1923-06-07

QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
W. F. WOOD: STEPHEN P. CARNEY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONOLD (Pictou), (Acting Minister of National Defence) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Militia Pension Act by providing that the period of service entitling officers, retired compulsorily, to pension, shall be twenty years* and that any officer so retired, who served on active service during the Great War and was appointed to the Force on or after the 1st January, 1919, and prior to 31st December, 1921, and since such appointment has served continuously in the Force for not less than ten years, shall be entitled to pension as provided in section four of the said Act.
(2) That the period of service required of every militiaman to entitle him to pension shall be twenty years, or fifteen years if incapacitated for duty by infirmity of mind or body, and he shall be subject to return to service if he ceases to be incapacitated, and if he has completed fifteen but less than twenty years service, his pension shall be an annual sum equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances for every completed year of service.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of the resolution, has given his consent thereto and commends it to the consideration of the House.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the minister take this occasion to let us know the exact effect of the resolution, for purposes of discussion?


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I have not my memorandum by me, but in a general

way I might explain that the original provisions of the Militia Pension Act stipulated that the period of service entitling them to pensions of both officers and men should be twenty years. In 1919, the period was reduced to ten years. It is now proposed to return to the former standard and provide that the service shall be twenty years. It has been found, particularly among non-commissioned officers and men, that many persons have been taking advantage of the shorter period to leave the service in order to secure the pension. I shall be prepared to deal with the matter fully when the resolution is in committee.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. There can be no debate on the motion at this stage. When the resolution is in committee the hon. gentleman will, of course, have an opportunity to discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) _ moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act by providing,-
(1)	That in any case where an application for insurance under the said Act has been received, and the applicant has died prior to the delivery to him of the policy of insurance, the approval of the application by the proper officer and the receipt of the initial premium shall be deemed to have been sufficient to put the insurance into force, unless it can be shown that the application was fraudulent, and any insurance moneys which would have been payable had the policy been delivered to the applicant shall now be made payable, subject to a deduction of the amount of premium due from the date of application to the date of death.
(2)	That any applications which were rejected prior to 1st July, 1922, under any conditions set forth in section 2 of the amending Act of 1922, or the schedule thereto, shall be reviewed, except in cases where the applicant is suffering or has become impaired as a result of self-inflicted wounds or immoral conduct, or where the application was fraudulent, and provision be made to give the right on such review to any applicant now living to insure, and if the applicant has died, the amount of insurance for which he applied shall now be made payable, less the amount which would have been due as premium from the date of application to the date of death, notwithstanding that no effective insurance contract was completed, and provided that the application was approved.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been informed of the subject matter of the resolution has given his consent and recommends it to the consideration of the House. I do not know whether any explanation should be forthcoming at this stage.

Dry Dock Subsidies
but I will content myself with saying at the moment that there is a slight deficiency in the phrasing of the second section of the resolution which carries the proviso: "Provided that the application was approved." The meaning intended is, provided a sufficient time has elapsed after the application in order that, in the ordinary course of procedure, it might have had an opportunity of being either approved or rejected. When the resolution is before the House in committee I shall fully explain it.
Hewitt Bostock: In justice to the hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) I beg to state that I was in error a minute ago when I ruled him out of order. He is entitled to address the House. Rule 17A is so involved that sometimes I am inclined to make too drastic a decision under it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910, and amending acts, and to provide that when the amount expended for the work and materials upon a dock of the first or second class shall have equalled seventy-five per cent of the cost thereof, and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works shall have certified thereto, half yearly payments at the rate of four and one-half per cent per annum may be made on ninety per cent of the cost of the work done and materials provided at the time of such payment.
He said: His Excellency the Govenor General has been made conversant with the subject matter of the resolution and recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister might give an explanation and, if possible, a defence of this resolution. It strikes me as a most remarkable one. It apparently provides that when a certain fraction of a work is done interest may be paid on a much larger fraction. Will the minister intimate to the House the case that is to be affected by this resolution?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I do not say it is not in order,
but it is exceedingly unusual at the first stage of these resolutions to call for an explanation. I should think that in the general interest of the business of the House it is not a desirable practice. I do not want to raise any question of order, but in all my
experience I cannot recall a case where an explanation has been called for at the moment the formal motion was made.


Arthur Meighen: Explanations are not
very frequently demanded, but they are undoubtedly in order. I am not encouraging the practice, but we are going into Committee of the Whole-


William Stevens Fielding: Not now.


Arthur Meighen: -and will not then have an opportunity to debate the general principle.


Mr. BELAND:: A motion will be made to
go into Commitee of the Whole at the next sitting, and my right hon. friend will then have an opportunity to speak on the motion.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend
is wrong. The motion now is that at the next sitting we go into Committee of the Whole, and the Speaker at the next sitting wiF simply call the motion and leave the chair.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I submit that the motion
has to be formally put by the Speaker, and before he leaves the chair my right hon. friend will have an opportunity to speak as long as he wishes.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think my hon. friend is right, because, if so, the motion has no meaning. The motion to-day is, that at the next sitting the House go into Committee of the Whole. If the motion passes now, why should it have to be decided again?


William Stevens Fielding: All the House decides is that it will take up the question for consideration. The present motion does not commit anyone in the least.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Although I have
not my notes with me I have no objection to giving a brief explanation of the subject matter of the resolution. It is a simple amendment of the Dry Dock Subsidies Act. The present act allows the payment of 75 per cent of the subsidy when 75 per cent of the work has been done. That is the limitation. As this one work in particular is nearing completion it is found that it would be an advantage to the contracting firm to be allowed to receive 90 per cent of the subsidy instead of 75 per cent. It is not sought in any way to increase the amount of subsidy or the commitments of the government. The amendment does allow certain funds which are appropriated under the act to be used at an earlier date for the construction of the dock. I shall be able to show later that the department is fully secured in the Work
35S4
Hebridean Immigrants

already done and that this amendment will not have the effect of imposing * any further financial obligation upon the government. I hope to be more fully prepared to explain the amendment to-morrow. But, as I have said, our obligations will not be increased, and therefore I trust the amendment will receive the fair consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put an inquiry to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). In common with other members, I presume, I have to-day received an invitation to attend the opening of the Banff-Windermere Highway on the 30th June. Will the minister give us any assurance that it would be wise for us to accept this invitation?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: That is largely in the hands
of the opposition, I imagine.


HEBRIDEAN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave, under Rule 39, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter which I wish to discuss is the case of a body of Scottish immigrants, recently landed in Canada with the assistance of the Department of Immigration, a large part of whom, to the number of about two hundred, is still camped in a disused school building near the city of Red Deer, Alberta, unable apparently to find an opportunity either to go upon the land or to secure employment. This is a situation in which departmental responsibility is involved is at once a hardship to these people themselves, and is a deterrent to future immigration into this country.
And leave having been granted:


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Speaker, the Hous? will remember that some time ago a comparatively large party of Scottish immigrants from the Hebridean islands, to the number of between four and five hundred, came to this country. Their advent was advertised extensively throughout the Dominion and, I presume, throughout a good part of the world because the news went through at least the United States and Great Brit-
[Mr. J. H. ICine.)
ain. Those people are, I imagine, amongst the most desirable class of immigrants which this country can secure. They were accustomed to hard work; they were industrious, frugal, ambitious, anxious to succeed. They sold their little holdings in these islands and came to Canada. I had an opportunity of meeting a part of that body of men and women as they went through this city on their way to the West, and I can assure you that from personal contact with them I consider them to be a class of citizens of whom Canada might well be proud, a class of citizens who, given a fair opportunity, could be expected to succeed, if anybody could succeed, in this country. They met with some difficulty on the way here. They were delayed through storms on the ocean, through washouts on the railroad and other circumstances over which no one had control and as to which no fault can be attributed to anyone. They might have been pardoned, had they been inclined to take a somewhat gloomy view of this country, but the reverse was the case; when I met these men and women they were filled with hope, filled with optimism, filled with the ambition and the intention to succeed. They went on. They got to my own city of Red Deer, where they were intended to be located and where preparations had been made, to some extent at least, to receive them. A building of some considerable size in the vicinity of that city, which had been used as an Indian Industrial school, had been prepared for their accommodation in order that they might use it as their headquarters, from which they might go to secure the land they were desirous of obtaining and where their wives and families -because the greater number of the men were married men-might remain while the men were in search of land or of employment.
So far things had moved fairly smoothly. But a large number of these people who went there with such high hopes, hopes which were justified by the information they had received, are still in that building and unable to locate themselves upon the land which they had hoped to occupy. A great many of them are without funds, and from information I have received are dependent upon the charity of individuals. I believe that is a circumstance which is the most serious menace to our country that it is possible to conceive. We had a debate here-I am not going to quote from that debate, as I understand it would be against the rules of the House to do so-but we had a debate on immigration, in the course of which the need for immigration

Hebridean Immigrants
was stressed from all parts of the House. It was pointed out that Canada was a land of opportunity for desirable people who wished to come here. From this part of the House some notes of warning went forth; it was suggested that it was not sufficient to bring these people here, simply to land them in Canada and let them shift for themselves; that if they were brought here, adequate care should be taken to give them a proper opportunity to locate themselves and to build up their homes. Now, that was stressed, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that the situation which has evolved itself has proved the truth of that contention and proved it to the hilt.
There were, as I say, something over four hundred of this desirable class of immigrants many of whom were scattered between here [DOT]and their ultimate destination, taking up temporary employment in various provinces, but the majority of whom arrived at that city of Red Deer. Their destination was a part of the country which, I consider from my experience, to be a very good section indeed-a place where it is possible, if it is possible anywhere in the province, to succeed; a place largely devoted to mixed farming; a place where there is plenty of water, plenty of rain; a place where growth is usually assured year by year; a place where wood is available; a place pre-eminently suitable for small farmers and homesteaders, for men desirous of working in a concentrated way by putting in part of their time, possibly in assisting their neighbours who are farming on a larger scale-a place, I say, where if they could be properly established, they would have every chance of success.
In the statement which I placed before the House I made the assertion that some departmental responsibility was involved, and I consider, Mr. Speaker, that that assertion was well founded. What are the facts? In the first place this was a small selected body which we had hoped, and the department had hoped, would be the forerunner of a much larger body to come later. Long before these people came the department knew, at least roughly speaking, the number of people that might be expected; they knew that on account of the extensive advertising which had been given to this group of people, upon the reception accorded to them would depend to a large degree at least the success of any future immigration into Canada attempted from that part of the world. In these circumstances it seems to me it is the part of wisdom and common sense that the Department of Immigration should ensure, so far as humanly possible, the success of that detachment. More than that, these people came out here on information which they had received concerning this country. After this somewhat unfortunate situation had arisen, the gentleman in charge of the party was asked who he considered was to blame fo' what had happened, who was to- blame for these people not finding the conditions prevailing here that they had been led to believe they would find when they arrived here. They had been led to believe-and I am not saying they had been so informed directly by the Department of Immigration-that they would find a land where they could get free homesteads within reasonable distance of a railroad, or, as an alternative, where they could purchase land close to a railroad at low prices, on long term payments-terms which would not involve payment during the first one or two years. But when they came here they found the reverse was the case. As I say, the gentleman in charge of this party was asked who was to blame. He was not anxious to attach blame to anyone; he perhaps imputed some blame to himself, having been on the land in the first place to look over the situation. He said the information had been received in various ways, being partly contained in pamphlets furnished to these Hebrideans. He was asked:
Did the Western Canada Colonisation Association encourage these men in any way to come to Canada?
And he answered:
Yes; they sent out the pamphlets.
The further question was put:
Is that where these promises of land and homes and passage come from?
To which the answer was, "Yes." Now, it may be said that the government is not responsible for pamphlets issued by the Western Canada Colonization Association, and that might have been said with truth had it not been for the fact that by the granting of a sum of money to that company, the government to all intents and purposes became a co-partner with it in its endeavours. Having become a co-partner in that way, I contend that the department and the government-


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will he give me the name of the individual who is giving out this information?


Alfred Speakman: Certainly. It is Fathei Macdonell who was primarily responsible for bringing these men out.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that direct evidence from Father Macdonell, or is it a newspaper report?
Hebridean Immigrants


Alfred Speakman: This is purporting-I had better say that now-to be an interview given in Father Macdonell's own name-[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: That is just what I want to know. It is "purporting" to be an interview. I have not seen an interview give'-, by Father Macdonell, but I am prepared to bring letters from him direct. If my hon. friend will correct that, I am quite prepared to let it go on.


Alfred Speakman: I am prepared to correct it to this extent: That this is information which has been spread over the country in newspaper form. If it is incorrect, I am not going to back the information-


Charles A. Stewart: I want to be clear on that point. Did or did not Father Macdonell give that information?


Alfred Speakman: Father Macdonell did not give that information direct to me, and I am not going to vouch for its accuracy. I am simply giving it for what it is worth; if it is incorrect the Minister of the Interior will be able when he speaks-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What paper is it?


Alfred Speakman: The Calgary Albertan.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is it given as a quotation from Father Macdonell?


Alfred Speakman: 
Mr. McMURRAY:: Has the hon. gentleman other information than the mere newspaper from which he has quoted, or is he just talking, basing his argument on what he has read in a newspaper?


Alfred Speakman: The hon. gentleman can rest content. I have had letters. I do not purpose reading them, because they were private letters; but they contained this information among other private information. I think the hon. member can take my word for it when I say I have had direct information from people at home with whom I am well acquainted, who have a knowledge of the facts from being on the ground,, and for whose character and the accuracy of whose information I can fairly -well vouch. But apart from that, I would like the hon. member to notice this: Whether right or wrong these things have gone out to the world through the press of this country, and no contradiction of any kind has been sent out by the Department of Immigration denying the truth of these statements, and it seems to me that if I had nothing to go on but the situation which has arisen from the accounts in the public press, it would still be a matter of public importance to bring it to the attention of this House. If the facts are not as stated here, then it seems to me the remedy is in the hands of the government and of the department, and that it was its duty to put a countervailing article in the pro's to contradict these things and give the facts as they are.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does not my hon. friend think that these men coming from the Hebrides or old Scotland should have been induced by the government or by Father Mac-donell, or whoever is bringing them out, to start a new Scotland in the province of Nova Scotia, where they could devote their time to fishing and farming?


Alfred Speakman: I will leave the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell), whose habit of asking questions is growing somewhat upon him, to settle that matter with the Department of Immigration himself.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is no answer. The member for Hants is from Nova Scotia.


Alfred Speakman: Then I leave the member for Hants, if he has a grievance, to take it up with the government and not to take it up with me who am not responsible for the action of the government.


Lewis Herbert Martell: You are talking about something you do not know anything about.


Alfred Speakman: Does the hon. member intend to convey the idea that in speaking of the situation which has arisen at Red Deer in the vicinity of my own home town that I am discussing. something of which I have no knowledge, or is he simply, as was stated by another hon. member in the House, talking?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend permit me? All I have to say is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member may not interrupt without the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Alfred Speakman: I am not discussing whether the immigrants went to the right place or not. I am not discussing whether the Department of Immigration should have encouraged them to go to Nova Scotia or not. I am discussing the situation which has arisen from the fact that these immigrants have gone into the vicinity of Red Deer in the province of Alberta. I am discussing the situation which has arisen and which at present exists, not any supposititious case.
Before I was interrupted by the hon. member I was speaking of the governmental responsibility involved. I was going on to say that whether the government had any responsibility for the pamphlets placed in these men's hands or not, whether or not these pamphlets were issued by the Western Canada Colonization Company has not very much to do with the main question, which is that the government, knowing these men were coming, should have seen to it that they knew the truth about the country before they set sail, and then having come here the problem before the government was-and they had ample time to prepare for it-to make sure before these people went to any district that they might find some place upon which they might set their feet, some land which they might take up.
We will go a little further. What is going to be the result of the situation which has arisen? Is it not going to be this, that the opinion will go abroad, and will rightly go abroad, that if this Department of Immigration is unable to successfully cope with the problem involved in bringing into Canada a limited number of selected immigrants of the best type, is unable to look after and locate four or five hundred people, then the department and this government cannot successfully cope with any extended immigration policy, cannot bring in, and locate, and in any way assist in settling, any large number of people?
35SS
Hebridean Immigrants

We are faced with a situation with two points of view. In the first place these people are suffering a hardship. They have been brought out to this country, rightly or wrongly, to a part of Canada where they ought to have a chance to achieve success, but they are now in a position where they see their hopes dwindling, where they see the small capital which they had saved in the Old Country disappearing, and when the time of the year they should get on the land is fast going by, and apparently

and I hope to be reassured on that point by the Minister of Agriculture-with no immediate prospects of relief in that direction. Apart from the hardship inflicted on these men what effect is their situation going to have on the men who, it was hoped, would follow them? It was hoped that a much larger number of their relatives and friends would follow them out here; but do you think, in view of the existing situation, in view of the difficulties these men are encountering, in view of the fact that they are unable to locate themselves, do you think for one moment that their relatives or friends, or neighbours will come out here and attempt to locate in Canada? I have noticed one or two editorials written on this subject. I hasten to say at once that I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of the editorials but I presume they reflect, in each case, the opinion of the editor and will be read and believed by at least a large part of the people of this country. The editorial I am about to quote is from the Calgary Albertan:
A couple of hundred Hebrideans, the very best type of new settlers have come from northern Scotland intending to make their homes in this province. They came with great expectations, hoping soon to be located upon their own farms, willing and anxious to make their own way by their own toil. They asked nothing but opportunity. Their hopes have not been realized. They have not been located. They are now living partly on charity in a somewhat congested and uncomfortable way in a large dormitory in or near to Red Deer. They are earning nothing and are eating up their small store.
Some one has blundered.
Who did make the mistake may be an interesting question which can be determined later on. The important problem just how is to get these people satisfactorily settled.
The editorial goes on to point out that the hope was entertained of getting further settlers by reason of the successful settlement of these men, and we come now to this point: Mistakes have been made whether by the Department of Immigration, whether by Father Macdonell, or whether by the men themselves to some extent I do not know at the present time. At any rate, mistakes have been made, this situation has arisen,

and I am hoping to hear, later on, what the Department of Immigration intends to do to alleviate the existing condition and to bring in possibly more men of this desirable type. These editorials are being circulated throughout the country. I read another one in a Saskatchewan paper; I am not going to read it but it is practically along the same line. "More blundering" is what they say in the headline and they emphasize what was stated in this House.


Charles A. Stewart: What paper has the hon. member reference to?


Alfred Speakman: The editorial to which I am now alluding appeared in the Saskatoon Daily Star of June 2nd. It says:
The 300-
The editorial says 300 but the figures are not correct; however the essential part of the editorial is correct.
-sold their holdings in the old land, according to their statement, in the expectation that they would find cultivated homesteads, on easy terms of payment and close to a railroad, awaiting them. Instead of forming a colony, as they had anticipated, they will he scattered. The long term loans promised them will not be forthcoming. They find that cultivated farm land near transportation facilities has a higher value than they believed and that it must be at least partly paid for on occupation.
Something which we who live in this country, which anybody familiar with the country, could have told them before they left the Old Land. Then they could have come prepared to meet those conditions. The editorial is correct.
The Hebrideans will make a success of their venture. No one will say that they do not share the opportunities -which are the privilege of every western citizen.
I hope that prophecy is true.
But why were they deceived? Are delusion and
overstatement the only means of bringing people to this country? If the truth about western Canada is so unsavory that it cannot be told to a prospective emigrant from the Old World, then the sooner it reverts to the Indians the better.
That is what this editorial says and that is what we contend. We do not say that the . country is only fit for Indians, but that if you cannot get settlers here by telling the truth as to the conditions they will find when they get here so that they shall be prepared when they do come to adapt themselves to those conditions, it is far better not to have them come here at all. It would have been far better for them to have stayed in the land from which they came than to have moved to Canada and find themselves in such a mess as they have got into now. Because it is the effect of the experience of these men that

Hebridean Immigrants
we have got to reckon with in connection with our immigration policy. Now, I have no doubt other hon. members who are interested in this subject will be anxious to take part in this debate. Because of that and because I wish to give the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization a fair opportunity of stating the other side of the case from a departmental point of view, and bearing in mind the fact that I shall have an opportunity of closing the debate and concluding my remarks, if I think it necessary, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy and take my seat.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman 1 think is out of order, he has already spoken. Or, perhaps, he put a question.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I put a question, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Then the hon. member may proceed.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I may say at the outset that I am going to be brief and probably that statement will afford ground for applause. But as a representative of the province of Nova Scotia which, in all matters which are dealt with at Ottawa, may be considered the province that was passed by, I rise to say this: When the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred to Father Macdonell endeavouring to bring emigrants to this country the only mistake made was that they did not locate in the province of Nova Scotia. These people come from the Hebrides, a portion of Scotland where they are used to engaging in divers occupations. If they had come to the province of Nova Scotia they would have an opportunity to fish and also to farm on a small scale. We are not asking for special concessions for the province of Nova Scotia. All that we do ask is this- that in so far as immigrants are concerned the people of that province shall be treated in exactly the same way as other portions of the Dominion. The unfortunate thing in connection with our immigration policy, it seems to me is that when we ask for immigrants they are required to go out to the prairies. Men who are used to fishing, men who are sailors, men who had small places of their own on the ocean shore, are required to go out to western Canada and become progressive farmers; whereas such men.as these coming from Scotland should be located in the province of Nova Scotia where they can 229
engage in fishing for certain portions of the year, where they can engage in farming or other occupations, where they are likely to make a success. The most desirable place for people from Scotland is in the old province of Nova Scotia. They hail from old ScQtland and it would be well if they settled in new Scotland. I say that although I do not claim to be a Scotchman.


Mr. LEWIS:: Have you positions vacant for such men in the province of Nova Scotia at the present time?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I did not catch the hon. member's question.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members when they put a question to use the third person.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Repeat your question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend seems to entertain the opinion that because he comes from the Old Land he is superior to the people who have been born and reared in the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: All I am asking is that when such immigrants as we are referring to are brought to Canada, they should be placed in the Maritime provinces or in the old province of Quebec. If they are settled in these parts of Canada they can rest assured that there are ample opportunities for them to engage in occupations which will yield a good living for themselves and their families without any subsidies from the Dominion government. In Nova Scotia we have a province where diversified industries are carried on; there are all sorts of industries in that province. Any man who is actuated by desire to make a good living for himself and his family, and with a desire to have his family educated, cannot find a better place in the whole live world than the little province of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island might prefer the conditions in his province, but the conditions there are very much the same as ours. We have the finest fruit growing country in the world and the finest fishing-


Hewitt Bostock: The motion for adjournment for a special purpose gives rise to discussion under well-defined rules. I would call attention of hon. members of the House to paragraph C, subsection 7, rule 39, which says-
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.

Hebridean Immigrants

The discussion on the motion can only be on the lines of the matter of urgent public importance. There are several rulings on this matter. At page 105 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and forms, I find the following:
A motion under this rule must be restricted to a single specific matter of recent occurence; and as the matter to be discussed must be of an urgent nature, no notice should be given of an intention to resort to the motion on a future occasion.
The point is that there is restriction in the debate to the matter which is under consideration. The whole question of immigration cannot be brought up in the discussion. The question introduced on this occasion has been clearly explained by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) as a matter of urgent public importance. That is the only question before the House. No advertisement of any special province for immigration purposes could be the subject of this debate. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the question before the House.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I bow to the ruling, but I think the hon. member for Red Deer in the course of his disquisition was intending to criticize the government for things that occurred in regard to immigration. If I misunderstood it, then I apologize to you Mr Speaker, and bow to your' ruling, for which I have the deepest respect. But when the hon. member undertakes to criticize Father Macdonell for what he has done, I wish to say that the province of Nova Scotia would approve of what he has done and would welcome all these immigrants.


Alfred Speakman: Does the hon. membet
consider that in my remarks there was any implied criticism of Father Macdonell of any criticism of the government's general immigration policy? I was critcizing this as one direct result of the policy.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member is apt to criticize everything the Minister of the Interior does. All I have to say to him is this-and I do not want to get away from the question before the House-that the people of Canada are absolutely 4 p.m. satisfied with what the minister is doing. He is doing his best and no man can do more, as the saying goes. My hon. friend could not be satisfied with anything the Minister of the Interior did at all. Now Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss this matter. But seeing that my hon. friends opposite are somewhat selfish in their interests, all I have to say is that, irrespective of what the motion may be, if the rest of this country 	; '
are not prepared to take Father Macdonell's immigrants, the county of Hants-I need not say anything about Nova Scotia-will take them all, because they are sturdy highlanders and are quite willing and able to make their living in any sphere of life in which God may place them. I have nothing more to say beyond this, that I want the whole question considered on its merits. And when the hon. member undertakes to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, I think he should have something of greater interest than the discussion of something that pertains simply to the particular constituency of Red Deer, where he wants people to settle, but he does not want the proper people to go there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Before the minister replies, I wish to put a question which he might answer. I have been fully informed by the friends of Father Mao-donell as to his whole plan, and I am very much surprised to hear the information that has been given to us by the hon. member for Red Deer. The minister will remember that an important delegation waited upon him, including the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and sotme others, and laid down a plan for taking care of the men whom Father Macdonell was bringing over. I think the information given to the minister was that an organization had been completed clear across the continent, so that those men who are coming out under his auspices would be taken care of perhaps better than any other group of immigrants that have ever come to Canada, I would like the minister, when he replies to the question put by the hon. member for Red Deer, to tell us whether this organization that Father Macdonell created has fallen .to pieces, or whether he still hopes to make it operative, so that the men he brings out will be taken care of as he promised, as we all hope they will be; and if he will fulfil his part of the undertaking that he entered into with the Minister of the Interior.


Charles A. Stewart: Will the
hon. member for West Toronto be just a trifle more explicit, because unfortunately there are many schemes that come up and get into the hands of men who are anxious about immigration, and they listen to them and unfortunately make use of them; and then they do not materialize. Did my hon. friend have reference to the scheme suggested by the Catholic organizations for the loaning of money to these men? I am not just clear on that.

Hebridean Immigrants


Horatio Clarence Hocken: As I understand it, Father Macdonell laid before the minister a plan by which he would have an organization represented at every point across the continent, and this organization would undertake to look after these people in co-operation with himself, and perhaps with the Department of the Interior. Does the minister not remember that plan being outlined to him by Father Macdonell?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say that I remember the plan the hon. member has referred to.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have it from a very
close friend of Father Macdonell that that was done, and that the full details of his plan were submitted to the minister and approved by him. If I have been misinformed, I do not implicate the minister. But what surprised me jvas to hear that these Hebrideans, of all the immigrants that have ever come to Canada, have got into trouble of any kind, because I understood they were coming out with the most complete form of organization to take care of them that had ever been created in Canada for such a purpose.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Minister of Immigration):: I have no knowledge of any definite scheme of the character the hon. member has described. True, Father Macdonell has made representations to organizations that were sympathetic for the purpose of securing money to loan, to establish his immigrants upon land, and they had made considerable progress. I cannot say that it is fulfilled, because outside of having a knowledge of it, I was not consulted about the matter particularly further than that I knew it was a general scheme of loaning money to establish newcomers on land by an organization interested in their welfare; but as to the scheme suggested by my hon. friend, I must confess I did not hear it, because when I became acquainted with Father Macdonell he was bringing people to Ontario and establishing them on farms, and they were being brought from the very locality in which those settlers who are now located at Red Deer were recruited. He seemed to be achieving considerable success, and was anxious to branch out in a larger way. I say frankly that, so far as my knowledge goes. Father Macdonell is one of the most successful colonizers we have working to-day in behalf of immigration and colonization. I shall deal briefly with the question raised by my hon. friend in reference to this party of Hebrideans who have come 229 i
to Canada under the auspices of the Rev. Father Macdonell and the Rev. Father MacIntyre. My hon. friend has laid considerable stress on the advertising generally which induced these people to come to Canada, and he declares that he cannot but hold the Department of Immigration responsible for that publicity. Very well; so far so good. I may say to my hon. friend and to the House too, that this is a matter of which I have been somewhat apprehensive myself. I do not think that we can possibly exercise too great care in controlling the advertising matter sent out, and I would not say for a moment that copies of the scheme of settlement of the Canada Colonization Association did not reach these settlers. I will say, however, and say it most emphatically, that never at any time did the Canada Colonization Association have anything to do with the movement of that party, apart from discussing with Father Macdonell the possibility of their assistance. And if the scheme of the Canada Colonization Association got to Scotland, if copies of it reached the hands of these settlers, it may have been carried to them by the party who came here last summer, who are now associated with these settlers, and who, I take it, would give first-hand information with regard to what they have seen in Canada. In order that the people might have an accurate knowledge of the conditions in Canada, I have been pleased on every occasion to place at the disposal of the representatives of settlers, in any locality on the continent or in Great Britain, who desired to look the situation over, every facility to study conditions in this country. Last year the Holland government sent a representative directly representing it in the person of Baron Sandberg, who travelled through Canada, being in charge of immigration work for the authorities in Holland. He gained information at first hand and from actual observation while in Canada. The government of Italy sent out Miss Garibaldi who travelled throughout Canada and carried back to her country personal knowledge of conditions here. The government of Switzerland was represented by Mr. Fitz Beck, who went from one part of this country to the other investigating, on his own behalf, conditions as they actually exist in Canada. And I know of no better way for the people who intend to come to this country to get information than from their own representatives who are engaged in the work of immigration and colonization and who come here to investigate matters for themselves.
The Immigration department cannot be responsible for all sorts of representations that
Hebridean Immigrants

are made regarding conditions in Canada- that is an utter impossibility. There are thousands of people interested in selling land in Canada; there are private individuals who are anxious to further sales. Why, I was so eager to ascertain from my hon friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) whether Father Mac-donell had really made the statements attributed to him in the press, why I wished to nail the allegations down, was simply because I myself have been constantly in touch with Father Macdonell with respect to the difficulties he has experienced at Red Deer. Last year, in common with the other persons I have referred to, four farmers from Barra and South Uist, from which these settlers come, visited Canada under the auspices of Father Macdonell and travelled through the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, carrying out a thorough investigation, And they are four members of the present party who are here to-day.
Now, I am willing to assume all the responsibility that my hon. friends would place upon me, and I have taken the greatest precautions to see that those people who are coming to Canada as immigrants shall be given exact information as to the conditions they may expect. But there is one unfortunate circumstance that we must take note of, and that is the fact that too many decided to come at once. Let me state, however, that more than half of these people are comfortably settled; more than half of them have been established since coming to Canada, and twelve families of them will be settled in the next day or two at Westlock and twelve more at Ohaton.
I say most emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a particle of criticism coming to the department or any of its officials in connection with this matter, and I defy hon. gentlemen, either on this side of the House or on the other, or anywhere else for that matter, to adduce any definite evidence to show that on a single occasion we have failed to carry out to the fullest extent any promise we made with respect to the settlement of these people. At their disposal have been placed two of the soldier settlement inspectors, and Mr. Boyd, the superintendent in charge of western Canada, has been on the ground ever since they arrived, offering whatever assistance is within his power. Furthermore, because these people are largely of the Roman Catholic faith, I apealed directly to the Bishop of Edmonton, who is interested in their settlement, and who accordingly has sent a representative to work in conjunction with us in the endeavour properly to establish them. I firmly declare that a large part of the discontent that has arisen among 
some of these people who are not already settled has been engendered through influence from outside sources, by persons who are not responsible. Such persons go to these settlers and suggest that they should be on free homestead land. God knows, Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to put them on homesteads if I could; and we did secure positions at Winnipeg and elsewhere, for all those who desired to take them. But these people are anxious to settle in a colony, which is natural, of course; and this is one of the difficulties we have to cope with. I want to assure the House quite positively that I have no complaint to make concerning them. 'They are a splendid type of people and I trust we shall be able to assist them to adapt themselves completely to their new surroundings. Naturally, however, this is somewhat difficult of achievement just yet; they are in a strange country and in a new environment. If any one of us were transplanted into such changed conditions and new atmosphere we should certainly be homesick for a while.
I might state at this stage that the abandoned buildings and land at Red Deer, of the old Indian school, which was utilized for some years for the training of soldiers who Were to be placed on the land, we have now equipped and placed at the disposal of the settlers that they might be comfortable. The four farmers who came here last year, after looking the country over, decided that, from the standpoint of the settlers, the broken country was preferable to the park-like localities. The broken country was perhaps more akin to the land from which they were coming. But these four representatives were delighted with the land; I know, because they were in my office and had a personal conversation with me before going back to Scotland. I do not know that anything else could have been done by us. I do not think we have left undone anything that we might have done. It is true that not all the women and children have been moved from the Red Deer headquarters to their homes on which the men have been established. That has taken some time, and will take some time yet. Probably it will be July 1 before the last members of the party are settled. But the fact that they have found the land perhaps higher in price than they had been led to believe; the probability that stories had been told them that inspired the expectation that there were homes that they could walk into; and the further fact that they have no live stock and little or no capital, have all had a tendency to create a feeling of unrest among them.
Then, when they are told: "You should not be established in this way, you should go on

Hebridean Immigrants
a homestead," they become absolutely dissatisfied. ' Let me ask my hon. friends who have gone through the homesteading experience in western Canada: Is it a good thing to take a stranger who has no money and place him with his wife and perhaps seven or eight children thirty or forty miles away on a prairie homestead? What earthly chance would he and his family have? I do not believe that that is the proper way to encourage people to come into this country. But there are others who hold the contrary view and say to these newcomers, "You should not take this load of indebtedness upon your shoulders, rather you should secure a grant of land."
We have been endeavouring to give these immigrants the best possible advice, we have placed at their disposal our officials, trained in the business of settling people on the land, and we are leaving no stone unturned to make them comfortable and happy. To be frank, when I heard that 416 souls were coming out together I had doubts about the advisability of so many coming in one party. I do not think they should come in parties of more than 25, which is about the size we can handle most satisfactorily. I do not wish it to be inferred that every new settler will be given the same personal assistance that we are giving to this particular body of immigrants, for I do not think the government could afford to do so, but inasmuch as I believe in what my hon. friend has said, that the best propagandist you can have is a satisfied settler, I have deemed it advisable to see that everything humanly possible should be done by our officials to settle these people comfortably and satisfactorily. Not only that, but I sent Mr. Black, the deputy minister of the department, to Red Deer in order that he might bring to me firsthand information of what is going on, although we are in daily communication with our officials who are already there. I have his wire, sent yesterday, in -which he states:
Settlement Hebridean party proceeding satisfactorily. Utmost assistance consistent with their ultimate welfare being given.
I expect to .receive a detailed report from Mr. Black within the next day or two, but from what I have heard from Father Mac-donell he expects to have every one of these people comfortably settled upon the land.
I do not say for a single moment that there are not some members of this party who have become dissatisfied. They are extremely desirous of settling in a solid community. I need only repeat what I have said on many other occasions, that I am not particularly favourable to such a settlement. I think a
man has a better chance of success if he will go in amongst people who know the country and how to take advantage of the local conditions. In this way newcomers quickly learn to adapt themselves to their new environment and are much better off among those already settled on the land than in a solid community of their own people where they are likely to be constantly meeting and discussing real or imaginary grievances, which has a tendency to make them dissatisfied with their new home. Our officials are endeavouring to settle these people in the way I have suggested and to settle them comfortably. True, these newcomers have not very much money, and I am well aware that they will have a somewhat trying time at the start, as all new settlers do; probably they will go through the same experience that many of us went through-many a night I slept under the wagon when I could not get to my house, and I did not have a very comfortable house at that-and I am not speaking of something I do not know anything about. But, unfortunately, if people are encouraged to think they are coming to a bed of roses, that everything is going to be made easy for them and that they will have no difficulties to overcome, there is bound to be trouble and disappointment.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say most emphatically that nothing has been left undone in our efforts to help these people. We have kept constantly in touch with the situation. Some newspapers are prone to spread propaganda rather than take the trouble to investigate the facts. To say that we are not having difficulties would be a stretch of the imagination. Of course we are having difficulties, and I expect to have more, in fact we are bound to have difficulties as long as we are engaged in this work; but I have no apologies to make on behalf of the men in the Department of Immigration for the way in which they have handled the four hundred Hebridean immigrants to this country.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, as a Scottish immigrant I may be allowed to engage in this discussion. Although I know very well that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) is anxious for the welfare and prosperity of these immigrants, I was glad to see the minister (Mr. Stewart) reply with such vigour, because it may be that he has not been getting just exactly fair play. I quite agree with what he says as to the difficulties newcomers will have to surmount, the trials they will have to undergo and perhaps the heartaches they will have to suffer, before they succeed. But I am not saying this to
Hebridean Immigrants

let the Department of Immigration down easily, because I do believe they need to be very critical of the class of people they bring into this country and to be very careful to look after them thoroughly once they reach here. My only reason for speaking is that I have on my desk a few lines which seem to me appropriate in connection with what the Minister of Immigration said about the heartaches and homesickness of these new immigrants, and I now quote them:
From the lone sheiling of the misty Island; Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas;
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland, And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.
Fair these broad meads-the hoary woods are grand, But we are exiles from our fathers' land.
That portrays faithfully the feelings of these people. I am not a Highlander myself, but I know a little about the Highland temperament. The Highlander has a poetic temperament, and I know very well that when he comes to Canada he is very apt to get just a little downhearted amid his strange surroundings. On the other hand there is a resilience in the Highland nature that will quickly come on the rebound, and I am confident that you will find these men and women making good in the not very far distant future. From the way in which the minister has spoken to-day I am sure he will see to it that his department does everything possible to assist these immigrants, and I can only hope that they will become so well satisfied in their new homes that there will be a continual stream of these Highlanders coming to Canada-the Scotland of North America.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker,
I am quite satisfied that the department has done a great deal for these immigrants, but I think it should have gone somewhat further with advice. There is one side of this matter that perhaps some hon. members may not know. These immigrants come from the island of Lewis, and some of us are aware that this island was purchased, some years ago by Lord Leverhulme, who ever since has been endeavouring to get these people to fish or to emigrate. He believes that they should go to work and fish in the interests of Lord Leverhulme, who at the present time is trying to establish fish markets for his particular benefit, having already acquired control of the manufacture of soap in the Old Country. Therefore he is telling these people to move off to the coast and fish in his interests or get out of the island. That is another side of the matter which should interest parliament, and I would therefore ask the minister to put forth every possible effort to see that these 
people are suitably settled in this country. They are the people who have supplied their full quota of sailors to the British navy, they are loyalists to the extreme and make the very best class of citizens. I cannot understand their spirit if they are giving up now or becoming disheartened; that is not a quality that can be attributed to the Scottish people of the past. I believe that if these people are given support and encouragement they will make good. But like the member for Hants (Mr. Martell) I think that a mistake has been made. You cannot take the men of that part of the Highlands which are close to the sea, close to the smell of the water, and put them out on a plain and expect them to make good. They will in time drift to the water or to their compatriots; and if there is any trouble now it will be to the interest of this country for the department to assist these people and place them where they will be situated close to their compatriots. I appeal on behalf of Father Macdonell, who was with us in the service at the front, who is an enthusiastic Scot and a Briton, and who is seeking only to see that these people are comfortably established. I have no doubt that he knows well the history of the people on that island and he will endeavour to see that those who come here are placed in this country where they will make good. These facts are worth bringing to the attention of the minister, and I hope he will see that if these people are not satisfied at Red Deer they will be taken to some other part of the country and placed where they will make good rather than be permitted to go to the United States.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) thought it necessary to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a subject based upon an alleged interview in a newspaper as responsible-or as irresponsible, if you choose to put it that way-as the Calgary Albertan. We all want immigration; is this the way to get it? It looks to me as if my good friend the member for Red Deer was looking for trouble rather than an alleviation of trouble. His whole attitude, the tone that he adopted, bespoke a belligerency that perhaps he did not intend. His intimation that these settlers are discouraged is not a surprise to me. If my hon. friend makes speeches out in Red Deer the way he does in this House and the way some other hon. members from Alberta do, then I am not surprised that these settlers get discouraged. I was an im-

Hebridean Immigrants
migrant to that western country; I went from Portage la Prairie when there was not a foot of railway between that place and the Pacific.
I know how easy it is to discourage immigrants. I know that people who went out there often started back, homesick; possibly it was the first time they had ever left their home fireside. When these Hebrideans, with a strong attachment for their fireside and their country, finding themselves for the first time in a strange land, are told yams such as are floating round in the newspapers of Alberta, is it any wonder that they are discouraged? As a matter of fact, I have been expecting exactly this thing to happen ever since I heard that these splendid Scottish settlers had gone to Red Deer. What is the nature of the environment there; what is the atmosphere with respect to immigration? What is the attitude of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and of the hon. member for Battle river (Mr. Spencer) with respect to immigration? Have they encouraged immigrants to go there? Have they held out to them the right hand of fellowship when they got there? What has been their general attitude? If these immigrants have read some of the speeches made by the hon. member for Bow River or the hon. member for Red Deer, it is no wonder they have the blues and feel like going back to Scotland. Until hon. gentlemen from Alberta take a different attitude toward immigration and toward these various questions that arise, they are going to be a long while settling the plains of the West from any source whatever.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Will the minister permit a question? He has suggested that the result of some speeches made by members from Alberta has been to discourage immigrants. Is it not likely that the rosy speeches made by Mr. Duncan Marshall in the Old Country, when he was describing conditions in Alberta, and then the actual conditions that the people found when they got there, have been more likely to cause discouragement than any attempt on the part of hon. members from Alberta to portray the facts?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not see any statement by Mr. Duncan Marshall to the effect that my hon. friend describes. If he will let me know what the statements were -I know he was run over by a steer or something of that kind; is that what my hon. friend refers to?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I was referring to the fact that in the literature of the
Western Canada Colonization Association it was stated that Mr. Duncan Marshall was over in the Old Land drumming for settlers.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know what my hon. friend is driving at; it seems to me he is pretty hard put to it for something to chew about. The hon. member for Red Deer asked the question, can the government be relied upon to engage in any considerable scheme of immigration? And he based that question upon an alleged interview published in a newspaper. There is no question that the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, whether they were so intended or not, could not be accepted in any other way than as a straight attack upon the Department of the Interior. I think the whole incident has been most disgraceful, Mr. Speaker. We will never get anywhere in the development of our country and the settling of unoccupied lands if this kind of attitude is taken by hon. members. And I would point out that arguments of this kind are made in connection with the first effort of any considerable proportion to place first-class settlers in a first-class district in the province of Alberta.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his motion?


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: There is no reply; it is a motion for adjournment, not a substantive motion.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the two ministers wrho have spoken upon their consistency in the matter of government policy. They have tried to convey to the House the impression that there is practically nothing the matter with these immigrants who are stranded in Alberta; that this is purely a case where some members of the House wish to criticize the government. I think the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) before he concluded his remarks admitted that he had some information from Alberta to the effect that these immigrants were not wholly satisfied with the conditions. Now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) rises and states that this subject has been brought up, not with a desire to better conditions, but purely for the purpose of criticizing the present administration. I think that statement is wholly unfair; I am convinced that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) brought this matter to the attention of the House and of the government with the sole desire of bringing some relief to those who
359 t:

Hebridean Immigrants
are in the position that has been described. The minister should be sufficiently familiar with western conditions to know that immigrants cannot be brought into this country and left there without any further attention unless they have a considerable sum of money -that is, if they hope to make good. I would ask him how it is that the Western Canada Colonization Association, which this government is backing, are not taking charge of these men and seeing that they are properly located. As I understand it, that is a duty they are supposed to fulfil under the contract they have entered into with the government.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member has asked me a question and I would like to answer it. No such undertaking is in the contract. The Western Canada Colonization Association wish to bring in immigrants and settle them on the land. They are inducing them to come to this country. These people came to Canada upon the understanding that the services of the Soldier Settlement Board would be placed at their disposal. If I might be permitted to say so, Mr. Speaker,
I cannot help but think there is an attempt being made to try to blacken this immigration scheme because of the fact that some bad advertising or so-called bad advertising of the Canada Colonization has been promulgated in this House and this particular immigration is being tied up with it. Let me say to my hon. friend that the Canada Colonization has nothing to do with this. I want to reiterate that, I have said it before. If there was any connection at all, it was the pamphlets that my hon. friend speaks about. I have no knowledge of them. These men may have seen these pamphlets in Scotland, but never at any time was there any connection between this party and the Canada Colonization.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Possibly I did not understand the Minister of Immigration correctly. If they had no association with this enterprise, far be it from me to try and attach any responsibility to them. However, I think the minister will admit this, that if we are going to have agents in Europe encouraging people to come to Canada, most assuredly we must have agents in western Canada to look after them when they get here. I cannot see how there is any prospect of them making good and I think the minister himself is well enough acquainted with conditions in that part of the country to know that there is no prospect of them making good unless there is someone there to encourage them and assist in their settlement when they arrive.


Mr STEWART (Argenteuil):: Would the hon. member suggest any better agency than the agency which was placed at their disposal, the trained field men of the Soldier Settlement Board?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would like to inform the minister that any agency which is not satisfactory could hardly be said to be a very efficient one.	,


Charles A. Stewart: Does the hon. member make the statement that they are unsatisfactory?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Most assuredly, if we are to believe these reports, that is the only conclusion we can arrive at. I think the minister himself said that he had information that the conditions were not satisfactory.


Charles A. Stewart: I must contradict this. I do not want to interrupt, but I cannot sit still and allow such a statement to be made. If any hon. gentleman got that impression from my remarks I must take occasion to correct him. What I said was that some of the members of this party were not satisfied, and I thought that was to be expected, but I did not say that I knew of widespread dissatisfaction.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The only difference between the minister and myself is that the minister assumed that I said that one hundred per cent of them -were dissatisfied, and he admits that his information is that some of them probably are not satisfied.


Charles A. Stewart: I null go further than that and say that I have definite information that 5 out of 416 are not satisfied. Is that good enough?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The whole situation as 1 see it is not one for us to get into an argument over here in this House. If the minister claims that conditions are as good as we can reasonably expect, then for my part I am willing to accept that. But if these people need some special attention, I believe it is well that we should discuss it in the House, and that the government should accept the responsibility and see if they cannot relieve the situation. I have no desire in any way to criticize the minister unfairly or to get him in wrong, if I may use the expression, in the portion of the country from which he comes, but if an unsatisfactory condition does exist I think he should be anxious to lend his assistance and that of the department in an endeavour to remedy it.
I was about to say when I was last interrupted, that if we are going to have agents in Europe to encourage people to come here, in my hum-

Hebridean Immigrants
ble opinion it is necessary to have agents in the West to look after them when they arrive. There was a time several years ago when our two hon. ministers who have spoken homesteaded in the West. Homesteading then could be done very cheaply. But that day is past. The cost of equipment and of living while they are waiting to be settled has greatly increased, the cost of the land has increased, and unless these people have a considerable sum of money with them there is no prospect so far as I can see for them to immediately settle on the land and make good; and unless the department is prepared to have some organization that will take care of these people for the first few7 months I cannot see any prospect of evading this trouble. I would appeal to the minister, unless he is entirely convinced that conditions are not as represented in that press report, that he lend his influence and the influence of his department to making the conditions at least somewhat better than they are.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall not detain the House more than a few moments. I happen to be a son of the Macdonalds of the Hebrides islands. My forefathers came to this country 160 years ago. They came to what was then an unknown land. They landed in Nova Scotia and they had no buildings prepared for them; the land was not ready for the plough; they had to go into the forest and cut down the trees to build their houses. Then they had to clear the land. Day by day and year by year hundreds of these men and women endured these hardships. Then there came in a continuous stream of other men from the Hebrides and the Western islands and peopled the whole of eastern Nova Scotia. The men who came in after years had to go through all these privations that the first settlers endured. There was nobody there representing the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment or any other governmental institution to look after them when they arrived. They fought their way along and they gave to Canada, to the church and along educational lines the leading men of the Dominion for the last seventy-five years. There are more men and women speaking Gaelic in eastern Nova Scotia than there are in the whole Western islands to-day. This year, within a month, we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the landing of these first Scotch settlers in the town where I have the honour to live and the county I have the honour to represent. I mention this fact because as one who has read the history of the privations of these men and women and the story of their wonderful achievement, I sometimes wonder whether the men of this twentieth century are built of the same fibre as the stalwart men and women of one hundred and fifty years ago, and I would ask the House in considering the situation of these sons of the Hebrides who have come here in these later days to make a comparison in some slight degree between the difficulties they may be undergoing for the moment and the hardships which their fellow-clansmen endured and the difficulties they overcame over one hundred and fifty years ago.
I had the pleasure of meeting Father Mac-donell on his way to the West, I hpd not had the opportunity of meeting him before. I discussed with him, being a Highlander myself, the story of the Macdonald highlanders and the genus of the race from which he and the men whom he was taking to the West sprang. I pointed out to him that, as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) has said, the Highlander is naturally a mystic. He is born under the conditions outlined in the poem which the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) so aptly quoted, and it is under such conditions that the genus of the race has developed. When these people are transplanted to the foothills of the Rockies, knowing the sentiments they entertain towards the land of their forefathers, transplanted into a community which is utterly foreign and where conditions are vastly different from those they have been accustomed to from boyhood-*


Mr. McISAAC:: And a dry province.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -I can understand something of the strangeness and perhaps a little irritation that they feel for the moment. My hon. friend suggests it is the absence of the beverage to which they have been accustomed. Well, at least there will be a lack of something out there to cheer them in their dull hours and pessimistic moments. I am sure it would only be fair on the part of the hon. member for Red Deer-in view of the explanation which has been given by the minister, and which indicated that the solicitude of the department and the interest of the government is to see that these sons of old Scotland who have come to the Dominion and gone out to that western land shall be given every possible attention-to withdraw his motion.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I wish to make a few observations on this question because it illustrates to me, and I think will illustrate to the House,
359S
Hebridean Immigrants

the great necessity of taking better care of immigrants when they come to this country than has been the policy of governments of the past. Unfortunately, we have been in the habit in Canada of inviting people to come and settle on the land, and we have allowed them to enter our ports and then left them to look after themselves. Now, no better class of emigrants can come to this country than people from Scotland, and in this connection I wish to draw attention to a statement I noticed in the press this morning from Mr. Woods, an editor of Alberta. I know nothing about this gentleman's politics, or anything of that sort, but he condemns Canada very severely. He has just returned from a trip to the Old Land and he condemns Canada very severely for not taking her proper place in looking after just such settlers as these, settlers from Scotland; in not attempting to get enough of them in comparison with the attempts being made by Australia and New Zealand. And he goes on to make the statement that to-day in the British Isles, Australia has taken the foremost position which Canada occupied up till very recently in the estimation of the people of Britain, because of the lack of energy that we have shown in going after and getting British emigrants for this country, which lack of energy he claims has been particularly shown at the present time. However, it is not that I wish to point out, I wish to impress upon the government that the utmost should be done when we get immigrants to come to this country to look after them on their arrival. The old methods of the past- and all governments pursued those methods -cannot be followed at the present time in this country. Canada must in the future when she gets immigrants-


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to say this to my hon. friend: Mr. Woods is a personal friend of mine, and I had the pleasure of seeing him in my office on his way home. I would not interrupt my hon. friend except for one thing and that is his attributing to Mr. Woods the statement that we were still behind in our immigration propaganda in the Old Land. I am sorry Mr. Woods should have stated that because he gave me a different impression while in my office, namely, that once we had been behind in the matter of immigration but we were now in a much better position.


Robert James Manion: I was merely quoting Mr Woods to this effect-the statement must have been given out yesterday to the press because it was published in this morning's

paper-that Canada had lost the foremost position which she occupied because of her lack of energy in going after these emigrants. I am not saying this particularly to criticize my hon. friend the minister at all; I know he is in a difficult position. But I think we have not been showing the energy in this country in getting immigrants Which we should have shown. I think particularly we are not showing energy, and have never shown energy in this country, in looking after the immigrants when they have arrived. Now, while the facts in this case may not be absolutely as reported by the press, I think the hon. member for Red Deer has done a service in bringing the matter before the 'House, inasmuch as it will impress upon the present government-because they are the men in power- that when immigrants come here they must be taken care of on their arrival and helped to select proper lands on which to locate. I believe that is the most important feature, perhaps, in connection with our policy-the looking after the immigrants on their arrival in Canada. I just wished to emphasize that, because although I have listened to other speakers I did not notice any of them emphasizing the point as strongly as I am attempting to do. I think it is our duty to do everjdhing in our power to look after these people, no matter where they come from, providing we invite them to come and settle in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: As to the comparison
made between Australia and Canada, I may say that when I was in England a short time ago, I read in the public press bitter complaints of some of these persons who had been gathered up and sent out to Australia-they complained bitterly of the treatment they had received. I am not endorsing the complaints, I only mention the fact to illustrate that we cannot always satisfy immigrants. The Australian government, I am sure, has acted for the best, I have no desire to reflect upon them; but you will always find some people who discover things are not just as they expected to find them and who therefore will make complaints.


Robert James Manion: I do not doubt that at all- if I may say a word in reply,-in fact the statement is absolutely correct. No matter what class of immigrants you get you will have some who are not satisfied, you cannot hope to satisfy everybody. But the fact remains that according to the press reports in England-and I put on Hansard a statement from the London Times-Australia surpasses us to a very great extent and so do some

Hebridean Immigrants
of the other dominions in getting immigrants from the Old Land. So that apparently we are not as successful as we might be in so far as getting immigrants are concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: If I may
say so, if my hon. friend will look up the statistics for this year he will find the situation is quite satisfactory.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What would my hon.
friend suggest this government could do which Australia is doing, of a feasible character?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know exactly what Australia is doing, but I will say this: Mr. Ormsby-Gore, one of the prominent members of the government of England, recently put on record in the English Hansard the statement that Canada was not taking advantage of the Empire Settlement organization to the extent that Australia was. I placed that statement upon the Hansard of this House, and I need not now go into the details. I read that statement in the hearing of the minister and he did not deny it, he simply said that the government were making plans to correct that situation in the near future. Having quoted that statement from Mr. Ormsby-Gore I think, perhaps, that meets the case without going into the whys and wherefores as to the facts.


Harold Putnam: We have to guard ourselves in the matter of relevancy-


Hewitt Bostock: I must draw the attention of hon. members on both sides to the fact that we are not in the committee stage. This is a motion for the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and the debate must therefore be confined to the matter at issue.


Mr. G. A. BRETHEN (East Peterborough):: I was a little surprised at the attitude of the minister and the manner in which he received the criticism which has been offered. If the facts as reported in the press are correct, I think it is only a matter of simple justice that the case of these men should be looked into by the Acting Minister of Immigration. If the statements are incorrect they should be denied. Some of these settlers have been placed in our neighbourhood in the province of Ontario, within the last couple of months, under the direction of the Ontario Department of Agriculture. In conversation with the farmers who are employing these men they give the very highest recommendation of the qualifications for service. One farmer in particular, only a couple of weeks ago, stated
to me that the man he had employed was one of the finest hands he had ever had in his service. The only difficulty the farmers encountered was that of understanding the language of their help because they use the Gaelic. These men are doing good service and they are happy and contented.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. gentleman will not wander from the main question.


George Arthur Brethen: I am just coming to
that, Mr. Speaker. If these men are satisfied, careful and contented and are giving good service in Ontario, then, in view of the fact that they are men of the same breed and from the same islands-practically they belong to the same party as the settlers in the West- I cannot understand, unless there is something radically wrong with the conditions, that we should find them so dissatisfied at Red Deer. I think the criticism that has been offered is well worthy of the attention of the minister. I hope either that something will be done to correct these statements if they are wrong, or else that the conditions complained of will be corrected.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: As a scion of one of these Scotch emigrants families that came to the Maritime provinces over a century ago, I may be pardoned for making an observation or two on this matter before the debate closes. Apparently most of the speakers are stressing the point that these emigrants are dissatisfied. They are trying to make of this a social question and not an economic one. As I understand the situation from the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer this is purely an economic question. These men are stranded in Red Deer, and they are without work, they have no opportunity of going on the land; it is not a matter of not being satisfied with the social conditions or anything of that sort. It seems to me that hon. members are approaching it entirely from the wrong angle. I think if there is anything to learn from a condition of this kind, it is that people without money should never be brought into the country, unless adequate provision has been made for settling them on the land. The Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) drew an analogy between this and the condition of his ancestors and mine also, when they settled in the Maritime provinces over a century ago. There are differences and very great differences. Those people who went in there in the early days were brought there by an organization. Arrangements were made for settling them on the land. They did not have to buy the land. They were
Hebridean Immigrants

either given it free or allowed to rent land partly prepared for them, where settlement had already been made. Those conditions do not prevail in Alberta at the present time. There is no free land there. They must buy it. Unless some provision is made under the Soldier Settlement Board plan, or some plan of that kind, people should never be brought in, unless there is work for them. I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), speaking in the House some time ago, advised the government to adopt some such plan as that. Until such a plan is adopted, and until the government is prepared to come forward with some such policy, it is nothing short of folly to bring people in under these circumstances. I rather resent the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) toward the hon. member for Red Deer. There is a certain kind of bird which, when it is pursued and threatened with danger, sticks its head in the sand and thinks all trouble is over. That is the attitude of the minister. He is evading the issue and trying to ignore, rather than to face it.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: As I understand the matter under discussion as introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), it is that, according to report, some hundreds of Hebrideans, who were brought to this country seemingly under the joint efforts of Father Macdonell, the colonization scheme of this country and the Dominion government, are suffering and in great straits. I notice the matter has been received in this House as might have been expected, when we reflect upon the fact that the condition of these immigrants is a striking criticism of the present government's immigration policy, 'and also a vindication of the statement that has been 5 p.m. made from this side of the House when the policy of the government was under discussion. And now the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) denies this report. He challenges the statement of the hon. member for Red Deer and passes it by as merely a newspaper report of some ill-advised or evil-minded individual. May I challenge that statement of the minister? May I say that some days ago I took sufficient interest in this question to wire to several sources in Alberta to acertain the truth of the matter. I wired to an official of the Alberta government and asked two questions. I asked, first, if the Alberta government had been approached to give relief to these people, and,' second, if the press report could be relied upon. The reply came

back that, while the government had not been appealed to by Father Macdonell or the officials of the group, yet it had been appealed to by individuals of that group, and the reply also said that the press reports were undeniably true.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
the name of the official who replied to the hon. member?


William Irvine: Hon. Alex Ross, who is Minister of Public Works and of Labour in the Alberta government. I also wired to the editor of the Morning Albertan, the paper which has conducted a special investigation into this matter, and asked if the report could be relied upon. I got a reply from him saying the situation was indeed serious, and the reports were correct. I have received information from other sources that I do not for a moment personally doubt. To say that only five men of that group of hundreds are dissatisfied is, in my opinion, to state something that is wide of the mark, and I think the minister has been misinformed in that regard. I have not been surprised, as I said, at the attitude of the government with regard to this matter. It has been that attitude which has characterized the government on several questions throughout this session and throughout last session. The hon. Minister of the Interior, as I have said, disregards this, and thinks it is merely a story. Then the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) comes along and tells us that he is related to these poor men and women in some far-off way, and that his own ancestors came from the same country some hundreds of years ago. That ought to comfort the Hebridean immigrants. He also tells them that they belong to a great race that has contributed the leading lights, politically and otherwise of this country. I have no doubt at all that will comfort them greatly. But the hon. minister brings forward no proposal that will help to meet the present situation. He brings forward no suggestion that will relieve the pressure from which these men are suffering. He simply smiles at them and says "Remember that you have come from a great country." And that reminds me also of the country they did come from. It reminds me of the sad and tragic conditions which partly led them to leave their country. I am not blaming this government entirely for the fact that all these people came over here. They came from a country that had been oppressed. They came from a little island that was bought out by Lord Leverhulme, the soap man. He bought out their island-

Hebridean Immigrants


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the hon.
member is in order when he refers to the condition of these people prior to their coming to Canada. Whatever may have been their difficulties and unsatisfactory conditions when they were on their home island has nothing to do with the present discussion.
In calling the attention of the hon. member to this point, I may say that I do so because it is felt that we are wasting too much of the time of the House on matters which are not relevant to questions under discussion, and I think-and in all sincerity- that I express the sentiments of hon. members of the House when I say that hon. members should adhere strictly to the rule. On a motion for the adjournment of the House, to enable a member to speak to a matter of urgent public importance, the debate must be confined strictly to the matter in issue. The condition of these immigrants before they come to Canada has nothing whatever to so do with the subject under discussion.


William Irvine: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will leave that point. I had intended showing its bearing upon their position at the present time, but inasmuch as I cannot do so without contravening your ruling I must necessarily abandon the point. I will continue my remarks in respect to the attitude of the government towards this situation. I have referred to the treatment meted out by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald); now I will consider for a moment the consolation that has been offered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). In the first place he criticizes severely the hon. member for Red Deer for having brought the matter before the House; and not content with that meed of consolation, he makes an attack upon a reputable newspaper for having dared to publish the truth in this matter. The hon. gentleman referred to the Morning Albertan; but I observed that the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart), who knows that newspaper and its editor a good deal better than does the Minister of Agriculture, did not take the same course. That is the contribution of the Minister of Agriculture to the discussion. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) informs us that he saw in a paper some time ago that some immigrants in some other country had met with some difficulty. Well, that ought to meet the situation; if it does not, I do not see where we can look for better advice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, assertions of this sort will not help matters at all. I want to congratulate the membere for Red Deer on having introduced the subject, and I only regret that he did not bring it up when we were going into Supply in order that it might have been taken a little more seriously. This is a matter which touches very closely the policy of the present administration; it reveals a weakness somewhere in their policy, if they have one. It is indeed a tragic beginning of the activities of the Immigration department, which has been subsidized by such a large sum of money from the public treasury. If the object of voting money for immigration was to bring immigrants into the country, then the direct result that has so far been attained has been simply to nullify all the immigration propaganda that could possibly be put out for some years to come. I want to ask the Acting Minister of Immigration to give some assurance to the House at this time that the condition of these people will be investigated immediately by his department, and that relief will be sent them according to their requirements.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought I gave that assurance. Did I not tell the members of this House that the Soldier Settlement Board had been working among them ever since they arrived? Did I not tell him as well that representatives of the church were there? Did I not state that Mr. Black, the deputy minister, had been there? If the hon. gentleman has anything further to suggest that might be done I shall be glad to hear what it is.


William Irvine: I have got some other things to suggest. But it seems to me that if all these things that the minister states have already been done, then there must be inefficiency somewhere, because the results are not yet apparent. If the gentlemen referred to by the minister had been sent out to investigate matters, it ought to have been evident before now what action had been taken, before the newspaper reports to which reference has been made were published. Let me read a short extract from the Morning Bulletin of Edmonton dealing with the subject. This is a paper which neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Acting Minister of Immigration will question. Under the caption "Investigation Needed", it states:
Alberta's new residents from the Hebrides Islands are said to be not altogether satisfied wih the treatment they have received, and are inclined to think that there is a difference between the conditions as represented to them and the conditions as they exist. It is not uncommon for a new comer to any strange country to find that the reality does not in all respects coincide with the impression he had formed and brought with him. All the same, these complaints should be looked into promptly and carefully by officials of the immi-

Hebridean Immigrants
gration department, and full and ample justice done to these settlers. If things have been misrepresented to them they will have to be compensated in some way by somebody. Canada is a good enough country for anyone, without having its conditions and opportunities exaggerated in the hope of drawing immigrants; and to permit that is about the surest way to neutralize immigration effort and waste the public money spent on it. The Dominion government would not of course be a party to such misrepresentation, and it cannot afford to allow other parties to bring people here by such means.
There is a suggestion in the latter part of the editorial that the government seems^ to have delegated its power to other organizations and now seeks to disclaim all responsibility.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. gentleman really imply that the government are trying to evade their responsibility? That is the practical statement that he makes. Does he mean to imply anything of the kind? Or is he making a positive statement?


William Irvine: I said that the policy of the government was such that it could enable them to escape responsibility and blame somebody else. I think I heard the minister this afternoon say that he was willing to accept all responsibility in this matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I am.


Mr. BUREAU:: What more do you want?


William Irvine: I want a little more than the accepting of responsibility on the part of the minister; I want the carrying out of that responsibility with regard to these people who are suffering. And if the minister who has just asked me a question has anything better to offer than we have had from the Acting Minister of Immigration I am sure the House would be glad to hear him.


Charles A. Stewart: I emphatically deny that the people are suffering at all; I deny that a single one is suffering. 1 challenge the hon. gentleman to name one who has suffered up to this moment.


William Irvine: That is a very safe challenge for the minister to throw down; he can very safely dare me to name one of four hundred persons not one of whom I have ever seen and of not one of whom I have any personal knowledge.


Jacques Bureau: It is an unsafe challenge when the man knows what he is talking about.


William Irvine: I will not accept as a challenge that which is an impossibility. But I want to state that I am just as firm in my belief that a great number of these people

are suffering as the minister is convinced that they are not. I challenge him to give us the proof of his statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. Irresponsible statements of this character have been made in the House and I have sat in my place and disregarded them, not considering it worth my while to refute them. That day is past, however. No longer will I allow, if I can possibly prevent it, statements of the kind to be made by any hon. gentleman without contradiction. I say now that not a single member of the party in question has suffered in consequence of any laxity on the part of the government; further, I make the positive statement that none of them are suffering now. They are all comfortably housed and will be so housed until such time as they are permanently settled.


William Irvine: The minister declares that no one of these people has suffered because of any action or inaction on the part of the government. Does he say that they have not suffered at all, for any reason whatever? Am I to understand that not a single one has suffered; that the whole charge is utterly baseless; that the advice of Hon. Alex Ross of the Alberta government is not founded on anything substantial; and that the newspaper reports are all false? What evidence has the minister to give us in support of his sweeping denial ?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a vast difference between suffering and dissatisfaction. Surely the hon. gentleman will admit that. The hon. gentleman is attempting to convey the impression that the people are suffering. The suggestion is entirely erroneous, and not in its wildest flights of imagination has any newspaper made it.


William Irvine: If the minister will read some of the newspaper reports he will find it stated that Father Macdonell, out of his own pocket, is feeding a hundred and tw'enty-five of them. If that does not suggest the idea of suffering, then I do not know what the minister would regard as the meaning of that word. I am not going to engage in a debate with the hon. minister as to what he means by "suffering.' I submit that disappointment is the keenest kind of suffering.


Charles A. Stewart: Father Macdonell is a paid official of this government, and if he is disbursing money out of his own pocket this government will repay it. Father Macdonell is in charge of this party, and we are holding him responsible. He is acting

Hebridean Immigrants
on behalf of the government of Canada. I do hope my hon. friend will be more careful about the statements he makes because I do not propose to let unfounded assertions go unchallenged.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am just as careful about the statements I make as is the hon. minister himself, and I am just as particular not to allow any statement of his to go unchallenged as he may be to challenge anything I say. So we might as well understand that just now.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand it.


William Irvine: I have as good authority for making the statements I have made as anyone can expect to have in this or any other country. If these wires to which I have referred are baseless then I must go back to those who sent them and tell them they are mistaken; also, if these newspaper reports are false, then we must advise the newspapers accordingly. But these are the authorities which I have, I have investigated them to the best of my ability, and I submit again that my statement in this regard is just as well founded as any statement which the minister has himself made.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is very adroit at missing the point. He said these people were suffering. That is what I took exception to. Now he is slipping away from the suffering and dealing with dissatisfaction. I want my hon. friend to understand that he made a straight statement that these people were suffering, and I challenged that statement. I still challenge it and ask him to bring forward facts to show that anything of the kind has happened. Dissatisfaction is another matter altogether.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister himself has answered the question. He says I slip away from the point. I do not slip away from any point or any person. He says I charged that these men were suffering. Then he says they are not suffering, they are disappointed. Is not disappointment suffering? In the estimation of the minister can there be suffering more poignant than the disappointment of people who have come from their own land in response to appeals and promises, into what to them is a foreign country, only to find that they have been misinformed and befooled? Can anything be more keen than disappointment, or has the hon. minister no imagination? Can suffering not take place except someone sticks a pin into one or knocks one on the head? That is a crude concept of suffering. My conception covers a bigger
field. If you prove that these people have not suffered at all from want or cold, which has not been proven, there is no doubt that they have suffered and are still suffering in the keenest way from disappointment brought about by broken promises on the part of the government made in the name of the people in a new country. I conclude, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I am veiy glad to
notice, Mr. Speaker, that the government and its supporters have taken my remarks so keenly, because it proves to me that I am hitting the nail on the head, or to change the analogy, am getting under their skins. I wish they would be as particular in the future about their own statements and about investigating matters as I have been in this particular case. And I hope that the enthusiasm which they display against anyone vho criticizes their policy will be switched into carrying their policy out in a positive manner. When that happens they will be doing a greater service to this country than they have yet accomplished, and we shall not have these people suffering as they are doing now. I say suffering, advisedly, Mr. Speaker, knowing that the mental suffering of these people is much keener than any physical suffering can possibly be. That is all I wish to say on the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: In justice to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) who expressed a desire to reply, I would remind him that on a substantive motion only can a reply be made. If the hon. member will refer to paragraph 263 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms he will find the following definition of a substantive motion:
By a substantive motion is meant a motion not incidental to a proceeding before the House, and which can be dealt with by amendment or by the distinct vote of the House.
This motion for adjournment not being a substantive motion, a reply cannot be allowed. That is why I ruled out the hon. member.


Alfred Speakman: I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker.
Motion (Mr. Speakman) to adjourn withdrawn.	.


JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend section six of the Judges Act, as enacted by chapter fifty-six of the
Judges Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
statutes of 1920, by providing that the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario shall be as follows:-
Per Annum
(a)	The Chief Justice	of	Ontario	$10,000(b)	The Chief Justice of the Second Divisional Court	
10,000(c)	Eight Justices	of	Appeal,	each.. ..	9,000(d)	Nine judges of the High Court Division, each	
9,000
Provided that the judge who at present holds the office of Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, and the judge who at present holds the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, shall, each respectively, and irrespective of the Division, Appellate or High Court, to which he may be assigned, continue to receive the salary of $10,000 which he is now receiving instead of the salary which he would otherwise receive; but that upon a vacancy occurring in the office of Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, or in the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the salary of such Chief Justice shall cease; and provided moreover that, when the two last mentioned offices shall have been abolished, the Chief Justice who may be appointed to preside over the High Court Division shall receive a salary of $10,000 per annum, and the number of salaries hereby authorized for the judges of the High Court Division shall thereupon be reduced to eight.
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the following resolution which appears as No. 44 on the order paper may be referred to the Committee of the Whole with the preceding resolution:
(1)	That it is expedient to amend section seventeen of the Judges Act, as enacted by chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1914, and to provide that the salaries of the judges of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal shall be as follows:-The senior judge of the said court, $8,000 per annum, and three other judges of the said court each $7,000 per annum; and to provide that the provisions of section ten of chapter fifty-six of the statutes of 1920 shall not apply to judges of the Circuit Court;
(2) That section two of the Act to amend the Judges Act, chapter fifty-nine of the statutes of 1919, relating to the salaries of local judges in Admiralty, be repealed.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the proposed resolutions, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On the first resolution:


Lomer Gouin: Mr. Speaker, I beg to mtove that the following resolution which appears as No. 44 on the order paper may be referred to the Committee of the Whole with the preceding resolution


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It will be necessary to amend the tenth line where the word "Division" also occurs.


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes, wherever it
appears in connection with Exchequer it is amended in the same way.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Bureau: Is that for the Exchequer Court?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, there is no Exchequer Court. It is simply the Exchequer.


Jacques Bureau: I have no objection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the object of this resolution is to give effect to the provincial legislation which has recently been enacted in Ontario?


Lomer Gouin: That is what I was going to explain, Mr. Chairman.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is any change in the salaries; it is simply carrying out the former intention as to what shall become of the two other divisions when the chiefs of those divisions no longer serve.


Lomer Gouin: By the last amendment passed by the legislature of Ontario iris provided that there shall be two appellate divisions and a high court division. The first appellate division will be presided over by the Chief Justice of Ontario, and there will be a second chief justice of the second division. When a vacancy occurs in the Exchequer Court or Court of Common Pleas the two judges now occupying those positions are not to be replaced. There will be a Chief Justice of the High Court, with the same number of judges. The judges of the Appellate Divisions will be known as Judges of Appeal. As my hon. friend has just suggested there is no increase in the number of judges and no increase in salaries.


Thomas Langton Church: This reduction is all right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The province fixes the number of judges- and the Drury-Raney government kept many judges serving on their commissions. In the first place, there is a considerable decline in the litigation in Ontario in the High Court of Justice-a decline of from 25 to 30 per cent. The jurisdiction of the county courts has been greatly increased; fully 100 per cent; work that formerly was done by the High Court of Justice has been transferred to the county courts and the latter court is supplanting the High Court. In my opinion there are too many High Court judges in Ontario. Four of these judges were away the greater part of two years serving on Ontario government commissions-one of them on a purely political commission-going into the whole question of some $326,000,000 expended by municipalities on cheap light, power and radials. Two of these judges actually left their judicial duties to work on these political commissions-timber, hydro, radials and

Judges Act Amendment
other political matters-contrary to the statute passed by this House some years ago. Two of them left their duties for the greater part of two years, and, in the case of the two others, for a large portion of one year and a portion of another year respectively. Some of these judges can take holidays at any time, spring, summer, autumn or winter, to say nothing of the long vacation. While there are many good men, we have not on the bench to-day, on the average in Ontario, the men of ability that we had twenty-five years ago. I would point out that when a nation abounds in physicians it grows thin in people and when a nation abounds in judges and justices of the peace, as is the case in Ontario, especially in judges who can leave their judicial duties and go, as it were, on the political bench, then it becomes scarce in politicians. Some of these commission judges "toil not neither do they spin" at purely judicial court work. Now, as to the statute that was passed by the Union government in 1920, chapter 56, setting out an array of some 26 Ontario judges, I may say that no one was appointed who was a Conservative

everybody had to be Liberal to get an appointment from the Union goveTnment. I never belonged to the Union party myself, but one of the most extravagant pieces of legislation passed by the Union government was that same Judges Act of 1920, which is cited in the resolution, chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada, 1920. Under that act there are three or four Chief Justices, some twenty-five High Court judges for Ontario, embracing a population of 2,500,000; in other words, Ontario has more or nearly as many High Court judges as the whole of England. If the present condition continues there will hardly be a lawyer in the province who is not also a judge. That will be like the condition that prevails in the United States, where practically every lawyer is a judge or is called judge and if he is not one to-day he hopes to be one tomorrow. I hope the minister will have a further survey made of this whole matter. I suggest that he inquire into the number of hours these judges sit, the number of holidays they take, the length of time they spend in giving attention to judicial duties and to political commissions, notwithstanding the statutes of 1920 by which in consideration of a raise in salary they were not to take these commissions. There is going to be an election in Ontario in a few days and we will not need next year a lot of these commission judges at all, because when they have abandoned their commissions there will be even less or nothing left for 230
them to do. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, Ontario has too many judges and there should be further co-ordination of judges there and a reduction could be made and a substantial economy effected. Judges should stick to their purely judicial work and keep out of political commissions to help this party and that.


Lomer Gouin: We cannot reduce
the number of judges in any province. The courts are created by the province and we provide the salaries of the judges; if any change is to be made in the number of judges, it must be done by the province. As to my hon. friend's allegation that some of the judges in Ontario have been acting on commissions connected with political matters, I do not see how that could be so, having regard to the amendment to which he has referred. It is true there was a proviso to cover investigations which had been started before the amendment was passed, but I do not see how any judge could subsequently act as my hon. friend has suggested without contravening the statute.
First resolution agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: The second resolution
is as follows:
Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to amend section seventeen of the Judges Act, as enacted by chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1914, and to provide that the salaries of the judges of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal shall be as follows:-The senior judge of the said court, $8,000 per annum, and three other judges of the said court each $7,000 per annum; and to provide that the provisions of section ten of chapter fifty-six of the statutes of 1920 shall not apply to judges of the Circuit Court;
(2) That section two of the act to amend the Judges Act, chapter fifty-nine of the statutes of 1919, relating to the salaries of local judges in Admiralty, be repealed.


Lomer Gouin: The Circuit Court
of Montreal is a division of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec; it is a special court for the district of Montreal. The jurisdiction which is given to these four judges represents a population of nearly a million people. In the other districts the administration of justice in the circuit jurisdiction is carried out by the judges of the Superior Court. The statistics show that in the district of Montreal these four judges have to decide more cases than all the judges of the Superior Court in the other districts. Their present salary is $5,500, and that of the Chief Justice is $6,000. We propose to give an increase of $1,500 to the three puisne judges and an increase of $2,000 to the Chief Justice. When the increase was given to the judges of the Superior Court in 1910 or 1911, these circuit court judges were so much re-

Judges Act Amendment

garded as judges of the Superior Court that it was assumed they would get the increase, and the result was that they were forgotten. They tried to have the error corrected later on, but they only obtained an increase of some $1,500. Since that time they have been asking that they be given proper treatment, and it is only after the receipt of resolutions from the bar of the province of Quebec and from the whole population of the district of Montreal that we bring down this resolution, which is, I think, only just, providing for a fair remuneration of these judges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it from what my hon. friend says that the circuit court of Montreal is somewhat similar in its jurisdiction to the county courts of Ontario.


Lomer Gouin: Oh, no.


Jacques Bureau: What is the limit in the Ontario county court?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to ask my hon. friend what the difference was. When I was practising the county court limit was $500, but that has been very greatly increased. I think now they can try practically anything under certain conditions. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman? You would be familiar with it being an active practitioner in the province.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that to-day under certain conditions they can try suits involving any amount no matter how big.


Jacques Bureau: All appealable?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes, and I have no doubt that the decisions of the circuit court would be appealable.


Jacques Bureau: Not to the amount of S100.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Anything as
small as that would be looked after in Ontario by the division court. In addition, the county courts in Ontario have a very large jurisdiction in criminal matters. The way matters are now conducted they have almost exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters outside of murder and rape cases. I wpuld ask my hon. friend if he has statistics of the business done, for example, in Toronto on the one hand by the three judges-is it not?- that are working there and by the Montreal circuit judges on the other hand, and what are the salaries of the Toronto judges?


Lomer Gouin: There is a great
difference between the county court of On-
tario and the circuit court of Montreal. As I have said, this is a division of the Superior Court of the province just like a division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and if it was not for the fact that we have four judges acting as judges of the circuit court of Montreal we would have to appoint four judges of the Superior Court to do the work. My hon. friend speaks of the county court judges in Ontario.


Jacques Bureau: The circuit court is also a court of appeal.


Lomer Gouin: Yes. My hon. friend says that the county court judges of Ontario have a very large jurisdiction. But they are judges for counties or districts. In the case of the four judges of the circuit court of Montreal they have jurisdiction over certainly not less than perhaps twenty-two or twenty-three counties in the province of Quebec, and they have more cases than all the other judges of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec. There is no appeal from the judgment of this court, which means that it is a Superior Court. They have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of municipalities, municipal election petitions, school matters-


Jacques Bureau: Fish and game laws.


Lomer Gouin: Yes. There is no limit to their jurisdiction. There are cases that I could mention if necessary where the amount involved was over $200,000, from which judgment there was no appeal. Then as to the difference in qualifications between the judges in Ontario they cannot be appointed before five years' practice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It used to be ten years when I was at the bar.


Jacques Bureau: These younger people are moving faster than we did in our day.


Lomer Gouin: There has alway.3 been a difference between the county court judges in Ontario and the circuit court judges in Montreal. The circuit court judges in Montreal now receive $5,500, and the chief justice $6,000. In Ontario the county court judges are paid $5,000. In Montreal the judges have to give all their time to their administration, while in Ontario the judges are allowed to act as judges for the province, and most if not all of them receive an additional indemnity of $1,000 as senior judge. Our judges in Montreal are not allowed to do anything outside of the court, and that is another reason why the difference might be justified. At all events, I repeat the circuit court judges of Montreal were never treated

Judges Act Amendment
exactly the same as the county court judges of Ontario, and if you consider the extent of their jurisdiction I think it is only fair that we should give them this increase of indemnity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister says that the difference of treatment as between the county court judges of Ontario and the circuit court judges of Montreal has always been there. I am not suggesting that the difference of treatment should cease, but if there be a change in the one why should not the same difference of treatment be maintained? I am not asking for equality.


Lomer Gouin: I have already explained that there was an error in 1911 when an increase was given to the judges of the Superior Court. If you take the judges in Ontario you will see that there are fifty-two county court judges and fourteen district court judges. We have forty-eight judges of the Superior Court and the Court of King's Bench in Quebec, and four judges of the circuit court, Montreal. Altogether in Ontario you have eighty-five judges as compared with fifty-two in Quebec. Now as to the amount paid in salaries, we find that this government pays to the judges of Ontario $504,000 and to the judges of Quebec $457,500, including the increase now proposed. That seems about right in proportion to the population of the two provinces.


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask the minister to consider the case of the county court judges of Toronto and York county on a parity with this case. There was a memorandum presented to the minister's predecessor by the bar of York county and the county court judges, and I would be glad if the minister would look into it. These judges are doing much of the work of the High Court judges, much extra work is being imposed upon them by both Houses of Parliament. They are in the same category as the Montreal circuit court judges and do the same volume of work.


Lomer Gouin: I will look into that petition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as the volume of work done by the judges of Toronto and Montreal is concerned, I think the minister will find that it is practically the same.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister shakes his head. He has not looked into the petition yet. Perhaps he does not know how much work is being done in Toronto courts and York county. There is an extremely
230J
large amount and the duties of the judges are very, very onerous. I could not quite follow my hon. friend when he said that a mistake was made in 1911.


Lomer Gouin: I should not say a mistake. The minister at that time thought that the judges of the circuit court were being treated exactly the same as the judges of the Superior Court.


Jacques Bureau: He thought they were included in the increase.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think they were on a parity before.


Lomer Gouin: No they were not, but he was under the impression when amending the statute to provide for an increase of indemnity for the Superior Court judges that the circuit court judges were included.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do their salaries now compare with the Superior Court judges in Montreal?


Lomer Gouin: The Superior Court judges receive $10,000 and the circuit court judges under this legislation -will receive


S7.000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What about the next section, what does it mean?


Lomer Gouin: That relates to the judges of the Admiralty Court. It was provided in the statutes of 1919 that when the salaries of the judges were increased they should not be paid any salary if they acted as-judges in Admiralty, but there was a proviso-to the effect that those who are acting as judges in Admiralty should continue to receive it. It was represented last session that some of the judges were paid fees by litigants invirtue of a ruling of the Exchequer Court. We thought it was not proper that judges should be paid by fees-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right.


Lomer Gouin: -and we propose that they should get their $1,000 if they are judges of the Supreme Court.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This means there is an increase of $1,000 in judicial salaries whenever the judge happens to hold an appointment in Admiralty as well?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many cases will that apply to?


Lomer Gouin: Two cases, I understand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where?
Judges Act Amendment


Lomer Gouin: One in Halifax and one in Montreal. One is Judge Maclennan. I do not remember the name of the other, but I think it is Judge Mellish.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we to understand that either of these two judges, and I know they are gentlemen of legal attainments and eminence, has been in the habit of getting fees from litigants?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are these chief justices or puisne judges?
.Sir LOMER GOUIN: Puisne judges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a matter of fact the judges that hold these extra offices, as a general rule, have their other court duties looked after by their brethren when they are doing that particular work. Does my hon. friend think there should be any pay at all? Why should one puisne judge have a perquisite and another puisne judge none-particularly when, as I say, the almost universal rule is that the work of the regular court is not allowed to be interfered with by the business of the Admiralty Division; some other judge does it?


Lomer Gouin: As I said, there was an amendment passed in 1919 with respect to the judges in Admiralty which reads as follows:
"No salary shall be paid to any local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court under the provisions of this section who is a judge of any provincial superior court, provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any local judge in Admiralty who was or is appointed before the coming into force of this act.
In the province of Quebec we had Judge Lyman, I think-I do not remember the exact name- who was receiving an additional salar3' of $1,000. He died and was replaced by Judge Maclennan in 1920. Judge Maclennan, being deprived of that additional salary of $1,000, received fees under that ruling of the Exchequer Court and has been receiving them ever since. When we submitted certain amendments to the consideration of the House at the beginning of the present session seeking to amend the Admiralty Act we declared that in the future no judge should be allowed to receive fees. That bill is now before the Senate. It was represented, however, that we were not acting fairly to Judge Maclennan and the other judge I have mentioned, because they had been authorized by the previous administration to receive such fees and that if they were prohibited in the future from receiving fees they should be compensated in some other way. We cannot find any other
fSir Henry Drayton.]
means than the method we propose now of paying the judges of any supreme or superior court of the province this additional salary. I may say that all the judges who are acting as judges in admiralty were doing their ordinary work in a perfectly satisfactory manner. No reproach of any kind was made against them on any such ground, and I think we should allow them this additional remuneration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend did not catch the point I was making. 1 understand this will apply only to two gentlemen in the case of both of whom, certainly in the case of one, the appointment took place after the passage of the act to which the minister refers so that there is no right to this extra salary under that act. There was a clear intimation from parliament that there should not be any extra fee paid for that service, therefore, if special fees are accepted, I do not care how it was done, it is acting directly against the intent of that statute. In view of the bill which is before the Senate it seems to me the matter should stand just as it is, without that increase of $1,000, unless the minister thinks the statute of 1920 was entirely wrong. If the minister thinks the policy laid down by parliament was wrong well and good, but if he believes parliament was right when it said there should not be this extra salary I do not think the mere fact that these gentlemen were enabled to get fees in some other way should influence him.


Lomer Gouin: This is special work of a judicial character. There is nothing in the amendment of 1919 *which said the judges would not be allowed to receive any fees It was after the appointment of Judge Maclennan that the Exchequer Court authorized the payment of fees to judges. This was known by the Minister of Justice and it was approved by the department. This has been going on now for nearly four years, and if we say that we are going to deprive these judges of these fees and tell them that they will have to act in future without remuneration of any kind I do not see how we can justify our position. The only remedy, it seems to me, is to revert to the old system and pay them an additional salary of $1,000.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Sir Lomer Gouin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 201, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Judges Act Amendment
Sir LOMER GOUIN moved the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of judges of Supreme Court of Ontario.
Lomer Gouin: I move an amendment to clause 1, which will read as- follows:
Provided further that any judge who enjoys immunity from taxes or deductions by reason of the provisions of section 11 of chapter 56 of the statutes of 1920, entitled "An Act to amend the Judges Act," shall continue to enjoy that immunity, but shall not, either in respect of the judicial office which he now holds, or in respect of any judicial office to which he may be hereafter appointed, the salary of which is provided for by this section, receive any salary in addition to that which he is receiving at the time of the passing of this act, unless he elect, as he may effectively do, at or within three months after his appointment to any such latter office, wholly to wraive or forego such immunity from taxes or deductions.
In 1920 an exemption was granted to the judges whose salaries were increased, and the effect of the amendment was that those who refused the increased salary would be exempt from the income tax, changing the status of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. But with respect to those who are to be removed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario we thought we would make it clear that this would apply. If they do not accept the increased salary they will have the benefit of the exemption.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the
section before me, but I will take the minister's statement. The statement I understand to be that as these may be looked upon as new appointments under the new section, the minister desires that the same safeguards should be thrown around the new judges as the gentlemen who were judges before, and who still are judges enjoying under the present legislation. In other words, the minister does not change the legislation, but makes it clear.


Lomer Gouin: It is on account of the new commission we are going to give them.


George Newcombe Gordon: The word "Division,"
occurring after the word "Exchequer" will be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Judges may act as arbitrators or assessors under Railway Act or public act.
Lomer Gouin: By this amendment which was referred to just now, it was provided that judges nominated by the Governor
in Council under the provision mentioned in this section shall act as commissioners or arbitrators, provided this enactment shall not interfere with judges who are at present acting as commissioners or arbitrators completing the work on which they are engaged. The amendment is to the effect that the judges will be authorized to act as arbitrators in railway matters. If hon. members will look at the Railway Act of Canada and some of the provincial railway acts, they will find that judges are acting as arbitrators. Under this amendment they are no longer allowed to act in that capacity. But arbitration in railway matters of expropriation is of a judicial character, and we do not see that there could be an objection to that. There could not be any such objection raised as was formerly raised, because under the amendment the judges will not be allowed to investigate any political matters. They will only investigate matters of a judicial character. They will be permitted to act as arbitrators in railway matters, and in matters for the fixing of damages in cases where provincial governments or the federal government may be interested.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell me that, in so far as railway questions are concerned, and in so far as the assessment of damages under the provincial acts is concerned, the old law is to be entirely restored?


Lomer Gouin: In regard to railway matters, it is provided in the statutes of 1919 that a judge may act as arbitrator. It is the same with regard to the provinces. The judges will not be prevented by the amendment of 1921 from acting in such cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is something entirely new to me. I have not had a chance to look it up at all, but my impression was that all the amendment did before was to prevent any fees being paid.


Lomer Gouin: They are not allowed to receive any fees under this amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They get no fees under the amendment.


Lomer Gouin: No.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the principle of permitting judges to act as arbitrators in railway matters is a very bad one. As everybody knows the railways are in politics all the time, and if we have judges acting as arbitrators in railway matters, we are going to have judges in politics, more or less, also. We had an illustration of the principle of this legislation in Ontario, where judges served on. arbitrations as to electric railway matters, and in assessing damages or compensation in these
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

matters. It was found by Sir Oliver Mowat to be a very bad principle. In arbitrations in regard to taking over electric lines, street railway plants or power and gas plants, in Ontario, experience proved that it was a very bad principle to have judges on these commissions, because appeals would have to be taken from the arbitration board in many cases on questions of fact, and also on questions of law, and some of the judges would sit in appeal in cases where they had acted as arbitrators. We have had the judges acting in 1891-2 in the matter of the old Toronto Railway Company. The railway situation being what it is in Canada, judges should stay off these railway arbitrations. These arbitration judges will be looking for passes and all kinds of favours from the railways, and in civil cases against these same railways the judges should be in a position to be impartial. This is a wrong principle, and a step in the wrong direction, and is not in the best interests of the judiciary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Additional SI,000 to judge of Circuit Court.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think this section is a proper one. It merely strikes out the word "circuit."


Lomer Gouin: In 1920 an increase of $1,000 was granted to the judges of the Supreme and county courts. In giving an increase to the judges of the Supreme Court of Montreal, we struck out the word "Circuit". The circuit judges will not receive that $1,000 in the future.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is rather
difficult to follow it.


Lomer Gouin: Section 10 of chapter 56 of 1920 reads:
Every judge of every circuit, county and district court shall be paid $1,000 per annum as an addition to his present salary, etc.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right; I
understand it now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-chargeable to Income:
Amount not exceeding $73,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts

available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, hereinafter called "the Company", or any Company specified in the First Schedule to the Act incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company, being chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919, or by tbe company in respect of any railways, properties or works entrusted to the company from time to time under the provisions of section 11 of the said chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919, or by or on behalf of any company specified or referred to in chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1920; or any one or more of them, on any of the following accounts:-
(a)	Operating deficits whenever incurred or ascertained.
(b)	Acquisition of property, materials and supplies.
(c)	Interest and sinking funds on notes, securities or obligations.
(d)	Principal and interest of maturing or matured loans secured or unsecured.
(e)	Construction and betterments.
(f)	Co-ord nation or consolidation of railway lines and facilities.
(g)	Guarantees of securities.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council:-
(a)	To meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred by the company in respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the company as aforesaid.
(b)	By way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:-
If by way of loans, the amount or amounts advanced shall be repayable on demand, with interest at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council, from time to time, payable half-yearly, secured if and when directed by the Governor in Council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the Governor in Council and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto, $73,000,000.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I think I have nothing to add, Mr. Chairman, to my statement which I presented a few weeks ago as to the standing and prospects of the . Canadian National Railways, but I shall be. glad to give hon. members any further information which they may require.
Mr. MILLAR:: Does "Acquisition of property" include the hotel being acquired in Paris? Is that provided for in this vote?


Mr. GRAHAM:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What appropriation would that expenditure be taken from?


George Perry Graham: I had better explain that to clear the air. The president of the Canadian National Railway Company, Sir Henry

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
Thornton, having resided in Paris for some time both before and after his appointment, came to the conclusion that the Canadian National Railways should have an office on one of the main streets of the French capital, as the system is practically unknown on the Continent, that is, it is not anywhere linked up with the name of Canada. That view was corroborated the other night by the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) when he asked me: How is it that people from the Old Land travelling in Canada never heard of the Canadian National Railways until they reached this country? He gave an instance of travelling a few weeks ago on the train and meeting people who had just come over and who had never heard of the Canadian National line. The president is very strong in the view that we ought to have some place in Paris to which every person goes and from which everybody who comes from the Continent emanates, as it were, the result being to enable the Canadian National system to secure its share of the immigration traffic as well as of the freight traffic; and I think he had this particular building in mind. However, some little time ago he received word that just the kind of building he required so far as location was concerned could be secured. He immediately wired to a gentleman in Paris to secure this building, as there were two or three other parties after it, and the Canadian National would temporarily finance it. The building was secured not in the name of the Canadian National or in the name of the government, but in the name of this gentleman, with the understanding, of course, that the Canadian National could have it, the government could have it or any other company could have it, provided that the accommodation would be afforded to the Canadian National Railway for its operations. That was done and the building was secured. A syndicate has been formed to take it over; a gentleman is leaving New York, I think on the fifteenth of June, to conclude the details. The Canadian National will thus have a home in one of the best locations in the city of Paris, where it will hereafter be on the map. without any capital expenditure on the part of the Dominion of Canada or of the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand that the road is financing the purchase in the meantime. How much money is being
used?


George Perry Graham: I think there is no money being used. We guaranteed the bank so that
this gentleman could go to the bank and finance the building. As soon as the syndicate takes over the building that guarantee will lapse.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So the guarantee is being given to the bank?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For how much?


George Perry Graham: About $2,000,000, I am told.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That guarantee would be given, I assume to a Canadian bank?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the Canadian bank would have to send that $2,000,000 over to Paris?


George Perry Graham: That is not exactly the detail, I think, of the banking. The Canadian National would deposit the security here in cash or otherwise, and the bank would lend the gentleman in Paris the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that a deposit has been made with the bank of collateral of the railway sufficient to raise $2,000,000. What collateral was deposited? Where did that come from?


George Perry Graham: Did I use the word "collateral?" One of the Canadian National deposits was placed in the bank, to remain there until such time as the building is taken over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, well, that :s better. So that $2,000,000 in cash of the- railway was applied to that purpose?


George Perry Graham: To the bank.
Sir HENRY' DRAYTON: Two million dollars cash of the railway was deposited in a bank?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Special account, to be used for the purchase of that building?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, put it any other way you like.


George Perry Graham: It is to be retained by the bank as a financial backing in connection with the loan to this man of the money on his note.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well now, my
hon. friend will agree with me that that is playing with words. What happens is this: The sum of $2,000,000 of the funds of the
Supply-Railways-C .N.R.

Canadian National Railway is deposited in a bank for a specific purpose, namely, to enable somebody else in Paris to get $2,000,000 from that same bank. Now, is that wrong?


George Perry Graham: I think that is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it is
correct. In other words the system is paying the money to finance this deal.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, let us go a little further. It has not yet been determined whether the railway keeps the property, or whether some other company gets the property, or whether some syndicate is to be allowed to have it. Am I right in so understanding the minister?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what is
the fact?


George Perry Graham: As I said a few moments ago, the property is being taken over by a syndicate, a representative of which leaves here in two or three days for Paris to complete the arrangements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who composes
the Syndicate?


George Perry Graham: I would not care to give
the names or the details until the arrangements are completed-a reputable body of men having no connection with the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are putting up $2,000,000 for a syndicate-


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are going
to use our $2,000,000 for the purpose of securing some property which Sir Henry Thornton thinks is a good one. Surely the committee has the right to know who are interested in this syndicate; surely we have a right to know with whom we are dealing. There cannot be any mystery about it: it has been in the papers. What is the mystery?


George Perry Graham: No mystery.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then if there
be no mystery, why cannot we get the facts?


George Perry Graham: There is no mystery, but my hon. friend knows as a business man that this syndicate does not want its name to be published broadcast until the arrangements are completed. In the meantime we hold a mortgage on the property to its full value.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why should
there be any secrecy about it? Is it because there is to be a difference in price?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it because
there is to be a commission here or a commission there?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is
nothing of the kind; if everything is open and above board, why can we not be told who the syndicate is? I should think these patriotic gentlemen ought to get the honour of having their names stated as having helped out Sir Henry Thornton.


George Perry Graham: I do not think they did
it for patriotism. I think they have made a good business deal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On what terms
did they get it?


George Perry Graham: They took it exactly at
the cost to the gentleman in Paris-no commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the
gentlemen in Paris who is handling this $2,000,000 for us?


George Perry Graham: Mr. A. Aronovici.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is Mr. Aronovici?


George Perry Graham: He was a former agent
of the Great Eastern Railway and is now agent of the Canadian National Railways for the continent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see. Is the
syndicate composed of New York gentlemen? The minister made mention of New York.


George Perry Graham: New York.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that a New York syndicate is going to look after this a little later, and my hon. friend, I take it from what he says, will not tell us anything more about it than that? Now I want to ask my friend if he can give me one reason why we should not get the facts. The money is paid. Mr. Aronovici in Paris has got the money. Why cannot we know for whom he has got it?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows that if he were in my place he would do just as I am doing. In a transaction of this nature with a syndicate there is certain financing they have to do, and I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend to ask me, I do not think he expects me to tell him, the names

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
of this syndicate until such time as the arrangement is completed and everybody will know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not follow my hon. friend. One minute apparently the syndicate is working for us, and another minute they are working for themselves. I cannot for the life of me see why this country cannot know who is looking after this deal. Two million dollars is a whole lot of money. Before we go any further, let me ask at this point from what vote was that $2,000,000 taken?


George Perry Graham: It was not purchase money. It was a deposit, of the Canadian National Railway Company from current funds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I ask my friend, from what vote was that taken?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows enough of the railway business to know that that can be done without being taken from any vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, indeed, I do not, Mr. Chairman, if it is done properly.


George Perry Graham: That is a question of opinion of course. I say it was done properly. It was taken from the current funds temporarily only of the Canadian National Railway just as any railway company or any big concern would do. It was not taken from any special vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everybody
knows that the system is being ran at a loss, and that there is $73,000,000 asked for this year in order to make up the loss. Everybody knows that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is continually having to provide funds for the purpose of making up deficits. Further, everybody must know and the minister knows perfectly well that if $2,000.000 is taken for one purpose it is just so much money taken out of the treasury of Canada, and it can only be taken out of the treasury of Canada by means of a vote. It is just so much more to make good on the one hand, or else some funds provided by the Finance department have been used for the purpose of making that deposit, and it would take a pretty good accountant probably to trace it out. The fact is, this company having received cash advances, receiving now cash advances, must in effect have diverted those cash advances to the extent of $2,000,000 for this purpose, and I ask my friend where it is coming from.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has heard my explanation. I will give it again. One
would think to hear my hon. friend that the Canadian National Railway did not collect any money, never had any money on hand. It collects over $200,000,000 outside of anything it gets from the government. Out of its revenue it temporarily placed this money in the bank, as it often leaves money in the bank, for this specific purpose. If it were permanent my hon. friend would be right, but it is only temporary and he is not right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This fund
evidently was specially ear-marked. My hon. friend talks about a special deposit. Was that deposit made in the regular bank of the company or was it deposited in some outside bank?


George Perry Graham: It was made in one of the regular banks of the company. They deal with two or three banks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was it the regular Grand Trank, bank? What is the regular bank now anyway?


George Perry Graham: There are six.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us have them.


George Perry Graham: Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank, Bank of Toronto, Bank of Commerce, Bank of Nova Scotia and La Banque Na-tionale.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have got quite a collection of banks now to look after our book-keeping. Which particular bank was chosen for this particular deposit?


George Perry Graham: The Bank of Toronto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was there any overdraft made at that time in any of the banks?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to ask my friend whether it is not a fact that at the time this deposit was made there was an overdraft in one of these six banks he has mentioned


George Perry Graham: I am informed there was not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No overdraft.
Then what was the position in so far as the Department of Finance is concerned? What vouchers has my hon. friend been putting through?


William Stevens Fielding: The Department c* Finance has had no part in it whatever.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite
sure, Mr. Chairman, it would not take that form. I quite understand the Department of Finance would have nothing to do with it. I was not asking for any voucher in connection with this, but I am asking in connection with other financial matters has the Department of Finance been making advances to make good deficits?


William Stevens Fielding: Only such advances as
parliament has voted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right,
and I assume the advances are still being made.


William Stevens Fielding: Out of the appropriation, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are still
being made. Now I am going to ask the Minister of Railways wheji that $2,000,000 was put up.


George Perry Graham: It is difficult to say from
memory just what the date was, maybe about the middle of May.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The money was deposited about the middle of May. Then I am going to ask the Minister of Finance if he has been making any advances to the system during April or May. of this current year.


William Stevens Fielding: There has been no
special advance whatever in connection with this transaction. The Railway department is making its usual draft on the Finance department and so long as there is money appropriated by parliament that is all we will know about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are these advances still going on?


William Stevens Fielding: If we are not actually
paying now, it must have been because they have failed to ask for it. They are asking us all the time and we sometimes have difficulty in providing the necessary, but we get it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much has my hon. friend been asked to provide that is being held up at the present time?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not say at the
moment. This particular transaction has not come before my department at all. Any advances that have been made have been made in the usual routine. The Railway department asks us to give them money on account of an appropriation, and when we have it we give it to them, and when we have not we try and look it up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite understand there has been the proper routine and that this request for $2,000,000 did not come to the Finance department at all. This $2,000,000 is taken from funds which otherwise would have gone in easing the Department of Finance so, of course, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance would not know anything about it one way or the other. I am going to ask the Minister of Railways again the names of the syndicate which gets the benefit of the financing of this deal.


George Perry Graham: I do not admit that the
syndicate gets any advantage. I have told my hon. friend once that it would not be fair to give that information. He would not do it himself. I know his object in pressing, but I must decline to give him the names of these gentlemen until the arrangement is completed. It would not be fair to them and it would not be fair to the transaction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is quite right. I endeavour to put myself in the position my hon. friend has put himself in of removing from the proper custody $2,000,000 of the public funds of this country for the purpose of a syndicate, whether they are making money out of it or not. My hon. friend said a few minutes ago that the syndicate had to make some money out of it. I ask him now for the names of the syndicate.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has the
answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good. Then my hon. friend for reasons best known to himself, refuses to give me the information.


George Perry Graham: For reasons of fairness to the men with whom the railway is dealing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to
put another question to my hon. friend: If the syndicate takes it, what guarantee of rent is being made by the railway to the syndicate?


George Perry Graham: None whatever, except
that they will rent the building on terms to be arranged, rent their portion of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And how much are they to rent?


George Perry Graham: That is a matter of
arrangement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Am I to understand then that we put up $2,000,000 and that the svndicate is going to make money out of it?


George Perry Graham: Not out of the $2,000,000.

Supply-Railways-C .N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Out of the property?


George Perry Graham: They think they will,
they think it is a good purchase.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are to become the owners and it is hoped that the railway will have quarters in this building, but the extent of the quarters, the amount of the room or the rent to be paid are questions still left open. Is that the position?


George Perry Graham: Let me impress upon my
hon. friend the fact that the Canadian National is a company incorporated to do business, a company given full authority by an act passed by his government to conduct the affairs of the system as determined by the president and the board of directors. The act was passed for the sole purpose of preventing, in fairness, all the details' of transactions by that company from being made public in the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friend knows that his government passed the act for that purpose yet he is asking me a series of questions to-night that he knows would embarrass a private company. Nevertheless he does not hesitate to ask me these questions, not for the benefit of the gentlemen here but because it will be made public all through Canada and in London, Paris and New York, with the result that the men with whom we are dealing-honourable men, who have had business with the British government in an honourable way-might have their interests affected; indeed it might affect the whole transaction. The Canadian National Railway Board acted within their rights in doing what they did. My hon. friend cannot point to one illegal thing that the Canadian National Railway Board or their president have done in connection with this transaction. I ask him in all fairness not to press for details because I feel that I am in honour bound, on behalf of the president and the board of the Canadian National Railways to respect their confidence for the present with regard to a transaction which is only partially completed. When that transaction is fully completed -and that is the position taken by my hon. friend's leader-it will be right for parliament to know what has been done. I repeat there has been nothing wrong done. Everything is in the open. If any error has been committed at all, it is in the president and board of the Canadian National Railways trying to get a place they never had before, trying to get prominence for the Canadian National Railways and, in doing it, save the people of Canada the necessity of making any capital expenditure. I am speaking as the parliamentary representative of the board, not because this is my business. It is the business of the board, and they have acted in a perfectly legal manner. The board have an option on any space they want in this building at a fair rental. That is the proposition. If that is not a good transaction, then the men who have charge of the Canadian National Railways do not know what a good transaction is. I believe it is a good transaction in the interest of those railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it from
what my hon. friend says that he did not know anything about this at all; he was1 not consulted.


George Perry Graham: I did not say so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to know what the fact is. I would gather-


William Stevens Fielding: Did you not arrange to take the railways out of politics?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is another question. We will deal with that in a few minutes and I think we will deal with it efficiently too. Now, I am just asking this one question: Was the minister consulted before this was done?


George Perry Graham: One at a time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just asking the one question.


George Perry Graham: When you sit down I will answer it. Mr. Chairman, now my hon. friend comes round to the contention that the Canadian National Railway Board are not running the system at all but that the Minister of Railways is running it. I say that the Canadian National Railway Board acted within their legal rights. I told him the other day that the consent of the government had not been asked to this transaction; I forget whether it was my hon. friend or the leader of the Opposition who asked the question. The question was asked because the Canadian National Railway Board cannot buy property, or real estate, without an order in council. I said then, and I say now that the board had a perfect right to enter into this transaction and the matter was entered upon before the government was consulted at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I find it difficult to extract an answer from my hon. friend's speech. Was he consulted by the president before the latter entered into this negotiation?


George Perry Graham: If I am as dense in speaking as my hon. friend is in understanding the Lord help me! I told him a moment ago, "No."

i
/S upply-R ailways-C.N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wanted to get an explicit answer so that there should be no doubt about it at all. We have this situation: There was absolutely no coming to the government at all one way or the other in the matter, no consent as to what may or may not be a profitable investment made out of public funds to the extent of $2,000,000. We now know the fact is that the board did not ask the government's "Yes" or "No" or anything else. Now, the Minister of Finance asks whether we tried to take this out of politics.


William Stevens Fielding: You said you had taken it out of politics.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good. I will take it any way my hon. friend likes. We said we had taken it out of politics.


William Stevens Fielding: Do you want to put it back now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there was one thing that was always maintained by us it was this: That in connection with any matters which did not have to do with the direct administration of the company parliamentary control had to be there. It makes no difference whether the company honestly put up this two millions without any subterfuge or whether they put it up in this kind of a way. It is a matter of capital expenditure no matter for how short a period it is, and if the Minister of Finance is going to take the stand that that sort of thing can be done without his knowledge he is going to put himself in a very grave position. I do not think he approves of it; I am quite confident that on reflection he will not approve.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not my hon. friend think it is a good idea for the Canadian National Railways to have a continental headquarters in Paris?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may or may not be good. It may be gross extravagance, or it may be of some use; I am not going to pass upon that question one way or the other. I can tell my hon. friend this, however: The statement made by the Minister of Railways that everything emanating from the Continent comes from Paris is entirely wrong.


George Perry Graham: I did not say so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood my hon. friend to say so.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then he did not say so. My hon. friend did not say this was the place from which everybody went or 
came; but the great bulk of the Continent's traffic I may tell him does not originate in Paris.


George Perry Graham: Most of it does, and the tourist traffic nearly all goes there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can well understand the desire of the Minister of Railways for tourist traffic. I suppose he is anticipating the fleets-to-be that he will have control of over the Atlantic.


George Perry Graham: No, I am having trouble with the fleets-that-are.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Take that statement as a test of his sincerity on this question of tourist business. Has he one passenger boat on his list that is equipped for tourist traffic?


George Perry Graham: I am sorry to report that my hon. friend, out of sixteen or seventeen steamers, did not build any capable of carrying passengers, but I do know that thousands of people cross the ocean on other steamships and have to take railway lines when they get here. They take railway lines when they are going across the continent to get to a steamship; and if, as has been the case in the past, there is nobody to sav "Canadian National" to them when they are coming over, they are not likely to taka the Canadian National when they get here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course that all goes to show how completely the Minister of Railways has been overlooked by the president, and how absolutely he has been ignored, because if the president had taken him into his confidence-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. member not think-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will give the hon. member an opportunity to speak when I am through. If the president had taken the hon. minister into his confidence he never would have told him to make that argument about the tourist traffic.


George Perry Graham: Why?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Because it would not be arranged that way. It is arranged by running arrangements with steamship lines originating the traffic, and for the purpose of doing that it is not necessary to buy large premises like this. My hon. friend from Pictou wished to ask me a question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. member for West York (Sir Henrv Drayton) not think that the question of

Supply-R ailwa ys-C.N.R.
settling headquarters for the Canadian National Railway on the Continent are in Sir Henry's hands? Does he blame Sir Henry Thornton if he is going to be ambitious and endeavour to earn money? Does he not think Sir Henry Thornton should have some slighr ambition and some desire to build up a business on the Continent?
S:r HENRY DRAYTON: I will not discuss that for a moment. I am discussing so far the improper withdrawal of $2,000.000, unauthorized b}^ the government, from the capital funds of this company.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: Did the Canadian National Railways do anything outside of their powers under the act passed by himself?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would say so, absolutely.


George Perry Graham: I would say not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Without the
slightest hesitation, I would say so. Why, Mr. Chairman, the idea of the whole act, so far as ordinary matters of business were concerned, was that there was not to be any interference. We took that stand right along. We took that stand when we were asked by hon. members opposite as to coal contracts and tie contracts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where did you draw the line?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I drew the line at capital expenditure, and it is very easy to draw the line between a $2,000,000 proposition and the ordinary business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. member say that if Sir Henry Thornton desired to build a branch line somewhere which he considered necessary for the business of the railway we should have nothing to say about it, and it should be done by the government ?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I mean to say- and there is no mystery about it-that Sir Henry Thornton under the practice, under the statutes and under the votes, cannot build a single yard of new line without first getting the government's concurrence. There is nothing strange about it We were supposed to have details of appropriation in connection with all these capital account matters. If the hon. gentleman thinks Sir Henry Thornton can do as he pleases in regard to the mileage of this system, he is entirely mistaken.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member certainly said that he had nothing to do with capital expenditure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member can gain nothing by puting words in my mouth. Sir Henry Thornton can do nothing in the way of capital expenditure without the consent of parliament. He has to go to the government and through the government to parliament, in order to get the vote. He makes his recommendations, of course, just as any other general manager makes his recommendations, to the gentlemen who provide the funds. There can be no doubt that this is a complete departure from the former practice, and what I want to know from the minister is whether he endorses in any way the doctrine of his colleague the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr Macdonald) and whether he thinks Sir Henry Thornton can build new lines without first coming to the government?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never said that I thought Sir Henry Thornton could build new lines, without first coming to the government. My hon friend knows that perfectly well, and if he made the statement outside the House I would probably use language which is not parliamentary. But in the House I cannot say very much. My hon. friend took the ground that in regard to capital account the Minister of Railways was supreme under the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He intimated that Sir Henry Thornton had no responsibility in regard to it. He said "We would not interfere with him in the slightest degree with regard to current expenses, but we would interfere in regard to capital account." Then he intimates that Sir Henry Thornton as president would not be responsible for capital expenditure. Does he mean to say the government can initiate these matters without the consent or recommendation of Sir Henry Thornton? My hon. friend is extremely misleading when he refers to what I said, but it is simply on a par with what he has been saying right along.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thank my hon. friend for his clear, well-founded and beautiful statement. There is no mystery about it at all. What childishness to say the president has nothing to do with capital expenditure, when we at the same time say that he has to come to parliament to get authority for the capital expenditure? It is childish. Is it not childish to say he provides the money?
Supply-Railways-C JV.iJ.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never said that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would it not be childish to think so?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never
thought so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would it not be childish to think that the government would initiate and go on with the work apart from the man they had paid to do it? The whole fact is that the onus is on the president. The president ought to make his recommendations just like any other manager or president, he makes them to the government and he cannot act on these of his own motion in connection with capital expenditure until the government say so and until parliament provides the money. There is no mystery about that at all-not the slightest. The whole trouble, Sir, is that we have to have a smoke screen erected, just simply in some way to becloud what is a very simple and clear matter. Here is $2,000,000 taken, so far as parliament knows, merely to assist in a land speculation, out of which some unknown syndicate may or may not be making money, and we cannot even know who compose the syndicate. My hon. friend said that a fair rent was to be paid, and he is to have just as much area as he wants. What is the rent to be paid per foot?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not as dense as he pretends to be; I do him the honour to believe that he understood what I said. Every man in the House knows what I said, and if there is any hon. gentleman here who should not say anything at all about one man putting words into the mouth of another it is the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I never before, in the short space of thirty minutes, had what I said twisted on the one hand and remain unheeded on the other as I have just experienced in the past half hour. I told the hon. gentleman distinctly that the transaction had not yet been completed but that the Canadian National Railways, in this way, had secured a home where it was needed in the best part of Paris. I made it clear that it could secure all the space it required at what was decided upon as a fair rental.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is to decide what is a fair rental?


George Perry Graham: I suppose that every bargain is made between two parties. If my hon. friend were going to rent floor space from me he would not ask parliament to decide what that space should be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the bargain, I gather, is not yet made. If what the hon. gentleman says is correct, it appears that the bargain has not yet been consummated. I want to know whether or not it has been made. If it has already been made, then the rental is certain. The committee wants to know7 how the matter stands.


George Perry Graham: There my hon. friend goes again, endeavouring to twist what I said and to interject into it something that may make it appear what it is not. I told him the details had not yet been concluded but that the Canadian National Railways would have a home at a fair rental decided upon between two men w7ho understand the business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gather from what the minister says that t'he situation is somewhat in this position. The representative of the Canadian National Railways in Paris, that is to say, a regularly paid official of the railways, secured an option of space in a property in Paris. The Canadian National Railway Company has pledged itself to the vendors to the extent of $2,000,000 on behalf of an unknown syndicate, the names of whose members are not divulged to the House. This transaction, involving a committal of $2,000,000 of capital expenditure on the part of the railways, was launched without the knowledge of the government and before they were aware that it was being done. I think I am justified in assuming that Sir Henry Thornton, as President of the National Railways, undertook that transaction on his own responsibility. When it became known to the public of this country a week or two ago there certainly was reflected in the press and through other media a very severe criticism of the action in expending $2,000,000 for quarters in Paris, and then, as an afterthought, apparently, this syndicate came into existence. I do not assert that as a fact, but it undoubtedly is a fair inference to draw from the very meagre information we have been accorded. Now, the minister says that we are committed to $2,000,000; and we do not know whether this syndicate possesses the wherewithal to pay for that money for which we have stood responsible. Certainly, up to the present it has not undertaken to pay. So that we have committed ourselves to this sum of money; we have in a sense committed ourselves, as a country, to a bargain to rent space in this hotel building.


George Perry Graham: Not as a country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, the company acting on behalf of the government, because it is a

Supply-R ailwa ys-C JJ.R.
capital expenditure. We must differentiate in that regard; the expenditure is not a current one.


George Perry Graham: I do not agree with the hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister be good enough to lay on the Table such documents as may exist, upon which this 32,000,000 was advanced? I cannot conceive that even Sir Henry Thornton would authorize an advance of such a sum of money without some form of documentary agreement or understanding. I do not wholly agree with the minister in his refusal to divulge the names of those who comprise the syndicate. This is a very different matter from divulging current detail business. Here is a syndicate of gentlemen, New Yorkers, apparently, who are securing a property in Paris, said to be of very excellent value, for $2,000,000. We, the people of Canada, are putting up the money for the time being. That is not the type of transaction that justifies secrecy or concealment, even temporarily, for the sake of confidence. Surely we ought to know who the members of this syndicate are. I say, I do not agree with the minister in his refusal to give their names; I think it would inspire a great deal more confidence in the whole transaction if they were revealed.
I would ask the minister, first, to give to the committee all the details of the arrangement upon which this advance of $2,000,000 is based, because that is a reasonable request; and I again point out that it is capital expenditure and not a matter of current business, which I fully agree with him should not necessarily be divulged. Business of a current character I do not say ought to be revealed; but this is not such business; this is a matter of capital expenditure,
9 p.m. just as if we undertook to build a piece of railway or to construct a building in some of our holdings in the United States or in any other part of the world. It is a straight capital expenditure, and I submit that the committee is entitled to full information. Let me fortify that opinion. In the very item under discussion, the details in regard to which we shall request of the minister, there is a reference to operating deficits, acquisition of property and materials and supplies. Under that head I asked the minister a little while ago whether this matter was included, and he said it was not. But he has every detail before him which he will divulge to parliament and upon which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will make an advance of $73,000,000. That
is where the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is right in his protest, and it will not answer the question for the minister to say that the law passed under the leadership of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in 1919 provided for all this. The law did not provide for this or any similar transaction at all; it provided exactly against such transactions.
Referring briefly to the suggestions made by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), I want to assure the committee that we are not seeking to interfere with the management of the railways. No; we are seeking to bring that management to account for departing from the clear intent of the law in this matter in making a capital commitment of $2,000,000 without even the knowledge of the minister. That is our point.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend puts it that way. I asked the ex-Minister of Finance distinctly, and he was careful not to say that the transaction was contrary to the act. Now, this transaction was approved in the first place by the financial department of the Canadian National Railways, and afterwards by Mr. Ruel, whose knowledge of these matters will, I think, be conceded to be equal to that of any other legal authority in this country. So it is out of the question to find fault with the president and his board of directors. They take Mr. Ruel's legal opinion, and up to date it has been found to be sound. He thoroughly approves the legality of this transaction. My hon. friend insists that we purchased the building. We did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say the government is
committed to a capital expenditure of $2,000,000 for the purchase of a building.


George Perry Graham: It is not committed to a capital expenditure. It has financially backed a man who has bought this building, which is to be transferred. The Canadian National Railway simply became responsible for the financing of the project temporarily, and temporarily only.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Permit me to interrupt.
But this commitment of $2,000,000 is on the say-so of a paid official of the National Railways-the Paris representative. Now, that man has no responsibility whatever. We might as well have had a clerk out of the department. The only difference, perhaps, would have been in their respective status, that is all.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, we are
asked to vote $73,000,000 for this particular
3G20
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

item, or twice the expenditure of all Canada's *estimates in 1894. When the budget was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) he told us that but for the railway *deficits we could have had some reduction in taxation. These railways deficits are bearing very heavily on the people to-day, and in my opinion the vote should not be passed until it has been reported upon by the Railway Commission. A royal commission composed of Mr. A. H. Smith, Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Acworth investigated our railways in 1917, and the most important part of their report was that in which they dealt with the subject of capital expenditure. They recommended, in effect, that before such a vote as this was passed there should be a report on it by some responsible body appointed by parliament for that particular purpose. Mr. Smith, then president of the New York Central, recommended, and Sir Henry Drayton, then chairman of our Railway Commission, agreed with him, that we should:
Amend the regulating policy so that the Railway 'Commission may have jurisdiction over all railroads in the matter of maximum and minimum rates, the issuance of securities, the building of new railways, or the extension of lines, and other matters properly [DOT]within the scope of governmental supervision.
The National Railway Board are committing the country to capital outlays running into millions of dollars, and we may well ask ourselves to-night: Have we responsible government in Canada? The board visited the city of Ottawa recently, looked over the terminals and then anounced that millions of dollars would be spent on their improvement. They proceeded to the city of Hamilton, *where after inspecting the National Railways' facilities there they announced further expenditures of millions of dollars. Then they came to the city of Toronto and arranged to erect a sky-scraper office building. All this was done without consulting the government or parliament. Last year a vote for a similar purpose went through very easily and large sums of money were provided for the physical improvement of these railway properties, for their co-ordination, for additional rolling stock and for certain branch line construction. But after the expenditure of all that money what do we find? It was hoped some coordination would be effected, but very little has been done towards this end. True, the railways have not done badly during the past year, but the point is that we should scrutinize these expenditures a little more carefully at the time we vote them and not wait until recess to find out what we do about them.

But notwithstanding this large capital outlay what do we find in the annual report of the Canadian National Railways which was laid on the table a few weeks ago? We find that the gross earnings decreased by nearly $7,000,000, the figures for 1921 being $127,000,000 as against $120,135,000 for 1922. The operating expenses in 1921 were in round figures $143,000,000 as against $129,000,000 in 1922, or a reduction of $14,000,000-not so bad. There was also a reduction of abo>-$7,000,000 in the operating deficit, the figures being $16,000,000 for 1921 as against $9,000,000 for 1922. These again are round figures. Some betterments were made, but they were not of a character to increase the earnings, and it would be far better for the directors to bear this in mind when making further capital outlay. The new station in Toronto is still standing idle	waiting	the building	of	theviaduct, and these increased facilities alone would, I believe, augment the earnings in that district by at least one-third. The annual National Railway report states that the decrease in passenger traffic is discouraging, particularly as the quality of the service given has improved and because the rate for passenger travel in Canada is relatively low, being generally slightly below the prevailing rates in the	United	States. This	is	notstrictly accurate, for in the United States they have special holiday, week end	andexcursion rates, which we do not now enjoy to as	great	an extent.	In	the
freight earnings there is a loss of revenue due to the Crowsnest pass agreement rates, estimated to be six and a half mill .on dollars. The freight, passenger and express earnings were all less than in 1921. A hundred and seventy miles of new road were put into operation in the past twelve months in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. I do not criticize the board for that at all, I have no doubt it was necessary, but large sums of money were spent on betterments from which they do not get any revenue. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) pointed out last year that $50,000 to $75,000 per day can be saved in railway expenses by up-to-date co-ordination. Have we got that co-ordination to-day? We have not. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) pointed out recently that in his own city there are no signs of co-ordination, that trains are running on parallel lines so close together that they are within a stone's throw of each other. The same thing may be seen on the north shore of Lake Ontario, and the trains running between Toronto, Whitby and

Supply-R ailways-C.N.R.
Belleville could in my opinion be co-ordinated and a large saving effected.
I think the Canadian National Railway Board has altogether too much /power-a power that is prejudicial to our system of responsible government. I believe that the Canadian National Railway Board should have a free hand to administer the railway system; there should be no political interference whatsoever. The government of the country has proceeded along proper lines in this respect during the last few years. The present ministry has been more than sympathetic and has been doing very good work as far as it has gone, but there has not been the co-ordination that there should be. The present head of this railway has been going up and down the country making speeches and promising sidings, lines, terminals, skyscrapers, here, there and everywhere. Now, one of the most important feeders of the National Railways should be the merchant marine, on the ocean, on the river St. Lawrpnce, and on the Great Lakes. What has made the Canadian Pacific the great railway it is today, with its large earning power per mile? It has been very largely the co-ordination which has existed between its ocean and lake services and its rail communications. So our National Railways might very well take a leaf out of its rival's book, instead of recommending the sale of that merchant marine, constituting, as it does, an important feeder to the railway line. Now, I say that something should be done to bring our National Railways up to date. I would like to mention one or two matters in connection with which economies might well be effected. I have seen members travelling on the trains, and I have seen a large number of private cars proceeding all over the country. I knew a gentleman connected with the railway offices who used to have an office position in Toronto; there are big officials of that kind who could not go as far as Hamilton without dragging a private car along the right of way, even with coal as high as from $10 to $15 a ton. And in other ways there has not been co-ordination. There have been transfers of officials from Moncton to Montreal, from one city to another, and so far as I know there has not been any economy effected by the transfer. So I say that co-ordination has not been effected and economies have not been brought about which would increase the efficiency of the system.
There is another branch of the administration of this railway system which must receive attention if success is to be attained; every employee must be satisfied, must be
happy and contented. That condition doe3 not prevail to-day on the National Railways. As I say, the minister is doing the best he can; he has done very good work, but in my opinion the principle of promotion should apply on this line as it does on the New York Central, Michigan Central, the Baltimore and Ohio, and on the Pennsylvania and Lake Shore lines. An announcement was made the other day from the general offices of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway that the principle of promotion would apply to all its employees from the very bottom of the ladder to the top, even to the presidency of that great railway. The same principle applies on the Pennsylvania lines and on the New York Central lines. But what have we in Canada? We are sending to England and to the United States for people to take high positions ir connection with our railway system; although there is an alien labour law, as I understand it, on the statute book to-day, people are being brought in here to take positions that ought to go to Canadians. I say that the principle of promotion is the best, principle; it is the principle which applies on all the leading railway systems of the United States and England. The leading railway officials in these countries have come from the ranks; the best men we have on our railways in this country have come from the ranks. I do hope that this principle will not be forgotten in the future.
Certain regional areas have been established by the present board of directors of the National Railway system. That was a very popular phrase with Julius Caesar-"regions Caesar never knew," and so on. It is a very high-sounding term, "regional area," but I cannot see where any needed co-ordination or economies are effected as the result of the establishment of these regional areas.
As to rates, there has been some downward trend. In that connection I wish to point out that by legislation of last session provision was made for certain additional rolling stock. During the last twelve months there have been added to the equipment 870 new freight cars, 561 additional freight cars, 26 passenger cars. With all these 1,600 new freight cars and the others that they had on hand a year ago, there are three months in the year when these cars are standing idle, although they could be transporting coal and other products from the prairie provinces to the head of the lakes and to central Canada. A rate of $9 a ton has been quoted on coal. I submit that the earnings of the road could be very largely increased and this $73,000,000 item could be very much reduced if instead

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

of allowing a large number of old and new cars to stand idle during three or four months of the year they were utilized to bring down the products I have named from Alberta to central Canada. During the first year or two of these operations there might be a deficit, but I am confident that as the years went on a surplus would result.
The present charges against the railways ere as follows:	construction, $587,000,000,
equipment, $88,000,000; deficit, $122,000,000; fixed charges, $145,000,000. These figures are almost appalling. Unless new sources of revenue are devised, these enormous charges e.re going to mean increased taxation on the people of Canada for many years to come, under the present system of operation of our National Railways.
Now, some hon. gentlemen sitting in this chamber have blamed public ownership for these deficits. But public ownership is not responsible; it is private ownership that has been responsible for the mismanagement of our railways. Public ownership did not build the Canadian Northern. Public ownership did not build the Grand Trunk. Public ownership did not build the Grand Trunk Pacific or the National Railways. These railways were built under private auspices and we now have these appalling deficits. So I say that the members of the committee should examine very carefully this item of $73,000,000. In my opinion, many of the capital expenditures that have been made during the past twelve months might easily have waited over-many of the so-called betterments, the erection of sidings and terminals, the building of 73 new stations, and so on, many of them in districts that are not self-sustaining. The people of Ontario are behind the National Railways; they are doing everything they can to support the publicly-owned system. In the district from which I come, 326 cities in the hydroelectric movement have had for some time past a working arrangement with the National Railways, designed to promote the interests of that particular system, and they intend to continue it. Everybody wants to give the National Railways a chance. But the minister mentioned the other day one reason why the head of our National Railways system should become a member of the board of Canada Steamships. Now, it was brought out in the lake freights inquiry that the railways of Canada fixed the rates on the lakes for waterborne traffic. That is stated in the report; I need not read it. If there is one thing more than another that is going to help to eliminate the deficit on the Canadian National Railways it is the advantage that

waterborne traffic will give on lake, river and ocean as a feeder of our National Railways. I am very much disappointed, as a believer in the national system, that the head of the system has joined the board of Canada Steamships, which has a monopoly' on the Great Lakes to-day, as is set out in the report to which I have referred. Now, the reason the minister gave for the president of the system becoming a member of that board was that there was an exchange of traffic between the National Railways and Canada Steamships. Well, there is also an exchange of traffic with the Canadian Pacific, with the New York Central, with the Michigan Central; is it proposed to offer the same argument in that connection, namely, that for that reason Sir Henry Thornton should become a director of the Canadian Pacific, of the New York Central, of the Michigan Central? I do not think that argument could reasonably be offered. The president of the National Railways may be a many-sided man, but he can-Dot serve two masters; he cannot serve Canada Steamships and the National Railways as well.
The minister presented a very excellent annual statement at Easter with regard to the Canadian National Railways. I believe the day is not far distant when the onerous burden on the Finance Minister, the Minister of Railways, and the people of Canada in respect of our railways will be relieved. I believe a better day is dawning for our national system under public ownership. I believe that a united effort should be made in support of the National Railways. Municipalities and every patriotic citizen who has the welfare of this country at heart should work in harmony with the directors of the railways and the government should do all possible to see if something cannot be done to eliminate the deficits.
In my opinion this vote of $73,000,000 should be cut in two. I do not believe there is any need of spending $73,000,000 of the people's money for betterments on this railway in view of the deficits that have to be made up from year to year. I believe that if there was more co-ordination there would be less deficits. The acquisition of new property can wait till the railway is in a better position. Why should we build sky scrapers when we cannot get a proper terminal in a city of 500,000 people? I do not think the committee would be justified in voting this amount of money, a large amount of which is to be spent on betterments, construction and rolling stock. In my opinion the money on a lot of these betterments to the railway will have no earning power for many years to come. Furthermore, there is no line

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
in America, that is spending such a large amount of money on betterments and equipment, and the National is supposed to be a new system, with new rolling stock, new stations, and so forth. I think in view of the expenditure of some $587,000,000 to date on capital, as I pointed out before, on the National Railways, we could get along for a while without new branch lines, sidings and turn-outs, and call a halt on a lot of it that is not immediately revenue producing.
I believe it was wrong on the part of the new Railway Board to countermand the nopolitics order. I believe that no good will come from the revocation of that order by the chairman of the board after he had been in office only a short time and had had only a cursory look over the system. I have here the report of the Royal Commission on Railways of 1917 which recommends against the employees of the system being allowed to take part in politics. In May, 1903, there was another royal commission on transportation appointed in Canada which also recommended the same thing. They have had the same experience in the United States, and in Victoria, Australia, where the men went on strike and alienated public sympathy by their attitude in 1903. I think the no politics order was right and proper, and showed the wisdom of Mr. Hanna, and now the new directorate is turning things topsy-turvy and upsetting the nopolitics order. I say that is not even in the interests of the men because under public onwership the men need never be afraid of their employers. They will be better treated than under private employers. Their employers can afford to pay because the railway is operating at cost.
In conclusion, I wish the National Railways every success. I believe that before many days are over this magnificent investment of the people of Canada will be able to pay its way. It is a magnificent system, one of the largest and one of the best conducted in the world. We had no strikes on the railway last year. The passenger service in Ontario has never been equalled. So much is that the case that the National Railway is taking business from the Canadian Pacific on all the main lines in Ontario. If we can only do something to keep down the expenses, if we can complete the deepening of the Welland canal and encourage water-borne traffic as a feeder to the Nationals, I believe that a day of prosperity lies before the National Railways.


Mr. CANNON:: I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I wish to say very frankly that I was astonished to hear my hon. friend express surprise
231 h
that the Canadian National Railways were administered in such a way as to take away practically all departmental responsibility. My hon. friend has been in this House for four years now, and if I am not mistaken he was present in 1919 when the legislation that exists to-day was introduced by his own friends. We pointed out at that time that the law should not be what it was. We pointed out at that time also that the law contained clauses which were a real danger to responsible government in Canada. The answer given to our arguments was not the answer which my hon. friend is receiving tonight. It was the usual answer given by the Tory government of that time-closure.. That is the only satisfaction we got. The law was put into force, the railways were administered under it, and I really do not understand my hon. friend tonight when he grieves that the Minister of Railways has not got anything more to ' do with their management than the law enables him to have. I will refer my hon. friend to the debates which took place during 1921 when he was sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker and supporting the government led by the present leader of the Opposition. Dr. Reid who has now gone to the Senate was then Minister of Railways, and I asked the Minister of Railways at that time about the administration of the railways and how things were managed. My hon. friend was Minister of Finance in the House at that time, and although I have read the reports in Hansard very carefully I can find nowhere that he protested in the way he is protesting tonight. For instance at page 1663 of the Hansard' of 1921, Dr. Reid made the following statement to the House in the presence of my hon. friend:
None of the officials or the minister has anything to do with the expenditure. That is left entirely to the management.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear. I
still agree.


Lucien Cannon: So if the then Minister
of Railways could make a statement of that kind in the House of Commons when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance, how can he get up tonight and sincerely express surprise when the present Minister of Railways takes exactly the same position that my hon. friend's friend took two years ago? On the same page of Hansard the Minister of Railways of that day said:
We have a Board of Management operating the Canadian National railways. They were placed in charge, and have been operating the railway. I have not in any way interfered with them. I feel that if the operation of the Canadian National railways i*
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is quite right in one respect. He has a right to expect sincerity and consistency on the part of our public men. He has charged me with inconsistency and lack of sincerity to-night, but I am going to show him that I am both consistent and sincere. I do not want to see the tu quoque argument which is always used by my hon. friends across the aisle when they say " Did you not do this and did you not do that?" I

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
am not going to refer to what they said when they were in opposition, or remind the House that they made a complete right about face when they got into power. Two wrongs do not make a right. My hon. friend has a right to expect consistency and sincerity somewhere in the House, but he will not find it in the gentlemen around him.
In the first place I am going to take up what was said by the Acting Minister of National Defence. He made a point which would be a perfectly good one if it were well founded-that was as to the right of the railway management to spend public moneys, that they were responsible for the expenditure and could undertake the obligation. The trouble is the hon. gentleman was quite wrong. The statute Shows absolutely the contrary of what he was alleging. I may say that I have not had the same opportunity of studying this statute that other hon. gentlemen have had; it was passed before I entered the House. However, I will take my share of the responsibility although I was not here when this legislation was enacted. Now, the question of new lines is dealt with by section 23 of the Act to Incorporate the National Railway Company which provides:
With the approval of the Governor in Council and upon any location sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals-
The committee will see two checks there. The first is that the minister has to pass upon this capital expenditure, and afterwards the Governor in Council has to do the same thing.
-the company may from time to time construct and operate railway lines, branches and extensions, or railway facilities or properties of any description in respect to the construction whereof respectively, parliament may hereafter authorize the necessary expenditure, or the guarantee of an issue of the company's securities. A copy of any plan or profile made in respect of any completed railway shall be deposited with the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen will see that we have here a thorough and most complete check, the check of parliament. These lines can only be built either b3^ money voted by parliament, or else guaranteed by parliament, so that we have a complete check through parliament, the department, and the Governor in Council on these capital expenditures. The thing is so clear I am not quite sure that the Acting Minister of National Defence, seeing the necessity of a smoke screen of some kind, did not utter the first thing that came into his head. He really could not have considered the submission he was making. That is all I wish to refer to, because the thing is very clear.
Now I invite the attention of the hon. member for Dorchester to my next point. The position of the directors of this road is the same as the position of the directors of an ordinary railway company. I think my hon. friend will agree with that. It has not advanced beyond that point. Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that there is a substitution of the shareholders under the act for the Governor in Council. The people of Canada are thp shareholders, represented by the Governor in Council, in so far as powers under the act to be exercised by shareholders are concerned. My hon. friend will find that section 9 of the act of 1919, chapter 13, makes that absolutely clear. It reads:
When, under the provisions of the Railway Act or any other statute or law, the approval, sanction or confirmation by shareholders is required, such approval, sanction or confirmation may be given by the Governor in Council.
So that the committee will see that what has been done under this act is very plain. The directors have the right to carry on business just exactly in the same way as the directors of any other railway company have, and for the shareholders their powers, votes and meetings is substituted the action or the consideration of the Governor in Council. The thing is perfectly clear, therefore. I need not elaborate the point with my hon. friend for Dorchester. He would not for one moment contend, I take it, under the provisions of the Railway Act, that directors can enter new fields, and hazard the capital of the company in new ventures, without the assent of the shareholders. I think we would all have to admit that. Then if that be the case, the position is1 the same, so far as this board is concerned. They cannot enter new fields and they cannot risk the country's money without the government, acting for the shareholders, assenting. I take it we can have no dispute down to that point. So that the whole result is that these directors have no greater powers than any other directors. They are just in the same position.


George Perry Graham: They have just as much
power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just as much, but no more, and if my friend will consult the legal members around him, I think they will agree that that is absolutely correct. The proposition then is that these -directors can do the same as any other directors. They can carry on the ordinary every day business of the company without submitting it to the shareholders for approval, but if they desire to go into new fields to make capital expenditures. they have to come, as provided by
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

section 7 of the act, to the Governor in Council for approval. I take it that is absolutely clear.	I want to be entirely consistent and I think I am. Again, speaking particularly to my hon. friend the hon. member for Dorchester, the position that was taken in 1920, I think he will find-and if it was not taken, then it was wrong-was in regard, to the expenditure of funds in the ordinary carrying out of the business of the corporation on the one hand, or, on the .other hand, the expenditure of funds which had been authorized as capital expenditure by this parliament.


Lucien Cannon: In the Debates of 1921,
page 1662, Dr. Reid, the Minister of Railways,
stated:
They can expend all the earnings without any certificate from the Railway department, but they cannot get any money from the Finance department until they get a certificate from the Railway department that the work is necessary. Then the money is provided as the work proceeds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with my hon. friend and he is going to agree with me, because he is not going to say that that application of moneys received can be for anything outside the powers of the directorate jmder the Railway Act. In other words, the directors' trust, in running the business and getting in the receipts, is to apply the receipts and moneys they take in, to the discharge of their current obligations arising out of the carrying on of the business. I think my hon. friend will agree with that. I entirely agree with what was said, and I think he will agree with me that that is the legal result of what was said, because we had to look at the act. Now the position here is entirely different. Here we have a new field and a new expenditure entirely, and an expenditure for a new purpose admittedly. The Canadian National never entered the continental field at any time. They had no offices over there of any kind. I am not saying this for the purpose of trying the matter out. No one would call to order directors who entered into a lease for the purpose of trying the matter out with small commitments-commitments that should be made out of the year's business. That would be all right, but that is not what we have. We have an entry into a new field, plus the application of the moneys which ought, under the act, to have been applied in the discharge of the regular obligations of the company, to a purpose entirely new and outside the former operations of the company. That would not be illegal if you had the shareholders say so-I admit that. But in order to make it legal the shareholders say so, endorsement will have to be given, and the shareholder in this case happens to
(Sir Henry Drayton.]
be the Governor in Council. I hope my hon. friend will not accuse me of inconsistency. My argument may be weak, but I do not believe that he thinks so. He has followed me closely, and I think he agrees with me. But be it strong or weak, it is sincere. I sincerely believe it is absolutely illegal for any director to switch the capital funds of the company, that it is illegal to undertake any new and further obligations outside of the ambit of the present operations, and I think my hon. friend will say I am, at least, sincere.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is giving me the exact concrete form of the thing I would like to have said, but I could not have said it as well. He argues this board has the same power, say, as the board of the Canadian Pacific Railway-to get down to a concrete case. I wish to ask this question: If the Canadian Pacific Railway wanted to buy a property in Paris, and put up the president of the railroad or someone else to buy it, in order that they might get the use of it, would they call the shareholders together and get their consent to it? No. Because that would make it public, and you could not buy it then, except at a price and a half. What they would do in nine cases out of ten would be that the president himself would get an option on the property, and would have a perfect right to put up financial security for the property, and have it ratified by the shareholders afterwards.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no question that it would be necessary to have it ratified by the shareholders. In the meantime, the president would be taking a chance. He is doing something he has no legal right to do at all.
Mr, GRAHAM: The only practical way to do it.


Arthur John Lewis: Reverting to the Paris incident, I would like to ask the minister whether the Canadian National Railway, in putting up this loan of $2,000,000, is receiving any interest on the loan?


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Arthur John Lewis: In what sense are they receiving interest on the loan?


George Perry Graham: The money is in the bank, and the bank allows interest on any deposit.


Arthur John Lewis: With reference to subsection (e) of item 139, "construction and betterments," have the officials of the National Railways presented any programme with respect to branch lines at the present time? Has any

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
schedule been brought down contemplating the construction of such lines in the near future?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this vote for branch dines except perhaps for minor ones. I stated a few days ago that the board had recommended a programme of branch lines, which I hope to introduce by way of resolution in a very few days.


Arthur John Lewis: The subsection to which I have just referred, "construction and betterments," is included in the vote, and I thought the minister could tell us whether any branch lines were being considered. There is another question I desire to have answered. Will the Canadian National officials who will be engaged in this building in Paris also act in the capacity of immigration officers?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian National officials, like the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, will co-operate with the Immigration department in the interests of immigration.


Arthur John Lewis: Does the immigration which at present comes from that part of Europe demand such a large expenditure as is provided for in this loan, and that offices shall be established in Paris?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman seems to think that the Canadian National Railways are going to occupy the whole of the building.


Arthur John Lewis: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: The railways will use only a part of it. As I pointed out some time ago, the Canadian National system wants to get its share of all the business which there is, or *which can be created. That is not being done at present, because there are no headquarters in Paris. It is believed that traffic can be secured by an aggressive policy in Paris which will add greatly to the income of the railways.


Arthur John Lewis: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: A short while ago I asked the minister a question or two and he was rescued from his dilemma by the intervention of some other observations. I inquired what objection he had to informing the committee of the nature of the agreement, or the conditions of the agreement, entered into between the company and the syndicate in New York on whose behalf the $2,000,000 is advanced. I should really like the minister to give us that information. I would also ask him to state in what way he considers anyone could be injured or any interests be jeopardized by disclosing the personnel of the syndicate. 1 would call his attention, too, to the answer he returned to my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) on the question of interest. The interest, he says, is being paid on the $2,000,000 by the bank. But is not the syndicate charging interest at a much higher rate for the $2,000,000 advanced in Paris? And who absorbs that difference?


George Perry Graham: That is very easy; I can answer a plain question without any frills. The bank is paying interest, and the difference between that interest and the interest that
Supply-R ail ways-C.N.R.

will be charged the party in whose name the building was purchased will have to be absorbed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is only one of my questions.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend puts his questions so delicately that one would almost imagine he was innocent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So I am.


George Perry Graham: But if I answered the delicate question he asks, he would have all the information which I am bound in honour not to divulge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is just what we want. Will the minister give the reasons why he cannot answer the question?


George Perry Graham: If I gave the reasons I should simply be answering the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not so innocent as the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: The ex-Minister.


George Perry Graham: The ex-Minister, I mean; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is innocent. '


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do not believe him.


George Perry Graham: When my hon. friend says:
I do not ask that you give me the agreement, but I want you to tell me what your reasons are for not being able to give it to me. -when he says that, he is simply asking in a subtle way for the information which he knows I cannot give him. If I 10 p.m. stated the reasons it would only be answering the entire question, and my hon. friend knows that. There are reasons which I believe, and which the Canadian National Company believes, are valid why, in the public interest, the information should not be divulged at the present time. But parliament will be entitled to all the information when the transaction is completed.


An hon. MEMBER:: When it is too late.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister cannot be serious in taking that stand.


George Perry Graham: He is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I suppose I must accept his answer. In that event I think we are justified in expressing an opinion in the absence of definite information.


George Perry Graham: Surely.
IMr. Graham.]


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I have already
suggested that Sir Henry Thornton, as the head of the National Railways, stepped beyond his reasonable authority and exceeded his rights in committing the Canadian people to an expenditure-committing them, I repeat, to an expenditure-of $2,000,000 without placing in the hands of the minister, to be placed before parliament, one word of the agreement upon which such advance was made. In the second place I say that if Sir Henry Thornton's conception of his duty as president of this great system is that he is justified in placing $2,000,000 in the hands of an employee of the Canadian National Railways in Paris to purchase a hotel for a sjmdicate in New York, then again I say Sir Henry Thornton's idea of his duties is such as will not increase my confidence in him. It is beyond me to understand that a transaction of this magnitude-not the purchase of a private car or some little matter of that kind involving a few thousand dollars, but the purchase of a central site in Paris-was entered into and the money deposited in the bank without informing the minister, that such a step was being taken. To me it is inconceivable that a man of the standing of Sir Henry Thornton should take such a position unless he has got an altogether distorted idea of his importance and his position in this country as head of the National Railways. That is my opinion, and in the absence of definite information from the minister I think I am justified in expressing that opinion in stronger terms than perhaps would be necessary if we had all the information before the committee.
I intimated a little while ago, and I repeat it now, that it would appear to me that after a test of public opinion was made by the rather flamboyant announcement-characteristic of the gentleman's attitude since he has had this exalted position-that he, Sir Henry Thornton, had bought a hotel in Paris, which was blazoned all over the country, and the reflection of an adverse public opinion through the press and other mediums, that as a result this syndicate is a second thought, is only now being arranged, and is not a bona fide syndicate capable of carrying through this transaction. That is my candid opinion, and again I say I am justified in expressing that- opinion in the absence of one iota of evidence that these gentlemen are competent, both so far as business ability and financial responsibility are concerned, to carry through a $2,000,000 purchase. If the Canadian National Railways . desire to improve their position on the Continent, they could very well be satisfied with ordinary rented quar-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
ters in Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam, Antwerp and other cities and do their business in a fairly satisfactory manner without an extravagant expenditure.
There is another item which I do not wish to involve with this one, but I will just mention it. We are told that this $73,000,000 vote is necessary for the carrying on of the railways. We know branch lines are needed, and we know that there is a curtailment of expenditure in this direction. Yet here is a sum of $2,000,000, segregated for goodness knows how long, to finance a private undisclosed syndicate; here is a million and a quarter dollars-and I want the committee to listen to this-for the purchase of one of the most expensive sites in Toronto at the corner of King and Yonge from the owners, a chartered bank-a corner that I am informed was purchased by that bank about eighteen months previously for approximately $700,000. Now, I have this to say to the minister, and I ask him to pass it on to Sir Henry Thornton:	If Sir Henry Thornton's idea of
his responsibility to this country, his $50,000 position, is that he can, without consultation with or notification to the government, purchase for $2,000,000 a hotel in Paris through an official, and purchase a property at the corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, for a million and a quarter dollars- giving to the bank a profit of $550,000 in a few months-then I say Sir Henry Thornton's idea of managing the affairs of the National Railways is a great disappointment to me, and until these matters are fully and completely explained I shall lack very great confidence in the future of the National Railways under the control of Sir Henry Thornton.


Mr. BAXTER:: Mention has been made
of branch lines and it has been stated that we would be informed later on as to the appropriations to be made for their construction or completion. Would the minister tell me what there is that differentiates the buying of a hotel or the acquisition of a corner block in Toronto from the completion or construction of a branch railway? Why is it that the minister gets information and the government passes upon the construction of branch railways and submits the matter to parliament, and yet if it is a building in the centre of Paris or of Toronto the minister and the government are not permitted to know anything about it? I want to find some clear line of policy, some separation of the subjects, so that I and other members will know when they come up what are within the domain of the railway authorities
alone and are secrets to the minister and the government, and what class of subjects the government, the minister and parliament are to be consulted about before they are undertaken.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has been
led astray by some statement he has heard to-night about the Toronto property.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I shall be very glad to be put right.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) gBt extravagant in his statements, to put it mildly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was provoked to it
.by the absolute silence of the minister with regard to any real information.


George Perry Graham: I am going to give my.
hon. friend some information about the Toronto building. This building was bought in the usual way, being expropriated by order in council with the approval of the government. Sir Henry Thornton did not buy the property. As to its value, I think at least 80 per cent of the members of this House would have thought it verjr foolish if we had allowed ourselves to be driven from a building that had been occupied for twenty-five years as a Grand Trunk ticket office. The rental charged the Grand Trunk will fully pay the interest on the investment, and we retain in Toronto a corner which many people would have been delighted to see us driven from. It is the best corner in Toronto; it is the place to which people have been accustomed to go to buy tickets for the Grand Trunk Railway, and to have allowed ourselves to be removed from it would have resulted in the loss, I think, of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in the way of passenger traffic. That corner is a good buy, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says. The Exchequer Court passed on the price. My hon. friend referred to $700,000; I think it was $850,000, if I remember correctly. But the one property was sold because it was what one might call almost a forced sale; that is the reason why it was sold at a comparatively low price. As hon. members know, on corner lots in Toronto the prices are advancing. The Imperial Bank refused $1,000,000 two or three months before for that property. We endeavoured to get it but we could not get it. We offered them a million, offered them $1,100,000; endeavoured to get it without forced proceedings, as I might call them. Then the government by order in council expropriated the property and the matter went before the Exchequer Court.
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

They claimed $1,350,000 and the Exchequer Court confirmed the price tentatively arranged between the parties at $1,200,000. If it were not for detaining the committee I would read the judgment which would give the figures, and I am sure every hon. member would be convinced that the Canadian National Railways through the Canadian government have made a deal which is a bargain and which is clearly in the interests of the railway system.
Now, as to the Paris building, the Canadian National could not purchase it. But my hon. friend compares us to branch lines. Now, the places for the brandh lines will stay there; they are not liable to leave; no one is liable to take possession of the property>
When the opportunity came to get a good location in the city of Paris, rightly or wrongly' the president took advantage of the situation as I have outlined. We hope that before the House meets again the country will have been convinced that this is a good proposition; the Canadian National Railways, being relieved of all financial responsibility, will have a home. and a place to do business in one of the best locations in the city of Paris.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is not a question whether this is a good buy or a bad buy; that is not involved in it. What is involved in it is that it is a purchase or an arrangement made, if I understand the minister aright, without any consultation with the minister or without the minister being informed that such a proceeding was in contemplation. Of course, if we are coming to that, all possible sense of responsibility is gone. A few years ago-I was not in this House-some hon. members who are not now sitting where they were then criticized very severely the attitude of the then government because the railway transactions were not apparently to be submitted to the House until after they were concluded. Well, if that was a good principle then it ought to remain a good principle in the minds of those who first laid it down. I can well understand that one cannot go that whole length, and I would not press the minister to do it, but I suggest that the money of the people should not be spent without even a single minister of the Crown having the slightest intimation of what is projected by this body which has been organized to manage National Railways. It does not appear that even a single director of the company had any knowledge of the matter, outside of the president. I want to know if I am right in that; I am inferring it from the discussion that has taken place 
here. If I am right-well, there will be an imperial Caesar set up before whom we must all bow the knee.


George Perry Graham: I have not any information as to whether or not it was before the directors; I did not make inquiries. I know that a number of directors were conversant with it; the solicitor, who is a director, advised that the transaction was legal in every respect.


Mr. BOYS:: Is there a written agreement between the syndicate and the owner or owners of the Paris site?


George Perry Graham: I do not know.


William Alves Boys: It was really bought, I understood, for the purposes of the National Railways. If that is so, surely there would be a written agreement, and then if the National Railways are to be in a position to get the benefit of it there would have to be at least a trust agreement between the syndicate and the National Railways. If there is not, and the syndicate have a written agreement to control the situation they could hold up the National Railways in the ultimate purchase by them. Now, that is a very undesirable situation. I understood the minister to say that this building had been bought for the National Railways. If that is so and there is absolutely nothing in writing that the minister knows of, either with the owners in Paris or with the syndicate in New York, surely the National Railways are in great jeopardy -that is all I can say-if this is a very valuable site which they want to get.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find that the interests of the Canadian National Railway's are fully protected by the London office.


William Alves Boys: I am not saying they are not, but I am asking the minister to let us know that they are.


George Perry Graham: So far as my hon. friend's question regarding the agreement is concerned, that is but another way of getting the information that I say it would not be fair to give.


William Alves Boys: I have carefully refrained from asking the minister for the terms of the agreement or even for the names of the members of the syndicate. But surely this committee can be told-


George Perry Graham: I do not know that there is an agreement.


William Alves Boys: If that is so, what right has the minister to say that this is for the National

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
Railways? If there is no agreement; if there is nothing in writing-and we know that land cannot be bought without something in writing-why does the minister say in this House that there is an agreement or an arrangement, or that the National Railways may even ultimately become the owners of this property?


George Perry Graham: I do not know how many cross examinations a man would be subject to in an ordinary trial-I mean by so many. But as a matter of fact I have the utmost confidence in the solicitor of the National Railways. This transaction in all its bearings has his approval and is subject to his guidance. He advises me that the Canadian National Railways are protected; I did not ask how. I am not the solicitor of the company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister answer one more question? Does he personally know the names of the syndicate he wishes to keep secret and will he assure the committee that he has personal confidence in them and a knowledge of their financial responsibility?


George Perry Graham: I do not know them personally; I will go so far as to say that I do not know their names, although I have heard the chairman's name. But I am assured that they are men of responsibility who are able to carry out any contract that they make.
. Mr. STEVENS: The minister does not even know their names?


George Perry Graham: There are many responsible men's names I do not know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister kindly answer that? He does not even know their
names?


George Perry Graham: I said so; I have told my hon. friend that.


Robert James Manion: How' much rent were we paying in Paris for our offices prior to the taking over of this building?


George Perry Graham: We had no railway offices in Paris; we were not represented there. That was one of the difficulties.


Robert James Manion: Have we any of the merchant marine running between Canada and Prance at the present time?


George Perry Graham: We have arrangements
with the Cunard Line and the White Star, but no arrangement with the merchant marine at the present time. That is as to freight, of course. There is no passenger arrangement.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister tell the committee in a few words what the reason
was for having this Paris office just at this time? What business had increased so much that we must immediately take over this office in Paris'?


George Perry Graham: We want to get the
business. We have not had it, and in order to get it we must have some means of getting it. The Canadian National Railways president believes this is the best method, to get a place on the front street in the city of Paris in order to increase the business of the railway.
I may as well say frankly to the House that the Canadian National Railways is a great undertaking that the government has entered upon for the time being, during which I am the buffer between the board and parliament, and there is a constant propaganda going on against everything connected with the railways. The president of a private company would not be questioned by his shareholders if he had undertaken a transaction such as we have been discussing to-night by the hour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, yes.


George Perry Graham: Not at all. My hon.
friend knows it. The president of a private company makes arrangements far in excess of the expenditure in this case, even if it were an expenditure, and completes the transaction before it is ever submitted to the shareholders for approval.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not if he was asking his
shareholders for $73,000,000 at the same time. If the company was paying a dividend of 10 per cent he would probably do it, but if he was asking for $73,000,000 to make up a deficit he would be subjected to an even more critical examination by the shareholders than the minister has been to-night.


George Perry Graham: The shareholders of a
private company are not in session for six months at a time, or it would never be possible to run the company.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: But in this case there
is only one important shareholder, and the minister could not mention any company president where the company is controlled by one shareholder who would make an expenditure of this kind without consulting that shareholder.


Mr GRAHAM:: I understand that, but my hon. friend could not have listened to me. I know as a matter of fact, and so does my hon. friend if he has had any experience with these large transportation corporations, that the executive proceed to purchase properties without consulting the shareholders. Perhaps they may be wrong in that, but they do it. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

Stevens) says that it would be all right if the company had a surplus, but that makes no difference as to the principle.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does in practice.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from West York and my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre had better get together because my hon. friend from West York said that this company had the same rights and privileges as a private company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just the same.
It is illegal in both cases.


George Perry Graham: The practice of the private company is for the executive to make the best bargain it can for a certain thing, and the shareholders invariably approve his action if they have confidence in the directorate. If they have not, of course, it is another matter. If that were not the practice, suppose, for instance, that the Canadian Pacific had it in their mind to buy a building and called the shareholders together to discuss it, they could not buy that building at any reasonable price. Up would go the price at once. So these things are done quietly through some other party. All large companies do it that way, buy buildings, right of way and everything else through some other party, and after it is all through their action is approved of. That is the practice, whether it is legal or noh
My hon. friend from Fort William asked a very proper question as to the necessity for buying this building in Paris and why it was necessary to buy it without delay. I have explained the necessity for having some headquarters in Paris. It is considered essential to the success of the Canadian National Railway, unless we are to throw up our hands and say we will not do any business with that part of the world. As to the necessity of getting this particular building which the Canadian National president wanted to get, there were two or three other parties after the property, and consequently he closed immediately.


Robert James Manion: The question I asked in regard to the boats and the business and the necessity for buying the building in Paris so hurriedly has really been answered by the minister and his answer is just as I expected.
I have under my hand the Canada Year Book and I was noting our exports and imports to France as compared with other countries and also our immigration from France as compared with other countries. The statement was made in regard to the buying of this building at Paris by Sir Henry Thornton that 
its basement was to be used for moving pictures to encourage immigration from France to Canada. It struck me at that time that we had never had a large immigration from Fiance. In the first place France does not encourage emigration, and in the second place Canada has not apparently attracted the French people of recent years. I made it my business while we were discussing this to look up the statistics of immigration to Canada from other countries, and I find a number of countries from which we get a very much larger immigration than France. So if there is any reason for having this large building in Paris from the immigration standpoint, and that was the point emphasized in the press, there is a very much greater reason for having such a building in some of these other countries. The figures here are from 1909 to 1915, and I find that the immigration from Scotland before the war, and it is perhaps better to take those figures than the figures of to-day, was between five and ten times greater than the immigration from France. The immigration from Austria was more before the war than the immigration from France, the same is true of Germany, and in a greater degree still of Russia; it is true of Italy, and from little Sweden even if we received as many immigrants as from France. Then in regard to imports and exports the same holds true, although the figures vary for the different countries. Switzerland exports to Canada much more heavily than France, and the other countries I mentioned receive a much greater amount of imports from Canada than France. Therefore it appears to me that it would be necessary in some of these other countries from which we get a greater number of people and with which we do a greater trade than with France to have some building of that sort. It may be answered that Sir Henry Thornton should be more familiar with the matter than I am, and of course he is, but it struck me in looking over these figures that we are doing more business with some of these other countries and receiving a much larger immigration from them. I just wished to point that out. Certainly it would appear to the ordinary observer that this is a case of policy. It is not a case of ordinary expenditure. I admit that we have no right to interfere, I do not think the government should interfere in the ordinary management of the railways, and I believe that all members in this corner of the House will take that view, but in the ordinary expenditure of capital, and this is an ordinary expenditure of capital, it is a question of policy, and before a question of policy

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
should be carried out it would appear to the ordinary observer at least that the government should take more part than they admit having taken in this particular case, where it appears that action was taken first and the government consulted second. That would be the impression anyone would get, and I think the minister admits it. It does appear to me that this was not altogether a wise move to take looking at it from the superficial observer's standpoint.
In closing, I hope the minister will be correct for the sake of Canada and the sake of the railway that next year he will be able to give us more details and be able to prove to the House the wisdom of this purchase, which the people of Canada are now inclined to doubt.


Arthur John Lewis: There is another matter coming under the head of what I would call extraordinary expenditure. In the press some days ago it was stated that the Canadian Pacific in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways were granting $100,000 yearly for a period of five years to the Canada Colonization scheme. Now in view of the very long discussion we had on immigration when those estimates were before the House does the minister approve of this plan? Is it true that the Canadian National Railways have made such a grant? So far as I am concerned I am not against any company bringing people into this country, but I was wondering whether the minister or the department approved of this grant for that purpose.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that it has been discussed so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. I want to say again that the Canadian National Railway Board run their business under the provisions of the act, I do not think they have entered into the arrangement as yet, but if they had done so it would certainly be after full consideration, in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway-these being the two greatest transportation companies-and for the purpose of bringing settlers into Canada. Speaking from the Canadian National standpoint-yes, speaking from the national standpoint-I think the salvation of Canada is to get more people of the right kind into this country. I think that is true, and anything that would tend to that end would, I think, have the approval of parliament. As to the particulars in this case I am not conversant with them to a greater extent than I have already informed my hon. friend.


Arthur John Lewis: You say then that you think it would be a profitable arrangement for this country?


George Perry Graham: If properly administered I would think so.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I have been waiting for a couple of hours now in the hope that I and the committee might obtain some definite information in regard to the question of the purchase of the hotel site in Paris for the National Railway system, and I am sorry to say that after having listened for that period of time I know as little about the subject now as I did when the discussion started. There is this to be said, however, that I think the minister himself knows very little about the transaction. No member of the government knows more than the Minister of Railways about this matter, and if his information upon it is nil the information of the government is likewise nil, and up to the present time the information of the committee is nil also. Now what is the position? I may say it is a serious one. I realize that the Minister of Railways has for two hours to-night treated the matter with the greatest jocularity. It may be his natural good humour but he has certainly tried rather to make a joke of the idea-


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: -that the House or the country is entitled to any information in regard to this subject upon which there is considerable public discussion, perhaps some little public misapprehension, and perhaps some little public curiosity because of the payment of $2,000,000 of the money of the people of this country in the manner in which it has been done in this instance, from the facts disclosed. The whole of the circumstances regarding the withdrawal of that money from the treasury of the National Railway Company are so shrouded in mystery as to raise some curiosity and anxiety in the public mind; and I thihk that the government and the minister would do well to reconsider the position they have taken upon this question to-night. I do not suppose the public will be satisfied with the statement made by the minister; I believe that from one end of Canada to the other it will be found that there is a reasonable and a general demand that fuller information than we have as yet received be given, and be given now and not postponed until it is too late for any purpose. If a system is growing up under the act or under the railway practice of this country whereby the president of a railway system-even
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

a man with Sir Henry Thornton's standing- can withdraw 82.000,000 from its treasury and place that money in the hands of one of his officials to be transferred to some banking institution in order that, a New York syndicate may be enabled to carry out its financing, the sooner we know the particulars and details of that transaction the better for Canada. Why one has only to state the facts to show how reprehensible the practice is. Think of it. Here is a minister of the Crown standing up in the committee and stating that he does not even know the names of the men who compose the syndicate. Yet the president of the Canadian National Railways has drawn $2,000,000 out of the treasury of that company to back that syndicate. What is the inference? What is the fact? The syndicate has an interest in this matter. We do not know who they are. They could not raise the $2,000,000 from the banks themselves, otherwise they would have got it, and there .vould have been no occasion for Sir Henry Thornton to interfere with the Canadian National Railway money. Had the syndicate been of the standing which the minister seems to think they are they could have financed this thing through the bank themselves. What an anomaly it is, what a strange thing it is, what a mysterious thing it is, that this syndicate of New Yorkers should get Sir Henry Thornton to go to the treasury of the Canadian National Railways for $2,000,000 to pay to a bank-I do not know whether it is a New York bank or a Canadian bank, I do not know what bank it is-and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.


George Perry Graham: That is not the situation at all.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the way I gleaned (he facts from the discussion that has taken place to-night.


George Perry Graham: You have been listening to the speeches of the gentlemen beside you, not to mine.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been listening to the speeches made in this committee, and if I am wrong in what I say the minister should be the last one to complain, because he has given us no facts whatever upon which to base a correct statement. Is it the law, or is it the practice to-day, that Sir Henry Thornton is entitled to use that amount of money to purchase a site in Paris, or in London, or anywhere else? If he can do that, if that is good practice, if that system is to be permitted, to-morrow he can take $10,000,000 out of the company's treasury and finance a

New York corporation in the purchase of a building on Wall street. It would be possible for him to take another $10,000,000 and spend it in New York. Why, it is in the power of the president to ruin the country, absolutely to ruin it, carrying the principle to its logical conclusion. I submit the principle is wrong. I submit the principle is illegal. I submit the practice ought not to exist; and if the minister, or the government, or parliament, has any control the system will be put an end to at the earliest possible moment.
Is it any wonder that the people and the press of Canada are a little curious upon this question? A capital expenditure of $2,000,000 by the National Railway Board, with a huge annual deficit, is something to stagger the public of any country. Now we have this
S2,000,000 added to that deficit, then another million and a quarter is taken for the purpose of purchasing a block on a street corner in the city of Toronto which, with all deference, I submit was not an immediately necessary expenditure at all, thus adding still more to our deficit. Is it any wonder, in view' of these facts, that the people are curious, that they desire more definite information than they have been able to get.
I have never, in all my experience, seen a minister of the Crown stand up in this House and try to justify an expenditure of $2,000,000 and make the statement practically, "I know nothing about it. I know there is a syndicate, but I do not even know their names. I know the money was taken out of the National Railway treasury to assist the syndicate in the financing of this purchase." That is the position of the minister to-night, and that absolute non-disclosure of material facts, that refusal to give us agreements or information -without advancing any real reason for such refusal except the statement that it will be detrimental to the interests of the National Railways-is a bold, bald statement. It is not a reason, it is an ipse dixit of the minister. Of course, we may not be able to get anything more, but I think he might take us into his confidence and say what it is would be so detrimental to the public interest if he gave us a reasonable disclosure of the leading facts in regard to this transaction.
One effect of such a statement would be to restore some public confidence in the road and in its management. An immediate effect would be to allay a great deal of public curiosity. It will not go down with the people, and will not satisfy the House, to say that Gerald Ruel, counsel for the railroad, advised Sir Henry Thornton, and Sir Henry Thornton advised me, and all I, as Minister

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
of Railways, have to do is to sit here and answer questions and pay the bill. That is not satisfactory to me, and I question if it is satisfactory to any member of the committee of this House.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend would
read over some of the debates in the House when he was minister, and would read the discussion on some of the estimates, he would probably agree that if there ever was in any government, a minister who gave no information to the House it was my hon. friend. If he will look over the estimates he will see that when he was asked in regard to the very large expenditure for the Air Force, he said "I do not know the particulars, but I am very sure that every cent is right."


Hugh Guthrie: I do not suppose I was
pressed for particulars, but in this case the minister was pressed for particulars.


George Perry Graham: He was pressed for particulars and that was his answer. He would not have given that answer if he had not been pressed. I am pointing out his weakness and his great indignation. I understand it all. I do not get annoyed. I am not jocular over this, but I refuse to allow my hon. friend to accomplish his purpose and make me angry. He cannot do that. He has tried it for fifteen or twenty minutes and cannot do it. He has tried by, I will not say wilful misrepresentation, but he has said that I have not given the facts to the House. I have given the history of the transaction, but I have been asked to give documents which the hon. member behind my hon. friend says it would be wrong to produce. I have been asked to give the names of the syndicate. I assure him that I do not know the personnel of the syndicate, but I am assured by the Canadian National officials that they are a responsible body of men. The hon. member would seem to think that I was president of the Canadian National, but I am not. He helped draft the act which gave them great power. Now I refuse to be put in the place of the president and officials of the Canadian National. They are not here to defend themselves. I am advised by the Canadian National Railways of their proceedings. I gave that information to the House. They have the authority under the act to carry out those proceedings. I said that Mr. Ruel had advised the president that his proceedings were perfectly in order. He is so advised by Mr. Ruel, notwithstanding my hon. friend's indignation, which is only assumed. I would take Mr. Ruel's advice on these railway matters as quickly as I would
take his advice, and so would the president. He is paid to give that advice. So far as Mr. Ruel's advice is concerned, anything that was done by the president was within the four corners of the act. What better advice could the president get, and what better advice could I get? Not here, that I see. I cannot see anything here that I would take in preference to his advice. My hon. friend says I said the building was purchased for a syndicate.
I did not say anything of the kind, and if I were inclined to get angry, one thing that would make me angry would be the statement that I said such a thing. I did not say a lot of things that he mentioned, but I did say a lot of things he has not mentioned. Hansard will show all that. I have given a straightforward statement of the transaction, as given me by the board of directors. I might not have done all these things, if I had been president, but I am not president. The president did these things and Mr. Ruel, his adviser, said these things were done legally. I am not arguing,, and I have not argued, that I would have done these things in this way, or that my hon. friend would have done these things; but I did say the president got legal advice, and I trust the arrangement will be beneficial to the Canadian National.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If the minister's
interpretation of the act is correct, it seems to me that we are drifting into a most extraordinary and dangerous situation in Canada. I suppose very few of us have realized the implications of the Railway Act. Probably because of the unfortunate experience of the past years, we have been so much afraid of having politics brought into our railways that we have gone to the other extreme. The Canadian people have been willing to grant a good deal of power to outside commissions or boards in the hope that these outside commissions or boards would be able to carry on the affairs of the country more efficiently when freed from the nagging of individual members of the House. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Canadian people, through their representatives in this House, are responsible for the expenditures of public money. That is the big thing. If we are to erect a board or commission that is practically free from effective criticism, then we have come to a very dangerous pass in our history. The people of this country-at least I can speak for the people of western Canada

have been tremendously interested in this Canadian National Railway system and the whole scheme of public ownership. Yet we are beginning to discover that, after all, the only
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

thing that is national in this railway is the name, and, perhaps, I should add, the deficits. The bondholders are very largely the financial beneficiaries of this road. They seem to be secure. The losses are borne by the people of Canada. We must remember too that in its organization the railways do not come at all closely under the direction of our Canadian people. The management is not at all democratic in its character.
I should like to mention in passing the position that has been taken again and again by Labour, that the employees should be directly represented on these public boards. I believe that the liberal party gave assurances that the employees would be represented on the board of management. The employees are not represented. Years have passed, and we see no indication-


George Perry Graham: I think the hon. member will recollect that the Prime Minister's suggestion was that Labour would be represented. Labour is represented by one of the ablest labour men on this continent-Tom Moore. He was one of the first men put on the board.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I remember when that matter was up for discussion some little time ago, that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) pointed out very clearly that the promise was that rhe employees would be represented, and I submit that the appointment of a particular labour man, however estimable he may be, does not in any way make him in the sense in which we understand it in democratic countries a representative of Labour. The claim is, and has been throughout, that the employees themselves, those who work on the road would have some share in the management of the affairs of the road. That is not the case to-day. Further there seems to be no effective way in which the people of this country through their representatives can control the policies of this board. I think we had it some time ago from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that if there came a time of strain, undoubtedly the policies of the board would have to be regulated by the people of this country. I suggest that when these enormous deficits are piling up and the people are being asked to meet them, the time has already come when we should have a larger voice in the determination of the policies of the railroads.
It is all very well to say that we should keep clear of politics in regard to these matters. Yet I submit that after all politics is simply the business of the country, and a 
great corporation of this kind cannot possibly carry on its affairs without being in touch with the politics or with the business of the country at a score of different points. We' find that already the president of this railway has been associated with the presidents of other railways in what might very well be termed a transportation trust-a serious thing when we consider that the primary object of having a Canadian National road is that we may serve the people. This great trust or monopoly is operating, not primarily in the interests of the people but above all thing3 in the interests of the corporations. We are told again and again that our Canadian National Railways constitute an independent corporation which should be able to carry on business in its own way. I submit that if we allow this enterprise to be carried on in such a way we shall be no better off than we should be if the Canadian National Railways were a private concern. Here, for instance, is a question that arises in connection with this particular transaction involving $2,000,000. We are informed that it is desirable that we should encourage tourist traffic. I want to speak in behalf of a great many people of this country and to declare that there are other things a great deal more important to Canada than the encouragement of tourist traffic. There are a great many more important matters that require our consideration. I will not say that possibly tourist traffic might not be advantageous to the railways as a side-line. That might be the case. But I do say that if we intend to enter upon a new policy, or develop a policy, in that direction, we should not do so without that policy being decided upon in this House. That is the point that should be emphasized.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Could the hon. member tell me of one practical railwayman in this House who could advise along those lines?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is something a great deal more needed to-day than the advice of practical railway men; and I,am not decrying for a moment the advice that they can give. But when we are asked to vote tens of millions of dollars of a deficit, then I say that the people who are being asked to supply that money, are essentially the people who should decide the policies. It is all very well to have experts come in and advise upon certain policies and carry them out; but there are larger affairs that ought to be determined by the people, and by the people alone. I might suggest to the hon. gentleman who asked me the question that there are no practical engineers in this

Supply-Railways-C Jtf.R.
House; at least I presume not. If we required a bridge built we would need an expert to advise us on the matter; but there is the fundamental question as to whether or not we want the bridge built. We are in the position of those who have to decide, since presumably we are speaking on behalf of the people, and are voting these moneys for them.
The same thing is true with regard to the immigration policy. We are placed in a very absurd position indeed in this respect. We spend days and even weeks discussing the immigration policy of Canada, discussing the question whether or not we shall have more immigrants come into the country, and then we find that we are paying tens, almost hundreds of millions of dollars to a corporation which is running things for its own ends, by its own methods, with the object of bringing people into the country. It is preposterous that, should we decide that we do not want immigrants to come into Canada, a corporation independent of parliament can institute a policy that will bring us immigrants by tens or hundreds of thousands. I repeat, it is an absurd situation. This is manifest surely in the response of the Minister of Railways to the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) with regard to this item of $500,000 which is to be granted during five years-at least the suggestion was that it should be granted for five years-to the Canadian Colonization Company. We have held up this House for hours discussing items of less than $100,000; and yet here is a matter involving, over five years, an expenditure of $500,000, to promote a definite immigration policy, to be paid to a certain colonization company which has been more or less discredited in the country. But we, the people of Canada, who are indirectly to pay that $500,000 are to have no voice in the matter whatever. The situation is simply intolerable.
Now, I am not going to criticize Sir Henry Thornton concerning the many speeches he has made throughout the country. But I would point out that whilst the reason for having an independent board is essentially that the railways should be kept out of politics, there is a very real danger that Sir Henry Thornton may assume, in the political life of the country,, a position that is not accorded to any man elected to represent the people on the floor of this House. Sir Henry Thornton can go about the country advocating immigration and whatever else he likes, and he says he is doing it for business reasons. But these policies which he is advocating may be essentially public policies. Sir Henry Thomton is not responsible for these utterances to any group of people in this country. I suppose he is here on a contract for a term of years; but he is not subject to the scrutiny that is exercised over one of the ministers of the Crown. Again I say that we are allowing things to drift into a very serious situation if we permit an organization to grow up which is not at all responsible to the people of the country.
A similar situation prevails in connection with the shipping corporations throughout the country. Our merchant marine has become part of the railway system or at least is connected with it. We are allowing our president of this great railway company to act on shipping boards and possibly join with our other corporations that are keeping up freight rates, and having no small share in determining the commercial and financial policies of the people.
I	submit that these are powers that should not be granted to any one man. I know that under the rules and regulations of this House we are comparatively helpless. Apparently
about the only thing we can do is
II	p.m. to protest. The government can
carry these estimates and not give any information; it can invest in real estate in Paris this year or, if it chooses, in Berlin next year; it can invest in real estate in various countries of the world with which our railways may have some connection. And seemingly the people's representatives are to have no information whatever concerning these things. It can encourage an immigration policy from southeastern Europe or from China. What chance have we of effective protest? After all is done the railway board presents a bill to us, and without scrutiny, without even knowing the items, we are required to pay the account. For one I protest against any arrangement of that kind being continued in this country.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is the arrangement with reference to the Paris building completed, or is it yet possible for the government to withdraw from it?


George Perry Graham: I have not any doubt in the world that the syndicate will take over this property and rent it to some person else if it is so desired.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But is the arrangement with the syndicate completed?


George Perry Graham: I have pointed out two or three times to-night that while completion of the arrangement was in progress it would not be fair to place the details before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.

Supply-Railways-C .N.R.


George Perry Graham: I really enjoy being cross-questioned by so many eminent jurists, not being one myself, as they present the subject from different angles. My hon. friend asks me if the arrangement is completed. I say the arrangement is not completed, and that is the reason I gave for not endeavouring to get particulars to place before the committee. It would not be fair to do so under the agreement as I understand it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I know the minister is doing the best he can, but I am under the impression that there is an understanding or agreement between the National Railways and the syndicate, and that this syndicate makes an arrangement with somebody else. I want to know whether the arrangement between the National Railways and the syndicate has been signed, sealed and delivered; in other words, is that part of the arrangement completed?


George Perry Graham: I would not say it was completed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Can we stop it then?


Mr. GR  AHAM@: When the details are
placed before the House next session my hon. friend will see some of the difficulties I labour under at the present time in trying to give him the detailed information he wants. The syndicate is taking over the property and we will be relieved of all liability. We need not rent a foot of space unless we want to.


Mr. HANSON:: But we will rent space at a sufficient rate to pay the syndicate pretty well for what it pays for the building?


George Perry Graham: That is a question for future consideration. I am told the building is all leased now at a fair profit. I would not mind being in the syndicate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not mind either with the government backing it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to torture the minister at all-


George Perry Graham: No, it is all right.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: -but I should like to know whether there is something yet for the syndicate to do which, if not done, will cause the whole transaction to fall through.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that if the Canadian National Railways wanted to get out of this arrangement-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mess.


George Perry Graham: It is not a messi at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It su'ely is.


George Perry Graham: It depends again on which angle you view it from.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All round.


George Perry Graham: I believe in the judgment of the board. There is no arrangement which could not be abrogated, I suppose, if so desired, but I think you will find that if the transaction goes through as outlined at the present time it will be a good bargain. Sir Henry Thornton will be able to get the space in Paris that he has been trying to secure for some months.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I thank the minister for his endeavours to let me have such crumbs as fall from the railway turntable, for that is about the best I think he can do. I really cannot tell whether there is any particular part of this arrangement that can be considered as completed. I do not want the minister to tell me the details of something that would interfere with good bargaining on behalf of this country. I will go a little further. I had occasion since the session opened to put a question on the order paper. The minister very fairly told me that while it was not expedient to give the information to the public, he was willing to give it privately to members of parliament, and I was one of those who shared in the reception of that information, with which I was perfectly satisfied. I think the course he took on that occasion was correct, but that was with reference to what might have been termed a rumour. Now to-night this matter comes before us in what strikes me as a most extraordinary way. There is not a point on which the minister dare commit himself definitely, and what information he does possess he is unable to reveal. Yet he is actually asking for a large sum of money. Now, we all appreciate the immense difficulty of running this railway system as a public enterprise and at the same time giving detailed information to parliament and to the country in advance of the completion of various transactions. That is something that obviously cannot be done unless we are to pay through the nose time and again for what we want, and I do not wish any word of mine to interfere with any reasonable policy which will avoid that. But there is a body that lies between the management of the Canadian National Railways and the general public, a body that I think ought to be informed as to all the essential parts of every such transaction. That body is the government of Canada, which, whether we support it or not, has been chosen by the people to be their stewards until they make a change. Now, if we are going to set

Supply-Railways-C .N .R.
up a power in Canada that will be greater than the government, that will have its secrets from the government, and to which the government must go with bated breath truckling. for a little necessary information, then I say something is growing up too big for Canada itself. The minister apparently had not been entrusted with knowledge of this project before an irrevocable step was taken by the head of the railway system. Do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I purpose to-night to abuse or even to criticize Sir Henry Thornton. I do not think the time has come for that. I think what we have to do as a nation is to give Sir Henry Thornton a reasonable opportunity to make good or to make bad with the railway system, and until a sufficient lengtht of time has elapsed I do not think there ought to be either approbation or disapprobation of his conduct. I am prepared, so far as that is concerned, to wait. But that does not prevent me from saying that if Sir Henry Thornton, or whoever else may occupy this position, were the best possible man obtainable,-and he may be that-yet there should be no power in his hands to carry through a transaction such as the one that has been spoken of to-night without the knowledge even of the minister who is responsible to parliament and to the country therefor. He ought at least to be consulted; he ought at least to have an opportunity of laying the matter before his colleagues. If that is not done, responsible government becomes very largely a farce. Most of the time we spend in this parliament is devoted to criticism of estimates, the voting of supply, and very often on trivial, minor matters hours and days of the time of this House are taken up; yet when we come to a matter of this magnitude we are expected to pass it through, even with a confession from the government itself that it does not know the details of the transaction. That does not commend itself to me as a good thing.
I want to refer to another aspect of the case. The president of the road is surrounded by a body of advisers. I do not criticize Mr. Ruel; I have the same respect for his opinion in' matters of law, and very largely for his opinion in matters of general railway administration, that my hon. friend the minister has. I think Sir Henry Thornton has a good adviser in Mr. Ruel. But Mr. Ruel's opinion in this matter cannot go a step further than to say that certain documents are in proper form or that the transaction is within the legal scope of the act constituting the Canadian National Railway Board. That does not pass
232i
upon the question whether or not it is advisable to do the thing that is proposed. There is no power I know of that can take even as good and as capable a man as Mr. Ruel and substitute him for the elected representatives of this country or for the government that is responsible to all the people. There are, I believe, some excellent men on the board-the Deputy Minister of Railways; Mr. Ruel, and there may be others; I do not profess to know them all. But I do know that part of the board is made up by place men, men who are worn out in the political field and who do not bring a single atom of utility to the deliberations of that board. I do not know; I am not sure that Sir Henry Thornton has even discussed the matter with tlfem-the minister cannot tell us. But if he has, the matter does not, even at that, stand on a sufficiently strong foundation for me or, I think, for the people of this country. I am not reflecting on individual gentlemen any more than is necessary. But take the action of the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; look at the group of men with whom they surround their president for the administration of the affairs of that corporation. Contrast them with the group of men that are given to Sir Henry Thornton as his advisers, or-shall I say-abettors. The contrast is quite enough to ban the government enterprise now and eternally-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear,-I am quite willing to accept that. The word of a man is not to be valued simply on the basis of the millions he possesses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, but by the business
ability he displays.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: A $2,000 a year man does
not make a railway man.


Ernest Lapointe: A $2,000 a year man is
often better than a $10,000 a year man.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If there is to be a discussion of how much men get per year, I am not taking any part in it. My point is that the Canadian Pacific Railway bring men from the highest positions in the financial and commercial world to the assistance of their president, and that the-


Ernest Lapointe: That is Tory doctrine- millions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Fudge.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, we Oome, then,
pretty nearly :to the parting of the ways.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.
Supply-R ailways-C .N .R.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Personally I have never
been able to have faith in the wisdom of public ownership and public administration of a railway system, and I have not got it now. The very existence of such circumstances as we are discussing to-night is enough, I think, to revolt the strongest advocate of public ownership from the doctrine that he has been prone to profess. When I am told that it is within the four corners of the act that the president of the railway may make a bargain behind the back of the government and of the people of Canada, then I say that a system which, [DOT]even though it may be technically lawful, permits a total disregard of the opinion of the people themselves and of the government of 'Canada $s not a system that in the end will produce beneficial results. You may for r time under exceptional men and in exceptional circumstances- get some benefit, but you will not in the long run. I will be asked, perhaps, what stand my party is taking in this matter.


Mr. DUFF:: That is important.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: 
Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Baxter) lead me to think that it might be advisable to get a farmer on that railway board so that things might be properly managed. I have listened very patiently to-night to a great deal of eloquence to see if we could .get some information in connection with this veiy mysterious deal that has taken place over in Paris. I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman, that something has got out a little too early and that that is all there is to it. I do not think the trouble with the minister is lack of knowledge; no doubt he has information that perhaps it may not be exactly to the public interest to disclose. It is rather unfortunate that such a thing should happen; perhaps it would have been better had this discussion not taken place before completion of the transaction and the laying of the information on the Table of the House so that we should know all about it.
I do not like some of the criticisms that have been levelled at Sir Henry Thornton. He has undertaken a great work, and I think perhaps it would help him to feel that he has the confidence of the public. There is something in human nature that makes a man generally try to live up to his reputation, [DOT] and the very fact that we expect him to do well, that he knows we place our confidence in him will be an incentive to him to. go on and make a success of the Canadian National railway. I believe it is going to be a success.
I make a guess that next year if we have reasonable crops in the West we will have four or five times the surplus over operating expenses that we had this year. I am not a prophet nor perhaps a great business expert, but I have that faith in the management and the way things are shaping at the present time.
In connection with the renting of what we may call expensive buildings in some of the principal cities where traffic might originate,

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
although I am in favour of economy I believe that a great institution like the Canadian National railway cannot afford to have a shabby place in any of these great centres.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Toronto?


Robert Forke: Take the city of Toronto. Would you like to see the Canadian National Railways, office there located on some back street, or on the back street in any other great city? I would be even more ambitious than that yet.
There is another question that looms up in my mind. It has been before the House, and it is perhaps looking a little too far ahead, but this is perhaps a good time to mention it. We have been trying to work up a trade in exporting cattle to Great Britain. I am going to express the opinion that just so long as we trust to the shipping companies to export our cattle the trade will not be a very great success, because the shipping companies are so few and they amalgamate so easily that I believe the rates will be fixed at such a point that only a few cattle will cross and perhaps the trade will be killed altogether. I think the day is not far distant when it may be necessary to take the merchant marine out into real deep water and sink them. I believe it will be possible in the not distant future for the Canadian National Railways to have a line of steamships just as the Canadian Pacific has to-day.


William Duff: Proper steamships.


Robert Forke: Proper steamships that will carry cattle. I would not say go into the business of having any big steamship line, but they could rent or build just sufficient to demonstrate to the people of this country at what rate cattle could be carried across the ocean at a profitable figure. Otherwise I do not believe the trade of shipping cattle to the Old Country will ever amount to anything. That may seem rather ambitious to suggest of an organization that has a large deficit every year, but I believe in having courage and 1 believe this is a time for courage. The only way we can make the railways pay is by making them a going concern with ocean traffic and business offices everywhere where trade could originate.
Coming back to the commencement of my remarks I would be rather sorry for the Minister of Railways were he not built exactly as he is, but I see that he is standing up fairly well under the ordeal. I know there is a suspicious look about this $2,000,000 transaction about which we can get no information, but I am inclined to think that the real trouble is that it has got on the boards a little too early and the minister cannot divulge all he knows. We will simply have to preserve our souls in patience and make up our minds that the government is going to get in great trouble when we get the facts if everything is not all right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was pleased
to hear the minister make the statement that the rents from the Yonge street building recently acquired will cover the investment. I was going to ask the minister, does he hope to carry this item to-night?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is his
idea-that the committee sit till what hour?


Ernest Lapointe: Four o'clock.


George Perry Graham: I am not trying to bulldoze the committee at all. I had hoped to get this item through to-night. I was going to take up the merchant marine, but the leader of the Opposition was going away and asked me to keep some railway item, which I intended to do, on which he could discuss the subject. This is an item of some magnitude, and I thought perhaps we could get it through to-night and reserve some other item on which there could be a general discussion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend did that he would, I think, be doing something that never has been done in this House before. This is the main item on which the great bulk of the discussions necessarily takes place. There are a great many other items that could have been brought on. We have all the items, for instance, from 116 to 122 inclusive, and then we have the items from 123 to 140 with some omissions.


George Perry Graham: Some are through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend had any vety great hopes than the item would go through to-night.


George Perry Graham: Yes I had.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can tell him it will not. We can put in the time just as well as he can.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is talking as if I had made a threat. He must be bad natured to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister
of Marine and Fisheries said four o'clock, and I did not hear any contradiction from my genial frieh'd. "
Supply-Railwa ys-C .N.R.


George Perry Graham: We are trying to make
some progress. If we are going to get through any time this summer we shall have to work a little later than we have been doing. But I am not trying to force the committee to do anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not bring on any
one of these dozen smaller items? We could have passed a string of them. There are fifteen items here more or less unimportant, but this is the $73,000,000 item.


George Perry Graham: They are all important,
but I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend cannot
quarrel with me.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from West York said that this item had never been put through before so quickly. It was put through in thirty mitutes last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Last year we were told that the government did not know anything about the business. We agreed. We were very sympathetic. We gave them no trouble at all. But now they are supposed to know something about it and we are finding out things we never knew anything about before.


George Perry Graham: I would point out that last year they were my hon. friend's own estimates, or practically his own, and he had such confidence in them that he did not wish to have any light thrown on them, and so did not ask any questions. I think we might discuss this item a little longer to see if there is any further information that my hon friends want and then we could go on with some of the other items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we are going on with anything else I think we should go on with it now. We sat last night till three o'clock.


George Perry Graham: Do not blame me for that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know. I think we should blame the government for it altogether.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Blame it
for everything.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to know whether we are going on with this item or going to take up some of the other items, or whether we are going to adjourn.


George Newcombe Gordon: There are other members to speak on this vote.
fSir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the government desire that we should go on with this vote to-night?


George Perry Graham: Go on for a little while, it is only 11.30.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not let this stand and call some other item?


George Perry Graham: I am not objecting to that, but we want to make some progress, that i.s all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think you
would make progress by taking up another item. I would like definitely to know what the government's idea is? My view is that we will make more progress by letting this item stand. The minister will find he will make more progress by letting this item stand.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a threat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it is not a threat. It is a mere statement of fact because we might get some information in the meantime from the minister. For example, the minister might wish to bring down the extract from the minutes of the meeting of the directors. We might even find out whether the matter had even gone as far as that. If I remember rightly the minister told us that he could not say that anybody knew anything about it except the president and the solicitor; he did not know that it had come before the board even. Perhaps we could find out about that. Then I had a very disquieting statement made to me to-day with reference to Toronto. Perhaps we could find out if that is true or not. That statement is to this effect: That the company were buying not only the comer of King and Yonge streets but they were also buying the Home bank and had already been committed to that purchase. I do not know whether there is a word of truth in this statement or not but I would like the minister to find out.


George Perry Graham: I can tell my hon. friend now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That there is not a word of truth in it?


George Perry Graham: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend would find it a great deal easier to make progress if this matter had been done legally and properly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the rumours?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the action taken had been legal and proper my hon. friend's position would not be nearly so difficult.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking about the situation in Toronto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am referring to the Paris matter.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend asked me a question about Toronto and said he had heard disquieting rumours about what had been done there. That statement goes on Hansard and is circulated throughout the country, and there is not one word of truth in it.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nevertheless I am still going to ask my hon. friend to look into the matter. I am going to ask him to find out whether an offer was not made to the bank directorate, and whether a bank director was not engaged in negotiations. It may be that there is nothing in the rumour; but when we find that the country can be committed to a $2,000,000 proposition without the slightest notice or warning it is just as well to find out if there is anything in it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You have got a suspicious mind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now then I assume-


Ernest Lapointe: It pays to advertise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume I may thank my hon. friend for his kind remark.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a splendid advertisement. I do not know that I can improve the model my hon. friend has set up.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, you are better at that yourself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be a task entirely beyond me. Nevertheless I thank my hon. friend for his admonition. Now, Mr. Chairman, I suppose we can take it for granted that the minister is not going to tell us anything more about the Paris purchase. Can he tell us, though, whether the deed has yet been taken for that property, whether the two millions has yet been paid to the original owner?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure about that.
I am informed it has been done through the London office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So the money is gone and we have the property.


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says no. We cannot eat our cake and have it. If the money has been paid it must be gone.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You do not want the company to have any property in Paris?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell me from whom the property was purchased?


Ernest Lapointe: From the owners.


George Perry Graham: I suppose it would be the company. I do not know the name of the company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You could not tell us as to that? Is that the whole price? Was everything paid in cash?


George Perry Graham: A little under $2,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was it all paid in cash? I see. So there is no balance left at all. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will not tell us anything about it I shall not tell him what attitude we will take in connection with it. I want full particulars of item (a) "Operating deficits whenever incurred or ascertained." What is the amount put in under that item?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has a perfect right to this information. I do not like his threats, though.
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are no threats.	.


George Perry Graham: There were absolute
threats, but we cannot do business in that way. You cannot make any headway and we cannot do any business.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I offered to take some other item.


George Perry Graham: You did not give me a chance to accept, you kept on talking instead of sitting down. The operating deficit for the Canadian Government Railways themselves-I think we are providing liberally for these but we have to make provision for all eventualities-is $3,000,000; for the Canadian Northern, $2,500,000; for the Grand Trunk Railway nothing; for the Grand Trunk Pacific $4,500,000, totalling $10,000,000.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Before we leave this vote there is a condition to which I would like to draw attention in connection with the St. John and Quebec railway which the Dominion government is operating at the present time. As you possibly know we had floods in New Brunswick this spring. In April a bridge was washed away on the St. John and Quebec railway just above Woodstock. There were several washouts on the Canadian Pacific railway which runs up through nearly the same territory, at the same time. The Canadian Pacific Railway Com-pan}', however, were able to restore their service within a week anyway. The Canadian National railway bridge is still down. I understand there was a lapse of thirty days from the time the bridge went out before operations were begun to replace it. The latest information I have is that they expect it will be the first of July before' they will have that road in operation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is the bridge to which you refer?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: 
George Perry Graham: I will bring the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the management to-morrow.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps the minister can give me an answer now in reference to the train shed at St. John. Does he know whether the president or board of directors or somebody has arranged for the building of a new station there?


George Perry Graham: No, it is not provided for in this estimate, I am afraid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any provision for renewing the bridge at Fredericton? The minister may not know, but that bridge was built in 1887 by the late Senator Temple, and it is now considered too light for the class of locomotives that have to go over it, with the result that all the trains passing over that now have to be hauled by small engines. Large engines cannot go over the bridge across the river. The matter has been under consideration, and we have been waiting for more than three years. Could the minister Bay whether a new bridge is contemplated there?


George Perry Graham: There is no provision in the estimates for that.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister does not want us to continue with this general item, I will not press it now. I can ask the question again.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is a general item, 139 under which all those items may be discussed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will that new station be dealt with in Lhe Supplementary Estimates,
Supply-Railways and Canals

or has the railway board decided that during the coming year nothing will be done? Will it be built out of revenue or will anything be done?


George Perry Graham: No doubt in the world the board recognizes the urgency or necessity, but in regard to much of this work we have to make selections, and I am told that they are going to impose on the people of St. John for another year. They have not put anything in the estimates for that station.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does the minister realize what it means, not only to the people of St. John, who, of course, use the railway station to some extent, or rather who suffer for the want of a railway station, but to the whole passenger traffic coming from St. John? It means people have to get on or off the train in what was a train-shed, but what is now simply out of doors, in all kinds of weather. Such a condition does not exist in any city or town, I think, of one-quarter the size of St. John throughout the Dominion of Canada, and it is even more disgraceful than the filthy station that people have to put up with in the city of Toronto, when there is a good station alongside; and I must say I do not know why it is not being used.
Item stands.
To provide for the purchase of branch lines-
Moncton and Buctouche Railway-
Revote	 $70,000
Interest estimated, from date of taking possession to March 31, 1924, not exceeding (including Revote-$21,125)..	..	23,625


George Perry Graham: This is an old item that has been voted year after year. The railways have not been able to get title to the property.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to tell the minister that if the company will get down to brass tacks and pay their liabilities they will get the title to the right-of-way. Under the provincial legislation they do not own the right-of-way. This railway company never had title to the right-of-way, by deed or grant of any kind. Enabling legislation was passed by the provincial government providing that on certain proof being submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a vesting order should be passed. This road is head over heels in debt to legitimate creditors, but it has absolutely refused to make any effort to pay them, with the result that the provincial government of New Brunswick, very properly, and at the instance of residents of the province to whom the company is indebted, has refused to make this vesting order. The minister will never

get title to the right-of-way until he obtains that vesting order, and that order will not be got until he brings pressure to bear upon the management of the Moncton and Buctouche railway to pay their creditors. I can frankly say that I am interested in one of these claims for an estate which has been waiting patiently for a long time to get the money that is due it. We do not seem to be able to make any progress in the matter, and I would ask the minister, as in days gone by I have asked the deputy minister, to interest himself and to tell these people to clean up their liabilities so that these claimants may be able to get their money. There will be very little coming to the owners of the road and the matter should be attended to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To pay claim of Fortin & Moffatt (National Transcontinental Railway), $5,390.
George Perry Graham: This is an old claim. Settlement was agreed to by the late Mr. Cochrane, but at that time the men would not take the amount offered. They have visited me once or twice and I have informed them that I am prepared to give them this amount in settlement of the claim of $29,000. If they do not accept this in full they will get nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Anne's lock: highway bridge at Isle Perrot, $100,000.
George Perry Graham: This is a grant for a
bridge, part of which has been paid.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to say
much, but is this bridge more important than some cover for the people who are using trains in the city of St. John?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is the bridge?


George Perry Graham: At Isle Perrot.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is that?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend behind
me (Mr. Lavigueur) can inform the hon. gentleman. This is for the construction of a bridge between the island and the mainland. The federal government has made a contribution, part of which has been paid.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Before the item is
carried I want to make one or two observations. I see that the government is subscribing $400,000 for the construction of a bridge at Isle Perrot. I may point out that a bridge is projected on the island of Orleans, Quebec, and we shall look to the government for a contribution to that undertaking. I think the provincial government of Quebec

Supply-Canals
is well disposed to build a bridge which will cost probably about $800,000, or, say, a million, to provide communication with the mainland for a population of six very important agricultural parishes on the island of Orleans. I have no objection to this item being passed, but I wish to have it understood now that at the next session of parliament I shall call upon the government for a subscription towards the construction of that bridge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to the item, but I want to know on what principle the government could contribute to a bridge wholly within the province of Quebec. If they adopted that principle I am sure they would be invited to contribute to many other similar undertakings. I am plead-
12 m. ing at present with the Minister of Public Works for a contribution towards an international bridge which is of great importance to the country from the standpoint of international obligations. Only a modest sum of $17,500 is involved, and I hope to see provision for it in the Estimates, so that our friends in the state of Maine will not be able to regard us as pikers. This particular bridge, I understand, is wholly within the province of Quebec.


Mr. VIEN:: Which one?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This one.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand that the hon. member is referring to the bridge between Vaudreuil and Isle Perrot? So far as I know, this is being built by subsidy from the provincial government and by federal subscription. Is the bridge which the hon. gentleman refers to a construction under the highways grant?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, this is a special vote.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will allow me I will inform him. The federal
government is assisting to build the bridge over its own canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence ship canal-surveys and investigations, $50,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is being done there?


George Perry Graham: This work has been carried on continuously. The time will come when the data from these surveys will be essential. The work is done without any great blare of trumpets, but thoroughly, nevertheless.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-Port Nelson terminals, $40,000.
George Perry Graham: This is for the care of the terminals already constructed.


Mr. KNOX:: Will provision be made to meet the undertaking given to the House some time ago in regard to bringing the line into a proper state of repair? Will that be provided for?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before Christmas?


George Perry Graham: The minister cannot make . any provision. He can make suggestions to his colleagues who can submit recommendations to parliament. I had in mind asking for an appropriation for that purpose.


Mr. SALES:: Are we to understand that the minister has made up his mind to ask his colleagues for that appropriation? May we have his assurance to that effect?


George Perry Graham: As a member of the
government I do not like to make definite pledges, but I will do like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I will ask my hon. friend to "wait and see." I think he will not be disappointed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal improvements, $255,000.
Andrew Knox: What returns are we receiving from this canal?


George Perry Graham: I would not suggest that we get any straight returns. The only return is in the development of one of the most beautiful sections of Ontario. If my hon. friend ever wants to take a trip for his health I would recommend him to go along the Trent Valley canal which will take him through a very beautiful country and he will find hospitality, all along the route.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it is of no practical utility.


George Perry Graham: I would not say so. I think a tourist traffic can be developed there as well as a traffic for light draft freight boats We do get a return in the shape of rent for power development.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that this is merely maintenance work.


George Perry Graham: Yes, dams and that sort of thing.


Andrew Knox: We have been voting very large sums of money annually for this canal, and I was wondering if there was any traffic to warrant the building of the locks and the continuance of this heavy expenditure.

Supply-Railways


George Perry Graham: We are living in hopes that; there will be greater traffic. But if we do not maintain the works great flood damage will result.


William Alves Boys: Is the Atherley bridge appropriation in this item?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Is there any chance to get the minister to do what the deputation, representatives I think of all parties in this House, impressed upon him, namely, to take over this bridge, the counties concerned contributing $15,000 each. With the $25,000 contribution from the government there is only another $2,000 or $3,000 required to meet the total cost of the bridge, $58,000. Cannot the minister see his way clear to go this little extra distance? This bridge is over the canal system, and I think the request is reasonable. Many other bridges on the canal have been taken over. There is no politics in this proposal, and it is an absolutely fair one. As a last effort I would suggest that the minister make up the extra $2,000 or $3,000. Even if the counties were called upon to make a little more generous contribution I think they might be inclined to do so if the minister will take the bridge over.


George Perry Graham: I have discussed it with my officials, and I am advised that the taking over of the bridges along the Trent canal is becoming such a problem that I hesitate to go as far as I am requested in regard to this bridge. However, I will discuss it again with the officials. The time will probably come when we will take over most of the bridges, but I should not like to hold out too much hope at the present time.


William Alves Boys: I thought the minister might go the extra distance. I think it has been done in other cases.


George Perry Graham: We will look into the matter.


William Alves Boys: The bridge should be constructed without delay, and if the department is going to take in hand the construction under departmental specifications, it might as well take the bridge over. On the other hand, if the department is only going to make a contribution, that is a different proposition, and the difficulty is if it is to be further looked into the construction of the bridge will be held up for another year. If I thought for one minute the minister would seriously look into it further I would be glad to get the members from the other ridings together-they represent all parties in this House-and have them spend a few minutes with him. I feel the claim is so

absolutely righteous and fair that it ought to be allowed, and I so addressed myself to the minister when we saw him. Indeed, I thought we had impressed him and that he would accede to our request.


George Perry Graham: I almost yielded.


William Alves Boys: I think you did at the time, and it was the suavity the minister is so famous for which accounted for the absence of further discussion. If the minister will reconsider it I would ask him to let this item stand.


George Perry Graham: You had better let it go through, otherwise there will be no appropriation.


William Alves Boys: Then there is still hope?


George Perry Graham: We will look further into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and Inspections, Railways: including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $55,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are there any surveys for new branch lines?


George Perry Graham: This is rather departmental. We have a lot of that special work and send men out to do it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is there any large survey in contemplation for branch lines anywhere?


George Perry Graham: If there be any surveys they will be rather under a vote for that special purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 8, 1923