1922-05-01

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61, respecting Niagara Bridge Company.-Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, respecting The Canadian Transit Company.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 53, respecting Itabira Corporation Limited, and to change its name to "Itabira Corporation."-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.-Mr. Charters.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the first reading of a bill to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Root Vegetables-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) :
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the hon. member proceeds I would point out that this Bill, "An Act to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Root Vegetables," and possibly also the third bill on the Order Paper, "An Act to regulate the sale of Agricultural Fertilizers," would come within rule 50 which provides:
No bill relating to trade, or the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into this House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a committee of the whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to let these bills stand. As his other bill on the Order Paper, a bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, seeks only to amend an act, he may proceed to introduce it by way of motion.
Bill stands.

Inquiry for Returns



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Mr. TOLMIE:: Explain.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This bill provides for a rearrangement of the scale of indemnities paid upon animals slaughtered under the original act, in accordance with reductions in values. The new scale proposed will be subject to any change that the Committee of Agriculture or the House thinks it is desirable to make.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Will that
apply to swine?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
William Richard Motherwell: I move that this
bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


Hewitt Bostock: That motion can only
he made after the second reading of the bill.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: I desire to call the
attention of the Government to the delay or dereliction in bringing down returns to Orders of the House. I refer, first, to an order passed on the 24th March regarding correspondence between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Quebec Harbour Commissioners with regard to dismissals. The 24th March is now about five weeks and a half past. The correspondence, I am informed, consists of only three letters. I do not know why it takes over five weeks to have three letters copied.
The next to which I call attention is an order for production of the correspondence relating to the appointment of Sir Robert Borden as Canadian representative at the International Disarmament Conference. This was moved for by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) and amended to meet a fuller requirement by myself. While there would be more than three letters in this correspondence, yet there would be very few, sufficient perhaps to occupy an hour in the copying. That has been three weeks delayed.
Then there was an order passed on the 3rd of April for correspondence passing between the late government and Hon. E. C. Drury respecting the activities of Hon. Manning Doherty in England. That correspondence consists of two letters, but the External Affairs Department apparently has not yet had time to copy them.
There was an order passed on the 27th of March regarding the dismissal of employees at the Sorel shipyards. That would take longer in preparation, but I cannot see why it would take any length of time. There has been no return as yet.
There are others, notably the correspondence relating to the deportation of Lee Holland, the order for the production of which was passed on the 24th of March. There has been no response as yet. It is a mystery to me why more than one or two days should have intervened before that return was brought down. I am quite aware there have been orders passed by this House that required lengthy correspondence with people far away to be brought up to date, gathered in, and copied, but these to which I called attention are not in that category at all. I do not know why any one of them should have been delayed more than two or three days, and I think they should be brought down at once.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In regard to some of this correspondence, I may tell my right hon. friend that where it is marked secret or confidential it has been thought advisable and necessary to seek permission from the British Government to bring down such parts as the British Government are par ties to. I refer now particularly to the correspondence relating to the appointment of Sir Robert Borden as representative at Washington.


Arthur Meighen: That is the only instance.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps my right hon. friend will remember in that connection that there was also correspondence with General Smuts of South Africa: the Government thought it advisable to communicate with General Smuts before bringing down that particular correspondence. These cables have occasioned delay, but I am happy to be able to inform my right hon. friend that the Government has permission to bring down practically all the correspondence. There are one or two communications that my right hon.
Questions

friend would probably like to see before they are placed upon the table. If so I would be glad to let him see them and he can exercise his own judgment as to whether they should be brought down; but in the opinion of the Government all the correspondence for which permission has been given should be brought down.
As to the other correspondence: It has been a little difficult to locate some of the communications which have been asked for. It is quite true, as my right hon. friend has said, that this correspondence ought to be available; but in making inquiries from the different departments we have been unable on two or three occasions to locate any of the correspondence. So far as correspondence in the Department of External Affairs is concerned, some of it has come to light one week, and some of it two or three weeks later. Of course an incoming minister has to rely on the officials of the department to get for him all the information that is required, if it is to be found. I will have inquiry made into all the cases my right hon. friend has mentioned, and if there is no special reason for delay the correspondence will be brought down immediately.


Arthur Meighen: I might mention the correspondence as regards the Quebec Harbour Commission. That has all taken place under the present Government, and there should be no difficulty in getting it.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: I thought this correspondence had already been tabled. My right hon. friend refers to letters exchanged between the Harbour Commission and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I understand?


Arthur Meighen: Letters to the Harbour Commissioners.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend mentioned the word "dismissal." There were no dismissals. As far as the Sorel shipyards are concerned, a question was asked in the House and answered. I do not know that any correspondence was asked for in that connection.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say "correspondence"; I said there was a motion for a return passed on the 27th of March in regard to the dismissal of employees at the Sorel shipyards. The return has not been brought down. The minister says there was no dismissal of any of the Quebec Har-

bour Commission. I hope he will not reaffirm that, unless he says that a request for resignation is not a "dismissal."


Ernest Lapointe: I think there is quite a difference between the two modes of proceeding. I know my right hon. friend was accustomed to the first mode during his time; we have not gone so far.


Arthur Meighen: When I do a thing I like to do it directly.


John Warwick King: As regards the correspondence respecting the appointment of Sir Robert Borden I have it under my hand. I am quite prepared to lay it on the table at once unless my right hon. friend wishes it to stand. If he wishes to look it over and withhold any of it I shall hand it over to him to do so.


Arthur Meighen: I know of no' permanently confidential correspondence at all with which I was concerned in regard to the appointment, although there may have been some. I know of no reason why it should not be laid on the table. The hon. gentleman has read the correspondence, and therefore he is in a position to know whether -there are letters of a confidential character which should be still withheld.


John Warwick King: I see no reason why the correspondence should not be laid on the table.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has
read it, and I have not.


John Warwick King: I am giving
my right hon. friend the alternative. If he wishes to read it, I will give him the opportunity; if he does not, I will lay it on the table.


Arthur Meighen: I have no request to
make, because I remember nothing concerning it. My hon. friend must exercise bis judgment and do as he thinks fit.



QUESTIONS '

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. PERE:
1.	Are Canadian navigation Companies doing business in Canadian waters compelled to comply with the terms of the Lavergne Act?
2.	If so, why does the Canada Steamship Company, in many of its boats, omit to publish in both languages the advice or instructions, as to how to use life saving equipment?

Questions
Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	There is no legislation of the Parliament of Canada known as the Lavergne Act.
2.	No information.


CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
Mr. FONTAINE:: Why are many appeals regarding the Civil Service classification in the Post Office Department still in abeyance, and when will the results of such appeals be given?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART:: 1.	Geo. P. Cockburn.
2.	Since February, 1904; $1,920 per annum.


MILITIA EXPENDITURE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What were the total expenditures on maintenance of the Militia of Canada for each of the years 1S90 to 1913?
2.	What were the expenditures on the same for the fiscal years 1919-1920-1921?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: All personal appeals in the Post Office Department have been finally disposed of with the exception of a small number of cases in the Money Order Branch which were reinvestigated at the request of the department to determine if any error had been made in the final decision reached by the Trial Board in the original investigation. The supplementary reports referring to these are now before the Board of Commissioners and it is expected that they will be finally disposed of at an early date.



SUDBURY MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. LAPIERRE:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mails from the Algoma Eastern Station to the Post Office, in Sudbury, Ontario?
2.	How much is being paid for the above service, and was the lowest tender accepted?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Charles Penny.
2.	$300 per annum, this being the only tender received.



STURGEON FALLS POSTMASTER

Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. The total expenditures for Militia Services, as shown in the Auditor General's report for the fiscal years 1889-90 to 1912-13, including Civil Government, were:
Year.
Militia Votes.
1889-1890.. ..	. ..$1,334,426	09
1890-1891.. ..		15
1S91-1S92			59
1892-1893.. ..		76
1893-1894 			34
1S94-1S95			72
1895-1896 		. . . 2,193,372	95
1896-1897			00
1897-189S..	. . . 1,746,730	60
1898-1899.. ..		17
1899-1900.. ..		25
1900-1901 			00
1901-1902.. .	[DOT] .. 2,669,038	00
1902-1903.. ..		00
1903-1904.. ..		00
1904-1905.. ..		00
1905-1906..		00
1906-1907.. ..		00*
1907-1908.. ..	[DOT] . . 6,871,397	00
1908-1909.. ..		00
1909-1910..		00
1910-1911.. ..		00
1911-1912.. ..		00
1912-1913			00
Includes 9 months only.	The date for closing	
accounts was changed this year from June 30th to March 31st.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: 1.	Who is the Postmaster at Sturgeon Falls, Ontario?
2.	How long has he held this position, and what salary does 'he receive?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	J. D. Cockburn.
2.	Since 15th November, 1884. Salary and allowances, $4,146.45.
2. The total expenditures for Militia Services, as shown in the Auditor General's reports for the fiscal years 1918-19 to 1920-21, including Civil Government, were:
1918-	1919	$3,649,330	0v1919-	1920	
4,844,428	001920-	1921	10,163,887	00



MILITIA CAMPS


Mr. LAPIERRE:: 1.	Who is the present Indian Agent at Sturgeon FaHls, Ontario?
2.	How long has he held such office, and what remuneration does he receive?


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What annual camps were held by the Militia Department in Ontario in the year 1921?
2.	What units attended each of these camps?
3.	What was the total number of all ranks composing each unit in camp?
Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1, 2 and 3.
Camp
Cove Rifle Range, London. Ont. Carling Heights, London, Ont...
Wiarton, Ont	
Niagara Camp, Ont
Niagara Camp, Ont Petawawa	
Peterborough Barriefield...
Rockcliffe.
Belleville	
Cobourg	
Firing Detachments only. 
3
Unit
Strength All Ranks
. The Royal Canadian Regiment	
. The Royal Canadian Regiment	
1st Hussars	
12th Battery, C.F.A	
1st Infantry Brigade Headquarters	
The Middlesex Light Infantry	
The Bruce Regiment	
The Huron Regiment	
No. 15 Field Ambulance	
No. 16 Company C.A.S.C	
9th Grey's Horse	
Camp Staff	
Royal Canadian Dragoons (attached Camp Staff)...
Royal Canadian Regiment-"B" Company	
Royal Canadian Machine Gun Brigade	
Royal Canadian Engineers	
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps	
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps	
Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps	
Royal Canadian Army Veterinary Corps	
1st Mounted Brigade, Brigade Staff	
Governor General's Body Guard	
2nd Dragoons	
Ontario Mounted Rifles	
1st Composite Infantry Brigade, Brigade Staff..
The York Rangers	
The Grey Regiment	
The Simcoe Foresters	
The Peel Regiment	
The Hal ton Rifles	
The Haldimand Rifles	
The Lincoln and Welland Regiment	
Details-Attached Camp Staff	
Canadian Army Service Corps	
No. 2 Field Ambulance	
Canadian Postal Corps	
Headquarters, Royal Canadan Artillery	
Headquarters, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery...
"A" Battery- Royal Canadian Horse Artillery....
"B" Battery, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery....
No. 3 (H) Battery, Royal Canadian Garrison Artillery	
*4th Battery, C.F.A	
*32nd Battery, C.F.A	
[DOT]1st Battery, C.F.A	
[DOT]2nd Battery, C.F.A	
*34th Battery, C.F.A	
[DOT]2nd (H) Battery, C.A	
[DOT]3rd Battery, C.F.A	
3rd P. W. C. Dragoons	
4th Battery, C.F.A	
Canadian Army Service Corps	
4th Hussars	
9th Brigade- ( F.A.,-Headquarters	
3rd Battery, C.F.A	
32nd Battery, C.F.A	
Canadian Army Service Corps	
Princess Louise Dragoon Guards	
1st Brigade, C.F.A., Headquarters	
1st Battery, C.F.A	
2nd Battery, C.F.A	
The Governor General's Foot Guards	
The Ottawa Regiment	
Canadian Army Service Corps	
34th Battery, C.F.A	
Canadian Army Service Corps	
2nd (H) Battery, C.A	
34
50 8
246
30
246
65 8
73
26
3
7
247 243 202
410
298
254
167 264
53
2
56
66
36
36
36
30
51 1
7
83
196
270
2
1

Questions
MILITIA DRILL TRAINING Mr. PREVOST:
1.	What has been the yearly expenditure for drill training, of Canadian militia, in each
of the provinces of the Dominion, from 1911 to the end of the fiscal year 1921?
2.	Where are the various armouries in the province of Quebec located?


George Perry Graham: 



EXPENDITURE BY PROVINCES FOR ANNUAL DRILL, DURING THE YEARS SPECIFIED

[Stage Direction]
Province	1911-12	1912-13	1913-14	1914-15	1919-20	1920-21Ontario	
Quebec	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	$ cts. 549,408 46 195,523 79 123,581 14 76,742 71 13,038 51 106,188 19 5,914 89 54,637 84 37,718 70 6,352 84	$ cts. 925,522 83 221,041 06 125,976 43 74,368 29 19,360 65 187,970 43 9,314 62 85,602 49 60,407 14 9,693-25	$ cts. 778,116 90 287,347 20 251,207 71 25,147 24 21,532 66 221,866 50 18,309 27 104,407 55 73,537 86 23,941 08	$ cts. 882,327 31 239,368 94 64,700 49 116,708 13 26,453 39 298,542 38 16,310 76 108,782 44 99,658 42 23,092 10	$ cts. 18,176 39 4,603 88 2,053 12 3,699 29	$ cts. 235,392 49 85,582 72 13,426 23 20,302 44 1,339 65 21,645 10 17,744 16 35,553 40 23,058 26 26,982 68Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	4,012 50 590 00 441 71 482 10	
1,169,107 07	1,719,257 19	1,805,413 97	1,875,944 36	34,058 99	481,027 13
Note.-Owing to the war there were no Camps and no funds provided for the years 1915-16 to 1918-19 nclusive.
2. Government Owned Armouries Montreal, P. Que., 65 Craig street. Montreal, P. Que., 101 Esplanade. Montreal, P. Que., 37 Cathcart street. Montreal, P. Que., 200 Pine street. Montreal, P. Que., 429 Bleury street. Montreal, P. Que., Wellington street. Sherbrooke, P. Que., William street. Sherbrooke, P. Que., Belvidere street. St. Hyacinthe, Que.
Joliette, Que.
Coaticook, Que.
Three Rivers, Que.
Magog, Que.
Quebec, Que., Grand Allee.
Levis, Que., St. David and St. Antoine streets.
Fraserville, Que.
Rimouski, Que.
Montmagny, Que.
Beauport, Que.
Bury, Que.
Rented
Montreal, P. Que., 91 Stanley street. Montreal, P. Que., 23 Mance street. Montreal, P. Que., 1215 Green avenue. Verdun, Que., No. 10 Fire Hall.
Granby, Que.
Lachute, Que.

Mr. PREVOST:: What has been the yearly expenditure of the Department of Militia and Defence from 1911 to the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922?


George Perry Graham: The expenditure of the Department of Militia and Defence exclusive of war expenditure for the fiscal years 1910-11 to 1921-22, according to the Auditor General's Reports, is as follows:-
1910- 11	$ 7,067,723.00
1911-	12	
7,794,671.001912-	13	
10,342,779.001913-	14	
12,082,311.001914-	15	
11,862,770.001915-	16	
5,399,664.001916-	17	
4,495,187.001917-	18	
4,100,037.001918-	19	
3,649,330.001919-	20	
4,846,407.001920-	21	
10,163,887.001921-	22	
10,796,245.00



GRAND RIVER BRIDGE

Mr. SENN:: 1.	What repairs were planned by the engineers
of the Public Works Department last year, to be undertaken on the Grand River bridge, at York, Ontario?	.
2.	What was the estimated cost of said repairs?


John Warwick King: 1 and 2. The county of Haldimand was notified by letter dated February 18, 1922, that the Public Works Department did not intend to make any further expenditure on the Grand River bridge at York, Ontario, for the reason that this bridge is not one that should be maintained by the federal Government. The district engineer made an examination of the bridge and reported that, in his opinion, the replacement of the timber trestle for a length of 132 feet, ap-
Questions

proximately, with a reinforced concrete trestle, at an estimated cost of $6,500, was required.



WAR CLAIMS

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What are the detailed items for the vote $7,380,000 brought down in the estimates of
1922-1923 under number three hundred and seventy-six?


George Perry Graham: Adjustment of War Claims
Pay and Allowances	*
Separation Allowance	
War Service Gratuities .. .. Printing and Stationery . . .. Postage on Medals, Records,
etc	
Ordnance Service-Repairs to Rifles and Machine Guns
from Overseas	
Engineer Services and Works
War Employees	
Transport and Travelling
(Land)	
Transport and Travelling
(Ocean)	
Historical Section	
Pay and Allowance Board . .
Camp Borden Site	
Medals	
Difference in Exchange

Redemption at par	
Miscellaneous and Unforeseen Expenditures	
192.000.	00
158.000.	00
346.000.	00 26,000.00
60,000.00
6,000.00
30.000.	00
265.000.	00
120.000.	00
4,555,000.00
8,000.00
2,500.00
20.000.	00
535.000.	00
86,500.00
470.000.	00

Battlefield Memorials:
(To he included in adjustment of War Claims Estimate in accordance with Order in Council No. 3944, dated 17th October, 1921) ..	500,000.00

late war up to the present date, and on what dates were the said amounts advanced?
2.	How much, if any, has the Government of Canada received as reimbursement for these advances?
3.	Was this reimbursement made in cash or in kind?
4.	If in kind, what articles were received, and of what value?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to operate the greater production farms on the Blackfoot Indian Reserve at Gleichen, Alberta, this year?
2.	If not, how does the Government intend disposing of them?
3.	Will proper precautions be taken to prevent the country being seeded with weeds from these neglected farms?
4.	How many acres were broken by the Government on these farms?
5.	What was the cost per acre?
6.	From whom, at what place, and at what price was the seed wheat for these farms purchased?
7.	From whom, at what point, and at what price, were the feed oats purchased during the first and second year of operation?
8.	What was the average yield each year of operation?
9.	What was the net price received per bushel for the wheat grown?
10.	To whom was this wheat sold?
11.	What was the net profit per acre each year?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the employees of the Department of Customs and Excise, Montreal ?
2.	What salary is paid to each of said employees?
3.	What were the respective dates of .employment of said employees?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the employees of the Montreal Post Office?
2.	What were the respective dates of employment of said persons?
3.	What is the salary of each of the said employees?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the persons employed in the Income Tax Office at Montreal?
2.	What is the salary, and the date of appointment of each of said employees?



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the question being called:
Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Under what conditions and regulations are Japanese immigrants admitted into Canada?
2.	In what way are the rights of Canadians in Japan limited as to ownership of land, franchise, mercantile pursuits, Ashing, shipping (coastwise and foreign), mining, agriculture, and other pursuits and such as are engaged in by Japanese in Canada?
3.	What is the number of Japanese immigrants that have entered Canada yearly in each of the ten years ending March 31, 1922?
4.	How many Japanese have left Canada for Japan, each year, during the same period?
5.	How many Japanese have returned to Canada from Japan each year during the same period?


John Warwick King: Stands.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Could the hon. minister tell me when I may expect an answer? I would like the information as soon as possible as the matter will come up later.


John Warwick King: I might say, in regard to this question as to certain rights of Canadians who obtain lands in Japan, that has necessarily been the subject of communication with the Foreign office in the Old Country, and we had some difficulty in getting replies which would enable us to make the returns my hon. friend is looking for, but I shall do the best I can to get the information as soon as possible.
MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION Mr. ARCHAMBAULT moved
For return showing a list of the names of the permanent employees of the Montreal Harbour Commission, the salary of each, date of appointment and salary on appointment, age, occupation, and the respective previous occupations of said employees.


Ernest Lapointe: This motion asks for the information which is contained in the answer to question No. 9, by Mr. Denis (St. Denis). I suppose the question might be dropped, and we will adopt this motion?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MACLEAN (Prince) :: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, contracts, tenders and other documents, relating to the employment or use of the tug *"Pekin", and any other tug or tugs hired or used by the Government in connection with the Government dredges, in and around Prince Edward Island, from June, 1911, to March 31, 1922,


Joseph Archambault: For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence and reports exchanged directly between the Health Department of Canada and J. A. Foisy, Dominion Drug and Chemical Company, and the North Eastern Drug Chemical, Limited, of Montreal, regarding narcotics reports in the years 1919-20-21, and principals reports made by the Mounted Police.


Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa, and the Officers of the said department at Montreal, and the Civil Service Commission, regarding the appointment of Mr. Taylor as Assistant Superintendent at Montreal Post Office.



TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the Notice of Motion:
Mr ARCHAMBAULT:: For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence and reports exchanged directly between the Health Department of Canada and J. A. Foisy, Dominion Drug and Chemical Company, and the North Eastern Drug Chemical, Limited, of Montreal, regarding narcotics reports in the years 1919-20-21, and principally reports made by the Mounted Police.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health) :: Mr. Speaker, reading over this motion, I am somewhat doubtful as to the advisability of rendering public some of the reports made by the Mounted Police in connection with the traffic in narcotics in Canada. For that reason, until I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with officials of my department, I would request that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



FINANCIAL CREDIT

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House a representative Parliamentary Committee should be appointed to investigate the basis, the function and the control of financial credit, and the relation of credit to the industrial problems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I trust I may be permitted what may seem for a moment to be a digression, but which I consider to be a reasonable avenue of approach to my theme. I think it will be agreed that what we call the science of government trails far behind other sciences to-day, and this is due chiefly to its lack of facilities for experimentation. Not only are no means provided for scientific inquiry and experimentation with a view to improvement; but party government, as it has been conducted in the past, practically prohibits such. For instance, no allowance whatever is made for mistakes on the part of either

Financial Credit

power to produce a great deal more than it is producing to-day if it were desired. It has the plant, the natural resources and the workmen; and it has need or demand for consumable goods. Consequently, if we accept the latter theory of credit, this country's credit is very excellent.
Those who control credit-which I claim is community power, and which to-day is in the hands of individuals-dictate, for instance, whether a capitalist shall produce or shall not produce. They dictate what we shall and shall not produce, and they also control the purchasing power of the nation. The purchasing power is affected very materially by such acts as the creation of new money and the recalling of loans, and these result in stopping the wheels of industry. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Brussels Conference, held some two years ago, when the financiers of the world were in session. Professor Gustave Cassels, who is now one of the representatives at Genoa, said of that conference that it had been deliberately brought about by the leaders of finance in order to increase the value of money. They wanted to bring about deflation so that money might increase in value, and the average citizen or consumer would be called upon to pay the difference, the financiers not being affected by the alteration.
In conclusion I desire to make a suggestion. Hon. members may not agree with me, but I ask them, at any rate, to consider what I have to say as a possibility. I think it is possible that we could handle our own credit and lend it to ourselves, thus becoming a lending rather than a borrowing nation. Let me instance what I mean. I understand that we have just floated $100,000,000 worth of bonds in the United States. Now, what is behind that issue? Is not the real wealth of Canada back of it? If the real wealth of Canada be considered by Wall Street as being sufficient security for that loan, why should not Canada consider that is is sufficient for her own credit and lend the money to herself? Moreover, if we had lent ourselves this money, we should save, to begin with, $2,500,000, which these brokers earned by one-half of a day's work. That, I suggest, is rather a high-wage. Those of us who have been speaking about the high wages paid workmen will surely have something to say about paying two and a half million dollars for a half day's work in order that we may obtain a loan.

Now, are there no means by which we can issue our own credit on the strength of our own real wealth, thus cutting out brokers' commissions and the interest that we have to pay? That is one of the questions which, I would suggest, is necessary to be investigated by such a committee as this resolution calls for. If there is no better way than that which we are following now, we shall set our teeth and go on to the -bitter end, dying gamely; but if there is any better way, it is only right that we should seek until we find it; and that is really all that my resolution calls for.
As I have said, I am not going to enter into a detailed discussion of a subject that I have been informed from many sources Parliament has no ears to listen to, even if I had the ability to do so. I merely put forward this resolution that a committee be appointed in order that they may collect the information necessary and bring it before the House, for it is of vital importance that we should be,fully seized of all information on the subject before we deal with our credit system further, as I believe we shall have to next session.
In conclusion, let me say that as far as I am aware there is no good reason why this resolution should not pass. Here are the reasons that I can think of why it should not pass:
In the first place, this resolution should not pass if we are already in possession of all the knowledge it is possible to have of the credit system which we as a Parliament have to do with, and which we delegate to the banks to handle.
In the second place, this resolution should not pass if this Parliament has nothing at all to do with the credit system. But I think we are very intimately interested in the subject when we are dealing in loans involving hundreds of millions of dollars, and when we place this great power in the hands of our banks by a vote of this House.
In the third place, this resolution should not be passed if we can deal with our banking system to better advantage without any knowledge of our credit system.
Those are reasons why we should not pass this resolution; there are no others. If we are sincere, as I believe we are, we want to get full knowledge of all subjects that come before this House. If we consider our credit system as fundamental to industry, if we believe that our credit is the actual wealth of Canada, if we believe

St. John and. Quebec Railway
that this community interest should not be controlled by any individual or clique, then it is necessary that we get all available information to discover if it is not possible to issue all credit to ourselves and so save interest, and thus be able tc get enough new money, if you will, to run the business of Canada without those periods of inflation with their corresponding periods of deflation incident to the present system when new money is created.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I would ask the hon. member to allow his motion to stand. I do not know that the Minister of Finance has any objection whatever to the resolution, but I should like him to have an opportunity of expressing his views upon it. Perhaps my hon. friend would be agreeable to the resolution going over until the minister's return?


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am quite agreeable.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the debate was adjourned.



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY PROPOSED CONNECTION WITH THE EASTERN MAINE RAILWAY

Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that a branch line connecting the St. John and Quebec railway with the Eastern Maine railway be built as soon as financial conditions permit.
He said: [DOT] Mr. Speaker, my object in moving this resolution is to point out to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) and to the House a means of cutting down the operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways in the maritime provinces. I had this matter up with the then Minister of Railways in 1920, when I arranged a meeting between him, the president of the Eastern Maine Railway and the president of the St. John and Quebec Railway with a view to forwarding this proposition. The minister was very favourably inclined towards the project, in fact, later when it was discussed on the railway estimates, he expressed himself in these words, which will be found at page 3376 of Hansard, 1920.
Mr. J. D. Reid: I am familiar with the proposal to which my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) refers. About four years ago it was suggested that the Government should build that connecting line; it was shown that its construction
would residt in a great saving in the matter of traffic originating in the lower province and destined to the Eastern States. On account of the financial situation, action was delayed. There is no doubt that the construction of this line should be carried out.
A little further on he said:
I have no doubt at all that when we get back to normal conditions the Government will take up a scheme such as the one suggested and deal with these matters in the way that it is practically understood by the department and the railway officials that they should be carried out.
At the present time the Dominion Government is operating the St. John 4 p.m. and Quebec Railway under lease from the provincial government of New Brunswick. The province guaranteed the bonds for the construction of this road by the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, but that company having failed to carry the road to completion, the provincial government took the work over and to-day practically owns the line.
As I stated on a previous occasion, under the agreement between the provincial and Dominion governments it was provided that as the road was built in twenty-mile sections, the Dominion government should take it over and operate it as part of the Canadian National Railways. This has been done, something in the neighborhood of 160 miles having been constructed to date. For the year ending December 31, 1920, the operating deficit on this railway was $346,015.49. The agreement between the Dominion and provincial governments provides that the Dominion government shall have 60 per cent of the gross earnings to pay operating expenses, the other 40 per cent going to the province of New Brunswick to pay interest on the cost of construction. The 40 per cent of the gross earnings received by the province has failed to pay interest on the construction cost by $220,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the House may say: Well, this is not a very good showing on which to base a request that the Dominion government build a further extension of this road. But the reason for the deficit is that the road has never been completed as first contemplated. As originally planned the road was to run from St. John to Grand Falls, there to connect with the Transcontinental. Only part of that construction has been completed, there being still about 40 miles running from Centreville to Grand Falls to be built. On approaching the provincial government of New Brunswick at the head of a delegation some two years ago to see what promise we could get for

St. John and Quebec Railway
the completion of this northern section, we were informed that unless this connecting link between the St. John and Quebec Railway and the Eastern Maine Railway were built it would not be possible for the province to undertake the construction of the balance of the road as originally planned.
If the Government road is given no connection with the Eastern Maine Railway, then in all traffic to the United States we are confined to the Canadian Pacific. Now, there are two facts to be considered. The first is that two-thirds of the traffic which originates on the Canadian National Railways in the maritime provinces is destined to the United States; the second is that shipping to the United States by the Canadian Pacific we have to send our products over three railways. Every hon. member who has had any shipping experience knows that you pay a much higher freight rate to ship over two roads to a given point than over one, and if we have to ship over three roads, it makes it even more expensive. I believe it has been estimated that, due to this fact, we pay in excess freight yearly $100,000. The proposed link of railway I am advocating today is estimated to cost $1,000,000. Therefore, the saving in freight alone would pay for this piece of road in ten years. More than that, if this link is built it will enable the provincial government to construct the balance of the Quebec and St. John railway running north, which will open up that country and provide railway facilities for possibly the best section of New Brunswick, a section that has been settled a long time with the prospect of this road coming in to give them transportation facilities at a much earlier date than this.
This road was projected before the war. You will remember that last year the charter granting a subsidy of $6,400 a mile by the Dominion government was extended two years. It would have expired on 31 December last, but it was extended by this House on the request of the premier of New Brunswick. In the discussion that took place at that time it was shown why this road had not been constructed sooner. It was under construction when the war broke out. The Dominion government had agreed not only to give a subsidy of $6,400 a mile for every mile of this road that was completed, but it had also promised to build three very expensive bridges that would be necessary on this road, one on the northern section and two on the southern. Owing to war conditions and the fact that rail-

way material had advanced in price very rapidly, that labour had also advanced, and money was dear, this construction was not gone on with. The federal government at that time was under jure as great an obligation with regard to the completion of this road, so far as the building of bridges and a subsidy of $6,400 per mile was concerned, as the provincial government. The subsidy for the bridges has lapsed, and has not been renewed, but the subsidy of $6,400 per mile was renewed by this House last year. Now, in order to make it possible for the province to complete this road and for the government railways to operate economically, it is very necessary that the section I am advocating to-day should be built. At the present time the Eastern Maine Railway have a road surveyed, and I believe that construction is taking place, beginning this month from Houlton to Bancroft, Maine. The Eastern Maine Railway Company have agreed to build a spur from that road to the boundary line to meet the extension proposed by me to-day. They came to that agreement with the Minister of Railways [DOT]vo years ago, and they even agreed that if the Dominion government would build its section in 1921, they would build theirs in 1920, for the Minister of Railways, at that time Hon. Mr. Reid, asked these people, "What guarantee have we that you will build your end if we will build ours?" Hon. Mr. Reid promised the delegation, in my presence, that if he was Minister of Railways in 1921, he would bring in a bill for an appropriation to build this 22 miles of road. Last year, due to the heavy railway deficits, the stringency of the money market, and other conditions, the government did not see fit to go on with that work, although I think they could very well have done it at that time. To-day I think we are back pretty nearly to normal conditions so far as railroad construction is concerned. The price of labour and material has gone down, and I think the members of this House will agree that unemployment never was so acute as it is now. The building of this section would not only provide employment for the unemployed in the eastern provinces but, as I think I have clearly shown, though it would mean an initial outlay by the Government, it would pay for itself in ten years in the saving in freight alone, and the St. John and Quebec railway, the part now built and the balance that will be constructed if the section I am advocating is gone on with, instead of being a liability to the

St. John and Quebec Railway
Dominion government and the province of over half a million dollars a year, would become the best paying railway in eastern Canada, due to the fact that all the freight originating on the whole government system in the maritime provinces and destined for the United States would be routed over the St. John and Quebec Railway to get to this outlet. That would make the St. John and Quebec railway, instead of a deficit producer a revenue producer. I do not wish to take up the time of the House at any greater length, but I would urge upon the minister the advisability of the proposition I am putting before him at the present time.
Mr. RICHARD B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) : I do not wish to delay the House, but as this proposed road would start and end in my constituency, I should like to give the House the benefit of my views on the matter. This is not a new proposal by any means. I have no doubt that had it not been for the war this piece of railway construction would have been carried out by the government. The idea of building this section dates back to 1915, when Mr. Gutelius was the general manager of the Canadian Government railway lines. He was the originator of the idea, and it appealed to him because he felt the necessity of having an independent outlet for the Government lines into the New England states in order not to be obliged to turn over to the Canadian Pacific railway all the traffic originating on the government roads in the maritime ,provinces to reach the Boston and Maine railroad and through it to be distributed to the New England states.
I quite appreciate that this is not a very favourable time to ask the Government to embark on any new railway proposals, but I would suggest to the Minister of Railways that in the files of his department he will find, I am sure, data which will well repay his perusal, and which will, I believe, fortify and justify him when the time comes, as I have no doubt it will if he remains in power, in asking Parliament to build this branch line so that the Government railways may have an independent outlet into the New England states. 1. am not at all sure that it should be done through the Eastern Maine Railroad Company which has been referred to by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). I hope that the company will be able to carry out its proposals, but I have very grave doubts as to their financial ability to do so. However, I would not like anything I
say in that connection to prejudice the mind of the minister against that particular company.
As to the principle involved, and as to the benefits that would be derived by the Government railways, I do not think there are any two opinions. While I have no doubt the minister will not be able to do anything this year, I would suggest to him that this is one of the construction proposals that he might well keep before hire is any construction programme that is undertaken in the immediate future. I arc sure that he would find the building of this section beneficial from a purely business standpoint to the department over which he presides.


Hon. W. C. KENNEDY (Minister of Railways) :: As my hon. friends have said, this matter has been before the House on former occasions. I am informed by the board of directors of the Canadian National railways that they have investigated this project, and while they are willing to admit that from the standpoint of interchange of traffic there is much that might be said in favour of further construction, yet they do not feel that the time is opportune to go on with it at the present time.
There was another point brought out by the mover of the resolution. The board is called upon to decide which of the railroads mentioned by my hon. friend would be the proper line to make connection with. As I understand there are five possible connections with two different railroads, and for the management of the National railways, or for the House, to commit themselves for the present time to either one might prejudice their views when they come to definitely decide which would be in the interset of the Canadian National lines. For the reason I think my hon. friend will agree that it is perhaps not desirable that we should state definitely at the present time with which line the connection should be made. However, I can assure my hon. friend that we will take the earliest opportunity of again bringing the matter before the attention of the Board of Directors. The attention of the board will be directed to what my hon. friend has said this afternoon, and I am sure that when the time is opportune they will give the matter every consideration. Under the circumstances I would therefore ask my hon. friend to withdraw the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The mover of the resolution is now about to exercise his right to close the debate. If any other hon. member wishes to speak he should do so now.

St. John and Quebec Railway


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I merely want to assure the Minister of Railways that I hold no brief for the Eastern Maine Railway Company, and I realize the force of what my hon. friend for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has said. In this connection, Sir, it might be well if the Eastern Maine Company were willing to give the undertaking they did two years ago that they would build their section of the line this summer, and that our Government would agree to build theirs next summer. I may say further that I am not particular as to which road our government system makes connection with, so long as we get an outlet to the United States. So long as we can get connection with some road leading immediately to the centre of the eastern states, so that we may get an outlet for our traffic, I am not particular which road they connect up with.
I am pleased with the statement of the Minister of Railways although I cannot help recalling the promise I had from his predecessor both last year and the year before. We now have a new Minister of Railways and I would urge that he should give us something stronger than the mere assurance that the matter will be given due consideration. I would like the minister to give us an assurance that if the Eastern Maine, or any other railway company, is willing to build its share of the connection this year our Government would build our share next year-I think he might well go that far. I repeat that I am not particular which of the American roads he connects with; I certainly would prefer to leave that to the judgment of the board of management of the National Railways because they are in a much better position to decide what is feasible than I am. We desire this connection not only because of the outlet it will give to the centres of the eastern states but also because it will open up a splendid tract of country in our own province to the north which has been settled to some extent owing to the prospect of this road coming in at an early date.
I hope the minister will give an assurance that he will connect with an American road which will provide the necessary facilities.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What would be the mileage involved?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It would be twenty-two miles by the route called for under the resolution. A road built up through the valley of the St. John would run through an easy piece of country, I under-

stand. I do not know what the mileage involved by the other proposed connections would be.


William Costello Kennedy: I think my hon.
friend will agree with me that in so far as recommending the road being built this year, or next year, it is the duty of the Board of Directors of the National Railways to advise the minister rather than for the minister to advise the directors of the National Railways. I am not in the position to say to these gentlemen that this or that road should be built; it is their duty to recommend to the Government that a particular road should be built in the interest of the National system.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask the minister-


Hewitt Bostock: The debate is closed. Is is the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his motion?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked for the withdrawal of the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the Minister of Railays asked the hon. member to withdraw it.


William Costello Kennedy: I did ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend asked me, but I did not agree. If I may be allowed to say so, I do not think it is advisable to withdraw motions like this. The resolution only expresses the hope that the Government will take this matter into consideration and the minister has already stated that it will do so.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost on division.
Resolution declared lost on division.



FEDERAL ELECTIONS ACT

Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the fact that the present federal Elections Act disfranchises a person who moves his residence from one electoral district to another during the two months previous to the issuing of writs for an election, action should be taken to amend said Elections Act, Article twenty-nine, paragraph C, so as to preserve the right of said elector to vote either in one or the other electoral district.

Elections Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it necessary to support this resolution with a long speech. Its purpose is so evident that it will suffice, I am sure, to bring it to the attention of the Government and the House to ensure its adoption. It deals with an obvious omission in the present federal Elections Act which seems to have escaped the attention of the last Parliament, but which the practice of the general elections of 1921 has made very clear, and demonstrated to be very annoying. According to the provisions of the present electoral law, adopted in 1920, a person who happens to move his residence during the two months preceding the issuing of writs is virtually disfranchised, and the law offers no way to reserve his right to vote. At least this is the condition that obtains in provinces, like Quebec, where new lists require to be prepared at every election. If you turn to paragraph 29 of that electoral law you will find that the qualifications for an elector are: (a) Must be a British subject by birth or naturalization; (b) Must be of the full age of twenty-one years; and (c) Must have "ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election." That seems a very simple provision, but you will understand at once, Mr. Speaker, that a person who happens to move during that period of two months cannot qualify in the new riding to which he has transferred his residence because he has not lived there two months. On the other hand he cannot safeguard his right to vote in the old riding either, because he has not been there during the required full period before the issuance of the writs.
This applies both to the rural constituencies and city ridings, but cases which are very scarce in the rural parts of the country can be very numerous in city ridings. The last election was held on 6th December, and writs were issued some time in October. October first is moving day in large cities like Montreal. It happened to fall within this two months specified by law, and, by that omission, persons who should have had the right to vote, who merely happened to move their residences a few blocks in some instances, perhaps only across the street, from one riding to another, were actually disfranchised. A much greater number retained the right
to vote, in spite of the law, simply because no demand was made to have their names struck off the lists, but if such a demand had been made, the revising officer would have had to comply with the law and strike their names from the list. When the candidates become keener to the possibilities of this election law, if it remains as it is, in a city like Montreal alone thousands of voters could be disfranchised, if the election happened to be held in May or in October, the two moving dates in large cities. In order to leave no doubt in the minds of hon. members as to the effect of this statute, I should like to place on Hansard the opinion of no less an authority than Colonel Biggar, Chief Electoral Officer of the Dominion. During the last election he had to give decisions in cases similar to the one I have referred to, and in every case he authorized the statement that the law disqualified such persons, and gave instructions to the registrar and revising officers accordingly. When I placed this resolution on the Order Paper I wrote him asking his opinion, and his reply reads, in part, as follows:
During the election campaign I received a large number of inquiries on this point, and in the later edition of the Election Instruction (31st December 1921) prepared for the by-elections at which the procedure was considerably different from that followed at the general election, I made an addition to paragraph 137, as appears by the copy of these later Instructions which I also enclose. This addition further emphasises the undoubted effect of the provisions of the statute on the point.
I have here the election instructions prepared for the by-election of a new minister, and here is the addition which Colonel Biggar refers to in his letter. It will be found on page 48, section 137:
The effect of the statutory provisions on the subject of residential qualification is that everyone whose residence has been out of Canada during the year immediately preceding the date of the issue of the writ, and everyone who has changed his place of residence in Canada from one electoral district to another within the two months before that date is disqualified from voting.
The most remarkable feature about this is that if the elector happens to move after the issue of the writ then he can retain his right to vote in the electoral district where he has resided before that date, but if he happens to be unlucky enough to move at the very moment-that is at one of the sixty days preceding the issue of the writ-then he cannot qualify in the new riding, and he is bound to be disfranchised, if proper application is made to strike out his name. I think there
Elections Act

can be no doubt, after the authority I have just given, as to the effect of the present law.
This resolution does not specify any remedy. If I were to give my humble opinion, I think there should be a provision to allow the voter to retain his vote in the old riding, where he resided before he moved, and not in the new riding where he has moved his residence, because, in the latter case, the door would be opened to many misunderstandings and frauds. But I am not stressing that point. Earlier in the session the Government led the House to understand, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Mar-cile), that the electoral law would be amended in some way. My opinion is that the act with which I am dealing would stand amendment on more than one point. I consider that the theory of allowing these lists to be revised just previous to the election may seem very equitable, but its practice is full of danger and may lead to abuses, and even to frauds of the worst kind. I think the whole system of preparing electoral lists at fixed dates during the time of peace-so to describe the period between electoral campaigns- is much better than the present practice. If we are to retain the present law, I say we should, at least, remedy the evil referred to in my resolution. It is altogether unfair to have a law which allows an individual voter to qualify at the last moment for an election, when this same law will disfranchise that voter simply because he happened to move at a certain date from one electoral district to another. I trust that when the occasion arises the Government will consider this matter. I would ask the House to accept the resolution in its present form. It is not contentious, and it only embodies the expression of a wish. I, therefore, beg to move, seconded by Mr. Prevost, the resolution standing in my name.


Jules-Édouard Prévost: Mr. Speaker, It is with pleasure that I support the motion of the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) because I consider it points out a rather serious omission in the Elections Act, a deficiency which should be remedied immediately and an amendment to the act brought down at this present session. By enacting that a person's name cannot be inscribed on the voters' list unless he has resided in the division where he wishes to vote, for at least two months previous

to the issuing of the writs, hundreds of persons are, as a natural consequence, disfranchised, and it is always a serious matter to disfranchise a citizen.
I admit, the question is of special interest to large cities which comprise numerous electoral districts where citizens often move from one district to another, but it is also important to small towns and rural parts. With reference to the last general elections, those who find fault are not so much the candidates who were returned by large majorities, but the people who bitterly regretted, and are still sore of having been deprived of their vote.
I mentioned that the question was an important one for the rural districts, and I believe it to be so. I am aware that the act allows a voter, even on election day, if his name is not on the list, to register his vote. However, he must be in a position to swear that he possesses all the qualifications prescribed by the act. Now, amongst these qualifications is to be found the one which we are at present discussing and which requires of a person, in order that he may exercise his franchise in an electoral district, to reside in such district for two months previous to the issuing of election writs; so that, notwithstanding this clause in the act which seems to open up a wide door to the voters who are not registered on the list and to enable them to make use of their right to vote, the omission which we pointed out would prevent the voter from exercising such franchise. I therefore deem it advisable to submit the question to this House and we have reason to hope that the Government will bring down an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act, such as mentioned in the motion of the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) and which will be in the whole country's interest.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House the benefit of my experience in this regard, and it will, perhaps, be a surprise to some of the members. I am thoroughly in accord with the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Rinfret). I am not sure that such a provision is required in the rural districts, because moving and shifting about in rural parts of the country is perhaps, not very great. When, however, we came to make a canvass in my riding in the last election, we found that between fifteen and twenty per cent of those whose names were on the list could not be found in the riding. Those people had moved, and, by moving,

Elections Act
they had opened the way, if any person had desired to be corrupt, to having all their names voted. Furthermore, a man is deprived of his vote, because he has moved, say from one side of Spadina avenue, in my city, to the other; that is, if he moves merely across the street, he is disfranchised. The only fact which I want to bring to the attention of the House is this, that, in a large city like Montreal or Toronto, many people otherwise entitled to vote are disfranchised on account of moving their residence immediately prior to an election. Perhaps, the percentage is greater in Toronto than in Montreal, because houses in Toronto are rented on a monthly tenancy basis, and in my riding between fifteen and twenty per cent of the people were disfranchised under the present act.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to approve the resolution also, because I know, even in rural or semirural places, many worthy citizens who were deprived of the privilege of voting at the last election under the law as it then stood and still stands. Therefore, a change is very desirable.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the matter referred to in the resolution of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) is one worthy of consideration. It was considered when the present Dominion Franchise Act passed the House. Our difficulty then was our difficulty now, namely, to find a remedy. The same question came up in this House in 1897, when there was a discussion on the subject; and it was then felt, as it was felt two years ago, that probably less difficulty would arise from leaving the law in its present position than if we were to seek to change or amend it. The question arose more particularly in 1897 in regard to school teachers and, I think, also in regard to Methodist ministers. School teachers, particularly in Ontario in the rural sections, change their places very frequently; the ministers of some of our churches also change their residences periodically; and in many cases the teacher or the minister was disqualified simply by reason of the change. Then, in cities, it always occurs that men and women will move from one division to another. Nobody, however, has yet suggested a proper remedy for this condition of affairs. If you permit men, who have actually moved away from a riding, to come back and vote you may be opening a door
to the payment of expenses and to bringing voters from all parts of Canada, and that was looked upon as a great objection, both in years gone by and in the discussion that took place in this House two years' ago. But it is certainly a hard thing that any large body of our citizens should be disfranchised simply by reason of the fact that they have changed their residences immediately prior to the issue of an election writ. There may be something in the suggestion of my hon. friend that they could be permitted to vote in the place in which they formerly resided, but that would not, I believe, cure the evil for men and women who had moved to any great distance. Men from Ontario, from Quebec, go West, and these men would certainly be disfranchised; but the greatest hardship, I think, takes place in cities where a voter moves irom one division to another, but still remains practically in the same municipality. The motion is one well worthy of consideration, and I only wish the hon. member for St. James had suggested something like a remedy for the difficulty. I agree with him that when the Franchise Act comes up for amendment or consideration, this is a matter that should be considered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I take it, from the expression of opinion on both sides of the House, that there is no objection to accepting the resolution of the hon. member for St. James. As has been stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie), perhaps, the difficulty is to find a ready remedy. Of course, the first and natural impulse with every one is that he wants to have the right to vote, and after having the right to vote, he has some predilection for one place or another. The natural and most effective place for one to vote in is where he resides or where he proposes to reside for some time to come. The basic philosophy of the right to vote or the purpose of voting is that a person has a right to select a representative in Parliament; and if a man who lives in Montreal finds that he is moving to Toronto, he says: "Well, you may give me a vote in Montreal; but I am leaving Montreal; I am going to live in Toronto, and, after this I want to put myself in touch with the representative of the city in which I am going to live." To allow that man the right to vote in Montreal would not satisfy him, because he wants to have a representative in the city or province in which he goes to reside. It is more difficult to find a remedy for the situation of
Elections Act

that man. It is a simple proposition to legislate or to amend the act so as to leave with the man the right to vote where he is qualified and where he resides, so to amend the act that his right to vote shall continue for the first election that may take place after he has left that particular residence. It is not, however, so easy to furnish machinery by which you qualify him to vote in any other part of Canada to which he might move. I have not been able to come to any definite conclusion, but the only thing that suggests itself to me as practical in a case of that kind, would be that he might be permitted to vote on the certificate of the chief electoral officer. A man living in New Brunswick, for instance, might satisfy the Chief Electoral Officer that he was fully qualified to vote in any riding in Canada, and on going, say, to British Columbia, he could get from that officer a certificate under seal which, on presentation to any presiding officer in the latter province, would give him the right to vote at the first election thereafter. It is possible that some such machinery as that might meet the case. The other case is far less difficult, and if a voter were given the right to come back and vote where he resided, I do not think there would be any room for hardship. Most of these cases arise in the cities, and the matter of travelling one way or the other would not be very important. As has been suggested, many of these moves are merely across a street or alleyway, and it really does not make very much difference. It is quite likely, and I believe almost certain, that this matter will be dealt with and a proper remedy provided.
The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), referred to our present franchise law, and the law as it stood years ago. Personally I think that the old franchise system was better. When we entered Confederation in 1867 the provincial franchise was adopted all round. In every province then in Confederation, members were elected to this House, I understand, under the local law, and that continued until 1885 or 1886, when a Dominion franchise was adopted by legislation of this Parliament. At that time officers, who were entitled revising officers, were appointed to prepare the lists in all the provinces. That practice was observed until 1898, when by common consent-I was not in the House then, but I understand there was no objection at all from either side-Parliament went back to the old condition and once more adopted the provincial franchise.

That continued down to the election of 1917, which was the first Dominion election since the reinstitution of the provincial franchise, at which members were returned to this Parliament under a Dominion system. The election of 1917 and the election of 1921 were both held under Dominion franchise. But the very large majority of the elections in Canada sirce Confederation have been held under the local law. In our own province we have what I regard as ideal conditions in regard to the franchise. Our lists are revised every year whether there is an election or not. On the 27th of April of each year the lists are closed and are ready for any election that might be called. Of course, they are not now used in Dominion elections; they are subject to certain additions and subtractions before they can serve the purposes of a Dominion election. I should have no hesitation whatever in recommending ours as a general system for Dominion elections. I am not speaking for the Government, but solely for myself, but in my judgment it would be the ideal practice for every province in Canada to have the lists prepared every year so that they might be ready at any time an election might be held. The expense, in our province at any rate, is not considered any objection at all. As a matter of fact, there is no great expense involved in preparing these lists every year.
However, the matter with which we shall have to deal in this connection will be simply the introduction of some slight amendment to secure the right to the voter to come back and vote where he resides, or otherwise to carry the franchise with him. There must be some such certificate as I have mentioned that he could carry with him so as to enable him to vote at the first Dominion election held after he has received it. I think the resolution of the hon. member is quite timely and I am sure the House will be pleased to deal with the matter when it comes up.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current) :: I think we are all agreed that every Canadian citizen eligible to vote should have the right to do so, and the mere fact that a man is forced sometimes, by circumstances beyond his control, to go to another constituency should not penalize him and prevent him from exercising the franchise as a Canadian citizen. I can readily understand that the provision that has been incorporated in the Election Act on this point has some basis in reason. It may have been placed there to make sure that no

Income Tax Act
individual would vote twice. But we are told by various hon. members that it appears to infringe upon the rights of voters more in the cities than anywhere else. In the rural districts very few people are penalized in this respect by moving; but in the cities, where people are continually on the move, it may be a great hardship, and I can see that there is likely to be some difficulty, no matter what you may do, to remedy the existing law. We do find, however, that in the resolution No. 12, relating to proportional representation and the alternative vote, there is a safeguard not only to the man who wishes to exercise his franchise, but also to the public interests of Canada, and I believe that when this subject is brought before the House and we have time to study it carefully we shall be able to remove a great many of the electioneering difficulties that at present exist. In this connection, I might refer to proportional representation in the cities. Under proportional representation I understand that no matter where a man may reside in the city, or whether he changes from one district to another within the pale of the city, he still has the right to vote; and I think that when that system comes up for consideration it will be time enough to indicate the benefits to be derived by the removal of a great many of the difficulties and anomalies of the Franchise Act. By the adoption of a proper system then we shall be able to ensure, not only to the individual who votes at an election, but also to collective bodies of voters, in the actual returns of men to this Parliament, a fair proportion of representation for every constituency. If it is necessary to change the existing law for rural districts, well. and good. But as we have been told that the great majority of inequalities that result from the present law are to be found in the cities, and as these inequalities can be finally removed only when we have a system under which every man will have the right to exercise the franchise under a city list rather than under a list in an electoral division, I believe that action should be delayed until the question of proportional representation is before the House for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland) moved:: That, to the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending- the Income Tax Act, 1917, as
amended toy subsequent acts by providing that there shall be paid upon the annual income of all aliens, not being residents of Canada, who are employed in Canada or derive income for services rendered in Canada S per cent upon all such incomes exceeding one thousand dollars.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not of a particularly compulsory character, because it simply suggests that "the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, 1917." It is quite possible that many hon. members do not quite grasp the true meaning of this resolution, and therefore I desire first of all to point out why it has been introduced.
Prior to November, 1921, the Income Tax Act of the United States was practically the same as our Income Tax Act, giving similar exemptions to married and unmarried men and fixing the rate of taxation at the same rate on all those earning incomes in the United States whether resident in that country or elsewhere. But in November of last year Congress amended the Income Tax Act and made section 210 to read as follows:
That, in lieu of the tax imposed by section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1918, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual a normal tax of 8 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of the credits provided in section 216 : provided, that in the case of a citizen or resident of -the United States the rate upon the first $4,000 of such excess amount shall be 4 per centum.
The exemption provided for in section 216 subsection (e) is as follows:
In the case of a non-resident alien individual or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 262, the personal exemption shall be only $1,000, and he shall not be entitled to the credit provided in subdivision (d).
But an American citizen is entitled to an exemption of $2,500 or $2,000.
This Act of Congress does not expressly mention Canadians, but there are no other non-resident aliens that I know of working in the United States. There may be some from Mexico, but those need not be taken into account.
The result is distinctly to the disadvantage of Canadians. Take the concrete case of the county of Welland that I have the honour to represent-and I know the same thing prevails in the county of Essex, and no doubt in the county of Lincoln and in every other constituency bordering on the international boundary line-Canadian citizens working in the United States-and there are at least 400 working at Niagara
Income Tax Act

Falls, New York, and Buffalo-if they have an income of $5,000, whether married or unmarried, their exemption is only $1,000, and they are taxed 8 per cent on the balance. In contrast with that the American citizen is allowed an exemption of $2,500 if he is a married man or a man with dependents, and he is taxed at the rate of only 4 per cent on the balance of his income.
Our law makes no distinction between Americans and Canadians. For instance, a United States citizen working in Canada is granted an exemption of $1,000 if he is an unmarried man, and he is taxed 4 per cent on the balance of his income; if he is a man with a family or other dependents, he is allowed an exemption of $2,000 and is still taxed only 4 per cent on the balance.
Now, as a rule I am not inclined to favour the adoption of retaliatory measures, but it seems to me that in so far as this Act of Congress affects Canadian citizens, it works a very grave injustice. Although a good many of our citizens work in the United States and live in Canada, it must not be forgotten that so far as our border constituencies are concerned there are just as many United States citizens working in Canada and living in their own country. Therefore, I claim that unless Congress remove this discrimination and make their law the same as our Income Tax Act, we should do our duty and place the same burdens on United States citizens that are now imposed on our citizens by this discriminatory legislation.
I have a letter from the president of a large manufacturing concern at Niagara Falls, Ontario, and I should like to place his views on Hansard. He is a United 'States citizen, and he writes as follows:
I am pleased to note that you have handled this matter in a very fair and reasonable way. We certainly trust that the problem can be solved without retaliatory legislation, although it is manifestly evident that such legislation should be taken by Canada if the situation cannot be corrected in any other way. We think that the move which you are taking may help to bring the seriousness of the situation before the United States Government.
As we have written, we are doing everything possible in the way of soliciting pressure from as many sources as possible to have this corrected and we have made the situation known to a large number of senators and representatives in Washington.
The situation is serious and aggravating to all manufacturers along the border and a great hardship to many employees of such manufacturers.
There is practically nothing more to be said about this subject. What I want is

that Parliament should approve of this resolution, which will fortify the Government in saying to the United States Congress, "We have the authority of Parliament to pass retaliatory legislation if we choose to do so, but we hope that you will consider it in the best interests of friendly relations and in the best interests of the people who are working on the two sides of the international boundary line to amend your law so as to make it conform with the law of Canada. In default of your doing so, it is quite possible that we may be forced by Parliament to pass retaliatory legislation that will place the same burden of taxation on your citizens working in Canada as is imposed on our citizens working in the United States." That is what I want this Parliament to do, and that is what I think this Parliament should do, irrespective of the friendly relations which now exist and have existed for so many years between the United States and Canada, and which I trust will continue to exist for many more years to come. I think it is our duty to stand by our own citizens and see that they are properly protected and safeguarded in regard to such legislation as this that has been passed in the United States. We hope of course, that conditions may be such in the near future that this burdensome taxation may be done away with, but it is in existence yet, and in all probability will remain in existence for several years to come-longer than we would like. That being so, I ask Parliament to approve of this resolution so that the Government may with the authority of Parliament say to the United States: "Unless you change your legislation and give our citizens the same rights that we accord to American citizens we will be bound to pass retaliatory legislation-it is a harsh term perhaps-"


William Findlay Maclean: Why not call it reciprocal treatment?


William Manley German: Gentlemen on the opposite side and perhaps some on this side were opposed to reciprocal treatment some years ago. We will call it retaliatory legislation. It is more emphatic, I think, and suits the situation better. That is the object of the resolution, and I sincerely trust that the House will approve of it and that it will be adopted by the Government.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite certain from the terms of the resolution until I heard the address of the hon.

Old Age Pensions
member for Welland (Mr. German) just what he had in mind. I was aware of the legislation, though not in any detailed way, that gives rise to his resolution, that is to say, the legislation introduced in November last in the United States legislatures. To that legislation we in Canada cannot take exception from our special standpoint; it is legislation that is applicable everywhere; it is not discriminatory against our country, nor is its purpose to deflect the course of domestic policy in Canada. Nevertheless, it is legislation that of itself invites retaliatory action; it is legislation against which another country can protect itself only by retaliatory action. If the United States chooses to place upon the citizens of this country and of countries other than itself, earning money within its borders a burden beyond that borne by its own citizens, there is only one thing, it appears to me, for the neighbouring nation to do, and that is to act in a similar way. Otherwise, it places its own citizens at a disadvantage as compared with those across the line. Consequently, this would appear to me to be a timely resolution and one well worthy of the consideration of the Government and of this House.
There is, however, a class of legislation to which I think we in Canada can take just exception. It is that class of legislation which is directed not against all outside nations equally, but directed solely against ourselves, legislation designed to deflect the course of domestic policy within this country. There have been efforts made in recent times to have such legislation passed by the United States. I fear those efforts have been, or appear now to be, more or less successful. Such does not seem to me to be a course of policy designed to foster and improve the good relations that have subsisted between us for so many years. At the same time, if it is the course of policy that in their best judgment they see fit to adopt, it will be one that will have to be met in our country, not in a spirit of antagonism, not in a spirit wanting in friendship, but in a spirit of stern and immovable self-reliance.
I have pleasure, indeed, in offering commendation to the hon. member for Welland, and I hope that his suggestions will receive at the hands of the Government serious and sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: That, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion Government should consider the advisability of devising ways and means for the establishment of a system of old age pensions in Canada.
He said (Translation) : At the outset, Mr. Speaker, allow me to urge upon this House the desirability of legislation enabling the Government to grant a pension to old men. In so doing so, I am impelled by a deep sense of humanity and justice. Indeed, having for the last twenty-five years resided in the city of Hull,-an essentially industrial centre,-I have been able, more than any one else perhaps, and many a time, to realize that a great number of workmen after having spent the best part of their lives in factories and worn themselves out, become, in their old age a burden to their children, unless they seek refuge in a poor house. Is it not a painful sight, Mr. Speaker, to see these old employees, after contributing their share towards their country's welfare and development, after labouring for thirty, forty, nay fifty years to enrich others, once they have expended the whole of their assets,-for their physical fitness is truly an asset to them,-the moment they are disabled, worn out by age and work, reduced to poverty. I say that it is the duty of the state to assist these old men by paying them a pension in the form of annuities or endowment. Some might perhaps object that these men should have economized and laid aside their savings whilst they were young; but every member of this House knows perfectly well that their salaries are never sufficient to allow savings, because wages paid are always based on the cost of living. The following is an illustration. During the unfortunate war just ended, workmen obtained an increase of wages because the cost of living was increasing continually, and now the war is over, employers insist on a reduction in wages because, according to them, the cost of living has been reduced. It is therefore a well established fact that wages are fixed by the cost of living. We figure out how much it costs a workingman to live and support a family of five or six children, and the result of this calculation determines the salary he shall receive. How can he economize when he is paid just enough to provide his family with the strict necessities of life? let, the working man is entitled, as well as the rich man, to some comfort in this world. The working man

Old Age Pensions
has a heart, he loves his children as much as the rich man loves his own, and he would like to give them better means than he has himself had for the battles of life. How can he attain this end with such meagre wages as two or three dollars a day? -I especially refer to the working man, because it is he who would benefit the most from such a Pensions Act, but it should be fully understood that all those who attain the age, say of 65 years, man or woman, and are in need, whatever may have been their trade or business, would benefit from such a pension, provided they had been honest citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to discuss the question from another point of view. You know how the late war has expanded the outlook of classes in this country; the farmers movement has spread, the labour movement has developed; and the labourer now says to himself, and not without cause, that if he has been useful during the war, if he has participated in destroying German militarism and in saving civilization, he is fully entitled to some reward. Truly, amongst all the classes of society, it is the labouring class which supplied the most men and which was the first to respond to the call to arms, and now that the war is over, they bear the greater part of the burden of taxation. Therefore, I believe that an old age Pensions Act would only be evidence of our gratitude. I believe that it would help materially in creating a better understanding between capital and labour; it would be a public acknowledgment by the Government of this country that it wants justice for all classes, and it would perhaps abolish forever this unfortunate conflict between the capitalist and the labouring class. In proof of the soundness of our contentions, I have received, since I inscribed this resolution on the Order Paper, a number of letters and resolutions of labour unions in support of my views. They all wish me the greatest possible success in regard to this old age scheme. Amongst others, I might mention the following, from Mr. Beaule, president of the National Catholic Unions; from Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; from the secretary of the Liberal Labour Union of the city of Hull; from Mr. Achi'lle Morin, vice-president of the National Catholic Unions. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this question is not a new one. An act for old age pensions was passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1908, and in 1911 the present Prime Minister, the Right Hon.

Lloyd George, brought down in the British House of Commons a bill under a different form, known as "The People's Insurance." In presenting this bill, he gave the following explanation:	"Considering that the
people are willing to help in furthering the progress and welfare of this country, the State, on the other hand, should give ample proof of its willingness to foster the welfare of the labouring class.
For ever so long France has had pension laws for old age and the disabled; it is, however, since 1905 that pensions have come to the fore. As early as 1883, there existed in Germany, insurances to provide for the workman, but it is especially the act passed in 1889 and amended in 1899 which brought relief to old age and the disabled. There exists in Denmark, an old age pension law; in New Zealand, parliament adopted such legislation in 1908.
After having shown what has taken place in Europe, Mr. Speaker, are we not allowed to hope that soon, we also shall have a law enacted which will provide for old age. Moreover, this question has already been considered by our own statesmen and the Canadian Parliament. I see, in Hansard, that during the 1907 session, Mr. Pringle, then member for Stormont, moved the f olio wing resolution:	That in
the opinion of this House, the subject of improving the condition of the aged, deserving poor and of providing for those of them who are helpless and infirm, is worthy of and should receive the early and careful attention of the government and of Parliament."
This motion, after having been discussed, was withdrawn. However, Mr. Pringle returned to the attack during the session of 1908, and moved the following resolution: "That a select committee be appointed to inquire, into and consider a ischeme oh schemes by state aid or otherwise for making provision for the aged and deserving poor, with special regard in case of any proposals of which they may approve, to their cost and probable financial results, and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses on oath and affirmation. This resolution was adopted but nothing further was done. During the session of 1912, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the then member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), the same person who was defeated by the present Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon), had both placed on the Order paper of the House a motion which called for the naming of a select

Old Age Pensions
committee to inquire into and report on a scheme of life-annuity for old age in Canada. As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, it is already more than fifteen years ago since the Canadian Parliament first took up this important question of Old age pensions. I 'believe that public opinion is ripe and that the Government should not delay any further action on this question. A pension fund has been provided for all those brave warriors who went overseas to protect civilization against German militarism and who have returned to this country sick and disabled, and it is quite right. A pension fund has been provided for the Civil Service; banks and other financial concerns provide a pension for their employees; alone these brave toilers, this army of workmen who were the pioneers of our industrial life, have not a pension fund to sustain them in their old age. I maintain that it is the duty of the nation to act immediately. It seems to me that men who have given thirty or forty years of their best years to the development of the resources of our country have a right to claim a pension when they come to the age when they are no more able to provide for their own support.
I have heard as an objection to this scheme, Mr. Speaker, that it would discourage thrift and personal ambition; the workman would not be as provident, knowing in advance that the Government is going to grant him relief in his old age. Well I do not consider this as being a serious objection. If this law should lead to abuses, as some people believe it would, the European countries where it is now in force would abolish it; but, on the contrary, they improve on it every year. Then the Government ought to abolish the retirement fund of the Civil Service and the banks and corporations ought to discontinue the pension fund for their employees. My opinion is that the law would stimulate the energy of the working men who would feel that they are backed up by the state. Immigration would also greatly benefit by the scheme when it would be known that in Canada we look after our people when they have grown old and disabled.
I do not intend going into details, for instance as to the age at which the pension should start, or the means of raising that pension fund; this can very well be determined when the bill is presented. What I want now is simply the recognition of the principle by the House, so that the Government would realize that they cannot
delay any longer the passing of such legislation.
I have before me now the copy of a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at a large meeting, held in Montreal, on the 27th of September, 1916, at which you were present, Mr. Speaker. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that as soon as the war would be over -the great Canadian foresaw already the victory of the Allies-one of the greatest questions would be that of the establishment of old age pensions, and to this end, he said he had entrusted to some of his most prominent Liberal supporters the task of inquiring into the subject. At the great Liberal convention held in Ottawa, in August, 1919, a special resolution was moved and adopted to that effect.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to raise a political question out of this resolution; I am fully confident that hon. members of this House, whether they sit on your right or on your left, will consider it on its merit. But I hope I shall be permitted to say that it is an essentially Liberal idea and that it would be proper for the Liberal party to carry it out. We, on this side of the House, should consider that wish expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1916 and embodied in a resolution at the great convention of the Liberal party in 1919, as an order to be cheerfully complied with.
I know that we are in a rather serious financial position, that we have an enormous debt and that the Government is endeavouring by all possible means to balance their budget for which they have the unqualified approval of the people. But this question of old age pensions should not be delayed any longer. Moreover I do not believe I am committing an indiscretion when I say that knowing the feelings of the hon. Prime Minister as I do and owing to the fact that he has made a thorough study of the social and economic conditions of our country, he is agreeable to this resolution and he will find a means of placing it on our statutes which will be a credit to him and a great asset for this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLES G. POWER (Quebec South) moved:	.
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend the act to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces, 1919, so as to provide that the pension of a widowed mother of a member of the forces who has died on
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
active service shall not be reduced on account of her income; and further that pension shall be granted her of right whether or not there are other living children.
He said: This is a resolution which, in one form or another, has come before the House for the past four sessions. In 1918, under the terms of the Pension Act for members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the widowed mother of a deceased soldier was entitled to a pension of so much per month; but in case she earned anything, by working at any occupation whatsoever, the amount which she earned during the month was deducted from her pension. This provision, I am happy to say, has now disappeared, and the widowed mother, generally speaking, does not have any deduction made from her pension on account of her earnings. Further improvement was made in her lot somewhat later, when it was decided that even if she owned her own residence no deduction would be made from her pension by way of an amount to be attributed to rent; and a still further improvement was made somewhat later when it was decreed that the fact that she had one or more living children who were in a position to earn money and look after her should not be used as an excuse on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners to take away the small pension which was given to her. At the present time the widowed mother, provided she is in a dependent condition, is entitled to $48 per month. Should she, however, have any income whatsoever the amount of this income is deducted from the pension. Should she have an income of $25, or $35, or $40 per month she receives that much less pension-that is to say in case her income is $30 per month, her pension would be only $18 per month. The object of this resolution is to place the widowed mother on exactly the same basis as the widow of a soldier who fell in France-in other words to give her a pension irrespective of whether she has or has not any income. As the members of the House are doubtless aware-and as I ' am sure, you, Mr. Speaker, know-the widow of a soldier who was killed at the war receives a pension without it being necessary for her to show that she is in a dependent condition. The object of this resolution is to place the widowed mother in exactly the same situation. During the past few years, those who are interested in soldiers and their dependents have noticed that there are a large number of complaints continually coming in to the 
Board of Pension Commissioners, to members of Parliament, to clergymen and others, that the widowed mother is being almost constantly visited by representatives of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment who enter into this lady's home, ask her how she is getting along, take a survey of the furniture, and inquire as to what her means of support are. If the old lady-because in the majority of cases, as the House can easily conceive, the recipients of these pensions are fairly well up in years-is unfortunate enough to explain her financial position and to state that she is doing nicely and getting along very well, the chances are that within two or three weeks a letter arrives from the Board of Pension Commissioners saying " You are in receipt of such an income; therefore your pension will be diminished by so much." It is with the object of avoiding any such occurrences that I would ask the House to approve of this resolution.
I have a number of cases which have been cited to this House and which have been brought to the attention of the pension commissioners on a number of occasions, and I do not think it is necessary to recite them here. I base my claim on behalf of the widowed mothers on the ordinary natural law and natural right. It has been urged on behalf of the former government that the mothers were not entitled to support from their children in other provinces of Canada except the province of Quebec. In that province the son, or the children, in fact, must support their parents, and an action at law will lie against those who will not do so. In other provinces of Canada, I understand, there is no such legal sanction to what, to my mind, is a natural right and a claim based on natural law. If it does not exist in the other provinces, I am sorry for those provinces, and I am sorry their legislators did not see fit to inscribe on the statutes of those provinces a law which has existed since the beginning of the world, and a law which should exist on the statute book of every province and every country. It is a purely natural law, and it is a natural thing that the son should support his mother when his mother is not in a position to support herself and should, in all cases, look after the mother who bore him, to see that she lives in comfort, if it is possible for him to do so. I submit it became the duty of the government of this country, as soon as the support of the

Old Age Pensions
family fell in battle, to look after those whom he left behind. In such a case I think it is the duty of the state to step into the breach and take the place of that son, who, no doubt, if he had not answered the call on behalf of his country, would now be able to keep his mother in good circumstances. There is the further argument, that we have recognized in the Pension Act a class, which though it is entitled perhaps to some consideration on the part of the government and of the state, surely is not entitled to as much, consideration as the class of widowed mothers. Section 34, subsection 1, of the Pension Act says:
A parent or any person in the place of a parent with respect of a member of the forces who has died shall be entitled to a pension when such member of the forces left no child, widow, or divorced wife who is entitled to a *pension, or a woman awarded a pension under subsection three of section thirty-three of this act, and when such parent or person is in a dependent condition and was, at the time of the death of such member of the forces, wholly or to a substantial extent, maintained by him.
Let us see what that means. The widowed mother of a soldier is entitled to a pension when the soldier has left no children- there is no objection to that,-or has left no widow, no divorced wife under certain conditions, or no woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33 of this act. Let us see who the woman referred to under subsection 3 of section 33 of this act is. That subsection says:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who at such time was publicly represented by him as his wife may, in the case of his death and in the discretion of the commission, be awarded a pension equivalent to the pension she would have received had she been his legal widow. The Commission may also award a pension if in its opinion an injustice would be done by not recognizing a woman as the wife of a member of the forces, although there is no evidence that she had been publicly represented by him as his wife.
Here is a case. The widowed mother whose son was killed at the front may obtain a pension, provided the man's mistress is not alive. If the mistress is living she has a prior claim to a pension from the state to that of the mother who bore him. It is not for me to criticise the legislation which has been placed on the statute book for what has been called the unmarried wife. I know that in a large number of compassionate cases something had to be done where there were children and where there was fraud on the part of the man who was unfortunately killed. I recognize that,
83 i
and I do not ask to have this provision removed from the act, but I do ask that the widow be placed at least in the same position as the woman I have just mentioned.
I think it is only fair, and only plain justice, to give to the mother, who, after all, has probably suffered more than any other class of person in this war, an opportunity of obtaining a pension. Let us, at any rate, be fair enough to admit that if there is one class that did suffer, if there is one class from whom bitter tears were wrung during the war, it was the widowed mother. It is more likely the widowed mother had more to endure, spent more anxious nights and wept more tears than any other class in the community. We have given pensions to almost everyone else, but this particular class. We have in the past, I think, been sadly deficient in our duty. It should be the duty of the House to support this resolution and put an end to the anomaly which exists in our present legislation.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House when my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) brought to its attention the question referred to in his motion. Therefore, I have been unable to appreciate the argument which he has submitted. As my hon. friend stated in the last part of his remarks, the particular case of the widow who has been deserted or abandoned by her husband is pitiable in the extreme. Although I am not in a position to discuss the question on its merits at the present moment, I would not prolong the discussion and would very humbly suggest to my hon. friend that he consent to withdraw his motion and submit the matter to the special parliamentary cotmmittee which has been appointed for the purpose of studying these questions, particularly, those relating to pensions and re-establishment. The committee would hear the representations which have been submitted by my hon. friend and could then offer a recommendation to the House when the time comes to prepare a report. I hope my hon. friend will find it agreeable to him to comply with this request. If, however, he desires to secure the opinion of the House on this question, I have, of course, no serious objection; but, as I said a minute ago, I think it is advisable that the committee should be advised of this matter, study it thoroughly, examine it in all its different phases and aspects with the idea of making a recommendation on the subject.
Old Age Pensions

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, this question of pensions is, day by day, becoming a matter of education; that is, we are receiving, as the days go by, more information as to the condition and the situation. Since the war and since the passage of the act, conditions have arisen that probably were not contemplated when that act was being passed, and I think we ought to have an open mind to deal with all these matters in the light of the new information we have. The hon. member for Quebece South (Mr. Power) spoke of instances in his experience where injustice had been done, unwittingly, of course, under the pension scheme provided for by the Pension Act as formerly drawn, to widowed mothers on account of their having some income from some other source. I must not criticise the Pension Act, of course, because one's hind-sight is wonderful; but, in the town in which I live, I came across two or three instances where the widowed mother was plainly entitled to a certain pension, but, as she had from a house a rental that did not begin to keep her and two or three other small items of income, she was deprived of a pension which, to my mind, she really ought to have received, as her two sons, one of whom was killed, performed magnificent services overseas. Under the peculiar working of the act she did not receive her pension, but that matter has been remedied.
In justice to my province, I might call attention to the fact that, in Ontario, we have an act such as the one my hon. friend mentioned, whereby children are compelled to support their parents. My hon. friend has given the House good reasons why this act should prevail throughout the Dominion of Canada; and if it were within the province of this House to make this a federal act, I would say: "Do so," because I firmly believe that there is nothing so lamentable in the world as to see parents moping about, uncared for, living, perhaps, in penury, depending on the charity of friends, while their children live in fairly comfortable circumstances and some far beyond comfortable circumstances. If a child has no regard for his or her parent, that is a time when the law ought to step in and compel him or her to perform that duty. I feel confident that, during the last two or three years, we placed such an act as that on the statute books of Ontario.
I am heartily in sympathy with the main point brought up by my hon friend in his

resolution. As the House has undertaken to cure the defects which applied to the widowed mother as regards the war land forces, the same action cannot be wrong if applied to the naval and air forces.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is away, I am not in a position to know how much this involves; but I am heartily in accord with the principle of the resolution as proposed by my hon. friend, and I should like to see some way by which it could be placed in a statute of this Parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Power), in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), would not press this particular motion to a division. I think it would involve some consideration as to the extent of the financial liability that is likely to be incurred, and the House should have knowledge on that point. In the meantime the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) has suggested that the committee might consider the matter. My hon. friend will know what to say as regards that; but I would like to ask him to consider the advisability of allowing his motion to stand, at any rate, until the Minister of Finance shall have an opportunity of speaking on it.
Hon. Sir HENRY L. DRAYTON (West York) : Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what we ought to do at the present time is quite clear, perhaps, in some way, the motion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) goes a little further than he intended it to go. There is no doubt as to the intent of the act, and that is to recognize the mother as she ought to be recognized, but, at the same time, treating the matter, as many other matters of pension are treated, namely, as a matter of application having regard to her necessity. If, in other words, she were a wealthy woman, I do not think my hon. friend believes that she should get a pension. I think his attitude is that the money should be left for other widows, widowed mothers and soldiers who are badly in need of it and that, as was the attitude of the late government, the need of the beneficiary of the pension was something that should be very much considered, and that the mere sacrifice itself was not sufficient, because it is impossible for Parliament to do justice to the sacrifice. It seems to me that the proper thing would be, not to have the motion withdrawn, as has been suggested, but to have it referred to the Standing Committee on Pensions where proper evi-

Old Age Pensions
dence can be taken and the matter properly considered and not lost sight of. I would suggest to the hon. member for Quebec South that the motion, instead of being withdrawn, should be referred to that committee.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer) :: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Pensions Committee, I should like to say a word of assurance to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who moved the resolution. This point has been and is at the present time under discussion in that committee, and I can say that it is being discussed from a sympathetic standpoint. I think the ground we have taken in the discussion so far as it has gone, is that, as regards the point of having that pension cut down by the amount of income which the widowed mother received from other sources, every dependent, whether a widow or a widowed mother is entitled to a comfortable livelihood. We are trying now to amend the act so that that comfortable livelihood will be secured; but, as my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) says, the money will be applied, as far as possible, where it is most necessary. There are many cases of widows as well as widowed mothers where a small income is received from their own labours, where, in spite of lack of strength, they take in washing, or do small jobs around the place, or go out sewing, or take up different classes of labour for which they are not fitted, in order to augment the pension so as to make it sufficient to enable them to live in decent comfort. In those cases, the opinion of the committee is-perhaps I had better not say-


Mr. POWER:: In those cases, legislation has already been introduced and passed to the effect that widows and widowed mothers do not lose any of their pension owing to their earnings, so that the committee was probably discussing something that was passed two or three yeas ago.


Alfred Speakman: I was going to say that we included in that small incomes from other sources which were not sufficient in themselves to keep the widowed mother in decent circumstances. Our aim is to bring in a recommendation as soon as possible that will amend the act to cover these cases and provide as far as possible for the decent, comfortable maintenance of those women who have given their sons to the service of the country. We believe that the foundation principle is this, that the country owes them this as
the least it can possibly do for them; and that is what we are trying to do. I am not speaking against the motion; I am in favour of it. But I simply wish to reassure the hon. member that if the matter is referred to us it will be treated from a sympathetic point of view.


Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: While possibly it is not strictly relevant to the subject before the House, nevertheless I think that the matter to which I wish to call attention now is apropos of the motion that has been proposed by my hon. friend. I wish to refer to a case that occurred in the constituency I have the honour to represent. Pour or five weeks ago a woman, whose son was killed at the front and who was receiving separation allowance and assigned pay, found herself in need of a pension. At the time her son was killed she was in receipt of separation allowance and assigned pay. She had a son-in-law who was assisting her and by means of that assistance, and other small aid and with what she had saved from her separation allowance and assigned pay, she was able to make out. But about six months ago she found herself absolutely without means, and she was faced with the alternative of securing a pension or going to the poorhouse. She appealed to me and I took up tne matter; but I am sorry to say that the department at Ottawa ruled against her. This woman's son met his death overseas; yet it was held that she was not entitled to a pension because three years had elapsed between the young man's death and the date of application for the pension. If that is the system that obtains in the matter of granting pensions in this country, then the sooner our people are informed to that effect, and the sooner we have done with this idle pretence about providing for the relatives of returned men, the better it will be for us all in Canada. I wrote to the minister and I think that probably I was very plain in the observations I made. I received very little satisfaction.
It is all very well for people to say that they have sympathy with the relatives of the men who were killed overseas. But sympathy will not support people of old age who have given their sons to the country's service. Sympathy and fine words will not keep them from going to the poorhouse, and the sooner we put away such maudlin pity and get down to the realities of life, the sooner we administer

Old Age Pensions
pension affairs on a basis of what is fair and equitable, the better it will be for all concerned. A few minutes ago the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) was telling the House that he would like to see a federal act, if it-were within the competence of this Parliament to pass such, that would compel sons and daughters to protect and support their parents. I believe that there is at the present time a law similar to this, if not on all fours with it, in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend should remember that that province sets this Dominion a lesson in her urbanity and filial affection. Indeed, the people of Quebec are princes of the principles of urbanity, and the fapt that an English-speaking minister rises in this Parliament and says that he would like to see enacted in this country such a law as he has described, is not going to better things. Quebec has been very much abused, and coming, as I do, from the province of Nova Scotia, I must say that every true Canadian is thankful for the fact that there is such a province as Quebec where filial affection reigns supreme and urbanity prevails everywhere. I advise the Minister of Militia to go to his own province of Ontario and ask them to put this sort of thing into effect, rather than to ask the House of Commons to do it.


George Perry Graham: I might remind my
hon. friend that we have such a law in Ontario.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, some other hon. members, I think, desire to speak on this subject.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) : Mr. Speaker, the resolution of my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) certainly commends itself to hon. members, particularly to those Who have had any experience of pension matters. Therefore I am not going to take up the time of the House, except to express my concurrence in the resolution and to suggest that its subject matter be referred to the committee
[Mr. Martell.l
which is now inquiring into pension grievances, as proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman).
We could multiply many times the grievances of fathers and widowed mothers in reference to refusals of pensions on the ground of the parents still having some earning power, but to do so would be only to repeat what has been already said this afternoon, and what is known to everyone who has had anything to do with pension matters.
I remember one case in particular of a mother whose four grown up boys volunteered for service when war broke out and went overseas. Her husband was subsequently injured in the spine in a mining accident and became an invalid. Three of the soldier boys were killed in action, and the survivor is still suffering physical injury due to war service. The invalid father died after lingering a few years, and the widowed mother is now compelled to maintain her other children, all quite young, and to do so she has to undertake work of the most menial character. She is a dear little woman, is an active worker in the Salvation Army, and has all the attributes of a good mother. This widowed mother of three sons who "lie in Flanders' fields" has now to maintain her family by cleaning the men's waiting-room in a railway station the floors of which are generally in a nasty condition. It is not creditable to Canada that this brave mother should be forced to do this disagreeable, menial work to maintain her family. She was granted a pension of $48 a month, but not long ago the Pension Board, on the ground, I believe, that this little mother was earning something, reduced the pension to $40-and to earn that " something " she has to go down on her knees and wipe the filth from waiting-room floors. That condition of affairs is a disgrace to this country and should never be allowed, and I hope that when this and like cases are reported to the committee they will make such strong representations that there will be no occasion for these mothers being any longer subjected to these indignities in order to discharge a duty to their dependents that should be discharged by the state.
I know of another case where a boy was forced to leave school at 14 years of age to maintain his mother. He volunteered when only eighteen or nineteen, went overseas, and was subsequently killed in action. His mother is now forced to maintain two little children by getting up at seven o'clock in

the morning and working for nine hours in a casket factory sewing shrouds on coffins. The Pension Board refused one cent of a pension either to her or her crippled husband, stating in their letter to the husband, dated March third last:
Under the provisions of the Canadian Pension Act pension may be awarded to the parent of a deceased soldier when such parent is in a dependent condition and is incapacitated though mental or physical infirmity from providing for his or her maintenance.
The Board of Pension Commissioners has decided that as you are not totally disabled but able to accept certain kinds of employment when available-
1 may say that this man is without some fingers of one hand and naturally is not able to secure employment when it is very difficult even for a man with both hands to get work.
-and as your wife and son are both earning, it is not possible to award you pension under the act.
I have already referred to what the wife is doing. The boy who is left, and who has now reached the age of fifteen years, has had to leave school in order to earn the paltry sum of $5 a week to help keep his mother and father from starving to death. His mother works in the casket factory, and the board have refused to pay her any pension although the boy was the means of her maintenance before he went overseas. These are cases, it seems to me, which will bring into disrepute the pension scheme of this country. Of course, we all realize how dangerous it is, from the financial standpoint, to open the door perhaps too wide. There are cases brought before the Pension Board which are not deserving, and no doubt somewhere the endeavour will be made "to put one over" the board, to use a common expression. But, Mr. Speaker, there are also cases such as the two I have mentioned, which show the necessity for an amendment to the act or for giving more discretion to the Pension Board of this great country.
I am not going to take up time further, believing that this matter will be thoroughly investigated by a committee, and that there will not be in the future such instances as I have brought to the attention of the House this evening, of parents whose children have made the supreme sacrifice being refused a decent pension because, forsooth, they are able to scrub a floor or work in a factory.
I would suggest that the hon. member have this matter referred to the commit-
Old Age Pensions
tee, but if he does not do so, I shall vote for the resolution.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I unfortunately left the Chamber about half-past five this afternoon and did not hear the discussion, but in reading over the resolution again-I had read it before-I feel that it has practically my total sympathy. I have had a number of cases at different times where the widowed mother of a soldier who was killed overseas in some branch of the service was receiving what seemed to me to be a very unfair deal. Such a case as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Logan) has mentioned is an example of that kind. While it is true we are paying out an immense sum of pensions in this country, and true also that somebody may attempt to impose upon the Pension Board, at the same time I believe it is the duty of this Parliament and of the people of this country to do everything in their power to see that the mothers, as well as the wives and children, of the men who served overseas get a fair deal. I had a case very recently, which I think I have mentioned just in passing on another occasion, where the mother of a boy who was killed overseas had a couple of small houses rented in Port Arthur-she was not in my constituency but wrote me regarding the matter-and she went to England while she was getting a small rent from these houses. Later they became vacant, but because her case had been investigated and it had been reported that she was receiving a small rent her pension was cut down, or cancelled altogether, if I remember rightly, and according to her letter, which was almost pitiful, she was then receiving no rent at all. There is a great danger, I think, in taking into account some income which a widowed mother may have, because the investigator may be a little careless in his investigation, or even if he is thoroughly sincere, circumstances may change after he has made his investigation.
I am wholly in sympathy with such a resolution as this. I also agree with the last speaker (Mr. Logan) in his suggestion that perhaps this is a proper subject for discussion before the committee that is now sitting; but if the resolution should go to a vote, my sympathies would be entirely with it, and I should be compelled to support the mover.
There is just one other point I would mention. Occasionally there may be cases where some mother who does not receive
Old Age Pensions

a pension may impose upon the Pension Board and so upon the people of this country, but I believe the mothers of that type will be small in number. At any rate, it will be far better for this country to make the mistake of being too generous than to err on the other side and be too parsimonious in a matter of this kind.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As a member of last year's Pensions Committee I should like to say a word on this resolution. In the first place, it has my hearty sympathy and support. Although the act was amended last year to penalize the widowed mother more than she had ever been penalized before, it was done simply on the majority vote of last year's committee. As one of the committee, I was very much opposed to the amendment last year, which was to this effect: The original act provided that a widowed mother who had sons living at home with her would be supposed to be receiving $10 a month from each. The amendment last year widened that to include girls as well as boys. I believe the word "children" was substituted for the word "boys". Further than that, the amendment left it to the discretion of the board to decide whether or not that $10 should be deducted from the pension. I believe the exact wording was "any of the children either living at home or abroad who are contributing or are supposed to be contributing to the widowed mother's maintenance". That was partially offset by another provision which was made last year. Up until last year the widowed mother's earnings were deducted from her pension, I think, in toto, but last year it was provided that she could earn up to $20 without any deduction being made, this $20 including what was supposed to be contributed by the children.
With regard to referring this matter to the Pensions Committee, I sincerely hope that the mover of this resolution will not do that, for this reason: I was a member of that committee last year and am again this. We had a difference of opinion over this question in the committee last year, and we had a difference of opinion over it the year before, and the act as it now stands was only approved by a very small majority of last year's committee. I think the House itself should decide this important question rather than shelve it on to a small committee. Therefore, I hope that the mover will not withdraw the resolution or have it referred to the committee. I 
think the House itself should settle the matter.


Charles Gavan Power: There seems to be a slight misconception with regard to the purport of the resolution due, I think, to a misprint on the Order Paper. The resolution as printed on the Order Paper reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend the act to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces.
The resolution should read:
Canadian Naval, Military and Air Forces.
Some hon. members were under the impression that the widowed mothers of members of the Canadian military forces had already obtained certain benefits which members of the naval and air forces had not obtained. In order to correct this impression, may I state to the House that the widowed mothers of all ex-soldiers and sailors and airmen are all on exactly the same basis?
I forgot to state this afternoon that not only are the ordinary widowed mothers, that is to say, the widowed mothers of Canadian soldiers, affected adversely by this legislation, but certain widowed mothers of Canadian soldiers who do not reside in Canada are more severely affected than others.
For instance, take the widowed mother of a soldier who enlisted from the United States. Take the widowed mother of a soldier who enlisted in Canada and was killed, who now resides in Scotland or in England. She is not treated with the same generosity as the widowed mothers who reside in Canada. Certain legislation was	passed improving the lot of
the	Canadian widowed mother, but
it was expressly stipulated that these improvements wouild only affect her so long as she remained in Canada. If she were to return, possibly to her old home, in Scotland or in England, her pension would be reduced by so much. If she returned to the United States the same thing would occur. I submit that the loss to the mother who resides in Scotland or the United States, or anywhere else in the world, is the same as the loss to the mother who resides in Canada; and legislation such as is aimed at in this resolution would do a great deal to improve the circumstances of these people.
Now with reference to the request which has been made by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, by the Prime Minister, and by the Minister of Militia, I have

Mothers' Pensions
no objection out of deference to them, to referring the matter to the Pensions Committee; but let me say this: For five sessions I have moved this resolution in the House. On every occasion when it was debated as a resolution it would meet with almost unanimous support. Member after member has risen from his seat and given examples of the manner in which widowed mothers were treated throughout the country. The resolution was always sent to the parliamentary committee with the best wishes of, and a strong recommendation from, the members of the House; yet invariably when the findings of the committee were brought down and put in the form of legislation we found that the committee had been unwilling to go further than grant a paltry five or ten dollars a month extra to the widowed mother. On every occasion when the report of the committee came before the House I have endeavoured to have this legislation amended in order to give greater opportunity for this class to obtain proper pensions, and on two occasions at least, and possibly on three, my amendment has been ruled out of order by the Speaker on the ground that I have no power to amend the resolution of the committee on matters pertaining to a money bill. So that though I agree with my hon. leader and his colleagues, and, out of deference to them, have no objection to referring the resolution to the committee, I have very little hope that it will be put into legislation unless the members of the committee who are now present make it their business to see that a hard, strong fight is put up in the committee and that the wishes of the House are for once carried out by them.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand the motion is referred to the committee?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member cannot amend his own motion. Another hon. member will have to propose that such motion be referred to the special committee.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody can propose that now. The hon. member has closed the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: It can be done by the unanimous consent of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know at the moment what it is that the House is asked to give unanimous consent to, but the debate on this motion is now closed.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Gavan Power: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Board of Pension Commissioners be given discretionary power to award pensions to mothers of deceased soldiers in cases where such mothers have been deserted by or become separated from their husbands, such pensions to be paid at the same rate as those awarded to widowed mothers.
He said: There is very little to be said with reference to this resolution. It asks the House to go on record as approving of the principle of treating the mothers of deceased soldiers who have been deserted, or become separated from their husbands, on the same basis as widowed mothers, provided always they can show their case a deserving one. It is in order to give effect to the latter provision that the resolution proposes to grant certain discretionary power to the Pension Commission. I may say it has been the experience of most of those who have had to do with the Board of Pension Commissioners that the less discretion we allow them the better it will be for the pensioner; but the number of and variety of cases dealt with here under this resolution is so great, that I do not wish to tie down the commission by any hard and fast rules. It may be possible later on to amend the law so as to give greater justice to all concerned; but I fear that if discretion is not allowed to the commissioners, a certain number of undeserving cases may obtain pensions.
In order to illustrate the cases I would like to see covered by legislation, allow me to cite one instance which occurred in my own constituency. There is a certain family in Quebec the children of which I have known for a number of years. When war broke out there were three boys, ail of whom enlisted for service overseas. Two returned very badly wounded, so badly wounded as to be unable to earn a living. One is now, I understand, under the care of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the other is drawing a full disability pension. The third boy was unfortunately killed at the front. After some time his mother, whom I had always known as a widow, obtained a pension. Subsequently she was able to

St. Lawrence Waterway
obtain a small position as a charwoman in the post office. This year, two years and a half after the pension was granted, a visitor came to see this lady, and after making inquiries as to her financial condition, etc., went away. Two weeks afterwards a letter arrived which stated that the pension was cut off owing to the fact that this lady was now earning a certain amount of money at her employment at the post office. The case was referred to me, and I wrote to the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners calling their attention to the legislation which provided that the pension of a widowed mother was not to be reduced on account of her earnings. The reply I received from the Board of Pension Commissioners was, that everything I said was quite right but that the lady was not a widow. On making further inquiries 1 found that she had been deserted in the year 1894 by her husband -who would to-day be eighty-eight years of age if he were alive-and she has never heard of him since.
She will not obtain her pension unless she proves that she is a widow. It is to remedy cases like that, where, taking advantage of pure technicality, the Board of Pension Commissioners decided to cut off the pension that I propose to give them power to treat a woman in a case such as I have mentioned on the same basis as a widowed mother. It is not necessary to explain to the House that it would be a very costly proceeding for this old lady to employ detectives to find out where her husband was, and to advertise in the newspapers for him.
I need not say to the House that, under the law, at any rate of the province of Quebec, with regard to civil rights and with regard to property, after five years' absence a man can be declared an absentee; nor need I explain that in criminal matters-and this applies to the whole of Canada-a person can plead against the charge of bigamy that he or she has not heard from the other party for seven years. So that, when we have such provisions in our statutes already with reference to these matters, surely there should be a similar provision with reference to pensions. I submit it is absolutely unjust and unfair to ask a lady, in a case such as I have mentioned, to go to the expense of proving that she is a widow. I have been informed by the Board of Pension Commissioners that a large number of such cases exist throughout Canada, and that it would be a good thing if legislation were introduced to cover them. I think the Minister of Sol-

diers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) agrees with me that such cases should be looked after. I know a number of cases where, perhaps, there might be attempts at fraud, and it is for that reason that, at the present time, I propose to give a certain amount of discretion to the Board of Pension Commissioners. I think this resolution should, at least, on the face of it carry, and that it would not be necessary to refer it to any committee whatever. The case is absolutely plain and I look for an expression of approval on the part of the House.



DAYLIGHT SAVING

[Stage Direction]
House resumed, from April 19, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Kay.
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislation be introduced during the present session to prohibit the adoption of Daylight Saving Time in any part of Canada.
And of the proposed amendment thereto by Mr. Duff.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Som hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the motion
lost.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
House resumed, from April 26, consideration of the following proposed motion of Mr. Church:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Canada should give early and favourable consideration to the report of the International Joint Commission on the St. Lawrence River Waterway, and request the Government of the United States to join with Canada in making an international agreement for carrying out the work so recommended.
Horatio Clarence Hocken: When the House adjourned on the day that this question was previously under consideration I had not had an opportunity to say the few words that I had in my mind on the subject. I commend, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) for bringing this question before the House. It is a subject of very great importance to the Dominion of Canada, and one which, I think, it is quite necessary to discuss more thoroughly than it can be discussed this session before we can bring the House and the country to realize their responsibility for carrying out this great project. For that reason I entirely disagree

St. Lawrence Waterway
with the hon. member from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) who indicated that it was a loss of time for the House to discuss a motion of this kind. It is only by discussing a project like this that the House can be brought to understand what it really means and that the country can be educated as to the necessity of so great a work.
My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle seems to think the object of this scheme is to increase the size of the city of Toronto. He may have got that idea from the fact that a representative of the city of Toronto brought it forward, but I think, if he will give it a little closer examination, he will discover that it is really to serve those parts of the country that are not congested in the form of great cities. To my mind this is a well balanced project that will be of benefit to every province of Canada, and it is one that has the approval of the International Joint Commission, and all members of the House have the report of that commission, I believe. It not only has their approval on the basis of an exhaustive examination of all the phases of the work, but it has the support of the President of the United States.
One of my hon. friends, I think the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) rather argued that that was an objection to it, that a partnership between the Dominion of Canada and the United States in a project of this kind was not desirable. I entirely disagree with that idea, because I think that a partnership that might be entered into by these two great countries to carry out this work is something that is desirable, and brings the project easily within the possibilities of the next few years. I am not at all alarmed, Sir, about entering into a partnership of this kind with the United States. I think these closer relationships in the development of both countries by a great project such as we are discussing is one of the things that bind us closer together, without bringing us under the same flag or under the same political system, and is calculated to continue for another century that hundred years of peace we have had between the two countries. I think, Sir, that the amity that has existed between the United States and Canada is due very largely to the maintenance of commercial and financial relations, and it is a happy thing to find the Dominion of Canada and United States co-operating with the International Joint Commission to carry through a work which is calculated to be of tremendous service,
in, my judgment, to every province in confederation.
This country has been endowed by Providence w^th the most wonderful system of inland waterways that can be found in any part of the world and while we have, in the past, done a good deal to improve those waterways, we are now face to face with a greater development than has ever before been conceived, and one which, I think, a close examination will show to be well within our financial resources and calculated to produce such results as would warrant the two countries in going on with the work. If we should sit down and refuse to develop the possibilities that are within our reach, we would surely be charged by later generations with lack of vision and courage. In the history of this country, there have been times when the amount of money involved would have been staggering; but, during the last ten or twelve years, we have got into the habit of speaking in terms of millions and sometimes of billions; and $100,000,000 or $250,000,000 is not to-day nearly so staggering a sum as it was a few years ago.
The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) drew attention the other day to the remarkable economy of using water instead of railway transportation. I do not think I need emphasize that further than to point out that, having such possibilities for water transportation, we ought to show some courage in developing them, because the saving in cost of transportation is going to be so enormous and because, with a recurring period of prosperity, the railway systems of this country and of this continent will be overtaxed as they were a few years ago. Canada has more miles of railway per thousand of population than, perhaps, is entirely necessary for the trade of the country. At the same time, if we can reduce the cost of transportation, especially to and from the great West, we are going to save the farmers of the West a tremendous amount of money, and we are going to make it possible for them to puchase goods manufactured in the East, and thus make our trade run east and west under the best and most economical conditions.
About two years ago, what is called car shortage occurred in Canada; men could not get cars to carry their goods. That was due to the remarkable prosperity that we enjoyed at that time. That condition is coming back, and it will not be many years, two or three, perhaps, before we shall be again
St. Lawrence Waterway

faced with the same conditions that existed two or three years ago, when there * was not a sufficient number of cars to handle the trade of the country. We cannot, of course, construct this waterway in time to meet that condition; but as we are certain to be faced with that in recurring periods in the future, we ought now to begin considering at what time we shall undertake this work in order to increase the transportaion facilities.
I said I thought this project was of great advantage to every province in the Dominion. What will be the effect of it upon the maritime provinces? I believe it would enable the miners of Nova Scotia to sell their coal in the greater part of Ontario. With a deep draught in the canal, with large boats carrying, perhaps, 10,000 tons, Nova Scotia coal could be sold as far west as Hamilton and the Niagara peninsula; it might go as far north as North Bay or further. If we could produce a condition of affairs by which coal from Nova Scotia could be sold throughout Ontario, that would be one of the greatest boons that could be given to that province. What is true of coal is true of steel, which is manufactured in Nova Scotia in large quantities. Steel is a kind of freight that requires cheap transportation, and vessels could be loaded at the steel mills and the product of those mills carried as far west as the head of the Great Lakes. Surely that would be of advantage to Nova Scotia. What is true of Nova Scotia is, of course, true of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if those provinces have anything to sell. Probably the potatoes of New Brunswick would still go into Maine; but there have been times when potatoes of New Brunswick would have been very welcome in Ontario, and potatoes require a low freight rate. It would be easy to market, in the great centres of population, all that the maritime provinces generally produce, if we had cheaper transportation, and the only way of getting cheaper transportation is by water instead of by rail. This plan proposes and provides for that.
I think this project would be of equal value to Quebec. I know some hon. gentlemen think that Quebec will be injuriously affected by the canalization of the St. Lawrence. They probably think that the head of ocean navigation would be extended from Montreal further west. That would be true as regards tramp steamers and other regular lines of freight vessels; but Montreal would continue to be the head
[Mi, Hoc-ken.1
of ocean navigation for passenger traffic, because it is not designed, at least not in my mind, that passenger ships should go further west than the city of Montreal. The benefit that would accrue to Quebec, as I see the proposition, would be to have the products of the factories and industrial establishments of that province carried from the place of manufacture to the head of the Great Lakes at one-fifth or, pernaps, one-tenth of the freight cost that is now imposed by the railways. Many different manufactured products of Quebec could be sold in the western provinces under very much better conditions, if the cost of freight were reduced so enormously as it certainly would be by having the goods carried by water instead of by rail. In addition to that, no part of the Dominion of Canada can prosper without the great city of Montreal and other manufacturing cities of the province of Quebec enjoying their share of that prosperity.
I do not think any province in Canada can be prosperous without all the other provinces having their share of that prosperity; what makes for the good of one, makes for the good of all. And in this particular this proposed project, which has the approval not only of the men who have studied it most exhaustively but also of the great Republic to the south of us, is one that ought to commend itself to the business men of Quebec who are conducting the great industrial establishments there, as well as to the financial interests of that province which are all more or less tied up, inevitably and inextricably, with the prosperity of the manufacturers and industrial enterprises down there.
I do not think that any place would profit more by the carrying out of this project than would the city of Montreal itself. It is the great financial centre of Canada, and in that fact alone it would draw to itself a very large share of the prosperity resulting from the completion of this undertaking. I sometimes compare those who are writing against this project in the press of Quebec to those workmen who resisted years ago, and those who still resist, the introduction of labour saving machinery. I take it that increased efficiency in any part of our industrial or transportation systems would work to the general advantage of the whole country, and in that way the province of Quebec stands to gain quite as much as, if not more than, the province of Ontario. Ontario, I think, would gain, but not nearly as much as the province of Quebec. Que-

St. Lawrence Watenvay
bee has a longer distance to carry its manufactured goods than Ontario and has to pay higher freight rates. But if we bad a waterway with regular lines of ships leaving Montreal and going up the St. Lawrence to the head of the lakes, any advantage western Ontario now has in the way of freight rates as against the province of Quebec would be wiped out; for the difference in the freight rate on a ship between Montreal and the head of the lakes, and between Toronto and the head of the lakes, is the merest possible fraction. So that I emphasize my argument that the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec stand to gain more than the province of Ontario.
I should think that all hon. gentlemen to my left would be among the protagonists of the project. It has been estimated that the cost of carrying grain from the West would be reduced by between five and ten cents a bushel. Let us put it at seven cents, and my hon. friends can figure out from that what a saving there would be in carrying the grain of the three western provinces by waterway instead of by rail.


Mr BROWN:: On my hon. friend's calculation, how many million bushels of grain would it require to save the interest on the amount that would be spent on the undertaking?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I shall come to that question later. If we could reduce the cost of carrying grain to somewhere about 7 cents a bushel, and if we could proportionately reduce the cost of carrying manufactured goods to the West, the people of the prairie provinces would gain both ways. They would buy what they required from the East at lower prices, while they would sell to the East and to the markets overseas at a higher rate. So that it is my conviction that, if we except the province of British Columbia, every part of Canada stands to gain enormously by the construction of this work.
I am not going into the details of this matter, because they are to be found in this book to which reference has been made; and my hon. friend from North Toronto gave a great many details the other day. I am rather trying to deal with the subject in a general way. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) wants to know how much it would cost. Well, Sir, I am going to argue that it would not cost anything; I contend that the building of the canal would not cost the Dominion a cent. I have no doubt
that that assertion strikes my hon. friend from Lisgar as rather a startling one. But the basis of my argument is that in building the deep water canal in the St. Lawrence there would at the same time be developed for use in the Dominion of Canada-particularly in Ontario and Quebec- two million horse-power of electrical energy; and there would also be developed two million horse-power of energy for the United States. I venture to say that that four million horse-power of energy could be sold for enough to pay all overhead costs of the work both from the electrical and from the navigation point of view. If you take four million horse-power at $20 or $25 per horse-power, you have $100,000,000 a year, which, besides paying overhead costs, would probably pay all the costs of distributing the electrical energy and administering the navigation of the canal.


James Joseph Hughes: Would there be a demand for that horse power?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not immediately, but if this work were started it is conceivable that it would take two or three years, or perhaps longer, to complete it, and during that time a good deal could be done to prepare the market for the energy that would be developed. But I would point out in this connection the fact that in the United States they are finding it not only desirable but profitable to electrify their railways, and a market would be found for a great deal of the power that would be developed as a result of this undertaking, in the electrifying of the railways of eastern Ontario and perhaps the western part of Quebec. At all events, it would not be a difficult or costly thing for the National railways to make preparations to operate all the line from Montreal to the Niagara frontier by electrical energy. And the time is coming when that system of transportation will be much more widely employed than it is to-day. There are a great many hundred miles of railway in the United States that are operated by electricity, which is by all odds the best motive power that a railway can have. In the first place, it saves about 10 per cent-I think it is estimated at 12 per cent-of the total weight that a locomotive has to haul. In water and fuel the steam locomotive has to haul 12 per cent of the weight of the train, and this could be eliminated by the use of electrical energy. In the next place, electricity is much more efficient in cold
St. Lawrence Waterway

weather, such as we have in this country occasionally. The electrical locomotive never freezes up, so that it is more dependable the colder the weather becomes; and, as an hon. member suggests, it absolutely removes the fire risk wherever it is employed. I think it will be found, before ten years have passed, that electricity will be recognized throughout this continent as the ideal motive power for all railways, and there, is going on in the United States at the present time a discussion as to whether they should not construct great central power plants to develop electrical power by coal at the pitmouth, transmitting that power to operate the railways two or three hundred miles away.
I am quite satisfied, Sir, from my amateur study of the railway problem of this continent that that is a development of the near future, and I make this digression in order to answer my hon. friend who asked me if there would be a demand for this power. I can tell him, as my hon. friend from North Toronto pointed out the other day, that where electrical energy is developed in large quantities there industrial activity is intensified, and what were formerly little villages or small towns soon develop into great industrial communities. Take the city of Welland alone, where there is an abundance of electrical power, and we find an outstanding example in our part of the province, of the growth of a small place into a considerable city. In the whole of western Ontario you will find few industries that are not operating with electrical power. In a word, electrical power is one of the principal factors that make western Ontario such a prosperous part of the Dominion. Electrical power has three great advantages over steam power-it is cheaper, it is cleaner, and it is more efficient. I could give you facts out of mv own experience, Sir, if that were necessary, but I do not think I need do so to bring myself within the judgment of hon. members. I have no fear that within a reasonably short period of time after this power were developed there would be a sufficient market to take up every horsepower of energy generated.
My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) asked me about the financing of this project. There is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that I have discussed with one of the men who have been prominent in advocating this movement in the United States, and it commends itself to my judgment at least; whether it will satisfy the House or not is

another question. The plan is that this Government and the government of the United States might constitute a commission, for service and not for profit, with power to issue bonds to be guaranteed by both governments. I am afraid there are some persons in this country who do not like that expression; they would like to develop this great power on the St. Lawrence if it could be done for private profit. I think that would be a mistake. I am of opinion that we have gone far enough to discover that there are some things that can be done successfully by the public for the public; in fact, we have demonstrated this so fully in our own province that I feel satisfied this undertaking could be worked cut in an equally satisfactory manner.
Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that an international commission such as I speak of were created to carry out the plans that have been or will be prepared at a cost, say, of $250,000,000 or $300,000,000. That commission would undertake to work upon a reasonable recompense for their services; but not a cent would go to pay dividends; there would be no stock to pour water into. The commission would have power to sell the bonds, and I do not think any hon. member would hesitate to believe that if an international commission were created they could sell twice over all the bonds necessary to carry out the project, those bonds to bear a reasonable rate of interest, for they would have at their back the security of the whole North American continent, and would rely upon the earning capacity both of the canal and of the power to be generated, but particularly of the latter. It is primarily a navigation project, designed to take advantage of the great endowment that Providence has given to us; but with it goes the possibility of developing an enormously valuable asset as a byproduct of the extension of our deep-water navigation system from the gulf of St. Lawrence to the head of the lakes.
I should like hon. members to consider this project, not from any narrow, provincial or sectional standpoint, but from every standpoint. I have no expectation that we are going to settle it to-day, nor at this session, nor perhaps next session, but I anticipate that some member, if not my hon. friend from North Toronto, (Mr. Church) then his colleague from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), will certainly bring this question before the House at some subsequent session. If in the meantime hon. members will examine and study its relation to every province and

St. Lawrence Waterway
realize the benefits that will accrue to each province from the completion of the project, I am satisfied that in the course of another session or two-I hope next session-the House will see its way clear to take a decided step towards inaugurating this work and carrying it to completion.
If we were asked to-day to raise $150,000,000 or $250,000,000 to carry out a work of this magnitude, I think we would all hesitate to take action. That is what my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) put to us the other day as an alternative. He said: If we are going to create a new navigation system, let us develop the Ottawa river practically from Montreal to lake Nipissing. Well, if we did that, we would have to go down in our own pockets to raise the necessary funds. We could not get a joint international commission appointed for such a purpose, we could not get assistance in financing from any other quarter. That consideration alone would seem to me to put that alternative out of the question at the present time. All the horsepower that could be developed from the Ottawa river, according to the figures of my hon. friend, is a million and a half. And that would be developed where? Not where it is needed, not where there is a market for it, but hundreds of miles away, with the result that much of that power would be lost in transmission. Besides, you cannot develop industrial communities of any size along the Ottawa river from this city up to lake Nipissing; that is absurd. Therefore any such electrical development would not amount to anything; but the development of electrical energy along the front of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is something entirely different. There you already have a market, and there are the possibilities of a much more extended market. Further, by the use of this power that market would be constantly increasing and new industries would be established all the time, resulting in these two provinces becoming the great manufacturing centres of the Dominion-they are now, in fact, but they would then be much more so-and they would bring within reach of our country the possibility of developing foreign markets for our goods, because with cheap power we ought to be able to get lower costs of production, and with cheap transportation a vessel could load at any place in lake Ontario, lake Huron or lake Superior, as well as in the gulf or on the St. Lawrence river, and carry our manufactured goods to any part of the world.
Surely that is an alluring prospect that we ought to regard with keen sympathy
and deep interest. I submit, Sir, that there is no undertaking facing the people of Canada to-day that is so promising of results, so promising of increasing our national prosperity and of such extraordinary value to us as the carrying out of this great work; and the adoption of this resolution submitted by my hon. friend from North Toronto would be the first step to this desirable consummation.


William Manley German: I
cannot allow this resolution to be finally disposed of without taking some part in the discussion. Knowing the circumstances surrounding this matter and the conditions in connection with electrical power development fairly well, I feel that there is no question of greater importance or of greater interest that could come before this Parliament at this or any other session than the resolution which is now under discussion.
I notice that my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) in his speech on Wednesday last said:
As to improving the navigability of the St. Lawrence, there is a lurking suspicion that this is only the ostensible purpose, and that the real purpose of the promoters is to promote water-power-
I wish to disabuse my hon. friend's mind of that idea at once. He is quite mistaken in supposing that the ostensible purpose of the promoters is to promote water-power, and when he speaks of promoting water-power, I apprehend that he means promoting water-power in so far as the development of electrical energy by water-power is concerned.
This proposition took its rise, in the first place, in the middle western states. Some eighteen or twenty of these important states feeling that it was necessary for the wellbeing of that great country that there should be better water transportation facilities between the Great Lakes and the ocean, formed an organization called the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Tidewater Association for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the United States government the necessity of making the St. Lawrence river navigable from the Great Lakes to the ocean. That was practically the inauguration of this scheme, and the electrical power development only came into it when Canadians here interested in this matter took the question up themselves.
The American Tidewater Association had its formation twelve or fifteen years
St. Lawrence Waterway

ago, and spent enormous sums of money in propaganda and publicity through the United States. Some four or five years ago a number of enthusiastic gentlemen in Canada felt that there should be a greater interest taken in this matter not only by our Canadian citizens, but by the Government of Canada, and they formed in the city of Windsor an association known as the Canadian Deep Waterway and Power Association, to act in conjunction with the United States association for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the two governments the benefits that would accrue from the undertaking and completion of this project, and through the Canadian association the great possibility of paying for the whole project by the development of electrical current. That is where the electrical element entered into the consideration of the matter.
A good deal has been said about the enormous expense, and I intend to-night to devote my time and what ability I have to dealing with that side of the matter. I notice my hon. friend from St. James in his speech the other day said:
I want to remind the House also of some of the very good reasons which have been advanced why the Government should be very cautious in this matter-
I agree with him that the Government should be cautious.
-should approach the whole question warily-
I quite agree that we should act warily.
-and should refrain at the present time from taking the least practical action.
Why refrain? We can act cautiously, we can act warily, but it would not be the part of courageous citizens of Canada for us to refrain altogether from taking up this matter and endeavouring to deal with it as a business proposition in connection with an application to the United States government with a view to arriving at some practical understanding in regard to it. I think that we are quite capable, so far as the business end of it is concerned, of taking care of ourselves. We understand the matter as fully as they do, and I have no fear at all from that point of view.
Let us see in the first instance what the expense of this project will be. We have the engineers' estimates. It was stated by my hon. friend from St. James that possibly their estimate would not cover one-half the cost. Let me state that the engineers prepared their estimates last summer. They

were published in August, and the details of the expenditure were also published. Those details have been in the hands of engineers who have been opposed to this project from that hour until now, and the fact that they have not up to this minute pointed out one error in the calculations of the engineers is the best evidence to my mind that their estimates are correct.
What do the engineers say? They say that the cost of the project will be $252,723,200, and that this amount will be required to make the St. Lawrence navigable from the lakes to the ocean and create an electrical power development on the international section of the river by which there will be developed 1,464,000 electrical horsepower. Those figures $252,723,200 are rather staggering, and it is necssary that we should know where this is going to lead before we attempt such enormous expenditure, even in conjunction with the wealthy United States of America. What does it mean? I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hocken) in his remarks as to the financial end of this proposition. I understood him to say that he favoured the appointment of a joint commission. If the Government should incorporate what might be called the Joint International Navigation and Power Company with authority to issue, say, fifty year debentures, those debentures to be guaranteed by the governments of the United States and Canada, I submit to hon. members of this House that those debentures so issued could be readily sold at four per cent interest. Assuming that to be the case, the annual interest at four per cent on the capital expenditure would be $10,108,928. The annual cost of operation and maintenance as outlined by the engineers amounts to $2,562,000. The sinking fund to pay off that capital expenditure in fifty years would amount to $3,300,000 a year, making a total expenditure of $15,970,928 a year. This is an enormous expenditure but what have you got for it? You have electrical power amounting to 1,464,000 horse-power and at $12 per horse-power on the switchboard that would amount to $17,568,000, or a surplus over the annual expenditure sufficient to wipe off the whole indebtedness, upkeep and maintenance of $1,597,072.
Now I appeal to my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Rinfret) if the Montreal Light Heat and Power Company sell current at the switchboard at their works in the St. Lawrence river at $12 a horsepower? That is an exceedingly cheap elec-

St. Lawrence Waterway
trical power at the switchboard, and if you sell the current at $12 per horsepower you have an annual surplus over what will be the whole cost of construction, the interest and sinking fund, in a period of fifty years, leaving a balance of $1,597,072 a year. Speaking broadly, that answers the financial situation. And these figures are not fictitious or visionary; they are the figures given us by the engineers who have made a thorough study of the situation. All these figures are agreed to by the joint commissioners of Canada and the United States, who have made a thorough study of the whole situation, and state that as far as they can ascertain by the evidence given they are actual. That would be on a basis of an equal share between the two countries, but we find that it is not at all to be the situation if this report is adopted, and it is only the adoption of this report that is asked. The United States Government may say that they want better terms than that report gives; but we are asking this Parliament and this Government to proceed on the basis of the adoption of that report. Now what does this report say in so far as expenditure is concerned.
In the first place let me point out what the report says in relation to the Welland canal, but first I want hon. gentlemen to remember this:	We are at the outset faced
with an expenditure of $80,000,000 for the construction of a new Welland ship canal. The Government of Canada is faced with that proposition. The estimates for the expense of that work were made in 1912, and the original estimate made at that time was for $50,000,000. The work would have been completed long before this, and well within that expenditure, had it not been for the cruel war which upset everyone's calculations and set the world back many years. Now with the increased cost, that expenditure is extended to about $80,000,000. The commissioners say this:
Another factor in the situation that should not be lost sight of is the peculiar relationship to the proposed improvement of the new Welland ship canal, a portion of which is now under construction. As pointed out in an earlier part of this report, the completion of the Welland ship canal and the adoption and completion of the St. Lawrence Improvement would remove the only barrier to the creation of a deep-water route from the head of the lakes to the sea. This would give at least 25-foot navigation from the sea up to the Detroit river, with a present minimum of about 20 feet above lake Erie. Although entirely outside the strict terms of the reference submitted to it by the two governments, the commission has been impressed by the fact that the new Welland ship canal
is such an integral part of the waterway, and is so inseparately interwoven with the project under immediate consideration, that it should properly be considered as a part of the whole scheme and the expense of its construction should be apportioned between the two governments upon the same basis as the works recommended for the upper St. Lawrence.
So that we have at the outset this International Joint Commission recommending that the Welland ship canal be taken into consideration as a part of the whole project, and that the cost of this construction be apportioned between the two countries on the same basis as the upper St. Lawrence. Then they say in their recommendation :
1.	The governments of the United States and Canada enter into an arrangement by way of treaty for a scheme of improvement of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and lake Ontario.
2.	That the new Welland ship canal be embodied in said scheme and treated as a part thereof.
Now how is that to be apportioned? It is recommended:
That, except as set forth in recommendation (11), the cost of all "navigation works" be apportioned between the two countries on the basis of the benefits each will receive from the new waterway:	Provided, That during the
period ending five years after the completion of the works-and to be known as the Construction Period-the ratio fixing the amount chargeable to each country shall be determined upon certain known factors such as the developed resources and foreign and coastwise trade of each country within the territory economically tributary to the proposed waterway, and that that ratio shall be adjusted every five years thereafter and based upon the freight tonnage of each country actually using the waterway during the previous five year period.
Now will any hon. member say that if that proposition of the commissioners was carried out, the ratio of cost would be a fifty per cent ratio? Everyone knows that the United States will benefit eight or ten times more than Canada will for the next fifty years from the construction of this St. Lawrence waterway, and that is the basis of their calculation but, assuming the ratio is three to one, that we pay one-quarter of the expense and the United States government pay three-quarters- I am not committing myself to that ratio of expenditure; I think it would be too great so far as Canada is concerned, but let us assume as a basis of argument for submitting this question to the people that the ratio of expenditure would be as three to one, three to the United States and one to Canada-what does that mean at once? The Welland canal will cost $80,000,000. Instead of Canada paying $80,-

St. Lawrence Waterway

000,000 for cost of construction of the Welland ship canal, this country -will pay $20,000,000 and the United States will pay $60,000,000.
Now what will he the expense of the St. Lawrence waterways? Figuring on that basis-because that is the basis I submit we should figure it on, not a fifty-fifty ratio but something in the nature of the proposition submitted by the commissioners- the St. Lawrence river is divided in so far as this project is concerned, into five sections. The first three sections are below lake St. Francis leading into Montreal. The cost of those sections amounts to $93,531,000. That cost is unquestionably on navigation. One-fourth of that, which would be the proportion assigned to Canada, would be $23,382,750. Then the commissioners recommend that Canada should pay one-half of the cost of sections 4 and 5, which constitute the international section. One-half of the cost of these two sections would amount to $79,596,100 or a total to Canada of $103,178,850 for the cost of navigation of the St. Lawrence and for the cost of the electrical development proposed in connection therewith.
The interest on that amount-I am devoting myself here to Canada's proportion of the expenditure-the interest on that amount at four per cent would be $4,127,154. The cost of operation and maintenance would be $1,671,000 according to the engineer's report; and the sinking fund to pay off that total amount in fifty years would amount to $1,300,000 or a total per annum of $7,098,154, which would be Canada's separate liability in connection with this project assuming that Canada was to pay one-fourth and the United States three-fourths of the total expense.
Now, what do we have? Canada's part of the electrical power development would be 732,000 horse-power which at $10 per horse-power would give $7,320,000. At $10 per horse-power it would pay Canada's whole liability in connection with that matter and leave about $300,000 per annum of a national profit. At $12 per horsepower the proceeds of the sale of the power would be $8,784,000, or a surplus over and above Canada's share of the expenditure of $1,500,000 a year. If those figures are accurate, if that is what it will produce, if the construction of this project, the development of the electrical current, the completion of the waterway, will work out in that way truly from the figures, surely it is a good financial proposition for Canada to enter into and we need not fear the

consequence. Those figures are accurate, so far as we have them up to the present time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the very next question which will be asked will be:	Can
that power be sold in the market? Can 732,000 electrical horse-power be sold either at $10 or $12 per horse-power readily and speedily? I submit, without any hesitation, that it can. In connection with the electrical power development and the disposal of electrical energy, there can be no market for that electrical energy until the electrical energy is produced. It does not create a market itself, in advance of production. The experience of the past has shown that. People will not prepare for taking electrical energy, or establish plants for using electrical energy until it is ready to be distributed to their plant and their operation. Let us see what happened in the case of Niagara Falls; because it seems to me that what has happened in the past is very likely to happen in the future, and that we can govern our future action by the experience of the past. Twenty years ago there was not one horse-power of electrical energy developed at Niagara Falls, or in the Niagara peninsula. At that time the Ontario Power Company first began to develop its power, and it was said publicly and privately that it would be practically impossible to transmit electrical current from Niagara Falls to Toronto with commercial success. From that day till now there has been developed in that Niagara district. Niagara Falls and DeCew Falls, and is being distributed, used and paid for, not throughout Ontario, but from Toronto west to the Detroit river, about
600.000	electrical horse-power, the existence of which was not known twenty years ago. It has developed the resources of that whole country most tremendously. There is now in course of development, ready to be distributed within a very short time, about
400.000	further electrical horse-power, which will make altogether 1,000,000 horsepower, which will be developed and sold, used by the people of Ontario between the city of Toronto and the Detroit river. So that when you say that large blocks of electrical power cannot be disposed of, you cannot regard it in the same way as you would regard a cargo of wheat, barley, pork or any other commodity that may be uesd or manufactured. It produces its home market when it is created. But let us see what the commissioners say. They had the opportunity of investigating the uses of horse-power, and the possibilities

St. Lawrence Watenvay
of the future in regard to the electrical development and this is what they say:
The commission has before it graphs Nos 3 and 5 showing the present use of power on both sides of the boundary within a radius of approximately 300 miles of the Long Sault rapids, and also the probable future demand. It appears from these graphs that at the present time (1921) the total primary power installation on the United States side of the 300-mile area is approximately 9,900,000 horse-power and on the Canadian side 1,900,000 horse-power. The estimated demand on the United States side in 1925 is 11,000,000 horse-power and on the Canadian side 2,350,000 horse-power; and in 1930 on the United States side 12,500,000 horsepower, and on the Canadian side 2,875,000 horse-power.
That is within 300 miles of the Long Sault rapids, which is the place of development of this electrical power which we are now discussing; so that by the time this work would be completed, we would have, to be used, according to this report, on the Canadian side, in 1925, 2,350,000 horsepower, and in 1930 2,875,000 horse-power. That is the report of the commission, and, in the face of those figures, I submit we can safely take it for granted that there will be a market for that electrical power as soon as it is developed and ready for use.
But, Sir, you may say that is conjecture. Let us get down somewhat to the actual. There was a resolution moved in this House some weeks ago in reference to electrifying our steam railways. My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Hocken) referred to that question to some extent, but I wish to enlarge a little, because I have some figures as to the actual power which will be used. In the first place, in operating railroads with electrical energy they do not consume anything like the amount of power that is required in the case of operation by steam, because, by some system in connection with the operation, the electrical energy is returned to the line. When the electrical locomotive is standing still the current is not being used, when it is going down grade the current is not being used, but it is being returned to the line, whereas with the steam locomotive the fire is kept up and the steam is being generated continually, whether it is in motion or not. Let us, in the first place, consider whether the railroad can be economically operated by electrical energy. I have in my hand a little pamphlet which has been issued by the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, and in this pamphlet I find the following:
From the outset the operation of electric locomotives has been a success, and he states
that they have practically eliminated the mountain grades. The large number of helper engines originally used to handle the passenger and freight trains over the mountain grades has been replaced by one or two electric locomotives, which alone are sufficient to handle the greatly increased traffic of the present year (1915). The movement of trains is so uniform and failures of electric locomotives so infrequent, that one set of train despatches takes the place of two sets employed under steam operation.
Electrification has made, it possible to increase the tonnage on maximum grades from 1,700 to 2,500 tons per train and this latter will be further increased to 3,000 tons shortly. This increased tonnage is now being handled at a speed of 15 mp.h. as compared with 8 m.p.h. by steam.	'
The winter of 1914-15 demonstrated in a practical manner that while the steam engine is at its lowest efficiency in cold weather, the electric locomotive, on the other hand, is at its maximum.
There were long periods, in the Rocky mountain district, when the thermometer registered 40 degrees below zero and it was impossible to-move the trains by steam locomotives. The electric locomotives, however, were always ready for service, and always able to work to the maximum.
In the practical operation of the transcontinental trains of the C.M. & St. P. over the Rocky mountain grades the train is brought to the summit at a speed of from 23 to 25 miles per hour. There is no difficulty in obtaining a speed of 60 m.p.h. on level grades, with 10 allsteel cars.
Experience has shown that the electric locomotive handles about 3J times as many ton-miles per month as the steam locomotives, and it also appears that the electric locomotives cut 30 per cent from the time necessary to do a given business, partly by running faster and partly by moving heavier trains.
This is conclusive proof that steam railways can be electrified and operated to advantage by electric current. There would, to my mind, be no better place on the North American continent to test out the working of electric railway operation than over the Canadian National lines between the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto. Between Montreal and Toronto there is used approximately 25,000 steam horsepower for road service and yard service.


George Perry Graham: Over what period?


William Manley German: Per annum. It costs
$120 per annum to generate one horsepower by steam. That figure is likewise authentic, and it can be borne out by the evidence of experts who are operating steam railways. What does that mean? It means $3,000,000 per annum for operating by steam trains on the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto. What can be done by electricity? Everyone who knows anything about electrical operation, knows that it takes very much less electrical horsepower to operate the same train service
St. Lawrence Waterway

than steam horse-power, and that that 25,000 steam horse-power would he represented, at any rate, by 20,000 electrical horse-power. I think it would be less than that: but if we take it at 20,000 electrical horse-power at $12, per horse-power, that would mean $240,000 a year for operating the trains on the Grand Trunk railway between Montreal and Toronto by electricity, as against $3,000,000 by steam, a saving of $2,760,000 thus being made. Is that worth going after? That is not a visionary proposition; those figures will stand scrutiny and bear investigation. Such a saving should, by itself, be sufficient to warrant every hon. member and, indeed, everyone in this country in considering very carefully whether this proposition should be entered into or not. I have no doubt that test could be extended. It is only about 300 miles from Montreal to Toronto. Electrical current is being transmitted now from Niagara Falls west 250 miles. The Long Sault rapids, at which the development of the electrical energy now under discussion would be, perhaps, 200 or 250 tniles from Toronto; 250 miles east of that would take you a long way beyond the city of Montreal. All the railroads running north from the international boundary line to Ottawa and further north could be electrified and operated by electric current.
Of course, I know quite well that the electrification of steam railroads is not a cheap proposition. It costs about $30,000 a mile to electrify a steam railway without taking into consideration the cost of electrical locomotives; but I submit that we should not take into consideration the cost of electrical locomotives, because they are replacing steam locomotives which can be used elsewhere, and which, in course of time, would have to be replaced anyway. Therefore, it would cost, perhaps, $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 to electrify the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto; but if you can save, as without a doubt you can, at least $2,760,000 per annum on the cost of operation of that line between those points, how long will it take to pay the $20,000,000 which it costs to electrify the line? When that is paid, you have that for all time to come. You need have no fear of a coal shortage or a strike; you have a perpetual source of supply of electrical energy which you can take to the utmost pound, and still there is as much to give. The Canadian Pacific, if the proposition is the financial one outlined, would very shortly electrify their line bell Mr. German.]
tween Montreal and Toronto. Further lines could be developed; and in this time of deficits in railway management, in this time of high freight rates, should we not exert all our energies to bring about a reduction in the cost of transportation and freight rates?


James Joseph Hughes: Would the electrical
energy developed by the water-power be divided between the two countries in the same ratio that the expense of development would be divided?


William Manley German: Not at all. That is not the suggestion of the commission. The suggestion of the commission is that the electrical power developed on the international section of the St. Lawrence river, which is from lake Ontario down to the foot of the Long Sault rapids, should be divided equally between the two countries. That total is 1,464,000 horse-power, and each country would have one-half of that and each pay one-half of the expense.


James Joseph Hughes: Of developing that
power?


William Manley German: Of developing that
power, and I have given the figure of what that would be. Below the Long Sault, there are sections 1, 2 and 3, and let us see what the result of those will be. The people of Montreal, when they consider this proposition carefully, cannot be opposed to it. The city of Montreal is now the head of, perhaps the greatest railway organization in the world, and when this project is completed, the city of Montreal will be the centre of the greatest electrical development in the world. According to the engineer's report on section 1, which comprises the Lachine rapids, there can be developed
1,076,000	horse-power, at an approximate cost of $83,797,000. I believe, not one of the cheapest, but the cheapest electrical power development in the world, less than $80 per horse-power. I understand that the development of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company is not only exceedingly efficient, but exceedingly inexpensive. But I will venture to say that its expenditure is greater than $80 per horse-power. Then the second section is from the head of lake St. Louis to the foot of lake St. Francis, and there can be developed 1,560,000 horsepower at a cost of $150,688,000, or about $100 per horse-power, which is as cheap as any electrical development I know of in the country. So that we are only on the verge of electrical development when we have solved the problem of dividing the power

St. Lawrence Waterway
that can he developed on the international section of the river.
It can very fairly be said that if there were no market in Canada for the one-half of the electrical power that can be developed on the international section of the St. Lawrence, it would be advantageous to us to sell it to the United States, temporarily at any rate, until we could secure a market for ourselves. But when, practically within a stone's throw of the great metropolitan city of Montreal, we can develop 2,636,000 horse power at a cost of very much less than $100 per horse power, how can any one stand up and fairly argue against this project being not only undertaken but carried to completion at a very early date? The power that we shall have is not for a day, nor for a year, nor for a hundred years. So long as the sun shall shine, so long as moisture rises from the earth, and rains descend from the clouds, so long as the eternal hills shall stand, so long will this mighty St. Lawrence roll that enormous wealth of power from the Great Lakes to the ocean. And shall we stand idly by and allow this wealth to go past us undeveloped and unused? My hon. friend from St. James said the other day:
If the flow of the St. Lawrence was as abundant and tumultuous as the faculty of speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Church), we might take chances with it, but in my view the St. Lawrence is too precious an asset to this country for us to lightly and without the strongest motives either attempt to alter its navigability, or enter into partnership with another country in regard to it, or place a mortgage on our property rights in it.
We are not asking any one to enter into partnership with any country, nor do we propose to alter the navigability of the river. It is navigable now going downstream, but it is not navigable upstream. It has a mighty current of power going from the Great Lakes to the ocean, power which will flow for all time and furnish the motive force to turn every wheel of commerce within the radius to which electrical energy can be transmitted; and if that mighty power is to be put to use, now is the time to do it. Now is the time for us in Canada, with all the enormous obligations we have to shoulder, with our great railway deficits, to put to use this, the greatest available power which this or any other country has. Enter into partnership with other countries? Let me assure my hon. friend that at this hour the United States government, under treaty rights with Great Britain, has
the free right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, just as we have. We could not stop them without violating that treaty, and all that they are asking for now is that that river be made navigable, so that ocean going ships can go from tidewater to the head of the Great Lakes. We say that we in Canada could not possibly consider that enormous expenditure for one instant unless there were coupled with it a development which would pay the cost of that construction; and we point out to this House and to the country the advantages, not only possible but certain which would accrue from the electrical development, and we ask the House to join us in supporting the resolution.
Now, can we not go further? If this is a financially feasible proposition, is the navigable channel not in itself advantageous? Can we not with confidence appeal to our Progressive friends from the prairie provinces to assist in the completion of this project? Hon. gentlemen from that section say: "'We want the Hudson Bay railway built." Very well, I supported appropriations for the construction of that railway in the past, and I am prepared to sup port appropriations for the same purpose in the future. I believe the Hudson Bay railway to be a necessary part of the transportation system of the great Northwest. Will the people of the West not more speedily secure the construction of the Hudson Bay railway by increasing the national wealth of the country? And can you not increase the national wealth by constructing this St. Lawrence waterway? The people of the West say they want cheap freight rates and greater transportation facilities. Then let hon. gentlemen from that part of the country join with us in bringing about the completion of this project, which would reduce freight rates by at least ten cents a bushel on over 300,000,000 bushels of wheat which is to be moved from the great prairies to the city of Liverpool. My hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) figures upon a saving of seven cents a bushel. I say that undoubtedly ten cents a bushel could be saved on wheat shipped from the prairies to Liverpool if the grain were carried by water. It is well known that water transportation is by far the cheapest system of transportation there is. I urge hon. members to support the completion of this great undertaking. We cannot afford to stand idle any longer in this important matter. As was said of Britain's statesmen by one of her noblest poets, "Let us know the season when to take occasion
St. Lawrence Waterway

by the hand and make the bounds of progress broader yet." That is the idea we have in mind in endeavouring to carry through this proposition.
Let me put three points in a nutshell. In the first place, at the lowest calculation, we could save $60,000,000 in the construction of the Welland ship canal. Is that worth going after? In the next place, we could save $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 a year in the operation of the Canadian National Railway system. Is that worth considering? In the third place, there would be saved to the farmers of Canada 10 cents per bushel on over 300,000,000 bushels of wheat shipped from the Northwest to Liverpool. Is it worth while trying to secure that advantage? Place those three factors by themselves and then say to yourselves: Can we secure these three things without costing the taxpayers one dollar? If we can, it is our duty as citizens of Canada, true to our country and true to ourselves, to enter into this project wholeheartedly and carry it to completion at the earliest possible date.
We cannot, I say, afford to wait. I have no fear of any complications arising between Canada and the United States regarding a few acres of submerged land in the St. Lawrence river; that land is covered by water now, and it will be covered by water for all time to come. I have no fear of any serious questions arising between Canada and the United States regarding any agreements which we may enter into in respect to this matter. Peace has reigned between us for the last one hundred years, and I feel confident that peace will continue to reign for hundreds of years yet to come. We are all Anglo-Saxons talking the same language and holding the same religious convictions practically, and there can be no serious differences of opinion between these two great countries.
Let us enter into this undertaking energetically, let us carry it out intelligently and as economically as possible, and then this great Canadian ship of state will be headed down the channel of time to a sure harbour of unbounded prosperity.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, this question must be looked at in the broadest manner, for it is a continental question; it concerns the whole North American continent and not merely the United States or Canada. It is part of the policy of the development of the St. Lawrence river by the United States, and there should be the same policy in Canada for this development of our St. Lawrence
TMt. German.]
waterways. We have a splendid example in the achievement of the United States in building the Panama canal. That canal is a little slow in bringing its usefulness to the world in cheaper transportation, but it is doing so now. That canal cost billions of money to build, and it was completed in less than ten years. It was undertaken largely through the enterprise and foresight of the late President Roosevelt. Now President Harding has taken up this question, and he has been moved to do so by two main arguments put forward by the farmers of the United States for cheaper transportation. The Farmers' bloc at Washington is now so strong that at every point they are securing the majority support of Congress and of the President's cabinet, and only the other day the President himself made a deliverance in favour of the development of the St. Lawrence waters that committed him and his party to its support.
The farmers of the western states have found out, just as have our farmers in the western provinces, that railway rates are too high, principally due, perhaps, to bad management of their railways. Indeed, all the railroad organizations of the United States have come to the same conclusion, and they are now shaping up a policy for the rehabilitation of their properties, and through their chief speakers and organs they have declared that to lower freight rates and so increase traffic they must electrify their roads. There cannot be the cheap transportation we expect from our railways unless they are driven by electrical energy. There is an abundance of electrical energy along the St. Lawrence, coupled with other water-powers, to drive the trains on every railroad line in the northern portion of the states from Chicago to Philadelphia.
As my hon. friend (Mr. German) pointed out a few minutes ago, until quite recently electric energy could not be transmitted for more than fifty miles because of the excessive leakage of current; but the latest discoveries of science point to the feasibility in the near future of electrical energy being transmitted for five hundred or even a thousand miles without any appreciable leakage. The electrical art is developing very rapidly, and the employment of new methods render possible to-day what was out of the question a few years ago. Take the introduction of aluminum, for instance: only a few years ago it was regarded as a curiosity, but to-day it is being used for transmission wires, and in that way the

St. Lawrence Waterway
length of transmission is greatly extended. The first company to discover its possibilities was the Aluminum Company of the United States, and ten years ago they very nearly obtained control of valuable water power at Cornwall on the St. Lawrence. It was just by a mere chance that a few members in the railway committee at that time prevented that great water-power passing into the hands of United States citizens.
The pressing need of the railways of the United States to-day is electrical energy. I quoted some of their articles to that effect when I last spoke in this House. They are now trying to reorganize their railroads into ten regional divisions and electrify them. That electrification will cost a lot of money, but it will be spent in labour and equipment to the advantage of the country generally, and with electrification will come reduced freight rates.
Our farmers know that the supreme question to-day is cheap transportation. They know how high freight rates have been and still are by reason of the use of steam power and other circumstances, and they have reached the same conclusion as the President of the United States and the Farmers' Bloc, that electrification of the railways must come and will come almost immediately. The United States railways have their plans prepared for this electrification, and the president's move to develop energy on the St. Lawrence waterways has two objects in view-first, the improvement of the waterways for navigation and transportation purposes, and, secondly, the production of energy for the electrification of the railways of the United States.
Now, all the American railways to-day have placed themselves on record in favour of the substitution of electrical energy for steam. They have done so for several reasons, among others, because electrical energy is cheaper, because it is more reliable, and because the supply is unlimited, and they all know that scientific discoveries are proceeding at such a rapid rate that the transmission of electrical energy is already practical for long distances.
Let me tell you what took place in our own province of Ontario on the Niagara river. Sir Adam Beck has been much criticised for the expenditure involved in developing the Chippawa-Queenston generating plant. In one year from now that plant, owned by the municipalities of Ontario, will be developing 500,000 horsepower, and I believe within two years 1,000,000 horse-power, and will be driving every train in Ontario not only from the Detroit river to Montreal but even up to lake Nipissing. That may be merely a dream in the opinion of some people, but I do not think so1. Would anyone have dreamed twenty-four months ago of the present radio development? No one would have prophesized that such rapid progress would have been possible. No one can foretell its ultimate development, nor what it may mean in revolutionizing the whole world through the use of radio waves. The use of these radio waves is going to reorganize probably the whole world. The hope of scientists is that they are going to be able to transmit electrical energy even without the wiring. That is not a dream; it is almost at hand. So we do not need to go by visions; it is in sight now. In twelve months there will be a quarter of a million, and in two years half a million horse-power developed at that one plant. There may be a change even in the developing plants on the river bank there. The Chippawa plant would probably scrap some of the plants now developing near the river in not so advantageous a position. This project, then, is no impractical vision.
The statement is made in this House and in some of the papers that Montreal would object to this project because its supremacy in transportation would be threatened. The effect will be to make Montreal a greater city. How could Montreal people talk that way, living within a few miles of the home of La Salle, when they think of the dream he had of what the St. Lawrence would eventually become? He was the first man to go up the Niagara and build the first boat near the Falls and sail up to lake Superior. So as far as Montreal is concerned, this project will make it an even greater city. Most of the water-power is near that city, and this development will make it one of the greatest cities on the continent. No matter how much power is developed there, it will always find an immediate market. The American roads will be ready to buy it, for they have already made up their minds that they must electrify, and they must get power. The President of the United States has committed the government of that country to this development, and the farmers in the United States are behind him, just as our farmers here are beginning to see that the relief to transportation must come
St. Lawrence Waterway

from the competition of the waterways. The competition of the waterways in former days failed largely because of the opposition of the railways, but the new doctrine of to-day is that the railways are the complement of the waterways and the waterways the complement of the railways, and both working in competition will produce lower freight rates. They will be bound to produce lower freight rates, and the saving will be such that it will justify ten times over the commitment in connection with the construction of the waterways on the St. Lawrence as outlined in the commission's report.
I had intended when the railway question came up, which we may be discussing in the House this next week, to refer to these things, but the opportunity seemed to present itself to-night to speak on the line I have followed. Certainly I have not come to my conclusions in a short time simply by reading what has been said recently, for the whole tendency of investigation and of scientific discovery is in the direction of the development of waterpower and of the development of waterways for transportation. In this case it will work out both for the development of power and the improvement of transportation. That development of power will be for the benefit not only of the railways but of the cities. It will make the provinces here in the East better off, and the provinces in the West better off. To say that it might stop at this city or that, or that what is now in Montreal would go to Toronto, is not to appreciate the effects of this development. There need be no rivalry; there is room for all. All the cities will improve, and they ought all to join together in the proposition, as I believe they will eventually.
I want to tell my friends from the West that years ago there were men in this country, as there were in the United States, who not only saw these waterways being extended to lake Superior, to the so-called head of navigation, but that canalization could be carried on to Winnipeg and to the foot of the Rocky mountains. That has all been worked out, and it is quite a feasible proposition to canalize the waters of the St. Lawrence up to lake Superior and right through to the valley of the Assiniboine and the Saskatchewan, connecting them up with other water systems up there to provide a system of canals that would carry the freight of the West right down to the seaboard. Some 
might say, would not that injure our railways? I say, no; it would develop the West. Link up these waterways and there will be all the business our Canadian railways could ever want or ever handle. There is room for both; one improves the other; they are complementary, not in opposition. This development would carry improvement to other cities and provinces. As for Montreal, it has a great future before it. There are millions of horse-power right at her door. She has developed her horse-power in the past. All I would like to see is that hereafter the great development of this electrical energy shall be done by the state, and not by private owned companies. We are doing that in Ontario, and we have set an example to all the world in that one plant at Chippawa. It is a new river that has been made use of, and a most powerful one; on that river we see the greatest development of electrical energy yet known to the world, and within two years or a little more, it will be producing one million horse power with a revenue of $10,000,000, and it will not have cost $100,000,000 for its construction. That power will be the life blood of Ontario just as the development of the water-power on the St. Lawrence will be the life blood of Montreal and the province of Quebec.
There is no question of rivalry between cities or provinces, for the whole project works out to the benefit of all the cities and provinces, and not only for the benefit of Canada but of the United States as well. It is a great continental question. The United States is looking at the great problems of the day from the national point of view. I have been reading to-day, and I have read a good deal of late about it, the report of a special Senate committee in Washington in the way of improving the banking system of the United States. They have made a great deal of progress in their banking system. They have a scheme now before Congress for the creation of a great organization backed by the credit of the United States to develop some kind of national marketing of the wheat and cotton crop and all the products of the Mississippi valley so as to get the best prices, and in connection with that they are going to develop the water-powers and waterways so as to give cheap transportation. All of these questions are in the air now, and you will see them move very rapidly. You will see the people of the United States who built the Panama canal prepared to do their share in the development of the St.

St. Lawrence Waterway
Lawrence waterways, both for power and transportation.
The expense is comparatively a small one, after the experience of the United States with the Panama canal. I should not like to say how many millions it has cost, but it cost a very large sum of money, and the United States never felt it. The Panama canal is one of the things that has made the United States the commanding power it is in the world to-day. They have built the Panama canal and they propose now to assist us to develop the St. Lawrence waterway. They have set an example to the world in great legislation for improving transportation, for improving the condition of the farmers; in making these issues national issues, and making them national propositions instead of company propositions. I have nothing to say against the railway companies which have done so much both in Canada and the United States in the way of developing transportation. But in the United States they have not been very successful. The net result of their exploitation of the railways there is that eighty per cent of those railways would be bankrupt today if it were not for the assistance which the American government gave them in connection with the war. The same authority will have to find money for them now for the reconstruction of those roads and they are going to do it; but the end will be that the railroads, like the waterways, will be publicly owned. The great thing about a waterway is that it is like the King's highway. It is the people's road. The King's highway has never passed from the people; and the railways never should have passed from the people any more than the waterways have passed from them. In this new birth which is 'coming to America, which is coming very rapidly, the idea of newer and greater propositions in the way of transportation, in the way of developing power, in the way of using the national credit for the benefit of all the people and securing co-operative marketing -all these things will be taken up in the United States and in this country. And there will not be any trouble to get the money necessary to carry them out.
There is a lot of capital in the world which is ready to-day to foe invested in propositions of this kind. There will be no trouble in selling bonds. And no portion of Canada need fear this development. The Canadian Pacific Railway, even though it is located in Montreal, need not fear it. There will be all the railroad business which the Canadian Pacific Railway and the
National Railways can ever do in this country, even if they do have the competition of waterways. And the traffic will not move in one way. Traffic will come from Europe; return cargoes will come into our country. It may be of a nature that will make competition with our manufactures but they will have to accept that situation and adjust themselves to it. All the information that I have been able to gather, either by my reading or by talking to people, has led me to believe that the president and the government of the United States have struck the right idea. They are organized now to develop these things and to develop them immediately. Even if the money we need could not be found in this country the United States would perhaps be ready to be our bankers for a portion of the needed sum. But We do not need even to go to them for it

we can get our comparatively small portion of it in our own country and in Great Britain. I agree with my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) when he said that our portion will be a good deal less than one-half; the Americans have already admitted that. I also agree with him when he says that we have not any exclusive control of the St. Lawrence river or the Great Lakes, and that these waterways belong to both countries. It is a good thing that such is the case. It will have a tendency to maintain good and friendly feelings between the two nations; it is a bond of friendship and not a cause of jealousy between them. It is also cause for congratulation to ourselves. I hope the House will continue to discuss this question session after session until we reach some conclusion. It is not going to be long until that time arrives. Pressure is at work in the United States for applying these two means of relief- transportation for the farmers of the West in both countries, and water-power to electrify the railways. These two things are so pressing and so great that I have no doubt the necessary legislation, either in that country or this country, will be forthcoming at a very early date.
It was not hard to put the Panama canal scheme through the Congress of the United States. When they once took hold of it in earnest they soon accomplished it. As I said, the project has not brought results as quickly as was anticipated but it has given the United States the control of navigation in a surprising way. They are dominating the American continent to-day and the American continent above all others is our continent. We are an American
St. Lawrence Waterway

people but we are of British tendencies and believe in our own system of government. There is no reason for jealousy between us and the United States. Each of us can work out our own destiny whether it be in transportation or economic issues, and if we do that we will have no reason to regret it. We have had occasions in the past to disagree with the United States, and have had one or two small wars with them; but now the whole sentiment of that country is for our co-operation in a continental way, to develop these waterways just as they have developed their own. They have been somewhat misled by trusting too much to railways in the past but now they are coming back to waterways; and I have no doubt that before they are through the American government will own their own railroads just as we are finding we have got to own the railroads in this country. That does not mean any disadvantage to the Canadian Pacific railway, even though it is a company owned enterprise it will have to adjust itself to the new condition of affairs.
It is with pleasure and with a keen sense of duty that I intend to vote for the present resolution and to argue in favour of it on every occasion that may present itself. As I said before, I hope this discussion will not end now. I hope our friends from the West will assist in the improvement of these waterways just as the American farmers began to do when they realized the importance of them. If there is a Farmers' bloc in the United States there is also perhaps a Farmers' bloc in this House. I am glad to realize that our farmers are imbued with the idea of progress, that they have come here with the idea of assisting in the solution of these problems. The best way to solve such problems is by the nation working them out rather than individuals, that has been proved in the case of the development of power in Ontario. Power development has also been well worked out in Montreal by private companies; but in Ontario we are going to set an example to all the world in the development of waterpower for the people by the people, and to make that power as cheap as possible, not simply to realize profits for shareholders. It will be with some pride that we will be able to show that Ontario, under all the criticism that -has been passed by the men who favoured the private development of power, has worked this project out thoroughly and is making a successful use of the power developed. I make this prediction: that within ten years every rail-

road in Ontario-certainly from the Soo right across almost to Hudson bay-will be electrically equipped and will be able to carry freight at lower rates. The train services will be broken up into what I may term street car services. As to the passenger service, instead of there being three or four trains a day -between cities like Toronto and Montreal, or Ottawa and Montreal, cars will run at frequent intervals. They will run every hour, the speed will be greater, the service will be better and the cost much less. It will be economical, we will have improved service, our western plains will be filled up with farmers and that is what we want in this country. It will reduce the cost of transportation. Whether this scheme began with the United States or this country, it is now a continental scheme, bigger than Ontario and Quebec, and bigger than our East and West. It is as -big as the whole continent of North America, and the greatest continent in the world to-day is the North American continent. The richest valley in the world-and I do not like to have to say it-is the valley of the Mississippi, but we share largely in it, and we have our portion of it. The next greatest valley in the world is on the American continent, and it is the wheat valley of the Assiniboia and Saskatchewan. I believe the canalization of those valleys will come and the provinces in the West will soon have a great farming population, they will have reduced transportation rates, and we will soon get improved combinations for marketing.
That is the whole tendency of the discussion going on in Washington and in Canada, at the present time. That is why we have this talk of the Grain Growers, and why people in Canada say it is unconstitutional to have a grain board in Canada and that we cannot have it. But we will have a grain board, and the constitution and the lawyers will have to adjust themselves to it. That is one of the new signs of the times which have come into prominence since the war. The war is going to broaden the views of the nation and make the lawyers think differently. When law officers come to us and say we cannot have a wheat board and the farmers cannot organize a co-operative association, they cannot read the signs of the times. And this House will not read the signs of the times if it fails to do its share in the development of the St. Lawrence waterway for two great objects-the improvement of transportation and the devel-

St. Lawrence Waterway
opment oi water-power, not only for railways but for all the industries, for lighting the farmers' houses and driving their machinery.
All this is immediately in sight, because the simplicity of transmission of electrical energy has wonderfully improved. Hon. members may say I am a dreamer when I say that electrical energy will go through the air without wires, hut it is all coming. Did anybody ever believe two years ago that you would have seen this radio development? It is a mystery but it is there. It is going to make great changes in the world, but it will be for the benefit of humanity. I observe that the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) is in rather a humourous vain to-night, because he is smiling. The hon. Minister of War, as Peter Mitchell used to call him, will perhaps see that electrical energy, if war is to continue, will be of assistance. The greatest thing in the war-and it only came out in this war-was the radio wave, which transmitted some kind of energy through the air, and put an end to the war. It was a discovery the United States was able to disclose just at the end of the war, and it meant the destruction of scores of great warships by a man up in a balloon, directing by radio waves through the air attacks on warships. That is what put an end to the war, and that is the reason the navies have been scrapped. That is the real story of the war, it is coming out now, and I think the Minister of War will change his views somewhat. I do not know where the minister was at the time an effort was made to take away all the water-powers of the St. Lawrence and to give them to the Aluminum company of the United States, but thank goodness we have those great powers, and I hope we will keep them. While the United States have said in a way that they were against public ownership, they are going to have public ownership in the water-powers of the waters of the St. Lawrence. That is the greatest progress made in favour of public ownership.


Mr. BUREAU:: What is that?


William Findlay Maclean: The United States to-day is developing these water-powers as a public ownership proposition for the electrical energy that can be developed by them. When somebody comes to me and tells me the United States are against public ownership, I will be able to cite that case. The United States has had to go to the assistance of the railways, in order to save them from absolute wreckage. The American railways are organizing themselves into ten or twelve regional systems and are going to the government to get the credit they require. They cannot find the money for the reconstruction of the roads, especially for their electrification.


Jacques Bureau: The railroads were
ruined by public ownership during the war.


William Findlay Maclean: Which railroads?


Jacques Bureau: The United States railways.


William Findlay Maclean: When?


Jacques Bureau: During the war.


William Findlay Maclean: They were taken over by the United States during the war as a necessity.
Mr. 'BUREAU: And the United States ruined them.


William Findlay Maclean: And we ourselves have had to adopt public ownership. The hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) does not quite like the idea of pub-lice ownership. Would he like to see the King's highway go to private ownership. He does not like this new idea of the King's highway helping out the farmers to market, nor the idea of the public ownership of the waterways and the development of electrical energy, to be distributed to everybody at the cheapest possible price. It will not be ten years till electrical energy of some kind will be sent to every farm house in America. This is not a dream. The scientists are all working at it. When you see what they have done in the last two years by these radio waves, you will not have any doubt as to what the future is likely to be. The effect of the development of electrical energy by public ownership will be to increase the number of the common comforts of life, and to widen their distribution at the smallest possible cost. That is the theory of government ownership, I do not care how you put it. It is coming to the front very rapidly in Canada and the United States. I hope to see the day-and it will not be very long-when sufficient power will be generated right on our rivers to drive every train, not only in Quebec, but in Ontario. Sufficient power will be developed on the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers to drive every train almost all over Canada, and to put cheap light and power in every house. It is coming.

St. Lawrence Waterway
The ground plan of the whole scheme is before us to-day in that report issued by this commission, and endorsed by President Harding, as he did the other day. As soon as he got the facts he went right to the people, and while the railroads have been able, by reason of their influence, to stop the discussion to some extent, the people are all thinking about it. The farm papers are all thinking about it, and the newspapers of the cities are coming to realize that their cities will all be greater, that if a city is greater on account of railroad development, it will be still greater when that railroad development is supplemented by the development of waterways and of electrical energy. Therefore, I am going to vote for this motion. There is going to be another election in this country-it may be soon or it may be some time off-but I am going to make a newer and broader national policy out of the development of our waterways in co-operation with the United States, if we can secure the cooperation of that country, or of a smaller development on our own account. We have started on our own account; we shall be able to improve the St. Lawrence and the Welland canal of our own motion, if we have to rely on ourselves, and it may be a good thing if we do this work ourselves. But I want to see it done for the benefit of this whole continent, as a great continental proposition, not as a national proposition in the United States or Canada; least of all do I want to see it discussed in this House from the point of view of provinces, or classes, or cities. America is great enough to take care of all our cities, of all our provinces, of all our peoples; and the greatest continent to-day and the one continent on which the hope of the world rests more than in any other country in the world is the continent of North America. That continent of North America happens to be possessed by us and our neighbours to the south of us. As my hon. friend opposite said, the United States and Canada have the same ideas in regard to government, and things economic, and we have no fear of the future. While Europe to-day is discouraged and broken into pieces by reason of racial and trade jealousies of one kind or another, there is a much better outlook for the whole North American continent and, I hope, also for the South American continent if we set the example. The beginning of this new development will be brought about by the cooperation of the United States and Canada 
for the development of the waterways of the St. Lawrence, and that proposition, which happens to be embodied in this resolution, is the greatest question that has ever come up in this Parliament of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask a question of the hon. gentleman?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, two, if my hon. friend so desires.


Jacques Bureau: One is enough. Do I understand him to say that he suggests the development of the St. Lawrence river power by a partnership with the United States if we cannot do the work ourselves?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I said
that I should like to see it developed by both countries; but if it has to be done by us, we can develop it ourselves on a smaller scale. As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has said, we have the Welland canal under way now. Is my hon. friend opposite not prepared to co-operate with the United States in the development of the St. Lawrence?


Jacques Bureau: I have no opinion to give. My hon. friend is advocating his side of the question.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. member is a minister of the Crown, and I am sorry to see a minister of the Crown has not an opinion on this question.


Jacques Bureau: I have an opinion, but I say I do not have to give it.


William Findlay Maclean: All right; keep it, and Heaven be with the hon. member while he has it. This Parliament must tackle this question and do something with it.


Jacques Bureau: That does not answer
my question as regards a partnership with the United States in developing the St. Lawrence water-power.


William Findlay Maclean: I would not object to that, and I hope my hon. friend is in favour of the proposition of developing the St. Lawrence water-power.


Jacques Bureau: Do not worry about me. Let the hon. member speak for himself.


William Findlay Maclean: I am speaking only for myself. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had no fear of joint action; I have no fear.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member had
-" No truck or trade with the Yankees."

St. Lawrence Waterway


William Findlay Maclean: That is a different question. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in favour of co-operation in regard to the devlopment of the waterways of the St. Lawrence. Is my hon. friend in favour of the proposition? That is the question before the people of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: I am not preaching the gospel. Let the hon. member give his own opinion.	,


William Findlay Maclean: I am giving mine. Will the hon. member kindly give his?


Jacques Bureau: When the time comes, I will.


William Findlay Maclean: I am quite
sure my hon. friend will come to see this proposition in the same way that I see it, and he will see that his province and his great city of Montreal-


Jacques Bureau: It is not mine.


William Findlay Maclean: -and I am not mentioning that city in any special way-will share in the development of Canada which will be brought about by the development of this waterway proposition to a greater extent than by any other proposition I have heard discussed in this House since I have been a member of it.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri) :: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) is considering the proposition from one particular point of view. He is endeavouring to convince only one side of the House, and he turns always towards our good friends the Progressives. I had hoped, before he finished his argument, he would turn and appeal again to the whole House of Commons.


William Findlay Maclean: If I turned in that direction, I did not do so for the purpose my hon. friend suggests.


Paul Mercier: My hon. friend is perfectly right in doing that. I know that he tries to convince only one side of the House that he is afraid of; but those hon. members have already decided to vote in accordance with their own interests, and as regards the solution of the railway question, they will be satisfied without any St. Lawrence waterway.
As regards the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), everyone may have his own opinion. I know from his constituency, the hon. member for Welland lives on the
shores near the great Welland canal, and he is well aware that, if this proposed scheme were carried into effect, he would see transatlantic steamers passing the fine city of Toronto, going through the Welland canal, to ports on the upper lakes, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior. Everybody in that part of the country would like to see those steamers go further, even to the ports of Detroit, Port Huron, Chicago, Port William and Port Arthur. It is the duty of the representatives of Ontario to advocate whatever is for the welfare of their province; they are entitled to vindicate their right and to do the best they can for their province. Everyone is entitled to work for his province and to make the best use of the opportunities he finds on the floor of this House to secure the passage of certain measures. We have the same aim in Quebec; but in doing all these things, we have only one thing in sight, namely the welfare of the whole of Canada. I hope I do not hurt the feelings of my good friend the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), who moved the resolution before the House' when I tell him that this is a dream, a' lovely dream. Conditions in Canada at the present time, if we disregard the financial situation which is pretty bad, are not worse and are, perhaps, better than those of any other country in the world. Our railways are practically in a stagnant condition, but, if we give them a fair trial, better days may come for them. Our trade is suffering somewhat on account of the aftermath of the war; but to bring back prosperity to trade and commerce, and to our factories, you do not need to develop the St. Lawrence waterway. You do not need to tamper with nature's creations and demolish the natural gifts which Providence ha's bestowed upon each province. Let us take them as we find them and make what use we can of them without encroaching, one province upon another. Let each province strive to obtain from its natural resources all the wealth that lies hidden therein; but do not let us interfere with the rights of others. I was somewhat surprised at the views expressed by my learned friend from South York (Mr. Maclean).


William Findlay Maclean: Not learned.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend has much learning.


Paul Mercier: And by the time this session is over I predict that he will be still more learned. The hon. member is
Cattle Embargo

always talking about the hydro electric question and he seems to take to himself all the credit for whatever has been done in this direction. I was going to say, as the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) remarked a moment ago, that in 1911 the Conservative members from Toronto-perhaps not the same gentlemen who actually represent that city in the House of Commons to-day, at any rate, members of the same political persuasion, the same policy, and animated with the same spirit-were not so very eulogistic of the United States and its enterprises. We know very well what those gentlemen in 1911 said of the Liberal party; they told us that we were going across the boundary too frequently, that we had too much to do with the Yankee, and other things to the same effect. Then, as now, they waved the flag. To-day the situation is somewhat changed, however, and if the present tendency of some members continues, we shall likely see in the future the United States flag flying over the channel between Montreal and lake Superior.
On motion of Mr. Mercier the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, May 2, 1922