have had to _ contend with in this country might not have arisen. But the Government of the day-and I say it advisedly, because I think history will prove it, and certainly the facts will not disprove it-the Government of the day, and the members of the Parliament of that day, for political reasons insisted that the arrangement as contemplated should not be carried out, and they insisted on the construction of a railway away down through the northern part of this country and across the Maritime Provinces to Moncton. They loaded the Grand Trunk down with a load
it could never hope to carry, but the Grand Trunk knew before they signed the contract what the contract was to be, and I do not see how it lies in the mouth of the Grand Trunk Railway to come to this country now and say that we are .hard and unreasonable when we ask them to live up to the contract they made. And the Grand Trunk do admit that the contract they are asked to live up to is a contract that cannot be lived up to. You ask me why I do say this. I again turn to the sworn evidence of Mr. Chamberlin at Montreal-page 79. Mr. Chamberlin had been giving evidence as to why the Grand Trunk should not he asked to live up to its obligations, and after he had given his first reason Sir Henry Drayton said to him:
Sir Henry Drayton: Tour second ground is that of impossibility?
Mr. Chamberlin: It is an impossibility.
Sir Henry Drayton: If it is impossible now, it was always impossible.
Mr. Chamberlin: It was always impossible.
In other words, the Grand Trunk Railway Company entered into a contract with the Government of this country which Mr. Chamberlin says was always impossible for that railroad to carry out.
What reason has the Grand Trunk Railway to come to us and ask to be relieved of "its obligations? What reason has the Grand Trunk Railway to come to this country, which has done much more for the Grand Trunk Railway than we ever promised lu do, and say: "You arc treating us harshly. Relieve us from our obligations."
You listened this afternoon, -Sir, to the very excellent summary of the Acting Prime Minister, and what did it show? It showed that the outstanding liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific to-day are approximately $200,000,000; that in 1909, beyond our original agreement, we gave them $10,000,000 of a guarantee, the Grand Trunk also joining in that guarantee; that in 1913 we gave to the Grand Trunk Pacific a guarantee of $15,000,000, the Grand Trunk also joining in the guarantee; that in 1914 we guaranteed $16,000,000 more, in which guarantee the Grand Trunk did not join; that in 1916 we gave $8,000,000 of a loan ^ in 1917 we gave $7,500,000 of a loan; in 1918 we gave $8,000,000 of a loan. In other words, Canada has given to this undertaking by way of loans and guarantees $63,500,0-00 more than this country ever promised to give, and we have paid out $99,000,000 more than we estimated for the construction of the Transcontinental. And yet people had the audacity to say to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway that we are confiscating their property,

Equipping engines with safety appliances- Original estimate. . $17,828 00 Already expended.. .	553 68
Balance to be expended	$	17,274 32
Deferred renewals im Maintenance of Way Department-
In Canada	$6,182,672
In United States. . ..	5,578,926

Toted	$21,181,345 07
Montreal, March 5, 1917.
That must be met to cover the additional expenditure on maintenance account.
Grand Trunk Capital Expenditure Required.
The $21,000,000 dealt with above represent the money which the responsible officers of the company estimate to be required to put the existing plant into good normal condition. This is a revenue liability; But the existing plant is quite inadequate for existing traffic and requires large additions', for which new capital must be raised.
The estimates of necessary capital exepndiiture submitted to us are as follows :-
Requirements for rolling stock,
shops and machinery	 $26,150,000
Requirements for automatic block signals (main line in Canada
only)	  3,533,000
Requirements for installing rock
ballast crushing plant	 467,500
Total	 $30,150,500
Putting together revenue and capital expenditure, we find that the Grand Trunk Railway, in the opinion of its own officers, requires over $51,00l0,000 spent upon it to put it into a position to meet the requirements of its to-day's business. We see no reason to expect that under existing conditions this necessary money will be provided.
Now, Sir, to put that into short metre, it means this: That we have given the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, by loans and guarantees, $63,000,000 more than we promised them. We have taken over the National Transcontinental, which stands this country at $161,000,000,-$99,000,000 more than it was estimated the National Transcontinental would cost,'-and the Drayton and Acworth report says $50,000,000 is required to put the Grand Trunk Railway system in adequate operation and so maintain is as to give satisfactory service to Canada. And yet the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) hesitated this afternoon in saying that the time had come when Canada should act, not only to save her credit, but also to secure an adequate railway system for this country. I do not believe that is the opinion of the people of Canada. If I can read aright the policies we hear enunciated from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it i3 that the time has come when Canada is to cease subsidizing railroads, that we are going to own what we pay for. If we have got

to pay the costs in any event, then we are going to have the profits if there are profits. But just here, Sir, I would	like
pause to make one remark. I said if there are profits we are going to have the profits. But as a Government-ownership man I want to have a fair chance, I want unnecessary paralleling of lines eliminated, I want the whole of the system co-ordinated, and I do want the additional capital that has been absorbed by these .undertakings through improper construction, fraudulent specifications, inadequate checking, and all that we summarize in the cost of irregular and irrelevant construction, eliminated from what I might call the capital charges against the venture. I do not want the Canadian national system of railroads loaded up with the interest on $100,000,000 of overhead charge through the unfortunate cqst of construction of the National Transcontinental. I do not want the system loaded up with all the cost of paralleling lines that never should have been built. Government ownership in this country must get a fair show, and then it must stand or fall on its merits. But if it is to have a fair show, there must, as I said, be co-ordination of the various lines, there must be an elimination of waste in management, there must be the squeezing out of all the water represented by improper, and, as I said, irregular construction and flotation.
Somebody has said that you cannot have government operation and administration oi railroads, because you cannot get men to run them honestly. I may be an idealist, I may look forward to Utopia, hut in the eleven years I have been in public life there is one thing that I have learned, and that is that we are making a tremendous advance along the line of the willingness of big men to do public service. When the war broke out we saw men for an ideal go to the Front, willing to sacrifice their lives for $1.10 a day,-I was going to say, remuneration. No, they did not go to the Front to sacrifice their lives for $1.10 a day; they went to the Front moved by that enthusiasm which makes men realize that to die for one's country is sweet; and I believe, Sir, that the aftermath of this war will bring Canadians to realize that if it is dear and sweet for a man to die for his country, it is equally sweet for a man to live for his country. And I believe the time is coming, if the time is not already here, .when great men may be had in Canada to run our national railway system. Not great business men, simply because they have succeeded in a business that is not

a railroad, but great men. who have mastered a railroad system, great men who understand railway operation, experts in railway administration. I may say, Sir, that I agree with the hon. member for Pontiac that the present system is a long way from being ideal. I would no more think of, taking a grocer' and asking him to run a dry goods store, than I would think of taking a man from managing a steel plant or running a cement works, and asking him to run a railroad. What I should like to see this country do is to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific-we have already the Intercolonial, Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern systems- take over the old Grand Trunk-because it is insolvent and cannot finance itself-press the water out of the system, get the best railway men that the country can produce; and if Canada cannot produce the men let us get them from England or the United States, but let us secure the very best men we can get. Let us have a railroad system owned by this country and operated by independent, courageous men, and let us demonstrate to the world that Canada can do, and successfully do, that which she determines to do well.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I would like to make one or two comments on the railway situation as it has developed out of the resolution before the House. First of all, I would congratulate the Acting Prime Minister and the Government on the resolute action they took when the Grand Trunk put them with their backs against the wall, so to speak, with their ultimatum that the Grand Trunk Pacific would stop operating at 1 a.m. on the 10th instant. Speaking in this House last Session I put on Hansard a set of figures with regard to the National Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, that so far have not either been contradicted or disproved. I pointed out at that time-I am not going to weary the House with the details, any one who wishes can find the figures on Hansard-that through the construction of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific railways, for all of which the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was either directly or contingently liable, and for all of which the people . of Canada were either directly or contingently liable, $260,000,000 had gone into something that was not the construction of a railway. We are not going to get anywhere if we start in to throw bricks at each other as to who is responsible for that, but the fact remains that $260,-
000,000-not $100,000,000, as any hon. friend has told us on the National Transcontinental east of Winnipeg, but $120,000,000 on the National Transcontinental east of Winnipeg, and $130,000,000 on the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg-went into something that was not the construction of railways. That was not due to any wrong estimate, or to any increase in the wages paid to workmen, or the cost of steel or anything else, but was deliberately applied to some other purpose. In support of that statement, take the construction of the Canadian Northern, which was carried on side by side with it, and you will find, by simply estimating, the value of the physical assets of each, that what I say is absolutely correct. Now the point is simply this: As has been emphasized-and I think it should be re-emphasized in order that the people of this country may not be misunderstood by those who have put their money into the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or by English or European investors who may have put or or may hereafter put their money into any industry in Canada-the Canadian people are not responsible for anything more than they did themselves on the National Transcontinental east of Winnipeg. Let me repeat again what I said in this House last year, that if the Canadian people are willing to assume the responsibility for what they themselves threw away east of Winnipeg, there is no logical reason why the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada should not be responsible for what their officers threw away on the construction west of Winnipeg.
I agree with the Acting Prime Minister that we should be reasonably generous, but I do not agree that we should be generous to the point that has been suggested. It is not a difficult matter to estimate the value of a railway. It is just as easy for a railway man to determine whaJt a railway is worth as it is for a builder to determine what a building is worth. All you have to do is to measure the railway, take stock of its physical condition, the number of locomotives and cars of all descriptions it has, and you can determine its value without the least bit of trouble. Not what it cost. If you are going to build a house you are not going to ask the owner how much money he has sunk in schemes of architecture, but you will endeavour to find out what the value of the building is.
A railway is simply worth its mileage valuation, assuming that it was properly projected and reasonably constructed. And that is the situation with regard to the

Grand Trunk Railway system. But, that we have to take it over and assume responsibility for it has become evident to everyone who has studied the railway situation ever since we became loaded up with the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now that we are going to do it, as the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has said, let us do it in such a way that there will be reasonable probability of our making the thing a success. I said last year in this House-and I was questioned very pertinently from both sides in this regard- that we should squeeze the water out of the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the National Transcontinental. And somebody must squeeze $750,000,000 out of the capitalization, as given to us by the officers themselves, of the Grand Trunk Railway system. The figures may be found in the DraytonTAcworth report.
You will find in that report that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, Mr. Chamberlin, was asked specifically by Sir Henry Drayton during the course of his examination why it was that during the number of years when, by his own statement, the railway was depreciating in value, a large sum of money had been paid out in dividends, and why that money had not been used to keep the rolling stock and locomotives, the general physical condition of the road, as it ought to be. In effect, Mr. Chamberlin's answer was this: We were contemplating going on the London market with a block of bonds in connection with putting in a further amount of capital, and in order to stabilize that market we wanted to have a good record in the payment of dividends; in other words, we wanted to pay to ourselves annually over a number of years money that should have gone into the road, in order that we might induce the public to think that this was a good investment and that they should buy our bonds. If any one of us did that, we would find ourselves behind prison bars within a very short time. But that is what the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada said his company did instead of putting the money into ties, rails, locomotives, cars, and everything else that was necessary to keep the road operating. However, we are faced, not with a theory, but with an actual situation. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have come to the point where they say they cannot carry their obligation any further and are going to stop operating the Grand Trunk Pacific, a part of their own system that they themselves brought into existence; and that we may

take it or leave it, as we like. In the most direct way possible, the Government of Canada should take the Grand Trunk Railway system at their word, acquire the property, co-ordinate it as quickly as possible and get rid of all unnecessary lines. Certain lines of railway in Canada are built side by side with other lines. We might as well make up our minds to tear them up. I have heard people say: " Why, that piece of railway cost ten, fifteen, or twenty millions." Suppose it did; if we can get three or four millions out of the rails or make use of them somewhere else where they are really required, why should we continue to operate lines of railway where they never could earn anything and where the country through which they run is already amply served? I told the Minister of Railways in this House last year that I could show him where he could get $10,000,000 worth of steel rails that will never earn money enough to keep the rust off them; that run parallel with other lines which serve all the purposes for which a railway was ever designed. It looks like bad housekeeping on our part, but we went into these things with our eyes wide open, and we have to take our medicine. Whether it looks well or whether it does not, action will have to be taken if we are to co-ordinate this national system of railways and make it a complete success.
Some of the things that I have said in this House may have led hon. members to think that I am an out-and-out advocate of the public ownership of railways. In that respect I disagree with the two hon. members who have preceded me. If some one could show us a method by which we could get out of the tangle in which we find ourselves and get back into the position we were in fifteen or twenty years ago, I would hold up both hands for it. The only reason why I support the idea of taking over these lines and co-ordinating them into one national system is because I cannot see any other way out. It is a tremendous problem to take these railways and put them into such a condition that they can be successfully operated. Notwithstanding all that ha!s been said with regard to the large number of men who can be found whose ideals of service will cause them to give their time efficiently and conscientiously to the public, and all that kind of thing, I submit that human nature is human nature and will continue to be so. So far as I can see, the one bright spot in the horizon is the presence in Canada of one complete, well-equipped and splen-

didly managed system of railways. The possibility of success lies in linking up all the other lines and operating them in competition with that efficient system, saying to the men whom we put in charge: Here is your line of railways capitalized at not a dollar more than the one you are competing with; your physical conditions are on the same plane; you can bring the mileage of the national railways up to exactly the same cost value as the Canadian Pacific railway by eliminating the results of wasteful expenditure; simply look upon the sums of which this country has been virtually robbed as money that we spent while on a spree, so to speak; and charge the railways up to what they should have cost, approximately $65,000 a mile, brought up to 100 per cent efficiency. If we do that, appoint a Board of Management of practical men and operate the national railways in competition with a system that is run on practical lines, there is, I believe, a possibility of success. Then, these railways, instead of being a continually recurring burden, will earn their own way and give the people what they are looking for-service.
The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) referred to the success of Government ownership of railways in all parts of the world. If he will take the trouble to investigate he will find that in no country under the sun, except in the United States, is a.ton of freight carried a mile as cheaply as it is in Canada. The Australian system of publicly-owned railways has been held up to the world as a model, but for twenty years it has cost two and a half times as much to move a ton of freight a mile on the railways in Australia as it has cost on Canadian railways. The effort made in the United States by the Government to coordinate all their railways has been referred to as a great success.
It was not so much of a success last year when boats were held up in the harbour of New York for ten days at a time, when the railways could not get coal in there for them. It was not even a success from the standpoint of operation. The very first thing the United States Government did when they undertook to co-ordinate the railways of that country was to do the very thing they had been refusing permission to the railway companies to do themselves. The United States had been developing a policy that made it utterly impossible for one railway to assist another in the movement of its traffic, it mattered not what the conditions were. But apart altogether from that, the operation of the United States railways in 1918, when one takes into consideration the excess freight rates and the deficit involved, cost about $1,250,000,000, and the co-relative effect of that is that every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada is paying, in the year 1919, $9 for freight and railway services more than they were paying before. We are. however, talking simply along theoretical lines. We might discuss this matter all night and we would never get the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific off the backs of the people of Canada. Our business is to put these railways in such a condition that they can operate successfully in competition with the best managed and best equipped railway under the sun to-day, namely the Canadian Pacific, the one railway system in the whole civilised world that never broke down during the whole period of the war through which we have passed. Had it not been for the service which that railway company, privately owned and managed, rendered, this country would not have been able to do the big things we did in this great war.
May I repeat:	We should get a Board
of Management-I do not care what you call it; I do not like the present arrangement in connection with the Canadian National railways. I do not like the name. Instead of making the Canadian Northern a part of the Canadian National railways, we have made the Canadian National railways a part of the Canadian Northern. I would call the system the National Railways of Canada. I do not like the 'Canadian Northern mixed up in it at all. Do not misunderstand me in connection with that. When the Canadian people got the Canadian Northern at the valuation at which they got it, they got the cheapest railway ever built on the North American continent, mile for mile and dollar for dollar. The Canadian people can spend $190,000,000 on the Canadian Northern, on improvement of the roadbed, construction of terminals, purchase of rolling stock and all the things that go to make up a standard railway, and they will have it on the same valuation as the Canadian Pacific.
Mr. LEMiIEUX:	Was it the valuation
of the Drayton-Acworth report?
(Mr. G. B. NIGHOLiSON: I do not know anything about the valuation of the Drayton-Acworth report. I am speaking about the value of the railway. Take the railway as it is; you can spend $190,000,000 on it and my hon. friend, if he will look up Hansard of last year, will find that there is a margin of $50,000,000 for contingencies over and above the estimate required to

bring that railway up to 100 per cent efficiency, which $50,000,000 we may never have to spend. If we do spend it, we shall have $190,000,000 over and above what was paid for the railway, every dollar of which is to link that up with the other system, co-ordinating them properly, eliminating the waste mileage and putting them under proper management. In that way we .shall be able to complete the system and give the people the service for which they are asking.
Let me say this final word to the Government : Get busy and do this just as quickly as you can. There is no problem facing the people of this country in a physical sense that is so vital as the railway problem. We got into it with our eyes open; now let us get out of it. The country will be able to carry the burden and the railway will give us good service.
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don); The debate this afternoon has developed the idea that it is the policy of the Government to have public ownership of the railways as soon as possible. The Acting Prime Minister, in presenting his case so well as he is able to present it, made the admission that negotiations for the ownership of the Grand Trunk Hailway, not the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, were started by the Government in a communication to Mr. Smithers. It is, therefore, quite apparent that the Government, having acquired the Canadian Northern Railway, which turns out unprofitable, now find it necessary to acquire the old Grand Trunk Railway in an effort to make the Canadian Northern pay. I take it that the Government are not unanimous upon this question. No later than last summer, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), speaking before the Canadian Club in Montreal, left the impression with the business men of that city, that the Government were not favourable to public ownership. It seems to me that the House and the country are entitled to some better reason than -has been presented this afternoon as to why this change of policy occurred. The Minister of Public Works comes from a province where the people have had many years' experience of Government-owned and operated railways, and his statement of the case was that Government ownership was disastrous to the country. We all know that the Maritime Provinces have suffered from Government ownership. Those rich provinces have not been developed as they should have been developed had they had the advantage of private capital and pri-

vate enterprise pushing out its branch lines here and there where they would bring traffic to the main line. I feel that the policy of this Government in rushing into public ownership will have the same disastrous effect upon the great prairie provinces as the ownership and operation of the Intercolonial railway has had upon the Maritime Provinces.
I notice also that the Government have changed their ideas as to the powers that they have under the Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act. I have in mind that in 1917, on a trade measure, the reciprocity in wheat, hon. gentlemen who are now members of the Government criticised that Order in Council, claiming that it was illegal, and stating that when peace came the Order in Council would cease to have effect. Those gentlemen are now members of the Government,, and apparently they have convinced the Minister of Finance-who was then certain that under the War Measures Act he had all the powers necessary to enact the reciprocity measure, and that the same authority that enabled him to pass the Order in Council, made it law just the same as an Act of Parliament-that his views were wrong, because he now comes before Parliament to ratify this Order in Council.
The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), who has argued in favour of public ownership, has told us that if we cannot find in Canada men capable of making Government ownership of railways profitable, we shall go down to the United States. The hon. gentleman, who is a student, has surely not forgotten the experience of the United States during the past ' year. That experience was pointed out by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G.
B. Nicholson) who made his speech against public ownership, but wound up by declaring himself in favour of it. Government railway operation in the United States has been disastrous to the people of that country. The whole system broke down last year in the transportation of coal. It has cost the people, as was pointed out by the hon. member for East Algoma, $150,000,000 of a deficit in operation, notwithstanding the freight rates which cost the people of that country almost $1,000,000,000. Therefore, the Government should go very carefully in their policy of Government ownership. It may be that Government ownership suits a certain section of this country, but the issues are clean cut. It is not a question of taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific; it is a ques-

tion of gradually approaching the nationalization of railways. If I stand alone upon this question-and it is not a party question on this side of the House- I am opposed to public ownership and operation of railways, because I believe it is not the best thing for this country.


William Foster Cockshutt: As one who has taken a great deal of interest in the railway situation and transportation generally, I followed very closely the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in his admirable speech this afternoon when he laid this matter before us and showed, us exactly the position of affairs. It is certainly one that causes every thinking man to use the best powers he has to decide what it is best in the interest of this country to do at the present time. I have had the pleasure of hearing only two hon. gentlemen opposite express their views, and neither of them has made it at all clear to me what the-y would do in the situation. Our good friend, the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), who is an excellent business man, has not told us what he proposes to do with regard to the Grand Trunk's failure to meet its obligations. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) tells us that if this action was to be taken at all, it should have been taken long ago. He tells us that when the Grand Trunk failed to take over the Transcontinental and carry out the arangements, then was the time for the Government to step in, and I am rather inclined to think that is the best remark and the best criticism he made. The Government would, at that moment, have been justified in stepping in and telling the Grand Trunk management straight: You are under an obligation from which you cannot be relieved, and unless you live up to it we propose to take over the road and your shareholders will suffer accordingly. That is business. It may be hard-hearted, but in order to be just to the people of this country we sometimes have to be a little hard-hearted. And I am not sure if the Acting Prime Minister has not a little more tenderness of heart than he ought to have towards the Grand Trunk, which we all love so much.
I remember very'well hearing about the Grand Trunk since I was a child. I think it came into existence about the time I was born-I trust hon. members will not look up the date, or they will know how old I am. It is an object of affection to me. The Grand Trunk has done a great deal for Canada. T am only sorry that the company has run its head into a noose with its eyes
wide open and finds that it cannot now get out, and this country cannot afford to let it out. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), I think said that we were going to get hold of a going concern. I think we may go further and say that we are going to get hold of a coming concern, by the look of it. I cannot see that anything else is possible. The Grand Trunk have undertaken obligations amounting to $125,000,000 or $150,000,000 with their eyes wide open. They have induced this country to put in two or three hunderd million dollars that never should have been put in. .Do not say that I am a prophet after the event. I opposed that with all my might in 1903 and 1904. I fought it to a finish in that election and finally won out on that issue alone, namely, that it was a monstrous burden to put on the shoulders of the people of Canada. I said that it was a gigantic white elephant that would eat hay day and night if we are not careful, and that is what has happened since then. In the first place, the railway was built far in advance of its time. Everybody knows that Canada cannot reasonably support three transcontinental railways. I do not think it is possible to make them pay; and even if the suggestion of my good friend the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) were carried out and the capital were reduced to one-half, I doubt if it could be made a success on that basis, because it is far in advance of its time and it may not pay even for the running. But the Government was forced to take action. The Grand Trunk gave notice that on a certain date they would cease operations. What would one do in such a case? Several thousands of miles of railway are going to come to a standstill and hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money are invested in them. Are you going to allow that road to cease operation? Are you going to allow all the freight to be thrown out and the passengers to go afoot? Such a condition of affairs could not be thought of. This Government was forced to take action. I find fault with my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) that he did not tell the Government what they ought to do. One gentleman says that the Government did not take action early enough; the other one apparently is blaming the Government for taking the action now. In my judgment the Government should have taken action in the first place. That was business. But the Government wanted to be lenient, and it often happens that leniency is interpreted into one's being a

dead easy mark. That is apparently what the Grand Trunk thought. They thought that this Government was a dead easy mark, and that as they had unloaded 1,000 miles of comparatively worthless railway on to them, it would be just as easy to unload 1,500 or 2,000 miles in the same way and slip from their obligations, and apparently forget all about it,, because, in a letter which the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) read this afternoon, the Grand Trunk Eailway forget altogether that their name is on this paper. They are calmly oblivious of the fact that they have obligated themselves to pay to this country, in round figures, $125,000,000 to $150,000,000. I, for one, am not at all disposed to let the Grand Trunk out. I agree that they helped this country at a time when it sorely needed assistance; but they, as a corporation, have undertaken obligations that they now, in an honourable way, as business men, are called upon to carry out. Unfortunately the shareholders are over the water, and, as too often happens, they may think, because they do not know the facts, that we are acting unjustly. I think this country has been most remarkably lenient with the Grand Trunk. We have delayed too long. I am only sorry that the action has to be taken now when the tremendous financial burdens of the war are confronting the Minister of Finance. I am sorry for him and for the country. I am, in a large measure, in favour of the nationalization of railways; and in spite of the fact that it has not paid in some countries, I believe they may be made to pay in Canada. I am sorry, however, that this Grand Trunk question has come up at this moment when we are submerged by financial obligations in other directions. But it had to be faced because the wheels of commerce were slowing, and this Government has, I think, at last taken heroic steps to meet the situation.
I do not know whether they have fully observed one fact, and I want to call special attention of the minister to it, namely, that the Grand Trunk, which may possibly come into our hands sooner or later, has a large mileage in the United States. Both its eastern and its western terminals are in the United States, beginning at Chicago and ending at Portland, Maine. I do not know whether the Dominion Government .is competent to run railways in the United States. Probably the Government has looked into the matter. I have not heard the minister make a Statement in reference to the question, but it is one that is worth while lookin? into.
[;Mr. Cockshutt.]
Will the United States allow the Canadian Government to run railways within their borders just the same as they would a private corporation, or will the Canadian Government be under some special obligation that a private corporation would not be under? Is it necessary to take out special charters under which those lines may be operated? There is also the question of the Port at Portland and the terminals at Chicago which have to be dealt with. I think that is a very important matter and that it must not be overlooked in the taking over of the Grand Trunk Eailway Company.


William Folger Nickle: There are branches of the Canadian Northern in the United States.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not think there
are many branches there. There are thirty or forty miles of road running through the corner of Minnesota, but it is a very different proposition from the Grand Trunk.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is the same principle.


William Foster Cockshutt: That may be, but
our Government was not running the Transcontinental until very recently: I do not know whether they have struck any snags with regard to it. I am pointing out that I did not hear the minister say anything with regard to that phase, and I hope the matter has not been overlooked because it is of great importance. The hon. member for Al-gom-a (Mr. Nicholson) has given us some very interesting figures, as he did last year. He is a new member, but I think he has put on Hansard the best exposition of the railway situation given by any man in the House, bar none. I am not speaking of his speech to-night so much as the one he made a year laigo in this House. I have perused it often and he certainly put on Hansard an enormous amount of material. I do not know whether he prepared them all himself, but if he did he is certainly an encyclopedia on figures. Be that as it may, as he stated to-night, the figures have stood the test of time. I have not heard a single hon. member endeavour to prove incorrect the figures he gave. His speech last year was very valuable, and if any hon. member has not read it and desires to be seized of the railway situation in Canada, he could not do better than read that speech because it hits the situation off admirably.
One point I have not heard mentioned, to-night is the earning powers of the railways per mile and I think that is important. I see by page xii of the Drayton-Acworth report that the old Grand Trunk is earning more per mile than

any other road in Canada, its earnings being $10,983 per mile. That is a very respectable earning, but unfortunately, as so often happens, there is something else to be taken into acoount which makes the road one of the poorest paying railways, instead of one of the better paying railways, and that information is given on the bottom of the same page. It shows that the Canadian Pacific cost in round numbers $68,000 per mile, the Canadian Northern $44,000 per miile, and the old Grand Trunk $127,000 per mile. The Grand Trunk was built in prewar times when everything was supposed to be mighty cheap, and yet it cost more than double either of the other roads.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They must have
charged a large amount to capital which should have been charged to maintenance.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: They have not so many hills in the United States.


William Foster Cockshutt: They have a good many mountains. They cross the Rockies, and they are pretty hard to cross. They do things in the United States on a quicker basis. That was well illustrated during the war. I remember the Prime Minister of



Canada (Sir Robert Borden) telling a story in the House with regard to what Canada had done in the building of railways at the front. When he came back from the front two years ago he said that after Vimy Ridge was taken a certain piece of railway had to be built. The British railway experts were asked to look over the ground and say how long It would take them to do the work, as it was wanted in a great hurry. They said it would take six weeks to build that road. The British generals shook their heads and said "That is no use to us. We must have something better than that." And some one told them to get Captain Jack Stewart. He was sent for, and came and looked over the ground and said: "Give me two battalions of railway construction men and I will build the road for you in a week." They took him on, and what did he do? He had the road all built in four days. That is on Hansard, and was put there by the first Minister of Canada. Therefore I say that we know how to railroad in both Canada and the United States. We know how to build; we can build as quickly and as cheaply as any nation in the world. I am firmly convinced of that. We have the class of men that can do it, but we must secure them. I am not sure that we have all that we should have in the Commission to run all the railroads the Government purposes taking over, but I think the Government are well advised in taking this step; and if they are to be criticised they are to be criticised for being slow, not for being too fast. They have been long-suffering with the Grand Trunk. In my judgment these people have been defaulters for the past two years. It is a strong term to use, but the moment they said that they did not propose to carry out their agreement with regard to the ...Transcontinental, I think they broke their agreement absolutely, and every business man, I believe, will say so. This is the second time, and apparently they thought their bluff would work. Fortunately the War Measures Act was there. I think it is the salvation of the whole situation. I do not think the Grand Trunk expected what has happened, but they are up against it, and we have to see it through, and that money has to be raised to do it. As I said, I am sorry it has come at this time, but, I, for one, am willing to support the Finance Minister in this matter, and I think we can be defended in the country, and that the people of Canada, once they realize its absolute necessity, will say, " The Government has done wisely. Go ahead and win out and we are with you," and will help all [Mr. Cocksliutt.1
we can to make the great natioftal enterprise of Canada in the railway business that success that I feel sure it ought to be, and can be, if managed properly by the right men.


Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince):: I want to say a few words along some new lines. I really consider that the action that the Government has taken, and has been taking, in this matter involves some of the most serious questions that to-day confront Canada -questions far more serious than repatriation, remobilization or reconstruction. Far more serious than any of these things is the present railway situation in Canada. I desire to draw your attention to the fact that the Canadian Government railroads have adopted the McAdoo scale of wages and time limit, with the result that some of the conductors on the railroads to-day are getting $5,000 a year, and the highest-paid workers in all Canada to-day are the railroad employees. The railroad runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with hundreds of thousands of employees, all of whom are bound together in one solid brotherhood; and when you adopt a rate of wages borrowed from a politician in the United States who is looking for the Presidential nomination, and give that rate to our railway employees, is it not obvious that you have produced, not a military despotism but a railroad despotism which will be a chain around the neck of fair Canada and will drag her to her grave unless you are extremely careful? How will you lower the wages of these men? They are linked together in one great brotherhood, and can hold up the whole railway system and can make any government get down on its knees within half an hour. It seems to me it must follow that all wages must go up proportionately, and I think the high cost of living will have to be maintained on that basis, because these things follow one another from mathematical necessity; and so long as that condition of things obtains, just so long will the high cost of living continue. The cost of transportation has doubled, and in some cases more than doubled. That may be very well in war time but how is it to be remedied in peace time when you have produced such a purely artificial condition of things? As I said last session, I am personally in favour of government ownership of railroads provided they can be managed the same as private corporations. The question whether government ownership is good or bad all depends on the management, and that is one of the most serious problems in connection with

the ownership of railroads. Indeed, I think it is the most serious question before the country to-day. We have suffered very much from our government railroad system in the province of Prince Edward Island. Our province has sold itself body and soul; it has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, a narrow-gauge railroad, as crooked as a ram's horn. However, that does not enter into this question. The whole question is, how are you going to overcome the difficulties confronting this Government, or any other government, with regard to the adoption of the McAdoo scale of wages? A man who is representing a constituency through which a railroad under this system runs, should he dare open his mouth,-as I am doing to-night,-and call the attention of the public to the danger of the situation, is apt to be roughly handled by these railroad employees when he goes to the country again. It is only one man . in a thousand who will dare open his mouth if the railroad goes through his constituency. However, I have a public duty to perform, and I do not care very much whether I come back or not. If I have to run, I will take my chance and will " hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know anything about the legal aspect of the question, but I do not see how the Government could do anything else, from a business standpoint, than pass the resolution. Whether, from a legal standpoint we are in a good position or not, I am not prepared to say. As a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk, I understand, did not default. Therefore, that puts them, I should think, in a better position than otherwise they would be in. As to the future of the Grand Trunk, the only question, to my mind, is whether it would be cheaper and better in the interests of the country, owing to the position in which the Grand Trunk finds itself, to make a contract with them to deliver freight to our Transcontinental road on a certain basis, or whether it would be cheaper for us to operate the road ourselves. These lines run all through the northern, central and southern parts of Ontario. They are able to feed the transcontinental railways whether they be the Canadian Pacific or the Government Railway, and give them very good service. Many of these branches of the Grand Trunk are not paying, and cannot be made tp pay within any man's lifetime. Whether it would be wise for us to operate these roads in face of the fact that they cannot be made to pay, or whether
it would be better for us, now that we are in possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific, to make a traffic arrangement whereby they should deliver freight to us for the long haul, is a question for this House to decide.
The legislation does not propose to take over the old Grand Trunk. It proposes to take over and operate the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not see, from a business standpoint, what else the Government can do. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshuitt) spoke about the cost of the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk cost more than any other railway because it was built through the Canadian wilderness. They had to carry their supplies at an enormous cost by ox teams and other means of transportation. The old Great Western Railway, now part of the Grand Trunk, had to be chopped through the country that it traversed. I do not wonder that it cost more than it would in modern times because in modern times in building railways you have the benefit of the railways in existence, to a certain extent, to haul your supplies.
With reference to the Canadian National Railways, it is absurd to have so many men on the directorate, and it is equally absurd to appoint men who know nothing about railways, no matter what their other business experience has been. My experience has taught me that if you have been brought up in a certain line of business and you go into another line of business you know nothing about, and invest in it, you are liable to lose your money. There is nobody who is capable of doing everything, and the man who makes a success in one line of business, whether it be farming, manufacturing, or merchandising, deserves success because competition is very keen. Why you appoint men as directors of these roads who know nothing about railroading is more than I can comprehend. It is not what the late Government promised us when the Canadian Northern Railway was taken over. I think the directorate of the Government road should be dependent upon Parliament itself. The directors should be chosen regardless of price from amongst capable railway men who know their business. If the Government own the railways, if they cut out all duplications, especially duplications of terminals, and run them from a practical business standpoint, there is no reason on earth why the transportation system of this country should not be made to pay.
With reference to the statement that the government operation of railways in Eng-

land has been made to pay, we read in the paper the other day that it had not paid during the war. Yet the railways in England were conducted on the very best possible basis. They appointed the managers of all the great railways in England to operate them during the war. We 'know that the German system of railways paid but they paid much lower wages and they charged twice as much for transportation. Some person said to-night that we had in Canada cheaper transportation than any country in the world except the United States. And he might as well have said, " including the Uniter! States."
In so far as the operation of the railways by the Government of the United States is concerned, anybody who has travelled since the taking over of the railways in the last two or three years knows that the accommodation given to the public is nothing like it was before. The inconvenience to the public is disgraceful on many of the roads in the United States. There never was such a glut in freight. I do not blame them for that because it was an exceptional time, the weather was very severe and there were some things that went against them. But the United States Congress voted a revolving credit of ,$500,000,000 and recently they asked for another 1750,000,000 revolving credit. They did not get it. They owe in rentals on the properties taken over something in the neighbourhood of 3700,000,000. That would not, in my judgment, be an argument against the Government operation of railways in the United States. Had they been operated by a man who understood the business there might have been a better showing. No matter how good a Secretary of the Treasury Mr. MacAdoo may be, he did not know anything about the operation of railways. He thought he did. He is just another of those men in this world who think they know something about everything and who try to make a success of some business other than their own but end up by making a failure. It all comes back to the same principle; if we are going to operate railways, we must operate them on business principles and we must have men who understand their business practically regardless of price. If we do not follow that plan we will not make a success of them. The reason I got up was to suggest that we might find it cheaper, in place of taking over the old Grand Trunk, to make a running arrangement with them, whereby they would feed our railways, and 
do it cheaper than we could feed them ourselves.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	Mr. Chairman, I have heard hon. members on the other side of the House say that no practical proposition or plan had been suggested on this side of the House as to what should be done. I will take the liberty of giving my humble opinion to the Government as to the policy that should be pursued.
Now, I am considering this as a mere business proposition, and regarding the Grand Trunk Bailway proper, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Bailway as individuals who have contracts with the Government. Here we find three parties to a contract or obligation. One party is the Grand Trunk proper. The Grand Trunk proper has assumed the responsibility of running the Grand Trunk Pacific according to a contract, or a lease which has been referred to and sufficiently explained. Suddenly the Grand Trunk Bailway fails to fulfill its obligations, and serves a notice to that effect upon the Government, just as a man who signs a note at the bank advises the institution three days before the note matures that on the date fixed for its payment he will be unable to meet the obligation. Under the circumstances the bank would be justified in taking all necessary means to protect its interests, and this is what the Government has been doing in the present situation. Because the interest of the Government in this matter is twofold. One is the general interest of the country;- the Government owes it to the country to see that these roads continue to run, because that is absolutely necessary; the soundness of this everyone will admit. The other interest which the Government has in this matter is a pecuniary one, because it has endorsed the notes of the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific Bailways. One of the parties serves notice- upon the Government that he is not going to fulfill his part of the agreement, and at once the Government take advantage of the War Measures Act and puts this railroad into the hands of a receiver. To my mind, there was nothing else it could do. However, this is not a solution of the problem, and all that we have heard so far has been a plea on the part of the Acting Prime Minister that the Government acted properly in placing this road in a receiver's hands. For the time being, I quite understand, the Government had to face a situation which could not be delayed, a situation of urgency, and it took control of the railway. So far I am satisfied with the stand that the Govern-

ment has taken. But what is it going to do with the railway, now that it is in possession of it? I have one suggestion to make. In my opinion the Government should go direct to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and tell it: We will give you so much time to fulfill your obligations; if you do not do so, if you have a white elephant on your hands, you need not expect that the Government will relieve you of it; if you entered into a bad business proposition, that is no reason why the Government should relieve you of the responsibility; the Grand Trunk Railway Company has got to discharge its obligations and should be called upon to do so; if it does not do so then it must assume the responsibility and will be held strictly accountable for it.
Now, there is a way of doing that. The Government has a mortgage on the Grand Trunk Railway properties for the money which the Grand Trunk owes to it. Very well, the Government will act in the same way, as an individual does towards another person who owes him money and does not pay it. The Government will take control of the road and then it will have the two railways, and it will be a bad proposition for it because the Government cannot make money out of operating railroads. It may be a bad proposition for the time being, and this leads me to the point which was argued at length by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), viz: Is it a good or a bad policy for the Government to own and administer railroads? I do not think it is a good proposition for any Government to own railroads when it can avoid doing so. If it cannot avoid it, but is forced to assume the ownership and operation, it must continue to administer and own them until it can dispose of them. If, later on, it transpires that the Government, in some way or another, can dispose of these roads, then so much the better for the country, because I do not think that that Government will ever make any money out of Government ownership of these railways. If the Government cannot avoid doing otherwise, it is better for it to take hold of the Grand Trunk Railway now, than to assume control of that railway in one or two years. It would have been better for the Government not to have loaned money, not to have guaranteed the loans of the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as it has been doing, for the last three or four years, or perhaps longer. When the Government found out a year ago, or two or three years ago, that these railways could not be successfully operated, and that it was only a question of time before they would pass
into the receiver's hands, I think it should have taken the pill then and saved the money which has been expended in the period which has elapsed since that time. Every one admits, )I believe, that the Grand Trunk Railway will never be able to meet its obligations. If the Government is now convinced that it will not be able to do so, then it should take control of the Grand Trunk as well as the Grand Trunk Pacific;, it will lose less money by taking control of the road now than it will do in a few years from now.
The Acting Prime Minister told us this afternoon that the Government wanted to* be lenient towards the Grand Trunk, and not exact what he called " the pound of flesh." I do not think that is proper. Tins' is a business proposition, and the Acting Prime Minister, no more than any one else in the Government, has any right to give up one dollar of the people's money. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company owes money to this country it should pay every dollar of it. That is my contention. The Government and the country is sufficiently in need of money to warrant the collection of every cent that is owing to Canada.
At any rate what are we going to do now? The Government has a deficit of $100,000,000 a year, taking the financial situation as it now stands. We have to tax the people of this country in order to meet our obligations by means of an Income Tax, which is equivalent to taking money out of the people's pockets directly. However, no one will blame the Government for doing so because it is an unavoidable procedure. We are not in a position to give anybody a present. It is the duty of the Government to force the Grand Trunk to fulfil its obligations to the letter. If the Grand Grand Trunk cannot fulfil its obligations, then let the Government take possession of the system and do now what will be even more difficult to do a year or two hence if this matter is delayed.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: On February 28, 1919, the Prime Minister was informed that the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not intend to carry on the operations of the Grand Trunk Pacific after the tenth of March. There must have been some previous conversations or correspondence between the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government, and before the Government is compelled to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system without giving the matter further consideration, I think the Acting Prime Minister should tell us, if

he is in a position to do so, what conversations took place and what correspondence was exchanged between the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government.


William Thomas White: I placed that information on Hansard the other day when I made my statement to the House respecting the passing of the Order in Council.


Thomas Vien: What has been placed on Hansard is not exactly what I want. The letter which my hon. friend read must have followed correspondence, or at least conversations, between representatives of the Government and officials of the company.


William Thomas White: I understood my hon. friend to refer to the letter of March 4, in which the Government was notified by the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that, in view of the fact that the increased rates applicable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway had not been sufficient to meet the increased operating expenses, it would not be possible for the company to continue its operations when the present funds had been exhausted, which would be about the 10th instant. There had been no conversations relating to the cessation of operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and in my cable to Mr. Smithers, which I presented to the House, I stated that this notification was of a peremptory character, without previous intimation or discussion. To show my hon. friend that there would have been no use in attempting negotiations with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, unless the Government decided to change its opinion and decision and to make further advances to the company, I wish to read the following cable from Mr. Smithers, dated March 11, 1919, in reply to the message which I had sent to him:
In reply to your message I assure you nothing peremptory was intended. Government having taken position in message received here March 3rd that they would not render further assistance and Grand Trunk Pacific working cash being exhausted owing to heavily increased expenses beyond power of company to control, we had no alternative but to notify Government of our inability to continue in order to prevent inconvenience to the people of Canada served by Grand Trunk Pacific. Special general meeting of Grand Trunk Railway Company has been called for Friday, 21st.
I place that on Hansard in order to give my hon. friend all the information we have respecting the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention of the Govern-

ment to assume all the liabilities of this road?


William Thomas White: The position of the Government is that of receiver. The Government is not assuming the responsibilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Application will be made by the Government to the Exchequer Court for the issue of a receiver's certificate to meet any deficit in operating expenses, and the Government will, of course, be obliged to meet the interest upon Grand Trunk Pacific securities which it has guaranteed. 'But with regard to other securities, its position is merely that of receiver.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the Government took over the Canadian Northern they took also all its liabilities and paid for the equity of redemption, some 110,000,000. I cannot see much difference between the Canadian Northern Railway Company then and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in this case. In the former case the Government established a certain precedent, and I wanted to know whether the Government intended to follow that precedent in this case.


William Thomas White: What I understood my hon. friend to suggest was that the Dominion Government, instead of being merely receiver, should assume all the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and relieve the Grand Trunk Railway Company of them entirely.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh, no. When the Government takes possession of this property nolens volens unless they get clear of it by an Act of Parliament they are responsible, as a matter of law, to the owner of these securities.


William Thomas White: I do not concur in my hon. friend's view. The Dominion Government is receiver under an Order in Council which has the effect of a statute or an order of the court; and a receiver is not responsible for the liabilities of a company. The position of receiver appointed by a court is that of a custodian to continue the operation of a business subject to and pending further orders of the court from time to time. This legislation makes the Minister of Railways the receiver in this case, with the duties and the powers attaching to that office. The resolution defines the position of the Government in respect of the system in express terms, indicates the duties and powers of the receiver and expressly states that the Dominion Government is not liable to the Grand Trunk Railway Company or to any other

creditor. When this Order in Council is approved by Parliament it will become of the validity of an Act of Parliament, and its effect will be determined in accordance with its provisions, and not otherwise.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite understand the minister now. The position which I take, speaking for myself alone and not for any party, is this: I do not for one moment admit that the Government have any jurisdiction to do what they have done in this matter, unless we validate their action by Act of Parliament. The Government are simply mortgagees in possession and are in exactly the same position as a mortgagee in possession would be in without foreclosure.
If the third, fourth, or fifth, or even the first, mortgagee goes into possession without foreclosure he assumes all the encumbrances on the property. Every lawyer sitting around the Minister will admit that that is good law and unless we validate by Act of Parliament the action of the Government, I am afraid that any judge would say they had assumed the responsibility when they took over the property. For a creditor of the Company might say: Tf you had let the Company go on it would have paid off my liability, hut as you have prevented that you must pay the money that is owing to me. Of couse if there is to be legislation whereby we put ourselves in the place of a receiver and take all our instructions fiom the judge, that is a different matter. If the Government are going to put the road up to auction and will only pay what the-road brings at auction that puts it in a different light entirely. But the Minister did not in his very excellent speech this afternoon tell us that that was going to be done. If the Minister will tell this House that all the steps that a receiver would take under the orders of a court of this country are to be taken by the Minister of Railways and Canals, and that the country will only pay for this road what it brings at auction, I have no fault to find. But I do feel we had no business to step in and take hold of this property and make ourselves liable for $200,000,000 when, as hon. gentlemen have frequently told us, the property is not worth it. With the liabilities away above what the property is worth we are certainly not making any bargain.


James Alexander Robb: This afternoon I drew the
minister's attention to a statement he made . with regard to branch lines, as to whether the provinces had prior rights over the Dominion. The minister promised to clear the point up and let the House know where we
should stand in regard to branch lines that are a part of this system. I think he forgot to mention that this evening.


William Thomas White: The position of
the Minister of Railways is receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, including the branch lines. His position is not different from that of a statutory receiver, and the rights of all parties are preserved. The rights of the provinces as guarantors are preserved and remain under the several instruments or trust mortgages under which they can claim. The receiver must take his orders from the Exchequer Court. Just as the rights of all other parties are preserved, so are the rights of the Dominion Government preserved. It is open to the Dominion Government to enforce, by permission of the courts, any rights which it has as creditor, or as guarantor, or as mortgagee under the first mortgage or afterwards. There is no question as to the Receiver's position. His duty is to conserve, operate, and act under the orders of the Court. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition this afternoon called attention to the Winding-Up Act. The Winding-Up Act concerns the liquidator. It is the duty of a liquidator to bring a business to a termination and to sell, but the duty of a receiver is to conserve, operate, and carry on.
If hon. gentlemen will observe the terms of this resolution, they will find the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court is really-enlarged, the intention being that the operation of this railway system, being, as it is, in the national interest, shall be continued under the orders of the Court, and that in all orders which the Court shall make it shall have regard not only to property rights but to paramount national interest.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Is there anything to prevent the provinces which have priority rights on branch lines from foreclosing and selling the branch lines to others, thereby leaving the Grand Trunk Pacific without feeders?


William Thomas White: If default occurred under the terms of the mortgages securing the issues which they have guaranteed, the provinces could make application to the Exchequer Court, of which application they would have to give written notice to the minister, who would appear by counsel at the hearing. The Court in determining what should be done would take into consideration, under the terms

of this order, which will be validated by our legislation, not only the property rights involved, but the national interest. The intention of this order was to ensure the continued operation in the public interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, and it was not possible to accomplish that in any other way than the one we have taken.


Thomas Vien: There is some further information required to complete the minister's statement. When the Grand Trunk failed to accept that portion of the line which was constructed by the Government from Moncton to Winnipeg, was any written agreement made between the Government and the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Thomas White: No.


Thomas Vien: Then was the company put in default?


William Thomas White: The Government claim they are in default, but the company set up various grounds on which they consider themselves not liable. In reality, the cost was so great that the objection was really on that ground. The interest at three per cent on $170,000,000 amounted to about $5,000,000 a year on a line which does not meet its operating expenses.


Thomas Vien: Was any agreement made at the time of default between the Government and the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Thomas White: No. The Government stepped in because it had built the line. The title was in the Government. The Grand Trunk Pacific having declined to execute the lease which under the original agreement we claim they were bound to execute, the Government had to provide for the operation of the line, and has been in possession since.


Thomas Vien: But as the Government did not put the company in default when they failed to take up their obligations it may have given up its right under the agreement to compel the company to do so.


William Thomas White: I think all rights are preserved.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved . for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to confirm an order of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, March 21, 1919.