1919-05-13

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 92 (from the Senate), respecting The Fire Insurance Company of Canada

[Stage Direction]
and to authorize the use of a French equivalent of its name.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of David Jamieson.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian North.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Davies.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Millman.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Irvine Tuck.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief of Simon John Fraser.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of Wilmot Orley Wiles.-Mr. Ball.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), to amend the Railway Act (Location of Railways).
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
THE DOMINION IRON AND STEEL;

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to an artiqje which appeared in the Financial Times of the 3rd instant, stating in effect that Premier Borden had communicated with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and advised them that they were not to amalgamate with the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, and that this action on his part had been suggested, if not insisted upon, by the British Government. I wish first to -know whether it is true that the British Government has taken the position of advising our Prime Minister what should be done in connection with Canadian local affairs; and, if true, I would ask how the Government reconciles that position with its somewhat loud protestations in this House of the growth of nationality?


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister):: In answer to my hon. friend's
rather rhetorical question, I may suggest to him that the British Government is not at all likely to interfere, and has not to my knowledge interfered, in any way in such a matter of purely Dominion jurisdiction as the one brought to our attention. So I think I can ease his mind at once

as to that. T may say further that it is not within my knowledge that the Prime Minister has recently communicated in any way with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company or the Nova Scotia Steel Company with regard bo the' matter in question. It did receive some attention during the war, when, I believe, it was thought decidedly inadvisable that the control of the steel industry in Canada should pass from Canadian hands. So far as I am concerned, that would be my position to-day.



RE-CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL SERVICE. .


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre):: May I ask my hon. friend the President of the Council, if the Government has received any communication from the Amalgamated Postal Workers in reference to a possible strike?


Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council):: On May 7, the Postmaster General received the following telegram from the Secretary of the Amalgamated Postal Workers, Mr. J. A. Elrick:
Events seem to indicate re-classification will not go through Parliament this session or it it does we will not have time to represent our opinion. If so must remind you our most important questions were deferred pending same and pre'sent restlessness will immediately develop trouble when prorogation becomes obvious. Would appreciate statement for information of membership.
To which the Postmaster General replied on the 8th:
Tour fears absolutely groundless. Newspaper reports entirely without foundation. Matter being printed every day and will be taken up as soon as bound and ready. It will unquestionably be attended to this session and every opportunity given to postal workers for examination.
That apparently did not satisfy some members of the Association, and the Postmaster General received a further telegram on Sunday afternoon pressing for a statement that the re-classification would be brought down this week, to which he replied in accordance with the statement made by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. A. K. Maclean) in the House yesterday. I have also received the following telegram from Mr. Elrick:
Re-classification Bill promised May first covers most important grievances of postal workers and its non-appearance and general upheaval driving members beyond control and when definite steps are taken only complete settlement will suffice. Official notification of impatient action will reach me within three days and only quick showing of re-classification

will stand the general demands for a tie up and the keystone of the trouble being Government employees will create a dangerous movement at this time. I appeal to you to have re-classification in the House not later than Tuesday.
When the representatives of the Western Postal Workers were here they interviewed the Civil Service Commission and the experts who were re-classifying the service, and they had exactly the same knowledge as the Government had as to when the reclassification would be brought down. They were informed, as the Government was, that it was anticipated that the re-classification would be ready in time to enable the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. A. K. Maclean) to present the Bill to the House during the first week in May. Last night, therefore, I replied as follows:-
Referring your night letter, you and your associates conferred with Civil Service Commission and experts while here and you know we had assurance from them that the re-classica-tion would be completed so that it could be presented to House during first week of May and it was relying on this that Government made its promise to you. Government has been urging utmost expedition and we feel sure that Civil Service Commission and experts have done everything in their power to get schedules completed but it has not been humanly possible to do so. As Postmaster General has wired you schedules are now completed and are all In printers' hands and Printing Bureau has been instructed to have them translated and printed as rapidly as possible. Am advised by Civil Service Commission that printing which has already commenced will take substantially longer than originally estimated and this is one explanation of delay but as everything relates back to first of April, Post Office employees cannot be prejudiced in any way by unavoidable though regrettable delay, and precipitate action on their part would be wholly unjustifiable.
It has been intimated that the post office employees may go out on a sympathetic strike with other parties striking in certain sections of Western Canada. The Government's view is that such a course would be .wholly unjustifiable. The Government has taken every possible step to bring the reclassification down at the earliest practicable date, and the post office employees will be in no wise prejudiced by a few days' delay, because the re-classification relates back to the first of April.



UKRAINIA AND GALICIA AND POLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):: I desire to ask the leader of the Government whether he or any of his ministers have received a protest on behalf of the Buthenian, Ukraini-nan, and, in general, the Galician people of Canada against the annexation of their
native land of Ukrainia and Eastern Galicia to Poland, or to any other state whose authority would not be congenial to them.


William Thomas White: I have not had any recent communications on the subject. Some time ago representations were made which were transmitted to the Prime Minister, attending the Peace Conference.


Samuel Hughes: This telegram came yesterday.


William Thomas White: Possibly a similar telegram may be in my office now.


Samuel Hughes: It was sent to the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Arthur Meighen).
WAR EXPENDITURE-*$350,000,000 VOTE.
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister), Bill No. 68, for granting to His Majesty aid for demobilization and other purposes, was read the third time.


William Thomas White: That the said Bill do now pass and that the title be as on the Order Paper.
He said: I desire to say a few words on account of a discussion which took place in the Committee stage with respect to the borrowing powers which this Bill authorizes. I find upon inquiry that as it stands the Bill is satisfactory to my department. The amount which it authorizes the Government to borrow is $350,000,000, less any amount borrowed in excess of the amounts authorized by any War Appropriation Act. That means that to the extent to which we have over-borrowed in respect of past-war appropriations, the $350,000,000 will be reduced. If we have borrowed $100,000,000 in excess of the amount authorized by previous War Appropriation Acts, then the maximum amount which we could borrow under this Bill would be $250,000,000. I was under a slight misapprehension the other night when the Bill was in the Committee stage, and the point drawn to my attention by the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) was well taken; that is to say, that section 4 of the Bill authorizes the borrowing of $350,000,000, but less any amounts that have been over-borrowed in respect of previous War Appropriation Acts. The result of this legislation, so far as borrowing powers are concerned, will be-with previous legislation-to give the Government power to borrow for war purposes only to the extent for which expenditures have been authorized by the Acts in question, and no more. Any further borrowing power which the Dominion Govern-

ment may require in respect of the expenditures authorized hy Parliament, either previously or at this session, will be provided for by other legislation. I think, therefore, that the Bill, as it stands, should pass.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Bill has been given its third reading, and the motion that the title pass is not debatable. I thought it was due to the Acting Prime Minister that he should make the explanation which he wished to make, and there should be no objection to the leader of the Opposition putting a question; but there can be no debate on this motion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not intend to enter into any debate. I simply want to inquire how much over-borrowing is to be covered by this Bill. What is the exact borrowing power of the Bill?


William Thomas White: I am unable to answer definitely, but I think $200,000,000 would be the amount which under this Bill we could borrow. As I have stated, if we require further borrowing power in respect of other legislation, we shall provide either in the Appropriation Bill of this year or otherwise for such power.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) Bill No. 7, to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act- Hon. Mr. Meighen-was read the third time and passed.	,

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide,-
(1)	That every can, carton, bottle, box, barrel, wrapper, package or closed receptacle containing human food or any other commodity manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale in Canada, when such container is in its original unopened or unbroken form as it is usually delivered to consumers when sold or offered for sale in Canada, should be plainly marked, branded or stamped with the name and address of the fillers, and the weight, measure or quantity of the contents of the container;
(2)	That this proposed legislation shall not apply to packages for export from Canada, or goods sold in bulk or broken packages, or fresh fruit and vegetables, or articles held in stock by a wholesale or retail dealer prior to the coming into force of the proposed legislation, or .
TSir Thomas White.]
packages containing two avoirdupois ounces or less, or one fluid ounce or less, or to any article the sale of which as regards the weight or marking thereof is already provided for under other statutes;	V
(3)	That tolerance and variations shall be allowed for discrepancies due exclusively to errors in weighing, measuring or counting which occur in packing conducted in compliance with good commercial practice, or due exclusively to differences in atmospheric conditions, evaporation or absorption of water;
(4)	That penalties may be imposed for violation of the law. and the proposed legislation shall come into force one year from the date of the Royal Assent.
iMr. ROBB: When similar legislation was before the House last year, objection was 'taken that it would impose additional obligations upon farmers who fill milk and cream for shipment to the cities, and that it would add considerably to the price paid by the consumer. Has the minister taken that into consideration? I presume he has looked up the debate upon the Bill of last year.	[DOT]
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: The Bill founded upon this resolution will be almost exactly the same as passed the House last year. The Bill last year was defeated in the Senate for some reason which I forget at the moment; I think it contained some provisions with regard to firewood and cement, which were objected to iby the Senate, and the Bill was not proceeded with further on that account. The Bill does not contain those provisions this year, but simply provides for the marking of containers or receptacles containing human food with the name of the manufacturer and the net weight or quantity of the contents.


Samuel Hughes: Does it apply to
drugs ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, but I think the Act which the Bill founded on this resolution will amend applies to drugs. The draft Bill sets forth the exceptions as follows:	All goods sold in bulk or broken
packages; fresh fruits or vegetables; articles held in stock by a wholesale or retail dealer prior to the coming into force of this Act; packages containing two avoirdupois ounces or less, which packages will be exempt from marking in terms of weight; packages containing one fluid ounce or less; and any article the sale of which as regards the weight or marking thereof is already provided for under other statutes. I am not able to say at the moment whether containers containing milk, which is marketed, without being in any sense manufactured, will be exempt under this Act, and on mov-

ing the second reading I shall be in a position to answer my hon. friend.


Mr. ROBB:: As the resolution stands the Bill would provide that every bottle containing human food-that might be milk or cream-shall be branded or stamped with the name and address of the fillers, and the weight, measure or quantity of the contents of the container. A very large business is done to-day putting up milk in small bottles to ship them to the cities, and if the minister insists upon the legislation going through in its present form the consumer in the city will have to bear the expense of this additional work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The enacting
clause reads as follows:
Every can, carton, bottle, box, barrel, wrapper, package or closed receptacl-e containing human food or any other commodity manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale in Canada, when such container is in its original unopened or unbroken form as it is usually delivered to consumers when sold or offered for sale in Canada, should be plainly marked, branded or stamped with the name and address of the fillers, and the weight, measure or quantity of the contents of the container;
And so on. I am doubtful if milk would come within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. ROBB * Oh yes, it is human food.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no question about its being human food.


Samuel Hughes: Why should not a bottle of milk be marked? Every dealer should be anxious to have his name labelled on his bottle, so as to let the public know that he is selling good stuff.


Mr. BELAND:: It would mean an additional expense.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Milk bottles are washed every day, or should be, and the label would be washed off.
Sir S'AM HUGHES: It would not cost a thousandth part of a cent.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have some knowledge of the milk business, although I am not in it myself. The investment in glass bottles by the large dairy companies in the cities is very substantial, and if the legislation goes through in the form foreshadowed by the resolution I hope that ample opportunity will be given to the milk dealers to replace their bottles gradually with bottles having their names marked or blown in the glass. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) that the label might be pasted on
the bottle or receptacle would lead me to suppose that he thinks the bottles are washed one by one under the tap; that is not the way it is done. The bottles are washed by machinery, and the only efficacious method of marking would be to blow the name in the bottle itself. I trust that the milk dealers will be given an opportunity to use up all their old bottles before being forced to provide these new ones.


Samuel Hughes: I did not suggest a mark on the bottom or on the top or anything of that kind. The label should be placed on the side of the bottle, and for the life of me I cannot see why it should not be required. Sometimes the gentleman who drinks milk will order a bottle and get good stuff, and at other times he gets only skimmed milk. The consumer after all has some rights, and one of those rights is to know whether the bottle of milk placed before him is put up by a man who puts up good milk or by a man who sails as close to the law as possible.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. A. K. Maclean therefore moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 105, founded on the resolution.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure,-
1.	To ratify and confirm the Order in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, published in an extra issue of the Canada Gazette of Monday, February 24, 1919, subject to the following amendments:-
(a)	Paragraph (c) of regulation one to he amended by striking out all the words after the word " wine " in the last line thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the words "or other intoxicating liquors of limited alcoholic content are permitted," so that the said paragraph shall read as follows :
"(c) 'Prohibited area" means any province, territory, municipality, district, county or other area wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is under or by any law, Federal or Provincial, prohibited, and shall include any such area wherein the sale of native wine or other intoxicating liquors of limited alcoholic content are permitted."
(b)	Subsection one of regulation three to be amended by striking out the words " until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen " at the end thereof, so that the said subsection shall read as follows:
[Stage Direction]
"3. (1) No person shall make or manufacture intoxicating liquor or cause intoxicating liquor to be made or manufactured within the Dominion of Canada after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen: Provided that in case the sale of intoxicating liquor of any class for beverage purposes is permitted in any province, this regulation shall not apply to the manufacture of such intoxicating liquor in such province."
(c)	Subsection three of said regulation three to be amended by striking out the words " until the thirtieth day of April, 1919," at the end thereof, and substituting therefor the words ** or to sending, taking, transporting or delivering any intoxicating liquor lawfully manufactured in any province to any place in such province where such intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold," so that the said subsection shall read as follows:
" (3) No person after the first day of April, 1918, shall send, take, transport into, or deliver in any prohibited area any intoxicating liquor, or cause any intoxicating liquor to be sent, transported or delivered. Provided that any intoxicating liquor actually shipped before the first day of April, 1918, may be delivered in such prohibited area by a common carrier within such period of time as is required for such delivery under the ordinary and usual conditions governing the business of such common carrier but not later than the first day of May, A.D., 1918. Provided that this regulation shall not apply to the sending, taking, transporting or delivering of native wines in the province of Ontario, or to sending, taking, transporting or delivering any intoxicating liquor lawfully manufactured in any province to any place in such province where such intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold."
(d)	Subsection four of said regulation three to be amended by striking out the words " which is in, or " in the third line thereof, and the word " prohibited " in the fourth line, and adding at the end thereof the words " where the sale of such intoxicating liquor is forbidden," so that the said subsection shall read as follows :
" (4) No person after the first day of April, 1918, shall either directly or indirectly sell or contract or agree to sell any intoxicating liquor which is to be delivered within any area where the sale of such intoxicating liquor is forbidden."
2.	To ratify and confirm the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, concerning the disposal of intoxicating liquors forfeited to the Crown, published in the Canada Gazette of Saturday, the nineteenth day of April, 1919.
3.	To provide that for the purposes of this proposed legislation and the schedule thereto comprising the said Orders in Council, the sale of any intoxicating liquor shall be deemed to be forbidden or prohibited in any province, territory, municipality, district, county or other area where the sale of the same is forbidden, except for use in divine service, for medical purposes, for manufacturing or commercial purposes, other than for the manufacture or use thereof as a beverage, or for other similar purposes.
4.	To provide that the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue shall have power to make such regulations as he may deem necessary to prevent intoxicating liquor from being illegally manufactured in or from being imported into

Canada, or from being sold, sent, taken, transported or delivered in violation of this proposed legislation and the schedule thereto comprising the said Orders in Council. Any person violating the provisions of any such regulation or of the proposed legislation shall be liable to the penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of the regulation contained in the said Orders in Council.-The Prime Minister.
William Thomas White: As this is important legislation I think the Committee will expect a statement with respect to its purpose and scope. The object of the legislation which this resolution has in view is to ratify and confirm certain Orders in Council which were passed by the Government during the war under the authority of the War Measures Act, for the purpose of restricting, during the continuance of the war and for a period of twelve months thereafter, the manufacture, transportation and importation of intoxicating liquors as defined by the Orders in Council. The definition of "intoxicating liquors" is to be found in the consolidated order which was dated February 24, 1919, and which is as follows:
Intoxicating liquor means and includes any liquor or beverage which contains more than 2J per centum of proof spirit.
Dealing with the various res trictions, I may point out that by the provisions of the consolidated Order in Council, no intoxicating liquor was to be imported into Canada after December 24, 1917, unless actually purchased for importation before that date, and actually shipped before January 31, 1918. Provision was also made in that connection that satisfactory evidence of such shipment had to be submitted to the Minister of Customs. The prohibition against importation was not to apply to wine for use in divine service, to intoxicating liquor used for medicinal purposes, to intoxicating liquor used for manufacturing purposes, and in this latter case provision was made for a special license to be issued by the Minister of Inland Revenue for such manufacture.
The effect of the Order in Council was to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors after April 1, 1918. There was in that connection a proviso that in case the sale for beverage purposes of any intoxicating liquor was permitted in a province such liquor might be manufactured until December 31, 1918. Manufacture was permitted under license in the case of liquors to be used for sacramental, industrial, artistic, mechanical, scientific or medicinal purposes. In regard to the third restriction, namely, upon the transportation of

intoxicating liquors, this was forbidden into any prohibited area in Canada after April 1, 1918. "Prohibited area" is defined by the consolidated Order in Council to mean
Any province, territory, municipality, district, county or other area wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is in or by any law, federal or provincial, prohibited and shall include any such area wherein the sale of native wine is prohibited.
In connection with the restriction upon transportation, provision was made to meet the case of shipments actually made before April 1, 1918, delivery to be not later than the date at which such liquor would be delivered in the ordinary course, and in any case not later than May 1, 1918. There was a further provision that no contract should be made to sell after April 1, 1918, although a licensee might send into any prohibited area for delivery for authorized purposes intoxicating liquors in accordance with the terms of the license issued to him by the Minister of Inland Revenue. Similar licensees in prohibited areas' were authorized to receive intoxicating liquors under the terms of their license and not otherwise. There was a further regulation made to ensure that such transportation should be only by common carriers, by rail or water, to the end that the provision of the Order in Council might be more effectively carried out.
The purposes for which the Orders in Council were passed are set out in the recital of the consolidated Order in Council as follows:
(1)	To prevent waste;
(2)	To promote thrift;
(3)	To conserve resources; and increase national efficiency.
As I stated, the duration of the measure was limited by the Order in Council to the period of the war and twelve months thereafter. As the orders were passed^ under the authority of the War Measures'Act, it is necessary that they should be now ratified and confirmed by Parliament if they are to continue in effect as was the intention for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the war.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Does the twelve
months mean from the signing of the armistice, or from the signing of peace?


William Thomas White: From the time
the conclusion of the war is officially declared. The present position is that we are still at war with Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. There seems to be no doubt that the period which the Order in
Council was intended to cover was the remaining period of the war until officially at an end and twelve months thereafter. The consolidated Order in Council points out that the regulations made therein are to be construed as supplementary to the prohibitory laws now in force, or that may hereafter be in force, in a province or territory and that such regulations should continue in force during, as I have stated, the period of the present war and twelve months thereafter.
It was felt by the Government that the period succeeding the war would, as to many of its characteristics, be similar to the war period. Further, it would be the time of demobilization and it was believed that the country would, for at least a year after the war, be subject to what would virtually be war expenditure and that is' the case to-day. The Order in Council therefore provided that the legislation enacted, for it was legislation under the authority, as I have said, of the War Measures Act, should continue during the war and for a period of twelve months thereafter when it was expected that demobilization would be completed.
The resolution provides for certain amendments to the consolidated Order in Council and the other orders w'hich were passed for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the provisions of the consolidated order. "Intoxicating liquors," was defined by the consolidated order to mean and include liquor exceeding a strength of two and a half per cent of proof spirit. At the time the order was passed there was prohibitory legislation, I think, in all the provinces under which the two and a half per cent of proof spirit standard had been adopted. Since the armistice, and as a result of a plebiscite in the province of Quebec, it is lawful under the laws of that province to sell for beverage purposes liquor to the strength of five per cent of proof spirit and, in the special case of wine, 6.98 per cent alcohol.
In the province of Ontario announcement has been made that a plebiscite or referendum will be taken, and it may be that other provinces will pursue a similar course. The Government, therefore, thought it advisable-in view of what has taken place in Quebec and Ontario, and what may take place in other provinces-to modify the Order in Council to the extent, and to the extent only, necessary to permit effect to be given to provincial laws respecting the sale of liquor for beverage purposes. We have therefore provided, as an amendment to the consolidated Order in Council, that liquor may be manufactured within

a province to the standard of strength authorized by the laws of that province for sale for beverage purposes. To use a concrete illustration:	It will be permissible when
this resolution is carried into law for brewers in the province of Quebec to manufacture beer to the strength of five per cent proof spirits in order that it may be available for sale and consumption as authorized by the laws of that province.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister kindly explain what " proof spirits " means? Those of us who are strictly temperate men, like the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), do not know the meaning of the term.


William Thomas White: I am so strong a temperance man myself that I could not really give my hon. friend what would be regarded as a scientific definition, but it might be right to say-


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the President of the Privy Council can give us a definition?	[DOT]


William Thomas White: -that alcohol has about twice the strength of proof spirits- or in other words, that two and a half per cent of alcohol is about the equivalent of five per cent of proof spirits. It is said, and some hon. gentlemen will be able to pronounce as to this very much better than myself, that there is not as much " bite " in the proof spirit beverage, as there is in the alcohol beverage of the same apparent percentage. I think I have stated to the House in sufficient detail the legal effect of the Order in Council and of the modification which we now propose. I have caused to be laid upon the Table a number of copies-sufficient I think for the use of members-of the consolidated Order in Council and the two amendments referred to.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Acting Prime Minister has given some explanation regarding the use of beer. Would he supplement that explanation by further details in connection, for instance, with the use of wine.


William Thomas White: As to what?


Henri Sévérin Béland: As to the sort of wine which is to be permitted to be consumed in the province of Quebec?


Samuel Hughes: Or in any other province?


William Thomas White: That is a matter which we had under consideration. I understand that Quebec does not manufacture

nativS wine to any great extent. Am I right in that understanding?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


William Thomas White: The question then arises as to how native wine, or at least wine of the strength authorized there by provincial laws, will be provided to meet the requirements of the people for beverage purposes. I may say to my hon. friend that it was my intention to have modified this Order in Council to the extent necessary by providing that there might be imported into the province of Quebec, or into any other province where similar legislation might prevail, wine of the strength permitted by such legislation. I was informed, possibly erroneously, that there are no wines likely to come from France of as low an alcoholic standard as the wine which is authorized for sale now by the legislation of the province of Quebec to which I have referred;.but in order to carry out the principle which I have indicated, I should be prepared to consider an amendment to the resolution which would provide for the importation into a province of wine not exceeding the alcoholic standard authorized by the law of that province. Such an amendment might provide for importation from a country outside of Canada, or for transportation from another province in Canada, into any province where such a law as I have mentioned is in effect. If any hon. member is in a position to say whether wine is likely to be imported, especially from France, of the alcoholic strength which is now lawful by the laws of the province of Quebec in liquor for beverage purposes, I shall be glad to hear his representations in that regard.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know but that the Acting Prime Minister could have made himself more clear if he had a little of the beverage which he has been describing.


William Thomas White: Two and-a-half
per cent?


Samuel Hughes: It would have steadied his nerve; he is a little nervous in his explanations. I do not know whether the President of the Privy Council would not have given the explanation much better. I cannot see why this burning and shining light of temperance is over-shadowed by the Acting Prime Minister to-day; we thought this was the former's special sphere. But what I wanted to ask is, why not
4 p.m. make this general rule applicable to all provinces? Why should the maker of wine in Ontario be prohibited

from selling his product in, Quebec, provided he is not violating the laws of that province, and so on? Make it a universal rule. If France wants us to import strong wines and the province of Quebec will not allow it, there is no harm done; but if that province wishes to import strong wines from France and the laws of Quebec permit it, why not allow such importation?


William Thomas White: I have already stated that I would be prepared to consider an amendment, after discussion in the House, which would permit wine to be imported from France, or any other country, and from any province in Canada, such as Ontario, where native wine is manufactured, into a province whose laws authorize its sale for beverage purposes.


Mr. FIELDING:: What will be the effect of the law as it will stand in respect to wines in. Ontario where they are manufactured?


William Thomas White: Under the law as it will stand?


William Stevens Fielding: What will happen to the wines of Ontario, what will be the effect of the law as to them?


William Thomas White: The position is that native wine in the province of Ontario may continue to be manufactured because by the legislation of that province there is no restriction upon its sale-that is an exception.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Regardless of percentage of alcohol?


William Thomas White: It is permitted today by the laws of the province of Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: What strength?


William Thomas White: There is no limit as to strength.


Mr. FRIPP:: As I understand the resolution, it would prohibit the importation into the province of Quebec of beer manufactured in the province of Ontario?


William Thomas White: Y"es.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That seems to me to create a monopoly in the province of Quebec, and all monopolies are obnoxious and vicious.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We will have to drink the whole of it; we cannot export it.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: You will have to drink the whole of it at a price fixed by your manufacturer. I have not considered the matter sufficiently to give an opinion, but if my recollection of the British North America
Act is correct, it seems to me there is difficulty in the way of legislation of this sort. Section 121 of the Act says that the growth, produce, or manufacture of a province shall be admitted free into another province. That, of course, does relate to duty in the sense of customs duty, but it must necessarily mean free importation. How can this Parliament create a monopoly so that one province alone shall have the right to manufacture and sell within its boundaries an article which may be manufactured in another province? I do not know whether the Government has considered that question, but it seems to me there is some difficulty in the way, apart altogether from the point I raise as to a monopoly being created. There are probably millions of dollars invested in breweries in the province of Ontario. Why should not the brewers of that province have the right of entry into the province of Quebec in competition with Quebec brewers, when the latter province gives to its people the right to purchase beer of a certain quality?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have no objection.


William Thomas White: The constitutional question raised by the hon. gentleman was considered carefully by the Department of Justice, and they reached the conclusion that the Government was within its powers in enacting the Order in Council as it stands.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it quite clear and beyond dispute that in the province of Ontario, which I understood was a prohibition province, one has the right to get drunk, provided he gets drunk on native wine? Is that the law?


William Thomas White: I do not think it is so specified in the law. ,


Mr. CHAPLIN:: For the information of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) I might say that the Ontario law does not allow the retail sale of wine other than in undisturbed packages to the house of a consumer; it does not allow the sale of wine over the bar.


Mr. CRONYN:: The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's has raised a question on what has always appeared to me to be the most extraordinary piece of legislation perpetrated by the province of Ontario. There is no doubt that that province has enacted what is in effect the clearest kind of class legislation. It allows, as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has just stated, the sale of wine, the strength of which is not specified. This is

the clause of the Ontario Act covering this point:
Subject to any regulations or restrictions which the Board may impose, manufacturers of native wines, from grapes grown and produced in Ontario, may sell the same in wholesale quantities only, that is to say in quantities of not less than five gallons in each cask or vessel at any one time and when sold in bottles not less than one dozen bottles of at least three half pints at any one time.
Now, the law of the province of Ontario, as I understand it, did not prohibit-I am subject to correction as to this-the manufacture of ale of any strength for export, and if the breweries of Ontario found a market in foreign countries they were entitled to manufacture and export. Under the proposed resolution and Order in Council that market is cut off. Not only are they prohibited from exporting to the province of Quebec beer of 5 per cent proof spirits, or 21 per cent alcohol, whatever the ruling in Quebec may he-but they cannot export to any other country. That seems to me such an absurd and illogical position that I propose an amendment to the resolution. Subsection 3 of paragraph (c) of the resolution reads as follows:
(3) No person after the first day of April, 1918, shall send, take, transport into, or deliver in any prohibited area any intoxicating liquor, or cause any intoxicating liquor to be sent, transported or delivered. Provided that any intoxicating liquor actually shipped before the first day of April, 1918, may be delivered in such prohibited area by a common carrier within such period of time as is required for such delivery under the ordinary and usual conditions governing the business of such common carrier but not later than the first day of May, A.D., 1918. Provided that this regulation shall not apply to the sending, taking, transporting or delivering of native wines in the province of Ontario, or to sending, taking, transporting or delivering any intoxicating liquor lawfully manufactured in any province to any place in such province where such intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold.
By amendment I propose to strike out these words:
Sending, taking, transporting or delivering of native wines in the province of Ontario.
If we are to have this legislation imposed let us have it imposed fairly. Do not let us make an exception in the case of some one favoured class or province. I beg therefore, Mr. Chairman, to move that amendment.
iSir THOMAS WHITE:	It is a complicated piece of legislation and I would ask the hon. member if he will kindly give notice of his resolution.


Samuel Hughes: Might I make a
suggestion to the Acting Prime Minister in
LMr. Cronyn.J
that very regard? Why not have the Order in Council printed so that we can deal with the matter intelligently? I do not suppose it is a very voluminous affair; it will only take a day.


William Thomas White: Copies of the
Order in Council are laid upon the Table for the use of hon. members. I think the resolution shows clearly the effect of the amendments which we propose. I still do not quite appreciate the point made by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) and I would be glad if he would state again what he has in mind in the amendment.


Hume Cronyn: By this legislation we
are backing up the exceedingly unfair legislation of the province of Ontario. And we are going further; we are adopting, as I understand the resolution, the sale of liquor in the province as a test. As I said, under the legislation of the province of Ontario brewers and wine merchants alike were permitted to manufacture for export, I speak subject to correction.


William Thomas White: I do not understand that the legislation of the province of Ontario prevents the manufacture of wine and beer for export. The jurisdiction of a province is with respect of the sale and consumption; the question of manufacture and export I think is a Dominion matter.


Hume Cronyn: That is undoubtedly
right, Mr. Chairman. But the province recognized that situation by providing as follows in section 45 of the Ontario Temperance Act:
Nothing herein contained- shall prevent any brewer, distiller or other person duly licensed by the Government of Canada for the manufacture of spirituous, fermented or other liquor, from keeping or having liquor manufactured by him in any building where such manufacture is carried on.
The provincial authorities knew that they had not the right to prohibit the manufacture, and under the law as it stands the wine merchant and the brewer can and do manufacture for export. Under this Order in Council manufacture for export must cease, and that being the case we should be logical. If we are going to be temperate, let us be temperate. Why should the manufacture and sale in Ontario of wine which runs from sixteen to twenty per cent proof spirits be permitted, while the manufacture and sale of beer of five per cent is not permitted?


William Thomas White: The principle
which should underly the action of the Dominion with respect to legislation of this

kind is recognition of the rights of the provinces to enact such legislation, within their jurisdiction as they may deem proper. It is true that the legislation of Ontario excepted native wines. No doubt they did so upon considerations which appeared proper to them as representatives of the people of Ontario. The hon. member sees an unfairness in permitting the manufacture of wine of unlimited strength in Ontario, while at the same time a limitation as to strength is imposed in respect of beer manufactured in the province. But that is essentially a matter for the legislature of Ontario. If Ontario, acting within its jurisdiction, sees fit to enact that beer for beverage purposes shall not be sold in Ontario of greater strength than two and a half per cent of proof spirits and at the same time feels justified in authorizing the manufacture and sale of native wine in the province, I suppose that is a matter for the legislature and the people of Ontario. I do not know how far we should be justified in reviewing their action with respect to what is clearly within their jurisdiction under the British North America Act. I am of the opinion that this Order in Council does not prohibit the export of native wine manufactured in Ontario. If Ontario adopted legislation under which -pine of a strength not exceeding, let us say, five per cent alcohol, should be sold for beverage purposes there, then under this legislation they could not, I think, manufacture beyond that strength, either for domestic use or for export. But Ontario, I understand, has not placed any limitation upon the strength of native wine manufactured there.


Mr. NESBITT:: Would the minister be averse to an amendment permitting Ontario to export to Quebec its native wines at the strength which Quebec allows? Moreover, does this resolution stop the exportation of beer from Ontario to points outside that province?


William Thomas White: According to the law of Quebec, wine of the alcoholic strength of a little under seven per cent is authorized for sale for beverage purposes. Unless that legislation is to be defeated by Dominion enactment, it is necessary to permit importation into Quebec from outside of Canada or transportation into Quebec from any other province where such wine is manufactured. I have stated that I would be prepared to consider a suggestion for permitting the importation from outside of Canada into a province
such as Quebec of wine of the strength authorized for sale for beverage purposes by the legislation of that province; and also the transportation into such province from another province where wine is manufactured for the purpose of supplying local requirements in strict accordance with the laws of that province. With regard to beer, the situation is somewhat different. Beer may 'be manufactured in any province to the extent of the quantity required to meet the consumption needs in accordance with the provincial laws. I think the same statement might be made with regard to whisky. With regard to wine, it is only in some provinces that native wine is manufactured. But if any difficulty arises with regard to the logic of the situation I suppose we would have to meet the condition in a province such as Quebec by permitting importation from outside. There seems to be a very strong sentiment in the community that if a province by its legislation prohibits the sale for beverage purposes within that province of liquor beyond a certain strength, the manufacture of liquor beyond that strength in that province should not be permitted.


Samuel Hughes: Instead of labelling one law for one province and another for another, why not make our legislation universal and apply the same form of legislation to all provinces-having regard, of course, to existing provincial laws?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will not find the name of any province mentioned in this resolution, or in any amendment. The amendments to the resolution are for the purpose of enabling effect to be given to provincial legislation in any province. I used the illustration of Quebec because Quebec has taken action and no other province up to date has.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose Ontario refuses to go beyond the two-and-a-half per cent for beer, and Quebec goes five; would it be impossible for a brewer in Ontario to make his beer up to five per cent for sale in the province of Quebec?


William Thomas White: It would under this resolution.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark):: I should like, in the first place, to straighten out the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) as to the meaning of "proof spirits," and I am surprised that the hon. member, so rich in military lore, is not familiar with the historic association between proof spirits

and military regulations. The term had its origin in England in the old days when the army was armed with flintlock rifles. In those days it took a certain percentage of alcohol to get the powder to the point where it would explode with a spark. It was found through experiments made by the British army that alcohol could be considerably reduced in (strength and still strike fire when used in the flintlock rifle. When the alcohol was reduced to the lowest point at which it would strike fire, it was known as "proof spirits;" it was the test or the "proof." While alcohol has a strength of 165, they could reduce it to a strength of 100, and at that strength the powder would strike fire. That was the origin of the term or standard known as "proof strength."
I want to say a word on the principle involved in the resolution now before the House, because, if I understand parliamentary procedure, we are in order in dis-culssing the principle of the legislation at this stage, and the details later. The Acting Prime Minister has emphasized more than once to-day that this legislation is to give effect so far as possible to the intention and the desire of the provinces as expressed by the legislation enacted by the different provinces. That, I submit, is precisely what will not be done by the legislation founded on this resolution. True, the resolution has been drawn in such a way as carefully to safeguard the wishes and intentions of the province of Quebec, but I submit that it shows no desire or any intention to meet the views of the legislature of the province of Ontario. The connection in which I raise the question of the Legislature of Ontario is this: This legislation is intended to prevent the importation into the province of Ontario of alcoholic liquors of a strength in excess of two-and-a-half per cent proof spirits. Now I submit that in the province of Ontario there has been no desire or attempt on the part of the legislature to avail itself of the rights which it had under the existing law prior to the Order in Council of March of last year, to put an embargo on the importation of alcoholic beverages into the province. I submit that the province of Ontario at the present time has the right to do everything which this legislation proposes to do with reference to importation into the province. The legislature of the province of Ontario has an absolutely legal right under the Doherty Act of 1916, passed by this House, to do exactly what is here attempted to be done in a paternal way. For that reason, I submit that if there is a

desire on the part of this Government to give effect to the rights of the provinces to deal as fully as lies within their power with the question of prohibition, then, to be consistent, the whole question should be left to the Government of Ontario to be dealt with by them. I believe that it is the opinion of the province of Ontario that the provincial Government at Toronto was dealing with the question prior to the Order in Council, and is dealing with it now, in a way that is likely to give ultimately the very best results.
Just a word with reference to the Doherty Act. The question of prohibition has developed in parliamentary procedure to an extent never known before, the passing of the buck-of course, I quite understand that many honourable gentlemen do not understand the term. In 1916 when the Ontario Temperance Act was before the Ontario Legislature, the question was raised that under the British North America Act the provincial government had no right to put an embargo on the importation of spirits into the province, any more than it has a right to deal with the question of manufacture. Those of you who were in this House at that time will no doubt remember that a determined campaign was carried on for the Dominion Government to do what it was beyond the power of the province to do. The Ontario Government was quite willing to pass up to the Dominion Government the responsibility of providing the necessary legislation to prevent the importation of spirits into the province; I am dealing only with the province of Ontario because I know nothing about the conditions in the other provinces. The Dominion Government accepted that responsibility, and the Doherty Act was before this House at the same time the Ontario Temperance Act was before the Ontario House. Instead of dealing with the question definitely, the Dominion Government passed the Doherty Act, and then passed the question back to the province of Ontario saying, "Under this Act you have the necessary legislation to give effect to any law that you may pass against the importation of liquor." During the debate in this House the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in reply to a question of Mr. Sinclair said (Hansard, page 2482-3):
If the hon. gentleman thinks otherwise, he entirely misapprehends the Bill. Anywhere in Canada, it will he an offence for a man to send liquor into a province where there is a law against it.	*
In introducing his legislation the Minister of Justice said that its whole object was

to give the very fullest power and authority to the Governments of the different provinces to give effect to their wishes in respect of matters which, under the British North America Act, they might otherwise be prevented from dealing with. I am not arguing the question one way or the other but what I say is this: In this respect the legislation before us does not give to the province of Ontario that same measure of provincial control over this question that it is so solicitous to give to the province of Quebec. If, in the opinion of the province of Ontario, there should be an embargo on the importation of spirits into the province, I say that without reference to this Order in Council at all, the province had and has a right to prevent the importation. It might very well be said that this was not law when the Ontario Temperance Act was passed. If that means that this Act had not been passed in this House at the time the Ontario Temperance Act was finally passed in Ontario, that is true. But the fact is that the resolution was in the House and the Bill had been introduced. Apart from that, however, the Ontario Legislature met in 1917, prior to the Order in Council, and there was no suggestion by either the Government of Ontario or the Opposition of Ontario asking for the legislation that is now enacted by this Order in Council. I desire to deal with another feature oi this Order in Council, and a feature of the law that will be enacted in pursuance of the resolution. When the Order in Council was passed last year, as all hon. members will remember, it did not become effective until a future date fixed in the Order. It was passed early in March and became effective on the first of April. It would have been just as easy under the provisions of the War Measures Act and under the Order in Council to have had it effective at once. And I submit that there can be only one inference, namely, that the period between the time the Order in Council was passed and the date upon which it became effective was left in order that the people affected might be permitted to stock up, and they did stock up. If it was wrong for a man to have liquor in his possession, there could be no hardship in making the Order in Council effective at once, thereby placing all citizens on the same basis. The result of its not being made effective immediately was that in Ontario those who had the inclination, the foresight and the money- particularly the money-stocked for their requirements for a very long period in the future. There is no possible question about that, and we are face to face 150
with this fact to-day-and I want to impress upon the Government that this is a view of the question which no Government can afford to overlook-that there cannot possibly be a more dangerous form of class legislation than is contained in the legislation which it is now proposed to enact in this House. We virtually say to the people of this country: If you have had the inclination and the means to stock your cellar and to provide against all your requirements for any length of 'time in the future, the law will protect you. But if, on the other hand, you have not done this, if you have been abroad during the past four years and have not had the opportunity to provide yourselves with alcoholic beverages, there is no way by which you can get them under the law. I submit that if there is going to be an absolute embargo on the importation of alcoholic beverages the Government should have the courage of its convictions and should make it illegal to have private stocks except for medicinal purposes and under the order of a physician. That would place all people on the same basis. Those who represent cities will bear me out when I say that it is fast becoming an established fact in the larger centres that there is no recognized property in whisky. In the city of Toronto, those who are in a position to know, will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are on an average as many as twenty and twenty-five cases- of theft from private places in a day, where houses are broken into and nothing of value removed except whisky. We do not hear much about that, because the long suffering people of Toronto would sooner lose their whisky in silence than have any one know that they had it. I clipped from a paper to-day the report of a case that will show what a grave injustice will exist in this connection. It is from Ontario and I shall not mention the name. The report says:
The ihome of Brig.-Gen	was entered
by burglars last evening and eleven cases of liquor were stolen from the wine cellar. The oases were carried to a wooded part of the grounds, where the contents were removed and taken away in an auto. There was no person
in the house at the time, Brig.-Gen	
being overseas and Mrs	in Atlantic
City.
Thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of men are coming home, and I think it would be a mistake on the part of this House to waive aside the importance of the feeling that is going to be created in this country if the man who has not had the opportunity or the means to " stock up "



realizes that his next door neighbour has a well stocked cellar,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Could they not visit their neighbours?


John Alexander Stewart: They do sometimes when they are away. I submit that it is within the power of this Government to enact that there shall not be any private stocks. If the Government does not do that ftien I think the matter should be left to be dealt with by the province, and under the Doherty Act it is absolutely clear that they have the legal right to deal with it.


William Thomas White: Just to advert
to two or three points made by my hon. friend in his very interesting speech. I do not understand that he is suggesting that this Government is asking Parliament to " pass the buck "-to use a vernacular expression that has never appealed to me. We are asking Parliament to pass this resolution. Let me put myself right with the House in view of the implication of the hon. gentleman that nearly all the houses in the city of Toronto, in which I have the honour to live, are largely stocked with intoxicating liquors. I can assure my hon. friend that if he visited my house he would find it very much in the condition of Mother Hubbard's cupboard, and I think that that is the case with regard to the vast majority of houses in Toronto, as in other cities in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend says that under the Canada Temperance Act, while there was a prohibition against the sale, for beverage purposes, or liquor beyond a certain alcoholic strength, it was open to the citizens of the province of Ontario to buy intoxicating liquors from adjacent provinces and have them sent directly to them for their use. He argues that if a province desired to prevent that state of affairs it had the power to do so, and I think from a strictly legal standpoint he is correct in that statement. I think the province of Ontario, through its legislature, has the power to prevent the holding of stocks of liquors for consumption by private individuals, hut my hon. friend will not fail to appreciate the impracticability of the Government of Ontario giving effect to any such legislation, which would involve a search of every house in the province, leading to a most undesirable condition of affairs.


Samuel Hughes: Has the province
of Ontario the right to search?


William Thomas White: I think it has.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think so.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
may be right, but I have the impression that the Minister of Justice stated, when the Doherty Act was before Parliament, that it was within the power of the province of Ontario, if it thought fit, to enact such legislation as would effectually prevent the bringing in of liquor from other provinces and the keeping of such liquor in the custody of citizens of Ontario.
I point out that, while that may be legally so, there are very grave practical difficulties in giving effect to such legislation. My hon. friend further argued that the province of Ontario did not ask for this legislation and that therefore it should not have been adopted by the Dominion Government. I have already pointed out that it was adopted as a war measure under the authority of the War Measures Act. The Government of Ontario was not opposed to this legislation. Let me read a telegram from the Premier of Ontario, dated December, 1917, and addressed to Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister:
Please accept my warmest congratulations on the important action taken by your Government in connection with the liquor traffic. I am sure it will materially assist in conserving the strength of the nation for the struggle in which we are engaged.
This telegram is signed by Sir William Hearst. I put that forward to show that the province of Ontario, through its Premier, had nothing but commendation for the action taken by the Government. I think it is to be conclusively inferred from that telegram that the premier of Ontario welcomed action on the part of the Dominion Government which would prevent the importation for sale purposes into the province of Ontario of intoxicating liquors from adjacent provinces.
I submit there is a good deal to be said for that view. Let us just look at this. A province, such as Ontario, says:	There
must not be sold within this province liquor of a strength beyond two and a half per cent of proof spirits. That is what they say in the Ontario Temperance Act with respect to all liquors except native wine. If that is the deliberate judgment of the legislature, and presumably of the majority of the people of Ontario, it does seem to me that those who passed that legislation could hardly have had in contemplation a situation in which it would be largely nullified-that is if they meant it, seriously- by a round-about arrangement whereby liquor of any degree of alcoholic strength could be brought in by any citizen from an adjacent province. Some extraordinary ex-

pedients were devised. For example, a wholesaler or retailer of the province of Quebec would establish an agency in the city of Toronto, and the order would be given to the agent. The agent would then pass the order on to Quebec, the Quebec House would fill it and send the liquor back into Ontario. I need not dwell upon the incongruity of that. If the people of Ontario did not want-and do not want- liquor of a greater strength than two and a half per cent proof spirits to be consumed in Ontario, they have the right to say so. They do say it through their legislature in the law which they have enacted. I think it is clearly to be inferred from the legislation that it was not the intention of the legislature, or the Government, of Ontario, to approve the use for consumption of liquor beyond that strength. Certainly, the situation which resulted, and which I have xeferred to, did not seem to me to be a very satisfactory one. The Dominion Government, in order to implement what seemed to be the intention of the Ontario Legislature, provided that there should not be transported into the province of Ontario-I am using Ontario merely by way of illustration-from any other province liquor beyond the strength authorized for sale as a beverage by the legislature of the province. That is all we did. We decided that that should not be done for the period of the war and for twelve months after. That is the enactment that is now before this House for ratification and confirmation if Parliament should think it advisable.
The next point made by my hon. friend is that there was a period between the passing of the Act and bringing it into effect in which large quantities of intoxicating liquor were transported from one province to another, or sold within the province in which they were held, and, as he states, to enable people to " stock up." That statement is not correct. The Government had no such motive or purpose in view. The object of the provision was to enable people who had large stocks on hand for sale to partially dispose of their stocks. That is not an unusual position in connection with legislation of this kind. The effect- of this enactment, or Order in Council, was to safeguard the very serious situation, indeed, of firms who were carrying stocks of liquor which they had on hand for sale in the usual course and against which some had borrowed heavily. If suddenly without notice, or time for the partial disposal of those stocks, the Order in Council had gone into effect, and especially if permanent
150}
legislation were also passed, these people would find themselves in the position of having been financially ruined without any notice. Those were -the considerations which influenced the Government in coming to the conclusion it did.
One other point made by my hon. friend, one which is often put forward and one which is very forcible in the way in which he puts it. It is that those who had means were able to stock up and that they had their cellars full of liquor. From the way my hon. friend put it, it would appear that that was a highly desirable state of affairs from their standpoint. I do not know that it is a great advantage to a man to have his cellar full of liquor.


Mr. REID (.Mackenzie) :: It seems to be so in Toronto.


William Thomas White: Then I say it is not good for the man who has it. It is not good for any man to have too much liquor on his premises and I am a moderate in regard to that. My hon. friend puts forward the view that the public are greatly concerned about that on the theory that they have not been able to likewise stock up. I submit that that begs the whole question in so far as the provincial legislature is concerned. If the provincial legislature enacts a law, presumably, it embodies the views, opinion, wishes and desires of the people whom it represents. If the province of Ontario, through its legislature, deliberately passes an Act which contemplates that liquor beyond a -strength of two and a half proof spirits shall not be drunk in that province, in so far as they have power to prevent it, I submit that the legislature must be deemed to reflect the wishes of the majority-and the great majority-of the people of Ontario. If they do not want that situation then they can change the law. As far as Parliament is concerned, or any authority external to the province of Ontario, it seems to me that it must be conclusively assumed that the legislature of the province of Ontario speaks in its legislation for the majority of the people of the province until that legislation is changed.
I submit that that legislation does implement the legislation in force in the various provinces of Canada. The Orders in Council in question were adopted for that pur-, pose, and as a desirable war measure; to prevent waste, promote thrift and conserve resources. This is still a war year, having regard to all those purposes, and all that we are asking Parliament to do is to ratify
2.356

and confirm these Orders in Council in order that the object which we had in view may be carried out for the period for which the Order in Council was to operate.


Samuel Hughes: If this is still a war year, would not every year in the history of any nation be a war year in order to conserve thrift?


William Thomas White: I think it very desirable in every year, as my hon. friend has said, that thrift should be promoted and resources conserved; but this is peculiarly a war year because of the enormous continuing expenditure of the Dominion Government for purposes arising out of or connected with the war and demobilization.


John Alexander Stewart: I would like to say one word, and in doing so do not wish to be placed in the position of opposing the resolution of the Acting Prime Minister. My ohief complaint is that it does not go far enough-that if it is intended to prevent importation of intoxicating liquor into a province, it should go further and prevent possession. I submit it would be within the power of this Government to do that. I say also that having regard to the attitude of Ontario that I entirely agree with everything that has been said with reference to giving effect to the wishes of that province.
I submit it has been known that this legislation was coming before the House, and it would possibly be of interest to the members to know, not so much what Sir William Hearst thought of this legislation at the time the original Order in Council was passed, but what the views of the Government of Ontario now are, with reference tc the extension of that legislation for a further period of twelve months.


Mr. BLAKE:: We have heard a lot about conscription at various times-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Andrews) has the floor.


George William Andrews: While the subject is under discussion, I feel that I must say a few words, because I am in rather a peculiar position. Of all the subjects that have been under discussion this session, I think no particular one has brought more grist to the legislative mill than the question of total prohibition. I have been, I think, bombarded by every W.C.T.U. in the country-at least in that portion of it from which I come-and, in addition, representations have come to me from all the

churches in my constituency, and from a trade protection society. I quite agree with the minister that there is a very large temperance class which must be considered by the Government in dealing with this question. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I have had expressed from the labour organizations the request that this Government should come out boldly and declare for the consumption of beer and wine. Furthermore, I have been brought into contact with the man in the street, sometimes called the " silent voter He has said to me, " Major, we did not vote for total prohibition, we voted for the Macdonald Act " -I am referring to legislation enacted in my own province-" and I should like another vote. We submitted to this total prohibition as a war measure, realizing that every grain of barley counted. We were willing to submit to that, but now that the war is over we want to see that legislation wiped out That is a very considerable vote in my constituency, too, Sir. The point has been brought to my 5 p.m. attention that this is class legislation between the rich and the poor, but that is not an argument. I never heard it advanced as an argument, except as to how it affects individuals; some fellows have the good luck to have their cellars full of liquor while the cellars of others are very, very empty. I felt that I had to say something on this question, because in my constituency there are a very large number of good temperance people. Personally, I stand absolutely and entirely four-square against total prohibition, and I shall try and give my reasons for occupying that position.
First of all, as to the medical side of this question. A committee appointed in England by the Central Control Board to inquire into the liquor traffic has recently completed its work, and the report of that committee bearing the imprint " H. M. Stationery Office, 1918 " is very interesting. The committee in question consisted of the following gentlemen:
Lord D'Abernon, G.C.M.G. (chairman), chairman of the Central Control Board (liquor traffic) ;
Sir George Newman, K.C.B., M.D., (vice-chairman), Principal Medical Officer to the Board of Education, and member of the Central Control Board (liquor traffic) ;
Prof. A. R. Cushny, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Pharmacology at University College, London ;
H. H. Dale, M.D., P.R.S., Head of the Department of Bio-chemistry and Pharmacology under the Medical Research Committee, National Health Insurance;

M. Greenwood, M.R.C.S., Statistician to the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, and Reader in Medical Statistics in the University of London;
W. McDougall, M.B., P.R.S., Reader in Mental Philosophy in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford;
F. W. Mott, M.D., F.R.S., Pathologist to the London County Asylums, and Consulting Physician to Charing Cross Hospital;
Prof. C. S. Sherrington, M.D., F.R.S., Wayn-flete Professor of Physiology in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford;
W. C. Sullivan, M.D., Medical Superintendent of the Rampton State Asylum for Criminal Lunatics.
It will be seen that the committee was composed of very eminent men, whose reputation .is world-wide, and to ignore their findings is to ignore the conclusions of scientists-you might as well pull down your colleges and be done with it. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read a few short extracts from the report. The first is as follows:
Apart from the results of its continued excessive use, the main effects of alcohol that have any real significance are due to its action
on the nervous system	The result of
scientific research concerning the action of alcohol on the respiration, the circulation, the digestion, the muscular system, is to show that, so far as direct action is concerned, alcohol, when administered in moderate doses, in dilute form, and at sufficient intervals, has no effect of any serious and practical account, (p. 125).
Again the report says:
A further conclusion of capital importance which emerges with equal clearness, is that the action of alcohol on the nervous system is essentially sedative, and-with the possible exception of its direct influence on the respiratory centre-it is not truly stimulant, (p. 125.)
Hon. gentlemen will note that the committee consider the action of alcohol on the nervous system is essentially sedative, and if there ever was a time in our history when the frazzled nerves of a tormented world needed a sedative, it is now.


George William Andrews: Further the report-says:
An exhausting and worrying day may leave a condition of tension and irritability which interferes with appetite and digestion; and in such a condition, and in some persons, it may be that wine or other dilute form of alcohol, taken with the evening meal, will assist the assimilation of food. Again, persons who have overworked to such an extent that they have become too tired to rest may be enabled to sleep when they have taken a small amount of alcohol, (p. 127.)
Gentlemen, those findings are exactly in accord with my own experience, which now extend over some years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Andrews: I am a father and a grandfather, and I have found by experience that some things agree with me and others do not-I have tried them all. The point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is that after a man reaches my time of life he knows pretty well what agrees with him and what does not. If I take coffee for a week I am sick; if I take a little whisky and water with my meals, then everything is all right. It does annoy me when somebody else comes along and tells me what I must drink, and would force me to follow his orders just because he happens to be in a majority. There is a little too much paternalism about that to please me.
I have given medical reasons and my own experience. I will now give the historical reasons. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that the race has not deteriorated under this alcoholic treatment that it has had for many years. No man who saw the "beer-sodden Englishman" at work on the other side can argue that it was too dangerous a drink that he had been taking; and one remembers in 1916 going to that "whisky-sodden Scotland," where every man able to march was on his way towards Flanders; and certainly in regard to the "wine-bibbing Frenchman" one remembers Verdun- "They shall not pass." Are we going to bar from this country the drink of those virile men? I know Canadians can stand it and do good work on it.
It has been pointed out to me by many of my correspondents that it is a very serious moral question. I fail to see that it has anything to do with morality. I have only to point hon. members to the unspeakable Turk, who has been a teetotaller all his days, and rather a mess he has made of it.
I would just say one word as to the rum ration in the army which has been criticised rather severely by the extreme teetotallers. In my humble opinion it saved tens of thousands of our men from the grave, and perhaps worse. After a man has been out in the water all night and comes in chilled to the marrow, there is no place in the wet trench where he can run up and down to stimulate his circulation preparatory to going to sleep. A little shot of rum at that time restores his circulation and soothes his nerves, and he gets to sleep without any trouble.
I have some notes about the "swing oi the pendulum," but I do not need to tell you about that. If you go too far the pendulum inevitably swings back the other way. But I would say one word as to the danger of going to extremes, and that is
*

the subterranean traffic which has already been mentioned. It is everywhere springing up, and it is a frightful price to pay for temperance; indeed it is too big a price to pay if you are going to build up a body of law breakers.
My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Whidden) when he was talking on this subject recently-I am sorry he is not in his seat to-day; he is unavoidably detained -said we should be the dumping ground of the worst elements and the worst type of business men of the North American continent. He was referring to the possible situation if Canada went v, et and the United States went dry. I understand that the hon. gentleman lived over there for some years, and is therefore probably better posted than I am, because my visits have been few and far between. But every time I have gone over there I have met some of the best business and professional men imaginable, and I do not remember one who did not take "a little drop" for his stomach's sake. When my hon. friend was talking I could not help thinking, as I remembered the moderate men I had met over there, that I would be tempted to trade off the hon. member and all his followers for them, and give fifty cents to boot. But on second thoughts, Mr. Chairman, I concluded I would not do that; and on third thoughts I decided that probably these extreme men were filling a very useful purpose in life, because unless we had extremists at the top and the bottom there would he no sane middle course for this Government to pursue.


Matthew Robert Blake: We have heard a good deal of talk in the last year or two about conscription of wealth,, and now we are confronted with conscription of liquor in our homes. I wonder if the hon. member who advocated that will be inclined to inject a little socialistic doctrine as well and distribute the liquor at present in bond, or how else does he Isuppose the Government will be able to dispose of the liquor if it is all taken over from its present owners?
The point I wish to raise is the point raised by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn)-the making of wine in Ontario for export. There has been a lot of talk in this House about reconstruction, about fostering our industries and improving them as much as possible. I see no reason why this Ontario wine should not be transported to Quebec to meet the requirements of that province, as that province has decided to have beer and wine, and

in the event of Ontario in the near future voting to follow suit a great industry would spring up in the Niagara district, where the grapes are grown. I think no objection should be taken to this clause for allowing the manufacture and export of native wine.
As to the breweries in Ontario being allowed to manufacture beer to meet the requirements of Quebec or any other province that may vote wet, I see no objection to it. At the present time the Ontario brewers are manufacturing supplies to meet medical needs, and I cannot see what objection can be taken to their being allowed to go a little further to meet the needs of a sister province, and so being prepared, perhaps in the very near future, to meet the needs of Ontario itself. I think that might well have been included in this motion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not see anything in this resolution about permitting the importation of wine for sacramental purposes.


William Thomas White: The Order in
Council permits the supply of sacramental wine, and we are validating that Order in Council.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce an amendment in respect of the importing of wines from Prance-of a percentage of alcohol, of course, not higher than that permitted in the province which imports them? Notwithstanding what the Acting Prime Minister has said with regard to the possibility of transporting native wines from Ontario into Quebec


William Thomas White: I said that with regard to export from Canada I was of the opinion that native wines manufactured in Ontario of any strength-because there is no restriction-might be sold for export. They cannot be sent into Quebec.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it the intention of the minister to introduce an amendment with regard to the transportation of wines from Ontario into the province of Quebec, with the amendment which I have referred to, covering importations from France?


William Thomas White: The Government would be justified, in order that effect may be given to provincial legislation which authorizes the sale of wine of certain strength within a province, to permit the importation from outside of Canada and the transportation from any other province in Canada to such province, of wine not

beyond the strength authorized by the law of that province for sale for beverage purposes. When the Bill is in the committee stage I will introduce an amendment to that end.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The Housajn Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Public Works1-'Chargeable to Capital-Harbours and rivers-Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour and river improvements, $3100,000.
['I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Thomas Foster, that the title be "An Act to incorporate the Canadian Wholesale Grocers\' Association."']
Mr. CARVELL:: This item is to carry on improvements that have been in progress for some time. The amount asked for is not sufficient to complete the works; in fact, it will take very much more than this. The intention is to start the extension of a breakwater on the Port Arthur side and to continue the construction of a revetment wall near the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the Fort William side of the harbour. We believe that this is about as much money as will be expended during the coming year, although it is possible that an additional amount will be asked for in the Supplementary Estimates.
St. John harbour-Improvements, $750,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is to carry on improvements in the harbour of St. John. The work, which is under contract, involves also the construction of a dry dock. The amount of the vote will really be applied to harbour improvements. The harbour improvements and the dry dock are both under contract with the same company, the St. John Dry Dock and 'Shipbuilding Company, really the Canada Dredging Company, which has carried out works at Port Arthur and Fort William and at many places in Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At what stage of completion is the dry dock, and what harbour improvements are being carried on by this company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The original contract
was given in 1912, and provided for the construction of a breakwater, the dredging of a very large area in what is called Courtenay Bay, and the construction of a dry dock. Up to the time that the contract was assigned to the new company it had been carried on by the Norton-Griffiths Company, and about $4,000,000 had been expended on the harbour improvements and about $900,000 on the dry dock. The dry dock is being built under the Dry Dock Subsidies Act. It will cost at least $5,500,-
000 and the contractors are to receive not a subsidy of four and one half per cent, but interest on an amount up to $5,500,000 at four and one half per cent for thirty-five years. The principal of the bonds, of course, has to be taken care of by the contractors themselves. When the work is completed the harbour improvements will belong to the Government and the dry dock will belong to the company; so that two distinct propositions are incorporated in the same contract. Work is progressing on the dry dock.
The contract calls for the construction of a dry dock and of a ship repairing plant. The ship repairing plant itself comes under The Dry Dock Subsidy Act, but the money will be furnished by the company and not by the 'Government. It involves an expenditure of, I think, $3,250,000. The company are also laying out a big shipyard, but that is entirely their own affair; we have nothing to do with it whatever; it has nothing to do with the dry dock subsidy contract, nor with the harbour works. Under the contract the dry dock was to- be ready for operation in the summer of 1922, but we believe from the progress which they are making and from the reports of our engineers that it will be ready for operation in the summer of 1921.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What size ships will it be able to accommodate?
Mr. iCARVEiLL: The largest ship afloat to-day. In fact, it will be one of the largest dry docks in existence. It is 1,150 feet in length, 125 feet wide, 100 feet on the sil'l, with 40 feet of water at high tide. In every way it will be one of the most up-to-date dry docks in the world. There are only three others on the American continent that will at all compare with it. First, the 'Champlain dry dock at Levis; secondly, the dook_at Boston, and, thirdly, the dock at the Atlantic entrance to the Panama 'Canal. It will be equipped with the most up-to-date machinery, and, with the ship repairing plant, it will go a long way towards being a shipbuilding plant. I shall gladly give any other information if the members wish it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No doubt 'there was a written contract between the Government and the company for the building of this dry dock under the Dry Docks. Act. That Act is a very short one, and I should like to know if there is anything in the contract itself conserving the rights of the public as to the use of this dock when completed. The dry dock, of course, will be privately owned, but it will be the public who will

utilize the dock. Otherwise, the dry dock could not do business. Now we can always trust Government-owned utilities of this kind, because they are the property of the people, and governments have to cater to the wishes of the people. But in the case of a private-owned institution it is well that there should be some control over the fees that they can charge against the tonnage that is put into the dock for repairs. Has any such provision been made in the contract?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: vogue to-day in the building of docks, one being . for the Government themselves to. build the dock, which means a tremendous outlay, and there is always the great problem as to what will be done with the dock after completion. If we can get docks constructed by companies under the dry docks subsidy and under Government control and subject to Government ratification of fees that can be charged, they are relieved of a very large expenditure, because the 41 per cent extended over a period of thirty-five years is a very small matter compared with the initial cost of building a firshclass dry dock, and the Government is also relieved of its operation. My hon. friend is enough of a business man to know that there is not much use in talking about operating a dry dock and making money out of it. That cannot be done by the Government. If an up-to-date business concern own the dock, it is in their interest to get business. There will be no question of discrimination, and the only question that will weigh with them will be the getting of enough business to make it a paying concern. Personally, I am very much in favour of the construction of docks under subsidy, but up to the present time we have had very poor success, and- I do not believe it is possible to get any other docks built in Canada under subsidy without an increase in the subsidy. My own judgment would be that the second-class dry dock should receive subsidy up to 4J per cent for thirty-five years upon cost the same as first-class docks. If that were done, dry docks of the second class could be provided in a number of places in Canada without the Government actually paying for them.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have to call the
Chairman's attention to the fact that there is no quorum.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Clerk will count the members.


The CLERK:: Mr. Chairman, there are
19 members in the House, with the Chairman.


Georges Henri Boivin: I shall have to report to the Speaker who will direct the Clerk to count the House.
The Deputy Speaker having taken the Chair:


Georges Henri Boivin: There not being a quorum in the House I will ask the Chairman to take the names of the members present.
The Clerk having taken the names of the members present reported:


Georges Henri Boivin: The Clerk having found that there are more than twenty members present I declare that there is a quorum and that the House may resume in Committee of Supply.
The House resumed in Committee of Supply.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that I have anything further to say.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is this dredging tied up altogether? There does not seem naturally to he any particular connection between the building of a dry dock and dredging at Courtenay bay. While the dry dock is a fixed proposition, years one way or the other will not change the situation, and I think it is perhaps dangerous to make a contract for dredging that will extend over a great many years. Labour and everything is high, but after some years we can hope that matters will be such that the proposed services will be obtained at a cheaper rate than contracts made during the past few years. I would like to know what number of years this dredging arrangement covers, and what amount, apart from the dry dock, the dredging involves.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend's question would be a very apt one if a new contract had been made, but I think he will be surprised to learn that this contract was entered into in March, 1912, and that the work is going on under the prices prevailing then. There is no public work in Canada in which the Government is getting the work done under conditions existing in 1912. Tenders were called for this work, which was advertised perhaps as no other public work was ever advertised in Canada. Every district engineer in Canada had a copy of the plans and specifications, and there were notices running for between two and three months in all the big newspapers. In addition to this, a copy of the plans and specifications was deposited in the Office of the High Commissioner in London. Three tenders were received, all from English firms, the lowest tender being from the firm of Norten-Griffiths Company, Limited, for between eight and nine million dollars, including the dredging of a certain specified area, the building of piers, and the construction of a breakwater. The second part of the tender concerned the construction of a dry dock. When I came into the department I found that about four million dollars' worth of work had

been done on the harbour part of it. Work had proceeded. on the dry dock, but no subsidy contract had been entered into. The only subsidy contract that was ever signed was that signed about a year ago, with the present company, that is, Norton Griffiths Company Limited. While they did a large amount of work on the dry dock they never bad a subsidy contract. Now there is a subsidy contract under the law, and instead of going on and increasing the work we have decreased it. For instance, the channel leading from the main St. John harbour into Courtenay bay was to be 32 feet at low water. That involved some submarine rock work. We have eliminated all the rock work in the channel, and the channel itself will be dredged down to about 22 feet. We have reduced the cost of the channel by hundreds of thousands of dollars and are not doing any submarine rock dredging in the channel, my view being-and perhaps I am taking my own engineering opinions in regard to this work-that no ship will ever dock in St. John at low wdter. It is well known to many members of the Committee that St. John labours under a great disadvantage, having a high tide of 25 feet normal and 27 feet in spring tides. I do not believe that any ship will ever go into that channel to dock at low tide. Ships do not do it to-day but wait at the bar until at least half tide. Under the circumstances, we thought we could save considerable money and eliminated a lot of that dredging. The construction of the four piers was provided for in the original contract. We have eliminated that from the present contract because we do not consider it absolutely necessary. We want the basin and the entrance to the dry dock completed, but there is a clause in the contract which provides that whenever the present contractors are called upon to complete the piers they must do so under the prices in the contract of 1912. So that if we attempted to call for new tenders to carry on this work under present conditions, it would cost at least 50 per cent more than at the present time, and probably higher than that.


Mr. CAHILL:: Did the minister not inform the House last year that this dredging contract had been cancelled?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I informed the House
that I was not sure whether we were going on with the work or not. When I came into the department, it was contended by certain people that the contract was cancelled.
I had no hesitation in saying that the coni' .Mr. Carvell.J
tract had not been cancelled. Just before I made that statement I had referred the matter to the Department of Justice. Within about a month, or when the Supplementary Estimates came up, I was asked the question again and I said that we were going on with the work and in the meantime I received a notification from the Justice Department that the contract was not cancelled, that it was still alive. On that assurance I ratified the assignment of the contract by the Norton Griffiths Company to the St. John Shipbuilding Company, or rather consented to it.


Frank S. Cahill: What amount is involved in the subsidy?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You can figure it out
yourself; it is 4J per cent on $5,500,000 for thirty-five years. No part of this has been paid because the work has not progressed to the point where 1 feel justified in guaranteeing the bonds. Just as soon as $1,000,000 has been expended, if the company want it, I shall ask council to guarantee the bonds. They have to finance it themselves. At the present time I do not believe they could sell these bonds for sixty, if for anything at all. However, they can take the bonds if they want to because they are entitled to them; that is entirely their affair. They finance it and we do the harbour work. The basin, which will be provided, will cover about 80 acres, and notwithstanding the fact that some derogatory tilings have been said about it, it is going to be one of the finest harbours in Canada when it is completed. It is true that we have a very high tide to contend with; it is true that nature has not been kind to the port of St. John, but geographically it is in the place where the business is being done. The people of St. John have had the courage and energy to do what no other city or community in Canada has done. They started out to do a transatlantic business and to make St. John a great national port, and they have put up between $2,250,000 and $2,500,000 of their own money, carrying out the work, financing it and taking hold of it themselves. It is urged that the Government should take this port over and put it under a commission. I believe it ought to be done. But, however, they have spent their own money and the Dominion of Canada has spent less on the harbour of St. John than on any other harbour in Canada of its size and importance. There is more business done at the port of St. John than in any other port in Canada save Montreal; in the las't fiscal year $221,000,000 worth of business was done through the port of St. John. The

business there does not start until after November. The armistice was signed in November, but since that time $175,000,000 worth was done through that port. It is the natural port of Canada in the winter time. There is no use of saying that there are some mud banks and that for that reason we cannot go on. The mud banks may be there, but it is the duty of any man who occupies this position to see that that port is fairly dealt with and that it is put in a position to carry on the business that they have there in the winter time. We must either do that or hand it over to Portland or Boston. It is true that we have the port of Halifax, the finest port probably on the American coast. I am sure 'there is nothing like it on the whole Atlantic coast.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not better than Sydney harbour, is it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is far better-and I do not want to say anything derogatory of Sydney harbour. Halifax has a magnificent harbour, the like of which hardly exists anywhere else in the world. But, unfortunately, it is 200 miles farther away from the business* of Canada than 'St. John, and notwithstanding all the war business that has been going through Halifax it has not done a quarter of the business that has been done through St. John. That is on account of the geographical position of St. John.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The three greatest harbours in the world are Halifax, Sydney and Melbourne. The great man who made that pronouncement did not undertake to differentiate between them.


Mr. CROWE:: What about Vancouver?


James Alexander Robb: The minister said that Halifax was 200 miles farther east than St. John. Is there any difference in the freight rate between a point in Ontario or Quebec on export shipments by St. John or Halifax?
Mr. CARVEIiL: There is one cent per hundred pounds. Boston, Portland and St. John enjoy the same rate. There is an advance of one cent as against Halifax.
Toronto harbour-improvements, $500,000.
Mr. THOMAiS FOSTER: Hoes the minister know the condition of Toronto harbour? Last year the matter came up before the House, but since that time there have been many changes in connection with the hafbour due to storm destruction. Perhaps the minister remembers that about 1897 the south shore of the island was in a very dangerous condition and it was possible that the whole of the island would be destroyed. The Board of Trade and City Council, realizing the situation, made representations to the Government at that time and it was pointed out that if something was not done there was a possibility of the entire island being destroyed. The Government realized that if that should happen there would be no protection for the riparian rights of the Government along the harbour and it would become a very expensive proposition for them. The Board of Trade and City Council entered into negotiations with the Government. The Government undertook to spend $200,000 if the city would expend $100,000; so that about $300,000 was expended at that time to protect the south shore of the island. That gave temporary protection but in a year or two it was found that the protection was not substantial. They had to adopt another method and again expend more money to protect the south shore. They protected that part of the island. Now we realize, and the Government realize too, that there must be further protection. The minister will remember that the Government agreed to expend about $6,000,000, the Harbour Commission $13,000,000, and the city of Toronto $2,000,000, making an investment in harbour improvements in Toronto of about $21,000,000. There have been, I think, three Orders in Council passed committing the Government to this expenditure. I have here a copy of Order in Council No. 1,426, passed on June 10th, 1913, which describes some of the protective works that were required and which form a part of the contract. Section (b) on page 5 contains this description:
The construction of a crib 'breakwater, approximate 18,600 feet long, to protect the lake shore west of the western entrance to the harbour.
Then section (c) of the same Order in Council relates to:
The construction of a seawall of pile work, approximate 17,295 feet long-, to protect the lake shore on the east side of the east entrance to the harbour.
Under the authority of this Order in Council the work was undertaken, and in the western section about 4,100 feet of crib sub-structure has been built at a cost of about $187,000, which is now being protected by concrete coping. I may say that the greater part of this work was destroyed by a storm. The Harbour Commissioners of Toronto spent about $1,240,000 on this part of the western section, and already about $100,000 damage has been caused to the western section of the cribwork on the

lake shore. This estimate of damages was made in the early part of the present year, and within the last week a further destruction of the work on this part of the harbour shore has taken place.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Third reading of Bill No. 45, to incorporate the National Wholesale Grocers' Association, (as amended); and recommending that the title of said Bill be changed to "An Act to incorporate the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association":
Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (Toronto South):: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Thomas Foster, that the title be "An Act to incorporate the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
["I am only suggesting this for the next meeting.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of 'Hon. iMr. Reid the House adjourned at 11.45.\nWednesday, May 14, 1919."]
Georges Henri Boivin: When the Committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item 110 on page 69 of the Estimates. The item had been considered sub-item by subitem and we had reached:
Toronto harbour-Improvements.
Mr. Foster had the floor.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: I would like to say to the Minister of Public Works that the engineer of the Harbour Commission estimated the damage done in the early part of the year along the shore of Humber Bay at about $100,000. Since that estimate was made we have had some very heavy southeast storms which have caused a further loss of $10,000 or $15,000. About two weeks ago I had occasion to go along the shore and I noticed a great change since my former visit by reason of the washing away of the reclaimed land, showing that if something is not done immediately there is going to be a further tremendous loss for the Harbour Commission and the city that the Government will no doubt have to make good. If the work had been completed a year or two ago, as we [Mr, Thomas Foster.!
expected, the Harbour Commission and the city would have saved about $75,000 per annum as well as this loss of $115,000, which makes it a very serious proposition for them.
The cribs that had been, completed for section 5 have been lying for almost two years exposed to the weather and they are rapidly deteriorating, and, consequently, a heavy loss is being sustained. To protect this work and to place three 100-foot cribs on section 5, would cost, it is estimated, about $152,448. Surely it would be good business and economy to spend this amount to make use of those cribs and to protect this reclaimed land.
In 1918-19 the Estimates provided for some $500,000, and about $80,000 or $100,000 of that was to meet some drawback, which would reduce the amount intended to be used to complete the ship canal to about $420,000. Whether that has been completed and this work protected or not I do not know, but I expect the minister will be able to explain if there is any balance unexpended. If the Government would expend about $496,180 protection would be provided for reclaimed land that has cost about $1,240,193 to reclaim. If that is done I understand from the engineer that it would not matter so much if the work was then allowed to stand for some time until the minister found it more advantageous to carry it to completion, I also understand from the engineer that the substructure that was put down about two years ago has been for the most part destroyed. I drew the attention of the minister to that fact last year, and I understood him to undertake to place in his Supplementary Estimates some $150,000 to protect that work. I do not know whether he is carrying that forward, but it seems to me false economy to have $187,000 worth of work destroyed for want of an additional expenditure of $150,000 to complete it, and to defer the expenditure of some $400,000 to protect $1,240,000 worth of work. So, while I give the minister a great deal of credit for his policy of economy, yet in a case of this kind I would say that to refrain from making the additional necessary expenditure is not economy and does not show good judgment.
According to this Order in Council the Government is committed to an expenditure of some $6,000,000. I think three Orders in Council were passed by the Government in reference to this expenditure. There was to be a sea wall built from the western channel crossing Humber bay and from the

eastern channel to Woodbine avenue, or a little, further east. Nothing has been done on the eastern section and as the result there has been further destruction of Kew Beach park, a very valuable section. I understand from the city engineer that it will cost 850,000 to protect a small part of the shore there. In the last two or three days a very heavy storm from the southeast has taken away a considerable section of the southwest portion of the island. According to a report I have received two or three large trees and a couple of hundred feet of concrete walk were washed away, and the water is now very close to some valuable residential property. Surely it is time that immediate action was taken to avoid further destruction of these improvements which have cost a great deal of money, and as the Government is committed to this expenditure I would urge the minister to take the necessary steps to have the work completed.
If the minister has made an inspection of the harbour and of these shores he must appreciate the value of the part of the island of which I speak. This year the water is higher than usual and when there is a strong southeast wind there is often great destruction on the island. We have had an evidence of that within the last three days.
I see that the minister is asking for only $500,000 this year as against $702,000 last year. I shall be glad to hear him explain how he proposes to spend that $500,000; I cannot conceive that it will give the protection that is desirable and necessary. A good many years ago we undertook to protect a section of the west side of the eastern channel by building a breakwater there; that has helped to protect that section of the island. But that work has been there over thirty years and has become partly destroyed. If this sea-wall that the Government has committed itself to is not very soon placed in its proper position, the needed protection to that part of the island will not be given, because the old breakwater will not last much longer. On this section of the island there are some valuable summer residences and the erection of a breakwater along this entire shore from the east 'to the west should be immediately undertaken. Perhaps the minister will give us some information regarding this proposed expehditure and tell us whether he intends to put in the Supplementary Estimates the amount necessary to carry out the policy to which the Government is committed in connection with this work.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has very fairly indeed stated the condition of affairs from his standpoint, and also from the standpoint of fact. He referred first to the protection of the island and to the fact that a good many years ago the Dominion Government erected a number of groins along that portion of the island in front of Toronto harbour lying westward of what is called the Eastern Passage. I was in that vicinity a year and a half ago but I did not inspect that portion of the work closely enough to be able to discuss it intelligently. The description, however, which the hon. member has given corresponds almost exactly with the information which I have received from the officers of the department. The protection of land in various parts of Canada from the action of the waters of rivers, lakes and the sea is a question with which I have laboured more, perhaps, since I have been Minister of Public Works than with any other question of policy. I have had applications from British Columbia, involving tremendous amounts of money, for the protection of lands in that province from the ravages of the Fraser river and other rivers in British Columbia. I have received numerous applications also from Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. I do not know how many applications I have received from members of Parliament and Boards of Trade and Municipal Councils in the province of Quebec that steps be taken by the Dominion Government to take care of erosion along the river St. Lawrence. I mention these merely to show you that the problem is a very great one. I have a very strong feeling that, theoretically at least, the Federal Government ought not to be called upon to protect the land of any part of Canada from erosion. That is something that is the natural consequence of things; it is something that follows the ownership of land. But it is hard to lay down a policy founded upon principle, because all sorts of things; have been done in the past; therefore I cannot say that nothing will be done. I promised the people of Toronto a week or ten days ago that I would go there with my engineer and look into the matter; I will do so. What I call the principle with regard to this matter has been violated so many times during the last twenty-five or thirty years that I think we should consider these cases individually as we find them, and do what is right in the premises.
Now I come to the next portion of the hon. member's remarks which had reference to a scheme partly of harbour develop-

rnent, partly of shore protection and partly of the beautification of Toronto. He is correct in saying that in 1913 an agreement was made between the Dominion Government, the city of Toronto, and the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto under which certain work was to be done. The Dominion s share was a little under $6,000,000 and the Harbour, Commissioners of Toronto and the city were to spend $15,000,000. A contract was entered into with the Canadian Stewart Company for the carrying out of the Dominion Government's portion of this work. That contract was very unsatisfactory from the Government's standpoint. The work was to have been completed about the time-I think the very week-I entered the Government, but it was not nearly completed. A tremendous amount of work, involving about $600,000 or $700,000, had been done so badly that the company were compelled to tear it down and build over again.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	Can the minister explain why work involving $600,000 was permitted to proceed in such an unsatisfactory manner?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I cannot. I can
only say that it did proceed and that the department found it out and compelled the Stewart Company to make good. And they did make good; I think that work is the finest of its kind that I have ever looked at. I speak'now of the piles and the construction, the development generally, in Ashbridge's bay. When I visited the work in the fall of 1917 the water had been pumped out of the canal so that the character of the work could be seen. The sheetpiling was driven in so closely that you could not find a space of a quarter of an inch between the piles. So far as I could observe, everything seemed to be in perfect order. But I came into this Government with the distinct pledge that I would save every dollar that I could possibly save until the war was over. I did not close up the Toronto Harbour works, but I put on all the brakes I possibly could. My first act as Minister of Public Works was to cancel a contract for a million dollar breakwater at St. John.
I thought that a pretty good place to commence to show that I was in earnest in trying to sfilut off unnecessary expenditure was at home, and I did it, and I have received a great deal of adverse criticism for doing so. , We also closed down the works on the St. Charles river and on the Welland canal. I have closed down construction on every big work wherever I possibly could. Among the works that I par-
[Mr. Oarvell. J
tially closed down were the Toronto harbour works. I cannot agree with the figures quoted by my hon. friend, although he quotes them in good faith, having got them from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners have quoted the same figures to me a good many times. They have said that $100,000 of damage has been done to their work, because the Government's part of the work was not finished in the Humber Bay district. I have inspected the work at Toronto. The construction consists of a series of cribs sunk out in the lake about 300 to 400 yards from the shore. The intention is that that crib work is to be covered with cement, and a wall built higher than the waves of the lake. This will leave a sort of lagoon between the wall and the shore. The Harbour Commissioners have had a tremendous quantity of sand pumped out of the lake back against the shore, and in some places this sand is within, I suppose, 500 or 600 feet off the crib work, or perhaps less. The contention of the Harbour Commissioners is that because a concrete tap was not put on the crib work there has been a loss of the material which they have pumped back against the shore. It may be all true what they say about the damage, but I could not see it. From my homely way of looking at engineering problems, I have not been convinced that there has been the loss they state.


Thomas Foster: You will see the damage when you go back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Undoubtedly there has been some loss. In fact, wherever works have been closed down in Canada there has been some loss. Last year there was a vote in the Supplementary Estimates for $156,000 for putting the concrete top on the cribs that had already been sunk and for sinking a further short distance of crib.


Thomas Foster: Three 100-foot cribs.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The cribs have been constructed and they are now tied up to the shore. The idea was to sink them, and we started out to do so. I called upon the contractors, the Canadian 'Stewart Company, to sink these cribs and put the concrete top on the cribs that had already been sunk. They took the ground that on account of a letter which had been written to them by the chief engineer in the fall of 1917 their contract was cancelled after a certain amount of work was done! While I did not write that letter, I take full responsibility for it. I did not know whether the contract

was cancelled or not. They said it was, and they refused to go on with the work. I submitted the matter to the Justice Department, and the Justice Department said that in their opinion the contract was cancelled. I started out to see if I could get the work done by other parties, but in view of labour conditions in Toronto and all over Canada it was not only an impossibility, but a Godsend that we could not go on with the work. At that time you could not get men to perform work of that kind, so I simply accepted the situation and allowed the matter to stand, and nothing was done so far as the cribs were concerned. That is the reason why the total amount of the money voted last year was not expended. In the letter which had been written to the Canadian-Stewart Company we pointed out that they were to do certain work, amounting, I think, to a little over $300,000. They carried out the work in so far as we instructed them. Then they claimed their contract was closed and we were very glad, indeed, that they did claim it was closed. We also claimed that it was closed, so there is no hard feeling on our side. Now they claim that the contract was not closed, and they want half a million dollars damages because the contract was closed down. I want to say here what I have said to them, that the only way they will get their half million dollars will be at the tail end of a lawsuit which will go just as far as the courts of this country will allow it to go.
As to the work in contemplation, there is an item in the Estimates of $500,000 which we estimate is as much money as can possibly be expended on Toronto harbour during the coming season. We may be a little out, but I think not. The work to be performed consists in putting the top on the cribs which have been sunk, sinking the 300 feet of cribs which have already been built and putting a concrete top on them, and finishing up the work in Ashbridge's Bay. Now, $500,000 will not do all this work. We estimate that it will take $800,000, or, perhaps, a little more to finish up the work I have described.
It must be remembered that the Toronto harbour proposition consists of two portions. The development of Ashbridge's bay is purely a harbour proposition, and in my judgment a very good one. Ashbridge's bay is a great level sand bank in front of the city of Toronto, covering some thousands of acres which at certain times of the year are practically inundated; at all events, the water comes almost to the top. When the water goes down, the land will be a foot or two out of the wmter. The idea was to
dig a canal 400 feet wide and about half a mile or a little longer in length right through the centre of the bay. The material that is pumped out of the canal, and out of the big turning basin at the far end of it, is thrown back over the land, and the harbour commissioners are pumping sand out of the lake as well. They are building up the land on either side of the canal for industrial sites, and I have no doubt that Ashbridge's bay will be one of the greatest industrial sites in Canada in the near future; in fact, large concerns have already located there. For instance, the Imperial Munitions Board established a very large plant there.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Who will own that land ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Toronto Harbour Commissioners. We are simply carrying on the navigation work. The spoil has to be taken care of in some way, and' it is a great deal cheaper to pump it back on the land than to take it out and dump it in the lake. When this work is completed there will be a canal 400 feet wide, and from one-half to three-quarters of a mile in length, with a turning basin about 1,100 feet square at the end of it, with a breathing space between the turning basin and the island. This will avoid any trouble over stagnant water, and will make the place clean and sanitary. I repeat, I think it will become a great industrial centre.
The other portion of the work is not in any sense a navigation proposition. It is building this breakwater on either side of the city of Toronto, about four miles in length on the western side, and three and-a-half miles on the eastern side.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have never seen the canal the minister has referred to. Will the minister explain why he is endeavouring to improve navigation by cutting through this flat?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not doing it, because it was done before I came in. I examined the work, however, and I looked upon it as a splendid proposition. The idea is to provide a water front on Ashbridge's bay of over half a mile, and my hon. friend will remember that there are no tides in Toronto harbour as in his part of the country. The canal is 24 feet deep, which will take care of any vessel which goes through the new Welland canal. Taking both sides, there will be a series of wharves extending about a mile and-a-half. On both sides of this canal and around the turning basin will be industrial sites. It may be a large contribution to the in-

dustrial life of Toronto, but it is a transportation proposition pure and simple from the standpoint of the Government and one which requires no defence, because if any one went and inspected it he would come to the conclusion that it is a real transportation problem.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is really a proposition to reclaim land.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, it is in a sense.
Without a doubt it is a proposition to reclaim land, but at the same time it is making available a mile and a half water front which will be of inestimable value.


Mr. DIJFF:: Is wharf accommodation
needed now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. They
have considerable wharf accommodation in Toronto, but my friend must remember that the Welland canal when completed will mean a revolution in the water-borne transportation of the whole of lake Ontario, and in fact down the St. Lawrence river as far as Prescott. Then following that comes the next great problem of canalizing the St. Lawrence river.


John Howard Sinclair: Should not these reclaimed lands pay for the expenditure involved in these improvements?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That might be. I can
only say that as I understand the contract that is not the case. I have nothing to defend and nothing to conceal; I state the facts as they are. The Government might have said: "We will retain the ownership in these lands and will lease them." But they did not. I do not want to attempt to disguise the thing at all.


Thomas Foster: You do retain a section
on the west part of the channel?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We retain a small section but the great majority goes over to the Harbour Commission. As regards the remainder of the work, it would mean the construction of a sea wall of about seven or eight miles in length altogether if the whole scheme were carried out. At present we are carrying out only a small portion of the scheme, and it will certainly be a most beautiful place. The city of Toronto is reclaiming land along the lake front but is doing it at its own expense and of course will own it, but I do not think that even gentlemen from Toronto will claim that that is a transportation proposition as much as Ashbridge's bay.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Is it the intention of the Government to continue with the work on that seven or eight miles until completed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not this year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In succeeding years?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will be a matter of policy later on. I have no announcement to make except that we propose this year putting on the concrete tops on the cribs that are now sunk and on 300 feet that we intend to sink. We also purpose to finish the Ashbridge's bay proposition. There is no use disguising the 'fact that there is a contract between the Government of Canada, the City of Toronto and the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto to carry out the whole scheme which will involve at least $7,000,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: When was the contract made?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Order in Council was passed in 1913 and I believe the contract was made in October of the same year.


Mr. EULER:: Is there a time limit for its completion?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was to have been completed in October, 1917.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much has been spent to date?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Practically two and a half millions.


Mr. COPP:: What portion was the Government to expend?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A little less than $6,000,000. The city of Toronto and the Harbour Commissioners-which is the same thing because their bonds are guaranteed by the city of Toronto-were to expend about $15,000,000. The total expenditure was to be about $20,000,000. I think that if we go on and finish our part of it it will cost about $7,000,000 when completed. We have now expended about $2,500,000 and are asking for an appropriation of $500,000 at the present time which will be used in putting the concrete tops on these piers and finishing the Ashbridge's bay part of the work as far as it will extend. It will take about $850,000 to finish up what we have in prospect at the present time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Can the minister give the Committee an idea of the water-borne exports from and imports into Toronto?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I cannot do so, but I do not 'think they are anything like

what they will be in the immediate future. I am a great believer in water transportation. I believe that the people will devote their attention to waterborne transportation, especially on inland waters, to a much greater extent in the future than in the past, and when the W elland canal is completed Toronto will be one of the most important seaports on the Great Lakes. Toronto is not an important seaport to-day for the reason that the big ships which navigate from the head of the lakes to Port Colborne cannot come to Toronto and therefore the shipping in Toronto is confined to the 14-foot draught vessel which can get through the Welland canal or down the St. Laiwrence. But with a city having the manufacturing and trade possibilities of Toronto, there cannot be any question that when the Welland canal is completed Toronto harbour will be entirely different from what it is to-day. And the Government are not only entitled but compelled to provide necessary transportation facilities in Toronto for the future as they have done in Montreal, St. John, Halifax or any other port. I will admit at once, however, that if the Welland canal were not going to be deepened the Ash-bridge's Bay proposition would not in my opinion be justifiable because there would not be traffic to justify it.


William Duff: When will the Welland canal be finished?
Mr. CARVEiLL: I hope in about three years, but that is not in my department. It seems to me that it should be completed in three years. This work, I presume, will be completed sometime in 1920. In other words, Ashbridge's bay will be completed a year or two before the Welland canal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is important to know how the system of connecting Montreal with say Toronto is to be completed. When we get to the eastern end of the Welland canal what position are we in between there and Montreal?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are then in a position to reach the largest boats that will come down the Great Lakes as far east as Kingston and there should be good business done as far as Prescott. It would be possible to navigate the St. Lawrence as far as Prescott, although I understand it would require some work in the river channel between Kingston and Prescott in order to make it navigable for large boats. But the moment the Welland canal is completed the biggest boats that ply on Lake Erie and Lake Superior at present will be able to
come down not only to Toronto but to Kingston, and any man who looks at the map and who travels over the country and knows anything about its business will realize that Toronto will be a very different port after the Welland canal is completed from what it is now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am afraid the minister is beginning a big expenditure at the wrong end. I think he should begin in navigable water and continue going inland.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are various views about that phase of the question. Of course 1 did not begin it, although I not only do not have to justify it; but I am heartily in accord with the Ashbridge's bay portion of the Toronto development. There is another thing we must remember. It is all very well to say: "You have started here, whereas you should have begun somewhere else." It means a great many millions of dollars, indeed tens of millions of dollars, in order to make it possible for a 21 or 22-foot boat to navigate from Montreal to Toronto, and I do not think we would be justified in holding up navigation as far as Kingston pending the completion of the bigger scheme. The Welland canal, we know, can be completed and will be completed within a reasonable time. But the other I will not say is very far in the future, but it will re*quire a great deal of study and investigation and the expenditure of a tremendous amount of money before it is finished. In view of this, I am not sure that the Government were not right in starting on the Welland canal. There is always the contention that the construction of the Welland canal is going to benefit the American lake ports, and that wheat will be brought to Oswego on lake Ontario, and sent by canal thence to New York. I am not in a position to discuss that point intelligently and I do not know that it plays a very great part here. I repeat that the Ashbridge's bay proposition is a sound one and will not be completed very much before it is used and used in a very profitable manner.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister has been putting figures before us which I cannot help regarding as simply appalling in view of the financial condition of the country. Has the Government in continuing or launching upon this scheme-I am not prepared to say whether it is a new scheme or the continuation of an old one-made any calculation of what is the probable use these great public works necessitating the



expenditure of tremendous amounts of money will be? We are being asked to pass these Estimates and the responsibility is upon all of us for the expenditure of these very large sums. I would feel easier in my conscience if the minister could give us some idea of what the result of this expenditure is going to be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know that 1
can give my hon. friend very much information along that line. This is no scheme launched by this Government. The Welland canal and Toronto harbour works were launched before the war. With a debt of $325,000,000 or $300,000,000 and with buoyant revenues, there was no trouble about expending $10,000,000 upon a transportation problem. We had the money to do it with.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The situation is absolutely different now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has changed; there
is no man in Canada who realizes that so much as I do. I took the trouble on the Address to sound a note of warning and sometimes I think I did not get very much assistance or sympathy from the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We made all the use
we could of the hon. gentleman's statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tried to point out
someihing about the financial condition as I viewed it. I have not launched out upon any new scheme and I am going to be pretty careful how I do launch out upon any new scheme. But I think I have some idea cf business, and when I find in my department a public work upon which some mi'lions of dollars have been expended, and which is absolutely useless until it is finished. I see nothing to do but to finish it in so far as you can. I hope my hon. friend will not charge me with launching upon any new schemes involving the expenditure of large amounts until I know what the results are going to be. But in a case like this I see nothing else to do. We have spent $2,500,000 on the Ashbridge's bay proposition which is two-thirds or three-fourths completed. We have to finish it; otherwise the money we have put into it will be lost. I agree that we ought not to launch upon any new scheme involving the expenditure of large amounts unless we have well considered the business phase of it in order to see if it is going to give us a revenue.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the minister tell us if it is his intention to finish up the damming of the St. Charles river at Quebec?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no vote in the Estimates for that. The trouble with the St. Charles river proposition at Quebec is a very simple one. The scheme is to construct a dam across the mouth of the river where it empties into the St. Lawrence. There were to be two entrances from the St. Lawrence up into the basins of the St. Charles river. That was to create practically a lake 12 or 14 feet higher than the ordinary level of the river at low tide and, to some extent, higher than the level would be at high tide. The sewage of at least three-quarters of the city of Quebec enters into the St. Charles river above the location of this dam and before the work was started an agreement was made with the city of Quebec by which they were to provide for the sewage. There was to be a big trunk sewer constructed by which the sewage would be emptied into the S't. Lawrence river around and below the dam at the mouth of the St. Charles. It will cost probably $2,000,000. I suppose they had some trouble about financing it during the war but no attempt has been made to take care of that sewage. They have refused to go on with the work until something is done about the sewage. If you build a dam across the St. Charles river and dump the sewage of 75,000 or 80,000 people into the river for a year you will have a pest house; you could not live alongside of it. I would not take the responsibility of consenting to go on with the work until something was done about the sewage. With this I take the same ground that I have taken in regard to St. John and other places. We have about $1,750,000 invested in the St. Charles river work at the present time and it will take another $1,000,000 to finish it. The money we have expended is absolutely lost until the work is completed but I cannot go on and complete it until something is done to protect the health of the city of Quebec.


Mr. EDWAEDS:: The hon. member for
Brome (Mr. McMaster) finds the figures indicating expenditures at Toronto harbour appalling.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not say Toronto harbour. It was the whole thing, the Welland canal, Toronto harbour and other works, that I referred to. I was not especially referring to Toronto.


William Cameron Edwards: Then the hon. gentleman's interjection occurred at an inop-

portune time. One would naturally conclude that he was appalled at the expenditure at Toronto. I am glad to know that that was not the case because I have never seen any indication of .panic on the part of the hon. gentleman when an expenditure was to be made in the vicinity of Montreal. He could stand any amount of expenditure down there without turning a hair.


John Flaws Reid: He has not got any
hair.


William Cameron Edwards: Then my remark is
incontrovertible; it cannot be questioned. There is another thing that I want to refer to. The minister would have us believe that a new era of economy, retrenchment and general saving opened up at the time that he entered office. Time and again he has assured us that he is not to be held responsible for any expenditures previous to that event. I have sat in this House for a number of years and I think I am [DOT]correct in stating that when these expenditures were entered upon at Toronto *and other parts of the country they went through without any very serious opposition from the gentlemen who are now sitting on the other side of the House and from gentlemen who are now sitting on this side of the House. The general principle was accepted then. These expenditures, as a general thing, have been justified. In [DOT]regard to the St. Lawrence route, I did mot hear the minister mention anything about the carrying of grain from lake Ontario down through to Montreal. I would almost infer from his remarks that Toronto was to be the trans-shipping point for grain coming down in big freighters when the Welland canal is completed.
I hope that is not the intention of the Government 'because it seems to me that when that time arrives the proper point for trans-shipping the grain carried in these large vessels is the city of Kingston.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend certainly misunderstood me. I made no reference, or even a hint, to a possible trans-shipment of grain at Toronto; I don't believe that will ever happen. What I was talking about was the expansion of the general business of Toronto.


William Cameron Edwards: Then we are in entire agreement on that point. I do not think the leader of the Opposition has the right idea When he suggests that the proper way to arrange this line of transportation would be to begin at the lower end, at Montreal I presume he means, and canalize the St.
151J
Lawrence. Before you undertook to make provision for transporting the grain available for the route from the Welland canal to Kingston or Prescott-before you could possibly complete an enterprise of that kind-that grain would be diverted from Canadian channels to American routes entirely. It does seem to me that something should be done, and done right away, to .make provision at Kingston for the transshipment of the grain which will come down when the new Welland canal is completed. Kingston is the natural point for trans-shipment, because the grain can be loaded there into any kind of vessel at all [DOT]by reason of the fact that the route from Kingston to Montreal lies in sheltered water. A vessel which could not stand the heavy seas or storms likely to be encountered on lake Ontario would therefore be quite capable of engaging in the carrying trade from Kingston to Montreal. In my opinion the Government should not wait until the new Welland canal is completed before making provision at Kingston for the trans-shipping of the grain which the big freighters will carry as far as that point. Although I speak from 'the standpoint of an Ontario man, and one who resides in the neighbourhood of Kingston,, the advocacy of this idea is not confined to eastern men alone. I think I am right in saying that some years ago the grain growers of the West, when looking forward to the completion of the Welland canal, suggested that a Government elevator, somewhat similar to the one which is now in existence at Port Colborne, should be built at Kingston. I hope the Government will not delay in providing the necessary facilities at that port because if delay takes place we are going to lose the carriage of that grain; the Americans will promptly provide the necessary facilities to transport it over their own routes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I take no exception to the hon. gentleman's reference to the fact that I voted for the expenditure of money in very large amounts prior to the war. I did so, and I have no regrets for so doing. However, I stated some time ago that the financial conditions of Canada have been revolutionized in the last five years. If we wanted ten, fifteen or twenty millions of dollars before the war there was no trouble whatever to get it, and nobody suffered because Canada had the money. Hon. gentlemen will recall that we formerly had surpluses of twenty-five and thirty-five millions of dollars a year. Why the cost of the con-

stiuction of the Transcontinental down to 1914 was paid out of surpluses. We also could build grain elevators and canals whenever we so minded, there was no difficulty about it at all. I am net posing as an economist because I am fond of doing so; no man who ever occupied the position of Minister of Public Works would like to engage in building as much as I would. I would be delighted if we were able to go on and construct public works, and I have enough optimism about me to think that 1 can build fairly competently, and I should like to go on and do so. But I realize the changed condition financially which ha.', taken place in this country and that if 1 am going to be true to the pos>
9 p.m. tion which I occupy and true to my conception of what a public '.nan in Canada should do, I have got to look before I leap.
Coming to the second part of my hon. friend's remarks, I heartily agree with him. When the Welland canal is completed it seems very reasonable indeed that the big freighters should go eastward as far as they can. I do not think they can ever economically go farther than Kingston at the present time but probably it would not take a great expenditure of money in order to so deepen the channel in the St. Lawrence river, so that those vessels might proceed as far as Prescott. Some months ago I visited Kingston, where I met the Board of Trade and the municipal authorities and certainly had a very pleasant day. To-day a board of engineers, of whom an engineer of the Public Works is one, are considering this very question, and I imagine that within the next month, or two months at the outside, we will have a very comprehensive report as to what in their judgment should be done for the future development of Kingston. Not only from the railway standpoint, but from the transportation point of view, and having in mind the erection of elevators and other facilities, notwithstanding the financial obligations which we have to bear, I think that something has got to be done in order to take care of the transportation problem which will be altogether changed as soon as the Welland canal is completed. What the nature of that policy will be I cannot announce this evening, because it has not been considered by the department or the Government, and I do not make any announcement with regard to matters of policy unless they have been decided upon. However, I quite agree with my hon. friend, we must provide for the changed conditions
fttr. ('arvDll 1
in respect to transportation which will exist when the Welland canal is completed. We are thoroughly investigating the situation at Kingston, and a report will be presented inside of two months showing what the " layout " will be and the probable cost of any works that may have to be undertaken.
Mr. OOP-P: What title or interest has the Government in the property which is being improved at Toronto as a result of the channel which is being dredged through Ashbridge's bay? In consequence of the works that are in progress certain industrial sites will be created and I would like to know who will own those sites?
,Mr. (CAtRVELL: With the exception of three or four acres on the western side of the channel, the property will belong to the Toronto Harbour Commission.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We are sipending a large
amount of money on the Toronto harbour works, which will amount, when the contract is finally completed, to something like $7,000,000. I can quite understand the Public Works Department building wharves in order to improve shipping facilities, but I remember when this vote was before the House last year, or a similar appropriation, there was a good deal of discussion, and it was claimed by some members that no inconsiderable part of the money was being expended in the improvement of private property. In other words, that the property fronting on the lake was privately owned, and cellar walls were being built on that property out of the public funds-. Whether that is true or not I cannot say, but in glancing over last year's debate such is the tenor of some of the arguments that were advanced at that time. The Minister of Public Works last year explained that as a result of dredging a channel through the property in question some very valuable industrial sites would be created-indeed, some of these sites had already been built upon by business concerns, and others were in course of construction.
If that work continues and the property adjoining this channel becomes- valuable, and the Government is protecting it, I cannot see why the Government should not have some control over the disposition of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I had already answered that question. I have stated that under the contract this property belongs to the Toronto Harbour Commission, with the exception of five or six acres. There is something in what my hon. friend says, but you must remember that every time you develop a harbour or build a wharf or pier you are

going to benefit somebody's property. The Government does not own all the property joining such improvements, and of course it would not be possible for it to do so. It is true that new property is being created by this work.


Mr. OOPP:: That is the point I make.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt; and the property will belong to a public body-the Toronto Harbour 'Commission. I have no doubt that they will lease it, probably at some profit, although I understand that as far as the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are concerned any money they may make is for the purpose of providing extra accommodation, just the same as in the case of money that is being expended by this department. My friend referred to something about cellar walls. That is new to me; 1 do not know anything about the matter at all. I also want to say that none of this money is being expended for the protection of private property. As I explained before, it is being expended for the development of Ashbridge's bay-which I have described very fully-and for building the sea wall in front of property that has been reclaimed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners by pumping sand out of the bottom of the lake.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My objection to this reclaiming of land is that it is too expensive. There is plenty of land in Canada, and I presume the city of Toronto could grow toward the place where the land is and. not go out into the lake for it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If Toronto grows inland it will not have water for these industries. I want to make this as plain as I can. The idea is to provide a location for industries, and a very great number of them, that will have both rail and water transportation; and you cannot get both anywhere in Toronto that I know of except in Ashbridge's bay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. member will satisfy this Committee that the shipping from the city of Toronto is so congested that there is no't enough water frontage at present to accommodate it, I readily agree with him that it is necessary to extend the water line. But that is the only condition of things existing in the city of Toronto or any other city that would justify the Government in building frontage at such a high cost as this must be. If this money is necessary in the sense I have suggested I would be in hearty accord with the proposed expenditure, but I am not satisfied that it
ks#
is a good business proposition to spend this money in order to give more dockage to the city unless it is absolutely necessary. That is my criticism.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I had answered .that criticism once before. I have no figures before me, but in my judgment this additional water frontage is not an absolute necessity under present conditions. But I fio believe when the Welland canal is completed and the city of Toronto has access to all the Great Lakes that there will be a great many times the amount of shipping to and from that city that there is at the present time; and that was the only justification, and a complete justification, for the expenditure of this money. There is no attempt to help any private individual,, because, as I have already said, this property becomes vested in the Toronto Harbour trustees and there is no private interest involved so far as I know.	,


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In view of the fact that this work is not of immediate necessity vwould it not be well to defer proceeding With it until some later date when it does become really necessary?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am deferring it to such fin extent that some of my friends from Toronto are not altogether pleased. I am trying to finish up the harbour proposition. I believe it ought to be done, and for the present I am asking only for an appropriation to complete the sea wall in iso far as it has been started, and of course it is deteriorating all the time while in an incomplete state.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Government in mind the deepening of the St. Lawrence to facilitate the passage of deep draught lake vessels to Montreal ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would be a pretty big question to answer. I can state this much for the benefit of my hon. friend, that a committee, composed of the engineers of some of our departments in Ottawa, the chief engineer of the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario, and the chief engineer, I believe, of the Public Works Department of Quebec, Mr. Amos, have been working for some years on the problem of canalizing the St. Lawrence river; data has been collected, and the matter is in such shape that a report will be available in a couple of months at the outside, I would imagine. There is also a proposal, which I think will be carried out, that in a very short time this question should be handed over to the

International Joint Waterways Commission in order that they may take the data which our engineers and the American engineers may be able to give them, and investigate what the probable cost of canalizing the river would be, the amount of water-power that could be developed as the result of canalization, what it would cost to develop, what it could be sold for and where it could be sold. So I can assure my hon. friend that we are going into the matter in a thorough way, and I believe that within a year the public both of Canada and the United States will have all the information on the subject that it is possible to obtain. When that information is available, then it becomes: First, an international question; if this work is to be developed, when it is going to be developed, the expense of the development and in what proportions it should be borne, and secondly, how much money it is going to take, how much power can be developed, what is going to become of it, and how much revenue can be made out of it. I sincerely hope that it will be treated as a business proposition, and I believe that it will not be very many years before this great work is undertaken-one of the greatest in the Dominion of Canada. But we must remember that it is an international proposition to a great extent, and therefore it must be worked out between ourselves and the United States authorities. But I believe they are anxious to have it developed, if possible. I know our authorities are of the same mind, and I know we are taking every possible means to gather the fullest data for presentation to Parliament in connection with it.


Frank S. Cahill: What return cargo would be carried by a ship which brought wheat from the head of the lakes to Kingston, say, or to Toronto?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One would not require a very vivid imagination to foresee the supplying of ample return cargo so far as Toronto is concerned. Toronto will become the distributing point for practically all of western Ontario along the lakes. I do not pretend that Toronto will be able to furnish a return cargo for all vessels carrying wheat down the lakes; that would be an impossibility. I imagine that a large proportion of the wheat carriers must go to United States ports to ge't coal, which is the big return cargo. But Toronto is the centre of one of the greatest manufacturing sections of Canada. Then, west of Toronto we have Hamilton, which is the next place on the Great Lakes that ought to be at-

tended to. I believe-that the Dominion Government has been lax in not going on with the proper development at Hamilton, because that city is becoming one of the greatest manufacturing centres of Canada. A tremendous amount of farm machinery which now goes from Toronto and Hamilton to the West by rail could be sent by water if big vessels called at these ports. I cannot say exactly what these ships will carry, but I think it is no stretch of imagination to believe that there will be plenty of cargo when the Welland Canal is completed.
Public buildings-Nova Scotia, $il9,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the minister
going to do at North iSydney?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The amount of $5,000
is required for an addition at the rear of the North Sydney public building for an examining warehouse.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have been talking about building that warehouse ever since Adam was a baby. When is the work to be finished?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: During the present
summer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have been carrying that vote for five or six years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We intend to go on with practically all the work for which I am asking the Committee to pass votes to-night. I do not think there are more than a dozen items in any of these Estimates in respect of which we have not the plans and specifications practically ready to call for tenders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For five or six years the Customs Department for want of space, has been obliged to rent a place quite apart from the public building, and it is absolutely necessary that this wing be added to the public building as soon as possible. Seven or eight years ago I was given a little vote to put clocks on certain public buildings in my riding, one at Sydney Mines, one at Baddeck and one at North Sydney. The clocks were put in at Baddeck and Sydney Mines but my own home town was left out; there was a change of government I think, before the hour arrived for the installation of my clock. Possibly the minister could save enough out of the $5,000 to give us the long promised clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have $1,000 in this estimate for my hon. friend's clock.
Public buildings, New Brunswick, $35,500.


Mr. LEGER:: Last year an amount was appropriated for repairs to the Richibucto

public building, but they have not been carried out. I do not see any amount in the Estimates of this year for this work. May I ask the minister whether anything will be done this year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Item 113 provides an amount of $25,000 for improvements and repairs to public buildings generally in the Maritime Provinces. The matter to which my hon. friend refers was brought to my attention and I am informed by my deputy that arrangements have been made and instructions given to have the small repairs on the Richibucto building paid for out of this $25,000 vote. That is why it does not appear in the Estimates.
With regard to the item of $10,000 for addition to the Moncton post office, the Post Office Department reported to our department that they required that much additional space. There is no doubt that there is great congestion in that building. No city in the Maritime Provinces has grown as fast as Moncton, and there is great demand for a new public building. The matter developed during the last two or three weeks and I could not make any decision as to what we would do, because a new building would be fairly expensive. I am not sure, therefore, that this $10,000 will be expended. It is only fair that I should make this statement in order that the member for the constituency or any other interested persons may know what the attitude of the department is with regard to the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The amount of this vote is not sufficient to build a new public building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be enough to make the addition, but it would not be enough for a new building. We could not use money that was voted for an addition to the Moncton post office for the purchase of a site for a new building. A new vote would be necessary for that. It may be possible in view of the congestion in that city that this $10,000 may not be expended, and that we may try to get along with the present building in the hope that later on a building more commensurate with the importance of the city may be erected.
Mr. C'OPP: What I have to say will not be new to the minister because I already have had some conversation with him about a public building for the city of Moncton. The building there now is very small and was erected some twenty-five years or more ago, when Moncton was only a small town. The city is growing very rapidly and has
now a population of between 17,000 and 20,000. The building is located at one extreme -end of the city, and at the present time the city is expanding in exactly the opposite direction. The present building is used as a custom house and post office combined. It might possibly do as a custom house, if some additions and improvements were made. I am sure that if the minister would have an investigation made he would at once conclude that the proper and economical thing to do would be to erect a new building as soon as possible. I would urge that that be done this year, because business there is expanding very rapidly and it will be absolutely necessary to have a new building very soon. I assure him that the people of Moncton, rather than have a small addition to the present building, would prefer to put up with the present inconvenience a little longer so that a building more commensurate with the importance of the city could be erected in the near future. I am sure that if the minister would have a report made on the situation he would come to the conclusion that a public building must be erected in Moncton in the very near future.
Some of us are very disappointed that no appropriation appears in the Estimates for public buildings in other parts of New Brunswick. I refer particularly to the town of Sackville in the county of Westmorland. We have never had a public building there, although we have a population of between 3,000 and 4,000 and the town is prosperous and growing rapidly. In the town of Sackville we have the Mount Allison institution, which is known all over Canada, if not all over the world, and at which a large number of students attend. I't is hardly necessary for me to impress upon the minister that a public building is very urgently needed in Sackville because he knows the locality very well. Apparently, however, the Government does not see its way clear to make an expenditure for this purpose this year. I sincerely trust that the minister will give the matter serious 'consideration and see if he cannot include an item in the Supplementary Estimates to provide for a public building in the town of Sackville. The building we are now using is one of the oldest in the town and is not much better than a common shed on a farm. It is exceedingly inconvenient for postal purposes, because the proper facilities are entirely lacking. There are hardly any boxes for the delivery of mail and people have to stand in the lobby till the mail is sorted, and sometimes, if the mail train is an

hour late, the lobby will be full and people will be standing in the cold outside, which is very unpleasant on a stormy night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I may as well state in answer to my hon. friend the position in which I find myself in regard to public buildings all over Canada. As hon. gentlemen know, I come from the province of New Brunswick and I am very intimately acquainted with all the cities and towns of that province. I know the exact truth of everything my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) has said about the town of Sackville, but what can be said of Sackville can be said, I suppose, of fifty or a hundred towns in Canada. When I began to make up the Estimates, after four years of war, I found that promises of public buildings had been made to a great many cities and towns, and in many cases the sites had been purchased. Since the armistice, members of the House, boards of trade, and municipal bodies have told me "Now is the time to implement these promises and start the construction of these buildings." The matter was taken up by Council and considered .very carefully. I do not know whether we .were right or not, but the policy decided upon by the Government was not to construct buildings in the smaller towns and .villages at the present time; and as the Estimates show, we have provided only for ,the construction of buildings in half a .dozen of the larger centres. This was done, ,as 1 explained in the debate op the Address, partly for the purpose of providing employment in the large cities where we .knew there would be a great number of unemployed, but even in those places we are not erecting buildings if they are not required and will have no economic value.
Personally, I am a great believer in a neat small building for every town in the Dominion of Canada. It adds to the appearance of the town and gives people some *ocal pride. Furthermore, I think that the ground surrounding the building should be beautified. If there is one thing we have neglected in connection with our public buildings in the past, it is the beautifying of the grounds.


Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says, Hear hear. He and I had this very matter up a year ago, when I was trying to help him and the municipality of Three Rivers carry out this very idea. I tell the House frankly that the Iquestion of constructing public

buildings in the smaller towns is a matter of policy for the Government to decide. When the Government decides in favour of erecting these public buildings, I suppose the burden will be cast upon me of saying where the money wfll be expended, and that is not a pleasant duty, I can assure the Committee. But I must assume the responsibility when that time comes, and do the best I can. If we were back in the days of 1914, and I was Minister of Public Works, I would not hesitate to ask for an expenditure of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 for the construction of a public building in every town in Canada with a population as low even as 1,000. Considered purely from the standpoint of dollars and cents, it would not be good business, because a building can be rented for much less than the annual interest charge and maintenance, but I think a public building in a small town has an educative value. It gives people a pride in their town, and I look upon it as a good way to spend public money.
These remarks will apply to at least fifty different constituencies in Canada and perhaps a hundred, and I thought it well to make this statement so early in the debate in order that members might know exactly the position of affairs.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it not be possible in connection with the erection of small buildings in towns to have a rule laid down that if the income arising from the Post Office, or the Customs, amounts to so much, that would justify the expenditure of a sum in proportion? To say that we like to see fine public buildings throughout the country is merely to say that we enjoy the beautiful. Everybody does. But we are face to face with a condition which the Minister of Public Works realizes as well as, and probably better than a great number of other people do, and I think it would hold up the minister's hands in his struggle for economy if he would lay down the rule that when an application is made for the erection of a public building in this place and the other, the income must justify the expenditure which will be involved. I would like to know what the minister has to say to that suggestion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is a good deal of merit in the suggestion of my hon. friend in so far as the postal revenue is concerned. I cannot agree with him as regards the Customs revenue, because in very many places in Canada the Customs revenue may be entirely out of proportion to the amount of business actually done, for the reason that

it extends to many outside points. As a rule the nearer a place to the border the greater the Customs revenue is as compared with an inland city or town. Take the town in which I live. There are only 4,000 people and we are ten miles from the border. I am not sure, but I think the Customs revenue runs close to $100,000. I am speaking from memory, but I know that it is a pretty large amount for a town of its size. That would not be a criterion as to what kind of a public building we should have because it serves a territory seventy-five miles up the river. I do not think you can take the Customs as much of a guide, but my opinion is that the postal revenue should serve to some extent as a guide as to the necessity for public buildings.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister has hardly answered my question as to whether it would not assist him or any Minister of Public Works in an effort to economize and to restrain the spending proclivities of the people, to lay down the rule that if the postal revenue, for instance, amounted to so much, the expenditure on a post office building should be proportionate. I know of place after place in Canada which for .several years was adequately served by a small rented building, and the total expenditure in the upkeep of the building, including rent and everything might be under a thousand dollars a year. Public buildings have been put up in these places and possibly one item such as heating may cost that much money. Of course, I am not giving exact figures; this is merely by way of illustration. I am perfectly certain that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been uselessly expended on the public services of Canada in order perhaps to meet the more or less justifiable pride of this or the other little place which demands public buildings of a character far more pretentious than the circumstances warrant.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as I know, the revenue is always taken into consideration. I have no figures before me, but if my hon. friend should come to the department I could show him that there is not a proposed building in Canada in connection with which we have not the data as to population, postal revenue, customs revenue, etc. We certainly consider that and take all the data into account. There are, however, some cases in which you would have to depart from that rule because you might have a pretty large population which for some reason was not contributing very much to the postal revenues. Very often a train going
through the town is the most convenient place to mail letters, and people get stamps from all sources. It is a fair criterion but it is not absolutely perfect.


Albert James Smith Copp: I trust my hon. friend from Brome, who happens to have lived in Montreal, is not trying to excuse the expenditure on the post office in the city of Montreal because the revenues of that city were large.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My remarks upon this question of expenditure are not influenced either by the part of the country I live in, or by the part of the country I represent. I *am endeavouring as far as possible to take a Canadian view of the question. I am thoroughly convinced that very difficult financial times confront the Canadian people unless we change their mentality in regard to what they think they should get from the Government and what they should give to the Government.


Jacques Bureau: The question I desire to put to the minister is rather influenced by the part of the country I come from. The minister stated that he could not under the circumstances entertain the erection of new buildings in the various towns, but I understood also that he laid down as a principle that it was proper-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend is misquoting me. 1 have no recollection of making such a statement. I said that the Government had dScided before the session that for the present year they would only erect buildings in half a dozen of the large cities, but I said that the matter was one of policy which the Government should decide upon.


Jacques Bureau: There is a building already erected in the town of Trois-Rivieres and my hon. friend knows the facts connected with it. Is it the intention to put anything into the Supplementary Estimates for fixing the grounds around the post office site? It really includes more than the post office-customs, excise, weights and measures, etc.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend knows there was a temporary building erected on a portion of the post office square. We have sold that property and I presume it is being removed.


Jacques Bureau: It is removed now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We certainly intend to fix up the grounds around the new building.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The minister says it is the intention to spend some money in connection with the building mentioned by the

hon. member for Three Rivers. I would like to know if he intends to spend anything in connection with the post office in my own town.


Jacques Bureau: He intends to spend some money around the building.
Mr. MIiCHAUD: There is a great necessity for a public building in my town. We have been paying into the treasury about $75,000 a year for many years and have been asking for public buildings, but have been refused. We have a population of about 4,000 and our town is growing, and a building is required to meet the increasing needs of the place. I have been asking the minister to spend some money in connection with this matter, but-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) evidently believes in the scriptural injunction, "Ask and ye shall receive." He came to me about a year ago and requested to have fitted up a building which had been used as a post office for a great many years. He got exactly what he asked for. I will admit it did not cost very much.


Pius Michaud: I asked for a new building and you only repaired the old one.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The work cost $700 or $800 and-


Pius Michaud: Only $400.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It made a comfortable post office. I must admit it is not the kind of building the town of Edmunds'ton is entitled to. This is one of the growing towns of eastern Canada. A pulp mill has recently been erected costing over $3,000,000 and the place is growing very rapidly. It is in .the class of those towns that I have been talking about. I would like to see a public building erected in all towns of the size of Edmundston and up. The general remarks that I have made in answer to my hon. friend from Westmorland will apply to all these items that may arise all over Canada.
Quebec-Public buildings, $1,118,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These are all pure maintenance items with the exception of two. The first of these exceptions to which I refer is a vote of $35,000 for what we might call ordinary maintenance and repairs and then we come to the Grosse Isle quarantine .station. There is a contract existing for the installation of a steam plant in- the Grosse Isle station and the price to be paid is $30,000. Then there is a vote of $400,000 asked for the erection of a practically new

Jiuilding at Grosse Isle. I am not in a position to state exactly what may be done regarding the construction of this building until I have positive instructions from the Immigration Department. There is a doubt in the minds of a great many people whether the quarantine station should be at Grosse Isle or at Quebec because 'that is where the boats all land. Nothing definite has been arrived at. That must be left entirely to the Immigration Department and when they decide what they want. the Public Works Department will have to carry out the work. I am taking this vote and unless there is a change of policy I expect to construct the building.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This seems to be a very large sum. Can the minister give us some idea of the number of immigrants who pass through this station and the average length of time that they remain there, in order that we may have some knowledge of what it costs per capita to entertain these strangers who come within our gates for the few days during which they are detained at the quarantine station?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry I cannot do so. In a sense the Department of Public Works is only the agent of the Immigration Department for matters of this kind. Since the beginning of the war there has been practically no immigration passing through.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not want the minister to base his argument on the time that has elapsed from the beginning of the war. Let us take a few years before that which were very active immigration years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not in a position to give the number of immigrants who pass through that building anually but I will try and get the information. It is at the extreme entrance of the great St. Lawrence river. In the summer time probably nine-tenths of the immigration coming into this country passes up the St. Lawrence river and must go through Grosse Isle. If there is one thing in my judgment that Canada has been lax in, it has been in the management of the quarantine station. I do not think we have, paid sufficient attention to the immigrants who came in here. We have not been able to give them a proper medical inspection. Men and women have been allowed into Canada who never should have been allowed in. If there is any public building that ought to be attended to immediately it is the quarantine station. We must look after the health pf these people. I admit that $400,000 seems quite

an amount to expend in adding to an existing plant. I can assure my hon. friend that if we go on with it there will not be a dollar expended more than is necessary whether the building is erected here or at Quebec. I think there is quite an opinion in the minds of some of the officials of the Immigration Department that better results would be obtained if this building were erected at Quebec.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this in addition to the existing building?


Mr. DECHENE:: I come from the constituency in which the Grosse Isle plant is situated. This island is divided into two portions. There is a place provided for first class immigrants and also for the second and third class immigrants. The second and third class immigrants are using a shed that we would not think fit for cattle. The lower part of the island is specially set apart for certain diseases and the minister and the immigration authorities know tha't we had oases of bubonic plague there last summer. In that part of the island there is no proper accommodation whatever. There are a few houses but no hospital of any kind to take care of any serious cases. Millions of dollars have already been spent at Grosse Isle but no accommodation has been provided. The growing town of Montmagny, with a population of*4,000 or 5,000 is not far away and without proper accommodation at Grosse Isle diseases may spread through the town. I would impress upon the mind of the minister the desirability, as soon as possible, of erecting some part of this hospital. It would serve to improve the facilities at the quarantine station and help our part of the country by giving employment to people who were thrown out of work by the closing down of factories at the end of the war. We have a lot of unemployed men. This is a good time to build because so many people are out of work. We might here apply the argument used by the Acting Premier (Sir Thomas White) who says that we should give the people work so that the working classes will not go in for Bolshevism. I have heard that the Government has bought an island near Rimouski with the intention of removing the quarantine station there. Is that right or wrong? I am just speaking from hearsay.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am also speaking from hearsay but I have no recollection of having heard anything about that.


Mr.   DEGHENE@: I heard it and I wanted to ask the minister whether there was any truth in it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is anything in it. The only thing I have heard is the proposition that it might be removed to Quebec. I think the hon. gentleman is correctly describing the conditions which exist at Grosse Isle. The accommodation there is absolutely unfit for human beings, at least it is not suitable for any human beings coming to our country. If we are to maintain the plant at Grosse Isle, we must provide the necessary hospital accommodation for all classes of immigrants.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Could the minister tell us now many millions have already been (expended at Grosse Isle' for immigration purposes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, the expenditure amounts to $1,143,000.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Has the contract been awarded for the new building at Grosse Isle?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A contract was awarded last autumn for the construction of a power pi ant.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: That was covered by the $30,000 vote?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. The work was not proceeded with during the winter time because of the difficulty of carrying it on at that time in that portion of the province. I think the contractor was given until the first of May to commence the work. I am not sure whether the work has been actually commenced or not. If not, it will be undertaken immediately and will be carried to completion.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Last year there was a very bad storm and the wharves on both sides of the river were seriously damaged. The steamer carrying on the service between the quarantine station and the mainland has been greatly handicapped in consequence, there being practically no wharf at all on the south shore. Is it the intention of the minister to repair the damaged wharves, one on Grosse Isle and the other on the mainland?
Mr. 'CARVELL: It the hon. gentleman will refer to the estimates he will find that * $50,000 has been appropriated for the extension of the wharf at Grosse Isle, and $6,500 for repairing a wharf.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The $50,000 is for the lower wharf at Grosse Isle, but there are two wharves.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I read the items we are repairing cne wharf and extending the other.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I frankly admit the soundness of everything the minister has said as to the necessity of having proper accommodation for the immigrants coming to this country by way of Grosse Isle, but that is not the point I tried to make. The point is that we are asked to pass an item of $400,000, which is a large sum of money, and the minister, whether he is acting for another department or not, should tell us why this amount is required; what accommodation has to be provided, and why we require to vote such a large sum. After all, the responsibility for the passing of these items is not merely upon the Minister of Public Works, it rests upon every member of the House, and it is a responsibility which I am afraid a number of us take very lightly. I lay it down as a matter of principle that when a minister asks us to approve of large expenditures of public moneys, every reasonable detail that we would exact if we were spending our own money should be placed before us.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I concur in practically everything which my hon. friend has said, but I have already stated that we must have proper accommodation at Grosse Isle. The immigration officers say that the work there will be proceeded with and that the expenditure of this $400,000 is imperative. I have not personally inspected the work at Grosse Isle, I am not even sure that my engineers or architects have been there. We certainly scrutinized this vote carefully, and we held it up last year because there were no immigrants coming to Canada. We did not care to expend this money while the war was in-progress, but now that it is over I look upon the equipment of our quarantine station at Grosse Isle as a prime necessity. If I had time I might go down and look over the work myself.
10 p.m. Failing that, I can only say that the reports I have received from the Immigration Department and the officers of my department, in so far as they have made any report on the matter, are that it is an absolutely necessary work. I quite admit that a $400,000 plant is quite . a plant. I have the plans and the full details before me, and they certainly indicate that if the work goes on the plant will be thoroughly up-to-date. There will be nothing in this country, or in fact on the continent, in the way of an immigration plant that will be superior to the one at the mouth of the St. Lawrence river. I do not know that I can say anything more with respect to the work. I certainly do not intend to expend any money unless

it is necessary, but I am compelled to accept the report of the officials of both departments, who say that the present accommodation is not suitable and the expenditure of this money in providing better accommodation is therefore necessary.


John Howard Sinclair: The disturbing
thing to my mind is the statement of an hon. member that over a million dollars has already been expended at Grosse Isle and there is absolutely no accommodation for the immigrants. It is beyond me to understand what has been done with all .that money, if that is the condition of affairs at the present time, and whether jt can be remedied or not by voting $400,000 I do not know. Surely there must be something wrong with the statement in question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give my hon.
friend a statement of the money which has been spent. The expenditure up to .Confederation was $126,000, and from that time until March 31, 1918, $736,000. The balance of $180,000 is for the construction of wharves running away back to Confederation.


John Howard Sinclair: What have we got in return for the expenditure of that money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know, because I have not been there. We have two wharves at Grosse Isle that were pretty badly shattered during the great storm in November last. We have buildings there and a hospital and disinfecting plant, but they are out of date; they are not fit for occupation. I wish I could give my- hon. .friends more information than I have done; jf further information is desired I will endeavour to obtain it for them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The complaint I make is not that the minister does not in a most .complete and able manner lay before us the information in his possession. My complaint is that he should have much piore information than he seems to have. He should be able to tell us, for example, whether he expects to be able to provide .accommodation, under ordinary circumstances, for so many immigrants.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Apostle Paul were here he could not answer that question. I do not know what the conditions are going to be in the next few years. I do not know .whether ten thousand or a million immigrants will come into Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Apostle Paul is being continuously drawn into the discussions in this House and this is not a theological seminary. If the minister has not any more idea of the number of immigrants that may be expected than he appears to have, why is he proposing to expend the sun; of $400,000 for their accommodation? Surely he must have some idea; he is' not going ahead in the dark without any definite ideas. It seems to me that he should be able to say whether or not the present equipment is inadequate. '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have said so.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then he should tell us that we require to have a hospital there and that it will cost about so much; that there is need for so many waiting rooms, and they will cost so much. He should give us some idea of how he proposes to lay out this $400,000, and what the necessity for it is. It is easy enough to say that he wants to make adequate preparation. We all do, but what is meant by adequate preparation?


William Stevens Fielding: Does it mean that all
the immigrants coming into Quebec will pass through these buildings and be detained there for examination, or does it mean that only those who are sick will go to these buildings? Which of these plans is to be followed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As it is a quarantine
station I suppose it means only those who are sick will have to be accommodated there; but of course if there happens to be an infectious disease on the vessel the whole passenger list will have to be accommodated. There might be times when there would not be one immigrant there; there might be times when there would be a thousand. That is how I understand it, and I think that is really the condition of affairs.


William Stevens Fielding: I have been on a ship when we vrere -all ordered off at Grosse Isle, and I had a hard job in dodging the order myself. I can understand that for the detention of immigrants you would require a large amount of accommodation; but if only for cases of actual sickness you would not need so much accommodation. I am not complaining about the item, I only want to know what accommodation it is intended to cover.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Grosse Isle is the place where ships are held up for medical examination.


William Stevens Fielding: All passengers do not
land there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know. If a ship comes up the river with a clean bill of health she is merely stopped while the examination is taking place, and then proceeds to Montreal. But if a ship comes in with smallpox or bubonic plague on board, then the whole-list of passengers must be disembarked and taken care of at Grosse Isle.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not the intention of the minister to spend the money unless he finds on investigation that it is absolutely necessary?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Mr. POWER:: I find myself for once in full agreement with the minister. Grosse Isle station for the past few years has been in a disgraceful condition-in fact so disgraceful that it was no encouragement to immigrants. We want to build something which will impress immigrants with the feeling that Canada is an up to date country any way. There have been times to my knowledge when four of five ships have been held up at Grosse Isle to be examined, and passengers have had to get off. Some accommodation must be found for them. You cannot run up a camp in a few minutes.
I do not know and I do not suppose the minister could tell the number of immigrants on those boats that may be accommodated in the future; but I think adequate accommodation should be provided.
Public buildings-Ontario-$1,982,716.20.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are only two items in that amount that I think require more than passing notice. One is the construction of a public building at Hamilton, and the other at Toronto. The intention in the case of Hamilton is to build what I suppose you would call an addition to the existing public buildings. When it is completed it will be sufficient to take care of all the public services in the city of Hamilton. Now we are renting space in different parts of the city, the same as we are doing in many other places. As I have said a number of times, with the great deal of unemployment that is prevalent I think it is a very proper thing to go on with such work. The same can be said about the new building in Toronto. This has been under consideration for a number of years, and is located on the south side of Front street, just east of the new railway station. It will be about 500 feet in length-I am speaking now approximately-with a reasonable depth.

When this building is completed we will be able to house all our public services in' that city.


John Howard Sinclair: Will this, complete it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it will take $2,000,000. The work is in progress. We called for tenders simply for excavating and preparing the site for the erection of the building. I think Lyall & Son are the contractors. I do not know exactly what we will do next, but my present intention is to call for tenders for the foundation in order that no time may be lost. If we are able to have the place prepared so that we can call for tenders for the construction of the whole building and lose no time during the summer, we will do so; otherwise we will call for tenders and give a contract for the foundations, and that will give us plenty of time to complete the plans for the general structure. But the intention is to keep the work going and use as much labour as is possible in that very congested centre.
There is another item of $520,000, wh ch will complete the Government's portion of the new railway station now being erected in Toronto. Hon. members will remember that one end of that building is being constructed by the Dominion Government as a postal station.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, may I have the permission of the Committee and the minister to ask a question on the last item? What is this public building in Montreal, $500,000 ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We skipped over that; I am sure I had no intention of doing so, but the Committee wanted to get along. That $500,000 is to build an extension to the new customs building that was erected some three or four years ago. The land was purchased, plans were prepared, and we are simply now taking up the work as we found it. There again we have called for tenders for the excavation and the foundations, and we will then proceed with the construction work on practically the same lines as I have described in respect to Toronto. In other words, we will keep men working on that building during the whole summer, and I hope it will be far enough advanced to keep them employed during the winter. It will cost probably a million and a half dollars when completed; $500,000 we figure is as much as can be economically expended during the present year.


John Howard Sinclair: Do we understand that these buildings, one in Montreal and

another in Toronto, are being erected chiefly to provide employment for labour rather than as being necessary for the public service?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; I say they are necessary for the public service. We are to-day renting space in Toronto as great as that provided for in the new building, and I think probably more in the city of Montreal than we are providing for. Therefore as these works are a necessity we are constructing them under the present abnormal conditions for the purpose of providing labour for unemployed men. I have no hesitation in saying that we could get along for a year or two, because we could continue paying the rentals which we are now paying, and possibly the cost of construction will go down and money might be saved if we waited for three or four years. But I hope I have made it plain from the beginning that we feel the burden is cast upon the Government to provide as far as possible for unemployment. I am afraid we are facing a pretty serious condition from the labour standpoint. It will not be so bad during the summer months, but when the winter comes I rather shudder at the prospect. I am rather afraid there will be a great many people out of work. Therefore I think the Government should go ahead as fast as it can so long as it proceeds on economic principles and construct works that will be of economic value. As long as we can do that I think we are justified in going ahead and providing work for the unemployed.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is there a real want of employment for men engaged in the building trades in Canada?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, without a doubt.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the policy of the
Government to call for tenders for all public works?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, even in connection with' the foundations; and invariably we accept the lowest tender. The difference between the highest and lowest tenders in some cases would surprise hon. gentlemen. In the case of the Toronto building the lowest tender was $17,000 or $18,000 and the highest was over $40,000. By calling for tenders in this way we can start work immediately on the first part of the building, and by the time the foundation is completed we have the plans and specifications ready for the whole structure. On the other hand, we may have the plans ready in time to call for tenders for the

construction of the whole building, including the foundation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In speaking of the
foundation, does the minister mean both the excavation and the concrete foundation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The contracts now running are for the excavation. We may call for tenders subsequently for the concrete foundations, to be built to the ground line or perhaps two or three feet above the ground line.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the excavation costing per cubic yard? The only way of telling whether the work is being done at a reasonable rate is by knowing the quantity that has to be removed and the cost of removing it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before calling for tenders a very careful estimate is prepared by officials of the department, and hon. gentlemen would be surprised to see how close the lowest tenders usually come to the official estimate. Up to the middle of last summer, when prices were going up all the time, the tenders usually ran above the departmental estimate, but during the last six months the tenders have been below the departmental estimate in the great majority of cases. In the case of the Toronto works the tender is a little below the departmental estimate.


Mr. LALOR:: Is any principle laid down by the Government with regard to the class of labour employed in the construction of these buildings? People who are not citizens of Canada, who have not taken out naturalization papers, who are foreigners, should not be employed in these public works. The work should be given to -Canadian citizens, especially to returned soldiers. That principle should be laid down by the Government so that the contractor will know the class of labour that he must employ.
Mr. C'ARVELL: We have not begun to lay down, when calling for tenders, the class of labour that must be employed. But we have had a chance now of studying the matter closely, and we find that returned soldiers are not willing to dig trenches; they dug all the trenches they wanted to in Prance. There is no disguising the fact that the returned -soldier does not want to engage in such labour as the preparing of foundations.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I agree.
Mr. 'CARVELE: I do- not know to what extent foreign labour is employed in this
particular class of work, but I think there would be some difficulty in getting ordinary Canadians to go into the ground and help take out the foundation for a building. If the time should come when it would -be necessary to exclude foreigners from work on the construction of these buildings, I would not hesitate to do -so, but we have not reached that point yet. There is not such an abundance of that class of labour in Canada at the present time that we would be justified in drawing the line.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With regard to the Quebec Marine Department stores, what steps is the minister going to take to call for tenders? The building is an eyesore in its present condition, situated, as it is, directly under the terrace at Quebec. I hope the minister will do his utmost to have this work finished as rapidly as possible. I understand that more than a month must elapse in connection- with calling for tenders, and this delay will bring us into November. If the minister can go on with this work at once he will be doing justice to the city of Quebec and to his department.
Mr. -ClARVELL: I imagine that the plans and specifications are already -prepared. When the percentage of the Estimates was voted two or three weeks ago I instructed the proper officials not to wait for the passing of the main Estimates, but to get out the plans and specifications and call for tenders. Tenders for a great many works are -being called at the present time, even before the money is voted. I realize the importance of starting this work as early in the summer as possible. There should be no difficulty in having it finished before next November. I assure my hon. friend that it will be attended to before the cold weather comes.
Mr. MoMASTER: It may not be altogether desirable to spend too much money on building or excavating when such a tremendous need for agricultural labour exists throughout the country. Speaking for my part of the province of Quebec, I may say that farmers are complaining very bitterly of their inability to get farm labour. I know that it would be a very difficult thing to do, but if it is at all possible I suggest that currents of labour be deflected from the towns to the country, where labour is very much needed and where, under present conditions, it is not inadequately remunerative.
Mr. -CARVELL: That is a very pious suggestion. Perhaps my hon. friend will point out some way of accomplishing it.

Mr. MdMASTER: I suggest that in connection with the housing scheme the Government proposes to bring down, some money might very properly be spent in assisting farmers, at a low rate of interest, to put up labourers' cottages in the country. That would help very substantially to get farm labour on the land.


Mr. McCREA:: The minister a few moments ago said that one of the objects in going on with public works in different places was to give employment to the idle. If there are so many idle people in Canada that we have to make spechil provision for them like this, at a time when the cost of labour and material is so expensive, I do not see how the minister can ask for $400,000 for the erection of an immigration building. Surely, if there are so many idle people in Canada we should not have immigrants coming in. Some weeks ago the minister was deploring the financial condition of the country and wondering how we were going to meet our obligations, but judging by the Estimates he seems to have forgotten his fears on that score. I admit that we must keep abreast of the times and put up buildings where they are actually needed, but I do not think it is good business to go on. erecting public buildings for the sake of giving work to the unemployed and at the same time encourage immigration to this country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would my hon. friend name one item that he would like to see deleted?


Francis N. McCrea: Yes; all the items on the list. The minister is asking for three times as much as he did last year. He is asking for money to construct new buildings and to repair old ones. Perhaps I should not complain, because I am producing and selling the materials used in construction, but it certainly is an expensive time to engage in construction work. I think the item for the immigration building should stand.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I notice that a rural mail shelter is to be provided at Walker-ton. Is this a new departure for the Government to provide rural mail shelters and what is the nature of the shelter?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is only a shed for the protection of the horses of the mail carriers at the Walkerton public building. There are a number of places in Canada where this protection is provided for the carriers of rural mail.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Why is it more necessary to have a shelter at Walkerton than at other places in Ontario?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Wherever my hon friend finds an item of this kind, it has been requested by the Post Office Department.
Alberta-public works chargeable to income-[DOT] $5'32,0'0'0.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister explain this item?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This amount is required for the erection of a general public building in Calgary. My hon. friend, I think, is acquainted with that part of the country and knows that the only post office accommodation they have in Calgary is in a wooden shack, which they have been occupying for four or five years. We have been compelled to rent space in the Lancaster block for two or three years. Now we are starting the construction of a public building, not a post office building, but a building that will be used by the post office and all other branches of the public service in the city of Calgary. I am absolutely opposed to the erection of a public building simply for the use of the post office or the custom house or anything of that kind. I find that once you hand oveT a building to tlie^ post office, you can never get anything else into it, and when it comes to the custom house, it is as easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as it is get other branches of the public service in there. I like to call them public buildings, so that they will be open to all officials of the public service in these cities.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this a new building?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. It will cost $780,000 when completed.
, Mr. FIELDING: You are calling it a post office building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It will be used by the post office.


William Stevens Fielding: According to my hon. friend's statement, if the post office gets in there, nobody else will be able to get into it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will set apart a certain amount of space for the post office.


William Stevens Fielding: And they will appeal to the vote when you try to get anybody else in there.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the contract been let for this building, and if so, to whom?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, but we shall be ready to call for tenders for the excavation almost immediately. I imagine we will carry out the same policy there that we did in Montreal and Toronto.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This policy of excavating the foundation has resulted, in Montreal at least, in having the foundation, which has cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, remain without any superstructure upon it for several years, and the loss of interest through dead capital must have run into very large figures. I mention this merely by way of warning, but of course it may not be necessary with the present minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am quite well aware of it, and I am also aware that there has been quite a war on since those foundations were put in.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We are reminded that there has been a war on altogether too often. That is no excuse for poor business. The war cannot be dragged in as an excuse for something that is otherwise inexcusable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The war was a good reason for delaying construction.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The taunt about there having been a war on is thrown across this floor altogether too often, and I do not propose to continue to bear it with that equanimity which usually characterizes my conduct.


Frank S. Cahill: There is an item of $400,000 for Calgary and $100,000 for Edmonton, and the total is $532,000 on public buildings in Alberta. The population of Alberta is not as large as that of Saskatchewan, and the buildings in Saskatchewan are not any better than those in Alberta. I do not quite understand why we should have to spend over $500,000 on public buildings in Alberta when it is only necessary to spend $38,000 in Saskatchewan. I know that Saskatoon, Regina, and Moosejaw are no better equipped at present than Edmonton. Calgary has only a temporary building, and it seems an unusual thing that Alberta should have over $500,000 and Saskatchewan practically nothing when they require the buildings just as much. If the minister is spending the money in order to provide employment, I think there should be just as much need in one province as in the other.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope my friend does not entertain the idea that I am trying to
spend. money territorially. I do not purpose to spend a dollar anywhere unless it is necessary, if I can help it. It happens that they do not require public buildings in the large cities of Saskatchewan; they are well supplied, and as I have been in them all I know just as much about the question as does my hon. friend. There are many smaller towns in Saskatchewan where public buildings are needed, and I wish it were possible to grant them. I have explained the situation as regards that class of public buildings. It happens that in Alberta a different condition exists. There is no place for the post office, and there is no post office at all. As regards Edmonton, I was in that city last autumn and went through all the public buildings, and the congestion is serious. We have officials housed in half a dozen different places, and we must be paying, roughly speaking, $35,000 to $40,000 a year in rentals in the city of Edmonton. Something must be done to meet the situation. I have asked for a vote of $100,000. I am not sure that we are justified in erecting buildings. I think we could purchase a building in the city of Edmonton that would meet all the requirements and one that would be cheaper and very much better than any we could construct. I do not know, however, that we would be justified in spending money for the purchase of buildings to-day when we think it is our duty to spend it in such a way as will provide labour for employment. That is the difficulty that exists. I am very much at a loss to know what to do in the city of Edmonton. If I followed my own inclinations and viewed the question as a business proposition, there are two" or three buildings I could buy at a great discount on what they cost, and probably for 50 per cent of what we could erect a building for.


Mr. JACOBS:: Why not purchase then?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not said we are not going to. We will consider the matter carefully.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand it is the policy of the department to construct buildings wherever they are needed rather than to purchase, in order to give employment to those who are out of work, no matter whether the buildings will cost twice what they would if they were purchased. Is that a good business policy? Is this Government being run on business principles or as an eleemosynary institution?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my friend is justified in such an inference. I have



not said that I purpose to construct buildings that will cost twice as much as if existing buildings were purchased. I have said that in some places-and have given the details-we will construct buildings because they are necessary. We believe they will cost more than in ordinary times, but we believe that it is necessary to provide work, in addition to the fact that the buildings are required. When we come to Edmonton, the situation is a little different from some of the other places. I do not know that there is the same necessity for employment there as elsewhere, and I am considering seriously whether we would not be justified in exercising the strictest business principles in purchasing rather than building. The matter is absolutely open and will have to be decided as one of policy before we are able to act one way or the other. We must come to a decision before Parliament prorogues.


Samuel William Jacobs: This sum now asked for is for the purpose of purchasing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is for building.


Samuel William Jacobs: The question of purchasing will-not be taken into account?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, unless we decide as a matter of policy to purchase, in which case we must come back for a supplementary estimate to get the money voted.
Mr, JACOBS: As I understand it, the cost of purchasing will be about half, so that it will not be necessary to have supplementary estimates.
Mr. CARVELL; You cannot buy a build' ing in Edmonton that will be suitable to house the public services there for $50,000 nor $100,000. This is for an addition to the present post office building. If we decide as a matter of policy that we will purchase a building we will not require this money, and this vote will lapse, but we will have to come back to Parliament, set forth the facts, and have the money for purchase voted.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is not this the proper time to tell us what the policy of the Government is with respect to the construction or the purchase of public buildings?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not had the opportunity of discussing this question with my colleagues and I cannot make a statement until I am authorized to do so. I have intimated to the Committee my views on the matter. I think there is a very grave question whether we should not purchase in Edmonton rather than build hut nothing 
will be done until Parliament is apprised of it. If we decide to purchase we must come to Parliament.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it not be well to
hold this item until the Government makes up its mind?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there
would be much use in doing that. If we do not purchase we must provide additional accommodation and this vote is for the purpose of providing that accommodation. If we do not require it we shall not use it.


Frank S. Cahill: Do the rentals that are
being paid now in Calgary and Edmonton amount to much more than the interest on the capital invested in a new building?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not in a position
to give the exact details. Speaking from memory I think we pay $35,000 or $40,000 a year for rentals in both Calgary and Edmonton. I shall be glad to bring the exact figures before the Committee. There is no secret about it. I am sure we are paying as much in rentals now as we would pay in interest on a new building in each one of the cities and every hon. gentleman must see a great advantage in having all the officials of the Government housed in one building with one janitor service and one control rather than have them scattered over a half dozen different places in each city.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS:: I hope the minister will go. into this matter of public buildings in Edmonton very carefully. I heard with a good deal of pleasure his statement as to the possible policy of the department in connection with public buildings, particularly in Edmonton. The services of the Government in Edmonton are scattered over the entire city and from the point of view of the convenience of the public there the arrangement is a bad one. The rental the Government is paying in Edmonton for publie service would pay the interest on a million dollar building, and the Government would be well advised to go into the question and consider whether it would not be advisable to buy a building and have the services all under one roof than to build under existing conditions.


Frank S. Cahill: The commission travelling throughout the West now report there is little unemployment in Calgary and Edmonton. Would it not be advisable to leave the Calgary building for another year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend. I think we ought to go on with the construction of a

public building in Calgary. This work is of such importance as to demand that we shall proceed with it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are two grounds which the minister could well take for the construction of this building and he has taken both. One is the public necessity for the use of the building, and the other is building in order to give employment for those who are looking for work. My hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) suggests that he is informed there is not much unemployment in the west. A couple of days ago I met a very distinguished westerner, an officer of the Grain Growers' Association, my good friend, Mr. Roderick McKenzie, a well known public character in the west, and he told me it was extremely difficult to get help. I asked him if the farmers were going to get their work done this spring and he said it was extremely difficult to get help on the farm. I do not think any man who can get work on the farm should be the subject of any worry to the Government with regard to providing -work for him. We find a gieat many of our young men in the east willing to go out and work on the farm in what is known as harvesting and I suppose spring work, planting and seeding are not any harder than harvesting. If thousands of our young men used to be able to go out in the -west in harvesting time and be serviceable at that season, I do not see why men, rather than being allowed to remain idle, should not be encouraged to go and work on the farm and be of use to the country generally. The minister said that he did not know of any means by which a man could be diverted from idleness in the towns to work on the farm. One good way would be to let them feel the necessity of getting work for themselves and employing their own energies for their own benefit. When I was a young man I had to look for work. I had no Government providing work for me; I had to go and look for it, to get it and then to go to work. I am afraid there is such a thing as too much solicitude on the part of public bodies to-day thus depriving many people of their own initiative and individuality in getting along. I think there is danger in that direction. No person will exert himself to provide for himself if he thinks the Government is going to do everything for him and there is nothing for him to do but to sit down and say there is no work. I do not think that is what our people are looking for. They are looking for a place where they can get work. I think they are willing to do it. If there
152*
is plenty of work on the farms of Alberta,. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I do not think we should be erecting public buildings, building railways, or undertaking any public work, for the mere purpose of giving these men work, if they can get on the	farm where	their
work will be far more productive than it would be in putting up a public building or building a railway. Of course, the building of a railway for the necessities of transportation is another matter. Rather than enter upon any public work for the mere purpose of giving.people employment and putting money in their way, I think it would be well to encourage them to go to work on the farm. If conditions in the West to-day are as they are reported to me, and as the evidence seems to indicate before the Government commission that is now going through the West, there does not seem to be very much necessity for the minister to spend money in order to provide employment.


John Flaws Reid: With regard to this appropriation for a post office in Calgary, the minister has rightly stated that the building now used is a shack. It is a very ordinary shack at that. It is even worthy to be called a shanty. It is the kind of building that is used in Eastern Canada as a woodshed. If that condition existed in any eastern town, or in the Maritime-Provinces, we would soon hear about it. Why should Calgary be discriminated against in this way? Calgary is a city of about 60,000 population and yet an ordinary woodshed is being used for the purpose of the post office.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I am sorry to hear that there is any difference of opinion whatever in regard to this building in Calgary. Arrangements were made for the erection of a new post office in 1914. The old building there was burned down with the result that the city was left without any building for the post office purposes. They had to occupy temporary quarters and when those temporary quarters became absolutely unfit for human habitation they moved into other temporary quarters where they are at present and which are crowded and unsuitable. There was trouble there in connection with the employees. They were very patient up to the time that they were removed to their present quarters. The work is distributed over the city and if there is any place in Canada where a post office is needed it is Calgary. It is one of the largest postal centres in the Dominion. A building is to be erected which will be

capable of being used for purposes other than those of the post office. The Government is absolutely justified in appropriating money for this work and I only hope that the 'Department of Public Works will proceed with the erection of the building as fast as they possibly can.
British Columbia/-(public buildings, $111,475.60.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I notice one small item
for taxes on a Government building in British Columbia. I do not notice an item of this kind in any of the other provinces. I would like to know why it is the Government pay taxes on a public building in Victoria and not in other municipalities?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is an old post office building that has been abandoned. It is a public building but a new building was erected and this is now being rented. The policy has been adopted all over Canada that when the Government ceases to occupy a building, rents it and receives a rental, it should pay taxes to the municipality. This is a small item for the purpose of paying the taxes and as against it we receive a revenue.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Are there no other public buildings throughout the Dominion of the same class?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, there are some in Ottawa. There are buildings on Wellington street in this city, in what we call the expropriated area, that are owned by the Government but are rented to other people. We receive a revenue from those buildings, and as a consequence we pay the taxes upon that particular property to the municipality of Ottawa, and we would do so under like circumstances anywhere.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is no item in the Public Accounts to show that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know as to that. However, the facts are as I have stated.


John Howard Sinclair: Would the minister say what the revenue from this property in Victoria is?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I could not give the information offhand.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to see if we are making any money.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are not liable to make much money on an old public building.


Mr. McICENZIE:: I do not quite see the force of the minister's philosophy in re-

gard to this renting business. If he uses the building as a post office he gets a great deal more money from the use of it than he would if a person occupied it as a tenant. If the minister is getting $10,000 for the use of a building as a post office, he would not pay any taxes, but he does if some private individual leases the property and pays $100 rent. I do not see the force of that argument.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The policy may not be based on or be good logic, but it is one with which the present Minister of Public Works is very much in love. My hon. friend knows that under the terms of the British North America Act, the Government is not subject to the payment of taxes upon any of its property; and in every city and town in Canada in which public buildings have been constructed very valuable property is therefore withdrawn from taxation by the municipality. Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better to amend the British North America Act so that the Government would pay taxes to the municipality in which its property was situated the same as any other property owner does. However, it is not necessary for me to express an opinion upon the point, because it is not an issue to-day. At the same time I have a very strong feeling in regard to this matter, and the moment the Government acquires a piece of property*which it is not occupying for Government purposes but is renting to some other person who pays a rental, I think we are bound to comply with all the municipal regulations, even as to the payment of taxes. There may not be any legal justification for that, but to me it certainly seems only fair and just to the municipality concerned.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think that the position taken by the minister with regard to a case of the kind he mentions is right and proper, but I would like to know why this item in regard to the public buildings in British Columbia is treated very differently in the matter of book keeping from the buildings in Ottawa?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that it is a system which has been followed for some time. In the case of Ottawa the buildings were only purchased three or four years ago, but we are paying taxes just the same, and I shall be only too happy to bring down all the details. If the hon. gentleman will refer to item 120, which is set forth at page 72 of the Estimates, he

will find the designation there " Dominion Public Buildings Generally." Now we are paying the taxes on this Ottawa property and other properties throughout the Dominion out of that vote.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think as a matter of book keeping the item should be designated in the same way as respects all Government buildings.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend may be right, I think perhaps he is, 'out I will only be too happy to furnish all. the details required. We are Certainly paying taxes to the city of Ottawa on those buildings which we own and are renting to private individuals.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say at once to the minister that he should stop paying taxes; the Crown is not called upon to pay them under the law. The Crown, or the Government, owns property in every part of Canada, and I think in every part of the Empire, which is exempt from taxation. Why should we make any sympathetic arrangement which is applicable to any one part of the country more than to another? There is no law for that, and it should not be done. The law provides that the property of the King shall be exempt from taxation, therefore, the minister in paying taxes on such property is paying that money out without any authority.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as I am concerned, it is not a question of sympathy; it is absolutely a matter of cold justice as I view it. There may possibly be some question as to whether we have a right to pay these taxes under the British North America Act. All I can read into that Act is that we are not compelled to pay taxes; but if we have a piece of property in a municipality which we are renting and receiving a revenue from I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can argue 'that we are not compelled to pay the municipal taxes upon it.


Francis N. McCrea: What becomes of the rent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It goes into the consolidated revenue of the country, of course.


Francis N. McCrea: You do not pay the taxes with it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the money goes into the consolidated revenue and we pay it out in the ordinary way.
There is another thing which I think I must tell my hon. friend: All over the country for years the Dominion Government has
been paying to municipalities local improvement taxes. If there is a street, or a sidewalk, being constructed in front of, or alongside Government property, we pay our proper share of the cost of that work, just the same as any ordinary property owner does, and we ought to do so. We owe that duty to the municipalities. I think we are just as much called upon to pay the taxes on a property from which we are receiving revenue, as we are to pay the special taxes for local ^improvement.


Francis N. McCrea: Does the minister not think we are entitled to know the amount of rent we are receiving?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall be only too happy to furnish to my hon. friend to-morrow, or whenever he wants it, all possible information.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is another feature in connection with this vote as to which I would like to make inquiry. I have noticed in the press recently that the Mayor of Ottawa has been expressing dissatisfaction with the annual grant made by the Dominion Government towards the taxation of this city-


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member will only wait until we reach the votes for Ottawa public buildings he will be in order in raising the point. Ottawa is very far from British Columbia.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understand that, and I am only referring to the matter generally in connection with this item.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman had better wait until we reach the next item.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I think the Minister of Public Works is absolutely justified in the stand which he has taken. Let us assume for a moment that the Dominion Government has two or three buildings in any city in Canada which it rents out and receive revenue from. If it fails to pay its share of the taxes that burden is distributed over the other local taxpayers. So long as the Federal Govern-11 p.m. ment owns property which it is using for Government purposes, and is receiving no revenue from, the principle of tax exemption applies and should apply. But there is no reason why this Government should acquire property in any municipality and, in competition with other property owners, derive a revenue therefrom, and not assume its fair

share of taxation. I think that is absolutely unjustified.
Mr. McKENZIE .[DOT] The law, as was pointed out some 'time ago by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), may be an ass, but the law nevertheless is that the King does not pay taxes. If the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) finds fault with the law it would be better to change it, and enact that the King, or the Government representing the King, shall pay~4axes on Government property wherever it is. But while it is the law that the King does not pay taxes, we are not called upon to make such payment. It is preferable to adhere to that law rather than to sidetrack it and from sympathetic ideas, or any notions we may have, pay taxes on a piece of property the moment we receive any revenue from it. The idea of local taxation is that a man gets his children educated, enjoys the benefit of street lighting, police protection, and all the advantages of the machinery of local government in the place where he lives; consequently he pays taxes. If he does not live in the town where his property is located, but in some other place, he should contribute to that general fund which extends to him the general benefit and protection of municipal and provincial institutions. But the King does not enjoy any of these benefits from property and therefore he does not pay any taxes. The King nominally holds this property. At all events, that is the reason why he does not pay taxes', because he does not in those various places enjoy those benefits which come from local taxation. And while it is the law that Government property is not subject to taxation it is better that we stand by the law.


Mr. PROULX:: I understand that Government property is not liable for general taxes; but for local improvement rates, such as a sidewalk along Government property, I think the Government should pay its share.


Mr. CALDER:: It is not liable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We do pay it any way.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Discussing this item 119, I would like to call attention to the fact that there is a payment of taxes due the city of Victoria for 1918 amounting to $1,475.60. I inquired as to why this item was there and why a similar item was not in the Estimates for the other provinces, and the minister said that certain Government buildings in the city of Ottawa were paying

taxes. The question I wanted to ask before was: What amount of taxes the Government is paying?


Georges Henri Boivin: I ruled that question out of order a moment ago, and I hope the hon. gentleman will abide by my ruling.
Public buildings-Generally-$185,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I see
in connection with this item a charge of $5,000 for flags for Dominion public buildings, and I would like to make a few observations thereon. First of all, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that a great number- perhaps I should say most of those who are concerned in the caretaking of public buildings seem to take very poor care of the flags, and you will find the flags left up in all sorts of weather and flying by night as by day. I think this, is a matter which should be brought to the attention of those who are in charge of our public buildings: first, on the ground of economy; second, on the ground of showing an example of thrift to the people; and, third, out of respect for the flag itself.
Now, there is another matter I wish to bring before the 'Committee, and I think it may properly be brought forward in connection with this item. We have a national flag for marine purposes. Our merchant marine flies the Canadian flag; our navy flies the British ensign on one mast and the Canadian marine ensign on the other.


William Duff: They were made to take it down.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not know that. But my submission to the Committee is that we should have a national flag for land purposes. The great Commonwealth of Australia has a national flag; I think the Commonwealth of New Zealand has a national flag, and it seems to me that the Dominion of Canada also should have a national flag. I think it would help to create a national spirit, and I believe that in the creation of a sound and sane national spirit lies the cure for many of the racial and religious troubles which are a curse to the Canadian people. The matter has received some attention in the press. I remember reading in the Montreal Weekly Witness a poem by a young lady about the necessity and desirability of a national flag. I would recommend the matter to the patriotism of the Minister of Public Works, who is apparently in charge of the flag department. I would like to see a strong and sound national spirit arise in Canada as

characteristic as the flavour of our maple syrup, and I think the matter deserves public attention. Our soldiers who fought across the seas so gallantly were proud not only of being British soldiers, but they were proud of being Canadian soldiers. As we are proud to belong to what I prefer to call the Associated British Commonwealths rather than the British Empire, I would like to see our national flag, a national flag for land .purposes, floating over our public buildings.


Georges Henri Boivin: In order that I may not have to call any hon. member of the Committee to order, I must point out that the discussion of the adoption of a national flag is certainly not open on the item before the House at the present time, which item is for the purchase of flags for public buildings. It may be very well, and I expected that was the idea of my good friend from Brome, to discuss what kind of flag will be purchased, whether a British flag, a Canadian flag, or a marine flag; but it is certainly not within the power of the Minister of Public Works to make a new flag for Canada at the present time. Therefore it is not in order to discuss the adoption of a national flag on this item.
Mr. CARVELL; I realize that my hon. friend from Brome has brought up a very important subject. I do not propose to answer him as to the kind of flag we are going to purchase; I think that is a matter that somebody else must decide. I quite agree with him that these flags should be taken care of, and I do think for the last three or four years there has not been the amount of care exercised that should have been. The instructions we send out from the department to the caretakers is that the flags shall be put up in the morning and be taken down at sunset, which is a proper and sensible custom. But I am afraid that during the war people wanted the flag up after those hours, and in many cases it was easier for the caretaker from his standpoint to leave the flag up all the time rather than take it down and put it up again.


William Stevens Fielding: Without dissenting from the view of the hon. member from Brome- that is a general question-may I ask the minister what flag is distributed officially for use on the public buildings? The reason I ask the question is that we are using improperly everywhere in Canada a red ensign, which is the flag of the Canadian merchant marine. It is not a land flag, but it is very widely used throughout
Canada at any public function; in fact, you will see one-half or more of the flags displayed for decorative purposes will be the British red ensign with the arms of Canada in the corner. That is distinctly a sea flag and is properly used by all our Canadian merchant marine. The British red ensign is the flag of the British merchant marine; the British red ensign with the arms of Canada in the corner is the flag of the Canadian merchant marine; but neither flag is a proper land flag, and yet there is an almost universal use in Canada of the red ensign with the arms of Canada in the corner. Hence I ask the question of my hon. friend, whether that flag is distributed, or whether only the Union Jack is distributed ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We distribute only the Union Jack.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to inquire of the minister if he has a memorandum before him as to what improvements he is going to make in the experimental farms in connection with the item of $150,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. The item I have is " Central Farm, Ottawa, $35,000." Then are given all the details; for instance, animal husbandry, $16,000; bees, $300; botany, $3,000; cereals, $300, and so on. Then we have branch farms and stations. Tobacco curing stations, $3,525; Charlottetown, P.E.I., $10,510; Kentville, N.S., $3,500; Nappan, N.S., $5,425; Fredericton, N.B., $2,900; Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que., $4,450; Cap Rouge, Que., $4,000; Lennoxville, Que., $5,650; Morden, Man., $7,300; Brandon, Man., $3,600; Indian Head, Sask., $2,000; Rosthern, Sask., $3,800; Scott, Sask., $3,450; Lethbridge, Alta., $16,175; Lacombe, Alta., $4,650; Summerland, B.C., $20,200; Invermere, B.C.,	$4,550; Agassiz, B.C.,
$5,200; Sydney, B.C., $3,300.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to protest, as I protested every session that I have been here, against the throwing away of money on these experimental farms. The Central Experimental Farm is a very delightful place to go to for a picnic, but particularly at this time we should not be spending money on a place for picnic purposes. Nobody likes to go there better than I do; I like looking at the things to be seen there. But it is high time that some better method was adopted to encourage agriculture. The farmers do not get any practical benefit

from these experimental farms. They are kept as picnic grounds, and to supply certain individuals with hothouse stuff-which is all very nice, but produces no revenue for the country. I simply wish to register my protest against the maintenance of these experimental farms.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there any amount in the Estimates to provide for an experimental farm station at Baie St. Paul in Charlevoix county?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. We are simply the agent of the Agriculture Department in connection with the construction of these buildings, and I can only answer for what is placed before me. As to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Copp), I have criticised in days gone by some of the expenditures in connection with these farms. I could pick out some of them with regard to which I have very strong views. But I cannot agree with my hon. friend's remarks in regard to the Central Experimental Farm. I realize that the farmer cannot reproduce what he sees there, because he has not the financial means. But the object of the experimental farm is not so much to show farmers how to carry on their work as to make experiments which may be valuable to any man who wishes to learn. I myself go to the experimental farm very frequently for information, and have always been able to get it. I am sorry that the people do not read and digest as thoroughly as they should the reams of information that are sent out annually from that farm as a result of the experiments that are carried on.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Could not my hon. friend get the information he desires if the farm were not there?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, they must make the experiments in order to get the information. Theoretical information is no good to the farmer; he must have information that is based on actual experience.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no doubt that every member of the House received to-day a circular from the Agriculture Department containing a photograph of a corn crop that a grub was destroying. I am not much of a farmer, but I know all about the matter dealt with in this circular, as does every farmer in our part of the country. If that is what we are paying for at the experimental farm-it costs something to print these things and send them out to members of Parliament and to farmers throughout the country-we are getting mighty little for our money.


Mr. KNOX:: I am surprised at the expression of opinion which comes from the East in regard to the experimental farms. We in the West appreciate the benefit that is derived from the farms in the West as well as from the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa. I point out the great benefit that has come to the country through the development of Marquis wheat, a variety developed by Dr. Saunders, which has been worth millions of dollars to Canada.


Mr. CANNON:: A few years ago there was a by-election in Dorchester county in which a member of the then Borden Government, Mr. Sevigny, a Cabinet minister, was a candidate and was elected by a substantial majority. This gentleman made a formal promise to the electors of that county that if he was elected an experimental farm would be established there. No experimental farm, however, has been established in Dorchester county, and I have received several letters from my electors asking that an experimental farm be established there. I see no difference between this Government and the former Government; therefor I say that the Minister of Public Works is bound by the promises that were made a couple pf years ago by a member of the Borden Cabinet. Dorchester is an ideal spot for an experimental farm. It is quite close to the city of Quebec and is in the neighbourhood of the constituency of Beauce, represented by my distinguished friend (Mr. Beland) and I think it would be beneficial to the public generally if a farm was established there. The member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) says that in many cases the expenditure on experimental farms is a waste of money. I think it would not be a waste of money if a farm was established in my county. It was promised by a member of the Cabinet, and I think that a promise made by a minister of a government which is not different from the present one ought to be redeemed. I would suggest that if no provision has been made in the Main Estimates for this farm, the minister should provide an item in the Supplementaries, because he surely will agree that a promise should be kept.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not find any such item in these Estimates, but of course I am merely acting as the agent of the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not know why it has not been included. I have a recollection, however, that according to a Return brought down in this House some two years ago the then government distributed a large quantity of very valuable thorough-

bred animals throughout the county of Dorchester, but the people appreciated them so little that they at once proceeded to convert them into benevolent neutrals, and I think the department came to the conclusion that the people of the county of Dorchester really did not appreciate them. If I were called upon to give a reason, I would say that that is the reason why the minister has not included an item in the present Estimates for such a farm.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This promise of an experimental farm which was made to the electors of Dorchester by a former minister has not been carried out, but I understand that the promise was made by a minister of the preceding Government, and not of the Government of which the Minister of Public Works is a member. In view of the fact that a good deal of money was spent in the county of Dorchester during that famous election, and the fact that the county of Beauce is contiguous to the county of Dorchester, that no money was spent in the county of Beauce either during the last election or the previous one, that the county of Beauce, which was at one time mostly a timbering region has of late years been converted into a most successful agricultural district, and the further fact that Beauce county has within its borders the richest maple bushes in the whole Dominion of Canada, with an average yearly crop of some million and a half pounds of maple sugar-in view of all these considerations I really think that the county of Beauce would be an ideal spot for the establishment of an experimental farm. I do not in the least wish to convey the impression that the county of Dorchester is not a rich and fertile county, but it cannot possibly compare with the county of Beauce. The county of Beauce is one of the richest counties in the whole Dominion, both from an agricultural standpoint and in some other respects. It is ideally situated. The county of Compton, the fame of which has gone far beyond the limits of the province of Quebec, the county of Megantic, also of great repute, and the counties of Levis, Montmagny, Bellechasse and L'lslet form around the county of Beauce, as it were, a crown, and I would strongly urge the minister to impress upon his colleague the Minister of Agriculture the real urgency of establishing an experimental farm in Beauce county. It has the best location in the whole province of Quebec, and it is the best riding by far. One has only to think of the maple bushes of the county of Beauce, of its dairying, of its lumbering,
and of its cereal cultivation, to come to the conclusion that no other part of the Dominion of Canada can begin to compare with my county.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall be very glad indeed to convey to the Minister of Agriculture the beauties and necessities of the county of Beauce.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am afraid the hon. member for Beauce has not travelled very extensively through the county of Renfrew or he would have a different opinion of the merits of his own county. How much taxation has been paid by the Government to the city of Ottawa on properties owned by the Government and rented out?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry I cannot give that information to-night, but I shall be very glad to bring it down, and my hon. friend need not trouble to put a question on the Order Paper. There are a number of places in Ottawa on which we pay taxes.
I have a few figures here of the taxes we pay outside of Ottawa: Bowman, $64.60; Estevan, $46.83; Ingersoll, $223.72; Montreal postal station B, $74.79; postal station H, $126.24; postal station S, $100.85.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: These are taxes on buildings owned by the Government and rented?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I presume so. We pay these taxes in those places.


John Howard Sinclair: There is an item here of $30,000 for "Dominion public buildings-generally." I would think this item unecessary, because we have already provided for Dominion public buildings in all the provinces. Item No. 113, for instance, provides for Dominion public buildings, improvements, repairs, etc., in the Maritime provinces generally, $25,000. We have voted for Quebec, $35,000; Ontario, $35,000; Manitoba, $18,000; Saskatchewan, $15,000; Alberta, $3,000; British Columbia, $17,000. So as we have passed a general vote for repairs and improvements to public buildings in every province in Canada,. I think we might dispense with the item of $30,000 for Dominion public buildings generally.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend is an old enough parliamentarian to realize that it is almost humanly impossible to provide for every emergency that may arise. There may be a storm or fire and it has always been the custom to include these small amounts for emergencies. So long as I have been in Parliament these amounts

have been voted and I think they are necessary. There might be a fire or some accident and you would be absolutely tied up because the Auditor General would not pass the account unless there was some item from which it could be drawn. There is no sinister motive in this. It is only carrying out a custom of long standing and one that is absolutely necessary. Last year a building was burnt down on Partridge Island in St. John and something had to be done. There is a vote in the Estimates now, but we were called upon at once to put up something in the way of a temporary building. I do not think there is any room for genuine criticism of this item.


John Howard Sinclair: We have 525,000 of a vote to meet cases of that kind in the Maritime Provinces. I am quite aware that accidents will happen, but why should we make provision twice over?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should like to get
through with this item if possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will provoke considerable discussion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, I have no objection to letting it stand. We have done a good day's work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When we come to discuss this item I shall have something to ask about the Supreme Court Building. There was a talk of a new building, and I would like some information as to whether it is the intention to do anything in this respect. The present building is not worthy of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As far as I know, there is no provision for the construction of a new Supreme Court Building. I feel like 
agreeing with my hon. friend, but they seem to be getting on well as they are. There is a scheme on foot for the provision of new quarters for the Supreme Court when the next attempt is made at erecting public buildings in Ottawa. It will be across the street on the expropriated area. We are just preparing plans and models and getting ready for it, but it is not the intention to ask for an appropriation during the present year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As a nation we are
proud of our public _buildings, but we are never very proud to show strangers the Supreme Court Building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite agree with my
hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is the most important court in Canada and should have a building becoming its dignity.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While there is no item
providing for a new building I may say that if my hon. friend will go to the Public Works Department to the office of Mr. Ewart he will find material which will interest him. I think he would be pleased to go over the models of the buildings which are being designed for erection at some future date on Wellington street. One of the first, buildings he would come across in the plans and specifications and in the actual models is the new Supreme Court Building in conjunction with other buildings. It would be well worth the while of any member to spend two or three hours in Mr. Ewart's office looking over the models of buildings which it is hoped some day to erect on that portion of the Government property in Ottawa.


John Howard Sinclair: I notice in the
item which we do not intend to discuss tonight a large sum for the rents of buildings,
I suppose in Ottawa, amounting to about


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That covers the whole
Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: The city of Ottawa is included in that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think so.


John Howard Sinclair: When this item is considered next I would like to have details as to the buildings that are rented in Ottawa, and the amounts paid.
Mr. 'CARVELL:	I could go on to-night
and give those details if the Committee desired.	i	;	;	. I


John Howard Sinclair: I am only suggesting this for the next meeting.
Progress reported.
On the motion of 'Hon. iMr. Reid the House adjourned at 11.45.
Wednesday, May 14, 1919.