1919-04-01

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA SECOND SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 9-10 GEORGE V, 1919 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1028	Volume	II:	Pages	1029-209644 III:	"	2097-3192	44	IV:	44	3193-3996


Volume V:: 3997-4702



VOLUME CXXXV


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACHfi

[Stage Direction]
L'i * v.

'
[Stage Direction]
	
.	
[Stage Direction]
"

. *
[Stage Direction]

Mouse of Commons SleEmtes
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 1, 1919.

[Stage Direction]
Paper showing the average number of men employed in the Dominion Police Force for the year 1918.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, for the relief of John Edwin Scott.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Claudius Henry Sherk.-Mr. Ross.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: For the purpose of asking a question, may I direct the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to the following cable despatch which appeared in yesterday's Montreal Star:
London, March 31. (Canadian Press Dispatch from Reuter's Ltd.) The new Army Bill provides that members of the Imperial Forces enlisted In the Dominion and sentenced to penal servitude need not serve their sentence in the United Kingdom as hitherto provided in all soldiers' oases, but in the Dominions in which they were enlisted.
Above that despatch the Montreal Star places the sarcastic heading, "Thanks for the honour." May I inquire if the Government is in a position to explain to the House if this despatch means that a number of criminals are to be dumped into this country to be maintained during the rest of their lives at the cost of the taxpayers of Canada, or if this is to be taken as a significant hint of Canada's new status in the Imperial War Cabinet and the Cabinet of Governments.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister):: I have not seen the article, and I have no official information on the subject referred to.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, to amend the Dominion Lands Surveys Act.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act (Aid for Railway Crossings).-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Bill No. 30, to amend an Act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.-Hon. Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 24, respecting advances for the purchase of seed grain, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-minister may guarantee repayment of advances.
Charles Murphy: Are these agreements
uniform or may they vary in certain cases, and, if so, in what respect?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: So far just one agreement has been made by me with the Bankers' Association on behalf of all the banks. It would never in my opinion be justifiable to make an agreement with one bank more favourable than with another.


Mr. BUREAU:: Does the section mean that there will be a discrepancy of 2 per cent between the interest paid by the Government and the interest paid by the entrant.


Arthur Meighen: No. The bank in making a loan to a farmer cannot charge over 7 per cent. If the bank fails to collect and calls upon the Government to pay, the Government is only bound to pay 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-commission op collections.
Jacques Bureau: A commission of 1 per cent on the amount lent and 7 per cent interest would make 8 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: No, it would mean on all moneys that the bank collects it would get 8 per cent, but the farmer would pay only 7 per cent. The Government pays one per cent for the trouble of collection. That is by way of inducement to the bank to collect the money and keep the Government out of the matter as far as possible.


Jacques Bureau: The one per cent is paid by the Government at all events. Supposing a farmer borrows money from a bank and gives his note, when the farmer pays back the money, the bank gets one per cent over and above the interest charged to the farmer, and that one per cent is paid by the Government.


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


Mr. CAHILL:: The last time this Bill was before the House, I understood the minister to state that he would take into consideration the advisability of limiting the amount to be appropriated.


Arthur Meighen: When the Bill was previously before the House, I stated, in response to a suggestion by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding), that a limit should be placed on the amount which the Government could in any way advance or guarantee for seed grain purchases, which suggestion I said at the time I did not think was practicable, that I would look into the matter further and see if it were practicable. The Controller of the Finance Department, whom I consulted, said that no practicable limit could be fixed because the amount varies from almost nothing in some years to half a million dollars in others. In 1916, following the big crop of 1915, no money whatever was advanced to unpatented homesteaders. In 1917 the amount advanced was $72,757. In 1918 the amount advanced was $370,000. Then back in the year 1915,
I	do not know what the amount advanced on unpatented homesteads was, but at all events it was up in the millions, so that one would necessarily have to fix the maximum amount, and that would be of no value at all. I do not see that any purpose could be served in fixing the amount, for the reason that there is no guiding principle to follow, and if for any reason the demand for the year exceeded the maximum fixed by Parliament, there could be no justification for not meeting the demand even by Governor General's warrant.


Frank S. Cahill: Under this measure the department has the privilege of spending all of the moneys of the Dominion of Canada, and as Parliament sits usually 
between the crop seasons, it is surely not too much to expect the department to make an approximate estimate of what they expect to require during the coming season. This provision is for next season's crop, and conditions in the districts that are liable to be benefited under this measure are pretty well known. The department can surely say to-day that it will require $1,000,000 or $10,000,000. If there had been a crop failure last year, the department would require more money. There could be inserted in the Bill a section stating that as Parliament sits between the crop seasons, the estimated amount required should be fixed each year.


Arthur Meighen: I would have very little difficulty in fixing a maximum amount for this year. I do not think the maximum amount required this year will reach $500,-
000.	But the hon. member asks for a maximum applicable for every year.


Frank S. Cahill: No.


Arthur Meighen: That is what anything inserted in the Bill would mean, because the Bill is a continuing authority to the Government. No doubt if the hon. member brings up the question at some time in each session an estimate can then be given of what will be required for that year, but you could not fix that in the Bill, because the Bill would have to be amended every year.


Frank S. Cahill: The amount expended on the Government Railways must be estimated every year, and I do not see any objection to inserting in this Bill a section making it necessary to fix the amount each year, as is done in other appropriations.


Mr. TOBIN:: I am surprised that the Government should pay one per cent for collections. I never knew the banks to charge over one-quarter of one per cent. Has the minister made this agreement as to one per cent with the Bankers' Association?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I should be very much surprised to be criticised on the ground of generosity in this respect. I had the greatest difficulty in making the arrangement at the one per cent maximum, and if the Government of Canada, by this change in its policy in relation to seed grain, gets out with one per cent of the amount in outlay, it will be one of the most radical savings ever effected in any branch of the Administration.


Edmund William Tobin: If the minister would consult with the Minister of Finance, I am sure the Minister of Finance wrnuld tell him the banks would not charge more than one-

quarter of one per cent, and, perhaps, not even one-tenth of one per cent.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member does not realize that this is not an ordinary collection. My idea was to give the banks an inducement to collect this money, instead of establishing an organization in every [DOT]part of the country to collect it ourselves. The banks just get 5 per cent on the money they lend which they do not collect, ana in respect of that money I think it is safe to say that they lose. They could not afford to do business on that basis, and we give them this inducement in order to ensure that the largest possible proportion of the whole outlay is collected by the banks themselves and a saving to the Government effected accordingly. I earnestly hope that it will never be necessary to increase it beyond 1 per cent, and if we succeed in this I shall be very happy.


Edmund William Tobin: I am surprised at my hon. friend's explanation. He says that the banks have a right to charge 5 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Edmund William Tobin: What does the minister say?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say 5 per cent.


Edmund William Tobin: Interest?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. Where they
get 5 per cent on the money they get nothing at all for collecting, because they do not collect. They get 5 per cent when they appeal to the Government to pay on its guarantee. We pay 5 per cent and we have to go and collect it from the farmer. We want that proportion to be as small as possible, and consequently say to the bank, "Wherever you collect we will pay you 1 per cent extra."


Edmund William Tobin: I do not think the hon.
minister has made his case any better, for the banks are not responsible to the Government except as regards the collections they make on which they have the right to retain 1 per cent. I think 1 per cent is more than any ordinary business man in the country pays for any collection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edmund William Tobin: Hon. members dispute this, but I may tell them that in our part of the [DOT]country and in nearly every small town where there 'are branches of the different banks all that business men are ever charged on any collection on drafts or notes is l of 1 per cent, and I think that any business
66}
man in this House will bear me out in this statement.


Jacques Bureau: Who will decide whether-the loan is to be granted-the bank or the minister?


Arthur Meighen: The system is this. The applicant for a loan applies to the agent oi Dominion lands of the district under whose purview is the land on which he wishes the loan, and the agent certifies the application which contains all details as to acreage and the quantities of seed grain to be supplied. When the application is certified he is entitled to go to the bank and get the loan and give the bank security.


Mr. CRONYN:: Has the minister considered limiting the amount of seed grain to be given to each applicant or each quarter-section?


Arthur Meighen: We do that by regulation which we make under the terms of the Bill. The agent will know if a 'man is applying for more seed than he can use, and it will be an offence if he applies any of the seed to any purpose other than that for which it is obtained.
. Mr. TOBIN: In selling grain to the farmer does the Government set the price? What prices are being paid for different kinds of seed grain?


Arthur Meighen: Under this Bill the farmer can get his seed where he likes, but through the Department of Agriculture provision is made for supplying seed to municipalities, which in turn supply to the farmers. The Department of Agriculture collects the seed through an organization which it has, inspects it as regards its germinating qualities, freedom from weeds, etc. and then sells it to the -municipality at cost, plus any expenditure we may have etc., and then sells it to the municipality same, sells to the farmer at cost to itself.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister state' what objection there is to fixing a limit?


Arthur Meighen: I can only repeat the objection I have several times stated. I know of no object to be served, for the reason that where the Government own land on which no one else can lend, not being able to take security, it must lend the money and provide seed, rather than see that land go unseeded. As nobody else can lend upon it, we must do so. If we fix a limit and find it too low we must necessarily exceed the limit; therefore what is the use of fixing any limit?

Mr. D uTREMBLA Y:	I understand the
minister to say that the application for a loan is submitted to the agent who decides whether it should be granted or refused. The Government is responsible for the whole thing through its agent but there is no control over the agent. Does it not seem that the matter is absolutely in the hands of the agent? I should think there ought to be some control over the agents, some of whom are over-zealous while others are not sufficiently so, in dealing with applications, their interest probably depending entirely on the political complexion of the man who makes the application. I think something ought to be added to the clause to provide for some control over the agent, and to provide on broad lines the qualifications that should entitle any one to get his loan from the bank. As it stands too much power is left in the hands of the agent.


Arthur Meighen: The agent of course is necessarily the main intermediary between the department and the farmer, because he is locally informed. He is on the ground as the trusted officer of the department. Within his responsibility every day are delegated duties just as far-reaching and wide as this, carrying with them just as much risk to the department. Any farmer who feels he has not been properly treated can appeal to the inspector or to the Commissioner of Dominion Lands. These appeals are submitted to the deputy and finally to myself.


Edmund William Tobin: Where is his right of appeal in law?
Mr. MiEIGHE'N: That is the right of any free subject of this country. If he is not properly treated by an officer of the department he can appeal to the head of the department. He does not need to have that right specified here because he has it already. Furthermore, there is this restraint: The bank is not going to be over anxious to lend money unless the man needs it and is likely to have a crop which can represent security. The bank will make nothing out of it. If it does not collect it, it 'will lose money on it. There is that further protection to the Government. As a matter of fact, in all the years that have gone by, the very same system has been adopted of getting the grain to the farmer. It was our officers every time that decided it. That has been the case for twenty years-yes, for fifty years. There is no change in that respect. This is simply another method of financing it.
IMr. Meighen.]
Mr. DuTEEMBLAY: Has the Government lost money under this system before? I understand it has.


Arthur Meighen: No, I think there has been no loss on loans on unpatented land. There would be some loans outstanding from the year 1915. But we hold the land for it and I am told that there has been no loss at all in respect of unpatented lands because we hold the title. I promised to give the House further details as to the 1915 outlay. I estimated, on the occasion of the last discussion of the resolution, that of the $12,000,000 which we advanced that year for the relief of seed grain we had collected between $8,000,000 and $8,500,-
000.	The actual figures are these. The total amount actually loaned by way of relief in seed grain was $12,309,607.36, of which $7,560,760 was for seed grain and $4,748,846 was for relief. The committee will remember that that was both in respect of unpatented and patented lands, because that year, owing to the tremendous and widespread hardships, we were compelled to extend our operations and we went into patented lands and we loaned all the money that year that we had to' loan to take care of the seed situation. Of the $12,309,000 there has been collected to date, including interest, $9,095,753.13. That is up to the 28th February last, a month ago. Exclusive of interest, we have collected $8,415,226.83. The balance to be collected is $3,894,380, and of that balance $2,007,998 is for relief and not for seed grain at all. Of the whole $7,500,000 that was advanced for seed grain all has been repaid except $1,386,382. We expect the great body of that to be paid this fall.
On section 5-orders and regulations:


Jacques Bureau: I must confess that I have not had time to study this Bill very much but I read here that:
The Governor ini Council may, from time to time, make such orders and regulations as are considered necessary to give the provisions of this Act full effect.
What are the provisions of the Act? The Act; aside from the interpretation clause, provides that the minister may make an agreement with the bank whereby the bank may advance money to the farmer or entrant, provided, however, that the rate of interest to be paid by the entrant to the hank shall not exceed seven per cent. Then, the minister will have power to guarantee the loan provided the Government do not pay over five per cent. The second clause says that the bank will be allowed

one per cent for collection. There are the provisions of the Bill. We give the minister the right to make an agreement with the bank to advance money and then we give the minister the right to pay one per cent. Clause 5 comes along and gives the minister the right to do what the Government have been doing and what we have been protesting against for the last few years. This means that you shall again rule by Order in Council; that you shall determine how the application shall be made by Order in Council, that you shall determine what the form of the note and security shall be by Order in Council; that you shall determine what guarantee you shall give to the bank by Order in Council. In fact everything is to be determined by Order in Council. Furthermore, we are asked to swallow Order in Council P.C. 2472. I do not know what Order in Council P.C. 2472 is and I do not believe there is a man in this House, even the minister himself, who is able to follow the Orders in Council that have been passed. 1 think that in deference to this House this Order in Council should have been distributed amongst the members so that they would have an opportunity of looking it over. When an Order in Council is mentioned in a Bill notice ought to be given to the clerk so that he could go through the mass of Orders in Council that have been passed and pick out the one that is referred to so that we should have an opportunity of seeing what we were approving. I shall not detain the House any longer than to repeat the protest which I made last session against government by Order in Council. It is the worst kind of camouflage to say that the Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act. What are the provisions of the Act? Outside of the interpretation clause they authorize the payment of one per cent to the bank and they give the minister the right to make an agreement with the bank to borrow money provided the rate of interest does not exceed seven per cent. I would like to know whether or not these regulations and orders are going to be general and whether or not, when the entrant makes application and when he conforms to the general regulations and orders, he shall be entitled to get his money from the bank. The way the Bill reads now not only are regulations and orders to be adopted by the Governor in Council to carry out the provisions of the Act, but special cases which are not provided for by the Act may also
be determined, settled and regulated bv Order in Council. We find that section 5 says that the Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are necessary " to meet any cases which may arise and for which no provision has been made in this Act." For my part, I think you might as well adopt the old and more convenient method of leaving it to the Minister of Interior. It is more agreeable to his temperament and more in conformity with his way of acting with the House. Take an Order in Council, go on and use it and do not come to the House with a Bill, which as a matter of fact is no Bill at all, and say: Gentlemen, we are going to ask your permission to pass a law. There is nothing in the provision of the law that has any reference whatever to the main matter which is the obtaining of the money by the entrant from the bank or which guarantees that every man who is going to apply to the bank for money will be treated fairly and equally. That is what I want put into the law. I have reasons, as other people have, to suspect that all entrants will not be treated in the same way.


Mr. McCREA:: The Bill provides that the party who gets the seed grain shall pay interest not to exceed seven per cent. Banks are also to be allowed one per cent commission on collections, making a total of eight per cent, which the banks are to receive for the charitable assistance that is to be afforded to the farmer. Now a great many people in this country are oi the opinion that banks are the most favoured class of institution in Canada to-day. We hear a lot about the Government stretching out a helping hand to the labouring classes, and the advocacy of shorter hours and more pay for those classes is very- popular. When it comes to dealing with the farmers, it is desired to do everything for the agricultural community, but the Government is not very generous to the farmer when it asks him through the medium of this Bill, to pay. eight per cent for the seed grain which he has got to have. Let me take up a little of the time of the House by explaining what I have in mind. I think it is about time that this Parliament should give some attention to an interest that does not seem to have received much consideration, presumably under the belief that it is making big profits. For the purpose of my argument I will provide the industries of the country into four groups: First, transportation by land and and water; second, the farming industry; third, the manufacturers; and fourth, the
10:44

banking interests. I do not wish to be understood as considering the situation of these groups merely at the present time. Take, if you will, the ten years preceding the war, and the same period after the war. With respect to transportation by land and water, you will find that the people who have invested their money in that industry have not received five per cent on their invested capital, and lots of them have passed their dividends for years-they have not been able to meet those dividends.


The CHAIRMAN:: I regret that I shall have to interrupt the hon. member, and to remind the Committee of paragraph 5, of Rule 13, which declares that speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. I must rule that the hon. memher is not observing that rule.


Francis N. McCrea: I think I am adhering to the question under discussion.


Jacques Bureau: We are discussing regulations having reference to the banks.


Francis N. McCrea: We are discussing a pro-^ion relating to the making of regulations with respect to seed grain, and I want to point out where I think this Government proposes to be over-indulgent to the bankers of the country.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to
my hon. friend that the speech which he is now making might possibly be in order upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but the clauses to which he has referred were adopted by the committee before the hon. gentleman entered the House.


Charles Murphy: May I direct your attention, Sir, to subsection 5 relating to orders and regulations. This deals with payments to any bank.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must adhere to my ruling.


Mr. FIELDING:: There are some words to which the hon. member for Three Rivers has called attention, as to which I think we might well have an explanation. I quite understand it is not uncommon that the Governor in Council shall be empowered to make regulations for the carrying out of an Act, and no doubt this is a case of the kind, but I think the minister has introduced some words into the Bill which are certainly very unusual. It is proposed, not only that the Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations for the carrying out of rwhat is in the Act,

but also for the carrying out of matters that are not specified therein. The words in question are thatthe Governor in Council may, from time to time, make suoh orders and regulations as are considered necessary to give the provisions of this Act full effect

I think that is reasonable. The section
goes on to say, however



or to meet any cases which iraay arise and for which no provision has been made in this Aot.
I think that is a very unusual provision. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman has some object in view, and I am not objecting if he will give us an explanation. I do not think the words in question are usually found in any Act of the kind, and if my hon. friend will explain the reason it may prove to be quite satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree that the only words that are not in every Act of this character are those words to which the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens called attention. I did not draft the Bill myself (the drafting was done by officers of the branch who have to do this work), but I had fully in my mind what was before the draughtsmen when they inserted this particular clause:
The Governor in Council may, from time to
time, make such orders and regulations, as are considered necessary to give the provisions of this Act full effect.
I need only say that the fewer provisions there are, as my hon. friend from Three Rivers says, the more limited the effect. All this provision could do would be to give effect to the terms of the Bill.
The next phrase is:

or to' meet any cases which may arise, and for which no provision has been made in this Act.
The cases, of course, would have to be ejusdem generis, would have to be of the character provided in the Act. I presume what the draughtsmen had in mind was this: The Bill provides only for advances to entrants. That is to say, no man becomes entitled to any benefit under the Bill, or can receive any benefit under it, unless he is an entrant, unless he has a homestead, and his rights in the homestead have not matured into his rights to the land. Now in the working out of our Dominion Lands Act, and in the working out of the Order in Council which preceded the introduction of this Bill, we found a number of difficulties like this, and the variety of them is constantly increasing: Where the man gets a certificate of recom-

mendation for his patent, the rule we adopted first was that that man was not an entrant and could not come to us for any assistance; he had to go to the local authorities, the same as if he had a patent. But we found the local authorities would not deal with them-in many cases they absolutely stood out and would not,-and we were confronted with the situation of leaving that man without seed, or else coming to his rescue.


Charles Murphy: To whom does the hon. gentleman refer when he speaks of " local authorities"?


Arthur Meighen: I mean the provincial authorities who operate through their municipalities. So that we had to modify our policy, and take in certain of those classes, and wjs have provided, wherever that has been clone, that they should send back their certificate of recommendation and leave it in our hands until they had completed payment on their lands. Now it would be just such cases, coming within ejusdem generis, that would be provided for in the provision referred to. I do not consider the clause of vital importance. However, I think the Bill is better with it than without it, and I prefer to have that phrase remain. I know it will do more useful work, and I fear that if it is left , out we will likely be confronted next year by individual cases, or classes of cases, that we cannot meet under the strict reading of the Bill. As to the general criticism that this is providing for legislation by Order in Council, any one who reads paragraphs a, b, c, d and e will see that these are far better left to regulations. We always make the subject- of regulations the forms to be used, the formalities to be gone through, the nature of the security to be taken, and all such other matters. Such things are left to be dealt with by regulation in every Bill that has been passed for the last two decades. Talk about legislation by Order in Council! I have taken the trouble to look up the figures, and it may be news to my hon. friend to 'know that before the War Measures Act was passed at all, before the war even broke out, there were years in which there were more Orders in Council than there have been since.


Jacques Bureau: That must have been a long time ago.


Arthur Meighen: The only way the Government can act is by Order in Council, unless it acts illegally. Of course, the hon. members knows that just as well as I do,
but he is endeavouring to give some circulation to a popular misapprehension which he thinks may bring him some advantage.
Now, as to the only clause around which any legitimate discussion could circulate, that is, the clause to meet any case which may arise, and for which no provision has been made in this Act, I submit to the better judgment of this House that the Bill will likely do its work better with that clause than without it. I do not consider the clause vital to the Bill; it is not so important as that; the words providing that a man shall be entitled to the money if certain rules apply. I do not think that would be good legislation. It is not the law to-day, it is not the law under which hon. gentlemen operated for years. They were never compelled to lend money to anybody for seed grain. Nobody could fi: a set of rules with which a man must comply and then say, " That man shall be entitled to the money whether or no." You could never carry on business in that way, and hon. gentlemen must know it. Ordinarily every homesteader is entitled to seed grain if he has land upon which it can be sown, land capable of growing a crop, unless some particular circumstances arise which would prevent it. I do not know any circumstances arising this year or since I was there, but I know circumstances have arisen when it was not in the public interest to lend.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I understand from the reading of the section that this Order in Council authorized certain advances for seed gTain made in October last. Will the minister explain what advances were authorized by that Order in Council, No. 2,472, and under what circumstances was it necessary to take action on that matter in October?


Francis N. McCrea: Did I get your final ruling, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the clause under discussion? I think I was right in making the remarks I made. However, you are Chairman and I abide by your ruling.


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 5 provides for orders and regulations to give effect to the provisions of the entire Bill but does not refer to the general policy of the Government. The hon. member was proceeding to discuss the treatment by the Government of certain interests in this country which he had divided into four classes, when I called the attention of the committee to Rule 13, par. 5. The chairman has no de-

sire to impose his wishes upon the committee and a violation of the rule having been noted, the hon. member may, if he has the unanimous consent of the committee, continue his remarks.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member is either in order or out of order. If he is out of order we want a ruling; then if we choose to appeal we will appeal.


Georges Henri Boivin: The remarks of the hon. member were not in order.
4 p.m. Mr. BUREAU: Then we appeal against that.


Arthur Meighen: By consent?


Jacques Bureau: No. I think if this committee is going to be run by the rules of Parliament, when a member is out of order he ought to be out of order. We do not want any unanimous consent to break the rules.


Arthur Meighen: Answering the hon.
member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), the Order in Council did not, strictly speaking, authorize advances the way it is referred to. -" Authorize the making of advances for the purchase of seed grain."- If by these words is to be understood the making of advances by the Crown direct, it only authorized the making of advances by the banks, and the way the Order in Council of October 7, 1918, read was as follows:
That for this year-the year 1919-the minister might adopt the method outlined in this Bill,-
briefly put-
-instead of the old method of advancing money on unpatented land for seed grain.
The Order in Council is somewhat lengthy, but when I have stated it in those words I have stated all the Order. I can read it to the House if it is so desired. The reason it was necessary at that time was that we had to make our. arrangements with the banks, and the banks had to get ready to take care of this business. The farmer in the winter gets his seed grain ready for the coming spring. It would have been better for him if we could have done this earlier; he would have known then how much land he should get ready for the coming year and he would have been sure he would be able to get his seed. It would never have done to have waited for the meeting of Parliament, because we would have been too late altogether to overtake our work.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Do I understand the minister to say that , this Order in Council,

No. 2472, is based upon any Act of Parliament? The rule is, of course, that every Order in Council must be based upon some Act, otherwise it has no foundation at all. Was there an Act last year upon which this Order in Council was based? Or was it made without any authority, subject to be ratified by this Act? 1 would like to know from the hon. minister which position that Order in Cbuncil is in.


Arthur Meighen: I am not certain whether under any other authority we could have taken action even without passing an Order in Council at all; it is possible we could have, but at the time I recited the whole of the facts in a recommendation to Council in this way:-	.
The minister further recommends that as there is need for prompt action he he authorized under the provisions of The \V*.i r Measures Act, 1914, to put into effect the plan above described and make arrangements with the chartered banks accordingly, including the giving of the guarantee above set out.-
-which was authorized under the authority of that Act.
Mr. .McKENZIE: Does the minister tell the committee that this Urder in Council, which now requires ratification, was based upon some former enactment of this House?


Arthur Meighen: No, not in respect of
doing it in this way. There was no special previous enactment that would have authorized our doing it by means of guarantee to the banks instead of by cash outlay ourselves. No previous Act contemplated that. We could, however, have advanced money direct, just as we had done in previous years, but we chose this method instead mainly for the purpose of economy, economy that I have not the slightest doubt will be abundantly vindicated by the result.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying whether it was necessary or not, but I think it is advisable that we should keep within the well defined bounds: that the Governor in Council has no authority to pass an Order in Council except it is based upon some statute.


Arthur Meighen: Under the War Measures Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend did not tell me it was' under the WaT Measures Act. Of course, if that is so then it has a proper basis.


Arthur Meighen: I read that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not catch it. In
talking of the Order in Council the1 Minister of the Interior gave us one of those

clever flashes by which he wants to make the House believe that we were always passing Orders in Council, that we were always just as bad in passing Orders in Council as we are now, and he got some of his friends to laugh and say, "What are those Opposition fellows talking about? This was always the way; there is nothing new." That is the opinion the hon. minister flashed on the screen and which his friends were pleased to see, but such is not the case at all.
It is quite true that Orders in Council have been passed every year which had their basis in the statutes, but they were entirely different in their significance from the kind of Order in Council this Government has been passing for the last few years. It is quite true that every contract made by the Government is ratified by Order in Council-even a contract for carrying the mails, say, for a distance of only four miles. All these contracts, it is true, are made by Order in Council, but they have their basis in the estimates and in the statutes which govern the various departments. But the Orders in Council with which we find fault are the substantive enactments, having practically the same force as statutes, and which go very much further than the every-day Order in 'Council which is necessary to the carrying on of departmental business. I want to make it clear to my hon. friend that I quite understand this flash he has just given us, when he suggested that we were always just as bad and that the Government are but carrying out a well established practice.


Arthur Meighen: I should he very sorry, indeed, to put out the light of my honourable friend with a flash or with anything else. I want to assure him again that the Orders in Council that have been passed and that will be passed by the Government in office are, so far as I have any knowledge of them, just as firmly rooted in the authority of Parliament and in the statutes as any Orders in Council passed by any other Government since Confederation. Does my hon. friend -mean to say that any Order in Council passed by this Government did not have its authority primarily in the statutes? If it did not, the Order in Council would have no effect, and the proper method of attacking it would be in the courts of this country. Some have resorted to that, but not with conspicuous success, and I venture to advise the leader of the Opposition, when hereafter he attacks Orders in Council passed by this Government as having no basis in the statutes, to confine himself to the free-and-easy forum of Parliament instead of going to the courts of the land.


Jacques Bureau: .. ith his usual ability, tne minister has slid out of it. Just now he read me a lecture on Orders in Council, and said that more Orders in Council were passed under the old regime than by this Government.


Arthur Meighen: I said before the war.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend's multiplication table cannot be the one I learned at school,in the figures that this Government has not passed more Orders in Council under the War Measures Act than were passed by any other Government. The minister challenges my leader for doubting the legality of some Orders in Council, and he advises him to aHack them in the courts. What a farce! We saw in Calgary what they thought of the courts; they trained their guns on the courts there. It is surely the climax for this Government to talk of respecting the orders of the courts, because experience has shown that the Government only goes to court when it expects to get a favourable interpretation, and that when an unfavourable interpretation is given, the guns are trained on the courts. Coming to the Bill, section 5, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens has pointed out, does not limit the power of the Governor in Council to making regulations only with respect to things mentioned in the Bill; and the minister has not answered that objection. It would surely be better to define more clearly who shall be entitled to make application, and who shall be entitled to receive a loan. Section 2 defines "Entrant" as follows:.
" Entrant " shall mean any person occupying Dominion Lands as an entrant under the Dominion Lands Aot.
If it is desired to advance money to a man who has not got a patent'but whose application for a patent has been recommended, we should include in the definition the words " having a recommendation for a patent." The Bill provides that the men are to deal with the bank, but I see the department is to make regulations by Order in Council with respect to the manner in which applications shall be filed and dealt with. Does my hon. friend mean that he is going to pass regulations directing the agents in certain cases to deal with applications in only one particular way? To whom are the instructions to be issued as to the manner of dealing with these applications? To the agent? As I understand the Bill, the man desiring an advance ap-

plies to the agent, and the agent deals with the application; but the agent's powers are to be restricted by regulations made by Order in Council. Is that right?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Then section 5 provides that "the form and the terms of the note and security to be taken by the bank from any entrant" are to be determined by regulations made by the Governor in Council. Similarly, with respect to "the terms of the guarantee which may be made to any bank hereunder." First, then, the entrant has to go to the agent and, in some cases, win him over before he can win his case. It would be a very easy thing for the agent to fall back on the regulations and say, "I can only deal with your application in a certain way. Although in my opinion your application should be granted, there is an Order in Council providing that in such and such a part of the country and by such and suoh agents the matter shall be dealt with only in such and such a way." If the man conforms with all the requirements, there is still another way in which he can be put off. He may go to the bank, but the term and form of his note may be such that the bank will say, "We do not care about accepting this note, because it is not in our usual line of business." Would it not be better for the Bill to provide that the man who has his patent, has so many acres under cultivation and so much security put up, shall be advanced ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty per cent of the value of the improvements on his land, or shall be advanced an amount depending on the security he offers. Every man would know then where he stood; every one would know his rights, and the security would be better.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
misapprehends the Act altogether. The security the man puts up is the security of the crop to be grown with the seed; he does not put up any other security. We take that as a lien against the loan, but it bears no relation to the value of the land; the only security that does bear relation is the crop itself, which necessarily bears a relation to the seed advanced. Now, if thjjS power on the part of the Crown to grant or refuse loans was an inherent evil, the evil has been in existence for over twenty years past.


Jacques Bureau: That does not make it any better.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it has always been done, and in my humble judg-IMr. Bureau. J
ment it is the best way. I do not know any rules that could be laid down entitling a man absolutely to a loan, which would be an improvement on the present system; because there might be cases outside those rules just as there might be cases outside the strict wording of the Act. We want to provide for all cases. If there be complaint that the Government have not advanced money to homesteaders this year or last year or any year back to 1915, I have never heard of it. We always do unless there is some special reason for not doing so, and since 1 have been Minister of the Interior I do not know of any such special reason ever cropping up.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that the advance is made on the crop. A certain value must be put on the crop, in order to make the advance.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Jacques Bureau: What is the advance made on? Is it a haphazard matter? If a farmer has twenty acres of ground which be is going to put under cultivation, will he get as much as a farmer who is going to put one hundred acres under cultivation?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Jacques Bureau: Then there must be some basis on which to estimate the value of the expected crop. Why not say: If there is a certain acreage-if that is the basis the department decides to go on-the farmer shall be entitled to get so much per cent? The matter should not be left in the hands of agents of the department or to action by Order in Council.


Mr. MAHARG:: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is not a farmer.


Jacques Bureau: I am sorry I am not.


John Archibald Maharg: If you were to lay down the rule that you would give a certain percentage for a certain number of acres, then by reason of climatic conditions and so on one man might have to sow two bushels to the acre whereas another man might have to sow only a bushel and a half or a bushel. How would the hon. member regulate that?


Jacques Bureau: I would regulate that on the crop of the year before. If climatic conditions exist, they must have existed the year before. If a man got thirty bushels an acre last year, the chances are that he will get thirty bushels this year.


John Archibald Maharg: Thousands of farmers
may not have a bushel an acre this year.


Mr. McMASTER:: The last line of clause (d) reads:
Notes and security to the Crown.
Should this not read "notes and securities."


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-penalty for misrepresentation, fraud, etc.
John Archibald Maharg: Has the minister fully considered the drastic nature of this section? I have no objection to the first two lines which read:
Any person who is guilty of misrepresentation or fraud in securing an advance under this Act	shall be liable to-
-whatever the minister may wish to insert there. But the rest of the section is entirely too drastic, as the conditions are such that it is absolutely impossible for a farmer to live up to it. He may find himself, through a number of circumstances, violating this section.


Arthur Meighen: It is quite conceivable that a man who had really committed no offence might be liable to prosecution under this section. That is to say, although he had committed an offence against this measure, he might have done only what circumstances compelled him to do. That could be taken care of by a proviso that no prosecutions should be entered except with the consent of the minister. I do not know of any other way of taking care of it. Under the distribution of 1915 we encountered a large number of cases in the absolute, but a relatively small number where men, having got the grain which cost the Government several hundreds of dollars, and having given liens for it, immediately sold it to somebody else, never sowing it at all. Their own land remained unseeded and all the Government had were liens on land which the farmers claimed was not fit to sow. Some proportion of our loss will be by reason of frauds, or what should have been considered as frauds, committed by borrowers in that way. We want to hold before these people the necessity of carrying out to the utmost of their power the intent of Parliament in advancing this money, and not to enable them to defeat that intent by negligence in sowing the grain or by fraud in selling the grain or in any ether way. I do not think the fine is too high because it says "not exceeding $1,000," and twelve calendar months is not too long. I do not think in
practice a prosecution is ever entered except at the instance of the Department ot the Interior which advances the money, so that no man is in any real peril. But of course, the way the section reads now, prosecution might be entered by an individual. Where, however, it was shown, even on such a prosecution, that the man had done the best within his power, we ought to presume that no magistrate would enforce a penalty upon him.


John Archibald Maharg: I think there is no alternative. If a man is guilty, the magistrate must impose a penalty.


Arthur Meighen: No. He may find the man guilty and let him off on suspended sentence, or he may fine him a dollar.


John Archibald Maharg: In either case people who do not understand the circumstances may conclude that the man is guilty of fraud, and that would be doing an injustice to him. The section says:
Having secured such advance fail to apply it to the purchase of seed grain.
A man might be figuring on buying his seed grain at $2.50 a bushel and might get it for 10, 15 or 25 cents less. What is he going to do with the rest of the money?


An hon. MEMBER:: Return it.


John Archibald Maharg: There is no provision for that.
Or who disposes of the seed grain purchased with any such advance or who makes use of any portion of the same other than for seeding purposes on the land -in respect of which his application is made.
He may intend sowing one and one-half bushels to the acre, and he may have fifteen, twenty or twenty-five bushels left over with which he cannot do anything except let it go to waste. I have been a farmer myself for a number of years and I have never been able to figure up just how many bushels of seed grain I might require. Some provision should be inserted, or else the section should be confined to the first two lines and the penalty. Surely "guilty of misrepresentation or fraud" should be sufficient.


Arthur Meighen: That would mean misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the advance. The great difficulty* is not in fraud in obtaining the advance but in fraud after the advance has been made. In practice the farmer does not get the money; he gets the grain. Forms are supplied to the banks giving orders on whoever the farmer wants to buy the grain

from, and then we take receipts from those parties so that he actually gets the grain, therefore the case to which the hon. gentleman refers, where a farmer might, after getting the money, decide not to buy, would not arise.
The hon. member's point is well taken, I think, and it might be met by inserting, after the word "advance," the words "through his own default."


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am also of opinion that the point is well taken, but I would suggest that the clause might read as follows :
Any person who is guilty of misrepresentation or fraud in securing an advance, or in the use of the grain secured under this Act, shall be subject	
Then, to constitute an offence there would need to be some tortuous condition existing in connection with the use of the grain.
I am not a farmer but I have often lived in the country, and would very much regret to see a man fined a thousand dollars because, having some of this grain left over, he fed it to his chickens. But that would be the position in which he would find himself.


Mr. ROBB:: I remember there were
frauds in connection with the sale of seed grain in previous years, and it is probably as well that the minister should in this matter provide against a repetition of them.
I see no serious objection to the amount of the fine imposed, but it seems to me that in recent months the Department of Justice has been unnecessarily imposing long terms of imprisonment on citizens. A man should not be liable to twelve months' imprisonment for an offence of this kind, and I think it would be advisable to' amend this clause so far as this feature is concerned. Fifteen or thirty days would amply meet the ends of justice in this matter.


Arthur Meighen: Referring first to the [DOT] point raised by the hon. member for Brome, I think it is necessary to define what will constitute fraud after the grain is received, for if his wording were accepted it might not cover fraud at all. If a man slept in his bed all day and never tried to pttt the seed in it would not be fraud, but I purpose to make it that man's duty to use the seed for the purpose intended and for none other. As to the point which the hon. member for Huntingdon raised, I think he is under a misapprehension in stating that the Department of

Justice has got into the habit of imposing long terms of imprisonment.


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: The department has no power to impose sentences. It has never had that power and does not intend to arrogate it. The Department of Justice is not a court, and the imposition of sentences is a prerogative of the legal courts of the country. As to whether or not twelve months is too long a term, I may say that it has always been the rule to make the term of imprisonment commensurate with the fine, and if I have judged correctly from the examples, the rule has been that the maximum term of imprisonment should he such as the ordinary man would be able to pay if he desired to escape the alternative length of imprisonment. That rule seems to have been observed in this and every Parliament in fixing the relationship between the maximum imprisonment and the maximum fine.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. minister takes exception that the Department of Justice has been imposing heavy penalties. The department fixed these fines in many cases by Order in Council and the minister is now attempting to create a law that will enable a magistrate to imprison men for twelve months.


Arthur Meighen: This is not an Order
in Council; it is a statute, and if it passes, the Department of Justice will not be concerned in the imposition of fines and imprisonment, but the courts before whom cases may be tried.
Mr. 'SINCLAIR (Guysborough): The minister is drawing a distinction between the Department of Justice and the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council has made numerous regulations, non-observance of which is punishable with fine or imprisonment. Under the War Measures Act such regulations have been made by the score, and the particular one U am thinking of just now is that by which it was made a crime to strike at a certain period. The minister may say that the Department of Justice is not altogether responsible for what the Government has done, but I do not think he will say that regulations have not been made by the Government imposing fine and imprisonment.


Arthur Meighen: I was drawing a distinction between the Department of Justice and the courts. It is they who impose fines and never the Department of Justice. It is true that whenever Parliament authorizes them to do so, the Gover-

nor in Council may define offences and create penalties which the courts may act upon. That is one thing, and it is quite another to say that the Government imposes certain penalties on offenders.


Mr. WHITE (Alberta):: I would point
out certain difficulties that might arise in connection with this matter. Suppose a man buys a certain quantity of wheat, which is usually sown not later than the first week in May, and owing to some unforeseen climatic condition he had this wheat unused. Perhaps he owns a piece of land that is covered with water and is unable to use the wheat, and the only way in which he could obviate a loss would be to sell it. If he did so under this section he might be punished for an improper use of the seed, and I think there ought to be some provision by which he should escape prosecution by establishing his inability to use the grain. I have no doubt that if a case such as this came before a magistrate the defendant would not be severely penal-ied, but the difficulty might well arise


Arthur Meighen: I would offer an amendment to meet the point raised by my hon. friend, that after the word " fails " in the third line of clause 6, there be inserted the words " through his own default."


Mr. ARGUE:: I may say that last year
in seeding I purchased the necessary amount wheat, and after I had completed seeding I had an excess of 20 bushels that I could not dispose of. In a similar case a man could not return the wheat to the Government and if he were not allowed to sell it, what could he do?


Arthur Meighen: Under this amendment he would not be liable.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: In such a case as that mentioned by the hon. member a man might easily over estimate the amount of seed he would require and the question might possibly arise whether his non-use of the twenty bushels was due to his own fault, or not. It might be advisable, therefore, to have a definition of the exact significance of the words " through his own default."


Arthur Meighen: In applying it, he exercises his best judgment. Having done that, he is not liable, if you insert the words " through his own default."
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Under the law, good judgment or good faith do not count. *


Arthur Meighen: It must be his fault if he fails to apply it. It is in not applying
it that the fault lies. The amendment meets the case. I think we are discussing an academic question. I cannot conceive of any person being prosecuted unless there has been some turpitude, because the prosecution must proceed from the department defrauded, namely, the Department of the Interior. There is going to be no prosecution unless there is evidence of fraud.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no great dread of a man being tried before a trained judge, and especially in a case where the discretion of the court can be used, because then you have a trained jurist who understands what the discretion is and how it must be exercised. But I have the greatest possible dread of putting a law of this kind into the hands of a magistrate who is not a trained jurist, who has no knowledge of the law and who does not understand how to exercise this discretion. The ordinary magistrate will readily understand that the law means that he must send this man to jail for a year and that he must fine him $1,000. He will not understand that he has a discretion of from $1 to $1,000. I would like the minister to be very careful. We had a case from the West that was spoken of in the House a short time ago, where the magistrate imposed five years' imprisonment on a man and a fine of $5,000. One of the judges fortunately was able to quash the conviction. That was a case where magistrates undertook to try a case without any proper knowledge and passed an absurd judgment. In this case the minister is giving jurisdiction in a part of the country where there are evidently not very well trained magistrates. They have no opportunity of being trained, and he is asking one of them to try any of those poor farmers, with jurisdiction to send him to jail for a year and to impose a fine of $1,000. In the first place, I would think it rather absurd to expect that a man who has to approach this Government for the purpose of getting money to buy seed grain would be able to pay a fine of $1,000. He has not got the $1,000. He is obliged to come to us for the money to buy seed. It looks rather unkind to pass a law saying that if he uses a plateful of that seed he may be fined $1,000. I think that is the most absurd proposition. If the minister is going to leave this provision here he should name his court. Nobody less than a County Court judge should try these cases, and I would further say, as this is such an extraordinary sort of a thing, that no proceeding should be commenced except upon leave of the attorney general

of the province. Safeguards should be thrown around the prosecution of some poor man who might innocently use a handful of this seed for something else. There is no limit; a handful is just as bad as twenty bushels. If you are going to send him to court, we should have the assurance in the first place that it would be a competent court and in the second place that no person for spite could bring a prosecution against his neighbour except upon leave of the attorney general of the province so that there will be certain safeguards thrown around these cases.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is afraid that if a case of this kind come before magistrates they will not understand that the words "not exceeding $1,000" permit them to fine less than $1,000 or that the words "not exceeding twelve calendar months," permit them to impose a penalty of less than twelve months. I do not think we have any magistrates of that kind in our western provinces and this only applies where there are unpatented lands. They all understand that the maximum penalty means the maximum penalty. It is true that they sometimes go wrong but they would not be likely to violate the A B C of the Act in that way. The very case which the hon. gentleman refers to, in Saskatoon, instead of showing that they did not understand the law, showed that they did in that respect at least because the punishment although high, was not the maximum at all. However, as to whether these cases should go before judges or not, I really think it is better to have them disposed of summarily. If they are disposed of summarily before a magistrate, there is the same right of appeal if there is any doubt about the conviction as in other cases of summary trial. They can go before a county judge by the simplest possible procedure, so that that safeguard rests in the Act as it stands now. It would mean very considerable expense if a man were required to go before a court higher than that of a magistrate's court; whereas if he goes before a magistrate and then applies for a right of appeal, the same law applies as in almost innumerable other cases of a like kind. It might be well, in view of the fact that this might be open to abuse on the part of perhaps a spiteful neighbour to guard against that. Under any wording of the law that you can conceive of a man might possibly find a fictitious offence on the part of somebody against whom he had a spite. In order to enable any person to begin a prosecution, it might be well to make a proviso

that no prosecution should be entered except on the authoriy of either the Minister of the Interior or the Attorney General of Canada. It would not be a good principle to place it in the hands of the Attorney General of the province because the facts are known here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All criminal prosecutions are under the control of the province.


Arthur Meighen: Not prosecutions for offences created by Acts other than the Criminal Code. In case of the violation of the Lord's Day Act prosecution has to be authorized by the Attorney General of the province but it is tha only case that I know of. Prosecutions for violation of the Military Service Act require the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Why- because it is Canada that is interested. It is Canadian money that is being advanced.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is immaterial to me. The Minister of Justice is perfectly satisfactory to me.


Arthur Meighen: It would really work better with the consent of the Minister of the Interior because he is the minister, if anybody, who will prosecute. Nobody else should prosecute


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My objection to that would be that a man is in his own household, so to speak. It is the Department of the Interior that is interested. I want to get to an independent source. The Department of the Interior is concerned. I would like to see an appeal to the Department of Justice.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection at all to an amendment and I would suggest this: Provided that no prosecution under this section shall be entered except upon the written consent of the Minister of Justice.


James Alexander Robb: Does the minister still insist upon imprisonment?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. '


James Alexander Robb: I suppose the minister is making provision largely for new settlers coming in. They would not have more than 160 acres, or a quarter-section each. Under ordinary conditions the settler will not pay more than $500 for All the seed he will buy. It may be said there is a probability that the man will sell at half price, but there is no incentive for him to do so. Why give authority to impose such a heavy fine, and to imprison the man for a year? It is the Minister of the Interior who is

asking for this authority, and the hon. gentleman cannot get away from that.


Arthur Meighen: That is quite correct.
The man might only get $500 in respect of his homestead, but there are many thousands of cases now of men who have pre-emptions as well, so that without any difficulty he could get a thousand dollars worth of value from the Crown and then immediately sell it and attempt to escape from the country. The hon. gentleman suggests that a maximum fine of $1,000 is too much. In such a case as referred to the man would be taking no chances at all; even at the maximum he would be ahead the whole amount of the fine. The twelve months' imprisonment bears the proper relationship, I think, to that maximum fine. Really I am rather surprised that it should be objected to, because if the maximum is made too small the dread of it is that much less.


John Archibald Maharg: Ordinarily I would not
object to the imprisonment penalty because it is applied where usually there is fraud being perpetrated. As to the fine, offenders are usually in a position to pay it. In this case, however, the circumstances are exactly reversed. No man who applies for seed grain is going to expose himself to the imposition of a $1,000 fine. If the minister will undertake that no prosecution shall be entered except at the instance of his own department, or the Department of Justice, and eliminate the fine, I shall cease my objection.


Arthur Meighen: If the man could not
pay the fine, and you eliminate the imprisonment, that does away with the punishment altogether. Really I do not know what hon. gentlemen are after. It may be that in the great majority of cases where fines are liable to be imposed, the man presumably could not pay. But if he could not presumably pay he very often does pay if there is the alternative of a considerable term of imprisonment. He gets the money somehow, he gets it from his friends, or in some way or other, so that fines are always there as an alternative. The same rules apply as to any other prosecution by statute; this is not in any class by itself at all. The man who steals presumably has not the money himself; although in many cases he has. In many cases men will borrow money on seed grain loans when they have means of their own. They have had in many cases, and they will again, so that we have no right to suppose they will not have the money. And even if we have the right to suppose they would not
have the money, that would not be an argument for eliminating imprisonment, it would be an argument for retaining it.


John Archibald Maharg: My complaint is that you have not altered the clause at all. It still reads that a man may be liable to fine and imprisonment without having intentionally committed any wrong whatever.


Arthur Meighen: I have inserted the words " through his own default," and I have also added to the provision that there shall not be a prosecution except with the consent of the Minister of Justice, who, of course, would never give that consent except on the application of the Minister of the Interior.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the minister will see that the cause of justice will be just as well subserved if he cuts the term of imprisonment and the fine in half. These violently savage provisions do not tend to the good administration of justice. Let the punishment fit the crime. If a man makes away with some of this seed grain he will only do it nine times out of ten because he was driven to do so by hardship or necessity. If he does it he should be punished, but it does not redound to the credit of this country to have these savage enactments on the statutes. I must ask the minister to cut his fine and his imprisonment in half. He will find his law just as well applied, just as well carried out, everybody will be happier about it, and it will tend to bring more people into the Northwest, and I am sure the hon. gentleman himself thoroughly desires an increase in the population and prosperity of that country.


Jacques Bureau: That's a great appeal.


Arthur Meighen: This provision will not affect immigration at all, because homesteads and pre-emptions are pretty well out of the way for some time to come.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is the atmosphere which is created.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman refers to this as savage. Surely the adjective is ill-chosen.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, very well chosen.


Arthur Meighen: Can the hon. gentleman point me to an enactment on the statutes of Canada where the penalty is less than the amount the offender could gain by the offence? He cannot do it. The hon. gentleman says that in nine cases out of ten it will be because the fellow is hard-up and driven to it by necessity. Very

well, assume that the hon. gentleman is right, although I do not think the facts are with him, what about the other one-tenth, is there to be no punishment for them? The maximum invariably applies to the other one-tenth, or less. What about the fellow who takes this means of getting out of the country with a small fortune?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It would be a very small fortune.


Arthur Meighen: Is that man to escape, because some other fellow is less guilty?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
1910, AMENDMENT.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White Bill No. 25 to amend The Currency Act, 1910, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-New bronze cent:
Jacques Bureau: In what respect does this Bill differ from the old Act?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend was absent when the resolution, on which this Bill is founded, was under consideration. I then gave a full explanation with respect to its provisions, but I am quite ready to repeat that information now.


Jacques Bureau: Never mind, I will look up the record.


William Thomas White: I may say that eighty of the present one cent pieces make an avoirdupois pound. Of the new pieces one hundred* and forty will make an avoirdupois pound.
The weight of the present piece, the large bronze cent, is 87J grains, and it is proposed to make the weight of the new piece 50 grains. It will he slightly larger than the American one-cent piece and thicker than our ten cent piece so as to be readily distinguishable by touch.


Jacques Bureau: It is smaller than the cent we have?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of External Affairs-Salaries, including Deputy Minister at $6,000, $50,075.00. Contingencies, $15,500.00.
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Chairman, this item of the Estimates would appear to afford a suitable opportunity for a brief statement to the House in reference to the work last year of the Imperial War Cabinet and the Imperial War Conference. Some members of the House have made inquiries as to what took place at the meetings of these bodies last year, and it is only fitting that the House should be placed in possession of the information which the Government has and which it is at libetry to communicate to the House.
Shortly after the House opened I placed on the Table the report of the Imperial War Conference as published for distribution. The meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet and the Imperial War Conference in 1918 were summoned by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in order that matters relating to the prosecution of the war and problems of reconstruction that affected all the Dominions of the Empire as well as Great Britain should be taken into consideration in common council in London. The two bodies exercised different functions. The Imperial War Cabinet dealt with all matters relating to the war and the terms of peace. The Imperial War Conference dealt with problems that might be described as those of reconstruction, and matters of common Imperial concern that were not related to the war or to the terms of peace. That was the broad, general division of work between the
5 p.m. two bodies. They met on alternate days and there were committees of both bodies in session more or less constantly all the time during the whole period that both bodies were meeting. The Imperial War Conference of 1918 was unique in this respect, that it was the first occasion on which India was represented as of right. The hon. members of the House will remember that by the Constitution of the Imperial War Conference, as laid down at the Conference in 1907, it was composed of the representatives of the Mother Country and of the self-governing dominion-3; India was not entitled under the Constitution then laid down to be represented at the

Conference. As the change is a very important one, may I draw the attention of the House to the Constitution of the Conference as laid down in 1907 and point out the change which has been made.
The resolution adopted at the Conference in 1907 reads:
That it will be to .the advantage of the Empire if a conference, to 'he called the Imperial Conference, is held every four years, it which questions of common interest may be discussed and considered as between His Majesty's Government and His Governments of the Self-Governing Dominions beyond the selas. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be exofficio President, and the Prime Ministers of the Self-Governing Dominions ex-officio members of the Conference. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will be an ex-officio member of the Conference and will take the chair in the absence of the President. He will arrange for such Imperial Conferences after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective Dominions.
Then provision is made for a permanent secretariat, and also for the calling of the Conference from time to time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I interject a question? Was what the hon. minister calls " the constitution " prepared by the Conference itself or by the British Government?
Mr' ROWELL: It was prepared by the Conference itself and adopted by the Conference after protracted discussion. If my hon. friend will turn to the minutes of the Imperial Conference of 1911 he will see a most interesting discussion which preceded the unanimous adoption of this resolution. As originally submitted it differed in some material respects from the form which it finally took when it was unanimously accepted by the Conference.
This resolution provided that the Conference was to meet every four years. Normally the meeting of the Conference would have been in the year 1915, but owing to war conditions the Conference was not then called. In the year 1915 the Government of, India, acting through the Imperial Legislative Council, passed this resolution:
This council recommends to the Governor General in Council that a representation be sent through the Right Honourable the Secretary of Sflate to His Majesty's Government urging that India Should, In future, be officially represented in the Imperial Conference.
That resolution was accepted on behalf of the Government by Lord Hardinge, and was approved by the Council without a division. It was subsequently approved by the Government of the United Kingdom, and at the meeting of the Imperial War 67
Conference which was summoned to meet in 1917 representatives from India were present by courtesy, and this resolution was unanimously adopted:
That the Imperial War Conference desires to place .on record its view that the resolution of the Imperial Conference of the 20th of April, 1907-
That is the resolution, the important part of which I have just read.
-should be modified to permit of India being fully represented at all future Imperial Conferences, and that the necessary steps should be taken to secure the assent of the various governments in order that the next Imperial Conference may be summoned and constituted accordingly.
That resolution was unanimously adopted by the Imperial War Conference of 1917, and its substance was communicated to the Governments of all the self-governing dominions. They approved of the resolution, and the amendment to the constitution thereupon went into effect. When the Imperial Conference of 1918 was called India was summoned as one of the constituent members of the conference, and her representative appeared there for the first time, speaking for India's three hundred millions of people.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are represented by our Prime Minister; is there anybody who by virtue of his office is the representative of India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: India was represented at this conference by the Secretary of State for India, Hon. Mr. Montagu, who was there in his official capacity, and by two other representatives named by the Government of India. One was the Maharaja of Patiala and the other was a distinguished member of the Legislative Council of India, Sir S. P. Sinha, who has since,' as Lord Sinha, with a seat in the House of Lords, become Under-Secretary for India- the first native Indian to be a member of the British Government.
I was about to remark that Australia was not represented at the conference of 1917, but she was represented at the conference of 1918. So the conference of 1918 was unique and historic in this respect: That for the first time in the history of the Empire all its self-governing dominions were represented by the Prime Ministers of those dominions with some of their colleagues, India, which is gradually becoming selfgoverning, was represented by her own representatives as well as by the Under-Secretary for India, and the other outlying portions of the Empire were represented by the



Secretary of State for the Colonies. So there were assembled in that conference the representatives of over four hundred millions people-practically one-fourth of the whole human race.
The conference was unique in this further respect, namely, the time at which it was held. It was held at the darkest period of the history of the war since the first battle of the Marne. The months of April, iMay and June of the past year were among the most critical and difficult months in the whole war, and it was interesting and significant that at that very time, when the outlook was daTk and in many respects discouraging, representatives of all portions of the Empire, including India, should gather together as indicating the firm resolve of the British Empire in all its component parts to stand together to see the war through to a victorious conclusion, no matter how difficult the course might be, nor how dark the present horizon.
The Conference was also unique in this respect: that notwithstanding all Germany's efforts to drive the British ships from the high seas by submarine warfare, His Majesty's navy had so successfully controlled that menace that representatives from every continent of the world- Asia, Africa, Europe, America and Australasia-were able to travel in safety to London, there to meet in common counsel to formulate plans to defeat and overthrow the power that was committing this inhuman piracy upon the high seas. The whole situation-the composition of the Conference, the conditions under, which it met, and the mastery of the seas which was indicated by the fact that the representatives of the whole British Empire were able to meet, led Mr. Balfour, who was speaking at the opening of the Conference to suggest that it was one of the most significant gatherings in all recorded history. He pointed out, as has so frequently been pointed out in this House and elsewhere, how completely the Germans misunderstood the spirit of the people who composed the British Empire when they thought that Empire would fall to pieces when the pressure came in the stress of a great war.


Frank S. Cahill: What colonies are represented at this Conference?


Mr.   HOWELL@: There are no colonies
represented directly at the (Conference. The self-governing dominions, India, and the Mother Country, are represented. The other colonial possessions are not represented, except so far as they are represented by the Colonial secretary. He is a member of the 
Conference under the Constitution of the Conference, which expressly provides that the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary of Great Britain shall be members of the Conference. The Conference was therefore primarily a gathering of the selfgoverning Dominions of the Empire.
Now, the House will be interested in knowing what subjects were taken up and discussed a.t this Imperial Conference. I shall draw the attention of the House to some of the more important questions, and those members of the House who are interested in pursuing the matter further will find the questions discussed in the report of the Conference which has been laid on the Table.
One of the most important questions related to the naturalization law. The members of the House wiil'l recall that at the Imperial Conference of 1911 the Conference unanimously agreed that thereafter there should be created what was described, as an Imperial citizenship; that is, a citizenship which would be valid throughout the whole Empire. Prior to the conference of 1911 and. indeed, at the very time that conference was meeting, our naturalization was limited to our own territory.
In other words, a man naturalized in Canada became a British subject as long as he was within the Dominion of Canada. If he returned to his own country and had not previously been de-naturalized there by some act of his own, he became a citizen of his own country again. Nor was he a British citizen if he went to Great Britain or any other portion of the British Empire. As I pointed out, the conference of 1911 decided in favour of Imperial nationality and recommended that an Act be brought in, which might be adopted by all of the self-governing dominions, and which would confer what was described as Imperial nationality. That Act was adopted by the Imperial House of Commons in 1914.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: We adopted it, too.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1914. It was also adopted by Newfoundland. It was not adopted by South Africa, Australia or New Zealand, the principal reason being that before they had taken action the war broke out and the matter stood over, as they intimated, pending the end of the war. Owing to war conditions, however, the British Government came to the conclusion that some important changes should be made in this law, and in 1917 they sent to the Governments of the dominions a communication suggesting certain amend-

ments. These were considered, and an Act based upon them was passed by the Imperial House of Commons last year, making some important changes in the law, perhaps the most important change being the enlarged provisions for cancelling certificates of naturalization upon the conditions outlined in the Act. It is not necessary for me to trouble the House with those details, because they will come up for consideration when the Government Bill dealing with naturalization is brought in, as no doubt a Bill will be brought in embodying at least some of the provisions of the new Imperial Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will the principal features of that Act be?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The principal features of the British Act are greatly enlarged powers for cause to cancel certificates of naturalization. I could give my hon. friend the provisions, but I presume he does not desire me to stop to do that now. Then there is a provision in that portion of the British Act that applies to the British Isles only, (not the general portion that may be adopted by the whole Empire), that no alien enemy can be naturalized for a period of ten years.
At the Imperial Conference, 1918, this resolution No. 20, was passed:
The Conference refers to resolution 10 passed by the Imperial War Conference, 1917, recognizing the desirability and importance of securing uniformity of policy and action throughout the Empire with regard to naturalization, and recommends that a special Conference, representative of all parts of the Empire, should be held at the earliest practicable date to examine and report in the light of that resolution upon any question connected with nationality or naturalization which any government represented at the special Conference may desire to raise, and upon any suggestions which may be made for the amendment of the existing law.
This contemplates a future conference dealing with matters that are not dealt with in the present British law. I can suggest two or three of the subjects that are under consideration but upon which no final conclusions have been reached. One is the question of the status of the married woman who is married to an alien-shall she, if she marries an alien, be entitled to retain her British nationality? Another is the question of dual nationality. As hon. members are no doubt aware, in some countries a man does not lose his citizenship in the country of his birth by becoming a citizen of another. In Germany they have, in the Delbruck law of 1913, a provision whereby a German citizen desiring naturalization in the country in which he was living could
674	'
get the consent of the Imperial German Government to retain his citizenship in his own country, and also become a citizen of another country. This question of dual nationality relates not only to Germans but to all Russian citizens. Under the Russian law a man did not lose his Russian citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country unless he had a special ukase from the Czar, and the dual nationality applied. He might become a British citizen under the law and he might be a British subject here, and still be a Russian citizen at home. There is a third question which I cannot at the moment recall, which this special conference was to be called upon to consider. Resolution 19 on naturalization is to this effect:
This Conference is of opinion that legislation should be passed throughout the Empire restricting, for a period after the war, so far as in the circumstances of each country may be possible, the naturalization of citizens of present enemy countries, and also the acquisition by them of any form of political rights or of land or mining privileges. '
The position of the Government of Canada and of the Government of South Africa was that that was a detail in the administration of the naturalization law with which the Parliament of each Dominion could deal, and that it was not a proper subject for consideration at the Imperial Conference. And, Canada and South Africa pressed that that resolution should be withdrawn. Australia and New Zealand, however, who were sponsors of the resolution, were not prepared to withdraw. Canada refrained from voting on it, taking the ground that it was not a proper subject for consideration, and South Africa voted against it.
Two other important resolutions came up, one particularly important one, relating to immigration. Resolution No. 13 of the Conference is to this effect:
The Imperial War Conference reaffirms the principle laid down by Resolution 21 of the 1917 Conference, in favour of arrangements being made by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag. It is of opinion that the representatives of the Oversea Dominions in: the United Kingdom should keep in the closest touch with any new body established by His Majesty's Government to supervise emigration from the United Kingdom. The Conference is of opinion that the appointment of a consultative committee, not to exceed ten members, on which representatives of the Oversea Dominions should sit, to advise any such body, would afford the best means of co-operation.
The proposal that came before the Conference was for a central immigration au-
104S

thority on which the Dominions should be represented which would control immigration. I think the views of all the Dominion were against it. They felt that any British authority should be set up by the British Government itself, and that while the Dominions would consult with them in respect to the policy adopted, the British Government must alone be responsible in connection with that authority. The principle, however, of direct immigration to the self-governing Dominions was one in which the conference heartily concurred. And, although I take it for the time being that the first task is to absorb our own returned soldiers and to secure employment for any who may, through the dislocation of industry caused by the cessation of the war, be thrown out of employment, as soon as we are in a position to receive immigration I have no doubt we may expect a substantial influx from the Old Country, particularly of soldiers who fought in the war.


Mr. VIEN:: Do I understand that this or any other organization under the control of the British Government will direct and shape our immigration policy?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They have absolutely
nothing to do with our immigration policy but are merely concerned with directing British immigrants to the self-governing dominions, and with that policy we are in hearty accord.
Perhaps the most important question concerning immigration was that relating to India, which aspect of the situation I shall explain to the House. Hon. members will recognize the fact that the question of Indian immigration to the different dominions of the Empire has created considerable feeling and controversy for many years. It is a subject on which the people of India have felt very deeply, and upon which the peoples of the self-governing dominions have had no less strong and decided convictions. The position of the representatives of India was that that country being a portion of the Empire, her citizens should not be placed in a less advantageous position than other Asiatic peoples. They took the view that as they were citizens of the Empire fighting in the war for the British cause they should not be discriminated against or placed in a less advantageous position than the people of China or Japan] That contention, one must frankly concede, was strong and meritorious from their standpoint. The conference of 1917 agreed upon a principle of reciprocity, agreeing that the citizens of any dominion should 
not ask greater privileges as regards visiting or settling in India than they were prepared to concede to the people of India, settling or visiting in the dominions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It meant exclusion.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It meant something to them as a matter of sentiment. It meant that they were not disposed to grant to any of the dominions the privileges which would not f>e accorded them in return. As might be expected, at the	conference of 1918, at which the Indian representatives attended' for the first time as a matter of right, the great question in their minds, and	the one
which they strongly urged upon the attention of the conference, was the position of East Indians in the self-governing dom-, inions and the matter of Indian immigration in the future. The whole subject received the most careful consideration of the conference, the discussions extending over a considerable period; and the following resolution which was unanimously agreed upon was accepted by 'India and the dominions as being a practicable policy, giving effect to the principle of reciprocity which had been adopted at the conference of il917. This resolution. No. 21, is :
The Imperial War Conference is of opinion that effect should now be given to the principle of reciprocity approved toy Resolution XXII., of the Imperial War Conference, 1917. In pursuance of that resolution it is agreed that:-
I would ask my hon. friends to note particularly clause No. 1 as it has a very important bearing upon our relations with India.
1.	It is an inherent function of the Governments of the several communities of the British Commonwealth, including India, that each should enjoy complete control of the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration from any of the other communities:
2.	British citizens domiciled in any British country, including India, should be admitted into any other British country for visits, for the purpose of pleasure or commerce, including temporary residence for the purpose of education. The conditions of such visits should be regulated on the principle of reciprocity as follows :-
(a)	The right of the Government of India is recognized to enact laws which shall have the effect of subjecting British citizens domiciled in any other British country to the same conditions in visiting Indi-a as those imposed on Indians desiring to visit such country.
(b)	Such right of visit or temporary residence shall, in each individual case, be embodied in a passport or written permit issued by the country of domicile and subject to vifi there by an officer appointed by, and acting on behalf of, the country to be visited, if such country so desires.

(c)	Such right shall not extend to a .visit or temporary residence for labour purposes or to permanent settlement.
There is a frank recognition that so far as labour is concerned the right of entry to Canada does not apply to Indians desiring to come here for either work or settlement.
3.	Indians already permanently domiciled in the other British countries should .be allowed to bring in their wives and minor children on condition (a) that not more than one wife and her children shall be admitted for each such Indian and (b) that each individual so admitted shall be certified by the Government of India as being the lawful wife or child of such Indfan.
Mr. MaM ASTER:	A terrible responsibility !


Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Will
Canadians receive reciprocal treatment in this respect?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite sure the Government of India will facilitate any hon. member by following the same procedure there. This clause was of course regarded by the Indian representatives as of great importance to them, while other clauses were of as equal importance from the standpoint of the self-governing dominions.
The most acute troubles that have arisen in connection with Indian immigration have occurred in Canada and South Africa, perhaps more largely in the latter country which has had a larger immigration, but I am glad to say that this resolution was unanimously accepted by the representatives of all the peoples of the Empire, including India, as embodying for the future a fair and honourable understanding on this subject.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Was that agreed to by Australia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, it was agreed to
by all portions of the Empire; and I think that when one considers the subject from every point of view one must recognize that it is a fair and reasonable solution of the difficulty. I appreciate the objections there may be on the part of some to permitting the wives of Indians at present residing in Canada to come here. I can quite conceive that there may be objections to this, but I think we must concede that much at least to our fellow citizens of the Indian Empire who have fought so valiantly in this war.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the minister any idea which particular wife of an Indian will be given preferment in coming to this country?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The only rule is that embodied in the resolution. The Government of India must decide who should be the wife to come to Canada.
In dealing with this question, I think; it is only right to say that the Indian representatives pointed out that the removal of the grounds of misunderstanding which had so long existed between India and the Po-minions, and which had been used by the German propagandist to stir up trouble-there and cause widespread unrest, was a real contribution to the peace and security of the Empire.
Mr. McQUiARRIE:	May I ask the minister if this arrangement is similar to the arrangement which has existed between India and South Africa for some years? I believe that in South Africa one wife is admitted with her children, but there a very difficult situation has arisen because a woman would bring a large number of boy children, perhaps nine or ten, and there has been absolutely no way of meeting that situation. Perhaps an amended arrangement has been agreed to by South Africa as well as other colonies. I would like to know whether any change has been made in regard to the arrangement which was adopted in South Africa.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not familiar with
the arrangements existing in South Africa. All I know is that the representatives of South Africa cordially approved of this as being a satisfactory arrangement.
I was going on to say that India contributed over a million soldiers in this war. They fought magnificently in the three eastern theatres, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and East Africa. The Indian troops were probably not suited to conditions of warfare in Western Europe, but in the other theatres they have won imperishable glory for that race, as have the soldiers of the self-governing dominions.
If the representatives of the dominions are to meet around a common council board with representatives of India to plan together about the affairs of the Empire, we must give some recognition to the common citizenship that exists to the extent at least indicated by this resolution.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the minister was in attendance upon this conference. Did he gather that this proposal was heartily accepted by the representatives of India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the best answer of that would be to read the statement of

Sir 6. P. Sinha, who spoke on 'the resolution which he moved. The sentiments which he uttered, he said were those of the Maharaja of Patiala, who could not be present on the day that the resolution was moved. There is nothing in the remarks of the representatives of India other than cordial approval of the arrangement that was made. Perhaps it is of interest, in view of the importance of the subject, to turn to what was said:
Mr. Long. I am desired toy my colleague the Maharaja of Patiala, who is unfortunately prevented from ibetmg present to-day, to express his entire concurrence in what I am going to say to the Conference. I also regret exceedingly the absence of Sir Kobert Borden, because I wanted to express in his presence my deep feeling of gratitude for the generous and sympathetic spirit in which he has treated the whole question, both lost year and this year. I desire to express my gratitude to him for the very great assistance he has rendered, to which I think the satisfactory solution which has been reached is very largely due-that is, if the Conference accepts the resolution which 1 have the honour to propose.
I should think that one could not get a franker statement of appreciation and approval than that. It is only right to say that Mr. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, as the discussion was closing, and after all had spoken, said that he hoped that the time would come when Indian citizens would be received in all portions of the Empire in the same way as those of any [DOT]other section. But that was not the statement made by the representatives of India. Of course, it is the natural feeling and ambition which they must have. For the satisfactory solution which was worked out, my hon. friend the Minister of Colonization and Immigration (Mr. Calder) should receive a substantial share of the credit because he devoted a great deal of time to this important matter.


Mr. COOPER:: I was not in the House when the minister spoke about naturalization but it has been brought to my attention that there are a large number of men who served in the Canadian forces but who have not lived in Canada for the prescribed number of years to entitle them to take out naturalization papers. Is it the intention of the Government to help them in any way by reason of their services to the country overseas?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the statement I made to the House I spoke simply as to the character of the legislation which Great Britain had passed and I said that an amendment to the naturalization law was under the consideration of the Government and
(Mr Rowell.]
that a Bill would be brought down this session. The matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. Cooper) refers is now under consideration by the Government.
There is another group of matters relating to improved communication between the different portions of the Empire and in regard to which I do not think I need detain the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Ocean and telegraphic
communication?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Telegraphic, cable, news, shipping, all branches. In fact, these questions have been amongst the most important which have come up at the various conferences from time to time and they have called for a good deal of consideration at each conference. I would draw my hon, friend's attention to the resolutions to be found in the report of the conference and then pass on to other matters. The first relates to improved news service throughout the Empire. Resolution No. 9 reads as follows :
The Imperial War Conference is impressed with the importance , of securing (a) that an adequate news service should toe available in all pants of the British Empire, and (to) that this service should be supplied through British sources. The Conference requests His Majesty's Government to formulate a scheme with these objects in view, on the lines indicated in the memorandum prepared toy the Minister of Information, and to submit this scheme for the consideration of the Governments represented at the Conference.
That resolution was passed but no proposals have so far been submitted by the Imperial Government. Then, on shipping, there was were two resolutions, No. 11 and No. 24.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was not that resolution debated by the British press at the time and opposed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The resolution was debated by the British press and I think that in some quarters there was opposition to it. Of course, it depends on what was intended. The British press stood, and I think very properly so, for a news service that would not be dictated by the Government, a news service that would be controlled by the press. The opposition, in so far as it was manifested by the British press, was against a news service which would be dictated and controlled by any government.


John Howard Sinclair: Would
the minister give us his own views on that point?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I agree with that. In connection with a general news service

throughout the world, I think the newspapers themselves should have facilities for collecting and disseminating the news.


Ernest Lapointe: Was not that idea of an Imperial news service suggested by Lord Beaverbrook?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Lord Beaverbrook did recommend an Imperial news service, but that question had come up at a preceding conference-I am not sure whether it was in 1911 or 1917. It was suggested then, I think by Australia or New Zealand, and this particular memorandum, which is referred to in this resolution, was prepared and submitted by Lord Beaverbrook.
The resolutions relating to shipping are 11 and 24.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before my hon. friend passes to another subject,-did any question arise with respect to the ocean rates?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was there a decision arrived at? As my hon. friend knows there has been quite an agitation on this side of the Atlantic having for its object the lowering of ocean rates. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was appealed to on several occasions, and he promised at the time that he would approach Lloyds and the British authorities so as to give our Canadian shipping firms a better chance. Did the Conference decide anything of a concrete nature under the head of shipping?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, to this extent:
It was decided that an Imperial Board containing representatives of the Dominions as well as the Mother Country, should investigate the whole question of shipping, including a number of other matters mentioned in the resolution, with a view of seeing if some remedy could not be found which would meet the situation.
Resolution in No. 11 reads:
The Conference accepts in principle the establishment of an. Imperial Investigation Board, and refers it to a committee of the Conference to frame a detailed scheme for such a board.
The Conference agrees that it be also referred to the committee to consider the best machinery for promoting the development of Imperial communications to the 'best (advantage, with special reference to the probable size of vessels and the consequent demands upon harbour accommodation for the purposes of Imperial requirements, and -to the resolution handed in by the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
The conference appointed a committee, pursuant to that resolution, to consider and bring in a report upon it. The committee held several sessions, but they reached the
conclusion that they could not, in the brief period in which the conference was in session, without consultation with experts, and without giving the whole matter full investigation, reach a conclusion which would warrant action, and they therefore reported this resolution, No. 24;
That in order to maintain satisfactorily the connections, and at the some time encourage commercial and industrial relations, between the different countries of the British Empire, this Conference is of opinion that shipping on the principal routes, especially between the [DOT]heart of the Empire and the Oversea Dominions, including India, should be brought under review by an Inter-Imperial Board, on which the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Dependencies should be represented.
2. That for this purpose an Imperial Investigation Board, representing the various parts of the Empire, be appointed, with power to enquire into and report on all matters connected with ocean freights and facilities, and on all matters connected with the development and improvement of the sea communications between the different parts of the Empire, with special reference to the size and type of ships, and the capacities of harbours ; the board to include, in addition to representatives of the Governments concerned, persons with expert knowledge of the problems involved, including representatives of the shipping and trading interests.
The British Government has asked that Canada should name its representative on that board, and the matter is standing pending the restoration to health of the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne), who was ia member of this committee, and who took part in framing this resolution. I anticipate that when Hon. Mr. Ballantyne returns he will take the matter up, and Canada's representative on this board will be named with a view of inquiring into all matters covered by the resolution.
Resolution No. 12 of the Conference relates to interJImperial parcels delivery:
The Conference considers It desirable, for the purpose of encouraging Imperial trade, that the present facilities for Inter-Imperial parcels delivery should be enlarged, improved^ and coordinated, and recommends that the proposals contained in the Board of Trade memorandum should be examined by the Governments represented at the Conference, with a view to the preparation of a detailed scheme designed to promote this object.
The Government of the United Kingdom brought to the attention of the Conference that in many quarters of the world the Post Office Parcel Delivery was allowed on a scale much larger than in Canada, and certain other portions of the Empire. We limit the size of the parcels much more than they are limited in many places, and the suggestion was that inter-imperial trade

should be encouraged by promoting a larger use of the paicel post than has hitherto prevailed. A resolution was passed approving the general principle, but the details of the scheme have not yet been worked out.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We were under the impression that the parcel post had been used very much in Canada during the last few
years.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Possibly my hon. friend is able to speak with authority upon the matter. I was under the impression that it was the express that was used particularly in the line which my hon. friend suggests.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Perhaps.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The resolution No. 14 dealing with cable communications is as follows:
That it is in the highest interests of the Empire that the rates for 'telegraphic comnvuni-actions 'between the United Kingdom, 'Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India, should be further materially reduced as soon as practicable. That in order to ensure generally the cheapest and most secure telegraphic communication between the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it is desirable that they should co-operate in the provision of a state-owned cable across the Atlantic.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is an old question.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is an old question which has been discussed, I imagine, at every Imperial Conference that has been held certainly in twenty years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have, of course, the Pacific cable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have the Pacific cable which is owned by the British Empire, but when it was first started, the governments concerhed had to contribute a substantial amount in order to make up the deficits. It has been paying its way now for some years, and is considerably more than earning its operating cost. We have had available a cable across the Atlantic during the period of the war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A French cable?
Mr, ROWELL: A German cable. Whether that will continue to be available will depend I presume somewhat upon the decision of the Peace Conference. It is at present being operated, I believe, by the Pacific Cable Board, the same board that is operating the Pacific cable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where does that cable land?	i % . i i


Newton Wesley Rowell: Somewiiere on the eastern coast. If that is available of course the resolution is satisfied without further action. Australia and New Zealand pressed very strongly for this matter.
The next group of subjects that called for consideration was the development anc} utilization of Imperial resources.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Before the minister proceeds, might I ask if the question of passports has been dealt with in the documents presented at this Conference, and what rules, if any, are being observed with regard to passports in the various parts of the Empire?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question of passports did not come up for consideration at the Conference.
The next group of subjects, as I have mentioned, was the development and utilization of Imperial resources and there were four or five resolutions dealing with various aspects of this matter. The first related to the exclusion of German alien enemies from participation in the non-ferrous metal industry. The British Government passed an Act, called tlie NonFerrous Metal Act, designed to exclude alien enemies from interest in the non-ferrous metal industry of Great Britain. That action grew out of the dominant position which the German metal interests held throughout the British Empire when the war broke out, and it was an Act to secure relief from that condition of affairs and to guard against its repetition in the future. The Conference passed this resolution, No. 2:
In pursuance of the policy of freeing the Empire from dependence on German controlled organizations in respect of non-ferrous metals and ores, the Conference endorses the principle of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act of the Unite*! Kingdom and recommends the Governments of the Empire to adopt effective measures, in so far as these may he necessary and have not already been taken, to carry out this policy.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask a question?
I notice sometimes the hon. minister uses the word " commonwealth," which has a good Cromwellian smack about it, and at other times he uses the word " empire." Are these words synonymous or interchangeable?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the word " empire," if used in its old meaning, has no proper application to the situation that now exists-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -in relation to Great Britain and the Dominions. We must either give that word a new content, a new meaning, or use a word that is more appropriate to the present conditions. Personally, I prefer the phrase " the British Commonwealth."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just before the committee rose, I was referring to the resolution passed by the Imperial War Conference relating to the exclusion of Germany from the non-ferrous metal industry. As the House will have observed, all I have attempted to do is to report the proceedings of the Conference rather than to discuss the questions which were raised there and discussed at length. The limits of time make it necessary for me to confine myself to what was actually done. But may I be permitted to observe, in connection with this and the other resolutions relating to Imperial resources the questions involved assumed peculiar importance during the period of the war. Germany had not only succeeded, in the twenty-five years preceding the war, in peacefully penetrating, industrially, all the countries of the world, but had secured a grip upon the metal industries of the world, particularly the non-ferrous metal industries, which gave her a commanding position at the time the war broke out; and the object of this resolution was to prevent so far as possible, a repetition of that situation in the future. Hon. members will observe that so far as Canada is concerned -and this would apply to some of the other dominions also-the matter is one not easy to deal with by legislation, because of the distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the provinces. The provinces, controlling their own lands, control the development of the mining properties within the provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend in mind any properties in Canada which were controlled by the Germans and were utilized for war purposes? There were a number of such cases in Australia.
. Mr. ROWELL: I was referring to the general principle involved. So far as Canada is concerned, this resolution is receiving consideration at the hands of the
Minister of Mines to see what action, if any, Canada should take in order to give effect to it.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask if the Conference had in mind, at the time this resolution was passed, the control of the nickel mines in Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The nickel mines in Canada constitute, of course, a very important and essential raw material, essential not only to Canada but to the Empire as a whole, and I had intended making some reference to that on a later resolution.
Another question which was dealt with by the conference, in. which perhaps our interest is less direct than in the resolution I have just mentioned, was the freeing of the industries of the Empire from dependence on German products, such as dyes. This resolution, No. 10, reads as follows:
The Conference takes note of the action taken and contemplated by His Majesty's Government with a view to freeing the industry of the United Kingdom from dependence on German dyestuffs, and recommends the Governments of. the Empire to consider immediately what steps can be taken to co-operate with- the efforts of the Imperial Government to promote the successful development of the dye industry in the British Empire, and so to avoid enemy domination over our essential industries.
The House will recall the unfortunate position in which Great Britain, the Empire and the United States found themselves when war broke out. 'They had to depend on Germany for dye stuffs and other essential materials and undoubtedly Great Britain has made up her mind that she will not be caught again in the same position, but will endeavour to see that there are developed within the limits of the Empire those industries which are essential to the maintenance of the larger industrial life of the country. I believe steps are being taken by Great Britain to give effect to this resolution.
One of the most important questions considered by the conference was the control of raw material.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Did the non-ferrous resolution contemplate the pooling of all the metals of Canada and the Empire, thereby putting us out of commission as a separate entity?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it did not contemplate interfering in any way with our liberty of action. It was recommended that all portions of the Empire should take action similar to that taken by Great Britain, in order to ensure that those industries should not fall into enemy control, but be preserved under the control of citi-

zens of the British Empire. Hon. members of the House need not be reminded of the importance of raw materials in the conduct of this war. The control of raw materials was one of the great factors which enabled the Allies to succeed in this struggle, and the denial to Germany of access to essential raw materials was one of the important factors which reduced her to the position where she was compelled to conclude peace. The control of raw materials was one of the subjects which engaged much time and thought at the conference, and the action of the conference was embodied in three resolutions, the published portions of which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House, afterwards making one or two observations on them. Resolution No. 3 reads:
(1)	The Conference agrees that it is necessary to secure for the British Empire and the belligerent Allies the command of certain essential raw materials in order to enable them to repair the effects of the War as soon as possible and to safeguard their industrial requirements.
(2)	The Conference is of opinion that the Governments of the British Empire should make such arrangements amongst themselves as will ensure that essential raw materials produced within the Empire shall be available for the above purposes, and should arrange with the Allied Countries to utilize for the same purposes essential raw materials produced in those countries.
Paragraph 3 of the resolution is not printed. It set out a list of materials which were considered essential for the continued prosecution of the war and for the maintenance of the industrial life of the nation. It is only necessary, perhaps, to mention the two which we practically control in this country, namely, nickel and asbestos, both of which were included in the list.
I believe we control seventy or eighty per cent of the world's nickel supply, and a similar percentage of the world's asbestos supply. In those two essential raw materials, Canada holds a dominating and controlling position. Paragraph 4 of the resolution is as follows:
That this Conference has considered the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill now before the Imperial Parliament, and is of opinion that, [DOT] whilst the circumstances of the different parts of the Empire differ widely as regards the extent to which it may prove desirable to pass similar legislation, the respective Governments should nevertheless take such action as may be deemed expedient to enable the objects of resolution 3 to be fully carried out.
To assist the Governments in determining their action in this respect the Conference recommends:-
(1) that 'a committee of its members should first consider the possible methods in each part

of the Empire of obtaining command of each of the essential Raw Materials specified in resolution 3.
(2) that the Governments represented at the Conference should, in the light of the information collected by their representatives on this Committee, consult with the representatives of the producers and trades concerned &s to the method of obtaining command of best suited to each individual commodity.
A committee of the conference was appointed in pursuance of that resolution. It held many meetings. It took into consideration all those raw materials essential for war and for the maintenance of industries, enumerated in resolution 3. It tabulated the information, showing the available sources of supplies throughout the world, how far those sources were controlled within the Empire and how far within Allied countries, and it outlined the best methods of developing and utilizing those raw materials for the benefit of the Empire and the Allies. That particular information gathered in that way was not published; it is kept in the possession of the Government, because to publish the information at that time would have been to give it to the enemies of the Empire.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that a sub-committee was appointed and suggestions made as to the best methods to meet the views expressed by the resolution. Were those suggestions kept secret, or are they to be distributed amongst the various self-governing dominions, so that common action may be taken on the subject?


Newton Wesley Rowell: These suggestions are all distributed as confidential documents amongst the different governments. The full report of the sub-committee, which was adopted by the conference was not published in the record, but was published as a confidential document and is in possession of the cabinets of all the dominions, giving them full information as to raw materials, their sources, their present state of development, the Empire's needs, and with suggestions in many cases as to their development and utilization.


Jacques Bureau: Does that include the provincial governments?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, only the Federal Government in each pase. The third resolution dealing with this matter is No. 23. It reads:
(1)	The Conference having considered the report of the committee on raw materials request His Majesty's Government to communicate this report forthwith to the Governments of the Dominions and India and to ascertain their views on the appropriate action to be taken.

(2)	The Conference further agrees that steps should be taken to ascertain the needs and resources of the allies in respect of raw material specified in the report.
Pursuant to the terms of this resolution, that special report has been communicated to all the Dominion Governments.
One other step the conference took was in connection with the development of Imperial mineral resources, and is set forth in resolution No. 16. At the Imperial War Conference in 1917 a resolution was adopted providing for the creation or the appointment of an Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau upon which all the Dominions should be represented. That bureau was subsequently appointed, the Canadian representative on it being Dr. Miller of the Ontario Bureau of Mines, a very distinguished geologist and a man thoroughly posted on the mineral resources of Canada. At the Imperial Conference this year it was suggested that the powers of the bureau should be substantially enlarged and that all portions of the Empire should agree to make a contribution for its maintenance. Canada was not able to perceive that she would derive as large a benefit from this bureau as many of the other parts of the Empire thought they would. We thought that we had as full and ample a knowledge as we could possibly have of the mineral resources of Canada, and, therefore, we were not in as great need of the services of the bureau as were other portions of the Empire. As, however, it had been agreed upon in 1917, and as the other portions of the Empire were exceedingly anxious that the work of the bureau should be continued, we were willing to support it for a period of I think, three years, during which time its work can he fully canvassed, and we can decide whether we desire to continue to support it or not. The resolution No. 16, reads as follows:

The Imperial War Conference, having considered the memorandum by the Minister of Reconstruction on the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau, as amended, agrees that the number of representatives on the mineral, mining and metal industries on the Governing Body of the Bureau should be increased from four (as originally agreed) to six.
The Conference further approves the proposal for a Charter of Incorporation as set out in paragraph 6 of the memorandum and the proposals in paragraphs 7 and 8 as to the allocation of expenditure.
The allocation limited our liability to a specified amount and for a specified period instead of making it a general liability as was first proposed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the bureau going to do? Is it going to experiment with regard
to our mineral resources or is it going to acquire property on behalf of the Imperial Government? The minister said a moment ago that the lands belonged to the Provincial Governments. What relation will that bureau have to the various Provincial Governments?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think it is the intention to acquire property on behalf of the Imperial Government. This is rather a bureau to investigate and report^ to collect information as to the mineral resources of the whole Empire, where those resources are located and how they can be developed for the benefit of the whole Empire. The estimates of our share of the expense will come up under the Estimates of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Burrell), who will then have a full report of the work of the bureau and will be glad to give it to the House. I have only a very general knowledge of the matter.


Frank S. Cahill: To whom will the bureau
report?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is appointed by all the Governments of the Empire and will repojrt to all.


Frank S. Cahill: To whom first?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As it is located in London,
I presume it will report first to the Government in England, and the report will be sent to all the Dominions.


Jacques Bureau: This bureau is in England. The information, I understand, is to be gathered from the various Dominions, and is then to be spread through this particular bureau to the various Dominions. That is, all information that may be gathered from Canada through this bureau will be sent to Australia, and all information Australia will give the bureau will be sent to Canada. Is that the idea, namely, to spread, by medium of the bureau, information as to the- natural resources which exist in each Dominion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is one of the objects, and that will be done.


Jacques Bureau: What are the others?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am speaking now from a recollection of last summer and of a matter which did not come particularly under my jurisdiction. I think the intention is not only to acquire knowledge as to these resources, but to report on the feasibility of their development commercially. That is one of the objects they have in view in enlarging the committee and seeking to en-

large its powers. The Minister of Mines has a report of the work that this Imperial Bureau has done and will give it when his estimates come up.


Mr. BURRELL:: As a matter of fact, there has been no. expense to us. The Imperial Government is paying -the expense for the first three years. Our only contribution will be the expenses of Dr. Miller, the Canadian representative, who is just leaving. He has been over here and has supplied me with more memoranda on the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the Bureau any executive functions, or is it merely an advisory body?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is purely an advisory body, gathering and disseminating information.


Ernest Lapointe: I see it stated in the report that it agreed that this should be a governing body and not merely an advisory body, and in order to give it executive functions it must be incorporated. By the resolution which was virtually passed the Bureau was organized as an incorporated body, so it must have been decided to give it some executive authority.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend has the report by him.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is on pages 8 and 9.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It will be observed in the remarks of the hon. Minister of Interior (Mr. Meighen), who was looking after this matter at the Conference, that he took the view that from our standpoint this Bureau was not as important as it was considered to be by other parts of the Empire, and in deference to Canada's view the report oi the committee was amended in very important respects. The report will be found on pages 237 and 238, on which latter page my hon. friend will find the changes that were made. The original paragraph was as follows:
As to the expenditure, it is suggested that a distinction should be drawn between current administrative expenditure and the cost o)f special inquiries instituted by the Bureau on its own account, at the wish of any of the Governments.
In lieu of this the following was inserted:
As to expenditure, each Government would, of course pay the expenses of its own representative. The normal expenditure of the Bureau would be met out of funds contributed by the Imperial Government, as suggested in the report of sir James Stevenson's Committee, together with such contributions from the Overseas Governments as they may, by agreement, be prepared to make.

This arrangement shall continue for three years, before the end of which time the question as to the contribution to be made by the Overseas Governments shall be brought up for discussion at an Imperial Conference.
These clauses were inserted to meet the objection of Canada to the report as originally presented, so that it will be seen that apart from the expenses of" our own representatives our expenditure is only such as we may choose to contribute, and is limited to three years.


Ernest Lapointe: What was the purpose of granting that Bureau incorporation by Royal Charter, as was actually done?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question, as I was not following that particular part of the discussion. Unless the question is answered in the report which he has I am afraid I cannot answer it. Another question that called for very earnest consideration-


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the only expenditure to which we are bound is the expense of our representative in London, in addition to what the Government may choose to contribute voluntarily?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is it. The question of petroleum supply was considered, and in resolution number 18-


Rodolphe Lemieux: At this point may II be permitted to make a remark in regard to a question I put the other day to the Minister of Interior about the Shale Oil Company. I thought it was shell, but somebody said "Shale." I asked him if that company Jhad obtained a charter from the Government giving them the right to acquire oil-bearing lands of Western Canada. My hon. friend answered that a request had been made by that company and had been taken into consideration but had not been granted. I have not his exact words before me, but the answer was not very definite;
I do not know if they convey the impression that the company was barred from operation in Western Canada, or if for the time being the matter was not decided. I noticed in the press of Saturday or yesterday a despatch from Calgary in which it was stated that that company-called the Shale Company or the Royal Dutch Company-is actually operating in the West and boring it various places, and it is hinted that it is composed chiefly of gentlemen from Great Britain. I have heard of several 'lames in connection with the company, and particularly one piominent Canadian name, that of Sir Clifford Sifton. Does the hon. member know whether that company has

anything to do with the project which was discussed before the Imperial Conference? He will pardon me if I speak on this subject while he is giving such valuable information to the House, but I think he will remember that at the beginning of the war -he was not in the Government then-we passed legislation giving the Imperial Government a sort of prior right to all oilbearing lands. My hon. friend will, of course, understand the reason for this. The British navy depended considerably on a constant supply of oil during the war, and it was felt that it was necessary as much as possible to corral, so to speak, the oil-bearing lands in the various dominions. Now I would like to know if the company to which I have referred has anything to do with the project of which we have heard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid I cannot
fully answer that question as I am not familiar with some of the matters to which my hon. friend has alluded. With reference to the Shale Oil Company, the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) in his answer indicated that the application had not received favourable consideration at the hands of the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that final?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as I know, it is.
As it is not in my department I cannot undertake to answer the question, but that is the general situation as I understand it. As regards the other company to which my hon. friend has referred, I am not familiar with it and know nothing of its operations.
I can only say that any company that is operating out there must be operating on the same terms as any other oil prospector under the provisions of the law governing the opening up and developing of oil lands. I may say, in answer to my hon. friend's general observation as to petroleum, that the prospecting in England is being done under the direction of Viscount Harcourt who, as chairman of the committee, presented a confidential statement to the conference disclosing how vital this oil question was to the Imperial navy as well as to the general mercantile marine and other services in the Empire. Viscount Harcourt very strongly emphasized the importance of developing all the oil supplies of the Empire and making them available for the purposes of the Empire particularly in times of stress. The resolution passed at the conference was as follows:
The Conference takes note of the Memorandum on the question of Petroleum, and, having regard to the great and growing importance of petroleum and its products for
Naval, Military, and industrial purposes, desires to commend the suggestions contained tn the memorandum to the serious consideration of the Governments concerned.
That memorandum has been referred to all the Governments of the Dominions for their consideration.
It was decided at the conference to have a gathering, after the war was over, of representatives of the statistical branches of the Governments of the Empire wiith a view of considering the question of establishing an Imperial Bureau of Statistics. This is dealt with by resolution No. 8:
The Imperial War Conference having considered the correspondence as to the improvement of Imperial Statistics arising out of the recommendations of the Dominion Royal Commission, is in favour of the proposal to hold a Conference of Statisticians after the war, and that such Conference consider the establishment of an Imperial Statistical Bureau under the supervision of an Inter-Imperial Committee.
Another matter that came up for consideration at the conference was the report of the Imperial Graves Commission. The report was accepted by the first resolution of the conference:
The Conference desires to place on record its appreciation of the labours of the Imperial War Graves Commission and is in favour of the cost of the carrying out the decisions of the Commission being borne by the respective Governments in proportion to the numbers of the graves of their dead.
I should think the House would be interested in knowing just what the recommendations of the commission were in reference to the decoration of the graves of the dead. I turn to page 227 of the report which sets out the decorations which are to be placed over the soldiers' graves. The report recommends:
(i)	That the principle of equality of treatment laid down by the Commission should be carried out by the erection over the graves of all officers and men in the war cemeteries abroad of headstones of uniform dimensions, though with some variety of pattern.
(ii)	That each regiment should have its own pattern of headstone, to be erected over the grave of every man of that regiment wherever he may be buried, and that regimental feeling should he consulted as to the design of the headstones.
(iii)	That there should be carved on each headstone the rank, name, regiment, amd date of death of the man buried beneath it, and that relatives should he allowed at their own cost to add a short inscription of the nature of a text or prayer, subject to the approval of the Commission.
(iiv) That in every cemetery there should ,be two central monuments : (a) at the eastern end, a great memorial stone upon broad steps and bearing some appropriate phrase or text, and (b) elsewhere in the cemetery, a cross'

(v)	That in every cemetery there should be eome form of building, either covering the memorial stone or seiparate from it, as a shelter for visitors from the weather and as a place where religious services might be held.
(vi)	That the cemeteries should he laid out and planted with flowers and1 shrubs under the direction of horticultural experts working in co-operation with the architectural designers. The surfaces of the graves should be levelled, for reasons both of convenience and of economy.
(vii)	That each cemetery should be fenced in by some durable boundary, preferably a low wall.
(viii)	That each cemetery should have a printed register of the burials in it, which should be easily accessible to visitors.
(ix)	That, in consultation with the French authorities, the principle of concentrating in selected cemeteries the bodies at present buried in isolated graves or in small groups should be settled in advance.
(x)	That, for the purpose of carrying out the proposals contained in the report, three principal architects in the first instance should be chosen (names recommended-Mr. Reginald Blomfleld, Sir Edwin Lutyens, and Mr. Herbert Raker) : the cemeteries should be divided into groups, and1 to each group should be assigned one principal architect and a number of younger men working under his leadership; the majority of the cemeteries should he designed1 toy the younger men	 The final selection of the regimental headstones should be referred to on informal .body of artistic advisers.
Those were the general principles embodied in the report of the War Graves Commission


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saw in the papers this .morning that Vamy Ridge has been donated by the French Government to Canada. Is that true?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think there has been any official information received as yet by the Government in reference to it, but I do know the French Government has dedicated the land where our soldiers are buried as cemeteries in perpetuity.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that parents will not be allowed to erect distinct monuments over the graves of their relatives, that the monuments will be uniform and erected under the direction of the War Graves Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the case. Relatives will be permitted to put a distinctive inscription or prayer on the stones, but, outside of that, they are to be uniform.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend does
not know the dimensions of each stone?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because they might put any inscription on the monument unless it must be within certain dimensions.
(Mr. Rowell.]


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. I am sure that it will be large enough to permit of a suitable inscription. It is being designed very carefully by the most skilled artists and designers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will our Canadian
architects be consulted on the matter? And might I not express the wish that the Canadian graves, at all events, will be of a distinctly Canadian stamp or style.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I believe there will be a distinctive emblem marking the Canadian graves, but as to whether the stones will be distinct in design from the others I can not say. The only knowledge I have is that gained from hearing the report presented at the conference but from that report I know that everything that can be done by the best skill available is being done to not only erect suitable stones, but to lay but the cemeteries in a way befitting the men who have so gallantly fallen. I am sure that all Canadians will agree that the least we can do is to show our appreciation of these gallant men is to see that their graves are properly cared for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The monument will be
the same for the officer and the private?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite. They are all
equal in death.
The question of demobilization was also considered at the conference. I shall not go into it. Resolution No. 18 deals with the question of demobilization. That had already been taken up between the Minister of Militia and Defence here and the Overseas Minister of Militia and Defence, and the question discussed by the Imperial War Conference was rather demobilization as it affected the whole Empire. It was aS to the working out of plans which would ensure a certain amount of shipping being available for each portion of the Empire in order that the troops of each might be brought home; in other words, in order that some would not get all the shipping and others left without any.
The last matter I will mention that was dealt with by the Imperial Conference related to the question of Imperial organization. In addressing the House the other day I spoke of the resolution which was passed dealing with the channels of communication-that is resolution No. 15- and I shall not repeat what I then said. I only wish to say in reference to that resolution that while hon. gentlemen may think the actual change is a small matter, it is the significance of the change

that is important. It is in the recognition of the changed status of the Dominion, and the consequent changed status of the Governor General as the representative of His Majesty in the Dominion, that the significance of the change lies.
Another important discussion took place on the question of the constitution of an Imperial Court of Appeal, which was pressed very strongly upon the conference by the Prime Minister of Australia. He appeared to think that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not as dignified a court to appeal to as the highest Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, for the citizens of the United Kingdom. We thought an appeal to His Majesty in Council was as dignified and quite as satisfactory as an appeal would be to the House of Lords, or as an appeal would be to any new Imperial Court that may be constituted, and we therefore did not feel that any resolution was necessary.


Mr. MORPHY:: Has it ever been up for discussion in any of these conferences that the Supreme Court of Canada might very well be named as the court of final resort for all Canadian questions?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know that the question came up directly in that way, but speaking myself on this resolution I point-eded out that so far as I knew the only question that was agitating the public mind in Canada with reference to an appeal was for the limitation of appeals rather than the court to which the appeals would go.


Thomas Vien: Was it suggested that the appeal to the Privy Council might be done away with?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. What was suggested by the Prime Minister of Australia in his original resolution-which was not adopted -and was covered by a modified resolution which I will refer to shortly, was that there should be constituted one Imperial Court of Appeal, which would supersede the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal for the citizens of the United Kingdom, and would supersede the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a final Court of Appeal for the residents of the Overseas Dominions and of India. His argument was that it would tend to maintain the unity of the Empire if we had one final Court of Appeal to which all citizens may go as a last resort to have their cases decided. That view did not appeal with any degree of force to the representatives of Canada. The resolution number 22, as finally adopted, was as follows:
The Conference is of opinion:
(1)	That the question of replacing the present dual system of appeal by the constitution of one Imperial Court of Appeal demands the prompt consideration of His Majesty's Government.
(2)	That the Lord Chancellor should be invited to prepare and circulate to the Governments of the Dominions and of India, as soon as possible, a memorandum of such proposals as in the opinion of His Majesty's Government are practicable for that purpose with ia view to decision at the next Imperial Conference.
(3)	That each such Government, as soon as possible thereafter, shall communicate to the Government of the United Kingdom its views with regard to such proposals.
Hon. gentlemen will see that all that is [DOT] affirmed there is that the matter is deserving of the prompt consideration of His Majesty's Government, and in view of the strong stand taken by the Prime Minister of Australia, who thought that something disastrous might happen if this new court was not constituted, perhaps that affirmation is not going a very great distance.
I have covered the principal matters that came before the Imperial War Conference for consideration. I may say that the Imperial War Cabinet was sitting at the same time as the Imperial War Conference, and the work was divided between the ministers who were overseas. The principal part of the work of the conference,-at least, the direction of Canada's part of the work of the conference,-came under the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), who were responsible for its direction so long as they remained in England. They were, however, compelled to leave before the Imperial War Conference closed, and then I took charge with the assistance of the Minister of Militia (Maj.-Gen. Mewburn), and of the Minister of Marine and Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne).
I was associated with the Prime Minister in connection with the work of the Imperial War Cabinet, and upon that I shall speak very briefly.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my hon. friend leaves the work of the Imperial War Conference I would like to ask him a question. The report does not pretend to publish all the resolutions which were passed at the conference. In a speech delivered by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in London on 31st July, which speech was published in this country at the time, he divided the work of the conference into three classes. He said:
A certain class of the resolutions recorded definite conclusions on matters of great moment. Another class commended to the attention of

the various Governments' questions that require fuller consideration, as well as executive and parliamentary action in the several nations of the British Commonwealth. A third class comprises the resolutions that set up standing committees, representing the United Kingdom and the Dominions for the purpose of reporting to the various Governments concerned after necessary study and consideration. In this class are to be included demobilization, the regulation of ocean freight rates and the control of raw materials within the Empire. The subjects falling within the second and third classes were not finally dealt with by the Conference ; but matters were put in train for such action as the several Governments may eventually find necessary.
So, according to the Prime Minister, all the subjects included in the first class were finally dealt with at the conference, and definite conclusions were reached. We have always been given to understand that the work of these conferences must be ratified by the Parliament of each Dominion concerned before being given effect to, but I see by this speech of the Prime Minister that certain matters were decided and final conclusions were reached without the Parliaments of the various Dominions being consulted. I would like to know from my hon. friend what these matters are which were finally dealt with, and upon which conclusions were reached, and whether we, the Parliament of Canada, are going to know what has been done and finally dealt with, as stated by the Prime Minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I can illustrate, I am sure, what was in the mind of the Prime Minister by one of the resolutions to which I referred this afternoon. Take a case which was finally dealt with-finally in the sense that the Government of Canada, as a government, gave its assent to the proposition. That Government, of course, must necessarily have the backing of the House, as any other governmental action must have if it is to become the settled policy of the country. The illustration I have in mind is the resolution I read dealing with the relation between India and the Overseas Dominions in reference to immigration. The understanding arrived at and embodied in that resolution was final so far as the different Governments there represented were concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: Was not an Order in Council passed by this Government to ratify the conclusion reached in regard to Indian immigration?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so, so far as a decision was concerned, and the action contemplated must be taken by each Government. Action has been taken by this Gov-

ernment to carry out that resolution by passing the Order in Council adopting the principle embodied therein.


Ernest Lapointe: What
about the Canadian Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the matter required
legislation, why, of course, it must come before the Canadian Parliament, but it stands in exactly the same position as any other executive act which the Government has authority to take under our Constitution.


Thomas Vien: There is a big difference, to my mind. In the case of a decision of the Imperial Conference which is assented to by the representatives of the Canadian Government, they do assent to such a decision without having the authority from a law enacted by the Canadian Parliament, whereas in the case of an Order in Council passed in the ordinary course of affairs the executive power has not the right to pass such another Order in Council unless that right has been previously given to it by a law of the Canadian Parliament.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I confess I cannot see the force of my hon. friend's observation. For this reason: if the laws passed by the Canadian Parliament give the executive th, power to act by Order in Council, the executive acts upon that basis, and' the act is valid because they have received the power.


Thomas Vien: They received the power from whom?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Parliament of Canada. Exactly in the same way, if the Prime Minister	representing Canada
9 p.m. assents to any resolution by the Imperial	Conference, he only
does	so	by virtue	of the authority vestedin	him	as Prime	Minister acting within
the scope of his authority under the Constitution.


Thomas Vien: But the Prime Minister, as such, has no authority to go overseas and bind Canada to certain decisions of the Imperial Conference unless an Act of Parliament grants such authority to him or the other representatives of the Cabinet. What is the law in our statutes which authorizes the representatives of the Canadian Government to bind this country to certain policies which have not been enacted in our legislation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The representatives of Canada cannot bind Canada to any policy that requires legislative sanction without the legislative sanction of the Parliament of

Canada, and no one professes that they can. The Prime Minister, in assenting to this resolution which I cited as an illustration, exercised exactly the same authority as the Prime Minister of Canada has exercised ever since the Imperial Conference was organized. The same authority was exercised by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the Conferences of 1897, 1902, 1907 and 1911. That is, he speaks for Canada as the representative of the Government having a parliamentary majority behind it. If that majority does not endorse his action, then the resolution is not implemented; but he lias exactly the same authority to speak there on behalf of the Government as he has to speak here in Canada on behalf of the Government on any matter of public policy affecting the Dominion.


Thomas Vien: Could the hon. minister cite an instance in the former Conferences where Sir Wilfrid Laurier bound Canada to any policy without having authority from the Canadian Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me give as an illustration the meeting of the Imperial War Conference which determined the constitution of the conference, and which prescribed who should be members of it and defined its powers: it was all assented to dby Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues at the Imperial Conference, and properly assented to-


Thomas Vien: But I mean measures?


Newton Wesley Rowell: -without any statutory authority. It was a perfectly proper thing for him to do as representing the Government of the day, if he believed it was a proper policy to pursue, and if when he reported back to the Canadian House of Commons they had disagreed with the conclusions he reached, then his Government would have been replaced by another Government which - would not have supported the constitution adopted at that Imperial Conference. I could go further and give a whole list of resolutions adopted at the previous conferences and point to any number of them assented to in exactly the same way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is this difference.
I am not aware that any action that they took at the conference in the days of Sir Wilfrid were ratified here by the formality of an Order in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think that Sir Wilfrid, quite properly, took it upon himself to adopt a certain policy and did not pass any Order in Council to ratify it; he simply did it as Prime Minister. It may have been that


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
no Order in Council was necessary in connection with this Hindu immigration or probably could all have been done by regulation of the department, but the minister in charge of the department considered it desirable to have the policy confirmed by Order in Council before he acted upon it in an administrative way.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As we are dealing with such an interesting constitutional question, perhaps the hon. minister will tell us whether it was the War Measures Act that ratified the action of the Government in London?
Mr. ROWELL - No, I think it was simply indicating the formal assent of the Government of Canada to the proposals embodied in that resolution. The minister in charge of the department is entitled to determine by regulation who shall be admitted, and who shall not, under the Immigration Act, and he can carry out that resolution without any Order in Council at all, as I understand the situation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend allow me to refer to the War Graves Commission? I am reminded that if any design was suggested by the Government the emblem of Canada should be the maple leaf; and as regards the decoration of the graves of our boys, might I suggest that Canadian flora should be transferred to the other side for this purpose?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think that is a very appropriate suggestion. If it has not been already passed upon I shall be glad to draw it to the attention of our representative on the commission.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: While on that point might I ask this question: Will the graves of our Canadian boys who were killed while in the Imperial army be marked with any distinctive Canadian emblem, or will they bear the Imperial emblem?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I shall be glad, however, to see that it is raised in the proper quarter.
Coming now to the work of the Imperial War Cabinet, as I explained in opening, the work of the Cabinet was to deal with the conduct of the war and the terms of peace, and its proceedings were confidential, they were not published; but there is no reason now why I should not mention some of the subjects which came under discussion, in order to give the House some idea of the character of its proceedings.
Let me first explain that when the Cabinet met the first act of the Prime Minister of


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Great Britain was to review the whole military and diplomatic situation as it existed at that time in all the theatres of war, and the situation was not particularly encouraging then. He furnished the overseas representatives with full information as to the character of the March offensive, the losses which the Allies had sustained in that offensive, the, strength of the British forces, an approximate estimate of the strength of the other allied forces, together with an estimate of the strength of the German forces against which we were called upon to contend. That review of the general military and political situation was followed by a review hy the prime ministers of the different dominions of the war efforts of the dominions and of India. I have not the figures available, I wish I had; but I think it is fitting that we as Canadians should recognize the magnificent efforts put forth by other parts of the Empire. So far as the numerical contribution of men is concerned, Australia and New Zealand contributed a larger percentage of their population in men to the Army serving overseas than did the Dominion of Canada; but if you take into consideration the production of munitions as well, then Canada's contribution was equal, and probably greater, in men than that of either Australia or New Zealand. India also made a magnificent contribution in men, as did South Africa.
Then the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson, reviewed the military situation from his standpoint. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Eric Geddes, reviewed the whole naval situation and gave full information to the overseas ministers as to the results of Germany's submarine policy, and the measure of success which had attended His Majesty's Navy in combatting the submarine menace. Then Lord Weir gave a review of the war in the air, and perhaps no information given to the Imperial War Cabinet was of greater interest than that given in reference to the air service.	If the war had continued for another year strategic cities and towns of Germany would have been bombed out of existence. Preparation? were being made on a gigantic scale for the air service in 1919, and it is not without interest to note that the preparations for the bombing of Berlin were completed just two or three days before the armistice was signed, and the officer entrusted with making arrangements for the bombing of Berlin and who was to lead the air squadron ir the attack upon that city, was one ol our

gallant Canadian officers, Major Mulock of Winnipeg. Colonel Bishop, another oi our Canadian boys, still holds the world's record for the number of machines brought down. Then followed a review of the diplomatic situation by Mr. Balfour and Lord Curzon; then a review of the efforts Great Britain was putting forth in the building of ships and in providing munitions, guns and aeroplanes, not only for the season's operations but for the operations of the following year. After the overseas ministers had been put into possession of full information covering the military and diplomatic situation as it existed in June last, practical and urgent problems were taken up for consideration, and one of the first and most important was the question of Allied assistance in Russia. That question was thoroughly canvassed. The Imperial War Cabinet received the views not .only of the Imperial staff, but of General Foch and the leaders of the Allied forces on the front. After giving the matter the fullest consideration, the Imperial War Cabinet came to the conclusion that there should be Allied intervention. That conclusion,-to indicate the procedure by which matters were dealt with,-was communicated to the Supreme War Council at Versailles. The Supreme War Council endorsed that conclusion, passed a resolution declaring in favour of intervention, and that such intervention was essential to the success of the Allied cause. All the allied nations agreed to participate in it.
Ernest Lapointe: Was the number of Canadian soldiers to be contributed to that expedition decided by the Imperial War Cabinet?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. That was not discussed by the Imperial War Cabinet. The War Cabinet settled the principle in favour of Allied intervention; that is, they made a recommendation to that effect. It was the Supreme War Council at Versailles that finally decided in favour of Allied intervention, and that decision was communicated to all the Allied Governments.


Mr. POWER:: Did the suggestion to send Canadian troops to Siberia originate with Canadian osr Imperial ministers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The suggestion originated with the Imperial Government. The situation was this, and there is no reason now why the House should not be informed of the facts. In June last the situation on the Western front was so critical, the need of men so urgent., that the War Office urged the Canadian ministers to put another

Canadian division in the field, so that Canada would then have five divisions in the field. After canvassing the whole situation thoroughly with General Currie, with the Overseas Minister of Militia, and General Turner, the ministers overseas reached the conclusion that we would not be justified in putting another division in the field, urgently as that division might be needed, and for this principal Teason: that if we put five divisions in the field, and our troops were as heavily engaged as the British army had been engaged during the preceding two or three months, we would not have sufficient reinforcements available to make up the wastage. We therefore came to the conclusion that it was wiser policy to retain sufficient reinforcements to make good the wastage, and to keep the four divisions we had in the field up to strength, and therefore the four divisions continued.
Now, when it was decided to send forces to Siberia, the War Office asked the representatives of Canada if we would take part in that expedition. That information was communicated to the Government at Ottawa, and the decision that Canada should take part in that expedition was reached by the Cabinet in session here at Ottawa. That decision was concurred in by the Canadian ministers who were overseas at the time.
'Mr. LEIMIEUX: Was Sir Robert Borden overseas then?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What were the principal reasons which led the Cabinet to concur in this request of the British Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall have to outline the situation, because it was the situation that then existed that made necessary, in the first place, Allied intervention, and, secondly, Canada's taking part in it. The Germans at that time were still advancing on the Western front, and the belief on the Allied side then was that we had not sufficient troops then available to beat Germany on the Western front if Germany had an absolutely free hand in the East and was not required to devote any of her attention there. That was one factor in the situation.
Another factor was the position of the Czechoslovaks. As my hon. friend is aware, the Czecho-Slovak troops were composed of Austrian soldiers from Bohemia who had either voluntarily surrendered to Russia, or had been captured as prisoners of war, and by reason of their hostility to Austria because of centuries of oppression of their race in Bohemia, were willing to make war against Austria, their
68*
former ruler. They organized into armed forces and they had in Russia, altogether in June or July last approximately 300,000 men. It was originally planned that these C^echo-Slovaks should march through to Vladivostok, there take steamer and form part of the fighting army on the Western front; and Great Britain, I believe, provided at least some steamers to bring this force from Vladivostok to the Western front to take part in the war there. As a matter of fact, they were interrupted in their progress to Vladivostok by the Bolsheviks who broke faith with them, and the principal forces fighting against them were German prisoners and Austrian prisoners of German nationality who had also been captured by Russia, but who were led by German officers nominally of Bolshevik regiments. During three or four months in the late winter and spring of 1918, these Czechoslovaks had put up a magnificent fight; they had hurled back these Austrian and German forces, prisoners of war, who were seeking to control the Siberian railway and who were helping to maintain German influence in Russia. When they could not make their way through to Vladivostok, they appealed to the Allies for help to relieve them in their position. They needed re-inforcements, munitions and support. The Allies recognized the Czechoslovaks as a nation, as one of the Allies fighting in this war, and here was a magnificent band of men, who had been helping to win the battle for freedom, fighting against great odds in Russia and Siberia, who were appealing for help. All the Allies felt that they could not permit that request to go unanswered; that they could not permit the Czecho-Slovaks to appeal in vain. They were our Allies and were in distress; they needed assistance.
A third reason was this. Under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty the western provinces of Russia had been severed from Russia. Those provinces, with a population of from fifty to sixty million people contained the finest farming land and the great industrial centres of Russia. While they had been severed from Russia by the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, they had come under German domination and control. If Germany could have retained the advantages she gained under that treaty she could have given up Alsace-Lorraine; she could have consented to an independent kingdom of Poland; she could have withdrawn her troops from Belgium; she could have restored Serbia; yet, by the dominant position she had in Russia and the area for development and expansion in these pro-

vinces, she would have really gained the war: because in entering the war originally Germany did not expect to make her territorial advance on the western front; she expected to build her empire in the east, to open up a way through the Balkans, and to build her empire on the ruins of the Turkish Empire. Last summer, indeed, it looked as if she were in a fair way to accomplish her purpose. She had a road through the Balkans; Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro were all defeated and overrun; Bulgaria and Turkey were her allies; and with Russia practically at her feet and with her forces in Russia dominating and controlling, it looked as if Germany were going to win the war, no matter what sacrifices might be made in the west.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are we quite sure that
Germany is not now in almost the same position with regard to Russia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not quite sure that she is not. But take the situation as it then existed; if the Allies permitted Germany to retain her position, as it then looked, we would have lost the benefits of the war notwithstanding all the sacrifices we had made, and Germany would have had opened for exploitation not only the provinces on her eastern border containing fifty or sixty million people, but the whole Russian Empire. The state of disorganization which then existed in Russia was just the opportunity for the organizing genius of Germany, and her representatives penetrated the whole country. The Allied Council. were unanimous in the view that they could not, if they were to succeed in this war, permit Germany's influence to continue unchecked in the east; that they would have to lend assistance in the way of men to the Czecho-Slovaks in their great fight, and that they would have to endeavour to re-establish the eastern front so as to compel Germany to fight on that front as well as on the West. They felt it incumbent upon them to give assistance to the independent governments which were springing up throughout Russia, in the North, in the South, and in Siberia, and which were combatting German influence and intrigue. All these reasons combined led the Allies to intervene.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If I understand the minister aright, the reasons for Allied intervention in Siberia were: first, to relieve the pressure on the western front by building an eastern front; second, to support the Czecho-Slovaks. Does the minister think it would be possible to relieve the pressure

on the western front by asking the Czechoslovaks to retreat on the eastern front and take boats from Vladivostok around to the western front? Secondly, does he think that we were relieving the pressure on the Czecho-Slovaks by sending a brigade of British troops some six months after the time of the greatest pressure on the western front? This decision to intervene was, I understand, arrived at sometime in June or July.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In July.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Canadian troops-and I understand they form a large portion of the British troops in Siberia-did not reach Vladivostok until some time in October when all danger was over, and they were not in anything like sufficient numbers to give real support to the Czecho-iSlovaks. The Czecho-Slovaks were not attempting to fight on the eastern front, they were, from what I understand, coming east to take boats to bring them back to the western front, so that I cannot see any real reason for this intervention.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sorry, I evidently have not made myself clear, or my hon. friend did not follow me. I said that the original plan of the Czecho-Slovaks was to come through Siberia to Vladivostok, take boats to France, and there fight on the western front.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That would not be organizing the eastern front.


Newton Wesley Rowell: At that time it was assumed that the Government of Russia was friendly to the Czecho-Slovaks and was friendly to the Allies. It proved that the Russian Government was friendly neither to the Czecho-Slovaks nor to the Allies. They intercepted the passage of the Czechoslovaks who could not get out and had to fight for their lives there, and that changed the whole situation.
But when my hon. friend asks me whether I think this or that in regard to matters of strategy, I say frankly that they are for the Supreme War Council !and Marshal Foch to decide. I have not, and do not pretend to have, any opinions on military strategy. On the question of where the fight must be fought, where the armies must be placed, andi where troops must be sent we must accept the advice of the supreme military advisers.


Thomas Vien: Did I not understand the
minister to say that he was consulted as to

the advisability of sending an expedition to Russia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said that the Imperial War Cabinet was consulted as to the advisability of sending an expedition to Russia, having had before them the views of the military and diplomatic advisers.


Thomas Vien: I understand it was the Cabinet in which the hon. minister sat that agreed to that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Thomas Vien: If I understood the minister correctly he said: that the advisability of sending the troops was a matter that was left to the Supreme War Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said that the question
of where troops should be located and where the fighting should be done was one for the Supreme War Council. The question of whether the Allies should go to the assistance of the Czechoslovaks and the people of Russia who were fighting against German aggression-the question whether or not we should accept the views of the Supreme War Council on the importance of establishing an Eastern front, was one upon which we were entitled, and were bound, to express an opinion.
Coming to the question of Canada's sending an expedition, the decision was reached in the latter part of July or early in August that there should be allied intervention, and what Canada should do was considered in the manner I have mentioned. Canada sent men for a valid reason. It was agreed that all the Allies should be represented in this expedition. It was understood that Japan, because she had the men and was nearest" to that theatre of war,. should supply the principal part of the troops. Everyone recognized that this was a necessity of the situation. The other Allies were to send contingents according to their ability. The question arose as to how the contingent that would represent the British Empire should be composed. Great Britain herself had thrown every man she could spare into the line on the Western front, no fewer it is said than three hundred thousand youths of eighteen years of age had been sent over the early part of the year, in April, May and June. I saw. those regiments drilling and they were mere schoolboys. There were no others available, and as the situation was so critical these lads had to be called out. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain had each, in proportion to population, put more men into the battle line than Canada; and
when it came to a question of how the British Commonwealth contingent should be made up we felt that it was only right that, as we could not comply with the request of the War Office to send another contingent to France, we should at least be prepared to provide a brigade for Siberia. We took the position we did because of the critical situation that existed at the time, and in this I am speaking for myself, I sure the same is true of my colleagues-I have nothing whatever to regret in the action then taken. We should have failed in our duty at that time had we not undertaken to do what little we could to help the situation.
There is one consideration I would add, and in this I am speaking for himself. I believe Canada has a deep and vital interest in the Pacific, and that many of the greatest events of the future will be transacted around the basin of the Pacific. Two-thirds of the world's population live in the countries on the Pacific ocean or immediately adjacent thereto,-China, India, Japan, Northern Russia, the United States, and Canada. We share with the United States the dominating position on the eastern side of the Pacific, and in all events that happen on the Pacific Canada has a deep and abiding interest; and, as the years go by, will have a still greater interest. If a force was to be sent to Siberia representing the British Empire in order to relieve the pressure on the western front and help speed the day when our Canadian boys would return, Canada, because of her position and ability, would have failed in her duty at that time if she had not cheerfully contributed to that contingent. My hon. friend says that the trouble and danger were passed before they went. An understanding was arrived at that the British Empire would send a certain number of troops. Japan sent her troops France and Italy sent their troops, and Great Britain sent the number of men she agreed to send, namely one battalion,-as a matter of fact she sent two. Owing to ' conditions prevailing in Canada we were longer than we had hoped in sending our troops, and as soon as the Armistice was signed the matter was taken up with the War Office. We asked if it was necessary for the troops to go forward, and the reply came that owing to the critical situation in Russia it was absolutely necessary that troops should go forward. Great Britain said that if we did not send our troops she would have to provide a contingent, and at that time she was not in a position to

change her plans suddenly. We were simply carrying out the arrangement arrived at in July and August, and doing our share in this struggle in order to . achieve victory and, finally, peace.
Let me say that the success of the war this past year has in no small measure been due to the fact of the unified command. Will my friends, then, not apply the same thing to the situation in Siberia? Could we as Canadians say that when the other troops had to be maintained in Siberia, and when the Supreme War Council considered it essential that troops should be maintained there, Canada should be the first one to quit and refuse to take her share? That is not the part Canada has played in this war, and it was not the part that the Government was prepared to have her play. We carried out our obligations honourably, and intimated that as soon as our troops could be relieved and permission given for them to return to Canada we should be glad to welcome them back.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were we to consider ourselves at war with the Russians at that time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We occupied exactly the same position as the other Allies.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were we at war with Russia or any portion of Russia, and are we at war with them now?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall not undertake to answer that question, because I do not suppose that anybody can state exactly what the situation is with reference to Russia and the various elements in Russia. There are several governments in Russia with which we are not at war.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are we at war with any government in Russia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as the Canadian brigade is concerned, we are not in contact with the forces of any Government with which we are at war.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand the minister to say that the Canadian troops would not have been sent to Siberia if other troops had been available at the time either from Great Britain or from other countries?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not say that. What might have happened under other conditions I cannot say. I know what did happen under the conditions that existed.


Thomas Vien: Was it imperative that Canadian troops be sent to Siberia on occount of the lack of troops from other sources?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I believe that troops were not available from other sources at that time, and that was represented to us.


Thomas Vien: When the armistice was signed the American troops had only been in the field for a few weeks or a month. Were steps taken to ask the United States to send these 3,000, or 4,000, or 5,000 men that were required from the 200,000 or 300,000 men they were bringing back every month?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, we have not asked the United States, or any other country, to carry Canada's burden in this war.


Thomas Vien: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: The United States sent her quota. The British Empire had to send hers. She agreed to send hers. Canada provided the rest of the men. As far as the Empire is concerned, Great Britain not only sent one in five, but she sent more than ten per cent


Thomas Vien: And the United States?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me deal first with the Empire's contribution to the Siberian expedition, which is the question that we are now considering. Great Britain had more than ten per cent of her population in her army, but in addition to the men that were sent from England, New Zealand sent ten per cent, and Australia sent a larger percentage than Canada. Canada was doing nothing more than her fair share in bearing any burdens that fell to her in sending an expedition to Siberia.


Thomas Vien: I am sorry to say that I find that our relations with the Empire have caused us to neglect the interests of Canada and that we might have looked not only to other Commonwealths of the Empire to share in this Siberian expedition, but to other allied countries. There were not only the various colonies of the British Empire which had interests at stake, but there were other independent countries which had as much at stake but which did not contribute their full share to the expenses and sacrifices of the war.


Peter McGibbon: Might I suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Vien) that

there are people nearer home who have not contributed very much to the war?


Thomas Vien: When that question comes up we will discuss it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me answer my hon. friend-in this way: I do not know to what country my hon. friend refers.


Thomas Vien: I want to be very frank; I refer to the United States.


Mr.   HOWELL@: The United States, Great Britain, France and Japan were interested in the situation in Russia. Does my hon. friend say that France should have done more? .


Thomas Vien: I will speak of the United States. I say that in my opinion the United States had not done her full share to the extent that Canada had done hers, and it would have been in the interest of Canada to be relieved from the responsibility of the Siberian expedition, and the United States to send four or five thousand men to Siberia.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will you let me ask you what has your county done in the war?


Thomas Vien: That is out of the question for the time being.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I should think it was.


Thomas Vien: That is out of the question for the time being, but, when the time comes to cover that ground I will answer the hon. gentleman in the proper way.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid we shall not make much headway if there are to be interruptions such as these, although I am very glad to answer all the questions that may be put to me in discussing these estimates. My hon. friend says that Canada has done more than her share-


Thomas Vien: I do.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and that her interests have been sacrificed in this war.


Thomas Vien: In the Siberian expedition.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then I desire to put myself on record as absolutely dissenting from my hon. friend's view. I desire to join issue squarely and fairly on that question with him and with .any who share his views. My hon. friend has said that we should have withdrawn and allowed the United States to send the additional men. The United States sent all the men she agreed to send. I believe that, notwithstanding all the sacrifices that the old Mother Country made in this war, if Canada had dropped out, if we had declined to send men to Siberia, rather than ask the United States to bear her share
of this burden, she might have called out some more of her schoolboys and sent them over in order to carry 'her own burden. Neither Canada nor the Mother Country is desirous of putting her share, or any portion of it, on the shoulders of any others, and we are not their keepers. We are here to do our own duty in our own place. Now,
I mentioned this matter as one of the questions that came before the Imperial War Cabinet and as illustrating the kind of questions that came up for consideration. It has developed into a discussion much more protracted than I had anticipated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If we are not at war with any particular section or race of Russians, how can any hon. member, or any minister, justify our sending men over to Russia who may be shot or killed in action against one or other of these various races or sections?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have given my hon.
friend the reasons why there was intervention. I have stated the reasons why Canada was asked to take part in the expedition. My answer is that Canada was simply carrying out her part of the arrangements which, in the judgment of the War Office and of the Supreme War Council, it was necessary should be carried out. As a member of the Government I am prepared to take the full responsibility for everything that follows from that action.	,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were these men supposed to fight when they got there?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They went over to fight.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With whom?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Owing to the conditions
which developed they have not been called upon to fight. They have been engaged in assisting in preserving order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did the minister or anybody else have any idea who these Canadian troops were going to fight when they got there?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Bolshevists.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were going to fight-


An hon. MEMBER:: Your friends.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
question of order. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said in a general way that the Bolshevists were our friends. As he said " your friends " meaning this side of the House, I ask him to -withdraw the expression. I want you to rule on my question of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You must be Scotch.


Thomas Vien: I want a ruling on my point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was not aware that the remark was addressed to the other side of the House, and one of the rules


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman who
made the observation used the expression "your friends."


Georges Henri Boivin: A rule of the committee declares that an hon. member on rising should always address the Chair. I will not insist upon the hon. member withdrawing the remark.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure we all want to preserve decorum in this House. But does the Chair think that by a little joke, or turn of that kind, it can be tolerated in this House that any member on one side or the other can stand up, and in an observation ally other hon. gentlemen with Bolshevists?


Georges Henri Boivin: If an hon. member, in the course of debate had declared that another member was a friend of the Bolshevists I would certainly ask him to withdraw the expression, but no hon. member was speaking at the time, and I therefore do not know to whom I could address the order of the Chair that the expression be withdrawn.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Algoma has just said that the Bolshevists were our friends. I ask that the hon. gentleman stand up and withdraw the remark.


Mr.   BOWER@: I presume the remark
was addressed to me as much as to any hon. member, and I have no very great objection to be told that I am a friend of the Bolshevists since the Prime Minister of this country has invited the Bolshevists to a conference with him. If they are respectable enough to join him I have no objection to be called a friend of theirs.


Thomas Vien: I want a ruling on the
point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling has already been given that no hon. member in the course of debate used the expression referred to, and therefore the Chair cannot order it to be withdrawn.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already given one subject that came up as an illustration of the subjects that were brought before the Imperial War Cabinet for consideration. The general plans for the campaign, so far as they were proper matters for eonsidera-
tion by Government, came before the Imperial War Cabinet, particularly the whole Eastern situation.
Another very important matter that was considered, and considered most carefully, was the possible conditions of peace. I have noticed a rather interesting discussion in the press as to whether the Dominion ministers were consulted on the terms of peace. The whole question of the possible terms upon which peace might be concluded were laid before the Imperial War Cabinet, were considered by a committee of that Cabinet most carefully, and much thought was given to the whole subject. All such matters were dealt with by the War Cabinet while it was in session.
I do not think I need go further in connection with these subjects. I have only one further observation to make in reference to the work of the War Cabinet, and it is this: There could be no more striking tribute to the benefit of British institutions, and to the progress of liberty as we understand it, than the proceedings of the Imperial War Cabinet and the men who composed that Cabinet. When you find General Smuts, that great leader who was associated with General Botha in leading the Boer -forces in South Africa scarce twenty years ago, seated at the same council table with Lord Milner-and hon. gentlemen know the relations that existed between them during the Boer war-and with the representatives of all the dominions, planning together for the successful prosecution of the war and the defeat of the German army and forces, you have one of the most striking testimonies in all history to the benefit of free institutions and of responsible government as we understand it in the British Empire. The fact that General Smuts was there, with his colleague Mr. Burton, from South Africa, taking part in these proceedings in the midst of this war, is a striking monument to the genius and statesmanship of Henry Campbell-Bannerman who gave responsible government to South Africa in so short a period after the termination of hostilities in South Africa. The meeting was a striking tribute to the loyalty and devotion begotten of liberty, and to the genius for government which the Anglo-Saxon race possesses.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like the hon. gentleman to state what change in our constitutional relations the creation of the Imperial War Cabinet has brought about? The Prime Minister said that it was an important change in the relations between

the various portions of the Empire. What is that change, and can the hon. gentleman furnish any information as to the permanency of the institution to which he refers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thought I had dealt
with that phase of the subject the other day, hut I shall be very glad to supplement what I then said in answer to my hon. friend's question, and it must be largely by way of a re-statement. Prior to 1917, when the Imperial War Cabinet was constituted, the Dominions did not share, in any real or full sense, in the consideration of questions of foreign policy, or in the consideration of questions relating to peace or war. It is true that during the process of our constitutional development the status of the Dominions has steadily advanced, and that the Dominions have from time to time been consulted, and latterly were in reality largely responsible for the negotiation of their own commercial treaties. At the Imperial Conference of 1911 a resolution was passed that in future the Imperial Government before concluding treaties which, by reason of their general nature, would affect the Dominions, should communicate with the Dominions in reference to them. All this indicates a growing desire on the part of the Dominions to be consulted in these vital matters, and a growing recognition on the part of Great Britain of the necessity of consultation, but as a matter of fact that consultation was uncertain, spasmodic and not really effective in the larger sense. The constitution of the Imperial War Cabinet meant that with respect to matters so vital as the ones I have mentioned to-night the Dominion ministers sat at the same table with the representatives of the Mother Country and talked them over in the frankest manner. The inmost secrets relating to the conduct of the war, were laid before the Dominion ministers, and if there was any additional information they desired and asked for it was provided. At these Imperial War Cabinet meetings the Dominion ministers sat as equals with the British ministers in considering these questions of policy. I think the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was entirely justified in saying that that was an important development in our constitutional relations. It was the recognition of the equality of the status of the Dominions with that of the Mother Country.
Now, my hon. friend has also referred to the permanence of this Imperial War Cabinet. It was created for the period of the war, and he will recall that at the Imperial War Conference of 1917 the resolution then passed declared that a conference should be held following the war to consider the relations which would exist between the different portions of the Empire. I have the resolution here, No 9; it reads as follows:
The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a sulbjeet to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference, to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as 'an important portion of the same; should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should, provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted -action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.
While that resolution provides that these constitutional relations shall be considered at a special Imperial Conference, it also lays down the principles upon which that consideration shall take place, and that declaration is most important, because it negatives the idea of a central Imperial Parliament controlling all the affairs of the Empire. It declares expressly in favour of the autonomy of the different component portions of the Empire, and that the development is to be along the lines of consultation and co-operation, rather than of concentration of power in the hands of any one portion; and I take it that that resolution is a landmark in the history of the constitutional development of the Empire; and that it settled-because it received the assent of the Mother Country and of all the Dominions and of India-the basis upon which future development shall be made.


Ernest Lapointe: But
there is nothing to ensure the continuance of the institution. It rests now merely upon the goodwill of the British Prime Minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is nothing to ensure its continuance, because it is created only for the period of the war. What is to take place after the war is to be settled at this special Imperial Conference

and

I submit that that is the wise thing to do -when there is time to consider the subject in all its aspects and in all its bear-higSj based on the principles laid down in that resolution.


Thomas Vien: Is it the intention of the hon. minister to inform Parliament as to the general lines of the policy to be pursued by the Canadian ministers at that next meeting of the Imperial Conference, so as to enable Parliament to discuss what this constitution of a permanent character should be?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I can say is, that I think this resolution lays down the broad lines upon which constitutional development must take place. As far as I am aware, the Government has not considered any further practical proposals in reference to it. Possibly the Imperial War Cabinet, providing for continuous consultation as it does during the period of the war, might be considered afterwards as a suitable development based on the principles of this resolution, but nothing has been decided so far in connection with that matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: In consultation with the
Dominion authorities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no objection to that, provided always that this Dominion at least remains absolute master as to its immigration policy. We have been too ready in the past to receive immigrants even from the United Kingdom. We must select our immigration, and I am pleased to say that the best class of immigration we can get is from the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. We cannot expect immigration to any degree from France or Belgium, but I hope that if good sturdy people from France or Belgium desire to emigrate, the Government will see to it that if acceptable they are directed to Canada. I agree that the bulk of our immigration must come from the British Isles and Scandinavia. We should keep a very careful watch over the tide of immigration. We should not wait until the immigrant has reached our shores, and then return him to Great Britain or Scandinavia, or wherever he came from, but we should have our agents on the other side at the port of embarkation, and the medical examination should be made over there. In years gone by, our medical officers had to meet these immigrants at Montreal and St. John, but more particularly at Quebec and Halifax and they were
subjected to a very hurried examination. The result was that unfortunately a poor class of immigrant was sometimes admitted.
I was startled the other day to see the figures of the feeble minded in the province of Manitoba, in a report by one of the officers of the department. This officer singles out the province of Manitoba because statistics recently compiled show that a poor class of immigrant has bedn shoved off on that province.
I hope the Government, in its new scheme of immigration, and the representatives of Canada at the Imperial Conference, will see to it that our rights are asserted and that a very close medical inspection on the other side of the water forms a distinct feature of our immigration policy.
My hon. friend spoke of the hope expressed at the Imperial Conference as regards cheaper communications between the Mother Country and the Dominions, mentioning specially cable communications and shipping generally. As regards cheap cable rates I am entirely in accord with what my hon. friend stated, and I think the resolution which was adopted at the last Imperial Conference is the same as those which, from time to time during the last twenty years have been adopted at the various meetings of that conference. It is a great pity that we should not have a state-owned cable between the various portions of the Empire. During the war; the censors and the various governments have done their best to prevent us from getting the real news. That, however, is an aside. But I regret that even in normal times the press of Canada should be served with American news. I do not object to the Americans; indeed I am a friend of the Americans; but we belong to the British Empire and I would like to read in my morning and evening newspapers news that is not tainted, and the only way to obtain a satisfactory result in that regard is the control by the British Empire of a cable which would distribute news throughout the Empire, and at a cheap rate. I am not speaking of state-owned cables for the newspapers only, but for the public generally. Cable rates in this country are certainly exorbitant, and my opinion is that the cheape/ the rates, the larger will be the revenues of the cable companies. The cable companies, of course, form to-day a formidable trust, and unless the British Government and the Dominion Government unite and get control of a cable, as we obtained control of the Pacific cable, we shall not be able to make any headway

against the trust. We have a very good illustration of what cheap rates can bring about. Some years ago, when Sir William Mulock was Postmaster General, it was said that letter rates could not be reduced; that to reduce them would mean a huge deficit for the Post Office Department. Sir William Mulock went before the conference at the time of the Queen's Jubilee and compelled the then Postmaster General in Great Britain to accept the principle of penny postage throughout the British Empire. Canada led the way in that great reform, and since that time the Post Office Department, instead of having a yearly deficit, has had a yearly surplus. The principle worked well: The cheaper the rates, the larger the number of letters and post cards, and the bigger the business. I hope, therefore, that the resolution bf the conference will carry; that we shall succeed in choking that cable trust which controls the news of the world, and that a state-owned cable will be established to unite more closely the various portions of the British Empire.
My hon. friend spoke of a very interesting and practical subject, the question of lower oceanic rates. We. cannot hope to extend the trade of Canada if we are treated, as we have always been, by the British shipowners. The St. Lawrence route, which is admittedly one of the best routes in the world, which has been so much improved during the last twenty-five years, has been discredited by the abnormally high rates imposed on our shipping.
I hope the Government will see to it that those rates are lowered and that Canadian traders are given a proper chance.
My hon. friend spoke of the Imperial Court of Appeals. I may surprise some of my hon. friends by what I am going to say. While I am far from being an Imperialist, speaking for myself and as a member of the minority in Canada, I stand by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I am against any radical change. I would be against the Supreme Court of Canada as the final tribunal in Canada. Let me explain. I do not object to the Supreme Court of Canada being the last court of resort for our ordinary civil and commercial cases; but as regards constitutional cases, I stand by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. First of all, it is a court which is the honour of the British Empire, and I may say,	of	the civilized world.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has from time immemorial given ample satisfaction to all those who 'have 
had the honour to appear before it. Its members are among the ablest men in the land and they are above suspicion, and, I repeat, I stand for the Judicial Committee in all matters constitutional. As regards our civil and commercial cases, I see no reason why they should go beyond the Supreme Court of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. member in favour of the judgment of the Judicial Committee in the Alaska award? .


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was a special commission-an arbitration, and I may say that in that arbitration our Canadian commissioners stood by Canada. Unfortunately-and I may say it was quite openly stated in this House when I was a young member-the news of our defeat before the Alaska Boundary Commission was flashed one sad morning to the House of Commons and on both sides the extraordinary attitude of Lord Alverstone was severly censured. But this is not the question. We are speaking of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I, as a member of the minority, stand fast by that committee as the court of final appeal on constitutional questions. My hon. friend laid stress on the fact that new channels of communication had been established between the Dominion'and the Mother Country in that the Prime Minister would in the future be in a position to correspond directly with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I have the highest regard for the wisdom of my hon. friend, but if the clear results of our association with the members of the Imperial Conference only amounted to that, I would say that it was indeed a very humble pie that we were eating, because it is really not a great success to achieve when, after more than one hundred and fifty years of association with the Mother Country, we find that we have at last succeeded in having a Prime Minister who in the future will be able to correspond directly with the Prime Minister of England. I do not wish to belittle the deliberations of the Conference; far from it. But there were other questions much more vital and important than fcnat in the discussions which took place at the Conference, and which I suppose will be discussed before this House when the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) returns to Canada. He has himself declared that any constitutional change evolved from that war cabinet would have to be submitted to the Parliament of Canada. I do not know what change can take place. We have just passed through the greatest of all

wars. There was no binding agreement between the Mother Country and Canada as regards our participation in the wars of Great Britain, and yet Canada did magnificently, as was remarked a moment ago by my friend the President of the Privy Council. There was no binding agreement between Australia and the Mother Country, between New Zealand and the Mother Country, and yet the silken tie was stronger than any gilded chain that might have bound the Dominions to the United Kingdom. On-this question, much as I have regard for the opinion of my hon. friend, as to the possibilities of new constitutional agreements, 'I have more confidence in the judgment of a man whose name and fame are enshrined in the heart of every true Canadian. I refer to the late Edward Blake, whose weighty opinion I beg to quote on this question of closer association with the Mother Country. The following words were spoken by him when a member of the British House of iComomns in 1900:
For many years X for my part, have looked to conference, to delegation, to correspondent, to negotiation, to quasi-diplomatic methods, subject to the action of free parliaments here and elsewhere, as the only feasible way of working the quasi-federal union between the Empire 'and the sister nations of Canada and Australia. A quarter of a century past I dreamed the dream of Imperial Parliamentary federation, but many years ago I came to the conclusion that we had passed the turning that could lead to that terminus-if ever indeed, there Was a practicable road. We have too long and too extensively gone on the lines of separate action here and elsewhere to go back now. Never forget

you have the lesson here to-d'ay-th'at the good will on which you depend is due to local freedom, and would not survive its limitation.
My hon. friend referred a moment ago to the action taken by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as regards South Africa. Mr. Blake was speaking on the very day when the Liberal Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was proclaiming the free responsible Government of the new South African Union. There -was a strong and bitter opposition in the British House of Commons to that Act of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government, one of the most violent speeches being delivered by such an eminent man as Mr. Balfour. Yet Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Blake, Mr. Asquith, Mr. iLloyd George and all true British Liberals gave Canada as the shining example that should be followed in the relations between the United Kingdom and South Africa; and as Mr. Blake said: " Never forget that the good will on which you depend is due to local freedom and would not survive its limitation." Sir.
any scheme by which you would transfer the affairs of Canada from Ottawa to London would eventually fail.
Sir Robert Borden has, time and time again, declared that you cannot bind Canada by the voice or vote of one or two representatives on vital issues unless the Prime Minister and his colleagues, sitting in the Imperial Conference, are backed by the vote of the Canadian Parliament. I have given ' the opinion of Mr. Blake. Here is the opinion of another giant. Sir John Macdonald, speaking a few years ago about this dream of an Imperial federation scheme, used the following language:
We are told that we want Imperial Federation. I will not trouble you with a disquisition on that subject now, but I will tell you Imperial Federation is utterly impracticable. We would never agree to send a number of men over to England to sit in Parliament there and vote away our rights and principles. I am, so far as that question goes, up to the handle a home ruler. We will govern our own country. We will put on the taxes ourselves. If we choose to misgovern ourselves, we will do so, and we do not desire England, Ireland or 'Scotland to tell us we are fools. We will say: If we are fools we will keep our folly to ourselves; you will not be the worse for it and we will not be the worse for any folly of yours.
That is the language of common sense. That is a pithy description of this Imperial federation dream by the great statesman who once said, ' A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die." There we have the opinions of two of the foremost Canadians that I have known in this Parliament-Sir John A. Macdonald and Mr. Edward Blake.
Mr. Chairman, there is another great Canadian who, on many occasions, spoke with no less authority on this subject, and perhaps it is proper that I should quote his language, as he only passed away a few days ago. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in this House in 1905, used the following language:
I do not think that it would be possible to find in any of the self-governing colonies any desire or any intention to part with any of the powers that they have at the present time. At present we are proud to say, and to believe, that the relations of the British Empire within all Its parts are absolutely satisfactory. It is not in accordance with the traditions of British history; it is not in accordance with the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon race, to make any change in their Institutions until these institutions have been proved insufficient or defective in some way. The British Empire to-day is composed of nations all bearing allegiance to the same sovereign.
That is my conception of Canada in her relations with the Mother Country; and. though I do not agree with all the resolutions of the Imperial Conference, of which

my hon. friend so eloquently treated, yet 1 say that as long as this Conference deals with only practical questions, as illustrated by my hon. friend this afternoon, I will find no fault with it. But when constitutional changes, radical, organic changes in the relationship existing between Canada and the Mother Country are broached, I as a Canadian say " Halt!" Canada has her own constitution, her own responsible Government, she is a nation in the British Empire and she is no.t ready to sell her birthright for a mess of pottage. We are British subjects but above all we are Canadians, we wish to assert our Canadian nationality and our Canadian rights and nothing can be done by the Prime Minister or his colleagues in any Imperial Conference to bind Canada for the future unless such projects have received the full sanction of the Canadian Parliament which should be backed by the Canadian people.
Railways and Canals-Miscellaneous-Canadian Government Railways, $4,000.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals by what time we are going to sit. It is twelve o'clock by present time.


Mr. REID (Grenville):: We are working by standard time.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, but we have to live by daylight saving time. Our life and our work will not agree. If we want to do good work we want to make our work agree with our life.


John Dowsley Reid: We do not intend to ask you to sit late but just to pass a few items that are not contentious, in order that we might get into another department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think it is
advisable to get into another department.


John Dowsley Reid: That is all I am asking for.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not a question of time, but there are certain rights that we wish to reserve, and I think it is advisable to finish with this department first. If the Estimates of the President of the Privy Council are not through we might deal with some more items but I do not think we should go info any other department.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is the item:
Canadian War Mission 'and representation at Washington. $50,000.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think there are a great many members in this House who know what the Canadian War Mission is. 
We would like to have some explanation of this item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend wishes to allow the matter to stand I have no objection.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be more satisfactory.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is an item that involves - an important principle and will stand some discussion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my *hon. friend give me some information when we come back to this item? Has there been any correspondence exchanged between this Government and the Imperial authorities with regard to representation at Washington?
It was a question some years ago whether Canada should not have a commissioner at Washington. I remember that at one time-I violate no confidence in stating this-Sir Wilfrid Laurier had intended to appoint a gentleman of very marked ability and of high standing as commissioner at Washington, having the same status as our Canadian Commissioner at London. The proposal did not eventuate, but later on 1 heard, and it was reported in the press, that Sir Robert Borden had intended to appoint Sir Douglas Hazen, as Canadian representative at Washington. I, for. one, would have been pleased to see Sir Douglas Hazen as our representative at the American capital. Has the proposal fallen through, or does the Government intend at some date in the future to carry it out?


Newton Wesley Rowell: With reference to the last suggestion of my hon. friend, touching Sir Douglas Hazen, that is a matter upon which I am not in a position to give any information. In regard to the question of having a Canadian representative at Washington, the Government does intend to carry out the proposal, and this item in the Estimates is to make provision for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a permanent representative?


Newton Wesley Rowell: For a permanent representative at Washington. The exact form which that representation will take is a matter of consultation between the Prime Minister and the Imperial Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The item reads, "Canadian War Mission and representation at Washington."


Newton Wesley Rowell: The intention is to continue the present Canadian War Mission in existence until the arrangements are

made for a permanent representative. The moment those arrangements are concluded the War Mission will go out of existence, but we do not consider it expedient that there should be an interregnum between the end of that mission and the appointment of a permanent representative. That is the object of inserting this item in the Estimates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am pleased with the answer given by my hon. friend. If we are going to have a representative elsewhere than at London and Paris, certainly it should be at Washington, and if I may be allowed to say so, the Government by selecting two years ago Sir Charles Gordon certainly did something which pleased immensely all Canadians who happen to know that gentleman. No abler man could have been found for the position which he filled with such distinction during the last two years and, I am told, without any cost to the Canadians exchequer. No man is more conversant with trade questions or is better able to judge of our financial conditions than Sir Charles Gordon. It is not because he is a good Liberal, but I would like the Government to try, if it is at all possible, to induce Sir Charles Gordon to become our permanent representative in the future at Washington.	v
Resolution reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, April 2, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Two o'clock.

William Thomas White: With reference to the Easter adjournment I give notice that I shall tomorrow move that this House adjourn on Thursday the 17th instant at 6 p.m., and that when the House so adjourns, it stand adjourned until Tuesday the 22nd instant.



QUESTIONS.


*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has His Honour Judge F. S. MacLennan, of Montreal, filled any permanent or temporary positions under Federal Government control since the first of January, 1912?
2.	If so, on what dates was he appointed to such positions, and what was the remuneration or salary attached thereto?
3.	What amounts, if any, have been paid to His Honour Judge F. S. MacLennan hy the Government, since January 1, 1912?


Arthur Meighen: Stand.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: When may I expect an answer to this question?


Arthur Meighen: The first two questions which appertain to the Department ol Justice have been answered some two weeks or more ago and the answers sent to the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell). Inasmuch as the last question bears on every department of the Government, the Secretary oi State must, before he puts his answers in, receive communications from all departments.


IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL.
Mr. CRONYN:: 1.	Has the Lard Chancellor, in pursuance of a resolution passed at the Imperial Conference of 1918, transmitted to the Canadian Government a memorandum of proposals with reference to the constitution of one Imperial Court of Appeal?
2.	When such proposal is received, is it the intention of the Government to lay before this House its views with regard thereto, before making reply to the Government of the United Kingdom?


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



SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT BOARD.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: What has been the total expenditure up to Dceember 31, 1918, in Nova Scotia, in connection with the Soldiers' Settlement Board?


Arthur Meighen: The total expenditure in connection with loans under the Soldiers' Settlement Board to the 31st December last, in the province of. Nova Scotia, is: Loans to settlers, $2,500; inspections and general expenses, $309.25; total, $2,809.25.



NATIONAL SERVICE REGISTRATION.

Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: What were the amounts allowed by the Government in connection with National Service Registration in the County of Bagot during June, 1918, for (a) the registrar;	(b) the
assistant registrars; and (c) rental of buildings for registration purposes?


Newton Wesley Rowell: (a)	$506.20; (b)
$834.13; (c) $100.


Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	What were the respective amounts of the account rendered by the Registrar of National Service in the County of Bagot, for the month of June, 1918, for (a) saiary to employees in connection therewith; (b) salary to the assistant registrars ; (c) payment for rental of buildings used for registration purposes?
2.	What amount has been paid therefor?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	(a) $585.20; (b) $2,108.04; (e) $100.
2.	(a) $506.20; (b) $834.14; (c) $100.


Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What was the total cost to Canada to date in connection with National Service registration?
2.	What amount was paid to Mr. L. G. A. Cressd, barrister, of Montreal, for salary and disbursements in connection with said registration?
3.	What persons did the said L. G. A. Cressd employ, and what is the amount paid to each person?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	$631,230.89.
2.	$918.95.
3.	George Etienne Cartier, Wilfrid J. Proulx, $2,157.07; Hochelaga, Charles Bruehesi, K.C., $2,552.23; Jacques Cartier, Acquila Jasmin, K.C., $3,888.52; Laurier-Outremont Co., Jos. Perrault, $593.46; Maisonneuve Co., J. A. Couture, $3,742.37; St. Anne Co., Lawrence Kavanagh, $7,409.79; St. Antoine Co., Frederick Hague, K.C., $1,584.33; St. Denis, Chas. A. Pariseault, $3,750.81; St. James Co., Alexandre Brouil-lette, $2,263.10; St. Lawrence and St. George Co., G. A. Forbes, $2,249.72; St. Mary Co., Jos. A. Lamarre, $3,692.92; Westmount-St. Henri Co., Alex. I. Morrison, $3,064.73; VaudreuilnSoulanges Co., J. A. H. Cherrier, $1,653.87.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT.

Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	What were the names of the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant Deputy Registrar, under the Military Service Act, for subdistricts of Hull, Wright, Pontiac and La-belle, of Military District No. 3?
2.	When was gaoh of them appointed?
3.	What amount has been paid to each as salary up to date?
4.	What amount has been paid to each for travelling expenses up to date?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Deputy Registrar Sub-District of Hull, Mr. F. A. Labelle; Assistant Deputy Registrar, Sub-District of Hull, Mr. J. E. D. Caron. The District of Hull includes counties of Pontiac, Wright and Labelle.
2.	Mr. Labelle was appointed September 28, 1917. Mr. Caron was appointed October 8, 1917.
3.	Mr. Labelle, September 28, 1917, to June 11, 1918, at $200 per month, $1,693.34; June 12, 1918, to March 31, 1919, at $250 per month, $2,408.34; total, $4,101.68. Mr. Caron, October 8, 1917, to February 28, 1919, at $200 per month, $3,350.
4.	Mr. Labelle, $11. Mr. Caron, no travelling expenses.



SOLDIERS ON PENSION LIST.

Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	How many total disabled soldiers are now on the pension list?
2.	How many soldiers have lost both eyes?
3.	How many soldiers are bed-ridden and are drawing pensions?
4.	How many soldiers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis have received treatment, and how many are now under treatment?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	854.
2.	39.
3.	16.
4.	(a) Since July, 1915, the number of
ex-soldiers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis who have received, treatment, and who have been discharged, or who have died, totals 5,730.	(b) 1,712.



ST. PETER'S RESERVE.

Mr. MALLOY:: 1.	Have all the lands surrendered for sale by the Indians of St. Peter's Reserve, Selkirk, Manitoba, been sold?
2.	If so, how many acres remain unsold?
3.	Have payments for lands ever been made in accordance with the terms of sale?
4.	Has the interest on the funded portion of the proceeds of sale been paid regularly to the Indians?
5.	Has any portion of the 3,000 acres reserved by the surrender for hay land been leased?
6.	If so, to what extent, to whom, for what purpose, for how long, and for what rental?
7.	What is the provision for cancellation, If
any?
8.	Has there been a reduction in area of the said hay land under the terms of the surrender?
9.	If so, what is the extent of the reduction?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes, except the hay lands.
2.	The hay and marsh lands.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, when funds were available
5.	Yes.
6.	The whole 3,000 acres mentioned in the surrender and contiguous marsh lands, about 10,000 acres in all, leased to Charles Bird and Jacob Jonnason of St. Peter's, and Rufus Stephen Benson and Rufus Henrickson, of Selkirk, for a term of five years from the 1st of May, 1918, for hay and grazing purposes at an annual rental of $2,500 in advance.
7.	Provision made in lease that if rent is in aTrear or unpaid for the space of forty days, or in case of breach or non-performance of any of the covenants contained in the lease, it shall be lawful for His Majesty the King into and upon the said premises to re-enter and the same to have again, re-possess and enjoy.
8.	Yes.
9.	To the extent of land leased.



CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE-PRISONERS.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many men belonging to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, whether in France or Great Britain, are actually in prison?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to demand from the French and the British authorities copies of the complaints, the evidence and the verdicts for each of the said eases?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to demand from the French and the British authorities, the release and delivery to the Canadian authorities, of all such members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


Hon. Mr. MEWBURN:: 1.	This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent Overseas for the same.
2	and 3. This matter is receiving the attention of the Government.



EXPERIMENTAL FARMS - DEMONSTRATION STATIONS.

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many experimental farms or demonstration stations are there in each of the nine provinces of Canada under the direction of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	In what year were said farms and stations established, and where are they situated?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1 and 2. Prince Edward Island: one experimental station, located at Charlottetown, established 1909. New Brunswick :one experimental station, located at Fredericton, established 1912. Nova Scotia: One experimental station, located at Kentville, established 1912; one experimental farm, located at Nappan, established 1886. Quebec: Four experimental stations, at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, established 1911; at Cap Rouge, established 1911; at Lennox-ville, established 1914; at Spirit Lake, established 1916; one tobacco station at Farn-ham, established 1909. Thirteen illustration stations: At Aubrey, Chateauguay county, established 1916; at Lachute, Argenteuil county, established 1918; at Paspebiac West, Bonaventure county, established 1916; at New Richmond, Bonaventure county, established 1919; at Stanbridge East, Missiquoi county, established 1916; at Drummondville, Drummond county, established 1916; at Lac a la Tortue, Champlain county, established 1916; at L'Assomption, L'Assomption county, established 1919; at Rimouski, Rimouski county, established 1916; at St. Clet, Vaud-reuil county, established 1919; at St. Isidore, Dorchester county, established 1917; at Ste. Julie, Vercheres county, established 1916; at St. Gedeon, Chicoutimi county, established 1916. Ontario: one experimental 69
farm, at Ottawa, established 1886; one experimental station, at Kapuskasing, established 1916; one tobacco station, at Harrow, established 1909. Manitoba: One experimental farm, at Brandon, established 1886; one experimental station, at Morden, established 1915. Saskatchewan: One experimental farm, at Indian Head, established 1886; two experimental stations, at Ros-thern, established 1908; at Scott, established 1910; fifteen illustration stations, at Assini-boia, established 1915; at Biggar, established 1916; at Davidson, established 1918; at Herbert, established 1915; at Lloydminster, established 1916; at Maple Creek, established 1915; at Meota, established 1918; at Noremac, established 1915; at Pambrum, established 1915; at Prelate, established 1915; at Radville, established 1916; at Shaunavon, established 1915; at Weyburn, established 1916; at Tugaske, established 1918; at Zealandia, established 1919. Alberta:	Two experimental stations, at
Lethbridge, established 1906; at Lacombe, established 1907; two experimental substations, at Fort Vermilion, established 1908; at Beaverlodge, established 1916; seventeen illustration stations, at Bassano, established 1919; at Bow Island, established 1915; at Carmangay, established 1918; at Delacour, established 1918; at Foremost, established 1915; at Grassy Lake, established 1915; at High River, established 1916; at Jenner, established 1915; at Macleod, established 1915; at Magrath, established 1915; Milk River, established 1915; at Munson, established 1916; at Pincher Creek, established 1915; at Taber, established 1918; at Whitla, established 1915; at Wainwright, established 1919; at Youngstown, established 1918. British Columbia: One experimental farm at Agassiz, established 1886; three experimental stations, at Summerland, established 1914; at Invermere, established 1912; at Sidney, established 1912. Yukon Territory: One experimental substation at Swede Creek, Dawson, established 1917.



THE GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERT HARRISON (Nipissing) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to immediately resume the work of improving the French River waterway connecting Georgian Bay with Lake Nipissing.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Government have already had presented to them a resolution urging them to take into consideration the resumption of this work. This resolution was presented by the Boards of Trade from the north country. A deputa-



HEVISED EDITION&quot;

[Stage Direction]
tion composed of business interests from all parts of Ontario met the Government a short time ago in connection with this scheme.
The French river is not a small contracted stream, but a great natural waterway, with wide and deep channels, capable of accommodating the largest of lake carriers, with but little improvement. Breaks in navigation occur at but three points; here three locks will be required. At these locks it is proposed to erect dams capable of maintaining the water level at a uniform height for navigation, and to provide for electrical power.
According to the engineer's report, over
35,000	horse-power will he produced. There has been offered by mining plants from the nickel area $26 per horse-power, and they consider that a generous figure. At even $25 per horse-power, it will net $875,000 per annum in revenue, which will meet the interest on the cost Of the entire waterway construction. The figures in the booklet are taken direct from the report of the Government engineers, and though 25 per cent was added to allow for increased cost of material and labour, the revenue from power would still meet the total interest and leave a substantial balance. Therefore it is really not an expenditure, but an investment which will net a revenue from the day it is in operation.
The Sudbury nickel area has already developed and has in use 37,500 horse-* power. The International Nickel Company is now adding 12,000 horse-power, but this will be utilized by their own plant. Other industries are springing up, such as the British American Nickel Corporation, and it is well to note that 80 per cent of its capital is subscribed by the British Government; it is therefore a purely British corporation. Already it has been forced to locate its refineries elsewhere, as it could find no power available in that locality.
Charles Murphy: Where have these refineries been located?


Charles Robert Harrison: They wished to locate the plant in Sudbury, but were unable to do so, as they could not get the necessary power. The refinery is now in Hull. We have lost this plant, and we do not wish to go on handicapping our industrial development.
The only large power undeveloped in tins section of the country is the French river, and it is entirely in the hands of the Federal Government, as it is bound up wiui waterway construction. New Ontario has
[.Mr. Harrison.]
not hesitated to spend money freely in developing power. Already private capital has invested $37,000,000, and wherever power is available it is prepared to invest still further. Since, however, this power is not open to development by either the HydroElectric Commission or by private capital, and as present plants are suffering and new plants are prevented from locating, we feel that the Federal Government should take action at once. It is due to the territory to place this power at its disposal, and at the same time open the waterway to navigation, both of which are urgently needed by this section of Ontario.
The savings to this territory by waterway improvement would be enormous. New Ontario has been condemned to suffer the limitations of a single line rail haul of some hundreds of miles from the supply centres of the south. Older Ontario has a network of competing railways, and the advantage, besides, of waterways surrounding her which tend to reduce the cost of carriage. But New Ontario has been forced to struggle on with no such advantage.
The most important item is the import of coal. The freight charges on this commodity range from $2.40 to $3.50 per ton. Freight adds almost half to the original price at the border. This section of Ontario tributary to the waterway, uses over
600,000	tons of coal per year, at the most conservative estimate. The average saving would be more than $2 per ton, so that on coal alone the water-borne traffic would save the country a net sum of over $1,200,000 per annum. Thus, in less than 15 years, the entire cost of the waterway would be saved to the country. It can be con-, ceived how much saving there would be to our large pulp and paper plants, some of which use from 40,000 to 60,000 tons of coal per annum.
If our Ontario pulp and paper plants are going to be able to compete in the open markets with the great mills of the United States, which secure their pulpwood in their own vicinity, they must be protected by affording them water-borne traffic for import and export. At present they may find no trouble, but should paper prices fall and competition become keen, they may find it impossible to compete. It is a striking fact that as things stand, the paper plants of the south contract with Anticosti, Norway, and even Sweden, in preference to our Northern Ontario. The reason is obvious. Rail haul is expensive, and New Ontario should be furnished relief at once.	[DOT]
*

A similar statement might be made concerning the 36,000,000 cords of pulpwood. If even 20,000,000 tons of paper were produced, the total sawing, at $2.50 per ton, would be $50,000,000, or if but half were exported by water, at least $25,000,000, would be saved.
A similar handicap is shown in exports. We have 3,500,000,000 feet of timber behind the French River waterway, on a conservative estimate. On this total, if merely 80 per cent is exported, the saving would be about $5,000,000, estimated at $1.75 per M.
The annual saving on these three commodities, lumber, pulp, and paper, would total over $1,300,000, putting the saving at the lowest possible figure.
When we consider what our mines have given to Canada and the world in the short space of time that they have been producing, it seems scarcely credible. In some twelve years Cobalt has given $170,000,000 in silver, and Porcupine over $40,000,000 in gold, or a total in gold and silver of $210,000,000, while the Sudbury nickle area has given $250,000,000. These three areas, then, have aggregated almost $500,000,000.
New Ontario is producing 91 per cent of the silver of Canada, 58 per cent of the gold of Canada, and 90 per cent of the nickle of the world. Surely such a territory is entitled to the small consideration that would be required for the construction of this waterway, which would pay for itself in revenue from power, and over and over again in savings on imports and exports every four to six years.
We also feel that the Federal Government would do well to take measures to encourage the development of our great iron deposits. At present it is impossible for them to compete with the deposits of the great Missaba range, but they are more and more coming into prominence, and a small bounty of 50 cents a ton might make them marketable, and might make New Ontario one of the great steel producing lands of the world, since her resources are practically inexhaustible stretching from the Atikokan North of Port Arthur and to Timagami North of North Bay.
'The French River Waterway would provide another great Lakes Eastern Terminal for the grain flow from the west. It would connect the great Lakes with Lake Nipissing where three Transcontinental railways stand ready to carry the grain to seaboard. Here we have the shortest all rail route to the sea of any line American or Canadian, The Canadian National is only 331 miles to seaboard at Montreal. Should elevators be placed at
the east end of Lake Nipissing, the wheat might be carried eastward as required by the eastern markets throughout the year and thus relieve congestion in the west. If this is a fact to-day when only 120,000,000 bushels are produced what will be the case when the total rises as the grain exchange expect next year to 160,000,000 bushels and possibly to 200,000,000 bushels within a fev?" years. Evidently additional traffic routes are necessary as well as outlets by water and rail to the seaboard. Some 66 per cent of our grain is finding its way to American ports and going to swell American revenues. The French River waterway can successfully compete against this route as it is almost. 400 miles shorter to seaboard and Montreal has equally good ocean rates with New York or any American ports.
The problem of unemployment is fast reaching a crisis and the resumption of this work is at once possible, since surveys have been made, plans, profiles, and specifications prepared and estimates recently revised, thereby affording immediate employment for a large number of men. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a lot to be said in connection with the French River waterway, but without going into the matter in further detail, I would ask to be allowed to quote this extract from an editorial published not long ago by the Toronto Globe in its issue of March 17:
The extension of the pulp and paper industry proceeds steadily. The paper and pulp exports of the Dominion may soon surpass those of all other manufactured goods.
All this requires power in enormous quantities. During the past decade $32,000,000 have been expended north of North Bay for the development of water powers. The total Hydro energy already in use is estimated at 126,000 horsepower, and projects are under way- chiefly for the equipment of paper mills

which will add 146,000 horsepower to this total.
There is urgent need for more, yet all this time the French River-owned by the Dominion Government, with three fine power sites capable of developing over 35,000 horsepower and the inexhaustible dam of Lake Nipissing to insure a continuous flow-remains undeveloped. The people of North Bay assert that a market can be found for this power at prices which would yield over $800,000 yearly, a sum grtater than the interest on the building of a modern canal with locks connecting the Georgian Bay with Lake Nipissing.
Most of Canada's canals have been built at the expense of the taxpayer, without any income offset to lessen the drain on the public treasury. Here is one which can be so constructed that the water power by-product will, in the opinion of competent judges, pay the whole shot.
We, therefore, in view of the large and great gain that will accrue, not only to this section of Ontario, but to the whole Dominion, urge that the French River waterways

be, at the earliest possible time resumed and **carried to completion,
Hon, FRANK B. CARVELL (Minister of Publi:* Works): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Harrison) this afternoon presenting the claims of his portion of Canada. Some two months ago I had the pleasure of listening to a delegation of over 200 members from North Bay and vicinity who presented the claims of that portion of Canada on the Government for the construction of the French River section of the Georgian Bay canal. I do not think it was put forward as a part of the Georgian Bay canal; it practically is a claim by itself. However, I think we might as well make up our minds that if we start upon the construction of the French river end of it we are adopting the policy of constructing the Georgian Bay canal and that this will only be the first link in the chain.
I have listened to the argument put forward by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Harri-" son) this afternoon, as I listened to the argument presented by the delegation that appeared before a committee of the council two months ago. They certainly made out a very strong case from the local standpoint. The case that was presented by them was put forward purely from the local standpoint. About the same arguments were presented then as have been presented to-day. the first being the amount of power that could be developed, the second the great saving which there would be on the importation of coal required by the industries of that portion of Canada and the third, the bearing it would have on the general transportation interests of the country.
I am not in a position to entirely harmonize the figures with the claims put forward by the advocates of the scheme. I have before me a statement furnished today by Mr. St. Laureiit, the Assistant Deputy Minister, who is perhaps one of the most competent engineers in Canada. From the data which we have available, it would appear that there would not be more than
25,000	electrical horse-power developed and that would require some storage work in order to carry out the scheme. Taking the ordinary flow of the river, it gets down as low as 3,500 cubic feet per second, the average being 5,000 cubic feet per second. The total fall of the French river from lake Nipissing to the Georgian bay is only 64 feet divided into three different falls. It would require three different developments and theoretically you would only get about 20,000 or 22,000 electrical horse-power as the river is to-
[Mr. Harrison.l
day. But, with certain storage dams built, it might be brought up to 25,000 horse-power. If you take that at $12 per horse-power at the works you will only have $300,000 revenue. ?ou may say that is too little. I presume it is. Possibly it would not be considered good business to sell power in that north country, developed at tremendous expense, as cheaply as you would sell it at Niagara Falls, but if you put it as $20 a horse-power, which would be maximum figure, you would have only half a million dollars of revenue, assuming that every available horse-power were sold.
When the scheme was under discussion some nine or ten years ago, and when the estimates were made, between fourteen and fifteen million dollars was figured as the cost of the development. To-day that development could not be made for twenty million dollars, and I imagine the cost would probably go above that. But if you put the cost at $20,000,000, at six per cent you would have interest charges amounting to $1,200,000 a year, and if you sold every ounce of horse power developed you would have only $500,000 of revenue and a deficit of $700,000 a year. So that the power scheme does not appeal to me as a good business proposition.
I realize there would be some saving on coal and on transportation charges generally, but we do not want to forget the fact that three railways go through North Bay and the territory that would be served and it is hoped benefited by this water transportation. One of these railways now belongs to the Government of Canada. It is not now a money maker, and I do not see very much prospect of the Government making any money out of it for a good many years to come. I am afraid another railway will also be the property of the Government before very long, and these railways will simply add to our deficits. If we shall have to pay millions of dollars of deficits on the operation of Government railways, I am at a loss to know wherein lies the good business in adding another deficit of $700,000 for the purpose of building this canal. This, Mr. Speaker, is the other side of the case, and in speaking as I do I am only trying to point out to the House, and to my hon. friend, the real situation from the financial standpoint.
I realize that water-borne transportation is a wonderful asset to any country, and that this Government, or any other Government, ought to do all it can in order to provide water-borne transportation if the cost is not prohibitive. I realize that, and I also realize that if the Georgian Bay

canal could be put through to Montreal, and made deep enough to accommodate ocean going vessels, or even large lake boats, it would certainly reduce the cost of transporting wheat to the seaboard. This is a problem which has been discussed a great many times in this House, and I presume will be discussed again before it is decided upon.
After the matter was presented to me by the deputation that waited on me two months ago I gave it the best consideration I could, and Council also considered it. We discussed the question as a whole, and we did not see our way clear to start out on an expenditure of $20,000,000 at the present time when we remembered that there would be a certain annual loss of some hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest charges, and that it would be a long time before the revenues would ever overtake the expenditures. Probably my hon. friends may say that we never expect the expenditures and receipts to balance. My own opinion is it would be a veTy long period before that time would be reached. As against that, I know that this project would be a great benefit to the country to be served. I give my hon. friend (Mr. Harrison) credit for the very fair manner in which he has presented the case. I realize that it is a very important matter to the people of Northern Ontario, but, as I said before, the Government did not consider that it was justified under the present financial condition in launching into an expenditure of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 without a little more thorough investigation into the financial end of the enterprise. Hon. gentlemen must remember that the figures which I have given only provide for the water-power development at the falls, and there would be three of these instead of one. If you could incorporate all three into one development it would not be so bad, but any man who is conversant with electrical matters knows that even when you have got your power development at the point of production you are not any way near the end of your expenditure-in fact, the cost of transmission and distribution adds very materially to the actual expense of the enterprise. While I have no figures as to what will ultimately be the expenditure involved in distributing this power through Northern Ontario, yet I am sure it would add many millions to the figures of the cost of development which I have already given.
For these reasons I do not feel like asking Parliament to start out on an expenditure of this kind this year. It may be that at some time in the future we will be in a
better condition financially than we are at present. I do not want to hark back to a statement I have already made in this House, but I must say that I do view the financial situation of this country with a very great deal of alarm, and I am not going to take the responsibility of rushing into an expenditure of millions of dollars without knowing where the money is coming from. I do not care whether you talk about the development of the Georgian Bay Canal, the French River scheme, or the St. Lawrence River route, even though all of these will be of great value to the people of Canada and of tremendous value to the transportation interests of this country. I do not care what the scheme is, I want to know what the financial results are going to be, and I want to know where the money is coming from before I feel like advocating it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister entertain the same opinion about the construction of the Welland canal?


Mr. CARVELL:: While I am not responsible for the initiation of the work on the Welland canal, I will give my hon. friend my own personal view if he so desires.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have a great deal
more faith in the construction of the Welland canal, and the St. Lawrence route generally, than I have in the Georgian Bay canal. That statement may not be pleasing to my hon. friends in the House, but it is my own personal view. I am a great believer in water transportation. I would' like to see deep water transportation from the St. Lawrence river to the Great Lakes, and entertaining that view, of course I regard the Welland canal as the first link in this great project. With the Welland canal deepened you may have cheap water transportation down to within a very short distance of Montreal, and, to a great extent, I believe, lessen the cost of hauling grain from the West to the sea ports; on the return journey taking back coal, iron, steel, and other heavy products which must go from the East to the West. However, that is aside from the question under discussion at the present time. I have listened to a great many arguments in my lifetime over the merits of these two routes, and I must say my view always was that nature put the St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes where they are and it would be better to improve upon what nature has done than try to seek new channels. However, I am only giving my own personal

view, and I am doing so without very close investigation of the facts of the case; I am not even saying that I would not change my mind if sufficiently cogent reasons were given. It may be that I am all wrong in my belief, but that is my own personal view at the present time; and entertaining that view I look upon the deepening of the Welland canal as the first link in the system connecting the Great Lakes with the seaboard.
As I understand the present proposal, it is not to build the Georgian Bay canal, it is only to construct a section of what would ultimately be the canal from the Georgian bay to lake Nipissing. As I said before the probable cost would be twenty or twenty-five million dollars for an electrical development of about twenty thousand horsepower.


Mr. PROULX:: What is the distance
from the Georgian bay to lake Nipissing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The distance between North Bay and the Georgian bay is eighty-one miles. North Bay is on the eastern side of the lake, and I do not know exactly, but it would be probably fifty or sixty miles from the Georgian bay to lake Nipissing.
I hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Harrison) will not feel that as a Government we are turning down the scheme at all. I am only saying that as far as I am concerned I do not feel like going to such an expenditure of money this year without knowing a little bit more about what the ultimate financial condition of Canada is going to be. I know that if we attempt to build this work we have got to borrow money. We are obliged to borrow three or four hundred million dollars this year, for finishing the war, that we cannot get away from; and I have very grave doubts whether we would be justified in starting out to borrow twenty or twenty-five million dollars additional for a local work such as this is. At the same time it is part of a great scheme which it may be, that in another year Government or Parliament may decide to be a proper thing to undertake. If so I will only be too happy to be governed by what the majority of Parliament may think about it.
But it does seem to me that we have got to put the brakes on somewhere, and I would like to see them put on a little harder in a good many spots than they are being put on at the present time in connection with the expenditure of borrowed money.


Edmond Proulx: Without wishing to interrupt the hon. minister I want, to ask one question. What has become of the commission that was appointed to study the question of the Georgian Bay canal which Mr. Sanford Evans reported on?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Sanford Evans was appointed and got his salary for four or five years. He made a report, which has been printed and distributed, I presume, and he ceased to be in the employ of the Government something over a year ago.
Mr. DEVLIIiN: Are the other officials of that commission still in office or have they completed their work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there are any other officials of that .commission still in office. If there are any the fact has not been brought to my attention.


Mr. DEVLIN:: The secretary drew two
or three thousand dollars up to last year. I do not know whether he is still drawing a salary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not aware of it.
It may be possible; I will investigate. If there are any officials on that commission who are not earning their salaries I will try and find other work for them to do, or see that they do not draw any more money. I am informed the commission was closed up two years ago, and I think there is no reason to question that there are no persons now drawing pay from the Government in respect of that commission.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, while I am not so bold as to think that anything I can say will alter the intention of the Government as expressed by the hon. the Minister of Public Works, at the sarnie time it should be pointed out that this important project has been before the people of this North country and the Boards of Trade of Ontario for a great many years.
I am told that they retained some very competent engineers and electricians to report on the project, and that their figures differ from those upon which the hon. minister relies, and which he is no doubt entitled to rely upon being those of his officials. But as long as this difference exists in those figures I am tempted to tell the people up there that they must not despair of this project being undertaken eventually, especially in view of the statement made by the hon. minister that he is not turning it down, but simply presents the formidable financial difficulties that are now in the way. What the engineers say is that not twenty-two or twenty-five thousand, but-

thirty-five thousand horse-power can be developed, and that the cost will not be by any means so great as the minister seems to think.


Charles Murphy: How much would it be?


Mr. MOW  AT@: I do not know, because prices have changed very much in the last few months. I am impressed with the fact that those earnest men up there do not seem to have glossed over any of the difficulties, but appear to have presented the facts in a very candid manner. It is not a local project altogether, because in Toronto there is a great deal of interest taken in it, and also in the other cities and towns of Ontario. I know wholesale merchants in Toronto who have built up a very profitable business with the people of New Ontario in the district which will be served by this canal. For years they have made a great deal of money, a great many goods have been purchased from the wholesale merchants of Toronto, and it is natural that the Board of Trade of Toronto should look with approval and sympathy upon this great scheme, but the only comfort we can get to-day apparently is that it is a matter for future consideration.
I have a resolution passed only a few days ago by the Associated Boards of On. tario, representing 53 towns and cities, including Toronto, and they reaffirm the opinion which they gave in 1912 that this is very important to the province. They say:
That the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade reaffirm the resolution passed unanimously by them at the meeting held in Toronto on the 23rd day of February, 1912, with reference to the improvement of the French River connecting Lake Nipissing with the Great Lakes, and in view of the fact that development in Northern Ontario is being held back because of a scarcity of Hydro Electric power, we request the Dominion Government to proceed at once with the work and to place such a sum in the estimates for 1919 as will permit of completion under their plans of one of the units on that river.
It is very unlikely that those fifty-three Boards of Trade would have come to a unanimous decision if there was any feeling that they were not justified in passing this resolution. So far as Toronto goes, of course I suppose the power scheme is more important, but whatever helps the country generally I have always understood the merchants of Toronto will be willing to endorse, whether or not trade should happen to come to them. Of course, it may be said that if this canal is completed, and big grain ships from Port Arthur and Fort
William come through to North Bay, that transhipment will take place there and go by Montreal and other places, and that that will not be to the benefit of Toronto; but that is not a matter that bothers the people of Toronto so long as the general trade of the country is being built up, because whatever benefits the country at large will benefit the large centres. Therefore, I am glad to make these few remarks in support of a project in which I have complete confidence, although I have said less than I intended to say in view of the statement made by the hon. minister.
Mr. FRANCIS H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora): The hon. Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker, invited discussion on the motion and said that he had not definitely closed his ears to the other side of the problem, and as coming from that district and being somewhat familiar with it, may I be allowed to intervene in the debate. It is a problem. He has referred-to it as being a Georgian Bay project. I am not going to deal with that phase of it at all. In the first place this and the St. Lawrence river are two power propositions looked at as a whole that should be controlled entirely by the Government because of the aftermath therefrom. They are in the long run both canal routes, but will have to be looked at from a different viewpoint. The St. Lawrence river is primarily a navigation question, and secondarily there is the power that will flow from that development. We must never think of the St. Lawrence river in any other w>ay than as the main artery to the sea from the interior of Canada, and we must develop it first from the standpoint of navigation, and second for the by-product -viz, any power we can get. The Georgian Bay canal problem, however, is quite different in my view. It will be practically a sub-aqueous canal, the beds of large rivers here and there will have to be dredged out, and so forth. It should go on as the power possibilities require it and, then after all the power development along the valley of the Ottawa river is secured, it will naturally turn itself into a canal route.
Now, the hon. member for Nipissing is asking that the French river, a part of the Georgian Bay route should be primarily a power problem for the opening up of that country, and in that view I think he is proceeding along the right lines. When this proposed scheme is completed ships will no longer stop at Georgian Bay, and therefore the question should be looked at not only in

a local manner but in a national manner. We have to-day the Canadian Northern railway and we have to make it pay. The Canadian Northern railway has no outlet on Georgian Bay. Ii it wants to haul the grain of the West in the summer time it can only do it from Key Harbour down to Toronto, and then east, which is out of the question. It will have to build a line paralleling this canal route just as the Canadian Pacific Railway did.
The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harrison) and his constituents are to be congratulated on the excellent manner in which they have dealt with this question in a booklet issued, which contains many interesting facts. Lord Shaughnessy's letter, written in 1913, quoted in this booklet, shows what will happen if we do not build this canal. At page 39, Lord Shaughnessy is quoted as follows:
The subject mentioned in yours of yesterday is not a new one to me by any means, as I pressed the project on the Government as forcibly as I could, upwards of ten years ago.
If the French River route had been opened to North Bay, as it should have been, we would not have built our line from Pt MCNichol east, because it would have been better to have double-traoked the line between North Bay and Montreal.
If this branch line has to be built across to the Georgian Bay ports, it will cost some money, and without the French River canal, that is the only way the Canadian Northern railway can haul the wheat that comes down by the lakes in the summer time. Port McNiehol is a Canadian Pacific Railway port; Midland and other Georgian Bay ports, the Canadian Northern railway from the West to Montreal, does not touch. But if we build this canal, as we can do at less cost than would be involved in the construction of a branch line of railway, we can at once bring this wheat down within three hundred and some odd miles of Montreal. In fact, it would be the shortest rail haul into Montreal, as is very interestingly set forth in this booklet. Ii we get the wheat into Lake Nipissing, we are within three hundred and thirty-one miles by rail of Montreal, and this is a shorter haul than by any other railway. The Canadian National railways can therefore haul that wheat at a better profit and a Jess cost per ton per mile than the other competing railways, though charging the same rate. Aside, therefore, from the local phase of the question, considering it only from the standpoint of a Government proposition, the suggestion that the member for Nipissing has put forth deserves very serious consideration.

In addition, there would be a saving to the Canadian National railway on coal. The Canadian National railways use a large quantity of coal, and if that coal is brought in by water to Lake Nipissing and there fed to the Canadian Northern railway at North Bay, it could be got in from Lake Erie ports at fifty cents a ton,-forty cents to Georgian Bay ports,-whereas the cost of the rail haul is something like two or three dollars a ton. A considerable saving could be effected, therefore, by the Government of Canada in the matter of coal if this proposal be carried into effect.
I think that Canada ought to awaken to the immediate necessity of developing her white coal. Last year and the year before we found ourselves in a rather serious predicament owing to our absolute dependence -at least, so far as Ontario is concerned- upon our cousins to the south in the matter of coal supply. But their supply of coal is limited to the supply that is in sight, and soon they will begin to conserve their coal, and in order to do that they will have to stop exportation. The production of white coal would be the result of this
3 p.m. canal development. One horsepower is equal to ten tons of coal on an efficient engine, and by using white coal we save that quantity of ordinary coal for every horse-power; we avoid sending that much money out of the country and we help to prevent the rate of exchange from being against Canada. Last year and the year before we imported fifteen million tons of soft coal and three million tons of anthracite, in addition to some slack. The more we can reduce the amount of coal imported the better, and the 25 or 35 thousand estimated horse-power involved in the canal scheme would save 250 or 350 thousand tons of coal consumption.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is
an authority on water-power development; would he, if he were putting up his own money, develop a water-power at $800 per horse-power?


Mr. KEEFER:: Water-power is often developed at $100 per horse-power. The development of water-power at $800, of course, is an impossible proposition.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what this proposition is.


Francis Henry Keefer: I cannot say as to the figures. I am talking of this not as a waterpower proposition, but as a national canal system into Lake Nipissing, even if it never * went on to Montreal.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Does this $800 horsepower include the cost to Montreal?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, that is itJhe cost of the development of the French River.


Francis Henry Keefer: I have not studied the question, but I would be surprised to find the cost of development on a drop of seventy feet-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Sixty-four feet. I can give you the figures.


Francis Henry Keefer: That includes the canal system also?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly.


Francis Henry Keefer: Then we must consider what will be the benefits of a canal system. Look at the immense national resources of that country: the timber, the pulpwood, the minerals, the Sudbury mines, pronounced by Professor Coleman as inexhaustible so far as present actual demands upon it are concerned.
The output of gold and silver or precious metals is represented by over two hundred million dollars of which ninety millions have been paid out in dividends. Of the vulgar metals the supply of nickel is inexhaustible 'and there are large quantities of iron ore.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend explain why the nickel refinery has been transferred from that district to Hull?


Francis Henry Keefer: I do not know why it was transferred. As I understand it there are two nickel refineries, one built and operated at Port Colborne by an American company -I do not know the name of it-and the other operated by the British American Nickel Company.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The nickel plant in Hull is of new construction. There was no transfer.	'


Francis Henry Keefer: I am not familiar with
what is being done here. I did hear of the projected construction down here and I did my utmost on behalf of my town to get the company to locate there, but we could not induce them to do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have they not come to Hull because they found cheap power there?


Francis Henry Keefer: I imagine that the question of cheap power would be an important factor in the matter.


Samuel Hughes: And labour.


Francis Henry Keefer: The labour question would also be a consideration. The point I want
to make is that irrespective of the question . of water-power, and as a navigation scheme only into lake Nipissing, the matter is worthy of most serious consideration.
The transportation of other natural products out of that district by water would cheapen the rates of carriage. Lumber would be cheapened, paper would be cheapened. The newspapers are always asking for cheaper paper; the best way to get it is to reduce the freight. The freight rate by rail out of that district is two or three times what it would be by water. This applies also to agricultural products. There is a large and very valuable clay belt in that district to be opened up where splendid crops could be grown. To my mind, all these points are worthy of consideration. To-day the settlers in that country cannot send their pulpwood out because of the high freight rates; they cannot ship their wood to the Niagara Peninsula, right beside the Welland canal-to St. Catharines, 'Thorold or Niagara-because of the prohibitive freight rates. They cannot even ship to the American ports. I do not want to see our wood going out of the country, but the opening up of water transportation would enable these settlers to engage in competition with other Canadian pulp and paper mills and put them in a position where they would not be at the mercy of the mills situated only in their own local district, as they now are. They now have to sell to the local mills in that country, whereas they should be enabled to get out into the open market.
I look forward to the day when our national railways will stop using coal bought from the United States, thereby increasing the difficulties of exchange, and will commence to use our own white coal.
There is no country in the world so richly endowed with water-power as is Canada and those water-powers seem to be scattered all along the national railways, because the railways follow the river valleys. The day is practically at hand when these railways should be operated by electricity, thus saving the importation of coal. This power phase is, therefore, also a national question apart altogether from the local phase thereof. I have brought these points up for the consideration of the House simply for the purpose of helping out my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Harrison), and also my other friends in that North country. We in the North country are fighting against the difficulties of nature, and I feel that in this matter we should receive the most sympathetic consideration.

Mr. EMMANUEL B. DEVLIN (Wright): I desire to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Mpissing (Mr. Harrison) for having brought this question before the House. What I have to say to-day upon the question of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal I have said upon other occasions, and I would not wish to amplify the remarks I then made because I might weary the House. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer), who placed before the House succinctly and in a manner that was extremely clear, the main advantages of the Georgian Bay canal scheme, not as a local scheme, but as a general scheme for transportation and for the general advantage of Canada. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) seems to look upon this matter principally as one in which we have .to consider simply electrical purposes, although he did incidentally mention the matter of transportation and the exportation of lumber. It has been the habit of the House in years gone by to consider the electrical part of the question as an incidental and the transportation as the main feature of the proposition.
One point which I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and which I do not think the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora mentioned, is that the Georgian Bay canal is already built; it is only a matter of putting in a few locks here and there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What would it cost to put them in?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 'Costs are running so high nowadays that it is practically impossible to make an estimate, but it certainly will not cost any more money to this country than is being spent on the Welland canal scheme and the other proposition of bringing all the western traffic through the Welland canal via the St. Lawrence to Montreal, and in my opinion it will cost a great deal less. The Minister of Public Works said that three railways go through North Bay. One railway belongs to the Government and one is on the point of belonging to the Government. These are the arguments that we heard in this House some twelve or thirteen years ago and that have been brought forward ever since. The railways have been against this project, and the members whose constituencies were not immediately concerned were perhaps indifferent or violently opposed to it.
I am glad to see now " that we have one 
hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Mowat) in favour of this project, and I must attribute to the hon. member for Nipissing the achievement of having made from amongst the members for Toronto, a convert to the Georgian Bay canal scheme.
The hon. minister spoke of the electrical power, but I have no doubt that he understands that electrical power is simply an incidental; that nobody would advocate the building of this canal at the present time solely for the purpose of developing electrical power. The idea we have always had in mind is that you get from water-power cheaper transportation. You have no competing lines from the gTeat lakes to the ocean; you save transhipment and elevator charges, and you lessen the charges all along of haulage. On the other hand your ships do not go back empty; they go back loaded with coal from the lower provinces. The Maritime Provinces would, therefore, benefit by the scheme, and if the ships go back loaded with coal, the western country that needs coal would get it at a cheaper rate than by bringing it in from the United States, and a much cheaper rate than by bringing it in by rail.
I have not the figures for the last year or two, but up to last year or the year before I know that practically no soft coal was hauled west of Montreal by the railways. By water transportation Ontario would be supplied right along with soft coal, and it would be a great advantage to 'Ontario, not only to the constituencies that would help to feed the road, but to other constituencies, to receive coal at cheaper rates.
I am glad to see that the Georgian Bav canal scheme is still alive; that it has not been turned down by the Government. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Public Works wants to receive value for every dollar spent by the Government, and in many ways savings could be made which could be put into a scheme that would be for the general advantage of Canada. If it were stated to those who advocate the Georgian Bay canal scheme that millions more are not going to be spent on the Welland canal scheme, we might say: Well, we can wait. But the more millions you put into the Welland canal scheme, the more millions you put into the coffin of the Georgian Bay Canal scheme, and'then the argument will be adduced in the future: What do we need the Georgian Bay canal for? We have spent so much money on the Welland canal scheme that it would be useless now to have two great water transportation schemes in Canada.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parrry Sound):: I think the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Harrison) is in the unfortunate position of being damned by some of his friends and misunderstood by others. The proposition which the hon. member brings before the House to-day is not the Georgian Bay canal scheme, nor is it a power scheme pure and simple. It is quite true that when the delegation came down here some months ago, they brought forward the argument that the power which would be developed in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal could be sold immediately at a price of, I think, $26 per horse-power, and that they could get contracts for it~-as soon as the power was ready to be delivered. These arguments were put before the Minister of Public Works and apparently he has let slip, at least partially from his mind, the fact that this waterway was not being constructed simply for the purpose of developing electrical power, but that this power would be created incidentally.
As a matter of fact, the name " French river " is a misnomer, because there is really no river there, but a succession of very long, wide and deep lakes. Occasionally, the channel is blocked by groups of islands, which cause what is known as a fall or rapids, but at only one place are there any real rapids, and that is at the end of Lake Nipissing. This scheme is being brought forward not as part of the Georgian Bay canal system at all. As a matter of fact, its construction has been delayed by the very fact of its association with the Georgian Bay canal. The first complete survey of the French river was made by the Canadian Pacific Railway many years ago, and their estimate of the cost of the water-way, if my memory serves me right, was from $7,000,000 to $8,000,000. Of course, at that time they intended to construct only a fifteen instead of a twenty-two-foot channel; so the cost would be considerable higher now. But if this work is considered as part of the Georgian Bay canal, it is a part as to the desirability and feasibility of . which thexe can be no question. There is no question whatever as to the sufficiency for navigation purposes of the water going down the French river, nor is there any question as- to the desirability of building up that portion of Ontario, which at the present time is the most important to us.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) has stated that grave liabilities face us at the present time. That is only a reason why we should open up a section
of the country like the one under discussion, because it will furnish the means by which we can pay the interest on our debt. We must produce wealth and enlarge our foreign trade through some one or more of these four means-the mine, the farm, the forest, the fisheries. This important work would benefit the country in every one of these ways. For instance, there are pulp mills up there using annually from 60,000 to 80,000 tons of coal. The estimated saving upon that coal is between $2 and $2.25 per ton-I will not detain the House by quoting the exact figures. There is thus an unnecessary overhead charge upon the operations of that mill of $100,000. It would be much better for the country if that overhead charge was wiped out by allowing the mill to get its coal at a reasonable price. Not only that, but the amount of available pulp in that country is absolutely unlimited. We have four pulp mills there now, when we should have forty. The raw material is there, the power is there, and we have the world's market. And it is only by encouraging industries of this kind that we shall be able to meet our interest charges.
Take the case of the mines, for instance. A poor prospector with experience in that part of the country, discovers a mine; at least it is a mine to him, although just a prospect in the meantime. He is most anxious to develop it, but is up against the proposition of paying a very high price for coal. He not only has to pay for the rail haul from Cobalt or North Bay, as the case may be, but he has also to draw the coal many miles on sleighs or wagons back to his mine. He cannot finance that proposition. Now if we can help that man to develop his mine-and we have not seen one-quarter of the mines that will ultimately be developed in Northern Ontario-we should do it in our own interest.
As to railways, the minister has stated that we own 'one system touching North Bay at the present time. As a matter of fact, there are two which we own at present effected by the coal rates, the Canadian Northern railway and the National Transcontinental. Whatever effect the construction of this work might have on the Canadian Pacific railway, it could have only a beneficial effect on the Canadian National Railway system. The Government system of railways, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) has said, has no lake- port, but by the opening up of this water-way at a reasonably small expense, the system would have a first-class port, or more than

one, on Lake Nipissing. We already own the foreshore, and have made all preparations, and construction should be started. The Canadian National Railway system would then have a haul of 331 miles to Montreal, practically all down-grade. The Government railway can under present circumstances draw a larger load from North Ray to Montreal than any other railway. In addition to that, the Canadian National railways have to get coal from some place, and at present they are getting it from Fort Erie or Buffalo by an all-rail haul;- at least the great bulk of it comes that way. Would it not be a good business proposition for these roads to have their coal at a cost of $2.25 to $2.50 less per ton. I am quite satisfied this waterway would benefit the railways as much as anybody else.
The hon. member for Port Arthur touched very lightly upon the matter of iron ore. We have in that North country millions of tons of iron ore. These deposits have been diamond drilled for many hundreds of feet, but at the present time it is almost impossible to put the ore on the market on account of the transportation cost. If by a system of waterways we could get that ore to the smelters along the Great Lakes we would develop in Canada an industry which at the present time deserves encouragement probably more than any other industry in this country.
I shall not take up the time of the House further. I just put this proposition:	We
should not make any useless expenditure, of course, but I think any manufacturer who could see a way of cutting down his overhead charges and of greatly increasing the production of cheaper goods, would be very foolish if he did not make the initial expenditure necessary for that purpose.
Motion declared negatived.



BANK MERGERS IN CANADA.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a return giving a detailed statement of the number of bank mergers in Canada since October 1, 1911, up to date, together with a copy of all petitions and correspondence opposing same. Also, the names of banks affected thereby.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I gave notice of this motion at the opening of the session I was under the excitement created by the merger of the Bank of Ottawa with the Bank of Nova Scotia. As you will remember, the announcement of this merger caused considerable emotion in and around Ottawa. 
The Bank of Ottawa was a well known institution, on a sound basts, and doing an excellent business.
The very name of the bank carried considerable weight with it. The men associated with the bank also carried great weight. The people protested vehemently against that merger here in the city of Ottawa. I remember more especially a remark of one of the leading merchants on Sparks street on the morrow of the announcement that the merger would take place. On being interviewed by one of the reporters of the Daily Citizen, this merchant said:	"You have no idea of the feeling I
had this morning when I read that the old Bank of Ottawa would pass away. It is as if I had lost an old friend." Of course, that is only sentimental, and banks and ministers of finance do not concern themselves too much with sentiment alone.
But, there is another side to this question. There has been throughout the country, especially, in the West, and pretty generally in the rural sections of Canada, a strong opposition to the mergers which have taken place of late. During the fifteen years when the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister, I do not remember that more than one or two bank mergers took place. I know that there was at that time a strong public opinion against such mergers. But of late my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) seems to have been over-generous, overchivalrous, with the big financial institutions.
I am not well enough versed in the financial and banking affairs of the country to offer any severe criticism. I am simply re-echoing on the floor of the House the protests which have been made throughout the country against that policy. Mjj, only reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the House is to learn from my hon. friend if the policy of the Government is to favour more bank mergers. We are now reduced to a small number of banks, nineteen in all. In this country, with a sparse population scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is it the policy of the Government to further reduce the number of our banking institutions? On the contrary should not the Government favour a large number of banking institutions which would distribute to the farmers and workingmen the credit required for the business of the country?
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance will understand that I do not unduly criticise him. I am simply repeating what I read in the press and what I heard as re-

gards this policy. I do not wish to say anything against our banking institutions but there is a fear that the banking business of Canada, will, in a short time, be concentrated in the hands of a few magnates. It is believed that this is not a very democratic way of treating the people. The argument is advanced that the banks vested with a privilege are [DOT] institutions for lending the money accumulated in their vaults by the thrift and economy of the people at large and that they should be more available to the public. The purpose ol my motion is to get from the Minister of Finance a statement as to his policy for the future. I know that good reasons have been adduced in favour of this last merger. I myself discussed the question with the president of the Bank of Ottawa, the Hon. Mr. Bryson, and he told me that, in order to compete out west with the other banks, his bank would have to increase its capital stock to a very large figure and to establish branches all over the country, a thing which would entail a vast expenditure of money and that it would be better for the shareholders and clients of the bank that the Bank of Nova Scotia should take up the business of the Bank of Ottawa. There may be something in that argument but I would like to know from the Minister of Finance, who looks after the banking institutions of this country and who must also have regard to the public needs, what the policy of the Government is. That is the only object I had in view when I brought up this motion, Mr. Speaker.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) was not to proceed with his motion this afternoon. If I had known that it was his intention to do so I should have done him the courtesy of having some information which I had compiled and which might be interesting to him. However, the matter is one which I have no objection to discussing because the discussion proceeds along general lines.
Under the Bank Act Parliament has expressly authorized the amalgamation of banks subject to certain safeguards which were deemed advisable in the public interest. The first safeguard is that no agreement shall be entered into between the boards of directors of two banks desiring to amalgamate without the consent in writing of the Minister of Finance. That provision was inserted in the last revision of the Bank Act which took place, I think, in 1913. There is the further safeguard
that before an amalgamation of banks is completed the Governor in Council must consent. So that, so far as the legislation is concerned, the interests of the public would appear to be reasonably safeguarded.
I remember when the matter was before the Banking and .Commerce Committee in 1913 it was then recognized, as it had been before, that it would be inadvisable to prohibit the banks from amalgamating. The principle of the amalgamation of banks in proper cases was recognized, but in order to ensure that the public interest would be fully considered, as I have stated, a provision was inserted that the consent of the Minister of Finance was necessary. I carried the matter a little further, in order to prevent any premature disclosure of agreements about to be entered into between boards of directors, by making a regulation, by which I notified all the banks that before proceeding to negotiate they should consult with the Minister of Finance. I did that because it is very inadvisable that there should be public discussion about proposed agreements. Once such publicity is given there is danger of a misunderstanding of the situation respecting the banks, and altogether it is very desirable that the statute should be strictly observed, that the consent of the Minister of Finance should be given, and that it should not be announced to the public that two banks are about to amalgamate, because the minister might decide not to give his consent.
I may say that on account of what I might call the general misunderstanding in the country with regard to the matter of bank amalgamations, the duty which is imposed upon the Minister of Finance under the Bank Act is by no means a pleasant one. It is brought to his attention that the boards of two banks desire to amalgamate, with the reasons why, in the opinion of the directors, it is advisable that that should be done. The minister then has to take the responsibility of either consenting to the amalgamation or declining to consent. If he consents to the amalgamation-the situation not being generally understood through the country, the facts before the minister not being disclosed to the public, the public not being aware of the expediency of the amalgamation and not knowing that it is, as I believe it has been in all cases, in the public interest-there is a great deal of criticism which I submit to the House is unwarranted. On the other hand, if the minister declines to give his consent in a proper case he is clearly shirking the duty imposed upon him by Parliament.

There is no general rule, I think, that one can lay down with regard to the class of bank amalgamations which should be allowed, and those which should be denied. I think that it is a matter for careful consideration, on the part of the minister and the Government, of all the facts presented. There are four parties who are interested in cases of bank amalgamation. In the first place there are the depositors of the banks [DOT] in question; in the second place there are the shareholders of the banks; in the third place the customers of the banks, and in the fourth place the general public. My hon. friend has referred to a recent case of bank amalgamation. It is true that there was a good deal of sentiment attaching to the Bank of Ottawa. Not only did the people of Ottawa have a certain sentimental feeling about a financial institution of the standing and strength of the Bank of Ottawa, but for myself I also disliked to see the Bank of Ottawa disappear as a separate entity. The feeling, however, was, I admit, entirely sentimental, and so far as I can gather now there is practically a consensus of opinion that what was done was wisely done, and that none of the interests that I have mentioned, viz; the depositors, the shareholders, the customers or the general public, have been in any way disadvantaged, but on the other hand the whole situation has been benefited. Now the Bank of Ottawa, as I have said, was a bank of high standing and good credit, a strong institution. Its difficulty was that it was receiving money from depositors to a very large amount from month to month, and it had not the facilities, by reason of not having extended its branches throughout the various parts of the country like others of the banks, to keep that money successfully employed. Therefore, as my hon. friend has stated, a question that arose was as to substantially increasing the capital, and also-and this he did not mention-going to a very heavy expense in the establishment of branches through which the rapidly increasing funds of the bank could be loaned. During the last few years the discounts of the Bank of Ottawa declined, while its deposits had increased. Its investments, therefore-because it had to invest its surplus money in securities of various kinds-increased. Now, while every bank should have a substantial amount of its funds invested in high class securities, the primary purpose of a Bank is to loan to the commercial and agricultural community. The Bank of Ottawa, therefore, was handicapped in that important respect. The 
Bank of Nova Scotia, as is well known to this House, is one of the most carefully managed and most powerful institutions in Canada. I had before me the information at the time the amalgamation was under consideration, and speaking from memory, I recall that at only seven points, and those in the larger places where there was ample banking accommodation and consequently keen competition among the banks represented there, was there any over-lapping of branches. In other words, if ever there was a natural amalgamation for the purpose of serving the public throughout the Dominion of Canada, it was the amalgamation of the Bank of Ottawa with the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Bank of Ottawa has its branches largely in the Ottawa valley. It gathers up large sums there in deposits, and, as I have stated, it is desirable that those funds mobilized in that way should be made available to be loaned in other parts of the country where there is a greater demand for money.
The amalgamation of the Bank of Ottawa and the Bank of Nova Scotia was, I submit, a benefit to all the four interests that I have mentioned. In the first place, no one can say that the depositors of either bank are in a less advantageous position than they were before; a powerful bank has been formed with the combined resources of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Bank of Ottawa as security for their obligations. There is no question in my mind, that the customers of the bank will be as well served, because it will be to the interest of the Bank of Nova Scotia to continue the business with the customers of the Bank of Ottawa through the offices which it takes over; that is a valuable business. The impression seems to prevail that it would be of some interest to a bank to withhold funds from commercial or other customers; on the contrary, no bank can possibly succeed unless by lending its money to those customers. Therefore it is an object to any bank not only to maintain, but to increase the number of customers, and a bank would be justified in paying a substantial sum for the business which it had taken over at any branch of another bank, if it could obtain it. So far as the shareholders are concerned they are capable of having proper regard for their own interest, and if the shareholders of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the shareholders of the Bank of Ottawa both agree that this is a proper course to pursue, he would be a bold man who wmuld say that any objection could be raised on that score. There re-

mains the question of public interest. I have shown that there was practically no overlapping, that the two banks formed the natural complement, so to speak, the one to the other, and that there will now be made available through the branches of the Bank of Nova Scotia in the West, and other branches which they will establish, the fund which the Bank of Ottawa was unable to loan to mercantile and agricultural customers.	.
The one point in connection with the amalgamation which I think was regrettable is that which my hon. friend has called attention to-the sentiment attaching to the name: Bank of Ottawa. We will all agree, I think, that we do not like to see an old and worthy institution bearing the name of the capital city pass off the scene, but that is a matter of sentiment; from the business standpoint and that of public interest it is perfectly clear that the banking situation as a whole has been strengthened and that facilities have been afforded which did not exist before for serving the agricultural and commercial needs of the community.
Now, there is another aspect of the matter. Conditions of world trade have been greatly changed by the war. During the war 'Canada developed great manufacturing capacity and output; to-day she is faced with heavy obligations due to the war; and it is, I think, the duty of the Government and of the people to increase so far as is possible our export trade both in manufactured goods and agricultural products. In .connection with the carrying on of export trade it is very necessary that banking facilities should be afforded. Those banking facilities can only be afforded by the establishment of branches in the principal world centres or in the countries with which that export trade is to be developed. Now, the smaller banks are not in a position to establish those branches. The larger banks can establish branches in London, Paris, New York and Chicago, and I think one or more have established branches now in Asia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Vladivostok.


William Thomas White: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister received any protests, especially from the grain growers in the West, and farmers' organizations, against the various mergers which have taken place.


William Thomas White: From time to time I think resolutions have been received with regard to the general principle of bank amalgamations, and it may be that in connection with some amalgamations that have taken place some letters have been received, but generally speaking I do not recall any serious protests against bank amalgamations except such as I have seen in the press. And in those cases what I have observed is this, that while there is usually fairly strong criticism as soon as a bank amalgamation is announced, as a general rule, when the facts are made known, when it appears that the interests of all the parties mentioned have been regarded and that the public interest appears to be served, there is no further criticism. I pointed out to the House that the duty the minister has is one which subjects him to criticism, but nevertheless it is his duty so long as the Bank Act remains as it is, and in discharging that duty he must come to a conclusion as best he can, having regard to the public interests and the other considerations I have mentioned. While I do not think there are any papers that are of service to my hon. friend, if he desires to press his motion for a return, I have no objection.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend has no objection, I would be glad to get the papers.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the question concerning the amalgamation of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Bank of Ottawa, is, I am quite satisfied, merely one of sentiment, as has been stated by the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken. It is, of course, a sentiment we can all understand and respect. The question, however, is broader than that. We must admit that there is throughout the country a widespread feeling that there is a danger of the creation of what has been described as a money trust, and there is a further feeling that this amalgamation of banks tends to serve that end. I do not mention this for the purpose of endorsing it; I think it is magnified largely; but the very fact that there is such a state of alarm throughout the country, even if we do not all of us agree that it is justified, deserves the serious consideration of the House and particularly of the Minister of Finance. If we have been careful in the past with regard to granting these merging privileges, then the minister should feel that he needs to be more careful in the future in order that he may remove that opinion which exists. In the present state of unrest which exists throughout the country, I should feel disposed, in order to disarm it,-but for a single reason to which I shall allude-to suggest that that privilege which the Minister of Finance and the Government have now of permitting mergers be suspended, and that any bank desiring to merge with another shall have to come to Parliament for an Act. There is much to be said in favour of such a policy, and it would tend to remove the unrest which prevails. There is perhaps one difficulty in the matter. I do not know of a bank merger which has taken place, whether in the time of the Minister of Finance or in that of his predecessor, which has worked any harm. I do know of some cases in which unquestionably the merger did serve the public interest. In most cases to-day, however, the Dominion would get along very well if we had no more bank mergers. The man who agitates against what he calls a money trust and who denounces these bank mergers can make out a case which on the surface has some appearance of reason. Ten years ago we had thirty banks; to-day we have only nineteen; but although the banks have decreased in number, the resources in their hands have enormously increased, and, therefore, there is that concentration of money in the hands of comparatively few people which is



so much talked a'bout, and which, in the minds of many people is a cause for alarm. When we had thirty banks, the authorized capital was $140,000,000; to-day, with nineteen banks, the authorized capital is $182,000,000. When we had thirty banks, the paid-up capital was $97,000,000; to-day with nineteen banks, the paid-up capital is $110,000,000. When we had thirty banks our deposits amounted to $835,000,000; today with nineteen banks our deposits are more than double that amount. These figures show clearly that there is a concentration of money in the hands of a comparatively few institutions. There is that feeling abroad which we should recognize, namely, that there is danger of our money affairs being concentrated in the hands of two or three groups of men in the big cities of Montreal and Toronto. The great danger I see, however, in repealing the clause which gives the Minister of Finance the power to make these mergers is that there will, although not very often, be a case where a merger may be urgently needed. A bank, owing to some misfortune, owing to some circumstances not necessarily implying even bad management, but arising from various causes which will enter into banking business, may find that it is not in a strong position and that its outlook is not for improvement, but rather for difficulty. It will undoubtedly be in the interest of the banking and financial community and the trade and commerce of the country generally that, in such a case, a stronger bank should have the power to come in, amalgamate with the less fortunate bank, and put it on its feet. There have been some such cases in the past. I think if power were not given to the Government and Minister of Finance to allow these amalgamations, there might be a case in which the desired relief could not be granted; there might be a case in which more prompt action would be needed than would be possible if the application had to come before Parliament. But for that, in . view of the strong feeling throughout the country, it might be well for the Minister of Finance to consent to suspend that power which he has.
There was made in the Bank Act one change which was intended as an additional check, which has always seemed to me to be a questionable one. Formerly a bank amalgamation had to be made with the consent of the Treasury Board and the Government in Council,-we may for all practical purposes consider them one, because the Treasury Board is a large committee of the Government. The minister

has introduced an amendment whereby a bank must get his individual consent. That, I am sure, was intended as a convenient check. It seems, however, to be open to this criticism, that it creates the assumption that the minister and the Government are two different organizations. It creates the assumption that you apply to the minister and he gives you his best judgment, and if you do not like it, you can then apply to the Government. That looks well in theory, but the minister and the Government are one.
After the Minister of Finance has given his consent to a bank merger, it would be almost ridiculous for anybody to ask the Governor in Council to set aside the judgment of the minister. I know that the change that was made in the Act was intended as an additional check. The Minister of Finance, however, might be placed in a very embarrassing position if he gave his consent to a merger, and then the Government overruled his decision. But that is a position that, practically speaking, would never occur. I think that we should endeavour to remove the feeling that exists among some people against bank mergers. I for one do not hesitate to say that I approve of the bank mergers that have taken place. I know of no merger which has done harm, and I know of some which have done good. All I care to say-and I am sure the Minister of Finance will accept these words in the spirit in which they are offered-is that, realizing the feeling which undoubtedly exists throughout the country on this subject, the minister ought to give us the assurance that if he has been careful in the past he will be still more careful in the future, and will see to it that there will be no good ground given for the impression that we are creating a money trust.
I entirely agree with what the minister has said as to the necessity of our institutions being strong in order to grapple not only with the enlarging business of our own country, but with the enlarging foreign trade which we all hope is going to come to us in the new order of things. What my hon. friend has said regarding amalgamations in England is true, and true to a greater degree than of anything that has occurred here. In England they are only now reaching the position we have had in Canada for many years. Prior to a recent time, there was no question of the right of banks in England to amalgamate, and when that right was challenged, all that was proposed by way of remedy was that

the consent of the Treasury should be obtained before the amalgamation took place. Now that has been the law of Canada for many years. While I realize the feeling throughout the country I repeat that I do not believe the bank mergers so far have done any harm, and I would be largely in favour of letting the Minister of Finance, in some rare case that may arise, consent to a bank merger in the future.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): From the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister I understand that he gives his consent to a merger when he considers it to be in the interests of the depositors, the shareholders, the borrowers, and the public generally. In the case of the Bank of Ottawa and Bank of Nova Scotia merger, I think it was beneficial primarily to the shareholders, without regard to the depositors, the borrowers, or the general public. That merger will in no way help the depositor, and furthermore, it will work against the interests of the borrower and the public generally. If the Bank of Ottawa gathers in from this district more money than i* is able to loan out in this district, the effect would necessarily be to cheapen money to borrowers in this district. The supply of money would be greater than the demand, and the bank would naturally loan money more cheaply to people in the Ottawa valley than if it had the privilege of taking this money to Montreal, Toronto, or some other large centre and loaning it to the large corporations there. This merger works to the disadvantage of the borrowers in the Ottawa valley, and any other similar merger works to the disadvantage of the local borrower. Our present banking system is a disadvantage to Western Canada, because money out there commands 7 or 8 per cent, while in the east it commands only 5 or 6 per cent. Under our present system money is gathered by the branches and sent to the head office. It is almost impossible for a man in Western Canada who wants to borrow a hundred thousand dollars for any business, no matter what it is, to get the money unless he goes to the head office of the bank. He goes to the local manager in the first place, then to the supervisor for the district, and from him to the head office; and all these mergers make it just so much harder for the small borrower. He has fewer banks to go to, and the money is all concentrated in the big centres. The head offices of practically all the banks are in Montreal and Toronto. The eliminating of the Bank of Ottawa, the Bank of
70}
British North America and the Northern Crown Bank, and the concentration of their funds in these two cities, makes it harder for people to borrow money to develop different enterprises throughout the country. The American plan of local credits seems to have worked out much better than our system of branch banks. Under our system, the bank with a capitalization of froim five to ten million dollars will have a hundred or a hundred and fifty branches scattered throughout the country, and the local bank managers are simply agents for collecting money. They are not in a position to loan money, except perhaps $500 or $1,000, although in exceptional cases they can loan up to $2,000, and in extremely rare cases even $5,000. The merging of banks eliminates the personal contact of the business man who is borrowing and the banking centre. Instead of organizing for the capture of foreign trade which we all hope to get, but as to which I have very little confidence at the present moment, bank mergers are being effected and the money which might be used for the development of local industries in the smaller places is being taken away to the large centres so that the banks can earn their interest or for the banks to send their money to New York on call loan is a detriment rather than an advantage. I certainly think that these mergers do not tend to bring about a satisfactory condition of affairs in this country.
Mr. E. W. NESiBITT (North Oxford): My hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) has pointed to the United States as an example. He says their banking system is better than ours. T do not believe that has been the experience of the United States, because rediscount banks had to be opened up to carry on the business as it should be carried on. It is absolutely impossible for the small bank to carry a big account. It is quite true that the branch banks in Canada gather in deposits, but the money is loaned out again locally when the security is good. If my hon. friend will study the bank statements he will find that the loans on call in the United States are very rarely, if ever, equal to the deposits. So the banks cannot be accused of being selfish in that respect. As a matter of fact, there is not much inducement in New York to loan money on call at two or three per cent- that is the normal rate, but lately it has been as high as six per cent-except for the fact that the money can be called at once. The word " call " is illustrative of the fact. The money can be called.


Frank S. Cahill: Could the money be called in 1907?


Mr. NESBITT:: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: They could not get it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not in currency. That is only one form of asset. As a matter of fact, the money is kept there principally because they can get it immediately. The conditions prevailing in 1907 were largely responsible for the organization of rediscount or reserve banks in the United States. Our banks, with their various branches all over the country, serve very much the same purpose.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to offer a few remarks yesterday on the banking situation and got shut off. I do not know whether this discussion will be broad enough to allow me to say what I have to say, but I will make the attempt and if I violate the rules you will call me to order. I said yesterday that the banking and money interests of this country are getting more money out of the people than the people can afford to pay. You can term that a merger or whatever you like. I think the banking interests are heading for a merger pretty strongly. I am going to try to show this House that the banking interests are getting more money out of the people than the people can afford to pay. For that purpose I wish to divide the interests of this country into four groups, namely, (1) the farmers, (2) the carrying trade by land and water, (3) manufacturers of all classes, (4) the banking interests. I am speaking now of pre-war conditions; we are not under normal conditions now, and it is hard to tell who is making too much money and who is making too little. If you take normal conditions and analyse the returns you will find that the carrying trade as a whole did not get five per cent on their invested capital. Many of them could not pay dividends out of their earnings. If you take the manufacturing interests you will find that many have had to pass dividends; that they could not even pay dividends on their preferred stock. If you take the farming interests you will find that the farmer, after getting his living out of the farm, does noit get five per cent on his invested capital. On the other hand, only a few banks have failed and from the day that these banks opened their doors to do business up to the present they have never failed to pay dividends and to pay them promptly. I do not think there is a bank in Canada paying less than eight per cent, and it runs all the way up to sixteen per cent, which is the amount the Bank of Nova Scotia pays. Taking these

three groups as a whole, will any man tell me that the group representing the farming community can pay sixteen per cent on its invested capital? Can the manufacturing interests as a whole pay any such dividend on invested capital?


William Thomas White: !My hon. friend sa;s sixteen per cent?


Francis N. McCrea: Yes, the Bank of Nova
Scotia.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend taking into account the reserves as well as the capital?
Mr. MoQREA:	I am coming to that. I
am glad the hon. gentleman reminded me of that because I might have skipped it. When we say to the banks that they are paying great big dividends, they say: Look at our surplus, our reserves. I agree with that, but where do those surpluses and those reserves come from? They come from the people who are doing business with the banks and the banks, after paying substantial dividends, promptly and on time, have accumulated these surpluses and rereserves out of the people of the country. That is where they came from.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend know that in the case of the bank that he mentioned new shares have been issued at a premium, so that the shareholders have paid in more than the par value of the shares?


Francis N. McCrea: Very true. But the original shares were not issued at a premium. It is true that they have increased their capital many times and the shares representing that increased capital have been bought by the shareholders at an increased price. Why? Let the Canadian Northern Railway or some other of the carrying interests of this country, which are not able to pay dividends, issue new stock and see whether they can sell it at a premium. The new capital stock issued by the banks sells at a premium because they have these enormous reserves back of them. It is because they are prosperous and because they have these reserves that their stock is worth more than par. Perhaps, (Mr. Speaker, you will imagine that I am sore on the banks and that I wish to knock them. 'Not at all. I have been doing business with banks for over forty years, and I never asked for or wanted money that I could not get. I got all I asked for or wanted. Therefore, I have no complaint to make personally.


William Thomas White: How did you manage it?
Mr. MoCREA: In addition to that, sometimes I got a lot of advice that I did not want or ask for. I am stating what I believe to be in the interest of the country. I believe that it is in the interest of everybody that our banking institutions should be strong. I believe also that a bank, such as those we have, which are able to carry any account that is presented to them, are very useful to the big operator or the big concern that wants a lot of money. I do not believe it is good business for either the bank or the customer to be carrying accounts in a whole lot of small banks. But there is another side to the question. The big, strong banks that we have to-day have their head offices in Toronto, Montreal or some other of the big centres. If there is an individual in a remote part of the country who wants a little money, he has to apply to the local bank manager, the local bank manager applies to the district manager, the district manager applies to the head office, and the poor customer who is in need of money is liable to strangle before he can get a decision from the head office. Consequently; I believe it is desirable, in the best interests of the country, that we should have some strong banks capable of carrying the biggest accounts that are presented to them, but I also believe it is in the interest of the country -and this is something that this Government should take particular thought of and care for-that we should have some smaller banks. If you have a bank in some remote part of the country with the directors living in the same vicinity, and a farmer or some other man of moderate means wants a little banking accommodation, he can approach those people who are close to him when it is not possible for him to travel possibly a thousand miles to the head office of some bank to get the accommodation that he has to get and that he is entitled to. Not only that but in the United States, although I do not approve of all the banking system there in its entirety, they have small banks in practically every town. The management of those banks are interested in every industry and good work that is established. They encourage and help that industry along, and if the owner of the industry needs money all he has to do is to go and see the directors and the manager of the local bank and he can very easily explain his business and get the accommodation which he needs, and which he could not otherwise obtain.
There is a tendency, which I think nobody will dispute the existence of, on the part of our large banking institutions, to prefer to do business with big accounts. They are not very anxious to get the little accounts of farmers, and I do not believe that is in the interest of the country or helpful toward the development which we are all seeking to promote. If the Minister of Finance will analyse the matter closely and carefully, and study the amount of money that the banking interests are getting from the people of Canada, I think he will conclude that they are heading in the direction of a combine. I have knowledge of a few things which have happened that to my mind point very strongly to a trend in that direction, and the customer has to treat his banking house very delicately or he will hear from some other fellow. I believe it to be very desirable that banks should have branches, not only in all parts of this country, but also in Europe for export purposes. I also believe it to be in the interest of the country generally to encourage small institutions and not to unduly favour bank amalgamations, otherwise there will be great danger of the banking system being monopolized by a few men. I am told that the great moneyed interests of this country are controlled by only nineteen banks. I am not sure but that those banks control a little more than the moneyed interests. I am rather inclined to think that those interests have put their hands on this Government once or twice and told it pretty nearly what it had to do. I think that events, of a not altogether recent character, serve to indicate that there was something more than a genuine desire to promote the interests of the country in transactions that this Government has put through within the past few years. I am not in a position to make an absolutely straight accusation in that regard, and therefore I refrain from doing so.
In conclusion, let me again express the belief that the farmers and the business men in the remote parts of Canada would be better served than they are at present by having a few small banks established in the different localities rather than concentrate the whole banking transaction at large centres where the banking magnates are looking for large accounts and do not care very much about the smaller customers.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I
cannot hope to contribute very much towards a debate of this character, because

1 have never been in the happy position of being able to do a very large amount of banking. However, I have a suggestion te make, and I will only occupy a moment 01 two in presenting my views. We ar6 frequently told that farming is the basic industry of this country, yet I believe I air absolutely right in saying that the farming community, as a class, is receiving, and has received, less consideration from the banking interests of Canada than any other portion of the community. So far as the farmers are concerned, the branch banks in small towns and villages are nothing more or less than collecting agencies, located there for the purpose of taking their money and forwarding it to the centres of population. When the farmer wants accommodation, the amount which he can receive at the local branch bank is limited by the say of some person in Toronto, or Montreal, or other large city. The farmer may be able to give the very best security in the world, for, we will say, a loan of $50,000, but the branch bank in this particular neighbourhood is debarred by the head office from advancing any more than $5,000, and if he desires accommodation beyond the latter amount, a special application must be sent to headquarters to ascertain whether it will permit the local branch to grant accommodation desired. Even when the farmer's application is acceded to, a high rate of interest is exacted. So I think there is ground for the statement that the local branches are nothing more or less than collecting agencies, established to. collect money from the farming community, and that the farmers do not receive the accommodation to which he is entitled having in mind the amount of money which they place in the hands of these banks.
I believe that a couple of years ago the United States Government established in various parts of that country a system of farm loan banks, whereby farmers were given accommodation at a fair rate of interest. The suggestion that I have to make is that the time is now opportune in Canada for the Government, and especially for the Finance Department, to look carefully into the matter and see if some such system could not be adopted in this country, whereby the farmer could obtain money for carrying on his operations, without having to pay the high rate of twelve, fourteen, oi fifteen per cent interest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where
is the capital taken from?


John Wesley Edwards: The capital is furnished at the outset by the Government, and the money is loaned out at a small rate of interest to the farmer. The Government of Canada has already adopted that system to a certain extent in advancing money up to $2,500 to the returned soldier who wishes to go on the land, taking as security a first mortgage upon the land, and only charging five per cent interest. It has thus adopted a principle, which, in my opinion, should be further extended, and be made more generally available to the farming population.


Mr. F. R. LALOR (Haldimand):: I cannot allow this discussion to close without saying a word or two on behalf of the banks of Canada. I think we in Canada should be proud of our banking system, which is vastly superior to that of the United States. In the country to the south of us a number of men in a particular locality can group together, and with a very small amount of capital indeed, probably not exceeding ten or twenty thousand dollars, establish a bank. I am told by men who have had experience of the system that such banks are very poor institutions indeed to borrow money from. Their capital is small, and the management is very tight, and the result is that people there do not get the same line of credit that we enjoy in this country. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) have spoken about the difficulty which is experienced in obtaining bank credit. I live in a small town in a rural section of the country where there are three banks in operation, and I have never found any such difficulty as these hon. gentlemen speak of in connection with borrowing money from the banks.
I believe that a farmer-in my section at least, and I think this applies to other sections of the country as well-providing his credit is good, who wishes to borrow a few hundred dollars from the local bank can do so without the necessity of his application being sent to the head office for endor-sation. I believe that where the credit of the applicant is good he can borrow locally any amount in reason, and the local manager has full power to grant him that accommodation.
I believe that we should have strong banking institutions in this country. We have strong banking institutions in fact, and it should be the effort of Parliament and the Finance Minister to build them up and make them as strong as possible, in order that the people may have perfect security for their deposits. Where a weaker bank

opens a branch in a town the centre of a farm section-and I have seen this too in my own experience-it does not get deposits because the public do not recognize it as a strong financial institution. The result is its deposits are very light indeed; the people go to the stronger and bigger banks with their money.
The member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) is a manufacturer like myself, and I presume he has had pretty well the same kind of experience. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that I owe to the banks of this country every success I have had, because of their lending me money when I wras not in a very strong position to borrow. But bankers take into consideration the character of the man and his business ability when they are lending him money, which I think they should do, because those are really his capital. In my earlier days perhaps I tried to borrow more money than the banks would let me have, but on the whole the banks have made me, as they have made every other business man in this country, by lending very liberally and often to a greater extent than they should in order that the business of the country may be carried on. I say that we are under .great obligation to the banking system of this country. I do not believe that either a manufacturer or a farmer has any difficulty in borrowing money to a proper extent in connection with his business if he has behind his application that capital which is absolutely necessary- character and good business management. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a supporter of the banks because I have good reason to be, I am proud of them, and I think our Canadian banking system is something which we should all be proud of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Lemieux:
That, in the opinion of this House, adequate means be taken to foster and develop our trade conditions in Prance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the request of my hon. friend, the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, I will drop this motion because I may bring this same matter up when the House goes into Supply on the Trade and Commerce Estimates. I, therefore, drop it on the understanding-
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I meant that when we were passing Supply relating to trade matters the hon. member might have
an opportunity to bring up the same matter as is covered by his motion.
Motion dropped.



UNDISCUSSED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and recommendations relating to the appointment of a keeper of Free Stone Island lighthouse, County of Richmond, Nova Scotia, in the year 1918.



MILITIA DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the grave charges made by Brigadier General Smart and Lieut. Colonel Pratt against the overseas administration of the Militia Department.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With respect to this motion, I may say that yesterday the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) consulted me to know whether it would be competent for him to move such a motion. I told him that, prima facie, I felt that it was not such a motion as he could bring under Rule 39. I have had opportunity of looking into the matter a little more carefully since, and I have arrived at this conclusion. In the first place, the subject matters which he would consider are the grave charges made by Brigadier-General Smart and Lieut.jColonel Pratt. Subsection (b) of Rule 39 says that not more than one matter can be discussed on the same motion. So that the mere use of the plural there puts him out of court under subsection (b). If, on the other hand, it is contended that it is the subject matter and not the alleged charges made by those two gentlemen which is the subject of discussion, then I have to say that the subjects dealt with by them in these charges so-called cover a wide range; they deal with matters dating back to the year 1916; so that urgency cannot be asserted. It has been held in connection with this rule that the matter must be of urgent public importance, and the decisions, not only in this House, but more particularly in the British House, which has a similar rule, are to the effect that the matter must be of recent occurrence. The rule itself was designed to meet cases of extreme urgency which could not be discussed in consequence of the inelasticity of the rules of the House and it therefore permitted the discussion of

matters which otherwise it would not be permissible to -discuss. But I must point out, as I pointed out to the hon. member who moved ttiis motion yesterday, that he would have had an opportunity yesterday to discuss the matters he desires to discuss upon the motion to go into lOommittee of Supply. That motion was moved an hour or two hours after he spoke to me, and it seems to me that that mere circumstance alone precludes him from pleading urgency within the meaning of this rule.
There is another feature which I would point out. It is a question as to how far it is competent, or, indeed, desirable, that in this House we should deal with newspaper reports of matters which have been considered in other legislatures. If we started to encroach on one another's field or sphere in which each is sovereign, endless complications and difficulties of a constitutional character are bound to arise.
It is quite true that these charges, so called, have been published in the newspapers, and that it may therefore be contended that in dealing with them under the hon. member's motion we should be dealing not with a matter which had previously been dealt with in another legislature, but with a matter which was current in the public press. But if we could overcome the rule against discussing matters which have arisen in another House simply on the ground that these matters subsequently appeared in the press, then we might as well give up the idea of attempting to avoid the discussion of matters which have arisen in other legislatures, because the proceedings of all legislatures subsequently become matters current in the public press. It seems to me, therefore, that upon all grounds-upon the question of urgency, upon its being a matter of recent occurrences-the motion does not come within *the spirit, indeed, within the letter, of rule 39. In my judgment it is not competent for the hon. member to move this motion, and I so rule.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I, Mr. Speaker, without questioning your decision, say a few words in answer to what has been said?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the nature of a point of order?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. First of all, I want to say that I humbly defer to your decision. But may I add that the reason why I did not move this motion yesterday on going into Committee of Supply was because I had a few hours previously given notice to the Minister of Militia and Defence

(Major-General Mewburn) that I would bring the matter up to-day. So that it was in order to be courteous to the Minister of Militia that I waited until to-day; it was not because I did not care to bring the matter up yesterday on going into Supply. If Your Honour had asked me why I did not press the matter yesterday, I would have said what I now say.
The second point is as to the matter of urgency. I am at a loss to understand what is the meaning of the word "urgency.'' Has it the same meaning in English as it lias in French? Without referring to the charges concerning the Bruce report or the Babtie report which are mentioned in the statements of Brig.-General Smart and Lieut.-Colonel Pratt, may I point out that in the matter of the Rhyl riots which took place a few days ago a verdict was rendered within the last few hours, and that verdict is universally criticised by the press of Canada. I may add that while deferring to your decision, I am discussing the point of order. The Rhyl riots, in my humble judgment, are a matter of urgent public importance to Canada-to soldiers, to returned soldiers, to the relatives and families of soldiers. When our boys are being killed, not at the front, but in the camps; when our boys are in dungeons, we have a right to inquire why such a state of things should be, and to contend -because that would be the conclusion of my remarks if I had been allowed to make them this afternoon-that an investigation is absolutely urgent.
Your Honour states that as the charger referred to have been made in legislative halls other than this House of Commons-namely, in the Quebec and Ontario Legislatures-this House should not take cognizance of them. I accept your judgment in that regard, but that is not my point.
My point is that Brigadier-Gen-
5 p.m. eral Smart gave an interview to the press of Montreal; the day before yesterday he wrote a long letter to the Ottawa Citizen containing specific charges. It was not my intention to refer this afternoon to the speech that he delivered in the Quebec Legislature. I make the same remark with regard to Lt.-Colonel Pratt. Lt.-Colonel Pratt made very serious charges on the floor of the House of Assembly in Toronto, but he also made direct and positive charges when he landed at Halifax. I have read his interview, and I was going to refer to that interview.
As to the other point, that in a case like this the motion should deal with only one

matter of urgent public importance, the rule says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent -public importance), shall always be in order.
And so on. Section 39, subsection 2, says:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (Rule 2;5) has been concluded and .before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The view taken by Your Honour is that only one matter of urgent public importance should be dealt with. But it might be a collective matter. I intended to-


William Thomas White: May I be permitted to rise to a point of order? Is my hon. friend in order in discussing the ruling of the Speaker?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave the hon. member permission to discuss the point of order.


William Thomas White: I simply wish to present the point of order for consideration.
1 do not offer objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Strictly speaking, the
hon. gentleman is not calling my ruling into question to the extent of protesting it. As I understand it, he merely wishes to discuss a point of order. I gave him leave to do that, but it does seem to me that he is going far afield in his discussion of the point of order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope that the Acting Prime Minister did not think that I was discourteous to the Chair.


William Thomas White: I had the impression that my hon. friend was arguing his case under the guise of a discussion of a point of order, and I should like to hive the opportunity of replying to him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not so Machiavellian as that. I made a motion for adjournment based on Rule 39, and Mr. Speaker ruled me out of order, stating the reasons for doing so. I accepted your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but Your Honour made some statements in support of it, and even though I defer to the decision, I do not wish it to be understood that I accept the reasons given. However, I would not wish to he unpleasant at all. Mr. Speaker is always so courteous that I will not discuss the matter any further, except to say that I acted in good faith in bringing the motion forward and that the reason why I
brought it forward to-day was because I wanted to give notice to the Minister of Militia and Defence. I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I beg leave to state that at the earliest opportunity I shall bring the matter up on a motion to go into Supply.


William Thomas White: If the hon. member will bring the matter up, we shall be glad to discuss it fully.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend understands the importance of the matter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one point mentioned by the hon. member to which I would reply, and more especially for the benefit of proper decorum in the House on the matter of urgency. Urgency, within the meaning of the rule is not a question whether the matter proposed to be discussed is of urgent importance-it may be of infinitely urgent importance to those affected -the question is whether it is urgent within the meaning of rule 39; in other words, whether it is a matter of that urgency which would cause harm to the public interest if the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House were not able to permit the subject to be brought on early enough. I submit upon that point that the mere circumstance that yesterday afternoon the hon. member had an opportunity and that he will have an opportunity again the first time on going into Supply is a sufficient answer.
The letter of Brigadier-General Smart and the letter of Colonel Pratt are not matters of urgency within the meaning of the rule. The subject matter may be, but I have already ruled that as the subject matter extends over a period of two years it is therefore not within the rule in that it is not a matter of recent occurrence. I have only to repeat in conclusion that the motion as presented is not within the letter of the rule, nor is it within the spirit of the rule.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Acting Prime
Minister says that he is anxious to have the question brought up at the earliest moment


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will pardon me. I said I shall be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend when he brings it up. Instead of desiring to prevent this matter from being discussed, I shall be very glad to facilitate its discussion when he brings it up.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was going to ask my hon. friend to he good enough to place on the table of the House the Bruce and Babtie reports prior to that debate.


William Thomas White: I was making an inquiry for copies this morning for myself and I was unable to obtain any. I was told they had been laid on the table of the House in 1917.



PAYMENTS TO SIR CHARLES -FITZPATRICK.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. Edwards-That, in the opinion of this House, the amount of $5,000 received by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick for the fiscal years 1915-16 and 1916-17 to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should be returned by the said Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to the Treasury of Canada forthwith, resumed from March 26th.
John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If any other hon. member desires to speak, iris opportunity is now. Otherwise, the mover of the motion would close the debate.


John Wesley Edwards: The object for which the resolution was moved having been attained by the return of the money, I see no use in submitting it further, and I beg leave to withdraw the motion,
Motion withdrawn.



PROHIBITION OF EXPORT OF GOLD.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the provisions of Bill 27, "An Act to provide for the continuance in force of a certain Proclamation made under The Finance Act, 1914," by providing that the Governor in Council, by proclamation which shall be published in the Canada Gazette, may from time to time and for any period or periods declare and proclaim that the export of gold coin, gold bullion, and fine gold bars from the Dominion of Canada shall be prohibited, except in such cases as may be deemed desirable by the Minister of Finance under licenses to be issued by him; and that such provision shall only continue in operation for two years after the termination of the present war.
William Thomas White: In common with Great Britain, the United States and other countries, Canada, for the protection of our gold reserves, has had in effect for some time past prohibition upon the export of gold coins, gold bullion and fine gold bars except under license from the Department of Finance. The prohibition which is at present in effect is under the authority of the War Measures Act, When. the war is declared officially at an end the War Measures Act will of course lose its validity. As it is probable that there will be an unsettled financial 
period for the next year or more, as I explained in connection with the resolution relating to the continuation of an Order in Council in effect under the Finance Act of 1914, it is deemed advisable that the Governor in Council should have power to prohibit from time to time the export of gold if it should appear to them to be in the public interest to do so. This resolution, which I purpose embodying in Bill No. 27, to provide for the continuance in force of a certain proclamation made under the Finance Act, 1914, will enable us to do this.
It is an enabling measure only, and I have no doubt as to the propriety and necessity of its enactment. Whether or not we shall have to continue to prohibit the export of gold after the conclusion of peace, I do not know. If it is not necessary, we shall, of course, not use the authority we are asking Parliament to confer. If, on the other hand, it appears in the national interest and necessary for the protection of our gold reserve, the power will be available for the Government to exercise it.


Frank S. Cahill: Have many licenses been asked for, and how will this legislation affect the rate of exchange?


William Thomas White: The legislation will not have much influence upon the rate of exchange because I think the banks would not be disposed to send gold out of the country, even though they could obtain a handsome premium on it. I think that even without the legislation, probably a request from the Finance Department would result in the banks not sending money out of the country, but it is desirable that these matters should be regulated by authority, rather than be dependent on compliance with request.
So far as gold mining companies are concerned, the Treasury has consented to their shipping gold out of the country to be sold and refined in New York. It would hardly be fair, I think, to our gold-mining companies to prevent them sending gold to New York or to other parts of the United States to be refined and sold there, because New York funds are now at a premium of over two per cent. In order, however, to build up our gold reserve, the Finance Department has been purchasing gold produced in Canada and has been paying for it at the New York rate, so there is no unfairness, to our gold mining companies, and we shall gradually increase our holding of gold. I explained pretty fully, in connection with the resolution relating to the continuance of the order under the Finance Act, our position with respect

to gold, which I think is fairly satisfactory after four years of war and in comparison with Great Britain and even the United States. It is, however, advisable that our gold reserves should be gradually built up until our note circulation is covered substantially as it was before the war. The advantage ol this measure will be that the Government will be able to prevent the export of gold attracted by the higher rate of exchange in New York, which would result in the depletion of our gold reserve.


Frank S. Cahill: About how much gold
have the banks on hand? I saw a statement issued by the Finance Department to the effect that the banks have about $10,000,000 m gold on hand.


William Thomas White: I put a statement on Hansard a couple of weeks ago giving full information as to the gold holdings. I think my hon. friend is inaccurate in his statement as to $10,000,000 being the amount. I think he will find that, between the Dominion Government and the banks we are holding about $30,000,000 more. than when the war broke out. Our reserve position is a very good one.


Frank S. Cahill: But how much is held by the banks alone?


William Thomas White: I have not the
figures here, but I think it is about $100,000,000. I would not commit myself, however, because I have not the figures.


Frank S. Cahill: If the banks have $100,-
000,000, the Government would have only about $20,000,000.


William Thomas White: Oh, no. There is over $200,000,000 of gold. I can ascertain the amount of gold held by the banks for my hon. friend, if he desires it.


Frank S. Cahill: My point is that if the
banks are not holding any appreciable amount of gold what is the necessity of this legislation?
iSir THOMAS WHITE: They are holding a very substantial amount of gold-in excess of $100,000,000, I think.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose this legislation will not interfere with the fharketing of gold by producers in Canada. There is not much gold-mining carried on at the present time in Nova Scotia, but our market in former years was the United States. I understand that the Finance Department will purchase gold from any producer in Canada who wishes to sell at the market rate. The point the
gold-mining companies make is that while the price of wages, machinery, coal, and every other factor that enters into gold mining has gone up enormously, the price of gold itself has not gone up, and in that way the industry is unprofitable whereas formerly it was profitable. Will the producer get as good a price for his gold as if the United States market was open to him?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend must have been out when I made an explanation some time ago, in which I said that we had granted licenses to gold-mining companies to send their gold to the United States to be refined and sold there, because they could get a premium in New York funds. I stated, further, that in order to build up our reserves the Finance Department was following the policy of buying from companies producing gold in Canada, and paying them in New York funds.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suppose the Government does not pay the full premium, because it will cost something to take the gold down there. That is allowed for, I suppose?


William Thomas White: I think we have paid the full premium. It is desirable that the gold-mining companies should be able to sell their product in Canada; otherwise, we should lose the benefit of the gold produced. I am not quite sure as to the precise principle on which the deputy minister calculates the amount we will pay. What we desire to do is to place the goldmining company in as good a position as it would be if it sent its gold to New York, had it refined there and sold it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.


William Thomas White: That the amendment referred to in the resolution just reported, and which has been concurred in, be considered in connection with Bill No. 27, under Order No. 14, when said Bill is being dealt with by the House.
Mr. LEM'IEUX:	That means that this
will be incorporated in the Bill?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to provide for the continuance in force of a certain proclamation made
[Stage Direction]
under the Finance Act, 1914, was read the second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-proclamation of 3rd September, 1914, under Finance Act, 1914, continued in force for two years after war; power to terminate operation of proclamation sooner:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the Minister of Finance kindly explain?


William Thomas White: il gave a very full explanation of this when we were in Committee upon the resolution. The purpose of this Bill is to continue in effect, so long as may be necessary and for a period not exceeding two years, the proclamation under the Finance Act whereby chartered banks are permitted to issue excess circulation from March until August in each year, and certain other provisions which have been in effect during the war. I explained to the House that it was thought that international conditions would be unsettled for a year or more, and there is no question as to the advisability of the Government continuing the power to bring into effect the provisions of the Finance Act. Under the terms of the Finance Act the provisions in question can only be brought into effect under certain contingencies-in case of war or panic. The War Measures Act comes to an end on the conclusion of peace. It is desirable, for the same reason that I explained in connection with the resolution which has been adopted by the House, that the Government should have power to continue the regulations in effect, and this Bill is for that purpose.
Mr. LEMTEiUX: Have the banks taken advantage of this permission to any degree?


William Thomas White: Yes. The
measures that were adopted at the beginning of the war, and which were embodied in the Finance Act, 1914, have worked out,
I am sure I am not overstating it when I say, admirably. The banks have taken proper, and not improper, advantage of them. The result has been that Canada has been able to finance herself through this war in a highly creditable manner.
I think that would be agreed by all. It has been a very great tribute to the strength and flexibility of the banking system under the provisions of the Bank Act and also under those of this Finance Act which was passed in 1914.
On section 2 Paragraph (c) re excess circulation of banks extended to 1919 and 1920 subject to termination with rest of proclamation:


William Thomas White: I sent for the Gazette and I find that the chartered banks have on hand $86,000,000 in gold and $191,000,000 in Dominion notes, the Dominion notes, of course, being secured by gold to the percentage that I mentioned a little time ago to the House, and in addition by the deposit of securities, the aggregate of securities in gold being 88 per cent. It is a very strong situation.


John Howard Sinclair: We are authorizing excess circulation by this section. Will the minister state how much excess circulation is now issued by the banks?


William Thomas White: I am unable to
give that information now. My hon. friend knows that from August until March, for many years past, the banks have been authorized to issue excess circulation for the purpose of taking care of the financing of the Western wheat crop and meeting the other demands on them which expand in the fall. It was to enable them to meet further expansion, due to war conditions, that this provision was enacted authorizing excess circulation from March until August that is, the balance of the year. My hon. friend also knows that the banks are charged five per cent upon that excess circulation, which is a check upon them.


John Howard Sinclair: By the
Government?


William Thomas White: By the Government. It is not any object to a bank to issue excess circulation beyond the strict necessities of its business, because it has to pay five per cent upon that excess circulation. That is the restraint upon it. If my hon friend is interested in the subject I will give detailed information at a later date when the estimates of the Department of Finance are under consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it would be interesting to the country to know the extent to which the banks take advantage of this provision, and also the amount which the Finance Department has realized out of its five per cent.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad to get that information and furnish it to the House when the estimates of my department are under consideration.
Mr. GAHIL'L:	Will the Acting Prime
Minister explain the $10,000,000 of gold deposit?


William Thomas White: I sent out for the Gazette, and. pointed out, probably in my hon. friend's absence, that the banks hold

$86,000,000 in gold and $191,000,000 in Dominion notes, part of which, of course, is covered by, and immediately convertible into gold, and part of which is also secured by the deposit of securities, as I explained- to the House when the resolution preceding this Bill was under consideration.
I have now an amendment to propose. The committee will recall that I moved that when the resolution under Order 25 had been concurred in, it should be considered when Bill No. 27 was in committee. The intention is to have one Bill instead of two, and I beg to move therefore, Mr. 'Chairman, that the following be added to the Bill:
3.	The Governor in Council, toy proclamation, which shall toe published In the Canada Gazette, may, from time to time and for any period or periods, declare and proclaim that the export of gold coin, gold bullion and fine gold bars from the Dominion of Canada shall be prohibited, except in such oases as may be deemed desirable by the Minister of Finance, and under licenses to be issued by him.
This section shall only continue in operation for two years after the termination of the present war.
That merely embodies the resolution which has just been adopted by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Thomas White: I have also an
amendment to propose to the title. I move that the title of the Bill be amended by adding thereto: "and to authorize the prohibition of the export of gold." The title will now read:
An Act to provide for the Continuance in force of a certain Proclamation made under the Finance Act, 1914, and to authorize the prohibition of the export of gold.
Amendment agreed to and Bill reported as amended.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Steam Service between Canadian Atlantic Ports and Australia and New Zealand	 $140,000
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is the same amount that was voted for this purpose prior to the war. The contractors for this particular route are the New Zealand Shipping Company, New Zealand.


John Howard Sinclair: How
many boats have they on the line?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There were five, namely:	the Mahana, Mahia, Parattah,
Sussex and Whakatane. Since 1914, however, the service has been limited owing to some of the boats having been requisitioned by the British Admiralty. Under the contract they are to sail monthly on the 20th, during the St. Lawrence season of navigation from the port of- Montreal, and during the winter season from either Halifax or St. John.


John Howard Sinclair: Do they go direct to Australia without calling at intermediate ports?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The ports of call -are Auckland, Wellington, Lyttleton and Dunedin, New Zealand, and the ports of Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. The boats are to call at such other ports in Australia and New Zealand as the Government may from time to time determine. While the rate of traffic was apparently growing prior to the war, I notice by the figures that since that time it has been gradually decreasing. For instance, in 1914 the tonnage carried amounted to 44,245 tons; the following year it amounted to 29,124 tons; in 1916, to 19,738 tons; in 1917, to 11,882 tons; in 1918 no service was performed at all apparently.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Does it not seem rather inconsistent to subsidize these vessels to bring freight to Canada and at the same time to have a tariff wall so high as to prevent the importation of goods? It seems to me to be an actual waste of money to subsidize shipping companies to bring goods to Canada when we will not allow them to enter the country except over a high tariff wall.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend's protest involves a great many questions which I would not like to discuss on the vote before the committee. He had better reserve that very broad question for the Budget debate. I know, however, that Canadian producers were very, very anxious for the restoration of the subsidized service to Australia and New Zealand after the armistice, in order that they might resume a trade that was growing in a very satisfactory manner before the war. I think it is quite true that we are more interested in our outward freight to Australia and New Zealand than in any inward freight those boats may bring back. This particular service has been of some use in developing our export trade.


James Alexander Robb: What control has the department over the freight rates charged? I notice that they are subsidizing these vessels on the 'basis of $7 a ton on the tonnage carried during the last year, and a little more than $3 a ton on the highest tonnage carried in 1914.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under these contracts the Government reserves the right to approve of the freight charged. I have not the form of Contract before me and I cannot give my friend the exact terms of that provision. I have already given the ports of call. The speed required of the ships in the service is 10 knots, and each ship shall be capable of carrying 7,500 tons at 40 cubic feet to the ton. The subsidy is $140,000 per annum, payable in monthly instalments. The ships are to be fitted with reasonable cold storage accommodation. There is a deduction for short cargo; the provision is as follows:-
An average cargo of 5,000 tons on each monthly trip is to be carried throughout the year, and $2 is to be deducted from the subsidy at the end of each year for every ton short of the total measure or weight that should have been carried upon such number of sailings as may have been performed, based upon the said 5,(>0'0 tons per voyage.
An hon. MEMBE'R: Does that mean that each steamer must take 5,000 tons per voyage?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend the provisions of the contract dealing with the rates, but I do know that they are quite favourable as compared with the rates ordinarily charged by mercantile boats.


James Alexander Robb: Are the mails carried free under that consideration?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, and the Trade Commissioners of Canada are also carried free.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are similar grants made by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not to this particular line of steamers. I think this is a purely Canadian service.
Resolutions reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at six p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 3, 1914.