1919-04-03

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

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. MjacDennan by the Government, since January 1, 1912?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Appointed Judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec; appointed Judge of Appeal of Tribunal No. 7, Montreal District, under the Military Service Act; appointed under a Commission of Inquiry respecting the Chambly-Vercheres election; appointed under a Commission of Inquiry respecting unrest in Quebec shipyards.
2.	Date of appointment Judge of Superior Court, 3rd February, 1915, salary $7,000 per annum; date of appointment as Appellate Judge under Military Service Act, 23rd November, 1917, no remuneration; date of appointment re Chambly-Vercheres election, 10th June, 1918, remuneration $50 per day and disbursements; date of appointment re unrest at Quebec shipyards, 29th July, 1918, remuneration $20 per day and actual travelling expenses.
3.	Salary as judge paid monthly at rate of $7,000 per annum; paid for fees and disbursements re Chambly-Vercheres election, $848.60; paid re Quebec unrest, fees and travelling expenses, $1,374.30.


COPPER REFINERIES IN CANADA.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is copper refined in Canada? If so, at what places are copper refineries located?
2.	What quantity has been refined in the years 1916, 1917 and 1918?
3.	What quantity of copper refined in Canada was sold: or marketed in Canada for manufacturing purposes?
4.	What portion was exported direct to Great Britain?
5.	What portion was exported to the United States or other countries?
6.	If any refineries are operating, did they receive any assistance from (a) the Dominion Government, (b) the British Government or the Imperial Munitions Board?
7.	If so, what was the nature of such assistance?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes, at Trail, B.C., (by tlie Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co., of Canada, Ltd.).
2.	Quantity of copper refined in 1916-1918, as follows: In 1916, 966,000 pounds; in 1917, 7,804,755 pounds; in 1918, 7,617,339 pounds.
3.	The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company reports that practically the entire production in 1918 was sold to the Imperial Munitions Board.

4 and 5. Refined copper is not enumerated as such in the Customs classification oi exports but is included with blister copper. It is probable that little, if any, refined copper was exported as the Imperial Munitions Board used the refined copper in Canada in shell manufacture and still have a considerable quantity on hand.
6.	No information.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


CANADA-GREAT BRITAIN STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Has there been any communication between the Government of Canada and the Imperial Government with reference to the carrying out of the recommendation of the Dominion Royal Commission, advising the establishment of a line of fast steamers of twenty knots, between Great Britain and Halifax in winter, and Great.Britain and Quebec in summer?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to take any steps to bring, this about?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No information.
2.	Answered by No. I.


REMOVAL OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS' BODIES.
Mr. HAROLD:: What is the policy of the Government relative to the removal to this country of the bodies of Canadian soldiers where desired by the relatives?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Bodies of officers and soldiers will not be brought back from France or Belgium.
2.	Bodies of officers and soldiers may be brought back from the United Kingdom, but not at public expense.


PATENT MEDICINES WAR TAX.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue to collect a war tax upon patent medicines, lotions, etc.?
2.	Does the Government propose to continue to oblige the retail traders and country merchants to affix war tax stamps to these articles?
3.	Is the Government aware that in many places these stamps are not affixed as required by law?
4.	Why is the manufacturer and importer not obliged to affix these stamps instead of the country merchant and retail dealer?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I and 2. Announcements respecting taxation are made in the Budget Speech.
3.	Yes, and in all known cases prosecutions have followed.
4.	This is governed by the provisions of the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.


LT.-COL. G. H. BRADBURY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ID'ANJOU:
Referring to the following questions on page 2397 Revised Hansard, May 22, 1916- In what rank did Lt.-Colonel G. H. Bradbury serve in France?
In what regiment did he serve in France? Under whose command did he go to France?
Was he wounded? If so, what is the nature of his wounds? to which the Hon. Mr. Burrell replied:
" Definite information is not available in Canada, but is being requested by letter from the Overseas Military Forces in Canada."
1.	Has the Government received the information necessary to reply to these questions?
2.	If so, what are the replies to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4?
3.	Just prior to the granting of Colonel Bradbury's pension, did he write the Pension Commissioner asking for a special medical board?
4.	If so, in said letter did Colonel Bradbury state that he would prefer a medical board in Montreal ?
5.	What was the purport of that letter?
6.	What pension was granted Colonel Bradbury?
7.	For how long was the pension paid Colonel Bradbury?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Lt.-tColonel Bradbury, after his Battalion (the 106th) was depleted and utilized as reinforcements for the Canadian Corps on the field, made a two week's tour of instruction in France.
3.	No such letter received by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.
6.	Colonel Bradbury was orginally awarded a Class eleven pension at the rate of $780 per annum. After medical re-examination on April 26, 1918, this was amended to a Class six pension at the rate of $1,170 per annum.
7.	The only payments of pension made were at the rate of $780 per annum for the period February 2, 1918, to March 31, 1918. Total amount paid was $69. A further cheque mailed to Colonel Bradbury was returned to the Board of Pension Commissioners with the following letter,
Ottawa, December 12, 1918. The Board of Pension Commissioners,
Ottawa.
Gentlemen,
Yours of the 9th containing cheque No. C. 68,195, drawn in my favour for $455.00 is received this morning, I may say I was amazed to receive this cheque as I wrote you on November 11th, nearly a month ago, a few days after the armistice was signed, informing you that I had intended to use any pension money

coming- to me for the benefit of my Ladies' Auxiliary in connection with the 108th Battal-lion, but that now that peace was at hand, the Auxiliary's efforts would likely cease, Informing you that I had no desire to receive any pension.
The fact is I never sought a pension in the first place, it came to me by being boarded as a Colonel on leave. I now desire to emphasize what I stated in my former letter that I have no desire to receive this pension money. You will find enclosed the cheque with "Refused" written across the face of it. I trust this will be definite and final.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) Geo. H. Bradbury.


MISLAID PILES-CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. HAROLD:: 1.	Where the records of members of the C.E.P. have been mislaid or lost through no fault of such members, is the Government aware that such soldiers are on that account being unduly detained overseas?
2.	If so, does the Government propose to remedy this cause of delay?
Major-General MEW-BURN:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many men of military age who registered as being in class 1 under the Military Service Act, 1917, applied for exemption from military service in each of the nine provinces of Canada?
2.	How many of these applications were tgranted1 in each of the nine provinces?
3.	How many of these applications were refused in each of the nine provinces?
4.	How -many of these applications were pending, in appeal or otherwise undecided on November 11, 1918, in each of the nine provinces?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Alberta	 25,389
British Columbia		15,075
Manitoba	 20,124
New Brunswick	 15,553
Nova Scotia	 23,556
Ontario.'	116,092
Prince Edward Island ..	4,231
Quebec	113,291
Saskatchewan	 43,318
2.	Alberta	 17,934
British Columbia		8,473
(Manitoba	 10,102
New Brunswick	 8,225
Nova Scotia	 14,689
Ontario	 65,089
Prince Edward Island ..	2,631
Quebec	 58,644
Saskatchewan	 30,440
Note.-Many thousands of these exemptions granted for limited periods of time were under review by registrars on November 11, 1918.

3.	Alberta	 7,306
British Columbia	 6,414
Manitoba	 9,372
New Brunswick	 7,092
Nova 'Scotia	 8,210
Ontario	 42,366
Prince Edward Island ..	1,572
Quebec	 51,856
Saskatchewan	 12,450
Note.-These figures are inclusive of cancelled exemptions of the 20-22 Class, and also of some exempted men who voluntarily reported for duty before their exemptions
expired.
4.	Alberta	 149
British Columbia	 188
Manitoba	 650
New Brunswick	 236
Nova Scotia	 657
Ontario	 8,637
Prince Edward Island ..	28
Quebec	   2,791
Saskatchewan	 428


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government any information concerning the number of men in each of the nine provinces of Canada who refused or neglected to register as being in Class 1 under the Military Service Act, 1917?
2.	If so, what is the exact number for each of the nine provinces of Canada?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: The only information this department has relative to the number of Group 1 defaulters, i.e., those who refused or neglected to register as being within Class 1 under the Military Service Act, consists in the number of such men who have been apprehended, taken on and kept on military strength, which number is given in Hansard (unrevised), page 784, in reply to a question by Mr. Tobin.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many men of military age who registered as being Class 1 under the Military Service Act, 1917, were ordered to report for military service from each of the nine provinces of Canada?
2.	How many of the said men had reported for military service on or before November 11, 191-8?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1. The following numbers of Class 1 registrants were either ordered to report or reported in advance of their orders:-
Alberta		. 9,310
British Columbia		. 7,162
Manitoba		. 9,470
New Brunswick		. 6,661
Nova Scotia		. 7,977
Ontario		. 44,796
Prince Edward Island .	. 1,121
Quebec		. 46,104
Saskatchewan		. 11,079

2. Of the above the following numbers had reported for military service on or before November 11, 1918:-
Alberta	 7,870
British Columbia	 6,417
Manitoba	 9,044
New Brunswick	 6,069
Nova Scotia	 6,643
Ontario	 40,637
Prince Edward Island ..	1,082
Quebec	 27,277
Saskatchewan	 10,016


Mr. TOBIN:: What is the meaning of the words " defaulters on strength " used in the answer given to my question concerning the Military Service Act, 1917, on Monday, March 24, 1919?


Arthur Meighen: The expression
" defaulters on strength," occurring on page 784 of Hansard (unrevised) refers to those men of Class 1 age and description who failed to register under the Military Service Act, who were apprehended by the police or who surrendered, and who, being found upon medical examination to be of sufficiently high medical category, were taken and kept on the military strength of various C. E. F. units. The expression referred to,
i.e., " Draft 1 defaulters on strength " should read " Group 1 defaulters on strength."


SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCTOT-
1.	Is the Right Hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick entitled to a pension as a retired judge? If so, what would he the amount of his pension per annum?
2.	Has he been receiving and accepting such pension since his appointment as Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Quebec?
3.	Are there any retired judges receiving from the Crown other moneys than their pension moneys? If so, what are their names?
4.	Have any of the retired judges, receiving from the Crown other moneys than pension moneys, remitted or declined to accept the whole or part of either moneys since the outbreak of the war? If so, who are they?
5.	Has the Government under consideration the question of discontinuing the payment to judges retired on the ground of ill-health, besides their pension money® when receiving any other moneys as salary, emoluments or fees for work performed for the Crown and requiring as much physical and mental capacity and activity as in the discharge of their official duties on the bench?
Hon. Mr. BERRELL:: 1.	Yes, $6,666.67.
2.	No. He has renounced the same during the term of his office as Lieutenant Governor.
3.	No information.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many contracts given by the Govern ment at the beginning of the war for war supplies or equipment were investigated into by the Davidson Commission?
2.	What were the findings of the Commission upon each?
3.	If any showed excessive profits made by individuals or companies, what action has the Government taken to recover such amounts considered as excessive profits by the said Commission?
4.	If the Government has not yet taken any action to recover such amount, does It propose to take some in the near future?


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What amount was paid to J. S. Wilson, of Hanover, Registrar for South East Grey, in connection with the Dominion Registration in June, 1918?
2.	What are the names of the Deputy Registrars and their assistants who received payment for services in connection with the Dominion Registration of June, 1918, in the County of South East Grey, Ont?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many men enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, in each of the nine provinces of Canada had been sent or were on their way overseas on November 11. 1918?
2.	How many men enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, in each of the nine provinces of Canada had been sent or had left their respective training barracks to be sent to Siberia on November 11, 1918?


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is Major Charles Gordon, of Winnipeg, still in the Canadian Military Service?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	Where is he at the present time?
4.	What amount of remuneration has he received since August, 1914, as salary and expenses, respectively?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime
Minister) moved:
That on Wednesday, the 9th April, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the Session, the House shall meet at Three o'clock, p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: I would suggest to my hon. friend that this motion be amended so as not to become operative until after the Easter holidays.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows how difficult it is for the Government to refuse any request of his. I have therefore much pleasure in amending the motion to read:



That on Wednesday, the 23rd April, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the Session, the House shall meet at Three o'clock, p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.
Motion as amended agreed tc



William Thomas White: That after Wednesday, the 1.6th day of April, Government Notices of Motion and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays until the end of the session over all business except questions by members and Notices of Motion for the production of Papers.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: May I ask the Actr ing Prime Minister when the Easter holidays will begin?


William Thomas White: I announced yesterday that I should move that the House would adjourn at six o'clock on the Thursday before Easter and re-assemble on the following Tuesday.


Samuel Hughes: Why not make this include Wednesday, the 23rd? It would, mean just one more day and would give hon. members an opportunity to finish any work they might have on hand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; let us get through.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: There is a despatch in this morning's paper to the effect that the British censorship will cease on the 30th of the present month. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if it is the intention to put an end to Canadian censorship on the same date?
iSir THOMAS WHITE: While the matter [DOT] of censorship regulations has been under consideration, I have no official announcement to make on the subject at the present time.



U. S. COASTING TRADE-CANADIAN VESSELS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the attention of the Government has been directed to the fact that the American authorities have discontinued the practice of granting licenses to Canadian vessels to engage in coasting trade within the United
tSlr Thomas White. 1
States, and, if so, what steps the Government are taking in the matter?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Kingston was good enough to transmit to me a telegram from one of the officials of the Dominion Marine Association indicating that licenses had been refused permitting Canadian steamers to engage in the coasting trade in the United States. In order that I might learn the actual facts I immediately transmitted to the proper authorities at Washington the following message:
Ottawa, April 2, 1919. Chairman, United States Shipping Board, Washington, D.C.
Will be obliged if you will inform me officially by wire of reasons why applications made by Canada Steamship Lines for permission Canadian steamers "J. H. G. Haggarty" and "W. Grant Morden" engage in United States coasting trade Great Lakes refused.
Deputy Minister Marine.
The department has not yet received any reply to this communication. If it should transpire that Canadian shipping has been refused permission to engage in the coasting trade of the United States, it will be quite proper for Canada to immediately cancel the like privileges granted to American shipping in Canadian waters.



CREDIT TO ROUMANIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (Waterloo North):	It was announced some time ago
that the Government had arranged a credit of twenty-five million dollars to Roumania. I see according to the press that that country is again at war, and a despatch seems to indicate that there is a probability of its coming under the rule of Bolshevism. As we know, Bolshevism means the repudiation of national obligations, and under these circumstances is it intended to proceed with the granting of that credit?
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No financial obligations will be incurred by Canada in the granting of credits to Roumania until the Government is fully satisfied that political conditions there will justify such action.



CANADIANS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: Canadians entering the United States are assessed a certain sum of money which is placed on

deposit as a guarantee that they will return to Canada. A number of Canadians are not acquainted with this rule and find it difficult to raise the money on short notice. Is a similar custom in force in Canada applying to people coming into this country?


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The American authorities demand from every person entering the United States a head tax of eight dollars, but Canadians returning to this country have that amount refunded to them. There is no similar provision in our law at the present time.



ADVANCES FOR THE PURCHASE OF SEED GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of Interior) Bill No. 24 respecting advances for the purchase of Seed Grain was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 25 to amend the Currency Act, 1910, was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 27 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 was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Dominion Rands Act, chapter twenty of the statutes of 1908, and to increase the rate of interest changed by the Dominion upon deferred payment of money due to the Grown in the right of Canada, for the sale, lease, or other disposition of natural resources under the provisions of the said Act.
Arthur Meighen: By amendment
to the Dominion Lands Act of last session the rate of interest on school lands was increased from five to six per cent, with provision for seven per cent to be charged upon arrears. The seven per cent chargeable upon arrears applies to past as well as to future sales. The purpose of this amendment is to make the same rates apply to all cases of sales of natural resources, and particularly to arrears due the Crown in respect of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads. The amendment will have application to all sales of course that it is within the power of the Governor in Council to make of the natural resources of the Dominien. The object is to, if possible, correct an abuse which is all too prevalent at the present time-that is to say, of purchasers of lands from the Crown and of other resources as well, but chiefly lands, financing upon the Dominion, inasmuch as our rate of interest has been far below that ordinarily obtaining in the locality.


Mr. BUREAU:: Is it proposed to extend the operation of the Act to other natural resources besides lands?


Arthur Meighen: The Act as amended
last session added to the rate of interest in sales of school lands in the way I have described. This resolution is to make the same addition to the rate of interest upon the same principle, apply to all sales of natural resources.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there a fixed rate of interest now, and if so what will the increase be?



THE ROYAL ASSENT.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
An Act to amend the Railway Belt Act.
An Act to amend the Yukon Act.	.
An Act to amend the Statistics Act.
An Act to authorize a further extension of time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Railway between Gagetown and Westfield.
An Act to amend the Representation Act.
An Act to authorize the Reclamation of Dominion Lands by drainage.
An Act respecting the Units of Electrical Measure.
An Act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining. Act.
An Act to amend the Irrigation Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain Bums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 3'lst March, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the Whole of the resolution providing for the amendment of the Dominion Lands Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Arthur Meighen: The Leader of the Opposition was asking whether the rate is now fixed. The answer is yes, it is fixed at 5 per cent. That is where the trouble comes in; it is too much below the normal commercial rate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this amendment
give the hon. minister discretion 'to use his own judgment as to what the rate should be?


Arthur Meighen: The resolution would indicate that, but the Bill itself fixes the rate.


Mr. VIEN:: Will it affect deferred payments due by a debtor whose obligations were contracted with the Government before the enactment of this new law?


Arthur Meighen: No, the passage of the Act will not affect any obligation that now exists either to increase or diminish such obligation; but after the rate is fixed for arrears, and the contract is already in existence, our procedure will be to notify the man that he must undertake to pay the rate fixed by statute on arrears in future, and if he does not do so then we shall have to consider whether or not it would be in the public interest to cancel his sale.


Thomas Vien: I note that the resolution
says, "or other disposition of natural resources." Are there any other natural resources than Dominion lands to which this amendment will apply?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the section covers such natural resources as mining, grazing, or timber limits. There is ia general clause in the Act which refers to the disposition of other resources, and the interest rate is fixed there. This is to change the interest rate in that clause.


Mr. HAY:: Does 'this refer to homestead
lands held by the Government at the present time?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it must refer to lands that we own, but it does not enable the Government to sell anything that we have not the right now to sell. This clause is intended to cover more particularly homesteads, where men have been only too prone to allow their payments due to the Crown to run into arrear and to pay their other debts first. This allows the rate of in-

terest in future to be fixed at 6 per cent instead of 5 on deferred payments, and on arrears at 7 per cent.
Resolution reported.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 28, to confirm two Orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Orders in Council 7th and 13th March, 1919, confirmed:
Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, it is highly regrettable that this Bill, confirming the Orders in Council putting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System under a receivership, should be proceeded with in the absence of a decision on the part of the Government as to what our future railway policy is to be. It is also to be regretted that the Government thought it advisable to take any step which would have the effect of causing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to cease operating that portion of their system which is called the Grand Trunk Pacific. A more democratic and a more constitutional way of dealing with this matter would have been to bring it before Parliament and to examine into it carefully before taking any such important step as is now under consideration.
The people of Canada at large and this Parliament in particular have not been fully seized of all that is involved in the nationalization of the Grand Trunk Pacific and consequently, of the Grand Trunk Railway system; nor have they had opportunity of studying the matter carefully. Last year, during the session of Parliament, it was announced by the Prime Minister, in answer to a question put by this side of the House, that pourparlers or negotiations were in progress between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company concerning the sale to the Government or the nationalization of the two systems. When we inquired as to the policy of the Government in this matter, the Prime Minister said that it would not be in the public interest to advise the House and the country of the nature of negotiations which were under way. Notwithstanding that, however, the Government have committed the country to a definite policy

which they have consistently carried out- because they had absolutely made up their minds at that time to expropriate the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. How did they do it? First, they refused to agree to the proposal made by the two companies; they did not agree as to the amount to be paid.
We all agree that the Government should oblige the Grand Trunk Railway Company to live up to all its obligations. The Government should not allow the country to undertake all the obligations of that company. But, as I say, the Government had made up their minds to take over the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, although they would not let the House know under what conditions they intended doing so.
The Acting Prime Minister gave the House the other day the first comprehensive information that we have received since the beginning of the negotiations. He read at length various letters which passed between the Government and the company. He gave the House full details of the difficulties which the Government had met in attempting to reach an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We now know that that company, which in 1903 or 1904. had entered into an agreement with the Government for the building of the section of the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to the coast, could not live up to their obligations on account of various difficulties which had arisen between them and the Government in the carrying out of the original scheme. Under the original scheme the Government was to build the section of the Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company was to build the section between Winnipeg and the Pacific coast. This new undertaking was to be called the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, its shares being entirely in the bands of the Grand Trunk.
At various stages of the operations carried on under the agreements of 1903 and 1904, difficulties arose between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as regards the building by the Government of the Transcontinental railway. For instance, in 1912, 1914 and 1915, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company advised the Government that the changes which had been made by the Government in the construction of that section of the road which the Grand Trunk Railway Company was ultimately to lease from the Government, would render it impossible
for the company to take over the National Transcontinental, and to live up to the obligations undertaken under the agreements of 1903 and 1904. May I speak more plainly what is in my mind? Under the? agreements of 1903 and 1904, the Government was to build that section of the road which extends from Moncton to Winnipeg according to certain specifications, plans and details which had been agreed on between the Government and the company. Subsequently, particularly after 1911, when the change of Government took place, the Government took upon itself, through the Department of Railways and Canals, (because at that time the Transcontinental Railway Commission had been superseded by the Minister of Railways and Canals), to change, without the approval of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, not only the grading but the specifications and the terminals of the railway. The Government, therefore, did not live up to the agreements of 1903 and 1904, and by so doing gave to the company the right to refuse later on to take over the National Transcontinental railway.
The House is now in possession of the correspondence exchanged between the Government and the company. In 1912 the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company stated clearly to the Government that any change in the grading or in the specification of the railway would put that company in an impossible position because they would not be able to take a lease of the Transcontinental railway as per the agreement of 1903. The Government did not take any notice of this formal protest by the company, but went on changing the grading in such a manner that the Transcontinental railway would not have for the company the same usefulness. Some time after, when the Government had completed the construction of the Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, the Government offered to the company a lease of the Transcontinental railway. That offer was flatly refused. I have not been able to put my hand on the document by which the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company declined to take over the National Transcontinental on the conditions of the agreement of 1903, but from my recollection of that document, I think I can cite the three main reasons advanced by the company for declining to live up to the agreement.
The reasons were, first, because the cost of the railway had been greatly in excess


Arthur Meighen: To what company does the hon. gentleman refer that should have been compelled to lease the National Transcontinental?


Thomas Vien: According to the agreement of 1903 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should have been compelled to lease that section of the road which had been built by the Government from Monc-ten to Winnipeg. That would amount to the same thing as compelling the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself to live up to their agreement, because we know that all the shares of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are in the treasury of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I think I am right in saying that according to the agreement of 1903 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was bound to take over under a lease that section of the road which had been built by the Govern-ment._ The Government have impliedly admitted the contentions of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. They have taken over the National Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg; they
|Mr. Vien.]
have connected it up with the Canadian Government railway system and they are continuing to operate it as a Government railway.
What was the effect of the Government's failure to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to live up to the agreement of 1903? The effect was, first, impliedly to admit the company's contention that it had no further obligations in respect of the National Transcontinental. Secondly, the effect was to deprive the Grand Trunk Pacific of a very important part of its transcontinental system. The National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific were built for the purpose of establishing a second transcontinental railway in Canada. That transcontinental system could not exist except as a whole; that is, the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The taking over of the Transcontinental left the Grand Trunk Pacific without any connecting link with its own system, which extended from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, and naturally the Grand Trunk refused to admit any further obligations in respect of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific which it had guaranteed. Then what happened? The Grand Trunk Pacific Company advised the Government that as they had been deprived of their connecting link they could not meet their obligations. Again the Government advanced money to the Grand Trunk Pacific, impliedly admitting the contention of the company that it could not continue to operate without the National Transcontinental, and admitting also that the Government had a certain responsibility in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then what happens? The Government, seeing that it would be compelled to vote money year after year to make up the deficit in the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, immediately opened negotiations for the expropriation of both the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Government was in negotiation with the company last year, but would not disclose to this House or to the Canadian people the exact nature of those negotiations. When, however, it became imperative for the Government to advance further moneys to meet the interest on the bonds, the Government, after the opening of the present session, and without apprising Parliament of the condition of affairs, made up their minds to threaten the company They said to the company:	"We will not
ask Parliament to vote any further advances so long as the negotiations between the company and the Government remain in

their present unsatisfactory condition." That was a threat, designed to bring the company into such a position that it would be bound hand and foot to the Government. The company replied: " We will cease to operate that section of the road extending from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast." What did that declaration amount to? It was tantamount to saying: " We have a section of the road which does not pay, and therefore we are going to close it up." As the company had refused to take over the National Transcontinental, and as it owned the entire stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that section of the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast was simply a branch line of the Grand Trunk Railway system; there was no difference whatever between that section of the road and a branch line of the Grand Trunk system. The company therefore said to the Government: "As you will not subsidize our branch line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, we will close it." Now, if the Canadian Pacific Railway were to find one morning that one of its branch lines was not a paying proposition, would it not be perfectly right for it to say that it would close that branch liner I submit that the Government had absolutely no right to compel either the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate that section of the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, until the company had defaulted in paying the interest on its bonds. We know from the information laid on the Table that neither the Grand Trunk nor the Grand Trunk Pacific had defaulted in their interest payments. But when the company said to the Government: " We will cease to operate that section of the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast," the Government said, " Then we will put the road in the hands of a receiver, under the authority of the War Measures Act."
We all agree on the principle that Canada should not take over the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. We all agree that the Grand Trunk itself should not be relieved of its obligation in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was the policy of the Government not to relieve either the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific of their obligations. Yet I contend that, at law, the Government has done exactly what it intended to avoid. I contend that the action of the Government has absolutely relieved the Grand Trunk Railway Company of its obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I contend that the Government's action was the last step in impliedly admitting the contentions of the company in respect of the agreement of 1903.
Let us consider the action of the Government when they were informed that the Company would cease its operation of that section of the line. Did they compel the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway Company to meet their obligations? No. They could not do so because the companies were not in default; and under the provisions of the Winding-up Act they could take no steps for the same reason, that the company had fulfilled all its obligations. Instead, they invoked the authority of the War Measures Act and forcibly took over that section of the road extending from Winnipeg to the coast; and in order to establish that point clearly we need only read the first paragraph of the Order in Council, which says:
Re-Grand Trunk Receivership.
Provisions of Order in Council.
(1) Order recites that the continued operation of the G.T.P. System is essential in the present position of Canada resulting from the war, especially in connection with the transport of returning Canadian troops and of supplies, equipment and freight, and that the duty of continuing such operation is thrown upon the Government of Canada inasmuch as there are no effective provisions in the existing laws whereby such continued operation could be otherwise secured and that therefore immediate action is imperative.
In that first paragraph the Government admit that the company has fulfilled all its legal obligations, while the paragraph is also an admission that there was no other course open to the Government than to proceed under the War Measures Act. But I unhesitatingly say that it was never the intention when the Act was passed to allow them to forcibly take the railway, and I am of opinion that taking over that section of the road by virtue of that Act is tantamount to an expropriation of it by the Government. If, then, it is an expropriation, surely the Government is liable for compensation just as much as they would be if they took a house or a farm, or any other property for a public work. There is an Expropriation Act under which the Government could have taken over that section of the road. They did not elect to proceed under that Act. But under the terms of the Order in Council which 1 have just read, their action amounts to an expropriation, and in doing so the Government incurred the obligation to compensate the company for the forcible taking of their property. Now, I hardly think the Government could very well act more imprudently. If they did

not desire to advance any further moneys for the purposes of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-which might be an advisable and even a commendable policy- they should at least have waited until the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was in default. Had they done so, the Government would then have had a legal right to wind up the company and put it into receivership. They did not do so, but from the very beginning of their negotiations with the company the Government have impliedly admitted the contention of the company that they had no further obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and have virtually relieved them of all such obligations. I believe that the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have a good case at law and can meet the contentions of the Government and repudiate their obligations by the argument, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company having been forcibly expropriated under the War Measures Act, they are now relieved of any responsibility in connection with that railway. The Government should they decide to forcibly take not only the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway but also the parent company, will be obliged to pay a compensation to the Grand Trunk Railway Company which will be calculated, without taking into account its obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. 1 want to be clear on thait point. At law the Grand Trunk Railway Company will contend that it is relieved of its obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; and the Government if they take over the Grand Trunk Railway Company will have to pay the price. And in calculating the assets they will not be able to put by way of set-off the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
I think it is a matter for very much regret that the Government did not see its way clear to take Parliament into its confidence, particularly when Parliament was in session, before taking an important step that will undoubtedly mean a heavy responsibility, financial and otherwise, on the shoulders of the people of this country. It is regrettable that they did not consult Parliament in the matter, and that they did not wait until the Grand Trunk Railway Company were in default before relieving it, as they have virtually done by their Order in Council, of all obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

It is true that the Government says in its Order in Council that it takes over that railway without incurring any resppnsibil-ity in connection with its operation, but surely, Sir, regard must be paid to the general underlying principle that we cannot forcibly take over a property without first justly and fairly indemnifying the owner. Whatever the Government might say in its Order in Council as to declining to assume any responsibility due to the forcible taking over of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, surely in accordance with common law and the dictates of common sense, it will have to indemnify the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Companies for the property so forcibly taken. Moreover, the Grand Trunk Railway Company can now say: You have taken one of our branch lines. In so doing you have undertaken all the obligations of operating this branch line, and we are relieved of our obligations in respect of it. I say, Sir, I would be very much surprised indeed if the law courts, and the highest legal tribunals, did not maintain such a contention. Therefore I say that before committing the country to suoh an important policy as the forcible taking over of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, Parliament should have been consulted, and the Government should have made a careful study of the subject in consultation with it. It would have been a more democratic and constitutional way of dealing with the question.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: It is not my intention to attempt any reply to the points that my hon. friend from Lot-biniere has attempted to make in connection with this question. The members of the Government will be able to make that answer, and I think they "will not find it an exceedingly difficult task.
I wish to say at the outset that if the opinion which the hon. gentleman has expressed on railway questions, and particularly in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk, is shared by his friends who sit on that side of the House, and by any very large number of the people of Canada, God help the country. If there is one question-


Mr. CAHILL:: Might I ask the hon. member if he is in favour of relieving the Grand Trunk of their obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway? That is the point the hon. member for Lot-biniere was making.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for Lotbiniere was blaming the Govern-

ment for insisting that the Grand Trunk should live up to its obligations.


Thomas Vien: No.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is what I
understood.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman says that if members on this side of the House share my views in respect to the policy that should be followed as to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, " God help the country."


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, and I repeat the statement.


Thomas Vien: What view has me hon. gentleman particularly in mind that causes him to say that? On what expression of views by me does he base that statement?


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. gentleman will just allow me, I hope to be able to make myself and my position perfectly clear and I hope to present facts to the hon. gentleman that will satisfy him that he is entirely wrong in his attitude on this question. What course could the Government pursue but take over the Grand Trunk Pacific railway-when the Grand Trunk threw it on their hands and refused to operate it?


William Thomas White: We are only taking the Grand Trunk Pacific railway as receiver.


Jacques Bureau: They might have given it bonuses as they did the Canadian Northern.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But the Grand Trunk Pacific was in an entirely different position; it was thrown on the hands of the Government. Had the Government refused to act as it did, what would have been the position? That vast country in the West, depending on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway,-because it has a very large mileage throughout that territory,-would have been absolutely deprived of any railway accommodation whatever. I am not here to defend the Government especially, but it seems to me it had no option in the matter; it did the only possible thing it could do. Had the Government refused to appoint a receiver, under the War Measures Act, the position to-day would have been one of chaos, and my hon. friend from Lot-biniere would probably have been denouncing the Government in the strongest possible language for permitting such a state of affairs.


Thomas Vien: Not in the least.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It was a case of
" You will and you won't, you shall and
you shan't; you'll be damned if you do, and you'll be damned if you don't." That was the situation, and the Government was obliged to do something. My hon. friend from Lotbiniere says that as a result of its action the Government has probably given the Grand Trunk a legal hold, probably a stranglehold, on it, but this Parliament is supreme. It represents the people of Canada, and can correct any situation at will.


Thomas Vien: Parliament was not consulted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Never mind, the
Government had to act hastily and without the opportunity of consulting Parliament.
I think that when the people of this country get through their brains what this railway problem means, they will see that the Government and Parliament do the right thing by them in regard to the railroad question. Does my hon. friend not know that the party with which he is associated, in order to solve the transportation problem as they put it, loaded this country with a debt of one billion-just a round billion-in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railways? They brought about a state of chaos, the like of Which Dante could scarcely describe. Now that is the position we are in at the present time.


Jacques Bureau: Will you itemize the
billion?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was struck the
other day by a statement in a speech delivered by the Hon. George P. Graham, who was Minister of Railways, when my hon. friends opposite were in office, upon accepting a nomination in Essex county. That gentleman said:	" If you will put us
back we will resort to those Liberal principles that made Canada such a great nation after 1896."


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: In using the expression " Liberal principles " he must have meant " Opulent principles," because the Liberals spent money like drunken sailors on the railways, and did nothing but hopelessly tangle up the situation, as I shall prove before I conclude my speech. If that is what Air. Graham meant by Liberalism I entirely agree with him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps at this stage
matters can be cleared up if I ask the hon. gentleman, does he say that this road should not have been built?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Decidedly it should not have been built. Sir Robert Borden was
ms

opposed to the building of this railroad and proposed as an alternative the double tracking of the C.P.R. around Lake Superior with running rights to other lines. That was 'the correct policy. I think it was the most insane policy that -was ever entered into by a free people, and I think that can be demonstrated. The construction of the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific railways represent the fastening of a debt of a billion of dollars on this country, because we now have to take those roads over. There is no use in my hon. friend from Lotbiniere, and other gentlemen, saying: "The Government is going in for public ownership, and God help the country when it adopts that policy." The Government cannot help itself. These railway children are unloaded on the Government as a result of the policy of the so-called Liberal party in 1896. I would like to, and perhaps later on I shall, give a brief sketch of the inauguration of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental railway projeobs, because, as hon. gentlemen know, the Canadian Pacific Railway had had the monopoly in the West up to a certain date. In the early days the Canadian Pacific Railway was very arrogant, sometimes insolent, although the people of Canada, let me tell my hon. friend from Lotbiniere, gave to that company enough money, in cash and donations of one kind and another, to build and equip the road two or three times over. I want the hon. gentleman to rivet that fact upon his mind [DOT]-the people of Canada gave, in cash and other donations, enough to build and equip the road two or three times over.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman detail the amounts?


Jacques Bureau: Did not the Canadian Pacific Railway give value for what it got?


Robert Lorne Richardson: In answer to my hon. friend from Lothbiniere, I cannot give the exact amount of the several subsidies offhand, but I have the information in my desk and am willing to go into details with him.
I certainly do not overstate the facts; they are as I have told you. I freely acknowledge that the Canadian Pacific railway is a well managed and a courteously conducted railway to-day. But in the old days they were very domineering and dictatorial to the people of the West, and they swaggered about that country just as if they owned it. When the so-called liberal Government got into office they undertook to solve the transportation problem by supplying a com-
peting railroad. Now, competition is not desirable even if it is possible; and it is not possible even if it is desirable. If the Canadian Pacific had been taken over by the country as it should have been-because I believe in public ownership if properly administered; there is no reason why we cannot get men to run transportation companies as well as private corporations can-I repeat that if the Canadian Pacific had been taken over by the people in the early days, properly operated and branch lines built to accommodate the settlers where necessary, it would have developed that country and would have furnished the people of the West with the railroad transportation that was necessary, instead of which, as my hon. friend knows and as the members of this House know, subventions in land were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to other railway companies, and those lands were held by those companies in order that they might profit by the unearned increment, by the settlement in that country of a large population. Those companies did not sell their land holdings, and the result was that the settlers were obliged to move off ten, fifteen and twenty miles from the railway lines, instead of occupying these rich railway lands that were available for settlement. The result was that the people there almost reached a state of armed rebellion in one case, for they did not want that kind of policy. Thereupon the friends of my hon. friend undertook to "solve" the question, and they talked with indescribable foolishness about the whole proposition. They said: "If you endow another great railway corporation and let them into the West, then that will help solve the problem." The outcome of that talk was the contract with the Grand Trunk for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Transcontinental. While I think of it, let me tell my hon. friend this- fact-and I want him 'to put a pin in the argument and just keep it there, because it is the crux of the whole thing-it was not the Government of Canada that forced the Grand Trunk to build the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Transcontinental; the Government-of Canada had nothing to do with it: it was the directors of the Grand Trunk, lead by the late Charles M. Hays, the Grand Trunk president, that forced this contract on the people, and if by virtue of this contract we find this state of chaos at the present time, and that the Grand Trunk has piled up this enormous debt on the coun-

try, why should we come to the rescue ot the Grand Trunk?


Thomas Vien: We are all agreed on that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am delighted to know that my hon. friend agrees with me on that point, because I did not so understand him; I thought he was arguing that the Grand Trunk had got a legal grip. I must tell my hon. friend that neither he nor his friends will ever get into office by defending these corporation tactics, and that it is high time that the people's representatives took a right position on questions of this kind. The people of Canada have been swindled in the most appalling style for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and our politicians on both sides of the House are almost equally to blame-there is a frank confession. But, in the name of all that is sensible, has not the time come when we should put an end to it? Let the Grand Trunk live up to its obligations. Why should we come to the rescue of the Grand Trunk at the present time? They got themselves into the difficulty; let them get out of it the best way they can.


Thomas Vien: But you have come to the rescue by the Order in Council.


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend having interrupted me, will he tell me in a word what should have been done?
iMt. VIEN: I said it was only necessary to wait until they were in default, and they would have been in default in a very few days.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, but let me inform my hon. friend again that not only were they in default, but they notified the Government: "Take the road; we cannot operate it any longer."


Thomas Vien: They did not say any such thing. The hon. member will not find anything in the papers to substantiate his statement.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I appeal to the hon. leader of the Government whether the Grand Trunk did not say that they would cease to operate. What does that mean?


Thomas Vien: They closed a branch line.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Oh, they closed a
branch line ! No wonder the Acting Prime Minister laughs, as everybody in this House must laugh who knows the facts. What is closing down the road but ceasing to operate? Why, of course it is.


Thomas Vien: Oh, no.


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend is
somewhat younger than I am and I am going to give him a little advice. When you undertake to criticise a policy, you are in duty bound -to propose an alternative. If the Government had not done this, just the state of affairs that I have already described would have existed, and my hon. friend and the other members of the Opposition would have been railing at the Government about the outrage perpetrated on the West, of allowing the Grand Trunk Pacific to cease operation. And what sort of situation would we have had in the West where this line serves the people? It would have been indescribable. There was absolutely no other course for the Government to take.
But my hon. friend must know, and his friends must know, that they have been guilty of bringing about a highly disturbing state of affairs in this country, and we are to-day faced with difficulties that I would hardly like to describe. This railroad question is almost of as great, if not as great, importance as the tariff, because it means so much to the people, and we are so tangled up at the present time with its intricacies that I do not know how we are going to evolve ourselves from the difficulty. It will take the Government all its time to pilot the ship through the rough waters created by our railroad policy, and unless there is some criticism that should properly be directed towards the Government, I do not know that anything of the tenor offered by my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) ought to be indulged in this afternoon.
Before the hon. gentleman spoke I had my notes prepared, and I proposed to go into this question very fully. I was going to criticise the Government somewhat, for its failure, through the Acting Prime Minister to speak out in as plain Anglo-Saxon as I think the circumstances of the case demand, because although I was not in the House-unfortunately I was sent for last week and did not hear what my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister said-but in reading the papers I gathered the impression that he said, " We want to treat the Grand Trunk with fairness if not with generosity. We must be pretty fair to them." Now, it seems to me that the position is not one of generosity at all, it is one of simple justice, and this country may just as well understand now as later that it cannot any longer afford to be generous. It has been too generous-generous with the railway exploiters and promoters to the extent

that has almost involved the country in disaster. The time for generosity is past. The Grand Trunk is not entitled to generosity, because its own financial management got the country into this difficulty. Let it take the consequences, whatever the consequences are, instead of railing at the Government. I should think that if the members of the Opposition desired to stand right with this country they would, like me. be demanding that the Government should make the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific toe the mark. That is the only kind of policy that will appeal to the people of this country; no other policy, I think, should be tolerated.
Now, I intended at the outset to refer to what I regard as a press conspiracy in this country to try and do the work which my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) was attempting to do, to help the Grand Trunk inferentially at the expense of the public. I have three or four newspaper clippings here. Perhaps I should first refer to the financial papers. With one or two honourable exceptions, the financial papers that derive their living from the corporations are, of course, disposed to excuse and to help the Grand Trunk-we might expect that. But to have a string of newspapers in this country pursuing a similar policy is very disturbing to the people and must be very distressing to the Acting Prime Minister. I assume that the Acting Prime Minister is going to stand absolutely by the people and by his duty, and until I find him taking another position I propose to give him my confidence.
Here is the Montreal Gazette, a virulent opponent of public ownership. It is all very well to oppose public ownership by pointing to the Intercolonial and saying: "The Lord forbid; let us have no more public ownership." But the Intercolonial was built-begun decades ago-as a condition of Confederation. It was not run as a commercial enterprise. It tapped this place and that place; it ran along around the coast; it was designed to cement the Maritime Provinces together and to weld that part of the country to the rest of Canada. Many things were done that should not have been done; we have had political management of that road and it has not been good. But let me tell my hon. friend that until recent years the people of the Maritime Provinces had their freight carried at one-quarter the rates prevailing on privately-owned railways. Had the rates prevailed on the Intercolonial that prevailed on other lines, I believe that the 
Intercolonial would have paid. It has been making ends meet; occasionally it has had a little deficit and occasionally a surplus. So that it is not quite to the point to refer to the Intercolonial, hold up our hands in horror and say that we must not have public ownership.
When the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier undertook to make this deal with the Grand Trunk, Sir Wilfrid himself said that public ownership was a dangerous fad and should be avoided; that out railways should be built by private enterprise. And that marvellous man, Clifford Sifton, who always looked like a sphinx and went about with his mind absolutely concealed, giving the impression that there was a reservoir of deep wisdom in his cranium, went out into his constituency and denounced public ownership in the strongest terms. He even said: "I do not want anybody who believes in public ownership to vote for me."


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman wish to be complimentary to Clifford Sifton?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I give my hon. friend credit for sufficient intelligence to place his own interpretation on my words.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend may be sarcastic.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I may tell my hon. friend en passant that I ran against Clifford Sifton that time and I had him pretty well beaten up to a night or two before the election; but the "Liberal" emissaries spread over the constituency like a miasma, and it took me all my time to make a decent showing at the polls.


Charles Murphy: The overseas vote came in.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The point I wish to make is this: even as prominent a man as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and as great a bluff as Clifford Sifton utterly ignored what history showed that the nations of the "world had accomplished. I dislike quoting Germany in this House; everybody dislikes Germany so that I mention the name under my breath. But Germany's railroads are owned by the State, and were a great success. Hungary owns its own railroads, or most of them. Italy owns most of her railroads. Aly hon. friend will agree that when I speak of that glorious and glorified country, France, in this connection, I am giving a good instance: France owns most of her railroads. The Australasian colonies own their railroads; in fact, the best of the countries all over the earth own their own

railroads. I bring this up merely to emphasize the indescribable foolishness that those men talked when they denounced public ownership as a fad or a fancy and said: "In Heaven's name, let us not have it here." And then they entered into contracts entailing a liability of a billion on the country-to get rid of what? Of public ownership. And ye gods! That very expenditure has forced public ownership on our country. Just think how the wheel of fortune turns; just think of the irony of fate: these people who undertook to solve the transportation question by springing these contracts and these railroads on the country did the very thing that now forces the Government to adopt public ownership. The Government cannot do anything else.
Take the Canadian Northern, which we discussed last session and which I shall not spend any time referring to this afternoon. But what an appalling mess the Canadian Northern is or was:	four hundred millions
of liabilities, to say nothing of the liabilities of all these other railroads, and yet we have prominent newspapers lauding private ownership as if it had always proved a great success. How are we going to avoid public ownership? The Montreal Gazette, the Montreal Star, and one or two other publications that I might mention, think that we ought to continue private ownership. But if we do, we shall keep pouring the country's millions into the same capacious maw-and at that, where are we going to get to. Absolutely nowhere. I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet,, but if the policy of the Government is followed; if we have an intelligent, responsible, wise, businesslike commission of management for the publicly owned system-and I think we will get it; my hon. friend can help force the Government to see that we get it-appalling as these mistakes have been, appalling as the liabilities in connection with these railroads are, we shall be able to co-ordinate the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Northern, perhaps utilize the Transcontinental, and, get rid of unnecessary mileage, and furnish this country with a proper transportation system. And in addition-mark my words: I may not live to see it but you will-we will force much better rates than we have at present.
If there is one question that hon. gentlemen should study it is the railway question, because we have to deal with it at the present time; it is knocking at our door. Letting politics into it will not help us. We are up against the real thing in Canada, with an expenditure of nearly
$500,000,000 contemplated this session. Half a billion-where are we going to get the money? It behooves every member of this House and every individual in the country to consider carefully what policy we ought to adopt in order to save this country from ruin. Nothing will be gained by playing politics. I am an old Liberal.
I believe in what I regard as Liberal principles. But we shall not get anywhere by-blaming this Government or blaming that Government or by making legal arguments about this point or legal argument about that point. To do that may sound clever and may have an effect upon a few of one's own partisan constituents who vote for you once when you are right and twice when you are wrong; but it does not help the country and it will not get the individual member anywhere. We have a great task to perform.
I had hoped that my hon. friends opposite would be absolutely sound on this railway question. I hope the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), who has just spoken, is the only one on the opposite side from whom we shall, during this session, hear a similar kind of criticism on the railway question.


Jacques Bureau: What does the hon. member mean when he hopes that we shall be absolutely sound? Is he speaking of public ownership?


Robert Lorne Richardson: In my judgment, there is no other solution for the question than public ownership. The railroads-the babies have been placed on our laps, and we have to nurse them. Would my hon. friend hand back the Canadian Northern to Mackenzie and Mann or would he continue pouring tens of millions of dollars into that enterprise? Would he still keep pouring tens of millions of dollars into the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific? The hon. gentleman has asked me a question. I would like him to answer that.


Jacques Bureau: I just asked my hon. friend what he meant when he said that he hoped we would be absolutely sound. If he says " public ownership," that is an answer; but I do not agree with him.


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend, between whom and myself has existed a lifelong friendship, will have an opportunity later on of telling the House what policy he would adopt.


Jacques Bureau: I shall.


Robert Lorne Richardson: As I have stated before, a man who criticises what you do

is in duty bound to suggest what should be done.


Jacques Bureau: Not necessarily.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. membei for Three Rivers thinks this country should go on pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the maws of these railroad corporations and exploiters to fatten upon, then he is out of touch with the spirit of this country and he is following a policy that is bound to result in disaster later on.


Jacques Bureau: That is a question of opinion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Only one position can possibly be taken. I was going to read some extracts from the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Star. Let me read one from the Montreal Standard, and I want to commend it to the consideration of the Acting Prime Minister. The Montreal Standard is a paper, I understand, owned by Lord Atholstan, proprietor of the Montreal Star. Lord Atholstan came out to the West two or three months ago to study the railway question, and since his return the Montreal Star and the Montreal Standard have opposed public ownership and denounced those who advocate it as faddists and dangerous men. This is from the Montreal Standard, and it rather startled me:
Here Canada stands to-day bent under the burden of war's aftermath;-
Always bringing in the war. What a multitude of sins it will cover in the future.
-with a war debt whose interest is bigger than her total income a few years ago; with problems of repatriation and reconstruction which are staggering the Government; with a financial obligation to the men who fought for her honoui and safety, which will constitute a vast first * lien on her treasury for a generation to come; with a smouldering discontent against Government in general which could easily be fanned into red flame!
It is almost incredible that in a time of such stress and peril the public ear should be open to wild projects for further national expenditure and commitments on a scale that would startle sane financiers in our most prosperous times.
I wish the Acting Prime Minister would listen to this:
Yet it is a fact that a clique of scheming politicians at this moment is frantically endeavouring to induce the Government of Canada to force the Grand Trunk Railway to sell out to the Government as a part of a wildeyed policy for the nationalization of all Canadian railways-careless of present financial dangers and future obligations; oblivious to the fact that great experiments in national operation are already under way both here and in

* the States, and deaf to the voice of common sense which urges a waiting time while these attempts are on trial.
In the name of national safety and business sanity, let the people of Canada call a halt to this folly! We have now on our hands the National Transcontinental which was to cost ?13,000,000 and has already cost over ten times that sum, with its operation by the Government only begun.
I think about twenty times would be nearer the mark.
We have the huge blunder of the Canadian Northern and its infinite possibilities of further waste, as a burden by day and a fear by night. We have the Intercolonial, with its lamentable record.
Is it sane to assume more loads until we see if we can carry this?
Then it says further on:
Is it sensible for Canada to plunge headlong into a similar pot of trouble before we are in a position to profit by what our neighbours shall learn, as well as by our own dearly bought experience? . . . This is no time for gambling. Even if there were prospect of something great to gain and not the risk of utter disaster.
Let the voice of prudence be heard. Let the Government repel the exploiters and close its ears to the specious pleadings of the plungers who would perpetrate another gigantic railway folly that would bring us to the very verge of financial ruin.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What is the title of that article?


Robert Lorne Richardson: not a very formidable sum in these day's of billions. What course should be adopted? Arbitration. Arbitration is the normal procedure in such cases. Arbitration was had to determine the value of the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway.	.
If we arbitrate, what we witnessed with regard to the Canadian Northern arbitration last year will be repeated. In that case the Government set a limit of $10,000,000 which the arbitrators should not exceed. Yet the arbitrators gave the Canadian Northern nearly $11,000,000. If the

Grand Trunk was referred to arbitration, we can be quite sure of what the result would be. The country would be heavily mulcted in the long run doubtless for tens of millions. Just here, I want to make this point, lest I forget it. These papers that are opposing public ownership, when it comes down to the inevitable and the railways simply must be taken over by the Government, want to impose conditions that will make public ownership if not impossible at least to suffer from an irreparable handicap. They say:	Treat the Grand
Trunk generously. But in view of the enormous liabilities the country has to face in respect of the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, if we increase the amount which the old Grand Trunk should get, how can we ever make a success of public ownership? If you load public ownership with conditions in advance that make it practically impossible, you are taking the course that is directly opposed to the interests of the country, and opposed to the successful carrying on of public ownership.
I have another extract to read. 1 hope I do not weary the House, but this is an important subject, and I am talking not only for the purpose of reaching the members who are here; I want to spread before the Country some aspects of this question, and if I take up the time of the House, I do it in the hope that I shall be able to render some little service to the people of this country. I want to read an extract from a letter which I received from a prominent gentleman in Toronto, who is also a very strong Liberal. He says:
I am of opinion that emissaries of the C.P.R. are at the back of the Gazette and Star performances and I warn that corporation that, whilst its importance as an economic factor is recognized, it is no longer regarded as a governing force in this country; that any efforts on its part to exercise functions of government or to obstruct openly or indirectly any public policy will re-act disastrously upon itself, and that the carryings on of the Gazette and Star cannot fail to do it injury.
The country recognizes that the whole source of railway troubles has been a disastrous policy of allowing the railways to be made a tool of the exploiters and stock operators like the Grand Trunk directors in Canada, that the country is determined to eliminate this element and is going to have a show-down to the very last card with these fellows. The "credit of Canada" bogey must be exploded. Financial bluffers and fakirs who reside in London are not less fakirs than those who reside in New York or Montreal. As a matter of fact they are merely groups of the same Camorra. All the tricks that are being worked just now, such as the threatened tying up of the American ends of the G.T.R., are part of the game of the Camorra. Nothing is too mean or despicable for them. But the Government holds the trump cards, and it must not delay in playing them. It is strictly
[Mr. Richardson.!
up to the Government. Assuming that they are in earnest, they have the game in their own hands and can easily win. In the West there is but one view on the question. Opinion is even more unanimous than on the tariff. The West is thoroughly " on " to the " big interests " and will not tolerate any more of that pretence of following the public) wishes whilst really working in with the grafters, of which we have had so long and painful experience in past years. Why should the " credit of Canada " be used as an excuse for handling the Grand Trunk with gloves, and excusing the authorities from fulfilling their credit and just obligations. The [Government ought to be asked to define what the " credit of Canada " means and to explain how the " credit of Canada," under any common sense definition, could be injuriously affected by Canada demanding not that the Grand Trunk live up to its contracts (it has already hopelessly fallen down) but that it perform at least sufficient of its obligations to enable the Government to avoid the catastrophic loss which would be entailed by having those frightful white elephants, the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific both thrown helplessly on its hands, without the link which is absolutely necessary to give them any value whatsoever. The Grand Trunk financiers are acting more like a crew of pirates or blackmailers than the preposterously high-grade persons whom they pose as being.
That is pretty strong language, but probably it is justified.
It seems to me that the offer which the Government is understood to have made to take over the Grand Trunk system incorporated with the G.T.P.R. and go on paying the Grand Trunk Guaranteed and Preferred shareholders dividends at the rate which they were receiving for a term of years prior to 1917 in a quite generous one under the circumstances and should have been readily, if not eagerly, accepted by the company. Unless its members desired to flout and defy decent public opinion instead of eagerly jumping at such a proposal, the managers ostentatiously rejected it and assume a most ridiculous and offensive attitude of pained surprise and offended dignity. They affected to regard the proposal as the initial step in an effort of the people of Canada to deprive them of their property. Did they make reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, their delinquencies and their huge obligations to the country in connection therewith, all of which they were responsible for dragging the country into? They did. They proposed that this contract should be annulled,, that the Grand Trunk indebtedness to Canada should be cancelled and that the money of its own, which the Grand Trunk had actually invested in the Grand Trunk Pacific, should be repaid to it by the Government, which, of course, as in the case of the National Transcontinental, meant taking over the costly and unwieldy white elephant.
The reasons or conditions by which they supported this proposal were some of them even more monstrous and insolent than the proposal itself. In short, for icy effrontery and for cold-blooded disregard of all the decencies, this proposal probably excels anything, even in the annals of Canadian high finance.
In addition to the offer which the Government had made, I fancy, under all the circumstances, public opinion might support an offer

of say two or three millions for the ordinary stock. That would be generous but it ought to be the limit and if it be not accepted the whofe issue should be fought to a finish, by receiver's proceedings if necessary, leaving as a matter entirely for secondary consideration what might happen to the American ends. The only way to deal with these financial buccaneers is to let them understand that the people of Canada, through their representatives in Parliament, are going to fight them to the bitter end.
I have been referring to what the newspapers say and to the criticisms that have been made, and now I want to briefly mention some points brought out in the Dray-ton-Acworth Report-one of the most valuable reports ever presented to Parliament. In view of the position of the country with regard to the transportation question and the difficulties that have been rapidly piling up, the Government appointed a commission composed of Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Ac-worth, an English railway expert, and Mr. Smith, an American railway expert. It was a strong commission and cost the country a large sum of money, but they went very carefully into the whole question and submitted an important report. Now, if we select a commission that goes over the entire ground and considers the subject in all its bearings, would it not seem to be the duty of Parliament and of the country to accept the findings of that commission? Hon. members will no doubt expatiate on the question of justice to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and will probably, as the session progresses, indulge in considerable "camouflage," if I may use the term; but I shall read to the House from the report of this commission an extract or two which I think will serve to put the subject in its proper light. These commissioners have no axe to grind; they have no desire to injure the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, their duty being simply to consider the whole question as experts and to suggest to this House the best solution of the transportation problem. I do not want to weary the House, but the time I spend in reading these extracts will not be wasted. On page 26, under the caption "Grand Trunk Company's Proposal" the following appears:
The Grand Trunk Company have, in the letter of their president, addressed to the Prime Minister and dated December 10, 1915, officially acknowledged that they cannot fulfil their obligations in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk company have already obtained a tacit release from their contract in reference to the Transcontinental half of the original Grand Trunk Pacific undertaking. They have now, by their chairman's



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
letter, put it on record that they are " at the end of their tether." They say that it is " quite impossible for them to meet the extra liabilities arising from the Grand Trunk Pacific company." They propose to retire altogether from the concern; that in return for their handing over to the Government the $25,000,000 common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which is in their possession, but for which they only paid a nominal amount of actual cash, the Government shall not only relieve them of all liability for the interest on the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific and subsidiary companies, and for any deficiencies of operating expenses of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, but shall " repay the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company any money advanced to the Grand Trunk Pacific or its Branch Lines and Development Company and other subsidiary companies."
We cannot think that this is a reasonable proposition or one that we could advise the Government to accept. What would be thought if one partner in the business were to say to the other: "We entered Jointly on an enterprise which we thought would be profitable. It has turned out the reverse. I propose that you settle with the creditors, pay out to me the whole of the capital I put in, and let me retire. Provided I go free, I am content that you make what you can out of the business." We think the Grand Trunk Company cannot thus escape the consequences of its own action. We quite agree that the Grand Trunk Company cannot meet its Grand Trunk Pacific liabilities. But, if the Government is to relieve the Grand Trunk Company of liabilities which, it voluntarily incurred, but which it now finds it impossible to meet, it is for the Government, not for the company to fix the terms.
Surely that is clear. Now I will read another extract from page 30:-
If the company has been taken advantage of, or in any way deluded or defrauded by the Government-
I would like hon. members to pay particular attention to this language:-
-the fair name of Canada requires immediate redress. On the other hand, the country ought not to be called upon to accept on the ground of good faith, a large loss and responsibility unless this ground is well established. We accordingly arranged to hold a viva voce examination.
Now I turn to page 32:-
Our inquiry has fully satisfied us that the Grand Trunk management was content at the time with the arrangement made; that it deliberately took its business chances, and proceeded with the undertaking. On the evidence there is nothing whatever to Justify any charge of lack of fairness or good faith on the part of the Government in its dealings with the company. We have no hesitation in saying that, neither legally or morally, have the promoters or shareholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company any basis for a claim that the country shall make good the Grand Trunk's mistaken investment in the Grand Trunk Pacific. Any aid given to them must be looked upon not as a matter of obligation, but as spontaneous bounty. The question is really so left by the Grand Trunk officials themselves. The record reads (page 176), as follows:-

[Stage Direction]
112C
[Stage Direction]
" Sir Henry Drayton: Doesn't it really come down to this, that the statements in your letter mean that in your view, in order to protect the finances of the Grand Trunk, and as a corollary to protect the finances of the country, the Government ought to relieve the Grand Trunk in regard to its investment; isn't that the whole thing?
Mr. Chamberlain: That is the whole thing.
Sir Henry Drayton: There is nothing else to it?
Mr. Chamberlain: Nothing else."
It is obvious from the report that in the judgment of the commissioners the Grand Trunk has no claim whatever upon this country. The Grand Trunk exploiters-or shall I call them the financial managers- induced the Government of the day to enter into these contracts. Hon. members will recall that the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking of the necessity of haste, when the proposal to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific was before Parliament, said, " We cannot wait, because time will not wait, and unless we go on with this contract at once the future of Canada will be bound in shallows." And those who have good memories will also probably call to mind the retort of the Hon. Mr. Blair, who, I think, was then Minister of Railways. He said that it was not time that would not wait, but Cox, who was one of the men associated with the Grand Trunk exploitation at the time. Cox could not wait. That, however, by the way.
Now, the credit of Canada bogy has been raised by the Grand Trunk exploiters in the Old Country.
They say, " If you do not treat the Grand Trunk generously you will interfere with the credit of Canada," and they use that statement on every conceivable occasion. Let me read an extract from the Financial Times, of London, England. I was almost forgetting it, but it has just occurred to me, and it is very important that hon. members should hear this. The journal in question speaks as follows:
Are these unfortunate shareholders to get nothing, as apparently suggested in the Drayton report? It is quite impossible to believe that a government which has during the great war-
The war is invoked again-
[Stage Direction]
which has just ended acted so splendidly could ever behave in such a disgraceful manner. It would be a serious blot on the Canadian Government if, by taking advantage of the adverse factors which have forced these stocks to their present low levels, they were to endeavour to obtain the railway at a knock-out price. The railway has fought gallantly against adverse conditions for many years, and has never paid to the ordinary shareholders any dividends, and now, after sixty-five years, has got a system in completeness and efficiency second to none on the American oontinent, capable in normal times

of earning good dividends. It would be beyond belief that its property should be taken from it at anything but a fair price.	.
A writer who quoted this extract comments on it, and I adopt his language because I think it is admirably adapted to the subject under the circumstances, as follows :
Note the insidious appeal to the just pride oi the people of Canada, in the vigorous, wholehearted, and effective manner in which they discharged their duty of Imperial patriotism, and in doing which they "acted so splendidly."
If the people of Canada should absolutely ignore those ordinary shareholders of the Grand Trunk, they would, from no moral standpoint, be acting in any way inconsistently with their record in the war, although the Financial Times insidiously and menacingly suggests that such a course would be " disgraceful behaviour," and in violent contrast with Canada's war record. This, however, is quite in keeping with the sordid ethics and ideals of exploiting finance, which are those of Prussianism, and which justify such doctrines as that necessity knows no law, that the end justifies the means, and that no subject of human thought, or no field of human effort, however lofty, need be sacred, if its invasion will further the ' invader's purpose, however sordid or base it may be.
Note also the whining and mawkish appeal to the sympathies. This appeal is also based on falsehood, and false inference. The "adverse circumstances," against which the railway fought, were not created by the people of Canada, tout almost entirely by the bad judgment, bad management, and devious financing, of its directors in the past.
It is a gross travesty on the facts to say that the Grand Trunk Company "has got a system in completeness and efficiency second to none on the American continent, capable, in normal times, of earning good dividends." In view of the fact that the railway did not, in times, some of which were better than normal, earn half the dividends which it actually paid; in view of the written statement of its own officers that it would at present require a sum of $51,000,000 to put it in a " state of completeness and efficiency," and in view of the whole report of the Royal Commission, such stuff as the quoted paragraph must be published by men who either are grossly ignorant of, or uninformed upon, their subject, or who care nothing about the accuracy or falsehood of these facts or conclusions, provided they create the desired impression in the minds of their readers. It is time the public should be thoroughly awakened to the publicity methods and devices of exploiting finance, and of its press mouthpieces. At the present moment an insidious hut vigorous and unscrupulous press campaign, in the interest of financial exploitation, is being conducted in nearly every part of Canada, with the purpose of preventing the release of the great public services of the country from the paralyzing and corrupting tentacles of high finance.
With regard to the four issues of preferred shares, the suggestions in the Financial Times which doubtless embody the views of the Grand Trunk magnates, are even more extravagant and impertinent than those with reference to the ordinary shares. In short the Times writer thinks that for the shares of all kinds, which had a stock exchange value of some $70,000,0'0 to $75,000,000, which value, at that, was based

on unearned dividends and fictitious net earnings Canada should pay the holders at rates, *which would bring the total payments to over $1©0,0'00',000 !
When we think over the facts relating to these shares, already recited, when we reflect upon the methods by which such commercial value as they had was sustained, when we reflect further on the actual condition of the property as disclosed in the report of the Royal Commission, when we remember the summing up of that report in regard to these shares, " we regard the share capital of the company as being Intrinsically at small value at the present time," it is only when we mass all these reflections before our mind's eye that we may adequately appraise the " gall " and the greed and the moral turpitude which are necessary to enable such claims as those in the Financial Times article to he even suggested.
I want to deal with another point or two, although I realize that I have already spoken at too great length on this subject. The Grand Trunk Company during the last ten or twelve years, as pointed out in the Drayton-Acworth Report, actually failed to make the necessary improvements for upkeep, etc., on the line, actually failed to keep the line in proper condition, and in doing so, jeopardized the interests of the country, because they were unable to give the adequate service that was required. These payments they have neglected to make in the upkeep of the road amount to a very large sum. I think it is something like $21,000,000, but hon. gentlemen will find the exact figures in the Drayton-Acworth report. Notwithstanding their failure during that period to meet the necessities oi the road, they paid to their own shareholders during the period of deferred improvements the immense sum of $36,000,000 in dividends. Now they have the audacity to blame the Government for the position in which they find themselves at the present time. To ask for relief, and to raise the 'bogy of the credit of Canada suffering unless they get that relief. If the credit of Canada is so fragile that a pistol can be held at the head of the Government by any exploiter, then the Dominion is in a very serious condition indeed.
I would like to say in conclusion that I trust the Government will deal with this matter in the only way in which it should be dealt with. I reiterate that the Grand Trunk got the country into the present trouble of their own seeking, and this Government has no right whatever to come to the rescue of the company at the present time.
Frank S. Cahill: Will the Government be good enough to tell us where we are ex-
72}
pected to land under this legislation, where we are heading for?


William Thomas White: I might take advantage of the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) to explain the present position, and in doing so answer my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) with regard to certain matters which he raised this afternoon. This legislation which we are asking from Parliament is for the purpose of confirming and ratifying an Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act which, as I stated when the resolution was under consideration, has the force and effect of a statute. The Minister of Railways, under that Order in Council has been appointed a receiver of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System, and is operating that system by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by that Order in Council, and under the direction and control of the Exchequer Court.
Mr. hon. friend from Lotbinifere this afternoon appeared to me to be under a misapprehension as to the true position. He seemed to be of the opinion that the Government, as a government, had expropriated the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System. Now the Government has not expropriated that system; it has merely appointed a receiver, with the statutory powers of a receiver, under Section 26 of the Exchequer Court Act. The Minister of Railways as receiver is precisely in the same position as a receiver appointed by the Exchequer Court, because the Order in Council states that he is in that position. This Parliament has given the Exchequer Court power to appoint a receiver in certain cases; this Parliament has likewise I>ower to name the Minister of Railways as receiver, with the powers given by Section 26 of the Exchequer Court Act, and subject to the jurisdiction of that court.


Thomas Vien: Under what statute?


William Thomas White: Under the authority of Parliament. When we pass this legislation my hon. friend and all others in this House, together with the Senate, and with the assent of the Crown, will have made the Minister of Railways receiver of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He is now receiver, as I stated before, by virtue of the Order in Council which has been passed.
Let me elaborate that again from my point of view for my hon. friend's information. Parliament authorizes the Exchequer Court to appoint a receiver in certain eases. Parliament can also author-

ize an individual to be the receiver of a railway system, subject to the Exchequer Court jurisdiction. That has been done in this case. Why has it been done? Because, as I pointed out when the resolution was under consideration by the House, an application could not be made to the Exchequer Court except for foreclosure and sale. My hon. friend said this afternoon: Why did not the Government, instead of taking possession of the road immediately under the War Measures Act, wait a few days until default took place? My hon. friend has evidently not looked up the trust mortgages-and I hardly blame him for that because they are very complex documents-securing the various issues on the Grand Trunk Pacific system. For example, the Dominion Government has guaranteed the first mortgage securities on the Grand Trunk Pacific system. Now, if we desired to apply to the Exchequer Court for the appointment of a receiver under the Exchequer Court Act, we should have had to wait until default occurred upon the payment of interest on the Government guaranteed securities and for a period of six months afterwards as provided for in the trust mortgages. The Canadian. Government was confronted with this position: The Grand Trunk Pacific Company was unable to continue in operation. Why? Because the company had no money. The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada having decided to wash their hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, so to speak, said: "We cannot give you any money." -The Dominion Government had reached the point where it said, "We shall not continue to pay seven or eight million dollars a year to carry on this system while the negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada are in their present unsatisfactory position." Now, what would have happened, supposing the Government had not appointed a statutory receiver? I have shown the committee that the Dominion Government could not have applied to the Exchequer Court for the appointment of a receiver under the Exchequer Court Act-


Thomas Vien: Until the company made default?


William Thomas White: Until the company made default, and six months afterwards under the terms of the trust mortgages. No trust mortgages that I have ever seen provide that immediately on default of payment of interest application can be made for the appointment of a receiver. There is usually a waiting period of three or six months, and quite properly,

because a company might recover. In this case, as I have stated, the Government was confronted with this notice: We have not any money. We are going to discontinue operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific system. The Government in the public interest had to act, and it did act, but it did not expropriate the system. What it did was to appoint a receiver, because, having regard to the Exchequer Court Act, it was not possible to make application in the usual way to the Exchequer Court for the appointment of a receiver. Further than that, there is not complete jurisdiction in the Exchequer Court to grant a receivership in the case of a system like the Grand Trunk Pacific, for the reason that there are telegraph lines in connection with it over which the Exchequer Court has no jurisdiction, and also a development company, a branch lines company, and a provincial line. Therefore, under all the circumstances the Government, as I have stated, acted so as to ensure in the public interest the operation of the system. I am sure that every one in the committee will agree that it would have been disastrous to the country at this time to have permitted its discontinuance.
Now, as to the question of liability that my hon. friend has raised. I am sure that he has not studied the matter seriously or he would not have put that forward. The Minister of Railways, as receiver, is precisely in the same position as a receiver appointed by the court and subject to direction and control by the court. He is there to carry on the system. That is made perfectly clear by the Order in Council. More than that, that Order in Council has the force and effect of a statute, and Parliament now, by its ratification, will enact that the Minister of Railways, as receiver, shall have no liability towards the Grand Trunk Railway Company or to any bond holders or other creditors. My hon. friend seemed to doubt whether that would be valid. Well, it is valid because Parliament has said so, in the War Measures Act, which gave the Dominion Government the authority to pass this Order in Council, which Order in Council, as I have stated, has the force and effect of a statute. If my hon. friend has any doubt about that, then when this Bill becomes law and this Order in Council is validated by Parliament, no doubt possibly can arise, because the Order in Council is embodied in the Act of Parliament..


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At that point might I ask a question? The hon. leader of the Government says that the Minister of Railways

in this case "will be to all intents and purposes the same as a receiver ordinarily appointed. The receiver so appointed has to manipulate his finances by virtue of the property that is put in his hands, and is receiver under the direction of the court. Vv ill the Government in this case supply moneys to the receiver to run the enterprise?


William Thomas White: The money which the Government will furnish will only be to the extent necessary to continue the operation of the system upon the receiver's certificates authorized by the Exchequer Court, precisely in the way that my hon. friend has in mind. In other words, this receivership does not differ essentially from the receivership of an industrial concern or a railway over which the Exchequer Court usually has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. That is the legal position, and what we are asking Parliament to do is to ratify and confirm that Order in Council; and I have no doubt it has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, for this reason: If hon. gentlemen will look at the War Measures Act they will find the question of transportation during the war is made subject to the jurisdiction of the Government by Order in Council. The Minister of Railways as receiver is in possession of the system and is running it.
Now then, what is the position to-day so far as the Grand Trunk Railway Company is concerned, because, after all, hon. gentlemen want to know. At the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, held in London March 21, 1919, they passed a resolution, which I brought down in the papers which were laid upon the table of the House recently, and which I have no doubt hon. gentlemen have seen. This was the resolution :
That this meeting, having heard from the chairman a statement of the course of negotiations which have taken place between the Government and the board, approves of the action of the board and is of the opinion that the amount offered by the Government for the purchase of the Grand Trunk Railway is inadequate and will not enable the board to formulate a friendly and agreed scheme which would satisfy claim of different classes of stockholders; but it urges the hoard to convey to the Government the desire of all classes of stockholders to arrive at a friendly understanding:
And that the board be asked to form a committee selected from the largest holders of various stocks to consult with the board on the subject.
Since this matter was before the House, Mr. Kelley, the President of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the Grand Trunk
Railway Company has returned from England. He came up to see me, presented this resolution and opened up negotiations on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company That is the situation to-day so far as the Grand Trunk Railway Company is concerned.
The member for Lothbiniere spoke of there being no default. I am sure he realizes that the only reason why there has been no default is that the Government of Canada has been voting seven and a half or eight million dollars a year to pay not only the deficit on operations of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but also the interest upon the guaranteed bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, including those guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself. In other words, the Government has borne the entire burden. To give my hon. friend an idea of what the situation would have been this coming year, I may say that the interest which would have been payable upon all the securities this year is estimated at $8,000,000, to which must be added $4,000,000, estimated deficit in operating expenses, or a shortage of about $12,000,000 on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system for the year 1919-20.


Thomas Vien: Which the Government is
going to pay in any case? The receiver will have to pay it.


William Thomas White: No, the receiver will not pay the guaranteed interest. The receiver will, on the order of the court, raise money by receiver's certificate to the extent necessary to meet deficit in operating expenses only. The Government, under legislation passed previously is liable, of course, to pay the interest upon bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific which it, the Government, has guaranteed; but the receiver will not pay the interest upon securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific which have been guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Mr. McMASTER:: Was the Government
of Canada advancing money to pay interest on Grand Trunk Pacific bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk and not by ourselves?


William Thomas White: Absolutely, and that is what has not been clear to the House. The Government of Canada has been paying everything; the Grand Trunk Railway Company has been paying nothing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And paying out dividends to their shareholders meanwhile.
Sir THOMiAS WHITE: Well, they have not paid out any dividends recently, I think

But the whole load of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been cast upon the Government of Canada. What I think my hon. friend did not understand, and what has, perhaps, not been made plain in London, is that the Dominion Government, by its votes every year has been providing money to pay for all guaranteed interest, including, of course, interest guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
My hon. friend spoke of the National Transcontinental, Eastern division, and said that the Government should have compelled the Grand Trunk Pacific to take it under lease as provided by the statute. Theoretically that is correct. But my hon. friend knows what various defences would have been raised and what litigation would have resulted-for what good? To what end? The interest which would have been payable by the Grand Trunk Pacific in respect of the Eastern division of the National Transcontinental would have been $5,000,000 or $6,000-, 000 a year. So that if what my hon. friend suggests had been done, the present position would simply be this: Instead of there being an amount of $12,000,000 to meet for 1920, there would be $17,000,000 to meet, representing the interest upon the Eastern division of the National Transcontinental. My hon. friend needs no counsel from me on the question whether the Grand Trunk Pacific would have been able to bear that burden; so that I think we can dismiss that phase of the question. It belongs to the past, and I do not see very much object in discussing it.
The question of our credit in London has been touched upon. Well, we are always very desirous of maintaining our credit in London, in New York, and elsewhere. Canada has always had a very self-respecting position in London. We have appreciated the opportunity of placing loans there, but we have thought that while there was a degree of sentiment in the matter, at the same time the transaction was advantageous to the lender as well as to the borrower I therefore emphasize the assertion that our position with respect to loans which we have made in London has been an entirely self-respecting one.
A certain section of the London press- the matter was referred to this afternoon by the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson)-has endeavoured to give the impression that Canadian credit would suffer by reason of the action which we have been compelled to take. I noticed some little time ago a despatch from London in the Montreal Gazette which stated:

Canada is expected to meet her loans in the British market as they fall due. Ahout twenty-five million becomes due in June. The British claim that if Canada can offer credits to European countries, she cannot expect Britain, who needs all her available money, to extend credits to Canada. This view is endorsed by Canadians here, who feel that we must finance our growing foreign trade on our own money, and not on British loans.
It struck me as rather strange that a despatch should come to Canada indicating that Canada was not to be allowed to renew an existing loan in London at a time when I was using my best efforts as Minister of Finance to renew a loan of $100,000,000 made to the Imperial Government by the chartered banks of Canada. It occurred to me that if this view prevailed, it must prevail in very narrow circles. It could not be the view of the Imperial Government, because my relations with them could not have been more satisfactory than they have been, not only during the war but ever since I have been Minister of Finance. I took the opportunity of cabling Sir George Perley, Canadian High Commissioner, to inquire as to the truth of this despatch. I have this from him, dated March 24:
Have seen nothing in press and have no information of anything which would give ground for report that Canada would be expected to meet her loans maturing here. Have seen Treasury who say no foundation for press despatch. Am authorized to send you following message:
" Chancellor Exchequer states that Treasury appreciates greatly assistance given by Canada in financing war as the Dominion has been able to loan to British Government more than she has borrowed from it. Regarding loan maturing next June, Treasury will, on request, immediately grant permission for fresh issue here to replace it, or will consider favourably proposal that they should pay it off and offset same against portion of their dollar Indebtedness to you if you prefer that course."
All we are asking the committee to do this afternoon is to approve of the ratification of this Order in Council under which the Minister of Railways is placed in the position of statutory receiver of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister has not answered my question. I asked the Government what they expected this matter would lead to; what would be the ultimate course.


William Thomas White: I thought I had answered what my hon. friend had in mind when I stated that the Grand Trunk had opened up negotiations through Mr. Kelley.
I cannot, of course, forecast what the course of these negotiations will be, but my view is that the Grand Trunk railway of Canada will come into the possession of the Domin-

ion Government. I am not in a position tc say that definitely, because we have not reached an agreement in the negotiations. My hon. friend probably has in mind: Supposing that our negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada continue in their present unsatisfactory condition, what will the Government do? I stated the other day that the Dominion Government had many remedies which it could pursue. For example, when legal action can be taken, an application to the Exchequer Court for foreclosure under*the first mortgage securing bonds of the Grand Trunk Railway Company guaranteed by the Dominion Government, may be made. There are other mortgages under which the Dominion Government, in the event of default, can proceed-and there has been default-to foreclose and offer for sale. Then the Dominion Government is in a position to sue upon obligations which have matured. I have answered my hon. friend. I think it is unwise to indicate the precise course which the Government will pursue. There is the Grand Trunk Railway situation, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway situation, the Government guarantor of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Railway Company guarantor of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and with a large amount owing from the Grand Trunk Railway system. I cannot tell my hon. friend what will happen out of all that. I have indicated to him what is in my mind.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank S. Cahill: Just before six o'clock, the Acting Prime Minister stated that negotiations were proceeding with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I should like to ask if it is the intention of the Government to acquire the Grand Trunk railway system, in accordance with the proposals made previously.


William Thomas White: I stated that negotiations had been resumed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company with the Government. I think it undesirable to add anything to that statement.


Frank S. Cahill: What I should like to find out is whether the Government has definitely made up its mind to acquire the Grand Trunk as a public-owned railway, if that road can be got on terms approximating the offer which was made some time ago.


William Thomas White: I can only repeat that I do not think it desirable to make any specific statement respecting the negotiations that are under way.


Charles Murphy: In view of the very important announcement just made by the Acting Prime Minister, may I with all respect say that it is unreasonable to ask the House to proceed with this legislation in view of the negotiations that are afoot, and in view of the bearing these negotiations may have on the effect of the present legislation. Surely we ought to be in possession of that information before we are asked to advance this legislation another stage.


William Thomas White: I do not think the negotiations have any bearing upon the question before the House, with all due deference to my hon. friend.


Charles Murphy: We cannot tell.


William Thomas White: The question before the House is this: The Government by Order in Council has made the Minister of Railways receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system. He is acting under the authority of that order, and under the direction of the Exchequer Court. We are asking Parliament to validate our action. Irrespective altogether of the negotiations with the Grand Trunk, a certain situation exists with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. That situation is that the system cannot Operate, cannot discharge its duties to the public, without this receivership. We are asking Parliament to ratify the Order in Council under which that receivership was created for the purpose of carrying on the Grand Trunk Railway system, so as to serve the public in Western Canada.


Frank S. Cahill: What, then, was the meaning of the statement made by my hon. friend in introducing this legislation, when he said that the next move was up to the Grand Trunk? If we are taking over this road under a receivership, how long are we to be expected to continue in that position? If a receiver were appointed in the ordinary way, he would not be coming to the Treasury of Canada for money to operate the road, but would have to get the money elsewhere. Are we going to assume all the obligations and continue to manage the road until we have arrived at some conclusion with the Grand Trunk? What bearing has the Grand Trunk on the present legislation? If the Government do not make a deal with the Grand Trunk, what

then? How long shall we continue to operate the road under present conditions? Will the Government foreclose and take the road over, put it up for sale, or what?


William Thomas White: That is for the Government to determine. The immediate situation is that a receivership is absolutely necessary in order that the Grand Trunk Pacific may continue to operate and discharge its duty to the public. The immediate cause of this receivership was that the public interest might be served through the continued operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system. My hon. friend asks how long? That depends upon the course which the Government pursues. The Minister of Railways is acting as receiver under the authority of the Exchequer Court. Money is needed to make good the deficits in operating expenses, so that the system can carry on. The Minister of Railways could offer his receivership certificates, authorized by the Exchequer Court, to private individuals if he so desired, but there is no necessity for doing that. The Government is quite content to take receivership certificates, which would be made a first charge on the system prior to all existing charges, under an order of the Exchequer Court. Our . immediate duty, however, is to operate the road. That is so obvious that it does not seem to me to be debatable. If the Government had not appointed a receiver, the alternative would have been to allow the system to come to a standstill, resulting in great disorder, and almost disaster, to the western sections of the community which the road serves. Apart altogether from any negotiations with the Grand Trunk, our immediate duty is to provide for the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that is what we are doing. My hon. friendi asks, what further? I have already stated that the'Government have many remedies. We could resort to foreclosure and sale proceedings, under the first mortgage securing the bonds guaranteed by the Dominion Government, or under other mortgages securing issues which the Government has in its possession. What course the Government may take will be as we may be advised, and as we may decide, but I submit that the immediate question before the committee is whether this receivership order shall be validated by Parliament.


Charles Murphy: Would it be a correct
interpretation of the remarks just made by the Acting Prime Minister to say that he has informed the committee that no matter

what the outcome of the present negotiations may be, they cannot have any bearing upon the effect of the legislation now before the committee?


William Thomas White: I did not say that exactly. I said that, apart altogether from the negotiations with the Grand Trunk, the Dominion Government had the duty of providing for the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system. A receivership was essential to that, and we have established the' receivership. The reason negotiations with the Grand Trunk came into the question was that the Grand Trunk had not been discharging its liabilities to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system. As I have already pointed out, the company sought to cast the entire burden upon the Dominion Government. We stated to the company, in reply to their request that we should continue to finance the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system and find the money to pay the interest on the bonds for that system, whmu bonds were guaranteed not only by the Dominion Government but by the Grand Trunk Pacific as well, that the Dominion Government did not propose to do that in view of the present unsatisfactory condition of the negotiations with the Grand Trunk. That was explained to the House when the resolution was under discussion, and before six o'clock I stated that the Grand Trunk Railway had entered upon negotiations with the Dominion Government since this matter was last before the House. I think I gave a perfectly frank and clear statement of the matter.


Frank S. Cahill: It is not quite clear to me yet. If this legislation has no relation to the Grand Trunk, I do not. think it. is unreasonable to ask the Government what their proposals are with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Do they intend to hold it, and for how long? Why not let it go into the hands of a receiver?


William Thomas White: It is in the hands of a receiver.


Frank S. Cahill: Why not let it go to sale? Why should we by -this legislation tie up the Dominion Government and the people of Canada to an indefinite expenditure of money? I do not quite understand what the Acting Prime Minister means by "the present unsatisfactory condition of negotiations with the Grand Trunk." If I understood him correctly, he said that this legislation had nothing to do with the Grand Trunk, and then in the same breath he said we must pass this legislation because

of the present unsatisfactory state of the negotiations with the Grand Trunk. I think the Government should tell us whether it is their intention to acquire the Grand Trunk, and whether they have committed themselves to a policy of public ownership of railways. I do not think there has been any discussion here about public ownership of railways, and I think before we embark upon this great expenditure we should have more information as to the intentions of the Government.


William Thomas White: I understand the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) made a full statement on the subject at the last session of the House.


Thomas Vien: Oh, no. He refused to give information.


William Thomas White: I do not wish
to repeat unduly, but it seems to me that what I have stated is perfectly clear. That is, when the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company served notice on the Dominion Government that they would no longer operate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, the Government was at once confronted with a situation that called for the appointment of a receiver, as the best means of protecting the public interest. That action was taken and is now before Parliament for ratification. I do not think it has been seriously contended by any one that the Government of Canada should allow the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific system to be discontinued.


Frank S. Cahill: There would be no necessity.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
says that there is no necessity.


Frank S. Cahill: I say there would be no
necessity.


William Thomas White: The hon. member says there would be no necessity for it, and that would be true under certain circumstances. If the Dominion Government, in addition to putting up all the money it has advanced since the original agreement was entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government of 'Canada-that is to say, $10,000,000 advanced in 1909,	$15,000,000
more in 1913, $16,000,000 in 1914 and $22,000,000 since-if, in addition to all that, we are prepared to put up $12,000,000 for the coming year and assume all future liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, then there certainly is no necessity.


Frank S. Cahill: Has not the Government the same power, under the War Measures
Act, to amend the law regarding the Exchequer Court as they have to appoint this receiver?


William Thomas White: That is precisely what we have done. My hon. friend has not read the Order in Council. We have enlarged the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court so as to enable this receiver to act exactly as if he had been appointed by that court. The jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court was enlarged because it was not applicable to a railway system like the Grand Trunk Pacific system, and the Minister of Railways, as I have pointed out, is in the same position as a statutory receiver as regards duties and powers, and is under the direction of the Exchequer Court. For this reason it is entirely inaccurate to say that the Government has taken over the system. The Minister of Railways is receiver, and to-morrow, if the Government or Parliament decided to appoint a private individual as receiver in his stead, he would stand in precisely the same position and be subject to the Exchequer Court of Canada. The Grand Trunk Railway Company desires the Government to continue making advances by way of loans, eight, ten or twelve million dollars a year, relieving them entirely of their liability in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. This the Government said they would not do while negotiations with the Grand Trunk were in their present unsatisfactory condition. Since this matter was before the House on resolution, the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have passed a resolution indicating a desire to resume negotiations with the Dominion Government, and Mr. Kelley, President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, has come to Ottawa to see me with a view to re-opening these negotiations.


Frank S. Cahill: With regard to what?


William Thomas White: With regard to acquiring the whole system of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. My hon. friend knows perfectly well the enormous liabilities which the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada has assumed in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It is obvious that if the receivership goes on to a legitimate end-in which probability the Dominion Government would apply for foreclosure and sell under its first mortgage-the Grand Trunk Railway system would have no other alternative than to come to the Government either for assistance or to be taken over.

That is the situation. The Government cannot allow the Grand Trunk Pacific system to continue as it has heen in the past, or as it is to-day. We certainly have no intention-and have so expressed this view in the correspondence brought down-of voting this money every year. This year it would mean $12,000,000 more. The Grand Trunk is quite well aware of that, and as I have stated, they have come to negotiate with us.


Thomas Vien: Is it the intention of the Government, before committing the country, to submit to Parliament the agreement that is in course of negotiation?


William Thomas White: The Government would have to come to Parliament for legislation.


Thomas Vien: Yes, but before or after?


William Thomas White: That would depend. An agreement might be entered into subject to ratification by Parliament. If my hon. friend thinks that an extraordinary thing I would refer him to the legislation of 1903-4. That is the usual course, which is entirely in accordance with the principles of responsible government. The Government will have no desire to conceal from Parliament any completed negotiations they have with the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Thomas Vien: It appears to me that the gist of the situation is this: Everybody agrees that we should not undertake any new obligations, nor relieve the Grand Trunk Railway Company of its liabilities in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Our serious complaint is that the Government has just adopted the worst course it possibly could, in that it has actually given the Grand Trunk Company a new argument in their contention that they have no more obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. In the correspondence which was laid before the House by the Acting Prime Minister some time ago, the Prime Minister stated that the difficulty between the Grand Trunk and the Government has been mainly the contention of the Grand Trunk that they are no longer under any obligations as regards the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. That is one of the difficulties that arose in the discussion between the ministers of the Crown and the Grand Trunk in London. The ministers offered two million odd dollars a year, three millions after a certain period, and eventually $3,600,000 in perpetuity. The Grand Trunk contended 
that this amount was not reasonable, and to establish their case they claimed that the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific should not be considered, since they were no longer responsible for such obligation . But the Grand Trunk were armed with several arguments, one of them, which I explained this afternoon, being that the Transcontinental railway having been taken over by the Government they had been deprived of a connecting link which was essential to their system. Their second argument is that during the war the Government, under the War Measures Act took 150 miles of rails which they sent to France and other countries; while the third argument is that the Grand Trunk Pacific, being disconnected with the east, cannot be a paying proposition. They impliedly admitted them in 1912 or 1913, when the Transcontinental railway was completed and the Grand Trunk Railway Company refused to take it over. And in the Dray-ton-Acworth Report, at page 26, we see this:
The Grand Trunk Railway have already obtained a tacit release from their contract in reference to the Transcontinental half of the original Grand Trunk Pacific Railway undertaking.
The Drayton-Acworth report has ascertained that by virtue of the various understandings which haven taken place between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the undertaking of 1903 and 1904 has practically by common accord between the company and the Government been laid aside. Surely if the company sets up that contention the Government has helped it in establishing its case if it goes to court. What has occurred for years? The Government has paid the indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The company came to the Government and said that it could not make both ends meet. The Government accordingly paid the bill, and applied yearly to Parliament for the money wherewith to do so. When the Grand Trunk, said, on the 4th of March, that it was gbing to close its branch line on the 10th, what did the Government do? It virtually expropriated that line. The Acting Prime Minister has stated that it was not an expropriation, but to realize that it is we need only read the terms of the Order in Council which recites:
And' whereas the continued operation of said system is essential in the present position of Canada, resulting from the war, which has not yet been terminated by peace, especially in connection with the transport of returning- Canadian troops and of supplies and equipment and freight, and other services made necessary by the war.

The Government could have done two things. It could have taken the Grand Trunk purely and simply and 'transferred to itself the ownership of 'both systems.
It could have caused the title of the Grand Trunk Pacific to be vested in the Crown. That would have been an expropriation, not only of the administration or the use of the road, but of the property itself. The Government has not done that but it has expropriated the road to a certain extent. It has forcibly taken the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which is a branch line of 'the Grand Trunk, and put it undeT the supervision of the Minister of Railways, who, for the time being, is called a receiver. The Government may call this anything it likes, but surely the objects are clearly set forth in the Order in Council under which the Grand Trunk Pacific is taken over and placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Railways as receiver. Well, if the Grand Trunk Railway Company does not satisfy the Government, and if 'the Government has to go to court, I say, the company will be in a far better position to decline iany responsibility in respect to its obligations to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The company will say: We have closed the branch line and you have taken it over; that being so, you are not going to be responsible merely for the operations of the road, you will also be responsible for all the other obligations and we refuse to" assume further responsibility.
I think the Government could have done otherwise. It could have taken other measures so as not to force the issue just now. It could have 'ascertained whether it really was advisable to take over the Grand Trunk at this period, and if deemed not advisable, the necessary legislation could have been introduced. If the Government thought it inadvisable to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific until the Grand Trunk was in default in meeting its obligations, it could have maintained the system that had hitherto prevailed until an agreement could be reached. The Government says: We are not going to advance any further money for the purposes of the Grand Trunk. And yet it has not taken over either the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk, but has simply placed the former road under a receiver. What is going to be the immediate result? The immediate result will be that all the operating expenses will have to be carried by the Government, or by the re ceiver acting for the Government. The Government will have no recourse against either the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk
Pacific for these operating expenses. If the Grand Trunk Company chooses to close a branch line and the Government decides to operate that branch line, surely the operating expenses will be a charge on the Government. And not only the operating expenses, but the interest on the bonds, and this not because of the Order in Council .taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, but because of the other reasons advanced by the Grand Trunk for some years past, and which have been impliedly accepted by the Government, and which reasons I have fully explained.
Besides all this there is the other question, that Parliament has been absolutely ignored in this matter. The Government was advised on the 4th of March that the Grand Trunk would cease to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific railway on the 10th. Surely the Government could have taken Parliament into its confidence before entering upon a course, which, in my opinion, if the Grand Trunk Company fails to reach an agreement with the Government, will tend to do exactly what we wish to avoid. That is, it will give further ground to the Grand Trunk to claim they are relieved of, and to decline their responsibilities in respect of, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend,
I think, has not a proper conception of the Grand Trunk Company's obligations in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. He thinks the Government has made itself responsible for those liabilities. I pointed out, before the committee rose at six o'clock, that the Minister of Railways was in the position of a receiver; that there had been no expropriation, and consequently there is no legal liability in respect of the interest on any of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. My hon. friend says that we have put the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the position that it is relieved of its liabilities in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway system. The hon. gentleman does not appreciate the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has issued many million dollars of securities that are in the hands of the public, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The coupons will be presented from time to time, as interest becomes due, and it will be for the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to make good its guarantee. In the meantime the advantage is this as far as the Government of Canada is concerned: If we had gone on as before-and that is

all that my hon. friend suggests, he says you must go on-we should have had to bring down an estimate to this House for $12,000,000 to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to go on this year as it did last. In doing that we should be relieving the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada from its liability in respect not only of the bonds which it has guaranteed, but really in respect of the system whose stock it owns.


Thomas Vien: Did not the Grand Trunk Railway Company decline to admit their responsibility in connection with their obligations for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


William Thomas White: 
Thomas Vien: But do they not contend that they are no longer responsible for their obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


William Thomas White: No, I do not think so; I do not see how they could.


Thomas Vien: Will the acting Prime Minister allow me to read this from his recent speech?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Thomas Vien: He Said:
The Grand Trunk Hallway Company said to the Dominion, " We want to assume no responsibility for the Grand Trunk Pacific."


William Thomas White: That is what they still say. They say, "We want to assume no responsibility." The Dominion Government say, "You will have to assume certain responsibility." That is the difference.


Thomas Vien: That is the legal issue.


William Thomas White: That is the legal issue. The Dominion Government's policy is not to provide money in payment of the interest upon all the securities; in other words, the fixed charges, and also the deficit upon operation. That is where the issue lies between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
If the Government is wrong in that policy it is for the House to say so; but I do not believe the House will say
I

anything of the kind. On the contrary, I am satisfied that if the Government brought down an estimate this year of $12,000,000 in order to carry on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, this House would say to the Government that we should not have done it. That is the position, and that is the issue before the House. The Grand Trunk Railway Company has a liability toward the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and in any negotiations we have for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system that liability must be taken as an important factor, and for .that position I say the Government is entirely responsible, and is willing to take the responsibility.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East): I would not presume to detain the House while it is in committee on this Bill but for two reasons. I spoke briefly on the resolution in connection with this Bill two weeks ago, but there seems to be a manifest effort in the press throughout the country and in the House to jockey the country into a wrong position in its relations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and I feel it to be my duty, as a member of this House and in justice to my constituents, to place my opinion clearly before the House and the country in regard to that issue, and in doing that to give the House and the country some information that I believe neither has yet been really seized of. Another reason is because the Acting Prime Minister has announced that further negotiations are being entered upon between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in connection with the solution that must be found for the situation in which we find ourselves in relation to the Grand Trunk Railway and its subsidiaries, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) this afternoon, in building up a case for the Grand Trunk Railway Company, laid down three reasons why the Grand Trunk Railway Company should not be called upon to assume their obligations in relation to the Transcontinental-and he used these as an argument why we were being placed in a wrong position in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The first reason was the cost of the National Transcontinental Railway east of Winnipeg; the second was the change in grades, and the third was the change in terminals. Now, at the risk of wearying the House I am going to give you the reasons put forward by the President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company as to why they could not assume their obligations in relation to the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. When being examined by Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Chamberlin gave these reasons;
Sir Henry Drayton:	There is the other
matter; You think that the Government as a matter of fairness to the Grand Trunk, ought to relieve the Grand Trunk Railway Company of its total Grand Trunk Pacific investment?
Mr. Chamberlin; I do.
Sir Henry Drayton; And repay to the Grand Trunk the money it has in the Grand Trunk Pacific, and relieve the company of all its responsibility. That is a large order. We want to give you every opportunity to state every ground on which you think that should be done.
Mr. Chamberlin; Well, Sir Henry, if you will look at this map you will see where the Grand Trunk Pacific stretches away off up through the north country, while the Grand Trunk is away down in this part of the country. It is not a natural connection of the Grand Trunk, is it? It is not only not a connection of the Grand Trunk, but it is not of any benefit to the Grand Trunk.
In the first place, we are under contract to send all business over this north line, away from the Grand1 Trunk. The Grand Trunk cannot derive any benefit from it, under the oontract with the Government.
I want the House to take particular notice there-


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. member let me mention this-and even from a Bolshevik it may be of some use-that I never said any such thing in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I said that those were the reasons put forward by the Grand Trunk Railway 'Company for not taking over the National Transcontinental railway.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: If the hon. member will listen carefully he will note that I am not referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific exclusively. I am referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental, and Mr. Chamberlin in his answers was referring to the whole system.
When he says " We are under contract to send all business over this north line," what does that mean? They entered into a contract with the Canadian Government to send their western business over the north line, away altogether from the Grand Trunk. Would that not be sending it over the Transcontinental? Mr. Chamberlin goes on to say:
The Grand Trunk cannot derive any benefit from it under the contract with the Government.
Commissioner Acworth: That is a new point, to me.
Mr. Chamberlin: In addition to that, the company is bound to put steamers on the Atlantic and steamers on the Pacific, to accommodate all that business.

Were they going to put steamers on the Atlantic to accommodate business that they were bringing as far east as Winnipeg, and no further? It is obvious that he was referring to the National Transcontinental and its terminal on the Atlantic ocean. The evidence continues:
And yet it does not bring one dollar of business to the Grank Trunk.
Commissioner Acworth:	How does that
obligation arise?
Mr. Chamberlin: It arises out of the contract with the Government.
Commissioner Acworth: The original contract with the Government?
Mr. Chamberlin: The original contract.
Mr. Biggar: Of July 29, 1903.
Commissioner Acworth: Is the agreement a schedule to the Act?
Mr. Biggar: Yes, sir, a schedule to the Act of. 1903. Chapter 80, I think it is.
Commissioner Acworth:	Therefore, if the
Grand Trunk, as it does at present, operate or control the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, were to send traffic through Portland instead of through Halifax, it would be a fraud on the agreement?	\
Mr. Chamberlin: Yes. We are bound to go on with all that tremendous outlay and to carry that load, and yet not get one dollar of benefit from it. The Grand Trunk simply cannot carry it.
And a little further on:
Sir Henry Drayton: But the obligation is there; the burden is there, and the carrying costs are there.
Mr. Chamberlin: Yes, but it is really a matter of financing, to-day.
Sir Henry Drayton: Your first point Mr. Chamberlin is that the Grand Trunk is not interested in all this development at all, and that the railway as contracted for and laid out is something which takes traffic away from the parent Grand Trunk System instead of giving traffic to it.
One answer that might be quite easily made to that is that the representatives of the Grand Trunk must have known all that when this contract was entered into?
Mr. Chamberlin: I don't know. They must have. Of course, I do not want to criticize my predecessors.
Sir Henry Drayton:	What is the next
ground?
Mr. Chamberlin: What do you mean?
Sir Henry Drayton: You have just advanced a reason why you think the Government should take the whole burden of the Grand Trunk Pacific away from the Grand Trunk Eailway Company?
Mr. Chamberlin: Yes.
Sir Henry Drayton: That reason being that the position and the manner in which the line has been built, it is really for a separate system and not for the Grand Trunk System at all? Mr. Chamberlin: Yes.
And still further on:
Sir Henry Drayton: Your second ground is that of impossibility?
Mr. Chamberlin: It is an impossibility.
Sir Henry Drayton: If it is impossible now, it was always impossible?
Mr. Chamberlin: It was always impossible. 
Mr. Biggar: It was not thought to be impossible, by the men who made the contract. Sir Henry Drayton: I think it was.
Mr. Biggar: Of course Mr. Hays is now dead. He was very optimistic about it, we ail know that.
Sir Henry Drayton: Mr. Chamberlin, you have already, through Mr. Biggar, submitted a letter to this Investigating Commission, pointing out first that your scheme was a scheme for building from North Bay; secondly, that your scheme from North Bay was changed at the request of the Government.
That does away with my hon. friend's contention as to the reason why the Grand Trunk Railway Company was endeavouring to get out of its obligation to operate the Transcontinental in its entirety, because it is obvious from the evidence of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that the Grand Trunk Pacific was designed not to assist the Grand Trunk but to take traffic away from it.


Thomas Vien: In the same report Sir Henry Drayton admits that at the time of the Drayton-Acworth inquiry it was agreed that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk were relieved of their responsibility in respect of the Transcontinental railway. If my hon. friend will refer to that portion of the report that I read a moment ago, he will find the following:
The Grand Trunk Company have already obtained a tacit release from their contract in reference to the Transcontinental Eailway, half of the original Grand Trunk Pacific undertaking.
So that the evidence of Mr. Chamberlin as read by my hon. friend refers only to the further obligations of the Grand Trunk in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the coast.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: I am giving the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. If it was Sir Henry Drayton's opinion that because the Government had not, up to that time, forced the Grand Trunk to live up to their obligations there was a tacit understanding under which the Grand Trunk were to be released, all well and good. But no hon. member can show that any agreement was ever entered into by the Government or the people of Canada releasing the Grand Trunk Railway Company from any of their obligations.


Thomas Vien: Nor can the hon. member show in this evidence of Mr. Chamberlin any reference to the Transcontinental railway.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not responsible for the density of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien). When Mr. Chamber-

lin was referring to traffic that was to be routed by the Transcontinental to Halifax, what did he mean? Was that traffic to be sent over the Grand Trunk Pacific line or was it to be routed by the Transcontinental? His whole statement, from A to Z, refers to the routing of the traffic via the North line to the Atlantic seaboard, altogether away from the Grand Trunk railway.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps I can help my hon. friend to understand the argument contained in the evidence which he has read from the Drayton-Acworth report. There is a letter from Mr. Chamberlin to the Government-it may not be in the report-in which it was stated that the Government had broken the old agreement by the changes they had made in the road, ana now he js contending that there is no use in asking him to do his part when the Government did not do theirs. That must be read with what the hon. member has been referring to.


Donald Nicholson: I am taking the sworn evidence of the President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company given before the Drayton-Acworth Commission, in which he stated the reasons why it was impossible for the Grand Trunk to fulfil its obligations in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was impossible-those are his own words; and he goes further and says that it was always impossible so far as he was concerned. If he comes along later and qualifies that statement by a letter to the Government in order that ha may be able to drive a hard bargain, that is a different matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The letter that I refer to is much older than the Drayton-Acworth report.


George Brecken Nicholson: What is the date of the letter?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: July 18, 1912.


George Brecken Nicholson: Would the hon. member read the letter, or pass it over to me?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will pass it over to my hon. friend. It is not in the same report that he was quoting from.


George Brecken Nicholson: Copied from the
speech of the Hon. George P. Graham, member of Parliament, re the Lynch-Staunton-Gutelius report. I do not think I shall weary the House by reading it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 'Jf the hon. member wishes to be fair, he will read the letter; if he does not wish to be fair, he will not
read it. It does not matter whether the letter is in Mr. Graham's speech or in the Drayton report, it is the same letter, and my hon. friend is not courageous enough to read it.


Donald Nicholson: It is not
necessary to read it. The leader oE the Opposition stated that the letter was written in 1912.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Donald Nicholson: In 1916 or 1917 Mr. Chamberlin was put on oath and on his oath he makes the statement that it is and always was impossible for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to operate the National Transcontinental because it was designed not to furnish traffic to but to take it away from the Grand Trunk railway.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chamberlin's argument all through is that the reason was because the original contract was broken by the Government.


Donald Nicholson: There is not in Mr. Chamberlin's evidence one line to justify the contention that it was because the contract was broken by the Government. If hon. members want to take up the question of the contract having been broken on account of the change of grades, I would be perfectly willing to discuss that with them; but as I have stated in this House before, I do not know that we shall get very far by harking back to what took place in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental. The changes that were made in the construction of the National Transcontinental were simply changes from dead .4 gradients, long inclines to the introduction of short velocity grades. Hon. members may be able to satisfy themselves that dead, long .4 inclines are preferable in the operation of a railway to short velocity grades, but they had better not tell that story to any man who knows anything about the operation of a railway. Just in that connection I will quote something that I think in all human probability
9 p.m. the leader of the Opposition will find in the same booklet from a speech by the Hon. George P. Graham as regards the handling of long freight trains over the National Transcontinental. I listened to the Hon. George P. Graham making this statement:
What are we going to do with a 200 per cent train of freight cars on one of these velocity grades when the thermometer is 30 below zero?
I will ask any hon. member to tell me tvhat he would do with a 200 per cent

freight train on a -4 grade when the thermometer is 30 below zero. If that train stood still for ten minutes, what would they do with it? They could not introduce sufficient motive power on either end of the train to move it in one piece, and that is why a practical railway man introduced velocity grades wherever possible on the National Transcontinental, and instead of the road being deteriorated as regards operating purposes it was to that extent improved. I do not wish, unless I am forced to do so, to deal with that because if we are to find a solution for the railway problem with which we are confronted to-day, we must deal with conditions as they are. The whole question of the construction of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg is a matter that cannot be of very much pride to any one who has had anything to do with it.
I shall not refer again to the National Transcontinental east of Winnipeg, but as regards the question of cost, I shall refer briefly to the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg, that part for which the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was directly liable. When the Grand Trunk people start to talk about excessive costs on the National Transcontinental, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) or any other hen. member might do well to present them with these figures The total gross cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert was $295,779,370, an average cost of $163,000 per mile. Those are the figures right down to date with the inclusion of the sums advanced by the Parliament of Canada during 1916, 1917 and 1918 to take care of interest charges.


Thomas Vien: Who compiled those figures?


Donald Nicholson: The hon. member will get all the figures in the Dray-ton-Acworth report, and if he wishes to have them in detail, ( shall give them to the House.


Thomas Vien: If they are in the report, that is not necessary.


Donald Nicholson: The details are:
G.T.P. FINANCE-CASH AND GUARANTEES !BY DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL.



GOVERNMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Direct cash aid from the Dominion Government under the Implementing Agreement. $6,283,716 4 % Prairie Section 
Bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company at par. $10,000,000 i% Debentures No. 1023 at par, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company	 15,000,000
Loan in 1914, secured by pledge of $7,504),000
4% bonds	 6,000,000
1913-1914 3% 1st Mortgage bonds		33,048,000
Total direct cash investment, Dominion Government		$70,311,716
Dominion Government Guaranteed Bonds 1st mortgage, 3% bonds.. $34,992,000 4% Sterling .bonds,. ..	8,440,848	43,432,848
Making a total from the	._________
Dominion Government
in cash and guarantees	$113,744,564
Made up of cash under the Implementing
clause	 6,263,716
Dominion Government investment in securities	 64,048,000
Dominion Government Guarantees	 43,432,848
In addition to the above the Grand Trunk Pacific reoeived:-
Cash subsidies from the Provincial Government of
From municipal bodies..
Making a total of. . The Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company received Provincial Government Guarantees on bonds outstanding to the total Making a total sum for
amount of	
which the public of Canada by way of cash advances and bond guarantees are
responsible	
Of the above sum the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is contingently liable as joint guarantor with the Dominion Government for. . .. made up of 1969,	4%
Prairie Section bonds. $.10,000,000 and 1913, 4%
Debentures. 15,000,000

[Stage Direction]
Amount of liability of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the Grand Trunk Pacific:
4% iSeries A, Prairie Division Bonds.. .. $10,206,000 4 % Series B, Mountain Division Bonds		9,963,060

4% Lake Superior Division Bonds	 $7,533,000
4% Perpetual Debentures 3 4,879,2-52 5% Secured 'Notes. . . .	9,720,000
Total	 $72,301,252
Add to this $25,000,000 for which the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is joint guarantor with the Dominion Government, and the total	2*5,000,00	0
outstanding' bonds for which the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is directly and contingently liable is.. . .	97,301,252 00
In addition to this the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada had up to the end of February 1916, advanced to the Grand Trunk Pacific and its subsidiaries the following sums in cash :-
Grand Trunk Railway Company $	801,783 54
Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company	
13,369,737	83Giand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan	Railway	Company. . . .	214,500	00Grand Trunk Pacific Development	Company,	Ltd	
11,793,907	46A total Grand Trunk commitment	of	$123,280,980	83
Made up of -
Guarantees
totaling....$97,301,252 00
Cash advanced. . 26,179,728 83
G.T.P. FINANCE-TOTAL CASH COST. Total cash cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as indicated by the above figures:- Cash direct from the Dominion Government $70,311,716 Pi'oceeds of Dominion
Government Guarantee Bonds	
Provincial and Municipal Subsidies .... Provincial Guarantees to Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines .... Bonds guaranteed by Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada exclusive of $25,000,000 for which the Dominion Government is joint
guarantor	
Direct cash advances made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada ....
Total	
Add to this $8,000,000 advanced by Parliament in 1916, $7,500,000 in 1917 and $7,500,000 in 1918, a total of	
And we have an aggregate of	
43,432,848
726,320
13,469,004
72,301,252
26,179,728
[Stage Direction]
that has already gone into the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Of the above amounts there are cash subsidies, provincial and municipal, amounting
to	 $	726,320
And cash advanced by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to	 26,179,728
Making a total of ....$ 26,906,048 This is not a direct charge from the interest bearing standpoint, providing always that the cash advanced by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is not treated as such a charge.
In addition to this
there is the sum of. .	13,469,004
For which the several Provincial Governments who have guaranteed Grand Trunk Pacific Bonds can be held liable.
Making a total of. . .
Deduct this from the total and we still find that the amount for which the Dominion Government will become directly responsible when they assume control of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is	
Add to this the sum necessary to bring the road up to standard, including ties, rails, ballasting, terminal facilities, station buildings, water tanks, etc	
For locomotives, rolling stock, etc
And we have a total of	$25*5,404,318
This represents the amount for which the Government will be responsible when they assume control of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Add the amount previously deducted for cash advanced by or chargeable against the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and provincial and municipal governments, and we have the following:
Total already given	 $255,404,318
Add amount previously deducted .	40,375,072
Making a gross cost for the Grand
Trunk Pacific of	 $295,779,370
Or over $163,000 per mile. When the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada, who were directly responsible for every dollar of that expenditure, undertake to come before the people of Canada and say: We do not want to accept our responsibility because you spent 3100,000 or 3110,000 per mile on the construction of the National Transcontinental east of Winnipeg,

[Stage Direction]
the Grand Trunk Railway Company are out of court because they have no argument. I will repeat what I stated in this House once before: that at least $130,000,000 was expended west of Winnipeg presumably in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that went into something other than the construction of a railroad; and that can be demonstrated by any man who will take into consideration the physical condition of the road and the amount of cash that has gone into it.
This whole question relates to what is ultimately to become of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. I think it is well, therefore, that we should just consider for a minute the relationship that this has to that company, who are not only the stockholders1-the proprietors-of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but who are also the guarantors of a large block of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and as such cannot escape their responsibility. The'total cost of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada-the Grand Trunk proper-according to the Drayton-Acworth report, is $424,169,310. Let me qualify that by saying that the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway Company a few days ago questioned these figures, and when challenged to give the correct figures he stated he could not give the exact figures, bust he presumed it would be about $200,000,000. I have made a calculation of the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, based on the figures given by the chief solicitor of the company, Mr. Biggar. The outstanding bonded indebtedness is $200,000,000. Then add to that for betterments, rolling stock, etc., as per page 28 of the Drayton-Acworth report, the sum of $51,000,000. The liability of the Grand Trunk for the Grand Trunk Pacific is $97,310,252, and the sum required to take care of betterments and rolling stock for 1916-17, 1918 and 1919 is $27,529,438; or a total of $375,839,690. Now the Grand Trunk liability, taking the figures of the bonded indebtedness as given by Mr. Biggar, is $278,529,438. The Grand Trunk Pacific liability exclusive of provincial guarantees and cash advances by the Grand Trunk Railway is $255,404,318; or a total of $533,933,756, or $103,837 per mile.
I should just like to supplement something that was said by the hon. member for Springfield in connection with Grand Trunk financing, because there has been a persistent effort made to put this country in the position of exacting the pound of flesh, and, as some of the newspapers say, not dealing fairly with the widows and '
orphans who own the Grand Trunk Pacific stock. As the hon. member for Springfield pointed out, during the very period when the Grand Trunk officials themselves stated that they were not maintaining their system as it should be maintained, they paid out in dividends $36,000,000, and I want to refer to this particularly. The Drayton-Acworth report says (page xxxii):-
A few weeks after the chairman's letter acknowledging that the company could not meet their Grand Trunk Pacific liabilities-with short-term notes, issued to make advances to Grand Trunk Pacific companies, which those companies evidently cannot meet at maturity, outstanding to the amount of $25,000,000-the Grand Trunk Company paid away $2,500,000 in dividends.
At the very same time they came before the Government of Canada and said: We cannot maintain our system unless you advance us further sums of money, or provide means by which we can get the money. Grand Trunk financing from its inception has been based on the payment of dividends out of money that should have been used for the maintenance of the system itself. Is it a reasonable proposition for the president of the Grand Trunk to come forward and say, as he did (page 28 of the Drayton-Acworth report): " If we had $25,000,000 now from some other source than the earnings of the company we would be in a fairly good position." What did they want that $25,000,000 for? Was it to project needed railway lines in parts of Canada that required to be served by railways? WTas it to do anything for the development of the resources of Canada? It was to put in ties and rails and repair cars and locomotives that had become	derelict because the Grand Trunk railway had been starved in order to pay dividends to the shareholders in London. And dividends on what? Dividends on stock that in my judgment, if the whole situation was analysed, would not represent one single dollar that ever went into the physical assets of the Grand Trunk railway. The Grand Trunk railway has been built up and financed and maintained by the sale of bonds and debenture stock on the English market and, as was stated in this report, one reason why they desired to pay large dividends was in order that they might stabilize the money market in London so far as the Grand Trunk railway was concerned.
In view of the fact that the people of Canada are faced with the obvious necessity of getting out of this difficulty by taking over all the physical assets of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pa-

eific, I believe it would be well for us to stop and consider some of the reasons why the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada has not been able to operate as economically as other railways running parallel to it, and through territory very similar and handling equal quantities of freight and passengers on just as favourable terms. In that connection I have made some very brief personal investigations to satisfy myself as to some of the possible causes.
Before the Drayton-Acworth Commission the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company said that they required then 200 locomotives and at least 10,000 box cars. I stated in this House last year that the last locomotive I had seen turnpd out of the shops for the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was obsolete before she turned a wheel, but in order that I may make this point clear I am going to deal very briefly with the question of equipment of the Grand Trunk. Taking the capacity of a modern freight car as 40 tons, the locomotive of a train made up of 1,000 tons net freight, loaded in 40-ton cars, hauls 500 tons of non-productive dead weight in the form of tare, or the net weight of the car before it is loaded. With the same amount of freight in 30-ton cars the locomotive hauls 612 tons of non-productive dead weight.
Take a twenty-five ton car and move 1,000 tons of freight and you have 650 tons of non-productive weight to move. Take a 20-ton car and for the same quantity of freight you move 750 tons of non-productive weight. As between a 20-ton car and a 40-ton car you have a 20 per cent increase on account of wheelage, bringing the total amount of non-productive weight that must be moved up to 900 tons as against 500 tons. The Grand Trunk railway moved in 1916, the last year for which a complete report is available, 37,686,255 tons of freight a distance of 100 miles, equal to 37,686, 1,000-ton trains for 100 miles. So that if the tare and wheelage was only increased 25 per cent on account of defective or inefficient rolling stock-from personal investigation, my opinion is it would be 5C per cent, but we shall assume it is only 25 per cent-they would have 37,686 trains each hauling 100 tons of unnecessary unproductive load a distance of 100 miles, or a total waste of 3,768,600 ton miles at a minimum cost or minimum waste of $2,826,450.
I shall now refer briefly to locomotives, and I may repeat that one of the reasons why the Grand Trunk are in the position
7.31
in which they find themselves as regards their old lines is the fact that they have never had, and have not yet, modern rolling stock. Equipment oeing standard, a freight train 1,00(1 net tons should be hauled 100 miles at a fuel cost of $33.75, assuming that the locomotive is of modern type and in a proper state of repair. The same net load with an obsolete type of locomotive consuming an increase of 25 per cent of coal would cost $45, or an excess of $11.25 for every 1,000-ton train handled 100 miles. Multiply this by 500 locomotives in daily use and you have an approximate sum of $2,000,000 wasted in fuel alone. I shall refer briefly to the condition of the Grand Trunk locomotives, as stated by the company's officials in the Drayton-Acworth report. They required at that time 200 locomotives. If you take all the locomotives that the Grand Trunk Railway Company have in their service-1,055 I think is the exact number-you will find that 50 per cent of them if taken into repair shops could be converted or remodelled at a cost of about $3,000 each making them fairly modern locomotives that could operate in competition with locomotives of a similar type on other railways. Of the remaining fifty per cent, one half, 25 per cent of the total-would cost $10,000 each to remodel.
Mr. MoMASTER: What is the cost of a new locomotive?
Donald Nicholson: In the present condition of the steel and labour markets a new locomotive of modern type 170 to 200 per cent is worth about $65,000 to *$70,000. iln pre-war times the same locomotive could be obtained for about $43,000, but as conditions are, and, I fear, will be for some time to come, the cost will be as much as I say, namely about $70,000. Then the remaining 25 per cent of the locomotives to-day in the service of the Grand Trunk railway might very well be thrown on the scrap heap. If 300 locomotives in the Grand Trunk service were absolutely scrapped and 200 new ones built to take their place there would be an enormous saving, because each of those locomotives is not only consuming 25 to 50 per cent more fuel than it should in doing the work for which it was built, but it is not able to do the work that a modern locomotive can do. We are therefore faced with this condition, that to bring the motive power alone of the Grand Trunk railway up to standard in order that they can compete with railways in Canada or the United States that have standard equipment, will take $35,000,000.


Mr. POWER:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that 33i per cent of the locomotives of the Grand Trunk railway might just as well be relegated to the scrap heap-that is about 300 of them?


Donald Nicholson: From the standpoint of economical operation I state, without fear of contradiction, that if the Grand Trunk railway were efficiently managed and properly financed, and if it had officers such as any modern railway company should have, 300 of these locomotives would have been in the scrap heap five years ago, and 200 modem locomotives substituted for them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did I understand the hon. member to refer to locomotives to be repaired at a cost of about $10,000 each?


Donald Nicholson: I say that about 300 Grand Trunk locomotives should be abandoned and, in addition, 25 per cent of their locomotives should be rebuilt and remodeled at a cost of $10,000 each; while every one of the remaining locomotives should have $3,000 to $3,500 spent on it. Hon. members need not take my word for it. Any one, if he desires to verify my statements, may consult any modern mechanical engineer, or appeal to the man who, as I stated in this House last year, is second to none as a mechanical engineer and who is now Chief Mechanical Superintendent of the Canadian Government Railways,-Mr. Hungerford.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not wish to question the hon. member's statements. I merely wish to get the facts. So far, we have 25 per cent which can be repaired at a cost of $10,000 each, 33 per cent which should be thrown on the scrap heap, and a certain number which can be repaired at a cost of $3,000,-I understand, another 25 per cent. Therefore, there would be about 20 per cent of real locomotives on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Donald Nicholson: The hon. member misunderstood me. I said, or at least intended to say, that 50 per cent of the locomotives of the Grand Trunk were of such a type that by the expenditure of $3,000 to $3,500 each, to standardize them, they could be made modern and up-to-date; 50 per cent, at an expenditure of $10,000 each, could be re-modelled and brought up to a standard of efficiency that would enable them to be used for all purposes for which locomotives are required; the remainder, which I take to be in the neighbourhood of 250 or 300-I may be wrong in the exact figures-should be absolutely [Mr. G. B. Nicholson. 1
scrapped as utterly obsolete and worse as far as operation is concerned, and 20C modern ones built.
In addition to that let me say this: That due to wrong practice in the whole question of motor power and rolling stock, the lack of standards on the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, has cost these roads hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. I had the privilege, and took the liberty, of spending one whole day with one of the mechanical superintendents of the Grand Trunk, going through one of their shops, and I counted forty-six different types of one kind of casting used in connection with the drawbar equipment on their locomotives. Any man who knows anything about this subject, not only with regard to locomotives but anything else in the mechanical line, can realize in a moment what that means in connection with keeping up the whole system -what it costs in unnecessary repairs, and all that kind of thing. So that I say I believe one of the reasons why the Grand Trunk is in the position in which it is today, the reason why it has never been able to maintain itself out of revenue as it should have done, is because it has never been efficiently managed and efficiently operated. What the cause is I do not undertake to say. In the final analysis the question of the operation of the Grand Trunk is not at the moment the matter we are interested in. The question that intersets us is how we are going to finance the railway situation in which we find ourselves.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of paying the Grand Trunk, or the Grand Trunk Pacific, anything for their stock if the Government takes over the road?


Donald Nicholson: So far as I am personally concerned, I would simply take the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific and value their physical assets, having in view all the time the obligations of the former company with respect to the latter company. I would treat the whole thing on that basis. At this moment I am personally not in a position to say what the guaranteed charges of the Grand Trunk are, but the Drayton-Ac-worth report, as I have stated, put them at over $400,000,000. I used these figures in the presence of the chief counsel of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and he challenged them. I then asked him if he would favour me with the figures, and he

114ir
said he could not, but he assumed they were about 5200,000,000. If the fixed charges of the Grand Trunk Railway Company are only on a basis of 5200,000,000 of debenture stock or bonds then there is a possibility that there may be some equity in the stock of the Grand Trunk railway, but so far as I am concerned-


Frank S. Cahill: Would that have reference to the obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway? There would still be an equity in the Grand Trunk.


Donald Nicholson: Yes, having regard to the obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Let me say this: All these ideas with regard to being charitable and generous to the stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, so far as I am concerned, may sound very nice, but are not the right pleas to be advanced in this House. We have some responsibility, I bedieve, to at least see to it that the Canadian people get a reasonable measure of justice, notwithstanding all this talk of charity towards the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. However, that company comes to be in the position it is in with Tegard to the Grand Trunk Pacific it is entirely and solely liable. If it placed men in charge of its operations in Western Canada who squandered its money ruthlessly, as was done without question, then the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and not the people of this country, is responsible ; and go far as I am concerned my final word is simply this: If negotiations are being opened up with the Grand Trunk Railway Company its responsibility must always be kept before it, or the people of Canada will not get even-handed justice. As against any question of fair play to the Grand Trunk stockholders, to whom dividends were paid out of moneys that, the officials themselves admit, should have gone into upkeep, I am one of those who say we should uphold the interests of the people of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to say a few words about the resolution that is before the House, as it has a bearing upon the railroad that we are really taking over. That, as I understand it, is the question in which the committee is particularly interested. A certain- section of railway, known as the Grand Trunk Pacific, extending from Winnipeg to the coast, has been taken over by the Government through the instrumentality of a receiver. The last
time I spoke upon this question I took the ground that we should have taken that road over, if through a receiver, in the ordinary way, that we should have proceeded as the courts, and the laws governing those courts, provide. The Acting Prime Minister gave as a reason for the procedure adopted by the Government, that the Winding-up Act should not apply to certain branches of the company. Now the minister may give perfectly good reasons from a financial point of view, but when he cites reasons of law, we are bound to call his attention to the statutes. Section 6 of the Winding-up Act, which is Chapter 144 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, declares as follows:
This Act applies to all corporations incorporated by, or under the authority of an Act of the Parliament of Canada.
That provision is wide enough, Mr. Chairman-, to comprehend any company regardless of its character, whether it is a telegraph company or a railway company, or any other corporation. If it receives its existence or incorporation by virtue of the powers of this Parliament, then the Canadian Winding-up Act applies to it. Therefore, there is sufficient scope in the Winding-up Act to deal not only with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company itself, but with all its subsidiary companies. The reason which the Acting Prime Minister gives for not following the ordinary procedure was that the Winding-up Act would not apply to some branches of the company. He told us further that there would have to be a default before foreclosure could take place, and the Order in Council itself makes reference' to section 26 of the Exchequer Court Act. Now, referring to the Exchequer Court Act, being chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, subsection 3 of section 26 says:
The Exchequer Court in any of the cases in this section mentioned

[DOT]-and let me say, Sir, that the cases mentioned are clearly within the circumstances which apply to this railway-
*-shall have all the powers for the appointment of a "receiver either before or after default.
Now that is perfectly clear. First, that the Winding-up Act applies to every phase of this company with which we are dealing, and secondly, that section 26, which is quoted in the Order in Council, has within its scope the power of appointing a receiver before,-as well as after, default.
me


Arthur Meighen: Under what circumstances?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The section is too long for me to read. I am taking the responsibility of saying that it covers such a case as this. If the company is unable to go on with its work, and that is the ground-


Arthur Meighen: It is very important to know just what the circumstances are.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I refer to the whole of section 26. It is a long story, and I am not fond of reading in this way and taking up the time of the committee. I say that the sections are there for any person to read them.


Arthur Meighen: This was a failure to
operate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They will be unable to go on with the work. That is one of the conditions.	.


Arthur Meighen: I think you had better read the whole clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Very well, 1 will read it:
The Exchequer Court shall have Jurisdiction as regards any railway, or section of a railway, not wholly within one province, and as regards any railway otherwise subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, to order and decree in such manner as it may prescribe,-(o) The sale of such railway, or section of railway, and all of the rolling stock, equipment, and other accessories thereof.
(1) At the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or, with the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, at the instance of any creditor of any person or company owning or operating such railway, or section, whenever such company has become insolvent, or has for more than thirty days failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of such railway, or section, or any part thereof, or has become unable to do so.
Now I submit to you, Sir, that the reasons put forward here for the last two weeks are that a letter was received from this company that on a certain day they would not operate beyond that day. That clearly comes within this proposition: or has become unable to work or operate the road. If the evidence received by the Government was good one way it was good the other. They received a letter from an official of this corporation which said: Beyond the 10th day of March we are not going to operate this road. Then the railway company must have become unable to do so, and it was because they had become unable, to do so that the Government appointed the receiver; and if the Government was justified in moving upon that

letter, they would also be justified in going before the judge of the Exchequer Court with that evidence and saying: We ask for a receiver because the Company says it has become unable to operate the road..


Arthur Meighen: How long does it say
we have to wait before proceeding? .


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You have not got to
wait at all, I submit.


Arthur Meighen: Before the operation is continued under a receiver how long does it say we should wait?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend knows that he can get an interim receiver appointed on the spur of the moment.


Arthur Meighen: Are you sure of that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, he can get an interim receiver. All my hon. friend has to do is to go before the Exchequer Court and say: Conditions are such that I must immediately have an interim receiver; put him in to-day, we shall issue a notice, and ten days from to-day everybody interested will appear before this court and say whether this receiver should be continued or not. Therefore no notice is necessary, and so far as expeditiously taking hold of this road is concerned, the one method was just as expeditious as the other. It would not take any longer, except of course it was in the hands of the Government in the one case, and in the other they would have to go to a friendly court that would be willing to help them out when the necessities of the country required it. So it seems to me that the practice of the courts and the provisions of the law do not justify the contention of my hon. friend. I am not saying that the course taken by the Government will not lead to the same result, but I do not want the Acting Prime Minister or any other member of the Government to give laymen in this House reasons which are not good reasons, and reasons which those laymen appear to accept with alacrity and say: Of course that was all right, and the Government was perfectly justified in taking the course they took because they could not do anything else.
Some of my hon. friends on this side of the House were asking the Acting Prime Minister to-night: What are we going to do with this road? We can call the Minister of Railways a receiver or any other name that we please, but he is nevertheless the Minister of Railways, he is subject to the directions of this House, and he represents the Canadian people. I care not what he

calls himself, he is Minister of Railways in charge of this system, and the people of this country are paying for its operation. That is where the striking and material difference is between the ordinary receiver and the Minister of Railways as receiver. The ordinary receiver would have to so operate the property placed in his hands as to get money out of it to run it, and the creditors of that company could take an interest in seeing that the property was run as efficiently and economically as possible. In this case the receiver does not need to care how things go; he gets the money from the Treasury.


Arthur Meighen: Where would the other receiver get his money?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: By selling some part
of the property.


Arthur Meighen: What would he sell?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He would have the
stock and could sell the property. But the Acting Prime Minister, says that this receiver gets money now on certificate, on the credit of this road. That is what I understood him to say. If that is the case, why would not an ordinary receiver get it just as well?


Arthur Meighen: The receiver is an officer of the Crown and he gets any necessary money from the Treasury* of Canada; the other receiver "could get money by selling the road. What would become of the road when sold? What was it built for?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This company is in default. We are told that this is an insolvent concern, and that every step that the Minister of Railways is to take in connection with it is to be under the direction of the Exchequer Court, as is the case with every other receiver. Now, if we are to introduce other elements into it, according to the Minister of the Interior, which are foreign to what we have been told by the Acting Prime Minister, it is an entirely different case. We have a right to believe what the Acting Prime Minister told us, that this is to be conducted in every respect under the laws governing receivers. If that be the case, why finance this concern and go on with it indefinitely? That is what hon. members on this side of the House want to know. How long is this condition of things going to last; are we going to bring the receivership to a speedy determination and know where we stand? If we are going to take this road over and own it as part of the Canadian National system of railways, we must do a good deal
of housecleaning, we must not take it over with all its concommitants, with all this $200,000,000 of debt. Surely this process that must be gone through by the receiver should be gone through as speedily as possible, he should eliminate what we have not got to carry, and let us know what we have to pay.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member mean that the debt now represented in the bonds of the road can be avoided? Does he desire that we do that? If so, who loses the money?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are some bonds, I understand, in connection with this road that we have guaranteed.


Arthur Meighen: We lent all the money ourselves. Would not the first money we squeezed out be our own?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is penny-wise-and-pound-foolish to try to protect those moneys if it would cost us too much to do so. Even if we lose 'some of them, it is better to get this property down to a business basis. The idea of a receivership is to get a property down to a proper working basis, down to what it is worth. Are we to carry $10,000,000 of somebody else's simply because below that there is a substratum of a few thousand dollars of our own? That is not business.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the hon. gentleman to misunderstand me. The first mortgage is guaranteed by us; the second by the Grand Trunk. Subsequent to these are a series of mortgages that are our own; consequently, the only advantage we could get would be by taking proceedings under our first mortgage and then seeking to eliminate-unless it was protected-the mortgage guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. As to the rest, it is all our own money; nothing is to be gained by squeezing that out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This railroad has a certain value. The business of the receiver is to get that much money for it and to divide it equitably and fairly, under our laws, among the creditors. Let us get at the value of this road and let the money that it brings be properly divided. If we are going to take the property and keep it, that we do not get the cash out of these second or third mortgages does not make much difference. To-day the property is owned by nobody; let it be put in the category of proper ownership. If it is the intention of the Government to own it, we should get at it as speedily as possible.

clean out the wreckage and get down to business. Whatever we are obliged to pay for it, under the law, let us pay it. The Acting Prime Minister tells us that unless we take this system over we may have to pay $12,000,000 this year to keep it going. That is a large sum, but the Acting Prime Minister should tell the House what it will cost us under the present plan. The receiver is not obliged to account to Parliament; he accounts to the court. Possibly it will cost us more than $12,000,000 before the end of the year. Why should we be frightened into doing extraordinary things on the supposition that we are [DOT] saving money if we do not vote the $12,000,000? We may have to vote more. The Government should tell us what money they are going to save and when they are going to bring this thing to an end. To keep it going indefinitely under the receivership of the Minister of Railways is not going to get anywhere, except in a continuance of the wild expenditure of money which this railway has involved ever since we had anything to do with it.
The member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) said that the Grand Trunk Pacific should not have been built and that he was always opposed to its construction. On that ground the hon. gentleman is in conflict with a great many people in this country. In 1903 an agreement for the building of this road was entered into and a contract signed between the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government. Parliament was dissolved and a general election was held in 1904. The principal issue before the people was whether the Government should go on with that agreement and build that road. The agreement itself was discussed on the hustings from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the Canadian people, by their votes at this election, said:	Go
on with the construction of the road. I think that is the most democratic way of -finding out what the will of the people is on any given subject. In 1908 the people had another opportunity of discussing the matter, which they did, though not so vigorously as four years before. The Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was again returned to power, while the work on the project was proceeding. In 1911, when the whole conduct of the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was again under fire, the question of building the Transcontinental was not under discussion; everybody had accepted it as the proper policy. The only criticism made by Sir Robert Borden against the Laurier Government in 1911 was that it was moving too fast; that it was too pro-

gressive; that the Canadian people had better " let well enough alone." In view of the fact, therefore, that the Canadian people took that stand with regard to the building of this road, it does not lie in the mouth of any of us to say that the Government which undertook that work ijad no mandate and no authority from the people. Whether it was right or wrong, whether it was a sound proposition or not, is a question which the Canadian people have to answer. We are all stopped from saying anything further on that subject. For many years in this House the railway critic on the Government side was our good friend the late member for Hamilton, Mr. S. Barker. Mr. Barker was regarded as an authority on railway matters; always when the question of railway building or railway management was under discussion in the House, he was put forward as the authoritative speaker on the Conservative side.
Speaking in the House of Commons in 1912 on the subject of building this road, he said:
If I understand the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) aright, he is under the impression to-day that when this question was first opened in the country, there were a great many people who thought that the construction of the railway was not needed then, that it was premature. I do not know just what my hon. friend is referring to. If he says that many people at that time thought there was no need for additional railway facilities for the transportation of the grain produce of the great Northwest to the ocean, then he is altogether outside the facts. I was in the House at that -time and I can vouch for the opinion of every member of the Conservative party; I venture to say there was not one man on the Conservative side who doubted for a moment the absolute need of another through railway at the earliest possible moment.
That is the position taken by the railway critic of the Conservative party at that time, and I never heard Mr. Barker's authority of his right to speak for his party questioned. 1 will direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the first Burget Speech made by the hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir Thomas White). They will find in that speech entire and absolute approval of the policy of building this road and of what was being done. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might have complained that the amount spent was too much, but there was not one word of criticism as to the building of the road. Hon. members will also find that in that speech the Minister of Finance, now also Acting Prime Minister, said that this road was an asset to the country and not a debt as it was certainly bound to be of vast usefulness and impor-

tance to the great development that was then taking place and that would take place in Canada.
As regards hon. gentlemen taking shelter under the excuse that the Liberal party was responsible for building this road, there is nothing to that. We were all responsible for it and it looked like a splendid enterprise up to the time that there appears to have been a so-called conspiracy to smash the whole thing. A successful effort was made to break the first agreement, and when that agreement was broken, then of course the whole thing went to pieces and the Transcontinental railway was disconnected-the eastern part was disconnected from the western. The letter that Mr. Chamberlin wrote to the Government on the 13th July, 1912, which the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) refused to-night to read to the committee, throws a flood of light on this whole business. 'The argument and evidence of Mr. Chamberlin, speaking at any time since the date of that letter, must be read and construed in the light of the position that he took at that time. Mr. Chamberlin said: We truly have made a contract with the Government; we are prepared to carry it out, hut we are prepared to do so on the terms of the agreement; if the Government breaks the agreement and will not keep up their part, the whole business is broken up. This is Mr. Chamberlin's letter:
July 18, 1912
Major R. W. Leonard.
Chairman, Transcontinental Commission, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-1 learn from our engineers that the standard of work on that portion of the Transcontinental Railway between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane, which was at the outset adopted and has so far been complied with, is being departed from, and that instead of four-tenths grade and permanent structures, you have authorized grades up to one per cent and the erection of temporary wooden structures. In regard to this I would call attention to clause 7 of this agreement of the 29th July, 1903, which provides that the work of construction of the eastern division shall be done according to the specifications approved by the company and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of our chief engineer and the chief engineer of the commission. I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not be in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company and cannot be accepted.
E. J. Chamberlin.
That is the origin of the difficulty. This Government, after they came into power, began to put up wooden bridges where it was agreed to put up steel bridges; they
changed the grades, putting momentum grades in place of practically level grades, and they so changed the bargain that the company could not any longer 10 p.m. agree to carry it out. There is not, and never was, any denial of this letter. The hon. member for East Algoma refused to read it because it appears in a speech delivered in this 'House by the Hon. George P. Graham. His speech was delivered in this House; it is not like a speech that he might have delivered somewhere in the country, and for which there would be no very grave responsibility. This letter was quoted; it was not questioned then, and it was read in the presence of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Cochrane) himself who was then Minister of Railways. I do not question it to-night, but it already throws a whole flood of light as to why Mr. Chamberlin was speaking in this way. He says:	You have taken
away from me the eastern end of the road; you can no longer carry out the old agreement because you are changing the whole road, and if that be the case, how can you expect me to carry out my part of the agreement?-we will not do it. For that reason he and his company had a perfect right to assume that if they were getting out of part of the bargain, the whole thing had fallen to the ground and there was no reason for any struggling to keep up with it.
I want to be absolutely fair in this matter.
I am not going to say whether the full carrying out of this agreement -would be a good thing for the Canadian people or not, because 1 do not know. All I say is this, that the entering upon this agreement and the breaking of it have, at all events, landed us in a position in which we are to-day that we must either take over the road or deal with it in some other way. I ask the Government not to drag the matter along and involve the country in unnecessary expense. 'Let us own this road-and run it, like any other property we possess in a business like way.
Mr. MEIGiHEN: The committee has been very patient in listening to this discussion and has had its patience pretty sorely tried, but I earnestly ask that it bear with me for a moment while )I make some reference to the address just delivered by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He comes back to a subject very frequently referred to throughout the day, and alluded to in the letter quoted from Mr. Chamberlin of some date in 1912, namely to a claim put forward by the Grand Trunk Railway Company that there had been some violation of the agreement in respect of four

momentum grades east of Cochrane, which violation gave them the right to recede entirely from their obligation to take over the line.
And, to use the graphic language of the hon. member, that throws a flood of light on this whole situation, and he intimates to the House that but for these four momentum grades we would now have a good proposition in the Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific; the Grand Trunk would be anxious to take over the road and operate it, and all the troubles of these later years would have been avoided. These four momentum grades have been discussed for a long time, and no one knows better than my hon. friend that when a company or an individual gets into difficulty it is ready to hang its hat on any little peg it comes across,-four momentum grades or anything else-in order, if possible, to have an excuse for getting out of its obligations. But of all the allegations attaining the very perfection of humbug that could be addressed to this or any other assembly, to say to any intelligent mind that the fact of the four momentum grades is any appreciable factor whatever in the determination of the question before the committee, or in the determination of the value of the Transcontinental or the essential soundness-


Frank S. Cahill: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Arthur Meighen: I should like to finish my sentence, but perhaps the hon. gentleman would prefer not.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Government
made any demand on the Grand Trunk in respect of the deficits which they have made in the operation of the Transcontinental, and if not, why not?


Arthur Meighen: Because we have no agreement with the Grand Trunk. Unfortunately, in the original bargain there was no agreement with the Grand Trunk to take over the Transcontinental; the agreement was with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Undoubtedly we made demand on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and repeated demands, to take over the Transcontinental, and they resisted those demands and put up their plea, and put everything in their plea they could think of. They put in the four momentum grades-and smiled as they put them in. They told us frankly, as Mr. Chamberlin told the Drayton-Aeworth Commission, that the reason they did not take the Transcontinental over was be-

cause they could not take it over. With respect to making them take it over, litigation was contemplated, I am not certain, but I think a writ was issued and a defence put in. We might have launched upon a lot of needless, purposeless, and aimless litigation, but where would we have been if we had won? We would have had a judgment against them ordering them to operate the Transcontinental, but what practical value would that judgment have been? How could they operate the Transcontinental ?


Frank S. Cahill: Are the guarantees of the Grand Trunk no good?


Arthur Meighen: The guarantee of
the Grand Trunk is not there. It is too bad the hon. gentleman did not have something to do with framing the bargain, but the fact remains that it was not in the bargain. The Grand Trunk never guaranteed that the Grand Trunk Pacific would live up to all its obligations. We have the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific to take over that line and pay three per cent on the cost, but we have no guarantee of the Grand Trunk at all.


Frank S. Cahill: Not that the Grand Trunk would take it over?


Arthur Meighen: No, none whatever. Is this the first the hon. gentleman knew of that? We have just the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it cannot possibly perform its undertakings.


Frank S. Cahill: Bid not the Grand Trunk guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific?


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, but the bonds are not an undertaking to take over the Transconti nental.


Frank S. Cahill: It is the same company.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will try once
more. The Grand Trunk Pacific issues certain bonds which the Grand Trunk guarantee. They issue certain others which the Grand Trunk do not guarantee. The Grand Trunk Pacific makes a covenant to take over the Transcontinental upon completion of construction. That covenant the Grand Trunk never guaranteed. For the fulfilment of that obligation we have the Grand Trunk Pacific and nothing else. What condition did we face? We faced capitalization of approximately $200,000,000 and an annual charge approximating $6,000,000. We are faced with a road that showed no reasonable chance of paying

operating expenses, to say nothing at all of fixed charges. There was a deficit, as a result of operation, of $2,000,000 a year. How could the Grand Trunk Pacific undertake an obligation which entailed an expenditure for rental of $6,000,000, and a loss in operation of $2,000,000-$8,000,000 altogether-when to operate its own line it had to borrow $7,500,000 every year? What is the use of talking of four momentum grades? You might as well talk about the colour of the rails. The four momentum grades is a mere flea bite. I consulted the engineer to-night, and he tells me that these grades were put in the same as any other grades, that no objection was made by the Grand Trunk at all. The objection was an after-thought on their part. It was not the practice to have the signatures of each engineer to all these things, he says. The grades were put in by the consent of both, not in writing, but by consent, the same as any other graces. But what has that to do with the thing to-day? The fact is that no matter what kind of grades the road had, no matter whether the company had legal rights that enabled them to escape or not, it really makes no impression on the situation at all. The fact was, whether they had legal rights or not, they could not operate. They frankly admitted that before Sir Henry Drayton. Here is what Mr. Chamberlin said:
Sir Henry Drayton: Doesn't it really come down to this, that the statements in your letter mean that in your view, in order to protect the finances of the Grand Trunk, and as a corollary to protect the finances of the country, the Government ought to relieve the Grand Trunk in regard to its investment?
M. Chamberlin: That is the whole thing.
Sir Henry Drayton: There is nothing else to it?
Mr. Chamberlin: Nothing else.	.
Nor was there anything else to it. And that is the reason why we did not relieve the Grand Trunk Pacific. They are not relieved to-day. Their legal obligation stands to-day as good as ever it was. In practice we operate because they cannot operate. A receiver has been appointed because they cannot operate the Grand Trunk Pacific. How could they operate the Transcontinental if they cannot operate the Grand Trunk Pacific? Why not see the real big things that count?


Frank S. Cahill: Sure.
Mr. MEIG'HEN:	Certainly. I am glad
the hon. gentleman does see them. I have not laboured in vain if he sees anything at all about it. We are in this position. We have gone in as receiver. The hon. gentleman says we could have gone in as receiver in another way. We could have had a receiver appointed under the Exchequer Court Act, also passed by this House. I do not want to get into an involved legal argument. Suffice it to say, that the legal advice tendered the Government in this regard was that that Act was not applicable to enable us to do as my hon. friend says. But whether or not, we would have been in the same position we are in to-day; we are simply operating under another Act. We would have had a receiver put in under the Exchequer Court Act, and we have a receiver now. We are in the same position one way or the other, and we are operating the road. It was the necessity of operation that compelled us to do it this way. It is quite true we could have waited for default, that is, in the sense of default on the bonds; and that default probably would have come. But what was to become of the road while we were waiting for default? Could jwe have done without the road? No; once you have built a road, and towns and industries have sprung up along it, it is a bounden necessity to operate that road. We could not afford to wait one or >
two or three months until the conditions stipulated in the trust deed matured. We had to see that not a day nor an hour was lost. And that is why we acted as we did. Our rights are safeguarded in every possible way.
I do not want to enter into a general discussion, which is not at all relevant to the immediate issue before the committee, as to what should be the conduct of our negotiations with the Grand Trunk from this. Suffice it to say that this Government has taken no step which in any way impairs or reduces the liability of the Grand Trunk Railway as originally entered into. The Grand Ttunk say to us:	Consider the
Grand Trunk on one hand and the Grand Trunk Pacific on the other; take our earnings and pay us our average of what we have made for ten years and then consider the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we will talk to you about that. We say, however, that-the two are one and inseparable. We say further:	It is true you paid dividends for
ten years averaging perhaps $3,600,000 a year, but while you did that we were taking care of your obligations; we were lending money to a company which you owned, in order to discharge obligations in respect of which you were liable; had you been taking care of all the obligations you would not have been paying $3,600,000 a year; indeed, were you to-day to take care ol all your obligations it is doubtful whether

you would pay your shareholders anything at all. That is the language we used to the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. At the same time the people of Canada, and this Government as representing the people, are anxious that no impression shall be justifiably created among British people or others that we seek to confiscate or to take any step that favours of confiscation. We intend to see that the just rights of the shareholders are protected as much as the rights of anybody else. .But we say to them: In estimating the value of your shares there must be taken into account all the obligations of that road, not merely the obligations you yourselves have recognized in days gone by. The question is asked us, if this Bill goes through, what will you do? The acting Prime Minister said a few nights ago that the negociations had reached such a stage that the principles upon which we were acting were quite clear, the next step being on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Apparently they are taking that step now. In fact, they have taken it, and have requested that negociations be resumed. Do hdn. gentlemen suggest that before negotiations are again entered into we should announce exactly what we intend to say? If we did that there would be no negotiations to conduct. The first step is the passing of this Bill. Before anything is done, oi course, it must be ratified by Parliament, and the Government has taken Parliament fully into its confidence as to the principles by which it desires to be guided. We say: we already have something in the nature of judicial determination of the value of the shares of the Grand Trunk railway, and that we cannot take the Grand Trunk Pacific. You may ask us to do it, conditions may compel us to do it, but conditions do not compel us to do it to the relief of the Grand Trunk railway and in such a manner that we cannot acquire the Grand Trunk railway under fair conditions. We claim that there has been something in the nature of a judicial determination and make you an offer based on the finding of that tribunal. We believe we make you as fair and generous an offer as we can, based and anchored upon that finding. If you refuse it we make you the same offer we make our own people in all cases of acquirement of private property, namely, settlement by arbitration, and we set down the terms of arbitration, that is to say, the principles by which the arbitrators should be appointed. It has never been alleged 
that these principles are unfair. We offer the same to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company as, through all time, we have offered to the holders of private property in this Dominion wherever that property has been taken by the Crown. We say to them; We offer you just the same; We do not impose restrictions as in the case of the Canadian Northern; otherwise just the same system of determining values is adopted. Nothing that we ever gave the Canadian Northern have we ever sought to refuse the shareholders or directors of the Grand Trunk; on the contrary, having regard perhaps in some degree to the fact that the shareholders of this road are widely scattered people in another land, and to the fact also that the road is an old historic Canadian institution that has played a great part in early days in the development of older Canada, we say [DOT] we will not impose on you the special restraints we did in the case of owners of proprietary interests in the Canadian Northern, and offer you a fair open arbitration with no limit fixed as the maximum which the arbitrators may award. Now I submit to the House that it does not lie in the mouth of the President of the Grand Trunk railway, or of the directors, or of the editors of financial journals in England or anywhere else, to say that we have refused the Company anything that we have ever conceded the owners of private property in this Dominion. There is nothing we have given to others that has been refused them, and when we are threatened by the proprietors or others with a condition of unfriendly negotiation it will be well to realize-and the sooner the better-that we cannot by any threats of that sort be brought to take a stand inconsistent with sound principle, the principle that has guided us in other matters of a similar kind.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The leader
of the Opposition,, when I was speaking this afternoon, asked me if I was opposed to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I replied in the affirmative. Perhaps the bald statement without an explanation might be used to my prejudice. While I am opposed, and always was opposed, to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and while I still believe it was a colossal blunder, I would not want the House to understand that I take the position that the West does not need further railway accommodation. Settlement was extending in that country very rapidly and additional railway accomodation was required, but that in my opinion should have been

provided by arranging with the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern to build branch lines under certain conditions. One of the reasons why I have been and am opposed to the Grand Trunk Pacific is the fact that it parallels for hundreds of miles some of the existing lines in that part of the country, consequently doing damage to the lines that were there-the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. If the leader of the Opposition has been through Yellowhead Pass-if he has not he probably will some day-he will have witnessed or will witness the melancholy spectacle of two railways running parallel within a few yards, or a few hundred yards as the case may be, for hundreds of miles, the rails on one of those roads having been torn up for hundreds of miles. This seems to be a piece of gigantic folly, building a railway parallel to others and destroying their value. That was my position on that point.
While on my feet this afternoon I neglected to express the opinion that the capitalization of the old Grand Trunk is away beyond reason. It has a mileage of something over 3,000 miles and is capitalized for ?444,000,000, I think. If you divide the capitalization by the mileage you find that the Grand Trunk has cost over $127,000 a mile. It cannot possibly pay interest on that; no railway could. The Canadian Pacific, which was built under reasonable conditions, is capitalized at some $68,000 a mile, while the Canadian Northern, which we took over last year, is capitalized at $54,000 a mile.
One other point before I resume my seat. I think the Government owes it to itself and to the people of Canada to let the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, of whom, I suppose, there are some thousands in the old land, know exactly what the position is and what stand the Government and Parliament of Canada take in the matter. These shareholders are in the hands of a little clique of manipulating managers who are making a mighty good thing out of their job, and of course they are fighting for the continuance of the Grand Trunk Corporation.
Let the Grand Trunk pass into the hands of the Government, as it probably will, and the occupation of these financial manipulators and exploiters is gone, they will lose their job. They are working on the shareholders to give the idea that the Canadian Government is not acting fairly towards the Grand Trunk shareholders, that in fact this Government is discriminating against them because they are British. All sorts
of insidious statements are being made in order to prejudice the Grand Trunk shareholders. I think the Government ought to make a point of issuing a statement which would be circulated among those shareholders letting them know exactly what position we take. Because the shareholders, if they accepted the offer which the Government has made, to pay the average rate of interest on the preferred and guaranteed capital that prevailed for a period of years prior to 1917, would be in as good a position as ever they were, and in a very much better position than they are ever likely to be if matters are left to these manipulators. If the latter position is taken the result will be that the shareholders will be left in the lurch. I am not certain whether I understood the Minister of the Interior to say that the Government had offered arbitration to the Grand Trunk.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, persistently ever since February last.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am rather sorry about that. I have no faith in arbitrations, particularly where too many lawyers are set to work on them. I want to state it here, because I like to take a public opportunity of doing so, that I have a great prejudice against too many lawyers handling our business. I believe a great deal of the losses of the country are due to the fact that we have had too many lawyers manipulating our affairs. I don't believe that we ought to arbitrate with the Grand Trunk. We arbitrated with the Canadian Northern, and we lost out, as I said this afternoon. The Government limited the amount it should give to $10,000,000, and these lawyers granted them about $11,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What was the
amount?


Arthur Meighen: There was a clause in the agreement which provided that no matter what the value of these shares was found to be no greater amount should be paid than ten millions. The Commission found the value of the shares to be, I think, $10,800,000, but the whole ten millions has not been paid, because certain shares have not been able to be delivered. When all are delivered there will not be a dollar more than $10,000,000 paid.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is a matter for congratulation. We are about a million ahead of what I thought this afternoon, and I want to tender the Government mv

sincerest congratulations that in one case at least the country has saved that large amount. This is the first case on record of the kind, and I think we ought to rejoice over it. Of course the Government has offered arbitration to the Grand Trunk railway corporation, that settles it, but I believe it is a mistake. We can deal with perfect justice to the Grand Trunk without offering arbitration and paying immense fees to lawyers in order to obscure the whole situation.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman might explain to the House his particular reason for not liking lawyers?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The lawyers are all right, and personally I have the sincerest friendship for them, but they have a way of tangling things up legally, and looking at everything through legal spectacles, which inclines me to the belief that the lawyers have been a greater curse to this country than any benefit they have ever conferred on it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the hon. member forgotten the statute of limitations?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I shall have to plead ignorance.


Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: From the information which has been vouchsafed this afternoon in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, it appears to be pretty well understood on both sides of the House that the Government must take this road over and operate it. Whether the Government adopted the wisest method in taking the road over under the War Measures Act, or whether they should have obtained an order from the Exchequer Court, or should have adopted some other means of appointing a receiver, may not perhaps be very material. Whether this action was necessitated by the violation of some contract on the part of the Government, or whether the Grand Trunk were unable to carry out its agreement, may not matter very much either. The situation would appear to be that the Government will have to take over and operate the Grand Trunk Pacific.
What would be interesting to know is, what is our position with respect to the Grand Trunk itself? I have always understood that the agreement entered into by the Government for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific was a specific one under which the Grand Trunk undertook to take over the road and operate it. Now, if I understood the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) correctly, and I think I did, he said that the Government had no con-

tract with the Grand Trunk, the contract was with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Arthur Meighen: In respect of the operation of the Transcontinental.


Francis N. McCrea: What puzzles me is how the Grand Trunk proper would guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific if there was no obligation on the part of the former company to take over and operate the latter road. I also understood the Minister of the Interior to declare that we had no contract or agreement whereby we could hold the Grand Trunk Company proper to the obligation to operate the road, but we had a claim against the Grand Trunk because it had guaranteed the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, I cannot understand why the Grand Trunk would guarantee the bonds of a road in respect of which they had no contract or liability.


Arthur Meighen: Because the Grand
Trunk owns all the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific it presumably would interest itself in that road to the extent of guaranteeing certain of its bonds, but the Grand Trunk did not convenant with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to take over and operate the Transcontinental.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Although it owns all the shares?


Arthur Meighen: It owns all the shares of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Transcontinental was built by the country.
^ Mr. McCREA: We are told that the Grand Trunk has guaranteed certain bonds, and we are also told that the Grand Trunk is responsible for the payment of these bonds, and that the Government has a good and valid claim against the company. On the other hand, the letter which was read a few minutes ago by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) would denote that as far back as 1912 the president, or general manager, indicated that the company was not going to be responsible for the carrying out of the contract referred to. The Government would have been well advised if, before this date,-and I suggest it is not yet too late if they have not done so,-it arranged a conference between solicitors representing the Grand Trunk and solicitors acting for the Government to see if an agreement could not be arrived at as to whether the Grand Trunk is responsible or not. Neither of the parties to this dispute has presented any legal opinion to the House stating definitely whether or not the Grand Trunk is liable. If the company is responsible, it has, by its officials, given us to understand from time to time, that it did

not consider itself responsible in any way for the payment of these guaranteed bonds.
I think it would be a good thing for the Government to invite the Grand Trunk to have their solicitors meet the Government's solicitors and go over all the details in order to decide whether the Grand Trunk are responsible or not, and if they are-


Arthur Meighen: I am glad the hon.
gentleman has more faith in lawyers than the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). There happens to be no need of them this time. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have never repudiated their legal responsibility in respect of the bonds guaranteed by them; so there is nothing to discuss.


Francis N. McCrea: I do not always agree with the hon. member from Springfield, but I am pretty nearly in accord with him on the lawyer question. I am not a lawyer myself, and perhaps I may be all wrong, but the fact of the Government having stepped in and paid the interest on those bonds, as we have been told by the Acting Prime Minister this afternoon, would seem to indicate to some extent that we are acquiescing in the contention of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that they are not responsible for that interest, and I think if you proceed to the courts to enforce your claim the. Grand Trunk Railway Company will raise that as one of the reasons why they should be relieved from payment. If it is true that the Government are responsible for the interest on those bonds, I think the Government should have proceeded to pay it. Is the fact that they have not done that the reason why the Grand Trunk think the Government should enter into negotiations for acquiring the Grand Trunk proper? And if the Cabinet are unanimous on the point that we should nationalize the Grand Trunk and all other roads-and I am not so sure that the Cabinet are unanimous in that respect yet; I think there are members of the Cabinet who do not believe in it-but if they are unanimous, would it not be better parliamentary procedure to get the authority of Parliament to enter into negotiations, rather than for the Cabinet to complete the whole transaction, and then come to this House and say:	Now, take your choice:
either support the Government in this measure, or vote yourselves out of office. I do not believe that is the proper way to proceed.
For my part, I have not any faith in Government ownership of railways. I do not
believe that the Government of Canada, oi any other Government, can operate a railway as well as a good, sound corporation which employs men for their ability, whereas the man who gets a Government position, whether on a Government railroad or in any other branch of the service, usually acquires that position through his political friends, and once he gets it he has always enough political friends to keep him there, whether he is qualified or not.


Mr. MORPHY:: Has the hon. gentleman in view any private corporation that would take over the white elephant that the Government have had thrust upon them and operate it as a private concern?


Francis N. McCrea: I do not know whethei
there is any private corporation that would take over the white elephant you have on hand. I am not finding fault with that; I said at the commencement of my remarks that I think we are in such a position that we have to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific. But, as far as I understand, the Grand Trunk proper are not asking anybody to take them over. On the contrary, they are claiming that the Government is attempting to ill-treat them and to take from them their property that they have operated for sixty years and that they built at a time when this country was in very great need of railway transportation and the railway business was not a paying proposition, but now that Canada has reached such a point in its development that their road will become a paying proposition, the Government steps in and wants to take it away from them. That is what I am finding fault with. If I were inclined to, I would find fault with the methods and means adopted for taking over the Canadian Northern. I think that this country paid a whole lot more money than it would have been called upon to pay had the Government adopted the proper means for acquiring that system.


Frank S. Cahill: How does the Minister of the Interior figure that he is going to get from the Grand Trunk the money that they are liable for to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and thereby to the Government? I presume he hopes to make the Grand Trunk responsible for their guarantees for the Grand Trunk Pacific; Am I correct in that assumption?	*


Arthur Meighen: We do not have to make them responsible; they are responsible.


Frank S. Cahill: You hope to gather something from that responsibility?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: You expect to be able to realize on that responsibility?


Arthur Meighen: To consider that responsibility in fixing the value of their shares.


Frank S. Cahill: What have their shares got to do with this transaction? If you hope to make them pay in respect of their responsibility, then, of course, your argument that the contract between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental holds good is a very poor one, for the, reason that the Grand Trunk guaranteed the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Pacific in turn are oeing relieved of a portion of their responsibility to the people of the country, or whoever has got the money in that investment, by reason of the fact that you have allowed them to relinquish, or have relinquished for them, their contract with the Transcontinental.
In other words, if you made the Grand Trunk Pacific live up to their contract with the Transcontinental, instead of there being a deficit of $2,360,000 to $3,000,000 a 5 ear on the Transcontinental now, which the people of Canada are paying, you would be charging to the Grand Trunk Pacific $6,000,000 a year; and if, as the Acting Prime Minister stated, the Grgnd Trunk-Pacific are losing $12,000,000 in operation, they would also be losing another $3,000,000 on the Transcontinental, which would make $15,000,000. It might be possible for them to take up these securities and get something for them, but if they are loaded with a $15,000,000 obligation, in all probability the securities will be worth nothing. So that the leader of the Opposition is quite right in saying that measures should be adopted to take out the unnecessary expenditures or the money it will be impossible to pay interest on. From the questions which the Minister of the Interior has put, I take it that the Government does not intend to make the Grand Trunk responsible for their obligations to the Grand Trunk Pacific. If they do, how do they propose to do it?


William Folger Nickle: It is a contractual relationship.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to know how you propose to get the money from the Grand Trunk.


Arthur Meighen: I hardly know where to commence to disentangle the knot of absurdities which the hon. gentleman has made. We do not, in the first place, have to make the Grand Trunk responsible for anything. You cannot make the company

responsible; it made itself responsible; its bond is there. That is to say, it is responsible for the second mortgage bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific; if the Grand Trunk Pacific does not pay, it must. All we are anxious to do with respect to that responsibility is to make them realize it; to make them realize that it still exists and has to be taken into account in connection with the value of their shares. The difficulty is that some years ago they dropped the Grand Trunk Pacific in their tracks as they walked along and have forgotten about it. They have put it away; they do not like any too well to be reminded of it. So that all we have endeavoured to do in that respect is to bring home to them that that responsibility still exists and is an essential factor in the determination of the value of their share.
If I extracted anything else that had meaning from what the hon. gentleman said, it was this: If we had got an order of the court directing the Grand Trunk Pacific to take over the Transcontinental, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was not able to do so, had done so and therefore had lost $2,000,000 a year more in operation and $5,000,000 more in rental-that is $7,000,000 a year more-then I think he tried to say that the Grand Trunk would more likely have to pay something on its bonds.


Frank S. Cahill: You would not say that
the Grand Trunk bonds would be any more valuable would you?


Arthur Meighen: They would not be affected at all. The Grand Trunk bonds were the second mortgage bonds. It depends on the value of the road itself as an operating road whether these bonds are good or not and whether the Grand Trunk might be called upon to pay them. If the Grand Trunk Pacific as a commercial proposition is worth the amount of the first and second mortgage bonds up to the end of where the Grand Trunk guarantees, then the Grand Trunk will not be called upon on its guarantee.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. gentleman has
a curious process of reasoning.


Arthur Meighen: It might lose money on the operation of the Transcontinental, but the value of the Grand Trunk Pacific as a commercial proposition, as effecting the security of the second mortgage bonds, would be worth just the same whether they had to deal with the Transcontinental or not. These bondholders would sell the road aside altogether from its Transcontinental obligations. Now, that really has nothing to do with this question or with what the hon.

gentleman got up to speak about. It has nothing to do with their liability; they are liable, if they are called on to pay, now. The liability is great or small just in proportion to the value of the Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise itself as a distinct commercial entity. Whether great or small, all we say is that it exists. It is there, a fixed responsibility, binding on them, and we insist that it be taken into account in the determination of the value of their shares.


Frank S. Cahill: Well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank S. Cahill: You will carry it in plenty of time, now; don't-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. The hon. member is supposed to address the Chair.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will kindly bear with me for a few moments. I hope that the Minister of the Interior will have patience; I regret that he got peeved a few minutes ago when I asked him a question, although he was quite ready to cross-question and examine the leader of the Opposition when he was speaking. The Minister of the Interior is very lucid in his explanation of everything except of the questions that are put to him. He jumps up and says: "This fellow does not say anything that we can understand;" he seems to think that the idea is to split hairs and work around in a circle. In one breath he says that the Grand Trunk have an equity in the stock of the Grand Trunk because the Grand Trunk liability does not amount to anything; in the next breath he says they have no equity in it. The Prime Minister says that the Grand Trunk directors have not said that they were responsible on their guarantee, and the Minister of the Interior says they are responsible on their guarantee. We have conflicting opinions from different hon. gentlemen opposite. We are only trying to get some information on this very interesting and apparently intricate Bill-information that we are clearly entitled to. Hon. gentlemen on the Government side have spent hours in discussing this matter, and when we on this side, who have not spent a quarter of that time in discussing it, ask a question or seek information it is not very becoming to hon. gentlemen opposite to say, "Carried," "Hear, hear," and so on, and run away with the idea that people are scared of them or that they are going to shoo us out of the Chamber. We are entitled to certain information, 74
and I intend to ask for it and to continue asking for it until the Government either attempt to .furnish it or say that they will not give it to me. I am not a bit particular whether they give it to me now, five minutes from now, or two hours from now. Apparently this question has evolved into a consideration of taking over not only the Grand Trunk Pacific but the Grand Trunk as well.
The question of taking over the Grand Trunk hp,s been discussed here in the last hour or two, but tl)at matter has not previously been considered by the House. There was a report that negotiations were taking place some time ago, and honourable members on the Government side of the House seem to take it for granted that some member on this side is trying to protect the interests of the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific. They are not taking that from anything any honourable member on this side may have said, but they seem to have that idea fixed in their minds. If the 'Grand Trunk have a responsibility to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if you can define that responsibility, it is just possible the Grand Trunk Railway Company have no equity whatever in the stock of the iGrand Trunk or of the Grand Trunk Pacific; and if they have not, I am anxious to know the reason of the anxiety on the part of members of the Government to pay the Grand Trunk Railway Company some money. If the Grand Trunk are responsible for some seventy or eighty million dollars of guarantees of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as they apparently are from statements that have been made, it seems as if they have no equity in the Grand Trufik, as if the equity guaranteed in the Grand Trunk Pacific might exhaust the equity in the Grand Trunk. If the deficits in the Grand Trunk, the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific are so great that they will show a deficit in the combined three roads of which the Grand Trunk is a guarantor, then it is possible that the equity in the Grand Trunk is nil; that it will not bear the carrying charges nor the operating expenses. If that be the case, I do not see why honourable members opposite are so keen about paying the Grand Trunk something, insisting that the company are under this guarantee and that they must live up to it. And yet when we ask the minister how he purposes making them live up to the guarantee, he refuses to answer, saying that he cannot because of negotiations which are under way, and he circles around


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. The bonds to which he refers as being sold are the bonds of the Grand Trunk, not the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank S. Cahill: I said the Grand Trunk Bailway Company. The Grand Trunk Bailway Company sold some $14,000,000 worth of bonds. If their obligation is binding to the Grand Trunk Pacific, if the Grand Trunk Pacific will hold them to their contract, then it would be impossible for them to sell the $14,000,000 worth of bonds, if the people understood the situation. When the Acting Prime Minister stated that the British people could not misunderstand the attitude of the Government in this matter, I think he was making some mistake because those bonds were sold after members of the Government had left London and had terminated for the time being their negotiations with the Grand Trunk people. What I want to find out from the Government is this:	Why are
they anxious to pay the Grand Trunk something for their stock if the jGrand Trunk have no equity in that stock? And if they have an equity, why should the Government take this summary action? Suppose the amount of bonds the Grand Trunk have guaranteed is $70,00,000. Provided that the Grand Trunk Pacific is losing only $6,000,000 a year, with the expectation in one or two years of recovery and making up their operating expenses and the interest on their bonds, then the guarantee would not be so heavy on the Grand Trunk; but if the Grand Trunk Pacific is hopelessly in the hole, as it would be if it were held to its contract with the National Transcontinental, then the Grand Trunk Pacific securities guaranteed by the Grand Trunk would come back in their entirety on the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk would be responsible for the total guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific bonds. I hope the Minister of the Interior can understand that.


Arthur Meighen: No, I am lost. .


Frank S. Cahill: The minister is lost because he has been assuming all along that members of the Opposition are all opposed to this because they were opposed to taking over the Grand Trunk and to taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific without giving the Grand Trunk something. Let us put it in another way. If the Grand Trunk Pacific were not able

to pay, their securities would drop in the market, hut if their obligation was so great that they could never pay, then their securities would be of no value whatever.


Arthur Meighen: What securities?


Frank S. Cahill: The Grand Trunk securities.


Arthur Meighen: Not necessarily.


Frank S. Cahill: If the Grand Trunk Pacific were losing say $10,000,000 a year, how long would it take to wipe out the Grand Trunk securities in the Grand Trunk Pacific? Can the minister follow that?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, easily.


William Thomas White: I would not like my hon. friend to think that the Government is intentionally denying him any information. Since we brought down the resolution, I have laid upon the Table the very fullest information that we had respecting the transaction, including the balance sheet of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and those of its subsidiary companies, and all the correspondence that has passed between ourselves and the Grand Trunk railway. I apprehend, I think quite clearly, the point my hon. friend has in mind. He says that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has heavy liabilities of a contractual character in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific; that is, they have guaranteed in the first place $20,000,000 of the bonds secured by a second mortgage, and some $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 of the debenture stock, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. He makes the point that the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company are so heavy in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific that in his view the shares of the Grand Trunk Railway Company would be, in the strictly legal position, of comparatively small value, and he asks why the Government is anxious to pay the Grand Trunk Railway Company the money in respect of their shares or in respect of the system if taken over. I will read what I think has been read before from the Drayton-Acworth report. The commissioners are speaking of the value of the shares of the Grand Trunk which they have recommended the Government to take over and have vested in a holding company to be controlled and managed on account of the people of Canada. They first touch on the very heavy liabilities of the Grand Trunk in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which they assume at $5,000,000 per annum, and then
74}
speak of the capital expenditure of $30,000,000 required by the Grand Trunk to put its own lines in proper condition, and then go on to say, which is precisely in point:
We regard the entire share capital of the company as being intrinsically of but small value at the present time. On the basis of present value of maintainable income the fair compensation would be very small. But we do not think that this is the only basis on which the people of Canada should proceed. We think this is a case for generosity rather than strict justice. Canada is under obligation to tho Grand Trunk shareholders, who in the early days, with but small Government assistance, and in competition with the railways of the United States with their vastly greater resources, built up the first Canadian railway-system.
Then they go on to recommend that tbs' average net earnings of the Grand Trunk for a period of ten years preceding the war be adopted as the basis in negotiating for the acquisition of the shares.
There is just one other point to which my hon. friend has referred. He spoke of the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, I assume he was speaking of the legal obligations. Those legal liabilities-some $20,000,000-are in respect of bonds which the Grand Trunk guaranteed under the original agreement. Secondly, there is the sum of $35,000,000 or more-I think more-of debenture stock since issued, and which they also guaranteed. Then there, are the guarantees which they gave the Government in respect of the loans made in 1909 and 1914. I think the total amount of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway guaranteed by the Grand Trunk is in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000-about $98,000,000, to be more accurate. The system also owes the Grand Trunk Railway Company on open account some $20,000,000 or more. That is the situation.
My hon. friend has spoken of the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental, the title of which has always been in the Government, because the Government built it, and it was to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now the Grand Trunk, while it is a guarantor of the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, did not guarantee to the Dominion Government that the Grand Trunk Pacific would carry out the lease of the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental, which was in contemplation when the arrangement was originally entered upon and which was stipulated in the agreement, and in the legislation confirming it, between the Government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company. I

think I have cleared up all the points to which my hon. friend drew attention. I do not intend for a moment to refer to the circumstances under which the system was built or as to the wisdom or otherwise of building it. As I stated to-day, we have got past that; that water has gone over the millwheel. We have been confronted with a situation of immediate urgency, requiring in the view of the Government certain action in the public interest, and the action that has been taken by the Government to protect the people of Canada by maintaining continuous operation of the Grand 'drunk Pacific has, so far as I can see, been approved by all. It seems to me the matter has been very fully and amply debated, and I have to thank all hon. gentlemen for the -contributions they have made to the debate.


Frank S. Cahill: There in one point that I think the minister did not quite understand. Apparently the object of this transaction is to take over the Grand Trunk. Suppose you do not make a deal with the Grand Trunk; what position shall we be in then with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific? Will the Government foreclose? How would they ever get the money from the Grand Trunk? Will they make the Grand Trunk responsible, under its guarantee, for the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Thomas White: We would not make the Grand Trunk responsible for the Grand Trunk Pacific except to the extent that it is now legally responsible. The point that was made by the Minister of the Interior, and which I made earlier in the day, is this: In estimating what the Government should pay by way of rental, if the Grand Trunk Railway system was taken over under lease (which was involved in the offer made by the Government to the Grand Trunk Railway Company last summer) there must be taken into account the legal liabilities which the Grand Trunk have in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific. My honourable friend says: suppose you do not take over the Grand Trunk, what then? Well, the Dominion Government have a first mortgage charge upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it could proceed under that first mortgage to foreclose, offer for sale, and get the system at a much lower price than is now represented by all the securities which have been issued in respect of it. That is what the Government could do. That would involve the elimination of the second mortgage securities guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, upon which their liability would still continue.


Frank S. Cahill: Suppose the second mortgagee were to take up the first mortgage; where would you stand then?


William Thomas White: The purchaser
would have to consider whether this road which is not only not earning its fixed charges, but is making a deficit this year of $4,000,000, would be able to repay him if he assumed the first mortgage. I do not think my hon. friend need worry about that. Hypothetically, the Government would have to estimate whether the third and subsequent charges would justify it in paying a higher price I do not think it would, but if my hon. friend asks what the business position is I have no hesitation in telling him.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that this
Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company is an entirely different concern from the Grand Trunk Pacific. It has separate assets and creditors and is a hotel system. tVhy this property should be taken over with the other is something I would like to know.
iSir THOMAS WHITE: The Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company is owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company and therefore is one of the subsidiaries of the system. It owns hotels, steamships and other properties and real estate throughout the West. Any great railway system, as my hon. friend knows, embraces not only railway lines proper but subsidiaries.


Samuel William Jacobs: Whaji provision will be
made with regard to the payment of creditors and other claims against this company? While by a stretch of imagination we can understand that a railway system may be taken over by Order in Council, I cannot possibly see why it is necessary by Order in Council under the War Measures Act to take over these hotels, seeing that is an entirely separate and distinct company from the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Thomas White: It is run in connection with it and the stock is owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific. It. is part of the system. It was necessary to appoint a receiver not only for the railway company proper but also for the subsidiaries forming part of the system. My hon. friend asks what about the creditors? Well, he does not need advice from me as to the position of creditors. This system has been put into the hands of a receiver.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why is this company referred to as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System? I understand that term has never been used in connection with the

railway. There is "The Grand Trunk System" but not "The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System", which it seems to me is a misnomer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We have heard so
much of late about the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System that I begin to fear they hardly convey an idea to our mind. I would suggest that our leader might propose to the leader of the Government that we adjourn.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have no other questions to ask.


William Thomas White: The "Grand
Trunk Railway System " is a term used to designate all that is embraced within the ownership of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would own physical properties vested in it. It would own stock of express companies-although I do not think it does-telegraph companies, development companies, hotel companies, steamship companies, and the word " system " would properly apply to the company itself and all the subsidiaries.


Thomas Vien: Has the Grand Trunk Railway Company been completely relieved of the interest which it failed to pay and which was paid by way of grant from the Government, approved by Parliament?


William Thomas White: The votes by Parliament during the past few years have been by way of loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific, secured by blanket mortgage in each case.


Thomas Vien: Does the Government not fear that its action will place it in a very awkward position before the courts in view of paragraph 6 of Chapter 24, 4 Edward VII, which reads:-
Notwithstanding anything in the said contract contained the Government shall not exercise any rights in respect of possession, foreclosure or sale, by reason of non-payment of interest by the company under the 31st, 32nd, or 33rd paragraphs of the said contract, or under all or any of them, unless .and until these shall be such default to the extent in the whole of a sum equal to five years of such interest, as the company is not relieved from payment of or permitted to defer or capitalize by the provisions of the said paragraphs.
According to this paragraph the Government appears to have no right to foreclose or to take possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway before five years of accrued interest is due. The Government by way of loan has surely, impliedly at least, authorized the company to defer its payments, to say the least, if, indeed, it has
not been entirely relieved. If that is so, it seems to me that the Government had no right to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or to force a foreclosure, and that in so doing it assumes all the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, or at least, is liable to the Grand Trunk Pacific for all damages which the company , may incur as a result of the forcible taking of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


William Thomas White: I dealt with this matter pretty fully this afternoon, and I hope that my hon. friend will not think me discourteous when I say that we have given the whole subject the most careful consideration and are satisfied that the appointment of the receiver has not exposed the Government to liabilities or in any way weakened our position.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am anxious that we should get through with this Bill to-night, and it will perhaps be the only opportunity we shall have of saying a word to the Government before it enters upon the negotiations which are in contemplation. There appears to be an attempt on the part of iion. gentlemen on the other side of she House to create the impression that we have a special retainer from the Grand Trunk	and	from	the Grand Trunk
Pacific,	and that we are defending
their case. It is scarcely necessary to say that such is not the fact. We are here to represent the people of Canada, and are actuated by the desire to get out of this mix-up in the very best way we can. I would impress upon the Acting Prime Minister, if such negotiations are to be proceeded with, that as I understand the situation the Grand Trunk is in debt to this country to a very large amount in obligations that have already accrued due or will accrue due. We on this side of the House would impress upon the Government in the most urgent and solemn manner that all those obligations should be properly marshalled, and the position of the Grand Trunk as to its liabilities to the people of Canada ascertained in the most businesslike manner. If the road in question is taken over, and if any. money is bo be paid, our position is that that money shall be paid less the amount the Grand Trunk owes to this country. I "do not think that we can enter into sentiment in the matter at all, it will have to be a respectable business transaction. Whatever the shareholders of the company, or the company itself, are entitled to get from us, they should get-no more and no less. I trust the obligations in question will be fully considered in any negotiations

that may take place between the Government and the company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.
Friday, April 4, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45, to incorporate the National Wholesale Grocers' Association of Canada.- Mr. Sheard.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee to supervise the official report of the Debates:
Friday, 4th April, 1919.
The Select Standing Committee to supervise the Official Report of the Debates beg leave to present the following as their First Report:-
Your committee have had referred to them for consideration a communication from the King's Printer submitting the present as well as the proposed scale of rates appended hereto to be charged for special editions of members' speeches.
Your committee realizing, in view of the large increase in wages and paper, the undesirability of the Printing Bureau continuing to charge for the above editions at the old rate recommend that, in future, the rates proposed to be charged be approved.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
R. L. Richardson,
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46 respecting the puichasing of departmental and other supplies and materials for His Majesty.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Mr. N. W. ROWELL:: Mr. Speaker, the members of the House will recall that by Order in Council of 8th May, 1915, a War Purchasing Commission was constituted, its duties being to supervise purchases for which payments were to be made out of the war appropriation. The commission carried on its duties from the date of its appointment, supervising all purchases made out of the war appropriation and dealing only with

those branches of the public service until the month of February, 1918, when on the recommendation of the Prime Minister the duties of the commission were enlarged so as to embrace the other branches of the public service. The Prime Minister, in his report recommending the enlargement of the duties of the commission, pointed out that, pending consideration of permanent provision for that purpose after fuller study of the problems involved, the commission would continue to perform these larger duties. With the coming of peace, as the commission was appointed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, its duties would automatically come to an end unless other provisions were made. The work of the commission has been so satisfactory that the Government believe that it should be continued, and the present Bill provides for the appointment of a Purchasing Commission for Canada which shall do the purchasing of all supplies required by all departments of the Government. That does not include the Government railways, which now form part of a larger system and are being operated under the Railway Board. This, in brief, is the object of the Bill.
Motion agreed to and Bill read a first time.



THE EASTER RECESS.

William Thomas White: That this House adjourn Thursday the seventeenth instant at 6 p.m., and that when the House so adjourns it stand adjourned until Tuesday the twenty-second instant.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (St. James):: I would suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that the day for adjournment be fixed for Wednesday instead of Thursday. We do not sit on Wednesday night and I see no reason why we should stay here until the next day at three o'clock. I would remind the minister that Thursday is a feast day in the province of Quebec as is Good Friday. It seems to me that it would not make very much difference if we adjourned at six o'clock on Wednesday. Many friends have asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the Government.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: In former years we have generally adjourned on the Wednesday.


Thomas Vien: I
would strongly urge that we adjourn on Wednesday, if it were possible without too much inconvenience.


William Thomas White: The Government is anxious, of course, that the business before the House shall be despatched as expeditiously as possible, but I am agreeable that for the convenience of hon. members the day should be changed from Thursday to Wednesday. I therefore beg to move:
That this House adjourn on Wednesday the 16th instant at six p.m. and that -when the House so adjourns it stand adjourned until Tuesday the 22nd instant.
Motion as amended agreed to.



SOLDIERS SENTENCED TO PENAL SERVITUDE IN ENGLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, referring to the question I addressed to the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas 'White) on Tuesday last regarding a Bill said to have been introduced into the British House of Commons under the provisions of which it is more than likely that criminals undergoing sentence to penal servitude would be sent to Canada, may I ask the hon. gentleman if the Government have received any information in regard to that proposed legislation?


William Thomas White: The Government has no information respecting it. I think the statement of my hon. friend, or at least the impression conveyed by his question of the other day, no doubt based upon newspaper despatches, is entirely erroneous. I would not like to speak without the full facts before me, but I think that what was probably referred to was convictions for military offences, which are very different from criminal offences in the ordinary sense. However, I shall not speak on the subject now because I have not the facts. Some time, when the House is in Committee of Supply, I will be able to give my hon. friend further information. I understand that there are other members of the House who would like to speak on the subject.


Charles Murphy: Will that be within a short time?


William Thomas White: When we are in Supply. I understand that one or more members of the House may explain what they understand to be the situation. The Government have no information, and it is not in the slightest degree excited about it, because we are satisfied that no Bill introduced into the British House of Commons will work any injustice to Canada.


Charles Murphy: Will the hon. gentleman do the House the courtesy to make inquiries so that we will know what the facts are?


William Thomas White: I shall take that matter under consideration.



WAR MEASURES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. BELAND:: May I ask the Government whether it is their intention to provide for the repeal or abrogation of the War Measures Act as soon as the preliminary peace treaty is signed?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Beland) will have observed in the speech from the Throne that provision is made for the enactment of a Franchise Act-


Henri Sévérin Béland: I refer to the War
Measures Act.


William Thomas White: The War Measures Act will not be repealed until franchise legislation, with satisfactory provisions, is brought down.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not refer to the War Time Elections Act; I refer to the War Measures Act.


William Thomas White: The War Measures Act will expire, under its terms, upon the conclusion of peace as promulgated by Order in Council. The Government, upon the conclusion of peace, will consider when that promulgation should be made. I am unable to make any statement in regard to that at the present 'time.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the Government further whether it is their intention to provide, during this session, for the repeal or abrogation of the Military Service Act as soon as demobilization is completed?


William Thomas White: I understand that the Military Service Act is to provide only for reinforcements to the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. Any announcement the Government has to make respecting the matter will be made in due course.



VACANT SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. FREDERIC KAY:: May I remind the Government that there are four vacancies in the membership of this House, namely, Assiniboia, Ontario North, Quebec
llo4

East and Glengarry and Stormont. I ask the leader of the Government when the Government will bring on the by-elections in these constituencies?


William Thomas White: The Government will announce its policy in due course.



PATRIOTIC FUND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) if provision is to be made for the Patriotic Fund by the Government? An understanding was arrived at last year that, after March of the present year private individuals would not be asked for contributions to the Patriotic Fund. Inquiries are coming to members of Parliament as to what the Government has done in this connection, and I would like some statement to be made to the public as to whether the collectors are supposed to cease collecting for the Patriotic Fund now and whether the Government will provide for whatever is necessary for the future.


William Thomas White: The Government has always stood ready to provide whatever amount was necessary in connection with the Patriotic Fund over and alwve what might be subscribed by the general public. I understand that the condition of the Fund is such that Government aid is not necessary.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

Newton Wesley Rowell: moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting. the Department of Health.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this important Bill, it is fitting that a statement should be made to the House indicating the reasons why the Government has felt it necessary in the public interest to bring down this Bill. The proposal embodied in the Bill is one of the most important features of the Government's policy during the period of reconstruction. I may say that the war has impressed upon all citizens more than ever before the value of human life. There has certainly never been such a prodigal expenditure of human life in any war in history. On the other hand, never has human life been so valuable and never has the physical fitness of the men in the respective armies played so important a part in determining the final issues of the struggle. This war made an unexpected drain upon the energy and resources of the

soldiers engaged in the conflict. During many periods of the war, the question was as to the ability of the men to stand the strain and not break down under it. The men who had the greatest physical strength, who were the most capable of bearing the burden of the struggle, were those who in the end rendered the greatest service.
Not only has the war emphasized the importance and value of human life, but the -losses of the waf have made a great drain upon the best life in this and every other nation engaged in the struggle.
I am sure we all realize, Mr. Speaker, that the men who went to the front were not the weaklings, the physically unfit, but the very best blood of the nation. The men who enlisted were of course the strongest and the most vigorous in the national life, and all the countries which were at war suffered most severely by reason of the number of their strong, vigorous, young men who laid down their lives in this struggle. Canada has lost approximately 60,000, the majority of these having fallen in battle or died of wounds, while a limited number died of disease. Canada is to-day the poorer to that extent. Not only has there been this drain upon our people, but a large number of the men who went overseas to fight for us have returned to Canada less physically fit; they have been maimed in the struggle and have suffered from disease, and to-day tens of thousands of them are less able to carry on their work and take their place in the life of the nation than they were before the war.
When one takes into account these war losses, one realizes rwhat has been the drain of the war on the life of a young nation like Canada. . We must also bear in mind the heavy financial burdens which this war has imposed upon Canada as upon every other nation engaged in the struggle, and that the only way we can carry these burdens is by developing our resources, by increasing ithe output of our forests, our farms and our factories. And as that development can only be obtained by increasing the productive power of the nation, we realize with additional force what a loss it is to Canada that these vigorous young men are no longer available to us. Just at the time when the burden upon us is the greatest and when we need the best blood of the nation to bear that burden, we are suffering from these war losses.
It has been the policy of Canada for many years, Mr. Speaker, to spend large sums of money to foster immigration in order to people our unoccupied lands and

to develop our natural resources; and yet while we have been spending these large sums of money for this purpose, we have not been nearly so active in spending even a-moderate amount of money to conserve the lives, the health and well-being of the people here at home. We have not paid nearly so much attention to caring for the young children bom in Canada who would make good 'Canadian citizens as we have in bringing in immigrants to settle here and become citizens.
At this time when we are 'suffering from the losses due to the war, and when the value of human life has become of greatest moment, it is fitting that the House and the country should turn attention to considering better measures for conserving the health of our people.
, Now, do the conditions existing in Canada justify action at this time? What are the facts as disclosed by the medical examinations under the Military Service Act? I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the figures are not available of the rejections on the ground of physical unfitness while the voluntary system was in force. Of course, a record was kept of the men accepted, but not a corresponding record of the men who were rejected. But I have the figures of those who were accepted and rejected during the period the Military Service Act was in operation, and I am sure that these figures will, surprise hon. members. Hon. gentlemen will recall the fact that the class called up for service under the Military Service Act were young married men and unmarried men from 20 to 34 years of age. Now 361,695 men were medically examined under the Military Service Act; of these 180,440 were accepted as physically fit; of the remainder 181,255 were found to be more ot less physically unfit. In other words, of the adult male population of Canada of military age more than one-half were found physically unfit for active service. Those are startling figures, and they disclose to us the room there. is for improvement in caring for the health and well-being of the people of this country. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that no citizen would have believed that of the young men of this country between those ages 50 per cent would not have passed the test for entrance into active military service. It shows that there are thousands of young men in Canada who are not up to the physical standard, and that the majority of them are not up to that standard from quite preventable causes.
Not only do the facts in connection with enlistment disclose those conditions, but similar conditions are disclosed, so far as
statistics are available, in connection with infant mortality in this country. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time we have no vital statistics covering the whole Dominion, and it is not possible therefore to make a comparison with any other country which has a good system of vital statistics; but it is possible to make comparisons, between different countries in which they have adopted improved methods of caring for their children and the countries in which those methods have not been adopted. It is possible to make a comparison between some of these countries where the Governments have given special attention to the question of public health, and particularly child welfare, with the cities and towns of Canada where such great care has not been exercised. Let me give you some most interesting figures relating to this matter. These figures have been furnished to me by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I give them as furnished. The country in which the Government has taken the most active interest in child welfare, and in which its measures have touched practically the whole people, is Neiw Zealand.	The figures for New
Zealand are for the year 1915, and I understand that they are the latest available, but that they are fairly representative of the situation there. The deaths of children under one year of age per 1,000 births in New Zealand are 50. How do other countries compare with New Zealand? Australia comes next with 68 deaths to 1,000 births; Sweden, 70 to 1,000; France 78 to 1,000; the Netherlands, 87 to 1,000; Switzerland, 91 to 1,000; Ireland,, 92 to 1,000; England and Wiales, 110 to 1,000; and then when you pass over to countries like Russia you get 248 deaths per 1,000 births, and Chili, which has the highest mortality, 286 deaths per 1,000 births.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mb at are the years to
which these figures have reference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: New Zealand, 1915; Australia, 1915; England and Wales, 1915; France, 1912, Netherlands, 1915; Russia, 1909; Sweden, 1913; Switzerland, 1914; Chili, 1914. These are the latest figures that we have been able to get.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are the figures not
affected by the war in any way?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should think that they are not appreciably affected by the war. I mention them only as indicating the general standard or scale which I understand the general figures support.
116*3

I now come to the situation in Canada as indicated by the statistics so far as they are available. It should be borne in mind, of course, that there is always the possibility of a percentage of error because of the fact that in some countries the statistics are not as accurately kept as in others; and the same may be true of the provinces. The figures, as given in the official records of each province, are as follows:
The lowest on the list is Saskatchewan, 91-2 per thousand for the year 1916. The rest follow in this order:	Prince Edward
Island, 93.6, 1917; Ontario 107-2, 1916; British Columbia 107-3, 1916; Manitoba, 113-5, 1914; Nova Scotia, 120-9, 1916; Quebec 153-4, 1916.
But it is when you come to the cities of Canada that you find the more startling results. First let me give you the rates of infant mortality under one year of age in certain cities in the Old Country for the year 1916; London, 89 per thousand; Bristol, 95; Edinburgh, 100; Glasgow, 111; Manchester, 111; Nottingham, 116* Liverpool, 118; Leeds, 129. In England they believe that the rate of infant mortality is unnecessarily high. They believe that attention must be paid to the question of public health as relating not only to children, but to older people as well. So serious do they consider the conditions that one of the most important proposals of the present British Government is the creation of a department of health. Last month a Bill designed to accomplish this end received its second reading in the British House of Commons.
Compare the figures which I have just given with those for our own Canadian cities. I have the figures for six cities, two in Quebec, two in Ontario and two in Western Canada. The lowest percentage of infant mortality per thousand is found in Sherbrooke, Quebec, 101. Then comes Toronto, 109; Winnipeg, 126; Vancouver, 144; Quebec, 203; Montreal, 207; Ottawa, 224. Compare these figures of infant mortality in Canada with those of cities in Great Britain. We are willing to spend money to bring immigrants to Canada, yet there are dying in some of the great cities of our country, during the first year of their lives, twenty-five per cent of the babies born. I mention these facts to point out the urgent reasons why we in Canada should give serious consideration to this most important matter.


Mr. NESBITT:: To what years are the figures for the Canadian cities applicable?
[Mr. Rowell. 1


Newton Wesley Rowell: Sherbrooke, 1917; Toronto, 1916; Winnipeg, 1917; Vancouver, 1916; Quebec, 1917; Montreal, 1917; Ottawa, 1916. In the light of these facts I am sure every one will realize that the question is one to which, the House and the country should devote their most serious thought.


Mr. DUFF:: May I inquire who compiled the figures which my hon. friend has just read?


Newton Wesley Rowell: up too much time, editorials from the leading journals of Canada very strongly supporting the proposal, in fact, demanding that the Government should establish a Department of Health. Now under the terms of its constitution the department will deal not only with matters relating to public health, but also with the social welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I presume that the minister has studied the constitutional aspect of the Bill and is satisfied that it does not invade the civil rights in the provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, that matter has been carefully considered. I do not think any question of civil rights arises under the terms of the Bill as drawn. As a matter of fact the public health-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Can the minister say
whether this question was brought up before the last Interprovincial Conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not remember, but I think it was not. However, there was this special conference called later, at which representatives of the province were present, when this proposal was made.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I asked the question I put to the minister because he stated that this is done at the request of the medical representatives of the different provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They have requested it, but I do not mean to say that the Government is taking action because they did so.
I mentioned the fact only as indicating that they support the proposal and that it is their desire that this Bill should be passed. The British North America Act does not specifically deal with health, the only reference to health is the matter of quarantine which is expressly placed uiider federal authority. As a matter of fact, in the Act creating the Department of Agriculture passed in 1868 provision was made for public health and quarantine as being a matters over which the Parliament of Canada had jurisdiction. A number of sections of that Act dealt with public health and others with quarantine.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Which Act does the minister refer to?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Act creating the Department of Agriculture passed in 1868. Ever since iConfederation the Federal Parliament has dealt with public health in various aspects under many Acts. I shall come to that in a moment. We have probably no fewer than fifteen Acts dealing with various phases of public health.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I observe in subsection B of section 4 a reference to the conservation of child life. I do not wish to anticipate the discussion, but is not that a matter which falls entirely within civil rights?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Every province is deeply and vitally concerned in that question, and it is its duty to do everything in its power to conserve child life. But I should think that it is equally important to the Dominion, which is spending thousands of dollars to bring immigrants here, to see that its native born do not unnecessarily die and the nation suffer.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understand that, but I asked a direct question, and would like a direct answer. Has the minister studied the Bill sufficiently to be able to tell the House whether that section, for instance, does not fall within civil rights of the provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the provinces clearly have jurisdiction, but the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. It seems to be a case of both having jurisdiction, but (so far as the Federal Government is concerned its action might very properly be limited to collecting information and furnishing it to all who may desire to take advantage of it, there is no question that there is a very important field of activity open in that respect. In the United States the isame situation exists as here. The States primarily deal with public health, and it was only in recent years that the Federal Government took up the question as a matter of self defence, originally in connection with quarantine and immigration, because people entering the country were bringing diseases and the Federal Government had to protect its citizens, lit gradually extended its work until it now includes many phases on which I shall give the House information shortly. Section 4 of the Bill provides limitations so that we are clearly not invading any provincial rights.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As regards the words " over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction," it might be well to give a definition of the term "jurisdiction."


Newton Wesley Rowell: It covers all matters specifically enumerated in the Bill, and possibly a few others. I shall be glad to go into that in a few minutes when we come to discuss ithe general sections of the Bill.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has a copy of the Bill been submitted to the provincial authorities?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I think not. I think no Government authority has asked for it. Several requests have come in for copies and they have been sent out but I do not recall that any have come from provincial governments. The Bill deals *with the question not only of public health but of social welfare and I am sure that the members of the House will agree that after all the most important thing is not to cure disease but to prevent it. The most important thing is to endeavour to create conditions favourable to good health rather than to treat disease after it has developed. In connection with the health of the people, no question is more important than good sanitary housing and the avoidance of slum conditions. I think it would be a natural development that the administration of the Federal Government's housing policy would be entrusted to a department like this. At present it is being administered by a committee of the Cabinet. 1 would expect that it would be entrusted to a department such as this because it is so intimately associated with the social welfare of our people.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the minister suggest that such a question as housing should come under federal jurisdiction?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would suggest to my hon. friend that the policy which the Federal Government has adopted of assisting the provinces in housing would fall under federal jurisdiction.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The policy of increased subsidies.


Newton Wesley Rowell: A full discussion of that question can take place when the Estimates are submitted, but I think that what the Government has done is unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the Federal Rar-liament and it has been accepted in that spirit by every province, many of them having passed Acts in order to take advantage of the federal housing policy. There are many other matters that one might mention in the same light. I referred a moment ago to the United States situation being very similar to ours as far as the Federal jurisdiction is concerned. In the United States their Public Health Department which has grown from very small beginnings, has developed into a very strong and efficient department. They have now eight divisions as follows:
1. Division of scientific research.
That is clearly within the competency of the Federal Government there. It is as clearly within the competency of the Federal Government here and it may be one of the important features of the work of a department such as this. That, of course, would depend on whether an appropriation were proposed in order to carry it out.
2.	Foreign and insular quarantine and immigration.
3.	Domestic and inter-state quarantine.
4.	Sanitary reports and statistics.
5.	Division of marine hospitals and relief.
G. Division of personnel and accounts.
7.	Miscellaneous division, various activities in the matter of the publication of public health reports and bulletins.
8.	Division of venereal diseases (which was added last year).
They have developed a very strong department of health and they are now making large appropriations for it, many millions of dollars being appropriated in the United States for the promotion of public health.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Is it the in- . tention of the Government to proceed with the establishment of a department of scientific research?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That question has not been considered as yet. It is a question for future consideration, but I should think that one of the natural and inevitable developments of a Federal department of health would be that we should develop a bureau of scientific research in connection with it. I have been asked why that was not specifically mentioned in the Bill. The reason is that it is not necessary. Clause 4 gives power and it is a question of a vote to establish it. It comes up on the vote for an appropriation and so soon as the Government is prepared to recommend ito the House a vote for such a bureau that question would come up for consideration.


Mr. BUTTS:: The minister has dwelt at considerable length during the course of his remarks with the infantile death rate. Could not that be very easily handled by making the Criminal Code a little more drastic in the passages that refer to murder?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My answer would be that I do not think the instances of infantile mortality in connection with what my hon. friend refers to would be any more numerous in Canada than in the other countries.


Robert Hamilton Butts: You would not like to answer that, perhaps. The second question is in connection with those unmentionable diseases; is it wortn this Government's

while to spend time legislating to cure those diseases, or would it not be better to clear those people out altogether?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The policy of the Bill is to prevent rather than cure.
Mr. BUTT'S:	You cannot prevent it by
Act of Parliament.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One can prevent the
spreading of many diseases. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) asked in reference to the Federal Government's jurisdiction. I should like to draw his attention to certain Acts already passed by Parliament dealing with various health matters. In .the Department of Agriculture, we deal with the health of animals. We have undertaken in this House to care for the health of animals and to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. I should think that we had just as much right to preserve the lives of human beings as animals.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be a good
principle of law to say that if we had jurisdiction over agriculture it would follow, as incidental to that, that we should deal with the health of animals.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In connection with agriculture both the provinces and the Dominion have concurrent jurisdiction. They are legislating in connection with agriculture and' it is the same situation in connection with publi^ health.


Thomas Vien: Does the minister not think this is an unnecessary duplication?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I do not think so
at all. I think the figures I have given show the necessity of the action. Public opinion in the country demands action. The Government would be recreant to its duty, With its knowledge of these facts, and in view of the public demand, if it did not take action.
We maintain in the Department of Agriculture in connection with animal diseases a laboratory for investigation and the supply of sera, and we maintain inspectors to investigate outbreaks of disease. In the Department of Inland Revenue we exercise certain jurisdiction in the inspection of foods and beverages in regard to adulteration. That is one of the important matters that comes under the Federal Bureau of Health in the United States, but we have dealt with it here by the Department of Inland Revenue. The Department of the Interior deals with the medical and sanitary side of Indian Affairs. The Department of Immigration deals with the inspection of immi-[Mi*. Butts.]
grants' detention hospitals, investigation oi immigrants' subsequent condition as regards mental and physical health, quarantine arrangements at sea ports and on the frontier, leper lazarettos, administration of Public W'orks Health Act, inspection of vessels in ocean ports, and supervision of public health in the Yukon territory; the Department of Marine deals with marine hospitals and sick seamen; the Department of Trade and Commerce deals with vital statistics; the Department of Militia and Overseas Military forces deals with the army medical corps and army'military hospitals service, sanitation of camps, and food supplies for the army; the Department of Public Works deals with sanitary inspections of public buildings; the Department of Finance deals with infectious diseases transmitted through handling of money; the Department of Justice deals with the sanitation of prisons and the disease of criminals; the Department of the Naval Service deals with the sanitation of ships and food supplies for the naval service, and also with the diseases of fish and health in fish hatcheries; the Department of Customs investigates the quality of dutiable foods and drinks in relation to public health; the Post Office Department deals with infectious disease as transmitted through mails, and the sanitation of post offices. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Estatolishment deals with the physical and mental restoration of invalided soldiers; and the Commission of Conservation investigates into general, questions of public health. There is also the subject of patent medicines, which is under the Department of Inland Revenue, too, I think. Not only have we dealt with the question of health, but we have voted hundreds of thousands to.f dollars a year 'to various branches of the Government dealing with different aspects of the health problem.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will deal briefly with the scope of the Act. It will be noticed that section 4 defines the duties and powers of the minister administering the Department of Health, and covers all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health and social welfare of the people of Canada over which Parliament has jurisdiction, and particularly the following matters and subjects. The first is:
(a) Co-operation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the co-ordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving- the public health ;
At the present time there is no co-ordination; each province takes its own course, as

it does in any other matter. A Federal Department might be a clearing house in which information of 'the results of work in one province would be gathered up and made available to every other province, and the largest measure of co-operation worked out. It has been done in other branches of the Government in connection with other phases of work carried on by the provinces and the Dominion.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What does the hon. minister mean by "co-operation" and "co-ordination "? Does he mean that all literature to be distributed will be sent to the provincial boards of health to be distributed by them, or will it be distributed independently of the provincial boards?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I can give my hon. friend illustrations covering many matters, but I will take only one, the case of contagious disease. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the welfare of the whole nation that there should be to some extent at least corresponding provisions in all the provinces for the protection of public health against contagious diseases. If a contagious disease breaks out in any one province it is a menace to all the provinces, for we know how rapidly it spreads. In such a case co-operation should secure the enactment of legislation in the different provinces for the suppression of such a disease. I am quite lure that it would be feasible, and that the health authorities in the different provinces would be very glad to co-operate in order to secure such a result.
You will see that provision is made in section 6 for a Dominion Council of Health consisting of the Deputy Minister of Health, who shall be chairman, the chief executive officer of the provincial Department or Board of Health of each province, and such other persons, not to exceed three in number, as may be appointed by the Governor in Council, who shall hold office for three years. That would be the medium for cooperation and co-ordination, for you would have the health representatives of all the provincial Governments on that Council conferring together and working out plans to secure the best results for the whole Dominion.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would their advice be
accepted by the Minister of Public Health?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Minister of Public
Health must of course be responsible to this House as a member of the Government. He would not be bound to accept their advice; it would be in his discretion to accept or reject it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then what is the use of
having both?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should say there would be great advantage in having both. I should think it would be a good thing for the minister to be in constant touch with the provincial health authorities, and also for the public health service in the different provinces, and I am quite sure that they could render very excellent and helpful advice to the minister. He, of course, must take upon himself the responsibility of finally acting on it or not. Referring again to section 4, we have the conservation of child life and child welfare, on which I have already spoken.
The next subject dealt with is the inspection and medical care of immigrants and seamen, and the administration of marine hospitals;-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is within federal
jurisdiction undoubtedly.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes; and it is a matter of very great importance. The next subject is the supervision, as regards the public health, of railways, boats, ships and all methods of transportation;-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is within federal jurisdiction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Unquestionably, and
again a matter of great importance, having regard to the facility with which a contagious disease may be communicated in transportation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the hon. minister apply that to provincial lines as well?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is a matter I have not considered.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is very important.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Of course, if it had to be worked out in a way that would keep well within federal jurisdiction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Reverting to clause (c) the inspection and medical care of immigrants and seamen, and the administration of marine hospitals, would the Act give power to have your inspection made at the ports of embarkation of immigrants from other countries, so that prevention might be undertaken at the right place?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The inspection would be under the Department of Health, but whether here or over there or at both places would be a question to be settled by the Immigration Department.
Then clause (e), the supervision of federal public buildings and offices with re-



gard to the health of the civil servants and other Government employees therein. Obviously there is no question that that is properly within the jurisdiction of the Dominion.
Clause (f) reads:
(g) The administration of the statutes mentions made by the International Joint Commie-sdon, promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States of America and Canada, so far as the same relate to public health;
Clearly that is also a matter of federal jurisdiction. I shall not go into it at the present time, but probably during the discussion my hon. friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) who has given special study to it, will have something to say upon it.
Then clause (g) reads:
(g)	The administration of the statutes mentioned in the (Schedule to this Act, and of Acts amending the same, and also of all orders and regulations passed or maxle under any of the said Acts; and all the duties and powers of any minister of the Crown under either of the said Acts or any of the said orders or regulations, are hereby transferred to and conferred upon the Minister of Health;
-and clause (h) :
(h)	The collection, publication and distribution of information to promote good health, and Improved sanitation;
Assuredly those are matters of federal jurisdiction.


Peter McGibbon: The establishment of a Department of Scientific Research, it seems to me, is more important than any one single-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have to
remind hon. members-and I do not refer specially to the hon. member who is just now' speaking-that the House is not in committee. The hon. President of the Privy Council has been very courteous in allowing and answering questions of all kinds, but hon. members cannot interrupt the hon. minister for the purpose of expressing their respective opinions without violating the rules of the House. I would remind hon. members that all of these questions may be properly asked when the Bill is considered in committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Before passing from the subject of the distribution of literature, I may add that the following rather interesting circular letter came to my attention recently. It was addressed by a Medical

Health Officer in Saskatchewan, in view of the influenza epidemic, to the principal of a school:
You will find enclosed copies of literature on influenza sent out for free distribution by the United States Public Health Service. Not only should the information contained in these leaflets help to suppress influenza, but other infectious diseases as well.
Kindly have the teachers carefully explain this literature to each class.
Until such time as Canada has a Dominion Health Department municipalities must continue to beg and use American health literature.
Perhaps he is not correct in ins statement; at any rate that circular was issued. I have a sample of the literature that was sent out to the schools of that particular western city. First, there is a bulletin of the United States Public Health Service for circulation among all families, on Spanish influenza and how to treat it. Then, diagrams and charts were issued by the United States Department of Health on the subject of influenza and were widely distributed. The United States Department of Health carries on a very active propaganda in the interest of public health, spreading the information all over the country.
The Bill does not contemplate adding another minister to the Cabinet; it provides that the Department of Health shall be presided over by such minister as the Governor in Council may determine. While I have no authority to say so, I should think, now that the war is over, that the tendency would be to decrease rather than increase the number of Cabinet Ministers. A Bill was passed last session which permits of the transfer of one branch of the service from one department to another, and I have no doubt that such a rearrangement of the public service can be worked out as will make it possible for a member of the Government to give the necessary time to the work of this important department. I think it deserves the best thought and attention of a member of the Government in order that the public interests may be promoted, as I believe they will be promoted by this Bill.
As I view the matter, and as the Government views it, the Bill is of very great importance. It is not a new departure in the sense of the Federal Parliament legislating on public health; ever since Confederation we have legislated on various aspects of the question. But it is a new departure in the emphasis which it places upon the conservation of the health of the people and upon their social welfare. It

means that in the new day in which we are now living, when the welfare of the masses of the people must become more and more the concern of the whole people, the Government of the country must devote its best thought and attention to the questions which I have suggested, so that here in Canada, with all our natural advantages, with our great opportunities of developing a truly great nation, we shall have a strong, vigorous and healthy people of whom Canada may be proud and who will retain for Canada the magnificent place which her soldiers won for her in the field. I move the second reading of the Bill.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Bowing to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the minister? The minister has had in his hands a great deal of literature which was distributed in the United States. Of course he has read these things; I have not had opportunity to read them. Do they recommend, as a good many doctors in Canada recommend, whisky and quinine for the treatment of influenza?
The 'CHAIRMAN:	Order. The question
of a specific remedy or treatment is certainly not one which can be discussed when we are considering the principle of the creation of a Department of Public Health, and I rule the question out of order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Even with the minister's permission?


Georges Henri Boivin: Even with the minister's permission.
Mr. 'CHARLES S'HEARD (Toronto South): Mr. Speaker, II have given some little attention to this Bill and some study to the preliminary conditions which led up to its introduction into this House. While I am free to admit that a Federal Public Health Department would afford great opportunities for good in Canada and that' there are great avenues of work through which it can exercise those opportunities for good and attain a great many objects, I am far from being satisfied with the Bill as it has been brought down by the President of the Privy Council (Hon. N. W. Rowell).
If a Federal Department of Public Health is to be of real value to Canada, it must be ancillary to the Provincial Health Departments now operating in the Dominion. It must assist, and not conflict with, the operation of municipal and provincial health boards; and we must be absolutely sure that its jurisdiction is constitutional and well-defined.
We need not go very far to prove what are and what will become the limitations
75}
of a Federal Health Department; we in ay simply refer to the British North America Act. True, the British North America Act makes but a slight reference to health matr ters per se, but it does make very specific reference to the machinery by which health matters are administered. If we are going into child welfare, if we are going into work to administer the machinery connected with hospitals and dispensaries, we are certainly trading upon the rights of the provinces and the municipalities. Section 92 of the British North America Act defines the exclusive powers of the Provincial Legislatures and subsections 6, 7 and 8 clearly state that the establishment, maintenance and management of public reformatories, prisons in and for the province, and the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions are within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, outside of hospitals maintained as marine hospitals and quarantine hospital stations at the ports of entry, all the hospital machinery of the country is reserved for adminstration under provincial law.
I shall probably have a number of amendments to move to this 'Bill when it gets into committee, so that I shall not do more now than utter a word of warning. In my judgment the Bill has been framed not altogether with the idea, I fear, of co-operating with the provincial and municipal health departments, but rather with the idea of establishing a Federal department which may exercise such authority as will be gubernatorial so far as the administration of health matters in Canada are concerned.
But, Sir, I am going to support the Bill, -although not in its present shape,-because I believe it affords an opportunity to legislate at the present time on a matter which concerns the best interests of our country.
My first suggestion is one which has already been referred to in the question put by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), who asked if a bureau of scientific research was to be established for the administration and co-ordination of this work. I understood the President of the Council to say that it all depended upon the amount of money which this Parliament placed at the disposal of the department. I hope the bureau will be supplied with a substantial sum for this purpose, because every department of public health in a country which has in any way created it as a national feature, has pivoted around its laboratory work. Nay,

more, I will say that laboratory work is the very foundation of health considera-' tions, and you can no more move in a health organization without laboratory equipment, without research work, without devotion to laboratory effort, than you can move a train without its motive power. All I have to do is to refer to the great start made in health work in 1872 by the studies of one of the most illustrious of all distinguished scientific Frenchmen, who in his discussions and researches and experiments in reference to fermentation, electrified the scientific world, and to-day we have amongst the saints of sanitation, that patron saint in medical discovery, the revered and illustrious Pasteur. What had Pasteur been doing? He had been combatting in his laboratory, quietly and alone, the theory of Liebig. Liebig advanced the theory that the processes of fermentation were essentially dependent upon temperature, and that you could have no fermentative processes apart from regulation of temperature and cell development. But Pasteur took a distinct line to analyse that theory, and he showed that there were other organisms which when introduced into the animal kingdom combatted the organisms which produced disease, arid he astonished in particular the British Isles by taking a hundred sheep and inoculating them with a specially prepared serum, which prevented the virulent form of anthrax which was ravaging the sheep flocks in the form of foot-and-mouth disease in the Southern counties of England. That single experiment of Pasteur, the result of his laboratory work, practically abolished the foot-and-mouth disease in Europe and, to a large extent, in this country. That was immediately prior to 1872, and from that date bacteriology and its allied sciences took a new development based upon laboratory work exclusively. Sanitation became a science and had infused into it a new life, vigour and application, through scientific laboratory research work by specialists.
The United States has made considerable advancement as regards sanitary matters. It has it Bureau of Animal Industries, and its Bureau of Scientific Research. It has not only its statistical department, but its advanced experimental stations, and we find, when we investigate the administration of these matters at Washington, that they have a Federal Health Department which is almost wholly and entirely scientific and laboratorial in its efforts. There are four great departments of active workers in sanitary science-there are the great depart-

merit of bacteriology, the great department of pathology, the great department of chemistry, with separate laboratory equipment and departments for each, and the separate department of pharmacology. That is how the Washington Federal Health Department is arranged at the present time. That, however, may be so much Greek to those who do not know the technique and the bearings of those various departments of a Federal Health Department. Take, for instance, the great study of pollution of water supplies. In this Bill there is a special proviso, and a very proper one, which this Government must take cognizance of to regulate the international waterways :-
(b) The enforcement of any rules or regulations made by the International Joint Commission, promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States of America and Plis Majesty relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States of America and Canada, so far as the same relate to public health.
In other words, that refers to the degree of sewage contamination which may be produced, for instance, at Buffalo in Lake Erie, and the Niagara river, and which may contaminate Lake Ontario and thus breed typhoid and other water-borne diseases along the shores of Lake Ontario. That bacteriological department is one which to a very large extent will be occupied in determining the degree of water contamination. It will also study the actual diseases, the causes of communicable diseases, and what serums can he developed in order to counteract them. And this information can be spread broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion with great benefit, not only to the local and provincial health departments of the country, but to the agriculturists, yes, and to the manufacturers everywhere. And it can do the same as was done in the United States when they made their great investigations into and studies of hookworm and Pelagra, and practically removed that scourge from the transmontane states of California and Oregon. They discovered not only the cause of the disease-and it was one which affected cattle and men-but the remedy by which it could be cured. May I mention that, as an illustration of how a department of bacteriology could be operated as a federal health department, which would in no respect conflict with either the spirit or the application of provincial laws and provincial rights as they relate to health matters, but which would he enormously beneficial in yielding results which would

save the lives of men and the herds and stocks of the agricultural community?
Let me take the next department, the department of pathology. Hon. members may say: What in the world is pathology? Pathology, technically speaking, is a discourse on disease, but it has also to do with the careful investigations oi the diseases of man and animals, diseases which are communicable from animals to man.
For instance, such diseases as hog cholera and hog measles originate in animals, and when the liesh of one of these diseased animals is eaten by man, the disease may be communicated. In that way the disease is spread, and sometimes causes death. It is the business of the Pathological Department to examine in a pathological way these diseased tissues. You could not find a better example of the work that department is doing than at the laboratory of the stock yards in eastern Buffalo. This laboratory is maintained by the Department of Federal Health at Washington, and it is the duty of a body of trained examiners to examine microscopically samples of every slaughtered animal. If a sample is affected with trichinosis, tuberculosis or anthrax the disease will be detected at once. The examiners have no interest in the stockyards or in the property of the animals, but they have every interest in seeing that the meat is wholesome and entirely fit to eat.
Next we come to the great department of chemistry, which is operated under the Federal Health Department at Washington. This is a department we should certainly have in this country. It attends to all forms of adulteration of food, the glazing of tea, and a hundred other things in respect of which it is necessary to see there is no adulteration or that the proper percentage of nutritive value is contained. This provides an excellent check on fraud and deficiency in the trade and commerce of the country.
As to the Department of Pharmacology, which is a separate department in Washington. It is a department which we should have here, but no mention is made of it in the Bill, unless in the schedule, where it would come, I suppose-, in connection with the Proprietary and Patent Medicines' Act. The Pharmaceutical Department at Washington requires, first of all, to know the contents ,of every patent medicine. Patent medicines are being sold in this country which are supposed to cure every variety and form of ill. They may be frauds; you cannot tell what they contain; there is no department of the Government, so far as I am aware, that is responsible for
stating that they have any efficacy at all. Any one can make up a little colored water, put it in a bottle, advertise it well as a cure for delirium tremens or something else, and make millions on an article that may be nothing but a hollow fraud. We have no one in Canada to investigate and report that these patent medicines are what they profess to be, and whether they have any virtue at all.
Then we come to the proprietary medicines. The difference between a proprietary and a patent medicine is that the formula of a proprietary medicine is published, while the formula of a patent medicine is supposed to be a secret, and as no reputable physician has any secrets, he does not care to endorse the so-called patent medicines. He does, however, use proprietary medicines to show his breadth of mind, and for the good they will do his patients,, perhaps. It is the business of the Pharmaceutical Department to see that the proprietary medicines are made up precisely as represented in the formula.
These are simply suggestions as to what, in my judgment, a Federal Health Department should primarily aim at. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Mus-koka (Mr. McGibbon) was a splendid one, and I should like to see it embodied in the Bill, and made effective. .That is the first suggestion I have to offer. My hon. friend says it is not necessary to embody it in the Bill; that all we have to do is to bring down the necessary estimate. If the deputy minister thinks it is all right-and I can clearly see that the Minister of the Department of Health will have no knowledge of the matter at all-if the deputy minister has ambition enough to initiate a new development along these lines, and thinks it feasible and not too much work, he may agree to it, but there is no statutory obligation on him to do this particular kind of work. I should like to see a clause inserted-and I shall move, accordingly, when the Bill is in committee-that will set forth the metes and bounds of this new department.
We come next to the conservation of child life and the matter of child welfare. I would strongly urge upon the House to strike that out, as there is no possibility of doing any work along that line without encroaching upon the authority and rights and operations of the provincial health departments, except it be in the matter of preparing statistics and giving information of the work that is being done in other countries. In my judgment, the federal work

along this line should be confined purely to statistics, and I have reason for saying so. Wherever the benefits of child welfare work have been observed, the benefits have always been achieved through hospital effort. I should like to quote some statistics from a report of the medical officer of the Local Government Board of England, for the year 1917-18. A speeial chapter of that report deals with child welfare. The death rate of infants is dwelt upon, and it is pointed out that one-third of all the deaths in infancy occur in the first month, and one-fifth in the first week after birth. The decreasing death rate after that period'shows how much saving in life is possible. A table is given which shows that in a thousand births, 20.2 deaths occur among the children of medical practitioners, while 47.1 occur in the families and houses of general labourers. In a women's hospital in New York where there were 8,318 infants born, .15 died on the first day, .10 within the next six days, and .6 in the second week. Amongst the causes of death in children, the English statistics show that 6 per cent were due to acute infectious diseases, 3 per cent to tuberculosis, 18 per cent to diarrhoeal affections, and 7 per cent to pneumonia and lung affections. Genital disabilities carry off a certain percentage. I quote these figures to show that in cases where the women are housed in hospitals and the children have the benefit of hospital care for the first two or three weeks of their lives, infantile mortality is materially reduced. This would seem to indicate that the greatest field for beneficial work in this particular respect is in the maternity and similar hospitals in the country, which institutions are, under the British North America Act, entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
This Bill has been urged chiefly by reason of the achievements of Dr. Anderson in England. But conditions here are entirely different than were those under which he worked. We can have no opportunity of doing what he did, because we are altogether differently constituted. Dr. Anderson's work embraced the incorporation of all the local government boards operative in England. These local government boards were practically separate boards of research. They were not endowed by the country, but were largely connected with the scientific institutions which officially did work for them. The Public Health Bill in England abolished all these and placed them under a central board of administration, a bureau of scientific research, such as that for which I am arguing to-day as a necessity in Canada.

But they also embraced the administration of the Poor Law system, a system inaugurated since the days of Elizabeth. The Poor Law administration, the administration of old age pensions, and charities, were all included under the Health Act; and there were many other features which had to be remodeled,-features that do not exist in this country. The provincial boards of health have done the greatest amount of work, and in health matters we are to-day far in advance of the British Isles, notwithstanding the statistics that have been submitted concerning child welfare. Ontario, I think, is abreast, and probably ahead, of any other place in the world in matters of health,-certainly better off than any state in the Union. Some of the Western Provinces have an equally good record, and in view of the splendid way in which the provinces have administered public health in the past we should be very careful not to encroach in the slightest degree upon their particular work. However, I can perceive much good in the Public Health Department if it will provide a certain amount of money to take care of patients that are transferred from one province to another. Take a case of contagious disease that passes a port of entry unobserved, and goes, say, from Montreal to Toronto, where it is discovered. Who is to take care of that case, and who pays the bill? Clearly it does not come under the responsibility of the province of Ontario, and the Federal Health Department should make some financial arrangement for the maintenance, care, and treatment in the public interests of all migratory cases that occur. In the case of venereal disease, I think a thorough and rigid inspection at the port of entry should be made. There are many cases of syphilitic infection which ordinary medical men can detect without a very careful scrutiny. These cases have in the past been frequently admitted without restraint and have gone on for a year or two, communicating that condition to others besides a long progeny of mentally defective, and, in some cases, epileptic persons, with the necessary entailment of cost. In my opinion, therefore, the greatest work in connection with the Public Health Department is a rigid system of quarantine and inspection in connection with the Immigration Department, 200 per cent better than it has been in the past, to preclude the possibility of these cases escaping detection. A certain number of infectious diseases may be brought to this country by returning troops. The care of them is clearly not the legacy of any particular province, and the Federal

Department ol Health should make arrangements to look after them. If there is space to accommodate them in marine hospitals, well and good; if not, there should be an arrangement by which the provinces might take care of them and isolate them as long as necessary, and be paid through the order of the Federal Department of Health. Over and above all that, there should be provision for the careful study of epidemics as they appear in various foreign countries. We know how this country has suffered in the past from imported epidemics, very little attention having been given them, even by scientific men, until they begian to develop in this country, when they were studied more closely because they then came under the immediate notice of the proper authorities.
If we had a paid department maintained by the Federal Government for the specific purpose of studying these epidemics, distributing literature, studying modes of infection, getting into touch with those who had charge of cases before they landed on our shores, a very considerable benefit would accrue and the work would prove profitable.
As I shall probably have a good deal to say by way of amendment when the Bill comes into committee, 1 shall now conclude; but before taking my seat I would say that if the energies of the Bill are properly and well directed, if the influences behind it are those of pure scientific minds emulating the highest ideals which have distinguished and characterized the medical profession throughout the whole civilized wrorld, then I can see no greater force developed in this great Canada of ours for the betterment of humanity and for the relief of the sufferings to which Canadians may be exposed, and I can see no better investment than a well equipped, well endowed well supported Federal Health Department.


Mr. ROBERT JAMES MAXIOX (Fort William and Rainy River):: I shall not take up very much time in speaking on this question. First, I should like to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Hon. N. W. Rowell) on the honour which he has had of introducing this Bill, and also on the exceedingly able manner in which he has put forward the reasons for it. His explanation of the causes that led to the introduction of the Bill was so exhaustive as to leave little for the ordinary medical man to say on the matter.
In dealing with a question like this we should bear in mind that health is the greatest and most vital national problem with which any country has to deal. Some
Bills affect only some of the people, but this affects all the people for in it is vitally bound up the welfare of every citizen. Before I, discuss briefly the objects of the Bill and give my opinion of those objects,
I desire to refer to the criticism that has been levelled at medical men in some portions of the press of this country in connection with this Bill. The medical men have been described in some of the newspapers as political doctors who are looking for a portfolio or something to that effect.
I do not believe that criticism is fair because if you look over the history of the medical profession, if you look over the history of health matters throughout the world, you will find that there has been no advance in sanitation or public health that medical men were not foremost in helping forward. One point in this connection that is worth making is that the effect of this very Bill will be to take away a part of the occupation of the medical men themselves. It would be to the interest of the medical men to oppose the bringing in of a Bill such as this. I consider that the medical men are taking the same high minded stand on this matter that they usually take on public questions. If you will look over the history of the different branches of medicine you will find that practically all the great advances we have had in scientific medicine have been made by medical men. You will remember that it was the German, Koch, who discovered the tubercle bacillus which was one of the greatest discoveries in medical science. You will also remember that it was the great French scientist, Pasteur, who discovered the methods for preventing hydrophobia. That discovery has been dealt with much more oratorically and fluently than I could possibly deal with it by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sheard). I have the happy recollection, one day a number of years ago now, and some time before the outbreak of war, of standing in the Pasteur Institute in Paris and seeing a mother and father come hurrying into the institute with a little child which had been bitten by a mad dog in order to take advantage of the blessing that Pasteur had given to the world. His discovery was another of the great advances in medical science for which we are indebted to a medical man. Then, we have the discovery of chloroform and ether. Ether was discovered, if I remember correctly, some time in 1846 by Dr. Morton of Boston and chloroform was discovered by Sir James Simpson of that fine old Scotch University of Edinburgh in 1847.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps Borneo.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps so. When I got inside I found to my horror a woman with a head about as large as my fist, a woman who was just an ordinary congenital idiot-idiocy is congenital-and she was being exhibited there for ten or fifteen cents. I consider that that was a disgraceful condition of affairs. That woman was no more to blame for having been born with such a small head than you or I, Mr. Speaker, are to be credited for inheriting heads of nearly normal size. In any properly civilized country such an exhibition would not be tolerated; the poor woman would have been put in a proper institution and carefully looked after. Those are some of the subjects which came to my mind while I was considering this Bill, and the Bill itself has suggested to me the following further points:
First: This Bill will bring about united co-operation , and we all know what united co-operation did for us in the war that has just closed. Second: It will bring about a general supervision of the health of our people. The purpose of the Department of Health will be to gather statistics and information of all kinds. The insurance companies of this country are loaded up with the very finest statistics bearing on the public health, but they have no central information bureau such as would be established under this Bill. Third: I think generally it. will educate the country. Fourth: It will also take cognizance of the immigration policy of the country, covering such subjects as mental defectives, trachoma,- which is a very easily contracted disease and very difficult of eradication,-and other diseases. Fifth: International waters-the hon. minister dealt with that, and I need not enlarge on it. Sixth: It should do a great deal preparing young women for

motherhood. I do not think this Bill should interfere in our private life, but I do not believe it will. Its purpose is to educate. Education is a thing you can take or leave, but you cannot take it unless it is offered to you, and this organization should go a long way towards educating young women at a time when they require that education. Seventh: Also it can take up the question of mothers' pensions, which I believe is a very live question and one very worthy of consideration. I should like to emphasize what the hon. members from Muskoka and Toronto mentioned in regard to establishing a research branch. I sincerely hope that a research branch will be instituted in this Department of Public Health. The questions of better housing conditions and child welfare, and better labouring conditions for the workers of this country, also should be considered.
I should like to make a couple of suggestions. In the first place, it should be the object of this department to get the very best man as the deputy minister. I do not think politics should have any interfering power whatever in this matter. There are a number of very able men in Canada to-day who have made a special study of public health, for this is a special department of knowledge and one with which	the ordinary	medical	practitionerhas not full acquaintance, his purpose being to cure, while the purpose of public	health is	to prevent sickness.There	are several	eminent	specialists,among	them Dr.	Starkey	of McGill
University, Dr. Amyot of Toronto, and Dr. Hill, who is now, I believe, in the state oi Minnesota, but who is a Canadian by birth -formerly medical officer of health of London-and stands among the highest of medical health specialists on the North American continent. I do not know any of these men personally; I have no interest in them, but I think we should endeavour to secure the services of a man of their high standing in the science of public health. In the second place, if this department is ultimately given to a minister to handle alone -which the hon. minister (Mr. Rowell) states is not going to be done-I do not think that minister need be a medical man. I believe in the old saying, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the ordinary medical man has limited knowledge of public health matters. Of course, that remark does not apply to the member for Toronto (Dr. ISheard), because he has made it a specialty for years. But the ordinary medical man has little knowledge of this branch of preventive medicine.

For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall very strongly support this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Department:
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: Is it necessary to have another
minister?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as I am aware,
no. Under existing legislation the work of departments may be re-arranged; a minister may be head of more than one department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What minister of the
Crown will be in charge of this department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not able to give
any information as to that. I assume that will have to await the return of the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-deputy minister, etc.
Mr. SHEARD:: How will the Civil Service Act affect scientific men, bachelors of science, say, of the university of Toronto, or graduates in medicine, some of whom, I assume will be engaged in this department? Will it be necessary for the Civil Service Commission to re-examine gentlemen who have attained scholastic distinction and who hold degrees from recognized universities?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is a special provision in the Act for appointing men possessing special professional or technical qualifications without requiring the ordinary Civil Service examination.
Mr. iSHEARD: Will the deputy minister make those appointments?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: I assume that they would follow their usual procedure in cases where persons having special qualifications are required for a particular position; they would ascertain the best man qualified for the office.


Charles Sheard: How would they do that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have never discussed
the matter with them; therefore I am not

in a position to tell my hon. friend just how they go about it.


Charles Sheard: That is the point where
the Civil Service Commission is carried beyond all reason. I cannot conceive of any health department doing any work that is worth while unless in the hub and centre of the organization are a number of trained, expert, and eminent scientific men.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I agree.


Charles Sheard: To ask 'them to go before a Civil Service Commission is a very questionable proceeding to my mind, but to expect that commission, who do not know the character, the standing or the qualifications necessary, to make a recommendation of fitness for a particular scientific position where the work must be of the highest order-well, I cannot think that that is reasonable or practicable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The point my hon. friend raises refers more particularly to the Civil Service Act than to this Bill. The Bill refers to the Civil Service Commission only in so far as regards the transfer of men from some existing departments the work of which is taken over by this Department of Health. The general Civil Service Act applies to all new appointments; the reference here is to transfers.


Peter McGibbon: Will all new appointments be made by the Civil Service Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All new appointments are made at present by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter McGibbon: The point of the member for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) is well taken. It is absolutely impossible for three Civil Service commissioners to select a scientific man for a position of such responsibility as this. If it is left to them, the chances are that in nine cases out of ten they will not get the best man, because they have no way of judging. It is a very questionable proceeding to ask trained scientific men to accept an appointment by examination from three Civil Service commissioners.


John Howard Sinclair: Section 21 of the Civil Service Act, which provides for just such cases as this, has often been discussed in this House, but for a different reason: it was too much used by the present Government for questionable purposes. The section provides that when a scientific man is required for the Civil Service he_
shall not be subjected to a special examination, but shall be taken on his merits and on his record; the Governor in Council may override the Civil Service Act and make the appointment direct. The present Government, however, utilized that provision for the purpose of getting their friends appointed who should not be appointed at all. For instance, when a man who was over age wanted to get into the service, the game was to call him some kind of an expert. In that way he was put into the position under section 21. A couple of years ago, I took occasion to look into this matter, and in answer to a question that I asked in the House it was discovered that no less than seventy-five experts had been appointed by the present Government, although not half a dozen real experts had been appointed during that period.


Mr. CARVELL:: If my hon. friend will
look at the Act passed at the last session of Parliament, he will find that section 21 is repealed and that the principle of section 21 is no longer to be found in the Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Then
every appointment has to be made after examination by the Civil Service Commission?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Absolutely.
Mr. (SINCLAIR (Guysborough): Then I think the point is very well taken that the Act ought to be amended, because if that be the case, it will be impossible to get an eminent man to submit himself to examination by the commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the section to
which my hon. friend referred is not in the Civil Service Act in the form he mentions, but my recollection is that the present Act provides for the appointment of experts, highly qualified professional men, by the Civil Service Commission, without the necessity of the regular examination which the ordinary civil servant must take, and they would ascertain the qualifications of a highly qualified technical expert the same as, under the old system, any minister of the Crown would ascertain them and select from the sources which would be available, the best man who could be secured for a position requiring such high qualifications.


Peter McGibbon: I just want to enter my protest against this method of procedure, because in my opinion it wall fail. I do not think three Civil Service commissioners are qualified to pass judgment on men of that class, and it should be left to the administrative head of that
i

department to choose his own assistants. If that privilege is not given to him the whole thing will be a failure.
Mr. PROU'LX: The practice of the Civil Service Commission has been to appoint committees to look into the qualifications of experts. In this case the commission could appoint a committee of medical men to choose the officers.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The question that has just been raised is a very important one. I at first thought that possibly there was no necessity for creating a health department of the Government to deal with this matter, but I have realized, after hearing the arguments that have been advanced, that I may have been mistaken in my views. Section 2 of the Act provides that the department shall be presided over by a minister of the Crown. The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) says that it may be necessary to appoint the most eminent men that can be found in order to make a success of the work, and that the Civil Service Commission will ascertain the qualifications of these men as would any minister of the Crown under the old system. The minister who will preside over this department will be responsible for its success or failure, and I would not like to see it possible for him to escape from some of the responsibility for the administration of that department by unloading that responsibility upon the Civil Service Commission. I do not believe that to be in keeping with responsible government. The minister, the head of the department, must be held responsible, and should be free to exercise his judgment in making selections of officers to administer the work.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-duties and powers of minister :


Charles Sheard: I have several amendments to move to this section as it contains the crux of the whole situation, and I hope the committee will be able to take it up clause by clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was going to suggest to the hon. member to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS. ,

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Private Bills, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company-Mr. Cronyn.
On section 1-agreement confirmed:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did this Bill get
through the Railway Committee without any difficulty?


Mr. CRONYN:: The Bill was reported by the Railway Committee without amendment, and with very little, if any, comment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not dangerous to allow it to pass?


Hume Cronyn: Not in the least, I think I can assure my hon. friend.
Bill reported.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada-Mr. Morphy.
On section 2-interpretation:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the leader of the Government will tell us something about this Bill.	.


William Thomas White: So far as the Government is concerned, there is no objection to this Bill. It provides for the creation and issue of perpetual consolidated debenture stock. While negotiations are proceeding with the company, as I intimated yesterday, there does not appear to be any good reason why the company should not be permitted to issue debenture stock for its purposes. If the company should be taken over later by the Dominion Government, the power would remain in the company and might be exercised for the benefit of the system, just as the power to issue securities by the Canadian Northern Railway Company is exercised to-day. In other words, a corporation taken over by the Dominion Government, either through the acquisition of its stock or by rental of its system, is still a corporation, and it is desirable that it should have the proper powers to enable it to issue securities from time to time, if thought desirable by its pror netcis. In connection with the financing of the Canadian Northern Railway Company today, all the stock of which is owned by the Dominion Government, instead of the Dominion Government making direct loans to the company, the company is encouraged to issue its own securities in London and New York, and thus finance itself. In

other words, it is still a corporation, although the sole shareholder is the Government of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is this difference, however, that if this stock should he sold it will become an obligation or liability, so to speak, of the company. The stock is not likely to sell now for the price it would bring if the railway was really owned by the Government. For instance, if the company sells this stock it might have to sell it below par, whereas if the credit of Canada was behind it, it would be a very much better security and would sell at a higher price. If negotiations are under way with the company, and there is strong probability of the road becoming the property of the Canadian people, some provision should be made so that this stock will not sell at a price that would not be so much to the advantage of the Canadian people as if sold after the transfer of the road had taken place.


William Thomas White: I think there is some merit in what my hon. friend has put forward. On the other hand, I think, it would be unwise for the Dominion Government to refuse the power to issue securities which may enable the company to carry on pending negotiations. These securities might be temporarily borrowed against, instead of being sold in the market. I think we can control the situation in the Dominion interest, but. I do not like to take the position that, pending negotiations with a company like the Grand Trunk, we should refuse them the power to issue securities which are required at the present time to enable them to borrow money to meet certain pressing obligations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no objection to the legislation, so long as the Prime Minister appreciates my point.


William Thomas White: I fully appreciate my, hon. friend's point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-ranking of debenture stock:
John Howard Sinclair: This
section provides that the stock shall rank equally with the consolidated - debenture stock. I should like to know if this will affect the security we hold in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific, where the Grand Trunk has guaranteed the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We .allow this stock to rank equally with the consolidated debenture stock of the Grand Trunk. That will be a claim, I presume against the assets of the Grand Trunk ranking prior to any
claim with respect of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed by the Grand Trunk.


William Thomas White: I do not understand that the debenture stock of the Grand Trunk is secured upon its assets. From time to time they have financed by the issue of debenture stock, to amounts authorized by Parliament. This legislation is to enable the Company to issue a further amount of debenture stock, which will rank for the purposes mentioned with the debenture stock hitherto issued. I do not think it has any bearing on the Grand Trunk's guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific debenture stock, for this reason, among others: The proceeds of this debenture stock will, of course, be used for the purposes of the Railway Company, either for reducing obligations already existing or providing for betterments or otherwise as the directors may desire. So that there would come in to the company the proceeds of debenture stock to be used for the purposes I have mentioned, and in that way the position of the company would be strengthened. I think I stated to the leader of the Opposition that we should not withhold our consent to this legislation going through.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported. [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 15, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company-Mr. Morphy.
.SECOND READING.
Bill No. 35, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway.-Mr. Clements.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 27, respecting the Department of Health. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 4-duties and powers of minister:
Charles Sheard: I would move that section 4 be taken up clause by clause, as this is a very important part of the measure.


John Howard Sinclair: What is meant by " social welfare "?


Charles Sheard: The first part of this section seems to me to be somewhat ambiguous and might permit of more or less conflict in these departments of public health. I therefore beg to move, in order to make it absolutely clear, that all the. words after

the word " jurisdiction " be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
Provided that nothing- in this Act shall authorize any officer or authority created by or appointed under the authority of this Act or under any regulation made hereunder to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial Health Officer or any Provincial or Municipal Board of Health or other authority operating under the laws of any province.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend from
South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) altogether misapprehends the object of the Bill if he thinks there is any intention of exercising jurisdiction or authority over provincial or municipal health officers. That is not part of the plan or policy of the Bill, and to insert such a provision as he proposes would imply that it was. The majority of the subjects enumerated in the portion of the section which the hon. gentleman's amendment would strike out are matters of great importance which are now covered: by some other statute, and the object of this section is to consolidate them under this one department. It would be not only unnecessary but undesirable to insert such a provision as is proposed.


Charles Sheard: I might ask the minister what is meant by inserting in this clause the following words: " and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects." These are the words I intended my amendment to- affect, not the subsection that follows, il seek to make it absolutely clear that what the new department is to do in these matters shall be ancillary to the work of the provincial and municipal health authorities. Would the minister explain what is meant by these words: " and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects."


Newton Wesley Rowell: While the general clause is larger and embraces more than these particular matters specified below, these particular matters specified belpw are to be taken charge of by this department. It particularly emphasizes them, so to speak. The Bill would be sufficient, so far as the enumeration of powers is concerned, if we stopped at the word " jurisdiction." Everything that is enumerated could be done under the broad, general paragraph quoted. It is in order that attention may be focussed on these particular matters which are of importance, and some of which are under other departments, that they are enumerated as being subjects which should come under this department. Clause 4 is 
broad enough to cover the establishment of a research laboratory if the Government is in a position to make an appropriation for it and decides that it would be in the public interest to establish it. It is desirable, if the department is to have the largest scope within federal jurisdiction to conserve public health and social welfare, that we should not cut its powers down unnecessarily.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The fact of the President of the Privy Council stating what his intention is will not be a sufficient guarantee as to the construction to be put upon the Act. I have no doubt the President of the Council understands it in the way he has stated, but he will not be an exhibit of this Bill when it comes into operation. The question is one of the construction that the ordinary legal, or judicial, mind would put upon it. There can be no very great objection to the amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), but I would suggest to him that he is not putting his amendment in the best place. In my judgment section 4 is pretty good, and inserting his amendment where he suggests would rather disarrange it. The purpose would be better served by getting his amendment in at the end of section 5, where it says:-
The Governor in Council shall have power to make such regulations as may be necessary to give effect to and carry out the objects of this Act, and to impose penalties for any violation of such regulations.


Charles Sheard: I would be perfectly willing to accept that suggestion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This would be the natural place for it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let it stand until we
come to section 5 and I will consider it.
Mr. TRAHAiN: I see by the fourth line of section 4 that the department will have to deal with questions relating not only to health but also to social welfare. I would like to know what subjects will come under this general term " social welfare."


Newton Wesley Rowell: il suppose that " social
welfare " means just what the name suggests-the welfare of society as contrasted with the individual, the welfare of the mass of the people. Health is at the foundation of social welfare but " social welfare " has perhaps a little broader meaning than simply the word " health." The labour organizations were very strongly in favour of having a little broader term than the one "health" used. We felt that "social welfare " would have a broader signification. They suggested that instead of calling it a

Health Department it should be called the Department of Public Welfare. Their view was that housing, in so far as it was a matter of federal jurisdiction, would be a proper matter to come under this department as as it was very intimately connected with the social welfare of the people. I think that when this department is created it will very properly call for the administration of the housing plans of the Government which are now being carried out by a committee of the Cabinet and which should he transferred to this department for administration. Matters of that class relating to the welfare of the community and which the department might take up in the public interest would be covered by such a clause as this.
Mr. TRAHAiN: The illustration given by the minister suggests that perhaps the Government might encroach upon civil rights and provincial autonomy. The housing problem is a very large and interesting one. It relates to social welfare in general, but the proposition made by the Government has only reference to granting subsidies to provincial governments or municipalities to help housing in the various provinces and municipalities. The term " social welfare " is very general, and this measure might lead to abuses if that term is not well defined. Generally in connection with legislation, when general terms are used, there is a definition to limit the interpretation to be given to the Act, but here we have a general term which may be applied to many large questions and it is not limited at all. Believing as I do that these words should be struck out of the Bill, I propose to amend this paragraph by moving that the words " social welfare " in the fourth line of the section 4 be struck out.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot accept the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan), because I think it would strike out of the Bill a very important feature, which the working men of this country arc deeply interested in. Let me take the illustration that I gave to the House. My hon. friend said that all the Government did was to loan money to the provinces in order that the provinces might loan it to the municipalities. But the Government is doing more than that, it is laying down certain conditions which control the expenditure of that money in order to accomplish the object it had in view. That object was to improve the housing conditions throughout Canada, to insure that the working men should be able to get houses at a moderate price, at cost,
and it was particularly to assist workingmen who had been at the front; and it is important that those houses should be constructed upon the most improved sanitary principles in order to promote the health and welfare of their occupants. It was further desired that such houses should be constructed in localities and under conditions where, if a new area was being opened up, it could be laid out on the most improved Town-planning lines, so that you would set a standard for workingmen's houses which would be a stimulus to the erection of a similar class of houses in all the important centres of Canada. Let me point out the conditions upon which the loan has been proposed and upon which the provinces are accepting it:
Each province shall prepare and submit to the ' Federal Government for approval, a general housing scheme; setting out the standards and conditions to he complied with in connection with local housing schemes. The general scheme of each province shall include a schedule of minimum standards in regard to grouping of houses, provision of open spaces, sizes and heights of houses, sizes and heights of rooms: provision of light and ventilation, heating, lighting, character of materials, etc., which it is proposed should he enforced os the minimum requirements for health, comfort and convenience.
Then it provides for the maximum cost of dwellings:
The object of the Federal Government being to facilitate the erection of dwellings at a moderate cost suitable for working men, particularly returned' soldiers, it is necessary to place a maximum on tne amount which may he loaned per dwelling, and1 the following maximum-


Michael Clark: What is my
honourable friend reading from now ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The regulations governing the Government's housing policy, approved by Order in Council and published.
-the following maximum has been fixed having regard to the conditions existing in the different provinces:-
Then it sets out what is the maximum which may be loaned on any house having regard to its size and character. The next clause deals with the ownership of the land:
Public money may be advanced for building houses on sites owned by:-
(a) The Provincial Government or Municipality.
(lb) Housing societies or companies comprising grouips of citizens associated to promote good housing, supplied with proper improvements; such societies or companies to have not more than a statutory liimitation of dividends payable on stock of 6 per cent.
(c) Owners of lots for the purpose of erecting houses for their own occupancy.

I have merely read those provisions, Mr. Chairman, to show that the Federal Government has a definite object in view in its housing programme. These regulations have been submitted to all the provinces, and Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have already passed the necessary legislation, and I think New Brunswick has it under consideration. Those are the matters which would come within the heading "Social welfare," and the administration of that policy might properly be entrusted to a. Department such as this. That is what is meant by "social welfare."


Joseph Archambault: The phrase "social welfare" is very general. It may mean the moral as well as the physical welfare of the people. It may mean the shaping of a moral standard for the people in all kinds of subjects-for instance, prohibition. If my hon. friend does not care to amend the section, why not define the phrase social welfare" so there will be no misconception about it, I think that would meet the idea of my hon. friend (Mr. Trahan).


Charles Sheard: As the hon. Minister has announced the policy of the Government and the interpretation it puts upon the term "social welfare", with all due respect I submit that it proposes to occupy ground absolutely covered by municipal and provincial rights. If the Federal Government intends to exercise supervision and direction over the construction of dwelling houses, it must necessarily conform to the by-laws operative in the municipalities in which those houses and buildings are being constructed. I cannot conceive of any process of carrying out the law as suggested . by the hon. minister, unless some degree of supervision is going to be exercised in connection with the powers authorized by this Act, and if a Federal officer, for instance, is to come to the city of Toronto to supervise, or to direct, or to make suggestions regarding the construction of such houses, under the terms of the interpretation of social welfare as given in this Act, as far as I understand the hon. minister's explanation, I really think that there is at the start a considerable danger of conflicting authority between him and the municipal and even the provincial officers.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Chairman, I evidently have not made myself quite clear to my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). What I pointed out was that these clauses require provincial Governments to submit a general housing scheme to be 
approved by the Federal Government. It does not follow that the Federal Government is going to send in a man to supervise the housing policy of any province. For example, the Government of the province of Ontario have already submitted their housing scheme to the Federal Government under the provisions of that clause, and that housing scheme has been approved. In that housing scheme the provincial Government specify the standard and type of house they propose to build; that is perfectly satisfactory to the Federal Government; we approve it, and that ends it. Then the provincial Government enact their own laws in accordance with the scheme which has already been approved by us.


Charles Sheard: How is the Federal Government to know that the plans submitted have been adhered to and the buildings constructed in accordance with them unless they exercise their right of inspection and supervision?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We assume, Mr. Chairman, good faith on the part of the provinces, and if they submit a scheme to us which they say they are going to follow out, I think we have the right to assume that they will, spend the federal money in pursuance of the provisions of that scheme. That is the line upon which we are proceeding, and I think it is a safe one. All we wish is to secure improved housing conditions, and so far no province has offered any objection to the regulations.


Michael Clark: I do not understand what the hon. minister is doing. Does he wish to convey to the committee that the local government of some province has already submitted a housing scheme to the Federal Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has.


Michael Clark: Under what Act of the Federal Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under the Order in Council which set aside the $25,000,000. That money was set aside on condition that the provincial governments should submit a housing scheme before they were granted a loan.


Michael Clark: But is the advancing of that money not contingent upon legislation which this House still has to consider?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The spending of the money is contingent upon the legislation.

The vote is in the estimates and the House will have to pass it before the money is expended.


Michael Clark: Will not the Housing Bill also have to pass the House first?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as the advancing of the money is concerned the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Finance, but my impression is that it does not require any legislative Act. The item in the estimates sets apart the sum of $25,000,000 to be expended pursuant to the provisions of a certain Order in Council which defines the general policy.


Mr. PROULX:: Will the money be distributed among the provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, it goes to the
provinces. I introduced the subject of housing only to illustrate what might be included in social welfare.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Government is simply becoming a badly managed loan society.


Mr. STEELE:: I fear that we are departing from the discussion of the Bill relating to the Department of Health and entering upon a discussion of the housing scheme. If we get back to the amendment to strike out the words "social welfare", perhaps we shall make greater progress. I am sure that the Department of Health will not exercise any jurisdiction in the matter of the housing scheme unless Dominion legislation gives them authority to do so.
'Social welfare is, in most parts of the country, a well understood term in these days and is becoming more popular and of much greater interest to the people generally. Probably Lloyd George gave to social welfare the important place it occupies today. He brought social questions to the front; he emphasized to the people of the world the fact that social questions and the social welfare of the people of every land must receive more attention than they have received in the past. I do not suppose that the elimination or the inclusion of the term "social welfare" would modify the operation of the Department of Health. But its inclusion in the Bill does give to proposed legislation a wider significance and, I understand, meets the views of the labour element. No section.of Canada to-day is more interested in social questions than the labourpeople. When we consider that sickness is probably the greatest cause of poverty, particularly in the ranks of the labouring people, we see very clearly how closely allied health and
social welfare are. Mr. Stapleford, General Secretary of the Neighbourhood Workers' Association in Toronto, made the statement recently that the most important cause of poverty in Toronto, as in other cities, is-undoubtedly sickness. It is therefore very necessary that we should give attention to social welfare work as well as health work, in order that what this department will accomplish will at least relieve our labouring classes from the greatest cause of poverty, sickness.
I gave some statistics on a previous occasion in this House, which I should like to repeat to-night, to show what an immense loss comes to the labouring people through sickness. We have in Canada a million and a quarter labouring men. It is estimated by the United States authorities- and perhaps the same will apply in Canada -that every working man loses an average of nine days every year on account of sickness. In Canada that would mean a loss of 11,250,000 days to the working people, which, at a very moderate wage, would come to at least $35,000,000 a year. Any Federal department which directs its efforts towards relieving our working classes of that tremendous burden is doing something which, I am sure, will have the hearty support and co-operation of the labouring people, as of others.
It should be the object of this department to establish what, after all, is the best democracy we can have-that is, a democracy that gives all men an equal opportunity. A child that is born in a tubercular condition, or of syphilitic parents, or in unsanitary surroundings, in a home full of filth, has not the same opportunity in the world as a child born in sanitary surroundings of healthy parents. If, therefore, you want to establish a true democracy in this country, give every child a chance to be born of healthy parents and amid healthful surroundings. It will be toe aim of this department, I know, to produce these surroundings and to put our people in such a condition that they will be healthy parents.
With these healthful conditions established-which they can be, not in one year, but through time-we shall bring about in Canada an industrial efficiency such as we have never known. Some years ago industrial efficiency was supposed to depend on the individual corporation and every effort was made to organize corporations in such a way as to produce efficiency Then it was found that even improved methods of organization



were not producing the desired ofBciency, and the era of amalgamation of corporations arrived. We saw some years ago a great epidemic, so to speak, of corporation amalgamations. Many thought that these amalgamations had an improper purpose in view. Perhaps some of them had, but they brought about greater efficiency in industrial life. Now that era is passing and an ora of the conservation of the health and strength of employees has arrived. It is known to-day that efficiency in the truest sense must begin with the conservation of the health and strength of the individual. We are placing a higher estimate on the individual working man and on the value of the human machine, realizing that a man is greater than a mill and the producer more important than the product, and that that which reduces the value of the man lessens also the value of the machinery. Anything, therefore, that this department can do to improve the conditions of the labouring man may properly be considered as participation in social welfare work._


Michael Clark: I must say
that the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) has cut a tolerable swath, considering that he rose to charge some of us with getting away from the subject under discussion. Mr. Lloyd George's social reforms are well known to those who have carefully followed politics in the Old Country, but I do not think Mr. Lloyd George legislated under the phrase "social welfare." When he brought in an insurance scheme, he brought in an insurance scheme. His object was social welfare but his scheme was embodied in a concrete manner in an Act of Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Lloyd George did not have to contend with the difficulties we have of a dual legislative authority. There is in Great Britain only the one authority.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend has plenty of time to speak when he wants to make his jokes. I am well aware of my limitations, but I should like to make my own speeches, lame though they may be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was trying to help my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: Mr. Lloyd George introduced old age pensions for the purpose of doing something for social welfare, but he embodied the scheme in an Act of Parliament. We are dealing with a concrete matter, namely, to establish a department of health, that is, a department
[Mr. Steele. 1
which, in all countries in which they have such a thing, has certain well defined limitations which are proper to an Act of Parliament. The phrase " social welfare " has no such limitations. We have had a splendid illustration of that in the speech of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). It was a beautiful speech, full of splendid sentiments, and everybody in the committee agreed with him, but it cannot be put into an Act of Parliament just as it was spoken, and I accept my hon. friend's rebuke in wanting to draw the committee's attention to the fact that we are engaged in considering a Bill for the establishment of a health department. I do not think the minister has been successful in meeting the objection hinted at by the hon. member for GuySborough (Mr. Sinclair) and put into shape by an amendment of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan). If that amendment is pushed to a division, I shall vote for it, unless further explanations of the minister are more successful in clarifying my understanding of the matter than his previous ones have been. Either the minister is very much mixed, or I am, and if it be true that he is very much mixed, I may be as mixed before he is finished with me.
I do not see that what he said about housing establishes a need-for these words in the Public Health Bill. What he said about housing was a very great surprise to me. I understood that the policy of the Government in regard to housing was still to be discussed in the shape of a Bill which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but it appears that the policy has been not only settled but put into operation by an Order in Council. I have been pretty patient with Orders in Council,-my hon. friends opposite perhaps think too much so,

but this is a method of procedure which, if I understand it correctly, I should advise the minister to look into very carefully. I am amazed,-I am the subject of consternation,-if I have correctly learned that the Government, by an Order in Council, is actually consulting about a policy which is yet to be debated and decided upon in this House. I leave that matter at that point for the moment, but I cannot see what purpose the words "social welfare" have in this Bill. We are all in favour of social welfare, and every Act of Parliament is meant to promote social welfare. Social welfare is the welfare of society; society includes all the
9 p.m. people in the country, and, of course, however little Parliament

may have succeeded, Parliament is always trying to move, even though stumbling, in the direction of doing something for social welfare. So these words might be put into any Act that is brought before the House. But I think, to say the least, they will be out of place in every Act on a different subject that comes before the House; and unless some specific meaning is given to them I do not see what they are doing in this Bill.
With regard to housing. If I understood the minister's explanations correctly, he wanted us to understand that the Public Health Department will consult with the local governments upon the question of housing and social welfare as it is advanced by this scheme of housing.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Government has already consulted with the local governments in reference to housing and certain regulations have been agreed upon, and what I suggested was that this department would be an appropriate one to administer them. Perhaps I might answer what my hon. friend said, if he wishes me to, with reference to the Orders in Council to which he refers. The situation is this. Under the Order in Council passed on 3rd December, 19X8, following the Inter-Provincial Conference held here, the Government set aside $25,000,000 for housing purposes. That Order in Council provides that advances be made as soon as a general scheme of housing shall have been agreed upon, between the Government of Canada and the Government of the province applying for the loan. That Order in Council was passed pursuant to the provisions of the War Measures Act, and there was power to make the proposed advance to each province so soon as a housing scheme was agreed upon. Following that Order in Council there was a consultation with the provinces by means of communications sent to each one of them outlining what the Government thought should be contained in any housing scheme of the provinces. Suggestions were asked, and some of the provinces made suggestions, ail of which we considered and then finally certain lines of policy were adopted, the ones I have already read to the House. Pursuant to that policy, the province of Ontario submitted its housing scheme which was approved by an Order in Council passed subsequent to that date, and I think two or three of the provinces have passed legislation dealing with the matter.


Michael Clark: I should just like to say in reply that what the minister says astonishes me very much, and as one member of the House, I am bound to add an opinion for what it is worth that it would have been very much better for the Government if they had called Parliament together in December, 1918, and submitted housing legislation to this House before they took a course which practically amounted to legislating as a Government by Order in Council for the Dominion of Canada upon a purely domestic affair in consultation with the provincial Governments. That is practically what, we are told by a minister, was done last December. And then a housing scheme is brought down to this House in the month of February and the House of Commons is expected to sanction it and to set up a Health Department in so far as it relates to this scheme, or to carry out legislation practically settled by previous consultation between the Federal Government and the local governments. That is a most extraordinary method of conducting the federal business of this country, and where we shall land, if there is more of that sort oi thing, I do not think one can really imagine. [DOT] I can scarcely believe my own ears as thdse statements are made to this committee. I do not want to say more on that subject at the present time, but if the Government have made a mistake-and I am sure they have in setting about their housing scheme in that way-then it would be a bad thing for us to follow up that mistake by even appearing to sanction it by letting this phrase "social welfare" remain in the Bill. I, for one, if the amendment is pressed, shall vote for it.


John Howard Sinclair: My objection to the expression is that it is altogether too general. It may mean anything. We have undertaken to regulate so many things of late in the life of the people that there is a certain uneasiness throughout the country over these encroachments. I am in favour of a Department of Health. I am also in favour of housing accommodation being provided. Although, if the minister will allow me to say so I do not think that the Government's- housing' scheme amounts to very much. It is simply a scheme of lending money to the provincial governments at five per cent interest. Now the provincial governments can borrow money pretty nearly as favourably as the Dominion Government, and personally, if I Werje lending my money, I -would just as soon lend it on the bonds of the province

of Nova Scotia as on the bonds of the Federal Government, because I think the security just as good, and the interest is five .per cent. The provincial governments would have to pay that rate if they went into the open market to borrow money. The scheme therefore, is of very little advantage to the provincial governments, and it should not be made an excuse for encroaching upon their rights. We all admit that housing is a matter altogether within the juridiction of the provincial governments, and I think it would be far better to leave the provincial governments alone and let them work out their own housing schemes, borrowing money in the open market, rather than tie them up to the Government housing scheme, and then [DOT]follow that up by encroaching on their rights. This legislation is a further encroachment on provincial rights. Why should the Federal Government undertake to control the houses after they are built?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We do not do that.


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not yet understand what the minister seeks to attain by this Bill. The word "health" covers all the things the minister should want, to deal with in connection with these Ijouses, even if this Government does lend the money to build them. Surely he does not want to look after the plumbing of the houses or supervise in detail the matters which the municipalities look after. What then does he want? If he is concerned only about housing, why not substitute the word "housing" for "social welfare"? The working man has been mentioned. I do not think the working man waijts too much of these regulations. He wants personal freedom. But by this legislation, if the Department of Public Health undertook so to construe the Act. he would not be allowed to smoke a pipe or have a tea party,-for is not that "social"? He would not be allowed to have even a bean supper,-is not that "social"? When you say you are going to deal with the "social welfare" of the people of Canada, the expression is so broad that it would give the min. ister power to control the people in all kinds of ways. I object very strongly to the expression and I shall vote for the amendment, unless the minister suggests a better expression.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I do not think we have yet had from the Government an explanation of exactly what was intended tq be included in the phrase "social welfare." The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. TMr. J. H. Sinclair.]
Steele) suggests that it means matters pertaining to the health of the working man. Now, the preceding words of the section give the Government that power. It might also be inferred from what my hon. friend said that "social welfare" related to the conditions under which the working men of Canada carry on their work; for instance, the sanitary conditions of a building in which workmen are employed, the hours of labour, the age at which minors can begin to work, the minimum wage, etc. All these are matters which deal directly with the social welfare of the workmen of the Dominion of Canada at the present time. There are other factors which might be included. For instance, we have social welfare leagues throughout the Dominion, and they are carrying on a campaign now against cigarette smoking and the use of tobacco of all kinds. Then there are prohibition leagues. It has been decided that this Government has jurisdiction over the question of prohibition. If the phrase "social welfare" is allowed to stand, it will enlarge the power of this Government in a manner which has been severely criticised during the last two or three years. It will enable them to legislate for the country at large by means ol order-in-council embodying the regulations enacted under this section. I further Submit that if the Government are going to deal with questions of labour under this legislation, they may come into conflict with the various statutes which have been passed in at least one province of the Dominion. In the province of' Alberta we have what is known as the Factory Act, which deals directly with questions ot social welfare, in the strictest sense of the word, and more particularly with the social welfare of the workers. It empowers the Government to regulate the hours ot employment, the age at which minors may begin work, the minimum wage, and the sanitary condition of the buildings :ti which workmen are employed. I think that the less we interfere or appear to interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces the less trouble Ave shall have in the operation of the Act.
Then again, in regard to matters of health, I think that the constitution itself is not very clear on the question of jurisdiction, and when this legislation passes, great care should be exercised by the minister or the officers who will be responsible for the administration of the Act. The province of Alberta, under the jflon. A. G. Mackay, who is at present Minister of Municipalities,

is inaugurating what I believe to be the most progressive health legislation which exists in any province of the Dominion.


James Alexander Calder: Except Saskatchewan.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I will not even except Saskatchewan. We should be careful not to arrogate to ourselves here any authority which will in any way hinder the provinces from carrying out the legislation which they have placed on the statute books this year or in preceding years. It may be said that some of the provinces are backward in their health legislation. If that is so, it is the duty of the people who reside in those provinces to furnish themselves through their own legislatures with up-to-date health legislation. I think the application of this Act should be confined as closely as possible to those matters over which the Dominion Government has exclusive jurisdiction. The Government might, for instance, supplement the work of the provinces by establishing laboratories. If any conflict arose between Dominion and provincial jurisdiction, I do not think the Dominion Government should for one minute undertake to interfere with the legislation enacted by the provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When I was speaking on the Address some weeks ago and referring to this legislation which was forecast, I anticipated then the very difficulties which the minister finds himself compelled to deal with to-night. Many of the members treated my observations rather lightly at that time and evidently thought that there was not much in them, but it is some satisfaction to me to see that they now find that there was some good reason for what I said on that occasion, that it was difficult and dangerous to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the provinces. To-night, when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was speaking he made allusion to legislation introduced in the English Parliament, or to something that Mr. Lloyd George may have said about legislation, and I observed that Mr. Lloyd George is never confronted with the difficulty that we have to contend with. In the Parliament of Great Britain they have one sweeping jurisdiction, and have not to exercise any care to see that one piece of legislation does not encroach upon another. The hon. member for Red Deer thought I was joking; I was doing nothing of the kind; on the contrary, I was talking very seriously on a constitutional question that we have to deal with nearly every day, but which they are never called upon to consider in the Mother Parliament. I think one of two things should happen in relation
to this Bill. The words at the end of the main part of section 4 should come out, or " social welfare " should be deleted. If the operations of section 4 are confined exclusively to the matters enumerated I have no particular quarrel with the words " social welfare," but if the following words are retained, " and, without restricting the generality pf the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects," then I think " social welfare " should be struck out. If the minister adopts my suggestion the section will read:-
The duties and powers of the minister administering the Department of Health shall extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction; that is, (a) co-operation with the provincial, territorial and other health authoritiesand so on. If that would be satisfactory to the committee I think it would confine the scope of this enactment entirely to the matters enumerated.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am very glad to have the suggestions which have been made. Needless to say, the words " social welfare " do not contemplate any interference with the social life of the people, and, as I think I intimated before, they were inserted merely in deference to representations made in the interests of labour, that there might perhaps he a broader meaning to the word "health" that some people were disposed'to put upon it, although I agree with my friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) that the word is broad enough to cover what is in view in the particular use of "sooial welfare" in this section. I would make a suggestion, which has been made to me and which possibly may be preferable to the one made by the leader of the Opposition, that we insert the words in the preamble. We might strike out the words "social welfare" used in Clause 4 and insert a preamble in this form:
Whereas, it is advisable for the promotion of the social welfare of the people of Canada that a Department of Public Health he established in the Dominion


Peter McGibbon: Before the next clause is taken up 1 would move an amendment. It seems to me that the very heart and life of this Bill has been left out. I do not know of a department of public health in the world that has not a bureau of scientific research and I cannot see what permanent results will ensue fot the benefit of the people without such an institution. I would therefore move, that

section 4 be amended by inserting before subsection (a) the following words:
The establishment of a bureau of scientific research with hygienic laboratories including special departments of bacteriology, ipathology, chemistry and pharmacology which shall investigate matters relating to public health.
If we incorporate such a provision in the Bill we shall have a source of great good to this country. I should regret to see a Bill of this kind go through the Parliament of Canada without such a clause, for in the eyes of every scientific man it would appear ridiculous.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The subject matter of
establishing a laboratory for scientific research, as mentioned this afternoon, is a matter which I am satisfied is already fully covered by section 4. In fact, it was eon-sidered, but the parliamentary counsel advised that it was unnecessary to put in any further provision as clause 4 already fully covered it and the only thing that would be necessary would be that the Government should bring down an appropriation to provide for the building of such a laboratory. I have no objection to the insertion of suitable words that would indicate that this department is the department to have charge of such a matter although I think it is already covered. I am not sure that the way the matter is suggested here is the best way to put it. but I shall be glad to take the matter into consideration. If we can go on and dispose of the other clauses ithe Bill need not go out of committee and we can consider what is the best form in which to put this. I suggest that the amendment stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: Amendment stands.
On paragraph (a) of section 4-co-operation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities with a view to the c -ordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving the public health:
Mr. WcKENZIE:	Perhaps it would be
difficult for the minister to give some general idea of what is meant by co-operation with the provincial authorities. What would that include?
Mr. It 0W ELL: As I mentioned this afternoon, my hon. friend will see under section 6 we provide for
a Dominion Council of Health consisting of the Deputy Minister of Health, who shall he chairman, the chief executive officer of the provincial department or hoard of health of each province, and such other persons-
The idea is that the health authorities of all the provinces shall be
,
brought together periodically, with the chief officers of the department at Ottawa, in order that they may confer together over matters of common interest, such matters as were mentioned this afternoon. Take the question of the war against tuberculosis and venereal diseases. In all these contagious and very virulent forms of disease, it is exceedingly desirable that there should be as much co-operation as possible between the different provinces in order that the good that is done in one province should not be lost by failure of action in another. It is in order to secure general eo-operation throughout the whole country that this provision is made. This meets the suggestion which the hon. gentleman has made with regard to a divided jurisdiction. It is to get the whole country moving together in combating these forms of disease and in promoting the public health.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing an epidemic of smallpox broke out in Toronto to-day, that would be entirely a matter for the provincial authorities to deal with?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing the same thing happened after this Act went into operation, would the conditions be changed in any way or would the authorities under this Act interfere with that condition?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should say not; it would make no difference.


Charles Sheard: I think this clause is one of the best in the whole Bill and I strongly support it because it embodies the idea of co-operation. If the Federal Health Department is going to be of any service at all it can only be of service to the Dominion generally by co-operating with the local authorities. I do not think that we can too strongly emphasize and urge that such methods be adopted. Certain provincial and municipal officers would be brought together by the provincial health authorities for the purpose of consultation and discussion of various methods operative in the various provinces so that there might be concerted action throughout the Dominion, and so that they might discuss advanced methods which have been found to be successful in various provinces. The unanimity of operation and progress necessary to make this Health Act effective could be secured. I would strongly support the clause and I think no objection should be offered to it.


Mr. WIGMORE:: Mr. Chairman, I am very much impressed with the clause in

reference to the co-operation of the Federal, provincial and municipal departments. I know that in the past there has been no attention paid to the water supply of the different cities and towns of the Dominion. Some may say this is entirely a matter for the local board of health. But we know that during past years there have been *epidemics of typhoid in the city of Ottawa and in different cities throughout the Dominion. The local boards of health have not been impressed with the necessity of looking after the watersheds in connection with the water supply of towns and cities.
I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the health board to take a general oversight of the water supplies of the different cities. My suggestion would be that when these laboratories have been *established in the city of Ottawa under the jurisdiction of this board, the different cities and towns throughout the Dominion be compelled at certain times in the year, monthly or quarterly as the case may be, to submit samples of the water they are using to this board for analysis and Teport, in order that precautions may be taken to see that the water is pure and proper for human use. The epidemics which have swept over certain parts of Canada have certainly taught us a lesson. In the city of Ottawa, instead of using the water that comes from the lakes or rivers, or wherever it comes from, we are supplied with water from different springs around the city. If proper precautions were taken by the Federal Health department, or by this bbard, that would not happen because the water would be treated in a proper way and we would be absolutely sure of the water we were using. In addition to this, the sewage system of the different cities and towns should be inspected and proper precautions taken with respect to them.
I realise that this would put a very large amount of work upon the department, but there is no reason under the sun why, with the co-operation of the provincial governments and municipal authorities, we should not reduce the death rate in the Dominion to a very large extent. In the different cities over which these epidemics have swept a great many deaths have been caused entirely by the laxness of the several health departments both municipal and provincial.
In the province of New Brunswick we have organized a Health Department with a very efficient man in charge and I think with the co-operation of the Federal department there will he a great improvement
throughout the province. Is it the intention of the Government to take up the matter of water supply and sewage pollution with the different provincial and municipal authorities?


Mr. KEEFER:: The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Wigmore) has brought up a subject that has been under consideration by the Governments of this country and the United States. In 1912 an inquiry was started in Washington in regard to the pollution of the Great Lakes, the sources of the water supply of a large number of our cities and towns. That inquiry took in the river St. Clair, lake St. Clair, the lower end of lake Erie, the river Detroit, the Niagara river, a portion of lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence river, and it developed that those waters had been polluted by the cities and towns bordering thereon. As a result of that inquiry the Governments of Canada and the United States made an appropriation of $50,000 to investigate the whole matter scientifically, and the International Joint Commission has been conducting that investigation for a couple of years. What I am saying now is probably a little out of order, but it is relevant to an explanation of the clause in question. By paragraph 4 of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, it will be observed that:
It is further agTeed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and water flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
Therefore we have pledged our word with the United States, and they with us, that that pollution shall cease. The two Governments, through the International Joint Commission, have been investigating what should be done, and the Governments of the United States and Canada have referred to the commission two questions, which are rather interesting, and which are quoted in the report:
To what extent, by what causes, and in what localities have the boundary waters been polluted?
What is the best method of remedying it? The facts disclosed, for instance, that in the water-borne traffic of the Great Lakes something like 2,600 vessels pass through the Detroit river every year, and that three times more tonnage goes through the Soo canal annually than through the Suez canal. It is estimated that 15,000,000 people travel upon the Great Lakes annually, irrespective of the pollution from the cities and .towns bordering on the Great Lakes. These facts were SO' startling that the commission

investigated how best to remedy the consequent pollution, and they have made a progress report, and a further report is coming in; for that reason it was deemed necessary to empower the Federal Government to carry out any recommendations that the International Joint Commission may make to prevent the turning of the Great Lakes into cesspools.


Charles Sheard: I think the hon. gentleman is discussing conditions under subsection (f), dealing with the International Joint Commission regulations.


Francis Henry Keefer: Yes. I asked permission to do so. I admit it is out of order, but, as following the remarks of the previous speaker, it may not be necessary to explain this section again. The co-operation dealt with in clause (a) tliat we are now discussing will therefore be most essential in the carrying out of those recommendations. Supposing, for instance, the International Joint Commission should compel cities and towns to treat their sewage, it will throw a very .serious expenditure upon such cities as Buffalo and Toronto. It is therefore very desirable to have co-operation and co-ordination in the views of the different authorities on the .subject, yet it is wholly and solely a Federal matter. That is the reason why I dealt with it. If any objection is made to the question of child life and child welfare, I would like to be heard thereon but perhaps I had better not touch on it now, as I should be out of order again.
Mr. WIGM.ORE: I think I am absolutely in order on co-operation. It seems to me that the Joint Commission is to be congratulated on the amount of work they have done and the conclusions they have come to. I would like to see some legislation enacted by this new board to protect the water supplies of our cities and towns where they are getting it from a distance, for we all know that along the route of such water supplies there are farm houses and other sources of possible pollution, and there should be some protective legislation enacted by this board.


Robert James Manion: In Ontario the towns and cities can send samples of their water, and they do send them, to the provincial Board of Health at Toronto to be examined.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: That is only optional.


Robert James Manion: Yes; but I imagine that if you made it compulsory it might be thought to be interfering with the powers of the province.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Any matter within the province would have to be dealt with by the provincial health authorities. Under the new Minister of Health in New Brunswick I should think these matters would be taken up in the ordinary course by the provincial authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On sub-section (b)-the conservation of child life and child welfare.
Charles Sheard: I wish to move, Mr. Chairman, that this be struck out, but in doing so I do not want to be understood as being opposed to the work of child welfare. It is probably, of all the departments of health, one of the most important. The reason why I think it is out of place here is because I cannot see that under our Constitution it can do any effective service at all, as all the machinery for carrying out the strict work of child welfare is in the hands of the provinces under the British North America Act. Let me preface my statement by reading to you a section of a report made by the chief medical officer of the Local Government Board of England and Wales of 1917-18, in order that we may clearly see what child welfare proposes. He sets this forth in speaking of child welfare:
It can only be secured by improving the welfare of every mother. What is being done to this end in England is: first, it is being made possible that medical attention be given to every mother by the state supplying for the wife and for every insured person 60 shillings, it is being made possible to obtain priority for milk supply.
But further than this the Government is supplying money for home nursing and "home helps." As maternity hospitals are not generally available, the Government is encouraging in a practical way by financial aid their establishment in the various municipalities. In London where such institutions are numerous the death rate is proportionately low.
But as might be expected from what has already been said with regard to vital processes the aid to maternity cases ought to be applied during the ante-natal period. Child welfare stations are gradually being organized for this purpose. Statistics of work done in such cities as Edinburgh show that though it is not always possible to save the infants of sick mothers, yet almost no death of the mother occurs where such have been under previous observation and treatment. Where maternity homes are not provided, the extension of nursing oversight from Child Welfare Centres is being constantly extended, even to the point of having several beds in such centres where sick mothers and children from unsanitary homes can be taken in emergencies.
Child welfare, therefore, embraces the establishment, ithe operation, and the management of eleemosynary institutions. Under the British North America Act the

specific and exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures in this connection are set forth. Section 92, subsection 6, provides that the provinces shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of the establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province and (section 7) the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals. So that it is ultra vires of the Dominion Parliament to deal with these matters which are specifically reserved for the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. Moreover, if we take this matter up there will be no great tendency on the part of the provinces to act. This is a very large and a growing question; it is yet in its infancy in this country. Many municipalities and provinces would be only too glad to offer as an excuse for not making any further progress in the matter the fact that the Federal Government by their recent enactment have undertaken to carry on the work.
I venture the opinion that the Dominion, under the conditions which prevail, would not be able to do it. The provinces and the municipalities are doing it now and they are doing it well in some cases. I hope that they will do it still better and that this great work of child welfare will expand and advance systematically and scientifically. While I cannot speak too highly of the object which is aimed at in introducing child welfare into this legislation, I think that to include it here is simply to do something which is entirely in contravention of the provisions of the British North America Act, and for that reason I think it is out of place.


Mr. COWAN:: I differ as sharply as it
is possible for me to differ from the member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). It is said that when a great man goes wrong he goes very badly wrong; my. hon. friend is so very far wrong that I think he must be a very great man. As a matter of fact, he has given all the evidence needed to prove that it is absolutely necessary for us to do this. He says that in some of the provinces this work is already being done very well; the inference is that in some of the other provinces it is not being done at all, or certainly not so well. The whole purpose of this Bill, so far as child welfare is concerned, is to educate the parents so that they will, through their provincial legislatures or otherwise, give such attention to the child as is absolutely necessary for
its welfare. The ignorance of the people with regard to their own, health is simply appalling; some of them do not give it the slightest attention. Many people who have pigs or cows on their premises study carefully methods of conserving the health of these animals, but give little attention to that of themselves and their children. Children are kept in much better physical condition by educated parents than by ignorant parents. I am surprised at the lack of interests in some sections of the country in the matter of health and of social and child welfare. In the section of the country in which I live this subject has during the past few years become one of the most important with which we deal. For several years past an annual babies' welfare week has been held in our city. The first one I saw on the fifth floor of a department store, which had been cleared out because it was not in use owing to a slacking up of business at the beginning of the war. Here were hundreds of mothers-their children were taken care of in another part of the store-and here were medical men giving free lectures, telling these mothers what they should do to give their children better health, how to bring them up, how to feed them, how to clothe them, how to give them proper environment. Environment has just, as much to do with the health of a child as clean water and good food, as good housing and proper sanitation. If there is one thing in Canada that I am ashamed of, it is the lack of proper ventilation in our homes. Even this building is unfit to work in. But there we had these mothers meeting together and getting this instruction and education. The next year I saw them in the city hall, which was given up for a whole week to that purpose. The same thing is going on all over Saskatchewan. Does the provincial government do this? Well, the provincial government as-sits, I understand, by making a certain financial grant; the rest is supplied voluntarily. Several times I went to our provincial government when the public mind was not so well educated as it is at present and solicited their interest in this work, but found it exceedingly difficult to get any money to carry the work on. However, when the public had been so educated that they realized the work to be necessary and advisable, the government came over very quickly.
The hon. gentleman says that some provinces have not a very good organization. If this Health Department will do the

necessary publicity work it will create such a sentiment throughout the country that every provincial government and every municipality will be compelled to give the necessary grants to carry on this work properly. Educating the public in this way is not interfering with provincial education. I agree that the education of the child in the school is a provincial matter, but does education stop with the school, the high school or the collegiate institute? No; education continues long after a young man or a young woman leaves school. This is the kind of education they want; it is to their advantage to receive it, and we should give it to them. If we are going to limit the education to the schools, then we must deny our newspapers, for instance, the right to circulate beyond their provincial boundaries. Such a thing is so absurd that it is hardly worth mentioning. Therefore, this Government has a distinct field in that class of education, and it is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary that this work should be done. The results in my part of the country have been simply amazing. I have not the figures here, but I know that infant mortality, by reason of this campaign of education which has been conducted, has been reduced very considerably in the past few years. And if we go to other parts of the world, for instance, New Zealand, we find that as a result of the educational campaign which is being carried on, the death rate amongst children has dropped very considerably. Let me quote:
Taking the seven years from 1900 to 1907 the average death rate among children under one year in Dunedin and suburbs was eight per cent. For the last five years the average has been 6.5 per cent; for the last three years 6 per cent; for the last two years, 5 per cent; and for the last year (1911), 4 per cent.
How did that come about? Doctor Truby King says it was because of education. He says that a-
-generally diffused knowledge and recognition of infant requirements and maternal duties would save the community one life per diem, and would correspondingly increase the strength and vitality of the rising generation.
If that be the result of education in child welfare, then, for goodness sake, let us proceed with the necessary education to produce that result in Canada. That result is being achieved in my section of the country, and those provinces which are so backward in this respect should come to the Federal- Government for a little direction and assistance which are all that is contemplated in this Bill. I, for one, would not think of interfering with the provinces

or their duties, but can you have interference with provincial rights and cooperation at the same time? This Bill distinctly says to co-operate in all of these matters, and it seems to me as if the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), producing as he has, the British North America Act to prove that this is an interference with provincial rights, has at the same time given denial to the Bill that he himself has so strongly supported in its vital points. I cannot see why we cannot have co-operation in the matter of child welfare just as we can have co-operation in the matter of adult welfare. What is the difference? Surely the provinces or the Dominion can agree over a child just as they can over anything else. Therefore, I think, because of the tremendous benefit that this will be, it is one of the most important clauses, and I certainly ask that it be left as it is.


Mr. ANDERSON:: I intend to confine my remarks to the clause under discussion, and will leave the legal aspect to the lawyers in the committee. I believe that the legal adviser of the Government would not put this clause in the Bill if the Government did not have jurisdiction. While I am quite in accord with the clause, I think it does not go forward enough, and I would, therefore, move that it be amended by adding the words "and the welfare of needy mothers." If you wish to look after the child, it is essential that you should look after the mother, particularly in the early years of the child, as it is well known that infant mortality is greatest in the early days of its life and is in direct proportion to the poverty of the parents. Consequently we should look after the mother
10 p.m. and see that she is provided with the necessaries of life; that if she is in financial difficulties, she be assisted in such a way that she can rear her children so that they will come up to adult life in good condition. I think, therefore, my amendment would be quite in order and would improve the clause under discussion.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member that there is already before the committee an amendment moved by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) to strike out entirely paragraph (b) of section 4. This amendment must, of course, be disposed of before the hon. gentleman's amendment can be introduced. But as soon as we dispose of that I shall be pleased to put the amendment of the hon. gentleman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for South Toronto (IMr. Sheard) says that the paragraph as it reads is unconstitutional. I agree with him in that, but there is a way of wording it so that it will become quite constitutional. If, instead of leaving . the paragraph as it is:-
The conservation of child life and child welfare.
he used the words:-
The promotion of child life and child welfare by furnishing financial aid to maternity hospitals and other institutions established for that purpose.
It would be quite constitutional, because he is furnishing financial aid for institutions established for that purpose.
which, after all, is largely, if not entirely, provincial work,-I am referring to the administrative side of it. If paragraph (b) is added to paragraph (a) the point raised by the hon. member for South Toronto will be settled.


Charles Sheard: I am quite willing to
concur in that suggestion if that is acceptable, and request leave to withdraw my amendment to strike out paragraph (b).
Amendment withdrawn.


Charles Sheard: I move to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) by striking out paragraph (b) and combining paragraph (b) with paragraph (a) so that it will now read:


Charles Sheard: I shall be quite satisfied with that modification if that, in the opinion of the minister, meets what was intended in this verbiage. All I wish is not to oppose child welfare, but to be constitutional.
Co-operation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the co-ordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving- and improving the public health and the conservation of child life and child welfare.


James Alexander Calder: Would it meet the views of the hon. member for South Toronto if, instead of having the subject referred to in paragraph (b) as a distinct paragraph . by itself, it was simply added to paragraph (a)? Paragraph (a) would then read:-
Co-operation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the co-ordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving the public health and the conservation of child life and child welfare.
That would mean simply that the department would endeavour to secure the cooperation of the various provinces in promoting public health and child welfare. I understand the difficulty of the committee is simply this, that there is a fear that the Federal Government will enter upon what is purely provincial work, and I quite agree with the committee in that respect. It is not the intention of the Bill that the Federal Department should become an administrative department, as regards these matters of public health and child welfare, but that rather the department should be in a position to gather information from authoritative sources, to distribute that information, to educate the people, as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) has said, and to co-operate with the various provincial authorities with a view to securing those ends. I am inclined to take the view that the point raised by the hon. member for South Toronto is a very important one, and that if the section is left as it is there is a danger that the provincial authorities will take it for granted that the Federal Government is going to undertake this work,


Mr. CANNON:: In view of the suggestion of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Cal-der) that the sub-clause as it now reads might mean an encroachment on provincial rights, I would remind the committee that the first paragraph of this section removes any danger of that. Its terms are very general. It declares that this Department of Health can deal only with matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. Our powers are defined by th? British North America Act. Sub-paragraph (b) must be read in conjunction with the opening paragraph of section 4, which says that we must keep within our own jurisdiction.


James Alexander Calder: There is this point:	I
would presume that the Parliament of Canada, if it wished to do so, might establish and operate a hospital somewhere in Canada. I do not think that would be unconstitutional. We already have hospitals for our soldiers, and marine hospitals, and 1 dare say we might have hospitals of various kinds if we wished to do so. It seems to me this Bill should be so drafted that there will be no doubt on the part of the provinces as to its intention. I am strongly inclined to the view that the actual work itself is provincial work, and that drafting of the Bill should clearly indicate that to the provinces, so as to give them no excuse for asking us to undertake work which is purely of a local character. It is in order that there shall be no misunderstanding of the intention of the Bill that the amendment has been suggested.


Mr. TRAHAN:: jl respectfully submit
that the conservation of child life and child welfare is included in "matters relating to the promotion or preservation of public health," and therefore I think sub-paragraph (b) should be struck out as it is only a repetition of the opening paragraph. The objection I have is to the phrase "child welfare." I have the same objection to that as I have to the phrase "social welfare". "'Child welfare" is a very broad expression. As a child's welfare cannot be looked after properly without giving him an education, some good lawyer might argue that this legislation confers powers on this Government to interfere with the education of a child. It was for these reasons I was prepared to support the first amendment proposed by my hon. friend from South Toronto, which to my mind was expressed in the most suitable terms. The phrase " child welfare " is ambiguous, and might lead to abuses in its interpretation. If the committee want to be logical, having accepted the amendment regarding " social welfare," it must accept an amendment removing the words " child welfare." I think the Government would do well to strike out subparagraph (b).


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is quite
in error in his view that the use of these words-would authorize any interference in the matter of education. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) has clearly pointed out that all these subclauses are governed by the opening paragraph of section 4, which says that the powers of the minister shall extend to matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. Now the Parliament of Canada has no jurisdiction in matters of education, except under the peculiar conditions mentioned . in the British North America Act which would have no application here.


Arthur Trahan: I think that the words
" over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction" refer to "the people of Canada " and not to the word " matters."


Henri Sévérin Béland: I .think the suggestion
made by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is a good one and should be accepted by the committee. I would have felt inclined at first to believe also that subparagraph (b) relating to the conservation of child life and child welfare, if it had been adopted as it stood at first, might have clashed somewhat with the interpretation my hon. friend rightly put upon the British North America Act. But by adding subparagraph (b) to subparagraph (a) it affects [Mir, Ciald<er. ]
somewhat the meaning and the purpose of it all. We must not forget, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Dor-cnester, that the only matters that are to be dealt with under this legislation are those over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction; that is provided in the opening paragraph of section 4. Now the Parliament of Canada has no jurisdiction over education so we can leave that to one side. What is then the object this Bill has in view? It is, mainly, co-operation with the provinces. Reverting to section 3 of the Bill for a moment, that section gives the Governor in Council power to appoint such other officers as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department. Let us suppose for one moment that the Government left aside all idea of exercising patronage-which is possible even for this Government-and appoint a most competent person, man or woman.
Section 6 provides that a Dominion Council of Health consisting of the Deputy Minister of Health and the Chief Executive officers of all provincial boards will meet- in Ottawa, I suppose-under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Health, together with three members appointed by the Governor in Council. Let us suppose that this Dominion Council has the benefit of the wide-knowledge of the person appointed by virtue of section 3 to which I have just referred. What a benefit could result therefrom. The provincial boards are not in a position-certainly not in Quebec-to afford the advice of a really competent authority on this question. I do not say that such persons are not available, but, being a member of the provincial board,
I know we have no such adviser on child life and child welfare. The Dominion Council will meet in Ottawa and all the heads of the provincial boards of health will be benefited by consultation with this competent party from whom they will no doubt receive valuable suggestions and advice, which they can put into effective operation at hoihe. Under these circumstances I think we should adopt the suggestion that has been made by the Minister of Immigration, supported by our eminent friend from South Toronto, and the legality of which we can surely rely on when it is warranted by such a brilliant lawyer hs my hon. friend from Dorchester.


James Alexander Calder: What the hon. membei has said indicates the main purpose of the entire Bill. I may mention a concrete illustration we had in the city not many weeks ago. As has been pointed out by the Presi-
APEiL 4, 1919
dent of the Privy Council we had a conference on the question of venereal diseases. The chief health officers of most of the provinces were present. Two ministers, one from Ontario and the other from New Brunswick, were also present. The conference lasted the best part of a day and there were in attendance at least three professional men who were experts on the question. I was present during most of the day, and 1 am sure that there was not a medical man from the outside provinces who did not benefit most materially by the discussions, one of the main objects of which was to consider the steps that should be taken towards passing in the various provinces the necessary legislation to meet the problem, and in addition the provincial-not the federal 

machinery	that would be required.
What is true in regard to public health is also true so far as child welfare is concerned. I have attended a number of conferences held here in the course of the past year when .this problem has come up for discussion, and what the social workers throughout Canada feel that we need most of all is a central body that can secure the most reliable information from every source on this question of child welfare, which information could be given to the body that eventually must pass legislation and put it into effect.


Arthur Trahan: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: It is merely a mistake in translation.


Georges Henri Boivin: Would it be correct in the French version to replace the word "laquelle" by "lesquels"?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. I think it would improve the phraseology of clause (b) which
is now (a) by inserting after the word "and" and before the words "child welfare," the words "the promotion of," so that the line will now read:
(a) The conservation of child life and the promotion of child welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Howard Sinclair: I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the question of marine hospitals.
I think the person who drafted the Bill could not have read the existing law in relation to this matter. We have an elaborate law relating to the care of sick seamen. A section of the Shipping Act, Cap. 113, Revised Statutes of Canada, consisting of 28 separate clauses deals with this question. We are now asked to adopt a clause which places marine hospitals and sick seamen under the management of the 'Minister of Health. We will have two statutes then conflicting with one another in regard to sick seamen. These clauses provide for the way in which sick seamen are to be attended to. Ships when they enter a port pay what is known as the sick mariners' dues. This money is placed in the hands of the receiver general to pay for the cost of managing these hospitals and attending to the seamen when they are sick. This provision is under the control of the Marine Department, and there is no reference at all in the schedule to'this Act to the Marine Department. The law is not repealed, and we will have two statutes about the same matter and two ministers in control if we pass this section.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the matter will bp found to have been dealt with when we come to the schedule. I will look at the Act. I think the parliamentary counsel had all these Acts before him when he drew up the Bill. One should guard against two ministers being charged with the s&me responsibility.
Air. SINCLAIR VGuysborough):	If the
minister will look at section 406, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada he will find the following language:
Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the minister shall have the management of all marine and seamen's hospitals and pest houses for the use of sick mariners, and may renew leases of lands on which any such hospitals or pest houses are erected, and may make all necessary contracts for repairing and maintaining the same, and for the cure, care, attendance and support of the patients therein, and may also make such regulations as he

deems advisable for the government of the same, for regulating the visiting of seamen ill of any infectious diseases, and for their removal to any pest house or other building.
Clearly the intention of this law is to place the direction of these hospitals and the care of sick seamen under the care of the Minister of Marine.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. Clause (c) might stand in the. meantime, and we will look into it.
On paragraph (d)-the supervision, as regards the public health, of railways, boats, ships and all methods of transportation:


Mr. PAPINEAU:: What is the meaning of the words " all methods of transportation?"


Newton Wesley Rowell: Railways, boats, ships. When the air service is established there may be another. The draftsman was evidently desirous of covering all methods of transportation.
.Mr. SHEARD: I would suggest that the word "interprovincial" be put in there in reference to "boats." The subsection might read:
The supervision, as regards the public health of railways, boats, ships, and all methods of interprovincial transportation.
Otherwise we might interpret this Act as having jurisdiction over a boat travelling from Montreal to Quebec. It does not go out of the province at all and is a purely provincial matter.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Might I call my bon.
friend's attention to the fact that seagoing ships which come as far as Montreal do not touch any other province than that of Quebec.


Charles Sheard: I am speaking of boats that do not go to sea but are simply river boats running within the province.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How would you have the subsection read:


Charles Sheard: I would put in the word "interprovincial" beforl the word "transportation." If a boat, train or trolley car did not go from one province into another it would then be understood that it would be a matter purely for the provincial authorities to deal with.


Francis Henry Keefer: The introduction of the word "interprovincial" might take away the benefit of the Act. If a boat plying between Prescott and Brockville in the province of Ontario was without proper equipment as regards its closets, and so

on, there should be provision for dealing with it.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Beauce (Mr. Beland) raises a point that is well worthy of consideration. A boat coming from England and arriving at Montreal would not be an interprovincial boat and yet this board would, or should, have supervision over it entirely. If smallpox or some other disease should be found on board the Department of Public Health should take charge of it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question of navigation is a matter of federal control. The ships are all registered and I do not think we need fear anything on that score.


Lucien Cannon: I have in my constituency a railway known as the Quebec Central. It is operating under a provincial charter. Under this paragraph would the Government have any jurisdiction over a railway of that kind?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Provincial roads under certain conditions prescribed in the law become subject to federal jurisdiction, and in that case I should think it would come under this law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we read this paragraph with the words contained in section 4, we have the safeguard that these powers shall apply only to the subjects over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. That provision is to be read with the subclause.


Charles Sheard: Before we pass to paragraph (e) I have another subsection to introduce, and I think it would come in here. I want to introduce a section to provide for the control of the spread of venereal diseases, and I want to have it specifically set forth. I would suggest that the section to be here introduced be as follows :
To control as far as practical the spread of venereal diseases and to quarantine infected cases thereof so as to prevent interprovincial communication and the importation into the Dominion of Canada of those infected with constitutional syphilis.
The reason why I ask for the mention of veneral disease, with particular reference to syphilis is that it is probably the most chronic of all infectious diseases and that not only does it not limit its infection to those who may come into contact but it spreads to those who may descend from the parents of those infected.
We have had many instances of congenital syphilis which showed little or no

manifestations until a later period in life. These eases could be admitted into the country, and have been undoubtedly, in very large numbers through what I am afraid amounts to more or less neglect in the medical inspection of immigrants. I well Temember one case in the city (of Toronto which came under my notice where the father and mother were both subjects of the disease in a very chronic form. They had a girl of eighteen years of age who suffered from keratitis, or inflammation of the eyes, from which she became almost blind afterwards, although the disease did not show itself until very near puberty; and there were two other children, a baby that had congenital syphilis, and a child of five ot six years of age which also showed evidence of this disease. The chronicity of the malady makes it imperative that some special responsibility shall attach to those responsible, to avoid the admission of such cases into the Dominion of Canada; and it must be the particular duty of the Federal Government to take the necessary precautions because of the insidious character of the infection. It is often carried from one large centre to another. For instance, a diseased person may be in Montreal; he may take train to Toronto and travel through to the coast, sowing his infection as he goes, and it is a case where it does not belong altogether to the authority of any one province. What I have in mind is to exercise two efforts for its control. Of course, no wholesale inspection can be attempted by a series of examinations for such cases, but as they become known to the proper health authorities they should come under the control of a central authority ; or they can be recognized by a thorough and regular inspection at the port of entry. I think some specific reference ought 'to be made to that matter before we take up Federal buildings, international commissions, and so on, and I think this is the proper place to introduce it if we are to have any regard at all for the symmetry of the Act.


An hon. MEMBER:: I quite ' agree with my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) to the effect that such inspection might be practical at the port of entry from overseas, but I cannot quite follow him when he states that in moving from one province to another an inspection would be possible, because these cases would be known or that there would be some system of inspection at the port of entry. I cannot conceive of the possibility of stopping a
train, say, on the border between Quebec and Ontario, and having an inspection of the passengers.


Charles Sheard: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor can I conceive of the police of Montreal wiring to an agent at the border and saying that such and such a passenger has an infectious disease.


Charles Sheard: I wish to assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I had no such thought in my mind.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment reads as follows:
Mr. Sheard moves to amend clause 4 by inserting as subclause (d) the following words " to control as far as practicable the spread of venereal diseases and to quarantine infected cases thereof so as to prevent inter-provincial communication and the importation into the Dominion of Canada of those infected with constitutional syphilis."


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Chairman, with regard to immigrants, it seems to me the matter is covered by subsection (c), the inspection and medical care of immigrants and seamen. Under the Immigration Act the immigration authorities have power to refuse admission of any person infected with venereal or infectious diseases.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has anticipated me. If at the port of entry some man or woman should be found suffering with syphilis, there is no reason why this country should admit and take care of such a case. The main objection I have to 'the motion of the member for South Toronto is that when you get away from the port of entry and attempt to deal with syphilis in the provinces you are encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, just as much as if you attempt to deal with scarlet fever or any similar disease. As the hon. member appears to be very anxious to protect the rights of the provinces, I think he is overstepping his own mark.


Charles Sheard: tl might point out to the hon. members and to my hon. professional [DOT]colleague from Fort William (Mr. Manion) that constitutional syphilis is an incurable disease and absolutely in a category by itself. It is a disease which I have seen active for ten years, and a disease where I have seen the progeny affected constitutionally down through two generations. It is a disease which can stay in an infectious stage without giving the slightest inconvenience very often, and without even being noticed by the community and without being treated by a medical man. Many of these cases are in their worst form

treated by druggists or others who dispense quack nostrums. For those reasons I think it is incumbent upon the Federal Health Department to use the very best medical knowledge and science in endeavouring to control this peculiar and infectious disease which is distinguished by its chronicity and insidiousness and by the destructive work which it does in those who are in no way exposed to the disease except by their nativity, and which is not communicated as is scarlet fever, smallpox, diphtheria, measles and the ordinary infectious diseases. It is a travelling and ambulatory .disease par excellence, and I think some particular mention ought to be made of it in this Act so as to give the central Federal authority jurisdiction over it.
In reference to the point which has been mentioned, and which the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) says I am contradicting myself upon, I do not agree with him. I am referring to ambulatory cases that wander about from one province to another, that travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific, sowing infection and coming back again, a condition which probably does not apply to any other infectious disease known to medical science except tuberculosis, and this disease is more easily transmitted and communicated than tuberculosis because of its chronicity and the insidious manner in which it works upon the human system. It is for that reason that il think a special clause ought to be embodied in this Bill. If the hon. minister wants to consider the advisability of introducing such a clause, I am not prepared to press the matter very strongly, but I certainly think that the public at this particular juncture expect ithe question to be dealt with and taken ;up by the provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There can be no difference of opinion, I should judge, among members of the committee as to the importance and seriousness of the disease to which my hon. friend has referred, but I think ample provision has been made for dealing with it in the Bill as now drafted. As a matter of fact, in the first draft of this Bill it was specifically mentioned, as were three or four of these worst diseases, including tuberculosis, but they were struck out of the Bill for the reason that the provinces might think, if they were specified, that we were undertaking to relieve them of further responsibility, although our jurisdiction was expressly limited by section
4.	It was thought better, on the whole, not to enumerate these diseases, because we have full power under section 4, subsection (a), in co-operation with the provinces, to

deal with them. But if it is the view of the committee that these diseases should be more specifically referred to in the Bill, I have no objection.


Peter McGibbon: I agree with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) that these diseases are the greatest curse of Canada -to-day. There is no denying the fact that with the troops returning we shall have a great increase of these diseases, and that increase will no doubt be spread over every province in the Dominion. So that the Government, through this department, should take practical steps at once to deal with this matter. It is no use shutting our eyes to it, or, as the minister said this afternoon, talking of it with bated breath. We have to meet it by open discussion, by dissemination of knowledge, and above all, by training the people to look after themselves. After all, it is not always a question of knowledge. In treating tuberculous cases we tried to educate the people, so to speak; but we found that it was necessary also to train them to look after their own health. Conditions twelve months hence will no doubt be much worse than they are to-day; therefore, this question should be dealt with at once in a scientific manner.


Mr. BRIEN:: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. McGibbon, Muskoka), that with the home coming of the soldiers venereal diseases will increase. As a result of the Work that the medical officers have been doing in the army, the percentage of venereal disease in the army has been very considerably reduced.	You
will find a greater percentage in the civilian population than you will find in the army. We have heard a great deal about trying to make this world fit for democracy; I believe we have a great duty to perform in making democracy fit for the world. This venereal disease problem is veiled in mystery, as is illustrated by the cripples and defectives which follow in the wake of the disease. If we refer to it specifically in the Bill, I suggest that it be mentioned in subsection (i). I suggest that the feeble-minded as well as those afflicted with venereal disease, gonorrhea and syphilis, be referred to there, and, if it be in order, Mr. Chairman, that the matter be left over until we come to that subsection.


Georges Henri Boivin: The proper way of holding it over would be to withdraw the amendment which is before the committee, and then any suggested amendment of subsec-

tion (i) could be proposed when that subsection is reached. The amendment now under consideration, however, would have to be withdrawn by the hon. gentleman who proposed it, and as he has deft the chamber the only way to dispose of it now would be to have it negatived by the committee. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Georges Henri Boivin: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. BRAKE:: Does that mean that we are still discussing the matter of venereal disease under the suggested clause (d) ?
The 'CHAIRMAN: Subsection (d), introduced as an amendment by the member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) has now been struck out, but there is nothing to prevent any hon. gentleman from suggesting a similar amendment to any other subsection when it is reached.
On subsection (e):


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I move that this subsection be amended by striking out the words " regard to " in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the words " a view to conserving and promoting," so that the subsection will read:-
The supervision of Federal public buildings and offices with a view to conserving and promoting the health of the civil servants and other Government employees therein.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I see no objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection (h)-Collection, publication and distribution of information to promote good health, and improved sanitation.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that this subsection be amended by striking out the word " and " in the second line thereof and adding at the end of the said subsection the words " and social welfare."


Lucien Cannon: There are already quite
a number of Government publications from nearly all departments, and large sums of money are expended on those publications every year. Of late there has been a special publication which has been attacked and criticised. Are1 we to have some more publications of the same kind as the Official Record? If I were sure that this new publication would be more useful and interesting than the Official Record, I would have no objection, and the moment the President of the Privy Council will give me that assurance, I shall withdraw any objection I may have.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Whether a publication
is interesting or not depends upon one's viewpoint. One person might find this publication more interesting than the Official Record, while another might find the Official Record more interesting than this.


Arthur Trahan: By the insertion of the
phrase "social welfare" at the end of this paragraph, as proposed by the amendment, it looks as if the minister still wanted to have the right to legislate upon all things pertaining to social welfare.


Louis Joseph Papineau: As my hon. friend has just said, we struck out the phrase "social welfare" before, and now the minister wants the collection, publication and distribution of information in regard to it. As the phrase "social welfare" was struck out of the first part of the section, it is struck out of the duties and powers of this department of health, so that what is the use in publishing information in regard to it when the department is not empowered to deal with the question?


Charles Sheard: I would like to see paragraph (h) modified somewhat. We know that the public generally are very sensitive on matters of public health, and pamphlets, publicationis and interviews with newspaper reporters can often be given out to the great discomfort of other health officers and to the excitation of the public. I had [DOT]in mind, if I had been in my place, to suggest that the paragraph read:
The collection, publication and distribution through provincial and municipal health officers and local boards of health, of information to promote good health and improved sanitation.
So that the information would come through official channels, I can understand an over-zealous and over-officious officer connected with this Federal Health Department giving an interview to some newspaper reporters, setting forth the details of certain epidemics and their ravages in certain parts of Canada, to the direct injury of the health officers operating in that particular part. In order to avoid that I would suggest that all this distribution shall be done through official channels, and then the local officers of the province and the provincial officers shall undertake the distribution through their particular section. In that way the information always travels through legitimate provincial channels, and that is better on matters of public health than the indiscriminate distribution of statements, publications, criticisms and the like which might be made public through the ordinary channels of the daily press.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My objection to the inclusion of the phrase "social welfare" is that it is so difficult in a country like ours to establish a standard of social welfare. It is all very well to collect, publish and distribute information with regard to social welfare, but the information distributed to people whose ideas are of one kind will not be suitable for those whose ideas are of another. Shall we have propaganda tending to help the socialistic ideas of social welfare; or, as the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) would be willing to say, the Bolshevik ideas of social welfare; or shall we have the Methodist, Presbyterian or Catholic ideas of social welfare? That would depend entirely upon the deputy minister or the minister who administers the department. In a question of such great importance as this we cannot leave the determination of this in the hands of any one man. Under the circumstances, since we have already declared in principle that the words "social welfare" cover too many things, they ought to be dropped even from this paragraph. While I have been a member of this House I have had more than enough pamphlets on the various questions of the day put into my post office box. Every day since this session started' I have received "uplift" literature of all kinds, with a great deal of which I do not agree, although I am in favour of a certain amount of "uplift" in-the right direction. ;If we are to be bombarded from day to day with propaganda with which we do not agree the lives of members of Parliament will be made burdensome.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will not press the amendment.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If there is any particular objection to it, I shall not press it. I think everything that is necessary can be done under the section as it stands. My hon. friend has an entirely different idea of social welfare from what was in view in its introduction in the Bill and its use here. It related particularly to such questions as were of interest to the workingman, such as the question of good housing, the question of social insurance, the facts in connection with unemployment where it exists.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does not that all appear in the Labour Gazette?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not in relation to public health. It is intended to have statistics and information as to social insurance and how that operates, in order that the public

might become fully seized as to the results of these measures in other countries.
Amendment withdrawn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think we can pass this section to-night. A paragraph was left standing at the top of the list of paragraphs, and there are several amendments to be introduced to paragraph (i) and several main sections of the Bill have still to be discussed. We are getting tired now, and I am afraid we would not, if we were to follow this matter up to-night, give as complete a finish to it as- if we went at it in a little fresher frame of mind at another time.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Could we not deal with sections 5 and 6 and let section 4 stand?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Section 5 is very contentious.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thought my hon.
friends would accept that without any question. I was going to suggest that when we come to section 6 we change the word "three" to "five" so that the section will read, "not to exceed five in number."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like the minister to understand that in every other house and institution of this city it is now five minutes after twelve.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friends think it is time to adjourn, I have no objection.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell for the adjournment of the House:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Monday will be private members' day, I suppose. Will any particular business be taken?


Newton Wesley Rowell: After private business, I think Supply will be taken up, probably Trade and Commerce estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.09 p.m.
Monday, April 7, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock. OFFICIAL DEBATES OF THE HOUSE.

On motion of Mr. Richardson the first report of the Select Standing Committee to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Tenth Annual Report and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for

leave to introduce Bill No. 52 to amend the Immigration Act.
Charles Murphy: Explain.


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Speaker, as the title of the Bill indicates, its purpose is to amend the law governing immigration. The Bill is a fairly lengthy one. A good many of the amendments are of a minor character and I think can be best explained and considered when we reach the committee stage. There are, however, a number of amendments of considerable importance to which I might make a brief reference at the present time. I will mention them in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
In the first place, the Bill provides for the extension of time during which persons who enter Canada as immigrants may be deported. Under the law as it now stands, the period is three years-we are proposing to exend that to five years. In other words if any person enters Canada whom we find to come within the prohibited classes under the law, such person may be deported at any time within a period of five years. There is a provision in the law as it now stands casting upon transportation companies certain duties and responsibilities in reference to the carrying of immigrants to Canada. It is proposed to extend the term " transportation company " so as to make it applicable to the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments which have transportation systems. Officials in charge of the Canadian National railways or officials who may be in charge of Government boats or vessels, will be responsible for carrying out the law in the same way as officials of an ordinary transportation company. Under the law as it now stands there are certain prohibited classes; certain people are prevented from entering Canada on account of their being mentally or physically unfit or for some other reason. It is proposed to extend the provision of the law in so far as these prohibited classes are concerned and at this stage I shall merely mention what the proposed new provisions of the law are: (I) It is proposed to include within the prohibited classes persons who are suffering from chronic alcoholism; (2) Those coming within the class of what is called constitutional psychopathic inferiority-probably the doctors in the House will explain a little more clearly than I can just what the effect of these words are. Then, it is suggested that we should carry into our law a provision to the effect that all persons who are either mentally or physically in such a condition as that they are not likely to 77i	.	. t
be able to earn a living should be excluded. It is also suggested that we should set up a literary test and that persons should be included in the prohibited classes who are not able to read. That provision has not been in our law as yet. The Bill also provides that we should include in the prohibited classes persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow of constituted Government by force or violence or who advocate the unlawful destruction of property; also persons guilty of conspiracy against His Majesty; enemy aliens who have been interned and also enemy aliens who have been deported from Canada, or from British countries, for any cause. The Bill itself will explain just what is meant there a little more fully.
The Bill also provides that we should take authority to provide for the medical examination of immigrants in the country of their origin or on board ship. There are several sections of the Bill dealing with the duties and responsibilities of transportation companies. In the law as it now stands there is a provision of this kind but we propose to add to and extend this provision so as to throw greater responsibility upon transportation companies that bring immigrants to Canada. We are also imposing upon them more severe penalties for failure to carry out the law. The Bill also contains provision for the examination of seamen when such seamen land in Canada for any cause. Then, there is one other section, probably the most important section in the Bill. It is in the law now as section 38 (c) and under that section the Government has power by Order in Council to prohibit persons from entering Canada for either a stated period or permanently for any reason which may be deemed advisable. It is proposed to extend the provision of that section so as to give the Government greater powers in so far as that feature of our work is concerned. These are the chief provisions of the Bill.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Annie Proderick.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Samuel David McElroy.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mary Jane McCulloch.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Mary Garland Lewis.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of William Canham.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day;
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Might I ask the Acting Prime Minister if any decision has been arrived at as regards daylight saving? I am informed that the Railway Commission, having heard the pros and cons on this question, is now awaiting the action of the Senate, and that if the Upper Chamber on Wednesday should [DOT]decide in favour of daylight saving, so will the Railway Commission. Is there any truth in the statement?


William Thomas White: I am not aware that there is any truth in the statement, and I should doubt very much if the Board of Railway Commissioners, after the hearing which it has given the matter, is awaiting the action of the Senate. I informed the House last week that we would await the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and after that decision had been given we should take such action with regard to the matter of the time in this Chamber as might be proper, having regard to the convenience of members.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT ENFORCEMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: I rise to ask the Minister of Militia a question. It is announced in the press that in the parish of Ste. Marie, in the county of Kent, New Brunswick, a defaulter has been shot at and wounded by a military policeman, the bullet passing through the injured man's leg. I would like to know if a military policeman has the right to discharge a firearm at a defaulter. According to the newspaper report which I hold in my hand, it would appear that there are a number of military policemen still on duty in the county of Kent.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister ot Militia and Defence): As far as I am aware there are no military police now engaged in arresting defaulters. There may be some of the Dominion police employed in that duty, but if so I have no information in regard to it. The military police have made no arrests of defaulters since the date of the signing of the armistice, but a number of Dominion police have been engaged in apprehending certain individuals. However,
I have no knowledge of any such occurrence as that to which the hon. gentleman has drawn the attention of the House.



EDMONTON, DUNVEGAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the attention of the Government has been drawn to a report of the proceedings of the Alberta legislature contained in the Edmonton Journal of Wednesday, April 2. I quote the following extract from the report in question:
During the general discussion of these estimates, Doctor G. D. Stanley, High River, again asked the Premier concerning his previous statement in the House that the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway (what is known as the Peace River Railway), might be taken over by the Federal Government; that negotiations were pending between Mr. McArthur, the railway promoter, and the Federal Government, for such a consummation, and that the completion of the deal awaited only the signature of the minister, presumably Sir Robert Borden. The Premier replied that the extent of his knowledge was that negotiations of this nature were pending; he could give no information as to their progress. In answering another question relative to the Government having paid the interest on the bonds of this railway to prevent default, the Premier stated that the procedure had been to give the company authority to make the payments; there was, however, no difference in the cheques.
I might say that there have been remarks about the House to the effect that the Federal Government might take this railway over, and it has been reported that very strong pressure was being brought to bear upon the Government to do so. I would like very much to know if the Government has any information that it cares to impart to the House, because it is very important to know what has been done with regard to the railroad in question?


William Thomas White: With respect to the subject to which the hon. member has drawn notice,
I might say that while .the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway has been brought to the attention of the Government for some three or four years past in connection with matters relating to subsidy, no arrangement such as is suggested with regard to the taking over of the road has been completed, nor are there any negotiations at the present time looking to that end. It is, of course, open to those connected with this railroad to bring to the attention of the Government from time to time anything that would be of public interest relating to its affairs.



RECIPROCITY IN COASTING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Folger Nickle: Might I ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has any information to impart to the House with regard to reciprocal coasting.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have to inform the hon. member for Kingston that the department has not yet received any word from Washington which would indicate that the authorities there have abrogated the license extended to our coast shipping.



THE LATE MR. JOSEPH READ, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Thomas White: Since the last sitting of the House death has again touched our circle, and has removed one of its members. I confess that when I read in the press this morning of the sudden and unexpected death of Captain Read, the late member foT Prince, Prince Edward Island, I experienced a feeling of very deep emotion. Nothing could more forcibly bring home to us the truth of the saying: In the midst of life we are in death. It is inexpressibly sad to me, as I am sure it is to all members on both sides of the House, to reflect that this good and kindly man, who, during the short term in which he had been a member of this House, had won a place in all our hearts and who but yesterday was among us, is now no more. We all liked him, Mr. Speaker. We liked to see him in his place; we liked to hear him speak; we liked to converse with him in the corridors and elsewhere in social intercourse. I think we liked him most because of his strong individuality, his originality of thought, his homely philosophy, his shrewd knowledge of men and affairs, and the humour which illuminated all his speeches.
The late member for Prince came of fighting stock. Both his paternal and maternal grandfathers were connected with the Imperial Military and Naval Service. While a young man he followed the sea as his calling, and having taken a course in a nautical academy at Liverpool, he became entitled to an Imperial Master Mariner's Certificate. Later he entered commercial life in the province of Prince Edward Island, in which, I understand, he made a signal success. He was held in much respect in the commercial community, having been for a considerable time president of the Maritime Boards of Trade. He was keenly interested in public affairs
before coming to this Parliament, having been for three terms a member of the Provincial Legislature. In 1917, at the last election, he was returned to this House. He took a keen interest in all affairs which came before the House from time to time, and as he had a wide knowledge of affairs, was listened to with interest and respect. Personally, and on behalf of all on this side of the House, I desire to express our very deep regret and sorrow at his death, and to extend to those of his family circle our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members on this side of the House who sat. with the late member, I wish to thank the' leader of the Government (Sir Thomas. White) for his kindly words in respect to our departed friend, Captain Joseph Read, who represented the constituency of Prince, P. E. I. I am sure that we all have much pleasure in taking to ourselves and representing as our own what has been so truly said by the leader of the Government with respect to Captain Read.
Captain Read was a splendid, strong, rugged type of that Canadian citizenship of which we are all so proud. He was a man of strong personal opinions, of honesty of purpose, of honesty of conviction. There was never any mistake as to where he stood on any question; this good, old, honest, sturdy mariner always made his position clear on the floor of this House with regard to any question in which he took part or interest. The leader of the Government has said that he was a master mariner; so he was. We have many master mariners in this country, but not so very many who hold the high position that Captain Read did. He passed the severe test to which men in that calling are subjected by the Imperial Board of Trade; he was a first class seaman and a splendid navigator. He carried that reputation all over the world. Moreover, he had the reputation of being good and kind to the men who served under him, all of whom regarded him as a gentleman and a hero.
The leader of the Government spoke ol Captain Read having been in business. I should like to mention an event in his business life which was regarded as not common to very many men. At one time Captain Read failed in business, and what he had was not sufficient to pay all his creditors. He went back to sea and made money, and although under the laws of this country he was not obliged to pay his old debts, it stands to his credit that he paid every cent of these

old bills which he had not been able to pay when he was obliged to enter the Insolvency Court of Prince Edward Island. Few in the world have done that, and that circumstance reveals such an excellent trait of his character and stands so well in line with what we know of Captain Bead that I think it is well to mention it. We are sad and sorrowful at his departure. He has served his country well; he lived to a respectable old age. We can only bow to the will of Him who does all things wisely and well.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
THIRID READINGS.	[DOT]
Bill No. 22, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 15, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. H. B. Morphy (North Perth) for the third reading of Bill No. 13, respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada:
Robert Lorne Richardson: This Bill was allowed to go through the Railway Committee at the request of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Reid). He said that he had conferred with the Acting Prime Minister, who had suggested that there would be no harm in letting the Bill go through, as it would be explained in the House. The Bill is to enable the Grand Trunk Railway Company to raise additional funds. The record of that company in the way of financing and raising money has been so remarkable that a great deal of opposition arose to the Bill in committee. 1 suppose it passed the Committee of the Whole; unfortunately, I was not here. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) says that he did not know about it either; he was one of the members who opposed the Bill in the Railway Committee. If I am not trenching upon the rules of the House, 1 should like to ask an explanation from the Government as to the necessity for this Bill. If popular rumour is correct and the Grand Trunk is to fall into the hands of the country, there is no necessity for this Bill. If the Grand Trunk is not going to fall into the hands of the country it will be most unfortunate to permit this country to do any more of the wild-cat financing that it has been doing for the last number of years.


William Thomas White: I expressed the opinion of the

Government in regard to this Bill oil Friday evening when it was in the committee stage on the second reading. I stated that the object of the legislation was to authorize the Grand Trunk to issue debentures for the purpose of its financing. I said that it was not thought wise for the Government to prevent the company from obtaining authority to issue these securities, pending negotiations which the Government is having with the company. The company has many pressing obligations and will require to finance. I pointed out also that if the Government took over the Grand Trunk Railway Company they would take it over, as the Canadian Northern Railway Company was taken over, as a corporation. Power to issue debentures will be required by the Grand Trunk Railway Company as a corporation if taken over by the Government, because as a corporation it would be its object to finance itself as much as possible. That is the policy we have adopted with regard to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Instead of advancing that company money from time to time, we entourage it to make issue of its own securities as a corporation in New York and in London, Some of those securities are guaranteed by the Dominion Government and some are not, but the point I make is that whether the Grand Trunk continues as a corporation or, as we expect, comes into the possession of the Government, it will still be a corporation with power to issue securities when necessary.
Another point is this. Pending the negotiations to withhold this power might have very serious consequences, consequences that I do not think any of us would like to see with respect to the Grand Trunk, and I have not been able to reach the conclusion that it would be fair or just for us to withhold power that is necessary for the temporary financing of the company. That is the general position which I indicated last Friday night when the matter was under consideration. I stated also that the Government was in a position though this legislation is passed, to control the issue in such a manner as to protect the public interest, and that, I take it,, is all that the House is concerned with.
If no negotiations were pending and the Grand Trunk required authority from this Parliament to issue debenture stock such as it has issued in the past, I suppose no difficulty would be raised, because the proceeds of the debentures so issued would be devoted to the purposes of the company, namely, to take care of deficits or to provide

for betterments or improvements or extensions. That, in general, was the attitude which I adopted on Friday last. I have given the matter careful consideration, because I appreciate the point of view of my hon. friend and also what was put forward by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) when the Bill was in the second reading stage. But the Government has reached the conclusion that this legislation authorizing the Grand Trunk to issue securities should not be withheld.
Mr. iMACKIE (East Edmonton): 1 would like to point out that the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister has not been heard by at least twenty-five members sitting behind him. It is an unfortunate thing that this occurs in the House, but it is also an unfortunate thing that the members of the Government do not exert themselves so as to be heard. It is not fair that members on the back benches should have to wait until the publication of Hansard to find out what the Acting Prime Minister has stated.
I would like the members on the front benches to keep that in mind so that they may let the members on the back benches know exactly what they are saying.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto) moved that Bill No. 45, to incorporate the National Wholesale Grocers' Association of Canada, be read the second time.
He said: This Bill seeks the incorporation of the Wholesale Grocers of the Dominion of Canada from coast to coast, with head offices in the city of Toronto and power to hold property not to exceed $100,000. The cTiief objects of this association are to procure reliable and official news concerning the grocery trade and the condition of the markets, and also to facilitate and reduce the cost of transportation and interchange of grocery commodities.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

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

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What have been the revenues, in detail, of each Transcontinental railway station in the year 1918?
2.	How many freight oars were dolly despatched and received at each of said stations in 1918?


Hon. Mr. REID:: In order to answer this question one would have to give information concerning a railway which forms part of the Canadian National railways, and, therefore, it is not in the public interest to give this information.


ACCIDENTS ON TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. BOURASSA:: What is the total amount of the damages caused by accidents which have occurred on the Transcontinental railway, between Mannie Station and the Quebec Bridge, since the 1st of November, 1918, to Government and residents' property, respectively?


John Dowsley Reid: Damage to railway property, $11,770; damage to residents' property, nil.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many locomotives have been derailed or damaged within the last three years?
2.	How many employees of, or passengers have been killed or injured owing to collisions or other accidents on the Intercolonial Railway?
3.	How many animals, sheep, oxen, horses, etc., have been killed or struck by locomotives on the railways under the control and managed by the Government within the last three years?
4.	Were they killed on the railways at public highways or at other points, and how many in each case?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Derailed, 1,362; damaged, 675.
2.	Killed, 74; injured, 480.
3.	Killed, 836; injured, 43.
4.	At public highway, 146; at other points, 733.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM. *Mr. PROULX:
1.	Has the Canadian National Railway System, or the Board of Management thereof, purchased coal in Western Canada?
2.	If so, from what companies or individuals have purchases been made?
3.	What are the prices governing such purchases, and where are deliveries made?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Not in the public interest to give this information.


*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railway System, or the Board of Management thereof, or any person or persons acting for either, purchasing ties from the Northern Construction Company?
2.	If so, what arrangement has been made, and what price has been paid, or is to be paid per tie?
3.	At what points on the railway are these ties to be delivered? If not at a point on the Canadian National Railway System, then on what other line of railway is delivery to be made?

4.	Who pays the freight from the point of delivery to the place where the ties are used, and what is the cost of handling?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Canadian National Railway system is purchasing ties as well as many other things from the Canadian Northern Construction Company.
2,	3 and 4. Not in the public interest to give this information.


STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE SOLDIERS' HOSPITAL.
Mr. BOYER:: What is the total amount of the contract given for the construction of the invalid soldiers' hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: $1,027,995.37.
Original contract awarded by Military Hospital Commission for $230,000 and rock excavation $28,595.30.


ST. MALO WORKSHOPS.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the decision of the Canadian National Railways Commission to open and operate the Transcontinental workshop at St. Malo, Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date will these shops be put in operation?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	It is the intention of the Canadian National Railways to equip and operate shops at St. Malo.
2.	Work will commence as soon as arrangements can be made and the Canadian National Railways expect to be in a position, during the present summer, to handle some repairs and have shops in operation the end of the year.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	On what date did the Government take possession of the Canadian Northern Railway System?
2.	What is the total amount of the liabilities of said railway system, which the country assumed on taking possession?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Government received the controlling interest in the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway, on October 1, 1917.
2.	The Dominion of Canada purchased the stock in the Canadian Northern Railway, but did not assume the outstanding liabilities which remained as debts of the company. According to the Government auditors the total outstanding liabilities as of October 1, 1917, including funded debt was $434,312,747.34.


STEAMER &quot;VOYAGEUR&quot;.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: 1.	Where is the steamer "Voyageur" at present?
2.	Is she chartered? If so, to whom?
3.	What is the nature of her cargo, and the rate of freight on current charter?
4.	Between what ports is she trading, and what was the net freight earned on her last voyage?
5.	Is she insured against marine and war risks, or either? If so, with what company, and at what rate?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	"Canadian Voyageur" left Barbados on March 27.
2.	She is not chartered to any one.
3.	Cargo of sugar for New York, at rate of 50c per 100 lbs.
4.	She sailed from Halifax calling at various West Indian ports, going as far south as Demerara, carrying a cargo of general merchandise, and as she has not finished her trip from Barbados to New York the department will not know what her net freight earnings are, until she has completed this trip.
5.	She is insured against marine risks but not war risk. The insurance was placed by the Department of Marine through Messrs. Johnston and Higgins, New York.


STEAMER McKEE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	To whom is the Steamer McKee chartered?
2.	What is the nature of the cargo, the rate of freight per ton, the port of loading and port of discharge?
3.	What is the return cargo, rate cf freight per ton, and port of destination?
4.	Is the hull insured? If so, with what company and for how much?
5.	Is the freight insured?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	To the American Metal Transport Co., of New York.
2.	Cargo of coal from New York to Chili, rate of freight 30 shillings per ton D.W. per month, and the charterers assume all expenses except wages of the crew.
3.	Return cargo is ore, the rate of freight per ton is 30 shillings per ton D.W. Port of destination, New York.
4.	The hull is insured through Willcox, Peck and Hughes of New York for $336,OOo!
5.	Yes.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is the Government aware that on or about the 1st March, 1919, twenty locomotives bear-

ing numbers 861 to 881 and the words "Canadian Government" inscribed thereon, were ordered at the car shops of the Montreal Locomotive Company?
2.	Does the Government know that said locomotives were delivered to the Grand Trunk about the 15th of March?
3.	If so, what agreement has been arrived at by the Government and the Grand Trunk respecting said locomotives?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The locomotives are the property of the Canadian Government railways and are rented to the Grand Trunk railway.


OTTAWA CENTRAL STATION.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Does the Government intend to construct a connecting track between the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway and the main line of the Canadian National Railway at Ottawa which will enable the Montreal line trains of the latter railway to leave Central Station without running backward?
2.	If so, when?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Plans in connection with Ottawa entrance are under consideration.
2.	It is impossible to state definitely when change will be undertaken.


MONTREAL TERMINAL AND TUNNEL.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Are the Canadian Northern. Terminal, on Lagauchetffire street, Montreal, and the Tunnel under Mount Royal in that city, the property of the Government of Canada?
2.	If not, to whom do they belong?
3.	How much is paid for the use of said Terminal and Tunnel by the trains of the Canadian National Railway?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Canadian Northern terminal on 'Lagauchetiere St., and the tunnel und^r Mount Royal, in Montreal, is held by the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Co., Limited, the capital stock of which company is wholly owned by Canadian Northern Railway Company, which is controlled by Government through stock ownership.
2.	Answered by Number 1.
3.	Answered by Number 1.


LEVIS RIFLE ASSOCIATION.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Government any knowledge of an association called the Levis Rifle Association?
2.	If so, has it received any requests from this association to be allowed to use the rifle range at St. Joseph camp?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to encourage civilian rifle associations by allowing them the privilege of target practice at certain seasons of the year?
Major-General MBWBURN:
1.	Yes, No. 151, Levis Rifle Association, with headquarters at Levis, P.Q.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, but the future organization of rifle associations is under consideration.


DR. RUFUS H. PARENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	Has Dr. Rufus H. Parent, of Ottawa, been employed by the Government in connection with military matters at any time between the 4th August, 1914, and the 11th of November, 1918?
2.	If so, what were his duties?
3.	What sums were paid the said Dr. Rufus H, Parent on account of (a) salary; (b) separation allowance; (c) travelling expenses, and (d) office expenses?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Medical Officer, 230th Battalion, C.E.F., 15th April, 1916, to 4th January, 1917. Freneh-Canadian Recruiting Staff, 5th January to 30th June, 1917.
3.	(a) Pay, $1,827.75; field allowance,
$452; subsistence allowance, $1,302.75; total, $3,582.50.	(b) Separation allowance,
$688.	(c) Travelling expenses, $5.	(d)
Office expenses, nil.

[Stage Direction]
Mr: McGIBBON (Muskoka):
How many Canadian soldiers have: 1. Lost their four limbs; 2. Lost sight of both eyes;
3.	Are bedridden from any cause due to service?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	One.
2.	Sixty-six.
3.	Seventy-four. This is understood to mean cases likely, from the nature of the war injury, to be compelled to remain in bed during the remainder of their lives. Most cases of this type are the result of gunshot wounds of the spine, with resulting paralysis.

[Stage Direction]
IMr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):
In view of the statements [DOT] made by Col. A. E. Pratt in the Ontario Legislature that officers and others had to bribe officials in London in order to get passage to Canada, is it the intention of the Government to investigate the truth of the same?
Major-General MEWBURN: This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for same.

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many members are there at present who belong to the Superannuation and Pro-

vident Fund, which comes under the control of the Grand Trunk Consolidated Debentures Act of 1874, and the subsequent amendments?
2.	What is the present financial condition of the above Superannuation and Provident Fund?
3.	What surplus of cash have the trustees of the fund on hand to meet their obligations?
4.	How many members are drawing benefits from the Superannuation and Provident Fund at the present time?
5.	How many members are contributing to the Superannuation and Provident Fund at the present time?
6.	Is the interest on the accumulated fund sufficient to pay annually to each of the retired and retiring officers two-thirds of their retiring salary?
7.	What is the intention of the Committee of Management of the Superannuation and Provident Fund as regards the disposal of the fund when there are no surviving members, as I understand that the membership is now closed?
Hon. Mr. /REID:
1.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no information on the subject, but the inquiry might be referred to the secretary of the fund.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SECURITIES.
Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton) :: 1.	What was the par value of Canadian Northern Railway securities outstanding when the road was taken over by Government?
2.	What amount of such securities was held in Great Britain on 1st February, 1917?
3.	What was the market value of such securities held in Great Britain on 1st February, ,1917?
4.	What was the market value in Great Britain of Canadian Northern Income Bonds on 1st February, 1917?
5.	What was the par value of Canadian Northern securities held in Great Britain on 1st January, 1919?
6.	Is Government aware that before the transfer of the Canadian Northern Railway to Government a considerable volume of the securities of the road, then held in Great Britain, was said to have been purchased at prices much below par by Canadian interests?
7.	Does Government intend to pay interest on the $26,000,000 of Canadian Northern Income Bonds?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$384,931,494.40.
2.	$238,625,437.82.
3.	The Government has no official information.
4.	The Government has no official information.
5.	$238,164,150.81.
6.	The Government has no information on the subject.
7.	The trust deed covering the issue of the Canadian Northern Railway 5 per cent Income Charge Convertible Debenture Stock
[Major-General Mewburn.]
provides that interest shall be payable only if the net earnings of the company, after prior charges, permit. The Government sees no reason to vary from the terms of the mortgage.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: 1.	What officers of the Department of Railways and Canals were assigned to represent that department at the arbitration in Toronto in 1918 with respect to the value of Canadian Northern Railway common stock?
2.	What were the salaries of such officers on 1st December, 1917, and what are their salaries now?
3.	What were the ages and rank of R. A. C. Henry and Alexander Ferguson, officers of the Department of Railways and Canals, on 1st April, 1918?
4.	How long were Mr. Henry and Mr. Ferguson engaged at the arbitration with respect to Canadian Northern Railway common stock?
5.	How many days was Mr. Fairweather, Solicitor of the Department of Railways and Canals, at Toronto in connection with the arbitration regarding the value of Canadian Northern common stock?
6.	Was Mr. Fairweather withdrawn from that arbitration? If so, by whom, when and why?
7.	Did Graham A. Bell take any part in said arbitration as a witness or otherwise?
8.	Did Graham A. Bell have anything to do with the arrangements for the presentation of the case of Government in connection with said arbitration?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Alex Ferguson, R. C. A. Henry, Gordon Grant, C.E., and E. E. Fairweather, the officers of the department assigned to represent the department as witnesses and assist the Government counsel, were those asked for by Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C., of Toronto, counsel in charge of the case for the Government, to give so far as departmental requirements would allow, such assistance as might be required by him and by Mr. J. P. Newell, C.E., who was employed by counsel as a railway valuation expert. J. L. Payne, comptroller of railway statistics, also gave assistance and acted as witness.
2. Alex Ferguson .. .. R. A. C. Henry.. ., E. E. Fairweather.. Gordon Grant.

J. L. Payne	 4,000 - 4,000
3.	R. A. C. Henry, B.A., B.Sc., railway engineer, age 34; Alex Ferguson (graduate Glasgow Technical College) inspecting engineer, age 37.
4.	Throughout the proceedings.
5.	Most of the time during the first half of the proceedings.

6.	Mr. Fairweather ceased attendance at the arbitration as his services were required by the Committee of the Senate, which was considering the Consolidated Railway Bill.
7.	No, except to furnish information requested by counsel.
8.	The arrangements for the presentation of the case on behalf of the Government was wholly in the hands of Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C. Mr. Bell and the other departmental officials gave him any assistance and information as requested.


DEPUTY MINISTER OF RAILWAYS.
Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: 1. What was the salary and rank of Graham A. .Bell, new Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, on 1st January, 1900?
2 What was the date of each subsequent promotion of Graham A. Bell, and rank and salary attaching- to such promotions at the time they *were made ?	.
3.	When did Graham A. Bell, in his capacity as Departmental Auditor, first come in contact with the payment of moneys to the Canadian Northern Railway?
4.	What was the total amount of payments received by Graham A. Bell for services as a Director of the Canadian Northern Railway?
5.	While being paid as a Director of the Canadian Northern did Graham A. Bell also draw his full salary as an employee of the Government?
6.	Did Gralham A. Bell receive from the Canadian Northern or Messrs Mackenzie and Mann any other payments either for services or as gratuities? If so, what were the amounts?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Appointed December 1st, 1890. 1st January, 1900, third class clerk, $800 per annum.
2.	Promoted to second class clerk, 1903, $1,200; [DOT] appointed assistant accountant, November 6th, 1906, $1,200; promoted to first class clerk, December 26th, 1906, $1,350; increased April 1st, 1908, to $1,700; appointed departmental auditor, September 1st, 1909, $2,800; appointed financial comptroller, April 1st, 1913, $3,300; appointed assistant to the minister and financial comptroller, January 1st, 1917, $4,500; increased April 1st, 1918, to $5,000; appointed acting deputy minister, 22nd June, 1918, $5,000; appointed deputy minister, April 1st, 1919,

3.	On his appointment as departmental auditor, September 1, 1909.
4.	The usual director's remuneration of $2,000 per annum.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.


LOANS TO IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.
Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Has the Government loaned any money to the Imperial Government since 1914?
2.	If so, what are the securities?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The obligation of the Imperial Government.


HULL ARMOURY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DESLAUR1ERS:
1.	Is there an armoury in Hull, Que.?
2.	If so, does the Government own the property ?
3.	If not, who are the owners? What is the price of the rent per year?
4.	What amount has been paid in rents to date on said buildings?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Fortin & Gravelle. (b) $2,100.
4.	$9,450, covering rent to January 31, 1919.

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Has the Government acquired, since 1917, a property in Hull, Que., for the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, from whom, and what was the amount paid for the said property?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) From the executors and trustees of the late Alexander Stewart, (b) $14,000.


DOMINION EXHIBITIONS.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Does Parliament vote the sum of $50,000 yearly to the credit of the Government to assist what is known as the Dominion or Provincial Exhibition? If so, is it the policy of the Government to allot said sum, by rotation so that each one of the several provinces of the Dominion may benefit thereby?
2.	Has said sum been regularly granted, year after year, since it was first voted by Parliament? If not, in what years was said grant withheld, and for what reason?
3.	If for any reason the Government has seen fit to suspend its policy in this respect has it done so definitely or will the grant be again continued?
4 What are the exhibitions, to date, which . have benefited by this vote, stating the year the grant was made?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No. Prior to the war the Government policy was to grant a sum of $50,000 to be allotted by rotation to the several provinces of the Dominion, with the exception of Prince Edward Island.
2.	No. In 1909, no vote was made by Parliament for exhibition purposes, no Dominion Exhibition being held that year. The last grant was made in 1914, and allotted to the British Columbia Agricultural Association of Victoria, British Columbia, but owing to the outbreak of the war

the exhibition buildings in Victoria were taken over by the Militia Department, and as a consequence the exhibition could not be held. The sum of $24,166.66 out of the $50,000 grant was given to the British Columbia Agricultural Association, to defray the expenses for permanent improvements, etc., which had already been made in connection with the preparation for the holding of the proposed exhibition.
3.	It is not the intention of the Government to resume the giving of this grant.
4.	1903-04, Toronto Industrial Exhibition Association, $49,766.66; 1904-05, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Winnipeg, $50,000; 1905-06, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, New Westminster, $50,000; 1906-07, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Halifax, $50,000; 1907-08, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Sherbrooke, $50,000; 1908-09, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Calgary, $50,000; 1909-10, no grant; 1910-11, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, St. John, $50,000; 1911-12, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Regina, $50,000; 1912-13, Central Canada Exhibition, Ottawa, $50,000; 1913-14, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Brandon, $50,000; 1914-15, Dominion of Canada Exhibition, Victoria, $16,666.66; 1915-16, Dominion of Canada, Exhibition, Victoria, $7,500.


WAR PURCHASING COMMISSION,
John Ewen Sinclair: *
- 1. What are the names of the members of the War Purchasing Commission?
2.	What are their respective salaries?
3.	Who is the chairman?
4.	In purchasing goods, does this Commission advertise for tenders?


Newton Wesley Rowell: L Hon. Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Mr. G. F. Galt, Mr. W. P. Gundy.
2.	None; services are given without compensation.
3.	Hon. Sir Hormisdas Laporte. '
4.	Purchases are made on a competitive basis, tenders being invited from all persons and firms known to the commission to be engaged in the business concerned, tender forms being distributed by mail instead of public advertising.
Mr. JAMES SIDNEY ROE.


Mr. PROTJLX:: 1.	Is James Sidney Roe still in the employ of the Department of Customs?
2.	If so, y/hat work does he do in said Department?
3.	What is his salary?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	At present he is attached to the correspondence staff and makes investigations in regard to complaints and in regard to persons seeking employment in the customs service, and does such other duties as may from timejio time be assigned to him by the Commissioner of Customs.
3.	$2,800.


WAR MEMORIALS BUILDING.
*Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	Is the Government aware that in a recent issue of the London Times it was stated that Her Majesty the Queen and Princess Mary had visited the Exhibition of Canadian War Memorial Paintings at the Royal Academy London, the "Times" adding:-*
"The Royal visitors also spent some time inspecting the plans of the building which it is proposed to erect in Ottawa to house the collection."
2.	Have these plans or a duplicate set, been received by the Government? If so, will an early opportunity be afforded to members of Parliament to see them?
3.	Has a site for the proposed building been selected? If so; where?
Major-Generak MEWBURN:
1 and 2. It is understood that the plans referred to were prepared by direction of the War Memorials Committee, Canadian War Records, by Lieut. E. A. Richards of the well known firm of architects, London, England, Messrs. Lanchester & Richards. A small booklet giving an outline of these plans has been received unofficially.
3.	No site has yet been selected.


COLONEL A. C. PRATT.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	Does the purported report of the Base Commandant at Dunkirk, dated February 20, 1918, quoted recently by the Ottawa Journal,' form part of Colonel A. C. Pratt's official record?
2.	If so, by whom, and on whose authority was it given out?
3.	Is it lawful and according to the King's Regulations for newspaper men and others to have access to the official files of officers?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	It was not given out by the Militia Department.
3.	Access to officers' files is not permitted.


SIBERIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a number of Canadian Soldiers form part of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Northern Russia?

2.	If so, against whom are these Canadian soldiers fighting?
3.	Under whosfe command?
4.	Has a report as yet been received from the general officer commanding regarding these operations?
5.	Is it true that a considerable number of Canadians in this force have previously been casualties in France?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to return these soldiers to their homes at an early date? If so, when?
7.	What is the total number of Canadians engaged, and to what units do they belong?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Bolsheviki.
3.	This information is not available in Canada.
4.	Yes.
5.	This information is not available in Canada.
6.	As soon as possible.
7.	It is not considered in the public interest to make this information public at present, but I shall be glad to give it to the hon. member privately, if desired.


C.N.R.-MATANE COUNTY LUMBER.
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Has the Department of Railways bought lumber from the lumber merchants in Matane County since January 1, 1918? If so, from whom?
2.	Has the department abandoned the custom of asking for tenders for lumber in said county? If not, who was asked to tender since January 1, 1918?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. Price Brothers; J. A. Fenderson & Go.; Metis Lumber Co.; La Cie. Transfert Ltee.; La Cie. Couture Rheault Ltee.; Paul Therriault; J. W. Begin; Jos. Dufour; H. Boulay and Phillippe Gendron.
2.	No. Answered by No. 1.


DOMINION REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the total estimated current and capital expenditure required for the fiscal year 1919-20?
2.	What are the chief items of such expenditure and the amount thereof?
3.	What are the chief sources of revenue to meet the same and the estimated revenue from each source?
4.	What other sources are available for raising the deficiency in revenue?
-Sir THOMAS WHITE:
1 and 2. The estimated Consolidated Fund and Capital Expenditure for 1919-20 are contained in the Estimates already submitted to Parliament; certain iSupplementary Estimates, not yet determined, will likely be submitted at a later date. The Estimates with regard to war expenditures are
outlined in the resolution now before Parliament.
3	and 4. Estimated sources of revenue for 1919-20 will be announced in the Budget Speech.


QUEBEC MARINE DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Were any recommendations or reports made to the Government by the officials of the Marine or Public Works Departments with regard to the transferring of the Marine Department buildings at Quebec to Bridgewater Cove, Sillery, during the years 1911 to 1918?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to consider these recommendations- or reports ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes, in 1913.
2.	Not at present.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were any recommendations or reports made to the Government by the officials of the Marine or Public Works Departments with regard to the transferring of the Marine Department buildings at Quebec to Sillery Cove, during the years 1911 to 1918? If so, is it the intention of the Government to consider these recommendations or reports?


Hon. Mr.   MAOLEAN@: So far as the Department of Marine is concerned, no.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	What is the nature of the irregularities of which Major L'Heureux is charged in connection with the administration of the 167th Battalion?
2.	Is the Government aware that the adjutant of the said battalion, Captain J. A. Poirier, who shared the commanding officer's confidence, was not at all disquieted, but, on the contrary, was sent overseas immediately after the termination of Lieut.-Colonel Readman's trial?
3.	What were the charges alleged against the said Major L'Heureux and who investigated said charges?
4.	Was Major L'Heureux called upon to enter a plea of defence?
5.	Is the Government aware that on several occasions said Major L'Heureux demanded an investigation, and that the reply was that there was nothing for which to reproach him?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many men enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, were despatched from Canada to Siberia (a) before November 11, 1918, and (b) on or after November 11, 1918?
2.	In virtue of what law, Order in Council, or other authority were said men sent to Siberia?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1. Of the total amount of income tax collected for the last year for which returns are available, what amount thereof was contributed

by the nine provinces of the Dominion respectively?
2.	Of the total amount of business war profits tax collected during the war, what amount thereof was paid by each province, respectively?
3.	Of the total amount of customs duties collected during the last four fiscal years, what amount was paid by each province, respectively?
4.	Of the total amount of excise and inland revenue collected during the last four years, what amount was paid by each province respectively?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the total amount of the domestic Dominion War Loans subscribed to date?
2.	What is the amount thereof subscribed by each province of the Dominion?
3.	What was the amount of deposits in the banks at the close of the fiscal year next prior to the date of the first of such loans?
4.	What is the amount of deposits in Canadian banks according to the last issued statement, and the date of such statement?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: According to the latest available figures, what is the population of each of the four western provinces and of the cities of Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Brandon and Winnipeg?


Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	What are the present duties of the Censor's Department?
2.	Who are the men employed, and what are their salaries?
3.	Have any of them other occupations?
4.	How majny of them are former newspaper men, and what are their names?
5.	Is there any further need of a cable censor in Canada?
6.	How much does the Censor's Office cost per year?



UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.

Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: For a copy of all reports made, or letters written, by Graham A. Bell with respect to Canadian Northern Railway common stock, and also in connection with or leading up to the arbitration in 1918 with respect to the value of such common stock.


Herbert John Mackie: For a copy of the evidence in the arbitration at Toronto in 1918 with respect to the value of Canadian Northern Railway common stock taken over by Government.
Mr. MIAlCKIE (Edmonton):
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other papers concerning the parole or pardon of one Charles McMillen, one Pearson, and one Heaton, sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment in the Alberta Penitentiary.


Mr. MAROIL (Bonaventure):: For a copy of the correspondence exchanged between F. X. Gagnon, Port Daniel East, Quebec, and the Department of Justice, regarding the Military Exemption Tribunal which sat at that place.

Mr. McISAaC:
For a copy of all correspondence in connection with the lease of the Government Fish Drier at Souris, Prince Edward Island, including copy of the advertisement calling for tenders on the 15th day of May, 1914, and a copy of the lease.



THE GUELPH NOVITIATE-MILITARY SERVICE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Lt.-General Sir SAM HUGHES moved:
That, in the opinion of this Ho<use, in view of the statements made public in relation to the Guelph Novitiate during the month of June, 1918, and the circumstanoes and facts concerning those and other similar charges concerning the evasion by young men and the oonnivance of others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act and other Acts and Orders relating to the upbuilding of the Military Forces of Canada, it is advisable that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the matter with full authority to examine witnesses under oath, to pay necessary expenses and to report to this House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion concerns the practical claim to sovereignty on the part of the Jesuit Novitiate at Guelph, and the practical recognition of such claim by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. This charge may he laid not against this Government alone, but to my certain knowledge against practically every government that has preceded it for a great many years.
The Novitiate is a farm situated about two miles beyond the city limits of Guelph. About one year ago, in the spring of 1918, between forty and fifty people were said to be employed on this farm, and a number of these were reported liable for military service under the law. The military representative at Guelph at that time was a very reputable gentleman named W-e-s-t-o-b-y; I spell the name out because there has been some confusion over it. The military representative of the district was Colonel White, formerly in command of the 30th Wellington Rifles, and a gentleman of the highest standing in the city of Guelph. The assistant provost marshal was a young officer who had served with distinction at the front and had been wounded and invalided home, leaving his two brothers still in service at the front. This man's name was Captain Macauley, with then headquarters at London, Ontario. The Novitiate failed at the outset to report their men for medical examination under the Military Service Act; they failed to report their men for any purpose under the Military Service Act; they failed to report them under the military order relating to the 20-23 years of age class. The Novitiate, though repeatedly asked, refused

to give any names or any facts, or to recognize in any way the authority of the Government.
It was repeatedly requested to give information by Westoby, White and Macauley. Westoby on the 30th of November, 1917, wrote to the Novitiate and the letter is undisputed. The Novitiate resisted Macauley's actions on June 7, the time of the so-called raid, and the law was defied here, while the military police were everywhere else arresting people. No one was arrested at the Novitiate either for failure to register or to report, or for harbouring those who ought to have reported. I may say that some of the complaints concerning this Novitiate first came from those who were favourable to its religious persuasion. They felt ashamed to think that their sons at the front were doing their bit fearlessly in the cause, while here could be seen, from the roadside any day, forty or fifty of these men, all seemingly able-bodied husky fellows not reporting and practically defying the law-a condition of affairs which is fatal to the institutions under which we live. The Ministerial Association of Guelph has been brought into this matter to a considerable degree, with the object of trying to draw a herring across the trail. This association, in common with all ministerial associations throughout Canada, had been, at the request of the Government, long active in recruiting and had done yeoman service. Many congregations in Canada, before conscription was enacted, had scarcely one able-bodied man of military age who was not in the service. With one or two exceptions this was true of Guelph. Every one had clamoured for a solution of the Novitiate scandal. After the so-called raid an
4	p.m. attempt was made to inflame a portion of the public against the Ministerial Association, who had been assisting recruiting at the request of the Government, and incidentally assisting in the elections to return the Union Government. And on the failure of the raid and the suppression of the press, and also the humiliation of Macauley, the association smashed the press censorship and issued the following statement:
1.	That our attitude is not one of religious intolerance.
2.	The issues involved are issues of universal interest, and consequently of universal obligation.
3.	The association has not initiated this matter nor is it inspired by gossip.
4.	The association makes no charges, but
seeks investigation of charges made by the authorities.	,
5.	If the Military Service Act hold any one responsible who shields a defaulter, an institution charged with harbouring 22 should also be held responsible.
6.	We, as pastors, refuse to be regarded as a class who have no right to interfere with such matters, or of being incompetent or incapable of being leaders in the community, or in the charges to which we have been called for such purpose.
The Ministerial Association's assistance had been sought and freely given from the beginning, both in recruiting and in the elections. After the elections the Rev. Mr. Palmer, Presbyterian minister of Guelph, and a member of the Ministerial Association, spoke to a member of this Government, the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie), by whom he was assured that justice would be done. On his return from Ottawa, however, Mr. Guthrie told Mr. Palmer, in these colloquial terms, " Doherty says they are all right and are to be left alone." On another occasion Mr. Palmer again spoke to Mr. Guthrie, whereupon Mr. Guthrie returned to Ottawa and sent him Hansard of July 13, 1917, with pages 3498 to 3503, and of July 19, 1917, pages 3702 to 3717 marked, bearing on the case and showing clearly that these gentlemen in the Novitiate were amenable to the law.
There are further reports to which I shall now make passing reference in case the matter may be brought up in any tribunal. There is a report that there was a very important telegram sent by the Solicitor General to his law partner Mr. Kirwin, who, I understand, was the lawyer for the Novitiate. One can readily understand how excitement grew in this matter, and the circumstances connected with the incident had been a public scandal all over the country. London had repeatedly requested that action be taken; the officers were talking the matter over; the people were discussing it, and a rumour became current that these men, not only twenty-two of them but all of them were put there in hiding. Added to this was the story that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) had a son there. I have not had the privilege of seeing this gentleman for a number of years, but several years ago -he was a lad of 17 or 18 then-he certainly was not, in my opinion, a fit subject for military service. But the story got around that he was there in hiding, and one can easily conceive the intense excitement that these rumours engendered. Instead of doing what they should have done, namely, calling Westoby, Macauley and White and saying: "Here are the boys, come and inspect them and take those who should go,"
[Stage Direction]
there was an attempt from start to finish to disregard the law, and they acted as if they considered that they were not amenable to the laws of Canada and would not recognize any authority. Further, there was a rumour of bad feeling between the Department of Justice and the Militia Department, and 'there was a report that the Militia Department, to its eternal credit, ordered the thing to be cleaned up. If that order was issued, then I congratulate the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn). Following this, on June 7th, 1918, a train from London arrived at Guelph at 7.35 p.m., and in order to obviate any tittle-tattle, and with a view to precision, I am giving the dates. Now Macauley had eleven men in mufti. He wore the chevron on his arm showing his authority, but he and his men were in mufti, because he did not want to go into Guelph with a body of troops and create any excitement on, his way to the Novitiate. He came and made inquiries at the drill hall, got a cenveyance and drove quietly to the Novitiate, arriving there before nine o'clock at night. He took only three men to the door, and a member of the Novitiate refused to give any information, but telephoned ;to Judge Hayes and to Lawyer Kirwin. The latter came to the Novitiate and Macauley informed him that he had decided to take three of the students in order that he might have a test case. On the wall there was a long list which he glanced over, the list evidently containing the names of the people in the Novitiate. Not one occupant of the institution had, any document exempting him from service. The Novitiate repudiated Macauley's authority and refused to accede to any request of his for information. They communicated with the Department of Justice at Ottawa-J understand with the Minister of Justice himself-and the department communicated with Macauley, who, however, being a military officer, very properly declined to take orders from any other department than the Militia. The Department of Justice then evidently communicated with the Militia Department, and in the absence of the Minister of Militia some of the officers, after midnight that night, telephoned Macauley, ordering him to leave the Novitiate the same night. An opportunity was thus given for any men who cared to do so to escape. Macauley returned the next day, however, to obtain the names of the occupants, but the list was gone. The Department of Justice that night,-that is the night of the raid-in order to entirely suppress the matter, ordered the press not to publish a word 
in connection with it. That order came from the Department of Justice and can be traced directly to the Minister of Justice himself. The Minister of Militia later sent an apology. Then, Colonel Godson-Godson, Provost Marshal, followed. But the serious thing, so far as Colonel Godson-Godson is concerned, is that he visited London, and that letters on the subject either by him or his followers were taken from the files there. Macauley was sent to Winnipeg. There was a second press censorship issued, but the people of Guelph had been excited to such a pitch that they would not be bound by this censorship any longer, and the pulpits and some of the press, ignoring the censorship, published the facts of the case; but when the Rev. Mr. Palmer went to the Northwest on a lecturing tour he found that his' addresses were not allowed to be published.
The matter was brought to the attention of the Dominion Government and they took the stand, possibly very properly-I think they were perfectly justified in demanding specific charges-that they would decline to go into the matter unless specific charges were given them. These have been furnished them by the Bev. Mr. Palmer and they are:
1.	The Department of Justice at Ottawa interfered with the Military Board at Guelph in their efforts to obtain information as to the status of the inmates of the Guelph Novitiate.
2.	That in doing so, the department extended special- privileges to an institution which should have been treated like any'other institution.
3.	That the Hon. C. J. Doherty interfered with Captain A. C. Macauley on the night of June 7th, while he, Capt. Macauley, was carrying out the instructions of his superior officers."
4.	That the Department of Justice, through its minister, prevented the placing in military service of young men of military age residing in the institution.
5.	That the press censorship instigated by a minister of the Crown intensified the feeling that special protection was being given to the institution at Guelph.
. I hereby state that the above charges are made by me in good faith, believing them to be true and fully borne out by evidence which can be produced.
Kennedy H. Palmer.
When the matter was brought to the attention of the Government, as I say, they declined to act unless specific charges were made involving the Government. Formal charges were made by the Kev. Mr. Palmer and are, to my mind, specific, but lest there should be any misunderstanding, I will, from my place in this House, assume the responsibility of enumerating some of the charges or rather statements, which are made for the purpose, not of attacking the

Government, but of challenging this pretended sovereignty of any organization or its assumption of superiority to the State. These statements are as follows:
1.	That the Government improperly failed to make the occaipants of the Novitiate register for medical examination or for service under the M.S.A., and the Government also failed to punish those harbouring defaulters in the Novitiate.
2.	A member of the Government (Mr. Guthrie) informed a member of the Ministerial Association that " Doherty says they are all right and they are to be left alone."
This is improper interference.
3.	The Militia Department order London to take action and Macauley took it.
This was proper.
4.	The Novitiate communicated with the Justice Department.
That was perfectly constitutional.
5.	The Justice Department improperly communicated with Macauley.
6.	The Justice Department communicated with the Militia Department.
That was perfectly proper.
7.	After midnight the Militia Department communicated with Macauley and improperly ordered him to retire from the Novitiate.
S.	The Justice Department improperly ordered the press censorship.
9.	The Minister of Militia apologized to the Principal of the Novitiate, and indirectly censured Macauley when the order should have been to the Principal to observe the law.
10.	Col. Godson-Godson, Provost Marshal for the Militia Department, visited the Novitiate and it is claimed, further apologized.
That is a matter of no importance whatever.
11.	Godson-Godson visited London and it is claimed improperly and surreptitiously had certain letters removed from the Military files there.
That is a matter of small account but it can be readily explained, I understand.
1>2. Macauley was improperly removed to Winnipeg by the Militia Department.
I need not comment upon these facts- they speak for themselves-but they do not carry out the principle that we should have equal rights, equal laws for all and special privileges for none. This Novitiate has arrogated to itself the right to be regarded as a sovereign power. I understand that Colonel Street, of Ottawa, himself a member of that community, who was acting in a military capacity, was refused and that he had the very same experience as Colonel Macauley at Guelph and London and as others had throughout the Dominion. If these institutions are to be superior to and override the law, I do not regard that as a proper condition of affairs and I certainly do not purpose consenting to having
a sovereign body within a sovereign body in the Dominion of Canada. The State must be supreme and all organizations and corporations must bow to its will.
I remember once in an election case in Victoria county objecting to seven or eight names being put upon the list. The members of a corporation that owned a little building sought to get their names upon the list as voters. They had sworn a few months before that the building was only worth $250 and yet they came forward and wanted to get tneir names on the nst as joint owners of this building. I objected on the ground that there was not sufficient property to qualify the members of a corporation of that kind and that their names should not go cn. Judge Deacon who was presiding, said that these corporations were seeking to override the laws of the country, that they had neither sterns to kick nor souls to save and he held that the members of that corporation could not go on as voters. Others must do the same as Judge Deacon did if these corporations are to observe the law.
I might point out that serious complaints reached me regarding this Novitiate at Guelph, and they came from those of the same creed as the members of the novitiate themselves. They felt ashamed that	any one should undertake to
evade the law as was done in this instance. I might point out another instance, and there are many of them, to the credit of the ecclesiastics of that church, where a young man was called out by the Militia Department. He immediately ran to the leading ecclesiastic of his district and sought to get influence to have him exempted. The ecclesiastic looked him up and down, heard his case and said: " Get into a uniform; you are the type of man that should be fighting; why are you asking to be exempted?" That, young man got into his uniform, but he finally got out of it in spite of his ecclesiastical friend. I could give instance after instance where people in that community have been humiliated to find that, because behind the scenes work was going on where young men have been improperly exempted from going to the front while others have been taken. There is nothing that has spread the spirit of rebellion in this Dominion, nothing that has created a feeling so strong against the Government, as the fact that the Military Service Act has not been administered in the spirit of equity throughout Canada. That has spread a bitter feeling. People have seen their sons taken and sent to the front while their neighbour's sons have been allowed to remain and have not been inter-
[Stage Direction]


fered with. The military officers, who got $10 a head, could not be induced to touch certain young men, whereas they would go in and grab other young fellow's under age, or close to the age, in order to take them away. It has bred that spirit of rebellion which injustice always breeds, and a particularly strong feeling characterizes this community around Guelph.
There is no intention of being intolerant. All the intolerance has been on the part of the Novitiate. Almost a year elapsed after the passing of the Military Service Act before any action was taken. Tolerance! The Militia and Defence people were more than tolerant. It was more than three months before they acted, and the Novitiate still defied them. I will read this definition of tolerance:
It is first the recognition of the rights of private judgment in matters of faith and worship ; it is also the liberty granted by the governing power of a state to every individual to hold, or publicly teach and defend his religious opinions and to worship whom, how and when he pleases provided that he does not thereby violate the rights of others or infringe laws designed for the protection of decency, morality, and good order or for the security of the governing power.
What was then to be done? Our men were being driven back from St. Quentin, and the whole civilized world was feeling that there was a possibility of the Allies meeting a defeat. These men were called out, and they failed to respond and defied the law. If even intolerance was displayed, it was displayed, under this definition, by the Novitiate at Guelph. If ever tolerance was displayed, it was displayed by the department- in not taking prompt action before they did. Then there is the fact of recognition by the State of the right which every person has
Robert Hamilton Butts: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me to ask him a question?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, a dozen.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to give the House any information as to the percentage of Catholics and Protestants that fought in the Allied armies?


Samuel Hughes: I am not concerned as to whether a man was a Roman Catholic-


Robert Hamilton Butts: I know you are.
Sir'SAM HUGHES:-or a Protestant, one way or the other. I am not going to deal with that aspect of the case at present. On a proper occasion I will be prepared to take up that phase of the matter, but it has nothing whatever to do with what I am arguing here

I might say that I am very glad indeed, now the hon. gentleman has mentioned the matter, to state that Roman Catholics throughout my constituency-English and French, British and other nationalities, in fact all the Roman Catholics in the district-have spoken to me again and again about my action in having this matter placed on a proper basis.
Now to resume my speech:	Third, the
fact of recognition by the State of the right-


Robert Hamilton Butts: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask another question?


Samuel Hughes: With pleasure, anything to satisfy my hon. friend.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Were there not more Catholics fighting in the Allied armies than there were Protestants?	.


Samuel Hughes: I really could not
say. I have never asked a man what his religious faith was. In my life time-


Robert Hamilton Butts: I can tell you now that
there were.


Samuel Hughes: I have followed the motto of Talleyrand. He was asked at one time, " What is your religion?" Talleyrand replied, " My religion is that of every wise man." He was asked, " What is the religion of every wise man?" To this he replied, " A wise man never tells his religion."
I will now make a third attempt to continue my speech:	Third:	the fact of recognition by the -State of the right which every person has to enjoy the benefit of all the laws and all social privileges without any regard to difference of religion. That is all I have to say on the question. I merely desire -to present the facts of the case without comment. I might say that since putting this motion on the Order Paper, in consultation with a number of my friends, they think that if the Government would consider the matter and refer it to a judge, or a commission, or some tribunal of that kind, other than to the individual members of the House, it might possibly be a quieter way of solving the trouble, and might get at the facts much more readily, and with less circumlocution. Bearing that in mind I will accept any proper solution the Government may have to offer with respect to the matter.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): I have listened to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) with a great deal of interest, and while the specific charges that he wishes to have investigated do not materially affect the Department of Militia and Defence, yet

I feel that that department has been referred to and it does, in connection with this matter, touch very closely the Department of Justice in the operation of the Military Service Act. The hon. member stated that great criticism was levelled at us for our not looking into this matter at an earlier stage, and I do not wish to cast the responsibility on any other department, or, according to a slang military term, " pass the buck." I am prepared to take the responsibility for my department to the fullest possible extent. Up to some time in April the Department of Justice, as is well known, was charged with the apprehension of all men liable for military service. The Department of Militia and Defence had nothing to do with apprehending men for military service until such time as we were notified by the registrars under the Justice Department that any individual man was not entitled. to exemption, and had been ordered to report to one. of the depot units. If that man failed to report then he became a deserter and the duty devolved upon the Militia Department of apprehending him. Towards the end of April an Order in Council was passed releasing the Dominion police from duty in connection with this work, and the Militia Department was then charged with the work of apprehension, so that from a period of the end of April until some time in May, which is not a very long time, passed before we could assume control of this work after having received the necessary information.
I would like to explain to the House at the outset that as far as my department is concerned, I have always felt, since publicity has been given to this unfortunate matter, that we would welcome any investigation. We are not afraid for the light of day to shine on any of our work, and I will be willing, and be only too glad, speaking personally, to have any investigation that the Government may decide to grant. But I wish to state my position regarding this matter, and will first refer to the instructions I gave regarding an investigation at the Novitiate, because the first instructions emanated from me. Secondly, I desire to-read the apology that I sent to the rector of this institution I am not ashamed of that apology, and I think any hon. gentleman when he knows the facts will agree that it was the only manly course to take. I say without hesitation that I would take that action again were I to be put in the same position.
Throughout the whole of this unfortunate affair, and throughout the operation of the
78 i
Military Service Act, I regret to say, there has been too much talk indulged in through the country, and too much questioning as to whether a man was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant-as to whether he was a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or an Anglican, or a French-Canadian. I say that all the men that enlisted were Canadian soldiers and should be treated as such. If that had been the spirit which prevailed throughout there would have been considerably less heartburning and greater unity in the country.
Now, Sir, on the 31st day of May, 1918, I was informed by a very reliable party that there were several men in the Jesuit College at Guelph who were evading military service. The names of two young men were given to me specifically, and the name of a third young man in Guelph, who had nothing to do with the Novitiate, was mentioned. I immediately sent a minute to Captain Tyndale, who was acting as secretary of a sub-committee of the Militia Department which was looking after the operation of the Military Service Act, and keeping closely in touch with the Department of Justice to whom the whole operation of this Act had been entrusted. That sub-committee was meeting every afternoon considering matters that arose in connection with the Military Service Act, keeping closely in touch with the Department of Justice, as I have said, and carrying out any instructions that might be given. I will now read the instructions that I issued, and these are the only instructions that I ever gave relating to this matter. I shall read from a true and correct copy of the Minute of Instructions given by me. The original of this document was sent to Captain Tyndale.


Samuel Hughes: Of London?


Major General MEWBURN:: No, Captain Tyndale of Ottawa, who was secretary of the sub-committee in my department. He in his turn passed the original on to the Provost Marshal, by whom it was forwarded to London where it was filed. When this matter came up the statement was made, publicly and otherwise, that I had given definite instructions different from what I actually did give, and I requested that -the original document be returned to the Headquarters file in Ottawa, from which it should never have 'gone. The document was returned from London. The statement made that the Provost Marshal went to London and took certain documents

off the files there was not true. The instructions given were:
Memo to Captain Tyndale:
I am informed through a very reliable source that there are several men at the Jesuit College, Guelph; particularly men by the name of Newman and Craig, who are escaping military service. Steps should be taken to get after these men. There is also another very glaring case, and that is James Alexander, son of A. W. Alexander, Guelph. Can you have these cases followed up? Probably the Provost Marshal would help you.
(Signed) S. C. Mewburn.
I do not think it is necessary to refer here to the Alexander case, because very shortly after that the young man in question joined the forces and went overseas. That is a copy of the original and it is the only document that I ever issued in connection with this matter, except the apology which I have referred to.
I would like to give the House the benefit of what followed, as far as my department is concerned: Captain Tyndale immediately transmitted that document to the Provost Marshal, who in turn sent it to London and gave instructions to the Deputy Assistant Provost Marshal there to look into the matter.
Captain Macauley proceeded to Guelph on the night of the 7th of June, and that night called at the Novitiate. At midnight on June 7 the Adjutant General received a telephone communication from the Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Doherty) stating that Captain Macauley had arrived at the Novitiate at 9 p.m. and proposed to make certain arrests of men who were not, in fact, liable for military service. In view of the representations of the Minister of Justice the Adjutant General gave instructions to Captain Macauley by long distance telephone to suspend action tor the night, but to revisit the college in the morning and obtain full information.
Briefly, this is what appears to have occurred on the evening in question. Captain Macauley reached the Novitiate about 9.20 p.m., accompanied by nine military policemen whom he posted about the building. Entering in plain clothes and not producing any written authority from the General Officer Commanding the District or from the Provost Marshal or the Assistant Provost Marshal, as is required by the Order in Council of 30th April, 1918, he demanded as an alternative to an immediate search of the whole premises that all the men of military age in the Novitiate should be assembled in the dining room for interrogation. During the interval Captain
[Major-General Mewburn.]
Hingston, a chaplain who had served for some years overseas and who was on leave and happened to be visiting the Novitiate, asked him for his authority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Father Hingston is
himself a member of the order.
Major-General MEWBURN: He was visiting there; he had been a chaplain overseas.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a member of the order.
Major-General MEWBURN:	He may
have been. He was on leave and was there for a few days, I understand.
To that request his reply was a demand to know who Captain Hingston was and why he was wearing uniform with captain's badges. Captain Hingston protested against the illegality of Captain Macauley's proceeding, but the assembling of the men of military age was conceded in the face of Captain Macauley's reiterated statement of his intention to search the house forthwith. The men were assembled accordingly and their interrogation proceeded. While this was going on the rector, or Father Hingston, got into telephone communication with a solicitor and through him with the Minister of Justice, who hin>
self reached Captain Macauley by telephone at about the time that he had decided that he would remove in custody three of the men of the Novitiate. Captain Macauley refused to take any order from the Minister of Justice-I do not blame him in that-but complied with the order subsequently given by the Adjutant General at the latter's request. That confirms, I think, what the hon. member referred to in this regard.
A letter from the rector of the Novitiate protesting against the illegality and irregularity of Captain Macauley's conduct was received by me, and a letter of apology for the mode in which the inquiry had been carried out sent in reply. In order that the House may have full information and see just exactly what the feeling was with regard to this' matter, I wish to read the letter from the rector of the Novitiate to the Minister of Militia, written from St. Stanislaus' Novitiate, Guelph, dated June 8, 1918. I was out of the city at the time, and I had no knowledge of this until I returned the following day. The letter is as follows:
The Honourable Major-General Mewburn, Minister of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to lodge a most emphatic protest against the conduct of certain military author-

ities of Military District 1, at St. Stanislaus' Novitiate, Guelph, Ont.
Last evening at 9.35 three men in plain clothes, one of whom said he was a Deputy Provost Marshal, called at this house, and demanded that all the members of this community be paraded before him within the delay of five minutes.
When I asked him for his authority for a proceeding so unusual and at such an unseemly hour he produced from his pocket a brassard with the letters D.P.M., which he said was his authority, and added that if I did not summon the community at once, he would proceed to search the house for deserters and defaulters under the Military Service Act.
I went to the telephone to consult our lawyer as to the legality of the proceedings, and asked Father Hingston, who was but three weeks back from service overseas as military chaplain, to interview these military gentlemen. To Father Kingston's questions the leader of the party said that his name was Macauley, that he was a captain and a D.P.M., in proof whereof he again produced the brassard from his pocket. As the possession of a brassard was not thought to be of itself sufficient proof, the gentleman in grey tweeds, who said he was Captain Macauley, exhibited a typewritten copy of instructions which he proceeded to read. The passage which seemed relevant and on which he based his right of search was substantially as follows: "Any officer or N.C.O. acting under written authorization of G.O.C. or O.C. of a military district or area, if he has good grounds for believing that deserters or defaulters under the M.S.A. are being harboured and concealed, after reasonable demand of entrance and refusal thereof, and upon producing the aforesaid written authorization, may forcibly enter and search the premises, etc. . . Asked for the written authority mentioned in the instructions, the gentleman could produce none, but insisted nevertheless on his right of search.
Meanwhile, about an hour and a half went by, during which time various telephone messages were sent to three different lawyers, and Captain Macauley himself tried to have another automobile sent out from the city. The community, which rises at a very early hour, had long since gone to bed.
Finally, Captain Macauley, who had grown impatient at my reluctance to submit to the indignity of a search, especially on the part of persons who could not show proper authorization for so doing, this delay, moreover, being attributed by one of his party to quibbling and a desire to gain time for concealment, declared his intention of proceeding forthwith to search the house. Two outside witnesses had been summoned by me, Thomas Bedford, a neighbour and a J.P., and Joseph O'Leary. In their presence Father Hingston reiterated his formal request for the production of some written authorization, and as this was not forthcoming, he registered a formal protest against the search without proper authorization, and warned Captain Macauley that he must take the responsibility for his illegal act. Captain Macauley declared his intention of searching the house-without further ado, and taking out his note-book began by asking the names of the four persons then in the room.
Just then one of the legal gentlemen consulted telephoned, and after hearing the circumstances advised me to overlook any irregularity there might be in the proceedings
and to do all I could to facilitate the obtaining of all the information required. I did so, and offered Captain Macauley either that he himself should visit the bedrooms and dormitories or that I should have all the members of the community wakened and summoned to the refectory. He chose the latter alternative. Meanwhile, it appeared that the three men with whom we had been dealing up till now were not alone, but had all along been accompanied by a force of deputy police, some of whom, if not all, were armed, who had formed a cordon about the house, and could be seen, some peering in at the windows, others standing guard at various intervals or pacing their beat on all sides of the house. Of these as many as eleven were counted, and when later on our lawyer arrived, for we found the actual presence of a lawyer absolutely necessary, he found the front gate closed and guarded, which, however, was opened for him.
The interrogatory began about eleven o'clock and lasted about an hour and a quarter. Three members of my community were seized as deserters and placed under close arrest. They were told to make ready to leave for the barracks and were conducted under escort to the dormitories to make the necessary changes in their clothing. None of these young men, as I understand, come within the scope of the Military Service Act, or of any subsequent Order in Council, our order being moreover strictly and exclusively a religious order. A telephone message was sent to the Hon. Minister of Justice at Ottawa. Thereupon he communicated with the A.A.G. who stayed the unjustifiable proceedings. After much telephoning to London and to Ottawa Captain Macauley and his party left our house at 1.40 a.m.
I now beg to protest as strongly as I can against this outrageous conduct. If the Militia Department of Ottawa needs any information about the Novitiate at Guelph, I will do all in my power to furnish it. If the Military authorities of this district wish to ascertain for themselves the status of this house and of its members, I will give them every facility for so doing. But I will not submit without protest to the.wholesale indignity of having my house invaded at night, of having the gates of the grounds closed and a guard set over them, and of having a cordon of police on patrol around the buildings, as was done last night. I will not accept in silence the base imputation that this religious community is in league with deserters to evade the law, nor can I tolerate in the least degree that such an odious impression be made on the public mind as undoubtedly must be made by such a preposterous display of force. For the only inference that can be drawn from such special treatment, from the unwarranted and high handed manner of the whole proceedings, which we regard as an insult not merely to ourselves but to the Catholics of the Dominion and to all decent men, is that we must indeed be what ignorant and often confuted factions have made us out to be, double-dealing, dangerous men, who can be made to obey the just law of the land only at the point of the bayonet.
This morning when Captain Macauley called he seemed at pains to minimize the events of last night. He excused himself for the number of men he had brought with him from London on the plea that he did not know what violence he might have to contend with. This is almost on a par with the disappointed credulity of those searchers who poked into the

alcoves of the dormitories and even into the latrines, and were amazed to And only bareness and simplicity where they hoped to raise startling mysteries.
Captain Macauley assured the A.G. that there had been no friction of any kind. This is true in the sense that on our part he met throughout with unfailing courtesy; that the delay caused in the beginning, due to his failure to show proper written authorization, was qualified by the assurance of our readiness to comply under proper procedure; that we even gave refreshments to all his party, most of whom had spent several hours in the cold. But it is not true in the sense that we did not most deeply feel and resent the opprobrious treatment to which we were so unjustly and unjustifiably subjected.
It is not for me to say who is to blame for such an unprecedented manner of acting, but this I will say, that it would be. hard to devise a clumsier or more exasperating manner of extorting Information which a polite letter or visit would have readily elicited, than that of bringing a posse of armed men from London to Guelph to a peaceable religious house.
It is thanks to the Hon. Minister of Justice and to the prompt and courteous intervention of Major General Ashton that a very painful situation was somewhat softened and a much more oritical situation averted. A repetition of such an indignity would be bad for the country at large. Is it too much to hope that those .who have such large discretionary powers as those enjoyed by the Provost Marshal should be possessed of at least ordinary consideration and tact, and not permit themselves to become in any way the instruments of bigotry?
It is not the intention that this letter should be published. The same motives that promoted us to endure with patience what we considered unjust and high-handed treatment rather than to create a scene, prompt us now to withhold from the press anything of a nature to excite public opinion. If, however, untrue and defamatory accounts of the events complained of should be circulated, it may become necessary to publish this letter, adding, if need be, some further details.
Incidents of this nature become known very rapidly and so strange a proceeding could soon be reported not only in Canada but also in the United States and elsewhere, causing a great deal of ill-feeling and possibly religious strife, which at all times is most deplorable, but especially when the exigencies of war demand a closely united people.
I am, Sir,
Your very respectfully,
(Sgd.) H. Bourque, Reotor of St. Stanislaus' Novitiate, Guelph, Ontario.
The instructions contained in the Order in Council regarding the right of search were advisedly made very explicit and were well defined, so that a man could not make a search in any place without first receiving proper written instructions from a superior authority. Everybody in my department has been warned that in connection with any action taken under the Military Service Act they must use the greatest possible discretion and courtesy. When I received that
[Major-General Mewburn.]
letter I was horrified at the manner in which this officer had performed his duty.


Samuel Hughes: Did the minister consult Captain Macauley and get his version of the case?


Major General MEWBURN:: 
Mr. EDWARDS:: Had the students in the Novitiate presented themselves for registration and received certificates of exemption?


Major General MEWBURN:: I understand from the report received after this took place, that the Novitiate had failed in its duty to give the names of those who were in the institution. I did not see any certificates of exemption.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister a record of the number of times that Westoby, Macauley, and the London office asked the Novitiate for the very information which he is prepared to produce to-day?


Major General MEWBURN:: I am speaking only from memory, but I understand that upon at least two occasions the Novitiate were asked by the registrar under the Military Service Act for a list of the names and they failed to furnish it.


Samuel Hughes: They were asked
twenty times.


Peter McGibbon: Seeing that one account of this raid, so to speak, has been laid before the House, would it not be well for us to have the other side of the matter, that is, Captain Macauley's account of it. We would then be in a position to judge the matter better.


Major General MEWBURN:: I could give the House the benefit of all the information I have including the names of all in the Novitiate, but I wish to carry out as far as possible the wishes of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and I inferred that there would be an investigation when all the original documents would be produced.
I just wish to touch on one more point, because the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) referred to it. He spoke in regard to the son of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who, I deeply regret, is not here to-day, because this touches him personally and through his department. I was aware that the son of the Minister of Justice was in the Novitiate, and long before this raid took place we were informed that he was not of military age, that he was medically unfit, and that there were medical certificates from three military medical officers in Montreal stating that he was unfit.


Samuel Hughes: A private board.


Major General MEWBURN:: I know there were three medical officers examined him.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I notice that the hon.
member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) denies that. I have a personal information as to that fact myself.


Samuel Hughes: If I may be permitted to say so, I have defended Judge Doherty's son. I do not think he was entitled to go at all; I never did; but he had not a certificate from a military medical board; though he had certificates from private doctors.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: He was turned down by
the board.


Arthur Meighen: The subject covered by
the motion of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) and referred to by the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn), has in one form or another been before the Government for many months, and has absorbed throughout the country a degree of attention which I humbly venture to suggest is out of proportion to its importance.
When the question first came up in June, 1918, I personally, being overseas, had no knowledge whatever of the circumstances, but on my assumption of the duties of Acting Minister of Justice in November, 1918, the subject very soon came to my attention. I think it was toward the end of that month that a deputation headed by the reverend gentleman the hon. member for Victoria has referred to, the Rev. Mr. Palmer, waited upon certain members of the Government to make a plea for an investigation into what they called the Novitiate affair in Guelph. That deputation was composed of other reverend gentlemen besides the Rev. Mr. Palmer, and accompanying it were certain members of Parliament. The subject at the time was carefully reviewed in the presence of the Acting Prime Minister, of the Minister of Militia, and of myself; possibly other ministers .were present as well. A statement was then read before the ministers. which statement, how'ever, appeared to be for the most part a recital of reports, and contained nothing in the way of definite allegations and nothing, in our judgment, upon which the investigation which they sought could with any propriety be hung. The Acting Prime Minister at that time made it very clear to those present that if anything in the nature of charges of impropriety were brought by responsible persons to the attention of the Government -anything in the nature of specific allegations of fact that constituted wrong-doing on the part either of members of the Gov-

eminent or of officers of the Government, or of any one under the Government's control-necessarily an appropriate investigation would have to take place, and that the Government stood prepared, when that was done, to deal with the matter as such matters are properly dealt with by a government. Should those charges when so made involve the integrity and public conduct of a minister of the Crown, it would, of course, become necessary that they should be communicated to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister would then take into consideration the proper course to pursue.
I understood from the members of that delegation that they would proceed to formulate charges of that character. I knew or heard nothing further about the matter for some time thereafter, when I noticed in the press a statement to the effect that these charges would not be formulated or presented. Later on, however, and indeed very recently, I was informed that such charges were to be formulated, and we then stood prepared, as we had stood prepared all along, to recommend the appointment of a commission or some appropriate tribunal to investigate anything that could be said in such definite and meaningful language that a commission could address itself to the task of ascertaining the truth or falsity of the charges made. On last Thursday night, I think it was, there was communicated to the Acting Prime Minister a document signed by the Rev. Kennedy H. Palmer which the hon. member for Victoria reads to-day. I rather understand the hon. member endorses this schedule of charges and follows it by certain allegations which for convenience he summarizes towards the close of his remarks but which had not been brought to my attention until I heard them from his lips this afternoon. Consequently, as to these latter it will be impossible for me to deal with them with that degree of care and consideration which such a matter demands. However, I wish to make some reference in the House to the document presented by a responsible citizen, the Rev. Mr. Palmer, last Thursday night.
The first charge reads as follows:
The Department of Justice at Ottawa interfered with the Military . Board at Guelph in their efforts to obtain information as to the status of the inmates of the Guelph Novitiate.
In this connection it is proper, I think, to remark that among the duties of the Department of Justice is a supervision, from the legal standpoint, of all the de-

partments of government, to the end that the activities of every department may be conducted within their proper legal limitations. Consequently, it might be quite the fact that the Department of Justice would interfere with some specific act of another department, and provided that act were not within the limits of the law, the Department of Justice might be justified in so doing, if the circumstances of the moment made interference necessary in the public interest. There might, therefore, be such a thing as interference on the part of the Department of Justice of the nature alleged in the first charge, which interference would not necessarily be improper. On the other hand, there might be interference which would be wholly improper. Consequently, to constitute the first allegation something in the nature of a charge of improper or wrongful conduct on t'he part of either of a member of the Government or of any officer of the department, the word "improper" or some word to that effect should be read into the first sentence.
The second charge is to this effect:
That in doing so, the department extended special privileges to an institution which should have been treated like any other institution.
I would be the last to intimate to the House that any institution in this country should be treated differently from any other, and if any action of the Department of Justice resulted in discrimination in favour of or against any institution, then that action was ipso facto an improper action.
The third charge is to this effect:
That the Hon. C. J. Doherty interfered with Captain A. C. Macauley on the night of June 7th, while he, Captain Macauley was carrying out the instructions of his superior officers.
The remarks which I made bearing on the first allegation apply just as clearly and with equal force to the third. The fourth allegation is this:
That the Department of Justice, through its minister, prevented the placing in military service of young men of military age residing in the institution.
It will be very apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every hon. member of this House that the Department of Justice might have done exactly what is stated in clause 4, and have been acting only in the discharge of its duties. There were thousands of young men of military age in this country, who under the Military Service Act, were exempt for various reasons, and one of the duties of the Department of Justice in the enforcement of the Act was

to see that such exemptions were duly exempted. Consequently it is manifest, beyond the possibility of question, that some allegation of impropriety would require to be inserted in clause 4 of this document before there would be anything which, if it were established before an investigation board, would constitute an offence or a wrong-doing on the part of the administrative authorities. The fifth reads:
That the press censorship instituted hy a minister of the Crown intensified the feeling that special protection was being given to the institution at Guelph.
I do not think that this could have been worded as intended by the draftsman of the document-tha,t the press censorship, instituted by v, minister, intensified feeling. The press censorship may have been wrong or it may have been right; it may or it may not have intensified feeling. But the question whether or not it intensified feeling is not at all dependent on whether it was right or wrong, and for the life of me,
I can see nothing in clause 5, in its present wording, to constitute anything
5 p.m. that could be inquired into and which, if it were found to be true, would necessarily involve either a minister or an officer in any wrong-doing or malfeasance.
Such is the document that was then presented; and, generally speaking, I think it is about as wide as the summary presented by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) to-day.
In what I have to say as to the recommendation I shall make in regard to the charges of Mr. Palmer, I wish to be understood as applying as well to any additional matter in the way of a specific charge as to this affair that may be included in the entire address of the hon. member for Victoria this afternoon.
As to the attitude of the Department of Justice at 'the present time, the position in which I find myself is not by any means one that is free from difficulty. I am in the position of Acting Minister of Justice, and am of course responsible for the department and for all that is done in it while I hold that position. At the same time I speak in this Parliament as well on behalf of the minister. By the supplementary words that I think must be taken $s implied in the charges made by Mr. Palmer, the minister himself-assuming those words to be implied or inserted is charged with something that can be properly denominated an impropriety, something at all events in the nature of malfeasance
of office. Were the minister present in person he might take the course which I think I would take if my name were substituted for his in this document, namely, to review in detail all the circumstances connected with 'the transaction, as, for example, to, take the name of each individual who was within the institution at the time in question and to make an argument in full in defence, accompanied by the presentation of evidence, precisely as might be done in 'the final investigation itself. That, I think, is the course I would pursue. But as representing the minister, and without direct authority from him, I do not feel I would be justified in anticipating judicial investigation, and in disclosing the evidence that would necessarily have to be brought to the attention of the tribunal of inquiry. I think, rather, it is my duty to enter a statement of the final conclusions which the Department oi Justice desires to be recorded as its conclusion, and to place on record as well a statement which I have received from the Minister of Justice as.to the allegations contained in this document. Before doing so, however, I feel bound to say that after examination of all the fadts brought before the department, the Deputy Minister of Justice. has furnished me with a document which, if it is correct-and all this may be inquired into-would go to show that not one single novice or individual in the institution at the time of the raid or, I think, at any subsequent time, was liable for military service.
In this connection I wish to bring to the attention of the House a distinction which some hon. members seem to have overlooked. The Military Service Act, as drafted, established certain qualifications which would entitle an applicant to exemption under that Act. If he was entitled to exemption his business was to prove his right to it and to obtain a certificate. There was another feature. The Act under section 2 stated that all men described therein came under its operation, with the exception oi those mentioned in the schedule at the end of the Act. Now, the schedule was one of exceptions and not of grounds of exemption at all; and any one coming within the four corners of this schedule of exemptions was not within the operation of the Act. In this respect the Act followed the principle adopted by the British Act and I think, by t'he American Act as well. Included in these exceptions are, first, men who hold certificates granted under this Act, and


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is not this question
now to be considered by the House one of evasion and not of jurisdiction?


Arthur Meighen: One of evasion? I
thought this was a question of misconduct on the part of a minister. And, second: members of His Majesty's regular, or reserve, or auxiliary forces, etc. Coming to the last, which is the one more immediately in point: Clergy, including members of any recognized order of exclusively religious character, and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act. Hon. members will observe carefully this exception, and particularly the fact that it is an exception and not a ground of exemption.


Samuel Hughes: Is that part of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I understood it was from the date of the introduction of the Bill in the House.


Arthur Meighen: No, I think what the hon. member is thinking of is the provision with reference to marriage.


Samuel Hughes: No.


Arthur Meighen: He must be thinking of that, or he is wrong.


Samuel Hughes: The matter will come out later, I suppose; but the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) gave us to understand in the House that this applied from the date of the introduction of the Bill and not from the date of the passing of the Act.


Arthur Meighen: It says its passing- clergy, etc., " at the date of the passing of this Act." That is to say, denominations existing at the date of the passing of the Act were denominations whose ministers would come under the exception. The first words, of course, are the important words. But the point I wish to impress particularly is this-those who came within the provision of any of those exceptions did not require certificates of exemption at all. If any man claimed he came within them but did not come within them, he was liable to arrest, and liable to have his case tried and, if found guilty of the offence charged against him, he was liable to the punishment that the Act provided. But, on the other hand, if he was within the exception, he did not require any certificate of exemption as a protection against the action of any officers enforcing the law.


John Wesley Edwards: Do I understand the minister to claim that students at the Novitiate come within the classification of "clergy" as contained in clause 6?


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that point but I do not think I will discuss it at any great length. I shall not do so because of the fact that I purpose recommending that an.investigation be held wide enough to cover that question. The point I am making now is that, assuming that any member of the institution was properly included in that sixth exception, he was not guilty of any offence merely because he did not have a certificate of exemption. He did not require it at all. He was guilty of no offence provided he came within the exception and he did not need to present any certificate of exemption for protection against the police or any one else.


John Wesley Edwards: That question as to whether these students did come under that classification or not was still a question of doubt that had not been settled by the Government at the time of this so-called raid.


Arthur Meighen: That is true, I think, but it was no question of doubt. What I am trying to impress upon the House is the difference between exemption and exception.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I get that.


Arthur Meighen: There was the question as to whether they had been received in the order, whether, as they claimed to be, they were members of this institution; and there was the question whether they actually came within exception 6. I do not purpose at all to go into the details regarding any of the men but I simply wish to say that a list of the members was submitted to the Justice Department together with such facts as were necessary to enable the department to come to a decision as to whether they were within the exception or not, namely, the date of birth, the date of admission to the institution, if merely a member of the order, and also the date of the tonsure if the individual claimed to be a member of the clergy. The report of the Deputy Minister of Justice which we have on file, and rvhich I will read to the House if desired, was to the effect that on the facts submitted there were none of the members liable except three as to whom there might be doubt. The names of the three were given and as to them further inquiry was suggested. That further inquiry elicited the following facts: As to one he was an American citizen, that is so established, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Alinister of Jus-

tiee; as to the second he already had been tonsured and if he had been previous to admission to the Novitiate, and previous to the proclamation he would not be liable.
As to the third he was in the 19-year class, and had entered the Novitiate four days before the proclamation of the 6th May. That, in brief, is the result of the investigation and report. I think that later on there was a doubt as to another-I do not need to give the name-hut, when the facts were presented the Deputy Minister gave the opinion that the person in question was not liable.
Now I see no reason why I should not make as plain as I can to hon. members here what constitutes, at all events, one of the points which has aroused confusion and doubt and which has created very much of the difficulty that has arisen over this institution. The wording of the exception is this:
Clergy, including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character, ministers

I do not need to go past the second comma to anchor the few remarks that I desire to make on this question: .
Clergy, including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character.
We have, a class of exception in these words " clergy, including members." Parliament by the wording of this enactment, places within the category of those defined as clergy members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character, life cannot be doubted I think that there are on the one hand a class of men known as clergy and that there are on the other hand a class of men	known
as members of an order of an exclusively religious character. It has been asserted, whether rightly or wrongly I do not intend to debate, that the word " clergy " must be held to have dominating application to the words following the word " including " and that no one, being a member of the order, unless he was also of the class first indicated " clergy " could claim to come within this exception. That opinion the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice do not entertain. Such opinion has however been advanced but I do not know on what legal authority.


Air. CURRIE (Simcoe):: In the debate
on this particular subject in the House of Commons it was distinctly stated who would be included in that phrase and that no one would be considered to be a member of a religious order of this kind until he had
been for one year in the institution. That was stated by the Minister of Justice in the debate.
Mr. A1EIG-HEN: My hon. friend may be able to establish that, but from memory-
I fear he will have difficulty, I cannot speak with certainty, although I looked it up some months ago. The discussion which the hon. member refers to centered around the length of time a student would be a student before getting the "tonsure" because in the Act as it stood for a time in the committee the words " divinity student " were mentioned but subsequently they were excised by amendment the discussion centered around the question as to how long a student would continue to be a student before he would become of the class known as the clergy that is before he received the tonsure. I think the remarks, of the minister applied not to members of the order, not to members entitled to exemption as coming within the class of those included in the order, but to how long a time- it took students to become members of the clergy themselves having received the tonsure so as to come within the class described in the very first word of clause 6.
I do not know whether J have made myself clear but that was what the discussion was about at the time and the minister I think said something to the effect that one year, or perhaps more than one year, would be required to put in by a student before he received the tonsure.
As to that, of course, I do not make myself responsible; the debate will have to speak for itself, and the minister will answer for himself and for what he said at that time.
Now, I have outlined what has been presented to me as one of the matters in dispute, and it occurs to me that it would be well that the subjects referred for investigation should be so wide, and the tribunal oi such a character, that a reference might be made of that question, so that at all events the opinion of the commission may be obtained. On the other hand, the opinion of the Department of Justice in this regard has not been something in the nature of a fortress that no man could overthrow. There was an appeal. This question could have been taken at any time before a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, who acted as Central Appeal Judge under the Military Service Act. I am not sure, I have not made inquiries, but possibly this very point has come before Mr. Justice Duff, in the discharge of his duties as Senior Appeal Judge. So that if the ruling of the department on that point of law was believed to be wrong, there was always a door open

through which appeal could be taken and a final determination of the subject gained.
I will say only this: That having reviewed the record, in so far as it is now in the Department of Justice, and having received from the Minister of Justice a full account of his connection with the subject, in June, 1918, and since, I have no reason at all to come to any other conclusion than that his whole relation to the affair, and his conduct throughout, was only what would become a conscientious and competent minister of the Crown and a gentleman. I have received from him to-day a specific denial of the allegations contained in Mr. Palmer's statement, and that denial he asked me to read to Parliament, and in it he says: The imputations made with regard to his action, and that of the Department of Justice in respect to the Guelph Novitiate are entirely baseless. The facts as ascertained by the Militia Department fully establish this. He will welcome any inquiry by which, in the judgment of his colleagues, the public interests may be served.
It would seem to me, in view of the nature of the problem that now confronts the House, and of the nature of the investigation that will be most useful and most appropriate, that the commission that is to so investigate, should be composed of a judge, or judges. And I believe,- assuming that Mr. Palmer will agree,-that where in the points I mention, allegations do not amount to a charge of wrong-doing, there should be inserted or agreed to be implied therein, some word of the nature of " improper." Assuming that he will agree to that, so that there really may be wrong-doing alleged, and something to investigate, I propose to recommend that a Royal Commission issue for the investigation of these charges, and that the powers of the commission shall be wide so as to embrace anything of a specific charge of impropriety affecting the same matter that can be gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) this afternoon, and so ample in scope that the whole matter can be searched to the bottom.
There is nothing to conceal on the part of the Department of Militia-of that I am quite certain from the minister-and I beg to assure the House that on the part of the Department of Justice there is equally nothing to conceal. The Minister of Justice at present is several thousand miles from here, but it is our hope that it will not be long before he returns. I am sure that the member for Victoria would be the last to [iMr. Meigrhen.]
suggest that proceedings should be taken by way of this motion until he does return and has full opportunity to put in his defence. Consequently, with the intimation that the commission shall be able to act as soon as the minister returns-at all events that it shall be appointed upon his return-and that it shall be ample and wide enough to cover the charges alleged, I ask leave to suggest that such be the form of investigation, and that in the meantime the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for inquiry of another kind be withdrawn.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon on the motion made by my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). I now gather from the remarks of the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen! that a Royal Commission will issue so that a thorough investigation may take place of the hon. gentleman's charges. As to the resolution itself, it is thus worded:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the statements made public in relation to the Guelph Novitiate during the month of June, 1918, and the circumstances and facts concerning those and other similar charges concerning the evasion by young men and the connivance of others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act and other Acts and Orders relating to the upbuilding of the military forces of Canada, it is advisable that a select committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the matter with full authority to examine witnesses under oath, to pay necessary - expenses and to report to this House.
Mr. Speaker, 1 daresay, although I hold no brief for the Jesuit Order, that the reverend gentlemen from Guelph, and the members of that Order generally in Canada, will welcome any investigation that may be ordered by the Government under that resolution. But the Acting Minister of Justice will notice that this is a very broad resolution because the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) proposes to inquire into:
" other similar charges concerning the evasion by young men and the connivance by others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act."
The proposed inquiry would therefore apply to other charges as well as to those which affect the Guelph institution.
Mr. ME.IGHEN: The investigation would be upon the charges, as stated by me, contained in the Rev. Mr. Palmer's statement, and anything else relating to the same matter that can be gathered from the speech of the hon. member for Victoria.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the Government intended to have such a wide investigation through a Royal Commission, I would say that those Cabinet ministers who instigated the exemptions for fanners' sons in the province of Ontario should he brought before it. Because I find, Mr. Speaker, that during the election of 1917 very wily cir- _ culars were issued, especially in the province of Ontario, by means of which the farmers were invited specifically to disregard the Military Service Act. In these circulars the farmers were told not to mind the consequences, their sons would remain on the farm and not be called upon to bear arms. I am very positive in my statement because I have one of those very circulars under my hand, and which reads as follows :
The Farmers Will Be Protected.
Union Ministers Issue Statement.
Ottawa, December 3, 1917. General Mewburn, Minister of Militia, states : Farmers coming within Class A called out for military service, who are actually employed upon a farm in the production of foodstuffs for Canada and her Allies, and whose services are necessary in the work of such farm, will be exempted from military service.
If their claim for exemption is not allowed by the tribunal, an immediate appeal should be made. Arrangements are being made to extend the time for such appeals. The Minister of Miliita further states that if the farmer so called out for military service who is now honestly employed in the production of foodstuffs should be drafted into the army. General Mewburn feels it will be his duty to relieve hem from millitary service on the condition that he returns to the farm and Continues to be so employed.
Then, we have a long letter written by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. J. D. Reid) to some candidates in Ontario, telling them in effect "Do not mind; you can restore the waning faith of the farmers. Tell them not to he afraid; we have taken all the necessary precautions to ensure that these farmers' sons will not be called to arms."
I regret indeed that the scope of the investigation twill not permit such evidence to be adduced as I mentioned a moment ago. Evidently a very crafty appeal was made to the electors of rural Ontario. First, the Minister of Militia and Defence-he is such an honest minister that I think he did not devise this scheme himself. In fact, I am told that the master of the administration, the man who owned the Government at that time, Sir Clifford Sifton, is the man who initiated this proceeding; it is said that he came hurriedly back to Ottawa after a survey of the constituencies
and told the Government that the dictum of the Minister of Militia and Defence would not be sufficient and that a test case should be taken at once before Mr. Justice Duff, the Central Appeal Judge, to whom my hon. friend a moment ago referred. So the test case came before Mr. Justice Duff, and, of course, the promise made by my good friend the Minister of Militia and Defence was thus implemented in time, and the elections were won. As the member for Victoria says, there was then "evasion by young men and the connivance of others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act." I would like to have that charge fully and thoroughly investigated, so that the good farmers of Ontario and the members of the Ministerial Association of that province may see clearly how they were doped during that election and what a fraud and a sham was the administration of the Military Service Act.	'
Any fair-minded citizen, any broadminded member of the House of Commons, whether he be Roman Catholic or Protestant, will admit with me that the raid organized against the Guelph Novitiate in the dead of night on the 7th of June last spells humiliation, spells indignity, bitterness and disunion in Canada. Sir, we live in a British country, and any British country can claim to be a free country; but it cannot be a Dee country if a religious minority is not respected.
I must thank the Minister of Militia and Defence for the very frank statement he made to the House this afternoon. He read from the beginning to end the dignified protest he received from the rector of the Novitiate at Guelph. He acted the part of a man of honour when he sent that apology to the Novitiate after he had received the protest from the rector in June last. Now, what, briefly stated, are the facts?
One thing that I remember in my practice of law is a dictum of Mr. Justice Johnston, one of the brightest judges who ever sat on the bench in the district of Montreal. He once said to a jury: "Gentlemen of the jury, when I was a young man I read a book the suggestive title of which was: 'Put yourself in his place.' You are now about to pass judgment on the prisoner at the bar; your duty is to put yourself in his place." Mr. Speaker, in relating briefly the facts concerning the raid on the Guelph Novitiate on the 7th of June last, I ask every fair-minded Protestant to put himself in the place of the rector of that Catholic institution.
On the 7th of June-not at noon, not at three o'clock in the afternoon, not even at

six o'clock, but at 9.30 at night-three men appear suddenly in the parlour of the institution, wearing plain clothes, and, without any parleying with the rector of the Novitiate, give a general order to parade all the members of the Novitiate within five minutes.
The first thing that the rector asked of the gentlemen who appeared to lead the other two was to produce the authority with which he was vested. The member for Victoria said a moment ago that his authority was his brassard. But Captain Macauley did not wear his brassard; he had it in his pocket, and when he was asked by the rector to produce his authority he took this brassard from his pocket and said: "Here is my authority."
Let me point out to the member for Victoria that the Guelph Novitiate is not a farm; it is a college.
Then the rector went to the telephone to consult the counsel of the institution. Then Father Hingston appeared. Father Kingston is a Jesuit, son of the late Sir William Hingston, who was a member of the Senate and one of the leading physicians of Canada-indeed, of America. Father Hingston, as I insisted on a moment ago, was just back from the front where he had served as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force-here he was under military garb in that institution. So that the gentlemen from London and from Guelph who were so nervous at that moment lest the institution would shelter evaders and slackers could well have confided their consciences to Father Hingston, then Captain Hingston, a gentleman who had served his King and his country, and who had lost his younger brother on the battlefield of Flanders. It was only at the moment that Father Hingston appeared that Captain Macauley gave his name and produced his brassard as the symbol of his authority, and then, on being further questioned, produced a typewritten letter which purported to give his authority.
Mr. MURPHY; A copy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A copy of a letter purporting to give him the necessary authority. The passage which seemed relevant and on which he based his right of search was substantially as follows:
Any officer or non-commissioned officer, acting under written authorization

Mark the words.

of G.O.C. or O.C. of a military district or area, if he has good grounds for believing that deserters or defaulters under the Military Service Act are being harboured or concealed after 	-
reasonable demand of entrance and refusal thereof, and upon producing the aforesaid written authorization, may forcibly enter and search the premises. -
When Captain Macauley was asked for the written authority mentioned in the instructions, he could produce none, and yet he insisted on having the whole order paraded before him at that late hour. Moreover he threatened, lie was not going to listen to any parleying, and he began putting questions to three or four members of the Order who were present in the parlour. Then Captain Hingston registered a last protest against a search without proper authorization. Overlooking the irregularity of the proceedings, the Rector invited Captain Macauley to visit the bedrooms or dormitories, or if he preferred, offered to summon all the members of the Novitiate to the refectory. Captain Macauley chose this latter alternative. While he appeared to have come there with only three men, as a matter of fact-and I wish to impress this on the House-he had come within the precincts of the Novitiate with three men, but there was a cordon of eleven other men around tne premises anu the gates of the institution were closed and guarded by one of the eleven.


Samuel Hughes: I know the hon.
member does not want to mislead the House. Captain Macauley took three men into the house with him, as is admitted by all parties, and there were eight more outside.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Between my hon. friend and the Rector of the Novitiate my heart is in the balance, but I have the words of the Rector that there were three men with Captain Macauley and eleven around the building, fourteen in all.


Samuel Hughes: There were eleven altogether.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The interrorgatory began about eleven o'clock and lasted about an hour and a quarter. Three members of the community were seized as deserters and placed under close arrest. They were told to make ready to leave for the barracks and were conducted under escort to the dormitories to make the necessary changes in their clothing. None of these' young men were within the scope of the Military Service Act, or of any of the subsequent Orders in Council, as has been clearly established by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen). They all come within the exceptions under the Schedule to the Military Service Act.
6. Clergy, including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character,

and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
The three men were about to follow Captain Macauley as far as the barracks when a telephone message from the Adjutant General at Ottawa was received, staying the unjustifiable proceedings, and after much telephoning between London and Ottawa, when one of the officers from Guelph reminded Captain Macauley that he was not acting within the military law, Captain Macauley left and returned at 12.40 in the morning, after having accepted the courtesies of the Order and partaken of the delicacies offered by them. All this occurred in the refectory at a late hour, and to show how those sinister Jesuits are. they who are supposed to eat at least one Protestant a day, the members of the Order placed before them the delicacies of the refectory, and the officers and men all left well pleased with the hospitality they had received. The action that was taken was most unwarranted; it was a high-handed way of dealing with the citizens of a free country like Canada, It is true that next morning Captain Macauley went and excused himself; but The "heather was afire," the harm was done, because the news had been telegraphed to all parts of the Dominion, and possibly to Europe. ' The Press and pulpit denounced the double dealing of those sinister Jesuits. The rector addressed a dignified protest to the Minister of Militia and Defence, and the latter answered in the same manly way that he has spoken this afternoon. This is the letter sent by the minister to the rector of the Novitiate on the 11th June from Ottawa:
M.y dear Sir,-I am just in receipt of youi letter of the 8th instant on my return to Ottawa, and iwords cannot express to you my deep regret of the action taken toy the Deputy Provost Marshal, Captain Maoauley, on the evening of the 7th instant.
My attention was called to the matter on my arrival in Ottawa this morning and I And that my Adjutant General has taken immediate action for a most thorough investigation, and if the facts are as stated in your letter-which of course I do not doubt-1 can assure you that the error in judgment committed by this officer will he dealt with in a proper way, as I will not tolerate any such action on the part of any military officer as far as the operation of the Military Service Act goes.
As I have already stated, I deeply regret this occurrence and I thank you for your frank letter.
The question of the liability for military service of any of your students is a matter that is now being considered by the Department of Justice.
Believe me.
Tours faithfully, (Sgd.) S. C. Mewburn.
This apology having boon made, every one thought the matter would remain at rest, but the agitators throughout Ontario began pouring accusation upon accusation upon the Guelph Novitiate, and they, in self defence, although there was a special censorship for this special case, insisted that the facts should be made known to the people of Canada.
Later on, on June 22nd, a statement was issued by the Department of Militia and Defence as follows:-
A list of the members of the Novitiate of
military age, together with the dates on which they entered the order, has been furnished by the adjutant-general, the ages being stated as accurately as is possible without the production of official certificates.
From this it appears that there are now in the community thirty-five men of military age, of whom twenty-five entered the order before the first proclamation under the Military Service Act, on October 13, 1917, the greater number of them having entered during the year of 1915-16, or earlier.
It seems clear on the information available that there can be no question hut that all the young men, except the two named, are free from liability to military service by virtue of the fifth exception in the schedule to the Military Service Act, which exoepts all members of an order of an exclusively religious character, which the St. Stanislaus' Novitiate undoubtedly is. The same exception applies to men affected by the order in Council of April 20, 1918.
It appears that the son of the Minister of Justice entered the order on March 30. 1918, when he was under no liability under the Military Service Act. Before taking this step he presented himself for a medical examination before physicians, of whom two were members of -the Medical Board of Review in Montreal, and their finding was that his condition was such that it would be necessary to place him in Category E, which would make it impossible for him to undertake military service.
The result of the investigation indicates that the inquiries instituted were justified, and the Department of Militia will take steps to insure that any members of the Novitiate liable under the Military Service Act will be required to serve.
In this statement it is said that there were two members of the order liable at that time. These two members were John Holland and John O'Halloran. It was found later that John Holland came under the fifth exception in the schedule to the Military Service Act, as he became a cleric on September 9, 1917. A copy of certificate of his ordination is now in the possession of the Department of Militia and Defence, Ottawa. John O'Halloran was found to be an American citizen, and therefore not liable under the Act. His birth certificate and certificate of his father's naturalization as an American are also in the hands of the department. So, not one of those who were


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I am led to support the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) because of the circumstances surrounding this incident in connection with the Jesuit Novitiate at Guelph. The facts have been stated so fully both by the hon. member for Victoria and by the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) that it is unnecesary for me to go over them again. But the very fact that the authorities of this institution resisted an investigation by the military authorities was bound to lead to a good deal of dissatisfaction in that neighbourhood and, as the news spread, throughout the whole of Ontario and the other provinces. The members of the Ministerial Association of Guelph only took the matter up when it had been pressed upon them from several different sources. The first parties to raise an objection to what was being done at the Novitiate were the members of the Reman Catholic faith in the city of Guelph. They saw their boys being drafted, and some of them enlisting, and then they saw their neighbour's sons of the same faith going into the Novitiate and escaping service. They learned from the statements of the military authorities that the
rector, and those in charge of the college, were refusing to give the information that the military authorities required and which they were bound to give under the Act. That tended to further excite feeling in the city of Guelph.
il believe that every impartial man, no matter what his faith may be, will agree that the circumstances surrounding this case ought to be investigated judicially. At least I can quote one man in my own city, the Rev. Father Minehan, who stated publicly that after what had been said in connection with this institution he was of the opinion that there should be an investigation. This is a matter affecting not one particular class of the people only, but, I believe, that every person having a knowledge of the facts, and a knowledge of the rumours and reports which were going around, was anxious to have an investigation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps he was one of the conspirators.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If he was one of the conspirators I do not think he was conspiring to the injury of the rector of the institution or any person connected with it. The conduct of the Ministerial Association of Guelph was admirable. These men had gone to their own congregations and urged all their young men to enlist. One Presbyterian minister went so far as to report a young man in his congregation who was eligible and who was trying to escape. By reporting that young man to the authorities, he drove the young man's family from his congregation. They resented his action but I am glad of what he did because it shows you that the men who went after the Novitiate and asked for >an investigation in this case had done everything in their power to get every person they could influence to do his duty under the Military Service Act. You have a group of men acting in that way and, under those circumstances, is it any wonder that they should resent what they saw and what the military authorities told them was going on in the Novitiate?
It was not only the citizens of Guelph that came to them and told them what was going on, buo the men who were charged with the enforcement of the Military Service Act in Guelph reported to the Ministerial Association that they had tried over and over again to get the information that it was necessary for them to get from the authorities of that institution and that they had been refused. [DOT]



Up to the time that Captain Macauley made his visit to the institution, very many attempts had been made to avoid anything like a raid, to avoid force, 'to avoid anything that complaint might be made about and to get the information in as reasonable and easy a way as the authorities of the college could give it. Is it any wonder that in the city, as well as over the whole countryside, there should be a great deal of excitement? Is it any wonder that the press censorship and the fact that the daily papers in Guelph and Toronto were notified that nothing was to be said about this institution, or about the visits of Captain Macauley and his officers to it, should have increased the excitement and intensified the resentment that the people felt over this oase? The rector and those in authority acting with him were responsible for this excitement. If they had observed the law they would have reported all the men who were there at least for registration. If the rector had been willing to give the names to Captain Westoby when asked for them instead of putting obstacles in the way, and if, when he had been called upon, 'he had thrown open all the doors and said, " Come in, and see what is here, and whom you think you have a right to take," this trouble would have been avoided. That is what the chancellors and the rectors of all the other universities and colleges up our way did. There was no military raid at Victoria, Knox, Wycliffe or Trinity colleges. In none of these colleges would you find a man who was of military age. But Captain Macauley apparently thrust the case upon the authorities in Ottawa and he got instructions to visit the institution and, because he could not get in by their leave/ he went in by force, as he had a right to do.
I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) when he says that the very method that Captain Macauley took to get in there was designed to allay excitement and to prevent anything like a disturbance. If he had marched through the city of Guelph, as he might have done, with a force of men, there would have been a group of people following him and if a crowd from Guelph had gone out that night there might have been much more serious consequences than happened. Whether he violated some military red tape or not, I do not know, but in my judgment he acted wisely and he adopted the course that enabled him to accomplish his purpose without trouble. This visit

w'as made in a wray to which objection cannot be taken. It certainly is not at all to be compared in violence with the method that was adopted in the city of Toronto by the head of the military police there who went into social functions, the Y.M.C.A., and all kinds of institutions to drag young men out. He would go where a dance was being held as he did one night to the Knights of Columbus Hall. He would not give these young men time to go home and get their exemption papers, some of them having been exempted; he took them away. He went down to the boat when the ball games were on and every man who did not have his paper he apprehended. That is the way the law was enforced in Toronto, and if that is not a good deal rougher an 1 more inconsiderate than anything that happened in Guelph, I am very much mistaken. When that kind of thing was going on in Toronto, Hamilton, and Guelph itself, is it surprising that a great deal of excitement and dissatisfaction existed when this institution refused to open its doors and show who were there? That in itself is the cause of the trouble that has arisen. I am inclined to think, Sir, that the Superior of the order which is represented in Guelph at St. Stanislaus College shares in the opinion that I hold myself that the rector of that institution acted very unwisely because we find that immediately after the raid took place the rector was removed to some other sphere of action. He may have been promoted, or he may have been removed for some other cause, but we know that he did not enhance the reputation of his institution by the course that he pursued because he brought upon it a great deal of criticism that was entirely unnecessary and would never have been levelled against it if he had acted in a different way.
Now my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) talks about the respect that is due a religious minority. Mr. Speaker, I have respect for every man's religious beliefs ; I have respect for a religious minority. I think that in a matter of a man's religious belief, whether he be a Mohammedan, a Hindu, or anything else, if he honestly believes in those religious opinions, he has a right to practise them and he ought to be protected in practising them, and as I understand the law of the country and the sentiment of the people he will be protected. But a religious minority should not be exempted from performing its duty at a crisis such as we were in at that time. A

man cannot claim that because he is a member of a small sect he should receive special consideration as a citizen. First and foremost, in time of war a citizen of Canada has to obey the military laws of the country. He cannot be exempted on that ground, and he should not ask for any special privileges because he is a member of a minority. I think that to advance arguments of that kind shows how remarkably weak the case is. The chancellors in Toronto colleges did not feel humiliated, and did not take it as an insult when the military police visited their institutions to ascertain whether they contained any men fit to go on service. That being so why should the rector of this institution feel humiliated? Yet that was the whole case made out by the hon. member for Maison-neuve; that this was a humiliation to the Guelph institution and those in charge of it, and that they were insulted by the military police going there. I do not think they had any reason to feel insulted. The head of any other institution of the same kind, that I know of, would not have regarded it as an insult. On the contrary he would have assisted in the investigation, and would have been glad to provide all the information that was in his power. 1 think such a pleads only drawing a red herring across the trail, and if that is the best excuse that the Rector of the Guelph institution has to offer I think he has very little indeed. It was no time for any man, whether the head of a college, or a bank, or a'factory, to be standing upon his dignity. Dignity is all right in its place, but when a man stands upon his dignity and resents the admission of properly constituted officers to examine whether the men in his place are fit and eligible for service, I think he is straining his regard for his own dignity, and I do not think it will have very much effect in that way. Then hon. gentlemen will notice the fact that there was a list of all the inmates in the college displayed the night that Captain Macauley visited the institution, but when he went back next day that list had been taken down and could not be found. Why remove those names unless there was some cause for it?
The Minister of Militia said he was not disposed to go into the Alexander case. "I do not think it is necessary to refer-here to the Alexander case," he said. I think that it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to refer to it. I will put the Alexander case alongside of the Noonan case, and this is what happened. Alexander and Noonan were
both reported to the Militia Department. Alexander was employed by his father in the manufacture of war material. He asked for exemption, but was refused and was placed in khaki.


Samuel Hughes: He volunteered.
Major-General MEWBURN:	He came
forward afterwards.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I thought he had been drafted. At any rate he was engaged in making munitions. Now place his case against that of Noonan. Noonan was playing baseball on a Guelph team, and when these proceedings arose he entered the Novitiate. In the one case a man was engaged in the manufacture of war materials and he was taken. In the other case a man was engaged in playing baseball and goes into the Novitiate and escapes service. IHow is it possible that the people of Guelph should not resent such unequal treatment given to two different young men in the same place? That kind of thing stirred the people up, and it is the reason for all the dissatisfaction and trouble that has occurred.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve gave a long list of Jesuits who had served in the war. I have not got a list of ministers who went to the war, but I know scores of them who volunteered as privates and went out and did their work in the trenches, so that this service in the war was not all on one side. I think the ministers are entitled to the same consideration as any person else.
Now the Acting Minister of Justice tells us that these young men are not liable for service, and if I understood him aright the Deputy Minister of Justice is responsible for an opinion to that effect. If that is the case the members of this House who passed the Act certainly did so under very serious misapprehension. They passed the Act after having received an opinion from the Minister of Justice that warranted them in believing it was impossible for any man to hide in a college in the way complained of. This is the statement made by the Minister of Justice.-


Samuel Hughes: On what page of Hansard is it to be found?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The statement which I am about to quote was made on July 19. 1917, and is to be found at page 3,568 of the revised Hansard. The minister was replying to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then leader of the Opposition. He said:

The right hon. leader of the Opposition will recognize that the theological student, from the moment he gets his tonsure, or minor orders, which he does at the end of his first year-or, at all events, that is the general practice-enters and forms part of the clergy.
My right hon. friend shakes his head? I am not making that statement without having verified it on the very best authority. I have satisfied myself beyond peradventure on that subject. So that that leaves, under the class to be covered as divinity students, so far as the Catholic colleges are concerned, only the young men just coming in, before they have got any orders.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these young men who went into the college-


Robert Hamilton Butts: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him one question? My hon. friend has been speaking now' for a considerable length of time. Will he give one figure?	-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What figure would the hon. gentleman like?


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have just put it to the hon. gentleman.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not see that that question has any bearing on what I am quoting. Now I have quoted from the statement made by the Minister of Justice, on which this House voted. The members of the House at that time had the right to believe that the Minister of Justice was able properly to interpret the practice, and state it as accurately as any man here, because he himself was brought up in a college of the same order, and therefore one would suppose he would know the rules of that order. That is what the Minister of Justice said at that time, and that is what led this House to believe that it was impossible for a young man to enter a college and be exempted from military service simply by getting in there. Further, the rector of the institution is authority for the statement that any young man entering the institution could leave at any time within three years and change his whole course of life. Instead of remaining and preparing himself to be a member of that order, he could leave and become a physician or an engineer, or enter any profession. So that no young man entering that order is bound by any vows, he cannot be classed, I do not see how he can be, as a member of the clergy. And when we have regard to the way this Act was enforced against the clergy of other denominations, the proceedings in this case will appear most strange. Up at Sault Ste. Marie I knew a young man who had been for two years

preaching as a Methodist. He was a clergyman lacking but one thing-the single act of ordination. He had gone through all his studies, he had been on probation in the field, he had had charge of different congregations, and all he lacked of being a clergyman was that which is conferred by the ceremony of ordination, yet he was drafted under the Military Service Act. Notwithstanding that it is -claimed, I understand, by the Deputy Minister of Justice that the minute a young man went into this college he was exempt from military service. There is an inequality, an unfairness about that, which impresses anyone who does not understand the remarkably fine distinctions of the particular order concerned in this investigation. I submit, therefore, that the Government is justified in submitting this case, with all its attendant circumstances-the things that went before it and the things that followed after it-to a judicial inquiry to bring out the facts and let us see whether it was possible under the Act for a young man to go in there and immediately become immune from serving the country as our other young men had to serve the country. The matter will have to be established beyond peradventure in order to satisfy the people, because no good citizen wants to shirk his duty; every man objects and has a right to object to inequalities of service as between different classes of citizens. That there have been inequalities is a matter that does not admit of discussion. They have been so obtrusive and so extensive that it is not at all surprising that the people of Ontario in the neighbourhood of Guelph should be extremely excited about it and should demand an investigation into all the facts.


Mr. J. E. O. GLADU (Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything really disagreeable to me it is to take part in a discussion of this kind. I come from a province in which racial and religious questions are absolutely unknown; where a man, provided he is honest, is considered as a man and as a British citizen, no matter whether he is English or French, or Irish or any other nationality; no matter whether he is an Orangeman, a Catholic or a Protestant. We do not mind about these things in the province of Quebec. I regret to have to take part in a discussion of this kind, because after all that had been said on the other side of the House since the beginning of the session we were entitled to hope and believe that we are getting rid of all these questions, as to their being brought up in

tlie manner in which they have, the rules of the House do not permit me to qualify that at 'this moment.
Sir, we are discussing a question which affects the Jesuits. I do not wish to boast about my province, but to show you what is our mentality in the province of Quebec let me remind you of something that happened in 1888. Long years before, the Jesuits had been deprived of the properties of which they were the owners in the province of Quebec, properties worth millions of dollars at that time. Several times the Government of that province had been asked to settle the question of the Jesuits' properties, and when the Hon. Mr. Mercier was Premier of Quebec he decided to settle the question. The whole case was investigated and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec decided to vote $400,000 for the benefit of the Jesuits. But it was contended by some in the Legislative Assembly that a part of the population of the province of Quebec was Protestant; that this money was to be taken from the public funds and that, therefore, money of the Protestants was being taken to satisfy the Jesuits. Hon. Mr. Mercier then decided-he was supported by the whole Government-to give to the . Protestants of Quebec an amount of the $400,000 in -proportion to the English Protestant population. Accordingly, $60,000 was distributed to the Protestants of that province to dispose of as they wished; the balance was given to the Catholic bishops to dispose of as they saw fit. That is the kind of mentality we have in the province of Quebec; that is why you never hear such outrageous questions discussed there as the one which has been brought up to-day by the hon. gentleman.
The member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) declared a moment ago that nothing extraordinary was done at the Guelph Novitiate. He says that the same thing was done at the Toronto University; the same thing has been done in all the Protestant Universities and nobody was scandalized. But will he tell us whether the officers of the Department of Militia went to those universities to make investigations at 9.30 at night? If they had gone to the Guelph Novitiate in the day time no one would have had anything to say, but they 'thought that when everybody was in bed was the ' proper time to disturb and create trouble in that institution.
We are told by the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) and by the member for Maisonneuve (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) that a cordon of soldiers was placed around the
building. The member for Victoria said that the order came from Ottawa to leave the Novitiate alone at night, thereby giving a chance to the Jesuits to. evade the law and escape their duty. As to that I shall answer later on; but I want to point out that I am not surprised at what has been said. 1 heard something more wonderful than that when I was a student at the Jesuits' college in Montreal. We were told-I was then a young man-'that there was a tunnel connecting the Jesuits' college with l'Hotel-Dieu, a hospital where nurses are tending the poor and the sick-and there were stupid asses who came to see if that was true. So, Sir, we need not be surprised at what we hear to-day.
My intention, Sir, is not to give any special attention to this Guelph business; it has been disposed of this afternoon in a most noble and generous way by the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn), the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen), and the member for Maisonneuve (Hon. Mr. Lemieux).
If the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) thinks for a moment that the Jesuits are trying to evade their responsibilities and to shirk their duties as citizens of Canada and of the British Empire, he does not understand the Jesuits at all. Let me give an illustration to show that he is absolutely in error, and-I trust he will take this in the right sense-that he does not know what he is speaking about. Much has been said this afternoon concerning Rev. Father Hingston, whom I know personally. It has been said that he has done service overseas. He has done more than that and credit must be given to him as well as to any other man who has done his bit for his country. Father Hingston was the promoter and the first recruiting officer of the Irish Rangers in Montreal. He was their chaplain, accompanying them to England and France, and when later on he was called back to this country, he did not think that he was through, but he went to the United States and delivered addresses wherever he had an opportunity of doing so for the benefit of the Allies.
Shirking their duties! Let me give another illustration. Rev. Father Arcand, Rector of St. Mary's College, when war was declared in 1914, asked the hon. Mr. Pate-naude, who was then a minister of the Cabinet, to send instructors to the college to drill the students. What was the answer given by the Government at that time? The answer was that they could not do that as it would be too expensive. Imagine

the Government becoming thrifty at that time. The Government also stated that St. Mary's College was the first college to make such a demand. Later on, this same Father Arcand came to Ottawa and asked the Government for permission to form a corjf? of students for overseas service. That permission was refused and I can give as authorities to support my statement, Judge Delorimier, Mr. O. S. Perreault, a most distinguished member of the Chambre de Commerce of Montreal and Mr. Laberge, a very distinguished architect of Montreal. This same Father Arcand came to Ottawa in order to get precise information as to what young boys of the college could do to help in producing foodstuffs. He addressed himself to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who referred him to the Minister of Agriculture but no practical result ensued. May I add that the Jesuits of St. Mary's College were the first to relieve their students from attendance at school so as to permit them to fulfil their duties towards their country? I can go further to show my hon. friend that he is certainly ill-informed and absolutely wrong, and that he is, I have no doubt, unwittingly misleading the House when he tries to make the House believe that those Jesuits are endeavouring to shirk their duty and to save their students from fulfilling their duty.


Samuel Hughes: I think the hon.
member is unintentionally doing me an injustice. I never in my lifetime referred to St. Mary's College. I could have referred to Mont St. Louis College which did its duty splendidly. It is the hon. member who is in error.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I have just this to answer to my hon. friend, that all the colleges of the community of Jesuits are, in solidarity, responsible one for the other, just as certain members of certain lodges are responsible for all the lodges.


Samuel Hughes: Then I shall be only too glad to hold the whole Order of Jesuits responsible for the misconduct at Guelph.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Certainly you would.


Jacques Bureau: Just one head, one general, one black coat.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: It was in the afternoon on a Sunday in the month of May, 1918, that the students of St. Mary's College who were called to the colours, were convened in the sanctuary of the chapel. After the blessing of the Holy Sacrament, the rector, Rev. Father Arcand, addressed the boys as fol-
[Mr. Gladu.)
lows, and I must give credit to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) for having given me a copy of the speech:
Dear boys, the hour of departure has come for you. I have only this sentence to utter: Do your duty-do your duty to yourself, to your family, to your race, to your Alma Mater and to your country. We have done all that we could to give you the very best of education. You will hear that conscription is a bad law; that it is a curse. Do not listen to such expressions. It is the law of your country, and you owe it obedience. We will not let you go alone; two of our priests will follow you to the barracks and even on the firing line. They will be your comrades; they will do their duty as you will do yours.
But before entering into your new career, you have a last sacrifice to submit to. Go and bid good-bye to your mother. This task will cause you sorrow, but stand up like men, buckle your belt, conceal the tears in your eye, and let a smile be on your lips, so that your mother will not realize the enormity of the sacrifice imposed on you by your country.
I ask any fair-minded man in this House, no matter on what side he sits, if this is the language of a man who is endeavouring to shirk his duty and to teach his students that they should not fulfil theirs.
Let me give my hon. friend the name of another Jesuit who did something that was certainly worthy of notice. The patients in the pest house at St. Johns, in the province of Quebec, to which those suffering from contagious diseases are sent, asked for a chaplain to attend them. There -was a man who could not go overseas, not being of military age or fit for service at the front, but who was ready to face death in another form. He offered his services as chaplain at this pest house, and was locked in with all those sick people, and for months and months he has been facing death through breathing the poisoned breath of those poor soldiers. His name is Rev. Father George Lebel. Nobody in the outside world knows his name; his work at the pest house has received no recognition, but he has the satisfaction of having done his duty. He has done his duty, not as a soldier, not as an honorary colonel who needs a major-general to defend him; he was not a John Wesley Allison, but merely a Jesuit who offered his services without any remuneration whatever.
There is another Jesuit whom I will name -the Rev. Father Sigouin. He was unable to go to the front, but he was able to serve in other ways. He is giving all his time to re-education. The Jesuits have never refused to give chaplains; they have supplied as many as were requested.

Let me give another example. I have known for years the Rev. Father Cadot; in fact, he was my professor at college. He is now a missionary amongst the Indians at Cape Croker in Ontario. Not one of those Indians could have been compelled to enlist as they were exempt under the law, but Father Cadot, appreciating his duties as a citizen of this country, appealed to the Indians, and 63 out of a total of 67 of military age offered their services. Fifty-seven were accepted, and fifty-three have gone to England, the other four being turned down as unfit for military service at London, Ontario. Forty-eight of these Indians got as far as France; five were sent back to Canada on reaching England. Of the forty-eight who went to France, twenty-two were wounded, and six were killed. I have said that sixty-three enlisted out of sixty-seven. The other four never enlisted for the very good reason that Father Cadot had no influence or authority whatever over them, because they were not Catholics. To sum it up, the sixty-three Catholics enlisted, and the four who were not Catholics did not endist.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) spoke this afternoon of Loyola college, Montreal. This college is not yet twenty-five years old, but at least 287 of her boys were in active service, and 34 of them were killed, amongst whom I might mention the only son of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, also the brother of Rev. Father Hingston. These boys won 20 Victoria Crosses and other distinctions. St. Mary's college, also in Montreal, has furnished at least double the number Loyola college did-double in enlisted men, double in wounded, and double in killed.
Turning to the West, I am in a position to state that all the pupils at St. Boniface College, in the province of Manitoba, who were fit and of military age enlisted right from the beginning of the war to the end. The hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) has been Minister of Militia in this country, and knows that there is a hospital at St. Cloud in France, but what he does not know is the fact that 75 per cent of the doctors who are giving their services at that hospital were educated by the Jesuits in Montreal, mostly at Loyola and St. Mary's colleges. The same is true of the Laval hospital. Many of the doctors at that hospital were students at St. Mary's or Loyola college.
Surveying the Jesuit order in general, I find that over 700 Jesuits have enlisted, over 160 of whom have given their all.
They have won decorations as follows: Legion of Honour, 39; Military Medals, 36; Croix de Guerre, 303; Citations, 519; and other decorations, 30.
Shall I say something about the Jesuits in France? Does my hon. friend know that Marshal Foch, the glorious and immortal Marshal Fooh, was educated by the Jesuits? Does he know that as far back as 1872 the General's professor of mathematics predicted his future greatness when he told him that he would one day be the man who would bring down the German flag which was then floating on the fortress of Metz? Foch, who was educated by the Jesuits, was the man who achieved this glorious success, and he is undobutedly the most brilliant student ever educated by the Jesuits. My hon. friend has probably heard of another distinguished man, General Mangin, and I am sure the name of General de Castelnau, who gave four sons to the cause of the Allies and. civilization, is also familiar to him. A large number of the Generals of the French army were educated by the Jesuits, and in England over 2,000 students of Jesuit colleges volunteered before conscription went into force. Of these students 400 have laid down their lives for their country, and the great Jesuit college of Stoneyhurst has the distinction of having contributed over 160 of her students to the ranks. These figures may probably be of little interest to many hon. members, but as it has pleased the hon. gentleman to create an impression and a feeling that it was the spirit of the Jesuits to shirk their duty and evade their responsibilities,
I think it is only right to put before the House and the country facts showing the splendid work which the Jesuits have done, in this war, and proving that the hon. gentleman, had no grounds whatever for the statements which he made.
We are told, Sir, that those who are accused of shirking their duty are disloyal to the Empire. How many times have we not heard that during the last two or three years? May I state certain facts, which probably are of no great interest to my hon. friend but which will certainly prove of considerable importance to others. The hon. member is no doubt ignorant of the fact that every day during the war 15,000 Jesuits prayed for the success of the Allies, and he is probably also unaware that since the signing of the armistice every Jesuit in the world has been ordered to offer a special prayer that the Allies may obtain a just and substantial peace. Does he know that in our Catholic churches the Jesuits

every day pray for the King? If the House will bear with me 1 will repeat this prayer.
We beseech Thee Almighty God, that Thy servant George who hath received from Thy mercy the reins of power, may receive also an increase of all virtues so that, adorned with these, he may graciously arrive unto Thee who art the way, the truth and the life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
I observe that my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) is laughing. Let me ask him a question. There are thousands of Jesuits praying daily for the King. Will he state frankly whether he has gone to church once a year for the express purpose of praying for His Majesty? The Jesuits offer another prayer, for the Royal Family. Is that an indication of disloyalty? They say:
Oh Lord save Our King George,
And hear uis in the day we call upon Thee.
We beseech Thee Almighty God, that Thy servant George, who by Thy divine mercy hath taken upon himself the government of this realm, may receive an increase of all virtues, wherewith, being becomingly adorned, he may turn aside from what is evil and foul, may overcome his enemies, and being made pleasing in Thy sight, together with the Queen Consort and Royal Family, may he happily come unto Thee who art the way, the truth, and the life. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
I am sure the hon. gentleman has never said half as much as that for the Royal Family. It does not do simply to boast of your loyalty; you must prove it, and the men who have been offering their lives upon the altar , of sacrifice have been proving their loyalty in a far greater way than many of those who are traducing them to-day. Sir, it is true that in this country there are disloyal men; but those who are disloyal are not the ones that are sometimes attacked for disloyalty. They are neither the Catholics nor the French Canadians; they are not the majority of those who sit on this side of the House. No. They are the very few men who, on the other side of the House are always ready and eager to sling mud and heap censure on those who do not share their views.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I do not mention anybody.
Mr. (SPEAKER: The hon. gentleman's language is certainly not parliamentary.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I deeply regret at this moment my unfortunate unfamiliarity with the English language. It would afford me an opportunity of saying about the same thing in other words. What I want to say, however, is simply this: Those who are disloyal

to the Empire are not those who are attacked to-day, hut rather those who seize every opportunity that presents itself to spread dissension and create disunion in this country. They are the disloyal men. There are, I think, but few hon. gentlemen in this House who hold the conviction that the British flag is not wide enough to afford shelter and protection to every British subject in this country. What is the ambition of those who are always attacked? Our ambition is very simply stated.
Our aim is to create a great country in Canada; we have no other ambition. We want to respect the convictions of others and we pray those who do not share our convictions to be kind and generous enough not to attack at any moment without any reason whatever.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I intend to occupy the time of the House ' for a , very few minutes only and in doing so I wish to say in agreement with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gladu), that discussions and statements which have to deal with religious dissentions are very disagreeable to me. It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of that kind to-night or to follow the hon. member through the more or less rambling remarks that he made. 1 would also like to say that I do not belong to either of those orders to which he made reference at the beginning, but I want to make these few remarks as one who belongs to the soldiers of this country, and in doing so I want to remind hon. members that the resolution before the House deals with what purported to be an evasion of the Military Service Act. I do not say that these charges are true or that they are not true, but I do say that when we ask for an investigation into the truth of these matters we are doing a kindness to that institution if the remarks of those who speak for it are correct. This is not an outrageous question or one which should not have come before the people or Parliament of this country. The impression has gone forth that the facts as alleged are true, and it is the duty of every honest man who has the good of his country at heart to have the truth of this matter cleared up, no matter who is injured in the clearing up of it.
I want also to state that these charges go a little farther than that; they involve a minister of the Crown. We have had read on the floor of this House to-day what I take to be a denial by the hon. the Minister

of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that he had any part in this affair. I fully believe that not one shadow of suspicion will eventually rest upon any one in authority here. I cannot believe, for example, that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) would have been for one second a party to allowing any body of men to violate the spirit or the letter of the Military Service Act.
That brings me to the point that I rose to-night to make. We must be very guarded about interference in these affairs by any one in authority. Some of us fought the election a year ago on the Military Service Act or conscription. We did so because we thought that equality of service was the basis of all democracy and that we should get more equal service under that Act. We might have been wrong. Hon. members in this House may differ with me honestly on that question, but I do not believe that any man will differ from me when I say that a greater injustice could not exist in any country than that conscription having been adopted you could take the poor man s boy and let the rich man's boy get off free, or that any one with authority or influence could keep his hoy or some of his friends from coming under the working of the Act. Because we tried to enforce this Act with an honesty and fairness worthy of a democratic people, I rose to make these few remarks and I say that the Government did right when they placed this matter for investigation in the hands of one of the judges of the country. Every one interested will profit by it. The Novitiate itself has every reason to profit by it if the statements of its representatives are true. The minister involved stands to profit by it because there is no denying the fact that there is suspicion abroad. It is the duty of the country and of Parliament to remove the stigma which has been cast on the good name of Canada and in doing this let us be honest and fair.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, living in an adjoining county to the county of Wellington, in which the Novitiate is situated, I think it is proper that I should represent the sentiment which exists in my county. I want to mention a few things in regard to which we have had a lot of trouble. In the town of Orangeville, the county town, there were half a dozen young men arrested for not having their exemption papers with them, in some cases young married men. These young men were not allowed to go aboard the train with their wives and children. They were held there until they got their exemption papers sent
from their homes. These were cases of young men who were really exempted under the Order in Council of the 20th April last year hut it was weeks and weeks before they could be got off. We tried to explain this to the people. I wrote to the Minister of Militia (Major General Mewburn) in several cases and said that these people did not come under the Military Service Act but the reply to my letter was that "This is out of our hands; the officer commanding at the headquarters of the district is the one to apply to.'-' We could get very little satisfaction in some cases. In the midst of it this trouble came about at the Novitiate. I do not wish to say a word about this Novitiate because it is a Catholic institution and I was very sorry to hear the last speaker on the Opposition side of the House (Mr. Gladu) get up with the anger that he did because there was religion in this question. Then he started to repeat some very fine prayer and wound up with desperate anger again. I really thought when he was reading that prayer that he represented quite a number of people in Canada who thought it was far safer to be behind a solid stone wall praying than to be facing the mouth of a cannon. You can understand our feelings when we found that inside twenty-four hours orders were given exempting those in that one institution, whether these men were exempt under the law or not, and that these orders came direct from Ottawa, not from Toronto or London, instructing the officers at Guelph that proceedings were to be called off and an apology made. If the Minister of Militia undertakes to apologize for every young man who was unlawfully taken against the Military Service Act it will take him at least six months to write these apologies. There were young men in the county of Dufferin that I wrote to Ottawa about and each one of them got exemption only after from three to six weeks' hard work. I do not think there was any need of that. In many cases the law went to extremes. I honestly believe in the resolution before the House to-day if the Government is honest in dealing with it. I believe it is in the interest of all churches and of all classes represented in this House. If I believed that an institution or class with which I was connected had done wrong I would be the first to try to have the stigma removed from them; I would be the man that would be asking for an investigation. Why should not the parties interested in this matter feel the same way? It has 'been admitted to-day, I think by the Minister of Militia', that the

men concerned in this case had not their discharge papers, nor any papers that would set them free. Under the circumstances I think they should have been held for military service just as any other young man was.	'
Now let me deal for a moment with what the Acting Minister of Justice has told us to-day. I will frankly admit that when this Military Service Bill was being brought down I was one of a few members that went to the Minister of Justice and asked that the divinity student clause be stricken out, and I will tell hon. gentlemen why I did so. I know boys that were raised right beside where I live, who had gone to college and been there for from two to three years ready to be ordained. Did they wait for exemption when the call came for their services? No, as soon as the war started they heard the call, they volunteered to go to the front, and the universities and colleges of Ontario were consequently almost stripped of men. Afterwards the Bill was introduced containing the divinity student clause to exempt all the young men that were in college. Was that a fair thing to do? Is there a man to-day in this country who will stand up and say that it was honest and fair to the rest of Canada? I deplore the fact that Protestantism and Catholicism have been made an issue in this matter to-day. Some of the very best friends I have in the county of Dufferin to-day are Catholics. There are Catholic friends of mine in that county that had two sons and a daughter go overseas. I know of hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House whose only sons have fallen in the war. Those men deserve credit, but why should we-because somebody has done wrong, or is supposed to have done wrong, no matter what church they belong to-shut our eyes to what is alleged to be an evasion of the law? T was somewhat surprised when the Acting Minister of Justice told us to-day that there was a provision in the Act to the effect that so long as young men had got into a college or university they were free from the operation of the Act. I cannot understand that. We could well have left in the divinity student clause if we had understood that we were going to be misled in that way. What was told us, and what was distinctly understood, in this House, was that unless a young man had been in a college for two, three, or four years-I do not remember the exact period now-and was about to be ordained, that he would be liable under the Military Service Act.

Why should fault be found with some hon. members in this House in asking that there should be a fair and honest investigation? For my part I cannot see why there should not be such an inquiry. I do not think that the investigation that has so far been held can be so designated. The Minister of Militia told us to-day that he inquired as well as he could. But he heard only one side of the story, and, of course, it was denied. I am not saying whether that was, or was not, right, but I do say that when men such as the members of this Ministerial Association, men who did their utmost to help the Militia Department of Canada, and to help Canada, to get all the young men they could for service overseas, are asking for a fair and honest investigation, I cannot see why it should not be granted? I hope that when the investigation is granted that it will take place with open doors, that there will be nothing covered up, and that nothing will be done but what is just and right. If the people who are now accused are exonerated they should have every reason to feel satisfied. I tell hon. gentlemen plainly that no member of this House will feel more satisfied than I if I can go to those who have complained to me that justice is not being done and tell them, " The complaint was only hearsay, it was only a report. A fair and honest investigation has been held into the conduct of the persons charged, and it has been found that they did not do wrong, but did their duty."


Mr. W. A. BOYS (Simcoe South):: This afternoon I had no intention of making any remarks in connection with the matter now engaging the attention of the House. I have not had the opportunity of reading the file in this case, and for that reason do not propose to enter upon a discussion of the various matters involved, but I happen to have in my possession a copy of a report made by Captain Macauley to his superior officer, dated London, June 10, 1918. I mentioned the matter to the Minister of Militia to ascertain if there was any objection to placing that report on the pages of Hansard, and he replied there was none whatever. It did seem to me, as the debate progressed, that as Captain Macauley was not here to make a statement himself, and as he had been severely censured for what he had done, it was only fair that the House should know what he has to say regarding this matter. It is true that the case will be investigated by a royal commission, but that will not result in the report being printed in Hansard unless it is placed there during the

course of this debate, at all events, not in all probability. I therefore rise merely for the purpose of reading the report to which I have referred.


Samuel Hughes: What is the document? Is it a report?


William Alves Boys: It is headed " Investigation and Report re Bedford Farm, Guelph, Ontario." I understand it is the same institution that is under discussion here. The report is from Captain A. C. Macauley to Major J. Hirsch, his senior officer, as I understand:-
Sir:-Acting under your instructions I proceeded to Guelph on the 7 th inst., and on arrival made arrangements to visit the marginally noted farm. I arrived there about 8.20 p.m.-[DOT][DOT] Bedford Farm time," they do not adhere to the daylight saving time-accompanied by Inspector Minard, C.S.B., Sergt.-Major Garner, C.M.P.C., one Sergeant C.S.B., and six constables. I took the precaution to place (3) three men at points that would enable them to see if any one left the buildings while the investigation was being made. I asked for someone in authority and was informed that the rector would be down in a moment. The rector came and I introduced myself, informing him of the object of the visit. I asked to see all the men of military age who were stopping at the farm, and after satisfying him that I had the authority to request same, he agreed to liave them all assemble in the dining room, which was the only room large enough for the purpose. About this time a Father Hinkson appeared on the scene and asked again for my authority. I asked him who he was and why he was wearing military uniform with the rank of captain. He stated that he had been to France, attached to the 5th Art. Division as chaplain. He tried to prevent any investigation being made, although he admitted being only a guest at the farm. However, he phoned a lawyer by the name of Kerwin, and a Judge Hayes. The latter advised him not to put any obstacles in my way and asked if I would speak to him, Judge Hayes, over the phone. During the conversation Judge Hayes told me that he had advised Father Hinkson that it would be wiser to help rather than hinder me, in carrying out my instructions, if he was satisfied that I was Captain Macauley as I represented myself to be. I might state here that Father Hinkson told Judge Hayes that he had no reason whatever to doubt my identity.
After all this delay the previous arrangement was carried out and all were assembled in the dining room. During the time that the men were assembling, two tried, unsuccessfully, to leave the building by a window. The men assembled were questioned by Inspector Min-ard and myself. Three of the men I examined I had detained for further examination, as they appeared to me to be defaulters under the Act.
About this time I was informed that Mr. Doherty of Ottawa, father of one of the guests at the farm, wished to speak to me. During the conversation, Mr. Doherty stated that he was the Minister of Justice and ordered me to stop all action, saying I had no right to be in Bedford Farm making any investigation. As I was acting under instructions from my C.O., I told Mr. Doherty that I could not take any
instructions from him that would in any way interfere with the carrying out of my instructions. He them asked me if I would at least suspend further action until he communicated with General Mewburn, the Minister of Militia. This request I complied with. Sometime later I received a phone call from General Ashton, Adjutant General, Ottawa, instructing me to suspend any further action other than to make a thorough investigation, and forward to him a complete report, and that he was informing the A.P.M. London, that such instructions had been given me. This was confirmed later by a wire from A.P.M., M.D. No. 1.
I am attaching a list of names of men of military age, who are living at Bedford Farm, together with their ages and the dates that they became guests at the farm, not one of them registered under the M.S.A. I am firmly convinced that the majority of these men are defaulters under the Act, and in support of my belief, I submit for your consideration the following information I gleaned from the "Rector" himself.
1.	Any young man may enter the place providing he is in good health and has his matriculation.
2.	He pays no fees and receives no salary for any work he does on the farm.
3.	He signs no agreements whatever and is under no obligation of any kind.
I have since learned that parapraph 3 is not altogether accurate; that an obligation is taken which compels the young man in question to renounce home, so to speak, and remain with the institution. It is only fair to state that. The letter continues :
4.	He may stay any length of time or he can leave any time he chooses at his own discretion.
5.	He may take certain studies, which would eventually admit him to the priesthood after fifteen years.
6.	He would not necessarily be ordained a priest though he lived there a lifetime.
In view of this information, I contend that these people do not come within the meaning of Para. 6, Schedule of Exemptions on page 26,-
I think he means "exceptions" when he says that.
-Red Book of Instructions dealing -with Deserters and Absentees without leave. Should my interpretation of this paragraph be wrong, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that all young men of military age could avail themselves of the opportunities thus presented by institution of this kind, for the express purpose of evading military service. It seems to me Sir, that it is of vital importance that a ruling regarding this case be obtained without delay.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Tour obedient servent,
A. C. Maoauley,
Captain.
To complete his report I shall read the list of names attached thereto. I am told -and I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the information-that this list

of names was obtained by him at the institution on the night in question.


Samuel Hughes: No, the next day.


William Alves Boys: I am only stating what my
information is:	I am not saying whether
it is correct or not, although I have no reason to doubt it. Possibly the member for Victoria is correct. The list of names follows :
Name in full.
Date of birth.	Date entered Bedford Farm.
Jos. Marchand	July 12th, 1896..
Vincent Morrison	March 6th, 1S98,..
Ignatius Leaver	August 2nd., 1897
Frederick Nell	February 24th, 1895..
Wm. McTague	February 12th, 1899 . .
Albert Vadelboneeur	August 21st, 1897.. ..
Eugene Chabot	July 20th, 1896.. ..
J. O. Doyon	December 1st, 1897..
Chas. Garrell	September 16th, 1899
Geo. Nunan	July 9th, 1896	
Chas. Pieper	February 6th, 1899..
John Holland. . Jas. Dalton.. .. Chas. Kelly. . . . John Moore.. .. John Roach. . . Ladislas White. . Patrick Connolly John O'Halloran .
December 2nd, 1896. August 12th, 1894. . July 29th, 1890.. . July 16th, 1896.. . September 2nd, 1897 October Sth, 1892. . August 10th, 1898.. February 12 th, 1897
Marcus Doherty	December 31st, 1898
Andrew Schmidt	January 13th, 1898.
John Penfold	February 19th, 1901
Raymond Sutton	May 2nd, 1899 .. ..
Patrick Ryan	October 17th, 1899.
Chas Smith	March 27th, 1898..
Leo. Fitzgerald	July 11th, 1896.. .
Dominic Pesant. . Origenes Dubreuil
Peter Bela	
Emile Fortier.. .
August 3rd, 1895.. December 9th, 1898 June 5 th, 1890. . . April 14th, 1897..
. . July 30th, 1915 (claims American citizenship).
. . September Sth, 1916.
. . September 20th, 1916 (claims American citizenship).
. . September 23rd, 1916.
. . September 22nd, 1916.
. . October 4th, 1916 (claims American citizenship).
. . November 11th, 1916.
. . July 30th, 1917.
. . July 30th, 1917.
. . August 14th, 1917.
. . September 7th, 1917 (claims American citizenship).
. . November 12th, 1917.
. . December 7th, 1915.
. . November 12th, 1915.
. . September 19th, 1915.
. . January 21st, 1916.
. . September 6th, 1913.
. . September 16th, 1917.
. . March 2nd, 1918 (claims American citizenship).
. . March 30th, 191S.
. . April 2nd, 1918.
. . April 12th, 1918.
. . April 26th, 1918.
. . May ISth, 1918.
. . May 29th, 1918.
. . August 14th. 1916 (claims American citizenship).	-
. . June 28th, 1916.
. . September 7th, 1916.
.. June 23rd, 1917.
.. August 14th, 1914.


Mr. BOYCE:: How many names are there in that statement?
M r. BOYS : Thirty.
Air. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough): Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to he able to add anything of value to this discussion, but I desire as a Protestant to express my sincere sorrow that the Ministerial Association of Guelph found it necessary to meddle in this regrettable affair. I suppose that the Alinisterial Association is composed of Protestant Ministers, and I should like to feel that they were engaged in spreading the gospel of peace rather than doing police and detective work in connection with the Alilitary Service Act. I cannot for the life of me understand why an association of clergymen would want to interfere with the administration of the Military Service Act when the country was filled with officers of all descriptions whose duty it was to attend to that duty.

Suppose we put the boot on the other foot. Suppose an Association of Roman Catholic clergymen-Jesuits, if you like, but Roman Catholic clergymen-held a meeting at some point and passed a resolution inviting the military officers to make a raid on some Protestant theological institution, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist. You can imagine the wild scene that would follow in the office of the Orange Sentinel and the speeches that would be made in the school houses and lodges throughout Ontario.
The member for Dufferin (Mr. Best! expressed regret that the Minister of Militia (Major General Mewburn) had apologized for this unjustifiable raid. In my judgment, the Minister of Militia did just what any gentleman would do. I regret that the member for Dufferin does not himself see it in that way. What else could the Minister of Militia do? We must all admit that what was done was certainly very roughly done. Captain Alacauley the officer in charge acted with unusual and unnecesssary severity, and it was right

that the Minister of Militia should frankly and promptly express his regret.
I wish to be permitted to assure my Catholic fellow citizens, both in this House and out of it, that the spirit which instigated this raid is, I hope peculiar to the district around the town of Guelph and to certain places in the province of Ontario. Thank God it does not exist generally throughout Canada, and I ana certain that it does not exist at all in the province from which I come. Speaking for the Protestants of my province, I wish to say that they desire to accord to our Catholic fellow citizens the same respect and freedom that they claim for themselves. I was pleased to learn from the acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) that after a careful and thorough investigation the charges against the Jesuit college at Guelph were found to be unfounded, and that there was not in the institution a single man who was liable for military service.
If that be the case,-and no hon. member has any just reason to doubt it-one wonders why, this investigation is asked for and why it is granted. I trust this step is not being taken for the purpose of giving further annoyance to those worthy citizens who have already been very badly used. After hearing the sneeches of the -.Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) and the Acting Minister of Justice, both of whom assured the House that there was nothing to investigate, I was disappointed that they should end up by saying that they had decided to grant a Royal Commission. I understand, however, there is no objection on the part of the Jesuit Order to have a full and thorough investigation and that they are quite ready to meet it. What justification, let me ask, can there be for the insulting manner in which this raid was carried out? Can any fair minded man justify it? Why was it necessary to go there in the night time? Why did the officer not go there in a manly and soldierly way in the daytime and ask the principal of the college for the names and ages of the boys and of the other residents of the institution? Surely that would have been the proper and decent manner in which to carry out his duties as a military officer. The whole proceedings are to my mind contemptible. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) that on that particular night the only man in the Novitiate fit for military duty was a returned soldier who had a good record at the front and who had lost a brother on the battlefield. One can
imagine the feelings of this mgji at the treatment his associates were receiving at the hands of the Government that he had served with so much courage and at such a sacrifice! The hon member for Maisonneuve also referred to the splendid record that the students of the various Jesuit Colleges throughout Canada had made in this war. Hon. gentlemen will remember that at the time of the last election an unfortunate slander was spread throughout the country that the clergy, that were expelled, from France during recent years and that had come to Canada, were instigating people to resist the Military Service Act and that they were not loyal and were not doing their duty as good citizens of this country. I have the honour of having a monastery in the county which I represent. Most of the Brothers in that monastery were men who had left France for the reason I have mentioned and who had been residents of Canada for some years, but as soon as war broke out, every one of those men of military age started for Halifax in order to take passage to France and join the colours, and some of them I am told made the supreme sacrifice. I am not familiar with the clergy in other institutions of that kind, but I know what happened in my own constituency and there is in that constituency no class of men whom I have more reason to be proud of than the fathers and brothers belonging to the monastery at Tracadie. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has also told us that 35 students of one of those very Jesuit institutions laid down their lives on the battlefields of France and (Flanders, amongst them being his own brave son. Surely that ought to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite who are pressing for this investigation. I regret that my hon. friend the hon. member for Victoria (iSir Sam Hughes) deemed it necessary to make this motion, and all I wish to say is that this discussion if it will do nothing else, will serve to vindicate the character of those worthy men whose only fault is that they belong to a different faith from that of spme hon. gentlemen opposite.


George Boyce: I am very pleased to learn that the Government are going to have an investigation. T have listened very carefully to the speeches that have been delivered, this afternoon, and the whole trend of some of them has been to shelter a certain number of men in the town of Guelph. It was asserted that Ontario had promised to raise a certain number


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for Cape Breton South says that he sees in this debate nothing more or less than a difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant. All I have to say with regard to that remark is that I think his eyesight is very bad. I regreit it, because 1 have a kindly feeling for my hon. friend, and I should like to think his physical condition was of the best.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have no glasses on, you
will notice.


John Wesley Edwards: I would suggest that
he put glasses on before he make a statement of that kind. The speech of the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Gladu) reminded me of a story I heard once about an old Scotch preacher who took for his text: The devil goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour." The preacher divided his subject under three heads. He said: "We will ask, first, who the devil he was; secondly, where the devil he was going, and thirdly, what the devil he was roaring about." As I listened to my hon. friend from Yamaska I thought I might very well ask him what he was roaring about, and whom he was seeking to devour. It did not seem to me that this discussion should have aroused in him such an ebullition of youthful! feeling as he exhibited here to-night. He has spoken of this institution and that college, and carried us to practically every Jesuit institution in the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, giving us the name of the person in charge and reciting some of the prayers which are said for the King and the Royal Family. The hon. gentleman said that prayers alone were not enough, that loyalty must be proved by acts as well as words. I was glad to hear him say that because I think when the enlistment figures from certain parts of this country came to His Majesty's ears he might be excused for asking for something more substantial than prayers. The hon. member himself is entitled to special consideration, because he is a very great friend of the soldiers. He has told us so himself, and I am not disposed to'dispute his statement; in fact, I think the figures bear him out. Why, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was so popular with the soldiers at fch*

last election that he received every soldier vote that was polled in his county, and there are not many members here who can make that boast. The polling of those votes indicated, to a certain degree at all events, what the county of Yamaska did in backing up its prayers by acts. I have said the hon. member received all the soldier votes that were cast in his riding, the total number was eight.
Referring to one of the Jesuit institutions in the province of Quebec, I think at Montreal, he said that before some of the students attending that Jesuit college started for overseas the reverend head of the college called the students together and made a brief addresss. I caught a few words which my hon. friend quoted from that address. He said that the reverend' head said to the boys: "You have heard that conscription is a bad law, that it is a curse; do not listen to such words." I should like to ask my hon. friend where the students of that particular college could possibly have heard words like those. Were they carried down from the province of Ontario? Who made use of such words? If they were made use of, it must have been by some person whom the head of the college thought the boys would listen to and be influenced by. I think I am justified in asking my hon. friend to tell us who made use of those words.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Certainly. The words were used by those who were the anti-British champions in 1910 and 1911, and who since that date have become, with their friends, ministers of the Crown. They breathed in 1917 the same spirit throughout the province of Quebec as they breathed in 1911.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I was very glad to see hon. members opposite endorse the answer given by the hon. gentleman. He said that persons who made use of these expressions were people of anti-British tendencies in the province of Quebec.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I do not understand the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend said that the persons who had declared the conscription law to be a bad law were antiBritish people. Well, we shall see how this statement applies. I desire to read a few words which were uttered by Archbishop Begin, the senior archbisholp of the Roman Catholic Church of Quebec, and published broadcast throughout that province as the expression of his opinion of
the conscription law. My hon. friend says that those who deemed conscription a bad thing were the anti-British. I shall now read what the senior archbishop of the province of Quebec said concerning the law.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Will my hon. friend pardon me. I;-


John Wesley Edwards: I knew my hon. friend would squirm.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I never said that.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend sees
the necessity for a disclaimer, but he committed himself before I undertook to read this. IHe is like many boys and youthful members; he is rather prone to say what he does not mean. He allowed himself to be carried away by the vehem-10 p.m. ence of his own eloquence, and said things that he will find it rather difficult to back up, even in Quebec. Now may I be permitted to place on Hansard the statement of the senior archbishop of the piovince of Quebec in regard to the conscription law. He said:
This conscription law is a menace which causes the Canadian clergy the worst apprehensions.
This military service, as it is proposed, or at least as we are enabled to judge from the speeches and statements its discussions have provoked, is not only a serious Wow to the rights of the Church of Christ, independent in its domain, and whose laws and practice exempt the clergy and that class of the society which that name designates from the service under arms1.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Is it signed?


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: By whom is it signed?


John Wesley Edwards: The senior archbishop of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: What paper is the hon. member quoting from? Is it the Sentinel?


John Wesley Edwards: I am not sure whether it was printed in the Sentinel or not, but it is not taken from the Sentinel. The paper from which I took it was the Kingston Standard. Let me quote some more.
The clause as It is written might lose some of its ill if it were interpreted in the spirit of the Church. But what guarantees have we that the members of the special tribunals will be all Catholics, enlightened and good-willed, capable of pronouncing with sincerity and knowledge on a question of its importance?
If we judge by the very crude knowledge revealed by certain speeches made in the Commons, one may, indeed, fear that some legisla-

tors, so little ill-willed, may not make a choice that we would approve, and here is what legitimatizes all the fears.
I have given you the words of the senior archbishop of Quebec, in regard to conscription. Do my hon. friends opposite deny that he made use of those words? Does any hon. gentleman opposite say that he did not issue a statement to the press of this country? Now, notwithstanding those remarks of the archbishop, I am not prepared to go as far as the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Gladu) who characterized as anti-British every one that was opposed to this law and regarded it as a had law; but I do say that the utterances of a man in the high position of the archbishop in question in regard to the conscription law-such utterances as I have read, and similar assertions by other dignitaries' of the Roman Catholic Church in this country-are to a certain extent responsible for the doubts that existed in the minds of Canadians in regard to the situation in the Guelph Novitiate. That cannot be gainsaid. The hon. member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Lemieux)


Some hon. MEMBERS:: For what?


John Wesley Edwards: Maisonneuve.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What?


John Wesley Edwards: I shall take another constituency the name of which is more easily pronounced. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), I will say. To one who has not the advantage of being able to speak the French language with the accuracy and the fluency with which I would like to speak it, it is exceedingly convenient to refer to a member who represents two or three constituencies, for it gives him a choice in names. I will therefore refer to my hon. friend as the member for Gaspe. He gave expression to his usual wail in regard to the Military Service. Act and the usual condemnation of the Minister of Militia for the message he sent to the farmers of the country. It strikes me as coming with extremely bad grace from any hon. gentleman on the opposite side from the province of Quebec or any of the Maritime Provinces to refer to the Military Service Act. Under the Act about 85,000 men were obtained. If the province of Quebec had done its duty and had supplied by voluntary enlistment its share in proportion to population as Ontario and the Western Provinces did, there would not have been any Military Service Act for it would have been unnecessary.
It is very well for the hon. member for Gaspe or some other hon. member from the 
province of Quebec to refer to the matter of conscripting farmers in Ontario and the Western Provinces, but Ontario had sent overseas thousands of farmers to take the place of farmers who stayed at home in Quebec and who were advised to do so by persons who should have siiown a different disposition. I am not saying for one moment that the hon. member for Gaspe advised men to stay at home, but I do say that there were persons who gave expressions to opinions such as those of the senior archbishop of the province of Quebec which I have read and which induced or influenced thousands of young men in that province to stay at home and thereby accentuated the farming difficulties in Ontario and the Western Provinces. _
The hon. member for Gaspe pleads for the minority. Well, I suppose that every church you could mention- in Canada is a minority, whether it is Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, or whatever it may be. But I would like it to sink deeply into his heart that there are duties and responsibilities devolving upon minorities just as much as upon majorities.
I do not think that any person who has read and studied the history of this country can claim that harshness has characterized everything that has been done towards the minority. They have been treated with generosity. There is no desire on the part of any person to persecute the people connected with the Guelph Novitiate.
What is the situation? Captain Macauley has come in for a great deal of criticism. He did not use tact, it is said; he did not use good judgment, and so on. His lack of tact or judgment has not been specially mentioned. He went there not at the dead of night. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) should travel a little, should come further west. He will And out that in June it is not dark at eight or nine * o'clock in the evening. Captain Macauley went to this institution in daylight, in civilian clothes, as he says, so as not to attrapt special attention to the carrying out of his orders. He did not go of his own accord. He went because he was ordered to go, and the Minister of Militia told us this afternoon that he had information from what he considered a most reliable source that there were men in the institution who were liable to military service. Acting upon that information, I presume, he or some other person, ordered that investigation as he had a perfect right to do. It does seem to me that all the trouble could have been avoided on the evening on which Captain Macauley

made his visit if, when he made known, the reason for his visit, the head of the institution had called the students together at once and said: "Here they are; if there are any men liable for military service, I am not aware of the fact; question them for yourself." That would have been the simple and proper course for him to have taken.
Why was there any holding back? I fail to see the reason why. Will any person tell me that because a student happens to be an inmate of a certain institution he is exempted, or should be exempted, because of that fact? That is something I am sure no person will attempt to argue in cool blood. It is something I am not prepared to accept.
I	do not see any reason why hon. gentlemen opposite should profess such annoyance because of the investigation of the institution. The Minister of Militia understood from a reliable source that there were men there who were liable to military service and the order was given to make an investigation. Captain Macauley goes up to make that investigation. The wires are set to work and he is told to leave the in-stution and let the fellows stay there.
The Minister of Militia, in his letter of June 11,-I think it was-to the head of the institution shortly after the so-called raid, said: that the whole question of the liability of these students was being given consideration by the Justice Department. If there was doubt in regard to the liability of the men in this institution to service, why was an investigation ordered until that doubt was cleared up? Why is it when the matter was in doubt and being investigated by the Justice Department that the so-called raid was made? It seems to me that if it was a matter which had not been definitely settled as to whether the students were liable or not there should not have been any orders given for an investigation until the doubt was cleared away. There was not only a matter of doubt then, but there appears to be a matter of doubt now, as to whether these young men were liable for service or not.
I am glad that the Government intimated its entire willingness to have an investigation. I am glad for two particular reasons. If you like, there are two classes in the country concerned. If you like, there is a difference of . opinion between Roman Catholics on the one side and Protestants on the other. Certainly, there are some people who think there has been favouritism shown to certain ones in that institution and I think it advisable that that impression should be dispelled. The statement has been made here that none in this institution were liable to military service. I think that is another reason why there should be an investigation. It is decidedly in the interest, not only of this particular institution but of general harmony in the country, that there should be a full, fair and complete investigation which will remove any doubts that may exist in any person's mind as to whether any favouritism has been shown in regard to the students in this institution or not. That is the reason why I commend the action of the Government in granting an investigation. I think they have taken the proper course in withholding this investigation until the return of the Minister of Justice who is particularly concerned. I do not think anybody will object to that for a moment. That is only fair play, and it is fair play that wins in the long run.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester):	Mr. Speaker, it had been my firm intention not to take any part in this debate. I now rise simply for the purpose of correcting, for the public benefit, a statement which has just been made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) with reference to the hierarchy and Cardinal Begin of Quebec. My hon. friend is certainly not aware of the very commendable manner in which Cardinal Begin acted at the beginning of the recent great war. I have no authority to speak on behalf of Cardinal Begin, but we happen to be very closely related, being the sons of sisters, and knowing the Cardinal's sentiments with respect to the great war, I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I were to allow the hon. member for Frontenac's remarks with respect to the Cardinal to pass unchallenged. Mly hon. friend has stated what Cardinal Begin is supposed to have said with respect to the clause affecting students of the church in Canada. The clause in question was one which had been inserted by the Prime Minister in the original Bill exempting clerical students from military service, and which was adopted in modified form by the Prime Minister at the instigation of some hon. members on this side. It was while that clause was under discussion that Cardinal Begin gave expression to his opinions with respect to its possible effects in relation to divinity students. But my hon. friend has not seen fit to direct the attention of the House, or of the country, to what Cardinal Begin had done since the outbreak of hostilities to induce the young men of his province and of his diocese to make the necessary sacrifice in order to enlist



and rally to the support of the British Empire and of the Allies in Belgium and France. Had my hon. friend put the matter at issue honestly and squarely before the House I would not have intervened in these proceedings. I have only done so in order to give this explanation and in order that Cardinal Begin might not rest under the imputation of being opposed to Canada's participation in the war and of not having done his full duty, not only as a British subject, but as a prince of the church in Canada. My object is to make the point clear and unmistakable for the benefit of the people of Canada, and more particularly the people of Ontario, so that the friends of those hon. gentlemen who brought forward this motion cannot plead that the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, or other Catholic dioceses, have not done their duty in that regard; when it is the fact that their addresses to their people should be yet fresh in the memory of every member of the House and of the people of Canada as well.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have listened with considerable interest to this whole debate. At times I doubted whether I should take part in it, and at other moments I felt the impulse to say a few words. To my mind, and I know that hon. gentlemen upon'the opposite side who do not agree with all the sentiments that have been expressed this afternoon will also say so, the debate has been somewhat rambling.
The hon. member for Frontenac who spoke a few moments ago has an unhappy way of saying things. It is not so much what he says, but the manner in which he says it, that is particularly displeasing to hon. members from the province of Quebec.
I would like to tell the hon. gentleman- and we have perhaps had a tilt or two in the last twelve years-that I have given up all hope of him. If I had any influence in the right quarter, I would ask that the prayers that were read this afternoon might be somewhat amended, so that not only would we pray for His Majesty the King, the Queen Consort, and the Royal Family, but that -we might also add a prayer for the hon. member foT Frontenac.


John Wesley Edwards: I suppose it would do me about as much good as it does the Royal Family?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I suppose even prayers would not have any weight with the hon. gentleman, much less words. The resolution that was introduced this afternoon by

the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the statements made public in relation to the Guelph Novitiate during the month of June, 1918, and the circumstances and facts concerning those and other similar charges concerning the evasion by young men and the connivance of others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act and other Acts and Orders relating to the upbuilding of the military forces of Canada, it is advisable that a select committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the matter with full authority to examine witnesses under oath, to pay necessary expenses and to report to this House.
In connection with this resolution the hon. member for Frontenac succeeded an making a speech dealing with the soldiers, with the archbishops and bishops of the Catholic church, and succeeded in getting in his customary attacks upon the province of Quebec, and went on to dilate upon the subject in his own inimitable style. My thoughts were running along a different line. As I read the resolution I saw more in it than an attack upon the Guelph Novitiate. I saw also these words:
and the connivance of others to defeat the ends and aims of the Military Service Act and other Acts and Orders relating to the up-building of the military forces in Canada.
I do not know if it is the intention of the Government to allow my hon. friend from Victoria to go to the extent of his resolution, but I find that in glancing over an address which he delivered to his constituents there is this passage;
More than one year ago an agitation was begun on the question of labour. We were recruiting " too many regiments " ; we were " taking too many men away from work "; " munitions manufacturers and others would be at a standstill "; " farmers could not put in their crops "; and " Canada has already done her full duty," were daily recited. They, unfortunately, had an effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that I was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day is, and has been, dead in Canada for fighting purposes. " Safety First," or the useful and well paid, but not dangerous jobs are readily filled ; but for the gallant boys in the trenches there is little or no backing.
That, to the casual observer at least, will tally exactly with what the hon. member for Victoria means by " other Acts and Orders relating to the upbuilding of the Military Forces of Canada." Knowing the resourcefulness of my hon. friend from Victoria I just wonder how far he will go with this investigation. Will he, for instance, be allowed the opportunity to investigate the conduct of the leader of the Government?

Will he be allowed to investigate the conduct of my hon. friend who is one of the two Presidents of the Privy Council for Canada? I say "one of the two" Presidents of the Privy Council, not that I mean any disrespect, but because I find by the Auditor General's Report that Canada is graced to-day with two Presidents of the Privy Council, one in his seat in this House, the other abroad, in the person of the Prime Minister. Will he investigate the conduct of one of these? He may wish to investigate the conduct of several othei ministers; does the Government intend to give him that latitude? He asks for it in the resolution. Will the member for Victoria be allowed to inquire into the conduct of the farmers of Ontario and the farmers of Canada who protested against theii sons being taken? The member for Victoria asks for that. Or, forsooth, will the Government simply say: eliminate everything else and we will give you the right to investigate what the member for West Toronto and the member for Frontenac ask -the conduct of the Guelph Novitiate? Sir, does it seem just, does it seem fair, that every other influence or element that worked against the upbuilding of the military force of Canada should not have its conduct investigated, but that attention should be given solely to this poor little Novitiate in Guelph? I ask in all sincerity; is it because this little Novitiate belongs to the religious minority of this country that theii conduct alone should be investigated, not the conduct of every man who tried to prevent the upbuilding of Canada's military force? Surely the Government will allow the member for Victoria to have a thorough and full investigation; surely he, aided 1 hope by members on both sides of this House, will have a right to go before that Court of Inquiry and examine into the conduct of this one and that one, great or small-because there must be no class difference; all men must be upon the same footing.
Sir, I am not charged by the Jesuit Order of Canada to interfere with an investigation into their conduct. I listened with great pleasure to the member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair), who does not belong to the same church as the Jesuits, speaking about the pettiness of this investigation into the affairs of one small Novitiate. The voice of the hon. member was pleasing to my ears, for here was one man who, though not belonging to the faith of the minority, urged that all this pettiness be
80J
put aside. Time after time the greatest and most eminent statesmen of this country have advocated that these questions be not approached from the standpoint of parish politics, and that all differences between races and creeds be put aside. Would you, Mr. Speaker, not be surprised if I, belonging to the religion of the minority, should ask that the conduct of some particular sect or faith other than my own should be investigated? Hon. gentlemen opposite are of too large mind not to be heartily sick of these petty little attacks against certain people of this country solely because they belong to the religious minority.
We have heard it said to-day that in the province of Quebec, to which most of us on this side belong, we do not understand these petty little attacks. We have there, living in close community and in the very best of good-fellowship, members of different religious beliefs. Never do you hear one gentleman of the province of Quebec make attacks upon the religious minority of the province. The member for West Toronto, I think it was-it may have been the member for Frontenac-said very truthfully that there should be no minority or class of people in this country with privileges that are not extended to others. Make no mistake about it: we advocate that on this side of the House. We ask for no privileges; what we insist upon and what we mean to hold are the rights and the privileges that have been granted to us, not by certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, but by the British North America Act of 1867. We do not plead for more extended privileges; we do not plead for any particular rights. We want the constitution protected. We are asked to live upon the rock of the constitution. Sir, we will not try by any means whatever to evade the working of the British North America Act, nor will we brook any interference with the rights that we have under that Act. I say this so that once and for all what is understood by the " Quebec question " may be grasped by even the most ignorant man in the country. That is the Quebec question; it is absolutely nothing more than that.
Occasionally, through the kindness, I assume, of the member for West Toronto, I get a copy of the Orange Sentinel. I read it with great care. I have other friends in the country who send me pamphlets bearing the " no popery " cry; others are kind enough to send me circulars about the damnation of the church to which I belong. I sometimes marvel how it is that I have so many kind friends throughout the country.


William Thomas White: The Acting Minister of Justice has clearly and accurately stated the position of the Government with reference to this resolution. That position is precisely the same as that which it took when the matter was first formally presented to us in December last by Rev. Mr. Palmer and some other members of the Guelph Ministerial Association and some hon. members who have spoken here to-day. We stated at that time the attitude of the Government towards all charges involving allegations of impropriety or wrong-doing to be that these charges should be investigated; that if a charge was preferred against a minister, the matter should be drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister whose duty it would be to take such action as he deemed expedient; that if allegations were made respecting departmental administration, then appropriate inquiry should be had in such a case. In other words, the attitude of the Government was that, upon all charges definitely formulated by responsible parties, appropriate investigation should follow. We therefore stated to the members of the Ministerial Association and the others who were present with the deputation on the occasion referred to, that if charges were formulated the Government would take action by way of having a proper investigation made. It was necessary, we thought, that there should he a formulation of charges, first, in order to justify the Government in taking action, and secondly, as affording the foundation of allegation upon which a commission could be based. No specific charges were formulated following that interview, but on Thursday night last I received the charges signed by the Rev. Mr. Palmer which were presented here to-day by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and I at once cabled them to the Prime Minister. The acting Minister of Justice has read to the House the reply received from the Minister of Justice, that he would welcome any inquiry by which, in the opinion of his colleagues, the public interest would be served. He stated further, as was read by the acting
Minister of Justice, that the imputations made with respect to his action and that of the Department of Justice in respect of the Guelph Novitiate, are entirely baseless. That is the position of the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Militia and Defence has stated that he also desires an inquiry, and in view of the fact that these charges, or like charges, have attained wide publicity and that there has been a good deal of public discussion of the affair in question, the Government has reached the conclusion that a full investigation should be had through a commission, as stated to-day by the Acting Minister of Justice. That is all I desire to say with reference to the matter, except this: That the hon. member for Victoria, who was obliged to leave for Toronto to-night, asked me before leaving the House to state on his behalf that he accepted the statement of the Acting Minister of Justice, and authorized me to withdraw on his behalf the resolution; which I now beg leave to do.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had no intention of saying anything upon this very sensitive question that is now before the House, nor do I propose to say very much at this stage. I think it is very regrettable that questions of this character should be brought up in the House of Commons. Questions of a religious character are bound to divide the House along those lines, and it is very regrettable that they should be introduced into this House if they can be otherwise settled. I think the Government is more or less to blame in this connection, in view of the explanation they have given. It is very clear that the resolution put upon the Order Paper by the hon. member for Victoria contains a great many charges, and if one of those charges is to be investigated by the Government every one of them should be investigated. The Government, of course, is responsible for the character of every motion that goes upon the Order Paper and is allowed to come before the House. I am long enough in the House of Commons to know that no motion can get on the Order Paper without going through a certain routine, and if it contains anything objectionable it should not get on the Order Paper. Surely, if there is not enough machinery now to prevent questions of a questionable character appearing on the Order Paper there ought to be some censorship of them. If it is desirable to have censorship of the mails and newspapers and public speakers,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member not recall that at the close of my remarks I suggested to the hon. member for Victoria that his resolution be withdrawn, and also that at the close of the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) he did withdraw the resolution?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) suggested to the hon. member for Victoria to withdraw the resolution and it was withdrawn, I would like to know what we have been discussing. What has been before the Chair? The whole thing is wrong and irregular.


Arthur Meighen: The only time it was withdrawn was when the Acting Prime Minister spoke.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was absent in the early part of the evening, but three or four hon. members have spoken since I came in and I never heard of any other motion.


Arthur Meighen: It was not withdrawn
before. I simply suggested its withdrawal but the suggestion was not taken up.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then it seems to be a sort of imaginary withdrawal. The minister says it was withdrawn, and still discussion continued. It had no right to be discussed and the whole proceeding was irregular, if the hon. member is correct in saying that he suggests the withdrawal and it was withdrawn.
Mr. 'MEIGHEN:	No withdrawal took
place until immediately before the hon. gentleman himself rose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There had been a great deal of discussion before I rose. I understand the question was discussed the whole evening on this motion, which I say should have been withdrawn the very moment the Acting Minister of Justice announced the mode by which he intended it should be dealt with. This acrimonious discussion could have been avoided and the investigation of the matter approached in a more proper frame of mind than is possible after the country has been influenced by the discussion that has taken place this evening.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did the hon. gentleman not take his objection at a more appropriate time than now?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not think that all the wisdom of the House was centered in me, and more than that, I was not here. I was keeping exceedingly quiet until I found that the leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) had something to say. I told him I was not going to speak and I thought he would follow suit and say nothing. However, I simply point out what would have been the proper course, and I must say that I have not heard any great argument in support of this investigation.
I take the same ground as I took on the resolution with reference to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, that I will take my law from the Acting Minister of Justice in matters of the kind. He has not given any good reason, or any reason that satisfies himself, that there is very much to investigate in this matter. He said he would give permission to Mr. Palmer to reconstruct these charges and possibly put something in them that would hold water, but, as they stood, I understood him to say, there was not much in them. He gave a certificate of character to the Minister of Justice, and expressed the opinion that everything in connection with the matter was satisfactory. Nevertheless he thinks that something should be
done to placate the mob, like the judge of old who allowed the populace to choose Barabbas. That, I think, is largely the frame of mind of the minister. There is nothing in it, he says; I find no fault in this man; my hands are clean; let his blood be upon you and your children.
I hope that if the investigation takes place it will be such a one as will do ample justice to all concerned and that the tribunal will be of such a character as to be entirely above the slightest suspicion, and that cleanout justice and fair play will be meted out to all parties.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would not be amiss to inform the House that there has been no withdrawal of the motion. The question would have to be put from the Chair and then a withdrawal could only be made with the consent of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Acting Minister of Justice is wrong then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Strictly speaking, a
motion can only be withdrawn at the request of the mover, but I think I may take it for granted, from the statement of the Acting Prime Minister, that he speaks for the hon. member for Victoria I therefore put the question as to whether the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Tuesday, April 8, 1919.


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

SENATE BILLS. first readings.
Bill No. 53 to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Bill No. 54 to amend the Insurance Act, 1917,-Sir Thomas White.
Bill No. 55 to change the name of The Canada Accident Assurance Company to The Canada Accident and Fire Assurance Company.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 56 for the relief of Eva St. Lawrence Cronk.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 57 for the relief of Helena Clara Gabriel-Mr. Pardee.
Bill No. 58 for the relief of Gretna Harris Hawkins.-Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).
Bill No. 59 for the relief of Samuel Bur-goyne.-Mr. Smith (Ontario).
Bill No. 60. for the relief of James Arthur McGregor.-Mr. Fripp.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61 for the relief of William Lewes Evans.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 62 for the relief of Richard Wilson Orashley.-Mr. McMaster.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa):: I would like to ask if the Government has received any protests regarding the immigration into Western Canada of Hutterites and Men-nonites from the United States; and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken by the Government to meet the situation?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. J. A. Calder) is out of town and he has asked me to answer this question, notice of which had been given previously. This is his answer:
The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." A large number of protests has been received from various parts of Western Canada objecting to the settlement of Mennonites, Hutterites, and other conscientious objectors arriving from the United States.
The protests are based mainly on the following grounds:
(1)	That these people are conscientious objectors and as a consequence, will in future claim exemption from military service or endeavour to evade same if called upon;
(2)	That they claim special school and language privileges for their children and that they will resist the enforcement of the school laws of the several provinces in which they reside;
(3)	That they live in communities and are a detriment to other settlers residing in the same neighbourhood.
As regards these settlers and the action taken or proposed to be taken to deal with the situation, I desire upon behalf of the Government to state:
(1)	The great majority of these settlers are citizens of the United States. They are seeking homes in Canada as all American citizens have a right to do under existing laws and regulations.
(2)	The Government is not encouraging this particular movement of settlers to Canada.
(3)	The Government has not granted to these settlers any special privileges as regards schools or language.
(4)	Under the provisions of an Order in Council (P.C. No. 2622), dated October 25,

1918, all Mennonites entering Canada are subject to military service, as provided by existing laws for all residents or citizens of Canada. Such immigrants are not now and never have been entitled to the special privileges granted to Mennonites who settled in Western Canada under the provisions of an Order in Council dated August 13, 1873.
(5)	Under the provisions of an Order in
Council (P.C.	1676), dated August 12,
1899, Hutterites who entered Canada as settlers any time thereafter were given the fullest assurance of absolute immunity from military service. This Order in Council has been cancelled as regards Hutterites entering Canada in future.
(6)	The Government proposes to submit to Parliament at an early date a Bill, the provisions of which will debar all immigrants entering Canada in future to claim exemption from military service on conscientious grounds.



COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS-PERSONNEL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, the creation of a Commission on Industrial Relations has been announced by the Minister of Labour, and the gentlemen mentioned by the papers as commissioners are Chief Justice Mathers, Senator White, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. Riordon and Mr. John Bruce. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to nominate a French-Canadian member to this commission? I would suggest as a matter of justice, the province of Quebec being the second largest industrial province of the Dominion, and 90 per cent of the labourers in the factories there being French-Cana-dians, that it would only be fair to have at least one French-speaking member of the commission.


William Thomas White: The commission has not yet been created by the Government. I believe the personnel will be an-nounceu within the next couple of days.



RECIPROCITY IN COASTING PRIVILEGES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) a few days ago inquired if the United States had refused coasting trade privileges to Canadian shippers in American waters. In response to an inquiry upon the subject I have received from
Ai'KIL 8, 1919
Washington a message to the following effect:
Advices from our representative for Lakes District indicates apparent scarcity business on Lakes for American ships for this season. Coastwise permits are now almost invariably declined on Atlantic and Pacific coasts only exceptional situation warranting departure from this policy.	_
By Order in Council the Minister of Customs is permitted to grant coasting privileges to American shipping in Canadian waters. The Order in Council, which is dated the 5th February, 1918, provides:
During the period of the war, until otherwise ordered the Minister of Customs may, under conditions specified by him, authorize collectors of customs to issue licenses permitting vessels of the United States of America to engage in the Coasting Trade of Canada.
Inasmuch as the United States now declines to confer the privilege upon Canadian vessels engaged in their coasting trade, it is contemplated that no further licenses be granted to American shipping for coasting trade in Canadian waters except under very exceptional circumstances. This will place our policy in this regard on a parity with that of the United States.


Charles Marcil: Is the hon. minister aware that a number of armed American vessels are on the Great Lakes at the present time?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not aware of there being any armed vessels on the Great Lakes at the present time. I shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know to-morrow.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.


[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 28, to confirm two Orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System be read a third time.
Thomas Vien: Air. Speaker, in addition to the remarks that I had the honour to make recently when this Bill was before the House, I think it is also my duty to draw the attention of the Government to the grave situation which arises by the fact that the Government instead of proceeding amicably with the company has proceeded by way of what is virtually expropriation. If the Government had been a little more prudent probably it might have come to an amicable arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. By proceeding as it has done it has
absolutely no control over the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Tne only thing the Government can do is to take over whatever property is actually situated in Canada. It cannot attach or seize the holdings of the company; these are kept in London.
It cannot attach or seize whatever railway connections are held by the Grand Trunk or by the Grand Trunk Pacific outside Canadian territory. This shows in what an awkward situation the Government will be. The Government will have no control whatever of the connections of the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific in the States. Deprived of their American railway connections the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific are more a burden to this country than an advantage. By proceeding by way of expropriation, or by way of Order in Council under the War Measures Act, which is absolutely the same thing, the Government will find themselves in the position of having whatever railway property is situated in Canada, but they will be deprived of all the other holdings which the Grand Trunk Railway Company possess. The Government will not be able to bring about a liquidation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Those two companies have their head offices in London, and if the Government want to press for payment of the bonds for which the Grand Trunk Railway Company may be held responsible, that company will enter into a long drawn out litigation with the Government and probably the ultimate result will be that very grave danger which I pointed out during the last discussion which took place in this House, namely, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will win out in court. The Government advised us that they had taken all precautions in regard to the legal aspect of the question and that there was no danger whatever that, by the Government's acting as they did, by way of Order in Council, the Grand Trunk Railway Company would ipso facto be relieved of their obligations in connection with the bonds which they have guaranteed. I have consulted on this point with two oi the most prominent lawyers in Canada, one in Toronto and the other in Alontreal, and both of them are of opinion that the Government having failed to live up to the terms of the agreement of 1903, cannot compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company also to live up to that agreement. The Government, of course, may say that on any legal question wise men may differ, and

it is possible that my opinion., which is in accord with the legal opinion of these two prominent lawyers, may not be the one which the court may accept, but it is possible that it may. On questions of such importance the members of the highest tribunal often hold divergent views, and it is very imprudent on the part of the Government of this country to risk the whole matter on a question of ligitation. I do not anticipate that the Government will, on account of any argument that I may put forward, change their opinion on this point but if I might venture to offer the Government some advice, it would be not to force the matter to ligitation, but to come to an amicable arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, because if the Government fail to reach an agreement, it will be a very dangerous question on which the highest tribunal might differ, and even if they compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to live up to their obligations and pay the bonds which they have guaranteed, I am very much afraid that the only thing the Government will have to sustain such a recourse wdll be the property which lies in Canada, deprived of all its foreign connections, particularly its American connections, and deprived of all the other holdings that these companies keep in London and which are not attachable by any action which the Government might take. This,
I believe, will exemplify to the House the advisability of a careful study before committing the country to such a course; and, what a regrettable step the Government have taken in proceeding as they have done without defining their railway policy, and without making a further attempt to reach an agreement with the company. If the Government decide to force this matter to litigation and not come to an amicable arrangement with the company, they will be left only with the rails and rolling stock, and these, the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) described to us as a huge heap of scrap, or at least fifty per cent of it. This is what the Government will have in its possession to guarantee the immense indebtedness which their imprudent procedure has placed upon our shoulders, thereby relieving the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
[Mr. Vien. [
Civil Government-Department of Public Works Salaries, including deputy minister at 16,000, assistant deputy minister at $4,500, and departmental solicitor at $3,500, $575,537.50.
["I think the minister\nwill be as far ahead if he allows the item to stand.\nItem allowed to stand.\nThe committee rose, and the House resumed.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the explanation of the increases and decreases?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The first is an increase of $1,000 in the salary of the deputy minister; it has been decided as a matter of policy to increase the salaries of deputy ministers from $5,000 to $6,000. Then, the salary of the assistant deputy minister, Mr. St. Laurent, who is one of the most efficient men in the service, has been increased from $4,000 to $4,500. There is provision for 350 officials, but there are not that many in the department; in fact, the number is much less. Last year there were not 16 employees in the First Division, Subdivision A, although provision was made for that number. This year I am not sure whether there are 16 or not, but certain officials are to be advanced, largely through their annual increases, and brought up to the First Division, Subdivision A; we therefore estimate that it will take $9,000 more to pay the salaries of this class of clerks than it did last year- The same applies to the Second Division, Subdivision A: there were only 60 last year, and we are making provision for 80 this year, although I do not think there will be that number of clerks in that class. In the Second Division, Subdivision B, there was a decrease in the number of employees, from 88 to 65. That simply means that a number will be promoted from Subdivision B to Subdivision A of the Second Division. The same applies to Third Division, Subdivision A; there is an increase from 63 to 70, due not to an increase in the number of clerks, but to promotions. The total expected increase is about $600, but as all the positions may not be filled it is hard for me to tell the committee what the actual increase will be. In fact, there may be no increase at all.
During the past year very little work was done by the engineering branch of the department-such as dredging, the building of vrharves and breakwaters and so on. I think I am safe in saying that not nearly as much has been done as hon. members would like to see done. Not nearly as much has been done as I myself would like to see. If there is one thing that I think the country should look after, it is the transportation around our sea coasts. The ordinary trade of the country cannot be carried on unless we provide the necessary means of handling transportation; unless we do certain dredging and build wharves and breakwaters. I am sorry that I have

not been able to put in the Estimates anything like as much as I would like to have put in for these works-and it is not because I do not realize their importance.
There has been some decrease in the engineering staff; not merely as much, perhaps, as there should have been. About a year ago all building operations carried on by the Government were put under the Public Works Department. Previously the different departments had carried on extensive building programmes of their own. The Militia Department had a building programme and a building staff. The Military Hospitals Commission had quite a programme and quite a large staff. The Marine and Fisheries Department did considerable building. Now this work is all done by the Public Works Department and that means quite an increase to our architectural staff. No department of the Government during the past year has been busier or has rendered more efficient service to the country than has the architectural branch of the Public Works Department. We have constructed all the military buildings that have been found necessary throughout the country; we are constructing all the buildings required by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Department of Marine and Fisheries -although of the latter there are but few. Our energies during the past year have been devoted chiefly to the construction of military buildings and buildings for the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is this work done through contractors or by the department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We prepare the plans
and specifications. In practically all cases we call for tenders and the work is done by contract, which is invariably given to the lowest tenderer. During the past year only two works were not done by tender and contract. These were in Nova Scotia, one at North Sydney and the other at Dartmouth, opposite Halifax, and were in connection with the aerial service of the Naval Department.
During the latter part of the summer it became necessary to protect our coasts against submarine raids. The United States Government desired to assist us and very generously offered to send men and equipment to Canada, and the Naval Department of Canada was asked to provide accommodation. We realized that it was impossible to prepare plans and specifications, call for tenders and have the work completed before the ground froze, and
therefore two works were let to local contractors-at least, one was a local contractor and the other a contractor now of Ottawa,-on the cost plus basis.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the amount involved, roughly speaking?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The estimated amount of the North Sydney and Dartmouth works was around $115,000 and $120,000. The work would have cost more than that had it been pushed to completion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it in connection with the war?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, absolutely. It wa3 for the housing of the United States aerial forces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will be done with those works now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am afraid there will not be much use for them in the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were not completed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. In addition to the work at North Sydney and Dartmouth, extensive works were also necessary for the hydroplanes, which involved very extensive concrete structure running down into the sea, so that the planes could glide down and fly from the water Not very much of this work had been started. The buildings were in process of completion when the armistice was signed, and it was then a question what should be done with them. There were a number of buildings constructed of wood which were in an unfinished condition; and rightly or wrongly, after serious consideration, not by the department but by the Government as a whole, it was decided to complete the buildings that were then under construction. There was one place in which certain concrete foundations were about two-thirds built, and we finished the work because it was considered that possibly some use might be made of the buildings. Speaking generally, however, work ceased the moment the armistice was signed. The buildings in the two places cost around $300,000. The North Sydney buildings were used to some extent for the housing of troops and will probably be used for the accommodation of Newfoundlanders returning home. Personally, I do not think there will be very much use for these buildings in the future and we must charge the cost up to the war. With these exceptions every building that has been erected in Canada has been built by public tender, contract

being let to the lowest tenderer, and a great many million dollars have been involved. There has been some fault finding, and criticisms may as well be disposed of at once. In one or two places we were criticised for exercising too much precaution. It was said that we lost valuable time in preparing the plans and specifications and in calling for tenders, but we kept pretty well in touch with the situation and had an idea how many wounded returned soldiers there would be-I am speaking more of the hospitals now than anything else-and there were always at least three Deds for every two returned wounded men, while in many places there were two beds for each soldier.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did you build the Ste. Anne's hospital?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Ste. Anne's hospital was under construction when this work was handed over to our department.


Mr.   BEILAND@: Was the Militia Department building it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the Military Hospitals Commission. They had given contracts amounting to about $300,000, and we have gone on and let various contracts aggregating over a million dollars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have the hospitals been built partly by the Hospitals Commission and partly by the Public Works Department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before April, 1918, it was called the Military Hospitals Commission, but we can treat it as the same organization as Sir James Lougheed's department. They were constructing hospitals for their department in many parts of Canada and the buildings were in course of construction when we took over the work. We carried out what arrangements they had made and if additional work was required it was done exclusively by the Public Works Department, and we are satisfied that we have saved the country money.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These buildings are now all under the Public Works Department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I mean the erection oi them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are built by the
Public Works Department. There are military hospitals administered by the Militia Department-one at Halifax, one at Fredericton and there will be a large work at Kingston, and the St. Andrew's Hospital at Toronto, formerly St. Andrew's School.

There is an Orthopaedic hospital in Toronto which is complete and up to date in every respect. These will be administered by the Militia Department until the soldiers are handed over to the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department. After that, I presume that the great majority of the buildings will be handed over to the Civil Re-establishment Department. If I had had my way from the beginning, I think a very large amount of money expended in the erection of military hospitals would have been spent in making additions to various city and municipal hospitals in different places. Then, when they were not required by the Militia Department they could go over to the municipalities and public organizations and be of some economic value. But as to the buildings which we have erected, if they cannot be used by the Soldiers Civil Re-establishment Department I do not know that they will be of much use to the people of Canada generally.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As my hon. friend is referring to the buildings in connection with the aerial service at Dartmouth and North Sydney, may I express regret that the splendid buildings and equipment which we had at Toronto have been sold by the Imperial Munitions Board to an American gentleman or an American firm.
I do not know what my hon. friend intends to do with the buildings that have been erected at Dartmouth and North Sydney but at all events, there is this to be considered : I believe in the future of the aerial service. We know what wonderful discoveries were made during the last years and what extraordinary help was rendered to the cause of the Allies by the aerial service. The response to the call by young Canadian aviators has been most remarkable during the war and I really believe that there is a splendid career opening up to our young men in that new service. It is a matter of every day occurrence that in Europe, for instance, the passenger service is performed to a limited extent, it is true, by the aeroplane. The postal service already exists in several countries through the air service. Contracts have been given by the Washington Government at some of the large centres in the United States for the transportation of mails from one point to another, and I believe that within a very limited period of time the aerial service will be a matter of course and will revolutionize the transportation system.
As we had an excellent groundwork for this aerial service in Canada, I was surprised to see that the Imperial Munitions

Board had sold that magnificent equipment which had been provided in Toronto.
I hope that my hon. friend, before disposing of those buildings in the Maritime Provinces, will consult with his colleagues and ponder over this matter because I sincerely believe there is a great future for the aerial service.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have no intention whatever of disposing of those buildings until we have more light upon the whole question than we have at the present time. The buildings there are for the hydroaerial service consisting of hydroplanes which rise from the water. I cannot just say whether the buildings in Nova Scotia will be of much value from the aeroplane standpoint, but my hon. friend can rest assured that the buildings will be taken care of and that nothing will be done until the matter has been very thoroughly considered. I think he is a little in error in his remark about the buildings in Toronto having been disposed of. We have not disposed of any buildings which could be used, in any general sense, for the aeroplane service. Of course, the Government of Canada, as such, had nothing to do with any of these. They were built and owned by the Imperial Munitions Board. The Government purchased practically all the buildings which the Imperial Munitions Board had at Camp Borden, and that was really the centre of their activities. There was a building in North Toronto owned by the Canadian Aeroplanes Limited. It was put up to the Government to see if we would not buy it. Our department had a very careful investigation made by appraisers, but considering the structure and everything else together with the amount they required, we did not think it was good business to purchase it. It was a building in which they constructed aeroplanes, and it had nothing to do with the flying 4 p.m. of the machines themselves. The Imperial Munitions Board got a price which was more attractive to them, and the building was sold to a gentleman who purchased a great many of the aeroplanes. We have retained twenty of the aeroplanes at Camp Borden. A staff of engineers and mechanics has been kept there to look after them, and I can assure my hon. friend that, in so far as this will be of any benefit to the aerial business in Canada we have not lost touch with it. My hon. friend must realize that the aeroplanes that have been built by the Imperial Munitions Board have been built for a special purpose. They only carry one or
possibly two men. They were all right enough for the purpose for which they were constructed, but they were of practically no use from the commercial standpoint or for the carrying of mails. They would, however, be of very great value from the educational standpoint, for teaching men to handle them and imparting instructions along the general lines of aerial business. We have kept twenty of those, we have the whole plant at Camp Borden, but we did not consider that it was good business to spend money on the building at North Toronto when somebody else was willing to buy it, especially as it did not appear that it would be of very great advantage to the country as a whole.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My point is that this had developed into a very efficient Canadian industry, and now it has gone into the hands of a foreigner who has control of everything.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am old enough to remember that at one time the ambition of my life was to own and drive an automobile and I thought that possibly I could reach that point some day. I do not know but that possibly I may be able some day to own and manage an aeroplane. But I think it will be some time before the Dominion of Canada will be justified in going into the business of manufacturing aeroplanes. The only object in getting that building would be to go into the business of manufacturing aeroplanes. I do not think the time has arrived when we would be justified in going into that particular form of Government ownership.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend does not want to be up in the air.
Mr. CARVELL- Not in that particular sense. For that reason I think we pursued good business methods in allowing that particular establishment to be sold elsewhere. But I think we exercised good judgment too in maintaining the plant, and the aeroplane buildings at Camp Borden. We have there the nucleus of a Canadian service, not that these machines will be of very much value from a commerical standpoint but they can be used for educational purposes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister not
know anything about the large number of aeroplanes that were assembled at North Sydney and as I am told, passed over to the Government of Canada? Has the Department of Public Works had anything to do with that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We had nothing to do
with that. I understand that some were

assembled and are there yet. That did not go through my department but I know the American Government were very generous, that they have donated some of these machines to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
My hon. friends will realize that those were hydroplanes, and are used purely for coast defence purposes. We have the buildings and plant, and some machines, forming the nucleus of a hydro service from an educational standpoint. To what extent we can avail ourselves of that plant later on I do not know; I can only hope that in the future it will be of some service to Canada.


Francis N. McCrea: The minister is asking for about a thousand dollars more than last year. He will remember that when he took charge of the Public Works Department he announced that he found that department terribly overloaded, and intimated that he was going to use the broad-axe very freely, and going to cut out all unnecessary expense and unnecessary help. I am surprised to find, after that promise of the minister, that his Estimates have been increased and not reduced. Speaking with one of the employees of the Department of Public Works last summer, with whom I am on very friendly terms, I asked him was he very busy. He replied, no, that he was staying at home just as much as he could.
I said to him, " If you have nothing to do I should think you would be frequenting some of the places of amusement" He replied, " If I did that too many people would be asking the same question as your are, and wanting to know what I am doing; I think the best way to avoid embarrassment is for me to remain at home and keep out of sight." I would like to know from the minister how many men he has in the service who are keeping out of sight and drawing their pay?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am afraid my hon.
friend was not present earlier in the sitting when I spoke about the number of clerks for whose salaries I am asking a vote. I then said we had not got the number of clerks in our department that is mentioned here, and we do not expect to have them. Without doubt, in the Public Works Department in Ottawa to-day a great number of clerks who are not required and who are giving very little value for the money they are receiving


Francis N. McCrea: Put them out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -I will explain to my hon. friend the situation in which I find myself. These are mostly old men, and 
some old women, who have been very long in the service, and would probably be objects of charity if we turned them out. Unfortunately there is no provision in the law to-day for the superannuation of people of this class. I have no means of providing for these old people, if I turn them out* except by giving them two months' salary. Probably there is no man who wants to cut the expenses of his department down any more than I do, but I have not reached the point 'where I can discharge people of sixty, sixty-five, seventy, and seventy-five years of age, and leave them dependent upon charity and upon their friends for sustenance. A year ago legislation was brought down to provide a fund by which we could retire very many people in this class in Ottawa. For some reason or other that Bill did not pass and the result is that I find myself unable to get rid of these people except by the method I have described. I do not want to do it, I don't think it is right, and I do not think my hon. friend would do it if he were in my position. However, we hope to bring in legislation this year enabling us to retire on something like a competence which will keep them from becoming objects of charity, those old servants who have been efficient in their day, but now on account of old age, are not able to render efficient service, and I believe the House will grant that legislation willingly. There are something like twenty-four such employees in our department, and we are asking the Civil Service Commission to make some provision by which we can accomplish their retirement without letting them feel that the country is kicking them out into the cold. That is true of the Inside Service. Naturally, in the case of a staff of two hundred or two hundred and fifty, a great many changes take place annually; girls get married and people die off. I am satisfied there must have been twelve or fifteen of such cases last year, but not a single addition has been made to the staff as a result of those changes. Nevertheless we are carrying on the work quite efficiently, and I do not think it will take very many years, if we succeed in getting the legislation for which we are asking, before we get our staff down to a real business basis, and so long as I remain at the head of this department it is my intention to aim at that standard.
So far as the Outside Service in concerned, I must confess that I am hot on nearly as solid ground. There are a great many in the Outside Service of the Public

Works Department during the past year who have not given very much value for the salaries they are drawing. That, however, is not the fault of the officials; we were not able to provide work on account of the war. We have not been spending money in the engineering branches, and hence there was not the same amount of work available for the outside employees as usual. I believe that some of these offices are overloaded, and I have already got rid of some employees, although not nearly as many as I should like to. But again let me say that I have a little humanity about me, and it is a pretty hard thing to take a person who occupies a Government position, who is willing to perform all the services you ask of him and wants to be an efficient servant, practically by the throat and say: Go and find a job elsewhere. I have done that in some cases, and it is not a pleasant occupation. I would have done it to a greater extent had it not been that a little less than a year ago legislation was passed by which the burden was thrown upon the Civil Service Commission of classifying and reporting upon the whole service of the country, which report is now practically ready.
We were promised that report two months ago, but I realize the tremendous amount of labour which that commission is carrying on and I am finding no fault at its not being ready. When that report comes down it will contain certain recommendations for the re-organization of the different services. And rest assured, that if the Civil Service Commission report that at any place there are officials who are not earning their money, or whose services should be dispensed with, then notwithstanding my dislike of taking positions away from people, I shall carry out the recommendations of the commission. I may tell my hon. friend frankly that in the Engineering Department of the Outside Service there are a good many who are not working very hard at the present time and whose services I think could be dispensed with without any serious detriment to the country, and just as soon as the classification report is in my hands I shall act on it. Maybe I will have to go further than I have indicated, but I cannot say until I get the report.
1 want my hon. friend to realize that I have not changed my views at all on the Civil Service of Canada. I have not tried to give to our Civil Servants more than I think they are entitled to, but I have tried to use them fairly as far as my department is concerned.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is making that Teport?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Civil Service Commission. That was the burden cast upon them by the legislation passed here less
than a year ago.


John Howard Sinclair: I saw by the newspapers that some American firm was classifying the Civil Service. Will the hon. minister tell us if that is the case,, and what that firm is doing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I do not know that I can give very much information. Mr. Myers, who has been employed by the Civil Service Commission, is simply acting as one of their employees for the purpose of assisting them in making a classification of the Service. There are two other gentlemen engaged with him, but I do not remember their names. Mr. Myers comes from Chicago. Those gentlemen are not making the classification any more than the Civil Service Commission are, but they are simply a part of the machinery by which the commission are trying to arrive at a real business basis for the Service. We have had the Civil Service Commission and some of these gentlemen before us in Council and have discussed a great many questions of policy and the lines upon which they are attempting to work out their report, and I think if my hon. friend could have listened to those gentlemen he would have come to the conclusion that they are men who know their business.. They are taking a standard for everything. They say that certain people performing a certain grade of work requiring certain qualifications and abilities should receive a certain salary, and then they are putting all the staff in the different departments in appropriate classifications. There is no getting away from the fact that our Civil Service has been a very unbusi-_ nesslike organization ever since Confedera-" tion. We are all sinners; perhaps some of the new members are not, but most of the hon. gentlemen facing me are sinners, and I confess I am one as well, for in the past we have asked particular Governments to place particular men in service, simply because those men wanted jobs. It was not a question whether they were particularly fitted for the jobs, or that the department needed their services; it was a question of getting jobs for the applicants, and they got them, with the result that the service has been overloaded-


An hon. MEMBER:: And glutted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and glutted, in
very many cases. But the Civil Service

Commission are honestly endeavouring to arrive at some business basis upon which the service can be reorganized. I may as well state here that they are recommending a scale of salaries on practically a pre-war basis, not a scale based upon the present high cost of living, the latter being taken care of by bonuses. 1 believe, when the report is received, it will be found to be based upon purely business methods. Then it will be a question for the Government of the day to implement, if necessary, the scale of salaries by bonuses until such time as things get back to a normal condition, as we all hope that they will in the very near future. Whether that be a year or two years, the 'Government will have to take care of that interim period just as business men have to take care of the wages paid to their employees.


John Howard Sinclair: Are the experts high class men, and how much are they being paid?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am satisfied that they are high-class men, because I have had an opportunity on a number of occasions of discussing these questions with them. Only a week ago we discussed with them the Printing Bureau-of which we have heard something in this House-and I think they have some job on their hands to get the Bureau down to a business basis. We got their views, they got ours, and also the views of the Bureau officials, and the Civil Service Commission are now grappling with that subject. I am not able to answer my hon. friend as to how much these experts are being paid as it is not under my department, but there is no objection to giving the information to the House, and we will get it at the earliest possible moment.
. Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysboro): I understand that my hon. friend is inclined to return to the system of pensions for employees who are past the working age. That is not a new system; it was in force many years ago, and, if I remember rightly, it was abandoned and we went back to the position where civil servants, like other men, had to look after themselves and put something by for old age. For my part I object to any system of pensioning unless it is extended to all old people irrespective of whether they are civil servants or not. Old age pensions is a big 'question and there is a great deal to be said in favour of it, but I cannot see any reason why a man who is working for the Government should be put in a better position than any other good citizen who is working as best he can from 
day to day and in his old age is not able to take care of himself. There is no real distinction between the two .classes, and there cannot be any distinction drawn between the Inside and Outside Service so far as that is concerned. I would like to know from the hon. minister, because that is the impression he left on my mind, if it is the policy of the Government to return to the old plan of pensioning civil servants of the Inside Service?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never knew that there was a pension law in this country. There was a superannuation law which existed for a great many years and was repealed in 1897 or 1898, but that is very different from the question of pensions. In the case of superannuation, it was based upon the length of service. I think after ten years a man was entitled to superannuation, and after thirty-five years he received thirty-five fiftieths of his average salary for the last three years, but that was the maximum. After he had been thirty-five years in the service he had a right to retire and take his full retiring allowance. That law was repealed. Most of the people who were in the service at that time and were entitled to take advantage of that law have passed away. But that (superannuation law did not apply to all the different clerks in the service because there were those who were classed as temporary, and I do not think it applied to messengers and the lower grades. So the result is we have in all the departments a number of these old people who never would have been entitled to superannuation if the superannuation law had not been repealed.
It is therefore, a question whether we shall continue to keep these people in the Government employ or not. There are, in the service, many people who are able to perform in a perfunctory manner the services which they are called upon to render. For instance, a man may be a little old and perhaps cannot do his work as efficiently as one would like him to, but he will do it, and the question arises: Will you turn that man out into the cold or will you give him some kind of a retiring allowance by the way of pension? There is a great deal in what the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) says as to the distinction between the status of civil servants and that of people in the ordinary avocations of life. But an old man in the Civil Service may say: I want to continue to perform the duties which you impose upon me; and that being the case, the Government is confronted with this proposition:	Shall you keep
in your employ a man who, because of old

age, has become inefficient, or shall you retire him on a small pension? Speaking for my department, I could have the business of my department carried on and save a lot of money to the country, and yet pay these old servants a reasonable pension, because in many cases their services are really not required. *In ordinary commercial life, one can say to a man: You are not fit to run my sawmill and, therefore,
I do not want you any longer. And you can put him out and that is the end of it; his friends or some one else must take care of him if he has not been able to lay up a competence for himself. But the Government of Canada is not the only organization in the world that makes some provision for old and trusted employees. There is a good deal of humanity in the world and many organizations are taking care of their old employees. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company provides a superannuation fund for practically every employee who has reached the age of sixty years, after having been a certain number of years in its service. The superannuation is not very large, but it is something to tide a man over the declining years of his life. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Government railways, and the banks have similar superannuation funds. The Bank of Montreal is much more generous to its old employees than is the Government of Canada either in the legislation which we introduced last year or in the legislation which we purpose introducing this year. The method I have advocated of pensioning of these old men is not new; it is practised by practically all the big employers of labour in this country. It seems hardly logical that a man in the employ of the Government should be placed in a better position than a man who earns his living by some other method, but nevertheless I hope the time is coming in this world when a better relation will exist between employers and employees than has existed in the past, and I hope the Government of Canada will not be the first to adopt a policy of casting adrift every old man who has become unable to perform his duties as economically or profitably to his employer as he did when he was younger. This war has, I think, taught us that a better relationship must exist between employers and employees in the future, and the Government would set an example to other employers of labour if it would adopt some scheme of pensions to provide for these people in their declining years.


Donald Sutherland: Has not the Civil Service Commission power to transfer employees from one department to another?
I was under the impression that that was the case, and I am sure, in view of the scarcity of labour in this country, it will be a surprise to many of us to learn that some of the departments have been greatly overmanned while others have been greatly undermanned. The minister told us that in the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works there were many men for whom there was no work. I think the Civil Service Commission have been advertising for men with engineering qualifications to fill certain positions. I would imagine that as 16,000 appointments have been made during the past year by the Civil Service Commission, some of those idle employees in the various departments might have been utilized in some of the other services. I rather thought that, with the power conferred upon the Civil Service Commission, no particular branch of the Government would have exclusive jurisdiction over its employees, but that all would come under the control of the Civil Service Commission.
During the last year or two we have been hearing a great deal about pensions, and for a good reason, namely, that men have given up their health and been crippled and maimed in rendering a great public service to the country, but I do not see that men, who have grown ol'd in the service of the country and who have been protected as well as it is possible to protect any class of the community, should have special rights over the average citizen who is not in the public service. The minister told us that there were in his department about 24 men who were of an age that they were not competent to render efficient service. What is their average age?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is true that the Civil Service Commission have power to transfer employees from one branch to the other, and it may interest my hon. friend to know that more than a year ago we offered these 24 employees to the Civil Service Commission for disposal, but we did not have any bids, the trouble being that their average age was at least 65 years.


John Wesley Edwards: What are their salaries?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As a rule, they would be the lower grades from $1,000 to $1,200, although perhaps some of these men might have more than that. A number of employees in the Department of Public Works have been transferred to another department in which their services are capable of being utilized. My hon. friend must be in



error as to the Civil Service Commission advertising for engineers. I have not been following the advertisements, but I think he will find the advertisements are mostly for architects. I do not know whether we could employ any more architects to-day, but I believe we could. During the past year we have been driven right to the wall for architects. We had to make arrangements with some of our architects to work three nights a week up to eleven o'clock, and we had, of course, to give them additional pay. We had to get public buildings ready for the soldiers. Early in the summer we had to have barracks; then we had to have military hospitals and hospitals for the Soldiers' Civil Ee-establishment Department, and we had to have architectural assistance. There may, of course, have been a case or two of applications for engineers.
If the CSvil Service Commission will apply to me for engineers I shall be happy to furnish tl*em with quite a number of splendid men whose services in the Department of Public Works could be dispensed with. I assume it is correct that the Civil Service Commission handled 14,000 appointments last year, but a large number of these would be temporary appointments. The Civil Service Commission appoint officials in the Customs and Inland Revenue offices all over the country; they appoint caretakers, country postmasters, engineers. They appoint all the officials of the Public Works Department. Since I became Minister of Public Works in October, 1917, I have had something to say about the appointment of a governor, a judge, a senator, and a director of the Canadian National Railways, and that has been the extent of my patronage since that time. I have nothing to say about the appointment of engineers, foremen, or any of the employees connected with the public works of .Canada.


Mr. COPP:: What about your departmental solicitor?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My departmental solicitor was appointed by the Civil Service Commission. They called for applications, of which they received about forty-six. I do not know who formed the committee to decide upon the appointment, but in some way the commission went over the matter and decided upon Mr. T. J. Carter, a barrister of New Brunswick. Mr. Carter has lived in my constituency; he was a lawyer before 1 was. We have had a good many fights, political and professional. He is the best man in Canada for the position. I wanted a man who could attend the Ex-

chequer Court all over Canada when necessary and watch the interests of the Public Works Department in expropriation cases- besides, of course, advising the officials of the department in ordinary matters. As long as I am Minister of Public Works and Mr. Carter is solicitor the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) will not have any more Belanger cases to discuss in the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saved the country
quite a lot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I saved it before my
hon. friend did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who called the minister's attention to it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I heard about it, anyway. Mr. Carter has had forty or fifty cases in the Exchequer Court during the last five or six years; he has also had arbitration and expropriation cases in New Brunswick. I have been his opponent in nearly every one of them; therefore I am a pretty good judge as to whether he is the proper man for the position. While I had nothing to do with his appointment, I am entirely satisfied with the selection made by the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. CROWE:: Is it the intention of the
Government to establish any of these hydroplane stations in British Columbia for the protection of the Pacific coast?
Mr: CARVELL: I am not able to state the policy of the Government on such an important matter. During the war, in conjunction with the United States authorities, it was decided to establish these two stations on the Atlantic coast and they were in course of construction when the armistice was signed. We did not consider that there was any danger at that time on the Pacific coast.


Francis N. McCrea: The minister says that
the service is composed of a number of old men, and he is so tender-hearted that he cannot bring himself to dispense with their services. The man I referred to a moment ago is not an old man.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is he in the Inside or the Outside Service?


Francis N. McCrea: I will ask the minister
a question. Is it not a fact that in certain localities the salaries of the men who are supervising certain public works are greater than the amount of money to be expended in the works under supervision?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I could not answer that off-hand. In some cases that would be true; Sault Ste. Marie is one case.


Francis N. McCrea: Will my hon. friend get
the information?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall be glad to get the information. I have not tried to conceal the fact that in the engineering branch of the outside service there are more officials than are needed under present conditions. On the other hand, if, now that the war is over, we could see our way clear to vote sufficient money to start the works that ought to be started, there would be work enough for practically all these people. I think the leader of the Opposition could put his finger on three or four persons whose services could be dispensed with without any injustice to the country. He knows the position that I am facing. No doubt Sherbrooke is another place where there is not enough work for all employees. We have transferred men from one part of the country to another with a view to overcoming this difficulty. Last month we closed up one of the engineering districts because there was no work for it to do. While I do not say that we could close up many more, there is no doubt that a reduction in the interests of economy could be made and.the service jstill be maintained.


Francis N. McCrea: Are you going to remedy that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As soon as the Civil Service Commision make their report I shall know what to do. I am awaiting that report, and I assure my hon. friend that I intend to act as soon as I get it.


Francis N. McCrea: The minister tells us that the Civil Service is practically composed of old people.
Mr. CAR\7ELL: I did not make any such statement. I said that in my department we had 24 old people whoise services could be dispensed with,


Francis N. McCrea: I had always thought that the only fossils that were connected with Parliament were in the Senate, but evidently they are in the Civil Service too, and I begin to wonder if they are not in the Government. I am afraid the people will come to think that the Government is composed to some extent of men of that sort unless something is done to remedy matters. If we are going to have an old age pension fund we should have one uniform system, because if every department had a system of its own there would be about twenty different Cabinet ministers 811
all controlling different schemes. I think it would be far better for the Government to establish a Pension Branch for old age which would include every one.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never intimated that there would be a Pension Branch in the Public Works Department. The Bill that was introduced a year ago covered the whole Civil Service. We are collecting data, and I hope we shall be able to get some such legislation through during the coming year. Every department will, of course, take advantage of the fund in so far as they come within its provisions.
Air. AlcMASTER: It is always difficult to criticise the hon. minister when he is passing his Estimates, because his entire frankness disarms criticism. However, one of the reasons for the somewhat critical attitude of the country towards the Estimates is the fact that the Union Government displayed such a rosy programme before the people. I remember the hon. minister making a speech down in his native province, where he said that something new was going to happen every week, and some fresh step taken in the path of progress. To-day, however, the minister informs us that he has been unable to effect these reforms, and it is evident that the millennium has not yet arrived. When there were new departments being formed almost every day, when the Cabinet was increased from about 14 to about 24, when there was such a demand for help that he was enabled to conveniently place in other departments those for whom he had no use in his own, it is a sad condition of affairs that all the predictions of the minister have not been fulfilled. We never asked that people should be appointed to public office, and I wish to dissociate myself entirely from that school of political thought represented on the other side of the House which would reinstate in Canada the patronage system. We have absolutely no sympathy with that system but I think that this country can progress only on the basis of sincerity. One of our great griefs is that this Government, notwithstanding its pretensions about the elimination of patronage, has not in fact abolished it. The minister said he had nothing to do with appointing engineers or wharfingers, etc., the only appointments he had anything to do with being that of a judge and some other high officials. I contend that since this Government came into power they have appointed practically no one to high and important office who was not one of their supporters; and their pretension that

they eliminated patronage-an announcement which received the blessing of one of the prominent Protestant churches in this country in solemn conclave assembled -has no foundation whatever. We should be sincere, and the minister will find us on this side of the House prepared to cooperate with him in every step that will tend to an efficient and economical administration of the country's affairs. But we do think it would be well for him and 'those associated with him to avoid making "these claims to peculiar and superior political virtue. I cannot help calling to mind the most amazing avowal made by the Minister of Kailways and Canals last year when, in reply to a letter addressed to him by our departed friend, the late member for Prince Edward Island, he wrote that supporters of the Union Government, whether they were Liberal-Unionist, or Conservative-Unionist, would receive the same treatment at the hands of the Government. I submit these remarks merely in the hope that what I have said may tend to greater sincerity in the conduct of public affairs.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend thinks I have not been sincere-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not want the hon. minister to misunderstand me. I do not accuse him of any greater insincerity than the whole Unionist party. He is just one of them, and I would not state for a moment that he was personally insincere.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not accept that explanation for a moment, and I might as well tell my hon. friend so. I have not played any of the games he has been talking about; I have observed law. I have not dealt in the patronage business, and have never interfered with any one in the appointments to positions except the four I have mentioned.
Mr, McMASTER: Why should these four men be excepted?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend read the law he would know that the Civil Service Commission has not the right to nominate judges, nor governors, nor senators, and therefore the burden is cast upon me to give my recommendation to the Prime Minister. Of course, the hon. member is at liberty to use the word " insincerity " if he thinks fit.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I must make myself
clear. I never inferred for an instant that the Minister of Public Works had interfered with any offices of a subordinate char-

aeter. What I said was, that he and hi3 colleagues in the Union Government made great pretensions that they had abolished the patronage system, w'hen in fact they have not done so. Surely patronage has reference to the appointment of a judge or a governor as much as it has to the appointment of a wharfinger.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. member
tell me how in the world a judge can be appointed if the Government does not assume the responsibility of appointing him?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Of course the responsibility is on the Government, but the Government should not make any pretensions-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is talking through his hat.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wear my hat in the House, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman's language is not parliamentary.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have been trying to speak all evening just for the purpose of putting down all this war of words that has come on. My reason for speaking at all- was that the matter that begun it was a matter appertaining to the particular part of the country from which I come-these aeroplanes, or, as we call them in our country, humming-birds. They were buzzing around our ears last summer. I would like to ask the minister if he would be good enough, at some time in the near future, to lend a little bit of information to this House as to some of the contracts that were let down there with respect to the aeroplane plant on what we call Indian Beach at North Sydney and with respect to hydroplanes on Kelly's Beach, North Sydney.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will be very glad to give the information now if my hon. friend wants it.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I would like the House to have it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall only be too happy to give it.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I know all about it myself. I would like to know how it was that Captain Dickson, who was an undertaker in Louisburg, got a very large contract on Kelly's Beach for the construction of hydroplanes on force contract. This is what we were told down home-an undertaker building aeroplanes on force contract! I might almost go farther and insinuate that perhaps I might get as much information in regard to this matter from the leader of

the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) as I would from my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. However, perhaps I might go a little farther and say that Mr. George Kyte might have told us the whole thing about it. I will not speak of the dead; there is one of these who has passed away and 1 hope he is in a better world, but I might have gone a little bit farther and spoken of partners of members of this House knowing something about that areoplane and hydroplane business, if it is required that this House should know a little more about it than appears on the outside. I have had too many of these aeroplanes buzzing around my ears and I would like to know how it was that these things happened. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) spoke about patronage. Let me ask the minister how it wras that in connection with this matter in North Sydney we find Captain Dickson, an undertaker, Dan Louis McDonald, Luke Day, Bob Musgrave, George Kyte, Freeman O'Neil, Walter Crowe, not one Tory in the outfit. Patronage? Yes, there was patronage, but I have sent men there for jobs with the ordinary pick and shovel and because they were recommended by Butts they could not get jobs as they were supposed to be Tories.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend only recommend Tories?


Robert Hamilton Butts: No, but they were supposed to be Tories


Georges Henri Boivin: I am soiry to be
obliged to interrupt the hon. member.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will not decide this is out of order because I want to have the privilege of answering it before we pass on.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I do not want my remarks to be considered as referring to him particularly because they are addressed to the committee in general. But the debate has wandered very far from the item under consideration. Old age pensions and aeroplane posts both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are certainly far from the item under consideration which has to do with salaries in the Inside Service of the Public Works Department.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The discussion about the undertaker is appropriate.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member (Mr. Butts) has brought up a matter that the minister desires to answer before this item is adopted. I think that, with the unanimous consent of the committee, the minister should be permitted to answer, but I shall then ask the committee to return to the item under discussion.


John Wesley Edwards: I think the hon. member (Air. Butts) has a right to finish his argument if you are going to allow the minister to reply.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I bow in all fullness to your ruling but really it seems to be my misfortune to be always out of order/ Now, when there is some talk about patronage it will surely not be my misfortune to be the only one to be closed off. There was a lot of talk about patronage this afternoon. Is it not true that Allan J. Cameron, a returned soldier, of the village of Arichat, in the county of Richmond, applied for a situation as departmental solicitor and was he not the only lawyer who was a returned soldier who did apply? He went overseas as a private. I am going to ask the minister further: How many flying machines were there at Sydney Harbour; what did each cost; are there any records of any particular flights of any one of these fliers? Last fall when this Kelly's Beach hydroplant station was dismantled a large number of buildings were sold. And the peculiar thing about it-I speak on my own personal responsibility-is that these buildings were sold for $1,100-a five, ten, fifteen cent store price-before they* were advertised, and that George Burchall of the Toronto mine bought them.


Robert Lorne Richardson: How much did they cost?


Robert Hamilton Butts: They must have cost at
least five times that amount.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Speaking to the last point first, it is something I never heard of before. If there were buildings sold I do not know anything about it. If they were sold by the Public Works Department I can easily find out all about it, and I will be only too happy to do so and give the information to my hon. friend. It is the first news that has come to me that any buildings were sold at all. If there were buildings sold I would assume they were possibly buildings that were on the land that was expropriated, because, mind you, we could not buy this land at the price we thought was right, and we therefore went to the Exchequer Court with the case.
As for the number of flights made at Sydney Harbour, I do not know anything about it; I do not even know what the hydroplanes cost. I understand they were

donated by the American Government, but that is a matter entirely with the Marine and Fisheries Department, who will know more about it than does my hon. friend. Although it has nothing to do with my department, I will look the information up for my hon. friend's benefit and give it to him.
As to the departmental solicitor, it may be that Mr. Cameron made application to the Civil Service Commission; I do not know as to that. After the solicitor was appointed, I am not sure, but I think I saw the list. However, my hon. friend does not have to bother me about the matter, because I did not have anything to do with it. Let him go to the Civil Service Commission and he will get all the information he wants. He will get the names of all the men who applied, together with their occupations, and he can find out how many were returned soldiers. I understand there were ten or eleven of them, but I do not know.
I do not know the name of one of them. 1 could not tell my hon. friend the name of a solitary man who applied for the position, only the name of the man who was successful, and another man in my own depart-men whom I happen to know made an application. That is all I know about the matter of the appointment of a departmental solicitor. I want to tell my hon. friend that I have no apologies to make in regard to this matter. I will go further and say that at the Civil Service Commission had not given me a man in whom I had confidence . as a lawyer I would not have accepted him. Because there come times that when you - want a thing you want it, and you don't want something that is no good to you. I uo not say that Mr. Cameron was a good lawyer or a poor lawyer; I do not know anything about him, I never heard a word about him before. But I wanted a lawyer and I have got one. I am quite prepared to stand by everything I did, and if the Civil Service Commission had not given me a lawyer who could go into court and look after the interests of the Public Works Department I would not have accepted him. I want to get back now to the question that is really under discussion, and that is the construction of hydroplane stations. When my hon. friend (Mr. Butts) gets the facts perhaps he will have to revise some of the opinions that he was so willing to give to the House. The whole trouble is that the man who got this contract happens to be a Liberal. That is the explanation of the whole trouble, we may as well have it out now as any other time; he was a man whom I am told now did not vote for the [Hr. Carvefll.]
Union candidates in the last general election.
Mr. MoOREA: He was a wise man.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not know anything at the time as to what his politics were. It turns out now that those are the facts of the case. I am prepared for a thorough discussion and we will see whether my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. MoMaster) is right in his statement that we will not give a Liberal anything at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to make a contradiction? With all due respect to the minister, I never said anything of the sort. As a mattter of fact the subject of these hydroplane stations was never in my mind at all when I was speaking. I was referring to a much larger question, that of the claim of the Government to have abolished patronage when I believed that the ministers had chosen Very important officials from among their own political friends. I do not want to be accused unjustly, and I know that the minister would not accuse me unjustly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would not want to accuse my hon. fri*nd unjustly. The trouble with the hon. gentleman is, is he says himself, that he is a new member, but he talks a good deal and says some things perhaps that he really does not mean. I am going to show the hon. gentleman that he evidently was not well informed or he would not have made the (sweeping statement which he did. I narrated earlier to the committee that sometime in the autumn a demand was made upon the Public Works Department for the construction of two of these seaplane stations. They consisted in each case, as I said before, of a number of buildings. I suppose, perhaps, there would be half a dozen large buildings, and also some sort of a concrete slide which went down into the water, and which latter was a very large affair. The cost of the buildings was estimated at a certain amount, the exact sum I have forgotten. We found, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was most insistent, that this work must be done at once; no matter how it was done it must be done at once, because the cold weather was coming on and the minister contended, and he was right, that if we resorted to the ordinary course of preparing plans and specifications, calling for tenders, and letting the contract, it would take a month. If a month were to elapse the buildings would not be finished during the autumn, and in that case they could not be finished at all. That is what I was advised.

However, I protested, and probably must have lost four days' time in doing so, and refused to go on by force account because I do not believe in the Government of this country constructing any works by force account unless there are very strong reasons for doing so. Doubtless there are times when work by force account must be re-feorted to. I commenced to look around then for contractors. It was well known around Sydney and North Sydney and in Halifax that this work was going on. A Mr. O'Neil, a man whom I had known before, came here and spoke to me about who was going to do the work at North Sydney and I told him that I had not made up my mind. My hon. friend has mentioned a number of names in this connection. The only man that I ever met in the transaction, until after the contract was drawn, was Mr. O'Neil, and another gentleman who was with him. I do not remember the name of the latter, or that I could say who it was even if the name was recalled to me. He had a letter from Mr. Dickson. I knew Mr. Dickson before, and when the hon. gentleman talks about him being an undertaker he is not giving the House-


Robert Hamilton Butts: He is.


Air CARVELL:: He may be, I axn not
saying lie is not, but he is also a contractor, a wrecker, a man who has done big business on the coast. I say this and I know what I am talking about.


Robert Hamilton Butts: So do I.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would not make this statement if I did not know what I am talking about. I made inquiry as to who this man was from confidential sources in the province of Nova Scotia before I gave a contract, and I did not ask whether he was a Liberal or a Conservative either- that question never arose at all.
Then there was the matter of the Halifax work. The firm of Bate, McMahon and Company had done some work I believe for the department


Mr. J. C. DOUGLAS:: Would the minister tell me if this Mr. O'Neil that he refers to was not a former employee of the Public Works Department who was dismissed from his position for offensive partisanship?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never heard of it.


John Carey Douglas: Was he not employed
in some department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tell my hon. friend I
never heard of it.


Robert Hamilton Butts: You have heard of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am going to thrash this matter out, and I am delighted it has come up. I want things like this to be brought forward because I want the House to know how I have run this department during the last year. I knew this matter was coming up because I have heard a great deal about it in the last six or eight months, and I am delighted my hon. friend has taken this opportunity of giving me a chance to explain it. Mr. O'Neil was in the employ of the Government, and came here


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Let me tell my hon.
friend he was never in the employ of the Public Works Department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that if he was I never knew it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He never was.


John Carey Douglas: Dickson, who received the contract, was in the service of the Public Works Department and was dismissed for offensive partisanship. O'Neil, who was employed by another department, was also dismissed for offensive partisanship.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know that. I know that he was in uniform and lie told me that he was in the Government service at Sydney-I think in one of the hospitals there. Now, as to Mr. Dickson, if he ever was in the employ of the Government I never knew it. I knew he had been a contractor with the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am as familiar with Cape Breton county as either of the hon. members, and I never heard of his being in the service of the Government in any shape or form.


John Carey Douglas: I will be glad to give my hon. friend the title of the position he held. He was in the Government telegraph service at Louisburg as general line repairer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even if he had been in the employ of the Government, and had been dismissed for partisanship, that is no reason why he should not work for the Government if he works honestly and uprightly. I had the Halifax situation and the North Sydney situation on my hands and time was pressing. I went to Colonel Low to see if he could take the work. He represented Bate, McMahon and Company who were doing work at Sydney and also at Halifax. He said: Yes, he could take on the Halifax work. I gave him the con-

tract for the Halifax work, and I want to tell my hon. friend that I did not do this without taking the whole thing to council where it was thoroughly thrashed out. I canvassed the whole situation with a number of men in the contracting business in the province of New Brunswick, and I could not find a single man who was in a position to take this contract. I know the contractors in my province and I could pick out every man who ordinarily would be in a position to undertake this work, but everybody was busy down there last year. The Valley railway, as we call it, was under construction, and practically every contractor in New Brunswick was employed upon that, as well as some of the principal contractors in Nova Scotia; the Government was carrying on tremendously big works at Halifax and Sydney, and practically every Nova Scotia firm that I knew anything about was engaged there. I want to say here that Mr. George W. Kyte never came to me and I never spoke to him until recently. The leader of the Opposition has been referred to, but I never heard from him, and he had no more to do with the matter than a man in Saskatoon. I inquired of a certain man who happened to be here-and I will give my hon. friend his name in confidence-a large employer of labour in the province of Nova Scotia, probably the largest there, a man who knows every workman in Gape Breton Island, about the situation. He told me that Mr. Dickson was well qualified to carry on the work. I sent for Mr. Dickson, and he convinced me of 'his ability to undertake the work. I gave him the contract on force account, and the work was inspected as no other work was inspected in my deipartment last year because the contract had not been given until my friends had come to me with stories that they had got in Sydney and they said, "You are employing a Grit to do this work," and asked me to rescind the contract. I would not do so and I never yet have done so. I could not believe that because a man happened to be a Liberal he could not work for this department honestly and uprightly, that is no part of my political faith. I have given my hon. friend the facts as I understand them.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Had the hon. minister any inquiries or communications of any kind from any such firms as Rhodes, Currie & Co., or Chappie Bros., Sydney?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so.
Rhodes, Currie & Co. at that time had just entered into a contract for work at Hali-
[ Mr. Carvell.]
fax to cost half a million dollars, in addition to the Camp Hill hospital, which they had under construction. I have no recollection of ever having heard from Chappie Bros, at all. I do not think I had a solitary application from any person to do that work except from Mr. Dickson. I may be in error about this, but my recollection. is pretty good.
Mr. BUTTS; It was not advertised?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course it was not.
That is what I have been telling my hon. friend. It was a matter of such urgency that I could not advertise it. That is why I had to have it done by force account. That contract was only for the construction of cheap wooden buildings. I presume that every hon. member of this committee has seen a similar class of buildings. There is no plastering; I think there is no foundation except some posts, and the buildings are sheathed with shiplap I think it is called-
An hon. MEMBER; Clapboard.
Mr. CARVELL-or tongue and groove material. The inside work is purely of wood with a layer of tar paper between the boards. Even the roofs are not covered with shingles, but with a ready roofing material. It is the cheapest kind of work you could imagine. Any man capable oi handling a saw and hammer could qualify as a carpenter on it. It did not require a man of great ability, it only required a man who could employ men and who would be honest and not pay higher wages or higher prices for material than he should pay, and who would rush the work and get the best out of the men.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: This work was carried out under inspection?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Absolutely; not only
under local inspectors, but I utilized the officials of the Engineering Department both from Sydney and Antigonish for the purpose. In addition, Mr. Fuller, the Assistant Chief Architect in this city, made trip after trip to North Sydney and Halifax, and he reported to me personally, not through any of the officials. And I want to tell this committee that there was nothing constructed in the Public Works Department during the past year which I personally investigated and looked after so closely as I did that work at North Sydney. At the time I thought I was carrying on an ordinary business transaction. A man had applied to me, I had found out that he was

well qualified for the work, and I gave him the contract. It was not until same of my colleagues joined me and I got the story, and I saw what I had to face, that I took a personal interest in the construction of that work, and I stand by it from A to Z. If there is anybody wants any investigation I hope he will come on with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was there any interference on the part of some members of Parliament to press the hon. minister to give that contract?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, not from members of Parliament or members of the Government. I let the contract myself as Minister of Public Works, and I take full responsibility for everything done there.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the cost of these works?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some $160,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Can you tell me the size of the buildings?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There were three large barracks-I suppose they would be a couple of hundred feet long and 40 or 50 feet wide, but I could not state the dimensions exactly. There is no question whatever, Mr. Chairman, that the buildings did not cost any more than they should have cost. That is not the question at issue at all. The question at issue is that I gave the contract to that particular man. Nobody would raise any question as to the character of the work. The contract was carried out to the letter, it was under forced account, and the contractor did as he was told to do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And when the Minister of Naval Affairs was pressing for it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, not merely pressing; he was demanding that I go on and do it by force account, and he was violently protesting against taking the time that would be necessary to prepare plans and specifications and call for tenders. It takes a month to do that, and he wanted it done in a day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that work done in conjunction with the United States Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; the next question that came up was as to tlhe construction of these ramps running down into the sea, and that at North Sydney especially was a very serious proposition and a great deal of dredging would have been required. In fact, I have often wondered if it would not have been possible to locate the work at
some other point, because the next part of the contract was going to run into some six or seven hundred thousand dollars before it was completed. There again, I wanted to call for tenders, but the same condition existed. On account of the objections I had had from Nova Scotia, I did not give this other work to Captain Dickson. I did not want to have any trouble over it and I was not sure that Captain Dickson had had the experience in heavy concrete work of that kind. I, therefore, gave that part of the work to Bate, McMahon and Company, and I did not know of any other party I could get and no other person applied to me. Bate, McMahon and Company started the work, and I think the day after the armistice was signed, we stopped the work. It was, of course, an easy mattei to stop the concrete work and what is there speaks for itself. It would have been an absolute waste if we had gone on with the building, so we went on and completed, not all the buildings, but those that were under construction at the time.
I realize this matter does not come up under the Civil Government vote, but as my hon. friends wish it to be threshed out,
I shall be only too happy to give them all the information wanted. The mattei can be brought up in the Public Accounts Committee and Mr. Fuller, the architect, who made it his special business to investigate these matters as they went along, can, if required, be summoned and he will give all the information he can, and all the other officials of the department will be only too glad to give all the information possible. At the time I gave this contract, I had no knowledge as to what relations this man had with any person in Nova Scotia, He did the work well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He did good work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and he did it quickly, and if the war had gone on, the United *States marines would have been properly and comfortably housed during the winter.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Was what is now being criticized a part of war work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. There is no criticism of the work.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Of the man who did the
work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The criticism is of the
man who got the contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the work supervised by an engineer of the department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. There was
one man all the time and two men most of the time the work was going on, and in addition to the local men who were supervising the work, I told the committee that 1 sent the assistant chief architect there on three or four occasions to supervise the work personally and see that it was properly done. I do not think there will be any criticism of the cost of the work nor of the manner in which it was carried out. Probably my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) will have to admit that an apology is due.
Mr. iMcMASTER: I must protest against the minister's endeavouring to give the House the impression that any remarks of mine were made in connection with this contract in. Nova 'Scotia. I knew absolutely nothing about it, and my remarks were made without reference to it. I want the minister to understand that, because it is true. [DOT]
Mr. OARVELiL:	I accept that in toto.
iMy hon. friend did state though in pretty plain words that this Government did not purpose giving contracts or anything else to any men except those who had voted for the Government. That is the last thought that has entered into my mind in anything il have done. I can only say in conclusion that this illustrates the wisdom of the Department of Public Works keeping to the tender and contract system, and that when one is expending public money, it is better to expend it in the open, so that any man, no matter who or what he may be, will have an opportunity of tendering on it and the Government will get the best and the cheapest work there is and there will be no cause for criticism.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Under the heading "Contingencies, travelling expenses," the amount last year was $30,000. That is a big amount, but this year it is increased to $44,000, an increase of $14,000. Do some of the officials of the department intend to travel more this year, or what is this for?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Last year we used the whole $30,000. A few minutes ago I gave an illustration cf the North Sydney question to show the committee that sometimes situations arise which are a little different from the ordinary. For instance, I sent the assistant chief architect all the way from Ottawa to North Sydney on three or four occasions to make a personal inspection of a particular work. With the tremendous amount of work we still have under way for hospitals for the Department of Soldiers'' 
Civil Re-establishment and the work we shall have under way for some of the big buildings that are being constructed and all the little harbours, breakwaters and so. on, that are being constructed throughout" Canada, I find that money spent in supervising engineers is a very good investment, and in a great many instances in the last year and a half I find it has paid me to send a man from Ottawa, possibly to British Columbia or any other part of Canada. I have adopted this policy, that whenever I have had any suspicion or any reasonable ground for suspicion, and I think it is foi the benefit of the Department of Public Works to have a man make a personal investigation and report to me personally, to send one. Therefore, I presume it is going to require more money to carry on inspection work during this year than in the past, and for that reason, I am asking for a larger appropriation. If the money is not required, it will not be expended, but if it is necessary to send a man to any part of Canada to supervise any public work, and to come back and report to me personally, I want to have the funds to pay his expenses.


Lucien Cannon: When was the departmental solicitor appointed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not the exact date, but I think some time in February, about five or six weeks-ago.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have all the accounts of Dickson been settled?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. Some small amount is, I think, still pending.


Lucien Cannon: I do not quite understand this item of $5,000 for a departmental solicitor. Apparently, all the departments of the Government have solicitors of their own. Why not have the legal business of the Government transacted by the Departr ment of Justice? The Minister of Justice is there to advise all the other ministers, and the Minister of Public Works, according to the constitution of this country, if any legal question arises in his department, must refer the matter to the Department of Justice and ask for its opinions. Besides the Minister of Justice, we have, so as to complete the legal machinery of the Government, a Solicitor General. The functions of a Solicitor General, in the Federal Government as in the Imperial Government, are to appear before the courts and represent the interest of the Government, the interest of all the departments. The ministex does not require the services of a departmental solicitor.

When the minister needs a solicitor let him apply to the Department of Justice. He talks about economy; here is an opportunity for him to practise it. The minister says that the solicitor appointed in his department is a good lawyer; let him go back to his practice and let the minister apply to the Department of Justice when he needs legal advice. If each department is to have a special solicitor in cases in which it is interested before the Exchequer Court, what is the use of having a Solicitor General? What is the use of having all the lawyers who are employed in the Department oi Justice? What is the use of having Mr. Newcombe, the deputy minister of that department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the first place, the salary is $3,500, not $5,000. But the solicitor for the department can save a good many times $5,000 each year. Everything my hon. friend says is constitutionally true and correct. If I want an opinion upon a matter of law or upon the construction of a contract involving a question of principle in my department, probably I should go to the Justice Department for it; I have been doing that in the past, and I will probably do so in the future. Since this solicitor has been in the department, however, we have kept him busy. Matters come up every day on which we get reports from him, and get them more quickly than we could get them from the Justice Department. I realize thal the Justice Department has every department of the Government to attend to, and I cast no reflection upon it. But my hon. friend has forgotten the distinction that I attempted to draw. The duty of the Justice Department is to pass upon the validity oi contracts, to interpret documents, to advise the departments what the law is on various points that come up. I am not attempting to take away from the Justice Department any of its functions. But' it is not the business of the Justice Department to send its officials all over the country to attend the Exchequer Court when property is being expropriated by the Department of Public Works. Take the Belanger case. A piece of property in my hon. friend's own city was required by the department. The construction of a dam at the mouth of the St. -Charles river would overflow some of the adjacent land; therefore it became necessary to expropriate that land. The department expropriated not only the land that would be overflowed, but also four or five times as much land below the dam that would not be overflowed at all.
Mr. LEMilEUX: Who did that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government that
preceded this one. It was done, I think, in 1914-15; I have not the exact date. A local solicitor was asked to represent the Justice Department. Now, I do not know anything about that gentleman and I want to be very careful to say nothing in derogation of him. But I have read the evidence:
I have read the case very carefully, and my judgment is that this gentleman, although a good lawyer, had never had very much experience in the expropriation of land, either for the Government or for the railways. That is a class of litigation all by itself. A man might practise law for twenty-five years and not know much about that particular branch of the law unless he had had the necessary experience. The gentleman who represented the Justice Department in that case considered that if was not his business to hunt around and gel witnesses-he told me so himself when 1 discussed the matter with him, although he said that in the end he had to get them. The witnesses who were brought before the court swore that the land was worth all the way from twenty to twenty-three and twenty-four cents a square foot. One witness said he was not sure; he would put it at from ten to fifteen cents a square foot. That was simply a voluntary statement. The judge of the Exchequer Court accepted the ten cents a square foot as being the value of the land, but stated-I do not think he used these words, but this is the suostance of them-that in his judgment the case had not been properly tried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He used the word "reluctantly."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He gave that judgment reluctantly, taking the minimum amount mentioned by any witness-and it was mentioned only by one witness. At ten cents a square foot the value came to something like $120,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $225,000; and then the ten per cent was added, bringing it up to about $240,000. IHad the Public Works Department been represented in that case by such a counsel as we now have-a man who has had much greater experience in such cases than many men in Canada have had-I do not think we should have had that verdict. Fortunately, we have got around that particular transaction. I know

something about the law of expropriation; I have had a few cases in my experience. We appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court gave us a new trial. We abandoned practically all the land below the dam.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did my hon. friend visit the premises?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and it did not take me long to see the whole thing, either. We have abandoned all the land below the dam which we do not want, and we shall have to settle in some way with the owner of the land for what we have taken. If we cannot settle amicably, we will go to the Exchequer Court, and the departmental solicitor will be there to represent the department. We call him " Departmental Solicitor" but he is really a counsel. His duty is to go over the country and act as counsel for the Public Works Department and for the Government. He takes nothing out of the hands of the Justice Department or of the Solicitor General; he goes before the Exchequer Court representing the department with a waiting brief, or an active brief, if necessary, in order to see that the interests of the department are protected. Let me give the committee another illustration. We have a case in the city of Victoria now involving about $200,000. A firm of contractors have brought action against the Government claiming that they have been improperly dealt with. I knew something about the case before I became minister and as a lawyer I came to the conclusion that this firm had not been unfairly dealt with. Accordingly, I decided to contest this case. I have spent a night and part of a day discussing it with the Department of Justice, the Solicitor General, and the Departmental Solicitor. I have taken many occasions during the last month to go over the evidence with the Departmental Solicitor and I think he knows the case now nearly as well as I do. If it goes to trial he will be there to represent the Public Works Department.


Lucien Cannon: What will be the status of the departmental solicitor before the court?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He will have status in the court. There need be no fear about that, and if he has not we will see that he gets it. Now the Government is expropriating a dry-dock in Halifax.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has not answered my question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have told my hon.
friend that the solicitor will have a proper 
status before the court. I am not charged with the conduct of the court and am not the judge; therefore I cannot say exactly what the solicitor will do. But I know he will be there and will have a status and be heard. I was going to say that we are expropriating a dry-dock in Halifax involving $1,250,000. In connection with this, I will go over the whole matter with the departmental solicitor and together we will work up the case so that when he goes before the court he will be possessed of all the knowledge which the Public Works Department can give him. I have no apologies to make for asking for this $3,500 for a departmental solicitor, neither have I any apologies to offer for the gentleman who happens to occupy the position at the present time.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTEE:: You provided last year $574,995. You employed about 350 persons and I think you made the statement last year that it was quite possible that that number of employees would be required in the department. What is the unexpended balance of this sum of money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot give the exact figures but I am informed that there are 63 vacancies, or about 287 employees, instead of 350.


Thomas Foster: I asked for the unexpended balance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be around $60000 to $70,000.


Thomas Foster: $300,000 unexpended?
Is there over


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, about $60,000 to $70,000. There are 63 clerks with an average of $1,000 each or about $63,000.


Thomas Foster: Would it not be well to give the unexpended balance for each ,ndi\idual item, so that wre can see the saving there is?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The reason we prepared the estimates this year in the old way is because we have not the report of the Civil Service Commission. Another year if I occupy this position I shall certainly ask Parliament to vote only the amount of money we expect to expend. You cannot always state the number of officials with exact precision because you can never foresee any contingency, such, for instance, as there was last year in the Architectural Branch.


Thomas Foster: You have provided for that in the Estimates under "sundries."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We provide for a certain number of clerks and if it becomes necessary to appoint special clerks, as we found in the Architect's Department during the past year, we have provision here, and ask the Civil Service Commission to appoint them, the money having been voted for their salaries. A lump sum might be voted for things of this kind, but I think it would be better to vote the money in this way.


Lucien Cannon: I do not quite understand the explanation as regards the solicitor. The minister said he wanted to have a man whose special duty it would be to attend the courts whenever the interests of the department might be involved. This officer is either necessary or unnecessary, and if he is necessary it must be because the Department of Justice is not doing its duty as it should. I do not think the minister intends to imply that the Department of Justice is not performing its duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Department of Justice of necessity appoints a man in the locality as their solicitor and entrusts to him the conduct of the case. The department cannot send their man out to Vancouver to argue a case before the Exchequer Court there.


Lucien Cannon: Will it be possible for this solicitor to do it?
Mr.. CARVELL: He will do it.


Lucien Cannon: How can one man do it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because the Exchequer only sits in one place at a time.


Lucien Cannon: And can he attend to all these cases?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. I have given illustrations of cases in different parts oi the country. A man is appointed by the Department of Justice, in Quebec, say. He never comes near the Public Works Department, but takes the file handed him by the department. I want a man who belongs to the department and knows all about it and can discuss matters with the deputy minister, the chief engineer, the chiei architect and myself, so that we may know exactly what we are going to do in court. A man in Levis or Halifax cannot come here to get his information, sitting night after night, and consulting with the minister the same as the departmental solicitor can. No disrespect is intended to the Department of Justice or its solicitors throughout the country, but we want a man who will be in court armed with all the facts.


Thomas Foster: What becomes of the unexpended balance at the end of the year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It lapses.


John Carey Douglas: In regard to the matter of aerial work


Georges Henri Boivin: A discussion on that matter is out of order. The question can be brought up and fully discussed when the special items concerning the outside service are under consideration.


John Carey Douglas: I understand the minister is prepared to give the correspondence in order that the matter may be discussed, and I assume that the committee are all agreed that it calls for discussion. What I wanted to ask the minister was that the papers be brought down in connection with the matter as soon as possible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will gladly see that they are brought down and if, before they are brought down, my hon. friend will go to the chief architect's department, he may have access to them in any way he wants to. I shall have copies made as soon as 1 can and give them to my hon. friend. There are no closed books in the Public Works Department. I have never refused information to any man whether he happened to be a member of Parliament or outside citizen. I take the ground that the Department of Public Works is a public department, the country is paying the bills and any man or woman in Canada who wants information has only to write and ask foi it.


Mr. FIELDING:: In connection with
the services of solicitors, I might mention a matter of very considerable interest :	the expropriation proceedings in
connection with the Halifax dry dock. It has caused some discussion in the press. A gentlemrin representing the owners of the dock has written letters which convey the impression that the company have not been fairly treated. I mention that as his own statement, not mine. At a convenient time I think it would be desirable if the minister would just state what the facts are from the point of view of the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will be very glad to da so on the very first occasion possible. 1 hope to get into Supply again on Thursday and I shall then be very glad to furnish that information.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that there is a Civil Service war vote which is given
:S82

generally to the Civil Service. There has been a complaint that officers of this House, who are to all intents and purposes civil -servants, who as messengers come here for a certain season and who have been engaged for years and yea-rs, some for twenty or twenty-five years, have been left out of this provision. I would like the minister, not to give any answer now, hut to think this matter over and see if it is not proper that these men should share in this bonus as well as other servants of the Government.


John Wesley Edwards: I have waited here for two hours while hon. members were discussing aeroplanes and other things to say a word in regard to this item. It refers to increases of salaries. I notice increases to the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, and several other increases which I do not feel like allowing to go through without expressing my opinion about them and therefore I object to the item carrying at present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection to the item standing. I unfortunately cannot be here this evening. I would like to have got it through to-day. My hon. friend might bring the question up on some other item or we can allow it to stand. Perhaps it had better stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: You might allow the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) to bring it up on the outside service vote.


John Wesley Edwards: I think the minister
will be as far ahead if he allows the item to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
The committee rose, and the House resumed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[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.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Annie Prod-erick.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Samuel David McElroy.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mary Jane McCulloch.-Mr. Green.

Bill No. 50, for the relief of Mary Garland Lewis.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of William Canham.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $1,000,000.
['Mr. Speaker, the Bill as presented is self-explanatory, its main oh-', 'jeets being twofold; first, to set aside Armistice day, the second Monday in November each year, as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the recent war; second, to establish a set day each year as a permanent day of Thanksgiving. I purpose speaking at greater length on the second reading of the Bill, and I will therefore reserve any further remarks until that time.']
William Duff: Last year this vote was $400,000. What is the reason for the increase of $600,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The smallness of last year's vote was due to knowledge of the fact that we were unable to obtain steamers to carry on the mail service, and the department felt certain that that amount would be ample for any mail service that could be carried out during that fiscal year. Now that the war is over it is hoped that we shall be able to re-establish the former mail service across the Atlantic, and the vote now corresponds to the amount asked for prior to the war. However, it may prove impossible, even during the current year, to obtain the necessary steamships to carry the mail according to the terms of the contract which was in force prior to the war. In that event the full amount will not be expended. We merely wish to have authority to enter into a mail service contract, and we anticipate that the services as a whole will probably require the amount of money asked for. This, of course, is purely a mail service and not a freight service.


William Duff: Does the minister mean that the steamships do not carry any freight?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They carry freight, but this vote is for a mail service.


William Duff: In view of the prevailing high freight and passenger rates, which greatly exceed those in force before the war, and of the fact that so many steamers are now being released for ordinary transportation purposes, it seems to me the Government should be able to make contracts with the steamship companies to carry mails at a much lower subsidy than that paid in pre-war times.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member's suggestion is a proper one, and will be considered; but as a matter of fact I think the steamship companies would rather carry freight than mails, because the compensation is much less remunerative for the carriage of mails.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is this steamship subvention on a basis of so much per ton of mail carried, or is it given in the form of a subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The contractors are paid for two round voyages each week, but the service has not been completely performed during the last two years. The subsidy amounts to $5,292 per round* trip, and of course if the voyages are not performed the money is not paid.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Any payment is made irrespective of the amount of mail carried on each voyage?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: With what steamship line is the contract made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The contract was with the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Limited, but during the past two years the Government was obliged to utilize the services of any steamship that was available for this purpose.
Steam service or services between Canada and Newfoundland, $70,000.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What is the nature of this service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This service is carried on between the port of North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and is operated by the Reid Newfoundland Railway Company. It calls for one trip each day, excepting Sunday, between the ports mentioned. There is no change whatever in the service.
Mr. CA'HILL: Was the whole of the $70,000 spent on the service last year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The sum of
$57,000 was expended for the last fiscal year.


John Ewen Sinclair: This service was very well performed indeed by the Reid Newfoundland Company, but since the war begam they have not been able to give us as good a service as formerly, principally, I presume, because they could not get the steamers. Will the hon. minister be able to give us the names of the steamers for the present season, and state if the company will have the necessary complement of boats to perform the daily service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So far as the department are advised, the steamers at present in service are the Kyle, the Sagona, and the Glencoe. No contract has been made for the present year, so of course we
do not know at the moment what steamers they will offer for that service, but we assume that those steamers are likely to be offered for the service.
Steam service or services between Canada and the West Indies or South America, or both, $340,666.66.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does this provide solely for mail service, or is it partially for freight service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is principally freight service. However, the contractors are obliged to carry mails.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is .any provision made in this item for the possible opening up of trade with the Pacific coast ports via the Panama canal?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, this service would not include that route.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. minister to the desirability of providing for the promotion of that trade. Only a day or two ago I was advised of a case from the coast where a firm had 1,500 tons of freight to be handled. On the Pacific coast we are importing large quantities of goods from it/he West Indies- spices, coffee, and such like, and a very valuable trade can be developed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree with my hon. friend that a service of this kind would be of great benefit to those on the Pacific coast. I had a very interesting conversation this morning with Mr. Robert Dollar, who by the way in his early days lived in Canada, but for the last thirty or forty years has been in the United States. He is known throughout the world for his interest in Pacific coast steamship services. He informed me that he has in mind the opening of a service between Vancouver and New York. I spent a little time trying to induce him to include a Canadian Atlantic port.


An hon. MEMBER:: Preferably Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There might be
more unsuitable places. I think Mr. Dollar will establish the service immediately if he can obtain a steamer, and he is at the present moment negotiating in Great Britain for the purchase or construction of one. I have also this to add, that he did not want a steamship subsidy from the Government, and would not take one.


William Duff: What line is this subsidy
paid to?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This service is
performed by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, of London, England. The Canadian termini are St. John and Halifax. The West India Islands called at are Bermuda, St. Kitts, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Barbados, Trinidad, and some others.


John Ewen Sinclair: How many boats have they in the service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Four, usually.
Two of them were requisitioned by the British Ministry of Shipping during the war, and were returned to the service only recently.


John Ewen Sinclair: Are they very good boats?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so. The .service has been very satisfactory. I understand.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is the speed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Eleven knots.


John Ewen Sinclair: Did they make
any money last year?
Mr. A. K. .MACLEAN: I think they made a small profit. Of course, as might be expected, they complain that they lost heavily by having two of their steamers requisitioned by the British Ministry of Shipping. At the present moment they are asking for an increase in the passenger and freight rates on the ground that the service is not giving them sufficient revenue. However, I do not mean to say that that statement is correct.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is the hon. minister
aware that shipmasters and ship owners very seldom admit making any money?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have discovered that during the last few days.
Mr; DUFF:	The minister informed the
committee that this amount was paid to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. I think that part of this amount is paid to that company, but is it not a fact that part of it is paid to Pickford & Black, whose boats ply between Halifax, Jamaica and iCuba?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it is all paid to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.


William Duff: Do not the Jamaica boats
get any subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


William Duff: These boats are loaded to
the hatches every trip and cannot take all the freight that is offered; a lot of freight

is left at Halifax every time the boats leave. If these boats can ply between JTalifax, Jamaica and Cuba without a subsidy, the Royal Mail Steam Packet boats ought to be able to do likewise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It may be quite true that during the last year or two the contractors were not able to carry all the freight that was offering, but my hon. friend must remember that the sendee was being performed with two steamers only. [DOT]It may be that during certain seasons oi the year when sugar is moving the steamers have quite sufficient freight; but it is also true that at other seasons the boats both in and out are short of cargo. Although the service between Halifax and Jamaica is performed by Messrs Pickford & Black without any subsidy, it must be remembered that they have no passenger accommodation on their boats and those boats would hardly be regarded as sufficient for a subsidized service.


William Duff: The Jamaica boats carry
passengers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not to any extent. Under the arrangement made with the West India Islands at. the time of the tariff arrangement, Canada agreed to establish an improved service, and the contract made with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company was the result of that agreement.


William Duff: I notice that this item also calls for service between Canada and South America. What boats perform that service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The service is continued from the West India Islands down to Georgetown, British Guiana.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. minister seems to be in doubt as to the amount of money this company made during the past year. I regard it as very important that he should insist on a statement of the earnings of these boats, for only so can we have an intelligent idea as to whether we should continue these subsidies or not. They will always take the money from you if you will give it to them, but they are always loath to give you their figures. When we are subsidizing a line which does not carry our mails we ought to be very strict about gettingsuch information. As the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) says, these companies may be able to carry on the services without this assistance, and the only way in w'hich that can be ascertained is by getting a complete and accurate statement of their earnings. T-hat is difficult )to procure; it would take a clever, expert accountant to tell from the books of a

ship-owning company whether they were making money or not. I would ask the minister to look into this question and see if we are not allowing this to drift a little too much, and if, each year before the Estimates come before the House, he could find out the standing of the different companies and what they earned during the previous year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend means that it takes a steamship man to catch a steamship man. Perhaps -his advice may be worth something. The matter of granting subsidies to steamship companies, particularly in connection with services tc other countries, is, I must admit, a very doubtful one, and it may be, in view of the changed conditions brought about by the war, that many of those services which are to-day receiving subsidies might get along very well without them. That is a matter deserving investigation by the Government. And only to-day I have received such a recommendation from some of the officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and probably I shall- recommend that some investigation be made as to the necessity of continuing those steamship subsidies. In many cases, we would develop trade much more rapidly by leaving the operation of such services to private parties. There are, however, many cases, particularly of a local nature, where it is, perhaps, quite difficult to avoid granting a subsidy.
As regards the item "steam service between Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand," in answering a question put by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) the other night, I omitted to tell him that this subsidy is paid upon the basis of an export service only. That is, a contract in that particular case is made with a New Zealand or an Australian shipping company which, under the contract, is to perform four trips per month, and not with any specified steamship. When their steamships reach New Zealand they pick up a cargo and proceed to any other part of the world where business may carry them, and the next month the service may be performed by other steamers altogether, but belonging to the same steamship line. Therefore, that particular subsidy is paid towards the development of our export trade with Australia and New Zealand.


Mr. PEDLOW:: If those steamships could pick up a return -cargo the necessity of paying them a subsidy would be obviated, because they would be able to earn freight
rates both going to and coming. If there was not the barrier of protection to get over when they arrived at a Canadian port, no doubt they would be able to obtain sufficient cargo to warrant their returning to Canada, and consequently they would not need the subsidy.


William Duff: How much money was paid to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company last year for subsidies?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amount was $209,640.


William Duff: How many trips were made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Sixteen.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the reason for the increase in this item?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Last year, as two boats were off the service, it was not necessary to appropriate the full amount as required by the contract. Now that the four steamships are back performing the service under the contract, we can approximate quite accurately what the maximum amount required will be.


Louis Audet Lapointe: If we take the first six items under the heading "Atlantic Ocean," there is an increase of $853,000 over last year. On what does the minister base his estimate of the amount of subsidies that will be earned by the different companies-on the average subsidies granted during the -past three or four years, or on the subsidies granted last year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these annual contracts?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The first contract with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company covered a period of five years. The contract expired last year, and it was renewed by Order in Council until October next. I suppose, at the end of that time, a new contract will be entered into with the company, or some other arrangements will be made.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the Department of Trade and Commerce have anything to do with fixing the freight rates in these services?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In every case where a subsidy is granted to a steamship company the freight rates must be approved by the department before they become effective.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that this year two additional boats are to be put on the service or services between Canada and the West Indies or South America.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were put on in February of this year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Last year only two boats were running?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There were only two, although the contract provides for four. Two were requisitioned by the Minister of Shipping for war purposes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When there is a surplus quantity of freight to be shipped from any Atlantic port to the West Indies, who has control of what freight shall be taken and what freight left?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The steamship companies, I should think. They probably accept the freight as it is offered.


Arthur Bliss Copp: An exporter in my county sent a shipment of hay to one of the Atlantic ports, and six months passed before he could get space for it; in fact, the shipment was taken care of only about ten days ago. During all that time it has been lying at the port-I think it was Halifax,
I am not sure-the steamship companies refusing to accept it. Is there no arrangement under which freight like that can be taken care of?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assume that the misfortune of this shipper was due to the war. It would be hardly fair to attach all the blame to the steamship company.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The war was pretty well over six months ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: During the war the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company had only two steamships for the service and were unable to carry all the freight that was moving between the West Indies and Canada. I imagine that during that period a great deal of freight was handled by schooners. A great many of our imports came via New York; sugar was railed from New York to the refineries at St. John and Halifax. I have no explanation to offer as to why this shipment of hay was delayed so long. I imagine 'that the steamers performing the Service would carry the cargo which was deemed to be most essential to the interests of the people of the West

Indies at that time, and possibly hay was not regarded as absolutely essential.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This proposed vote is a large one, and the people would like to know whether they are going to get value for it. When did this vote begin? Has there been any appreciable increase in the trade between the West Indies and Canada? Have imports and exports increased by reason of the grant of this large sum of money for the encouragement of trade?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that trade between Canada and the West Indies has increased very considerably in recent years, and in that connection the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company is entitled to some credit. In 1909 the freight carried- I do not know whether by this particular service or by the steamship company which operated prior to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company-amounted to 63,000 tons weight and 54,000 tons measurement. The following are some further figures:
Year	Tons	Tons
	Weight.	Measurement.
194 O' [DOT]	66,000	
1911	69,000	
1912	65,000	
1915	78,000	94,0001916	100,000	127,0001917	94,000	99,000There has	been a gradual	increase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It fluctuates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. I suppose the figures for the last few years are not a sure indication of the actual development in trade. This service between Canada and the West Indies is a very important one. The present contract was the outcome of negotiations between the Governments of the British West Indies and Canada which took place in Ottawa some years ago.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed that the case I cited a few moments ago was taken up with the Department of Trade, and Commerce, but that the department appeared to take very little interest in the matter. The department should be willing to give consideration to matters affecting the shipment of freight to be carried by this subsidized steamship service. In view of the fact that freight rates are now very high, is it necessary to subsidize this steamship service as largely now as it was subsidized when freights were low? Owners of steamers or sailing vessels are anxious to get as large a subsidy as possible. The Minister of Trade and Commerce should find out whether the company can make its service sufficiently remunerative as not to require

the payment of these large subsidies by the Government. I am surprised that the minister asks Parliament for an increase of nearly a million dollars in subsidies, in view of the fact that freight rates have been high during the last few years. The Trade and Commerce Department is simply going to seed; we are getting very little advantage from the money spent by it.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister says that the department control the freight rates. I understand they issue schedules. If these schedules are not adhered to what will the department do-for instance, if there is any overcharging?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a subsidized steamship company charged greater freight rates than those approved of by the department the department would, of course, be obliged to inquire into the matter and, if the offence were very serious and not adequately explained, consider the cancellation of the subsidy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the schedule part of the contract?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it is not. '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then you could not
break the contract?


Alexander William Chisholm: That is the point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The contract states that the freight rates shall be subject to the approval of the department. As regards the hay referred to by my hon. friend, I never heard of any complaint about this particular shipment, and am very sorry if the matter has not received attention. I shall look into the question and write my hon. friend.


Mr. LOGGIE:: If Cuba and Porto Rico were included in the call ports of this line, trade with the West Indies would be very much fostered. At the present time shippers of dried' fish require to use the Havana market. They must ship their goods via Boston or New York. If ithe minister will make inquiries he will find that there are considerable imports of codfish into Cuba from the Pacific coast cities of the United States, via Panama canal. It seems to me that the Canadian Atlantic coast is the natural source of supply for that market, but the exporters are handicapped by the fact that there is no steamer sailing from any Canadian port touching at Havana or Porto Rico. One of the boats, I think, calls once a month at Santiago, Cuba. I am not sure whether it is the boat that
m
goes to Jamaica and Georgetown in Dem-erara or the subsidized line. At any rate, a boat calls at Santiago, but it is on the opposite side of the island. I suggest that the minister might take the matter up with the steamship line when the contract is being renewed, as it would be in the interests of the industry as a whole.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: At the present time
there is about 35,000,000 pounds of frozen beef that was left on hand when the war closed; in the West the quantity being about 20,000,000 pounds. It has not been possible to secure accommodation on the oceangoing boats. Has the Government undertaken to arrange for space in these ships?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The matter to
which my hon. friend refers is hardly relevant to the subject before the committee,, but it is true that at present there is in Canada about 40,000,000 pounds of frozen: beef which would have been readily marketed were the war still on. This quantity of beef is now in the hands of Canadian packers, not because of any lack of shipping but because there are no purchasers.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the price were reduced, some might be willing to buy even in this country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt very
much whether it could be marketed in this country even at a much reduced price. Advices received from the British Government seem to indicate that they will purchase this frozen beef provided they are given leave to sell it in other countries- Greece, Roumania, Italy and one or two other countries, and it seems probable that this large quantity of frozen beef will be marketed very shortly.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Most of this beef was
slaughtered in this country and cured and stored for Great Britain, and at the close of the war they refused to take it. I understand that British and Canadian ships are carrying across frozen beef which was purchased from the United States under contract, with the result that this beef is being left on the hands of the Canadian packers. The British Government have evidently released the ships but have commandeered sixty per cent or seventy per cent of the space in them, and if I am correctly informed they are using the ships to transport supplies from the United States to Great Britain and France instead of providing space for the accommodation of those in this country who produced on the good faith of the Imperial Government.


William Stevens Fielding: This item contemplates a service either to the West Indies or South America, or both. I know that the line hitherto has not gone further south than Demerara. Is that still the fact?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is.


William Stevens Fielding: We have therefore no provision for trade with ports further south. In view of this fact, is the Government contemplating the opening up of South American markets? This is a large field, and as our products will no doubt be looking for new markets the matter is an important one. Perhaps it has already engaged the .attention of the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a shipping firm in Montreal, MacLean, Kennedy and Company, who are now considering the '[DOT]matter of establishing a steamship service 'between Canada and South America. There are many inquiries regarding such a service, and I have no doubt that during the year one will be established.


William Duff: With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland in regard to the service to Cuba, I might say we have between one or two ports in Nova Scotia and Porto Rico a fairly good service that does not cost the people of this country one dollar, and is not performed by steamers. There are a number of clipper ships in Nova Scotia, owned in Lunenburg, sailing each fortnight for Porto Rico from Lunenburg, while ships also sail from Halifax to Havana. These are schooners of about 125 tons. If they can do this business without a subsidy the big steamship companies should do the same.


William Stewart Loggie: What the hon. gentleman says is quite true, but that does not convenience the public who, if they want to ship to the ports named, must do so at present via Boston and New York. I quite realize that full cargoes go from Lunenburg but that does not in any way affect the case I am endeavouring to present to the minister. I would like to tell the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) that during the past winter practically all the refrigeration space of the ocean steamers was used for carrying frozen beef to the United Kingdom.


Francis N. McCrea: I think these subsidies should be voted with the distinct understanding that the department will ascertain whether it is necessary to grant subsidies or not. I am not very well versed in shipping by water except that, as a shipper, I
fMr. Tweedie.]
have had occasion to note what the rates were before the war and to know something about what they are now. You would be surprised to know that there has been an increase of as much as a thousand per cent over what they were in normal times. I have been shipping some goods to the United Kingdom and the freight has been three times the value of the goods when they left this 'port. If the carrying trade is getting the same rates as it has been getting in the last two years I do not believe it needs any assistance from this Government. The minister should promise this committee that before any of the subsidies are paid he will have a proper accounting made to see what amount of money these ships are making and if they are in need of this money from the Government in order to give the necessary service. Our rates by rail have been increased by about forty per cent, but that is nowhere with the increase in tne water rates. We want these services continued, but we want to know, before the Government is called upon to subsidize a service, whether that subsidy is necessary or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I agree with my hon. friend that the Government should not enter into any contract to pay subsidies unless they are assured it is necessary to the performance of the service. The accounts of the steamship companies are always submitted to the department before a contract is entered into. It is true that freight rates have been very much higher in the last two or three years than prior to the war, but it is also true that it costs a great deal more to operate a steamship to-day than it did then. Every day applications are made to-the Department of Trade and Commerce for an increase in the subsidies paid particularly for local services. Pretty nearly all of the steamers engaged in local services in Eastern Canada and on the Pacific coast complain that the subsidy they are receiving does not enable them to earn even dividends upon the money invested in the service.	,


William Stewart Loggie: May I mention, in reply to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. MoCrea), that recently a contract was entered into to carry goods from St. John to the United Kingdom at four and a half cents a pound, and before the goods left this side the rate was reduced to one cent per pound.


William Duff: What kind of goods?


William Stewart Loggie: Boneless codfish.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to two items of news which reached this country from the Peace Conference and which will affect this year's Budget. We have been told by the newspapers that the German merchant fleet has been surendered to the Allies and that a division of the ships has been made among the different allied nations. We have had expression of views from different members of the Government since the opening of the session to the effect that Chnada at the Peace Conference has to-day the status of a nation. Therefore, as a nation Canada must have received part of that German fleet. I would like to know from the minister the number of ships that Canada has received, if any, and where these ships will be placed. As regards the particular item that we are discussing now-(Steam service between Canada and the West Indies-I have also seen in some of the papers, sent by the official representative of the press at Paris, a statement to the effect that Canada would receive as compensation for her war activities either Greenland or the West Indies. I prefer the West Indies, and if we are to receive the West Indies, would the minister be kind enough to tell us if this subsidy will be discontinued?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am afraid my
hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) is not contributing very much to the peace of the House and that he wishes to provoke a little discussion.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all; this is quite relevant.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am unable to inform my hon. friend as to whether or not any distribution of enemy shipping will be made and if so whether any will come to Canada. I understand that the German shipping that is being distributed now is for the purpose of carrying foodstuffs to certain countries, and in that event I would imagine that the shipping would be placed in the hands of some of the powers which are able to handle it. I am unable to apprehend the point of my hon. friend's question as to the West Indies. I would like to remind him that the West India Islands are not owned by Germany, and they cannot hand them over to Canada.


Mr CANNON:: I know that, and I mentioned this because T found this correspondent sending most extraordinary news. I do not know why he is kept there at all.
Steam service between Canada and South Africa, $146,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How much of the 873,000 voted last year was spent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There were only three sailings on this service last year, and the amount spent was $36,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then you contemplate a more extended programme of sailings this year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, we hope to resume the sailings which were carried on prior to the war.


Mr. PARENT:: Who is receiving this subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Elder-Demp-ster Company. It is a monthly service and the steamers leave a St. Lawrence port- Montreal, I think-in the summer, and St. John or Halifax, at the option of the contractors, during the winter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is this $146,000 the same subsidy that was granted before the war?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


William Stewart Loggie: What class of commodities are sent from Canada to South Africa?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In 1918, Canadian goods to the value of $2,714,000 were transported to South Africa by this service, and the principal items of Canadian origin included flour, agricultural machinery, calcium carbide, binder twine, automobiles, butter, cattle, lumber, wax, cereal goods, egg-fillers, woodenware, wheat and furniture.


Jacques Bureau: The minister states that only one-half of the $73,000 voted last year was expended. Now he is asking for a vote of double that amount. What is the increase due to? Is it because the minister expects to pay bigger subsidies, or does he anticipate having more ships plying between Canada and South Africa? If the latter is the reason, has he made any inquiries to see what ships are available for the service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I have already stated, the contractors are to perform a monthly service. Last year, owing to the lack of shipping and the commandeering of vessels by the British Admiralty, only three sailings were carried out. This year it is expected that the contract will be carried out in its entirety, which will mean twelve sailings, and will involve a payment of $146,000 for the year in subsidies. We are assured that the company will be able shortly to fully carry out the contract.
I


Jacques Bureau: Has the subsidy been
increased?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Frank S. Cahill: Why should we pay seven per cent of the value of the goods we shipped to South Africa in the way of subsidy in order to get our goods into that market? It seems an extraordinary amount of money to pay for that purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know what my hon. friend means by paying seven per cent.


Frank S. Cahill: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: I gather from the minister's statement that he has not altogether decided in his own mind as to the imperative necessity of these subsidies. If he is not absolutely convinced that they are im-fMr. A. K. Maclean. 1
pcratively necessary, is it right that he should ask for these subsidies to be voted when, according to the figures given by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) the other day, there is an apparent deficit on ordinary account of something like $100,000,000? It seems to me it is not putting the committee in a fair position to ask us to accord our approval and take the responsibility of voting subsidies amounting altogether to about $2,500,000, unless the minister is able either to assure us that they are absolutely necessary, or assure us in the most formal fashion that we are merely voting these subsidies subject to his making the most searching inquiry as to the necessity for them. Because I take it that a most serious financial condition confronts this country unless every possible means are adopted to cut down the expenditure. I would like to impress that fact upon this committee, I think we should all take it to heart, that the financial situation of this country is such as it has never faced before, and the whole of the appropriation for the public service should be regarded in the light of that fact.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can only repeat that before the contracts are entered into, searching inquiry will be made in each case to ascertain if there is any necessity for the subsidy. There is this to say concerning steamship services to South Africa, Australia and New Zealand during the present year and I think I am perfectly accurate in making the statement-that it would be practically impossible to have an established steamship service between this country and the other Dominions mentioned without a subsidy during the present year. It must also be remembered further, that the freight rates are, or will be, more favourable to those countries from Canada than if we were relying upon free shipping for our service. My hon. friend knows that steamship freight rates to-day are very excessive, in fact a steamship owner can get almost anything in the way of freight rates, although, of course, those rates are not as high as they were two or three years ago. For the time being, however, I think the subsidized steamship service to distant countries like South Africa and Australia is in the interest of Canadian trade. If we are to collect a revenue we must develop our trade, both domestic and foreign, and I do not think that any very substantial objection can be made to the granting of subsidies for the time being. When shipping is freer and trade restrictions are removed, I admit, it will then be

very proper to inquire as to whether or not these subsidies should be continued.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. minister has just said, but in rapidly glancing through these items I fail to see any reference to a direct service between Canada and France. It may be due to my inadequate knowledge of the Budget, and that possibly elsewhere in the Estimates an amount is provided as a subsidy. Perhaps the hon. minister has some information in this regard, and also as to a direct service between Canada and Belgium, for which country I have naturally a tender spot in my heart. Has any company to the knowledge of the Government undertaken a free service, that is, as far as we aTe concerned as a Government, between the two countries, or has any application been made to the Government for a subsidy for a service between France and Canada, for instance; and, if so, has it been refused; and, if refused, why? France and Belgium at the present moment are going through an era which in my humble opinion is most propitious not only for the resumption of the old trade relations, but for the establishment of a new service. These two countries to-day, at the very moment when peace is about to be signed, are entering a period of virile activity in reconstruction, and they will need not only the raw materials of this country but our manufactured articles in large quantity. I should be indeed very sorry if the Government and this committee were not disposed to subsidize such a service, especially this year.
Mr. A. K. MAjOLEAN:	My hon. friend
will notice that in the Atlantic ocean subsidies there is no provision for a subsidy for any service between Canada and European ports. A great many subsidies formerly were paid for such services, but as during the past four years it was impossible for such services to be performed these items were struck out. (I did not think it was necessary to reinstate them in the Estimates, because I am satisfied that any steamships operating between Europe and Canada during the present year will be able to obtain all the freight they can handle at very satisfactory rates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you not authorized
by statute?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We were authorized to pay $200,000 to steamship services between France and Canada; I think, however, that that statute has lapsed. 'During the later years when it was available, during the war, of course no steamship company applied for the subsidy, and there has been no inquiry this year. I was informed to-day that a steamship service is to be established between France and Montreal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is it the Canadian Pacific?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, La Cie Generate
Transatlantique.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was approached to-day by some representatives of that company in connection with this proposed service. It is expected that the service will be in operation by the first of May. This is a service we are getting without a subsidy, and I really do not think it is necessary to pay any subsidy between Canada and any European ports during the present year. For instance, if we sell to Belgium under the credits which we give to her $25,000,000 of goods, we are assured that there will be $25,000,000 of goods for ships to carry to that country; and if $50,000,000 worth of credits are extended to France, and she avails herself of those credits, there will be goods of that value to carry to France. So I do not think there will be any necessity at present to subsidize a service between Canada and France or Belgium or any other European ports.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. minister means continental ports?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. However, at a later date, on some other item, I have promised the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) an opportunity of discussing the matter of trade between Canada and France, and when we reach that item I shall be very glad indeed to hear from him in relation to the development of Franco-Canadian trade.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I understood the hon. minister to say that of the $73,000 voted for the Canada-South Africa service last year, there was only $36,000 expended. What becomes of the remaining $37,000? Will it be added to the $146,000 asked this year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that vote lapses.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to corroborate the statement made a moment ago in regard to the service between Canada and France. I think by next month we shall have between Montreal and Havre, and perhaps another French port, a first-class service. La Cie Generale [DOT] Transatlantique is one of the big steamship lines of the world, and it maintains between New

York and some of the French ports a most excellent service. The other day I met M. de la Touche, the president of the company, who was in Montreal as the guest of honour at a luncheon given by some of the business men. He there declared that his company is ready to put in commission two or three, and perhaps four, big steamers between Canada and France; so we shall have an excellent service. However, if there is to be any subsidy paid to any line established between Canada and France, I would say, give it to that company, because you will be sure of getting the ships and the service. They are not claiming any subsidy, but I do not think they would refuse it if offered to them. It is a great pity, however, that this statute should have been allowed to lapse. My hon. friend should reinstate it, because it took so many years before we were in a position to obtain that subsidy from the Government.
The Allan line struggled along for many years with a second-class service, and finally, I think, they succeeded in building up quite a business between Havre and Halifax in winter and Quebec in summer. I would be very sorry to see this item of $200,000 for a subsidy for a steamship service between Canada and France lapse, because it forms part, so to speak, of the Treaty of Commerce which exists between the two countries. I see that that treaty has been denounced by the French Government. That is to say, notice has been given to all nations having treaties with France that she will, after a certain period of time, reconsider those treaties. Now that Canada, France and Great Britain are so closely allied after this great war, and when we are so much interested in the prosperity of France and in bettering the good relations which exist between that country and ours, I sincerely hope that Canada will renew as favourable a treaty as possible with France. Of course, the news has spread throughout France of late that, Canada becoming bone-dry, part of the trade which existed between the two countries in former years will be* cut off. If we do not import the excellent French wines, I do not see what we may well import from France with the exception of masterpieces of painting, sculpture and the arts generally, but a referendum will take place in a few days in Quebec and I am quite sure that province will be favourable to light wines and light beer. And I hope the other provinces of the Dominion will follow suit, and then the Dominion Government will do the sensible thing and give to moderate people an op-

portunity of using in moderation the good French wines and light beer, so that there will be a raison d'etre for the old steamship service which existed in former years between Canada and France.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a phase ol
these subsidies which it is our duty to bring to the notice of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The high cost of living in this country is a subject that should receive the attention of that department and of the Government as a whole. The condition of trade and commerce in Canada has to do with articles of food, and I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the ordinary consumers should not be called upon to furnish money to send foodstuffs out of Canada while prices are sky-high as they are to-day.
The large masses of the Canadian people who are consumers have to pay enormous prices for butter, beef, fish and other articles that enter largely into our everyday production. The price of butter to-day throughout this country is from 64 to 65 cents per pound, and if those people who have to pay 65 cents per pound for butter are called upon to pay duty on the shoes and clothing that their children wear, iu order to furnish subsidies for steamships to take foodstuffs out of the country to be sold at a cheaper rate in some foreign part of the world, that is not good governmental management. The price of beef in Canada to-day is enormously high. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), very properly in the interest of his constituency and his city, asked about space to carry frozen or chilled beef from Canada across the Atlantic or somewhere else out of this country. Before we grant subsidies for carrying beef out of this country, the home market should be something like normal. There are some things that should be plentiful and cheap in Canada. I can understand the price of tea, or tobacco, or cotton, or other articles which we do not produce ourselves, getting dear in this country, but I never could understand, nor have I any right to understand, why flour or beef should be dear in Canada. Flour and beef should be plentiful in this country because we produce enormous quantities of both. I would point out to the minister and every other member of the Government that the big question of the day is to get back to normal as regards our foodstuffs, because the people cannot, with very high prices which they have to pay, support their families in comfort upon- the wages they

are now getting. Neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce, nor any other minister has a right to go down into the pockets of poor people for millions of dollars to pay subsidies !to boats to enable the producer to charge too much for his product. Far be it from me to say or do anything detrimental to good and natural trade in foodstuffs, and if we produce enough of those articles here, the producer can surely make a fair, honest profit without being bolstered up in this way by the granting of large subsidies to take foodstuffs out of this country, thus enabling the producers to charge prices above normal. Nothing that the Government can do to-day is more important than to give their attention to making living comfortable and reasonable for the people.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister give me the figures as to the value of goods carried in 1915, 1916, or 1917 by ships which are subsidized? I want to find out in what way there is a benefit to trade between Canada and South Africa by subsidizing ships_ if they are carrying only a small proportion of the trade. What does the minister think would be the outcome if he were not to subsidize those ships? Would that be a detriment to the trade of this country, or shall we still have to pay a premium of seven per cent on goods we are exporting to induce people to buy them, in addition to actually furnishing the purchaser with credit for the whole amount? Are we going to continue to pay part of the freight charged for delivering those goods and yet get nothing back except somebody's note?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend goes very far when he says that these subsidized steamship services have done nothing to develop trade in far-off countries.


Frank S. Cahill: I did not say any such thing. I was asking the minister what they had done in that direction.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot speak with exactness as to that; I imagine nobody could. I believe that the subsidies paid to these steamship lines plying regularly between Canada and South Africa contribute something to the building up of Canadian trade. There will come a time-perhaps it is fairly reached now-when that trade shall have received sufficient help by way of subsidies from Canada and will operate without Government aid. But I do think that these subsidized services have done a great deal toward the development of trade. The leader of the Opposition
opened up the important subject of the high cost of living. Prices are not normal; shipping is not normal; shipping rates are not normal; the producing countries of the world are not producing in normal quantities. Nothing in this world is normal; we are obliged to face unusual conditions. Canada imports largely, particularly from the United States, and we must have some way of paying for the things we import. We cannot pay for them in money. No country can pay for its imports except by exporting. Therefore it is important that we have an export trade. It is true that the price of flour is very high to-day, but the farmer of the West will tell you that, owing to the increased cost of production, he is not making very much out of the wheat which he is producing. The wheat that we export is our surplus product; that is true of almost everything that we export. However, I do not wish to engage in a discussion of that subject to-night; I am hopeful that some other item in the Estimates will afford a more appropriate opportunity of doing so.


Mr. ROSS:: The minister explained that trade with South Africa increased from $2,300,000 in 1911 to over $11,000,000 in 1918. What proportion of the amount carried in this period was carried by non-subsidized lines and what amount by subsidized lines?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In 1912 the value of goods carried by subsidized service to South Africa was $4,000,000, in round figures.


James Hamilton Ross: What subsidy was granted that year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was $146,000.
In 1913 the value of the goods carried was $5,860,000, and in the following year an amount slightly in excess of $4,000,000.


James Hamilton Ross: Was this subsidy the same?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, and in these earlier years I think it was fully earned. In 1915 the value of the goods exported was over $5,000,000; in 1916, nearly $5,000,000, and in 1917 about the same amount.


James Hamilton Ross: Was that all carried by subsidized steamers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: Can the minister give the
value of the goods carried by non-subsidized lines?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have given our total exports to South Africa covering the period which I have just mentioned. Prior

to and in the early days of the war the greater part of our trade to South Africa was carried by our subsidized steamers. During the war our exports were abnormal, as is evident from the figures of 1911. Some of these exports, I imagine, found their way to South Africa through American ports. A great deal of our exports during the last two years was carried by sailing ships from -Canadian ports. This is particularly true of lumber.


Mr.   BOSS@: Can the minister give us the amount carried by non-subsidized lines during the years that he has mentioned?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not the
figures at hand.


Mr. LEDUC:: The minister says that we have subsidized steamship lines to create overseas trade with South Africa and elsewhere and to get rid of our surplus foodstuffs. But we have not sufficient to feed our own people, why should we continue to subsidize these steamers to take away the foodstuffs that we ourselves require? For instance, there is not a sufficient quantity of butter this year to supply our own people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Outside of flour, not very many foodstuffs were exported to South Africa. Does my hon. friend say that we should prohibit the export of wheat from Canada which we produce in abundance? The other articles exported are agricultural machinery, binder twine, automobiles, paper, lumber, carriage ware, chairs woodenware, furniture.


Frank S. Cahill: The things that are shipped by subsidized ships are apparently all manufactured goods, so that the manufacturer is not satisfied to get protective tariff here, and thereby rob the people of the country directly, but he must also have a subsidy to ship his goods out of the country. Is that the position the Government are taking?
Steam services between Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Liverpool, $20,000.


William Duff: What steamship line is this?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is a service that has been subsidized for a number of years, and which was not performed last year. The contractors were Furness IVithy Company who have an office at Halifax. The ports of call are Halifax, fit. John's, Nfld., and Liverpool. It is a service which' the contractors claim, has never paid them. The company, taking their entire shipping, which is widely scattered throughout the 
world, doubtless earned handsome profits, but the representations to the department have always been that this service did not pay.


William Duff: This service, I understand, is only for freight.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Freight alone.


William Duff: I will ask the minister not
to request the committee to pass this amount, it is absolutely unnecessary. The company have made large sums of money in the past few years in this and other services, and I would point out that there is no subsidy for a service between St. John's, Nfld., Halifax and New York, which is far more important to the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The minister will remember that a few years ago this service was performed by the Bed Cross Line which operated the Stephano which was torpedoed, and the Florizel, which was lost off Cape Bace. After these ships were lost the line did not operate but, to their credit, the business men of Halifax purchased two or three steamers and operated them between St. John's, Nfld., Halifax and New York.


Mr. EDWABDS:: Is -the hon. member advocating a subsidy between Halifax and New York? If so he will give the railroads an excuse for raising their rates as there is competition between the boats and railroads. Across the ocean there is no rail competition. -


William Duff: I do not say that any money should be voted, but if any amount is granted I do not think it should go to the Furness Withy Company. It is more in the interest of the minister himself and of the country that the subsidy should be granted to the Halifax people operating the line between Halifax, St. John's, Nfld., and New York.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not like to drop this item, but I can only say about it what I have said in regard to other items, that inquiry will be made before any contract is entered into. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to what our shipping service will be during the present year, and I simply want to make provision for the subsidies in the event of ships being available and it being deemed advisable to establish the services. I appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend respecting the (Halifax, St. John's, Nfld., and Liverpool ' service, but this particular service is quite a factor in Canadian-Newfoundland trade and it has been deemed desirable to con-

tinue it in the interests not only of Canadian trade but of Newfoundland trade as well. I agree that the matter should be investigated before any contract is made, but I should like the committee to allow the sum to be voted. Our chief exports of Canadian origin, are lumber, box boards, canned apples, canned lobsters, canned beef, fish, seal oil, cod oil,. tallow, oats, cheese, fuTS, machinery, lawn mowers, wire fencing, etc.


William Duff: I cannot agree with the minister in his statement that the Furness Withy Company has not been remunerative, and I would like him to inform the committee where he got the information. With regard to the trade between Canada and St. John's, Newfoundland, I think we should give the subsidy to our own people, who are constituents of the minister, and his own friends in Halifax who operate a line of boats rather than give the subsidy to the Furness Withy people who are millionaires. I am merely speaking on behalf of the minister's own people as a matter of courtesy and kindness seeing that he can hardly speak for them in this matter himself as he is in charge of the Estimates. If there is any subsidy I think it should go to the concern represented by Mr. J. W. Began, who is not a political friend of mine. This service extends from Halifax to New York as well as St. John's, Newfoundland. It is very important in view of the exchange situation that we should have a service between Nova Scotia and New York. The business men of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will do more business if they can get connection with New York. Last year when that connection was cut off we were worried a good deal because we could not ship goods to our New York customers. The Government should do everything possible to see that the connection which we now have is continued. I am going to ask the Minister not to make this contract with the Furness Withy and also to submit to us in the Supplementary Estimates a vote for a Halifax-Newfoundland and Halifax-New York service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This money is not being voted to any particular company. It is open to any person at all. With respect to the matter of a subsidy for a steamship service to New York, all I can say is that the matter shall have the very best consideration. In only one- instance are we paying any subsidy for a service to an American port, and that is for a service from a British Columbia port to a port on the Pacific coast in the United States. I
think that is carried out in pursuance of an agreement made with British Columbia at the time she entered into Confederation. However, I shall be glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion. I do not think that any application has ever been made for a subsidy for a service to an American port.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This service strikes
three countries-, Canada, Newfoundland and Great Britain. Have either of the other two countries paid any subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I do not
think so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see no good reason
why Canada alone should subsidize this service. It is certainly more important to the colony of Newfoundland than to us, because, if this steamer touches at St. John's going direct to the Old Country, she naturally will have a considerable trade between St. John's and Liverpool. If they are not subsidizing her and the English Government are not subsidizing her, why should the Canadian people be called upon to pay $20,000 for this service? The minister says that this is not for any particular company but be will find, on inquiry in his department, that this amount has for years and years gone to the same people.
I remember this item ever since I came to this House quite a long time ago, and the money always goes to the same people. It is a very indifferent sort of -a service. I remember having it up with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and it was then exactly as it is to-night just as -a matter of course and nobody saying anything about it. As to granting subsidies to steamers going to American ports, if a subsidy is necessary to get the trade we want in those American ports, I would certainly say grant it. If we can get a good service without a subsidy, all right, but this traffic can be established between Canada and some American port with a good steamship service. There is a tremendous trade growing up between Nova Scotia and New York in fish, and this steamer that my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) speaks about must be very important in that way. If we cannot get a service without a subsidy it would be well spent money to establish such a connection. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) talks about the dangers of establishing competition between steamers and railways. Competition is the only salvation that we have in my part of the country. When we have water competition we can always fight the rail-

ways but the moment they find that they have the field entirely to themselves they put up their rates.


William Stevens Fielding: Touching the point
raised by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) as to the desirability of this subsidy being handed to a local company, if the records are examined it will be found that this subsidy was originally given to a local company in Halifax but the service which was established by the Halifax people turned out to be so unsatisfactory that after some years it was turned over to the Furness-Withy Company. It was not until after the local company had had a fair trial that the English company came into it. As to subsidizing a steamship service to New York, if the policy is entered upon of subsidizing steamers on the Atlantic to the United States, and the trade of that region may be considered as largely in that direction, I would remind my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that there are several points on the western shore of Nova Scotia which will be very glad to have assistance in the way of subsidies for a steamer plying between those ports and Portland and Boston. I have an idea that some applications of that kind may reach the minister, and if he decides to give a subsidy to New York I suppose we may then have a definite precedent for asking for one for a service to Portland and Boston.


John Wesley Edwards: It would be just as reasonable to subsidize the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company to run their boats on lake Ontario in competition with the Grand Trunk and other railways as to subsidize a line from Halifax to New York.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: If subsidies were
necessary to give the people of Ontario a reduced rate I would say they should be given. But it is quite likely they are getting low rates on these boats as it is, because they can carry so much cheaper than the railways.


John Wesley Edwards: Exactly.
Steamship service between Baddeck and Iona, $5,825.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a service I wish to bring to the notice of the minister. It is in my riding. It is the connection from Victoria county with the Intercolonial railway. It is the only connection we have between the main portion of my riding and the railway system of Canada. The people are threatened with a closing down altogether of the service. Last year and the year before, the owners of the boats did not make
[Mr. McKenzie. 1
a cent, but, on the contrary, lost money, and they told me, and I think they told the minister, that unless something is done for the service they will have to close it, they cannot afford to run a service for the country without making more or less profit. Everything enters into the running of a steamer has gone up in price. They used to get their coal for $3 a ton, but now they have to pay $8 a ton for it. Everything else has gone up in proportion, and yet there has been no increase in the subsidy for steamers. It is nine or ten years I believe since there was any increase in the subsidy for this company. Now it is peculiarly a service in which the Government has an interest, by reason of a connection existing with the Intercolonial. The railway has built a wharf at Iona, where its service ends, and it has also built a wharf at Baddeck Properly speaking the service should be owned by the Government, because the railway takes freight and passengers from all parts of Canada to Baddeck. The railway sells tickets for Baddeck and lands passengers there, but when those passengers get to Iona they have no connection except through the boat operated by this company. If the boat stops the Government will have to provide a conveyance of its own in order to carry out the transportation conditions of the tickets which they sell at points all over the world where they have connections. I am aware that some communications have reached the department from the owners of this steamer with respect to this matter- and I am urging upon the Government-I would like to bring it particularly to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) if he were here-to take this service over, to purchase the boat of this company and thus own the connection between the railway and that side of the Bras d Or Lakes. As the Minister of Railways is not present perhaps the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce is in a position to say whether or not the Government will carry out my suggestion. If not, let the Government try and keep the service going. Let it grant some material assistance so that this service can be maintained.


Mr. EULER:: I have just been wondering what the basis of this system of subsidies is. When the previous items relating to subsidies for foreign steamship services were under discussion, I thought possibly those subsidies might be justifiable, but now we have arrived at the point where subsidies are being voted for local steamship services, and I am curious to know how long this policy has been in existence,

and what is the actual reason for adopting it. Those of us -who do not live in the Maritime Provinces, and who have to depend upon railways for transportation, when the railway rates go up have to pay the increase without coming to the Dominion Government for assistance. For my part I do not see why any such discrimination should be practised.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend is in the backwoods, like myself.


William Daum Euler: 
William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend comes from a section of the country where he cannot go very far without running into a railroad, and, therefore, he cannot quite appreciate the condition of other sections of the country which are not so happily situated. There are sections of Canada which to-day are not blessed with railroads, and where that public convenience does not exist. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the people of those sections should get the benefit of small aids to steamships. My hon. friend says that in Ontario they do not go to the Government for assistance under such circumstances. There has never yet been a railroad built in Canada which did not apply to the Government for help, and therefore the sections of the country enjoying railway accommodation have been aided by the Government. There is no greater sin in aiding a steamship line than in aiding a line of railway. With respect to the Maritime Provinces, I happen to know the locality referred to by my hon. friend	the leader of the
Opposition. The	county of	Victoria
which he represents, happens to be without a railroad at all, and there are very few counties in the Dominion of which you can say that. In the absence of any railroad, they have steamship communication, and I must say that under the circumstances the reasons for granting aid to a steamship line are just as strong as for subsidizing the construction of a railroad. I cannot see what difference there is.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not think the reason advanced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) is any excuse whatever for the payment of subsidies to these steamship companies. He says, and says truly, that no railroad in Canada has ever been constructed without applying to the Dominion Parliament for aid.


William Daum Euler: That does not make the
policy any more justifiable.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Not at all. In connection with railways we have pursued the most damnably insane policy that has ever been pursued in any country under the sun.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: There has been a
decision in the Supreme Court of Canada that "damn" is not a cuss word-at least so I understand-and on the strength of that decision I use the word advisedly. Why, the fool people of Canada have given to the railroad companies about three times the cost of the entire undertakings. Because they have been so foolish as to do that, members get up here and justify the continuation of subsidies in aid of the running of steamships. I am not criticising my good old friend, the member for Queens-Shelburne, for whom I have a sincere respect and admiration, he is merely giving expression to what seems to be in the public mind. For my part, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that it is just about time the people of Canada adopted a policy of right-about-face in regard to this matter of subsidies. The fact that we have continued pouring these subsidies into the maws, the insatiable maws, of railroad companies, and to help little steamships to run between certain ports, for so many years, is no justification for the continuation of that policy now. Indeed, in my judgment, it is a better justification for discarding it. Because we have been insane and foolish, and stupid for thirty, forty, or fifty years, is no reason under God's heaven why we should continue such a policy. Why should not the people of the Maritime Provinces provide their own steamships and look

after their own transportation? I want to say with reference to the Intercolonial Railway that has furnished the people of the Maritime Provinces with transportation for the last forty or fifty years, in fact almost since Confederation, that the rest of Canada has spent tens of millions for the upkeep of this railway in order that the. people down there might have their freight carried at a rate that, f think, in the earlier days, was just about one-third of the rates charged by privately owned railways. It is all very well to talk about giving subsidies to railroads, but that is not done in other countries so far as I know. In the great republic to the south the railroads are built by private enterprise and made to pay by the same agency. But in our country it is the exploiters and the promoters of the railroads that have got all the millions. The people have had to continue to pour in these hundreds of millions into private channels in order to keep the railroads going. Is it not high time we put an effective stop to that kind of thing? If you are going to have privately owned railroads, in God's name let the people concerned build these railroads themselves and pay for them themselves, and not take the money of the country for the purpose, as has been done all these years. By our action we have tangled up the country so that it has involved Canada in a loss of from a billion to two billions of dollars. The Canadian Pacific Railway, as I told the House the other night, received in cash, lands, exemptions from taxation, and exemptions from duty, amounts that would suffice to build the road two or three times over. The syndicate and the men who were behind the construction of that road made their tens of millions out of the enterprise and went away to the Old Land to spend it, and we, the people, have been obliged to pay the piper. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for not calling me to time, but my indignation is aroused when I see all these petty subsidies being voted from year to year simply because it has been the policy pursued in the past. It is now time that we ended it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I have to correct the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) when he would give the House to understand that railroads in the United States were built without subsidies.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Generally speaking.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not generally speaking.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As I understand it, all the Pacific roads in the United States were

very heavily subsidized with grants of public land. That is merely by way of introduction, Mr. Chairman. What I would very earnestly commend to this committee is that we should have a clearly defined policy on this question of subsidies as well as on other questions which are now before the Canadian people. In order that we may vote money intelligently we should have a clearly defined statement from the Government-


Mr. DAVIDSON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether it would not be a good idea for us to have a clearly defined policy from the Opposition, especially as the great majority of the hon. gentlemen apposite are at complete variance with the policy of their leader?	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would merely point out to the hon. member for-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Jerusalem.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would merely suggest to him that it is for the Government to place before the people clearly defined policies, and it is for the Opposition to criticize those policies, and, if thought best, to advance alternative policies. We are voting large sums of money to-night without any declared statement of the Government that these subsidies are required. It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, how, when the province of Nova Scotia is-I won't say attacked; no one would attack such an amiable province-but if any of the rights of Nova Scotia-any of the perquisites which Nova Scotia has be.en enjoying for many years-


John Wesley Edwards: " Perquisites " is a better word than " rights."


Andrew Ross McMaster: If they are merely approached we have from both sides of the House Nova Scotians rising to defend those perquisites with great enthusiasm. Now, I feel that there is a great deal 'to be said in favour of the proposition of the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). If we are going to try and adjust what benefits one part of the country rather than another from the public purse, we shall enter upon a long and difficult subject of inquiry. There are those in Eastern Canada who might suggest that the West has benefited very largely by the tremendous expeiidi-ture of public money on the railway systems through that country; and that might possibly be offset against the very considerable amount of public money expended upon the Intercolonial Railway and the cheap rates which the Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers

and others have enjoyed in shipping their goods to the West. I am not sure -whether that would he ait all a profitable subject for inquiry, but I do think that we might very properly investigate the question as to whether these subsidies should be granted at all, and it seems to me it is incumbent upon the Government of the day, on whom primarily the responsibility of direciting the affairs of this country rests, to place their policy clearly and distinctly before the people. We all desire to do what is right and just and fair to all parts of the Dominion, but there is something to be said for those who feel that public money should not be placed in the hands of private interests without a very clear policy on the question, and without knowing as far as possible what public benefit is to result from such expenditure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: These squalls do not touch me at all, Mr. Chairman. This is a public service of splendid merit and one that has been in existence for the last thirty years, and although I have been in this House nearly fifteen years I have never heard it attacked before. I do not see why there should be any opposition to it to-night. It is the policy of this Government, as it was the policy of every previous Government, to render public service. And if the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway by reason of this connection were before the House to-night, and it were found that large passenger and freight earnings had come to the Intercolonial and, through it, into the coffers of this country because of this connection, I do not think there would be any further criticism. I am sure that the benefit so derived more than pays the interest on any little subsidy that is given in this way, and I venture to say that it is a fairly profitable proposition for the Government, because the company that is receiving this subsidy has only a short haul of eleven miles, the Intercolonial gets the long haul on all freight, and the Intercolonial can afford to carry that freight, but it could not afford to carry it at all if it could not get it to its destination. This boat takes the traffic alongside the railway at Iona, the company have only an eleven-mile haul, and can not charge passengers more than a small sum for going across. It is necessary in the interests of the country that we should continue this connection.
I saw an item a few days ago in Maclean's Magazine suggesting satirically that when we came to talk about a cent we all
got enthusiastic because that was within our financial conception. I observe that $1,000,000 was voted to-night and there was not a word said. But it appears that this item got within the financial grasp of some gentlemen and they woke up to discuss it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is hardly fair to charge these votes all to the province of Nova Scotia. The local service votes altogether amount to $240,000, and three or four of them exhaust more than one-half of that sum. There is the steamship service between the island of Grand Manan and the mainland of New Brunswick. I do not know what the population is, but I should think about two or three thousand. Perhaps my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) will tell me?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Twenty-five hundred.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would think that was an instance where we might very well sustain the service by voting this grant of money, particularly if the service is not self-supporting, and it is claimed that it is not self-supporting in this 'case. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that 90 per cent of all these steamship- services never earn a dividend. There is another item of $10,000 for a service between Halifax and Newfoundland. That is not a provincial service. Then I notice one very small item for subsidizing a service between Pelee island and the mainland. I think that is in Ontario, and I am glad there is one item here chargeable to that province. Then, there is an appropriation of $70,000 for a steamship service between Montreal, river St. Lawrence points, Magdalen islands, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, which service is of interest to Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. There are other services of that nature, and hon. members, if they go through all the items, will observe that more than one-half of them are for steamship services which are not provincial. The same defence may be urged on behalf of all these items as was offered for the unbidden child, namely, it is very small, and the objection, therefore, is quite small. I wish I could say that it was my judgment that these subsidies did not perform a public service, and I really wish they could all be dropped. I hope they will be in a few years or in a very short time, and it may be true that some of them should be dropped now.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend from Manitoba can hardly appreciate the situation unless he knows the province of Nova Scotia. I have in mind a service for which a subsidy is to be voted in the county of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). Guysborough is practically without a mile of railway, the chief towns and seaports being accessible only by a steamship service betwen a point on the railway on the strait of Canso from which the particular points are served by subsidized boats.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What is the subsidy given?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is $5,500. I
do not think it would be possible to maintain a service without some subsidy. Most of the local services are also subsidized by the Provincial Government and even now they contend that the subsidies granted by both Governments are, taken together, not sufficient, and requests have this year been made for additional subsidies. The operating accounts of these services are submitted to the department, and in hardly any case can it be shown that the companies have earned a dividend, and in a few cases we are informed that this year unless increased subsidies are given, the services will be abandoned. As the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) said, many of these services should be subsidized by the railways as they really operate as feeders to the railways. To hon. gentlemen who are interested in the applications of any of their constituents for increased subsidies, I can only say that these matters are now being considered by the department, and the Government will, some time during the present week, have to take action in the matter one way or the other. So far as the Main Estimates are concerned, no increases whatever in local subsidies have been granted. There is an apparent increase of $70,000 in item No. 173, but that is really a consolidation of several services which were performed separately in the past, and I do not think it represents any increase.


Alexander William Chisholm: What are the services which were given before and which the minister says are consolidated in this item?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand it means first the service which was in existence for some years between Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe, ports on the river St. Lawrence as far as Gaspe basin. The other, I think, is the service between Pictou, Prince Edward Island and Magdalen islands. I understand there was a third service between Sydney 
and some other ports, I forget which, but I would like to know from the minister if this service does not include the first two I have mentioned.


Hon. Mr.   MAOLEAN@: It includes the
service on the north side of the river St. Lawrence, ports on the south side of the river St. Lawrence and Magdalen islands.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand a reputable company have made arrangements with the department to perform this service, and have found steamers suitable for this service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand they have at last secured steamers suitable for the service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: During the course of last year, in fact, since the beginning of the war, the services between Montreal and Gaspe and between Pictou and Magdalen islands have been very poor. The boats which were assigned to those routes previously were good boats, but at the beginning of the war they were sold to the Admiralty or to the Imperial Munitions Board, and the service suffered in consequence. Last year the service between Pictou and the Magdalen islands was very poor, the boats being not at all suitable for the service. The company had chartered a tug called the Enterprise, from Halifax, and the people of Magdalen islands complained very loudly about the inferior service which they obtained. Exporters to Magdalen islands and exporters to Gaspe were not satisfied with the service, and there was no passenger accommodation on either of the boats. This year, the Government has, I am informed, found a company which is backed by very large capital and they have found that they can secure the Lady Evelyn, which formerly was the mail packet at Rimouski, to perform the service between Pictou, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen islands, and they have secured another excellent boat which was built at the Davey shipyard at Levis for Spain. That boat will perform the service between Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe ports. I understand the same company have obtained a subsidy for a service between Montreal and Newfoundland and they will also perform a service between Quebec and the north shore of the St. Lawrence where there is an excellent trade to look after.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the nature of the trade between Gaspe and Magdalen islands?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Between Pictou and
Magdalen islands there is a good and pay-
APRiL 8, 1919
ing service in fish, flour and provisions generally, and timber. The people of the Magdalen islands are badly in need of this service and besides the Magdalen islands are isolated for several months of the year. The population of Magdalen islands is 7,000 people. The service between Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe is an excellent one because all those ports on the coast ship their fish to the large centres.
We must by all means give them the necessary transportation facilities, because more and more the people of central Canada will require fish. The department has been very generous in supplementing that service and I am pleased to know that a responsible company will perform it this year.
Steam service between Froude's Point and Lockeport, N.S., $600.


William Stevens Fielding: If the minister will look up and down the column and see the items running from $1,000,000 down to this vote of $600, he will want to apologize for the smallness of this item. It is for a service to connect the town of Lockeport with the nearest railway point. I want to assure the member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that this subsidy is not going to make anybody rich, let alone any private corporation. The little steamer is operated very cheaply by the town of Lockeport. I think the town clerk is the purser; I do not know what other official is the master. At all events, they are trying to keep body and soul together, and the thing is losing money. Lockeport is one of the most important fishing settlements in Nova Scotia, and as it has not the good fortune to be on the main line of railway this little service is the means of communication between the railway station and that large growing town. I want to ask the minister, when he is considering the supplementary estimates, to see if he cannot make an addition to the subsidy to that little service. I give him the guarantee that it will not make anybody rich and that the subsidy will not go into the hands of a private corporation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is one of the items which is now having consideration.
Steam service between Grand Manan and the mainland, $10,000.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I would urge on the minister the absolute necessity of increasing this subsidy in the Supplementary Estimates. I am familiar with the Tunning of this steamship and I know that for a number of years the company have not declared a dividend. During the last four or five years they have not written anything off for
depreciation. It is not possible to get in touch with Grand Manan and Deer islands except by means of this boat. Moreover, this line touches St. Andrews, St. Stephen and other places. The company have been offered $50,000 for the steamer that is running on that rcute, the Grand Manan, and unless some additional assistance is given to this line I am afraid that it will have to go out of business.


William Duff: how many trips a day does this steamer make between Grand Manan and the mainland?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: She visits Grand Manan, Deer Island, Eastport, Campo Bello, St. Andrews and St. Stephen on alternate days. She makes three trips a week to St. John in the summer and one trip a week in the winter, visiting the different islands in the meantime.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is more than one steamer employed in that service?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Only one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who is the owner?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: She is owned by the Grand Manan Steamboat Company, of Grand Manan, N.B. As the member for St. John has said, this boat serves quite a number of places. The company have asked for an increase of subsidy for the present fiscal year to the extent of $5,000. The matter is being considered; a decision will be made, favourably or otherwise, in the course of a few days.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I hope that the decision will be favourable, because I know that these men have not made one dollar. Their statement of receipts and expenditures for the different years they have been in operation shows that they have gone behind every year.
Steam service between Halifax and West Coast Cape Breton, calling at way ports, $4,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: What are the ports of call ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Halifax, Port
Mulgrave, Port Hawkesbury, Port Hastings, Port Hood, Mabou, Margaree, Grand Etang, Cheticamp, and Eastern Harbour, calling once every two weeks at Havre au Bouche, Cape George and Pleasant Bay, and calling at Inverness, Broadcove Marsh and Margaree Island whenever there is a reasonable quantity of freight or number of passengers to be landed or embarked, weather permitting.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is the name of the boat?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Strathlorne.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is claimed by the company that there is not sufficient water to enable them to enter Margaree Harbour. I do not think that is correct; I believe that the boat can call there if the owners so desire. I would ask the minister to see to it that when the contract is being renewed the company be compelled to go into Margaree. The harbour has been considerably improved during the last two years, and I am sure that a boat can go in there. There may be a little trouble in doing so, but it is important and necessary that the boat should call at Margaree, because that would dispense with the necessity of lightering goods at that port. There is 13 feet of water in the harbour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The matter is now being investigated by the Marine Department, who will make a report on the matter of the sufficiency of water in the harbour.


John Ewen Sinclair: A request comes from my constituency that this boat call at Ballantyne's Cove on the last trip of each year. This steamer sails from Halifax and goes through the state of Canso, and it involves the traversing of only a short distance to cross Bay St. George and reach the port of Ballantyne's Cove. They say it would be a great advantage to them to have one trip, and they would prefer the last trip of the season. The people in that village are some twenty miles away from railway communication and are served altogether by water, and that is about the only opportunity they would have for the transportation of goods in the winter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall look into the matter.


John Ewen Sinclair: There are two services between Mulgrave and Canso, and between Mulgrave and Guysborough, which should be performed by the Intercolonial railway. I trust the minister will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways. These services are really feeders to the Intercolonial railway, of which they are extensions. They collect freight for the Intercolonial railway, chiefly fish, and the trade has grown considerably. Several years ago, when these boats were first put on, there was no fresh fish industry in that vicinity. The people were com-

pelled to cure their fish and sell it salt, but the opportunity of getting their fish shipped opened up the trade in fresh fish. I have obtained from the station agent at Mulgrave figures showing how the trade has grown. In 1898 the number of tons shipped was 1,415 the value being $99,050. The railway freight paid on these shipments amounted to $11,312. In 1908 the shipments had grown to 3,372 tons of the value of $235,900, and the amount paid to the railway for freight was $31,644.03. Last year, 1918, the number of tons was 13,000 of the value of $1,560,000, and the amount paid to the railway for forwarding that fish was $158,986.35. In addition to this large amount of freight these vessels have delivered thousands of passengers to the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave. This is of great importance to the Government railway. The question may be asked if it is doing so well, [DOT]why is the subsidy continued to be paid? The reason is that it is very difficult to keep these vessels in operation all the year round. The ice in the Strait of Canso is very heavy at present, and if you went to Mulgrave you would probably not see any clear water as far as the eye can reach down the Strait. These vessels during the winter months have to force their way through the ice, and no owner will put his vessel to that kind of work unless there is money in it. If you left it to the ordinary shipowner he would run his vessel in the summer and autumn but would not continue in the winter season. There would be no connection between these points and the railway at Mulgrave during that period unless we had these subsidized boats. I think the Railway Department should furnish good boats capable of going through the ice and making connection with the town of Canso and these places. There are over 2,000 people living at Canso and they are sixty miles from the railroad. It is the most important service in my county. This is about the only money paid in my constituency. Consult the items spent on public works for the present year, and you will not find $2,000 expended in the whole constituency of Guysborough. On 150 miles of coast you will find practically no expenditure by any department. I want to impress on the minister the fact that it would be a great deal better if the Railway Department took charge of this service and put suitable boats on the line. I am confident the result would be very satisfactory and would pay very well, because the trade would bring considerable business; and a small subsidy like this is very little com-

pared with the large amount of money the railway makes out of the traffic when it reaches Mulgrave.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am well acquainted with the locality served by the steamship services to which my hon. friend refers, and I agree with him that it is essential that that part of the country should have this or some other steamship service, as otherwise they would have no access to the railways, inasmuch as the whole coast line of Guysborough county is without railways. I have always been impressed with the view which my hon. friend puts forward, that at certain points these services might well be performed by the Intercolonial railway, and in the particular case to which he has just been- referring I think a strong argument could be made for the adoption of such a policy. I assume my hon. friend has discussed the matter with the Railway Department at one time or another; but whether he has or not, I shall be very pleased to urge it upon the minister.
Steam service between Newcastle, Neguac and Escuminac, calling at intermediate points on the Miramichi River and Miramichi Bay, $2,500.


William Stewart Loggie: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not had my attention called to this matter before. I understand the hon, gentleman to say that the service has not been performed, or not properly performed. Last year I think the steamer was injured by fire and for some time was not available for the service. I understand now she has been restored and will be on the service again, or has been on the service recently. However, I shall be very glad to look into the remarks of my hon. friend, which I shall see in Hansard, and the matter will be made clearer to me by reading them there as I was not able to follow my hon. friend very closely. Before a contract is made with any particular company, the service will be carefully investigated. We must see that a proper steamer receives the contract.


Frank S. Cahill: Have any steamers called at any Nova Scotia ports that are not receiving subsidies?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, quite a number; very few are receiving subsidies.
Steam service on the Petitcodiac river between Moncton and way ports, and a port or ports on the west coast of Cumberland county, $2,500.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is there any inspection or
report made to the department w'hether these subsidized steamers have fulfilled their contracts and made regular calls at the different ports?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Tupper, the inspector of subsidized steamers, makes a report on every service to the department stating how the contracts are carried out.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does he go to the different
places to see how the services are performed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think he visits the boats every year.
Steam service between Pictou and Montague, calling at Murray Harbour and Georgetown, 15,000.


Mr. McISAAC:: This amount of $5,000 is too small and those who have been performing the service find it very difficult to continue. Things have changed. The price of coal and wages are so much higher that they say it is impossible to carry on the service for this amount. It is an important service for those portions of Prince Edward , Island, Montague, Georgetown and Murray Harbour, which are not touched by other steamship services. I should be extremely pleased if the minister could find it possible to make provision for an increase in this subsidy in the Supplementary. Estimates, because it will be a great advantage to the entire community concerned.
Schooner service between Pictou, New Glasgow, Antigonish County ports and Mulgrave, $1,000.


John Ewen Sinclair: The vessel which performs this service is improperly designated in the item as a "schooner," whereas it is an auxiliary boat with gasoline engines. I would like to have the word "schooner" struck out and a more suitable term substituted. I would also remind the minister that the department has received an application for an increase in the subsidy, all the details being set forth in the petition that came from the locality interested. There is a proposal that this boat shall collect some traffic at Pictou, coming from Prince Edward Island, which will make this an interprovincial service and a very important one to all that section of the coast. There are six or seven small ports on that coast where an ordinary steamer cannot call because the water is too shallow; there has to be a special type of boat in order to enter those places. The community interested engage in farming and fishing but are quite distant from any railway communication. This service Is important as it enables the people to get their supplies in the spring, especially fertilizer which they require for the land, and to send away their fish and other produce to New Glasgow and Sydney. I do not think, however, that it can be carried out for the sum of $1,000. If the minister will refer to the correspondence and the petitions that have been received by the department he will find that a strong case has been made out for an increase in the subsidy, and I hope the matter will receive due attention.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am aware that the contractors have applied for an increase of $500, the matter having come before me personally.


John Ewen Sinclair: I believe the increase asked for is $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the committee should rise after having passed this item. We are anxious to help the minister out, but it looks as if we shall be here until one o'clock if wh go on as we are now doing.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suggest that we pass the next two items.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1919 between Pictou, Mulgrave and Cheticamp. $7,500.


Alexander William Chisholm: I would suggest to the minister that the same observations which I made with respect to the service from Halifax to the west of Cape Breton Island would apply here also, as regards the service from Margaree Harbour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does it relate to the same harbour?


Alexander William Chisholm: The same harbour but there are two different services.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What is the reason for the wording of this and the next item wherein reference is made "to the closing of navigation in 1919"?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The next item,
has reference to ports on the Bras d'Or lakes, which in the winter season are closed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have passed items relating to other ports which are also closed during the winter season, but the same phraseology was not followed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the explanation is that the service referred to is limited by winter conditions.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I quite agree, but what the minister says would be equally true of the
steamship service between Newcastle, Neguac and Escuminac.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will not undertake to say how the difference in phraseology occurred, it may cover a period extending back for a great number of years, but I do not think it is of importance.


William Duff: The change in phraseology
would not affect the subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1919, between Port Mulgrave, St. Peter's, Irish Cove and Marble Moun-

tain, and other ports on the Bras d'Or Lakes, 56,500.


John Carey Douglas: Why has the vote for
this purpose been reduced from what it was last year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was increased last year on account of special services which will not be- necessary this year. Part of the service will be performed by another steamer, which will be explained when we reach a later item.


Alexander William Chisholm: The other service will take up the ports of call of this service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.
Wednesday, April 9, 1919.


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

[Stage Direction]
Return of the number of bank mergers in Canada from October 1, 1911, to date, together with copy of all petitions and correspondence relating thereto-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ending March 31, 1918-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Report of the Canadian Registration Board for 1918-Hon. Mr. Rowell.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present to the House a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the Address moved in reply to my Speech at the opening of Parliament and thank you for it sincerely.
Devonshire.
Government House, Ottawa,
April 3Td, 1919.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63, an Act respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Kennedy.
Bill No. 64, an Act respecting The High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Tweedie.
Bill No. 65, an Act to incorporate The Northwest Route, Limited-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister) submitted to the House the following Order in Council: p. c. 704.
Certified Copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved hy His Excellency the Governor General on the 9 th April, 1919.
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report dated 8th April, 1919, from the Minister of Labour, submitting that the personnel of the Royal Commission constituted by Order in Council of 4th April, 1919 (P. C. 670), to investigate industrial relations and., submit a report as to how they may be improved, should consist of representatives of t!he>
public, as well as representatives of employers and employees.
The minister further submits that employers and employed should have equal representation upon the commission, and that the chairman, should be a distinguished member of the Canadian Judiciary.
The minister therefore recommends thait the-following gentlemen the appointed as member,® of the said Royal Commission, for the purposes above indicated:
[Stage Direction]
The Honourable Chief Justice Mathers, of Manitoba, Chairman;
The Honourable Smeaton White, a Member of the Senate, and Managing Director Montreal Gazette Publishing Company, Montreal;
Charles Harrison, M.P., Railroad Conductor, North Bay, Ont., as representative of the public.
Mr. Carl Riordon, President, Riordon Pulp and Paper Company, Montreal, P.Q.;
Mr. F. Pauze, Lumberman, Montreal, P.Q., as representatives of the employers.
Mr. T. Moore, Ottawa, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada;
Mr. J. W. Bruce, of Toronto, Member of the Labour Appeal Board,
as representatives of the employees.
The minister further recommends that Mr. Thomas Bengough, of Toronto, who served as Secretary on the Technical Education Commission, be appointed as Secretary of the Commission.
The minister further recommends that the Commission proceed with its work as earlly as possible and render its report hy June 1st, 1919, and that the compensation applicable to members of Boards of Conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act be applicable to this Commission except to the Honourable Mr. White and Mr. Harrison, who shall be paid their travelling expenses only.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
Rodolphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ISAAC E. PEDLOW (Renfrew South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, an Act respecting Thanksgiving day.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Speaker, the Bill as presented is self-explanatory, its main oh-

jeets being twofold; first, to set aside Armistice day, the second Monday in November each year, as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the recent war; second, to establish a set day each year as a permanent day of Thanksgiving. I purpose speaking at greater length on the second reading of the Bill, and I will therefore reserve any further remarks until that time.


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

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT owned freight vessels.
["If I in any way incorrectly quoted my hon. friend from Red Deer, certainly I desire to retract, because there is no man for whom I have a higher respect or whom I would less desire to misrepresent.\nAt six o'clock the House adjourned.\nThursday, April 10, 1919."]
John Howard Sinclair: What number of freight vessels are owned by the Government?


Martin Burrell: Four.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	Has Mr. L. Cousineau, advocate, of Hull, Quebec, been employed by the Government under the Military Service Act, 1917?
2.	If so, what sums were paid the said L. Cousineau on account of (a) salary; (b) travelling expenses; (c) office expenses?
3.	Has the said L. Cousineau been employed to represent the Department of Justice or the Military Service Council at the Hull Military Court of Appeal? If so, for how long?
4.	Were the said L. Cousineau's services dispensed with before the 11th of November, 1918? If so, for what reasons, and by whom was he replaced?
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) For services as member of Tribunal No. 304, Hull, 53 days, $265, for professional services, $3,227.50; (b) None; (c) Typewriting and stationery, $20.40.
3.	Yes, occasionally. From December 1917 to October 15, 1918.
4.	Mr. Cousineau's services terminated in October, 1918, when such services were completed, or were no longer required.
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	Has Dr. J. U. Archambault, of Hull, Quebec, acted in the position of medical examiner under the Miltary Service Act, 1917?
2.	If so, for how long, and how much was paid him for his services?


Major General MEWBURN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Employed as a medical examiner under the Military Service Act from October 8, 1917, to January 1, 1918, at a gross rate of $8.00 per diem, the payments being as follows:-8-31 October, 1917, $192; 1-30 November, 1917, $240; 1-31 December, 1917, $248; 1-12 January, 1918, $96.-$776.
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	For how long was F. A. Labelle, notary of Hull, Quebec, employed as registrar for the counties of Hull, Pontiac and Labelle, under the Military Service Act, 1917?
2.	Has the said F. A. Labelle been remunerated for his services? If so, how much has he received, and what amount is still due him?
3.	What sums were paid the said F. A. Labelle on account of (a) travelling expenses; <b) office expenses?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	F. A. Labelle was appointed Deputy Registrar under the Military Service Act for that section of M.D. No. 3 lying in the province of Quebec on September 28, 1917, and is still in office.
2.	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.
3.	(a) $11; (b) None.

NATIONAL SERVICE REGISTRATION. Mr. PREVOST:
1.	What was the total expenditure in connection with National Service Registration for the counties of- Terrebonne, Deux-Montagnes and Argenteuil?
^	to cauu person in
charge of said registration in the said three counties?
f What Persons were employed by the Registrar of the county of Terrebonne, and how much was each of said persons paid?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Terrebonne, $1,710.36; Laval Deux-Montagnes, $1,104.77; Argenteuil, $1,946.
2.	Terrebonne, J. Y. Leonard, 49 days at $6, $294; Laval Deux-Montagnes, J. H. Langlois, 33 days at $6, $198; Argenteuil H. Slater, 65 days at $6, $390.
o.	J. A. Roberge, $16; Rose Simard, $4; Remi Arbour, $44; Theodule Arbour, $28; Paul Andre, $19.95; L. R. Archambault, $6.50; E. P. Belair, $28; M. R. Benoit, $6.50; E. Brosseau, $14; E. Boivin, $31.50- J n" Brunet, M.D., $44; J. Chevalier, $33; J. Clavel, $21; A. Chauvin, $8; A. Carey, $21; J. B. D'Amour, $10; Docteur R. Daze,' $59.50; G. Dury, $39.85; L. Dufresne, $20; A. Desjardins, $24.50; J. R. Desormeaux $52.50; A. Emond, $6.50; J. G. Fauteux, $6: Jerome Fournelle, $30; Arthur Grenier' $6.40; D. Z. Guay, $19; F. X. Gaudette, $37; M. L. Guimont, $20.51; Joseph Gothier, $26.40; F. A. St. Louis, $16.30; O. L. Girard, $18.50; J. Marc Vermette, $7.50; Georges Harel, $5; Amedee Jasmin, $48.75; M. R. Leclair, $6.50; Florestine Leveillee, $12; F.

A. Lorrain, $9; Damase Lauzon, $9; Georges Liboiron, $40; Cyprien Lahaie, $16.15; Fernand Longpre, $12; P. E. Leveillee, $14; Raoul Labour, $6.50; Fernand Leduc, $15; Gustave Leonard, $48; Gerard Leonard, $42; Odilon Lortie, $12; Joseph Limoges, $15; Joseph Leonard, $32.20; Edmond Longpre, $18; G. E. MacLure, $4; Arthur Navert, $10.50; Theo. Grignon, $36; Rene Martin, $8; Ernest Prevost, $10.50; J. O. Renaud, $48.90; Joseph Renaud, $8; Bruno Rochon, $6.50; N. R. J. Wight, $29.


Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	What are the names of the persons to whom rent charges were paid by the Government, in the county of Bagot, for buildings occupied in connection with National Registration, in the month of June, 1918?
2.	What was the amount paid as rental for each of said buildings?
3.	Did the Government pay rent for school houses used in connection with National Registration, where the school boards refused to allow them to be occupied without rental?


Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Charles Viens, Alp. Sicard, Louis Gauthier, T. Desrosiers, H. Auclair, A. Vadnais, Nap. Croteau, D. Auclair, A. Cousineau, Jos. Durand, E. Blanchet, T. Cabana, Antoine Sicard, G. D. Morris, T. Z. Descelles, L. G. Tetreault, Wilfred Me-lancon.
2.	Two offices used by Chas. Viens, registrar, $20 in full. .Registration booths, $5 each.
3.	No.


Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	What was the amount allowed per day for each assistant registrar in the county of Bagot in connection with National Service Registration in June, 1918?
2.	What amount was paid for rental for each building occupied for registration purposes?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	$2.50.
2.	Registrar's offices, $20 in full; registration booths, $5 each.


PENSION PAYMENTS.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	What is the total number of private soldiers drawing pension and what is the total amount paid to them?
2.	How many iare in each of the following classes and what is the total sum paid to each class, O'-10 per cent; 10-20 per cent; 2-0-30 per cent; 30'-40 per cent; 401-50 per cent; 50- 60 per cent; 60-70 per cent; 70-80 per cent; 80-90 per cent; 90-100 per cent?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1. The total number of former private soldiers drawing pensions is 32,371. Their pensions represent a yearly expenditure of $4,-
851,750. In addition to the foregoing, 2,499 former private soldiers whose disabilities due to war service are less than 4 per cent, have been awarded gratuities amounting in the aggregate to $109,756.08.
2.
Disability Number of Ex- Yearly Classification. Private Soldiers. Liability
5%	to	9%	2,501	$ 75,03010%	to	19%	1,265	897,84020%	to	29%	8,288	1,068,96030%	to	39%	2,096	395,16040%	to	49%	2,177	[DOT] 529,77050%	to	59%	1,650	497,61060%	to	69%	1,003 *	369,60070%	to	79%	991	439,05080%	to	89%	204	98,31090%	to	99%	38	20,820100%	766	459,60032,371	$4,851,750


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is there any unit or portion of unit of the Canadian Expeditionary Force stationed (a) in Syria or Palestine; (b) in the Balkans ; and (c) in Egypt?
2.	If so, wihat is the approximate number of men in each case?
3.	Will these Canadian soldiers form .part of the army of occupation or will they he demobilized? If the latter, when?
Major-General MEWBURN: This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent to the Overseas Minister for the desired information.
p. P. C. L. I.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have any oomplaints been brought to the attention of the Government with regard to the treatment of men of the P.P.C.L.I. with reference to the accommodation provided for them when returning to their homes after demobilization in Ottawa?
2.	Is it true that these men were furnished with second-class fare, and that no sleeping accommodations were provided?
3.	If so, is it the Government's intention to remedy this state of affairs for the future?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1. No complaints have been received.
2	and 3. Officers were supplied with first-class accommodation, with standard sleeping car. Other ranks were supplied with second-class accommodation and second-class sleeping accommodation.
In some cases other ranks were supplied with second-class accommodation without second-class sleeping accommodation, due to the fact that regular train service had to

be utilized, but the men had the privilege of waiting until next day, when there would have been sufficient second-class accommodation on the regular train.


SELKIRK POSTMASTER.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Who is the postmaster in Selkirk, Man?
2.	Does the same gentleman also run a drug
store in a building some distance from the Post office?	[DOT]
3.	Is the post office in a government building?
4.	What is the population of .Selkirk, Man?
5.	If the- postmaster manages the post office in a government building, and a drug store some distance away in another building, why should not the post office be given to some competent returned soldier?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL -
1.	R. H. Gilhuly.
2.	The department has no information as
to this.	-
3.	Yes.
4.	About 2,500.
5.	See No. 2. The matter will be looked into.


PAYMENTS FOR WAR SERVICE TO PERSONS OTHER THAN SOLDIERS.
Edmund William Tobin: What is the total number of persons other than soldiers who have seen active service during the present war and their dependents who are receiving wages, salary, allowance, indemnity or remuneration of any other kind from the Government of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: Stands as Order for Return. I suggest that the hon. member make this question a little more explicit. Does he intend all departments to be covered by the question? What is meant by the term "other than soldiers?" If the hon. gentleman will confine his question to a particular department and define these terms, it will be answered.


Edmund William Tobin: All right.
Question stands as Order for Return.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Edmund William Tobin: , 1. How many attorneys residing and practising in the city of Montreal have been employed by the Government during the fiscal year which expired on March 31, 1919?
2. What are their names and how much was each one paid for service rendered?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. BLAIR:: For a return showing (a) the number of officers and clerks employed on the permanent staff in classes 1A, IB, and 2A, respectively, in each of the following branches of the public service: Public Works Department, Architects Branch; [Major-General Mewburn.]
Public Works Department, Engineering Branch; Mines Department, Mines Branch; Mines Department Geologioal Surveys Branch; Interior Department, Geodetic Surveys Branch; Interior Department, Topographical Surveys Branch; Interior Department, International Boundary Branch; Interior Department, Astronomical Observatory. (b) The number of graduates of Canadian Universities employed in each of the above branches, (c) If the work performed by each branch is considered to be of a technical nature, (d) How many promotions (other than those made to fill vacancies caused by death, resignation or superannuation) have been made from class 2A to class IB, and from class IB to class 1A, between December 1, 1908, and November 30, 1915 ; also between December 1, 1915 and March 1, 1919, In each of the above branches. (e) How many officers and clerks were at the maximum of class IB and class 2A on December 1, 1915, and how many of these officers- and clerks were at the maximum of their present classes on March 1, ,1919, in each of the above branches, (f) How many vacancies have been caused by death, resignation and superannuation between December 1, 1908, and March 1, 1919, in classes 1A, IB, and 2A, respectively, in each of the above branches1, (g) How many of these vacancies in each class and in each branch have been filled by officers or clerks employed in branches of the Public Service other than those in which the vacancy occurred.


THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Notice of Motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, a uniform system of administrating the law with uniform penalties in relation to defaulters, deserters, slackers, evaders and others amenable, is essential to the well-being and good government of the country, and is due to the soldiers who voluntarily marched so fearlessly to the Front and who fought so well in the great cause of human liberty.
Samuel Hughes: I am prepared to go on with this motion to-day, but all I propose to do is to hear the Government's explanation of its position in the matter; I have no desire to take up the time of the House in going over what has happened in relation to these matters in the past. I therefore beg to move this motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman desire to speak on the motion?


Samuel Hughes: I have no desire to speak now; I will close the debate, if necessary.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I did not
anticipate the necessity of speaking to this motion until something had been said in its support by the mover or by other hon. gentlemen.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister wants anything said in support of it, I can get a

hundred men in the House to say something.


Mr. DENIS:: That is a majority.


Arthur Meighen: The pleasure would be greater if I could have first heard the motion supported by the mover himself.
The terms of the resolution are to the effect that the House shall declare that a uniform system of administering the law with uniform penalties in relation to defaulters, deserters, slackers, evaders and others amenable is essential to the wellbeing and good government of the country and is due to the soldiers who went to the front and fought so well in the great cause of human liberty.
The first comment I have to make is that in essence the resolution calls merely for a uniform system of administering law. Fundamentally, under the constitution, the administration of law is in the provinces, not in the Dominion. The Dominion has jurisdiction in the matter of the framing of the law, the passing of statutes within the purview of its powers under the British North America Act, but the administering of the law is wholly for the Provinces. As my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) probably knows more intimately than I do, there is a measure of administration of punishments in the army which is under military law and carried out by courts martial. To that extent, of course, the administration of law may be said to be Federal, but I do not apprehend that the mover of the motion has reference to the sphere of jurisdiction exercised under military law. What he refers to rather is the area of legal administration which is in the hands of superior and district court judges and of magistrates, and in so far as it is a matter of administration, a matter of procedure and organization for carrying it out, it is for the provinces alone. It may be, however, that what the hon. member means is that by statute, wherein we enact the law, we also provide that the penalties open to magistrates and courts shall be in every case uniform, and tnat that uniformity shall extend to the punishment of all defaulters, slackers, evaders and others amenable. If I am right in my estimate of what the hon. member has in mind I fear that the resolution is too wide to commend itself to the favourable consideration of Parliament. If what the hon. gentleman intends to affirm is, that enacting legislation, whether adopted in this Parliament originally and now, or by Order in Council based on legislation passed by this Parliament, must provide that all penalties applicable to offenders of the classes named shall be alike, shall be uniform, I repeat that I do not think the resolution will commend itself to the good judgment of Parliament.
In the first place, the words " others amenable " would refer, of course, to all offenders of every oharacter whatsoever. However, I have no doubt that the mover of the resolution has in mind merely offenders against the Military Act. But it could not be affirmed with any hope of success that Parliament, or the Government acting on the authority of Parliament, should adopt the policy of providing that all penalties must be alike for all offenders, whether the offence be of a serious or of a minor character or whether it be accompanied by mitigating circumstances or not. In all the history of our jurisprudence, legislation providing penalties provides at the same time a minimum and a maximum-at all events, a maximum-penalty. Within the orbit of these two extremes those administering the law are empowered to go, and the purpose and principle of such enactment is that in proportion to the grossness of the offence shall the punishment be. That is the principle which pervades the Military Service Act. It is the principle which actuated Parliament in affording latitude to magistrates in imposing punishments under that Act. In a word, it is the very same principle which pervades the whole Criminal Code, and which pervades many other statutes establishing penalties passed by this Parliament, as well as statutes establishing offences passed by provincial legislatures.
It will no doubt be complained by some that in the actual working out of this Act. as, indeed, is the case in the actual working out of all penal legislation, there has been a very great lack of uniformity in the disposition of individual cases by magistrates and judges. There can be no question that a survey of the operation of the Military Service Act would disclose tha1 different attitudes were assumed by different magistrates, and that even judges differed widely, and some of them almost incomprehensibly, in their estimation of the degree of offence perpetrated by one who had violated the Military Service Act. But that is a phenomenon in no way singular to the operation of the Military Service Act; it is to be found in the history of the every day administration of law. Any one who has to do particularly with the administration of clemency under the Criminal Code,

which is vested, of course, in the Department of Justice, will be struck every houi of every day by the wide diversity of views, and the consequent wide diversity and lack of uniformity in punishment imposed by the various magistrates and judges of the land. That, to some degree, is taken care of by the exercise of clemency on the part of the Department of Justice-taken care of only by the mitigation of punishment, and never by an increase in the punishment of those who are let off lightly by the courts. The latter sphere of jurisdiction the Department of Justice does not have, the department's function being merely in clemency, and not in original punishment. This function of the Department of Justice operates, of course, in relation to the punishments inflicted under the Military Service Act, as in relation to all other punishments. In so far as its exercise is concerned, if it is intended that any complaint be levelled against it, that complaint would more properly be answered by the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) who from the commencement of the operation of the Act, has had that sphere within his jurisdiction.
It is true that there did occur instances of the apprehension of defaulters under the Military Service Act, where there was some shock to the public conscience by very minor penalties being inflicted. Those were in the main, if I mistake not, punishments inflicted on what were known as Group 3 defaulters; that is to say, defaulters who though they had registered and had not failed to report for medical examination, had nevertheless failed to report for duty. That class of defaulters was a very large one, and the regulations passed under the authority of the Military Service Act itself did not provide any option on the part of the magistrates or judges to impose merely a fine as a penalty for that offence. However, in various parts of Canada magistrates did exercise an option which they did not have of imposing fines. In some cases very large and appropriate fines were imposed and in others very small, trivial and inadequate fines. It was felt that it was not desirable to have these dispositions of cases by magistrates in every case open to be called in question in the courts of the country. For example, in cases where the magistrate had risen to a sense of his duty and had imposed a penalty commensurate with the offence, it was not desirable that that conviction should be open to be upset after the fine had been paid and the offender was free. Those were cases where the offender had suffered something not, at all events, incommensurate with the offence he 
had committed. Consequently, within the powers vested in the Governor in Council, an order was passed which ratified and confirmed convictions that had been followed by a fine where the fine was fixed at not less than $250 nor more than $5,000. That left other convictions where smaller fines had been imposed upon Group 3 defaulters open to be upset, and indeed, not recognized at all by the Department of Justice.


Samuel Hughes: : I did not hear what disposition was made of the cases where men failed to report for medical examination or failed to observe the order of the tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: Those who failed to
register were known as Group 1 defaulters; those who, though they registered, failed to report for medical examination when ordered, were known as Group 2 defaulters; those who, though they did not fail in either of these two respects, failed to report for duty were known as Group 3 defaulters, and that is the large class to which the remarks I have just been making apply. As to the first two classes, those who failed to report, and those who, though they did not fail to register, failed to report for medical examination, my understanding is that the regulations provided under the authority of the Military Service Act enabled a fine to be imposed, but I think in each case a minimum and a maximum fine was fixed.
As to Group 3, the legislation did not, nor did the orders passed under the authority of the legislation, provide any option on the part of magistrates to impose a fine at all; but notwithstanding this, magistrates, some of them at all events believing they had that option, did impose a fine; and now by Order in Council these fines have been ratified provided the fine was not belcw a minimum of $250 nor above a maximum of $5,000.
Group 4 defaulters were those who, having reported for duty and donned the uniform, deserted. Group 5 defaulters were soldiers defaulting on the conditions of their leave of absence by failing to return at the required time. Group 6 defaulters were the nineteen- year old class who failed to report for registration. I am not discussing the first two or the latter three classes at the present time.
I was making some remarks in regard to the experience of the department in the lack of uniformity of sentences imposed on Group 3 defaulters and the action taken by the department to ensure that where convictions were obtained in those cases the

punishment should be adequate and fair. However, what I wish to impress upon the House is the fact that the administration of the law is essentially in the hands of provincial officials, that is to say, magistrates who are provincial officials, and, from them, judges, who, in the ordinary sense, are not provincial officials hut exercise a function which is within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures as to procedure. There is another feature that I may refer to.
In the treatment of Group 3 defaulters it was discovered there were magistrates who persistently failed to appreciate the spirit and intent of the Military Service Act, and before whom men who had been found and apprehended, after a great deal of expense and trouble, would either be not convicted at all or, owing to a failure on the part of the magistrates to appreciate the magnitude of the offence, would have a very light penalty inflicted on them. In these cases the policy of the department was to instruct the officers in charge-that is, in so far as this work has been under the Department of Justice-to take no more apprehended men before such magistrates. That policy has been pursued consistently and the course adopted was to deliver such men to the military authorities to be tried by court martial. So that wherever magistrates were found who failed in this respect to appreciate their duties, and to act in pursuance of the letter and spirit of the Military Service Act, we took the only course open to us, and would bring no more offenders before them, instructing our officers, as I have said, to turn them over to the military authorities for trial by court martial. From January, I think, to the end of April, 1918, the police work under the Military Service Act was administered by the Military Service Branch of the Department of Justice; and from the end of April until about the middle or the first of January of this year, 1919, that work was taken over and administered by the Militia Department under the Provost Marshal. After the termination of actual war, and about the first Of January, the work was again resumed by the Department of Justice and is now in charge of the Dominion Police. I believe that the principles which I have defined as actuating us in the administration of the duties of apprehension under the Act were virtually the same while under the Militia Department as under the Department of Justice. We have under consideration at the present time-but not sufficiently advanced to enable us to make any statement
to Parliament-the question as to the entire disposition of this subject of the treatment of deserters and defaulters; but at present the administration of the law is just as I have defined. So far as we have it within our power to bring about some degree of uniformity in the treatment of offenders we have done so, but our power in this regard is necessarily limited by the constitutional restrictions to which I have briefly referred.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Justice. Were not instructions issued by the Department of Justice to the magistrates or justices of the peace-instructions published in booklet form- advising them to be very lenient with the men brought before them?


Arthur Meighen: No such instructions
were ever issued. Booklets were given to our own officers for their own guidance, but the Department of Justice has never presumed to give instructions or even advice to magistrates or judges, who are in no sense officers of the Department of Justice; nor can I understand the attitude of mind of any magistrate or judge who could think that he was subject to instructions or advice from the Department of Justice. Justice is best administered by the department when it refrains from attempting any jurisdiction in that regard over magistrates or judges. The hon. gentleman has reference, I think, to a statement issued by a magistrate in the city of Quebec-I think he is a magistrate, but he is generally known as Judge Langelier- to the effect that he received instructions from the department. Such is not, and never was the case; and nothing was further from the mind of the department than to attempt to instruct magistrates in Quebec or in any other province. It appears that an officer of the department, Colonel Whitehead, according to his report to us, in going over his papers in a case read a paper which be had prepared on his own authority, which did not come from the Department of Justice and was merely for the guidance of his officers as he himself said. He was requested by the judge for a copy, and having received it the judge proceeded afterwards to proclaim that he had been instructed in such an such a manner by the Department of Justice. I do not think I need say anything further. I have heard the matter referred to in the House on previous occasions, but the whole point is answered when I say that no instructions

of any kind were ever issued to judges or magistrates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I gathered from the
remarks of the minister that he referred to [DOT]rhat had taken place before the -court presided over by Mr. Justice Langelier in Quebec. I have followed that discussion in the press. I know Mr. Justice Langelier-an ex-member of this House-and he is a man who enjoys the confidence and respect of the bar and of the public of Quebec. He has always been a faithful and impartial administrator of justice. Some months ago when the deserters were brought before his court he received instructions from Colonel Whitehead, a Dominion Police officer, in which he was presumably authorized, to act leniently towards the men brought before him. However, the Department of Justice, through Mr. Newcombe, said that he should not be satisfied with very small fines but should be more severe towards the deserters and evaders.
Mr. Justice Langelier was somewhat shocked when he received that news not personally but through the public press. He at once wrote back to the officer in the Justice Department, I think Mr. Newcombe, the deputy minister, that he had received his instructions from the Government. A discussion arose and finally Mr. Justice Langelier published those instructions verbatim. If I am well informed, and I think my memory does not fail me, an apology came from the Department of Justice. -I think it was sent by Mr. Newcombe himself when it was proven that Mr. Justice Langelier had received through the regular channel his directions from the authorities to act leniently with deserters. I have seen the correspondence which has been published in the press. I only rose because, in the remarks of the Acting Minister of Justice, I detected the tendency to put the blame upon Mr. Justice Langelier. As I have read that correspondence and as I understand it, I think I am justified in stating that Mr. Justice LangelieT did his duty fearlessly and that he acted under the directions which he had received from the authorities in Ottawa.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I want to confirm what the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) has said and I will confirm it by stating what happened in my own office at Riviere du Loup. One morning I was visited by Mr. Harmon who is an official, I think, of the Justice Department. He came to me, not because I was the member for the riding but because it happens that I am the editor of a newspaper. He wanted to tell the defaul-
ters in my riding that if they would come down, report to him and plead guilty he could promise them, because he had the promise of his own department, that the magistrate would impose only a very small fine. Then I took my poor pen and, as a newspaper man, wrote the article and asked all the defaulters to appear before Mr. Harmon, or before the magistrate. The defaulters came in. They were ready to appear before a magistrate but at that very time there was a dispute going on between Mr. Justice Langelier and the department. After that we had the famous Order in Council which imposed a fine of $250 minimum and now young men unable to pay are obliged to go to jail.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not a fact that there was an -apology sent to Mr. Justice Langelier?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Yes, an apology has
been published in the newspapers and it has never been denied by the Minister of Justice.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a question of privilege. I think so far as the department is concerned the denial that that department issued an apology must be accepted. If not I insist that the actual correspondence be read.. It will speak for itself and J who cannot speak again will see my word supported and vindicated.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Speaker, I think the quality of mercy will not be unduly strained if the Department of Justice will try and define more clearly the different penalties under the Act for the guidance of magistrates in the province of Ontario at least. I know that even in Ontario there is a wide range of opinion as to the degrees of punishment that should obtain for various groups of defaulters. For instance in the western part of Ontario, surrounding the city of London, I am informed on authority that I do not desire to question, that defaulters are being allowed off with a penalty of two months' guard duty in the barracks. For men of the same class in eastern Ontario the minimum penalty in Ottawa is a fine of $500 or twelve months in jail. I have appealed to the Department of Justice in vain for a modification of that penalty. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability as a representative of my constituency, to find in the constituency certain instances which will qualify for the minimum penalty without success. There must be something wrong with the administration of justice in the police courts

of Ontario when men of average intelligence will vary to such an extent in imposing penalties for offences of this kind. The groups are so well defined that the variations cannot exist to such an extent as will justify magistrates in varying their decisions so widely as they do. I claim that it is the duty of the Department ol Justice to interfere in the decisions arrived at. I understand that there is a disposition on the part of the department to interfere with the penalty of imprisonment but not with that of a fine. I would like to know why it is that if they are disposed to interfere with one class of penalties they are not disposed to interfere with the other also. If a prisoner is entitled to consideration in the matter of imprisonment I think he is also entitled to consideration as to the amount of the money penalty inflicted. I know of a case where a young man had reported twice voluntarily for service and was turned down by the military authorities as physically unfit because he had the fingers of one hand amputated. That .young man, having been turned down when he volunteered twice, was ordered to report for service and, possibly owing to lack of intelligence, he may have figured that having been turned down when he volunteered there must be some mistake in ordering him to report for service. Sometime during the last two weeks he was arrested and brought before a magistrate who figured that he was justified in inflicting the minimum penalty $250. That man having shown his willingness twice to serve his country notwithstanding his deformities, and having been refused twice by the military authorities, should have been entitled to the minimum penalty, or should have been discharged immediately.
Now, Sir, the position taken by the Department of Justice at the present time amounts to this: That notwithstanding the fact that this young man should be entitled to consideration, he cannot now obtain redress from that department because he has been fined and has paid the penalty of $250. As I said before, I have endeavoured to find a case that in my judgment should qualify for the minimum fine, but it is utterly impossible. I find that even for the same offence two magistrates will each mete out a different degree of penalty. In the North riding of Renfrew men are being penalized with six months' imprisonment or $250 fine. In the South riding '.they are being (penalized tq the extent of $500, or twelve months' imprisonment. Now, I submit that there should be some attempt made towards uniformity
in these judgments, and if such a disparity obtains in the imposition of sentences 3uch as I have explained; then I claim that the Minister of Justice should intervene. I understand that he has already stated on the floor of the House to-day that in cases where magistrates impose too light a penalty, the convicted persons instantly become offenders before a court martial for trial. If it is held that there is a right to interfere in one class of cases connected with the administration of justice, in my opinion interference should also be permitted in such cases as I have called attention to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The motion ot the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) is a very important one, and deals with a very important subject. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that we have no right to ask any court to mete out uniform penalties. On the other hand, I agree with the wording of the resolution in saying that we should have as much as possible a uniform system of administration of the law. It is highly desirable in dealing with a question of this kind,-having reference to the military system which is uniform all over Canada, the service being as much as possible uniform and the men called out being of uniform class and qualifications,-when we come to deal with deserters or defaulters, that some court which has a general and proper conception of all the circumstances relating to the matter to be tried, should have jurisdiction to deal with the case as far as that can possibly be done. I have no desire to reflect in the slightest upon any magistrates. It is marvellous to me how well magistrates do in the matter of the administration of justice; and if we apply the duties that we impose upon magistrates in another way we will better understand, perhaps, the difficulties that they have to contend with. Supposing for a moment we asked laymen to start the practice of medicine, and said to half a dozen in every town, " You are doctors, go out and treat the people of this district; prescribe medicine, treat surgical cases, and do all that pertains thereto." Hon. members can readily understand what an awfully murderous condition of things would exist if such men were let loose to engage in the practice of medicine in this country. Well, we who are lawyers claim that the profession of law is just as scientific as the profession of medicine, and that it is just as necessary to have a scientific knowledge of law as it is to have a scien-

tific knowledge of medicine. When we ask laymen who have not a scientific knowledge of the law to administer a complicated statute of the kind in question here, together with a number of Orders in Council that have to be interpreted in connection therewith, it is marvellous that these men are doing as well as they are doing. But when that condition of things can be , avoided, when we have courts in this country composed of first class judges, when we have capable lawyers to whom the necessary duties can be assigned, I think the mover of this resolution is quite right, and has given us a subject of the highest importance to deal with, when he says that there should be uniformity in the administration of justice. I hope that that phase of the matter, at all events, will receive consideration from the Department of Justice.
I do not know what saintly men you may have in Ontario as magistrates, but in the province that I come from any constable who goes round with a batch of informations in his pocket, looking for a magistrate to prosecute, can always find the sort of man that he wants. A man of that type will just convict as that officer suggests to him, and will mete out the kind of sentence that the officer wants. This may be a reflection on the good people of my province, but I must tell the truth, and I know that there are such magistrates. I am not saying whether you have such justices in the province oi Ontario or not, but we have them, and we have them pretty much all over the country, and it does not take an officer who is engaged upon the business to
3	p.m. which I referred long to find out where that sort of magistrate is. The magistrate in Nova iScotia is paid by the fees he derives from these magisterial proceedings, and the constable is also paid out of the fees. That, of course, to the ordinary individual is an inducement for securing heavy fines and getting heavy fees. So much for the necessity of lifting this matter above the ordinary petty courts of this class, and putting it on a footing where it will he given the, serious consideration that such important proceedings merit.
I wish further to bring to the notice of the Minister of Justice, and more, especially to the notice of the Acting Prime Minister, that the condition existing in Canada to-day of, I suppose, thousands of young men being liable to be called up for punishment, is a condition of things that should continue only for the shortest possible time. This country of ours was not used to the business of war. It had no training by rea-

son of ancestral heredity in military matters. In this country we were timid in the matter of this military business, and many of our young men who were absolutely honest-thousands of them in fact-did not have the nerve to go up against it. Consequently, they are not criminals at all; it was simply that many of them did not have the real fibre necessary in such a crisis. Now our old law books, and our best authorities on criminal law, tell us, and we believe it, that before there is a criminal action there must be a criminal intent. If you apply that test of criminal intent to many of these poor fellows, who were really afraid, who were timid in this matter, it is obvious that they did not contemplate committing any wrong, but now they find themselves in their present condition. I think we should bring this nightmare, which has followed the war, to an end as quickly as possible. The House will readily understand the feelings of fathers and mothers in this country having sons in such a situation. These are good honest people, who have in many ways contributed towards helping on the war and bringing it to a successful issue, but now that their hoys are in this plight: the mother cannot sleep at night, the father cannot do his work by reason of the shadow of the trial that is hanging over his son, the boy is perhaps keeping out of the way, and yet no doubt the offence that was committed was really of a very slight character. Now if there is to be a trial I would certainly suggest that this threat should be removed as quickly as possible, and that whatever trials are to be held should take place as soon as possible. I do not want to be regarded as having sympathy with any one who did not do his full duty in connection with this war; but I want hon. gentlemen, particularly the Government, to bear in mind that this country was not educated to the war idea. Canada in my opinion did remarkably well when for the first time in its history she had to face such a serious condition of affairs.
Even if we find after two- hundred years of peace that men without any war blood in their veins were timid in answering the call of their country, it is wise for us to consider carefully what scars we are going to leave because of the war. There are many wounds that can never be healed, and it is for the Government to be very careful that they do not create any more heart burnings in connection with these prosecutions unless it is found to be absolutely necessary for the laying broad and deep the foundations of our national life. After the

Americal civil war nobody was punished as a military defaulter. Surely the poor boy who may have been frightened away from this war is not a worse citizen than the man who shouldered his musket in the Southern States and shot perhaps hundreds of his neighbours. President Lincoln said to him:-"Go home to your wife and children and be a good man after this, and you will have no more trouble." I submit that that is the spirit which should prevail in this country, and that we should get back to peace, harmony and order as quickly as possible. We are glad that the war is over, and if there are sore spots here and there it should be the policy of this Government to prevent further irritation and get back to pre-war conditions. In this morning's papers we have an example of clemency in matters of this kind which I think it well to bring to the notice of this House. I find that although the criminal who shot at the Premier of France was sentenced to death, the Premier intervened and the sentence has been commuted to ten years' imprisonment, and probably that term will be reduced eventually. Here is something for us to think about. The Premier of France, who did so much for his country and for the world, says that the man who attempted to assassinate him shall not suffer the extreme penalty, but shall be dealt with leniently because of the prevailing conditions in his country, because in his opinion under circumstances of this kind we should thank God for the great victory and show that we have no vindictiveness. These are matters, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to submit for the careful consideration of the Government.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor-General) :: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have
not had the advantage of hearing the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. I was under the impression that the House to-day met at three o'clock instead of two o'clock; consequently I have not been present during the past hour. The question as to what punishment should be meted out to military defaulters is one which has occupied a good deal of my attention, particularly since the armistice was signed. Shortly after that event the Government, realizing the position in which many men, ordinarilly good citizens, were placed, decided that some effort should be made to produce uniformity in regard to the various sentences which were being imposed upon military defaulters throughout Canada, and early in February a committee was appointed to consider the subject -not only of
ordinary military defaulters, but also of conscientious objectors. That committee made a report to the Government, which report was adopted early in the month of February, and since that time I have been endeavouring, -so far as in my power was possible, to carry out its terms.


Samuel Hughes: Did that include all six classes?


Hugh Guthrie: The report made by the committee dealt with six classes, and its substance is merely this: that if the records show that the default was not wilful and deliberate, but was occasioned rather by ignorance, oversight or the like, the prisoner should undergo a minimum sentence of from one to two months, and should then be liberated; but where the default was wilful and there are no extenuating circumstances, he should serve a sentence of from one to two years, according -to the circumstances in each case. The report dealt with the following classes of military defaulters:
1.	Men liable for service under the Military-Service Act who neither registered nor reported ;
2.	Men who registered but did not report when ordered to do so;
3.	Men who registered and reported, and afterwards deserted;
4.	Men who registered and reported and were given leave, and remained absent after their leave had expired;
5.	Men who were on harvest leave or compassionate leave without pay who failed to report for discharge or who failed to sign a form of release at the time the armistice was signed;
And in regard to the last class the report finds:
It is to be noted that after the armistice was signed on November 11th last, the idea became prevalent throughout Canada that further military service would not be required. Articles appeared in various newspaers to the effect that men would not be required to report unless specially notified to do so. Under these circumstances, in our opinion it would be well to obviate the necessity of men reporting merely for discharge or being required to sign forms of release. We recommend that an Order in Council be passed granting discharges in all such cases and obviating the necessity of a release in all cases in which releases have not already been obtained. We do not consider any penalty should be imposed upon defaulters in such cases.
Since that report was adopted by the Government, all cases have been dealt with by me upon the lines suggested.


Jacques Bureau: Would the hon. minister object to telling the House who the report was signed by?


Hugh Guthrie: The Committee consisted of myself, the Deputy Minister of Justice,

and the Judge advocate General, representing the Militia Department.


Jacques Bureau: Who is that?


Hugh Guthrie: Colonel McFarland. There is a great variety not only in' the cases themselves, but also in the penalties imposed. There is to some extent a similarity in the excuses which are offered. I am satisfied that a great many men who became deserters became so by reason of the fact that their parents or other members of their families deliberately withheld from them the official military notices which were sent ordering them to report There have been a great number of cases of that kind, where the default has been more or less technical, and, in accordance with the recommendation made in the report of the circumstances, such defaulters have been allowed their liberty after serving from one to two months, or even shorter periods. We have endeavoured to obtain as far as possible in each case a satisfactory report of the circumstances from the trial magistrate or from the records of the military tribunal which dealt with the case. In many cases where these records were not definite, we have relied on the reports of the member of the constituency in which the defaulter happened to reside. The recommendations made by members in such cases, giving the necessary particulars, have invariably been acted upon; we asked no further evidence than the mere letter of the member.


Samuel Hughes: May I point out that in one case a member of Parliament, the member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) recommended that a man go before a tribunal, thinking that he would get a week or a month, or something of that kind, whereas he got a lifetime.


Hugh Guthrie: These long sentences have been uniformly reduced. A great many life sentences and ten year sentences were imposed, chiefly by military court martial. In England the sentences were very much more severe. I am informed that a number of our Canadians were executed for desertion; others received penalties running from twenty to thirty years when on foreign service. It is very doubtful whether this Government or this Parliament has anything to do with these sentences.


Samuel Hughes: No doubt in the world.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the Solicitor
General suggest that we have nothing to

do with our soldiers when they are across the seas?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is not the suggestion; I do not think my hon. friend thought it was the suggestion. If while our men are overseas they commit offences against British law they are under the jurisdiction of the British authorities, just as a man who comes here from Great Britain and commits an offence against our law is under our authority.


Samuel Hughes: Were these men soldiers?


Hugh Guthrie: What men?


Samuel Hughes: Those men who have been imprisoned and shot.


Hugh Guthrie: I assume they were; and there was a great variety of offences with which they were charged and for which they were convicted. But an effort is being made to have something done which will bring about uniformity even in regard '.o sentences which were imposed by the British military or civil authorities while the troops were overseas.
In a great many cases, as I said, the default has been more or less technical. Then, in quite a large number of cases the default has been deliberate, but committed under rather peculiar circumstances. Men have refrained from registering or reporting on account of illness in the family-in many cases serious illness-when great hardship would have resulted to the men and to their families had they repotted. My recommendation has been most lenient in every such case. But in other cases men have not only deliberately deserted, but have resisted arrest, in some cases with the use of firearms and other like weapons. Those cases are not dealt with quite as leniently. The object has been, so far as possible, to give something like uniformity to the sentences which have been imposed upon military defaulters from one end of Canada to the other. A very serious and difficult question arises in regard to the fines that have been imposed by the magistrates.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. gentleman has
made a most serious statement, which, I assume, is official, about the shooting of Canadian soldiers in England. Will he state to the House how many Canadian soldiers were shot in England?


Samuel Hughes: At the front, too. I understood the statement to be that men were tried by court martial and shot for desertion both in England and at the front.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that iny information is official, but certainly I have been under the impression that some Canadians-for some kind of offence; desertion,
I would assume-have been tried by court martial and that the death penalty has been imposed and carried out.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understood it to be an official statement on the part of the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no. I have heard
the statement from military men and I think 1 have seen it in the newspapers.


Samuel Hughes: Were any returns
made to the Government of Canada con cerning courts martial in England?


Hugh Guthrie: I assume there have
been returns.


Samuel Hughes: I mean, before the sentences were carried out.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not in a position to give that information. These cases never come before me unless on an appeal for clemency. I would not have any record ox any knowledge on the subject of my hon. friend's question.
The greatest difficulty in getting uniform treatment of defaulters arises in regard to the fines which have been imposed. Many of these fines, running from $500 up to $1,000 in some cases, have been paid, some of them long ago. Other magistrates feel bound to impose as a minimum fine $250, and it is within the knowledge of the House that a merely nominal fine has been imposed in many cases in the province of Quebec. I have no power to deal with the fines; in any case I do not think any fines have been remitted. A great difficulty arises if one attempts to remit them when you consider the number who have paid the higher amounts and the number that that have been let off with merely a nominal fine. But where the penalty has been fine and imprisonment, or fine or imprisonment, in dealing with the question of imprisonment from the standpoint of clemency I have disregarded the amount of the fine and considered merely the question of the term served by the offender in confinement. Having regard to the reasons for which these men were confined and to the fact that the war is now over, the House will agree that the penalties which are now exacted and which have been exacted since the armistice so far as imprisonment is concerned, could not in any way be considered severe.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In what cases does the
minister suggest that a court martial should take place instead of a trial before a magistrate, and in what cases does he suggest that men should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the courts of one province and be brought before a court martial in another?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not make any
suggestion of that kind; I have not considered it.	,


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There are cases


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: The questions that come before me are merely questions of clemency, appeals for release. Those are the only ones I have considered.


Michael Clark: The debate appears to me to have gone slightly away in recent minutes from the subject matter of the resolution of my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes). There seems to be a degree of horror struck in certain quarters in this House at the idea of a man being shot for desertion when in the presence_ of the German army-which was really trying to kill all of us. I agree with General Sherman that war is hell, but when I am at war and in hell I want to give the other fellow the most of it, and it would be a fatal method of looking at national duty if we got a false sense of proportion on even that subject. A man, after all, up against the foe in France who, when his call comes to go over the top, is late by being absent through getting drunk, or by deserting, when the other men are-going straight into action with their lives in their hands, is guilty of an offence which is not a light offence, because he is endangering the lives of all the men who are associated with him in the war, at the hands of the enemy. I think we should look at this other side of the case before we give expression to horror at the very idea which has been suggested that possibly a deserter from Canada was shot. I do not want to pursue that question any further than just to say that much.
My object in this war, and I think the object of every sane man connected with the Allies, was to get hold of the chief murderer in Europe, and if any man has any doubt about the ability of the Allies to conduct the war, bitter and black and bad as it was for many of us, to a successful conclusion, I would recommend him to apply to the Kaiser if they can find him. He will tell him whether England and the Allies know how to conduct war or not.



With regard to the resolution of my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) it appears to call for what would be a very desirable thing in the opinion of the great majority of the people in this country, as far as I know the majority of the people of this country. I did not hear the whole speech of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), and I do not know very much about the legal aspects of this question, but I think there will he a broad sentiment in the country in favour of getting as far as possible equality of sentence. One does not need much law, one only needs to be a level-minded citizen, to see the desirability of such a result being brought about, and to that extent I think the resolution has not been altogether inadvisedly brought before the House. If we could give these defaulters something like equality of treatment I think it would bring general satisfaction in Canada, and would be in accordance with the rough common sense of Canadian citizenship.
I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). I do not always agree with my hon. friend in toto. Very frequently, I do not agree with what he says at all, but to-day I had a very large sympathy with his conclusions, and with his evident object in rising, without being carried by the arguments by which he supported his contention. I have not gone as deeply as he seems to have done into the psychology of those who have defaulted;
I do not know whether they and theii friends would thank him for having concluded that the principal cause of theii defaulting was lack of fibre. I think that was his word, or lack of nerve. However, that explanation of the psychology of these particular citizens I leave to my hon. friend and to those particular citizens. Neither did I think that his analogy taken from the United States and President Lincoln was a good one. In that case there was a civil war in which one-half of the country had been doing its best against the other half, and in which the supreme power in the state had been disputed by blood, and I cannot conceive of a statesman with even an average degree of wisdom-and Lincoln had far more than the average-taking any different course from that taken by him. However, I do agree in the main with the advice that my hon. friend gave the Government. We have had too many sorrows and heart-burnings and acute disputes over this war-and I distinguish sharply between the cases to which I referred "when I first arose, which happened during the 
war when everything had to be in to win the war-to keep up animosities after the war is over. Mr. Speaker, I may be misunderstood and disagreed with by many who surround me, for whom I have the highest regard from the fact, at any rate, that we were together in the stress and storm of the war, but I must say now that the war is over, British tradition, I think, would lead us to weigh very carefully the advice which has been given to the House and to the Government by the leader of the Opposition. I do not suggest that criminals should be let off without punishment. That would never do in a civilized country. There is no liberty anywhere except the liberty which is protected by law, and I am sure my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will agree with that sentiment. Our very liberties depend upon respect for law, and it is the outstanding characteristic of the British Empire that within its bounds more than anywhere else in the world you have the almost perfect combination of respect for law and order, on the one hand, and the greatest possible freedom on the other. Now that the war is won, and well won, .1 think that we might very well go as far as we can in the direction of casting a large measure of blessed oblivion over the small differences that divided us while the war was on. I hold that view very strongly. I think the progress of the months will lead the Government to see the force of that course, and indeed, from what has fallen from my hon. friend the 'Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie)
I think that these instincts are guiding the Government at the present moment. There is really no essential difference between the two sides of this House, il should hope, in regard to the fundamental characteristics of the British Empire and of British justice and of British government in this respect. Why, Sir, what do we see at the present moment? We have seen the British Government recently let the Sinn Feiners out of prison in Ireland. What did we see in South Africa? We saw a course of leniency taken to the point of giving self-government to the Boers in South Africa within a very brief time after the termination of the war, and with the best possible results. I am often struck with this fact, and am rather charmed by it too, that sometimes the sentiments of loyalty in this country, and especially amongst my friends around me, go much farther than they do in Hyde Park, London. I am perfectly sure that every Sunday afternoon in Hyde Park, London, you hear sentiments uttered at public meetings there about monarchy and all conceiv-

able subjects which would speedily get a man a ducking in many parts of the good old province of Ontario, so Ontario is even more loyal than they are in the city of London in this particular.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I am glad my hon. friends opposite applaud that sentiment. They evidently recognize, as I do, that it is well to err in a good cause. Well, the result of that clemency and that application of British principles in South Africa was very admirable, and just in a general way I wanted to endorse, as I am always anxious to endorse when I can, any sentiments that fall from the lips of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He does his best to utter sentiments from time to time which, unfortunately, I cannot agree with, but I am not like him, a Highland Scotchman; my memory is shorter than his, and I am always looking out for good things even in the most unexpected places. I do think we have our hands pretty full in Canada at the present time in reconstructing the country.
I know something about the sentiments of the returned men, and I want to say this for a large number of them with whom I have talked, that they are not at all revengefully inclined. The majority of them know what they were up against, and the returned soldiers, I believe, would in public meeting assembled endorse by a majority the sentiments which I have just been uttering. I may be wrong in that respect, but I have endeavoured to get their sentiments and to learn what they think upon these things, and I feel very strongly that that is their attitude. Let me repeat that I should be very much misunderstood if any one thought I looked lightly upon the crime of desertion or upon any breach of law. But war is an abnormal condition, fortunately, in the affairs of this world, and certainly very abnormal in the affairs of 'Canada, and on the broad principles of British precedent and justice and the kind of sentiment that has animated that old country, with which we are all proud to be connected, in .dealing with those who have been at variance with 'her in times of stress and struggle, I think the Government would do well, in a large number of these questions upon which I do not want to dwell to-day, to think twice, aye, to think three times before they keep heart burnings of irritations and harassments alive amongst our people.
84i	1
Major-General MEWBTJRN (Minister of Militia): I shall say only a few words on this question, Mr. Speaker. The remarks of onfe of the hon. gentlemen opposite, in reference to a statement made by the Solici-ton General (Mr. Guthrie), might create the impression that a large number of our Canadian soldiers have been shot. As far as I am aware, there were very few such cases. I think I am safe in saying that during the regime of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) there were one or two cases where Canadian soldiers had been tried by field general court martial at the front for desertion in the face oi the enemy, and did pay that penalty. These cases were very few, however, and certainly there have been no reports of any during my term of office. Therefore, I would not like to have it go abroad that there were many such cases. In regard to the question of uniform penalties,-as I stated in the House the other day,-immediately after the armistice, on November 11th, it was quite apparent that we did not require any more of these defaulters as soldiers, and the question was, what was to be done with them? Under the statute they were liable as deserters and defaulters, and personally I never considered that they should be allowed to go scot-free. I do not believe that it is possible in this country,-unless we are going to engage in that work for the rest of our natural lives,-to attempt to arrest all the men of these various classes; but I would like to see some machinery quickly put into operation whereby all the classes mentioned by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) should be disfranchised and deprived of cer-tain*civil rights for a period of years. This, I think would be approved of by all good people in this country. Those who were defaulters would be thereby penalized.
In view of a question which has been asked in the House in regard to prisoners generally, I cabled some weeks ago to ascertain what policy was in force overseas regarding Canadian prisoners undergoing punishment for military offences in England and France, and what was to be done with them. In connection with the subject 1 may read this statement:
Policy Regarding the Disposal on Demobilization of Canadian Soldiers Undergoing Penal Servitude, Imprisonment or Detention.
1.	Those undergoing sentence for purely military offences will he returned to Canada under arrangements to be completed later, some time prior to the final completion of demobilization. Their sentences will be remitted with effect from the date of sailing. Each soldier will he

left, as far as possible, to complete his sentence before embarkation, but existing powers of remission, etc., will, in the meantime continue to be exercised in special cases.
Each case falling within this class will at the time of final disposal be made the subject of special consideration, and where it appears that existing military conditions due to demobilization render it desirable to make an exception such soldier will be held to complete his sentence.
It is thought that cases of serious insubordination during demobilization might be dealt with in this manner.
2.	Those undergoing sentence imposed by the civil power in England will be left in this country to complete their sentences should they not expire before demobilization has been concluded, but such cases will be reviewed individually prior to the final completion of demobilization with a view to determining whether any of them present such extenuating circumstances as would justify an application to the Home Secretary for a special release. It is not anticipated that many cases of this nature will be encountered.
3.	Soldiers undergoing sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude imposed by military courts, either in this country or in France, for offences of a criminal, as distinguished from a military nature, will be committed to (or left in) civil prisons in England to serve out their sentences. Such cases also will, however, be reviewed prior to the completion of demobilization with a view to determining whether any of them present such extenuating circumstances as would justify remission.
The following additional provisions are applicable to soldiers undergoing sentence in France:-
1.	The general policy outlined above will be followed, but soldiers who are undergoing sen-iencQ for offences not of a serious nature will rbe released from prison on the recommendation of the corps commander and returned with their units to England for demobilization in the usual way. Others, whose offences were of a more serious nature but who are considered to be eligible for release prior to the final completion of demobilization, will be retained in prison to Serve as much of their sentence as possible before the conclusion of demobilization.
2.	Those falling under Class (3) above, will be returned to England and committed to prison here to complete their sentences.
It is proposed, upon the final completion of demobilization to carry out the discharge of all Canadian soldiers left in prison in this country, who have not already been discharged or sentenced to be discharged with ignominy. Nominal rolls will then be prepared and left with the War Office and the High Commissioner for Canada, copies also being forwarded to Militia Headquarters, Ottawa. Upon completion of their sentences the men will be dealt with and, if eligible, repatriated on instructions from the High Commissioner.
Suspended Sentences.
(1) In France.
Such sentences are being remitted prior to the return of the soldier's unit to England.
(2) In England.
All such sentences are being remitted prior to the embarkation of the soldier's unit for Canada.
Where a soldier, under suspended sentence,
Is despatched to Canada in error without his [ Major-General Mewburn. ]
case having been submitted for special consideration, the sentence is subsequently remitted with effect from the date of sailing.


Samuel Hughes: Were the Kinmel Park rioters tried by a civil judge, or before a military court?


Major General MEWBURN:: I do not
know as a matter of fact whether they have been actually tried or not, but I understand ' this is not official-that they are being tried by court martial.


John Ewen Sinclair: Do we understand that no Canadian soldiers have had the penalty of death imposed upon them in England or Canada during the war?


Major General MEWBURN:: I have never heard of any such case at all.


Martin Burrell: Mr. Speaker, while not wishing to prolong this debate, there are one or two points in connection with the discussion that I would like to touch upon, more especially as I was brought into immediate contact with some of the problems during last summer when I had the responsibility of taking the place of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Mewburn) at a very trying time during June, July and August. I do not wish to refer particularly to the resolution except to agree with what my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) has said in pointing out the extraordinary difficulty of equalizing penalties in connection with the administration of justice for infractions of the Criminal Code or for any crimes whatever. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that in so far as it is humanly possible with crimes of this kind, it is weil to have equality of punishment. But I think it is quite obvious to anybody who has studied this question at all that the variations and degrees of guilt are, and must be, extraordinarily wide and that there must be a corresponding variation in the penalties imposed.
I wish more particularly to speak of another phase of this matter before the resolution is put through the House, or is dealt with, because I do not think that this House, or the country, should overlook the gravity of the offence that we have been dealing with, from a natioual point of view. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) pleaded, and I am not complaining in any way about his plea for clemency, for a generous way of looking at this whole matter and, practically, for the abolition of punishment, or at all events,

an early cessation of any rigorous or harsh measures. In the main we would all agree to that. My hon. friend stated that many parents were kept awake at night sorrowing for their boys who had been punished or who had been defaulters. May I point out to him that I took charge of the Militia Department last summer at a most critical phase of the war, when nobody in this country, or amongst the Allies, could face with anything but the deepest anxiety the progress of the various battles going on in Europe and certainly when no man could predict with anything like assurance what the issue might be. Canada was straining every nerve to get every man possible to do his duty to the state whose very existence was in danger, and to send reinforcements to those men who were literally fighting and dying in defence of our own liberty.
When I took charge of the department I found the condition of things practically this. There was scarcely a household in Canada, and in that part of it that I know more especially well, the far West, that had not provided one or more of its members to go and fight in the war and provided them early and voluntarily at a great sacrifice. I found that a great many thousands of men-I would not like to give the exact figures-subject to the call of the state in the very same way as all those other men who had gone had failed to respond ancKwere allowing those others to fight the battle at the risk of their lives while they stayed in safety at home. It seemed to me that at that critical time in our history when everything was in hazard, it was an absolutely impossible thing for us to make a call for more sacrifices from the homes in Canada -which had already provided these people to go to the war and allow to go scot-free thousands of those who were making no effort to do their duty to the state. It became necessary to do one of two things; either to insist that the most severe and harsh punishment should be meted out to those who were deliberately ignoring the call, and violating their first duty to the state, or to make a strong appeal to them in order that they might, before it was too late, recognize their duty, and, in the event of that recognition, to treat them with a generosity which I am sure my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition would have been in entire sympathy with.
Having discussed the matter very thoroughly from every angle, I recommended to my colleagues that we proclaim a general amnesty. While this matter is under discussion I would like to direct the attention of members of the House to the terms of that amnesty, and I would like to put those terms on Hansard for the very reason I have indicated. The amnesty was issued on August 2, 1918, and it was inspired by the belief that nothing short of a measure of this sort would drive home to the thousands of people who were neglecting their duty a realization of what they owed to the state. We put it in such broad and generous terms because we believed that there were thousands of defaulters at that time who had defaulted simply through sheer ignorance or because they had been misled by people in the country who knew a great deal better than they did. Without quoting the whole of the proclamation, I would like to read just two or three paragraphs:
Whereas considerable numbers of men belonging to Class I. under our Military Service Act, 1917, called out on active service in our Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada under Our Proclamation of 13th October, 1917, although they have thus become by law soldiers enlisted in the military service of Canada,
Have failed to report for duty as lawfully required of them under the said Military Service Act and the regulations thereunder, including the Order in Council duly passed on April.20 last,
Or have deserted.
Or absented themselves without leave from our Canadian Expeditionary Force,
And it is represented that the very serious and unfortunate situation in which these men find themselves is due in many cases to the fact that, notwithstanding the information and warning contained in Our Proclamation aforesaid, they have misunderstood their duty or obligation, or have been misled by the advice of ill-disposed, disloyal or seditious persons.
And whereas we desire, if possible, to avoid the infliction of the heavy penalties which the law imposes for the offences of which these soldiers have thus been guilty, and to afford them an opportunity within a limited time to report and make their services available in our Canadian Expeditionary Force as is by law their bounden duty, and as is necessary for the defence of Our Dominion of Canada,
Now know ye that we in the exercise of our powers, and of our good will and pleasure in that behalf, do hereby proclaim and declare and cause to be published and made known that the penalties of the law will not be imposed or exacted as against the men who belong to Class I. under our Military Service Act, 1917, and who have disobeyed our Proclamation aforesaid ; or who have received notice from any of our registrars or deputy registrars to report for duty on a day now past and have failed so to report; or who, having reported and obtained leave of absence, have failed to report at the expiry of their leave, or have become deserters from our Expeditionary Force, provided they report for duty on or before the twenty-fourth day of August, 1918.
And we do hereby strictly warn and solemnly impress upon all such men, and as well those

who employ, harbour, conceal or assist them in their disobedience, that, if they persist in their failure to report, absence or desertion until the expiry of the last mentioned day, they will be pursued and punished with all the rigour and severity of the law, subject to the judgment of our courts martial which will be convened to try such cases or other competent tribunals; and also that those who employ, harbour, conceal or assist such men will be held strictly accountable as offenders and subject to the pains, penalties and forfeitures in that behalf by law provided for their said offence.
I desire to point out to the House in discussing the resolution now before it, that the very fact that amnesty was granted in the broadest and most generous terms made it incumbent on all those men who, by ignorance or by deliberate intention, had evaded their duty to the state, to avail themselves of its terms and restore themselves to the position which those citizens occupied who were prepared to do their full duty. When, therefore, it is argued -and I am not pleading for anything but the most reasonable and generous treatment now that the war is over-that we should forget entirely all these things, I will ask the House to 'Consider the position of those thousands of men (for I am glad to say that thousands of men did subse-qwsntly report) who presented themselves in time to avail themselves of the amnesty. In what position does the House think all those men are in, as compared with the thousands of men who deliberately, after the publication of that warning, refused to do their duty to the state, and thereby became doubly defaulters and traitors to their country? The House must not, and cannot, forget that aspect of the question.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) came to see me about that time and we discussed this question. I pointed out to him in the very strongest way that it was up to him, and to every man in this country of influence and power, to use all his influence to convince the men who, through ignorance or deliberation, were not rising to a full sense of their duty in the most terrible period we ever faced, to induce them to come in even at the last hour and discharge their obligation. And if, as I say, in the face of that warning, published broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the land, there were thousands of men who still placed upon themselves the stigma of having failed in that duty, it is not for us to lightly regard this whole question of punishment in some form or another, or to view with complacence the position of those men who took, in the face of such a perilous situation, an atti-

tude which simply meant: I will not move hand or foot for the very existence of the state whose privileges I have been enjoying for years.
Now, Sir, the leader of the Opposition remarked that even the author of the attempted assassination of Premier Clemen-ceau was let off. That may be true, but my recollection of the ultimate result oi the trial in that case is that the would-be assassin was adjudged to be insane, and that was largely the reason for the commutation of the death sentence to ten years imprisonment. Certainly there is considerable doubt as to the sanity of the criminal in that case, and I do not think, taking that fact into account, that it is at all a case parallel with those we are dealing with now. I would admit, and would be the first to do so, that now the war is over harshness should be tempered with mercy, and that there should not be any unnecessary continuation of the methods hitherto pursued or of any desire to unduly punish those persons, however guilty they may have been, who failed the country in the face of the highest call that the State ever issued to them. My hon. friend said we had scars enough already. God knows there have been scars enough in this war. But my hon. friend must not forget also that the men who have had the greatest scars are those who have done their highest duty, and their sorrowing friends and relatives, some of whom now live to mourn their loss, can never entirely view the matter in the same way as those men who are trying to obtain absolute immunity from punishment, who, in the face of the sacrifices that others undertook, made absolutely no sacrifice in any shape or form. I do not think that this country, or any citizen living in it, can afford to minimize the grave dereliction of the highest duty they owed to the State which these defaulters were guilty of. I do not look upon this as an ordinary crime. It seems to me, viewed in the light of oui troubles in the past and our situation at present, that the full obligations 4 p.m. and full privileges of citizenship in this country are not sufficiently realized by those who enjoy them. But this war has driven the lesson home, that if a man becomes domiciled in this country and enjoys privileges-and they are great- of citizenship, whenever the existence oi the State is threatened it is absolutely necessary for him to rise to a full sense of those obligations devolving upon him and to carry them out in their entirety. None of us, therefore, can afford to look lightly at that crime, which is the greatest

crime of all, viz.: That of failing to move hand or foot in the service of the State when the State's life is threatened. That is why I say this: That even in spite oi any desire to mitigate severity and to drop some of the methods that we adopted to bring men to punishment, or in dealing with this subject in any shape or form, we should not forget that this cannot be regarded in any way as a light matter. Personally, I would be strongly in favour of applying some form of disfranchisement against a defaulter. It would mean the sentence to that man: You have failed in your duty as a citizen, and therefore your privileges as a citizen are taken from you, at all events for a time. I believe that such would be a wise course to pursue. Whether that punishment should be applied to the man who has already undergone some form of punishment I need not discuss now. I am only arguing that, for the sake of those who have gone overseas and undergone untold sacrifices in our behalf, or in behalf of the state, in dealing with this matter we should, at all events, render justice, even if that justice is tempered with mercy.


Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) :: Does not the hon. minister think that there should be some uniformity in the punishments inflicted?


Martin Burrell: I can only say to my hon. friend that for infractions of the law, whether this or any other law, there must be a minimum and a maximum penalty, affording a range of punishment the degree of which must necessarily be related to the crime itself, which also will vary both as regards motive and actual committal.


Lucien Cannon: I concur altogether in the last remark made by the Secretary of iState (Mr. Burrell) that the subject brought before the House by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) is not a matter to be considered or weighed lightly. It is a matter of great moment and great importance, and the House has to consider it as such.
The mover of this resolution has brought before you, Sir, the question which has been discussed in all the papers and by most of the citizens of this country, and which is awaiting a solution. Are we going to solve this question as it ought to be solved, in a broad spirit of justice, or are we going to solve it in the narrow spirit of people who cannot look far enough ahead in the interests of their country? The Acting Minister of Justice has referred to Mr. Justice Langelier. I do not wish to discuss this afternoon the controversy between Mr. Justice Langelier and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, which is a local affair and of not sufficient importance to divert our minds from the broader and more general problem suggested by the motion before the House. But, as a citizen of Quebec and as a member of the Quebec Bar, I wish to tell the Acting Minister of Justice that Mr. Justice Langelier is one of the most respected, most honoured and eminent members of our judiciary, he belongs to a family that has supplied to our Bar and to our judiciary very eminent men -suffice it to mention that his brother was Lieut.-Governor of the province of Quebec after having been Chief Justice of its Superior Court. Mr. Justice Langelier is not a man who would use his position as judge to be a partisan or to defeat the ends of justice, as was insinuated in this House -not by the Acting Minister of Justice, but by some other member on another occasion.
The Government, as regards the city of Quebec, are always in a most unfortunate position. Last year we had riots in our city. The matter was brought before the House, and the explanation given by the Government for the conduct of their representative was the same as that offered by the acting Minister of Justice this afternoon, to wit, that that representative did not belong to any Department of the Government. Colonel Machin was thrown overboard by the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Militia, and he was cast away by every other member of the Cabinet. He occupied an official position, but it was convenient for the Government that he should disappear, and he did disappear, for a week or so, to reappear a little later. But, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House will not be satisfied with an explanation of that kind. What was Mr. Whitehead doing in the city of Quebec? Was he an official connected with the Government? Did he belong to the Ministry of Justice or to the Ministry of Militia? Mr. Whitehead handed to Judge Langelier instructions; those instructions were official; the judge acted according to those instructions. Were those instructions prepared by the Acting Minister of Justice or by one of his officials? Were those instructions prepared by the Minister of Militia or by one of his officials? That is the question, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this country in general and of the city

of Quebec in particular, as well as Judge Langelier himself, have a right to receive a direct answer for once from the Acting Minister of Justice.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad of the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to avail myself of it to the fullest extent, to answer very fully what the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) asks.


Georges Henri Boivin: I take it for granted the hon. minister (Mr. Meighen) has the unanimous consent of the House.


Arthur Meighen: The incident to which the hon. member refers was opened by a communication to the Department of Justice in regard to certain fines imposed on military defaulters in the city of Quebec by the magistrate in question, which fines ranged from $5-which was the usual amount-to $25. The Deputy Minister of Justice thereupon communicated with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, drawing his attention to the. report and asking that an explanation of it be given; and requesting if the report were true, that representations be made to the magistrate in question that such fines were not incompliance with the law, the Deputy Minister of Justice recognizing that the magistrate was no official of the Department oi Justice or of this Government but was appointed by, and was within the purview of, the Government of the province of Quebec. Then a communication reached the department from the magistrate in question, to the effect that he had been instructed to impose light fines on defaulters. That was the first intimation the Department of Justice ever received that any instructions had gone from the department either to Magistrate Langelier or to any other magistrate or judge in Canada; indeed, we knew that no instructions of any kind whatsoever had gone out. On further inquiry into the matter, a report came to me-I am speaking now from memory; had I known that this matter -was coming up I would have had the whole of the correspondence here -direct from Judge Langelier, |I believe; it was not asked for by us, as our communications up to this time were only with the Attorney General of Quebec. Judge Langelier reported that he had been instructed to follow the course he had taken, and he referred, either in his first or in his second letter, to Colonel Whitehead as the official from whom the instructions came. Colonel Whitehead was an officer of the Dominion Police, which force is under the Department of Justice; it was only in that sense that he was an official of the depart-

ment. Upon hearing that, Colonel Whitehead was immediately suspended. He reported that he had given nothing whatever in the way of instructions, but that he had himself prepared for the guidance of his own officials-he has inspectors, I think, or some other officials under him-a memorandum, which was as partially quoted by Judge Langelier, but it followed with a sentence to this effect: That his officials were to understand that they should in all cases ask for substantial punishment for the offence) but were not to be animated by feelings of severity. This was not in the form of instructions to the magistrate, as I have stated over and over again, and as any hon. member of this House must know, and none better than the hon. member who has just spoken, because to intimate that either we or Colonel Whitehead had any jurisdiction over the magistrate is to intimate an absurdity that could not enter the mind of a reasonable citizen. This memorandum appears to have come to the attention of Judge Langelier. He had been going over with Colonel Whitehead a certain book which police inspectors always carry, but which is not referred to in this case. In reviewing that book, which dealt with the duties of police inspectors, this memorandum came to Judge Langelier's attention. He asked for a copy of it, and a copy was given to him. It contained the portion he quotes, which I repeat again was for Colonel Whitehead's officials, and it contained next the qualifying portion which the judge always refrained from quoting. He then commenced immediately to proclaim that this was received by him from the Department of Justice as his instructions. Well, it would baffle my command of the English language to describe an absurdity more gross or a claim more palpably untrue. No instructions of any kind, let me repeat, ever issued to him or to any magistrate or judge, directly or indirectly,. through an official or through any one else. No instructions were ever intended to issue and none ever did. He got a memorandum which was for the use only of the inspector and for the benefit of the inspector's officials, and chose tj proclaim that as his instructions from us- who, he knew, had no power and no right to instruct him. Hon. members persist in repeating that the Department of Justice so far misunderstood its duties as to attempt to give instructions or advice to magistrates. This gentleman persisted in carrying on a correspondence which the Deputy Minister of Justice very properly refused to continue. That correspondence

I shall he only too glad to have read tc the House; I would have read it myseli had I had any intimation that the subject *was coming up. But it will fail to disclose anything that even savours of an apology. The only time apology comes in is when Judge Langelier, misunderstanding and misrepresenting the facts again, as he did in the first place, replied to some letter and said that he had received an apology. The wit of man would search the correspondence in vain for anything in the nature of an apology. From memory, that is an account of what occurred; it is in essence, a complete account; it is in letter and in spirit an accurate account of what occurred, and nothing else.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, it is evidently difficult for the acting Minister oi Justice (Hon. Arthur Meighen) to give a direct answer to a question, because although during his speech of over five minutes he has talked about all kinds of things, he has not answered my question.
I ask simply what Mr. Whitehead was doing in the city of Quebec and what department he was representing. That is all I want to know.


Arthur Meighen: I told the hon gentleman that. He was an officer of the Dominion police; the Dominion police is a branch of the Justice Department, and he was acting in pursuance of his duties.


Lucien Cannon: Now, I have an answer.


Arthur Meighen: You got it three times.


Lucien Cannon: It would have been more satisfactory if the Acting Minister of Justice had given me at once a direct and concise answer, instead of trying to drown his explanation in a flood of words. We now have the information that Mr. Whitehead is an official of the Justice Department acting as Inspector of Dominion Police in the city of Quebec. Mr. Whitehead hands ovei to the judge written instructions. Well, any man who has had legal experience knows that those written instructions could riot have been prepared or drafted by the inspector himself; they must have been prepared by his superior officer. That superior officer could not give instructions on a matter of that importance without consulting the head of the department; therefore the moment an officer of the Justice Department, the Inspector of Dominion Police, hands printed instructions to a judge in the city of Quebec, we connect the head of the Justice Department, the acting minister (Mr. Meighen), or the minister (Mr. Doherty), who is now away,
with those written instructions. There is no use in running away with the idea thal these instructions were prepared by a mar who is in no way responsible. The explanation of my hon. friend tending to show that these instructions were prepared by an irresponsible official will be accepted by very few in this House. What happened? After Judge Langelier had given a few judgments in accordance with the instructions he had received, some opposition was made and some protest offered from certain parts of the country. As usual, the Government gave way, turned right about face, and tried to deny what had actually been done by its own officers. That was the whole situation.
Let us leave aside the incident of Judge Langelier; in coming to a conclusion in regard to this matter we have to go a little further back. The Secretary of State says that the people of this country had been straining every nerve to win the war. But we all remember something else, Mr. Speaker. If some people were straining their nerves to win the war, others not very far from the Acting Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were straining every nerve not to win the war, but to win the elections. Many gentlemen on your right, Mr. Speaker, when the question oi conscription was being fought out before the people, were thinking not of the Canadians who were over in France facing death, but of the means by which they could defraud the electorate; of the means by which they could deceive their


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The remark of the hon. member that members of the House attempted to defraud the electors is hardly in keeping with parliamentary decorum, and I would ask him either to qualify his language or to withdraw his remark.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I say that lots of gentlemen sitting to your right were thinking at that time of the means they might adopt to bring about a decision in their constituencies favourable to them, notwithstanding the existence of a feeling adverse to them in those constituencies. Other people were thinking of something else, Mr. Speaker. Other people were trying to secure the farmers' vote in their counties. Farmers are not, like the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) all well versed in literature. They do not spend their leisure moments reading Shakespeare and the best English authors. What did some of the hon.

gentlemen sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, say? They went to these farmers and they told them: " Conscription will not apply to you." They were believed. What happened? The Government came back to power. The farmers had voted for a Government that had promised solemnly that the farmers would not be conscripted. In the month of March the new constitutional method invented by the present Government was adopted and an Order in Council wiped out the solemn promise of the members of the Government concerning conscription and the farmers-and the farmers were conscripted. Any hon. gentleman who has a good memory will remember what happened subsequently. The farmers came to this city, and they were curious enough to insist on seeing you, Sir. The Government told them to go home, that the farmers and their sons had to go to war. The agitation continued; discontent was rampant. The Government was frightened once more and instructions were secretly sent to officials throughout the country to this effect: " Bring the farmers to the city, but give them additional furlough, send them back home." They were sent home; in Ontario they were sent home because the Government was afraid of them.
What about the emergency? What about the German peril of March of last year? The farmers were sent home, Mr. Speaker, because the gentlemen sitting on your right were afraid that their promises might bring them to grief in the near future. What were the farmers to understand from all this? Exempted one day, conscripted the next; brought to Quebec one day, sent home on the following. Unsophisticated men could only conclude that what was going to happen was very uncertain and indefinite; so they remained at home. To-day the Secretary of State says that we must not forget to be just. I am of that opinion too, but I think the greatest culprits who should be brought before the tribunal for their action on conscription and the operation of the Military Service Act are some of the gentlemen on your right, Mr. Speaker, occupying Cabinet positions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
Lucien Cannon: They were the people who deceived, and I say that if we are going
fMr. Camion.1
to have trials of people who did not conform with the Military Service Act the first man who should be tried is the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mew-burn), who went all through Ontario during the election campaign of 1917 and solemnly promised that the farmers would be exempted. The farmers having to choose between the word of a minister of the Crown and an Order in Council, stuck by the by the word of the minister. Were they wrong? The second guilty party whom I would bring before that tribunal is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar), who endorsed the pledge of the Minister of Militia. And next T would bring before that tribunal the Unionist candidates who went throughout this country bearing in their hands telegrams, messages, and declarations from those two ministers, in order to secure votes to which they were not entitled. As we say in our province it was " A tout seigneur, tout honneur I would give the precedence to the mover of this resolution (Sir Sam Hughes). I see by the Peterborough Evening Examiner of March 8, 1919, that a young gentleman by the name of Collins-not John-


Samuel Hughes: I am informed that John was drunk, and had disappeared.


Lucien Cannon: He had to. This young
man, when asked by the magistrate to explain why he had not reported under the Military Service Act, said: "Because I was told by the candidate at the last election, Sir Sam Hughes, that I was exempt as a farmer." The judge asked: "When did Sir Sam tell you such a thing?" The young man answered: "Here is the handbill that he distributed all through Victoria riding." Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this handbill was circulated on the eve of the election-not after the election was over, when there was a huge majority for the Government, but when there were big rumours that things were not going as well as they might.


Samuel Hughes: Not in my part of the country.


Lucien Cannon: So my hon. friend from
Victoria, who is a goodl tactician, adopted this means of securing a really good victory, l-e wanted uniformity in Victoria-everybody on his side. Tne handbill that was circulated amongst the electors contains, first of all, a message from Major-General Mewburn, then Minister of Militia, to this effect:
Farmers coming within Class A, called out for military service, who are actually employed

on a farm in the production of foodstuffs for Canada and her allies, and whose services are necessary in the work of such farm will be exempted from military services. If their claim for exemption is not allowed by a tribunal, an immediate aippeal should be made. Arrangements are being made to extend the time for such appeals.
The Minister of Militia further states that if a farmer so called out for military sendee who is now honestly employed in the production of foodstuffs should be drafted into the army, General Mewburn feels it will be his duty to relieve him from military servioe on the condition that he returns to the farm and continues to be so employed.
This young man Collins had read that statement. He was a farmer and remained at home, because General Mewburn had promised that if he was taken from home he would send him back again. The hon. member for Victoria had noL as much confidence in the new Minister of Militia as he had in his predecessor, so he appealed to another minister to endorse the note of the Minister of Militia. He appealed to our distinguished, candid, frank and sincere friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar): "Why don't you add something to what the Minister of Militia has said? In my county they might not believe Mewburn, but they will believe you." And this is what the Minister of Agriculture wrote:
Sir Sam Hughes, Lindsay, Ont.
It having been brought to the attention ol the Government by Hon. Mr. Crerar, Minister of Agriculture, that in some counties tribunals appointed under the Military Service Act, have not given sufficient weight to the importance of the production of foodstuffs and have therefore refused exemption to men who work is essential to continue production on the farm and which they are now working, the Government has decided, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, to take immediate action in order to prevent any unnecessary interruption of farm work.
In order that the Militia Department and the Department of Agriculture may be empowered to have the necessary power to act, the following Order in Council has been passed:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council!, upon the recommendation of the Acting Minister of Agriculture, andi by virtue of the provisions of the "War Measures Act, 1914, and the Military Service Act, 1917, the Minister of Agriculture is hereby authorized to appoint a Representative of the Department of Agriculture in such counties or districts in any province ol Canada as he may determine.
First-To attend the sittings of the tribunals appointed under the Military Service Act to guard the national interests in connection with the production of foodstuffs.
Second-To appeal from the decisions of the tribunals in any case where in his opinion the tribunal has not given due weight to the urgency of maintaining our food supplies.
Third-To investigate and report upon appeals or applications for exemption where the
ground of appeal or application is that the party seeking exemption should in the national interests be retained in food' production rather than be enrolled in the expeditionary force.
J. D. Reid,
Acting Minister of Agriculture.
Vote Hughes. Union and Liberty Support the Roys who stand between you and the loss of home and liberty.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. member not receive these same telegrams? I understand they were sent by the Government to every candidate, both Unionist and otherwise.
Some hen. MEMBERS' No, no.


Lucien Cannon: If I had received these
messages I would not have done as the hon member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) did I would not have gone to the extra cost of printing hand bills.


Samuel Hughes: I am not aware


Lucien Cannon: After such an appeal we have now the pleasure of again looking on the amiable face of the hon. member for Victoria. If we are to judge the guilty ones, if these people are to he fined or sent to jail for not having reported, are we going to overlook those who are parties to the crime, if there was any crime? Are we going to allow this man Collins to go to jail and let the hon. member who gave him that handbill move in the House such a resolution as he has moved this afternoon?
I am in favour of British fair play and equal justice to all, and I believe in uniformity; and if the electors who were misled are to be haled before the courts in Ontario, I want to see standing next to them the members who misled them. For four years we have heard hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, discussing every question, not on its merits, but simply on a basis of trite arguments about winning the war, and I think it is time we got down to facts and considered things from the point of view of justice. Let us know if, when this conscription law was introduced by the Prime Minister, the real object was to help the Empire, or to save his party. Let us know whether it is British fair play that these poor farmers who were deluded and misled are to be fined and imprisoned while the members who were responsible remain in their seats and vote for a motion like that presented by the member for Victoria. In our province we want justice, but justice for the whole of Canada; we are opposed to treatment of a particular kind for the pro-

vince of Quebec, and a different sort of treatment for the other provinces. We have deceived nobody in the province of Quebec.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh.


Lucien Cannon: I have been opposed to conscription from the very start. I fought conscription and I think it was a very inadvisable measure. I believe that that law has done more to disunite the people and to injure Canadian interests than any other law^ ever passed by this Parliament; and we in Quebec, who, from the very first day when this law was introduced, have stood on the platform of conviction can well discuss these matters with the hon. gentlemen to your right, who have shifted continuously.
An hon. MEMBER Shifted more towards the front.


Lucien Cannon: I notice many were back from the front rather early in the war. However, I wish to urge upon the Government the great necessity for legislation that will embody fairness and justice and abolish discrimination of any kind. We do not want Government for Ontario with a voice from Toronto; we want government for Canada with a voice from Ottawa, and the sooner we have a government that understands the problems of this country from a national standpoint, the sooner we shall have real union and progress in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, but in doing so I would add an amendment to the effect that not only should those be punished who are brought before the courts, but those who were accomplices before, during and after the fact.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre):: The attitude of the returned soldiers in regard to the subject under discussion has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), with all of whose remarks, I am sorry to say, I could not quite agree. With the statement that the returned soldier is not revengefully inclined,
I am of course in hearty accord; but I have the honour to Represent many returned soldiers and also to be on the Executive Committee of the Great War Veterans' Association and of all the returned men I have met I think the great majority feel very keenly in regard to this question of defaulters under the Military Service Act. While the returned soldier is not revengeful, he will insist on a square deal; and it 
certainly does not strike him as being fair or square that some men were allowed to
get away with it," as the saying is. I , venture the opinion that from this day forward those men who would not fight should not vote.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: 
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything upon this resolution, but I can hardly allow such a speech as that delivered by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to pass without a few remarks. I regret that the hon. member has withdrawn from the House, but he will probably be back. He has uttered some rather brave words this afternoon, and we know that whether Quebec did or did not furnish a full quota, anyway there is one Cannon that remains to roar securely after the' war is over, and it comes from Dorchester, I believe. Certainly, the hon. member has put some very brave words on Hansard, but I doubt very much if his action or the actions of the community that sent him here justify any such words as he has given to this House this afternoon. He has cast a reflection upon many ministers in this Government and, in fact, he has called them culprits. That has not been ruled out of order. It depends upon what makes a culprit whether they are or not, but there are, we know, big sinners and little sinners. If the members of the Government are little sinners such members as the hon. member for Dorchester must be classed as big sinners, because not only did they not recommend the farmer to go to the front, they did not recommend any class of citizens from any part of that province to do their utmost to see that Quebec should get to the front. If Quebec, of which the hon. member for Dorchester is such an eloquent exponent, had done its duty, as did the other provinces of Canada, conscription would not have been called for; it would not have been required, and it would not have become the law of the land. Everybody knows that who knows anything about the history of the last four years. Look at the figures that have come from every province of
1.330

Canada, and which are authentic, and you will find that had the province of Quebec come forward with the same quota as did the other provinces, we would have had some bU,uoO to 100,000 more men to send tc the front than we had. That is well known to every student of what has taken place during the past four years. Therefore, I say it ill becomes the hon. member for Dorchester, even if he is such a mighty gun, to fire off a squib so small as he fired this afternoon in regard to mis Government, and, as he said, the men they misled.
Were these men misled? Not at all. Anybody looking at the conscription debate, which is very easily available, will find that it was expressly stated on the floor of this House, not once but a score of times, that the farmer being engaged in producing food for the Allies, which was considered at that time almost as important as the service of the man who had gone to the front, would be exempted from military service. It was not an election dodge. If it was an election dodge, it was just as valid in Quebec as in Ontario or the West. But it was not an election dodge; nor was it required. The people of Ontario heard the call and were ready. They did not ask for any exemption.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friends may laugh, but there are the figures. Over 400,000 men went from Canada by voluntary enlistment. We only fell short by one-fifth of what was required. If one-fifth more had been raised under the voluntary system we would have furnished our share in the greatest war of the ages, and done it without conscription. I wish sincerely that that had been the case; I can say that from the bottom of my heart. But it was not the case, and the reason it was not the case was that in certain sections of our country the citizens did not rise to the realization of the full meaning of their citizenship in Canada. But the training of the men of Canada as a whole was right, and true, and solid, and when the call .went forth they did not need any law. My hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) can tell you that when the call for the first contingent was made, it was over-subscribed within forty-eight hours; the second contingent was the same and, so on. If it had been an ordinary war the ordinary voluntary system, which was based upon British law and justice and the desire that small nations might live, would

have been sufficient to see us through the war. But, unfortunately, in a country such as Canada, there was an element to whom this appeal to .a loyal citizenship to do its duty without any compulsion was not sufficient. That existed more or less in every province but a good deal more in some provinces than others. Therefore, the conscription law was necessary. It came down and I am thankful to say that I was one who held up both hands for it and would do it again. Let us look at the necessity of that law for a moment. Canada had been then two and a half years in the war and it was evident to everybody looking over the history-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question of conscription naturally arises when it is proposed to make an argument in respect to the resolution before the House, but it is not competent for an hon. member to discuss conscription as a separate subject, and I hope the hon. member will bring his remarks more closely to bear upon the question before the House.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not wish to dispute your ruling, in any way, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Dorchester discussed it for pretty nearly half an hour and I thought that I would have the right to reply. If not, I certainly bow to your ruling.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Dorchester was not discussing conscription except as showing that certain results flowed from the application of the law. The hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) is attempting to justify conscription itself which is quite a different matter.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is a very fine distinction but, however, I will try to observe it. The hon. member at any rate based his argument on the exemptions that prevailed under the law of conscription. Perhaps I would be in order if I did it in that way. Infractions, it is true, in some eases were not equally punished-in fact, in many cases, were not punished at all. The hon. member for Dorchester calls for justice. If justice were done there would not be sufficient prison room in the county of Dorchester to contain all those who would be serving sentences for not coming forward as required by the Military Service Act. That condition would prevail, not only in Dorchester but in many other counties. As far as I remember the figures, there

were nearly 40,000 defaulters under the law. We know where the bulk of them live. If it is justice that is wanted, justice should be had, and we are ready for it. What the resolution calls for is equal justice to all. We feel that has not been given. Some have been severely punished. We know that in those parts of the country where the voluntary system was the strongest, and where the defaulters were the fewest, the most severe punishments were inflicted not only by fine but by imprisonment. We have sentences ranging from thirty days to a lifetime of imprisonment for not obeying the Military Service law. Is that what justice requires in a country such as Canada? I think not. The resolution calls for justice and for a uniform administration of the law. We should have that and we cannot afford having punished, as we have, so severely a very great number of defaulters in those parts of the country that were ready to round them up, to listen to the cool proposition to come down now and say that where there are so many thousands the law is unequal to deal with them and that therefore we will let them all off entirely. That cannot be contemplated for a moment.
We must have the same uniformity of punishment for those who have not heard the call of their country. If their training in loyalty was not sufficient to bring them to the rescue of Canada and of the British Empire, to the defence of their freedom, and their rights within the law, but necessitated the state stepping in and saying: If you do not go voluntarily you must go under compulsion, then every man who avoided that call should certainly be punished. We set out under the voluntary system. The voluntary system imposes a very heavy responsibility upon the citizen. It says that when your country is in danger you as an individual unit in the country are called upon to do your duty, to go if necessary, and to risk your life in fighting for the defence of your country. What would be said of a case like this? A father has five boys in his house, all good strapping, sound lads; he is attacked by a bunch of bandits over night and, when the old gentleman calls for help, four out of the. five sons only need (to know that the father is in difficulty and needs help to get them to the spot. But the fifth lies in his bed upstairs and says: Let the old man and the other boys fight it out. What would you think of a son like that? Would compulsion be good enough for him? No, he should be disinherited-cut off-branded as
a slacker, a man who, when his parent was in danger, when the family interests were at stake and when all that was dear to that household was calling for his help, played the defaulter.
Is that the kind of man this country would applaud, or would excuse? I think not. Therefore I say that for the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to argue that these men should be let off, that their offence should be condoned in any way, and that those who were responsible for the issuance cf the Military Service call, and the declaration as to who were exempt under it, should be allowed to go free, is something I cannot comprehend at all. I therefore say that in my judgment the resolution is one that is very well timed and requires the most careful and serious consideration on the part of those who administer justice. Because there could be nothing more lamentable than to have it go out to the country that the administration of justice in Canada is entirely in vain, and that the administrators know it and will not try to change that condition or put the law into operation.
We know that all human laws have inequalities, more or less. We know that sometimes a hungry man who steals a loaf of bread pays as heavy a penalty as the man who defaults with five or ten thousand dollars. We know that such things occur, and we know they are not right. In this case we had the moral law, calling for voluntary service, and I consider that is just as strong on the true citizen as is the law of the land. In addition to the moral law, which called upon every citizen to do his part, we had to enact the conscription law, which said: If the moral law is not strong enough in its claims on you, we must put something back of it that is. Therefore the law of force was enacted in Canada, and the men whose cases we are considering to-day are the defaulters and the slackers under it. They did not come to' the assistance of the country when it needed their help. They did not respond when the call went forth that the British Empire and civilization were in imminent danger. Therefore I say that these men, having failed to answer that call, we cannot afford to disregard the punishment that should be meted out in every province alike, from coast to coast-an absolute evenhanded sentence-to every one that failed to obey the law. That I think is evident, and in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, there can be no two opinions about the matter. I hope the resolution of the hon. member

for Victoria will have the unanimous support of the House, and that some uniform sentence will be imposed on every slacker in the country.
Mr. J. E. S, D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (translation) : Mr. (Speaker, I have listened with very great attention to the remarks fallen from the lips of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I wish he could catch my meaning as well as I understood his own remarks. I understood my hon. friend to say that, the guilty party, the chief culprit responsible for the establishing of conscription in Canada was the province of Quebec. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Quebec opposed conscription, because she had a right to do so. Our province, in doing so, followed in the footsteps of Australia, one of the great Dominions in the British Empire which twice opposed the passing of a conscription law by two referendums and during an appeal to the electorate, Ireland also objected to the enactment of such a legislation, not on account of the Irish being cowards, seeing that the Irish, whenever their rights were in jeopardy, have shown themselves able to take care of themselves, but because they looked upon such legislation as inimical to their interests, the more so as Ireland, just as the other parts of the Empire, had furnished its full quota during the late war.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, our friends from the province of Ontario improve every opportunity of throwing discredit on the province of Quebec, by slandering and reviling her. I have the honour of representing here a constituency which did supply a full quota during this war. I do not think there are many representatives from Ontario who could boast of counting amongst their boys men who marched so fearlessly to the front and fought so well in the great cause of civilization and human liberty as lieutenant Briand and lieutenant Eeable, who both were awarded the Victoria Cross and who are electors in the county which I have the honour of representing here.
The province of Quebec was willing to do her duty and she did it. But it must not be lost sight of, Mr. Speaker, that voluntary enlistment was going very well and that, if it fell off, it was because of the orders given by the Prime Minister, in a letter sent to the former Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), telling him that things were going too fast and that it was necessary to check voluntary enlistment which was going on too rapidly. And why were those orders given? Because,

even in those days, our hon. friends opposite were already planning the enactment of conscription, not in order to win the war, as stated by all the hon. gentlemen who have spoken before, but to win the elections and to remain in power.
Mr. Speaker, I take it that the motion which is now before us is an insult to the people of this country. Canada has played an effective and glorious part in the great struggle which is now over and it seems to me that, on the eve of the final peace treaty being signed, the Government should look at the whole matter with more generosity, and instead of enacting legislation providing for uniformity in the punishments inflicted on defaulters, they should bring down a general amnesty Act and grant to those young men a lasting and enduring peace. As I said in my remarks on the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne those young .men for the most part acted in good faith, and more particularly the farmers and the sons of farmers who belived that it was in the interest of the country that they should remain steadily at work on their farms, striving patriotically to increase food production for our soldiers overseas. Besides, the Government realized it perfectly well,-even though they were actuated in so doing from political motives-when they passed an order in council, a short time before the elections, in order to exempt from military service the farmers and the sons of farmers. Therefore, those young men who did not comply with the law, who believed that they should rather remain on the farm in order to increase the production of foodstuffs are not altogether guilty, because they heeded the advice given them by the Government, and because the farmers of Ontario were told that they would not be called to the colours, owing to the desirability of increasing food production for helping our Allies. The hon. Minister of Public Works, in his remarks on the Address, stated that a year ago there was nothing which the civilized world needed so much as shipping; that shipping was more vital to winning the war than were men or shells, and the greatest cry of the allied armies was for ships, ships to carry American soldiers across the ocean and ships to carry food to the allied armies.
Therefore, Mir. Speaker, in my opinion, such a motion as the one presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) should be thrown out and all the members ought to protest against and vote down such a resolution. I take it, Sir, all the hon. members

who are actuated by patriotic feelings and desire to promote harmony and peace in the country, should clasp hands and ask the Government to pass forthwith an amnesty Act and put a stop to all vexatious proceedings against the young conscripts who, as I said, have acted in good faith. They have heeded the advice given them in high quarters. They gave heed to the advice and followed in the footsteps of the Unionist candidates who, during the last electoral campaign, throughout the length and breadth of the country, had told them that if they voted for the Union Government, the farmers would not be disturbed and would be free to remain on their farms to increase production, and so work for the triumph of the Allies.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Beauce (Mr. Belaud) asked the Acting Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) whether it was the intention of the Government to provide during this session for the repeal or abrogation of the Military Service Act, as soon as demobilization is completed. All we could get from the hon. Prime Minister was a non-committal answer. I hope that this Act, upon the conclusion of peace, will be repealed. For my own part, when demobilization is completed, and after peace has been signed, should the Government deem it proper to repeal that Act, I shall ask-and I hope I shall find a seconder in this House-that that law be erased from our statute-books. The representatives of all the nations who are now sitting at the peace conference want conscription to be done away with in every country of the world, as the last was fought with a view to destroying militarism. We entered the war and fought against the Germans in order to uproot that pest of militarism which has been inflicted on Canada by the Conscription Act. It is of the utmost moment that conscription be done away with for ever, the more so as after the gigantic war which has just come to an end, we may have other wars, but in a distant future, and there is no reason why such a legislation should remain on our statute-books.
Before closing my remarks, Sir, I may add that I am strongly opposed to this resolution and that, were I called upon to vote, I should most heartily register my vote against it, the more so as it is not in the interest of the country that it is presented. Nowadays, in the press, in Parliament, all are bending their efforts towards promoting harmony, peace and concord among the various racial groups of Canada,
in the interest of the country, as our common aim. Why then should questions be submitted to the House which are not making for union and harmony, but rather for disunion. It is time we called a halt and put a stop to such a state of things. It is high time we realized that we are all Canadians, not citizens of the province of Quebec or Ontario, but first and last Canadians striving for the development of the country, so that peace and harmony may revive and be reborn in Canada, in the best interests of the country.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East): The resolution submitted by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) should appeal to the hon. members of this House and to our fellow-countrymen who feel that justice should be done. A more equitable means should be devised to punish defaulters under the Military Service Act and deserters from the Canadian army. But, having said that, it does not follow that because we want to see justice done and a uniform method of punishment devised, these defaulters are going to be given a clean bill of health and permitted to go about as citizens of Canada, which they are not and never were. I would follow the course outlined by the hon. Minister of Militia; I would take these men at their own valuation of themselves: they have by their acts said to their fellow-citizens that they do not want to take the responsibilities of citizenship in this country; therefore I would deprive them of the privileges of citizenship. That is the logical way in which to deal with them. After having listened to the hon. Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie), and the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie)-men who have had a wide and varied experience in the courts of this country-as a layman I can do nothing else but come to the conclusion that simply by bringing these defaulters and deserters before our magistrates we cannot get uniformity of justice-to say nothing of the experiences we have had in the past twelve or fifteen months in connection with the operation of the Military Service Act. The defaulter under the Military Service Act is in reality in identically the same position as the man who deserted at the front. He was in the class of men who were called upon to come forward and stand valiantly behind our soldiers, who were giving their very lives in defence of their country, and he refused or failed to do so. I have very little sympathy with the argument put forward that a large number of these men were misled, that their parents


KEVI3ED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
or friends got them into a false position. I have had something to do with a very considerable number of these men. I have followed the course they have pursued up through the section of the country in which I live, and it required very little leading to get them to hi'de in the bush or. anywhere else that would save them from doing their duty as citizens of Canada. The way to deal with them-let me repeat it-is to take them at their own estimate of themselves and disfranchise them of the civil rights which they have failed to appreciate.
I would ask your permission, Sir, to refer very briefly to one or two things said by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). First, with regard to the attitude of the Government towards the farmers. It is true that Government candidates in the election of 1917 said that in so far as it was possible exemption should be granted to men who were producing foodstuffs. It is also true that the Government, so far as I have been able to learn, consistently followed that policy. Exemptions were allowed to farmers in the class of men from 20 to 34 years of age called up under the Military Service Act. But when it was found that in various parts of this country there was an organized effort to defeat the Military Service Act, that tribunals and judges had determined that they were not going to permit it to be effective if they could help it, some other means had to be found to support our troops in France-who were at that time standing, figuratively speaking, with their very back to the wall -and one-fourth of the total number of men had the exemptions withdrawn from them, men from 20 to 22 years of age, but the exemptions to the farming community in this country from 22 to 34 years of age were continued as before. I make that statement, and it cannot be gainsaid.
There is one other matter referred to by the member for Dorehester, and it touched me to the very quick as a member of this House. He stated, Sir, that members on your right who had supported the Military Service Act, who had gone out and done their very best to secure reinforcements for our troops at the front, were actuated not by motives of loyalty to our men, but by a determination to win the election.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON: Hon. members say, "Hear, hear."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON: Not one
of those who sit there and say, "Hear, 
hear," Sir, has the record for service and sacrifice-


An hon. MEMBER :: He was right.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON: It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. member for Dorchester to make any such accusation. I hand back to him the miserable, cowardly slander that that is the motive which actuated hon. members on this side of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The remark of the hon. gentleman is not parliamentary.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON:	Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. If my command of the English language is not sufficient to properly characterize my opinion of the hon. member for Dorchester in the House of 'Commons, I will tell it to his face outside, if he will let me.
When any member stands up in this House and says that men who have given the very last they have in the world to-win the war are actuated by any other motive than that of a desire to support the men at the front, he is making a statement that he cannot support and that he dare not make to the faces of those hon. gentlemen outside the House.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I had no intention of speaking on the subject of the resolution of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), but as I listened to the remarks of speakers on the other side I felt that in justice to myself I should say a word or two. I heartily approve of the resolution. Indeed, I would approve of a much stronger one,-one that would go further than any one has detailed here to-day. I was struck with the remark of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) as to what Judge Langelier had done for the Bench. I should have been much more interested to learn what Judge Langelier had done in the way of soliciting the good offices of the people of his district to join the colours and go to the front. With the hon. member for Dorchester it was a case of drawing a red herring across the trail all throughout. The hon. gentleman spoke of the Quebec riots, which culminated in the burning of the military service records. These riots were witnessed by at least one member of Parliament who stood on the scene of action and did not offer a hand to stop it, to intervene, to interfere. The justification for my saying that he stood there is his own word in this House. It looked to me as if men in high positions in the province of Quebec, members of this House, were glad to see the

military service records burned. It was concomitant with the feeling that prevailed in the province against military service.
The proposal has been put forward here that slackers, as they are termed, should be disfranchised. What punishment is disfranchisement? A man who in the time of stress and trouble seeks the bush oi leaves the country should not be dealt with in any such way by the Parliament oi Canada. A man who would not fight for his country has no right to live in it; he should be deported, not disfranchised. He should be sent out of the country; he is a disgrace to himself and to the country in which he lives. The member for Victoria should make his resolution stronger; should make it provide that these men be sent out of the country. They are not fit to live in it, they know it themselves and the country knows it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He has too good a
heart for that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I fear so. The member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) sometimes agrees with me and I with him. When the question was put about penalties in this House, there was too good a heart in the Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Doherty). I asked the minister when the military service penalties were being imposed not to put such a power in the hands of the magistrates; I asked him to make the minimum fine $200. But the heart of the Minister oi Justice was soft; he misjudged the people with whom he had to deal. He turned to me and said : "We do not wish t* fill the jails or to collect fines; we wish to fill the ranks of the army." Well, these men went to the bush and the army ranks were not. filled. The tender heart was there-I leave that with the hon. member to think about.
The member for Dorchester said that the people of this country were straining every nerve to win the war. What right has he to speak for the people of this country and the nerve they strained? What right have most members from the province of Quebec on the opposite side to stand on the floor of this House and boast of nerve being strained to win the war? Presumption unqualified ! Why, if you look at the campaign that was propagated you will find that it was not conscription against which Quebec fought; it was not conscription that caused evasion of the Military Service Act; it was a propaganda engendered and put up for an excuse -language; language was the reason; this argument of the member for Dorchester is
an afterthought. I remember seeing in the Ottawa papers an appeal by the Patriotic Fund Association of Ottawa asking certain churches in the city to urge their congregations to spend money for patriotic purposes, to contribute to patriotic funds. And I saw an article by five French clerics in this city which, in substance, said, no, we will do nothing of the sort; we will ask our people to raise money to be spent not to fight the battles of the country and of the Empire, but to fight the battle of language. The argument has been made that the people were easily misled. I do not know that they were so easily misled, but they were misled by appeals of that kind made by people who should have known better, by people who should have much better respected the liberty they enjoy than to issue such an appeal to their co-religionists.
The member for Dorchester speaks about straining nerve to fight the battles of the Empire. I just looked at the votes of the soldiers in a few of the counties in the province of Quebec in the last election. In Kamouraska it is officially reported that only fifteen votes of soldiers were reported out of a total vote of three thousand six hundred.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish unduly
to interrupt the hon. member. He has a right to reply to any argument made by the member for Dorchester, but I hope that he will bring his remarks more closely to bear upon the resolution before the House than he is doing at present.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not apprehend that Your Honour wishes to make a ruling until you have heard me a little further. I intend to apply these remarks directly to the resolution under discussion. I submit that I am entitled, in view of the rules of the House and of the course which the debate has taken, to show where the large body of slackers are likely to be found, and to show it by an argument based upon the fact that they did not go to the front. That deals with the question of uniformity and punishment. I wish, therefore, to proceed with the argument; but if Your Honour feels that I may not do so, I shall submit to your ruling. In the county of Joliette, 3 soldiers' votes were polled out of a total vote of 4,500.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Will the hon. member permit me to make an explanation?	*


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, thank you, not at
this stage. There will be lots of time for explanations; I do not wish to be interrupted in the midst of a very interesting table

of figures. In Dorchester 15 soldiers' votes were polled out of a total vote of 4,700; in Bagot 19 soldiers' votes out of a total of 3,400; in Berthier, 8 out of a total of 3,800. In the German county of North Waterloo, Ontario, 659 soldiers' votes were polled out of a total of 9,000. If in North Waterloo the soldiers' votes had been cast in the same proportion as they were in Dorchester, there would have been only 30 out of the 9,000. But in this riding, which is eighty-five or ninety per cent German, the soldiers polled 659 votes in favour of fighting against the old German Fatherland. I put that against all these ridings in the province of Quebec. I will leave it to the country to say whether there is anything fair in a man getting up on tjhe other side of the House and saying that the people of the province of Quebec have strained every nerve to win the war.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: How many French-Canadians were sent to be slaughtered?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: My hon. friend i3 insulting our whole race.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule is very distinct and clear that an hon. member having the floor may not be interrupted except on a point of order or to ask a question with his consent. The hon. member who has the floor has declined to answer questions, and except a point of order be raised I must ask that he be not interrupted.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He should not be allowed to proceed as he is doing.


John Wesley Edwards: Take your medicine.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You mix it yourself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I asked the hon. member who has the floor to bring his remarks more closely to the subject under discussion, and he assured me that he purposed making an application of his remarks. I must therefore give him an opportunity to make good his endeavours.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Shame!
Mr. MORPHY I do not wonder at hon. gentlemen opposite getting excited and crying "Shame." I turn and say to them: Clean your own doorstep, and take your own shame, because it is there the shame lies, and you deserve it. I regret that this debate has been precipitated, but in common with many members on your right, Mr. Speaker, I deeply resent and always will resent such taunts as were thrown across the floor of this House this afternoon by the hon. member for Dorchester, whose county has the magnificent record, apparently, of having sent fifteen soldiers to the front, in spite of his " straining every nerve to win the war." Why, county after county in rural Ontario has sent 600, 700, 900 and 1,000 men. The mark stands out strong upon Quebec, and it will stand there until Quebec redeems herself and becomes regenerated, and takes a humble position in the councils of this country.


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend tell me the number of soldiers who voted in Chambly and Vercheres?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member has
that information at his own hand. He has the right to get up on the floor of the House and say what he thinks, and I do not think it is necessary for me to do any menial work for him.


William Folger Nickle: When I came to this House this afternoon my intention was not to take part in this debate, but to discuss the simple and gentle subject of titles in Canada, but as I am not going to have an opportunity of discussing that subject I propose to add a few words to the discussion that has taken place. Coming from the city of Kingston I cannot sit in my seat and allow such statements 4s were made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Dorchester to go unchallenged. I might say that I sent a message across the floor of this House by one of the pages to a Whip on the other side asking him to advise the hon. member for Dorchester that I proposed to say a few things about him, and that I would prefer he should be in his seat rather than absent when my remarks were being made. But no doubt the hon. member proceeds on the assumption

that " He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day," and has decided not to come back to this Chamber.
The hon. member for Dorchester says he is against conscription. I quite agree that he is against conscription; against not only military conscription but industrial conscription as well. He not only is against conscription, but he is and has been against the war since its very inception.
I will not ask you, Sir, to take my words for this, but I propose to read to the House a few extracts from the speeches made by the hon. member for Dorchester when he ran in a by-election in his county in the year 1917.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. I understood your Honour to rule, when the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) was speaking, that he was not to discuss this question of service or no service as it was not to the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My ruling was with respect to a discussion of the question of conscription. I take it that the hon. member for Kingston desires to reply to the hon. member for Dorchester, who quoted certain statements made during the election in the county of Victoria. I think it would not be competent for me at this stage to pronounce the hon. member out of order, but if at a later stage the point of order is again raised I shall then be in a better position to judge.


William Folger Nickle: I would not think of discussing conscription in the abstract. What I am endeavouring to prove is that the hon. member for Dorchester is just exactly what he said he was-against conscription *-and the way to prove the consistency of a man's action is certainly to compare his conduct of to-day with his conduct and speeches of some time ago. What better standard is there by which to judge a man?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. My point is that the hon. member for Dorchester had no business to go beyond this resolution, and simply because he was permitted to go beyond the terms of the resolution, it is not permissible for some other hon. member to go beyond the resolution to reply to him. I know of no rule by which that can be done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has raised a point of order. I was not in the chamber during the greater portion of the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester, but while in the Chair I allowed him to read an extract from the election address of the
hon. member for Victoria. The hon. member for Kingston has a right to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester, and I shall be in the judgment of the House in ruling when he has gone beyond the proper bounds in making reply.


Samuel Hughes: May I rise to a question of privilege or a point of order? I was not charged with writing the telegrams of ministers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is not a point of order.


Samuel Hughes: It is a correction.


William Folger Nickle: At the time the leader of the Opposition rose to his feet I was about to draw the attention of the House to certain remarks made in the election of 1917 by the hon. member for Dorchester, but if the House will pardon me for a moment I will step aside from the original argument as intended and draw the attention of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) to the fact that while I understood he was only a temporary leader of the Liberal party, I had no idea that his leadership was of such a temporary character that he could not keep his followers in the House in order for one afternoon. If the hon. the leader of the Opposition is correct in his contention that the hon. member for Dorchester was out of order in what he said, then, Sir, I would suggest with all deference that the leader of the Opposition should have risen in his place and called your attention to the fact that one of his followers-one of his new followers-was out of order in making the attack he made a few moments ago. Consistency is a virtue even in politics. I shall quote only a few extracts from the speeches made by the hon. member for Dorchester in 1917. One of his statements, as quoted in the Montreal Gazette, was:-
Are we to ruin our country from the point of view of men of wealth and everything else for England? I say, no, without hesitation.
He was more than a anti-conscriptionist there. He was against the war because he failed to realize that it was Canada's war just as much as it was England's. Again, in another address he delivered in his riding, he said:
I signed my card,-
This was in reference to registration.
-hut I say that I am opposed to conscription, whether industrial or military. If this national service means what it did in England I am ready to fight with all possible means against it.
13.38

He therefore established by these two speeches his opposition to the organization of this country for the prosecution of the war to a satisfactory and victorious conclusion. I only quote these remarks to show that the hon. member for Dorchester was consistent this afternoon, at least in this respect, that he was and always h^s been against conscription. But I want to go further than that and to direct the attention of of the House and of yourself, Sir, to the fact that in a letter that the hon. member for Beauce i(Mr. Beland) wrote, or was alleged to have written, to his sister when he was a prisoner in Germany, he stated that the speeches of the hon. member for Dorchester were reported at great length in the German papers and were there used to demonstrate the supposed fact that Canada was growing weary of the war- weary at a time when it was essential that the strength of the Allies should be kept at'its highest point. If what I say is not correct, I would ask the hon. member for Beauce to rise in his place and say so, and I will willingly retract. But if the statements I have made are correct, I think it is beneath the dignity of the hon. members who are taunted for their support of conscription to sit silent in this House and allow vociferous utterances and honeyed phrases to lead us aside from a discussion so momentous as that which has taken place this afternoon. The member for Dorchester says he wants justice. I say, let him thank God that he has not got justice; because if he received justice for those men that failed to do their duty and failed to realize what the responsibilities of citizenship meant, men in his county and throughout this country who failed to realize the wonderful opportunity that they had, would be punished, not with a fine or trifling imprisonment, nor by the deprivation of citizenship, but punished on the principle that there should be " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and 4hat they should give their lives but not as those heroes did who went to the front to take the place of the men who defaulted in the time of their country's need. The hon. member for Dorchester held this Government up to contempt because he says in 1917 one promise was made to the country whereas a different policy was pursued in 1918. Suppose one policy was followed in 1917 and another in 1918. Are we blind to conditions and to facts? Have we no remembrance of the awful days we went through between the autumn of 1917

and the early spring of 1918? Do hon. members forget that in the autumn oi 1917 we hoped that the war would soon be over, but in the spring of 1918-I think on the 21st of March-there was foreboding in the House when we realized that the line of the Allies was as thin as a thread and that all that stood between the enemy-and civilization was that thin, khaki-coloured line that stretched from the sea to the bounds of Switzerland? Do hon. members forget these things? The hon. member attempts to hold this Government responsible, because, stirred by a stern sense of duty, they may have changed their policy. He says the Minister of Militia should be pilloried and held up to public contempt, and the Minister of Agriculture treated similarly. Why? Simply because, imbued with a true sense of national necessity, they may have abandoned positions they originally held to be tenable, and, in the face of a great danger, realized that everything should be subordinated to the great necessity that existed, and that the national effort should be centred on securing reinforcements to hold a line that was fast growing thin through the wastage of casualties. Are we on this side of the House-perhaps affected by a call that other men did not hear-to sit silent and not reply to taunts and criticisms such as have been levelled against us? Am I, coming from a riding that has giv n approximately 2,000 men to the service of the state in this great war, to stand by and be taunted with charges of inconsistency and an insinuation that my conduct was actuated by a desire to win an election?

taunted by a man who received only some 15 soldier votes in the last election? It is the height of inconsistency to ask those who have sacrificed much to stand by and listen without complaint to insults such as this. We used conscription to win elections? I remember in the late summer of 1917 when I left the House of Commons after the vote on the Military Service Act had been taken, an hon. member said to me: "Niekle, you and I have put a knife to our throats to-day because we will never be able to carry conscription in our ridings;" and I said to him, as I say to-day, that if we had put a knife to our throats and had gone down to defeat and eternal political oblivion, a thousand times would that have been better than that we should have been traitors to the men who cheerfully went, to save our	cause, if	need be,	to death.
We endeavoured to use conscription to win elections? Sir, nothing was further

from our thoughts. We used it not to win elections, but to endeavour to win the liberties of the world. Democracy? Democracy is all right in its way, and there is no more thorough-going democrat in this House than the member for Kingston; but the member for Kingston realizes that there are two aspects of democracy-that of privilege and that of duty; and if this country was good enough as a place to live in it was good enough to fight for and to die for, if necessary. I do not wonder that the member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson) was apparently in some heat this afternoon, for I can understand the frame of mind of a man who gave his only son for the great cause, when language such as was used by the member for Dorchester is hurled across the floor of the House. Used conscription as a means to win elections? The life blood of his son in one scale and the election in the other. Which should win? The member for Algoma East paid the supreme sacrifice; he gave to the country his only son in whom his ambitions were centred in the conviction that he was making some contribution to the great cause. Yet the leader of the Opposition says that now it is all over we should forget. Forget what? The sacrifices that were made? The member for Dorchester says he was always against conscription. I was against conscription in the early days of the war, and I never faltered in my faith that this country would respond, until I used every effort that the mind of man could devise to bring to our colours those who were defaulting, but when I realized that national necessity demanded that extreme measures should be taken I was just as enthusiastic for conscription as I was at first against it. The leader of the Opposition says we should forget. Am I to forget the homes from which were taken sons that never will come back? Am I to forget the homes in which weeping women to-day are mourning the loss of loved ones? Am I to forget that while I advocated conscription I also advocated a fair and just determination on the part of the Government to see that all those should go who ought to go and that some of those who went from my riding went to take the place of others that should have gone but did not? Am I to forget that the people of my riding made sacrifices that were necessary because of men who failed to do their duty?
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) says Clemenceau, the Tiger oi France, was generous in his forgiveness. True, he was generous in his forgiveness; but the argument is not on all-fours, because between Clemenceau and the assassin it was in part an individual relationship. If Clemenceau is prepared to forgive a crazed assassin, that is for Clemenceau and France to decide. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) says that free speech exists in England, that England is tolerant of those who care to speak and that therefore we should be tolerant of those who did not obey the law. That is not on all-fours with the principle that has been enunciated this afternoon. We pass a substantive law declaring that each man who is of age and has the physical capacity should go to the front and do his duty. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate in this country than that we should have the principle of substantive law ignored. I cannot think oi anything more unfortunate than that the view should prevail among the young men of this country that in a time of national peril, when Parliament asembled determines that men must go, that we must have conscription, and when the nation, in an election, ratifies that principle, this law should be disobeyed and that these young men should be permitted to say:	Forget out
ignoring of the law and allow us to go free, because we found that compliance with it was not at all palatable to us.
There is not one bit of revenge in my nature. No one would be more willing to drop the whole thing if it were merely a question of the breaking of an obligation betwen one individual and another. But that is not the question to-day. It is a question of justice to the men who went; it is a question of justice to the homes that are sad to-day because men went and others did not go.
Democracy demands that privileges and duties are to be recognized together, and as a true democrat I say that those who are not prepared to fight for their country should certainly not have an opportunity of participating in the national life through the franchise, which really is the exercise oi kingship.


Michael Clark: I am sure that my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) would not desire to misrepresent me in a matter of fact. He said that I pleaded that we should be tolerant with those who disobeyed the law. I twice said something the very opposite of that. I am sorry, even at this stage, to disagree with my hon. friend in any point; that was the only flaw in a very able speech, but it is a flaw to put into one's mouth what one did not say.
1.340


William Folger Nickle: If I in any way incorrectly quoted my hon. friend from Red Deer, certainly I desire to retract, because there is no man for whom I have a higher respect or whom I would less desire to misrepresent.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.
Thursday, April 10, 1919.


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

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Memorandum No. 5, with respect to the work of the Department of Militia and Defence from 1st January 1918, to 31st October, 1918.-Major-General Mewburn.

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

Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	What is the policy of the Government with regard to encouraging aviation?
2.	What is being done to encourage our pilots and mechanics, who rendered such valuable service, to remain in Canada When they return ?
3.	Does the Government intend to take the initiative in this matter? If not, is it the intention of the Government to assist private enterprise organized by returned flyers? ,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I.	The policy of the Government with regard to the encouraging of aviation is at present under consideration and will be announced at a later date.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
REPATRIATION COMMITTEE ADVERTISING Mr. PROULX:
What is the total cost of advertising to date paid or contracted for, in connection with the work of the Reipatriation Committee?


James Alexander Calder: The committee to date has contracted for advertising to the total amount of $70,000. The amount paid to date for advertising is $25,000.
LIQUORS ON AUXILIARY PATROL VESSELS. Mr. DUFF:
1.	Subsequent to April 1, 1918, were any spirits or spirituous liquore to be found on board vessels of the auxiliary pa/trefl fleet of the Canadian Naval Service?
2.	If so, did the Government supply and pay for said spirits or spirituous liquors?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: ,
1.	The use of liquor on warships is regulated by King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and is controlled by the captain of each ship.
2.	The department supplied and paid for small quantities of spirituous liquor for use for medical purposes only.


H.M.C.S. CANADA.
William Duff: Referring to the Report
of the Auditor General 1916-17, page ZZ-262, item of expenditure charged to H.M.C.S. Canada paid through the High Commissioner for Canada, British Admiralty, Welsh coal, at $8.45 per ton-$561.41; and also to certain questions and answers appearing in Unrevised Hansard of March 19th, page 636:
1.	Why was this coal charged to H.M.C.Si "Canada" if it was not used iby this vessel?
2.	What vessel did use this $591.41 worth of Welsh coal?
3.	To whom was the $561.41 paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1 and 2. This coal was charged to H.M.C. S. Canada because it was used by that ship.
3.	The amount of $561.41 was paid to the British Admiralty.


COMMANDING OFFICER OF.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the name of the commanding officer of the Hochelaga who was dismissed from the Naval Service?
2.	Can a tproperly constituted court martial of the Naval Service sentence an officer or rating to a term in the penitentiary, to he followed by dismissal?
3.	Has this ever been done in Canada?
4.	If so, what was the offence?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Lieutenant Robert Douglas Legate, R.N.C.V.R.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


ADMIRAL KINGSMILL.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	During the autumn or early winter of 1914 did Admiral Kingsmiil officially visit Victoria, B.C.
2.	If so did he officially address a body of Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve ratings?
3.	Did Admiral Kingsmiil advise them to disband?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.	!


LAKE NIPISS1NG WATERPOWER.
Mr. HARRISON:: 1.	How many cubic feet of water per second are discharged from Lake Nipissing at high and low water, respectively, upon which power development can be based?
2.	Upon suitable works being constructed, what power could be obtained from the discharge of the lake at high and low water, respectively?
3.	What would be the approximate cost of a navigable twenty-foot waterway, and of a navigable sixteen foot waterway, respectively, in conjunction with the several power units?


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	(a) High water discharge 13,390 c.f.s. (b) Low water 4,573 c.f.s.
2.	Power development will vary from 20,000 to 25,000 E.H.P. at low water, depending on loss of head, leakage of dams, water used for passage of logs, lockages, etc.
3.	(a) Cost of navigable 20 foot waterway approximately, $20,000,000, exclusive of elevators, etc.; (b) No estimate yet made for a navigable 16 foot waterway.


THE LATE DR. THOMAS BARNARD FLINT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Thomas White: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I feel it my duty to make appreciative reference to a former and much respected official of the House of Commons of whose death we learned yesterday. I refer to the late Dr. Thomas Barnard Flint, who for a period of nearly sixteen years occupied the important position of Clerk of the House.
The late Dr. Flint was a man of wide culture and scholarly attainment. In his youth he won high academic distinction in the educational institutions of his native province and at Harvard University, from which he graduated. Becoming afterwards a barrister, he occupied a number of important public positions in Nova Scotia.
Subsequently, in 1891, he was elected to the House of Commons, of which he remained a member until 1902. During that period he was chief whip of the Liberal party for the Maritime Provinces and occupied also the position of Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders. He became Clerk of this (House in 1902, retiring owing to ill-health early in 1918. He was a man profoundly versed in constitutional law and in the rules and practice of parliamentary procedure. A notable contribution to the latter branch of knowledge was his third edition of Bourinot's Practice and Procedure, which has been of great value to the members of the House.
We of the present House who were members during the time that he occupied the position of Clerk will always remember him as a most courteous, obliging and affable official, always ready to assist in any way within his power, and an official of high efficiency and capability in the important position which he occupied.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I join with the leader of the Government in what he has said about our departed friend, Dr. Flint. There is in the House to-day hardly any person who was here when Dr. Flint first became a member of Parliament. So rapid are the changes in the public life of this country and in the personnel of the House of Commons that it is surprising how quickly the Parliament of twenty years ago disappears and new men fill the seats in this House. Ever since I came here until a short time ago, when Dr. Flint left the chair, that distinguished official was the Clerk of the House of Commons. This is an office of great responsibility, requiring many excellencies of head and heart, and I think all of us who came into contact with Dr. Flint while he occupied' that high office, must concur in what has been said by the leader of the Government, namely, that he was a splendid official, a man who brought education, patience, and' affability to the discharge of the various duties devolving upon him as Clerk of this House. We regret his demise, and he will be missed by his wide circle of friends, and although he had left the position of Clerk of the IHouse, we had all hopes, as he himself had, that we would have an opportunity of coming in touch with him and that for many years he would be in companionship with his old friends. His departure was more sudden than we looked for, but after all it is perhaps the best way to get out of this world and to avoid lingering illness. On behalf of the Opposition, I join in what has been said so well by the leader of the Government,


TORONTO LETTER CARRIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HORATIO C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) : Has the attention of the Government been called to this petition of protest by the letter carriers of Toronto. It says: We, the undersigned, all of whom have served our King and Country in France, England, and Canada, and who are at present employed in the Toronto post office as letter carriers, strongly protest against what we feel is unjust and unwarranted action of the Government, through the Civil Service Commission-
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It would be perfectly competent for the hon. member to submit a question, but not to read a document which is a protest and which calls into question the action of the Government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then I will ask the Government if they have received this protest and what they purpose doing about it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Appoint a commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The remarks of the hon. member are the first I have heard of this matter. If it has come to the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General has not brought it to my attention. I shall make inquiries about it.


DAYLIGHT SAVING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the. Day:
.Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve): I do not wish to be insistent, but in view of the many requests that have been made by various parties, might I not ask the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) if the time of the House could not be adapted to city time until a judgment is rendered by the Chairman of the Railway Commission? I do not wish, Sir, to make a speech, but I may say this, that the mem. bers of the House of Commons who have attended morning sittings of the committees find it very difficult to come here at a different hour and to leave here at a different hour from city time. Moreover, I am told that the parliamentary press is seriously handicapped in its work. To change the time until a judgment has been rendered by the chairman of the Railway Commission would not prejudge the action of the Government. I am in earnest, Mr. Speaker, and would like my hon. friend to take this matter up.
William Thomas White: I shall be glad to take my hon.
friend's remarks into consideration and also to make inquiry from the Railway Commission as to when their decision may be expected. That will possibly enable me to make a statement respecting the matter either to-morrow or at an early date.


Michael Clark: Before the Orders of the Day are called, might I ask the Acting Prime Minister, the head of the highest executive power in this country, whether he could not solve the difficulties of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemdeux) by bringing the city of Ottawa temporarily into line with the House of Commons.



QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING-FRANCHISE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKEtfZIE (North Cape Breton): There are two matters I would like to bring to the attention of the acting Prime Minister. One is about questions on the Order Paper over which matter my hon. friend has perhaps no control. Complaints have been made to me that some questions, amongst which are some very simple ones, have been standing now for nearly a month. For instance, question No. 2 on the Order Paper is a simple matter, but it seems to have been standing for nearly a month. The other matter which is more serious and concerning which I should perhaps have given notice to the Acting Prime Minister, but I did not have the opportunity to do so, is that measures which have been forecasted in the speech from the Throne, should, as soon as is convenient to the Government, be brought down so that all members may know what the programme is going to be. I refer particularly to the Franchise Bill which is forecasted in the speech from the Throne. We on this side of the House at all events are very anxious to know what that Bill contains as it is bound to have a very perceptible effect on the proceedings of the House one way or another.
['In my opinion the "ayes" have it. This House stands adjourned until Monday at 3 o\'clock, Ottawa time.\nHouse adjourned at 10.35 p.m.\nMonday, April 14, 1919.']
William Thomas White: The Government will be glad to take into consideration the representations of the leader of the Opposition with reference to legislation to be introduced into the House.
The Order Paper contains a very substantial body of legislation. I do not recall any session of Parliament at which so much legislation has been ready for the attention of the House as at the present one, which in that respect is an exception. We have a considerable amount of additional legislation prepared which is not yet on the Order Paper for the reason that it is desirable that the Order Paper should be further cleared up before this legislation is brought down. At all events the House is certainly not awaiting any action on the part of the Government so far as legislation is concerned.
With regard to questions, I sympathize with my hon. friend's point of view. I observed that many questions which had been standing for some time had not been answered, and I have taken some pains to ascertain from the various departments why answers have not been submitted at an earlier date, it may be owing to the war or to the greater range of government activity.

But I find that many questions that are asked should really stand as orders for returns for the reason that it is quite impossible to answer them within a reasonable time. In connection with many of these questions the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) is obliged to communicate with all the departments, and it takes considerable time to get those returns in order that he may make answer to the House. My hon. friend has called attention to question No. 2 -" What was the total expenditure of every kind, made by or on behalf of the Fuel Control Board of Canada, from its inception to the end of 1918?" That seems a very simple question, but nevertheless, when it is taken into account that there may be many expenditures which have not yet gone through the books of the Department of Finance, it is difficult to answer such a question without delay. I repeat that there are many questions on the Order Paper which really should be made orders for returns. We have hesitated to ask that they stand as orders for return because our desire has been, if possible, to bring down information to the House in answer to the questions. I assure my hon. friend that I have given the matter personal attention and it is the desire of the Government to have the answers submitted to the House just as promptly as possible, consistent, of course, with our giving accurate answers. In addition to what I have stated, I may say that we shall endeavour to give answers to questions just as quickly as we possibly can, and of that I can assure my hon. friend.



Rodolphe Lemieux: May we expect the Budget Speech before the month of May-or at what time after recess?


William Thomas White: I am unable to fix the date definitely but I shall see that a week or ten days' notice is given so that hon. members may be prepared.


LABOUR UNIONS IN THE WEST.
Joseph Archambault: Is the Government aware that the labour unions in the West have severed their connection with the International Union and formed one big union on the lines of the Independent Workers of the World; and also of the fact that at their convention in Calgary they practically approved of the Bolshevik form of government? I would like to know if the Government has any official information in
that respect, and if so, what steps they intend to take in the matter.


William Thomas White: The Government is not aware that members of the western labour organization have severed their connection with the Trades and Labour organizations, as stated by my hon. friend. I saw a report in the press of the meeting at Calgary, but I do not understand that any severance has taken place.


WAR EXPENDITURES,-$350,000,000 VOTE.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
That it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding three hundred and fifty million dollars ($£50,000,000) he granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority 'of the Governor in Council during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1920, for :-
(a)	the defence and security of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval and military operations in or beyond Canada and the demobilization of the Canadian forces;
(c)	the promoting of trade and industry, and transportation facilities therefor;
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the war; and
(e)	payments made or expenditure incurred during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, for the purposes mentioned in The War Appropriation Act, 1918, and in excess of the amount authorized by the said Act.
2.	That the Governor in Council be empowered to raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sums of money, less any amount borrowed in excess of the amount authorized by any War Appropriation Act, as are required for the purpose of making any payment authorized by any Act founded on these resolutions.
3.	That the principal raised by way of loan under this Act and the interest thereon shall be chargeable on the Consolidated Revenue Fundi
Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister explain?


William Thomas White: This resolution precedes a Bill which will appropriate the sum of $350,000,000 to meet expenditures connected with the war and the demobilization of our forces, and outlays for other purposes arising out of the war. The Bill will also provide for the necessary borrowing powers to raise the sum in question, or such part of it as may be necessary. It has occurred to me, and I put it forward as a suggestion to the Committee, that as I -shall lay before the Committee to-day certain summaries dealing with all our expen-

ditures for war purposes since the beginning of the war, and an estimate, somewhat in detail, of our expenditures during the coming fiscal year so far as we can forecast them, it might better serve the purposes of intelligent discussion of the subject if I placed the figures upon Hansard so that the Committee may be able more fully to discuss them when in Committee stage on the second reading of the Bill. I put that forward as a suggestion now for the Committee to concur in or not as it may deem advisable. My reason for doing so is that the figures which I shall give are necessarily complicated and will be difficult for hon. members to follow. Having them on Hansard, where they may be studied for .a few days, it would seem to me that the Committee would be in a better position when in the Committee stage on the Bill to discuss them. I do not desire to be understood as in any way wishing to limit such discussion as the members of the Committee may desire to-day upon the subject.
I believe that last year the debate took place in the Committee stage of the Bill. That was done by consent between the 'Government and the Opposition through their respective leaders and I believe it was concurred in as the most convenient method of dealing with the subject. Needless to say, in the Committee stage upon the Bill, if the course I suggest is concurred in, the fullest freedom will be given for discussion; in fact, such freedom, I think is amply provided for by the Rules of the House when in Committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is proposed by the minister is perfectly satisfactory to us and I think it will assist the minister in
getting the figures on Hansard consecutively so that they will be more useful to us than if they were broken in upon by any remarks from this side of the House.


William Thomas White: I am grateful to my hon. friend and I am sure that the course suggested, and agreed to by the leader of the Opposition, will greatly facilitate the consideration of this important measure.
The total expenditure in connection with the war to March 31, 1919, was $1,225,098,122.36.
The estimated total, including amounts not yet entered, for the complete fiscal year, 1918-19, is $1,277,273,000.
I desire to place upon Hansard a summary showing the total war expenditure which I have mentioned by departments and Commissions during the fiscal years 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17, 1917-18 and up to March 31, 1919. It is necessary, unless the House consent, that" I should read all these figures, and I hope the House will pardon me because I am afraid they will be somewhat tedious.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) might as well dispense with the reading of them and put them in Hansard.


William Thomas White: Very good.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there are any observations on the totals they can be made now.


William Thomas White: I am obliged to my hon. friend and I shall hand the figures to the reporter of the Hansard.
The statement presented by Sir Thomas White is as follows:


WAR EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS-
[Stage Direction]
Department.	1914-15.	1915-16.	1916-17.	1917-18.	To Mar. 31/19.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 1,462 42 12,432 41 21,254 01	$ cts. 11,926 38 70,303 81 38,242 21 198,528 17	$ cts. 17,483 53 459,780 12 51,078 90 532,491 81 638,051 70 54,261 04 2,512 50 2,347 50 299,233 23 357,724 94 222,574 20 103,168 20 5,270 92 6,000,000 00 51,205 40 38,510 29 2,519 46 266,170 66 610 37 8,547,341 28 2,969,312 18 64,755 72 5,565 00 16,231,961 99 289,220,119 384,439 17	
Civil Service Commission						
				203,174 60 31,647 79 17,916 46 10,531 94	
Governor General Secretary's Office		132,763 89 4,214 14 149,630 09 4,330 90	11,211 06 73,671 16 9,108 81	11,119 29 54,472 22 8,118 63		
				858 00 1,174 74 41,014 99 94,532 41	
		6,723 40	541 60 5,836 93 57,455 11		
					
	81 72	41,346 13			
	254,945 85	1,287,693 31 1,071 19 270 00 1,529 77 160,433,416 42	85,980 86	10,461 04	
			2,157 68 298,291,030 66 1,378,078 43	471,985 49 316,669,871 95 11,393,654 65	
Militia and Defence		53,176,613 55				
	597,126 44				20,177 95 1,875 00 35,697 13 11,139,979 60 117 97 53,338 33 41,383 73 * 3,023 76 2,526 53 (Credit) 24,351 03 8,185 12
	3,096,125 35	3,274,019 94	111,759 89	142,093 91	
					
					
	110,097 80 13,637 91	349,672 00 17,346 91	24,068 34	26,220 34 640 10 5,597 77	
Reconstruction and Development Commission						
				17,782 46	68,867 62
12 865 45	185,321 11	8,687,820 39178,845 20	| 313,740 33	299,934 09	350,545 35	453,457 63

[Stage Direction]
Department.	1914-15.	1915-16.	1916-17.	1917-18.	To Mar. 31/19.	-Halifax Reconstruction	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 846,305 53	$ cts. 307,699 03 56,419 40 48,127 59	$ cts.Repatriation and Employment Committee	Secretary of State	
Shell Commission	16,192 63	21,667 98	54,486 47 8,550 00 23,391 30 33,077 69	81,766 99	Trade and Commerce	
War Purchasing Commission	
Housing Commission	3,003,005 06	14,795 40 29,413 39	[DOT]	CO -4* *	T-1 P-* *	o oo *	<M [DOT]t'-'o' [DOT]	-1 CO	322,142 36 59,251 86 350 00 334,063 75 26,417 77	Trade and Commerce-Pig Iron	Canada Trade Commission	1	60,750,476 01	166,197,755 47	306,488,814 63	343,836,801 98	347,839,324 27 15,050 00 347,824,274 27	15,050 00Deduct Post Office	
Finance Department, Ottawa, April 8th, 1919.
Estimated Total for 1918-19-8400,000,000.00.

1346	COMMONS
William Thomas White: 
William Thomas White: I am not sure
as to the date when the arrangement was made, but I think it was in 1915 or 1916. However, I will make it a point to have the date ascertained and on the second reading of the Bill will give that information. It was generally understood that the rate was a very fair one, at least to Canada. The committee will recall that it was the desire of the Canadian Government, as well as of the members of this House and of the people of the Dominion, that this country should pay its way in this war, and that the expenses which properly appertain to our war effort should be borne by us.


William Foster Cockshutt: Do the figures that
the minister has given for each year contain the full adjustment of the account between us and the British Government up to the end of each of those dates? For instance, does the account for 1915-16 embrace all the arms, ammunitions, and supplies that the British Government furnished to our troops during that period?


William Thomas White: The six shillings per day per man was to cover all the services that I have mentioned in respect to the Canadian forces at the front. That arrangement held good up to September 1, 1917, when it became apparent that this war was* different from all previous wars in respect of the immense amount of heavy gun ammunition required. The House, of course, will recall the battles of the Somme, and the scale of artillery fire in all engagements during the latter years of the war. After the agreement had been acted on foi some time, it was found that the expenditure of ammunition for small arms and other guns and for air service was so greatly in excess of the figures upon which the charge was based, that it was suggested by the Imperial Government that the six shillings should be increased to nine shillings and four pence. It has been found since that even the nine shillings and four pence may not be adequate to take care of the heavy charges for ammunition, and the present position is this: That there is something in the nature of an arbitration proceeding between the Imperial Government and the Canadian Government, and, I understand, the other Overseas Dominions as to what that per capita charge per day should be. In this connection the Auditor General, Major Sutherland, has left for London, and together with a firm of chartered accountants will represent this Government in the inquiry which is being had as to the proper charges for expenditure for ammunition.


Samuel Hughes: What is the name of the firm of accountants in question?


William Thomas White: It is Price, Waterhouse & Company. Now the committee will observe that is an exceedingly important item, and I wish to be distinctly understood that in the figures which I have given as to the cost of the war to date, that undetermined factor be taken into account. I can make no estimate as to the amount to which it will run, but that it will be very substantial indeed admits of no doubt.


Mr. LANCTOT:: It will amount to more than the twelve hundred millions already expended on behalf of Canada.


William Thomas White: Not at all.


Roch Lanctôt: Yes.


William Thomas White: In answer to my hon. friend, and so that he may not get the impression that the additional charge will represent any such figure as our war expenditure to date, I am informed by my assistant from the Finance Department that the Overseas Minister has asked that the sum of $45,000,000 be included in the estimate to cover this increase to become effective from September 1917.


Samuel Hughes: We have to pay
it anyway.


William Thomas White: We have to pay it, there is no doubt about that. We should pay it if Canada is to pay its way in the war. Our attitude has always been that *Canada desires to bear the full financial burden that is properly ours in respect of our war effort. I think that has been practically common ground. Now with regard to the estimated expenditure for the [DOT]coming year-


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that the representatives of Canada in their arbitration proceedings referred to, see that the prices that we pay for the supplies mentioned are compared with the cost of the goods to the British Government, because there may be a difference.


William Thomas White: I am glad to
have the suggestion of my hon. friend with [DOT]regard to that. Of course Major Sutherland is, I am sure, impressed with the importance *of the work in which he is engaged. He is a very faithful, staunch official, and he will be assisted by a most competent firm [DOT]of accountants.
Pay and Allowances	
TVar Service Gratuities	
Deferred Pay and Cr. Balances	
Assigned Pay	
Separation Allowance	
Rations and Billeting	
Clothing and Necessaries	
Outfit Allowances	
Accoutrements	
Equipment and Stores	
Ammunition	
Forage and Stabling (includes horse equipment Overseas)	_	
Engineer Services	
Civilian Employees	
Transport and Travelling	
Training Areas	
Sundry	
Maintenance of Troops in France


Samuel Hughes: Let me mention what I regard as a parallel case: The trucks that we. got cost $1,800, or thereabouts, whereas the cost of the British trucks was $5,400.


William Thomas White: I will take the opportunity of especially bringing to Major Sutherland's attention the observation of my hon. friend on the matter. Now with regard to the estimated expenditure for 1919-20, it is as follows:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister leaves that branch of the subject. In the figures which he has given us in respect to the war expenditures, has he included the calculation based on the six shillings a day, or whatever it was? How much per diem per man did he allow in the calculation which he has made?


William Thomas White: The six shillings a day charge is included in the figures I have given, and the amount which will be ascertained as the proper additional charge agaiirst Canada will be added to those figures. The estimated expenditure for the present fiscal year, 1919-20, is as follows:
Militia and Defence	$275,494,857
Other Departments	 21,201,757

Of the estimated expenditure of the Department of Miliitia and Defence, $91,000,000 is required for overseas account and $184,000,000 for expenditure in Canada, speaking in round figures. Of course, the higher expenditure in Canada is occasioned by the troops who are coming back this year. The amounts I have mentioned are made up as follows:
Canada.	Overseas	Total.$	7,811,800	$13,000,000	$ 20,811,80092,680,000	
92,680,00036,000,000	
36,000,00011,520,000	
11,520,0005.580.000	2,000,000	7,580,0004 106,250'	4,500,000	8,606,250' 52,500	
52,500
300,000	300,0002,000	
2,000654,500	2,000,000	2,654,500840,307	
.	840,307400 000	200,000	600,0002,200',000	800,000	3,000,0003,832,500	600,000	4,432,50017 000,000	6,500,000	23,500,000' 15,000	
15,0001.400.000	500,000	1,900,00061,000,000	61,000,000$184,094,857	$91,400,000	$275,494,857


Samuel Hughes: Have we any interest in the principal, that is, in the stores of ammunition, guns and supplies in France?


William Thomas White: Not to my knowledge. My understanding is that we should be charged with the amount of ammunition that was actually expended.,
I come now to the Estimates of war expenditures by departments other than the Department of Militia and Defence. [DOT]
The Estimates of War expenditures by departments other than Militia and Defence are made up of the following details:
Estimated
Ependiture
Agriculture.	1919-1920.
Salaries	$ 12,000
Live Stock Industry. 500,000	$512,000
This item arises out of the efforts of the Department of Agriculture during the war and in the period immediately succeeding.
The salaries item is for substitutes for regular employees who are on Military leave. The Live Stock item is for contemplated expenditure for movement of food and cattle in the Western Provinces. Expenditure under this item probably will not reach the amount named. This provision is to continue the policy adopted last year in the west owing to the great scarcity of forage in certain parts. The Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with the Provincial Governments and the Railway Companies undertakes to pay for the transportation of cattle and sheep from the southern to the northern portions of those provinces for grazing purposes and for the transportation of feed from the districts where available to the cattle districts.
Audit
Salaries	$42,000
Travelling Expenses	 1,000
Printing & Stationary	 2,000

Archives:
War Trophies Exhibition	$ 4,000
Freight, Contingencies, Salaries.. 7,500

The notte which I have states:
The War Trophies Exhibition has been displayed at Winnipeg, Moosejaw, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver during the last few months. This item is to cover cost of future exhibitions. The second item covers $2,-500 for cost of bringing over further trophies and war records; $1,500 for purchase of rare and valuable pictures and historic souvenirs; $3,500 for salaries including the salary of a member of the War Survey Commission collecting historical information connected with Canadian war activities.
Customs:
Salary and expenses of Supervisor of Metals, Fibres and other materials	 $10,000

External Affairs:-
Salaries, etc	$85,000
This item comprises the following items:-
-Salaries	$40,000
Travel	 5,000
Tel egrams	 12,250
War literature	 1,000
Printing	  3,500
The salaries item is in connection with the Passport Department upon which there have been very large demands, involving the employment of a considerable staff. There is a monthly revenue of about $8,000 from the passports issued.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How do you get any
revenue?


William Thomas White: Fees received for the passports.
Governor General's Secretary:-
Clerical assistance, etc., $7,000 This item covers $2,340 for clerical assistance and $4,660 for telegrams.
Indian Affairs-
Salaries	$ 4,937.'50
Greater production ..	75,000.00	$79,9'3L50
By Order in Council of February 16, 1918, an advance of $300,000 from War Appropriation was authorized to assist in greater production on unused Indian lands in the Western Provinces. 21,000 acres of new land have been broken and prepared for seeding this spring. The advance of $300,000 has been nearly exhausted and it is estimated that a further advance of $75,000 will be required. It is estimated that the yield of the acreage prepared will be amply sufficient to repay the advances.
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919 was. .$266,170.66 Inland Revenue-
Salaries	 $1,100.00	$1,100.00
This is for the salary of a substitute official in the Methylated Spirits Warehouse. Immigration and Colonization-
Salaries for war substitutes	 $10,000
Inspection and handling soldiers' dependents	 15,000
Transportation of soldiers' dependents. ..3,000,000	$3,02)5,000
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919, was. .$51,205.40 Interior-
Salaries	 $69,100
This item is for payment of substitutes replacing officials absent on military duty and comprises $52,070 for officials of the Inside Service at Ottawa and $17,030 for members of the Outside Service outside of Ottawa.
Justice-
Internment operations	  $765,500
Dominion police .... 1,800,000 Military Service
Branch	 200,000
Sundry Legal expensfes, etc	 34,500	$2,800,000
Exp. to Mar. 31, 1919, was .... $2,969,312.18 Labour-
Cost of living,	etc..	$7>5,0>00	$75,000This estimate	is	based on expenditures for
the first ten months, 1918, and includes $35,000 for cost of living; $12,000 for director of coal operations and $10,000 for Civil Service War bonus.
Exp. to Mar. 31, 1919, was	 $64,755.72



Naval Service-	6,350,000
This item covers the following services:- H.M.C.S. Nuobe and
Rainbow	$100,000
Dock yards	 >
75,000
R.N.C.V.R. overs e a s
division	 550,000
War Service Gratuities	 975,000'
Atlantic defence ....	225,000
Suspense ac c o u n t s
(recoverable), disbursements for account of Imperial and Allied Governments . 4,250,000 Expenditure to Mar. . 31, 1919,
was	$11,139,-979.60
Post Office-
Salaries	 $200,000
This item is for paying substitutes for employees on Military Service.
Public Works-
Const ruction, etc., military hospitals ..$3,110,000 Rents, sundry premises	  700,000
Halifax Dry Dock
expropriation	 1,250,000
Sundry minor expenditures	 100,000	$5,160,000
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919,
was	$8,687,820.39
Railways and Canals-
Salaries	$300,000	$300,000
This item is chiefly for payment of substitutes for employees of Canadian Government railways on service.
Expenditure to Mar. 31,1919, was.$153,457.63 Trade and Commerce-	2,241,000
The principal item is $2,000,000 in connection with contract for pig iron with Midland Iron and Steel Company and Parry Sound Iron Company.
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919, was.$656,1206.11 R.N.W.M. Police-
Expenses re. Secret Service and Military
Service Act	 142,500
Increase due to taking over by R.N.W.M.P. of work formerly looked after by Dominion Police as to territory from Port Arthur west to coast. Insurance-
Salaries	 $1,520
This item provides for two clerks, one at $800 and the other at $720.
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919, was..$2,519.46 Finance

	3,600
Decrease due to reduction of staff formerly paid under war appropriation.
Expenditure to Mar. 19, 1919, was. $103,168.20 Privy Council-
Clerical assis tance,
etc	 $ 7,500
Reconstruction and
development	 10,000
The Department of
Public Information-106,960	126,460	85,000
The item of $10,000 for development covers salaries, travelling expenses, stationery, telegrams, etc., required by the Reconstruction and Development Committee.
The item for Public Information includes :-
General office salaries $7,920
Distribution	 2,100
Canadian Official Record	   54,000
Canadian daily record	 9,480

This estimate assumes that the publication will cease after July 1, 1919.
Reference branch ...	$6,840
Thrift and War Savings Stamps	 5,820
Miscellaneous, including some printing stationery, cables and
contingencies	 22,800
Expenditure to Mar. 31, 1919,
was	$214,3*51.03
The expenditure under the head " Justice " will depend on the conditions with which we are confronted during the year. It is thought that the amount stated will not be exceeded.. The amount which was appropriated last year for the registration of aliens does not, of course, appear in this year's estimate.
That gives in some detail the expenditures of the Dominion upon the war to date and the estimated expenditures for the coming year in connection with the war and demobilization and to meet the conditions arising out of the war.
The total of the various items which I have mentioned to the committee is a little under $300,000,000, and I should point out to the committee that we are asking for $350,000,000. There are at the present time considerable funds available in the treasury of the Dominion, and the surplus over the $296,000,000, the aggregate of the figures which I have mentioned, which will be provided by this appropriation, will be used for the purpose of providing credits which it will be necessary for Canada to provide in connection with the financing of our export trade. That is a matter with which I shall be glad'"to deal on any convenient occasion when we are in Estimates or in committee after the second reading of this Bill. Suffice it to say that, just as foi the past three years Canada has been obliged to provide dollar credits in Canada for the purchase by the Allies of foodstuffs and manufactured products, so for a considerable period after the close of the war, how long I do not know, but for the period at least in which international exchange is strongly against Europe, Canada will have to continue to provide dollar credits for the purchase of many of our foodstuffs anc manufactured products. That is a consideration arising directly out of the war, and the United States has been obliged to take the same course and upon a much larger scale. The ordinary commercial and financial methods, by reason of the machinery of international credits and exchange having been thrown out of gear by the war, are no longer effectual for the purpose of enabling us to carry on our international trade.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How does this system operate in practice?


William Thomas White: It operates in this way in practice. In the period before the war Canadian wheat, flour and other foodstuffs, and manufactured products that were sold abroad were sold in the ordinary way. That is to say, a bill of exchange would be drawn upon the consignee abroad to which would be attached the bill of lading and other securities, and the seller in Canada would hand the bill of exchange witn the other documents to his bank. The bank might either send those forward to London and sell them there or sell them in New York, which is the exchange centre for this continent. No question of governmental assistance arose at all, because the bills were taken in hand by financial institutions and were ordinarily sold in New York, and by draft on New York, money was brought to Canada.
Owing to the breakdown in international exchange between Europe and America there has for the last two years not been a free exchange market in New York, although there has appeared to be one. The fact is that for the last two years or more and until very recently the Imperial Government has been obliged to provide for the maintenance of sterling exchange on an artificial basis. It was " pegged," to use an expressive financial term, at $4.76, but it was not generally realized in Canada, and I do not think it is to-day, that bills oi exchange drawn by Canadians in respect of goods sent abroad and sold in New York were not really sold upon a free market in the old sense. Very large sums of money, as large as $1,000,000,000 in 1916, had to be provided, in dollar credits in New York by the Imperial Government for the purpose ' of holding up sterling exchange to $4.76. That was one of the reasons why restrictions upon imports were imposed by Great Britain and by continental Europe, because not only was there scarcity of shipping, but it was an object to them to diminish to as great a degree as possible the amount of money which they had to provide on this side for the purpose of holding up sterling exchange. Consequently, during the last two years of the war, practically all buying on'behalf of Great Britain and her European Allies was done through an International Commission. For instance, the Wheat Export Company, which is the buying agency of the Imperial Government in Canada, was the sole purchaser of wheat and flour. I use that just as an example. It was not open to firms dealing in grain
to sell their grain as in the period before the war, draw bills of exchange in respect of it and negotiate them with their banks. In other words, the exchange situation, although on account of its being a complicated matter, this is not generally realized by the public, had much to do with the restrictions placed upon imports by Great Britain and other European countries. The idea was to limit imports to Europe to necessaries, because money had to be provided in New York to keep sterling exchange up to $4.76. Many of those restrictions still remain. What I have said remains good with regard to wheat and flour to-day. Until recently it was true with regard to bacon which now has a free market. It is true to-day with regard to beef. Great Britain, although in command of almost unlimited resources in sterling in Great Britain, cannot pay in sterling for her purchases on this side of the water; she must pay in dollars either in the United States or in Canada. On account of the exchange situation being as it has been for the past two years, Great Britain has not been able to furnish dollar credits on this side of the water as she was in normal times. As a result Great Britain would not have been able to make purchases in America unless she could obtain dollar credits either by borrowing in the money market in the United States or from the American Government or from the Dominion Government here. As far as our producers, both farmers and manufacturers, are concerned, they do not know and I suppose they do not particularly care where the money comes from as long as they receive it in the usual way.
But it can only be provided for purchases of our foodstuffs and our manufactured goods and other exports-I will not say all, but a great volume of them -by provision of credits in Canada for Great Britain and the other governments. It is of the greatest importance to Canada to participate to the utmost in export trade. We have incurred a very heavy indebtedness during the war and that indebtedness can only be met as to interest and sinking fund, with a view to gradual liquidation, by Canada playing an increasingly important part in exports of agricultural and manufactured goods.
A nation is very much like an individual. An individual can pay off his indebtedness only if he produces more than he consumes, and the same. holds true with regard to a nation. The nation can only reduce its national indebtedness and meet the interest obligation upon its debt re-

maining from time to time by producing more than it consumes, and its excess production must be sold abroad. I hope I am not wearying the committee, but the question has been asked me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand from the minister that we are providing credits for Great Britain, and therefore we have a contra-account to file when the final settlement is made. Has my hon. friend any idea of that account?


William Thomas White: According to our books to date, and not taking into account that extra charge which we shall have to pay for ammunition, the indebtedness of Great Britain to Canada is about $200,000,000. Let me explain to the committee how this has worked out in practice. We had our Canadian Expeditionary Force overseas in Great Britain and the Continent and borrowed from Great Britain, in monthly amounts, such sums as we required to pay our expenditures in Great Britain and to pay Great Britain the maintenance charges of our troops in France. On the other hand, Great Britain was expending in Canada for herself and her Allies immense sums for the purchase of wheat, flour, and other foodstuffs, airplanes and munitions, and almost since the first year of the war Canada has been advancing to her the money which she required here for those purposes. Those advances are consequently a set-off to the advances which were made by Great Britain to us in London; but in addition, as I said a moment ago, there is a balance of $200,000,000 in favour of Canada. To what extent that $200,000,000 will be reduced by the added charge which will have to be paid in respect of the expenditure of unexpectedly large amounts of ammunitior in France and Belgium since Septembei 1, 1917, I cannot say, and until we know that we are not in a position to state wit! any degree of accuracy what the amount is that is owed to Canada by Great Britain. Now I have been speaking of what is owed to the Canadian Government by Great Britain, but in addition, the Committee may know that the banks of Canada have also substantially helped the Imperial Government by making advances for the purpose of purchasing grain and other Canadian products during the past three years. That money was borrowed by the Imperial Government from the banks, maturing in a year from the date of the advances, and it has been renewed from time to time during the war. In that con-

nection I would point out an important feature, namely, that it will be a very great advantage to Canada after the war to have an indebtedness from Europe to the Government and to our banks. It will be an important factor in our exchange situation, because when sterling exchange becomes normal again we shall be able to collect that money by drawing on London, and that will tend to strengthen and stabilize our own exchange.


Avard Longley Davidson: Have we any account with France or Italy?


William Thomas White: I am glad my hon. friend has raised that question because it is evident I am not wearying the Committee. When the war came to an end we realized that the world was going to be confronted with a very serious industrial and commercial situation. On account of the restrictions upon imports to the European countries and the gen'eral demoralization in Europe caused by the war, we thought it highly desirable to offer credits not only to Great Britain but to other European countries as well, to finance purchases which they might make in the Dominion. As soon as the armistice occurred we at once brought the matter to the attention of the French Government. Negotiations have been had because we should have been very glad indeed to make very substantial advances by way of credits in Canada to our great Ally, France. So far the French Government 'has not felt that it required Canadian credits, but the offer remains open and the matter is still under negotiation in Paris. I cabled Mr. Lloyd Harris and the Prime Minister weeks, in fact, months ago, that we should be very pleased to create a substantial credit for France amounting to $25,000,000 or $50,000,000 or whatever sum she required. Then we felt that Belgium would need to make substantial purchases on this continent, and we entered into negotiations with that country with the result that a credit of $25,000,000 has been arranged for under agreement for the purpose of enabling the Belgian Government to purchase goods and products in Canada. An agreement was also entered into with the Rumanian Government for a credit of $25,000,000.
\Mr. CAHILL: Order in Council?


William Thomas White: It is under the authority of an Order in Council. There is also a $25,000,000 credit to Greece. I may say that we considered very carefully with the British Government and the Imperial

Treasury the question of security and the desirability of making the advances in question, and we are satisfied that we will be justified in making them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these credits earmarked for certain classes of goods?


William Thomas White: They are not
marked for specific goods, but the position is this: Wheat and flour are being bought by Britain and we are furnishing credits for them. We also provide credits to Great Britain for the purchase of beef, and with regard to the European countries-I am speaking only from memory-one-fifth will be for agricultural products, one-fifth for raw material, and three-fifths for manufactured products. That is, what they require to purchase in Canada they will purchase that through the Canadian Trade Mission, or through missions of their own, or through firms or companies they may employ for that purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government any say in the designation of the firms that are employed?


William Thomas White: If the purchasing is done through the Canadian Trade Commission here, they are in close touch with all the manufacturers of the goods in question. They have connected with them representatives of the various sections of Canadian manufacturers and agricultural producers and the object is to give every one an opportunity to tender. I can show that to my hon. friend very clearly from the correspondence.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understand that our representative, Mr. Lloyd Harris and his associates in Europe at the present time, have been commissioned by the Government to look after business for the Canadian manufacturers. I understand, also there is an independent agent looking after these orders in Europe and distributing them in Canada at the present time. I think the name of the gentleman is Mr. Yapp.


William Thomas White: Whom does he represent?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I fancy he is representing the woollen industry and he is obtaining orders in Europe at the present time. He is negotiating with the woollen manufacturers regarding the distribution of these orders. I understand too that the woollen manufacturers were called together in Toronto not long ago and, together with one of the managers or leading men of the Trade Commission, they distributed these orders.
These orders were distributed with the understanding that they would be confirmed subsequently by the Government. The question I wish to ask is: Have these orders been confirmed by the Government and, if so, how? Have they been confirmed by Order in Council?


William Thomas White: I am sure they have not been confirmed by Order in Council. The Canadian Trade Mission in England have been promoting and obtaining on the continent, trade for Canada, and we have strongly urged upon the manufacturers and agricultural producers of Canada to send representatives over there and not leave the matter entirely to the Government, but to make use of the facilities we have afforded through the Mission in England, and push their business. The Dominion Government are in privity with governments only, the Governments of Great Britain, Belgium, Rumania and Greece, and, if we extend credit to France, the Government of France. The Belgian Government will, let us say, send a commission out here or act through some established company or firm for the purchase of goods in Canada. That is for them to determine. They say to the Dominion Government. If wa purchase $25,000,000 in Canada, will you lend us the money? We say: Yes, we will lend you the money. On account of the conditions existing in Europe, it is not possible for the transaction to be carried out in the usual way as it would be before the war. In other words, Canada cannot get the business unless we furnish the credit. I am not familiar with the transaction to which my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) refers, but if a representative of the woollen manufacturers of Canada obtained an order from a foreign Government, let us say the Rumanian Government, they would come quite within what we have in view. It would be proper for the Rumanian Government to place that order as they might think best either through a commission of their own or ask the Canadian Trade Commission in Ottawa to place the order for them. In placing orders our commission have to consider the .several manufacturers. They have their specifications and they have to purchase to the best advantage and up to the standard required by the Rumanian Government. The price must be fair and reasonable and the purchase would be financed by an advance made to the Rumanian Government through our banks here and through which payment would be made for the goods supplied.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What function does Mr. Lloyd Harris perform in regard1 to contracts .of that kind?


William Thomas White: It would be Mr. Lloyd 'Harris' duty to assist the representatives of the Canadian producers in obtaining business in Great Britain or on the continent. Some of the business might be obtained without any Government credit at all. It might be Mr. Lloyd Harris' duty to enter into negotiations with foreign governments and I have no doubt that in that he would be assisted by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) for the purpose of offering them credit for the purchase of goods in Canada. While this business is of unusual character-


Frank S. Cahill: Very much so.


William Thomas White: -that is in peace times-'it is precisely what has been carried on during the war. In order to obtain a market for the goods and commodities which we have to sell we had to furnish credit to Ithe Imperial Government here. In order that the House may realize the extent to which we have made advances during the war, and which advances, as I explained, are much more than a set off to the advances made by Great Britain to us for the maintenance and upkeep of our troops in Great Britain and on the continent, I should like to place upon Hansard some figures showing how these credits we have furnished to Great Britain have been expended in Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that the Government is pledging the credit of Canada in order that specific and particular manufacturers should do business outside of this country?


William Thomas White: I would not put it in that way. The Dominion Government is extending credit to foreign governments in order that the export trade of this country may be promoted and increased. I would be very apprehensive of what would happen in Canada in the period succeeding the war unless the Government had the courage and resource to furnish credit for the purchase of our agricultural and manufactured products. I believe-and I am prepared to argue this at any time-that we occupy the best position with the sole exception of the United States, and I do not know that I should even make that exception, of any of the belligerents vdio have been in this war. I believe this is due not only to the great natural resources and productiveness of Canada but to the fact that

the Government has taken the necessary measures to provide for the continuance and expansion of our export trade.
Mr. JACOB'S:	In other words, we can
compete against the world?


William Thomas White: We can compete against the world provided our people have the financial facilities. Supposing the Dominion Government had said:	No money
for credit in Canada. What would have happened? Our wheat, flour, beef, manufactured goods, cheese, and salmon could not be sold abroad, and the export business of this country would practically come to a standstill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would you restrict the exportation of butter just now5


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
knows that raises a very important question. If the Dominion Government at the close of the war deliberatly took the position, "No more credits for export trade," I would not want to be Minister of Finance in this country.


Frank S. Cahill: I would ask the minister, do we not, in the event of .Rumania not paying, have to assume the obligation: It certainly would not be the manufacturer.


William Thomas White: I do not contemplate the possibility of Rumania not paying


Frank S. Cahill: When you give credit you must do so.


William Thomas White: If I contemplated that possibility I would not give the credit. We have made inquiry into this matter, and we are satisfied that if we advance the money for the purpose of purchasing here that Rumania will observe her international obligations.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it within the knowledge of. the minister that a large number oi trading companies have been formed in the United States to do this very class of business without any assistance from the United States Government?


William Thomas White: 
William Thomas White: Yes, we advanced that amount for Great Britain for cheese. Then, as I have shown, we made advances for the purchase of all the salmon pack of British Columbia, We also made enormous advances to the Munitions Board, not only for munitions, but for the carrying out of their large shipbuilding and airplane programme throughout Canada. Then we made advances for the purchase of other foodstuffs, and coming down to the present time, I am now arranging an advance for the purchase of the exportable surplus of our wheat and flour. Now my hon. friend saya those advances were made to Great Britain, and so they were, but if Canada is going to engage in international trade, it will have to do what they -are doing in the United States, although, of course, on a smaller scale, which will be to grant credits to other countries for the purchase of goods in Canada.
My hon. friend has asked whether the credit is especially for the manufacturers. It is not only for farmers for their wheat and foodstuffs, but for the manufacturers of food products and of all kinds of goods. If we had all these factories standing idle in Canada to-day by reason of the lack of provision for the credits, what about the question of providing work for dependent people? It is not only a question of manufacturers getting orders, but of their being able to keep their staffs employed and preventing unemployment in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I point out to the
minister that the agricultural commodities

are going to Great Britain, whereas we can only hope to sell the manufactured goods to Rumania, Serbia, iCzecho-Slovakia, and the other new countries that are now being created at the Paris Conference.


William Thomas White: Let us assume
that is so. Heie Canada confronts one of the most critical periods in the history of the world, and in her history also. The Government had two courses open to it. One is to say: "Now the war is at an end and we will furnish credits only for the financing of our foodstuffs; we will not furnish any credits for manufacturers at all". The one thing that a country should' guard against, especially at the close of a war and a long war such as this, is unemployment. We do not want unemployment iii this country. We want the factories to be engaged, and the workpeople to be at work; and there would have been a very different story told in Canada to-day if the Government had not taken the measures which it. has taken to maintain the factories in operation and obtain business. I have already said that I believe we are in one of the best positions in the world by reason of the course which the Government has adopted. I think it is perfectly clear that Canada, like the United States, must provide credits to foreign governments for the purchase of commodities in this country, if we are to s-ell to them, for a more or less indefinite period until exchange between Europe and the United States becomes far more normal than it is to-day.	.


Samuel William Jacobs: Irrespective of guarantees? The point I make is that we are pledging the credit of this country to countries which, to say the least, are not in a very good financial position at the present moment. If Canada is to cast about looking for trade, is it advisable that she should deal with those countries that have been overrun for the last four or five years which are practically on the brink of bankruptcy and threatened on all sides by Bolshevism and everything that implies?


William Thomas White: I do not expect that this world is going to continue practically in a state of war. It is my hope and belief that an enduring peace is going to be brought about during the next few weeks. If it is not I should almost despair of the future. The five great Powers that won this war, will, one of these days, sign a treaty of peace., and when that treaty of peace is signed I do not think that the conditions which prevail in Europe to-day will continue.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will those conditions continue here? Will unemployment continue here?


William Thomas White: I desire to say to my hon. friend what I said before. If he will look up the records of all the countries in the world that have been in this war, he will find that Canada is to-day in the best position with regard to labour, employment and prosperity.


Samuel William Jacobs: That being so, why should we want to look' for trade to insolvent countries?


William Thomas White: The retort is very obvious indeed; if the Dominion Government had not taken the course which I mention, had not had the courage and the resource to announce that it would push for overseas business, and establish the credits to enable that business to be carried on, there would to-day be much more unemployment in Canada than.there is.


Samuel William Jacobs: As a matter of fact, has one dollar's worth of goods gone forward from Canada to those countries since those negotiations were entered into?


William Thomas White: Goods are in process of manufacture. I would remind my hon. friend that there is one very important thing no country can afford to lose, and that is confidence. We maintained it during the war and we have maintained-,it since. The policies which this Government adopted of establishing an Overseas Trade Commission and of financing purchases by Great Britain in this country represent the difference between our position to-day and rwhat it might have been-a prospect I would not like to contemplate. Courage and resource are required by the Government during this period succeeding the war, and if they lack those qualities, the people are going to suffer.


Samuel William Jacobs: Every one admits that courage is necessary.


William Thomas White: Yes; but it is rare.


Frank S. Cahill: What was the purpose oi the Government a few days ago in asking for a vote to make good a deficit of $100,000,000, if they are in a position to loan money to every more or less insolvent country in the wrorld?


William Thomas White: We have a deficit because last year was a war year, and we will have a deficit this year because this year in a sense is also a war year. But if my hon. friend desires to ensure recurring

deficits for many years to come, he would
take measures


Frank S. Cahill: Of precaution.


William Thomas White: which would
prevent the expansion of our international trade. On the other hand, if he desires this country to meet its interest obligations and to reduce its national debt, the best course that he could pursue, I submit, would he to adopt a policy of meeting financial conditions and providing credits which will enable it to sell its goods abroad at a profit. Our future depends upon our increased production and our ability to find markets for it; and these markets cannot be found under present conditions unless credits are extended by us. I agree with the hon. member that there may be a difference of opinion whether particular credits should be extended or not; that is a question upon which the Government must make up its mind after inquiry from those whose opinions it deems valuable; but as to the principle of continuing to establish credits this year for the purchase of our agricultural and manufactured products, I do not think it is open to question, because I do not see how our trade could go on unless we pursue that course.


Frank S. Cahill: What about next year?


William Thomas White: We will see. Last year there was no free market for bacon; there is a free market now. The manufacturers of bacon can send their goods forward and sell their bills of exchange as they could before the war. But that cannot be done with regard to wheat, and flour, and many other commodities, and with regard to those commodities purchasing can only be done by governments and upon credits furnished to them. If the Dominion Government today said: No more credits for the purchase of our wheat, flour, and cheese and the products of our manufactories, you would have a panic in this country.


Frank S. Cahill: Our business with Great Britain during the war was transacted very much the same as my hon. friend did in his boyhood days: he took a basket of eggs to the market and got tea for them. We had to exchange; we furnished Great Britain certain things and she furnished certain things to us. But the idea of hoping that this country is going to be in a position to finance its manufacturers in foreign markets by creating a false market for our manufactured goods, I cannot conceive of any man of reason entertaining. No. nation ever got into the business of
exporting manufactured goods until it was an importer of foodstuffs. Great Britain is the greatest exporter in the world and she is a great importer of foodstuffs; the same with Germany-	.


Avard Longley Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I think the House would like to hear the hon. minister complete his statement.


William Thomas White: I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend because I have taken nearly all the time of the Committee this afternoon. I do not understand my hon. friend when he says we must lbe importers of foodstuffs if we are to be exporters of manufactured articles. If he will look at the trade returns for the few years before the war he will find that we were exporters of both agricultural and manufactured products, agricultural products being largely predominant, but if he will follow down through the war years he will find a colossal increase in the export of our manufactured goods,
5 p.m. largely consisting of munitions.
This country developed an extraordinary ability for manufacturing munitions and other war commodities. When the war came to an end, if all the munition plants had ceased operating what would have happened to the 200,000 workers in munitions and allied industries? The problem was to substitute other business for the munition business. We must endeavour to find markets abroad for our agricultural and our manufactured products, or not only will our farmers and manufacturers suffer, but our work people will suffer, and our merchants who depend on our work people will also suffer; in fact, the whole country will suffer. I believe that the sooner 'Canada and all other countries can get back to normal trade conditions, so that all this business may be conducted through the regular commercial and financial channels, the better. I do not want to have to find one dollar to finance the purchase of foodstuffs and manufactured products from this country. " Well, then, why do you do it?" you may ask. Because we are in this period succeeding the war, the most critical in the history of the world, and we have to do it in connection with our manufactures and our commerce, which have become badly dislocated by reason of the sudden termination of the war. The Government must endeavour to meet that situation. I hope that we are meeting it wisely, but I have to tell the House that courage and resource are required if we are not to have very serious conditions. We must find a market

abroad for our agricultural and our manufactured products, and we must keep our work people engaged so far as in our power lies. If my hon. friend puts forward the proposition that apart from a condition of war, or the period succeeding the war, the Government should not interfere in financing the purchase of the products which we have for sale abroad, but leave that financing to the institutions established for the purpose, I agree with him.


Frank S. Cahill: Right from now.


William Thomas White: Not from now. I wish I could say from now. It would be a great relief to the Government at this time if we could say: Old conditions are restored; there is nothing abnormal. Let trade take its course, and let finance take its course and play its part. We would be very glad to do that. But look at the conditions prevailing to-day. You have international exchange demoralized, as I mentioned a little while ago; you have highly artificial restrictions on trade by reason of the prohibition of imports and licensing systems.
We have an entirely artificial condition in the world of international trade. My own view is that we will probably come out'of that more quickly than even experts think.
I am hopeful enough to believe that this period will not last as long as men whose opinion is probably entitled to more weight than mine think it will; that when trade comes back to its usual channels exchange may rectify itself more quickly than some financiers imagine. But until it does, we must conform to the conditions that we find in the world; otherwise our people will suffer and our trade and industry will suffer. I am sure no one in the House desires that to happen.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Where does the minister propose to get the money that he will require this year, including the $350,000,000?
I understood him to say that he had some $54,000,000 on hand and would require only $296,000,000 of the $350,000,000. Does he propose to float a loan abroad, or will he get the required amount by increased taxation?


William Thomas White: The Dominion
Government is in funds to a very large amount at the present time-speaking from memory, to the extent, I think, of a couple of hundred million dollars. That is one reason why $50,000,000 only in excess of the actual expenditure is asked for. I have not had it in mind that we shall need the full $250,000,000 for the credits, but we have 
la-rge expenditures for other things and it will be necessary, I think, later in the year to make a loan in Canada. We have certain maturing obligations in Great Britain and United (States and it may be necessary to . borrow there later, but for the present we have not in contemplation any 'loan. With the armistice coming so suddenly and unexpectedly, it is rather fortunate that we were in funds. The Dominion has some temporary obligations of which I will inform the House in the Budget Speech; but on the whole our debt is pretty well funded, and there is nothing within the next five years, so far as I can see, that need cause any serious apprehension; that is to say, as to our being able to borrow to meet any deficits we may have. But I am the first to say that just as soon as we get through this very trying period, retrenchment must be the order of the day. What we are doing to-day we shall not be able to continue to do. The Dominion Government will not continue in the years that are to come to extend credits to finance our exports; just as soon as free markets are obtained, that will not be necessary. Trade and finance will be as before the war and the Dominion will have its Budget as it had before the war, only, of course, on a very much more extensive scale.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the minister expect that out of the $350,000,000 he will have enough for the increased pensions to soldiers?


William Thomas White: The item for pensions is in the Main Estimates.


Mr. ELKIN:: There has been some discussion in the past as to whether we provided funds in New York to take care of interest obligations in connection with Great Britain's borrowings. Exchange, of course, would be against us at the time we provided that money. Did we, as a matter of fact, provide money to take care of Great Britain's interest charges falling due in New York, and to what extent, if we did, was the exchange chargeable to ourselves or to Great Britain?


William Thomas White: We have not provided any money to Great Britain except for purchases in Canada. On the contrary, we have received from Great Britain a great deal of money in New York funds; in other words, what we have received from Great Britain there ha3 helped our exchange. Of course, that had to be so. Canada has large interest and other obligations in London; she has also interest obligations in New York and during the war many short

date maturities of our Governments, provincial and municipal, and of corporations, fell due there. That meant that Canada had to provide the necessary money there to take care of these obligations. That, with the fact that we had an adverse balance of trade with the United States, accentuated our exchange situation. That was relieved from time to time by money provided by Great Britain in New York and drawn upon by the Dominion Government. I should not like to be misunderstood with regard to Great Britain. Great Britain and Canada have worked together in this war; nothing has so compelled my admiration as the courage and resourcefulness of Great Britain with regard to the tremendous financial tasks which have confronted her.
I am speaking particularly of those on this side of the water. We have been in continuous communication with Great Britain in respect of her finances in Canada and in the United States, and certainly we have nothing to complain of. On the contrary, we have much to be grateful for in what Great Britain has done in a financial way in order to enable her to purchase to the utmoslt of her power in Canada. Great Britain desired to buy all our agricultural produce and all our manufactured goods that she could buy during the war. She appreciated the war effort we were making and she supplemented to the utmost of her financial power the credits which were made available for the purpose of those purchases in Canada. I desire to pay as strong a tribute as I can to the action of the Mother Country with regard to those matters.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was very glad that the
minister was allowed to make his statement consecutively so that when the Bill which is founded on this resolution is brought before the House we shall have an opportunity of discussing it freely, and of making use of the figures which have been given.
I profess to have the ordinary man's intellect, but this system of trade is new to me, and, I think, deserves serious consideration. Hon. gentlemen behind the Prime Minister whom I regard as not having any greater intelligence than myself seem to treat this thing as if it were an every day occurrence, a very small matter, a subject for hilarity and laughter. But I fancy they do not really understand the situation very much better than I do. It is a very serious matter when we have to create trade by the use of our own money foT the purchase of our own goods. If a manufacturer goes to the Bank of Montreal for an advance of money on goods which he has in his store,
he must warehouse those goods and give the key of the warehouse to the bank. The banker advances the money on a certain percentage of the goods that are warehoused. The manufacturer gets the money, the goods are warehoused and the bank has security for them. In this case the Government of this country becomes the banker and lends the money. The manufacturer sells his goods, the goods go out of this country, and so the Government has no security at all. That is the inviting proposition which is put before this House by the Government, and upon which we are entering, and which hon. gentlemen supporting the Government cheer and laud and think it is absurd for any person on this side to ask anything about.


Mr. LALOR:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that Canada has no security and that we are giving the goods away? I do not think that is the case.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the hon. gentleman enlighten me by explaining what security the Dominion Government has for the money it is advancing?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If the goods are shipped to Belgium, it has the security of the Belgian Government.


Frank S. Cahill: Rumania?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The same thing applies to Rumania.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Belgian Government is reliable, why does it not advance money in Europe to its own people for the purchase of these goods? Some hon. members shake their heads, but if the Belgian Government is able to furnish money to its own people to buy goods in Europe, why cannot it advance money to its own people here and let them purchase our goods? That is the way the matter strikes the ordinary man, and we would not have this backing of the Belgian people by the Belgian Government in order to get this money which the Belgian Government does not possess and cannot get unless the Canadian Government accepts a long term promissory note which some day may be good. The long term note of the Belgian Government which the Minister of Finance purposes taking, is not negotiable to-day; it will not be negotiable to-morrow; it will not be negotiable next year. The minister does not know when it will be negotiable, but he hopes it will some day. He puts that note in his pocket or in his vault and keeps it there, or he leaves it with his banker with instructions to cash it when it de-

serves to be cashed. That is all the security we are getting for this money, and the situation is a very grave one, although it may turn out all right. As far as the manufacturer is concerned, what is the difference between sending those goods out of the country without getting any security for them and the manufacturer warehousing them if they do not take up too much space? If a manufacturer of boots and shoes in Montreal says to the Government: I cannot go on with manufacturing boots unless you give me credit, the minister could very well say to him: If you are going to continue manufacturing those goods and if you warehouse them and give us a lien on them, we shall give you money to the extent of $500,000, or $1,000,000, as the case may be, and the manufacturer promises to put the goods in the warehouse. The people who are working in the factories are kept going just the same and are getting their wages. The boots are being stored away and, if the manufacturer cannot repay the money, the Government has this security that the goods are on hand. The Government's object is to give our people work, and I am in favour of that being done, but at the same time I want to make sure that the money of our country is secure, but it is not a system of trade to be encouraged and lauded and be proud of that we are furnishing money to foreign Governments to come here and buy our goods and take them away without giving us any security at all. If it is absolutely necessary to do this, it is a new and grave situation, and before the Government launches upon it to any great extent, the Canadian people should thoroughly understand the matter.
There is also a vicious element about this business. As has been pointed out to-day, credit has been given to certain persons in Kumania, and through certain channels, over which the ordinary business man in this country has no control, they get the right to come into this country to buy goods. Through some influence in this country they are steered into certain factories and to certain manufacturers here and there from whom they buy. those goods. The money of Canada is drawn into those channels and directed to friends of the Government or friends of those people on the other side who have goods to sell, while the ordinary everyday man, who has no friends at court and no connection with those influences on the other side, is not in a position to get this trade. I am sure every person who desires the general prosperity of Canada wants a free opportunity 
given to everyboy who is in any trade to do his best in the open market with his goods, but here we have everybody in Canada furnishing the money, through the taxes we pay, but the trade that is produced by the use of that money is directed into certain specified channels through certain specified agencies created either directly or indirectly by this Government. That is not fair. If we are using the money of the people to create trade, that trade should be as general as possible and not directed into certain places where it will find its way to favour either friends of the Government or anybody else. Those are things that should be avoided. It was pointed out today that a certain convention of agents from foreign countries and agents of manufacturers had a meeting in Toronto the other day for the purpose of allocating this business. That is the first we heard of it here, and if that is being done, it is evidently being done to the advantage of people who have inside information. If this must be done, it must be because it is highly necessary and there is no other way out of it, and in that case we have no right to be priding ourselves on our great ingenuity and forethought in securing trade for this country. Almost any man, no matter how blunt he is, when he has the power, can take money from the people of this country, hand to a man and say: Here, as long as this money which I have furnished for you lasts, come and buy our goods'with our money; when it is gone, I do not know what will happen, but here is the money, start plying trade with our people while this money lasts. This is a grave problem which should receive the serious consideration of every hon. member.


William Thomas White: I understand, my hon. friend to ask why the Belgian Government does not supply the money to make these purchases without asking the Dominion Government's assistance. The Belgian Government would have no difficulty whatever in supplying money in Belgium, but on account of the breakdown in exchange between Europe and Canada, the Belgian Government can purchase in Canada only if she gets dollar credits here. Belgian exchange has broken down as English exchange has. The result is that Belgium, like Great Britain, is unable to get credits in either the United States or Canada unless the money is loaned on this side of the Atlantic. Belgium was one of the most prosperous and wealthy countries in the world, and I have a very high opinion of the industry and en-

terprise of the Belgian people and a great hope in their future. I think the future ot Belgium is assured and that her finances will be wholly restored by indemnities from Germany. But apart from indemnities, the enterprise of her people, and their capacity for trade, together with the natural resources of the country and its colonial possessions, give promise of a great future for the nation. I may tell by hon. friend that the Dominion Government is not desirous to raise money by way of loans and advance it to foreign governments unless for the purposes I have mentioned, but I have pointed out that under present conditions our international trade cannot be carried on unless dollar credits are furnished here. Unless such credits were furnished here it could not be carried on with Great Britain, much less with other countries I have mentioned. The alternative is easily seen; our products, agricultural as well as manufactured, would not find a market. I have had a great deal to do with the financing of wheat, flour, and foodstuffs, during the past two years, and can assure the hon. gentleman that if wheat buying in this country stopped you would hear from all the growers of wheat immediately, for they must sell their wheat to pay their accounts, to pay their help, and to carry on their business as growers of grain. It is absolutely necessary that the money should be provided to take care of that wheat crop and the flour produced by our millers, and if we have to lend money to Great Britain or any other country in order to ensure the purchase of the products of our fields, it is clearly the duty of the Government to do so. There is no other course open. If through timidity we said we would not borrow any more money to. make advances to Great Britain, it would mean that the grain raised on Canadian farms would remain there and would never get into the elevators and be sold on the markets of the world, and there would be a panic all through the West and throughout this country. In connection with the financing of last year's wheat crop, we have paid out nearly $70,000,000 and $90,000,000 more must be provided for the financing 'of the purchase of the exportable surplus of last year's wheat crop- I refer to exportable surplus of wheat and the amount that will be exported as flour. These are vast sums, but I affirm that we must provide money if these commodities are to be sold. I have been speaking about agricultural products, and the same thing applies to our manufactured products sold in Europe. On account of the exchange situation that exists, we must provide
dollar credits here. Business cannot be carried on in the old way, and'therefore the Dominion Government must extend credits which will enable purchases to be made. People who manufacture here must have the money because they have to pay for the raw material, pay their work people, and keep their companies going by providing for overhead and fixed charges. We could adopt the course which I 'think my hon. friend has in mind and say, " No credits for overseas business." Well, I venture to say that if my hon. friend were in my position and took that view he would not hold it a week hence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister is mistaken if he thinks that I say there should be no encouragement to overseas business. As far as Great Britain or France and other substantial countries are concerned, it is all right; but to go into the highway and byways to deal with people whom we do not know is, I think, objectionable.


William Thomas White: That is pronouncing upon the credit of the countries in question, We have made careful inquiry of the Imperial Government, who are thoroughly posted in matters of the kind'and who, as a matter of fact, have made and are making large advances to those countries to-day, and we are satisfied that the course we have adopted is the proper one, having regard to the conditions that exist here and the paramount necessity of extending our trade.
iMr. LEMIEUX: Has the minister any idea what advances have been made, say, by Great Britain to Rumania and Greece, outside of those for purely war purposes?
iSir THOMAS WHITE:	I cannot say
offhand, but I should think the advances would be of a mixed character during'the past three or four years-for war and other purposes.
Now, my hon. friend spoke about the desirability of having orders placed fairly in Canada. I concur in every word he said in that respect, and I affirm <to him to-day that although I have had the task of the provision of these credits, I have had no complaints from any one that there has been any partiality in ithe placing of orders, nor have I in the slightest degree interested myself in the disposition of any of the orders. On the contrary, in November last I arranged with the British Government for a credit of $50,000,000 from the Dominion Government for the purchase of timber in Canada, and I may say to my hon. friend that if we had not arranged that credit the

timber industry of British Columbia would to-day have been in a very serious condition. I took the matter up in correspondence and was very careful to emphasize the fact that, as Canada as a whole was providing the money, the orders should, as far as possible, be distributed fairly throughout the country. I made that point, using the very argument my hon. friend has used, and I have heard no complaints whatever. If we provide credits for Great Britain, Great Britain owes to us that money and will pay with interest. The firms that supply that timber must be firms that can supply according to specifications and at proper prices, because you cannot expect a Government to which you loan money for the purposes of doing Canadian trade to give orders unless the prices are right, nor to accept delivery unless the specifications have been conformed to. It is very essential that in purchases made in Canada by the British people or the British Government specifications should be strictly observed and business conducted properly, and consequently the buying agency has an important task. ,So far as timber buying is concerned it is going through the usual channels, and I expect ana have heard no complaints. Consider what the provision of that $50,000,000 credit has done and will do for this country. It will Keep our timber industry flourishing, and as lue timber is bought in Canada it will provide cargo freights for shipping to Great Britain. Therefore, it is in every way a highly desirable transaction. Indeed, if we did not provide that money, Great Britain could not get dollar credits here and would buy in the United States.
Only recently it was brought to my attention from British Columbia-falsely as it. turned out-that instead of buying in British Columbia, Great Britain was buying in the United States. I have no doubt she is buying in the United Slates but she is only able to buy in the United States if given credit there and she can only buy here if we give her credit. The alternative is that either this business is to be done in Canada or not according as we furnish credits or do not. If we want the business Canada must furnish credits to Great Britain. I desire to assure my hon. friend that in so far as I know there is no favouritism in the placing of the orders and, if it comes to his attention that there is,
I would be glad if he would let me know because I would not stand for that kind of business. There is another matter that I desire to mention. When we appointed this

Canadian Trade Commission, which was complementary to the Canadian Mission in London, the chairman of the Reconstruction Committee, my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maclean) submitted the memorandum to council which was adopted and became an Order in Council. If hon. gentlemen will read it they will see the functions and powers conferred on this commission. They will also see that various Canadian industries may, through their representatives, keep in close touch with the commission. Suppose that an order for furniture is obtained in Europe; those in the furniture business in Canada, or theii representative, will be in touch with the Canadian Commission here. I am sure that I should have heard if there had been any favouritism but I have not heard one word to that effect. If there is any complaint on that score I can assure my hon. friend that I would be one of the first to stop it because if we are financing with the money of The Dominion of Canada our export trade, it should be on terms that are as fair as possible to our Canadian producers, subject to the necessity of the party buying only the goods that he desires and at a fair price.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think the country at large will breathe easy in view of the statements and assurances given by the Minister of Finance this afternoon. He speaks with absolute confidence of the conditions that obtain in connection with the financial affairs of the country and he should know whereof he speaks. I am very much pleased indeed to have that assurance. But I would like to call the attention of the minister to one feature of the situation that I think will require some consideration on his part. I refer to the matter of Canadian exchange. During the past winter the sterling exchange rate has been maintained at about 4.76. It is well known in commercial circles that exchange on London must be brought in this country through New York. Unfortunately our balance of trade with the United States is not as favourable as it is with London and notwithstanding the fact that the sterling exchange rate stood at 4.76 until' the peg was removed some few weeks ago, it was of very little advantage to the Canadian purchasers of exchange on London. The reason for that is that in order to buy exchange on London the purchaser in Canada must buy it through New York. 1 have always been at a loss to understand why we should not have an exchange rate

direct with London. In view of the fact that we have not at the present time, and never have had that direct exchange, the advantage of a favourable balance of trade with Great Britain, and of our position of financial strength, is of little value to the purchaser in Canada of exchange in London because it is absorbed in the exchange rate in New York. The position of affairs is that the advantage of the exchange rate between Canada, New York and London is absorbed almost .entirely by the rate we must pay in buying our exchange through the New York market. I would like to see the day arrive when Canadians can purchase their exchange direct on the market in London.
I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to a concrete case in connection with the placing of business with the Canadian woollen manufacturers.
I have these facts on authority that is beyond question. The War Trade Board placed orders within the last two weeks amongst -woollen manufacturers in this country. I do not claim that there was favouritism shown in the placing of these orders. That is not my claim, but what I do claim is that if these orders had been placed in the open market the material would have been purchased at a price possibly 20 per cent lower. For instance, the contract called for a material weighing 22 ounces to the yard. The price paid to these woollen manufacturers was 11 cents per ounce, or $2.42 per yard for the material sold to the War Trade Board on account of the Rumanian orders. I know as a matter of fact there are manufacturers in this country who, if this business had been placed on the open market, would have been delighted to have supplied the material at 9 cents per ounce or $1.98 pei yard. The material is made up of one third wool, one third shoddy and one third cotton. I do not know the extent of these orders that have been placed for woollen materials but I do know from information I have received that this special agent who organized the woollen manufacturers association obtained a commission of 2} per cent on the transaction. If these orders amounted to $6,000,000 -I am not saying that these are the actual figures.-this agent has got $150,000 on this transaction.


William Thomas White: May I ask what
the name of this agent is?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Yapp was the agent
who, I understand, crossed to the old country and, through Mr. Lloyd Harris, or through his assistance and otherwise, obtained these orders. These orders have not
been placed on a contract basis but have been divided up among the woollen manufacturers who would accept the business on the basis of Mr. Yapp's figure of 2J per cent. Some of the manufacturers objected to that way of transacting business and claimed that these orders should have been placed in open competition by the War Trade Board. If they had been the Government would have purchased the materials at a price in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent less than the amount paid and the orders would have been distributed generally amongst all the manufacturers of the country.


William Thomas White: Were the orders in question placed by the Canadian Trade Commission or were they placed by a representative of the Rumanian Government in London?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I can answer the question to the extent of saying that the War Trade agent in Ottawa was present in Toronto at the time Mr. Yapp distributed these orders.


William Thomas White: 
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am not able to answer that question; all I can say is that the orders were confirmed by the War Trade Board in Ottawa. Therefore, the Government must have some knowledge of the transaction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If not, it should have when we are furnishing the money.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Yes, we are furnishing the money. The main point I make is that if the Rumanian Government hfid purchased through the Canadian Government, and these, orders had been placed in the open market instead of having been distributed in the manner in which they were, these materials would have been bought for twenty per cent less.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have great respect for the leader of the Opposition, and I am sorry that he is so suspicious as to the way these orders were distributed, and which orders he intimates were given to friends of the Government. The hon. member for Renfrew has also made similar statements, but I think I can refute these statements to some extent. Let me say that the association of which the hon. gentle-

man speaks is an association of woollen manufacturers in Canada that is called together to take into consideration the question of export business and select samples to be sent overseas for Rumania, Belgium and other countries to make a selection from. If I remember correctly, all the manufacturers of Canada were invited to submit samples. Prom those samples selections were made that were considered to represent the best value. They were sent overseas and purchased by the commission representing the countries in question in the open market. So far as the woollen manufacturers paying Mr. Yapp a commission of two and-a-half per cent, I know that my hon. friend from North Renfrew would not want to misstate the facts The truth of the matter i3 that Mr. Yapp is in receipt of a salary of $5,000 a year, and I do not think that he ever received % cent of commission in any way, shape or form from the manufacturers of woollen goods in Canada for selling goods overseas. The goods, as I already stated, are bought upon the judgment of the commission representing the purchasing countries, and bought in the open market, and when those purchases are made the best values are selected. The orders are not distributed to friends of the Government, as the leader of the Opposition has intimated, but they are distributed to every manufacturer in Canada, regardless of the province in which he lives, or what his nationality or politics may be, in proportion to the capacity of that factory to manufacture the necessary goods.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Did the Renfrew Textile Company get any portion of this business?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I do not know whether the Renfrew Textile Company got any of the business, but I am satisfied that if they did not it must have been their own fault, because all the woollen manufacturers were invited to attend the meeting that was held.
I may say that the orders have not yet been distributed, but they will be distributed, 'I understand, regardless of whether the manufacturers are members of the association or not.


Mr. ROBB:: In presenting a statement this afternoon the Acting Prime Minister has apparently forgotten the promise that was made the first time we went into Committee of Supply in reply to the request that before voting any considerable amount of subsidies, the Finance Minister should give the country a complete state-
ment of the total debt of Canada, including all obligations of whatsoever kind, including obligations for contracts that have been given and are not yet completed, obligations as to railways, and the pension obligations so far as we know them at the present time. I am not sure that the Finance Minister was in the House at the . time, but the Minister of Railways promised to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the matter. I am not making this demand particularly on behalf of the members on this side of the House, but I feel the country as a whole'desires and expects such a statement from the Finance Minister, and I would be glad if he would take the first opportunity of complying with the request.


William Thomas White: The usual course, from which as far as I know there has been no departure, has been to make the statement which my hon. friend has in mind when delivering the Budget speech. The annual announcements of the Government with regard to its financial obligations are always embodied in the Budget speech and I submit that it would be a departure from a practice well established, and I think sound, that the Finance Minister should not anticipate his annual financial statement. However, I am always desirous of being obliging, and when the Bill which I am about to introduce on this subject has had its second reading, and we are in the. Committee stage, I shall, if I can, give my hon. friend a little statement which will substantially set forth the position- that is to say, if he presses for it.


James Alexander Robb: Let me point out that this is an extraordinary vote for which the minister is asking. It is a vote that represents more than the total debt of Canada in 1914, and it seems to me that the country is entitled to the information which has been asked for in view of the late period at which the Budget speech will be presented this year.


William Thomas White: My hon, friend will not overlook, nor will the Government, that this is really a war year. By far the greater part of this vote of $300,000,000 is required for war purposes, for the demobilization of our soldiers and for the payment to them of war gratuities. This year is really a war year, in a financial sense, although we have emerged from it. I agree with my hon. friend that these figures are large, but we have to get our soldiers home, and we thought it wise to pay them a gratuity to enable them to bridge over a

13G5
period during which they might obtain employment, and also recognition of their splendid services at the front. Other items which go to make up the entire vote I have already given to the Committee. However, when the subject comes up again it will give me pleasure to make a brief statement, but I hope my hon. friend will excuse me for not going into great detail, because I do not want to make my Budget speech twice.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am anxious for the
resolution to carry, but there is one slight matter in connection with the hon. Acting Prime Minister's reply to my previous observations which I would like to have explained a little more fully. I was complaining that we were not getting any security for this money advanced to Belgium, and he said that Belgium had plenty of money, but the difficulty was the rate of exchange. If that is so why not put that money up as security? I would be quite willing to accept it if it is deposited in some institution in Belgium in which we have confidence, or if securities that any financial agency of Great Britain will accept are handed over by the Belgium Government.	'


William Thomas White: We have
Treasury bills of Belgium; in other words, we have precisely the same security that the British Government takes, and has recommended us to take.


Frank S. Cahill: Would the hon. minister
explain why this vote is included in the war vote? This is not in any sense a war measure or for war purposes. These loans ought not to be included in this $350,000,000. Why not put th6 war loans where they belong, and the loans for other purposes where they belong?


William Thomas White: I would agree
with the hon. gentleman, save for this: We would not be called upon to make these advances for credits at all if it was not for the abnormal condition following the war. As I explained, it is not my expectation after we get out of this period that we shall have to continue these credits. In the Bill and in the resolution there is a clause which is adequate to cover these credits: the promoting of trade and industry, subsection (c) of section 2 of the Bill that I will present.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not see why this should be included in this vote at all. This is a big question, whether or not we are going into the business of loaning money to foreign countries, and it should be debated on its merits. It should not be put in a
resolution which has absolutely no bearing on the subject, and which resolution it may hold up. The Acting Prime Minister speaks of credits to Great Britain. There is no question of credits to Great Britain; everybody is willing that Great Britain should have all the credits Canada can furnish, because we owe her more than we can possibly loan to her. But when the question of going into the business of loaning money to foreign countries is involved, I think it should be dealt with on its merits and not in a vote of this kind. I think this is the most insane transaction that any Government ever attempted to put through.


William Duff: Is it a fact that an Order in Council has been passed covering this loan to Roumania?


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Duff: When was it passed?


William Thomas White: It was passed recently. An agreement was first entered into in London between the Foreign Minister of Roumania and the Minister of Trade and Commerce representing Canada. That was ' approved by Order in Council.


William Duff: What is the date of that Order in Council?


William Thomas White: It was passed quite recently.


William Duff: I want to know the exact date, Mr. Chairman.


William Thomas White: I am sorry that I am not able to give my hon. friend the exact date. I will undertake to bring down a copy of the Order.


William Duff: I would like this resolution not to carry, Mr. Chairman, until I get that information.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the information my hon. friend wants will be furnished before the second reading comes on it ought to answer his purpose.


William Thomas White: Let me assure rnv hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, and the House, that any information I can get at any time about the public affairs of this country will be brought down with the greatest of pleasure.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 68, for grant-



ing to His Majesty aid for demobilization and other purposes.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 37-Hon. N. W. Rowell-respecting the Department of Health, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 4, subsection (h)-collection, publication and distribution of information to promote good health, and improved sanitation:
Newton Wesley Rowell: While it is evident from this
subsection that the Department of Public Health does not intend to go into the collection of vital statistics, it has been suggested that the matter should be made perfectly clear by inserting suitable words to indicate that the department will not duplicate the work of the Bureau of Statistics. This may be done by inserting at the beginning of the subsection the words, " Subject to the provisions of the Statistics Act."
I suggested the other evening that another phase of the work which is, perhaps, not fully covered by the subsection as it stands might be covered by the addition of the words " social welfare." but as objection was taken I did not press the point. I now, suggest, however, that the subsection be so amended that it shall read as follows:
Subject to the provisions' of the Statistics Act, the collection, publication and distribution of information relating to the public health, improved sanitation, and social and industrial conditions affecting the health and lives of the people;
We all recognize that in future more attention must be paid to the health and physical well-being of those who are engaged in industry. In the past, emphasis has been placed on property; in future, emphasis must be placed more largely on life. The country is deeply concerned in all matters connected with the carrying on of industry that affect the life and health of the people. Information should be gathered and published touching that aspect of health as well as the more general classes of subjects which we include in the words " public health." The latter words of the amendment have been suggested to me by Mr. Moore, president of the Trades and Labour

Congress of Canada, and I think the suggestion is a good one.


Arthur Trahan: I submit that the words "and social and industrial conditions affecting the health and lives of the people" will empower the new department to legislate upon matters that are subject to the jurisdiction of Provincial Governments. The department may deal with conditions of health as applied to industries and with the conditions prevailing in the buildings wherein these industries are carried on. But when they are empowered to deal with social conditions as well, we have the same objection that we had to the inclusion ol the words "social welfare" in this subsection. In the amendment which the minister proposes the idea of giving the department control over matters affecting social welfare is carried out-under different terms, that is all. For my part, I prefer the subsection as originally drafted, although 1 am disposed to accept the restriction imposed by the words "subject to the provisions of the 'Statistics Act," which, in my judgment, is a good one. I am in favour of the Bill, but I believe thait there should be no encroachment upon provincial rights. In an article published on 19th March last, the Ottawa Journal-Press expressed the opinion that public health was a matter which, under Ithe terms of the British North America Act, had been handed over to the provinces; that health, like education, was a provincial matter. It is desirable, of course, that there should he co-operation among provincial boards of health. But in drafting this Bill this committee should be very careful not to interfere with provincial rights, and I would, therefore, be quite satisfied if the minister who is in charge of the Bill would not insist on the words:
-and social and industrial conditions affecting the health and lives of the people,
I have the greatest possible admiration for trades and labour organizations, and I am a staunch supporter of every legitimate claim which is made by such organizations, but I feel it is my duty to decline to accept in a Bill a clause which in my opinion is an encroachment upon provincial rights.


Charles Sheard: I commend this clause very highly. I do not think it is possible to compass the objects of this federal Health Bill in any better way. The clause provides practically for a publicity department in connection with this enactment, and that publicity department has the duty of setting forth before the House and the'public the facts relating to public health as they

affect industrial and social conditions in this country. I can see where it will do a great deal of good in indicating the lines of progress along which the federal department of public health will proceed, 'and I really cannot see wherein it could operate so as to encroach upon provincial rights and the autonomy of the provinces in this work in which we are all presumably interested. The clause is, I understand, intended to permit the federal health department to secure reports as to conditions in factories and workshops regarding ventilation, lighting and the evil influence which may result from dust contamination. These are all very important to workers. The department, I assume will also ascertain and make known conditions as to noxious vapours and poisonous fumes which, in certain factories where large quantities of nitric acid and sulphuric acid are used, are very serious menaces to the workers, and also as to aerial infection of illuminating gas vapours and of the carbohydrates, some of which are extremely noxious. These, I take it, are some of the points concerning which it would be the duty of the department of health to investigate the facts. Then again, we have the great and all-important question of the ages at which children are working in factories where the conditions in employing child labour are, from a sanitary standpoint, far from satisfactory. The hours are often such as to retard the right and healthy development of child workers, and in some parts of this Dominion, notwithstanding the present enactment in force in this country, there are many children under age who are working under unsanitary and unsatisfactory conditions, in factories and rooms that are dark and ill-ventilated, and these conditions ought to be known to the Government and to a federal health department. I consider this clause is designed to bring the facts before the public, and by informing the public generally we may hope to remedy conditions which I am sure no member of this committee would willingly have continued. I think the clause will be in its effect a distinct benefit in the working and development of this federal health department.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: I think in the case of a doubt such as exists in regard to this amendment, the Government should put in a proviso that no such regulations will be put into force without having first received the approval of the Board of Health of each province.
87 i


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. DuTremblay) misunderstands the clause, and I think the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) also misunderstood it. This deals only with collecting and distributing information in connection with industrial conditions. There is no power to legislate at all, and this does not, therefore, infringe upon provincial rights.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection (i):-such other matters as may be referred to the minister by the Governor in Council.
Louis Joseph Papineau: Will the minister explain the meaning of this clause?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let us take the illustration I gave my hon. friends the other evening, the question of administration of such a fund as the Government's fund to aid in housing. That has a very close relation to the question of public health, and at present it is being administered by a committee of the Cabinet. I should think it would be a very appropriate thing for the Governor in Council, if thought fit, to entrust the administration of that particular branch of the public service to a department like this, and, therefore, power to do So is given. There are at the present time certain departments dealing with matters that more or less intimately affect the public health in certain aspects of their work. These Acts are not mentioned in the schedule because there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the administration of those Acts which touch a certain aspect of public health should be entrusted to this department or not, or whether the administration should be 'continued under the existing departments. This would simply permit the Governor in Council to transfer to this department the administration of certain branches of work closely connected with public health which are now being administered by other departments of the Government.


Louis Joseph Papineau: Section 4 reads:
The duties and powers of the minister administering the department of health shall extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health and social welfare of the people of Canada.
All the necessary powers seem to be included in this; and I cannot therefore see the need for Orders in Council. The minister says he may decide this and that, but all powers are stipulated in this clause.
1.368


Newton Wesley Rowell: If we have all the power already in the first part there can be no harm in having it in the second. It simply indicates the method by which the power can be exercised; it must be exercised by Order in Council. To give an illustration: The Department of Indian Affairs has a medical branch having the medical care and supervision of the Indians on our reserves. It is not proposed by this Bill at the present time to transfer the administration of that branch of the service to this department, but it might be considered desirable in the future to do so and provision is made by which it may be done. Clause 4 is quite broad enough to cover all power-this provides machinery by which a certain aspect of work carried on in one department may be transferred to another.
Mr. McKiENZIE:	Subsection (i) gives
the minister authority in " such other matters as may be referred to the minister by the Governor in Council." If that were found in any law referring to the Department of Railways we would know at once that the word " Minister " meant the Minister of Railways, but in this matter there is no minister. The President of the Council told us the other night that this was to be merely a branch of some department, or at least that it would be under some present minister. As there does not seem to be any special minister in connection with this work this clause is not very significant.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member will
see that section 2 provides that there is to be a Department of Health, " over which a minister of the Crown to be named by the Governor in 'Council shall preside." That is the minister referred to in subsection (i). Ilf my hon. friend would prefer, the word " department " might be substituted for the word " minister."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Mr. LESAGE:: I understand that this Bill will enact a law that will receive the cooperation of the provinces, and it seems to be understood that there will he no infringement of provincial rights. With regard to section 4, it seems to me that everything is covered and there is no need to enumerate such matters as are there dealt with. There you have covered everything in connection with these subsections, and the specification of all these matters will Tesult in trouble with reference to provincial rights. Amongst other things, you mention child life and child welfare. That is a clause that I shall not discuss just now, but it is a very delicate question, and the power here conferred should be applied with great discretion having regard to provincial rights. In every province there is a great deal of work done in regard to child life and child welfare, and I think that it is within the right of the province to look after such matters as these. This matter in particular has to do with the school system and the habits and customs of the people in the different provinces, which should be entirely within their jurisdiction. As far as the other matters are concerned, it seems to me that they could be safely left to the Dominion Council of Health as it will be constituted. If you leave in this Bill a clause of this kind reserving to the deputy minister the right to modify or change certain conditions of his own accord subject only to Order in Council, I think it will certainly interfere with provincial rights, and instead of being an Act to help the provinces to promote the welfare of the people, it is more likely to bring confusion and prove a detriment rather than an aid to public health. I would therefore suggest that this clause should be amended and made more definite in its meaning.


Charles Sheard: When we had this Bill last under consideration, we submitted a clause which I understood was to stand for further consideration. I would like to ask the minister if he has that clause in mind and if he proposes to incorporate it in this Bill. The clause that I submitted was this:
Provided' that nothing in this Act shall authorize any officer or authority created, by or appointed under the authority of this Act or under any regulation made hereunder to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial health officer or any provincial or municipal board of health or other authority operating under the laws of any province.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I had intended suggesting that the clause moved by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), slightly modified, but not changing its effect,
should go in as a paragraph immediately following subsection (i). I think it will meet all the objections that have been raised. It would come in as subsection (j), and what I propose would read as follows:
Provided that nothing in this Act or in any regulation made hereunder shall authorize the minister or any officer of the department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial health officer or any provincial or municipal board of health or other local authority operating under the laws of any province.
There is no desire or intention to interfere with the local authorities. There is not the least objection to putting that in as an additional clause.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is the wording the same as that of the clause submitted by the hon. member for South Toronto?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is slightly different in wording but the effect is the same. The phraseology is slightly changed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the change?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not like to interrupt but I must remind the Committee that subsection (i) has not yet been adopted.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I know, Mr. Chairman, that we are anticipating. I would object to the carrying of this subsection (i) if no other amendment is going to he adopted by the committee, but if the amendment that we have been speaking about is adopted by the minister I would not have any objection to the subsection. I would say that so far as the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from South Toronto is concerned I really have no choice.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite content to accept the form moved by the hon. member for South Toronto. The amendment I submit is a little broader in that it specifically names the minister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would rather have the amendment of the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite content that this should be inserted as subsection (j) and I should think that if that is done there should be no question about subsection (i).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that this
amendment should not come immediately after subsection (i), but immediately after section 5.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There again I am quite willing to meet the convenience of the committee. I think it would be a proper subject for a clause. It probably should not be lettered, but should be a proviso to

govern the whole section. I think that would be better than to put it in as a part of section 5.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would think it would come in best as section 6. Section 5 provides for power to make regulations; it would be well to have the saving clause follow the other clauses dealing with the powers given to the minister or his deputy or anybody else under the Act.


Mr.   KOWELL@: Perhaps my hon. friend's suggestion is the best one of all. Leave out the proviso and make it a distinct section reading:
Nothing in this Act or in any regulation

And so on. Let 6 stand as it is; make this new section 7, and then let 8 follow that.
Mr. MoMASTER: Let it come before 7, because 7 is simply a section dealing with the report.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so, make it 7, and then 7 will become 8.


Arthur Trahan: I come back to subsection (i). If I understand the minister he wants to give the Government power to transfer from other departments to this department matters concerning health. Would it not be well to limit the powers conferred upon the Governor in Council to the matters /dealt with in this Act. I would suggest adding after the word "matters" the words ""concerning health."
.Mr. ROWELL: I would he quite willing to insert in this clause after the words " such other matters " the words " relating to health."


Arthur Trahan: Very good.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think it means the same thing.


Arthur Trahan: But as at present worded the paragraph is not limited in its effect.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then I would move to amend the paragraph by adding the words " relating to health."


Georges Henri Boivin: The paragraph will now read:-
Such other matters relating to health as may he referred to the Department by the Government in Council.
Amendment agreed to and paragraph as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Regulations.


Charles Sheard: Before this section is
adopted I would like to point out that there
[Mr. Rowell. 1
was an amendment submitted by the hon. member for Muskoka ((Mr. McGibbon) regarding the establishment of a bureau of scientific research with hygienic laboratories. I think this is a proper place to introduce an amendment of that kind; I certainly would not like to see it left simply as a matter of condition or regulation; I would like to fix responsibility for the creation and operation of such laboratories upon the Deputy Minister of Health, whoever he may be, to administer and be responsible for. I have said before, and I need hardly repeat, that I can imagine no great advancement, nor any great benefit, is being likely to result from the operation of the federal health law, unless-as it is a pivotal point of operation-the work of a scientific hygienic laboratory goes on in connection therewith. I would ask the minister if there is any provision in the Bill for this particular branch of work?


Newton Wesley Rowell: of the great chemist Pasteur had brought sufficient wealth to France to offset the whole of the indemnity that she had to pay Germany after the war of 1870. It would appear to me that the hon. minister might meet the views of those who support the Bill, because he is in the happy position of promoting a measure which meets with universal approval; we are all trying to get to the same end; some think it might be better gained one way, some another way, but as to the purpose of the Bill there is no difference of opinion. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. minister that he might very properly declare, en toutes letters, as we say in our province, that is in set terms, that we are going to have in Canada such a bureau or laboratory of research as has been most eloquently urged by the hon. member for Muskoka, who, as a member of a very learned profession, medicine, is much better able to talk with authority on these things than a mere lawyer.


Michael Steele: Much has been said in
support of a laboratory in connection with the Department of Public Health with which I heartily agree; in fact, I would go so far as to say that a Department of Public Health without the facilities of a laboratory is out of date before it is established. But I do not find myself in hearty agreement with the advocacy of such a laboratory as has been suggested this evening. I believe that what we ought to have in Canada is one great national laboratory, a laboratory which would carry on the work required for industrial and scientific research; a laboratory with which could be associated the laboratory we now have in connection with our Inland Revenue Department, a hygienic laboratory, and a laboratory which would take up every work which will be required in Canada in the future. I believe that to insert this clause in the Bill at the present time would simply have the result of establishing one more branch laboratory in connection with our national work. To my mind what we want is to co-ordinate the laboratories which we now have, and add such a branch as has been suggested to carry on the health work. But
9 p.m. before that is done, I concede.
the Government must give a good deal of consideration to it, and I sincerely trust that within the next year a great national laboratory will be established, following the system and plan of the Pasteur Institute of Paris and Ithe great laboratory at Washington. I would therefore advocate that the Government omit this from 
the Bill at Ithe present time and take into consideration the establishment of such a laboratory as I have suggested.


Walter Davy Cowan: When I first saw this Bill I searched through it for some mention of a laboratory, because I could not imagine that we could have a Health Department established without it. I must confess that at my first reading I was not able to find any provision for it, but on going through the Bill again I came to the same conclusion as the hon. minister, that one of the clauses covered the point. I think, however, that it would be very much better for us to definitely state that such a laboratory is to be established. Because, Sir, I cannot imagine the hon. minister wanting this department to be a failure, and without a laboratory-and a better one than anything we have in the Dominion to-day-it is certainly going to be a failure. If you establish such a laboratory as has been proposed you will immediately rally to the support of this department the entire medical profession of the Dominion, and otherwise I doubt if you will get its support to any great extent.
Although I am not of the medical profession,-I am one of the allied professions,-yet I have had a good deal to do with the medical profession in Canada, and I cannot subscribe to many of the criticisms in the press these days of the medical profession and their relation to this health department. I have always found them a very progressive body, and I think they have made more progress than any other profession-except, of course, the one I belong to and which claims my loyalty-and I am confident that the medical profession of Canada are equal to the medical profession of any other part of the world. Of course, if we expect them to maintain their position we must give them the opportunities to continue their progress. Therefore I say we should make up our minds to establish this laboratory at the earliest possible time. If that is to be done, there is no reason why it should not be so stated in this Bill, for then you will immediately get the sympathy of the medical profession throughout Canada and at once make it a success. I suggest that this be done, and I support as strongly as I can the position taken by the hon. member for South Toronto.


Robert James Manion: I rise in support of the suggestion, and also to say a word in justice to the provincial Boards of Health-

Some speakers have criticised those boards- ,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: I mean they have criticised them unconsciously in saying that public health work cannot be carried on without a laboratory. I agree in the necessity for instituting a research laboratory, but according to my understanding none of the provincial Boards of Health is so equipped.
Mr. 9HEARD: The Ontario board has had one for ten years.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the hon. member is right; 'I did not think they had. However, I wish to support the idea. I think we should have a research laboratory. Some mention was made of research laboratories in the United States. 'One of the finest in the world is the Rockefeller Institute which is supported by funds supplied by John D. Rockefeller. Some of the war lords of this country who have made millions out of the war might show a proper sense of proportion by helping to establish in Canada a practical research laboratory along the lines of the Rockefeller Institute in the United States.


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as the general
view expresses the importance of a research laboratory, I am heartily in accord with it. I have intimated that the power to establish a research laboratory is quite clearly set forth in section 4, but there appears to be a general desire on the part of the members of the House that some words should be included in the Bill to indicate specifically that the establishment of such a laboratory is within the powers of this department. We should not have a series of laboratories established in various departments. It is very important that the work should be done as economically and efficiently as possible. In consenting to such an amendment as I have suggested, I am not committing myself or the Government to the bringing down of an appropriation for the purpose this session; that is a matter that will have to be taken up by the Government when Estimates are under consideration. If I assent to any reference to research laboratories going in, I am assenting to the specific mention of the fact that this department contemplates the esablish-ment and maintenance of a laboratory. We might put in as paragraph (b):
The establishment and maintenance of a national laboratory for public health and research work.
I think it would be more suitable to give it that place in the section.


Avard Longley Davidson: If this provides for an expenditure of money, it would have to be preceded by the consent of the Governor in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It would be simply defining the powers of the department. We are not voting any money, nor is the Government committing itself to any expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section 4, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5-regulations:
Charles Sheard: I offered an amendment the other evening-I do not know whether it was defeated or not; perhaps you can inform me, Mr. Chairman-which was something to this effect:
The control of venereal disease by quarantine at the various ports of entry or by such other methods and investigations as shall limit the spread of these diseases throughout the Dominion of Canada.
Some specific statement in this regard ought to be included in the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment mentioned by the member for South Toronto was defeated upon division the other night in committee.


Peter McGibbon: The amendment that was defeated was much more drastic than the one at present proposed.


William Stevens Fielding: To what extent will the hospitals come under the observation or control of this departments


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment maintains hospitals for soldiers.


William Stevens Fielding: These are military hospitals.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, and hospitals wherein men who have been soldiers are cared for. But the ordinary hospitals of the country, with the exception of the marine hospitals, are wholly under the jurisdiction of the provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: The object of this
measure must appeal to us all, especially in the light of the statistics the minister gave us the other night as to the alarming loss of child life. What I fear most is that the Act is so general and so vague that we shall have a large and necessarily expensive organization, the object of which is excellent, hut which will have nothing in particular to do. According to the word-

ing of the Bill, we are to have co-operation, co-ordination-a great word in these days- conservation, inspection, and supervision, but there is nothing specific to do. One is almost reminded of the reference frequently seen in the comic papers to the man who is "all dressed up and no place to go." I do not say this in a spirit of objection; but I shall offer a suggestion as to something for this department to do- and it has a bearing on my question with regard to the hospitals. There is in the Mother Country and in some of our neighbour States quite a large body of what I may call social legislation of a progressive character-legislation respecting minimum wages, old age pensions, and a variety of things of that nature. To all of these we must hereafter give more attention than we have in the past, but we cannot deal at once with them all. One class of legislation that, I think, might well engage the particular attention of this department is the encouragement and extension of maternity hospitals. Talking not long ago with the manager of an organization of charities in one of our large cities, I was much interested in the account he gave of the work in which they were engaged. He said-not in a boastful way-" We are looking after our people from the cradle to the grave. We do better than that: we anticipate the cradle, because we are organizing maternity hospitals." There are in some of our communities-including Ottawa, I am glad to say-a number of these institutions. They are necessarily local in their character; they are all more or less expensive, because they have to charge fees. But if there is anything in the way of social legislation which we should deal with seriously, it is the taking of steps to provide that the woman who is approaching the time when her child is to be born shall be surrounded by all the conditions which will give her comfort, which will give her medical attendance, which will give her proper food and rest both before and after the time when the child is bom. That is the best kind of work for the conservation of child life. Where there is a hospital of this character it might well come under the direction of this department, and where there are not such hospitals, they might well be established. I do not mean to say that any uniform plan could be adopted, but wherever there is such a hospital, I should like to see this board get in touch with it and see that it is en-
couraged. This is clearly a case where there could be co-operation between the federal, provincial and local authorities, and it is a most promising field for useful work. Indeed, I know of no branch of social legislation which offers such large opportunities. I do not need to dwell on the subject, because hon. members who are of the medical profession can say all that I can say and say it much better, but if there is in the world anything in the way of social legislation which we need, it is something which at that critical time in the life of the mother and child will ensure that she is provided with medical attendance, comfort, food, and all the conditions which will go to enable her to perform the function of motherhood with safety to herself and benefit to the community at large.


Charles Sheard: The only aid which the
federal Government could, under the British North America Act, give in the ease referred to by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) would be -a subsidy or a monetary grant to hospitals in the counties. Eleemosynary institutions and all hospitals, specifically mentioned in the British North America Act as being under the control of the legislatures of the various provinces. That is the only reason why, I fancy, this Bill has not undertaken to set out what has been mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to say that the Bill should set this out specifically. I am quite content, if the object is a good one, to leave it in the hands of the minister. I repeat my first statement, that in many things which are distinctly within the control of the provincial legislatures, we are yet dabbling a good deal. The road question is a distinctly provincial one, and yet we are delving into it; and if this matter is taken up, I am sure we shall find a great deal of co-operation on the part of the loqal and provincial authorities who will permit my hon. friend to do something. I find that, while we are all sensitive in this matter of provincial rights, when any proposal made to encroach upon provincial rights is accompanied with a generous grant, there is not generally very much objection


Newton Wesley Rowell: With all that the hon member for Shelburne and Queens has said as to the importance and urgency of the question he has raised, I am in most hearty accord. I think, however, it is a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the provinces. So far as the Federal Government may act, I think, that power is to-day conferred by subsection (a). Subsection (b)

was added to (a), and (a) now provides for co-operation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities in the conservation of child life and the promotion of child welfare. Those words are, I think, broad enough to cover what my hon. friend has in mind, and if Parliament should see fit to make a grant for such purposes, it would be quite competent for Parliament to do so.


Peter McGibbon: I
should, just like to .support the expression, of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens. I recognize the constitutional objection, but I also recognize that in the interest of this country many so-called constitutional objections will have to disappear in the future. In my judgment there is nothing that would do more good to help a lot of needy people than the suggestion the hon. member has thrown out, and I am in favour of going even further and giving every poor man, woman and child in this country free medical service from the cradle to the grave. I believe the time is coming when we shall have to do this in the national interest.
Mr. STEELE.: I should like to add a few words to express the pleasure I have felt in seeing the unanimity that has existed throughout the whole discussion in committee on the question of the establishment of a department of health. If there is one matter that has been proposed to be put under that department that has met with more perfect unanimity than any other it is child welfare. From the Atlantic to the Pacific prominent people who are deeply interested in this subject have expressed their hearty approval of the'establishment of a federal department of health, if for no other reason than that the subject of child welfare might receive greater attention and consideration. I want especially to express my pleasure that, on this occasion at least, Quebec and Ontario can stand hand in hand in support of that which is going to be a great blessing to both provinces. This is a question on which Ontario and Quebec are not disunited. We have evidence of that in the expressions of hon. members from Quebec to-night and on previous occasions. I want to quote an extract from an article published in La Presse a few weeks ago. That paper, which I understand has, perhaps, the largest circulation of any French paper published in the country-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of any paper in Canada.


Michael Steele: The largest circulation of any paper in Canada. That magnifies the
value of expressions of opinion by La Presse. It says, relating to child welfare:-
At a time when war and another evil not less cruel than war has thinned our ranks, who will refuse to admit the necessity of making an urgent effort to fill the void? The time has come w'hen more attention than ever should be paid to guarding the cradle.
That brief extract expresses in a few words the sentiment of the great majority of the people of this country. La Presse,
I have no doubt, had in view conditions which unfortunately prevail in Quebec, and which, perhaps, place that province- and I am saying this in no disrespectful spirit-in a place by itself in this country as regards infant mortality. I should like to quote the figures just to illustrate that. If I compare Quebec with Ontario, hon. members will understand that I am not doing it for the sake of disparaging Quebec, but simply to show how the infant mortality rate in Quebec can be improved in the future. In 1915, there were in Quebec 33,274 births, with 12,775 deaths under one year of age. That is a terrible percentage In Ontario-and Ontario is not by any means in the first class in this respect, because some of the other provinces stand higher than Ontario, but I use the Ontario figures because they are the only ones I have-there were 67,032 births in 1915, with 6,838 deaths under one year of age. With about 20 per cent more births in Quebec in that year, there were very nearly 100 per cent more deaths under one year of age, and if we carry that to deaths under four years of age, we find the discrepancy still greater. To illustrate the matter still further, let me quote the figures for Montreal and Toronto.
In 1916, in Montreal there were 186 deaths of children under one year of age for every 1,000 births. In Toronto in the same year, the number of deaths was only 93 per 1,000 births, or exactly one-half. There are many cities in which the mortality is less than that, but throughout the whole province of Quebec and the city of Montreal there is great room for improvement, and I would urge on the people of Canada a careful consideration of the views expressed by La Presse.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not rise to contradict any of the statements made by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), but rather to corroborate to a certain extent what he has said, especially as regards the cooperation that should exist between Ontario and Quebec. I am sure that not

only in the matter of public health but on many important public questions both provinces can by mutual good will accomplish an enormous good for the country. There is no doubt that the introduction of this Bill has engendered some anxiety on the part of those who are sensitive on the subject of local autonomy, but after a careful study of it, and in view of the amendments which have been introduced and accepted by the Government, I think that sufficient guarantee is afforded for the strict preservation of provincial rights. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens referred with a touch of ridicule to the word "co-ordination," but it seems to me that the bringing under one control of the different activities of the Federal Government in its relation to public health, is rather advisable. The Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the Inland Kevenue Department, have all something to do with the .general subject of public health, and who will deny that the co-ordination of these branches under one head would make for effective and efficient service? The British North America Act does not assign the matter of public health to either federal or provincial jurisdiction; but it is evident that in certain cases, for instance, the inspection of schools, the jurisdiction would be in the provinces. In some of the larger fields, such as preventing the propagation and dissemination of contagious diseases, the question of jurisdiction may not be so clear, but up to the present time the most important matters connected with public health have been under	the jurisdiction of	the provinces, and in accordance	with this
interpretation of the British North America Act, provincial board's of health have been established all over Canada. My hon. friend from South Perth, doubtless without any ill design on his part, made particular reference to the situation in Quebec regarding the high infantile death rate. I may say that the Provincial Board of Health of Quebec is one of the best-organized in Canada, and Quebec was .the first province to be divided into sanitary districts. It has ten such districts, and at the head of the organization is a sanitary inspector who holds a diploma of public health issued by a university. There are in Quebec, and probably there may be in Ontario and the other provinces, elaborate laboratories of chemistry and bacteriology to which physicians have access in the diagnosing of diseases, and to which samples of milk and drinking 
water can be Drought for analysis from any part of the province. There is also a very efficient department of statistics.


Robert James Manion: Have you a research department?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have not, except for the purpose of ascertaining whether water that is meant for public use is potable.


Robert James Manion: That is not research.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No. As far as school hygiene is concerned, there is an effective system, but I confess that the rate of infantile mortality is higher in Quebec than in some other provinces. One must not overlook the fact, however, that the population in Quebec is very thinly spread over quite a large territory and also that the birth-rate is much higher. It will be obvious, therefore, that families experience a greater degree of difficulty in caring for their children. In this respect a considerable improvement has taken place in the last ten years, especially in the city of Montreal. Regarding nuisances, dwelling and industrial establishments, we have laws in the province of Quebec that call for the highest praise and admiration. During the last session of the provincial Legislature measures were adopted which I think deserve the commendation of all who have at heart the advancement of public health Coming to the more delicate subject which has been touched upon by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, venereal diseases, on the recommendation of the Superior Board of Health legislation was adopted during the last session of the Legislature. I will not delay the work of the Committee by reading that law, but it contains three very important clauses which were inserted in the Public Health Act of Quebec. I have no objection at all to inserting in this Bill a clause' referring to the establishment of a bureau or laboratory for scientific research. Provided we are assured there is no intention of infringing or encroaching upon the rights of the provinces, we on this side of the House as well as hon. gentlemen on the other side, are willing to co-operate with the Government.


Arthur Trahan: I desire again to refer
to section 5 which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council shall have power to make such regulations as may be necessary to give effect to and carry out the objects of this Act, and to impose penalties for any violation of such regulations.
I am not inclined to give many powers to the Governor in Council. With regard

to this question of inflicting penalties, we have had during recent times examples which are not very reassuring to us. If the Government use this power in the same manner as they have used similar powers in the past, the burden will be a very heavy one. I would be very glad if the minister would drop the words "to impose penalties for any-violation of such regulations." If he is not willing to do so I am of the opinion the amount of the penalties should be limited in the Act. It will not be very satisfactory if-the Government, by Order in Council, inflict a penalty of $5,000 for a violation of the regulations. As an alternative I would suggest that the words "not exceeding $25," or "$50," be added after the word "penalties".


Andrew Ross McMaster: In order that the
operation of this law, may be successful, it must proceed along lines of co-operation, co-ordination, harmony and peace. Why have penalties at all? If it is found in the operation of the Act that co-operation, co-ordination and other considerations oi that kind are not sufficient, then the minister may come back at a future day and ask us to "make the punishment fit the crime." Let us adopt the principle of trusting the people, of trusting the provinces. Let us strike out those words giving power to impose penalties and appeal to the good sense and reasonableness of the people as a whole. I imagine that the operation of this Act would have to do largely with provinces and municipalities. Let the Big Stick not be in evidence at the beginning of this matter.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The clause is simply the usual one in Bills of this kind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But this is a very unusual Bill.
, Mr. ROWELL:	Where you have the
power to make regulations, if those regulations are to have any effect, there must be the usual provision for a penalty. There is no danger Of harshness under this Bill. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the whole framework of the measure contemplates co-operation. That is evident from the very next clause providing for a federal council of health bringing in all the chiefs of the provincial departments. My hon. friend surely does not seriously think there is anything wrong with the clause.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would dislike the committee to think that I would take up the valuable time of this House in presenting a proposition that was not serious. If
you have to deal with a man or woman along the lines of co-operation and coordination I would advise the minister that it would be well to keep penalties in the background. I understand that in a new department of this sort some latitude may be given to the Government to make regulations by Order in Council-much as we dislike that method-but you will not be able to get people to co-operate with you if you hold heavy penalties over their heads. I think it is well not to have these words in the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where you are administering the Quarantine Act, the Adulteration Act and such Acts as that, you must have penalties in order to give the Government power to carry out the provisions of these Acts.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I agree with what hon.
members on this side of the House have said. I think this Committee should have some idea at least of the penalties that are going to be imposed before Parliament is asked to sanction penalties.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The penalties would absolutely depend upon the character of the regulations. You will see that there is power here to deal with the inspection and medical care of immigrants and seamen, the administration of marine hospitals, and the supervision of railways, boats, ships, and all methods of transporation. If you were dealing with transportation companies you would have to have an absolutely different penalty from that for some offence of a private individual of a different character. That is the reason why it is difficult to specify it. It depends entirely on the character of the offence and of the party with whom you are dealing.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I just imagine that would be the case, and therefore I think there is a great deal to be said for what my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) advances, that you should have a maximum and a minimum penalty so that you can work in ' between the two.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to
making the maximum $200. The penalty is very moderate, particularly if you are dealing with corporations.


Mr. VERVILLE:: If I understand the
object of this Bill it is to protect a certain class of people to a certain extent against another section of the community. Those against whom the penalty is aimed can well afford to pay it. Anybody who does not observe the regulations should be fined, and heavily fined, because sometimes it

happens in the case of a large corporation that it will pay a very large fine and not observe the law at all. I have seen that occur in the past.
On section 6-Dominion Council of Health.
^Mr. ROWELL:	I would suggest that
" three " be changed to " five " in the fifth line of this section, relating to the number of members to be appointed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is there any special reason why the number should be increased?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been represented to me, since the Bill was drafted, that on such a council it may be very desirable to have, say, the President or Chairman of the Canadian National Society of Social Hygiene, or a man of that type. Then it is contemplated, I understand, to form a national organization for the purpose of combatting venereal disease. If such an organization were formed it would be a very proper thing to have the chairman of it on this board. Furthermore, having regard to the very deep interest which organized labour is taking in this Bill and in its promotion; I think it would be desirable to have a representative of labour on the board. And there certainly should be a woman representative, for very good reasons. I have, therefore, thought it wise to increase the number of representatives from three to five, so as to make it possible to include representatives of those interests that are so directly concerned with matters of public health.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it contemplated to give any remuneration, beyond expenses, to these five members of the proposed council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it is not contemplated to give them any remuneration.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suggest a verbal alteration which may not be necessary, 'but will perhaps tend to indicate more clearly what is contemplated. I propose to insert in the second line from the bottom the words in respect of this Act." The section will then read that the Council "shall be charged with such duties and powers in respect of this Act as the Governor in Council may prescribe."


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to the amendment, although that is what the section means in its present form.


Francis Henry Keefer: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: The press men, when they get sick, call in a doctor just the same as we do.


Francis Henry Keefer: I did not know that was the situation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Or call in the undertaker.


Francis Henry Keefer: Before leaving the subject I would like to congratulate the House

upon the passage of legislation which in my judgment will confer more benefit upon the workers of this country than any other piece of legislation this House has enacted. Health can be bought by the rich, but it is those without large incomes who are the sufferers from the contagious diseases against which this Bill is directed. Therefore, I 'think this Bill, when it goes into effect, will do more in the long run for the welfare of the workers of this country than any other piece of legislation that has been passd by this Parliament.


Robert James Manion: I must take exception to the statement of the hon, gentleman (Mr. Keefer) that I tried to take away from the medical profession any credit for this Bill.
I remember my words very distinctly, and if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look them up in Hansard he will find that what I said was that the labour organizations were among the first to advocate the creation of a department of public health. Those were my words and I adhere to them.


Francis Henry Keefer: The medical profession wore the first to advocate it, in 1866 in Canada.


Robert James Manion: I do not dispute that, and I presume that if the hon. gentleman went back a couple of thousand years he would find an even earlier advocate in the person of Aesculapius. I did not say the medical profession were not the first, but I did say that the labour organizations were among the first in their advocacy of this measure. The hon. gentleman would have acted with more fairness if he had quoted me as pointing out that the medical profession were supporting the establishment of this department whole-heartedly and very high-mindedly, because that was the statement I made.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Before the section passes, I would ask the President of the Privy Council whether, in view of the uncertainty that exists throughout the country, he can state who will be the minister at the head of this department, whether it will be a medical practitioner or a layman?
The Western papers contain statements to the effect that the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) is to be appointed. Would it be a breach of confidence on the part of the hon. minister to enlighten the House?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said last week in regard to that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: This will be added as section 7:
Nothing in this Act or any regulation made thereunder shall authorize the minister or any official of the department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial health officer or any provincial or municipal board of health or other health authority operating under the laws of any province.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Section 7 now becomes section 8.
On the schedule:


John Ewen Sinclair: I called the attention of the House the other day to the fund administered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I presume that the schedule would be the proper place to add "Chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes?"


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Canada Shipping
Act, Chapter 113, Sections 406 to 408 inclusive, I think should be added to the schedule.


John Ewen Sinclair: What becomes of the fund to the credit of the Health Branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
I understand that a considerable amount of money has been collected from ships at the various ports, and that the fund so formed is for the purpose of caring for sick seamen. I would like to know if the hon. minister has considered the destination of that fund, or whether the Minister of Health to be appointed will have charge of it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: As the fund is collected for administration under the general provisions of the Act, I did not think it was desirable to take its collection out of the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who now administers it under the Act, but I think there is no doubt the fund must be applied to the purposes specified in the Act and would be avail-10 p.m. able for paying the expenses oi these hospitals just as it is today. The effect of the change, that is, the placing of sections 406 to 408 of the Canada Shipping Act in this schedule, would be to place the actual administration of the hospitals under the Department of Health, as those are the sections which specify the particular minister who shall administer the hospitals. I think the money would still go in exactly the way it goes to-day, and as it should go.


John Ewen Sinclair: It has been impressed on the attention of the Marine Department for years that something should

be done for sick seamen owing to the fact that this money had been collected from ships at our ports and had accumulated to a large amount, and that in many places hospitals had not been provided. My object ^ in putting my question to the hon. minister is to find out if the new department will look after sick seamen in a better way than that work has been done in the past.


Peter McGibbon: I would move that the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, the Inspection of Canned Foods Act, and the Penitentiaries Act be included in this schedule. I do not think any argument is needed for including the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, because this is the only natural place for it. Many diseases, such as tuberculosis and anthrax, affect both animals and men. I might point out that diseases are intensified apparently by going through the animal kingdom, and the human being contracts them in an aggravated form. The Inspection of Canned Foods would naturally fall under the work of this department, also the penitentiaries. Very often we have the feeble minded and the partially demented in our penitentiaries, and they require medical supervision.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not care whether you include the inspection of penitentiaries and of canned foods, but I do object to animal diseases being put under this organization, because I think the work is remarkably well handled as it is, and it belongs properly to the Agricultural Department.


Peter McGibbon: I might point out to the hon. member the fact that tuberculosis in the animal kingdom is increasing rapidly. I am speaking from memory and subject to correction, but I think the percentage last year increased from 2.9 to about 3.6. That does not look as if that particular branch was being very well handled.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member need not point that out to me; I know as much about it as he does.


Peter McGibbon: Then I am surprised at the hon. member making that argument.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Acts to which my hon. friend (Mr. Peter McGibbon) refers are now being administered by three separate departments of the Government: the Animals Contagious Diseases Act by the Department of Agriculture, the Penitentiaries Act by the Department of Justice; and 
the Food Act by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The transfer of these services to this department involves an important question not only of policy but of administration. There is power under the clause we have already passed for the Governor in Council to transfer the medical administration under any one of these Acts to this department, should it appear expedient to do so. In view of that fact I would suggest that the hon. member should not press the amendment at the present time. The matter will be considered by the Government in due course.


Peter McGibbon: In view of the minister's remarks, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn, and schedule agreed to.
On the preamble:


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that, in accordance with the suggestion which was made when the Bill was previously in committee, the preamble be amended by adding at the beginning thereof the following words:
Whereas it is expedient for the preservation of the health and the promotion of the social welfare of the people of Canada that a Department of Health be established in the Dominion, therefore
Amendment agreed to and preamble, as amended; agreed to.
Bill reported.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into Committee to consider resolution to provide for the incorporation of the Canadian National Railway Company:
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that we have done a good deal of work to-day? I-with my hon. friend have been in attendance at three sittings to-day, including those of the Special Committee to revise the Railway Act. I submit that my hon. friend should not press his resolution to-night.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no desire to press the resolution if there is objection to my doing so. I simply wanted to advance the matter one stage so that the Bill could be introduced and proceeded with.
I hardly think that there would be any objection to the resolution; it is merely to provide for the incorporation of a com-

pany to operate the whole of the railway systems which are under the control of the Government.


Jacques Bureau: What about the Canadian Northern?


John Dowsley Reid: The resolution provides for the incorporation of a company to operate the Canadian Northern railway system, the Government railways and such other railways as the Government may purchase or acquire. If we purchase the Grand Trunk, it will be operated by this company. That is the object of the Bill to be founded on the resolution.


Jacques Bureau: I think there is another object to the Bill.


James Alexander Robb: The minister would make
greater progress by acceding to the request of my hon. friend who is leading the Opposition (Mr. Lemieux). We on this side do not share the minister's view that this is a simple Bill; it is really a Bill to confer upon the Governor in Council the rights of Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


James Alexander Robb: The people of Canada are
the shareholders, but if there is any deficit the Government of the day seem to have all the say. I do not think the minister will get this through quite so quickly as he imagines.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: I have no intention oi asking the House to sit one minute longer than hon. gentlemen wish. When I rose at ten minutes after ten to move that the House go into Committee to consider this resolution, I did so at an hour which is early compared with the hour to which the House has been sitting. However, as the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and the Chief Whip (Mr. Robb) ask me not to proceed. I accede to their suggestion.
Mr. MeMASTER:	It is very difficult to
follow a resolution which is in the form of one sentence spread over a page and a hall of the Order Paper. When the Orders of the Day are printed, would it not be possible to have this resolution so divided up that the eye may follow it with greater ease?


John Dowsley Reid: I will suggest that it
be printed that way to-morrow.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let it be divided up
into paragraphs.


Jacques Bureau: And let the word " Order in Council " be printed in capitals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister will understand that I am not opposing unduly the procedure which he intended to follow this evening; but really the day has been too long.


John Dowsley Reid: I quite understand
that. But I do not want any hon. gentleman to have the impression that I was trying to press business at a late hour. I withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned ait 10.15 p.m.
Friday, April 11, 1919.


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

[Stage Direction]
Return to an Order of the House dated April 7, 1919, showing:
1.	The total amount of the domestic Dominion War Loans subscribed to date.
2.	The amount thereof subscribed by each province of the Dominion.
3.	The amount of deposits in the banks at the close of the fiscal year next prior to the date of the first of such loans.
4.	The amount of deposits in Canadian banks according to the last issued statement, and the date of such statement.- Sir Thomas White.
Copy of Order in Council P.C. 690, dated 2nd April, 1919, re agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the King of Roumania respecting credit for $25,000,000.- Sir Thomas White.

Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to lay on the Table, Order in Council dated the 10th day of April, 1919, requesting His Majesty to issue letters patent to the Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, the Right Honourable Sir George Eulas Foster, the Honourable Arthur Lewis Sifton and the Honourable Charles Joseph Doherty, as Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries in respect of the Dominion of Canada with full power and authority to sign any treaties concluded at the Peace Congress.
The House will be interested in knowing that the treaties concluded at the Peace Conference will be signed in respect of Canada by Canadian Plenipotentiaries.


SENATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Gladys Agnes Wilson Hawkins.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 69, to amend the Criminal Code respecting Prevention of Fire.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher):: 1 should like to call the attention of the Government to this article which appeared in this morning's Citizen:
Winnipeg, April 10th.-On receipt of a report that a new colony of Hutterites is coming into Canada with the permission of Government authorities and that three cars of their effects reached Emerson, Manitoba, last night, the Great War Veterans' Association to-day sent a strong protest to Sir Thomas White in Ottawa. The protest says that the Association-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member should put his question without reading a newspaper article in extenso. I would call attention to the fact that as the article refers to a protest it is not in order that it should be read now.


John Patrick Molloy: Has the Government
taken any action as to the telegram reported to have been sent by the Great War Veterans of Manitoba?


William Thomas White: The telegram referred to has not come to my attention.


MONCTON AND BUCTOUCHE RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Auguste Théophile Léger: I draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to
complaints that have been made in the press and elsewhere as regards passenger accommodation on the Moncton and Buc-touche railway, which is now part of the Government system of railways. It is reported that fifty per cent of the passengers have to stand for hours on account of the necessary accommodation not being provided. Has the minister knowledge of these matters, and if not, will he make inquiries and furnish the necessary accommodation.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first intimation I have had of any trouble on the line mentioned. I will take the matter up at once with the management and if there is any trouble, I will have it remedied.


PEACE TREATY-LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. HOWARD PRIMOSE WH'IDDEN (Brandon): Has the Government any information concerning the probable date when the Peace Treaty will be ready for ratification and is there a possibility of the Government setting aside a time for consideration by the House of the League of Nations Covenant.
William Thomas White: We have no official information as to the date upon which the Treaty of Peace will be signed. I am not aware that the date has been fixed. Yesterday an order was made for the printing of the Covenant, and at a later date it will be open to the House to discuss the matter, if it so desires.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will members
of the House have an opportunity of seeing the Peace Treaty before it is signed on behalf of Canada?


William Thomas White: I think not.
When the Treaty is ready for signature I should think it would not be possible to have it discussed by the several legislatures of the countries concerned. It is very desirable that the Peace Treaty should be signed as soon as possible after it has been agreed upon by the five great powers, in order that peace may be restored to the world. I apprehend what my hon. friend has in mind: that the various countries are to be bound by the decisions of the Peace Conference, and that it would be advisable, if practicable, to have the Treaty discussed by the several legislatures concerned. >But I do not believe that such a course is practicable, nor am L aware that it has been adopted in connection with former peace treaties. Under the constitution of the United States, treaties have to be approved by the Senate, but as regards the present treaty H. think-I am simply giving my own opinion-it will be signed by the plenipotentiaries appointed for the purpose. Whatever subsequent ratification may be necessary by the different legislatures will be given effect to.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention of the Government to secure a number of megaphones to be used by the leaders on the Ministerial and Opposition benches, so that private members will hear something of what is going on?


Jacques Bureau: Ear-phones should also
be provided.


DAYLIGHT SAVING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the Acting Prime Minister
throw some light to-day on the all-absorbing question of daylight saving? I have been informed that we shall have daylight saving after recess.


William Thomas White: I am surprised at my hon. friend being so intensely interested in what, after all, is a very temporary matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is breaking up homes in Ottawa.


William Thomas White: I made inquiries to-day and ascertained that the decision of the Railway Commissioners will probably be given immediately. After the decision has been published, I shall inform the House as what I have to suggest.


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council), Bill No. 37, respecting the Department of Health, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice) for the second reading of Bill No. 38, to amend the Canada Evidence Act:
Joseph Archambault: If this Bill has not yet been printed in French, I do not think we should discuss it now.


Arthur Meighen: I should not like to say that it has not been printed in French, although the letter ' F ' does not appear on the Order Paper. I have known cases where Bills have been printed in French and distributed, without the letter ' F ' appearing on the Order Paper.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before a Bill can get its second reading, the rule is that it must be printed in both French and English. The letters ' E ' and ' F ' on the Order Paper are not a positive index as to whether that has been done. If the Bill has not been printed in French, we may not proceed.
Motion stands.


THE JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908.
88J
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill does nothing
more than define the term "Roman Catholic" as used in 'the present Act. There is no definition in the Act as it now stands, and there is a certain class of Catholics who decline to be known as Roman Catholics. Consequently, a definition is necessary. I have an amendment to propose when we are in Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-"Roman Catholic" defined:
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move:
That section 1 be amended by striking out the words ' head of the Roman Catholic Church ' in lines 9 and 10, and substituting therefor the words ' Holy Roman See.'
'Sir SAM HUGHES:	I cannot hear a
word.


Arthur Meighen: This may not be very
easily understood by my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are Roman Catholics who belong to the Eastern Church and Roman Catholics who belong to the Western Church, and I am informed that in order to unite them they want to have placed in the Act the official title of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and that official title, recognized by both branches, is " Holy Roman See."


Samuel Hughes: Would my hon. friend kindly tell me that again? Seeing that the Minister of the Interior could not tell me what the Holy Roman See was, I shall appeal to the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) to enlighten me on that point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are two branches of the Catholic Church-


Samuel Hughes: Of the Roman Catholic Church.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -of the Roman Catholic Church: the Western branch and the Eastern branch, and in respect to these young delinquents the members of the church asked-


Samuel Hughes: With the assistance of the Parliament of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes-the members of the church have asked to be allowed to give the official name to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The official name is the " Holy Roman See."


Samuel Hughes: I would be very glad if the Minister of the Interior would explain to me what is meant by the " spiritual jurisdiction of the head of the Roman Catholic Church."


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I had better explain the Bill and then the bon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) will understand it. The Juvenile Delinquents Act now provides for taking care of juvenile delinquents in homes.


Samuel Hughes: What homes?


Arthur Meighen: They are dhurch homes. If a juvenile delinquent is a Protestant the A at provides that he shall go to a Protestant home. If he is a Roman Catholic he is taken care of in a Catholic home. A difficulty arose in connection with the working of the Act in consequence of the fact that there was no definition of ithe Roman Catholic sect, or branch, as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) says, known ordinarily as Greek Catholics. They refused to be described as (Roman Catholics and consequently they were being discriminated against under the Act, as they were described as belonging to a class to which they did not belong, and, not belonging to that class, there was no supervision over the children. The Act is now being amended so as to define " Roman Catholic " in such a way as to include them. They are anxious to have 'this amendment.


Samuel Hughes: Who are " they?"


Arthur Meighen: That branch of the Greek Catholic church. They have secured incorporation from this Parliament under the title of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada. This amendment will have the effect of placing their children in the same position as Roman Catholic children because it defines "Roman Catholic** in terms wide enough to include them.


Samuel Hughes: Why not define Methodist wide enough to include them also?


Arthur Meighen: These people desire that their children be placed in Catholic institutions.


Samuel Hughes: Have you any evidence of that?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they have asked for the Bill. They are Catholics; they recognize the authority of the Pope, or rather of the Holy Roman Catholic See.


Samuel Hughes: No, they do not.


Arthur Meighen: They inform me that they do and that they desire to be included so as to secure the privileges of that communion. It is they who are asking for the Bill and for this amendment because they recognize the head of the Roman Catholic Church as head of the Holy Roman See. They are not of the Roman Catholic Church but they recognize the Holy Roman See as the head of their church the same as he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.


Samuel Hughes: H-o-l-y!


Fred Langdon Davis: 'I think that if the situation were understood it might clear the way for the consideration of this Bill. There is a Greek Catholic Church as well as a Roman Catholic Church. Some 250 years ago there was an effort made in Poland to get a union of the two rites. There are people who are known among Greek Catholics as Uniats and who are willing to accept the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. These people are known in the western provinces to-day as Greek Catholics in communion with the Church of Rome, and, in so far as they are concerned, I see no objection to the Bill going through. But, as far as the Greek Catholics are concerned, I think the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) i? right; they do not recognize the authority of the head of the Church of Rome.


Arthur Meighen: Then, they do not come under the Bill; they are not affected.


Samuel Hughes: I did not know that this Bill was going to be taken up to-day; otherwise I would have looked into it with more interest and paid more attention to it than I have. But it might as well be understood here that there is an attempt being made through Parliament by an organization of the Roman Catholic Church to get control of a number of people who are not Roman Catholics, or to control their children. This is the old story; worldwide; nothing new about it whatever.


Charles Marcil: They are trying to save the children.


Samuel Hughes: We will not enter into that aspect of the case now. Whether a man calls himself a Roman Catholic oi not, Parliament is going to legislate by this Bill to take away his children and send them to a Roman Catholic institution in case they should come before the court, and in doing so Parliament is interfering with the absolute free will of the subject by forcing him to have his children placed in a

Roman Catholic institution whether he is a Roman Catholic or not. There has been an attempt made on the part of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, ever since the thing was formed in the fifth century-after Christ-because it was not until the fifth century after Christ that it was ever heard of-an attempt which has been going on for generations, to get control of the Greek Catholics, of the people of Greece, Turkey, Macedonia and the States of the Balkan peninsula. The attempt is being made to secure control over the people of those Balkan States and to bring them in under ithe auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, as Greek Catholics owing allegiance to the See of Rome. The game is well understood by those who have studied it up. I am not finding fault with the Roman Catholic Church for pushing their propaganda, but I .am finding fault with the Parliament of Canada in yielding to that propaganda by legislation of this 'kind. We might as well talk frankly about these things. I cannot agree with ithe opinion that I see in the press of the country that matters of this kind should not be discussed in Parliament at all. Nor do I agree with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) in the view that questions concerning religion should not be brought up in Parliament at all. Are we to stay quiet and let these corporations come in and get control all over the country? Not at .all. This is the place to fight it out, to call a spade a spade, to talk in plain Anglo-Saxon, and that is what I propose to do. It is generally understood-there is no secret about it-that-the assassination of the heir apparent to the Austrian throne was brought about because he was persona non grata to the Church of Rome, because he was a liberal in religion and not an ultramontane. It is generally understood that the policy of Germany, had she been triumphant in this war, was to make herself mistress of Belgium, Poland, and Lithuania, and the large additions of Roman Catholics to the German Empire by the carrying out of that policy would result in the Roman Catholic population of that empire becoming vastly greater than the Protestant population, with this addition also: that in the states now controlled by the Bolsheviki the Greek Church would be weakened and Russia would be brought under Rome's influence, Italy would be restored to the church, France would be restored to the church, leaving outside its control only the two great powers of Great Britain and the United States, but resulting in the re-establishment of the temporal power of the Pope of Rome over Christendom to the extent which I have mentioned. The aims of the Roman Catholic Church are well known; there is no secret about it at the present time. It is practically well known, and generally understood that the "hidden hand '' interfered with the enlistment of splendid boys who were anxious to fight for their country in the late war-interfered with the enlistment of those boys all over the country.
I certainly object to the spirit of this measure which states that whether any such person as is referred to in this Bill calls himself a Roman Catholic or not he is to acknowledge and be subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Why should we legislate for the jurisdiction and control by the Church of Rome over the future of such people as these who do not belong to that church? I am by no means satisfied that the operation of these homes is as beneficial as it should be in the public interest. It seems to me that these organizations are getting their hands in everywhere and trying to establish themselves wherever they can get a foothold and that in this Bill they are trying to get a recognition that does not belong to them. I certainly object to the passage of this Bill, at all events until such time as the whole matter has been looked into and the House has been placed in possession of full information on the subject.


John Hampden Burnham: I would ask the Acting Minister of Justice if he is aware that by a recent decree the word " Roman " has been stricken out of the title of the Catholic Church. So that now instead of being " the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church " it is " the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?" This change may make a very serious difference with respect to the Bill before the Committee. '


Arthur Meighen: Let me deal with the
matter in this way for the benefit of the hon. member for Victoria and of the Committee: The Juvenile Delinquents' Act does not make anybody a Protestant or a Catholic. It provides two classes of homes to which children may go-one class for Protestant children, and one class for Catholic children.


Samuel Hughes: Might I nob-


Arthur Meighen: Just let me finish-


Samuel Hughes: But I would like to



'The CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. member can only interrupt an hon. member who is speaking if he gets permission.


Samuel Hughes: I am well aware oi that, but I want to ask him a question.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I am in order, Sir.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member cannot put a question when the hon. member who is speaking objects.


Samuel Hughes: He did not object.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood him to object.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister objects to the question being asked-


Jacques Bureau: He did so; he said, "Let me finish."


Arthur Meighen: I would have preferred not to be interrupted at the moment, but now that I have been I will await the question of the hon. member for Victoria.


Samuel Hughes: Never mind, you can [DOT]go on now.
Mr. MEI'GHEN: I was saying, when interrupted, that the Act provides two classes of homes to which children who are delinquents may be sent, its intention, being that Protestants be sent to Protestant homes and Catholics to Catholic homes. As long as that is the case, as long as it does not attempt to admit any child who could possibly be a Protestant to a Catholic home objection could not be made by the hon. member from Victoria. In the same way if the Act does not attempt to send any child who is a Catholic to a Protestant home, it could not be objected to. By what stretch of the imagination could any person come to the conclusion that under this Act a Protestant could be sent to a Catholic home? The Bill defines a Roman Catholic as meaning and including any person who acknowledges and is subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy Roman See. That is all. If such a person makes that acknowledgment he is not a Protestant. I really do not pretend to be an authority on such matters, but the alphabet would teach me that. It may be he is not a Roman Catholic. If so we do not make him such, and do not attempt to; it is pure nonsense to suggest that we do. But he is a Catholic, and as between the two classes, the Protestant and Catholic it is undoubtedly the Catholic institution to which he should go, if that child is of a parentage that recognizes the authority of the Holy Roman See. It may

be he is a Greek Catholic. It may be he is in the class defined by our Act of 1913 incorporating the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada; but if he is a Protestant, belonging either to the Protestant Greek church or any such ecclesiastical body, he does not recognize the authority of the Holy Roman See and cannot be affected by the Bill.


Charles Marcil: How are the Jewish children provided for?


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I have the Act here and can look up its provisions. They are not affected by this Bill, but I think there are other provisions in the Act which have reference to them.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think there are.


Arthur Meighen: Possibly not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now that the point has been raised I think it would be well when we are making amendments to the law to see to it that some provision is made for the care of Jewish children in Jewish homes. It would appear from the discussion as though there were no Jewish juvenile delinquents, but I wish to say, as a matter of fact, that there are. We look after such delinquents, and customarily they are placed with Jewish families. .


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, no. My hon. friend is wrong. Jewish delinquents are placed in the Boys' Farm and Training School at Shawbridge.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am referring to private and not public homes. They are put in private homes and looked after. I think it might be well when we are making these changes in the law that there should be some recognition in this House that we have Jewish juvenile delinquents.


Arthur Meighen: The point does not concern the Bill, but I promise to take the matter which the hon. gentleman has brought to my attention into my consideration. I will have it reviewed in the department and speak to him again about it.


Samuel Hughes: In the first place I wish to resent the use of the word " Catholic " as it is being universally applied in this House. There are a great many people in connection with the English Church who resent the use of the word as applying only to the Roman Church. A great many of the so-called English Catholics regard themselves as just as important a body as the Roman Catholic Church. When you have

reference to those people they consider themselves just as much Catholics as do those persons who belong to the Roman Church. Therefore if the Acting Minister of Justice wishes to adhere to constitutional usage he will take cognizance of that fact. There are not only Protestant Catholics but there are millions of other Catholics who do not belong to either organization, and I fail to see why the child of any man who is not a recognized Roman Catholic should be sent to a Roman Catholic institution. There are public institutions in the country, supported by the municipalities, that are undenominational. That is where such children will go, and this game of grabbing children and bringing them up in this or that faith should be stopped. This kind of business has done more harm than good. The Government ought not to recognize any such ecclesiastical jurisdiction as is proposed here; the people concerned should be free to select their own religious faith.
Do not let any church have an opportunity of grabbing this or that child owing to the fact that the father does not know what church he belongs to. If the Roman Catholic Church gets a child under this hybrid organization of the Greek Catholic Church, that child goes to Rome just the same and Rome gets an additional voter. There is no use trying to get around the fact that this measure is not for the good of the child. I would suggest that the Bill be held over for further consideration to give us an opportunity to get behind the scenes and secure the real facts of the case. This Bill has been smuggled in from the Senate; I never heard of it until a moment ago. It is being rushed through the same as that clause was rushed through a year or two ago in the Military Service Act in connection with divinity students.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the Committee to think that any attempt is being made to rush this Bill through. It has already been through one House of Parliament.


Samuel Hughes: They are asleep in the Senate the same as we are.


Arthur Meighen: The reason "Roman
Catholic" is used here is because it is the term used in the Act; consequently that is the term that must be defined. Let me read section 19 of Juvenile Delinquents Act and then the effect of the definition will be seen:
No Protestant child dealt with under this Act shall be committed to the care of any Roman Catholic children's aid society or be placed in
any Roman Catholic family as its foster home; nor shall any Roman Catholic child dealt with under this Act be committed to the care of any Protestant children's aid society, or be placed in any Protestant family as its foster home; but this section shall not apply to the placing of children in a temporary home or shelter for children, established under the authority of a statute of the province, or, in a municipality where there is but one children's aid society, to such children's aid society.
If a Protestant child is committed to the care of a Roman Catholic children's aid society or placed in a Roman Catholic family as its foster home or if a Roman Catholic child is committed to the care of a Protestant children's aid society or placed in a Protestant family as its foster home, contrary to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section, the court shall, on the application of any person in that behalf, make an order providing for the proper commitment or placing of the child pursuant to subsection 1 of this section.
Now it became necessary to define the term Roman Catholic on account of members of the Greek 'Catholic Church not recognizing themselves as Roman Catholics.


Samuel Hughes: Why not say
"Greek Roman Catholic Church?"


Arthur Meighen: Because there are no
Greek Roman Catholic homes. Those people want their children to come in these homes. They recognize the Holy Roman See as their spiritual head; therefore the definition is necessary. It is so clear that I cannot understand any person-


Samuel Hughes: I know, I am dull
of apprehension myself.


Arthur Meighen: Only on some things.


Samuel Hughes: I would like the hon. minister to explain how he knows that the Greek Catholics do recognize the Holy Roman See, as he terms it, or the Pope of Rome?


Arthur Meighen: If they do not recognize the Holy Roman 'See they will not be affected by the Bill; but they are asking for it.


Samuel Hughes: Who are they,
some heelers?


Arthur Meighen: I told the hon. gentleman a moment ago; I will tell him again. The word " they " refers to the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada, as incorporated by this Parliament in the Statutes of 1913, chapter 191.


Samuel Hughes: Why not put in that name, the Ruthenian Greek-I cannot get the rigmarole off?


Arthur Meighen: There may be others
who recognize the Holy Roman See, but, if not, they are not affected by the Bill; but

once they do recognize it, would the hon. gentleman try to claim them as Protestants?


Samuel Hughes: Here is a child
brought before the court; who is to determine whether that child belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic Church, or the English Catholic Church; is it the people who are engineering the show?


Arthur Meighen: That is not affected by this Bill one way or the other.


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me, yes.


Arthur Meighen: That point is not affected by this amendment. The determination that is exercised under the original Act will still obtain. There is no difficulty.


Samuel Hughes: I am aware there is no difficulty because people are asleep. Hundreds of these children are shipped off here and there. But democracy is abroad to-day, people are getting wide awake to this sort of thing; they know that these churches have to a large extent been a blanket on the progress of humanity, and they are putting the churches in the category where they belong; they are treating them as corporations, which have neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. They have come to the conclusion that the State should look after its orphans; and the municipal, provincial and Dominion authorities are looking after them, and are doing it well, too.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister oi the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
He said: I will explain the purpose of this Bill. The present Canada Evidence Act provides that any entry in a book kept in any department of the Government is receivable in evidence if proved by the oath or affidavit of any officer of the department. But it has been held that that provision does not apply to books kept, for example, in the Auditor General's branch, which is not a " Department " within the meaning of that term, nor the books kept by a Commission of the Government, for example, the Railway Commission, the Canada Trade Commission, or the War Purchasing Commission. Very great incon-
Cllr. Meighen.f
venience and expense is necessitated as a result, because the proof must be made then by the production of the book itself, and usually by the production of the officer of the department. This is to make the present law applicable not only to departments but also to all branches of the Government service.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, some years ago I remember we had an investigation before a Committee of some land speculation in connection with the Department of the Interior, and the question of filing departmental documents came up before the Committee. If I an? not mistaken, the then member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), who was interested in the matter, insisted that the Committee was entitled to see the original. It seems to me that the same rule should apply to a case before a court of the land.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is competent to discuss only the principle of the Bill on the second reading. The hon. gentleman will serve his purpose better and cause the proceeding to be regular if he waits until the House goes into committee on the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on ithe Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section I-to make section 26 apply to all offices under Dominion Government.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Generally, it is not necessary to file the original entries, and possibly inconvenience would result if they were required to be filed in every case. But in both criminal and civil cases it may become of the utmost importance that the originals be filed. In that case, what would happen under this legislation?


Arthur Meighen: I shall give my view of the law, but I do not wish to give it as final. The present Act provides that the production of a sworn copy of an entry in a book of a department shall be evidence of the entry and of the facts stated in it. The amendment says that that provision shall apply to all branches of the Government service. The effect of the present legislation is to enable a litigant to submit certain evidence, namely, the copy
4	p.m. of an entry instead of the entry itself, and to be in a position then to say that he has produced evidence of the entry and of the facts noted in it. But the litigant is not now prevented by the present legislation, nor will he be prevented by the new legislation, from demanding the orig-

inal as well. If he wants to go to the expense of bringing the proper officer from Ottawa, or wherever he may be, and have the book produced, he may do so, but this gives him a cheaper alternative.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This legislation does not change the old law; it merely exitends it?


Arthur Meighen: Extends it; that is all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A man who is putting in a copy of an entry may contend that that is evidence, and the other side may demand the original. In general iaws of this kind, discretion is sometimes given to the judge to decide whether he shall accept the copy or grant the request of the other side for the production of the original. Possibly it would do no harm to add to this section the words " unless the court or judge otherwise orders." It would then be open to the judge to say 'that either party could have further or better evidence if necessary. I do not think any discretion is left to the judge here to order anything more than the certified copy.


Arthur Meighen: The difficulty with the hon. member's suggestion is this: -a litigant who himself was satisfied with a copy of the entry would not know whether or not he was preparing his case properly by relying on a copy. He might come to court with his copy and then have the judge rule that he must produce the original. That might mean an adjournment of the trial, particularly if the trial was taking place, say, in Victoria and the papers were in Ottawa. But as the law will stand when this Bill is passed, if a litigant is satisfied with the copy he goes ahead and gets it, and he knows that that is proof. If, on the contrary, his opponent is not satisfied with the copy, all he has to do is to go to the' expense of getting the original.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If one is going to rely on a copy of a deed instead of an original, he must give ten or eleven days' notice that he is going to use a copy. It is then open to the other side to refuse to accept the copy and to ask for the original. If the same general law applies to the copy in this case as applies to the copy of a deed, surprise could not happen.


Arthur Meighen: If we were to adopt that in the Canada Evidence Act as extendable to books of account in the Government service, we would have to consider very carefully an amendment to that effect, because provision would have to be made for notice. I suggest that this point raised by
the hon. member stand for consideration in connection with another Bill. He might then, if he thought fit, himself introduce the suggestion.


Jacques Bureau: Would it not be well to specify that the officer of the department who is to certify to these copies shall be the officer who has been particularly in charge of the books? He might be required to state in the affidavit that the books have been under his charge or 'that he knows of them.


Arthur Meighen: lit is provided here that the officer must be an officer of the department, commission or board. I-do not think you can go further than that, because in some cases the books may not be under the special supervision of any particular officer; they may be open to entry on the part of several officers. It would seem to be sufficient that the entry be sworn to by an officer of the department in question. Then it must also be proved that the entry is made in the usual course of business in that office, and that oath must be taken by the officer who takes the affidavit. Consequently, it is necessary in every case that an officer who is familiar with the use of that book take the affidavit.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend says there are books that are not under the charge of any special officer. That would be a very rare exception?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps so.


Jacques Bureau: There are various
branches in each department. I should not like to take from the Superintendent of Dredging a certificate as to something that was done in the office of the architect of the Department of Public Works or vice versa, and yet under this Bill that could be done.


Arthur Meighen: The present law is not changed in that respect.


Jacques Bureau: No, but if we are going to amend it, we should improve it, and if we are going to improve it, we should go the whole way.


Arthur Meighen: There is no complaint
that it is not perfect as it is.


Jacques Bureau: Then why amend it?


Arthur Meighen: Because it does not go far enough.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Has the scope of the section not been enlarged by the insertion of these words:
or in any commission, ]jon ru or oilier ttrancli.

I would have no objection to the section reading:
A copy ot any entry in any book kept in any office or department of the Government of Canada,
But the words:-
or In any commission, board or other branch.
are extremely wide and vague. They include practically everything that pertains to the Government of Canada and to every department. I object to such a vague term unless I am told that the same disposition existed in the old law. In that case I would not ask that the law be changed.


Arthur Meighen: The words are wide
but they are by no means vague. Previously this right extended as to any department; it could be applicable say to a Dominion land office or a timber office in New Westminster, if there was one there. It would be applicable anywhere. That being the case, why should it not be applicable say to the War Purchasing Commission? Every portion of the public service of Canada is a clearly defined area of service, and there can be no doubt or vagueness about it. Why then should one portion of the service of Canada be different from another? This simply gives the right to use a sworn copy of a book of entry if such book is used in the public service of Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the minister kindly read the-original section?


Arthur Meighen: The original section is this:
(2i6). A copy of any entry in any book kept in any department of the Government of Canada, shall .be received as evidence of such entry, and of the matters, transactions and 'accounts therein recorded, if it is proved by the oath or affidavit of an officer of such department that such book was, at the time of the making of the entry, one of the ordinary books kept in such department, that the entry was made in the usual course of business in such department, and that such copy is a true oo.py thereof.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is the same, with the exception of the word "commission.''


Jean-Joseph Denis: A wide change is made in the drafting of the new section, because the words "in any office" are new and the words "or in any commission, board or other branch" are equally new.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, intentionally so.
If they were not new, there would be no amendment.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I object to enlarging to such an extent the scope of this section, because this amendment makes it cover practically

all the books kept in the use of the Dominion Government. We do not know where that is going to stop. 'For example, the entry book of a man who is keeping wages accounts on a dredge would fall under this section.


Arthur Meighen: That is the law now, because he is in the Public Works Department.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If that is the law, it is wide enough now, and we are going to make it even wider. I cannot appreciate the length or the scope of this section drafted as it is. It seems we shall always be at a loss to know what falls under the section and what does not.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. gentleman suggest any institution that would be in doubt? What is the difficulty of telling whether any service or institution is or is not part of the public service of the Dominion of Canada.? That is all a question of who issues the cheques.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The difficulty here is
that the certificate of any department of Government should not he taken as evidence unless it is a permanent, fixed' department of Government. These boards are in existence to-day, but twenty years, or ten years, or perhaps three years hence many of these boards or commissions shall have wound up their business and gone oul of existence. They will be no longer a branch of the Government, and the difficulty would arise that, although they were a branch of the Government when this Bill was passed to-day, to-morrow or a year or more afterwards they will not be a branch of the Government and would their certificate then be admissible as evidence? The minister should take care not to recognize in connection with this draft any branch of the service that is not permanent. If it he found that the Auditor General's Department is not within the old section, I can readily understand the necessity of bringing it in, because so far as we all know it is an absolutely fixed department of Government. But the Food Board, the Fuel Board, the War Purchasing Commission, are all for war purposes and will disappear with the war. I do not think the minister would care to say that the certificate of an officer of any of those boards, after they had wound up their business and dissolved, should be recognized as evidence in the courts of the land.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
remarks might have point if we were pre-

venting any litigant from getting the original, but we are not; we are merely giving him an amendment which he can use. We do not provide for certificates; we provide for a sworn copy of a book of entry. Why would not a sworn copy of a book of entry of the Food Board be just as fair evidence in a court as a sworn copy of a book of entry of a Dominion land office out in Grand Prairie? There is no difference in the world. The temporary character, if it is temporary, of a commission, does not in any way affect the strength or sufficiency of the evidence.
If a man is an officer of a Food Board, that is a public service board, not an institution for private profit, so as to give an incentive perhaps to manipulating entries'. All we say is that, as that is a public service board, the sworn copy of an entry shall be evidence. That is, I presume, based upon the assumption that the public service is honestly carried on, and that the incentive to wrong-doing does not exist with the man carrying it on as it does in a private concern. It is just as applicable in every respect to any part of the public service as it is to the Department of the Interior or the Department of Public Works. Another principle is this: WTe do not want the books of the public service out of use by being used as evidence in courts all over the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Food Board or any other board or commission that has finished its work returns its commission and is dissolved. It goes out of business as a branch of the public service.


Arthur Meighen: But we need the records here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are you going to hunt for a man who was an officer of that board or commission to get a certificate from him? If so, where are you going to find him?


Arthur Meighen: We say, if there is an officer who can make that affidavit, all right. We do not say that he must make an affidavit whether he is in a position to or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: (Suppose that the books of the Food Board, when the board is dissolved, pass into the hands of some department of the Government. To what officer should I go for a certificate?


Arthur Meighen: If there is nobody to give it, you cannot get it; so the amendment would not apply.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It might be absolutely necessary to have a certificate, and I would
be willing to take the certificate of an officer of the department in whose custody the books were. I do not think it is necessary to mention these commissions at all, because their books will be turned over to some department of the Government from which department a certificate could be got. Suppose the books of the Food Board are turned over to the Labour Department, and the certificate of the Deputy Minister of Labour is produced in court, the judge might say: "I cannot see any connection between the Department of Labour and the Food Board, and it is necessary for you to produce a certificate from an official of the Food Board." I would be perfectly satisfied if the Act were so constructed that a certificate could be got from an officer of the department which took over the books.


Arthur Meighen: I apprehend that is the effect of it. For example, there are some commissions that are portions of a department. Consequently any officer of that department can take an affidavit, provided he knows that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that a true copy has been made of it. There are other commissions, the more permanent ones as a rule, that are not under any department. The War Purchasing Commission for instance has not been under any department, and I do not think the railway commission, strictly speaking, is under any department. Consequently, it would be necessary to apply to an official of one of those commissions, and consequently, this Act must be applied to them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Railway Commission is a permanent one.


Arthur Meighen: That is true, but if the others are of a temporary character the hon. gentleman's objection cannot be taken, because the officer of the department himself can make the affidavit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why name these commissions at all? I see no necessity for it.


Arthur Meighen: It is just to save expense.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The only necessity foi the amendment, if I understood the minister correctly, was to include the Auditor General's branch. Now this Parliament will be sitting from year to year, and if there is any need for widening the scope of the Act the need can be met as it arises. The only difficulty the minister has now is that the Auditor General's branch is not covered by

the present Act. Why not amend the Act to- include that branch, and deal with further difficulties as they arise? The Canada Evidence Act is a pretty old one and I have never heard any complaint against it. I have always thought it was doing very well, but if it is found defective, we can amend it as the need arises. But do not say good-day to the devil before you meet him. I think that would be a much safer method, particularly when you are dealing with practice, for this has to do, not only with evidence, but with practice and procedure.


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me this is the simpler way. There is the same reason for this enactment in one branch of the service as in another. It will mean greater convenience and a saving of expense. The originals are open to be produced, and there is no obligation to make the affidavit.


Jacques Bureau: The objection taken by
my leader gives greater force to what I have suggested. We all know that there are commissions which are only of a temporary character. When those commissions have finished their work, their books will be turned over to some department of the Government, and will be in the care of an officer of that department who keeps books of a similar nature. This section provides for a certificate that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business of such office. Now the man to whom these books are turned over cannot very well take this affidavit. I think it would cover the case if we said that the officer in charge of the books can give a certificate that a correct copy of the entry has been made. When a commission has ceased to exist, it is not possible for the officer of the department to which the books are turned over to certify that the entry has been made in the usual and ordinary course of business of such commission, but he can certify that a true copy of the entry has been made.


Arthur Meighen: If the officer in whose charge the books come later cannot take an affidavit that the entry is made in the usual and ordinary course of business, the section would not apply to him. It would have to be done by the officer who could take the affidavit, and that is just what my hon. friend wants.


Jacques Bureau: In that case the office*! of the department would have to appear before the court, and the litigant would be put to considerable expense, which is what we want to avoid. If we saw that a certificate shall be given by the officer in [ Mr. McKenzie. ]
charge of the books it would not be necessary to summon him before the court with a lot of books.


Arthur Meighen: That would be making the Act far wider than we intended, and the leader of the Opposition himself is moving to make it narrower. I do not think we should make the Act so wide as that. I do not think a man who merely has the custody of the books and knows nothing about the entries should be allowed to make that affidavit. He could give a certificate, but he could not make an affidavit. Suppose the Food Board is closed, and its books are in the custody of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It will not be suggested that the Deputy Minister of Trade and (Commerce should be allowed to certify or give evidence that an entry made in the books of the Food Board by somebody else two years before when they were not in his charge at all was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and was consequently a correct entry, and that his- certificate should be an effective evidence of that entry. That would be going too far to meet my commendation.


Jacques Bureau: I am not asking that.


Arthur Meighen: If not, something pretty close to it.


Jacques Bureau: What we want is the contents of the books as evidence. Why should not the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, for example, certify that the copy produced is an exact copy of what the book contains, and if necessary, supplement that certificate with an affidavit? That would give you as much information as the books themselves, the only difference being that one would be a copy, and the other the original. This certificate ought not to contain these words because he cannot say that the certificate, supplemented by an affidavit, would be sufficient evidence for the court.
'Mr. MEIGHEN: That is going a lot farther than I suggested we ought to go.
If a man makes an affidavit and swears that the entry was made in the ordinary course of business, that is the extent to which we are asking the committee to go. The leader of the Opposition says that is too far. My hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says it is not far enough. I am in the happy position of being in between the two.


Jacques Bureau: This section would only apply to living commissions. If a commission had gone the law would not apply?


Arthur Meighen: This section will apply to both. It deals with the books of the public service and the entries contained therein.


Jacques Bureau: Of a commission actually in existence, hut if the records of the food board are transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce, this would not apply to any extract you might make from the books of the food board?


Arthur Meighen: Not unless there was somebody who could take that strict affidavit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think this drafting is very poor English. The words " in any office " must give the judicial interpretation to the clause. It says:-
A copy of any entry in any book kept in any office or department of the Government of Canada, or in any commission, board or other branch of the public service.
The words " in any office " must be understood in all those different places. If these commissions and boards are absorbed by departments they certainly have no offices and there is nothing kept in any office belonging to them; consequently there is no application oi the principle of the amendment at all. I think the minister would be well advised if he would take that into consideration and see if he could not do without the use of the words " commission and boards."


Arthur Meighen: I would rob the Act of a very useful portion if I did so. I do not see any bad English in it, or ithat it could be improved, nor do I feel like recommending to the committee to strike out the words " or in any commission, board, or other branch of the public service." I think the strictest affidavit should be demanded, but the use of an affidavit as ito every portion of the public service is based on the same principle as its use as to a part of the public service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I not understand the minister to strike out the words "commission" or "board"?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If we are not to understand that a copy can be made better than the original, I think the clause should he amended by adding to it the following words:
Provided in any case the original book containing such entry is still in existence and can be produced in support of the copy.
Supposing the original book has been destroyed, there would be no proof possible
without a provision of this kind. If the original book has been destroyed, and by that fact proof of the contents of the original book has become impossible, are we going to make a copy of the book better than the original, or are we going to allow the original to live again or to be revived in the copy? This might lead to great injustice and fraud. Supposing copies are taken to-day from books which actually belong to a commission or board, now in existence, or out of existence but whose books are still available. Supposing different copies are taken from those books either with or without any special intention. It may afterwards happen that these books are destroyed by fire or otherwise. With this Bill as it is drafted, in a month, or a year, or in ten years from now, any witness could come along and say: Here is a copy taken from such and such a book which was then in existence but which does not exist any more. Then we would have to take it for granted that this copy was, as it purported to be, a true copy and was the actual representative of the entry that was made in the original book. We would have no possible means of ascertaining whether it was true or not. If the party who was using this copy wanted to commit a fraud of some kind, it could easily be done. I am presenting this argument on the principle of the statute of fraud which exists under the old French law and which was made to cover instances of this kind. The minister pointed out that there was no objection to using a copy with the object of giving it the same meaning and the same weight as might be attached to the original because the original could always be produced by a person who would think of denying the authenticity of the copy. The argument was well in point and it convinced me, but it does not bring me to the same conclusion when the original is destroyed and we have to take it for granted that it will be sufficient for any witness to come along and declare that this is a true copy. Such copy will then remain in the record as proof of an original book which does not exist and the asserted authenticity of which cannot be contradicted. I am not saying this with a view to criticising the minister but I would ask him as an eminent lawyer to give consideration to this point.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the acceptance of the point would do violence to -the first principle of evidence. The hon. gentleman says that you should not be allowed to use a copy unless the original is

in existence at the time of use. Very clearly, the original must have been in existence at the time of use. Very clearly, the original must have been in existence at the time the copy was made or the affidavit could not have been taken. Now suppose the original has been destroyed or lost since. Upon what principle should we say that the sworn copy could not possibly be used as evidence in court? Why it is the best evidence that exists, and it is the best evidence that always must be used. It would be far better, of course, if the original were available and could be summoned in the event of a dispute as to the entry, but if it cannot be made available and if we have got the best evidence that there is, why rule out that evidence? What would be the result? You rule out the sworn copy and what have you left but the memory of some man who was in office and whose testimony could be produced in court. The hon. gentleman could go further and rule that out. If his amendment is right you might just as well relegate one class of evidence into oblivion with the other. However the rule in court is to take the best evidence that is available. Because the best is not quite good enough, do not destroy it. Yet that is the purpose of the hon. gentleman's amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, and Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) the House went into Committee-Mr. Boivin in the Chair-on the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the incorporation of Canadian National Railway Company, under which the railways, works and undertaking of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern System may be consolidated, and together with the Canadian Government railways, may be operated as a national railway system; and to provide that the Governor in Council may nominate such persons as may be deemed expedient, not "less than five nor more than fifteen, to be directors of the said company, and upon such nomination being made the persons so nominated, and their successors, and such other persons as may from time to time be nominated by the Governor in Council as -directors, shall be incorporated as a company; that provision be made for the tenure of office, removal and vacancies of directors; for annual meetings, for capital stock, with or without shares, vested in the Minister of Finance on behalf of His Majesty; for the location of the head office; for payment of directors by the company in such sums as the Governor in Council may approve ; for limited responsibilities of the directors ; for the making of by-laws and organizing the company; for an executive committee of the

Board of Directors; and to provide that whenever under the provisions of the Railway Act, or any other statute or law, the approval, sanction or confirmation by shareholders is required, such approval, sanction or confirmation may be given by the Governor in Council; and further to provide that the Governor in Council may from time to time by Order in Council entrust to the company the management and operation of any lines of railway or parts thereof, and any property or work® of whatsoever description, or interests therein, and any powers, rights or .privileges over or with respect to any railways, properties or works, or interests therein, which may be from time to time vested in or owned, controlled or occupied by His Majesty, or such part or part® thereof, or rights or interests therein, as may be designated in any Order in Council, upon such terms and subject to such regulations and conditions as the Governor in Council may from time to time decide; such management and operation to continue during the pleasure of the Governor in Council, and to be suject to termination or variation from time to time, in whole or in part, by the Governor in Council; that should His Majesty at any time heretofore have acquired or hereafter acquire the stock or the controlling interest in the stock of any railway company, or of any other company having corporate powers or properties which may be conveniently exercised or operated by the Company, the Governor in Council may transfer, or cause to be transferred, such capital stock or- any part thereof to the Company, or may iby proxies or otherwise enable the Company or any nominee of the Governor in Council to exercise the voting power thereof at any meeting of shareholders, upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may from time to time determine; and further to provide that the provisions of the Railway Act and of the Expropriation Act, with certain exceptions, and where not inconsistent with the proposed legislation, shall' apply to the Company; that provision be made as to the signatures to and deposit of plans for lands taken under the Expropriation Act, and the compensation payable therefor; that notwithstanding anything in the Government Railways Act or any other Act, the provisions of the Railway Act respecting the operation of a railway (as distinguished from the provisions of such Act respecting the construction or maintenance of a railway) shall apply to such of the Canadian Government Railways as would 'but for the passing of thiis proposed legislation ibe subject to the Government Railways Act, during such time as the operation and management thereof is entrusted to the Company under these enactments; that provision be made for actions, suits or other proceedings by or against the Company, and foi appeals, and defences available to the respective corporations, includiing Hi® Majesty; and also that notwithstanding anyth itig in the Government Railways Act or the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, all expenses incurred in connection with the operation or management of the Canadian Government Railways under these provisions shall be paid out of the receipts and revenue of the Canadian Government Railways, and in the event of a deficit occurring at any time during any fiscal year the amount of such deficit shall from time to time be payable by the Minister of Finance out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the amounts paid by the sodd Minister to be included in the estimates submitted to

Parliament at its first session fallowing the close at s'ueh fiscal year; and in the event of a surplus existing at the close of any fiscal year such surplus shall be paid into the said Fund ; that provision be made for the fiscal year of the Canadian Government Railways; for declaring any of the Companies comprised in the Canadian Northern System to be works for the general advantage of Canada; for the abandonment of any line with the approval of the Governor in Council, and upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners; and, with the consent of a majority of the registered security holders affected, dismantling or disposing of the same; for the extension of the time of commencement and completion of any line of railway of any Company comprised in the Canadian Northern System ; for agreements with other Companies; for acquiring any securities issued hy, or make advances to, or receive advances from, the Canadian Northern or any other Company in the Canadian Northern System, with other provisions relating to such advances and loans; for constructing and operating railway lines, branches and extensions with the approval of the Governor in Council and upon any ioca tion sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals; for the use of the name " Canadian National Railways " as collective or descriptive designation of all lines of railway or railway works* under its control; and1 for the change of name of any Company comprised in the Canadian Northern System or of any other Company of which the properties or the controlling interest in the stock is vested in or held by His Majesty; for the issue of bonds, debentures, debenture stock, perpetual or terminable, or other securities; for the deposit and registration of mortgages, and instruments in any way affecting mortgages under section 140 of the Railway Act; for the 'Company, with the approval of the Governor in Council; to acquire, hold and dispose of shares in the capital stock, bonds and securities of any railway company or other specified company; and for the construction or operation of the railway along highways, streets or other public places with the consent of the municipality.
Jacques Bureau: This resolution occupies nearly two pages of print and it is so constructed as to form really only one sentence. If the Chairman is required to read it all in one breath, can he stand it? I do not think he can.


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope the Committee will dispense with the reading of it.


Jacques Bureau: The resolution deals with a variety of subjects, and should be divided into paragraphs. As it stands it is very difficult for any one to comprehend without considerable study, especially one whose mother tongue is not English.


John Dowsley Reid: It is proposed to incorporate a company to be called the Canadian National Railway Company, which will operate the existing Government railways, the Canadian Northern system, and any railway which may hereafter be .acquired by the Government. The Bill to be introduced after the passage of this resolution will contain thirty clauses.


Jacques Bureau: And this resolution consists of but one phrase.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill provides for the appointment of a number of directors, and deals with capital stock, head office of the company, and various other matters.


Jacques Bureau: If the members of the Committee were in possession of copies of the Bill it would be a good help. I suppose the Bill is based on this resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I would like to have the resolution adopted so that the Bill might be printed and distributed among the members, thus enabling them to study the details of what is proposed.


Jacques Bureau: But if we adopt the resolution we commit ourselves to all that it contains. There are certain features of it which are not in the public interest, to which I am absolutely opposed, and against which I desire to enter a protest.


John Dowsley Reid: By adopting the resolution, hon. gentleman commit themselves to the principle of incorporating a company or organization to operate all the Government railways, but not to the details of the proposed legislation. There will be sections bringing the Government lines under control of the Railway Commissioners, and making the position of the Government lines correspond to, say, that of the Canadian Pacific, in so far as control by the Railway 'Commissioners is concerned.


Jacques Bureau: If there is nothing proposed here that differs from the organization of an ordinary railway company I have no objection, to offer. But I would remind the hon. gentleman that the general Railway Act gives ample power with respect to every imaginable position in which a railway company may find itself. I do not object to the incorporation of a special company to take over the management of a national system of railways, but surely if the existing legislation is ample for, the regulation of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and all other railway lines which have come into existence since it was incorporated, it ought to be sufficient with respect to the Government railways or any new lines which "may hereafter be brought under Government control. Outside the ordinary procedure which is followed by any private company when it wants the authority to operate a railway, I do not see that any special legislation is needed here.


John Dowsley Reid: I had the solicitors of the department prepare this Bill on the lines suggested by the hon. member; that is, taking as a model the charter of a privately owned company like the Canadian Pacifiic railway, and altering it as necessary to make it applicable to a Government owned railway. Possibly when the Bill comes before the House we may have to change its form, but the whole object of this measure is to organize a company to operate all our Government railway systems, and to take in other railways tha* we may purchase or lease in the future. Of course, it would be much better for the members to have the Bill in its printed form as I have submitted it. I do not think this resolution commits hon. members to the details of the Bill that I have in mind, but I suppose the hon. membei for Three Bivers (Mr. Bureau) is right in stating that it may possibly commit them to the policy of a different organization for carrying on the administration of oui railways. It is necessary to have some changes; for instance, one of the clauses oi the Bill which will come up for discussion deals with the operation of the Intercolonial railway. In the past the revenues o' that railway have been deposited to the credit of the Hon. Receiver General, ther a certain amount each month has been sent to Moncton, .to be .paid out by the officials there. Now, the revenues of the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental and our other railways will, according to this Bill, go into one fund, and the operating expenses will be paid out of that fund. I do not see how we can possibly operate our railways as a uniform system unless we adopt some such plan. Then the Intercolonial railway will have to be put under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners; and there are many other matters in connection with our Government railways. All I ask is to have the resolution passed so that the Bill may be printed and gone into thoroughly, and if it needs amendment I will be very glad to consider any suggestion from hon. members.


Jacques Bureau: We will see how we gei along.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It does seem to me that before we take up this resolution we should have some clear cut pronouncefnent from the Government as to what the future railway policy of this country is to be. Are we to have a policy of public ownership; or are we going, as far as we can, to have a policy of private ownership? I quite

understand that at the present time the Government have been forced to take over certain railways, and they may be forced to take over others. But this is a matter of extreme difficulty and one which demands the greatest care, attention and study, and we will be able to understand it a great deal better if we can have a clear cut pronouncement.


John Dowsley Reid: Whether we want to or not we have got public ownership to the extent of thirteen or fourteen thousand miles of railway, and the object of this Bill is to provide a means of operating as one uniform system the various railways composing that mileage. Therefore the introduction of this proposed Bill would not affect our present position so far as public ownership is concerned in relation to our present Government railways. The passing of this resolution does not really pass the Bill; the latter is there for the Committee to consider. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss the question of policy mentioned by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) when the Railway Estimates are before the House. I have Estimates to the amount of about $80,000,000 to be passed in connection with our Government railways, and then will be the proper time to bring up the question of policy. This Bill is only to provide for the operation of the railways already under our control, and whether we want public ownership or not we have got it in relation to those lines. I do not think that there is the least chance of transferring our present Government Railway system back to private ownership, and consequently we have to provide some means of operating that system.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year the hon.
Minister of Railways put a resolution on the Order Paper asking the House to vote some millions of dollars to be expended by his officers out of the revenues of the Government railways without the expenditure being passed upon by Parliament. That resolution raised such a storm of protest from both sides of this House that the hon. minister withdrew it. Now we have the same thing this year in the form of a Bill. A Bill is to be introduced to form a company, and that company is to take charge of all the revenues of our Government owned railways and spend those moneys according to its best judgment, without having regard to the will of this House at all. II am absolutely oppo'sed to any proceeding of that kind It may be inconvenient and may involve

a lot of work to have this House deal with details of that kind, but II submit, Sir, that we as representatives of the people cannot pass over our responsibilities to any irresponsible body. I was never very much in favour of public ownership, but it does not matter whether I am in favour of it oi not, I fully agree with the hon. minister that we have this state of affairs on our hands now and we have to make the best of it. But I feel that I am responsible to my constituents to see that the expenditure of public moneys is such as to give the country the best possible value, and whether the expenditure be on wharves or harbours or railways, I submit that we, as representing the people of Canada, should have our hands on the purse strings and that not a dollar of public money should be expended except as authorized by this House. That is my view, and I think it is only proper to state it to the hon. minister; and I am not talking here for anybody but myself at the present moment. I cannot agree to the principle that public moneys are to be passed over to an irresponsible body in the shape of a corporation, which after it is incorporated will have full discretion, and we will not have the slightest control over it at all. That is not my idea of public ownership. Public ownership means that the people, represented by the members of this House, shall have control over those expenditures, except as they may delegate their powers to some board or commission of management. Politics is the science of government. When people say: "We must take this matter out of politics," they mean that it shall be taken away from patronage, graft, or mismanagement. I am willing that works of this kind shall be taken out of politics in that sense, but I do not agree that the people who own and operate enterprises shall have nothing to say about their management. Politics must exist in public ownership in so far as that involves the fullest possible control by the people. If this proposed organization is put in charge of the railroads owned by Canada, that is the end of our control over them. I am bound to tell the minister that I cannot commit myself to this proposal.


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern Railway Company, owned by the people, are collecting their revenues and making expenditures without any orders from and without any Act of Parliament. The different railways owned by the Government have different ways of collecting revenue and making expenditures, and it is necesm
sary to get one uniform system. Let us, therefore, get the Bill before the House in order that we may have a discussion on each, clause. The proposals embodied in the Bill may not meet with the wishes of the House or of the Committee. In my judgment, it is the best way of handling the situation, but the House may think differently, and I am willing to amend the Bill in any way that the House may think appropriate.


Jacques Bureau: What is the object oi the resolution, then?


John Dowsley Reid: Under Rule 77, any Bill involving an expenditure of public moneys must be preceded by a resolution. That is the only reason why the resolution is on the Order Paper.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hope the minister will not think me unduly insistent when I ask for a declaration of the policy of the Government. Public ownership, whether we wish it or not, has been imposed upon the people. If we were holding the railways only with the idea of disposing of them to private companies in, perhaps, as short a time as possible, one particular kind of organization might be better than another; but if we made up our minds to adopt the permanent policy of the public ownership of railways, some different system of organization would be necessary. The Government therefore, should state clearly whether they are for the principle of Government ownership as a definite policy for Canada. I know that that involves a heavy responsibility. There is a tremendous amount to be said on both sides of the question; if it were important that my views should be known, I should be sorry to have to declare myself at the present moment either for or against the principle. But after all, that is the responsibility of the Government; the port that they are steering for should be made known to the people before we are asked to vote for a resolution of this kind.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know just how many years ahead the hon. member thinks we should place ourselves in order to determine the port. I think the Government is well advised to take its bearings by ports that are in sight, not to fix a policy with reference to yet unborn decades. So far as there is any necessity of stating policy, the Government's policy as to railways has been stated and repeated over and over again. As to the roads that we now own, our policy is to continue to own them and 'to operate



them; we have no intention of selling them to any private corporation. Cer-5 p.m. tain roads we do not own. The Grand Trunk Pacific is one; our policy as to that has been brought down to the House, and we are engaged in the carrying out of that policy. The Grand Trunk is another; we have stated repeatedly our policy as to the Grand Trunk; we have stated what we are doing. The Canadian Pacific is another; the Government has not intimated to Parliament any intention of acquiring the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I do not know what more the hon. gentleman desires; I certainly do not know what more is necessary to the consideration of this resolution. Every time the subject of railways is mentioned in Parliament, is the Government, as to its policy, to see years or centuries ahead? All the Government has to do is to adjust its course with reference to circumstances now known; we have stated our course with reference to all railway circumstances now known. All that is necessary to a consideration of this Bill is a determination of the question whether it is the part of wisdom to operate such roads as we now and may in the future own under the system set out and by the principle clearly defined in this Bill, namely, by the establishment of a holding and operating company, the Canadian National Railways.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We own railways; we are meeting, so to speak, as shareholders. When we are considering anything bearing on the management of the roads which we own, we have a right to know where we stand as a body of people owning a certain property. We have taken over the Canadian Northern, with its various branches and ramifications.
Would the minister be able to tell us just what responsibility the Canadian people have assumed financially in taking over that road? The minister would, of course, have no difficulty in giving us the mileage of the road, and he might tell us if we are operating the full mileage that we took over. What does he think the rolling stock of the road is now worth, and does he say that the road is fairly well equipped as regards rolling stock? How much money have we expended on equipment since we took over the road, and how much money does he think necessary for operation and equipment during the current financial year? How do receipts and expenditures balance as regards the operations of the Canadian Northern as apart
TMr. Meighen.]
from the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental? What is the whole indebtedness that is now upon the Canadian Northern, and what is the present indebtedness per mile, without taking into account any assets, because whether there are assets at all or not, is another matter?
Without repeating what I have said about the Canadian Northern, I should like to have the same information as regards the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental. The people of Canada, and in particular hon. members here, when we are dealing with this very important subject and entering upon further management of the railway and thinking about a change in the management, should be furnished with full and complete information. Laying information of that character on the table of the House is a very poor way of giving it to hon. members, because they really do not get it at all, as it is not easy to get copies made of documents that are laid on the Table and filed in one of the offices of the House. Such information should be brought down, read in the House and put upon Hansard. In that way every hon. member and also the newspapers would have an opportunity of seeing it. This information should be put at our disposal before we commence to discuss seriously the future policy of Canada as regard public ownership and operation of railways. I do not profess to be a railway operator, but we have for a long time been accustomed to the machinery that we had in managing the finances of the Intercolonial railway. Many people may smile at the Intercolonial railway and say that it was not a success, but it has been doing a great deal of good and has been a splendid institution for the whole of Canada, particularly older Canada. That, however, has nothing to do *with the matter of getting in the revenue and paying out the money necessary for operating the road and for its extensions and rolling stock. We in the House are used to that system; we understand it; we know how it is operated. For myself, I cannot understand why the rest of the railway should not be operated, so far as finances are concerned, under the same method. There may be a better policy and a better way of making money; but as regards the incoming of revenue and the outgoing of expenditure, I do not see the necessity of amending the machinery and making thinsrs more difficult. I am in favour of a simpje, straightforward, clean-cut way of dealing with public matters, so that he who runs may read, and I am op-

posed to complications. I understand that I can be answered as regards this, that there are securities, such as bonds and other floating liabilities, that are now outstanding in connection with the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific and that are now being carried along by the machinery	of those	companies, and
that it is necessary to keep that machinery	going in order to keep
afloat those securities. Any person who holds those securities as against any of those companies would be only too glad to accept the undertaking of the Government, wherever we have to meet in full those responsibilities. Wherever we are not responsible at all, we should wipe those things out of existence and not bother further with them, if that is all that is standing in the way. This method of carrying along and seeing to the operation of twenty or thirty companies in connection with property owned by one body, namely the Government of this country as representing the Canadian people, is extremely clumsy. They should all be put under one management, so that we would all know" what we are doing and how the matter stands. That is why I am in favour of a simple and comprehensive method of operating the road, with only one ownership and one paymaster.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) asked what responsibility we took in connection with the purchase of the Canadian Northern railway. As a lawyer he knows that we simply purchased the stock, and there is no obligation other than to continue to operate the road. He is entitled to and must have the information he requested in connection with the whole railway system, comprising the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental. But I do not see how that affects this resolution, as we can furnish that information when we take up the Estimates or when we are in committee on the Bill to be founded on this resolution. The way he suggests of operating all the railway systems that we now have or may have hereafter is the way in which we have been operating the Intercolonial railway in the past, that is, by the Department of Railways. The hon. member knows that there has been a great deal of criticism on the part of the people on account of the Intercolonial railway being operated by that department. No matter what minister was in charge, there were always insinuations that there was patronage and favouritism. How could
the hon member expect a department of railways to operate 15,000 or 20,000 miles of railway? I should not like to have the job. The Intercolonial railway was enough for any one man, and I do not know what will happen if the Department of Railways has to operate this whole mileage. It would not be in the interest of the railways or of the public. These railways should be operated by a board of the very best men in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. McKBNZIE:: Under the department.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly, they are
practically officials of the department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The directors of this
company will not be.


John Dowsley Reid: They will be appointed by the Government, and we should have men in whom the people would have the utmost confidence. They must make their reports to Parliament, and when this Bill is before the House, ff it is necessary to insert in the Bill other clauses than those I have provided regarding the furnishing of reports, we can amend the Bill accordingly. I submit, however, that it is hardly fair to ask that this resolution stand. Before the Bill founded on this resolution is taken up again I can give all the information that has been asked for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope that when the
Bill is brought down my hon. friend will restore to Parliament some of its rights. I have observed the phraseology of the resolution and notice that in almost every three lines the Governor in Council is practically given authority to run the whole national system of railways. We are at the beginning of a new era in railway operation in Canada. I understand that the great railway systems in this country are to be nationalized, and I appeal to my hon. friend to respect the rights of Parliament more than has been done in the past. If the people of Canada are to control the large railway systems, it seems to me Parliament should have a say in the mattery it should not 'be left entirely to the Governor in Council. The resolution provides, for instance, that "the Governor in Council may from time to time by Order in 'Council entrust to the company the management and operation of any lines of railway or parts thereof, and any property or works of whatsoever description, or interests therein." Surely Parliament should be consulted when new systems of railways are to be acquired. It is the people who are paying for the acquisition of these railway systems, and

the Governor in Council should not have exclusive authority in these large matters.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill will not give the Governor in Council power to acquire railways without Parliament Being consulted. We could not take over the Grand Trunk Pacific, for instance, without first getting the approval of Parliament. Our object is this: After having acquired a railway system, the stock will be transferred to this company, our own company, which will operate the road.


Jacques Bureau: Why should not Parliament, instead of the Governor in Council, determine ithe way it shall be operated?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a question for the House to decide.


Jacques Bureau: It is a question that we want explained on the resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: If lve acquired the
Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific we should have to introduce legislation for the approval of Parliament, and Parliament would have the power to say whether the road should be operated separately or not. >If, however, we acquired the Grand Trunk Pacific in the same way that we acquired the Canadian Northern, this present legislation would give the Governor in Council power to declare the road a part of the national system. If we did not have that power, the road would have to be operated separately from the national system.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have studied the
phraseology of the resolution, which I find very obscure. Although I hope my hon. friend is right, it seems to me that I am right. Off we are to have a new system of state-owned railways, the 'Government should come to Parliament with a clear-cut measure-with a new charter for the taxpayers of Canada-and the right should be reserved to Parliament, who are the elect of the people, to pass upon such important legislation. It is legislation not only for a few years, but for all time to come. I am really alarmed at the powers which the resolution seeks to give to the Governor in Council, and the way it ignores the representatives of the people.
There is another point. The resolution provides:
-and also, that notwithstanding anything in the Government Railways Act or the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, all expenses incurred in connection with the operation or management of the Canadian Government railways under these provisions shall be paid out of the receipts and revenue of the Canadian Govern-

ment railway^, and in the event of a deficit occurring at any time during any fiscal year the amount of such deficit shall from time to time be payable by the Minister of Finance out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the amounts paid by the said minister to be included in the estimates submitted to Parliament at its first session following the close of such fiscal year.
I am afraid this is not in accordance with business principles. In an important matter of this kind, involving thousands and thousands of miles of railway, we should have a clear-cut system; we should know what our requirements and our estimated expenditure will be. The directors should not be empowered to spend any moneys that have -not been provided for by this Parliament. I stand for the rights of Parliament and, I repeat, I am positively alarmed at the liberties taken by the Government at the expense of the Parliament of Canada.
Another feature of this resolution which I hope my hon. friend will explain is this: Are we or are we not going to acquire a certain number of railways? We are acquiring two transcontinentals, practically, and their branch lines. I see that the resolution provides for the abandonment of any line with the approval of the Governor in Council. My hon. friend must explain what is the meaning of that feature of the resolution. You cannot expect, if you acquire a transcontinental, that you will run only the paying sections; you must run trains not only on the main line but on the branch lines as well. Would it be fair to the people if, after you have acquired the transcontinentals or the main lines, you should then, by a stroke of the pen, without consulting the representatives of the people in these special districts, abandon some of the branch lines? You provide for this in the resolution. Here is the phraseology:
That provision be made for the fiscal year of the Canadian Government railways; for declaring any of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern System to be works for the general advantage of Canada; for the abandonment of any line with the approval of the Governor in Council, and upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners; and. with the consent of a majority of the registered security holders affected, dismantling or disposing of the same.
This strikes me as being a very dangerous power, and I hope that when my hon. friend comes before the House with his Bill he will make it clearer than it appears by the resolution. By all means let my hon. friend restore to the Parliament of Canada the rights which are being invaded by this resolution. I know that you cannot run the Government without Orders in Council and

without the Governor in Council, hut when you are framing a new policy of a most important nature, namely, the nationalization of the railway system of Canada, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific railway, you should come, so to speak, with a new charter and not take unto yourselves the whole wisdom of the people. We have not yet surrendered our rights. We speak for the people of Canada. The question of transportation is one of the utmost importance, and the people should have their say. I know that wide powers should he given the Board of Directors, hut that hoard should he amenable to the representatives of the people. Otherwise it could not be the people's railway; it would be the railway of the hoard of directors governing and directing entirely the administration through Orders in Council. If the people are willing at present-and I think they are in that mood; it may only be a passing mood-to gite their consent to the principle of nationalization, they are not going to surrender their right to have a say in the matter of administration. When the Bill is introduced, respect for the rights of the people should be more pronounced than is apparent from this resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: I think my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) is unnecessarily alarmed. When he reads ithe Bill he will find that it does not proceed along the line suggested by him. He objects to the money for operating purposes being paid to the company and not to consolidated fund account as in the past. Of course, there are only the two ways of doing it-either pay the money into consolidated fund or to the railway company. If you'pay into the consolidated fund, as has been done in the pasit with the Intercolonial and Transcontinental, you must come to the House with an estimate of expenditures and the money will be paid out from time to time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why not?


John Dowsley Reid: If we do that with the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and, if we take it over, the Grand Trunk Railway, instead of the money being paid into the corporations as has been done in the past, or into one corporation, it will have to be paid into the consolidated fund and then we will have to pay that money out from time to time according to the calls made. It would hardly be workable, in the interest of the railway or the country, to pay such a large amount into the consolidated fund and then pay it out
again, as we did with the Intercolonial railway. But this is a matter for the consideration of the Committee, and if there is any objection to the plan proposed, or if the Committee think 'that the other way is better, we can change it.


John Ewen Sinclair: The difficulty is that the minister has no check on the expenditure. How is he going 'to control the payments if the matter is left altogether in the hands of the railway company?


John Dowsley Reid: The expenditures were made in that way on the Intercolonial railway. What difference will it make whether the money for operation is paid into the consolidated fund or to the credit of the company? If paid into the consolidated fund we would simply have to pay out each month so many millions of dollars to their credit and let them spend it in operation.


John Ewen Sinclair: The Intercolonial is not in the same position as the Canadian Northern; it is directly undeT Government management.


John Dowsley Reid: I know. We could check the expenditure when the accounts were laid on the table of the House at the end of the year. If necessary we could have that in the Bill.


John Ewen Sinclair: In the meantime the money is paid out.


John Dowsley Reid: It was on the Intercolonial, too. The revenue was collected and we did not know anything about the expenditure until a year afterwards. However, both ways of doing it can be considered when the Bill is before the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is this difference, that on the Intercolonial system we discuss what is to become of the money before it is paid out. Under ithe system now proposed we would be discussing the matter after the money is paid-a very striking difference.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course there will be an item in the Estimates for expenditure upon our railways, and the railway situation could be discussed each session. lit is a big question, and I want the assistance of every member of the House to determine whether there could be any improvement in the proposed method of dealing with it. But before that is done I must introduce the Bill in what I consider to be the best way.
The hon. member has raised a question

in regard to the possible abandonment oi railway lines. That question is very important, because if we take over the .Grand Trunk railway it may not be in the interest of the country that we should operate parallel lines. I have in mind the stretch oi line between Kingston or Napanee and Toronto, where three railways are operated. The Grand Trunk has a double track system through this territory, also the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern, and all the lines run side by side and in close proximity. It may be in the interest of the country to take up one of those lines.


Jacques Bureau: I suppose that is to enable them to get in and out of cities.


John Dowsley Reid: No, the line is two hundred miles long.


Jacques Bureau: And do the lines run side by side?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, within five hundred feet of each other. Now, as a protection or safeguard, the Bill will contain provisions that in the event of the abandonment of a line of railway the consent of a majority of the security holders and of the Railway Commission must be obtained.
Hon. gentlemen will see that a railway cannot be abandoned simply on the authority of an Order in Council; the Board of Railway Commissioners must say whether that railway is necessary or not in the interests of the country, and whether or not its operation should be discontinued. I have spoken of the railways operating between Toronto and Napanee, but there may be other places in Canada where it is not in the public interest that the operation of two or three parallel railway systems should be continued.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The provision that the consent of a majority of the owners of the railway securities must be obtained simply means the Minister of Finance. That is no protection at all.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a legal question, and as to that I would not pit my opinion against the hon. gentleman's. If there is anything in his contention the defect can be remedied in the Bill itself.


George Brecken Nicholson: I would like to say a word or two with respect to the question of financing the Canadian National railways when they become organized, as we hope they will be. If hon. members will separate in their minds the question of operating costs from the question of capital expenditure they will be able to arrive at a conclusion as to the only means 
by which a railway can be financed in its operation. I am not familiar personally with the methods which have been followed in the past in regard to the Intercolonial, but from a perusal of its records I do not think the system that has been followed on that railway has been of such an ideal character that it should	be
taken as a pattern for the future. If we are going to acquire and operate twenty thousand miles of transcontinental railway lines, for the Parliament of Canada to undertake to vote in its estimates each year the funds sufficient to carry on the operation of those railways satisfactorily will be utterly impossible. The operating costs oi a railway bear an exadt relation to the amount of traffic that is moved. It runs, as a rule to from sixty-eight to seventy-eight per cent of the gross income, and the gross income of Canadian railways, indeed of railways all over the world, varies from year to year to the extent of millions of dollars, nay, tens of millions of dollars. The income and operating expenses of the Canadian railways in 1919 may not be any greater than seventy-five per cent of whal they were in 1918, being entirely dependent on the commercial prosperity of the country. How then are you going to determine, twelve months ahead, what it would cost to operate the system of Canadian National Railways? What should be done is for the operating officers to pay the operating costs out of the revenue as it is received. That is the method which is followed by every railway company in Canada or in any other part of the world. Take the annual report of any one of our great railway companies and you will not find either the stockholders at the annual meeting, or the directors at the monthly meeting, undertaking to determine what funds are to be paid out for the ensuing period for operation. The stockholders at their annual meeting confirm the recommendations of the directors as to the capital expenditure; and it seems to me, when we are proposing legislation, that before anything definite is done in connection with incorporating a company or a board of trustees to manage and operate the Canadian National Railway System, we should provide that the fixing of the amount of capital stock, the projection of new lines, the acquisition of new railway stock, and all these things should be passed upon by Parliament as representatives of the people, and at the same time should make a com-

plete review of the operation of the road for the preceding year to see what our employees-because they will be our employees-have been doing with the money they have secured from operation, giving us a complete statement of the operating expenditures and revenue returns. If hon. gentlemen will examine the question I believe they will find that that is the only method by which they can successfully transmit to any independent or semi-independent body the operation of our Canadian National Railways.
Now, a point in connection with the authority which is vested in the Governor in Council, and the elimination of politics. We may become as idealistic as we like, but in the final analysis the Governor in Council, as the executive of Parliament, will have to be responsible, and it is through them that authority will have to be transmitted to the board of management of the operating company. You can designate it in any terms you like, but in the last analysis the Government must be responsible, and if the management of the railways is not efficient, it is not the management that the Canadian people are going to criticise, the Government and Parliament will be held responsible by the people. We cannot delegate that responsibility to anybody else. As a layman with a limited knowledge of railway matters, I cannot see that Parliament is delegating any of its authority, because the Government is responsible to Parliament for its every act, and if Parliament is not satisfied it has the means to chastise the Government.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
George Brecken Nicholson: Assuming that the Government and Parliament do appoint such a commission, and that the Government and Parliament find, as many railway companies have heretofore found, that they have been mistaken in their selections and have apponited such a class of men, for instance, as the owners of the Grand Trunk selected to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific, then what?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: At the next session of Parliament put them out for cause. Just like the Railway Board is now constituted; its members are not subject to dismissal, except for cause, during their ten year term.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is just exactly the point. Parliament might appoint these men and keep them there so long as they are efficient; but Parliament can never delegate its authority to those men absolutely; Parliament through the Government, must retain authority to dismiss these men if they are not doing their duty.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not think for a moment that Parliament would not have that power.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution
carry?


Jacques Bureau: No, Mr. Chairman, I
want to ask a couple of questions of the hon. Minister of Railways first. The principle of public ownership of Canadian railways is that the people of Canada own and operate those railways through officers, and whatever deficit there may be at the end of the year the people have to pay. Now, the people are represented by their members of Parliament, are they not? And the members of Parliament are the proxies of the shareholders of our public owned railways?


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


Jacques Bureau: I find in this resolution a principle which overthrows that. It states:
-and to provide that whenever under the provisions of the Railway Act, or any other statute or law, the approval, sanction or con-

firmation by shareholders is required, such approval, sanction or confirmation may be given by the Governor in Council.
May I ask the hon. minister the reason why Parliament should delegate to the Governor in Council the power which they ought to exercise here in performing those duties which they assumed to perform and fulfil when they were elected?


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member mean in connection with operation?


Jacques Bureau: The resolution says:
That whenever by the Railway Act or any other Act the approval, confirmation or sanction of the shareholders of the company is required, this approval shall be delegated.
I assume that my proposition is correct, that the shareholders are the people of Canada, and that the proxies of the people of Canada are the hon. members who sit in this House. Then why should the hon. Minister of Railways ask us, as members of Parliament, and as proxies of the people, to delegate to the Governor in Council the power that is given to us by the Railway Act or any other Act whenever we should take the responsibility of acting?


John Dowsley Reid: What part?


Jacques Bureau: The fifth line from the
bottom of the page of the long sentence which is composed of 1,127 words.


An hon. MEMBER:: Thirteen hundred.


Jacques Bureau: I missed 200; it does not make any difference.


John Dowsley Reid: That is power to acquire the securities of other companies?
The company, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to acquire, hold and dispose of shares in the capital stock, bonds and securities of any railway company or other specified company.
That is what the hon. member means?


Jacques Bureau: No. It is at the bottom of the resolution.
(Mr. M(.'MASTER: This bears out my suggestion of yesterday that this long sentence should be cut up into paragraphs.


John Dowsley Reid: What that means is
this:	the shareholders are the people of
Canada. You could not call Parliament together every time it was necessary to have a meeting; therefore the Governor in Council would have to give the necessary approval.


Jacques Bureau: I know what it means; that is why I object to it. Your Act is certainly going to provide for annual general 
or special general meetings; you are not going to call Parliament together for the purpose of ratifying trifling things. But when the law provides that the ratification, confirmation or sanction of the shareholders is required, it is only in extreme and important cases-


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman
can see at a glance what that means. If we acquire stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and want to transfer it to this company, it is done by the consent of the Governor in Council.


Jacques Bureau: That is the false theory
that my hon. friend propounded a moment ago. If you are going to purchase the stock of a railway company to acquire the road you ought to provide in the law what you are going to do with the railway and how it is going to be operated. And then you will have to amend this Act, if you now lay down the principle that under this Bill the Governor in Council shall have the right to say how the railway so taken over shall be operated.


John Dowsley Reid: You will see when the Bill is brought down.


Jacques Bureau: No.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
LACKING, JACQUES CARTIER, ANI>
MABSONNEUVE RAILWAY COMPANY.
The House in Committee on Bill No. 14, respecting the Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company-Mr. Lemieux-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-extension of time for construction.
John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Committee amended this section by inserting a provision which we are putting into Railway Bills, namely, that the company must within two years of the passing of this Bill, construct 25 miles of railway, and construct not less than 25 miles more each year until the railway is completed. I have been informed that this line is only about thirteen or fourteen miles long, and I have, therefore, been asked to have this amendment struck out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is only a loop line, and the amendment is, therefore, not worth

while. I move that the amendment added by the Committee on Railways and Canals be struck out.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 55, to change the name of the Canada Accident Assurance Company to "The Canada Accident and Fire Insurance Company."-Mr. MdMaster.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Eva St. Lawrence Cronk.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Helena Clara Gabriel.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Gretna Harris Hawkins.-Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Samuel Bur-goyne.-Mr. Smith (Ontario).
Bill No. 60, for the relief of James Arthur McGregor.-Mr. Fripp. [DOT]
Bill No. 61, for the relief of William Lewes Evans.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Richard Wilson Crashley.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 63, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Kennedy.
Bill No. 64, respecting the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tweedie.
Bill No. 65, to incorporate the Northwest Route, Limited.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee on the resolution for the incorporation of the Canadian National Railway Company.- Hon. J. D. Reid.-Mr. Boivin in the chair.
Frank S. Cahill: Before bringing in this resolution I think the Minister of Railways would have done well to follow the advice of the present Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) and also, of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) when this subject was under debate in 1917. That this company when formed should be removed as far as possible from political control, they both went so far as to say that Parliament should have the sole control. But here -we are undertaking to manage thirteen or fourteen thousand miles of railway, and thousands of employees, as a purely political machine. This legislation would give the Minister of Railways the right to appoint and dismiss directors as he desired. I agree with the hon. member who spoke before recess that this problem should be carefully
worked out so that we can get the best possible results from this railway system. It is a huge undertaking. It is the first time in the history of the world that such a large railway system has been put in the hands of a government as a government-owned proposition. The history of public ownership in Australia has been that the roads w;ere managed in the first place by a department of the government, and failed. Then they were turned over to a commission, and succeeded fairly well. Later the roads were taken out of the hands of the commission and put back in the hands of the government, and made another failure, and they are now back in the hands of a commission. The same is true of Italy. All the private-owned roads were taken over by the state, but were afterwards turned over to private ownership after public ownership had failed. The roads were again taken over by the state and managed by a commission; again handed back to private ownership, and again taken over by a commission. The same is true of Belgium. In fact, the only country where public ownership of railways has been a success, so far as I can learn from the books in the library of Parliament and the Ottawa library, is Prussia, where the roads were managed purely as a military machine. It was a success there because every employee of the road was under military rule while in railway employ. They charged exorbitant rates and were able in that way to make a profit for the government.
I do not believe it is the intention that we should go into public ownership of railways in this country as a profit-making business-that we should charge exorbitant rates to make a profit. I rather think that the intention of the Government, if they have a defined policy in the matter, would be to give the lowest possible rates consistent with making the road pay. Regardless of what the management may be, I think it would be the intention to increase the rates until the system paid. Unless they intend to do that they must ask the taxpayers of Canada to make good the deficits, and that brings up the question: Is it right that the taxpayers should make up for inefficiency in management, or because freight and passenger rates were not sufficient to make the roads pay? Personally, I think the people who use the railroads should pay rates sufficient to meet the carrying charges of the roads. If the system is to be handled purely as a political machine, as it is now, it is foredoomed to failure, there is no question about that.

That has been the experience of every nation in the world that has attempted to operate a railway system on that b_sis. When the minister says it is impossible to take the system out of the hands of the Government, that is true to some extent, but it is possible .to leave the system under the control of Parliament and not directly under the control of the minister. Por instance, a committee might 'be set up of ten from the Government and five from the Opposition side, five from the railway employees, and five from the 'Bailway Commission, which would name the directors; the directors in turn would be responsible .to Parliament. If you select five men, and they in their discretion decide to select two more, let them have power to do so. Surely out of five or seven men there would not be more than one or two who should be dismissed between the prorogation and the reassembling of Parliament. We ought to get five or six of the best railway men to be had in Canada. I would not advocate going outside of Canada, because I think our railway problems are peculiar to this country. I would pay these men good salaries, as much as, or perhaps a little more than, private roads would pay them, and the roads should be managed at a profit. After the system had been put in the hands of a commission, some conclusion should be reached as to the .capitalization! of the roads. In arriving at the proper capitalization, a fair basis would be to take the present value. For instance, if the Toads have cost the country $8,000,000, but are found by a competent commission to be worth only $5,000,000, adopt that as the basis on which you expect money to be earned.
Then I would suggest that the employees be given the opportunity of participating in the profits. After putting aside sufficient for ordinary maintenance and upkeep of the railways, the employees should receive ten per cent of the first one per cent net earned; on the second one per cent, twelve per cent; on the third one per cent, fifteen per cent; on the fourth one per cent, eighteen per cent; on the fifth one per cent, twenty-one per cent, and on the six one per cent, twenty-four per cent. That would give the employees one per cent of the net profits after the road had earned six per cent clear of running expenses and upkeep. Some hon. gentlemen may say there would be no profits. I am afraid that under the proposed plan there would be no profits. The system should be put in the hands of an independent commission, and should be put on a basis on which it could hope to earn

money, because, after all, we must expect to catch up with this thing some time. Then make a division of the profits with the employees, including every man from the directors down, who would be permanent so far as possible and devote their whole time to the road. Divide up one per cent among all the directors, officers and employees of the road, after six per cent had been earned clear of operating expenses and upkeep, and I would say that after six per cent the employees should receive twenty-five per cent of each one per cent net earnings, until the commission decided that the earnings were sufficient to justify a lowering of the rates. In that way the system would be taken out of politics as far as possible, and yet would be subject to parliamentary control. Parliament, after all, is the supreme body in this country, and if we found that the arrangement did not work satisfactorily, something else might be tried. I repeat that the plan proposed in this resolution has been tried in every country that has undertaken public ownership of railways, and has made a failure in every country except Germany.
It is a foregone conclusion that it will be a failure here. I remember that a few days ago the minister was asked in the House what quantity of ties was being obtained from the Northern Construction Company. Hon. members from Western Canada will know who the Northern Construction Company are. They are Mackenzie & Mann, the people who are at the present moment the controllers of the Canadian Northern railway. They have their employees, who have been with them for years, working as contractors and managing the contracts of the Canadian Northern Railway system.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to correct the hon. gentleman there. Mackenzie & Mann, the two men from whom the stock was purchased, are not in any way connected with the Northern Construction Company, and, as far as I understand, never were.


Frank S. Cahill: The Northern Construction Company is well known to be the Mackenzie & Mann people who built practically the whole Canadian Northern railway through Western Canada. Any man from Western Canada knows that. When the question was asked here by my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), the minister said:
It is not in the public interest to give this information.
We are going to spend tens of millions of dollars on these railway projects, and the

minister is going to ask for $75,000,000 or $80,000,000 this year. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, you can readily understand what the position will be ii when we ask him about these expenditures he will reply to us that it is not in the public interest that we should know from whom the company buy their ties, whal company is acting as contractors for the construction of the new roads that they propose building, or from whom they are buying their rolling stock or the hundred and one things which railway companies must buy. In the present instance the company bought from some person whose identity the minister does not want to disclose; otherwise he would be willing to answer that question. That is where this railway proposition is going to land us,-it is going to develop into a political machine operated by political parties, and the same people who have been robbing this country foi the last quarter of a century are going tc continue to get graft out of the Canadian Northern and the Government railways through purchases. If we are going to be in the position that millions will be spenl with no way of finding out what the money has been spent for, or who is getting the benefit of that expenditure, you will understand where this railway muddle is going to land us. The hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), in 1917, made a statement which I think is worth referring to because it shows what was in his mind at that time:
Thie Dominion Railway Company Board could hardly be self -cons t i t u t e d because it would have to be constituted in the first place by some authority, but after it was constituted the vacancies arising would .be filled by the remaining members; dn other words, It would be a complete sovereignty in itself

self-perpetuating. It would .be outside the control of the Government and outside the control of Parliament-although I am not quite sure as to the latter statement because Parliament, I suppose, has power over anything under its jurisdiction. No it would not be free of Parliament.
I think that is just where it should be. That is practically the same statement as was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) last year. He said:
I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I know we all have a common purpose in this, will agree that a great railway system such as that which is now being acquired ought not to be administered directly by any department of the Government. I think we may start with that.
Apparently it was in the minds of both these hon. gentlemen that they should not make this a department of the Government,
or that they should not have it directly under the control of the ministers. But we know that they have it in their power by Order in Council to name the directors and to cancel their appointments at will. There should be some safeguard by which these directors will know that if they give good sendee and value for the money they receive they will be continued in office. You cannot expect to get railway men, even il you pay them $50,000 a year, to accept these positions unless they see some future before them. Every man of the Canadian Pacific Railway system has an opportunity of getting to the top, but there would be no such opportunity under this plan because their names could be withdrawn by the minister at will.
This resolution, if I understand it correctly, which I very much doubt, because there is nobody, even the minister himself, who does understand it, apparently gives power to the Governor in Council to purchase, operate and construct railways and branches of railways. He has power to acquire any railway in Canada without coming to Parliament and he has power to construct branch lines, build betterments, establish divisional points, and make extensions and improvements at the expense of the tax payers. The minister will probably say that he has not as much power as that, but that appears here in black and white, if the resolution means anything- although he is not unlikely to get up and say it does not. It is almost impossible to get anything out of the resolution: in fact, it was suggested here this afternoon that it should have been cut up into paragraphs so that it might be understandable. If it does not mean that he can build and acquire railways, it says so; if it does not mean that he can spend all the unappropriated funds of the Dominion of Canada, it says so. I do not know whether it means that, or whether it means what the minister says it means, which is something entirely different from the way the resolution reads.
I pointed out a few days ago an instance in which, apparently, for the benefit of some private interest, there were some twenty-three engines and engine crews moved from Calgary to a town named Hanna, in Alberta. Calgary is well situated and has ample water, housing accommodation and every convenience for the trainmen. These men were moved to Hanna where they had no water for themselves and they had to keep two trains hauling water fifty miles to furnish the engines out

of the town of Hanna. I talked to a number of railway men in that district, and not one of them could tell me why those engines should be moved. There was a question on the Order Paper asking the minister why the change was made, but apparently it was not in the public interest to answer the question.


George Brecken Nicholson: Did the hon. gentleman ask the acting superintendent, Mr. O'Donnell, why these engines and crews were moved to Hanna?


Frank S. Cahill: I was afraid he might tell me that it was because Mr. Hanna and some of his friends owned real estate in iHanna, and I did not like to embarrass him. I would like the minister to explain why that was permitted and whether it was permitted by the Government,


John Dowsley Reid: I can hardly think that is a fair statement to make about Mr. D. B. Hanna. He does not own any real estate, and I must resent any reflection on D. B. Hanna, president of the Canadian Northern Railway system. I say that D. B. Hanna is an honest man, one of the straightest men in Canada, and if the hon. member will repeat over his own signature in the newspapers to-morrow morning what he has said here to-night about graft going on in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, I am more than satisfied he will get all the information he wants, and will have no more trouble in so far as making statements of this kind is concerned.
I feel-and I think I should make the statement here now-that the men whom we have appointed to manage the Canadian National railways are honest, straightforward men; and I hardly think it is fair for any member of this House to accuse them of graft, and of being dishonest and dishonourable men, unless he will assume responsibility for his statements either in this Chamber or outside of it. If any one can tell us anything that would tend to show that these men are not carrying out their duties properly I, for one, will do everything I can to ferret the matter out, and, if the accusations are established, have the guilty parties removed. But what will kill public ownership in the future, no matter whether it is Mr. Hanna or any other man whom we appoint, is the action of members of Parliament in reflecting on their honesty and character as the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) has done. I say that it is not fair for these men whom we place in these responsible positions. I say this al-
though I have no brief for D. B. Hanna or any other member of the board. The hon. member has insinuated that the members of this board were appointed for political reasons. Two members of that board were employees of the Canadian Northern, and I would like to see any man in this House, or out of it, make any statement against the character or reputation of those two officials. Reflections have been indulged in concerning the members of the Railway Board consisting of Messrs. D. B. Hanna, A. J. Mitchell, Robert Hobson of Hamilton, Jones of Montreal, Barnhill of St. John, and Cant-lie of Nova Scotia. I only wish these statements were made outside of the House where the men accused could take action to defend themselves. It is, unfortunately, a privilege of Parliament that a member can reflect in this House upon the honour and reputation of an outside citizen, and he cannot be brought to book for his accusations. I repeat that these men against whom imputations have been made are honest and upright men.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahill) insinuates that we propose to manage these railways under the Department of Railways and Canals. We are not doing that at the present time, far from' it. The Railway Board is operating the Government railways entirely irrespective of the department, and there is no interference with them in any way, shape or form.


Frank S. Cahill: Before the hon. gentleman concludes his speech I would ask him who appointed these directors?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course they were
appointed by the Governor in Council. The hon. gentleman says that this board should be run in the same way as the Railway Commission, entirely outside of politics. Very well, who appointed the Railway Commission? They are appointed 'by the Government. Originally all the members of the commission were Liberal appointees. I regarded them as honest men, and believe they carried on the affairs of the commission regardless altogether of politics. We had confidence in those men because they were men of honour and reputation. We have appointed the directors of this Railway Board, they are men in whom the people of this country have confidence. Yet the hon. gentleman raises an issue about the appointment of that board, whereas the leader of the Opposition wants the Department of Railways and! Canals to operate the railways the same as was done in the case of the Intercolonial railway. I think these

two honourable gentlemen should get together and agree on some policy, because at present their views are very divergent.


Frank S. Cahill: So do the members of tire Government disagree.


John Dowsley Reid: The point I wish tc make is that the hon. gentleman has reflected on the character and reputation of the Board of Directors that we have appointed. All I ask him to do as a man of honour, which I believe he is, is to state in the public press to-morrow what he has said here to-night, and I will take a chance as to what will happen.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like the minister to answer the questions put to him before he starts to talk about his appointees. And when he asks me to reconcile my views to those of other hon. gentlemen on this side, I would ask him and his colleagues in the Government to reconcile their differences. Why, the leader of the Government is on record as opposed to the very principle that the hon. gentleman is advocating to-night. Yet the hon. gentleman gets up and flails the wind with his arms about somebody making false statements. The Railway Commission were appointed in the very way that I want these, men to be appointed.


John Dowsley Reid: The Board of Directors of the National Railways were appointed in the same way as the Railway Commission.


Frank S. Cahill: The members of the Railway Commission are not at the beck and call of the Governor in Council, the Minister of Railways, or anybody else. They are appointed for ten years, and I want these Directors who are managing the Government railways to be appointed in the very same way. I am not making any reflection upon Mr. Hanna. I am sure it would be resented in the country were I to suggest that Mackenzie & Mann, oi Hanna, ever did anything in Canada that was not above reproach. It would be regarded as an awful calamity and bring a storm of criticism about any man's ears who even suggested that Mackenzie & Mann ever did anything out of place in this country. And when my hon. friend gets so heated it is evidence to me that he intends to continue just as he has been doing in the past. When he talks about Mr. Cantlie in Nova Scotia, somebody else in Hamilton, and somebody else on the Western Prairies, as being directors, I tell him that they are directors when they are called together. I do not believe any one
of them would pretend to know more about railway business or railway management than any other ordinary citizen. They are not railway men, and they will only take their advice from Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann's appointee, through the Minister oi Railways-D. B. Hanna. Why does not the the minister tell us what he proposes to do with these branch lines? Why does he not tell us that he wants them taken out of politics instead of getting up and indulging in a harangue and defending Mackenzie & Mann, D. B. Hanna, or somebody else? The people of Canada do not care a hoot whom you have so long as you appoint efficient railway men to manage these railroads and make them pay. If you put these roads in the hands of efficient railway men, then you may expect at some time get good service, and you may expect to get the railroads out of the mire that they are in at present. Instead of doing that, however, the minister will blandly get up here from year to year, as long as he is privileged to sit on the Treasury Benches, and ask from thirty to eighty million dollars to pay deficits in the operation of these railroads. What interest has Hanna, or anybody else, in the efficient management of these railroads so long as he is at the beck and call of the Minister of Railways. His position is only good while he lives up to the instructions received from the minister, not a moment afterwards. IT say that these men! should be absolutely free from political control, and should be placed under the control of Parliament, so that if they do not serve the country properly, Parliament's attention may be directed to it and a change effected. The system which the minister has adopted is simply repeating the same mistakes that have been made in every country that has adopted the public ownership of railways. Every one of them has handed the management of the railways over to the political machine. Even in France, as late as 1908, when the authorities took over the North Western Railroad, they increased the employees twenty per cent on that road in the first two years of Government operation, until it was taken out of the hands of a member of the Government and placed under the control of a commission. This is a fair subject of debate, Mr. Chairman, and we should give the best possible attention to the question of how our national railroads are to be managed, because I can assure my public ownership friends that if our national railway system is used as a political machine to furnish political jobs, we are going to have a huge

deficit every year, and our people will become disgusted and say: Let us get rid of this thing and hand it over to somebody else. I think we have a fair chance to make this railway system a success. It may be true that we are a little over-built, but our lines run through a good productive country, and if we have a sane policy we will soon catch up to our railroad development and have sufficient traffic to make the system a success, unless we install the wrong kind of management and, as the hon. minister has pointed out, appoint a grocer of Montreal, an iron manufacturer of Toronto and another one of Nova Scotia. These gentlemen, I understand, are getting $2,000 a year each for the time and attention they devote to looking after this $900,000,000 investment. It is not reasonable to expect any man to devote sufficient time to an undertaking of such magnitude for that remuneration. You must get the besl railroad men obtainable and put them ir charge with -as little .political interference as possible. If you do not do that, if you adopt the hon. minister's plan to spend all the unappropriated funds of the Dominion, and allow him to bluster this thing through with the support of his friends at the back of him, you will end in a worse position than we were when we took over these roads. It has cost us more during the past year than in any previous year, and at the rate we are going on our deficit in a period of ten years will far exceed the amount we paid Mackenzie and Mann. 'I am not advocating the continuance of that plan. We have the opportunity in our own hands. Let us put our national railway system on a sane business basis and -try to get the best we can out of it. If the rest of the ministers would show as much gall in attempting to put anything through as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals does-


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot beat you for it. We would like some of your own nerve.


Frank S. Cahill: As I understand it, the resolution has not yet been read and is not before the House. I think before it comes up for discussion the hon. minister would be well advised to take this long-winded resolution, capture the draftsman who is responsible for it, and then- take it to some person else and see if he cannot put it in such shape that the hon. minister can at least attempt to explain what it means.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The resolution is before the Committee.


Frank S. Cahill: It has not been read, I understand.


Georges Henri Boivin: It has been read as far as it will be.


Mr. HALL AD  AY@: Either the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) has been ill-advised, or he is trying to put something over on .the House to-night that he does not think will be contradicted by some one who knows. I happen to live in the little town of Hanna, and I can tell the hon. gentleman why the trains have been pulled out of Calgary and put into Hanna. It is because that is the point from which the railway can be operated the cheapest. As far as water goes, the railroad company happen to have a dam at Hanna now which stores enough water to supply the railway for two years. The water backs up for about a mile, it is about two hundred yards across and in the neighbourhood of about thirty feet deep in the centre. I am very pleased that the -hon. gentleman has given me a chance of advertising my own business to-night. I happen to be the official townsite agent for the town of Hanna. I have sold practically every lot, and I am here to tell the House that the Canadian Northern Railway did own that townsite, but I know every lot owner there and I can state that iMr. D. B. Hanna does not now and never did own one lot in that townsite. If the balance of the hon. member's arguments are as strong as on these two points I would advise the House not to take too much stock in -them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have listened very
earnestly and intently to the discussion on this resolution. I was very much surprised, indeed, at the case as presented by the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). He pointed out that this resolution, extensive though it is and contained all in one sentence, has in almost every second line a reference to the Governor in Council or to Orders in -Council. As the representative of the constituency of -South Renfrew I came here .with the feeling that I would be consulted occasionally on matters of importance to the country and to my constituency, but to my surprise day after day we are .treated to a dose of Orders in Council and proposals for Orders in Council. We were assured that once the emergency conditions incident tc the war were over legislation of this kind would cease and this House would return to normal conditions. We are to-night engaged in discussing a resolution to make provision for the years after the war, and I see that the same spirit prevails in it. There seems to be no provision whatever

from start to finish, save one exception, whereby the people's representatives will be consulted in regard to the management of our national railways. The only exception, Sir, is when there has been discovered, as we are assured there will be, a deficit in the operating expenses. I have gone over this resolution and have extracted the following matters that will be attended to by Order in Council.
The Governor in Council will have power by Order in Council to nominate the directorate. The Governor in Council will also have powrer to incorporate the company. The Governor in Council will also have power to arrange the tenure of office of the directorate. The Governor in Council wall also have power to remove the directorate. The Governor in Council will also have power to annul meetings and to arrange annual meetings. The Governor in Council -if the Bill that the hon. Minister of Railways proposes bringing down is based on this resolution-will also have power to arrange the capital stock of the company. The location of the head office is also left to the Governor in Council. If members to your right, Mr. Chairman, do not object now to this matter being left in the hands of the Governor in Council, they will when they find that the matter has been arranged over their heads-and there will be some trouble in store for the Minister ol Railways. The people's representatives should have at least some say in the matter of the location of the head office; it should not be left entirely in the hands of the Governor in Council. The payment of the directors is left to the Governor in Council; the people's representatives are not to be consulted with regard to that matter. The Governor in Council will be charged with the appointment of the executive. The Governor in Council may transfer property or do what he pleases with if [DOT]-I would almost like to use an adjective in this connection, but perhaps it would not be parliamentary. The Governor in Council may acquire new property withoui saying why, wherefore, or by your leave. Funds belonging to the Government railways may be expropriated by Order ii Council. The abandonment of property may be accomplished by Order in Council without any consultation of the people's representatives. The minister referred to the possibility of this being done. I assure him that he would be wise in his day and generation to consult Parliament in that matter, because vested rights will be affected. Towns and villages have sprung up
along the railway lines, and if railway accommodation is taken away from these places the value of property will be depreciated and the rights of the people seriously affected. The Government cannot play ducks and drakes with the railroads without consulting Parliament.
The Governor in Council may construct new lines without consulting the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled; may issue bonds and debentures, arrange mortgages, dismantle or dispose of roads-all by Order in Council. The Governor in Council has almost the power of omnipotence in his hands; he is a law unto himself; his powers are almost beyond the limit. The Minister of Railways and Canals is vested almost with the power oi a god. I do not want to impute improper motives to him, but this resolution is a pretty extensive order, and I for one do not intend to endorse the proposal. I have often taken home and slept over a letter written in a hasty. moment, and invariably that letter has never been mailed. I suggest that the Minister of Railways take this resolution home with him to-night anc sleep on it. If he does, I am sure that he will bring down a more sane and sensible proposal than the one he has put before the House.
I notice also that the Minister of Railways proposes to arrange capital with or without shares by Order in Council; t( make by-laws by Order in Council; to arrange proxies at the annual meeting bj Order in Council-I do not know that he has omitted anything which it would be possible for him to do by Order in Council. That is not to be wondered at, as this resolution is made up of the longest sentence 1 ever read; in a page and a half, semicolons are the only marks of punctuation. The minister also intends by Order in Council to make agreements with other companies and to make money advances to the Canadian Northern railway. This disposition of affairs is, in my judgment, the nearest possible approach to omnipotence on this side of the grave. The only matter reserved to the elected representatives of the people is that of paying deficits-there is cold comfort in that. This matter affects the future welfare of our country. 'Hon. gentlemen who vote for this resolution or for any Bill which may be based upon it are simply voting away the rights that our forefathers fought for and handing them over to the Governor in Council.
I almost feel like moving an amendment to the resolution, which would have the

effect of striking out all of the words of the resolution after the word " resolved." On second thought, however, I shall merely make a suggestion by way of some-
9 p.m. thing else for the Minister of Railways to sleep over. I would suggest that all the words after the word " resolved " be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
That this House do now prorogue and that the business of the country be carried on, according to the Union Government practice, by Order in Council.


Michael Clark: Does the hon member suggest that each of these powers asked for under the resolution should be submitted to Parliament?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Certainly not, but the
more important ones-I referred to them during the course of my remarks-should be submitted to Parliament.


George Brecken Nicholson: If not through the Governor in Council, what means does the hon. member suggest by which the Parliament of Canada may express to the board of management or the board of directors of the operating company of the Canadian National railways the determination of Parliament to carry on along any particular line, with regard either to the construction of new lines or to methods of operation?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I suggest that the Government submit to Parliament from time to time such matters as the location of the head office. I am sure the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) would be one of the first men to object if the head office were located at the city of Quebec. I would also suggest that the Governor in Council refer to the Parliament of this country any proposed acquisition of new properties before they confirm the proposition. I would also suggest that they refer to this Parliament any proposition for the abandonment of any railway property, before abandoning it. I suggest also that the Minister of Railways submit to this House any proposition he has for the construction of new railways, before going ahead with the woitk. I would suggest also-and I might say this is in reply to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson)-that before the minister disposes of any railroads in this country, he refer the matter to this Parliament for its consideration and determination. I would also refer several other matters that I perhaps have not at my finger ends at the moment, but they are, I am sure, such matters as would suggest themselves to
| Mr. Pedlow.]
such an experienced railroader as the hon. member for East Algoma.


George Brecken Nicholson: I would like to make one or two observations with regard to this matter, just for the purpose of endeavouring to get some of my hon. friends down out of the air as regards the management of the Canadian National railways. The Governor in Council, in relation to the management of the Canadian National railways, are in exactly ithe isame position as the directors of a railway company, and if the shareholders of the privately-owned railway desire to have their wishes carried out, they are going to do that through their board of directors and their executive officers. If my hon. friend will look into this matter carefully, he will find that the Governor in Council are simply taking to themselves the authority to carry out the expressed will of Parliament, whatever that will may be. I particularly wish to refer to what the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) said as to the moving of train crews from Calgary to Hanna. He made a direct and specific charge against the management of the Canadian National railways. Personally, I cannot recall ever having had the pleasure of meeting any of those men; I do not know anything about them. But I do know the man who was responsible for moving the train crews from Calgary to Hanna, namely Acting General Superintendent O'Donnell, who is superintendent of the Canadian National railways at Winnipeg. If the hon. member for Pontiac has any criticisms to offer as to Superintendent O'Donnell as a railroad official, I should like him to make them in this House or out of it. I have known Mr. O'Donnell from the time he began his railway career. The hon. member stated that water had to be hauled fifty miles into Hanna. The heavy traffic is in and out of Hanna. How far will the hon. member suggest that one of those 180 per cent locomotives would run with one supply of water? If the work is going to be done out of Hanna, the water must be brought in, it does not matter what system is used to get it in, nor does it matter whether train crews are located in Hanna or not.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) said that he knew the hon. member for East Algoma would object to the head office going to Quebec. The head office of the greatest railway system in the world and the one I admire the most is in the province of Quebec, and I do not care whether the head office goes to Timbuctoo,

because that does not make a particle of difference.	.
Mr, BUREAU: It might be too far out.


George Brecken Nicholson: The whole
question in connection with this is-how are we going to control the men whom we put into positions of responsibility as regards the management of our railways. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) says: Appoint them for ten years and remove the management from politics. Supposing we put in for ten years a board of management, and the first year we find they are inefficient, that they are the type of men who have been exploiting this country in the management and operation of railways- what are we going to do with them?


Frank S. Cahill: I -think the hon. member misunderstands me if he says that I said ten years. I did not mention any such period. I said that the railway commissioners were appointed for ten years.


George Brecken Nicholson: I understood
the hon. member said he wanted them appointed on the same basis as -the railway commissioners who are appointed for ten years. If we are going to appoint them, we must not pledge ourselves to appoint them for ten days, unless they are going to do the work properly. All this Utopian talk of removing the management of the Canadian National Railways from politics might just as well be forgotten. We must put in control men whom we think to be efficient. If they do the job, let us -support them; if they do not do the job, let us find somebody who will. And, if the people of Canada are going to have the railways operated right, they will send to the House of Commons men who will see that these men do their work properly. That is -the only way by which it can be done.
One word with regard to the present Board of Directors. I do not believe I would know one of them if I were to meet him on the street. How many men on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Pacific railway are practical railway men in the sense that they eould take hold of the railway and operate and manage it? The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is a lawyer who was taken into the office of the ex-president, Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy, and trained as an executive officer pure and simple. What are all the others? They are not practical railway men in the 6ense I have mentioned, but men of sufficient capacity to find men who can operate the road. And in the final analysis, if the
Canadian National railways are to be operated successfully, we must have at the top one man who is a practical railroad man, who has the final say, and we must surround him with a group of intelligent, earnest men, willing to place their services at the disposal of their country, and to apply themselves to whatever projects they have in mind, who will find specialists in railway operation. Let me again ask the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), in all his declarations with regard to inefficiency and incompetency on the part of the men who are operating the Canadian National railways what about -Mr. Hunger-ford, Mr. Warren, Mr. Brady, Mr. Hayes? Will he say these men are inefficient, incapable? I happen to know some of the men who are engaged in the operation of the road. They may not have the Canadian National railways into the complete system in which we would like to see it; they may not be the right men, but they should be given an opportunity of showing whether they are or not.


Frank S. Cahill: Without political interference.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let us get right down to bed rock on this matter. Let the hon. member mention one case in which there has been political interference in the operation of the Canadian National railways since this Board of Management was selected. Let him mention one case in which they have been interfered with in the selection of an officer under them, or in what they are doing in their efforts to co-ordinate and put into a successful position so far as operating is concerned the Canadian National railways, and then we shall know where to start from. Will the hon. member do that?


Frank S. Cahill: I might refer the hon. member to about 1916 or 1917 when the-


Arthur Meighen: That is before the Board was appointed.


Frank S. Cahill: But as long as the Intercolonial was controlled from Ottawa, there was political management-


Arthur Meighen: Better answer the question.


Frank S. Cahill: -and while there was this political management, there was the Minister of Railways sitting in the House of Commons-


Arthur Meighen: Sit down.


Frank S. Cahill: -opposing members on the floor of the House, and the Minister of



Railways, still a member of this House, apparently lost his position as Minister of Railways,


George Brecken Nicholson: I asked the bon. member a specific question. He has charged the president of the board of management of the Canadian National Railways with incompetence and grafting, and has charged the Government with political interference with the present board in the management of the railways. Now it is fair to ask the hon. member to state one instance in support of his charge. I do not know whether these charges are true or not. The hon. member may be in a position to floor me in a minute, and if he is I will join hands with him in an effort to clean the thing up. But I ask for one specific case.


Frank S. Cahill: What particular thing are you referring to?


George Brecken Nicholson: It is for the hon. member-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. It is absolutely impossible for two hon. members to speak at once.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. member will
have to sit down for me to answer.


George Brecken Nicholson: I submit that until the hon. member can point to one instance where the present management of the Canadian National Railways has been actuated by anything but a desire to serve the public, it is absolutely unfair for him to make the charges he has made here tonight. Let me emphasize what the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) has said. If we are ever going to get men of the capacity we require to manage these railways-men of the type managing the Canadian Pacific, for instance-we must make up our minds to stand behind them honestly if they serve us faithfully, and not make charges against their honesty or capacity unless we are in a position to back those charges up. The biggest proposition that the people of Canada ever grappled with is the management of these railways, and we have to get men of the right sort to manage them. But do you think we will get men of the right sort if they are going to be hounded from one end of this country to the other as political heelers and grafters? Would you get a man of the type of Lord Shaughnessy, the late David Mc-Nicol, MacTier, Murphy, Scully or Coleman to enter the public service of this country so long as men will stand up here 
and traduce their character without offering one scintilla of evidence in support of the charges they make? I do not think you would, and I repeat, until these men have shown their incapacity-I do not know whether they are the right men or not to manage the road-it is our business to support them in their work.


Jacques Bureau: When the Committee rose at six o'clock I put two questions to the minister. I suppose he will claim he has answered one. I desire now to know why he has left the fixing of the salaries of the directors to the Governor in Council? We fix the salaries, of the judges, the railway commissioners, and the civil service commissioners in this House, and I should like to know-I am asking merely for information-why we should not fix the salaries of these directors.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill provides that the Governor in Council shall fix the salaries. Of course, the Government will be responsible to the House. It is a debatable question, I admit, whether they should be fixed by Parliament or by the Governor in Council, but we can discuss that matter in committee on the Bill, and if it is the general desire of the committee . the Bill can be amended.


Jacques Bureau: I am not criticising at
all. The Bill will no doubt come up for a second reading to-morrow, which will not give us time to study the matter. I .say that we are departing from the practice that has been followed by Parliament heretofore in connection with the railway commissioners, the civil service commissioners and the judges, the members of the highest tribunal in the land; and I should like a reason why Parliament should not fix the salaries of these directors.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason why it is left to the Governor in Council is because the people are the shareholders, and the shareholders axe the ones who elect the directors and fix their salaries.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The shareholders elect the directors.


Jacques Bureau: We are the shareholders, in this Parliament. We hold proxies from the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite understand the difficulties of my hon. friend. This legislation is very complex, and it is just as well that from the beginning we should stand fast by the principles of parliament-

ary government. In my humble judgment, there are many objections to the details of this legislation, some of which I pointed out this afternoon, but my main objection is against the use by the directors of the new company of moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada without any parliamentary vote.


John Dowsley Reid: It must be voted afterwards.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, locking the stable after the horse is gone-and I say that with all due respect. I think the minister appreciates my argument. He will realize that the amendnrent I am going to move will not prevent him from putting this new organization into shape. I understand that at this session he will ask Parliament for a large amount of money, running into the millions of dollars, for the administration and operation of the railway system.
I am quite sure he has received from Mr. Hanna and the other directors an estimate of the cost of administrating and operating the system during the next fiscal year. Parliament will provide a fund to administer and operate the whole system, and I think it is enough for us to create this new power, with all the privileges we are conferring on it, without surrendering all our rights to that directorate.
As regards the financial end of this administration, we should stand fast by the principle that no money is going to be spent without first having been voted by Parliament. That is an elementary principle that should appeal to both sides of the House.
I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to this resolution. I regret the resolution is not paragraphed and numbered as Bills usually are, because I cannot see at what line this amendment comes, as the resolution is too long and too compact in its arrangement. But I would move to amend the resolution about two thirds down the page reading:
And in the event of a deficit occurring ait any time during any fiscal year the amount of such deficit shall from time to time he payable by the Minister of Finance out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the amounts paid by the said5 Minister to he included in the estimates submitted to Parliament at its first session following the close of such fiscal year.
As I propose to amend it, the clause would read as follows:
And in the event of a deficit occurring at any time during the fiscal year the amount of such deficit shall from time to time be payable by the Minister of Finance provided that said amount is paid out of moneys voted hy Parliament
Striking out the words:
Out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the amounts paid by the said minister to be included in the estimates submitted to Parliament ait its first session following the close of such fiscal year.
This is a question of principle with me.
I cannot surrender my rights in that way.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me explain to the hon. member the position we would be in if that amendment carried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are going to create a fund for next year.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are going to ask
Parliament for a huge appropriation for the running of the railway. You are able to get an estimate from Mr. Hanna and the directors.	1


John Dowsley Reid: We do not 'propose doing that at all. There are two ways of operating this system. One is, as suggested by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), the way we have been operating the Intercolonial railway. That would mean placing in the Estimates the amount that it would take to operate the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial. The other is to follow the method by which the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific are operated now. The receipts would all be collected by the railway and the cost of operation only would be expended from that fund. For the building of new lines we would have to get a vote of Parliament. We started out on the first of April this year with the Canadian National Railway system. Suppose that during this present fiscal year we should have a deficit of 84,000,000 or $5,000,000 on what we called the Government railway system prior to taking in the Canadian National railways, and another $10,000,000 of a deficit on the Canadian Northern, a. total deficit of $15,000,000. As all the money that we have for operating the railway is collected hy the railway, we could not meet these deficits until the next session, and we would not have money to operate the railway or to meet the deficits that would arise from month to month. A deficit does not come at the end of the year. In the month of April you will probably have a deficit, and so on during the twelve months. That clause is put there in order that we may keep the railway in operation, and, at the next session of Parliament we will come down for a vote. If this amendment should carry it would mean that the rail-

way would have to be closed down because we could not get any money to operate it. The directors have no power to borrow any [DOT]money as they go along. Let us take this *question up clause by clause and discuss ;it. I do not want to hurry or rush the Bill through. I court discussion of every clause of it in order that we may see whether we can put it in better shape than I have it. My whole desire is to get the very best Bill possible in order to ensure the successful operation of this railway system. If we get all the railways together, and it looks as if we will, we will probably have a billion dollars invested in them. I appeal to the members of this House to go into the Bill clause by clause and see if there is any way we can improve it, I appeal again 'to the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) not to press his amendment because its adoption would make it impossible to operate the railway inoperative. We could not carry it through to the next fiscal year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I grant that my hon.
friend is in earnest in this legislation. The country is in a mood to stand by a system of railway nationalization. While it may be a passing mood, and while the country may not be disposed later on to maintain the system, it seems to be in favour of it at the present time. My hon. friend knows that there are men in the Grand Trunk system who know almost exactly, twelve months in advance, what the earnings, the surplus or the deficit will be. Does my hon. friend believe that the board of directors or the managers of the Canadian Pacific do not know what the traffic will yield during the next year? My hon. friend may think it is a matter of guessing but it is not. The president of the Canadian Pacific last year, in his report, based on the information that was conveyed to him by his officers all along the line, pretty well estimated the business during the current year. So it has been in former years. The officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern could tell my hon. friend what the approximate earnings of the road for the next twelve months will be. We are going into this nationalization business; why not start right? Why not tell the people at once what the approximate deficit will be for the next fiscal year? It is easy. My hon. friend will have access to the books of the Grand Trunk Pacific? It is almost certain that the officers of the Grand Trunk system will be the officers of the Government.
The minister has retained almost every official of the old Canadian Northern Rail-IMr. J. D. Reid.]
way System. I share the confidence that my hon. friend has in Mr. Hanna. I have known Mr. Hanna for several years, and I think he is one of the ablest railway men in Canada, possibly in America. Mr. Hanna knows the Canadian Northern Railway System from A to Z, and I can assure my hon. friend that if he were to ask that gentleman to-morrow to give him his views as to the probable earnings of the system for the next fiscaL year, Mr. Hanna would be in a position to give him that information pretty accurately. So that it is relatively easy for the hon. gentleman, as the head of the Railway Department, to ascertain what it will cost to administer and to run the railway system during the next fiscal year. After all, the people are entitled to that information, and though the truth may not be palatable to them, it is just as well that they should get this estimate, and not give a board of directors the wide powers which he is conferring by this resolution. The principle involved is for me an elementary principle, and one which, if defeated by such legislation, would mean practically the annihilation of parliamentary control. I stand fast by my rights as a member of the House. I represent the people, and as such I wish, and claim, to have the control of all the moneys to be spent by the Government, whether it is for a small breakwater on the coast of Gaspe or for a big transcontinental railway system. I do not care what the amount is, what must be considered is the principle involved. Why, should my hon. friend be afraid to ask for such powers to be conferred on a board of directors, which after all must come under parliamentary control, because we ourselves have created the organization.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Can the hon. gentleman name any railroad company in Canada, or elsewhere, that observes the condition laid down in this amendment in regard to making an estimate of the amount of money required to carry on the undertaking for the year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not the last annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under my hand, but if my hon. friend will refer to it he will see what are the prognostications, if I may use the expression, of Mr. Beatty. In any railway of that magnitude, the president, after having consulted the chief officers of all sections of the road, would be able to say approximately what the expenditure would be for the ensuing twelve months.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon.
gentleman will refer to the report again he will find that that expenditure is the expenditure on capital account, and it is the only subject in regard to which Mr. Beatty wili venture to lay an estimate before the Board.


George Brecken Nicholson: I believe the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) is perfectly sincere, and I think the House is anxious that the whole situation should he clearly understood. Therefore, let me submit a question like this: Assuming there is a difference of one hundred million bushels of the grain crop that has to be moved out of the Northwest this coming season from what is anticipated. Assuming that the Canadian National Railways are confronted with the proposition oi handling a crop similar to the of 1915. What would happen to any estimate the directors might make as to the costs of operation? Every dollar that is spent on the operation of the railway-and I am repeating what I said this afternoon, and which is perfectly obvious-has a direct relation to the amount of traffic to be moved. Now the amount of traffic that is moved from year to year varies, according to the industrial condition of the country, the crops to be handled, and everything that goes to make up the traffic. If one looks back over the reports of the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways, he will find that the operating costs varied, sometimes to the extent of ten or fifteen million dollars, one year from the other. The operating cost of every railway in Canada was increased by millions, due to the award of the Board of Adjustment which sat in connection with those railroads. That is liable to happen in the middle of any year. What would be the result if a twenty-five per cent increase in the rate of wages paid to the employees was forced upon the management of the Canadian National railway, in the middle of a season Parliament not being in session, and they being tied down to a certain estimate, which they must not exceed, as to what they should expend from month to month? Every practical man will tell you that such a thing is utterly impossible for them to carry out: the railway management simply go on spending the revenue as they get it. Should there be an operating deficit it will be found that the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, and all other lines, have a fund somewhere from which they can draw in the event of one month not being as good as another. But to require the management
of the Canadian National Railways to make an estimate of operating expenses a year ahead is practically impossible.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I remember distinctly that during the last session of Parliament a resolution involving the same principle which is under discussion here was placed upon the Order Paper by the Minister of Railways. I also remember distinctly that the resolution in question was finally withdrawn, which means that operations were continued during the year on the old basis.
I would like to know from the minister what the experience has been of the past year's operations on that basis?


John Dowsley Reid: The Intercolonial was not handed over to the new management until about the latter part of the year or the first of January, and the cost of operating for that period was taken out of the funds voted by Parliament. What is really meant by the amendment before the committee, if I understand it aright-and if not I am open to correction-is that the revenue for the fiscal year of the Canadian National Railways and of any other railway which may be taken over is to be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General, and whatever the costs of operation may be (whether it be two, three, or four hundred million dollars) should be voted in an estimate submitted to the House. I do not see how that can be worked.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How did it work out last year?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern System worked in the way it always has done.


John Ewen Sinclair: The minister has not explained why it is not possible to apply the same system to the other Government railways that he is applying to the Intercolonial Railway. As I understand that system, the minister makes up his mind before the opening of the fiscal year how much he will need for the operation of the Intercolonial during the ensuing twelve months, and Parliament votes that money. That system has worked out well in Canada for a great many years.
We are now proposing to allow these new railway directors to expend as much money as they please; there is to be no check on them whatever. They may run our national railway system in the most extravagant way, and Parliament pledges itself at the end of the year to pay the bill. Would it not be more business like for these directors to come to Parliament and say: We esti-

mate that our earnings for the coming year will be so many million dollars, but we feel certain that we will not be able to operate the road on those earnings, and we will want so many more million dollars to pay our bills before the end of the year. Then the people would know what they had to pay. By the system proposed we are throwing the whole matter into the hands of the board of directors and are losing control by Parliament altogether. I have always felt that the statement made by the Minister of Railway at the commencement of every fiscal year was very important; he outlined the business of the Intercolonial Railway for the year and told us what he expected to get' in revenue and what he expected to have to spend. By this system we are abandoning that good policy which has been pursued for a long time, and the hon. minister has not given us any good reason for its abandonment. Before he turns down the amendment of my hon. friend-which I am inclined to support- I think the hon. minister should tell the House why he cannot apply to our National railway the system which has been in vogue on the Intercolonial.


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: While I am to some extent in sympathy with the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and consider it good in theory, it seems to me that the principle it enunciates is impracticable, for this reason:	Unless you were a
weather prophet it would be almost impossible to forecast the earning capacity of a great transportation system such as we are operating. The winter we have just passed through illustrates what I mean. The mild season has been the most effective fuel controller that we have had for years, .and it not only saved coal in our homes, but it saved coal in the operation of the railways; and it also resulted in a gain of millions of dollars in our western country through not having to remove snow. In some winters there has been a great expenditure of money to keep our roads open even in Western Canada, where our snowfall is not usually as heavy as in the East, and that expenditure is something very hard to estimate. We who have lived in the western country a number of years know that it is almost impossible, particularly at this season of the year, to forecast the crop. Growing wheat successfully depends altogether on weather Conditions, and in some years we will have probably 100,000,000 bushels more to move than in other years. So I do not see how 
it is humanly possible to forecast within even a few million dollars the probable earnings and operating expenses of a railway system such as we are handling. It seems to me that if we voted a certain sum of money as forecasted, probably during the course of the year, we would be faced with a deficit of from five to ten million dollars, and if we have no means of making good that deficit how are our operating officials going to pay expenses and keep the system running?
Amendment negatived; nays 36, yeas 16.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite see why there was such strong objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Maisonneuve which has just been voted down. There can be no good derived from experience at all if we are to be forever groping in the dark in matters of this kind. Surely, after nearly fifty years experience with over one thousand miles of Government railway managed by successive min-listers, we should by this time havesome fairly reliable data of operating costs per mile per year. There is not a business firm in this country that has been in operation for half that length of time but can tell from year to year within a very small fraction what have been their operating costs and what they are going to be next year. Take a big city like Toronto, the civic authorities are able to estimate the cost of running the city each year. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway, the management can tell more than a year ahead what the system is going to cost. I can very well imagine that if any of us were present at a meeting of the shareholders of that company, and that question were asked, an estimate would be made and submitted to the meeting. There is no disposition on the part of hon. members on this side of the House to closely figure what the hon. minister might require for the running of his road. We are willing to give him a million dollars leeway if he wants it; it does not make very much difference, because if he does not require it it will not be expended. He says he has honest officials; we believe he has, and we believe there will be an honest effort made to run the road economically. But we want to have the right to say how much shall be expended and how much set aside for operating expenses, allowing an ample sum to meet contingencies. That is all; we are not desirous of cutting down the amount and crippling the running of the road; there is no such


II, 1919
[Stage Direction]
suggestion; but we do not want to leave a free hand for the expenditure of public money without any parliamentary check. I would like to tell hon. members, and particularly those who have only been in this House for the last seven or eight years, that when my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways, sat in Opposition when the older Conservative members were sitting in Opposition they made an outcry against spending the money without the vote of Parliament. My good friend the member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong), the railway expert of the Conservative party, was loud' in his objections. But how have the mighty fallen! These gentlemen who had such a great respect for the representatives of the people in those days, and who were pernickety about, the expenditure of even a fifty-cent piece if it was not first voted by Parliament, now want to launch upon the expenditure of millions about which the people of Canada have absolutely nothing to say. It was a good, sound doctrine that they were preaching then, and it is a good, sound doctrine for Liberals to preach to-day.	I stated very clearly and explicitly in the earlier part of this discussion that I had only one opinion on this matter: That no moneys of the people should, in the absence of an emergency, be expended unless the expenditure is first passed upon by Parliament. I asked the minister for certain information about the standing of the Canadian Northern and the other railway systems which we own. I suggested that that information be put on Hansard before the second reading of the Bill is moved, so that members of the House may see what the real situation is. I notice that the member for Beauharnois (Mr. Papineau) put a question to the minister some time ago concerning the indebtedness of these roads, in the following words:
1.	On what date did the Government take possession of the Canadian Northern Railway System?
2.	What is the total amount of the liabilities of said railway system, which the country assumed on taking possession?
To which the following answer was given by the Minister of Railways:
1.	The Government received the controlling interest in the stock of the Canadiafi Northern Railway, on Ootober 1, 1917.
2.	The Dominion of Canada purchased the stock in the Canadian Northern Railway, but did not assume the outstanding liabilities which remained as debts of the company. According to the Government auditors the total outstanding liabilities as of October 1, 1917, including funded debt was $434,312,747.34.
That is not a satisfactory answer, or one that the Canadian people will accept. When a man buys a house with a mortgage on it, he must pay the mortgage off before he owns the house. We paid 10 p.m. a certain amount of money for stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and when we took over that stock we also took over the debt on the road. The people of Canada, therefore, should know what sort of bargain they made when they bought this property and what are its commercial chances for the future. We are paying the running expenses of the road; we are paying for rolling stock and improvements; we own the road just as much as we own the Intercolonial, and we must pay all bills in connection with it. The old Canadian Northern system as a company has no real, live existence except in matter of name; we took everything they had and we have to pay their liabilities. The question is, what did we take over; what value do we get for the responsibilities and liabilities we assumed? These are matters upon which I expect the minister to give us full and complete information before he moves the second reading of the Bill.
George Brecken Nicholson: I should like to put on Hansard a statement made by Lord Shaughnessv the last time he appeared before the annual meeting of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as president, with regard to the operating costs and income of that system. He said;
Compared with the returns for the calendar year 1916 the Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Directors now before you for consideration and approval shows an increase in gross revenue from transportation of $12,660,000, but this amount was more than absorbed by the working expenses, which increased $16,590,000, so that the net income from transportation in 1917 was less by $3,930,000 than it was in the previous calendar year.
Notwithstanding the larger volume of traffic in 1917, it will be gathered from the statistics incorporated in the Report that there was a substantial decrease in traffic train mileage and loaded car mileage, indicating still further improvement in operating efficiency. In normal times this should be reflected in the working expenses, but its effect was minimized by the higher scale of wages and the enchancefl cost of fuel and other materials required for the maintenance and operation of the railway that prevailed during the year and that added $15,250,000 to the operating expenses.
This is a statement put before the stockholders after the event. It could not have been put before them before the event, i am confident that if any hon. member will take pains to inquire carefully into the situation, he will find that the Canar

dian Pacific management never undertake to say within five or ten million dollars what is going to be expended in operating costs. Without any question they do make a complete statement as to capital expenditure, and the House of Commons of Canada should see to it that the directors and management of the Canadian National railways submit for our consideration their programme with regard to such expenditures. But the operation of railways can be carried on only out of earnings, unless we are going to do as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) suggests, namely at the beginning of the year vote a large block of money that we are sure will cover every contingency, without having any details whatever and without knowing how it is going to be expended, and then say, as we said to the officers of the Intercolonial in the heyday of their existence: Go to it; we will take care of the deficits when they come in at the end of the year.


Jacques Bureau: The resolution reads:
For constructing and operating railway lines, branches and extensions with the approval ot the Governor in Council and upon any location sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals.	.
I do not object as to the branches, because the Railway Act provides as to what length of branches can be constructed under a charter. When a company desires to build a railway, they have to come before Parliament in order to get a charter. I understand that the Governor in Council may have to deal with the branches, but is there any particular reason, if the management desire to build a railway, why they should not ask the permission of Parliament to build it so that the matter would come be-for the Railway Committee and be discussed there, thus giving every member of the House an opportunity of stating whether he approves the location, and of pronouncing upon the advisability and advantages of the construction?


John Dowsley Reid: When we have the Bill before us, I will go into the matter more fully. The old Canadian Northern Railway have charters for extensions, which charters have been in existence for some years. Those extensions are now being constructed and a number of them will be completed this year. Plans must be approved in the usual way, just as is the case with the plans of other railways. With regard to the construction of new lines or branches


Jacques Bureau: That is the power that
is given here.


John Dowsley Reid: -the Canadian National Railways will have power to extend, but we shall have to come to Parliament for any moneys, with which to build those extensions. Money that is received from operating the railways, we permit them to apply only to operating expenses. If there is construction, they have to come to Parliament for the money. There is a section with regard to bonds, but they have to come to Parliament for this money. This clause does not give power to the management to go ahead and build lines without coming to Parliament. If I cannot show that such a proviso is m the Bill, we can amend the Bill accordingly.


Jacques Bureau: After the Bill is introduced and distributed, how much time shall we have to look over it before it is rushed through?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not propose rushing it through. If it is introduced to-day, I do not expect to bring it up again until after the Easter adjournment. Hon. members will therefore have all of next week and part of the week after to consider the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: The minister surely does not expect that we are going to study a railway Bill during the holidays.


John Dowsley Reid: I will give the hon. member plenty of time.


John Ewen Sinclair: Has the Government paid for the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I understood, it was all paid for.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the stock has all been paid for except a block which is pledged with the Government of British Columbia


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes.
Mr. MEIGHEN-as against the construction of a certain line in that province by the Canadian Northern. That, not being deliverable as yet, has not been paid for.


Frank S. Cahill: The clause which the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was discussing states that the management have power to construct subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. If the minister is satisfied that this is a mistake and if hia intention was that they should come to Parliament, then it would be well to change the wording from " the approval of the Governor in Council " to " the approval of Parliament." Would the minister be willing to adopt that change?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not change that now, because I think the hon. member, when he sees the Bill, will see that the point he raises is covered.


Frank S. Cahill: This is a very important resolution we are voting on, and we are doing so without very much information.
If the minister is not sure that what is in the resolution is what he is going to have in the Bill-
Mr. J. D. iREID: What this means is just what I stated. In every railway Bill a clause is inserted providing that the plans must be approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals. Notwithstanding the fact that a charter has been granted by this Parliament, the plans must he approved by the minister.


Jacques Bureau: A railway company has its plans deposited with the Minister of Railways and Canals, and approved, after the charter is granted. The minister says this is to allow the company to build railways on charters already granted by this Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Why not change it to read:-
__For constructing railways for which charters
have already heen granted to the Canadian Northern.


John Dowsley Reid: If the Government takes over the Grand Trunk Pacific, then another Bill will be necessary.


Jacques Bureau: That could be covered by inserting in the Bill:-
For constructing lines which already have heen approved hy Parliament and for which charters have been granted.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister is not quite clear as to whether he wants that clause left in the resolution in that way or not, I wbuld move an amendment that it be taken out of the resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like it left in. I cannot change it in the resolution tonight. I prefer the resolution as it is, because I do not understand the clause as the hon. member suggests it. Of course, if the hon. member wishes to move his amendment he can do so.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the intention of the Government to go on constructing branch or other lines of railways by Order in Council with the approval of the Minister of Railways and without consulting Parliament? They have in this resolution absolute power to do so, and if there is any money in the treasury of Canada to spend one of the things on which they can spend it is the construction of branch lines or other lines of railway. If it is not the intention of the Government to build branch or other lines without first submitting the proposition to Parliament for approval that clause should not be in the resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned that a short time ago. Of course, we have no intention of building branch lines or constructing railways anywhere without first coming to Parliament for a vote. When a vote is asked for, a full explanation is always given of the Government's proposals.


Mr. FAFARD (L'lslet) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoma (Air. Nicholson) a moment ago read a report from Mr. Beatty relating to the Canadian Pacific. I have here a very short article giving the results arrived at by the United States Government with state ownership of railways. It is as follows:
New York, April 7.-For the month of February it is announced that the railways of the United States under Government operation show a deficit of over thirty-six million dollars, notwithstanding increases in fares and reduction of service by curtailing trains and packing the cars.
This actual loss, added to the hundreds of millions of loss in the previous twelve months, which must be made up by taxation is creating widespread hostility to Government ownership. Writing of the results of Government control of the railways the New York Sun says: " Price fixing and Government ownership have had such exhaustive trials as would have been totally impossible in times of peace. In many cases, as notably the railroads, the experiments were made under the most favourable circumstances and with a degree of public toleration if not approval that normally would have been impossible.
" In every case, without exception, the experiment has been ruinous to the socialistic theory. Service was not improved. It was rendered inefficient and unreliable to an incredible extent. To crown all. in order to maintain this mad carnival of abuse, crushing taxes have been laid upon the people and new burdens of taxation and debt loom up ahead, along with a total disorganization of business. These are the blessings that Government price fixing and Government management of public utilities have brought to the country. There is no single case that can be quoted to the contrary.
"Both political parties admit that the nation would vote overwhelmingly against Government ownership. Even the papers that advocated the policy, and politicians who supported it, now admit it was a terrible error."
In view of the fact that both political parties in the United States are against
Government ownership and that in the

month of February, the shortest month in the year, the railways of the United States under Government ownership showed a deficit of over 836,000,000, I think this resolution should be very carefully reconsidered.
Resolution reported, read and concurred in.
Mr. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70, to incorporate the Canadian National Railways Company.


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

Arthur Meighen: Before moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to refer to the judgment just delivered by the Railway Commission on the question of the order of the Railway War Board as to the change of time on the railways. As hon. members will know from a perusal of the ' judgment, the position taken by the Chief Commissioner, concurred in, I believe, by Mr. Commissioner Nantel, is to the effect that the fixing of standard or local time is, in so far! as the determination of the broad question is concerned, a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and that the only jurisdiction which the Board of Railway Commissioners has is exercisable only when they are convinced that interference on their part is necessitated by the public protection or safety or the public convenience. Founding their opinion upon that basis, the judgment is that they cannot interfere with the time fixed by the Railway War Board. That being the case,
I beg to suggest that the House on adjournment to-night, having regard to the convenience of members of Parliament, and having reference, of course, only to the sittings of this House, do adjourn until Monday at three o'clock, local time,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must congratulate my hon. friend and the Government generally upon the timely decision they have taken.
It is true that the judgment is not very clear. I read it this evening. It covers about thirty pages of foolscap, and the conclusion is that the commission has no jurisdiction. At all events, the members of the House will appreciate the fact that the Government has come to terms with common sense by adopting the time which is accepted outside of the main entrance of the

House of Commons; so that henceforth, when it is three o'clock outside of the main entrance, it will also be three o'clock in the House of Commons.


Edmond Proulx: I should like to ask
whether it is the Government or Parliament that fixes the time of the sittings of the House?


Arthur Meighen: The time is fixed for
the sittings of the House merely by the authority of the House itself, but it may be done, I apprehend, merely by a statement from the Speaker of the House as to the hour the sittings shall take place. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Moved by Mr. Meighen, seconded by Mr. Rowell, that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is not the motion; the motion is that the House do adjourn until Monday at three o'clock, city time.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chair has put the motion as it was understood by the Chair:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Passing from the little fun we get out of this matter, I suppose that the decision that has been reached by the commission was arrived at after careful deliberation, and contains much learning which might be of value to this House and to the country at some future time. I think the decision should be printed in Hansard. I am serious about it. These gentlemen appear to have given it every consideration, I notice that authorities are quoted, there is a great deal of learning in the judgment and at some future day it might be of importance to this House and the country if this copy should be lost. I would suggest to fhe hon. gentleman who is now leading the House that it should be made available by having it placed upon Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to that. The decision is as follows:
Daylight Saving; Change of Time.
The Chief Commissioner:
Under an interim judgment issued herein the railway companies, who had issued circulars advancing the time of their clocks to become effective at 2 a.m., on the morning of March 31st, and which action had been taken by the railway companies so as to enable them to carry on their former operations and maintain their passenger connections and freight operations with the American roads, who had already advanced their time,-were required to appear before the Board to show cause why the cir-

culars issued should not be cancelled and standard time maintained on the railway systems.
A hearing was held in Ottawa on the 1st instant, when judgment was reserved. Further representations were made by members of Parliament opposed to daylight saving, with a view of having the matter opened up and, if necessary, further hearings held.
In view of the action I think the board ought to take, I am of the opinion that no further hearings are necessary or would serve any useful purpose. When the interim judgment was issued, no consideration whatever had been given 'to the debates in Parliament which took place when the Bill of 1918 was passed, and this for obvious reasons.
In construing statutes the question is not what was or was not said in debate. In almost every instance opposing views can be found in any debate. It is by reason indeed of divergence of opinion that debates are necessary. It is the action of Parliament as crystallized into law that has to be construed. The question, then, is not what members of Parliament intended to say. The issue, therefore, is not to be determined by inferences and findings that may be drawn from a number of divergent opinions expressed in debate and by speculation as to the result of these divergent opinions on the minds and intentions of the majority, i.e., members who, while voting, do not take part in the debate.
On the other hand, the question is what did Parliament intend by what it said. While the members speak in debate, Parliament has spoken only through the Act. As a result, in the construction of statutes, weight is not attached to the opinion of individual members of Parliament. Ramsay, J., in Bank of Toronto v. Lamb, 1 Q.B. at p. 186, says :
" In referring to the Acts of the legislature we express almost an excessive deference for them; but we compensate ourselves for this lip loyalty to the words of the statute by disregarding wholly the sayings of the individual legislator."	,	.
Cases dealing with the subject may be found collected in Gosselin v. The King. 33 S.C.R. 255. The Chief Justice, at p. 263, says:
" I deem it expedient, however, to say a few words upon the question raised during the argument of the reference by counsel to the debates in Parliament for the purpose of construing any statute. Such a reference has always been refused by my predecessors in this court and, when counsel in this case began to read from the Canadian Hansard the remarks made in Parliament when the Canada Evidence Act in question was under discussion I did not feel justified in departing from the rule so laid down, though, personally, I would not be unwilling, in cases of ambiguity in statutes, to concede that such a reference might sometimes be useful. The same rule is observed in England."
Since the interim judgment was issued, however, a new Daylight Saving Bill has been introduced in the Senate. It has been read the second time, and is now being considered by the Senate in Committee. This coincides with the view taken by the House of Commons, the resolution submitted there reading:
"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient to re-enact at onoe c. 2, Statutes of 1918, " The Daylight Saving Act, 1918.' "
It is therefore apparent that both Houses ot Parliament consider the question in the light
of an expired Act instead of in the light of existing legislation which merely requires action by the Governor in Council to be made operative during the present year for general purposes, and action by the Board to be made operative for railway purposes.
As a matter of law, under all ordinary canons of construction to be followed in determining rights as between parties, my opinion that the Act of 1918 is still in effect remains unchanged.
Different action, however, has been taken in constitutional cases where the issues involved are large and general in their application, and are not confined of necessity to individual rights. Here, the issues cannot, in any sense, be described as personal. They are entirely general in their application; the whole country is affected. -
This distinction is pointed out by the then Chief Justice of Canada in the Gosselin case already referred to. Reference is made by the learned Chief Justice to Mr. Lefroy's work, where judicial opinions are collected, wherein the general rule has been more or less disregarded in the construction of the British North America Act. Reference may be made to Le-froy's book (The Law of Legislative Power in Canada), pp. 17, 18, 26, 27, 54, 194, and 195.
The Supreme Court itself, in re prohibitory liquor laws, 24 S. C. R. 170, not only considered debates accompanying the submission of the resolutions of the respective legislatures, but, to some extent, adopted statements contained in them as the basis of the judgment in that case delivered. Reference may be made to the judgment of Gwynn, J., at p. 206.
In view of the action, therefore, of both Houses and the peculiar character of this question, I have examined the debates with a view of ascertaining whether or not, as has been alleged, the intention of Parliament was to enact a law which was not limited only in operation to a period to be prescribed in each year, but ceased to have all force on the expiration of the year 1918.
As might well be expected, divergent views are expressed. In the Senate I find that the Honorable Mr. Bcstock, at p. 77 of the Debates, says:
" It says : * This Act shall be in force during the present year for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.' That refers to the present year, but of course it can be put in force by the Governor in Council in another year. It is left in his hands. But, as I said before, we are now accustomed to legislation by Order in Council, so we understand the situation."
Honorable Mr. Beique, referring to Section 3 of the Act which was relied upon as limiting the whole force of the statute to the single year, says, at p. 92:
"This Act shall be in force during the present year for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council. That is, during this year. That is so worded because this year has commenced. But when the Bill becomes law it will remain on the statute-book until it is repealed. The Bill is a permanent Bill on its face, and I think should be interpreted as such."	[DOT]
On the other hand, the contrary opinion was urged both by the Honorable Sir James Lougheed, Government Leader in the Senate, and by the Honorable Mr. Ross. The Leader in the Senate, in whose charge the Bill was, at p. 96 is reported:

*41 after the expiration of this year it Is decided to continue it, it can be continued simply by declaring that this Act shall continue in force.
iJ|o11 Mr. Dandurand ; Through another Act?" Hon. Sir James Lougheed: Through another Act."
A motion to make the matter plain was negatived in the Senate, not on the ground that is was desirable that the Act should be a permanent Act, but on the ground, as I read the record, that the Bill as already expressed made it clear that the Act ceased to be effective at the conclusion of the year 1918.
The Honorable Sir George Foster was in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons. At p. 196 he is reported as follows:
"This Bill is for this season only. My hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) will not need to come back next year, if the Bill does not work well, to have it repealed. Its effect ceases at the end of the season, and the duration that is given to it is in the choice of the Governor in Council; it will be proclaimed in and for the length of time that is necessary."
It would occur to me that the expressions of opinion of the honorable members in charge of Bills, in cases where the debates of Parliament can be considered (and, in view of what appears to be a common misunderstanding in both Houses, I think they ought to be in this case), are entitled to the greatest consideration. The statements of members in charge of Bills are statements which other members would naturally rely on. Over and above this, last year the Bill was a Government measure, and the interpretation placed upon it by the two members of the Cabinet having it in charge would largely represent the understanding Parliament had of the subject.
If, under the particular circumstances of this case, the ordinary question can be reversed, so that consideration is to be given not to what was intended by what Parliament has said, but what Parliament intended to say, there appears to be no doubt whatever but that Parliament understood that the Daylight Saving Act should expire with 1918.
The Board is not only a judicial but also an administrative body. The powers of the Board, under the Act, in many directions are extremely wide. Not only are they largely discretionary, but they have in certain instances been well defined to be legislative in their character.
Ought the Board now to take jurisdiction under the Daylight Saving Act, however absolute it may be in law, under circumstances which make it clear that, in so far as members of Parliament are concerned, such jurisdiction should not extend beyond 1918? I have come to the conclusion that to put the question is to answer it. Whatever the legal situation may be, under the circumstances the Board ought not to exercise that jurisdiction. This is a democratic country governed entirely through its representative assemblies. The question here, as already pointed out, does not affect rights as between parties, but an issue affecting the public as such. The wishes of Parliament, whatever those wishes may be, ought to prevail.
It is further obvious that in exercising the j>owers conferred on it by Section 5 of the Daylight Saving Act, the Board, in any event, ought to consider the action taken by the Governor in Council under section 3.
In my opinion, the Board under all the cir-[Mr. Meighen.j
cumstances, can take no action under the Daylight Saving Act of 1918.
Standard or local time is determined in' Canada by provincial law. The underlying basis is the Greenwich time, which is the mean time of the meridian of Greenwich, adopted in the first instance as the standard time by English astronomers, and is now the zero meridian of the world:
As an hour is equivalent to each fifteen degrees of longitude, the Atlantic standard meridian 60, which passes through Sydney and Glace Bay, is, Greenwich time, four hours slow.
The eastern standard meridian ?5 is slightly west of Cornwall, and between Ottawa and Montreal; the central standard meridian 90 is some thirty miles west of Fort William ; mountain standard meridian 105 passes a little to the west of Regina; and the Pacific standard meridian 120 is a short distance east of Kamloops
Each successive standard meridian is one hour later than Greenwich, and as a result the Pacific standard meridian is eight hours slow of Greenwich time. The time of each standard meridian, theoretically, governs half an hour on each side thereof.
Most of the different provincial parliaments have found it impossible to give effect to time as required by proper meridian-reading practice. No difficulty existed in Nova Scotia, which of course, is entirely within the half hour of the 60 meridian.
prince Edward Island, although also entirely within the area controlled by the sixtieth meridian, by its Act intituled "An Act to Alter the Present Method1 of Reckoning Timev" being Chapter 21 of the Acts of 1889, adopted Intercolonial standard time, which was 12 minutes and 29 seconds fast of the local time of the meridian passing through the provincial clock in the Daw Courts Building, Charlottetown.
On the representation of the Intercolonial Railway authorities and of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they had determined upon the adoption of Atlantic standard time in the operation of railways in the ,prov-ince, and in order to prevent confusion and inconvenience to the public, New Brunswick, by its Act, Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1902, adopted Atlantic standard time.
I have been unable to find any statutory provision dealing with the question in Quebec.
Ontario provision is found in Chapter 132 of the Revised Statutes, 1914.
This Aot provides that whenever an expression of time occurs in any Act or in any Rule of Court, by-law, deed, or other instrument, heretofore or hereafter enacted or executed, or where any hour or	other	period	of time isstated orally or	in writing,	or any	question asto a period of time arises, the time referred to or intended shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be " standard time ". The Act declares that as regards that part of Ontario which lies east of the meridian of 90 degrees west longitude, standard time Should be reckoned as	five	hours	behind	Greenwichtime, and as regards that part of Ontario which lies west of the meridian standard time should be reckoned as	six	hours	behind	Greenwich
time.
As the ninetieth meridian is the central standard meridian, it will be observed that under this Act the operation of the eastern standard meridian is carried half an hour farther west than it ought to, theoretically. The Act has been amended by Chapter 20 of the Acts of 1918, Section 25, as follows:

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations, and may from time to time amend, modify, suspend, repeal, and re-enact such regulations varying the reckoning of standard time as defined by subsections 2 and 3 hereof.
"(5) Such regulations may authorize the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board to fix thie time-taJbles of all railways subject to its control, and to make such other orders as ma^ be necessary for the convenient carrying out of the provisions of this Act, in so far as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the said regulations."
In Manitoba the question is covered by the Interpretation Act, Chapter 89 of the Revised statutes, 1902, Section 8, s.s. (r) reading:
" The time used upon the Canadian Pacific Railway and known as central time, being the time of the ninetieth meridian of west longitude, is hereby declared to be the standard time of this Province, and when any statute heretofore or hereafter passed refers to any particular time of day, such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
In Manitoba, again, theoretical requirements are not, therefore, followed, as the Manitoba Act carries the time of the central standard meridian through the whole Province, while, theoretically, time based on the central standard meridian ceased between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg and at a point some twenty miles west of Winnipeg.
In Saskatchewan time is governed by the Interpretation Act, Chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes, 1909, Section 6, s.s. 33, which reads: The time known as ' mountain standard time ' (being the local time at the one hundred and fifth meridian of west longitude and being seven hours behind Greenwich time) is hereby declared to be the standard time of the province ; and when any Act refers to any particular time of day such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
As a matter of fact, instead of the time of the one hundred and fifth meridian being observed throughout the province, that time commences at Broadview and Bredenbury.
The provision as to Alberta is to be found in the Interpretation Act, chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1906, section 7, s.s. 22, which reads:
44 The time known as 'mountain standard time/ being the local time at the one hundred and fifth meridian of longitude, is hereby declared to be the standard time of the province; and when any Act refers to any particular time of day such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
The provision relating to time in British Columbia is contained in the Interpretation Act, chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes of 1911, section 26, s.s (43) which reads as follows:
44 (a) Where an expression of time occurs in any Act of the Legislature, whether heretofore or hereafter passed, or in any Rule of Court, by-law, deed, or other legal instrument, whether heretofore or hereafter made, passed, or executed, or whenever any hour or other period of time is stated either orally or in writing, or whenever any question as to a period of time arises, the time referred to or intended shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be what is known as Pacific Standard time, reckoned as eight hours behind Greenwich time."
Not only is time, as theoretically correct, not being observed by legislation, but as a matter of fact time changes on the railways have not, in the past, observed the provincial enactment. To illustrate; The New Brunswick standard time is fixed by the sixtieth meridian. This carries the time of the sixtieth meridian some eighty miles west of its proper operation. The Intercolonial does not change its time in New Brunswick, but carries the time of the sixtieth meridian to Mont Joli, an appropriate divisional point in Quebec, while the Canadian Pacific, in changing its time at St. John, changes it some 70 miles east of the westerly boundary of the area theoretically controlled by the Atlantic standard meridian.
In Ontario time changes on the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways at Port Arthur and on the Grand Trunk Pacific at Armstrong, while the Ontario Statute continues the time of the meridian 75 degrees west longitude to the meridian of 90 degrees, thereby continuing that time for some 35 miles more westerly. The time of this meridian, theoretically, ceased between the meridians of the eighty-second and eighty-third degrees, at or near Woman River on the Canadian Pacific and Secord on the Grand Trunk Pacific, while, as a matter of fact, time on the railway changes approximately 40 and 55 miles east of the meridian of 90 degrees.
Without further elaboration, eastern standard and mountain) times all govern farther westward than the theoretical limit. To add one further example:	theoretically, mountain
time should stop and Pacific time commence about at Bassano instead of at Field. The points at which time changes in the past have been made are the result, not of theories but of the conditions required by and the demands of public safety and railroad operation.
In some of the provinces legislation dealing with daylight saving has been passed. British Columbia has adopted the measure for this year.
The provision in force in Prince Edward Island is as follows:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Time Saving Act.
4,2. During the prescribed period in each year in which this Act is in force the time, for general purposes in this province, shall be one hour in advance of the time as fixed by the Statute 52 Victoria, Chapter 11, Section i.
"3. This Act shall be in force in each year during such time as the Summer Time Act of Canada is in force.
444. Where any expression of time occurs in any Statute, Order in Council, Order, regulation, rule, or by-law or in any deed, time-table, notice, advertisement, or other document, the fixing of the time with respect to which is within the legislative jurisdiction of this province, the time mentioned or referred to shall be held, during the prescribed period, to be the time as fixed by this Act." Chapter 2 of the Act of 1918.
It will be noted that this provincial action is predicated on the Dominion Act, and treats it as continuing.
In Nova Scotia the former statute adopted for standard time the standard Atlantic meridian (the 60th). By the provincial statute of last year the following provisions are made:
4'2. Where an expression of time occurs in any statute, act, enactment, law, order in council, rule of court, order, by-law, rule, regulation, deed, or other instrument heretofore or hereafter enacted, executed, or made, or where any hour or other period of time is stated either orally or in writing, or any question as to a period of time arises, the time referred to or

from 10 to 30 trains per day, you will quite readily understand that in the grain rush season, when we are employing more train men than we are at the quiet season, there will be men set up as we say, men promoted from brakeman to conductor and from fireman to engineer, to take care of the additional movement, and in place of those promoted men you will bring' on green men from below. Trains ore operated either by rights given them on a time-table, or by rights given them iby the train despatcher in train orders. Passenger trains are operated under time-table rights. The freight trains more largely, or chiefly, are operated by rights and orders from the train despatohers in such language as this:-Run extra from Winnipeg to Fort Frances. Now that is all the order that the freight train may receive. That confers the right on that train to make that movement, and with time-table rights trains moving on that same subdivision, passenger trains in other words, it is up to the freight train to work his own passage according to the' timetable, the watch in his hand, and his judgment as to what speed he can make, taking into consideration the capacity of his engine, the weight of his train, the distance he has to go, and the grades he has to overcome. You can quite readily recognize that with junior men, perhaps for the first time set up as conductor and engineer, if, in addition to watching the time, they must figure out and think, is my watch American time or Canadian time; then he takes his timetable and says in regard to this particular part of the road, are these figures Canadian time or American time; and then exercises his judgment as to whether he can go 8 miles in the time between the time shown on his watch and the time on the time-table, and figure out the weight of his train as against the grade. For an inexperienced man there is considerable responsibility. As an operating man, I want to support what has been said here this morning, that I would ibe very loath indeed' to take the risk of operating under these conditions where we require that man to carry in mind at a certain section of the road all that I have said. He cannot tell by the clock. He must consider, Am I Canadian or American, is the time-table Canadian or American."
Representations were also made by different brotherhoods interested^ Mr. Laiwrenoe appeared for the I/ocomotlve Engineers. Hie was not interested in the question of daylight saving as such one way or the other, but took the stand that one time only ought to ibe observed in railway operations, and urged that for this reason daylight saving time should! be adopted on Canadian lines.
The same position was taken by Mr. Best, on behalf of the Looomotive Firemen. Mr. Best wired other officials of ihis organization as follows :-	i i ,
" Advanced time in the United States directly affects railway employees engaged in international service. No corresponding legislation in Canada. Question before Railway Commission tomorrow morning ten o'clock. Uniform time seems eseutial to safe operation. What have you to offer? "
Two ansewrs were filed:, one from the representative at Brockville, a point from which trains operate into the United States, as follows :-
" Uniform time is absolutely necessary for safe operation of trains in international service."

While the answer from the representative at Winnipeg was-
" Your wire received. Favour uniform time on all railways."
Mr. T. J. Coughlin, who appeared for the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, said:
"While we can work under two times it is not a safe proposition. It is a second chance for a man to make a mistake. Whatever you adopt let it be uniform, let there be one time."
The difficulties and dangers consequent on change of time seem to be somewhat exaggerated, the zone of danger unduly extended. Operating conditions everywhere are not affected. If it were possible to change time latitudinally as done at longitudinal points, at divisional stations with changes of crews, there is no reason why changes of time on the latitude when understood should be any more dangerous than changes of time on the longitude which we now have.	,
While the paramount issue of safe operation requires as few changes as possible, and while that result is best secured by the operation of one time in both Canadian and United States territory, the real point of danger is on subdivisions where two times are necessarily used.
The companies in their case treated the situation under the supposition that time would have to be changed whenever the border of the respective countries was passed, and this rule was applied in their evidence, for example, the Canadian Pacific has a line running from Farnham to Newport. The line here crosses at mileage 26.3 into American territory. It returns to Canadian territory at mileage 32:5, and returns again into American territory at mileage 43.4, continuing In American territory to Newport, mileage out of Farnham 58.4.
From the manner in which the case was argued, from the railway standpoint, (time would be changed as follows: From Canadian to American, from American to Canadian, and from Canadian to American in this short run. As I see it, this is really unnecessary. I cannot imagine that the slightest difficulty would be raised under the American law to the Canadian railway, the trains of which are despatched from Farnham, maintaining its Canadian time through the one division.
In like manner the difficulties that have been raised in connection with the New York Central operation running into Ottawa could easily be obviated. The movement in this case is from Tupper Lake into Ottawa. The run in Canadian territory is only some fifty miles. There are no important intermediate stations on it, and no points at which complications would arise between Canadian railways if this comparatively short run in Canada was operated on American time, thus obviating any change in time on this run.
If, as a principle of general application Parliament should determine that in this country summer time cannot be adopted and no time except that made standard by provincial Act can be used, I am of the opinion that the time at the despatching headquarters of any international division, in the interests of public safety, should apply throughout that division, for example, on the Grand Trunk line to Portland, despatched out of Montreal, Canadian time ought to he maintained to Island Pond, Vermont. Island Pond is a divisional point and is the end of the line of the Canadian crews. The time at this point would become American.

The same practice would apply to the operation of the branches to Moore's Junction, Mas-sena Springs, and Alburgh Junction. Conversely, the Boston and Maine running into Canada despatched from White River Junction would maintain American time to its Canadian terminal at Sherbrooke.
This practice could not apply, however, generally. For example, on New York Central trains running into Montreal, the time would have to be changed in transit on the one division at Adirondack Junction. The same considerations apply to the service on the Delaware & Hudson System, which connects with the Canadian Pacific at Delson Junction, and to the Canadian Pacific, Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo, and New York Central trains operating between Toronto and New York via Buffalo.
Another important movement is that of the Canadian Pacific, Montreal to St. John. The changes here, however, can be made at divisional points. In order to do this American time would have to be adopted in Canadian territory at Megantic and carried as far as McAdam Junction in New Brunswick.
In Western territory, applying the principle above stated, there would seem to be no reason why the Canadian National System should not be operated on slow time in American territory. This would necessitate no change of time whatever on that movement.
On the movements from Winnipeg south different considerations apply, and the time would have to be changed. The service running from Neche into Portage la Prairie is despatched from American territory, as is also the service from Wakopa to Brandon. If the lines maintained American time to Portage la Prairie and Brandon, no operating difficulty would result.
The Operating Department advises that in regard to Grand Trunk Pacific movements through Northgate and the Canadian Pacific movements through North Portal and Coutts, time can be changed as at a divisional point owing to the fact that the Canadian crews hand the train over to American crews at the border.
I should point out that the Canadian Pacific do not always change crews entirely at divisional points, as the train conductors are not changed at Broadview, although the engineers and firemen are; so that, as a matter of fact, conductors on this line now have to operate on two times.
The international movement is a good deal involved in British Columbia, having particular regard to the operations of the Great Northern. The Legislature of British Columbia, however, has adopted daylight saving.
Giving full effect, however, to these considerations, undoubtedly it is more dangerous to operate railways under two times than it is under a single time, although it well may be that that operation can be carried on without accidents.
Theoretically, there should be no trouble at all in changing time. It is a very simple operation. Theoretically, there ought to be no accidents at all in railway transportation. The rules, if observed, would prevent accident. This, of course, does not apply to cases where accidents occur owing to the destruction of material. A very large percentage, however, of accidents occur owing to what has been termed "failure of the human element," and the effort in railway operation is to reduce the opportunities for failure of the human element to as small a compass as possible.
With this end in view, derails and interlocked signals are insisted on at level crossings and drawbridges. These appliances involve a large expenditure. They would be entirely unnecessary if it were safe to rely on the human element. An ordinary signal would be all-sufficient as long as it was observed. For the same reason, time locks are placed on signal apparatus. Automatic block signals are installed. Double train orders are now issued as against single train orders, so as to provide a check on the mental operations of the conductors, engineers, and operators, and to afford a chance, in case of failure, for correction before disaster occurs.
In order to make this the more certain the rules require the reading of all orders the one to the other by the different officials handling them, and require conductors and engineers to advise the brakemen and the firemen of the contents of all orders received.
As a matter of general experience whenever two times are used in one municipality mistakes are made in appointments and misunderstandings occur. This doubtless is well appreciated in Ottawa owing to the fact that while Parliament observes standard time, the hotels, shops, business institutions, and the general Ottawa public observe summer time. I have no doubt this has proved a great personal inconvenience to members of Parliament owing to the fact that their hotels and the great majority of people they do business with observe summer time.
Railway employees to a large extent live in urban centres, and if railway companies do not observe the local time in effect where the railway employees live and, to a large extent, work, they would be subject to similar inconveniences. But the obligation of the railway crews to correctly observe two times is much more serious than in the- ordinary case. Mistakes in appointments owing to conflict of times while vexatious are certainly as a rule not serious. In the case of a conductor or engineer making such a mistake when different times have to be observed on the one division or run, particularly where those in charge of freight trains are obliged to calculate where an opposing passenger train running on a time different from that they are for the moment operating on should be passed, a head-on collision would in all probability result.
It is impossible for the Board to hold that the railways, in adopting the time used on the American lines, have done anything which militates against the safety of the travelling public or the employees working on the trains. On the other hand, what has been done is in ease of public safety.
I -have hitherto made no reference to the arguments made by Members of Parliament opposed to daylight saving. This is not because they are not deserving of the most careful consideration, but because they require the consideration of a question which, as I see it, this Board has no right to pass upon. The issues presented were, in substance as to whether daylight saving should be enforced against the wishes of a great number of agriculturists and some inhabitants of cities.
The Board has no jurisdiction whatever to force summer time on anybody, nor, on the other hand, to prevent its use by railways unless such use is shown to be against the comfort, convenience and safety of the travelling public. The matter of settling the time standard of the country has never been dele-



gated by Parliament to the Board. In my humble judgment it ought not to be.
It is unfortunate that the question of public safety has become interwoven with the discussion of the question; unfortunate that unless summer time be adopted in Canada, more or less danger will result to the Canadian travelling public. It is entirely open to Parliament to consider whether or not these circumstances are or are not offset by other disadvantages, or whether the disadvantages, in turn, of summer time in some parts of the country are not overweighed by the advantages of summer time in some other section.
These considerations are not open to the Board. It can only consider time as an incident to railway operation. As already pointed out, local time has never been observed by railways operating in Canada, nor has it been observed by railways operating in the United States. The different points in the United States where time now changes under American law were fixed by the exigencies of railway operation.
I find that in England the practice of the railways, before the English Act of 1880 was passed, which standardized the mean time of the Greenwich standard meridian for England and Scotland, was to run on Greenwich time and pay no attention to local time, and that in some cases clocks, as a result, had two sets of hands, the one showing Greenwich time and the other the time of the locality.
Further, there is no Dominion law giving the Board any basis on which to fix railway time If it had to be sun time it would in most instances depart entirely from local time as fixed by local legislatures, and would bring about chaos. If the railways, again, are to be run on provincial standard time, notwithstanding the exceptions made in the Provincial Acts arbitrary changes would have to be made in former railway practice of many years standing. Again this year, the local time in British Columbia is summer time and if local laws are to be adopted the change in time between British Columbia and Alberta would be two hours. Time changes of necessity are more or less of a nuisance and more or less of a danger to railway operation. The changes worked about by longitude must be put up with, but in order to obviate the necessity of a change brought about by latitude in the future it is possible that Parliament will think the matter of sufficient importance to bring up the question with the proper authorities of the Government of the United States. Daylight saving is a matter for Parliament, and the Board having no jurisdiction cannot pass upon the merits of the issue one way or the other.	.


H. L. D.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, April 11, 1919.
I agree:

[Stage Direction]
A. S. G.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
The Deputy Chief Commissioner:
The Board is vested only with the powers given it by Parliament. Its duty is to enforce the railway legislation of the Dominion Parliament, and to exercise its judicial and executive powers in the best interests of all, railway companies included.
On April 1 instant, railway companies operating in Canada advanced their time by one hour in order to operate their trains in conjunction with the American roads with which

they have considerable international traffic. The railway companies on the other side of the border take this step in obedience to the law of the land, where a Daylight Saving Act is in force for 1919.
The question now before us it to know whether, by so doing, our Canadian railway companies have done anything illegal, and whether the Board should order them to revert to the old time.
In the first place, have we a Standard Time in Canada, established by the Dominion Parliament? It appears that there is not any.
In the year 1918 the Parliament of Canada enacted a law which is called "The Daylight Saving Act," where a Standard Time is mentioned. This Standard Time mentioned by the Dominion of Canada is the "Accepted Standard Time" and does not refer to the Standard Time as adopted by the principal countries of the world.
In my opinion the Act of 1918 has passed out of existence and it goes without saying, that the jurisdiction vested in the Board by it has also expired.
Our accepted Standard Time, therefore, is the time that everybody is following all through Canada, and w'hich does not exactly correspond to the 15 degree divisions marked from the Greenwich Meridian.
This time is followed willingly be everybody. But what if the divine at the head of his congregation-I am speaking of the province of Quebec where the Legislature does not appear to have enacted as to a standard time to be observed-was to advance the time in his parish by one hour? Would anybody under his jurisdiction have the right to apply for a mandamus or any other writ to force him to follow the accepted Standard Time? I do not think so. And if the head of a simple parish is vested with such power, why should not towns and cities have the right to do the same? Why should not railway companies have the right to fix the time of their trains under the provisions of the Railway Act?
As far as railway companies are concerned, they have their own interests in mind in fixing their time, and they desire to operate their system in a practical manner. They really opened up this country, and after opening it up they adopted whatever time best suited their purposes. Their dictum was accepted by everybody, as everybody depended upon them in almost every instance of their daily life. They have seen fit to adopt an early hour because of their frequent connections with the American roads, and if I am not mistaken the great majority of the Canadian people, especially those located in the larger centres, are anxious to do likewise.
Certain portions of the country, where international correspondence is not so active, seem to have prevented the re-enactment of the law forcing everybody to follow, during the summertime, an earlier clock.
I do not think we have power to intervene in the matter. The railway companies are at liberty to adopt whatever time they choose, in accordance with the Railway Act.
In view' of the evidence given at the hearing in the matter. I, for one, would be willing to report favorably, as I think in advancing their time they have acted for the benefit of the public in general.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, April 11th. 1919.

Mr. LEiMIEUX:	Has the hon. member
for Dufferin (Mr. Best) been consulted in the matter?
Jacques Bureau: I understand the Commission to say it was a question of provincial jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: The Commission decided in these words at page 8:
Standard or local time is determined in -Canada by provincial law.
I will give you my synopsis of the judgment. They set out, first of all, that although the actual legal effect of the legislation of 1918 is such as to continue that Act in effect, clearly the intention of the sponsors of the Bill in both Houses was that it should not be in effect past the year 1918, and that as a consequence anv power vested in the Railway Commission under that Act should not be now exercisable by them. Then, they take the ground [DOT]that the general question as to the determination of standard or legal time is provincial but that the Board have jurisdiction if they are convinced that the change oi time in railway operation is necessitated by the considerations of the protection and safety of the public or of public convenience. That is to say, they take the ground that they could only interfere with the determination of the railways in this matter if that interference is necessitated by public protection and safety and public convenience. In reference to that question they come to the conclusion that public safety and convenience are both conserved by this decision of the Railway War Board and that therefore they cannot interfere as they have no jurisdiction to interfere on any other basis or principle and therefore they decline to interfere at all.


Mr. GLASS:: Are we to understand that
the .provinces have power to fix the standard time within their own jurisdiction?


Arthur Meighen: That seems to be the
opinion of the Board and, to make it clear 1 wall just state what the Ontario enactment is as outlined in this judgment:
This Act provides that whenever an expression of time occurs in any Act or in any rule of court, by-law, deed or other instrument, heretofore or hereafter enacted or executed, or where any hour or other period of time is stated either orally or in writing, or any question as to a period of time arises, the time referred to or intended shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, he held to he " standard time." The Act declares that as regards that part of Ontario which lies east of the meridian of 90 degrees, -west longitude, standard time should be reckoned as five hours behind Greenwich time,,
91 i
and as regards that part of Ontario which lies west of that Meridian, standard time should be reckoned as six hours behind Greenwich time.
That is the present Ontario statute. That is fixing the standard or local time as a general question. The Board says that this is provincial time but it goes on to say that Parliament would have the power, in so far a-s railway operation is concerned, to determine what the time shall be. The Board has only power now under the authority of the Railway Act in cases where it is deemed that its interferance is necessitated by public safety, protection or convenience in railway operation.


Samuel Francis Glass: Will the minister


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must remind the House that an adjournment motion is, according to Rule 17, not debatable. The debate has taken on proportions which are certainly not within the bounds of an undebatable motion. I would ask hon. members to reserve until some future occasion, the discussion of this question, especially until after the complete judgment, which has been placed on Hansard has been read by hon. members.


Samuel Francis Glass: Am I out of order in asking a question ?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is out of order unless he has the . unanimous consent of the House.


Samuel Francis Glass: I want to ask the minister if it was competent for this Parliament last year to pass this Act in view of that judgment?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is
the practice of Parliament to cross-examine ministers on questions of law, unless at all events some notice is given. It would appear as if the wide intent and scope of the Act, as enacted by this House, was possibly in some respects beyond the power of Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is hard on Sir George Foster.


William Duff: I would like to ask the
minister a question-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


William Duff: I -would like to suggest that before the clocks are moved forward there should he an Order in Council passed.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion ?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: All those in favour say "aye".


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: All those opposed say " no."


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: In my opinion the "ayes" have it. This House stands adjourned until Monday at 3 o'clock, Ottawa time.
House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Monday, April 14, 1919.