1922-04-26

QUESTIONS

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Referring to the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Question No. 30. April 5, 1922, does the Government intend to reconstitute the old Grain Inquiry Commission with change of personnel or a new Grain Inquiry Commission for the same or similar purpose, or for any purpose? If so, when?
2.	Is the Government not aware that very specific charges of irregularity were made before the present Grain Inquiry Commission now existing during the period it was supplied with funds to transact its work, such charges gravely affecting the conduct of the grain trade of Western Canada?
3.	Does the Government propose that such charges so made before the Grain Inquiry Commission shall be ignored and go entirely without investigation?
4.	If the Government does not intend that the present Government Grain Inquiry Commission shall continue its work or provide funds for that purpose, does the Government intend to provide funds to enable it to close up the work that it has already done and compile and forward its report?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Not unless there is a reasonable demand therefor.
2.	The late administration apparently did not require the Royal Grain Inquiry
Commission to render a report, though the said commission ceased to function several weeks before the late administration resigned office. '
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The late Grain Inquiry Commission expended the sum of $46,398.02. There is an item of $40,000 appearing in the main estimates for the purpose of resuming the inquiry if a reasonable demand therefor is made.
With regard to submitting a report, this is answered by No. 2.


RIVIERE DU LOUP ARSENAL
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	When will the lease for the use of the Rioux store at Riviere du Loup, Fraserville, known as Arsenal number two, expire?
2.	What is the total amount paid to Mr. Rioux for the said building?
3.	What is the total amount of money spent by the Government in repairs to this property?
4.	Are the repairs or additions to said buildings to remain the property of Mr. Rioux or the Department of Militia and Defence?
5.	Is the building insured? If so, for what amount, with what company, who was the agent, and what was the premium?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Expires on the 19th May, 1922.
2.	To Madame Caroline Pelletier Rioux: 3 years at $75 per month, $2,700; 5 years at $90 per month, $5,400; total, $8,100.
3.	$2,286.55.
4.	Repairs remain as part of the building.
5.	Not by the Government.


LANDIS-SUB-AGENCIES
Mr. MacKELVIE:: 1.	What Dominion Lands Sub-Agencies were closed during the years 1920 and 1921?
2.	What was the reason for such closing in each case?
3.	What offices so closed have since been reopened, and what was the reason for re-opening in each case?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to reopen the sub-agency at Golden, British Columbia? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1 and 2. Saskatchewan:-Yorkton, insufficient business; Weytburn, insufficient business; Shaunavon, services of sub-agent terminated; Kindersley, insufficient business; Ponteix, resignation of sub-agent; Turtleford, resignation of sub-agent.
Alberta.-Westlock, resignation of subagent; Whitford, insufficient business; Wainwright, insufficient business; Ft. Vermilion, resignation of sub-agent; Donnelly, resignation of sub-agent; Alsask, insufficient business; Frog Lake, insufficient business; Hanna, insufficient business; Mosside, insufficient business; Pine Creek, insuffi-
Ques 'ions

cient business; St. Paul de Metis, insufficient business.
British Columbia.-Golden, insufficient business.
S.	Offices Reopened, With Reasons for Reopening.
Alberta.-Donnelly, for convenience of the public; St. Paul de Metis, for accommodation of incoming settlers; Westlock, for convenience of the public; Turtleford, for convenience of the public; Ft. Vermilion, for convenience of the public.
4.	Golden sub-agency.-This sub-agency was closed on account of insufficient business. So far as I am aware, it is not the intention at the present time to reopen same, for the reason mentioned.


CANADIANS EMIGRATING 1911-1921
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	Does the Department of Immigration keep any records of emigrants from Canada each year?
2.	If so, how many Canadians by birth have left Canada in each of the years between 1911 and 1921?
3.	How many naturalized Canadians have left Canada during each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	No. Records have not been kept because of the expense thereby entailed.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.


WINNIPEG STRIKE
Mr. McMURRAY:: 1.	Was a Deputy Minister of Justice appointed by the Dominion Government at the time of the Winnipeg strike?
2.	If so, what was the name of the appointee and what were his duties?
3.	Who were retained as counsel to conduct the trials, and what amount was paid for legal services?
4.	Were other moneys paid in connection with legal services rendered during said strike?
5.	If so, to whom, and what amount in each case?
6.	Did the Dominion Government pay for special police and detective service during the said strike?
7.	If so, how many police and detectives were employed and what amount of money was paid for such service?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Messrs. Andrews, Andrews, Burbidge and Bastedo; J. B. Coyne, K.C.; Travers Sweatman; I. Pitblado; W. W. Richardson; S. Goldstein; E. K. Williams, and Charles Russell & Co. Amount paid, $150,024.20.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes.

7.	The McDonald Detective Agency was employed and was paid $12,332.09 for its services.


CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the number of chartered banks in Canada in each of the years 1901, 1911 and 1921?
1. What was the number of chartered banks banks in each of the above years.
3.	What was the total reserve fund of these banks in each of the above years?
4.	What was the total amount of savings deposits in each of these years?
5.	What was the total amount of deposits on current account in each of these years?
6.	What was the largest amount of loans in Canada in each of these years?
7.	What was the largest amount of loans outside of Canada in each of these years?
8.	What was the largest amount of gold held by these banks in each of the above years?
9.	What was th$ total value of bank premises as of 31 December in each of these years?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Number of banks (as of December 31), 1901, 34; 1911, 29; 1921, 18.
2.	Paid-up capital (as of December 31), 1901, $67,591,311; 1911, $107,994,604; 1921, $129,317,086.
3.	Rest or reserve fund (as of December 31),	1901,	$37,364,708;	1911,
$96,868,124; 1921, $128,373,499.
4.	Deposits by the public, payable after notice, or on a fixed day in Canada (as of December 31), 1901, $233,431,229; 1911, $591,068,932; 1921, $1,240,807,268.
5.	Deposits by the public payable on demand in Canada (as of December 31), 1901,	$102,309,034;	1911,	$335,020,693;
1921, $540,942,522.
6.	Largest amount of loans in Canada, (Oct.), 1901, $331,675,202; (Dec.), 1911, $850,025,413; (April), 1921, $1,486,636,165.
7.	Largest amount of loans elsewhere than in Canada, (Nov.), 1901, $79,498,362; (July), 1911, $136,879,144;. (Jan.), 1921, $365,233,732.
8.	Largest amount held of current gold and subsidiary coin, (May), 1901), $11,983,876; (Nov.), 1911, $39,032,004; (Jan.), 1921, $85,118,010 (not including gold in central gold reserves.)
9.	Bank premises (as of December 31), 1901, $6,753,172; 1911, $32,557,940; 1921, $69,480,648.


SARDINES EXPORT
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1. Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries received a petition or memorial from residents of Maceo Bay or other ports of the county of Charlotte, praying or asking that a minimum

St. Lawrence Waterway
price of ten dollars per hogshead be placed on sardines sold for export, during the present fishing season?
2.	If so, what action, if any, has the Government taken in the matter?
3.	If no action has been taken, is it the intention of the department to take any action in this respect?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Petition urging that this minimum price be fixed for all purposes was received.
2 and 3. The department has no power to fix the price.


PROVINCES AND REPRESENTATIVES, 1877
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many provinces were there in Canada in the year 1877, and what were the names of said provinces ?
2.	How many federal members represented said provinces or territories in the said year?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Seven: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.
2.	Ontario, 88; Quebec, 65; Nova Scotia, 21; New Brunswick, 16; Manitoba, 4; British Columbia, 6; Prince Edward Island,
6.	Total, 206.


RAILWAY MILEAGE, 1877
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many miles of railways were there in Canada in the year 1877?
2.	How many miles of railway are there in Canada at the present time?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	On June 30, 1877, 5,574.25 miles, including 25.5 miles of wooden rail.
2.	On December 31, 1920, 39,3?A miles. Estimated for December 31, 1921, 10,041 miles.


LIGHTHOUSE BOATS-FUEL.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1. After trials made by the Marine Department in regard to wood and coal fuel for the use of lighthouse boats of l'lle Rouge, l'lle Blanche and Princess Shoal, is it the intention of the Government to return to the old method of supplying the said boats with cordwood instead of coal, if it is found less costly?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. Yes.


QUESTION ASKED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the trustees, under the Bankruptcy Act, for the district of Montreal?
2.	When were they appointed, and what were their respective occupations before appointment?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BRISTOL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the claims for reparations for damages afflicted upon Canadian ships during the war by the German nation. Also a copy of the Order in Council appointing the Honourable Sir John D. Hazen to inquire into same.


Mr. GRIMMER:: For a copy of all Petitions or Memorials from residents of the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, asking that a minimum price per hogshead be placed on all sardines sold for export during the present fishing season, and for a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating thereto.


Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, agreements, contracts, claims, memoranda and other documents between the Caroquet and Gulf Shore Railway Company and the Government of Canada, relating to the purchase of the said railway.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATERWAY
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:: 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.
He said:	I offer no apologies for introducing this motion, which I had intended moving on Monday. The three parties in the House will agree, I think, that it is of sufficient importance to warrant not only an afternoon's discussion, but consideration on a second day as well. A debate on this very subject has been in progress in the United States Congress and Senate for some six weeks, and to-day the question I am bringing up in this resolution is the most important one that has been before the people of Canada since Confederation and the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. Not only is it of great concern to us in Canada, but it is one of the most important economic questions under consideration on the North American continent at the present time. I would point out that it is not and should not be made a political question at all; it is a business question, a great economic question, a transportation question that concerns every citizen both of the United States and of Canada. It should therefore be approached not from the provincial, the
St. Lawrence Waterway

local, parish, or sectional standpoint, but from the great national standpoint of what is the greatest good for the greatest number. This subject is so vast and intricate that it is almost impossible to do more than touch the fringe of it in the short time at my disposal this afternoon. It has supporters among all parties in Canada, in and out of the House.
We have three transcontinental railway systems, and in that respect we are far ahead of the economic development of the country. In fact, we could for some years probably get along with one or two such systems, and the money spent on the third could have been spent to much better advantage in deepening this waterway to the sea. Had we done this we would have acquired a gilt-edged security, and solved the transportation question, and from the standpoint of power alone the deepening of the St. Lawrence would have more than paid the cost incurred, to say nothing of saving millions of dollars in freight charges, and so effecting economies in transportation which would redound to the economic advantage of the whole country. And we would have provided a feeder for the National lines, and Canadian Pacific railways to the head of the Lakes and would have solved in the main the transportation problems of this country as well as of the United States.
A review of our canal policy does not disclose what might be called any deliberate, well planned or consistent policy. Money has been spent on some canals that should never have been undertaken; whereas if that money had been diverted to the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel and the Welland canal it would have provided a great national asset. The Welland canal deepening has been more or less a political football. This canal is an important link in the St. Lawrence scheme, and it should have been finished long ago. Indeed, if the work had been prosecuted with the same vigour that characterized the construction of the Chippawa-Queenston power canal, we would have that link in operation to-day. As it is, however, we are told that it may be 1927, and more probably 1937, before the canal is deepened. Until the Welland ship canal is completed a 500,000 bushel barge coming down from Port Arthur has to tranship its cargo of wheat at Port Colborne into smaller boats, at a cost of four cents a bushel, and there is the further disadvantage that most of that wheat goes to Buffalo instead of to Montreal.

With the opening of the new Welland ship canal boats will be able to run from Port Arthur direct to Montreal at a rate of about four or five cents a bushel to Port Colborne, and one cent to two cents for the extra run, Port Colborne to Montreal, without transhipment to smaller boats at Port Colborne, as now.
The St. Lawrence river waterway is being strongly supported by all the Western states,-Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The legislatures of those states have for years been voting money for surveys, and for an educational campaign in connection with this important scheme. In Canada the governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan have come out very strongly in its favour. In addition, a thousand chambers of commerce and boards of trade and patriotic bodies in the two countries have passed resolutions in favour of it. The opposition to the project is centered in New York and in some parts of Quebec and Montreal. It should be observed, however, that those in Canada do not oppose the scheme from the economic or transportation standpoint, but because they favour some rival scheme. I am not going to decry those rival schemes, because I think that before many years are past we may need not only the St. Lawrence but the Georgian Bay waterway as well, in the same way as at one time one railway was sufficient for our transportation needs, and later with the development of the country a second and even a third railway system was constructed.
A notable utterance in favour of this waterway was delivered by President Harding at the agricultural conference at Washington on the 23rd January last, in the course of which he said:
I have spoken of the advantage which Europe enjoys because of its access to the sea, the cheapest and surest transportation facility. In our own country is presented one of the world's most attractive opportunities for extension of the sea-ways many hundred miles inland.
The heart of the continent, with its vast resources in both agriculture and industry, would be brought into communication with all the ocean routes by the execution of the St. Lawrence waterway project. To enable oceangoing vessels to have access to all the ports of the Great Lakes would have a most stimulating effect upon the industrial life of the continent's interior.
The feasibility of the project is unquestioned, and its cost, compared with some other great engineering works, would be small. Disorganized and prostrate, the nations of Central Europe are even now settling their hands to

St. Lawrence Waterway
the development of a great continental waterway which, connecting the Rhine and Danube, will bring water transportation from the Black to the North Sea, from the Mediterranean to the Baltic.
If nationalistic prejudices and economic difficulties can be overcome by Europe, they certainly should not be formidable obstacles to an achievement less expensive and giving promise of greater advantages to the peoples of North America. Not only would the cost of transportation be greatly reduced, but a vast population would be brought overnight in immediate touch with the markets of the entire world.
There you have the declaration of the President of. the United States. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the House (Mr. Mackenzie King) will, before this dehate is concluded, appoint another day for further discussion, as the subject is of such supreme importance that it is impossible to give it proper consideration in the short time at our disposal this afternoon. This is, perhaps, the most important question that this Parliament will have to settle, and full opportunity should be given for an exhaustive discussion of the merits and demerits-if there are any-of this great scheme, and of the report of the Deep Waterways Commission.
In connection with this subject it is relevant to refer briefly to the history of the St. Lawrence river and a few of its physical characteristics, and the artificial improvements made on the Lakes by Canada since 1809, in order that the importance of this waterway and its development may be properly appreciated.
The St. Lawrence rises in lake Ontario and discharges its waters into the gulf of St. Lawrence, but what one might term its primary source is at the head of the St. Louis river at the extreme end of lake Superior, 1,870 miles from the gulf. The basin of the St. Lawrence is a great transverse valley, 309,500 square miles in area, extending from the gulf of St. Lawrence into the heart of the continent. Much the larger part of the basin lies north of the boundary, as all its great tributaries flow in on that side. It is separated by a low divide from the Hudson bay basin, and from the Mississippi basin by an even lower divide. The river is remarkable for the number of expansions in its course.
Many surveys and charts have been made of this river since 1809, and a great deal of money has been expended on widening and deepening its channel since that time. The history of the St. Lawrence ship channel proper between Quebec and Montreal starts in 1825, when Hon. James Young,
of Montreal, an intensely patriotic man, interested the government in the matter, with the result that a great deal of early investigation, survey and educational work for improving the channel was carried out between 1836 and 1841. This work was made the subject of inquiry by a committee of the Lower Canada legislature, 1836 to 1841. Their report was published and the work was begun, continued and carried to completion by the Harbour Commission. The gentlemen composing that commission from time to time have done an immense amount of work in improving the St. Lawrence channel and harbour of Montreal, improvements involving heavy expenditures. But, as one of the harbour commissioners for Toronto, I am free to admit that money spent on any of our great harbours, such as Quebec, Halifax, St. John, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Victoria, enures to the advantage of the country generally, and should not be considered as purely a local improvement, because these ports are all a factor in the development of deep waterways and of water-borne traffic. When this important work was handed over by the government of Canada to the Montreal Harbour commissioners, the commissioners went ahead and did very good work. They appointed a board of engineers to inquire into the project. The matter was examined from all points of view and a report was brought down recomanending the improvement of the channel between Quebec and Montreal. That report of the engineers was adopted by the government and the Montreal Harbour Commission and operations were begun by the commission on the old channel in 1851. By November, 1851, this channel was opened to lake St. Peter to a depth of ten feet six inches. In 1853 a vessel passed through to the foot of lake St. Peter draw-four feet more than the ordinary depth of water. In 1855 the capacity was increased to sixteen and' one-half feet, and1 subsequently in 1857, to eighteen feet. In 1856 the harbour commissioners pointed out to the government the national character of the work which they had been doing, urging that the work had been for the government of Canada and that the money expended had been devoted to national purposes, for the advantage of the whole country. Outstanding success attended the early operations of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, and the channels were further deepened from time to time, until to-day there is a 35-foot channel 450 feet wide. Prom 1851 to 1888 the harbour com-
St. Lawrence Waterway

missioners had charge of this ship canal, but in 1888 the work was transferred back to the federal Department of Public Works. There it remained until 1904, when it was transferred by the government of the day to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. That is a short history of the St. Lawrence ship channel. The cost of the improvements to that channel to date, according to a return laid on the table of the House on March 20, 1921, has been $23,867,000.
No proper study of this question can be pursued without an understanding of the territory on both sides of the international border which is tributary to this work. The fourteen states I named' in the early part of my address, situated in the central and western parts of the United States, are all tributary to this work and will benefit by it, from the transportation as well as from the navigation, power and economic standpoint. The part of Canada most directly affected by this project as a national work are the entire province of Ontario and the parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan south of the National Transcontinental. This territory on both sides of the border is the greatest industrial territory. The districts affected in Canada are noted for the production of grain, live stock and dairy products, and forest resources-not only in Ontario, but in other parts of Canada. Then, there is the value of the wood used for pulp manufacture; the value of mineral products, coal and copper deposits; and of manufactured goods generally. The freight traffic on the railway lines running through the territory tributary to this work amounts to 37,000,000 tons annually. I admit that the tributary territory in the United States is suffering to-day, in a railway sense, more than the tributary territory in Canada is, because in the United States they are away behind the times as shown by the congestion of railway traffic. In Canada we have no lack of mileage; we have three transcontinental railways. In fact, we have what I might call useless duplication and waste. But we have not the development of waterborne traffic, and in that respect our condition differs from that of the United States.
I wish to say a few words with regard to this question from the navigation standpoint as 'it affects the people of Canada and the people of the United States. Many phases of the question have been studied during the past fifty years from the point of view of navigation; I will enumerate only la few of them. One of the results

of this development will be the increase of production through improvement of the avenues of transportation and the creating of new ones. The history of waterborne traffic the world over makes it plain that when an important canal or waterway is improved, cheaper freight rates follow, with consequent increased production and closer co-operation between producer and consumer.
Another phase of the question bears upon the effect of improved transportation facilities for water-borne traffic upon the rail route. No less an authority than Mr. Hoover, one of the most eminent men in the United States to-day, gives it as his opinion that if adequate water-borne communications are provided they will act as feeders for the steam roads and have the effect of reducing and regulating rates. 1 believe that this important work would produce in Canada such revenue for our bankrupt railroads that in a few years they would become a gilt-edged investment. As to the effect upon the railroad congestion, we have the evidence of the new premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. Charles A. Dunning, who refers to the fact that in Canada at the present time there is not the acreage cultivated that there is in normal times, and that with the expansion of agriculture, the cultivation of a greater acreage and the production of a normal crop, there would be very serious railway congestion in the western parts of the country; the railways would not be able to take the crop out. We must provide a route for this water-borne traffic via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence without transhipment, if we are to solve the congestion problem and problem of freight rates for East and West alike.
Another question arising from the navigation standpoint is, how will ocean rates and inland water rates be affected? The effect will be a saving of five or six cents a bushel on wheat carried from the head of the Lakes to the seaboard. I will not quote the facts bearing upon this point which were placed before the International Commission by some of the gentlemen who came from the West.
Then, there is the effect upon package freight taken from the head of the Lakes to the seaboard and from the seaboard to the head of the Lakes without transhipment. Mr. Richardson, of Kingston, a very prominent man in transportation circles, who has an office in Winnipeg, expresses the view that the development of package frieght transportation on the Lakes will revolutionize things for the

St. Lawrence Waterway
small cities and towns. The small freighter can proceed from Montreal up the river, stopping at Brockville, Kingston, Hamilton, Cobourg, passing through the Welland canal and proceeding to Port Colborne, Sarnia and Windsor and thence to the head of the Lakes. Hon. members would be surprised to see the small freighters coming into these lake ports as I have seen them and the boon they are to the public. They put down their package freight without delay; the merchants can have the goods in their retail stores the same day, and they know when they are going to get them. This project will revolutionize the package freight business on the Great Lakes; that is amply demonstrated by the number of package freighters operating on the Great Lakes to-day, notwithstanding the difficulties with which they have to contend.
What will be the relative cost of building and operating lake ships and ocean ships, and what are the characteristics of each? Some large ocean freighters to-day are not constructed for service on the Great Lakes, and vice versa. Many of the old type of boats, commonly known on the lakes as the whaleback, have already gone down the lakes to the Atlantic seaboard ports with freight. We have the evidence of many eminent men who have sailed the lakes for many years, that three-fourths of all the ocean boats in the world to-day do not draw more than twenty-five feet, and these boats could go to the head of the lakes if we adopt this scheme. I shall not take time to read their evidence because there are other speakers. Three-fourths of the ships that go through the Suez and Panama canals could use the lakes with this improvement.
I believe that if this project goes through, it would result in a great expansion of the shipbuilding industry on the Great Lakes, and that would do more to solve unemployment than any other agency that I know of. I believe that we can produce the right type of ships not only for the ocean but for the lakes as well. Salt water boats could then go up the St. Lawrence river one thousand miles, as every navigation man knows. The same is true of the Amazon river, where ocean ships go up 1,000 miles.
What will be the effect if it is practicable to build a composite type of vessel for lake and ocean use. It will stimulate shipbuilding on the lakes and there will be sufficient cargoes both inbound and outbound to keep the ships busy. It will be of the greatest economic value on both sides of the border.
The fact that this district is a great consumer, and the home of many of the greatest basic industries on the continent of America, will be enough to provide cargoes to the head of the lakes and to the seaboard.
Those who are opposed to this project talk of ice conditions and fog, but that would be no more an adverse factor than it is on the American seaboard part of the year. Of all the fogs you see, there are none worse than those that envelop the ports of the Atlantic and Belle Isle. So this project stands on an equal basis with the Atlantic seaboard in that respect. The St. Lawrence is all right for five to six months of the year as to climatic conditions.
There are many other features of this scheme that might be touched upon-the competition between lake freighters and ocean vessels, the necessity of cutting channels and deepening inland harbours. With respect to the latter, many inland harbours are to-day ten and fifteen years ahead of their work in anticipation of this project. Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo and Buffalo are deepening their harbours and the United States government are bringing on advance expenditures instead of curtailing expenditure for deeper harbours as we are doing on this side of the border for deeper harbours.
The United States Government are increasing grants for deepening ports and harbours and for providing deeper water in all the channels. They have just brought down a bill in Congress appropriating many millions for lake ports.
Toronto is spending $26,000,000 rebuilding its harbour. The city itself is putting up eighty-three per cent of the cost of all these improvements through its Harbour Board.
It is not a beautification scheme, but a great commercial, economic scheme to provide docks and do something to develop water-borne traffiee for the good of the country generally. I shall not refer any further to the navigation aspects of this project, except to say that it will be a very great factor in moving grain to the seaboard, and will obviate the losses that occur in transhipment at Port Colborne and Prescott, for instance, and prevent in the future a railway blockade and reduce heavy freight rates by rail.
Following the consummation of this work I believe Canada will experience an era of the greatest industrial expansion it has ever known. Alternative routes have been
St. Lawrence Waterway

proposed, but I shall not deal with them, as other speakers are to follow. I have always been a believer in the St. Lawrence route. It has long appealed to my fancy and imagination, and the more I study the proposition the more I am convinced that it is one of the greatest projects the people of Canada have ever had before them for good and the welfare of the country.
I want to refer to another aspect of this project, and it is one of the greatest questions before the people of Canada to-day- the question of water-power. The waterpower that would be developed incidentally in the building of this canal would more than pay for the cost of the work. It is only within the last two hundred years that scientific discoveries have given to the world the power inherent in fuels, namely, coal, oil, gas and falling water, distributed in the various forms of heat, light, and electricity. It has been estimated that the total water-powers of the world amount to about
100,000,000 horse-power, of which only about 17,000,000 have so far been developed. The Dominion of Canada possesses about twenty per cent of the world's total waterpower and also approximately the same percentage of the world's water-power already developed. The people of Ontario and Quebec are especially interested in this power situation. In Ontario we have no coal. We have to depend for our coal supply on the maritime provinces, or the far West and the United States. The United States will run out of coal in one hundred years, as has been shown by the report of the Conservation Commission of that country. The first of these stores of energy to be utilized by man was coal, as we all know. This fuel is very widely distributed and exists in immense quantities in various parts of the world, but there is no denying the fact that the supply is limited and the world is not any too economical in its expenditure of coal. The supplies of oil and gas are also limited, and prices very high.
Our remaining source of energy, then, is water-power. The people of the United States are not unmindful of this, for every state in the Union is to-day doing everything it can to develop its internal water-powers with a view to conserving the coal supply of the whole country. The municipalities in the province of Ontario have also done for themselves a splendid work in this respect, and have saved the people of Ontario millions in their combined water-power scheme. For some years the Niagara river was looked upon as one of the greatest scenic wonders of

the world and wTas famous chiefly for its beautiful Horseshoe falls, its small Maid of the Mist, and its rainbow. But a new day and a new era dawned when science discovered the power inherent in falling water-a discovery that has conferred a boon on every man, woman, and child in Ontario, and has been the cause of the greatest industrial expansion in that district that has ever been known in the history of Canada. I have here plates and photographs of some forty companies which have located in the Niagara district as the result of science doing what it did to develop Niagara water-power. In commercial and domestic lighting, this power development has saved my own city $22,000,00ft since 1911. This book contains a list of the manufacturing concerns, cement, chemical, paper, electric and metal companies of all kinds, foundries, motor car companies, and those engaged in manufacturing by-products, that have been established in the Niagara peninsula as the result of cheap light and power. Just look at the great basic industries that have sprung up in that district, and we had not one of them before the development of Niagara water-power. What has happened in the Niagara district yesterday and to-day will occur along the St. Lawrence if this Parliament has the courage and vision which I hope it has to carry out this work.
To sum up some of the arguments in favour of this work, those who support this canal argue that not only can the power be produced cheaply and command a ready sale, but that it will pay the bulk of the cost of the improvement. The canal can be linked up with the superpower scheme on the Atlantic coast serving the territory from the 39th parallel, near Washington, D.C., to the 44th parallel, 22 miles north of Portland, Me., and from there to the river St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence will also be linked up on the Canadian side with a great Canadian superpower scheme, consisting of the HydroElectric system in Ontario, and the Ottawa river and part of Quebec, and can supply also power for the electrification of federal railways from Quebec to Fort William.
Now this work will conserve the coal supply. It is figured that three out of every five tons of coal consumed by a railway locomotive is an economic waste, that the present system of steam locomotion is a wasteful and not an economical system. Evidence to that eifect appears in a report which is before this House to-day.

St. Lawrence Waterway
The construction of this great waterway will relieve the railways of the burden of carrying millions of tons of coal and will effect a most decided economy. Markets for the consumption of the power to be developed will be created along the St. Lawrence. Cheap light and power will be available and this waterway will become the scene of the greatest industrial expansion in the history of Canada or of the North American continent. Small towns like Three Rivers, Brockville, Kingston, Coburg and others will grow enormously, and their population will be tremendously increased. Not only that but entirely new communities will spring into existence and this spectacle of prosperity will be witnessed all the way up to the head of the Great Lakes. The unemployment situation will be automatically solved: there will be an abundance of work for all. The St. Lawrence route, just as the Niagara river is to-day, will witness the establishment of basic plants of all kinds including chemical companies, iron and steel found-aries, paper companies, motor companies, by product concerns and production plants of all descriptions; and if the people of Canada will only have the same courage and faith in this scheme as the people of Ontario had in the development of the Niagara district, we shall witness wonderful industrial developments in connection with this great project. Let me read a few words from a statement made by Colonel John Finnie one of the greatest electrical engineers on the continent, a gentleman of international reputation, before the Conservation Commission of the United States regarding this question:
X believe that the water-power of the St. Lawrence is infinitely more value to commerce than any navigation which will use the streams after they have been improved for navigation. But most fortunately, there is no conflict between the two because any proper development of the St. Lawrence for power will at the same time take care of the navigation features. He held that the value of this power would be sufficient to carry the cost of the entire undertaking with navigation and power; that the rates would be reasonable. There was no question as to the possibility of marketing as all the available power on the St. Lawrence could be readily absorbed by growing industries. Col. Finney described the projected superpower line, a high tension transmission line designated to serve the Atlantic sea Board from Maine to Virginia, which will always be the workshop of America, and with the .proposed superpower line in Ontario, Quebec and the Ottawa river, each country would have a superpower zone to distribute its alloted share and these would be a great industrial revival on both sides of the St. Lawrence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about the financial side of this question because some objection to the project has been raised by the financial interests of Montreal. The same objection was raised when the power development scheme in the Niagara district was launched in 1905. I remember well, when the late Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck proposed the undertaking of the Hydro Electric system from which 374 municipalities derive power to-day and have made such a gigantic success of, the opponents of the scheme bestowed upon its promoters the title of "amateur anarchists". You all know what a magnificent success that system has proved; yet if the promoters of that scheme had been influenced by the doubts and fears and lack of courage which characterize some people who are opposing this great waterway project to-day we should never have witnessed any such hydro-electrical power movement in the province of Ontario, and that province would never have been able to take care, as it did, of the munition plants which manufactured munitions during the war. At one time during that great struggle Sir Henry Drayton, then Chairman of the Railway Commission but later Finance Minister of Canada and now an honoured member of this House, pointed out that Ontario was supplying at one period nearly one-third of the munitions needed for our men at the front. But for the carrying out of the hydro-electric scheme Ontario would not have had the power which enabled it to render such great war assistance to the Empire. At that time also there happened to be a shortage of coal, and what a terrible condition of aifairs it would have been only for the Hydro, as there was even then a lack of power as well. As it was owing to lack of power during the war, many industries in Ontario had to close down and hundreds of men were turned out of work through no fault of their own. If we have the same faith and courage now as the men of 1905 displayed in connection with the Hydro Electric development the present project will be boldly taken up with the result that the revenue from the power developed will be more than sufficient to meet the cost of the work.
Let me mention another interesting feature in connection with power development. The privately-owned power companies in the Niagara district, representing " an investment of $32,000,000, are now being taken over by the city of Toronto and the
St. Lawrence Waterway

Hydro-Electric Commission. This will result in the establishment of public ownership throughout the entire Niagara power zone on the Canadian side and will avoid the evils of duplication. Lack of vision is by no means an uncommon thing in our public men. The late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie had some doubts about the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. He argued that it would be better to tear the rails up and store them at Port Arthur rather than to construct a railway to the coast which would be a colossal failure. Let me read a few lines from what he said on one occasion:
It would he better to pile the rails up at Port Arthur and leave them unused rather than lay two streaks of rust to the Pacific Coast.
Now, any one who had been rash enough in his day to predict that in the year 1920, such a volume as 335,000,000 bushels of grain would be taken out from the West would have been deemed a lunatic away back in 1874 or 1878.
In other countries vision and courage have been displayed in dealing with questions of this kind. Take the deepening of the canal at Frankfort in Germany; take the building of the great ship-canal from Manchester to the sea, the latter a deep waterway 35 miles long and 450 feet wide. Manchester was dead commercially in the year 1880. There were in that city 5,000 vacant houses and 200 factories closed down-actually the place was stagnant. To-day as the result of the building of that canal it is the third largest shipping port in England. Liverpool fought the deepening of that canal as likely to injure Liverpool and then built the docks on the Mersey, but it was the best thing which ever happened for that city. Liverpool will acknowledge that to-day although it fought the project for many years. Some of the financial interests in the city of Montreal look upon the present project in somewhat the same light that Liverpool once did the Manchester ship-canal. Let me say that I am a member of the Port Authorities Association. There should be no sectional jealousy in an enterprise of this kind. Toronto itself feels that what will help to develop the ports of the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces and the Pacific coast will be for the good of Toronto as well. There may be some differences of opinion about the St. Lawrence waterway project, but I plead with 'the opponents of this measure not to hold up Montreal to-day as opposed to this work. There has been a change in the

sentiment in Montreal from that which prevailed three or four years ago. I have been told by one of the Montreal Harbour Commission that they are not opposed to the construction of this canal and have not passed any resolution in regard to it- they have an open mind with respect to the project. The stand taken to-day by the financial interests in Montreal is that they do not oppose the deepening of the canal, but they say that when the ships from the West come to the port of Montreal the cargoes from the head of the lakes will have to be transhipped to larger vessels in that port for conveyance overseas, In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that argument is futile when we bear in mind the attitude of Montreal at the time the ship-canal between that city and Quebec was undertaken. The idea then was to make Montreal the terminus instead of the ancient city of Quebec, and no such objection was raised at that time by Quebec. They never thought that by taking it to the port of Montreal they would be transferring most of the business from Quebec to Montreal. If that were true, the port of Montreal is no more an inland port than Windsor. It is an inland port built up by deep water channels at the expense of the people of iCanada, and we say the inland deep water channels should be extended to the head of the lakes in the interests of the people of this country, and in the interests of navigation. Opposition to the project also developed at the Montreal hearing of the commission and again it is the interests of Montreal against the country at large. The arguments advanced at Montreal, however, were of a somewhat different nature than those of New York state, the contention being that while the St. Lawrence should be deepened and made suitable for vessels of large capacity between the great lakes and Montreal, they should not proceed further than that city but transfer "their cargoes to ocean vessels" at Montreal; * also that it would not pay ocean ships to make the passage up the lakes.
That may be Montreal's view of the matter, but they will not find many who will agree with them. When it was decided to bring ocean vessels to Montreal and make it the terminus for ocean trade instead of the ancient city of Quebec, Montreal had no objections to offer on the ground that by so doing it might injure the city of Quebec, and they have as little right non/ to object to ocean ships passing Montreal and proceeding further. At one time the maxi-

St. Lawrence Watenvay
mum depth between Quebec and Montreal was only twelve feet, but by continuous dredging we now have a channel thirty-five feet deep and 600 feet wide through lake St. Peter.
I am surprised at the stand taken by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau, whom I looked upon as a very capable and progressive public man. I may say that, like his predecessor, he has done a great deal for Quebec in building good roads, in erecting court houses for the municipalities, registry offices, lands titles offices, and other provincial buildings, which in Quebec are built by the province. I commend him for doing that. I believe he has done a great deal in the way of promoting good legislation. I do not agree with him in a great many ways but I appreciate what he has done in that line. He is considering the problem from a local and a provincial standpoint. What he says regarding the erection of a dam and power house on the American side is not confirmed by the report of the Deep Waterways Commission, which takes the opposite stand. This site for the dam and power house will have to be selected later by agreement. In another part of his statement he says, "We want to see the interests of Quebec protected." But the interests of Ontario are not going to be sacrificed, with 700,000 horse-power belonging to Ontario. Why should Ontario sacrifice part of this power because Quebec will not let us have it?
I would like for about five minutes to sum up some of the important advantages of this canal, and to cite some of the evidence I gave before the Deep Waterways Commission. I will read a few paragraphs. The first paragraph I will read says:
The advantages of the St. Lawrence route.
(1)	It is one of the great natural waterways of the world.
(2)	The cost of improvement is less than other routes moreover it would he divided between the two nations sharing its benefits.
It is a high speed highway avoiding long passages.
Eighty per cent of the vessels used on the Suez canal are not more than 25 feet draught. If we insist on an all Canadian route we are going to have a rival American route and both of them will not be successful. I believe there will be a distinct advantage in joining hands with the United States in this work. Millions of horse-power are available incidental to the project. This development would represent a saving of coal running into millions of tons annually. Coal miners may go on
strike, but the St. Lawrence never goes on strike. This freight development is a byproduct incidentally of carrying out this work. Nature has provided this flowing route to the sea for two reasons. For a great waterway to the sea, and for a great power plant for the development of Canadian commerce. The fact that this work is feasible is proven by what happened in 1911 before the Rivers and Harbours Committee at Washington, where they stated that they were willing to deepen the river to a depth of 30 feet for the privilege of obtaining that water-power. Every year
4,000,000 horse-power of electric energy is going to waste in the St. Lawrence; the equivalent of $800,000 worth of coal is being wasted every year, and the finest system of inland waterways is lying idle because deep-draught vessels cannot pass forty-six miles of the St. Lawrence river on their way to the upper lakes.
The St. Lawrence ranks with the Suez and Panama canals in its magnitude and importance. To provide for a continuous deep waterway, 2,300 miles from the head of the lakes to tidewater, 46 miles of the St. Lawrence would have to be made passable. The cost will be $250,000,000 as I stated in my evidence, but I think it will be found by the report that the cost would be $270,000,000.
We have choked railway facilities in Canada with the high freight rates and cost of transportation, equal on an average to 20 per cent of the value of the goods to be transported, with also a shortage of coal. People are demanding that use be made of the waterways, deeper canals and the use of the millions of horse-power unused and available. The only opposition is in New York and Montreal. Montreal is opposed for local reasons as distinguished from national reasons. They are looking for a larger Montreal. They will readily secure one from this canal. Canada and the United States are not as much interested in the local aims and objects of this place and that as in furnishing the necessities to the great bulk of the people as cheaply as possible. Montreal is no more a sea port than Toronto or Fort William. It is an inland port made an ocean port because of deep river channels. We say these should be extended to the head of the lakes. Montreal's other plea is that it is not practical. Some people said the same thing about all the hydro development and the deepening of the Welland, but eminent engineers in the United States and Canada say it is practical. Canada and the United

St. Lawrence Waterway

States are all bottled up because of lack of an outlet to the sea, although both produce vast amounts of all the necessities of life, far more than we can use at home. They have no adequate outlet, with the result that much of our production goes to waste. I may instance the way fruit and vegetables in the Niagara district have gone to waste every fall for lack of transportation.
The great bulk of the developed power will belong to Canada. Some say Canada will want to take it all. Not so, Canada raises wheat and other agricultural products and sells them abroad and will also do the same with part of this power. The Dominion will not monopolize the power of the St. Lawrence. What Canada needs also is with this canal a forward national shipbuilding policy that would have Canadian ships go out on to seven seas and bring trade to Canada up the St. Lawrence to the head of the Great lakes. Nature has carved out a great highway from the lakes to the gulf of St. Lawrence on the east and to the gulf of Mexico on the south, both routes offering a downhill haul. To Canada and to the great nation that built the Panama canal this should prove an easy task. Had Europe such an opportunity, the project would have been completed and progressively improved for a thousand years or more. China did this more than three thousand years ago. Our great inland seas must be connected to the east with salt water. To the south, to the United States, the Mississippi offers her one logical channel. To the east, and I say it with equal confidence, the St. Lawrence offers the one logical channel to Canada and the United States in unison. The natural route, by the St. Lawrence, is already made for us, except for some forty-six odd miles obstructed by rapids. Overcome this obstruction and there is clear sailing all the way to the sea. It is a national duty-a Canadian duty-an international duty to develop water-power wherever possible. Give us this mighty co-labourer with coal in keeping the wheels of industry revolving and you will put the country beyond the power of any man or group of men to cripple and imperil as the country is crippled and imperiled to-day. It is the shortest by some hundreds of miles from any of the lake ports to Liverpool or northern Europe and the Mediterranean, as will be seen by the following.
From Chicago to Christiana by way of New York is 5,767 miles; from Chicago to Christiana by the St. Lawrence is 4,927

miles-a big difference. The St. Lawrence is also much shorter to Liverpool than New York. To the Mediterranean also the way is shorter by the St. Lawrence than by New York. And is shorter also- to Italy, Greece, the Black sea, and India by the Suez. Now distance is not everything, but in this case it means *both time and money. Improvements of the St. Lawrence route will not in any way lessen the value of other waterways which are regarded by some as rival routes.
We have engineering and commercial assurance of these three facts:
(1)	It can be done; it is practical.
(2)	The cost would be less than other routes proposed.
(3)	There would be developed water
power running into millions of tons of coal per annum and millions of horse power available for trade and commerce and industrial development. I believe that one joint route for Canada and the United States is better than two rival routes. I believe that such a route can be accomplished more cheaply, that it provides a more direct way to the markets of Europe, that it is more practicable, more serviceable, better than any other plan yet offered. I believe that this improved St Lawrence will bring great commercial development to our own country and corresponding benefit to the people of the world with whom we shall trade. The St. Lawrence route has long appealed to my interest. I was hopeful, and at last 'we have got a report which gives us in concrete form the cost and the possibilities that will grow out of this great international waterway. The water has been running to waste through all the ages.	[DOT]
The United States spent something over $400,000,000 to construct the Panama canal, but as far as serving the business interests of that country and the world are concerned, the benefits are not comparable to those that would come, through the development of the St. Lawrence waterway to the sea, to Canada, the United States and the world. One objector in the United States said that the canal is to be built in conjunction with Canada. The waterway is for some distance the natural boundary between these two countries. Both nations are equally interested in its development. It is big enough to accommodate both countries. These countries live in amity together, and this great improvement would benefit both. Canada has expended $95,000,000 in improvements in the St. Lawrence river and she has voted


St. Lawrence Waterway
$55,000,000 for improvements in the Welland canal. She should have a route to the sea for her vessels, and this project is the least expensive that makes for an ocean waterway. It has within its development to pay for its own expenses, and no one will deny that, because practical engineers have made the demonstration of what is possible. The idea that the people of the two countries own a waterway one thousand miles in length, reaching into the heart of a continent which is the greatest in production and consuming power in the world,a channel of still water, running to the ocean, and do not provide proper access for it, especially when that project promises to be self-sustaining from its power development alone-seems to me to speak such a lack of courage on the part of our people that I cannot believe it is true. Increased facilities of transportation to meet the ever enlarging demands of distribution can only be provided through the improvement and utilization of our waterways and aiding water borne traffic. Navigable waterways are intended primarily for commerce; and the expenditure of public moneys can only be justified when they are to be so used.
Speaking as a Toronto Harbour Commissioner of twenty years practical experi->
ence, I believe that eighty per cent of the present ocean-going craft can reach the upper lakes by the present channels when the way is opened through the St. Lawrence and the new Welland. More than ninety-six per cent can reach lake Erie by the same improvement. In seeking a route to the Atlantic, we must have the best highway that can be obtained.
I have heard at the various conventions of the port authorities of the world which I have attended some arguments against this project; they were more fancied than real and sectional rather than national. Let us consider this question from a national standpoint-not the narrow, local parish point of view-and thereby do the greatest good to the greatest number. I have noted some of the objections and give them here, with the answer to each:
(1)	It would be an economic failure and
waste of public money. Answer:	The
power incidental will pay for the work.
(2)	The cost would be prohibitive. Answer: The deep waterway reports say that it would not.
(3)	Fogs and ice make the St. Lawrence route too hazardous. It is all right for six or seven months. Answer: The
fogs and ice on the Atlantic play havoc with the steamship service there as well.
(4)	Ocean vessels cannot navigate in the restricted channels nor afford the delays of lockage in canals. Answer: This objection is not sound, the report says so.
(5)	There will be no return tonnage, and one-way traffic cannot be developed. Answer: The west is a great consumer.
(6)	The purpose is to enable Canada to control the export grain trade. Answer: That is not so.
(7)	It is designed to destroy the competition of the barge canal. Answer: It would cater to a different form of trade, and would be a feeder to the barge canal.
(8)	The power is not needed. Answer: It will soon be badly needed in Canada and especially in the United States.
(9)	It would expose the United States to the peril of invasion by Great Britain. Answer: The British fleet has been for six centuries the defender and protector of civilization. It saved civilization and liberty in the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon and the Kaiser. Only for the British fleet in the years from 1914 to 1918, we would have had the awful horror of the German war on our own soil, in Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Boston, New York and Chicago. The British fleet saved America's shores. There is no danger of the invasion of the Great Lakes. The hope of the peace of the world is in amity between England and America.
We talk about disarmament. The case of the Great Lakes is a shining example to the world of what can be done by two nations in this regard. What could be more significant of the spirit that inspired the Disarmament conference than the simple fact that from the river St. Lawrence to the head of the Great Lakes there is not to-day any sign of a single armed vessel or armed fort? It shows that two peoples, with the same ideals and aspirations, can live side by side in friendly relations without any resort to works of defence.
Before I conclude I desire to read three of four paragraphs from the report now before me of the International Joint Commission, appointed by both governments. That commission was given certain instructions and it submitted answers to nine questions asked them. I shall not read the questions; I shall leave that duty to some other hon. member. The questions, as do the answers, speak for themselves. Having considered the question from every economic standpoint, and having heard

St. Lawrence Waterway

numerous witnesses, the commission have now brought in a report strongly in favour of the proposed work, from the navigation, the power, and the financial standpoints. The report states that an analysis submitted before the commission made it clear that the consensus of opinion of the two countries, as revealed in the public hearing, was on the whole distinctly favourable to the improvement of the St. Lawrence. There are two or three sentences I wish to read:
The opposition to the suggested improvement centred largely in the State of New York, but was also supported by representatives of various public bodies in New England and in some of the Atlantic Coast States south of New York as well as in the City of Montreal.
But the few Canadians who opposed it did so because they favoured a rural route. P. 156. Further on, the report says:
The Commission is inclined to the view that the St. .Lawrence route would afford a material saving in transportation rates over any of the existing routes between points in the territory economically tributary to the St. Lawrence and overseas points.
The report refers to the time factor as follows (P. 161) :
The Commission is of the opinion that losses of time-due to delay in locks and restricted speed in canals and river channels would not prove a serious obstacle to the use of the proposed route-by ocean-going vessels.
At page 166 the report says that there is nothing in the evidence to warrant the belief that ocean-going vessels could not safely navigate the waters of the St. Lawrence river, and further on it states:
The terms of the reference make it clear, in the opinion of the commission, that the intention of the two Governments was that the proposed improvement of the Upper St. Lawrence should serve primarily the interests of navigation and commerce and only incidentally those of water power.
In answer to the statement made by Mr. Taschereau and others that the matter was being really engineered by the American water-power interests to serve their own ends, the commission has this to say:
The Commission is confident that there is no justification whatever for these assertions.
As a matter of fact, public attention, as I have pointed out is centered on the question from the point of view of the general improvement afforded in transportation, navigation and powers, and the economic advantage to Canada.
Now, this is the most important question this Parliament will have to deal with, and I would ask hon. members on all sides to approach the consideration of it with an
[Mr Church.]
open mind. Do not let us consider only from the sectional point what is good for Montreal, or Toronto, or Quebec, or any other single section; let us consider what is good in the national interests and that of the whole country, in order that we may obtain some relief from the heavy freight charges and solve our transportation problems aright. I submit that action is necessary in this matter for several reasons: to develop our water-power and improve our traffic; to solve the unemployment question; to develop the great interior of this country and particularly the great West which is suffering to such an extent to-day; and generally to make 'Canada a better place "for our war heroes to live in." As things are many of our unfit soldiers are out of work in many large centres of population to-day, going about seeking charity in the larger centres of population. This canal would do more to solve the unemployment problem than any other agency, and I urge the Prime Minister to take steps in the matter immediately. The question was considered of sufficient importance in the United States to justify six weeks' discussion in the two houses of Parliament there, and the committees. It has been made a football long enough by legislators, and I think it is time for the Parliament of Canada to do something practical. We have had a number of minor questions discussed in this House. On Monday afternoon and evening, for example, we had under discussion an academic question which, though important, was of trivial concern to the people of this country as compared with the question we are now considering. That discussion on Monday was no doubt interesting from an academic point of view, but this subject transcends in importance any of the minor questions that we have been debating. I do urge the Government, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), the Progressives, and all parties to get together and so arrange matters that all those who desire to speak on this question might have ample opportunity to put their views before the House. For, I repeat, this is the greatest question this Parliament will have to settle, and one of the greatest questions since Confederation. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank yourself and the hon. members of this House for the courteous hearing and attention that has been given me. As I said, I could only begin to touch the fringe of this great and intricate problem in the very short time at my disposal. I have,

St. Lawrence Watenvay
however, dealt with the most salient points affecting the economic, the transportation, the navigation, the power and light, the unemployment, the shipbuilding, the rates and tolls, and the financial sides of this big question.


Mr. FERNAND RINFREP (St. James) :: I had not anticipated the honour of taking part at an early stage in this debate, but I feel that if we may congratulate the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) on bringing this very momentous question to the attention of the House, some endeavour should be made at once to place before hon. members the other side of the case. The hon. member in a very able, although not very comprehensive speech, has presented his own side of the question; and, while it is not my intention to try to follow him in every step that he has taken, I shall attempt to sum up in a general way the arguments on the side of the case which my hon,. friend has not put before us. 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, should approach the whole question warily, and, in fact, should refrain at the present time from taking the least practical action. 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.
It has been pointed out, and very properly, that the deepening of the St. Lawrence river to permit ocean vessels to reach the Great Lakes is no more than an engineering problem. I grant, Mr. Speaker, that, given the money, it is possible for engineers to provide a twenty-five or even a thirty-foot channel from Montreal to the Great Lakes. But that is not the point. There is a financial and also an international side to this question. Can Canada bear her share of the cost of this undertaking? That is one point. Further, will the results expected warrant the expenditure? That is another point. But a more important point than either seems to me to be this: Is it desirable to enter into a partnership of this kind with the United States?
As to the cost, the situation is very obscure. We have not any precise data as to what this great enterprise would cost. It has been reported that a twenty-five-foot waterway can be constructed for $250,000,000. But it has also been pointed out that this estimate does not cover the deepening of the lake harbours, of the channels of the Great Lakes, nor of the connecting rivers. In this connection I need not remind this House that every time an enterprise of this kind is launched in Parliament the estimated cost is always very much lower than the actual cost of construction.
But the point of my argument this afternoon is not directed so much against this scheme as to show that we do not have enough information at the present time to warrant us entering into it. As to the cost, I would point out from the International Joint Commission's report on this St. Lawrence waterway, which was distributed to us at the beginning of the session, that it is rather dubious what the cost will be. From the summary of conclusions on page 178 I quote the following paragraph:
The whole question of the distribution of cost has given the commission some concern.
May I interject that it should give us even more concern?
If the area to be benefited were all in one country, the problem of financing the improvement would be a comparatively simple one, but as the matter stands the situation is complicated not merely by the fact that two neighbouring countries are joining in the project, but that these countries are unequal in population, unequal in wealth, unequal in their ability to make effective use of the waterway. That is the situation to-day, but it does not necessarily follow that it will always be the situation.
On the same page this matter of cost is further discussed and I read:
Objection may be made that the proposed principle of dividing the cost in .proportion to the benefits each country derives from the improvement could hardly be put into effect until the works had been completed and In operation for a sufficient period to secure reliable data on the subject.
Again on the same page the commissioners state:
In other words, each country should be debited with its share of the entire cost of all works necessary for navigation, including the cost of the Welland ship canal, based upon the proportion the cargo tonnage carried to and from its own ports by way of the St. Lawrence bears to the entire tonnage by the same route. The ratio to be charged to each obviously would require to be readjusted periodically.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have quoted sufficiently from the report of the commission to show that there is no precise in-

St. Lawrence Waterway
formation as to what this scheme would cost Canada, and to show that we would he altogether in the hands of our powerful partner to the south as to what proportion of the cost should he assessed to us.
The estimate that this waterway would cost $250,000,000 is certainly much below the actual cost. But even if we accept that as a correct estimate, and assume that we would be responsible for one-half of it, I submit that in the present state of our finances it would be very unwise indeed to add to our obligations to that extent.
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.
But, in objecting to this scheme generally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I am not offering the profane opinion of a mere city member, but that I am rather summarizing the arguments that have been advanced against it by men whose opinion is authoritative and deserves great respect. The effect of those arguments is that it is not at all evident that there would be any improvement in navigation as a result of carrying out this scheme at all commensurate with the expenditure involved. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that deep sea vessels cannot compete with lake vessels because the latter have three times the cargo capacity for the corresponding draught; also the deep sea vessel has to be built more strongly and costs three times as much per ton as does the lake vessel. Therefore the claim that ocean vessels could come up the river to our inland ports in competition with our lake vessels is indeed one that is very much open to question.
I think we may reasonably come to the conclusion that while many of the experts have pronounced on the feasibility of a deep waterway of this kind, and that it might bring lake vessels to Montreal, yet it would not at all enable the ocean vessels to profitably proceed to the head of the lakes. In other words, the truth about this water navigation from the middle west to the ocean is that it would require two, and possibly three kinds of craft to complete it. First, it would require the lake vessels proper, built light and inexpensively for cargo-carrying purposes exclusively; then barges to traverse the intervening areas between the lakes and the seaports, and, finally, the heavy and costly sea vessels with large crews, staunchly

built, requiring expensive insurance, to carry the cargo the rest of the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we have strong suspicion, as I have said, that the navigation side of the project is only an accessory feature; that the water-power project is the essential motive that has inspired the promoters of the scheme. I quote in support of this contention the New York Times. Of course, it will be argued that New York stands very much with Montreal on this matter, but as I have said, I am merely placing before the House the argument-on our side. The New York Times says:
The people of New York, under our constitution, own the lands under water along the St. Lawrence valley. No one has suggested a way to compensate these owners if their land is condemned. And condemnation proceedings, under the federal statutes, may he brought only where the rights condemned are to be used for navigational purposes. Hence the camouflage of benefiting navigation.
As for Canada, it has been submitted that we have in this country water-power possibilities much greater than we employ at the present time, and that if this scheme would give the United States a vast amount of water-power which they need, it would be practically using Canadian resources to supply them with that water-power, while we on this side would only sacrifice our right to those resources without any compensating benefit. But the main argument and the main objection to this project, Mr. Speaker, is that it would involve an international partnership with a very powerful neighbour, a neighbour whom we expect to exact the letter as well as the spirit of all contracts; and it would give rise to innumerable conflicts in the future. We know that we have been at peace with the United States for a long while, but we also know by experience that every time there has been a dispute we have bought peace, sometimes dearly, by sacrificing our part of the bargain. Need I remind the House that on the occasion of the Maine boundary controversy Canada maintained peace only by sacrificing a portion of territory which should be included in the province of Quebec and which now forms a very wealthy and prosperous part of the United States? Need I remind the House that when the question of the Alaskan boundary was discussed, again we had to buy peace by sacrificing what we thought was our property in that part of the country?
The other day the member for West-mount-St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) brought to the attention of the House a despatch to the effect that the United States repre-

St. Lawrence Waterway
sentatives were already discussing this matter with the British Embassy at Washington. I say in all confidence, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe the British Embassy has gone into this matter with the American representatives; but I do not think I am far from the truth when I say that if the British Embassy had been disposed to do so, the American representatives would have been only too glad to settle this matter over our heads. Anyway, if we are to judge by editorials and articles in the American press with regard to this matter, we can well make up our minds that this partnership, as I say, would be very dangerous to our own side of the bargain. I do not wish to quote at length; I realize that, especially on Wednesday, when we have to adjourn at six o'clock, it is only fair that I should give as much time as possible to other members who desire to speak on the subject. But I would like to place on Hansard a couple of quotations on this matter of partnership. The first is from the report of the New York State Commission. It reads thus-I will quote only one paragraph:
For a hundred years the two nations have been in perfect accord and no thoughtful person would suggest that these cordial relations should ever be severed, but as a matter of prudence and good statesmanship, if a ship canal were ever to be built down the St. Lawrence river, and for nine-tenths of the distance from Lake Ontario to the gulf of St. Lawrence wholly within Canadian territory and under the sovereign control of the Dominion of Canada, if not the British Empire, then there should be a cession of territory the entire length of the St. Lawrence river, five or ten miles back from the river, constituting a zone like the Panama Canal Zone, secured by treaty with the Republic of Panama.
I would like also to quote again from the report of the International Joint Commission, to show you, Mr. Speaker, that this partnership with the United States would involve innumerable causes for passible conflicts. I quote again from the conclusions of the report; and I would like to point out that I should at least be given some credit for taking my arguments from the very report which is supposed to support this scheme. The report says, on page 179:
In regard to the method of control, the commission is conscious of the fact that the peculiar character of the St. Lawrence, partly international and partly national, creates an unusual situation, and it believes that, in order to combine the fullest possible liberty of action on the part of each country in its own territory, with the efficient co-ordination of the several parts of the completed improvement, all "navigation works'' lying wholly within one country and capable of economic and efficient administration
as complete and independent units, should be maintained and operated by the country in
which they are located-
Nobody can find fault with that, so far.
-that "navigation works" not lying wholly within one country and not capable of economic and efficient administration as complete and independent units, should be maintained and operated by an international board on which each country would have equal representation; and that this board should also have the right of inspection of those "navigation works."
I admit it is proposed that we should have equal representation on that board, but who will pretend for one moment that even if numerically we have the same representation as the United States on a board of that kind, the representatives of Canada, able as they might be, powerful as they might be in their own country, can ever counter-balance the influence of the representatives of the United States if an important conflict should arise regarding those works which are of a national character?
Further, as part of the recommendations of the commission, found on page 181 of this report, it is said:
5. That, assuming the adoption of the plans of the engineering board, or of other plans also involving a readjustment of the international boundary, in order to bring each of the power houses on its own side of the boundary, appropriate steps be taken to transfer from one country or the other, as the case may be, the slight acreage of submerged land Involved.
Again I submit, that over this one little paragraph in the recommendations of the commision an important and involved discussion could take place over what they call the slight acreage of our territory, and if we entered into a discussion of that matter, we do not know where it would end. I might also quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of these recommendations to show that in more than one respect there could be discussion between the two countries on matters of territory, on navigation, on the distribution of water power, and in every case we would be in the position of being the much weaker and the much smaller nation discussing these matters with a very powerful neighbour who could practically get from us all that it demanded. I shall say no more for the reason that I gave only a moment ago. I would like to hear from the House on this question. I do not say that the House should condemn altogether this enterprise, but I think it will agree with me that there are grave doubts on the different aspects of this project, as to its cost, as to its value for navigation purposes, and for the international develop-
St. Lawrence Waterway

ment of power, and finally as to the political consequence of such a partnership -with the United States of America. The report makes it very clear that the commission itself did not reach a definite conclusion, for at page 180 I find this:
The commission believes that, before any particular scheme is finally adopted, all the available engineering data, including the report and plans of the engineering board and all comments thereon or alternative plans, should be referred to a special technical board for careful consideration and report.
And paragraph 4, on the next page:
That there shall be an exhaustive investigation of the extent and character of the damage through flowage involved in the plan of development finally adopted.
These paragraphs show amply that the commission themselves feel that before they arrive at a conclusion, they should get the two countries together once more and make a further investigation, and that even this report, which is supposed to favour the scheme, is not at all definite in it's conclusions. These doubts are sufficient, in my mind, to lead the Canadian Government to exercise the strictest caution.
It rests with the promoters of the project to create and instill the strongest conviction, if they ever hope to have it carried out. But for those who do object to it, it is sufficient to point out the dubious, questionable, and altogether obscure character of the whole enterprise. Only the strongest evidence could bear out the project. This does not exist even in this report. I think we have shown, on the contrary, that the project coasts along dangers and threats, both economic and national, at every turn and winding of its course. I therefore would urge the Government and the House not to accept this resolution.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to speak for a few minutes on this matter, to protest against acceding to the request of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) that another day be set apart for the discussion of this resolution.
I am not going to discuss whether the project is feasible or not, but if we spend the time of the House in discussing questions like this, which are not pressing at the present time and, indeed, are not to be thought of, very important and urgent questions will have to be compressed into a very small space at the end of the session or not dealt with at all. There is no doubt in my mind that if this project

is carried out, the estimated cost of $250,000,000 will be doubled by the time it is completed.
What is the situation? I do not want to deal at any great length with western conditions. I think those have been stressed sufficiently for the House to realize the seriousness of the situation. I shall just mention one incident in order to give point to what has already been said. Two days before I left my home, the man who rents my farm said to me, " I can go out now and buy oats for less than it costs to thresh mine." Farmers at the present time are in need of help to buy seed. There are very many urgent matters for which we need money, and I think that is sufficient reason for me to arrive at the conclusion at once that the idea of starting on this project of deepening the St. Lawrence river and the Welland canal so that ocean vessels may go up to Fort William, while it may be quite practicable in the future, and I think will be, at the present time is simply out of the question. That being the case, if another day is set apart for its discussion, where will we be?
I came here with a very good impression of Parliament, and since I have been sitting here, that impression has not lessened; I think as much of Parliament today as I did when I arrived. But I have found what I expected, that occasionally a great deal of time is wasted. I have attended large conventions enough to know that it is impossible to prevent that. I have arrived at the conclusion that there are some cities in this country that are rather expensive. Judging from the pages that are put on Hansard by the representatives from Toronto, I fancy that Toronto is rather an expensive city. One argument made in favour of this project was that it was going to build up small cities into larger ones, and, I suppose, make the large ones still larger. I believe that the attitude of this party in the House is sometimes misunderstood. We have been charged with being narrowminded and with not being able to see other interests besides our own. I wish to make it plain just what our attitude is with regard to these matters. When it comes to a question of developing a great industry which, when developed, will cause life to flow through the channels of trade throughout the whole country, you will find us very, very generous. That includes such works as agriculture, fisheries, and the development of our mines and forests. But I submit that when money is poured out freely into the

St. Lawrence Waterway
large cities it works in very narrow channels and in very small circles, and it is a question to my mind whether this country would be any better off in any respect if Toronto, or Montreal, or Hamilton were doubled in size to-morrow. It is just a question if it would not prove a greater burden on the country at large, than a benefit. The cities are overgrown now; in comparison with the country, they are over-developed. Therefore, I think the policy of Canada at the present time and for some few years to come should be to decentralize, to cause people to go from the cities to the country, so that the country may be built up and take a position of greater relative importance as compared with the cities. That is what we need, not a policy to cause our cities to grow larger. Where does the money expended in the large cities go? It goes into the pockets of the retailers, and then into the pockets of the wholesalers and manufacturers-the movement operates in a small circle. If a city grows larger it probably helps the surrounding country within a radius of ten to twenty miles; but I cannot see that it is any great benefit to the country at large to have these urban centres grow larger than they are now. The present debate ought to be closed at six o'clock so that we shall not have to waste another day over the subject, because when the question is brought up once more, as it undoubtedly will be, the whole ground will have to be covered again.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing) :: I wish to concur in the remarks just made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) in objecting to this Parliament giving its endorsation to any scheme in which we have to enter into partnership with a foreign country. We of northern Ontario have had a waterway scheme under consideration for the last twenty-five years.. Away back in 1899 the late J. W. Poupore, then representing the county of Pontiac, advocated in this House the building of a canal entirely within the bounds of Canada-a canal to be built with Canadian capital, by Canadian labour, and controlled by the Canadian people. Therefore, when my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) says that all Ontario is in favour of a joint ship canal I can-on behalf of the electors of Nipissing, whom I have the honour to represent-say that we are directly opposed to the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway. The Georgian Bay ship canal project will meet all the requirements that the St. Lawrence deep waterway will give us, and it would confer upon Canada, western Canada in particular, all the benefits that are claimed for the latter project. The Engineering Board of the International Joint Commission have estimated that the cost of a 25 foot ship canal would be 8252,000,000. As detailed plans could not be prepared within the limited time of one year mere outline plans and lump estimates were submitted, and we are safe in concluding that these estimates will fall far short of what the real cost of this enterprise will be. Canada's initial share in the construction of this canal would be $151,000,000; and I ask hon. members who have been clamouring since this session opened for more economy and more retrenchment in expenses if this is an opportune time to add $8,000,000 in interest charges to the annual expenses of this Government. The economic advantage claimed for this scheme as far as Canada is concerned is merely the cheapen ing of the export of our north west grain by avoiding the cost of elevating at Kingston and Montreal. All other advantages favour American lake ports. Incidentally the advocates of this scheme claim that 1,500,000 horse power of hydro electric energy will be developed along the route and delivered in each district for a great distance at one-fourth the cost of power in New York city. It is the development of this electric power that is expected to finance the enterprise and lay the basis of an issuance of bonds to enable the waterway to be built. It is this aspect of the water-power development that we of northern Ontario hold in great suspicion as a mere subterfuge to grab the water-power of the St. Lawrence river. The proposition, in our opinion, is mere camouflage. The -Buffalo News makes the following declaration:
There is an ulterior motive back of the whole project-a desire of the "power-ring" to get control of all the water powers along the St, Lawrence river.
And by a strange coincidence the report of the International Joint Commission contains a recommendation that 1,464,000 horse power be developed' between Kingston and Cornwall concurrently with the building of the deep waterway by erecting a dam at the Long Sault. Knowing as we do the great tendency toward centralization, knowing how the United States have developed during the last twenty-five years and knowing that the great industrial develop-
St. Lawrence Waterway

ment that has been going on in the middle west necessitates some means of relieving the traffic congestion to the sea board, we must realize that when we are invited to go into this project we are asked to subscribe a portion of the large amount that will be necessary to relieve the railway congestion in the United States. In this enterprise the American government would be the dominant party. By virtue of its larger expenditure it would demand a larger share of the control of the enterprise, and this would inevitably give rise to misunderstandings and some recrimination. This would eventually have to be decided by arbitration and, as was said a few minutes ago by the member for St. James, we should hesitate before we enter into any project that may have to !be adjudicated upon by an international arbitration tribunal, The consequences flowing from our past experience in this regard should be sufficient for us to look very seriously into this project. That an organized move is being made in order to gain control of the south shore of the St. Lawrence between Sorel and Cornwall has been stated.
In the report of the Joint Commission, between pages 154 and 155, we find a map of the water-power installation on the St. Lawrence, Richelieu and the St. Maurice rivers. If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to look at this map, they will observe the international boundary the Richelieu and the south shore of the St. Lawrence rivers, form an irregular triangle of which, it was said in the St. Louis Globe Democrat a few days ago, would be one of the most remarkable industrial centres of the world. I read from the St. Louis Globe the following:
Under American control and with the power of the St. Lawrence made available, the area might become one of the most remarkable industrial districts in the world. Acquisition of it would give us jurisdiction of the river bank opposite Montreal, as well as for some distance east of there and that city would lose some of its most flourishing suburbs on the southern shore.
In the Montreal Star of April 21, I find an article of about the same tenor, which reads:
Washington, April 21.-Asserting that the Secretary of State "has been instructed to negotiate a treaty with Canada relating to canalization and water-power development of the St. Lawrence River," Representative Ten Eyck, Democrat, New York, in a letter to House members yesterday asked that they get behind his resolution seeking acquisition by the Government of half the land adjacent to the proposed canal and half the land to be improved by such development.

Mr. Ten Eyck said he had written chambers of commerce and other organizations requesting them to urge the House Foreign Affairs Committee to set a date for public hearings on his resolution.
"A treaty," he said, "will shift to a certain extent the future of this important project directly to the Senate, which enjoys Joint responsibility of the treaty making powers of the country. I feel that before any treaty with Canada or Great Britain relating to the St. Lawrence project is negotiated due consideration should be given to the land adjacent to the power development.
"It is essential that we own half the land so that we may be a fifty per cent beneficiary in the future before we pay 50 per cent of the cost of its development."
These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we from northern Ontario oppose the deepening of the St. Lawrence. This country has already expended $250,000 in making the necessary surveys for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. That canal would be entirely within Canadian territory. It would assist in developing what we, in northern Ontario, consider the richest area in natural resources on the entire continent. Have the members of this House ever considered that we in northern Ontario possess one of the richest mineral deposits in the world, that the district of Sudbury at the present moment is producing 85 per cent of the world's nickel, that less than 100 miles further north we have one of the largest silver countries in the world, that a few miles further north we have one of the richest gold countries in the world, and that we have in that district one mine which alone in the last eleven years produced $56,000,000 in gold bullion. This industry is in its infancy. The surface has only been scraped, and it is just a question of time when with proper development we will have in that northern country an area of sufficient size to give homes to many thousands prosperous Canadians. We say that the Georgian Bay ship canal is of paramount importance, and that before this Government gives its consent to any such project as is the St. Lawrence deep waterway they should consider the right of the people of northern Ontario to have their claims considered.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Port William and Rainy River):: As another representative
from northern Ontario, I fear I shall have to differ slightly with my hon. friend (Mr. Lapierre) who has just spoken. I am not at all surprised at his attitude, because I know his district very well. I know that he represents the city of North Bay and naturally that city is particularly interested in the Georgian Bay canal. I have no

St. Lawrence Waterway
quarrel with the hon. gentleman for taking that attitude, because, after all, Canada is unfortunately so immense in area and so scattered in population that anyone who represents a constituency in this House is more or less controlled in his attitude upon any question by the feeling of his constituency upon that question. And I shall frankly admit most of those who have spoken, or who will speak perhaps, upon this question favourably to this project, are those who represent constituencies or sections of the country which will be to a certain extent benefited by it; and those who speak against the scheme will speak from an absolutely opposite standpoint.
One point that struck me as a little curious is that my hon. friends to my left are not quite as assiduous in their attendance in the House to-day on this question as they usually are. To do them justice, I believe they attend the House-and perhaps it is because most of them are new members -as a rule much more assiduously than any of the rest of us; but here is a question which I believe affects them more than it affects any other section of this House, is of more real interest to them than perhaps any other question that will be discussed in this House, or at least of as much importance, and yet a great many of them are not taking as much interest as usual, the reason being, I presume-and I am not saying it in any critical spirit at all-that they have not perhaps looked into the question as fully as they might have. It is a question that is of distinct interest to them, and I think I shall prove it before I am through. The very point I make about the fact that they are not taking quite as much interest in this is the reason I believe this discussion is a good discussion.
This is a question of importance, not only to my hon. friends to my left, but to the whole country. I regret that of my hon. friends among the Government supporters only two have spoken, neither of whom has supported the project, though the first speaker did not oppose it very strenuously, except by quoting from the report of the commission, and I venture to say that some of his quotations did not really offer any criticism upon the project. But last year I remember when this question was up before the House there were a number of hon. gentlemen who are now on the Government side who supported it very strenuously. None of them have spoken to-day. But I hope that if this subject comes up again some of them will put themselves on record as they did last year. In fact,
I am sure they will. Among those who supported it were the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), the Solicitor-General (Mr. McKenzie), the member for Quebec County (Mr. Lavigueur), the member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin), the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), and the then member for West Lambton, who is now a senator. There were others, but those I have named I recall from a quick perusal of the names in Hansard of last year. I find that in the main these hon. gentlemen supported the proposal.


Mr. CAHILL:: Let me correct the hon. member. I did not support this resolution last year; I supported the Georgian Bay canal scheme.


Robert James Manion: Well, I have not time to look into Hansard now, but I looked over the hon. gentleman's speech a few moments ago and I was quite sure that he supported the project. However, I may be wrong and I accept his correction. But it does not matter in any case. I do not remember the Georgian Bay canal having been discussed last year except in relation to this question, but, as I say, it is immaterial.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


Robert James Manion: I did not mean that as an offence to the hon. member. It seems that his own friends wish to make it so.


Mr. McMASTER:: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: I was going to say that there are three questions to-day before the people which I believe are the most important problems that are engaging public attention. One of them is the tariff, upon which there are differences of opinion in various sections of the country. Next is the matter of immigration; and last of all, perhaps as important as the others, if indeed not more important, is the question of transportation, which embraces not only railways but also such questions as the one we are discusing to-day, namely, canals and waterways. I admit that if this project were carried out it would involve the expenditure of a large amount of money, and I am also aware that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made the statement, at least as reported in the press, that at the moment the Government is not in a position to consider this question. That, of course, does not say that at a future time they may not consider it, but I understood, from my interpretation of the press announcement, that that was the attitude of the Minister
St. Lawrence Waterway

of Finance, speaking on behalf of the Government. But if the question of expense precludes immediate practical action, that is all the more reason why there should be a thorough discussion of the subject now, so that the people of the country might become familiar with it in its every aspect; and if finally the matter should be decided in the negative, then the discussion will have served the purpose of indicating the various grounds of opposition to the scheme, and making clear the inadvisability, if that should be the ultimate conclusion, of building the canal. But I believe that any, one who reads the report submitted by the International Joint Commission, and carefully studies it from every standpoint, will be fairly well convinced, if he starts out with an open mind, that the ultimate building of the canal is something which will be accomplished in the future in this country. There has been considerable discussion on the question not only in Canada, but also in the United States, and I have under my hand a copy of the Congressional Record, of a week ago to-day, in which it was presented both pro and con in the United States Senate.
Now, we should bear in mind that Canada is a great undeveloped country. We have in this Dominion a country of an immense area, and only by comparison can we really fully appreciate its vast extent. It is larger in area than the United States and twice the size of Europe, leaving out Russia. And yet, in that part of Europe excluding Russia, there are 300,000,000 people, compared to eight or nine millions in Canada, which has double the area. If this work is finally decided to be undertaken and the canal is built, it will bring about a greater development of our resources, it will attract more people to the country, and, to my mind, will very materially help my hon. friends to my left in reducing the expense of transporting their wheat from the prairie provinces to Liverpool. Furthermore, it will make for cheaper production in the development of power on the St. Lawrence waterways. We should not forget that anything that can develop the country will bring more people to the country, and in that way serve to reduce the national debt. If in twenty years you could double the population of Canada you would cut your per capita debt in two; and Canada is one of the few countries in the world to-day that are in the happy position of being able to open their doors to an extensive increase in population and thus secure a diminution 
in the national debt. Most of the European countries are not in that fortunate position. The British Isles are to-day as crowded as they wish to be, and Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and in fact any of those countries you care to name, are more or less completely developed. And even the United States is practically fully developed. So that Canada, as I say, is in the position of being able to open its gates to a larger flood of the right kind of immigration and so, by increasing its population, cut down its debt.
The agitation on behalf of this proposal aims at making the Great Lakes, not from a sentimental standpoint, but for business reasons, the Mediterranean of America. Any one studying the commercial history of the world will find that such cities as Venice, Carthage and Alexandria, and such countries as Great Britain, Holland, Spain, the Baltic cities of Germany which formed the Hanseatic League, and various other countries and cities that have come into the limelight or are prominent to-day as trading centres, attained that status by virtue of the fact that they had access to the sea and had cheap transportation facilities that enabled them to carry on easy commercial intercourse with other countries. Water transportation, as all hon. members know, is very much cheaper than rail transportation. Some authorities estimate an advantage of ten to one in favour of the former, but certainly a conservative estimate would be that water transportation is three to five times cheaper than the other.
All Canada is interested in this question, and I believe that the majority of the people, after carefully considering it, will be in favour of the ultimate building of the system of canals proposed. I admit that both in the United States and in Canada there are certain centres of population opposed to the project. In the United States it is being opposed by New York and Boston, because these cities feel that a certain amount of business would be taken by way of the St. Lawrence and that they would lose traffic in consequence. That may be true. And yet I do not know that New York, immense as it is, has any particular reason to fear for its future growth. In the United States there is one other city, Buffalo, which opposes the scheme, because that city is at the head of the Erie canal, which carries probably 65 per cent of the grain of western Canada to New York to be exported to Europe. Naturally, that city fears that it may lose a certain amount

St. Lawrence Waterway
of traffic, and for that reason it offers opposition. And, in Canada, places like North Bay oppose the proposition on the grounds that have been mentioned, while Montreal so far has taken an attitude antagonistic to it. I do not believe that Montreal would suffer if this undertaking were carried through. Directly it might do that city some little harm, but indirectly it would undoubtedly do it a great deal of good, inasmuch as it would help to build up Canada. And anything that builds up the Dominion cannot possibly help benefiting a magnificent city like Montreal. In any case, suppose it did to some extent harm Montreal in Canada, or Buffalo or New York in the United States, that would not be a sufficient reason for abandoning a proposition of this kind. This country cannot be governed on sectional lines; it must be governed from the standpoint of what is good for the country as a whole, even if occasionally some particular section suffers in consequence. The question is of great importance to Ontario and the prairie provinces, because Ontario is directly adjacent to the Great Lakes, and the prairie provinces grow the wheat which goes over the lakes and upon which, it is claimed, a great saving in transportation would be secured if the canal were completed.
To realize the importance of the lake traffic of this country, let us for a moment consider the tonnage that passes through three great canals that are known to all of us

the Panama canal, the Suez canal, and the Soo canal. Taking the 1920 returns, the traffic passing through the Panama canal amounted to nine million tons; that passing through the Suez canal to twelve million tons; and that passing through the American and Canadian Soo canals to seventy-nine million tons. In other words, the traffic passing through the Soo canals betwen Canada and the United States was almost four times the combined traffic passing through those other two world-famous canals. The value of that seventy-nine million tons of traffic was over $1,000,000,000. We do not realize the importance of our waterways until we make some comparisons of that kind, and therefore I have made them for the benefit of hon. members who are doing me the courtesy of listening to my remarks.
I might point out also that our harbours, starting with St. John and Halifax in the east, and going to Victoria and Vancouver in the west, and taking in Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Fort William and Port Arthur, are practically fully developed,
and it would not take very much additional expenditure on any one of them to meet the most exacting shipping requirements of to-day. So that that is not an expense of any very great amount in this scheme. [DOT]
For the special benefit of my hon. friends to the left, I would draw attention to some facts in regard to the production of wheat and other grains in this country. They know that roughly 300,000,000 bushels of wheat are grown in the prairie provinces annually, most of which goes to the head of the lakes, for shipment by boat either to Port Colborne or Buffalo. If shipped to Port Colborne the wheat is usually transferred to smaller boats or to freight cars, and taken down to Montreal, in each case at considerable expense. If it goes to Buffalo-and sixty-five per cent of it in the past has been going there-it is usually transferred to small boats on the Erie canal and taken down to New York for export.
Now, it is claimed by those who are supporting it that by the building of this St. Lawrence-Great Lakes canal at least five cents per bushel would be saved in transportation charges on the wheat of western Canada. That means not only on the wheat exported, but it would be saved also on the wheat that .is used within Canada, because all hon. members know that the price for the wheat of the world, including Canada, is set in Liverpool, that being the world market. So if you saved five cents per bushel on transportation, naturally that saving should go to the farmers of the West. Julius Barnes, whom all hon. members know by reputation, the former head of the American Wheat Board, has stated that this scheme would save ten cents to the farmers of western Canada and the western states. I could quote his exact words, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. He has estimated that there is lost annually to the farmers of the western states through the lack of this deep-water communication from the head of the lakes $200,000,000. In other words, he figures out that more than the American cost of the building of this canal is lost every year to American farmers. If you take 300,000,000 bushels of wheat as being roughly the annual production of the iprairie provinces a saving of five cents a bushel in the aggregate would amount to $15,000,000 every year to our western farmers. But that saving of five cents a bushel is a conservative estimate. Herbert Hoover, an international figure to-day, agrees with
St. Lawrence Waterway

the statement of Julius Barnes that ten cents a bushel would be saved to the farmers of the western states and of western Canada. Consequently this question is of ' particular importance to the farmers of the West. That is the statement I started with, and I think the House will agree with me, because transportation rates on wheat are a direct tax upon the farmers who grow it.
But in addition to that saving of wheat, the building of this deep waterway would mean a saving of freight charges on all freight transported from the East to the West to the head of the Great Lakes or the reverse because package freight is increased in cost by the shipping charges, and also coal and various other commodities. I think it was my hon. friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie), who pointed out in the course of his speech last year that coal from Nova Scotia, by virtue of these canals, might be shipped up even to the head of the lakes. I believe that is a possibility. To-day Ontario and Quebec get most of their coal from Pennsylvania. The building of these canals would facilitate traffic on the Great Lakes to such an extent that there would be a very good opportunity of coal from Nova Scotia being used as far west as Toronto, and even perhaps as far west as Fort William and Winnipeg, Pennsylvania coal being now used in Winnipeg and a short distance beyond.
Let me point out also another important fact. It deals particularly with the remarks of my hon. friend from Nippissing (Mr. Lapierre) who preceded me. It is estimated that one-third of the population living in the States is tributary to the Great Lakes. In other words, it is claimed by the advocates of this scheme that forty million of the population live in those states which, so to speak, are tributary to the Great Lakes. Much of the wheat and other traffic of those states is tributary to the Great Lakes. It is also claimed that seventy per cent of the foodstuffs and raw material produced in the Union are produced in those states. In Canada half of the population may be regarded as feeding the Great lakes, by their traffic, because Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have a little more than four million people among them; and those four provinces containing half the population of Canada, roughly, and I should say giving more than half of our production, are tributary to the Great Lakes.


Mr. VIEN:: If I may interrupt my hon. friend? What advantage would accrue to the maritime provinces and to Quebec, which would be called upon .to contribute to a large extent to the expenditure involved, by the construction of the canal?


Robert James Manion: I might reply by asking my hon. friend: What advantage to the prairie provinces was the building of the Intercolonial railway, for example?


Thomas Vien: The answer is quite obvious -the prairie provinces had not much to say when the Intercolonial railway was built.


Robert James Manion: That is quite true, but
they have contributed to its deficits just the same, I notice. However, I will try to answer my hon. friend's question. There may not be any direct benefit to the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec except to this extent, that if these proposals I am laying before the House, and which the advocates of this scheme support, are correct, the whole of Canada would be built up, and in that way Montreal and Quebec would profit also. But before my hon. friend came in I had pointed out that we cannot govern this country in sections. We cannot take every proposition that comes before the House and prove that every section of the country is going to be equally benefited by it before we consider its merits.


Thomas Vien: It must be for the general
advantage of Canada.


Robert James Manion: It might be for the
general advantage of Canada, perhaps, but not for the particular advantage of Montreal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Impossible!


Robert James Manion: I advanced arguments
before my hon. friend came in that I do not want to go over again in regard to the effect of this undertaking upon Montreal and Quebec. So far as the maritime provinces are concerned, anything that builds up this country will also enure to the advantage of those provinces:	and of
Quebec also, and as I was arguing a moment ago coal might be brought by this route as far as the head of the lakes- I do not claim that that would actually happen-and to that extent Nova Scotia would get the benefit.
My hon. friend from Nipissing spoke of the Georgian Bay canal route. There is no doubt that good arguments could be

St. Lawrence Waterway
advanced in favour of that route-that is, sentimental arguments, and from the standpoint of a route which would be entirely within Canadian territory. But from the standpoint of tapping the densely populated sections of the country, the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes canal system is very much superior to the Georgian Bay canal system, because it goes directly down to southern Ontario, and, what is much more important, perhaps, from the traffic standpoint, goes directly down to those states bordering on the Great Lakes, south of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and thereabouts. It is true that the Georgian Bay canal would tap these also, but only in a roundabout way.
The statement has been made to me in private conversation that none of the ocean steamers would patronize this route; they would not go up to the Great Lakes to supply traffic necessities in Canada and the United States. In that connection I should like to point out that over three-quarters of all the ocean-going vessels in the world are of less than 25-foot draught. The picture which some people draw of the Olympic or the Mauritania docking at Toronto or Chicago is, of course, purely an imaginary picture, and any one who has regard to the facts will admit that that would not be the result of the operation of this canal system. But small oceangoing boats are much more numerous than large ones. If I may be permitted a personal reminiscence, I would point out that twenty-five years ago, when I was a hoy, in my home city of Fort William I saw a Norwegian ship which had come straight across from Norway, passed through our canals, landed at Fort William, unloaded the cargo there and took a cargo back. If twenty-five years ago that could be done with our canals as they were at that time, certainly with the enlarged canals it would be done on a much larger scale. I remember also crossing the ocean on a passenger ship of the Anchor line which was very much smaller than many of the passenger ships on the lakes to-day. Smaller ships, I repeat, are much in a majority on the ocean.
I would point out also that Montreal is four or five hundred miles nearer to Liverpool than is New York. Buffalo and Port Colborne, by the St. Lawrence route, are as close to Liverpool as New York city is. That is something one can hardly believe until he actually examines the map. But due to the fact that Great Britain is much farther north than we are, and due to the
shape of the earth, Montreal is 400 or 500 miles nearer Liverpool than New York, and Port Colborne and Buffalo are the same distance as New York from Liverpool. That indicates the advantage which would be derived from shipping wheat or freight of any kind in this direction.
There is another point which has not been mentioned. We have already spent on the development of the Welland canal approximtely $42,000,000 and it is intended to spend in the neighbourhood of $90,000,000. Well, any one who looks at the map and sizes the matter up will realize that the Welland canal, enlarged through that vast expenditure, is of practically no use to this country unless the further development of this ship canal system is proceeded with. Without that further development, boats from the western end of the lakes may proceed only one lake further than they go at present; they could not go on to Montreal. So that if the Welland canal improvement is proceeded with, the only logical and reasonable policy in that connection must be that the proposed canal system is to be one of the ultimate solutions of the transportation problem.
Then, the power question has been referred to. I do not wish to argue this matter on any false premises. The statement has been made here to-day by somebody that the power development of the St. Lawrence canal would pay for the canal. I do not think that would be the case. It is estimated that 4,000,000 horse-power of electric energy could be developed to-day on the St. Lawrence river, but there is nc great demand in Canada to-day for the three-quarters of that which would belong to this country. Canada to-day has only
2,000,000 horse-power of electrical development, though we have a potential development of 18,000,000 horse-power. There would, however, be a demand for some, and the development of part of it as required would help to meet the cost of this project. But I do not believe at the present time it could be said that the development of horse-power on the St. Lawrence would wholly pay for it.


Thomas Vien: Does not my hon. friend think that the export of electric power to the United States would help build up their industries to the detriment of Canadian industries?


Robert James Manion: Of course, this development of water-power might be carried on and the power exported, but it is for the
St. Lawrence Waterway

Government to say whether or not the power shall be exported or whether or not the falls shall be developed.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend has just said that there is no market for the power to be developed in Canada, so that if any power of value is developed, it would be for export purposes.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend should not put words in my mouth. I did not say there was no market; I said there was not a market for the 3,000,000 horse-power which would be Canada's share of the development. There is some market in Canada for it, and I have no doubt that by the development of some of this horsepower, hives of industry would be established along the St. Lawrence, and part of the cost of the development could thereby be met. But the question which my hon. friend brings up is a matter for the future. It would have to be decided by the Government whether the export of this power should be permitted.
The development of electric power would reduce the use of coal on the railways; certainly the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National lines between Toronto and Montreal would be operated entirely by the power developed from the St. Lawrence Canal system.
Now, anybody who wishes to get the arguments on this question from the Canadian standpoint can get them by referring to the Congressional Record of April 18th last. Senator Calder, representing New York state, opposed the building of these canals, mainly upon the ground that they would be of more benefit to Canada than they would be to the United States. I wish to quote just a few short passages from a very lengthy speech which he made. He said:
From the wheat growers' standpoint, therefore, the St. Lawrence waterway must be judged upon the basis of its effect upon a bushel of wheat laid down in Liverpool.
Then he quotes Mr. Craig, of Duluth:
Then, says Mr. Craig: The Canadian Northwest can double its acreage, multiply it fourfold, eightfold even, before its land is utilized to its last acre.
Then the Senator continues:
That is the vision-a Canadian acreage multiplied eightfold-with which Craig would comfort the American wheat grower.
Further down he says:
With these figures that I have submitted to you in mind it is very easy indeed to understand why our Canadian brethren should be willing, even anxious, for us to construct a

highway to the sea that will bring Manitoba,. Saskatchewan and Alberta a few days nearer to Liverpool. And it is easy to understand why Great Britain, the master wheat merchant of the world, should look with favour upon any plan we undertake that will make the resources of her own rich provinces in any way more accessible to her.
And further on:
There are other reasons why Canada should be interested in the canal. She is a growing country. Her own commerce is increasing by leaps and bounds. She is particularly concerned with the fuel problem, being, as her editors and statesmen are accustomed to remark, now dependent upon the United States for coal. The Canadian Deep Waterway and Power Association makes out a very convincing case-for Canada. It says:
During 1919 Canada imported 13,000,000 tons of bituminous coal from the United States at a cost of $130,000,000.
In Alberta and in the Maritime provinces-
This, perhaps, will answer to a certain extent the question put by my hon. friend' (Mr. Vien).
-Canada has a plentiful supply of bituminous coal, but the high rail freight rates prevent its distribution.
Open the St. Lawrence locks to large freighters and Canadian bituminous coal will supply the Canadian market.
Then he gives very excellent reasons why the canal should be constructed by Canada. I will give two more short quotations:
By this showing, Canada's interest in the proposed waterway outruns that of Uncle Sam's by the ratio of 3 to 1. Then, too, Canada looks to the canal to save it five cents a bushel on its wheat. It is seeking an outlet for its millions upon millions of undeveloped land.
Finally he says:
I cite these facts for the purpose of calling your attention not only to Canada's interest in the proposed waterway but to its preponderance of interest. Its wheat farmers have a greater stake in the pro-posed canal than our own.
To anybody interested in this question that is a very interesting speech. There was a reply by Senator Townsend, who favoured the canal in an impromptu speech. He was not prepared because he did not know the matter was coming up, but both speeches are very informative on this question.
Somebody, I think it was my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret), spoke as if this matter was being decided on a theoretical or idealistic basis, without an investigation. We are not speaking on this question without an investigation. As a matter of fact, on January 21, 1920, the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States united in instructing the

St. Lawrence Waterway
International Joint Commission to investigate this whole question. The commission had hearings all over the United States in cities where it was necessary, and in Canada, from Montreal in the east to Calgary in the west, until December 19, 1921, two years less one month, when they put in their report. So they had nearly two years to consider this question. They listened to all sides of it. They heard the engineers and had their reports. They heard the question debated pro and con, and their report in brief is as follows. Despite what my hon. friend from St. James read from the report, this is its substance in a very few words.
First, they think the canal is advisable from shipping, economic, and transportation standpoints.
Second, the cost will be $252,000,000 plus the cost of the Welland canal. Canada has built the Welland canal, but the commission propose that the Welland canal cost be included, and I believe it should be, although this canal is entirely within Canadian borders. The commission recommend that the cost of the Welland canal should be put in and ultimately divided between the two countries. The United States would pay a larger proportion than Canada because it is more populous, has a much richer population, and will mlake more use of the canal, as the commission recommend that the cost of the St. Lawrence canal and Welland canal should be divided between the two countries in proportion to the benefits received. In other words, the commission propose that the cost should be paid to a much greater extent by the United States than by Canada. For instance, if the total cost was $252,000,000, the United States would pay more than half of it, perhaps $152,000,000, although the commission do not go into that, but the United States, being a much larger country and having much heavier shipping, would naturally pay more than we would.
In closing, there is one sentimental reason which I have not yet touched upon. I do not believe it is a good thing to mix sentiment or patriotism with business, but at the same time it is worth remembering that this country and the United States have lived side by side for over a hundred years without having had any serious differences. We have a border of three thousand miles, with not a gun or a fort ' on either side. There has been no war between these two countries since 1812. That seems to me a very fine example, to the European world particularly, of what two
countries with friendly feelings and decent common sense can do if they wish, settling their differences, not by fighting each other, but by arbitration. I should like to point out, although there is nothing original in this, as it has been said before, that the building of this canal might well be a magnificent monument to the international amity and good understanding between the United States and Canada.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I cannot very well refuse to take up the challenge that has been made to the Progressives by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). He seems to have taken it for granted, either that we are entirely ignorant of the subject, or not interested in it at all. I am glad that the hon. member has made his confession that he, as well as perhaps others in other parts of this House, is sometimes dominated by sectional interests. It would, perhaps, be in order for some of his colleagues to express the same interest in their own moral welfare as they have already done in the moral welfare of the Progressives lest we be unduly carried away by that demon of selfishness.
Like the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Manion), I have a great vision in regard to these Great Lakes. I have sufficient faith in the wisdom of Providence to believe they were put there for a great purpose, and that some time these lakes will be serving to a much greater extent than they are to-day the purpose for which they have been located in the heart of this continent. It is, of course, a question whether these lakes are being used to the fullest possible extent to-day. The statement is made in some quarters that this is the case. On this point I do not presume to pronounce an opinion, but I do know that the statement is made that we can better afford to pay the cost of the elevating charges that are rendered necessary under the present system, besides paying many other expenses, than we could afford to build this canal under present conditions. Whether that is so or not, I do not know. That the project is a great possibility from an engineering standpoint, I do not suppose any person will deny. That it can be made a commercial success is, of course, a question that can well be taken into consideration.
I think it is unfortunate that some of the objections that have been made to this great project have borne too clearly the evidence of sectional interest. It is un-
St. Lawrence Waterway

fortunate that a great scheme of this kind could not be considered on its merits, first, as an engineering project, and next as a commercial possibility. So far as any political question is involved, I for one would have no hesitation in putting aside any objections that might be raised from the standpoint of the relations between Canada and the United States. I am glad the hon. member for Fort William has also put himself on record on that point. I am not so sure that some of the friends with whom he is associated will feel on that point as he does himself, remembering as some of us from the West do, the a.ttitude they took in regard to the great question of reciprocity with the United States. I am rather inclined to the opinion that the hon. gentleman will not find himself in very congenial company if that question should come up again.


Robert James Manion: I supported reciprocity.


John Livingstone Brown: I know he did, and I am very sorry that he is in the company in which he finds himself to-day.


Robert James Manion: I find it very good company.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Of course, of course.


John Livingstone Brown: Some of us who represent farmers' organizations in the West had the privilege of attending a conference called in Winnipeg by the Great Waterways' Association a few years ago, and we listened with a great deal of interest to this project as it was placed before us by that association. Two stipulations were laid down in regard to the matter: One was that we should not accept it as an alternative to the Hudson Bay railway, and if there is any seeming indifference on the part of this section of the House towards this project I think it will be explained in large measure by the fact that we still pin our faith to the Hudson Bay railway as affording us an outlet for our products. It will be interesting when that matter is again under consideration by this House to find just how far a sectional interest will dominate in the discussion of this great project.
There was another difficulty that we saw in our way and it was this: We could not see that it was advisable to spend large sums of the money of the Canadian people in the development of canals and great waterways unless we could see very clearly that these waterways would accrue to the benefit of the people, and also, as shippers of grain, to ourselves. That is, we do not

propose to spend large sums of money in the development of canals and harbours and then let all the benefits be absorbed by such interests as the combine of lake shippers that exist to-day.
Now, as to being indifferent to this matter, it is only fair to say that there is no indifference among those who occupy this corner of the Chamber. We recognize, as all of us recognize, that the transportation problem is the big problem of the day. There are no people more interested in the question of transportation than the farmers of the West, and I was glad to get such a very candid admission from the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River -one we shall remember on all occasions-[DOT] that the price is set at Liverpool and that we take that price less the cost of transportation. We shall remember that statement and we shall have occasion to remember on more occasions than the present.
I have some vision in regard to this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that at some time this project will be realized and become an actual factor in the development of our commercial and national life. At the present time, however, it is simply not possible for us to consider it. Whether the canal could be constructed for the amount of $252,000,000 that has been mentioned is certainly open to question-we know that estimates have always been exceeded. But even if it could be carried out for that amount we recognize that it is not an immediate possibility, and I for one would like to echo the sentiment that was expressed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) that since the project is, for the time being, outside the range of practical possibilities, it is very questionable whether this House can afford to take time at this session to discuss it in view of the fact that we have so many other great problems demanding our immediate attention. I hope that this enterprise may become a practical reality some day and, of course, we must remember that if we have no vision we will never accomplish anything. In the meantime I think we can well afford to look upon this as a vision of one of the things we are going to do in the future, and turn our attention to some very practical things that demand our consideration.


Frank S. Cahill: I had not intended to take part in this debate until the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) referred to me as having supported this resolution,

St. Lawrence Waterway
or a similar one, last year. I did not take the trouble to look the matter up in Hansard but I have a very distinct recollection of speaking in opposition to this resolution.


Robert James Manion: May I just say a word at this stage. The hon. member is quite right. I have looked the matter up since, and I find that he did oppose the resolution, but I was misled by his opening words into thinking that he supported it. For that mistake I tender the hon. gentleman an apology. I wish to say, however, that the other hon. member from whose cremarks I quoted did take that stand.


Frank S. Cahill: Perhaps the hon. member has not had time to look up the record with respect to the other gentlemen to whom he has referred.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I have.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to say that I oppose this plan of a canal being built through Canadian territory on the basis of a joint arrangement with any other country. If we are to build such a canal in Canada I think it would be advisable for this country to carry out the work. I may point out to my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River, as well as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), the latter of whom maintains that there exists no danger of any complication arising between Canada and the United States over this project, that complications did arise in connection with, the Suez canal when Disraeli bought the stock of that canal. Egypt was not then a protectorate of England but she has since become a protectorate due to the former country acquiring the stock of the Suez canal and controlling that route through Egypt. We are likely to have a similar condition of affairs in connection with the present project if we go into partnership with another country for the construction of a canal through our territory. If we wish to develop a canal for the benefit of Canada why not undertake the Georgian Bay canal which is entirely through Canadian territory, and does not involve a joint arrangement between United States and Canada. The hon. member for North Toronto has pointed out that this enterprise would be of great benefit to the cities of Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit. Those cities are not in Canada and I entertain the idea that this Dominion has no money to spend in developing the United States, which is perfectly capable of developing
its own territory. Until we have developed Canada it would be wiser for this Parliament to look entirely to Canadian development rather than to help the development of the United States. If we develop the Georgian Bay canal-and I am not advocating that project at the present moment because I do not believe the country could afford the expenditure that would be involved even though that money would be altogether spent in Canadian territory

we shall develop a canal that will give Canada better service because it will develop the adjacent country and promote the growth of Canadian towns. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has a town in his constituency which would be developed; I refer to the town of North Bay. It would be far better to develop such towns as North Bay than to undertake enterprises calculated to develop towns in the United States.


Robert James Manion: I would like in the best spirit, to ask my hon. friend a question. Is he interested in this project because the Georgian Bay canal would be closer to his constituency than the St. Lawrence canal?


Frank S. Cahill: I will be quite candid with my hon. friend and say that the Georgian Bay canal would develop territory in my constituency, and in developing the constituency of Pontiac, of course, we should be developing the greatest part of Canada.


Robert James Manion: No doubt, you are the proof of that.


Frank S. Cahill: Naturally, therefore I would favour such development. If you can see your way, Mr. Speaker, to calling it six o'clock I would like to adjourn the debate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is moved by Mr. Cahill that the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I wanted to say something on the question and if the debate is adjourned I shall be debarred from doing so this afternoon.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not six o'clock yet.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to make a few more remarks on the question and wished you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock in order that I might procure some documents pertaining to this question when the debate is resumed. I did not know the motion was to be discussed this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: If Mr. Speaker calls it six o'clock the motion goes to the head of

St. Lawrence Waterway

the Order Paper and my hon. friend will get a better chance to speak again than if the debate were formally adjourned. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken up to-morrow?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: We will take up the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs, Mines, and Public Works.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 27, 1922