1923-06-28

[Stage Direction]
Hon. h. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I desire to present the third report of the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 15 to readjust the representation of the House of Commons. The report is as follows: Wednesday, June 27, 1923.
The special committee, to whom was referred the Bill No. It, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, beg leave to present the following as their third report:
Your committee held several meetings since its appointment on the 22nd of February last. The preparation of the schedules to be annexed to the said Bill was entrusted to sub-committees. The greater number of such sub-committees accomplished considerable work and have, from time to time, reported progress to your committee. It has been found, however, that differences of opinion exist, and your committee have decided that it would be unable to complete the schedules before prorogation.
They therefore have agreed to report back the Bill without amendment, and recommend that a similar committee be appointed at an early period at the next session of Parliament to consider such Bill.
Your committee also recommend that the letters, maps secured from the Department of the Interior and papers produced in the course of its proceedings remain in the possession of the clerk of the committee until the next session of Parliament, and that the same be produced by him at the first regular meeting of the newly-appointed committee.
Your committee also submit herewith a copy of the printed proceedings and evidence taken before them for the information of the House.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
.	Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANCOIS J. PELLETIER (Ma-tane): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauv-reau) I move, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Bellechasse), that the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Printing of the Senate and House of Commons be concurred in. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated; by an asterisk).
HALIFAX OCEAN TERMINALS *Mr. MacLAREN:
1.	What is the policy of the Government with-respect to capital requirements to complete the landing sheds and passenger station at the Halifax Oceaa Terminals?
[Stage Direction]
Questions
2.	Have any arrangements been made for steamship sailings of the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine between Canadian and American ports, and British and European ports for the season of 1924?
3.	Has the National Railway management given the Government any assurance that unrouted shipments will be transported only through Canadian ports? If so, in what form has the assurance been given ?
['If the right hon. gentleman did not say that it is the substance of his argument. That is a departure from the practice of parliament. We do not set forth every obligation. There are many cases-I have already given illustrations, I can furnish many more-where appropriations are made by special act and are not set forth in the estimates. It makes no earthly difference whether they are voted in the estimates or are authorized by special act; the essence of the whole thing is that these obligations cannot be assumed without the vote of the House; and whether you have it on this page or that page, in this blue book or that blue book, what earthly difference does it make to the people of Canada? The obligations are assumed on parliamentary authority and are set forth and shown in the public accounts. There have been cases again and again-there always have been under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, there were such cases under our administration, and there will be in the future-when it is deemed right and\nPost Office Act', 'proper to provide for special appropriations in acts of parliament. You may lay down the rule that in every case the amount must be shown in the Estimates but I say it is a matter of no earthly importance to the parliament or the people of Canada so long as the rule is recognized of parliamentary control, and that no appropriation can be made unless it is made by this House. That is the essence of the whole thing. That is the principle for which we stand.\nAmendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived: Yeas 37, Nays 67.']
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Paragraph 3 of
question 3 was answered verbally yesterday.
I am trying to get the other information and hope to have it to-day, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The last paragraph of question 3 is dropped?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: There is nothing to be gained by dropping it. Yesterday's answer had better appear with the answers to the other two paragraphs when they come.


George Perry Graham: I am not particular. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL


['I am not particular. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL']
George Perry Graham: I hope to have the answer to the first part to-day, but I do not think there is any possible chance of getting the information as to how the expenditure was distributed amongst the various units.


Arthur Meighen: The answer to the first part is most important.


George Perry Graham: I think I have that.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



[Stage Direction]
MR. HANSON:
1.	Has Charles Ed. Blondin been dismissed as Postmaster at Pierreville, Quebec? If so. when and why?
2.	Is the Government aware that the said C. E. Blondin is a returned soldier who served in the 22nd Battalion and was wounded in the battle of Amiens resulting in the loss of an arm?
3.	Who has been appointed in the place of the said C. E. Blondin, or if no appointment has been made, who has been placed by the department in the position ?
4.	Is the person so placed related to one of the members of Parliament supporting the Government? If so, what is the relationship?
Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No. Mrs. Boucher was dispossessed of the office on April 20, 1921, without investigation and without any order in council
being passed for that purpose. Mr. Charles Edward Blondin was nominated by the Civil Service Commission for the postmastership of Pierreville on October 8, 1921, but the Department of Justice expressed an opinion on March 2, 1922, that the power of the Postmaster General to remove any postmaster without authority of the Governor-in-Council, had by implication been repealed by the provisions of section 28, sub-section 1 of the Civil Service Act, 1918. Consequently, no vacancy actually existed and the appointment of Mr. Blondin was invalid.
The facts are the following:-
On April 19, 1921, during a by-election in Yamaska County, in which Pierreville is situated, the following instructions were issued by the Honourable P. E. Blondin, Postmaster General:	" Discharge Madame
Boucher, postmistress at Pierreville on the ground that she has permitted strangers to handle the mail on its arrival in the post office on the 11th April and on other dates, contrary to the regulations, and appoint pro tem J. Simeon Letendre".
The stranger referred to was the son of the postmistress, who helped her on occasions to sort the mails, as he had been sworn in for that purpose. The date referred to in the Postmaster General's instructions on which the postmistress permitted a stranger to handle the mails in the post office, namely, April 11, 1921, was two days before the date on which the writ was issued for the by-election in Yamaska County, and for which election Mr. Aime Boucher, the son, was a candidate. There is no evidence that Mr. Aime Boucher helped his mother in the Yamaska post office on or after the date on which the writ was issued for the Yamaska election.
On receipt of the instructions from the Honourable Mr. Blondin, Postmaster General, Madame Boucher was removed from office on April 20, 1921, without any investigation being held, and without any order in Council being passed for that purpose.
Early in 1922, the question was raised as to the validity of this dismissal, and on the case being submitted to the Justice department, the ruling mentioned in answer No. 1, was given, on March 2, 1922. Upon receipt of this ruling, Mrs. Boucher was re-instated in office on March, 7, 1922.
2. The department is aware that Mr. Blondin was a returned soldier and a disability case.
3.	See No. 1.
4. Mrs. Boucher is the mother of Aime Boucher M.P. for Yamaska.
Questions


WILLIAM MANSFIELD
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Was th'>re a man in the employ of the Department of Public Works previous to 1914 named William
Mansfield ?
2.	When did he enter the service?
3.	When was he dismissed from the service?
4.	What position did he occupy before he was dismissed ?
5.	What were the reasons given for said dismissal? C. By whom were these reasons given?
7.	Was it claimed that he had dispersed patronage in the shape of work, to a Liberal?
8.	In what town was said work being done?
9.	What was the precise stand taken by J. A. Armstrong, ex-M.P., for Lamb ton, in connection with the said dismissal ?
10.	What was the attitude taken in reference to said dismissal by the superior officer of the said William Mansfield ?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou)(for the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	January, 1S90.
3.	September 11, 1914.
4.	Inspector of heating and plumbing.
5 and 6. The departmental records do not state.
7, 8 and 9. In a report on file from the resident architect, Toronto, dated Sept. 4, 1914, it is stated: "What Mr. Armstrong, M.P. objects to is the bringing of a plumber from Sarnia which town is not in his constituency when there are plumbing firms in Petrolia competent to do the work."
10. There is on file a letter of September 15, 1914, from the late Mr. D. Ewart then chief architect, covering a communication from Mr. Mansfield, dated September 11, 1914. These two letters read as follows:- " Re the dismissal of Mr. Wm. Mansfield, Inspector of Heating, etc., Dominion Public Buildings.
Having further reference to the above, I attach hereto a letter I have received from Mr. Mansfield, the enclosure speaks for itself.
I may state here that personally I have no knowledge whatever with regard to any occurrence in connection with the awarding of the work at the Petrolia public building. The instructions of Mr. Mansfield were, in this case, as usual, to consult local party in charge of patronage and to have the work required carried out."
" I am very much surprised to receive your letter of even date, dismissing me from the service of your department, seeing that I am not aware of any particular reason for this.
" I understand there has been some misunderstanding in connection with repairs to the heating apparatus in the public building

at Petrolia and if this be the case I may state that I can readily explain what action I took with regard to that work, and show that whatever I did was in accordance with instructions received from the department and from the Liberal Conservative Patronage Committee of Petrolia, Ont."


PATRICK DESCHENEAUX
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has Patrick Descheneaux been dismissed as lighthouse keeper on St. Francis River? If so, when and why?
2.	Is the Government aware that the said Patrick Descheneaux is a returned soldier who served with the 21st Quebec Regiment?
3.	Who has been appointed in the place of the said Patrick Descheneaux ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes. He was dismissed by order in council of the 21st May, 1923, on the ground of political partisanship.
2.	The department is not aware that he is a returned soldier. He was appointed by order in council April 10, 1912 to succeed Philias Desmarais, dismissed for political partisanship. There is no record in the department that he has been away from his work on military service.
3.	A permanent appointment has not been made, but the matter is under the consideration of the Civil Service Commission. In the meantime, one Barthelemi Gladu is temporary keeper.


OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I wish to call the attention of the House and of the government to the continued failure to fill the office of Auditor General of this country. The House realizes-certainly the country does- the supreme importance of this office. The late Auditor General died on the 8th January this year, close to six months ago. Previous to that it is worth observing, he had been ill, and consequently absent from his office since April 1, 1922, or very shortly after this government came into power. His absence from office, of course, I do not mention as attributable at all to the government or as due to any misconduct on their part, but it emphasizes the need of an earlier appointment after his decease. Six months have gone by, or nearly, and in the meantime, as has been very amply disclosed in parliament, moneys are being paid illegally. No supervision is being exercised, and the country's finances are virtually at the mercy of an unmanned auditor general's depart-

Pulp Export
ment. I would like to know what defence the government makes for this failure.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: In the first place, the statement of the right hon. gentleman that moneys are being paid illegally is without foundation.
I am satisfied that no moneys have been paid by the Auditor General's department except upon proper legal advice.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will give us a fiat we will show him whether it has been paid illegally or not.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend asks for a fiat; I do not know what he means. But I do know that the business of the Auditor General's office has been going on-shall I say-fairly satisfactorily. The Acting Auditor General is an old and capable official, and I will give one evidence of his activity: I remind the House that, if not for the first time, certainly for the first time in recent years, immediately after the meeting of parliament the Auditor General's report was laid on the Table. That is a compliment to pay to the Acting Auditor General. Some little time ago when this question was raised I said we were contemplating some legislation respecting the auditing of the country.' That legislation has now been carried, and at a very early day the office of Auditor General will be filled. In the meantime any suggestion that the finances of the country are going to the dogs, that money is being paid out illegally and all that sort of thing, is purely a creation of the right hon. gentleman's imagination.


Arthur Meighen: A favourite expression of the minister's. I will recall to him that I pointed out to the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) that if he would grant a fiat in one case the same would apply to at least four I know of; and as to how many I do not know of, of course I cannot speak. There is no excuse whatever for the position of Auditor General being vacant for six months and virtually vacant for a year and a half.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I wish to direct attention to the nature of returns brought down by this government. I have in my hand a return brought down in answer to an order of the House dated the 5th of March
-brought down, I may say, a great length of time afterwards. The motion asked for the correspondence in any way relating to the withdrawal of professional work from the Inland Revenue department formerly performed by Charles Blake, of Brandon. The motion asked for a number of similar series of correspondence relating to the withdrawal of work from other returned soldiers and the giving of it to party followers. In the case of Blake the return states that there is no correspondence. I am in a position to state to the government that there is correspondence and that it is of no confidential character whatever. I have since been informed as to the writer of several letters addressed to the department which were not even answered.


Mr. JACOBS:: They may have gone to the dead letter office.


Arthur Meighen: Dead government office.


William Stevens Fielding: No, the government is very much alive.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAYS
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I would like to ask the government when the return requested two weeks ago respecting the St. Lawrence waterway will be brought down. In view of the great shortage of power in Ontario will the government during the recess of parliament take up with the government of the United States the further revision, adjustment and extension of the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers for power purposes, and will negotiations be continued or reopened for the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway? When will all the papers be brought down?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think I had better say to my hon. friend that that will depend very largely on the representations made to the government of Canada by the government of the United States.


PULP EXPORT FROM FARMS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK CAHILL (Pontiac):: Is it the intention of the government to exempt from the operation of the legislation prohibiting the export of pulpwood the product of the land of settlers and farmers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been represented
to the government that the legislation passed has created a doubt in the minds of some of the farmers whether they will be pre-
Sales Tax

vented from entering into contracts for the export of wood grown on their own farms. I wish to make it clear that any action the Government may take under the legislation will provide that wood grown by farmers on their property will be exempt from the provision prohibiting export.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- PARIS OFFICES On the Orders of the Day:


Samuel William Jacobs: Can the Minister of Railways tell us whether the American syndicate has taken up the option on our property in Paris?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): In reply to my hon. friend I may say that I am not in a position to say.


ALLEGED UNREST IN WESTERN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. McMURRAY (North Winnipeg) :: The Toronto Globe of Friday, June 22, contains a despatch from Windsor, where the meeting of police chiefs was held, alleging that Superintendent Page, of our Canadian National Railways, made a statement to that association that in western Canada there was the same state of unrest from the activity of Bolshevists and other Reds as was in Europe ten years ago. This is an untrue and defamatory statement concerning the labouring people of western Canada and western Canada as a whole. I ask the Minister of Railways whether he will investigate the matter and see if Superintendent Page actually made such a statement? And if that official did make such a statement will he be dismissed from the service?


Arthur Meighen: Before the minister rises, may I ask whether the statement referred to labouring people? I did not catch that in the statement.	*


Edward James McMurray: It refers to the whole of western Canada, undoubtedly including the labouring people there.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): It is difficult to base a charge on a newspaper report that comes second or third hand. I do not know what Mr. Page did. I may say that to my mind the remark was very improper, but neither the government nor parliament has the engaging of the officials of the Canadian National Railways, outside of the directors. If that official made the statement referred to,
I will direct the attention of members of the board to it.


MOUNTED POLICE-OTTAWA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I understand that the men who patrol the public buildings at Ottawa, the members of Division A, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are working seven days in the week. As this is a matter entirely for federal jurisdiction and as indeed, in this case the government is the employer, is it not possible to ensure that these men will obtain one day's rest in seven?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The police come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who is absent at the moment. I will draw his attention to the remarks of the hon. member, and he will doubtless give it such consideration as it merits.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask how long the " moment " is that the Minister of Justice is absent for? I understood he was absent for the rest of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know why my right hon. friend asks me the question if he knows the circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: I did not like the hon. member, (Mr Woodsworth) to be given the impression that he might expect an answer later when the Minister of Justice is not to be back.


RATES ON COAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I notice in the Ottawa Journal a statement quoted from the report of the Mines and Minerals committee which says:
Your committee suggests that the rates quoted-
Referring to rates quoted by the railway officers.
-are not cost rates but much higher.
I take this as an insinuation against the railway officials who appeared before the committee, and I dissent from that report. I think it ill becomes any member of this parliament to make such insinuations against the officers of our Canadian National Railway who cannot come here to defend themselves.


SALES TAX-THE UNION JACK.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. D. DRUMMOND (West Middlesex):: I wish to put a question to the government, particularly to the Minister of Finance, with regard to a matter that has been brought to

C. N. R.-Securities
my attention from various sources, namely, the application of the sales tax to the purchase of the Union Jack. I did not know that the tax did apply in that case. I ask the Minister whether it does, and if so would the government not consider it advisable to remove the application of the sales tax from our national flag.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret that my hon. friend's zeal for the Union Jack comes up at such a late stage;
I think the matter is important enough to have been the subject of reference earlier in the session. I can give my hon. friend no assurance on the question. The law is the law and we shall have to enforce it, even if it imposes a tax on the Union Jack. I am as much an admirer of the Union Jack as my hon. friend is, but I want the Union Jack to be a symbol of the enforcement of the laws of the country.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- SECURITIES.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 244, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On Section 2-Form, term and amount of securities to be approved.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The apparent effect of the bill-I say the apparent effect, because I dare say my hon. friend will have some answer to the statement-is to change the law only in one particular, namely, as to the right to endorse securities and to pledge the credit of the country. Section 26 of the act already controls the issue of these securities. The main provision here is for government control, and the next thing we have is the guarantee. Subsection 2 of this section reads:
No securities, as defined in this section including in such definition equipment certificates or obligations in any form intended to be issued to the public, shall be issued for the purposes of or by the company or any of the companies designated in the schedule hereto except those approved as to form, terms and amount by the Governor in Council.
That is the first change made by the amendment to section 26, which already provides that the issue of bonds, debentures and securities can only be made with the approval of the Governor in Council. On that point, therefore, there is really no change in the law. The real change is to be found in subsection 3, which reads:
The said securities so approved may be guaranteed by His Majesty and any such guarantee may be in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine, and may be signed by the Minister or Acting Minister of Finance on behalf of His Majesty.
This raises in a very serious form the same question that has already been discussed in connection with the act this year providing for railway construction. It was pointed out that under that act the government could make its advances and give its guarantees without including the amount in the estimates and without further authority from parliament. It can be said at least that that act defined the railways to some extent; it afforded a starting point and an ending point. It did not say how the lines were to go, it is true, but apart from that the provision had some definiteness. But here we have a blank cheque given to the government by parliament. Otherwise, why is the change made? Securities were guaranteed before without any trouble, on the authority of parliament given by enactment each year. If this is not a blank cheque, what is it for? If there is one way in which the project of the Canadian National Railways can be ruined it is by causing the people to lose confidence in it through their amazement at the things that are being done. I say that previously we had no difficulty on any question of new commitments, whether of security or of cash. These were new ventures; these were things that ought to be, we thought, considered by parliament. We ought to have some control over the capital issues and the capital activities. We were opposed, not on that score but on the ground that we would not give any details as to the management in such a way as to injure the operations of the companies. To-day the government not only take the stand which they formerly condemned, that is in favour of independence of management, they not only want independence of management, but they want the country's credit absolutely removed from the control of parliament. If there ever was a time when this proposition should be looked into closely and strictly that time is now. My hon. friends opposite say they have taken the National system out of politics. Why, they have thrown it into politics. I should like to know any better way of making this a political matter than appointing a purely political board. That is what we have. Keep it out of politics! Why, it is in politics now. Does anyone suggest that the Premier could give Mr. Sinclair any hints in the game of practical politics, as applied in connection with the operation of the line down in Nova Scotia? Does he think he could teach Mr. Dawson,

C. N. R.-Securities
manager of Reform campaigns in British Columbia, anything about practical politics in that province? Again, does he think he could teach Mr. Gough anything about practical politics in Ontario? Why, the only claims of these gentlemen to appointment were that they were good political hacks. Ihat is all, and nothing else. Now we are to have a combination with this political railway board under which the government will have the right to pledge the -credit of the country to any securities that the government's political friends may see fit to put forward and the government may see fit to approve of. If it is not for the purpose of getting this large over-holding right why have this legislation? No difficulty has been experienced in the past. What is the reason for the legislation to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: If jt were not for the fact that my hon. friend is usually in a very genial frame of mind I would be tempted to apply to him that quotation with which we are all familiar, "Suspicion haunts the guilty mind." My hon. friend has read into this bill things which are not there, and which can only be carried into it by an extraordinary Right of the imagination. I am not going to discuss the political question at all. This is a business proposition, and I am going to confine my remarks entirely to the bill. My hon. friend has been wandering away from the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not very far.


William Stevens Fielding: He wants to know
whether Mr. A., Mr. B., or Mr. C. js a worthy man for the position. He has no right to reflect upon the character of these men. Those of them I know personally are high-minded gentlemen. He mentioned in particular Mr. Sinclair. There is no more honourable man in the Dominion of Canada than Mr. Sinclair, and the suggestion that he will not faithfully and honourably discharge his duty as a commissioner for the National railways is entirely unwarranted. I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will see-and the same remark applies to the other commissioners-that what he has said is not justified. Now this bill-and it is only with the bill that I am concerned-says that no securities shall be issued by the National Railway Company or the subsidiaries connected with it except by the consent of the Governor General in Council. The hon. gentleman says that is already provided for. Possibly it is. In that case the worst that can be said of this legislation, as I remarked the other day. is that it is surplusage. If, however, the 
power is required at any time it is there. Will my hon. friend tell me what harm can come by stating definitely that under no conditions shall that board issue securities without coming to the government? What is wrong with such a provision as that? My hon. friend says the power is not needed. Whether we have it or not is debatable-I am not sure that we do have that power already,-but in any event what harm will be done by this legislation? That is the first purpose of the bill. Can anybody object to it? Surely not for a moment. I do not know on what ground the hon. gentleman bases hio argument. How in the world can he connect this bill with some of the things he is talking about I fail to discover.
The next purpose of the bill is that the government may issue guarantees. This measure does not give the government power to do anything except to guarantee securities that can be legally issued. Now, if the Canadian National Railway Company has any power, given by this parliament, to issue a security it is better that that security should have the approval of the government and <hus sell at a good price. That is the whole story. This bill does not give the government power to guarantee any issue that is not already authorized by parliament. I do not expect the power is going to be used to any extent at all. My hon. friend is imagining difficulties. I think it was the leader of the Opposition who said that the old borrowing powers had been extinguished. Well,
I am advised that even that is a debatable matter. I am advised that some of these outstanding companies, subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railways, are still distinct entities and have powers and rights of their own. We certainly do not intend that these companies shall issue any bonds. There will be no guarantee given on any bond issue that is not authorized by this parliament. What greater assurance could my hon. friend ask? Now, they say this legislation is not necessary-


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
gentleman mean by the expression " authorized by parliament?" Suppose this bill passes, what will the company have to do to get a bond issue authorized by parliament?


William Stevens Fielding: If they have no legal authority to issue a bond, if they are not authorized by this parliament to do so, there will be no bond issue.


Arthur Meighen: But they have it now.

C. N. R.-Securities


William Stevens Fielding: Does my right hon.
friend say they have not the power now? If so that ends it. If they have no legal right to issue bonds there will be no guarantee.


Arthur Meighen: Assuming they have the right what will they have to do, after this bill passes, to get an unlimited bond issue?


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is now reversing his own argument. Only a moment ago he was claiming that this power did not exist.


Arthur Meighen: Let my hon. friend take it any way he likes.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend can have it either way, but not both ways. He has already stated that in the case of these companies the borrowing powers are extinguished. If so there can be no bond issue. How does my right hon. friend get away from that argument. I have already given my hon. friends an assurance in that respect. What more do they want? My right hon. friend thinks there is no need of this power at all. I will give him an illustration showing to the contrary. To-day there is a requirement of the Canadian National Railway for $15,000,000 on equipment bonds. I am advised that there is no authority under the law to guarantee these bonds. It is the only security that I contemplate will be guaranteed. I am told there is no authority under the existing law for the Governor in Council to guarantee these bonds' and if they are to be issued, and they must be issued lawfully, it is better that they should bear the guarantee of the government of Canada and command a good price on the market than that they should have to be sold at a sacrifice. That is the whole story; there is nothing else behind it in the world. The suggestion of my hon. friends that this is a scheme devised for new guarantees for new and unauthorized securities is without any foundation whatever. That I can assure my hon. friends in all sincerity and good faith.


Arthur Meighen: I doubt

and, I confess
it, with some feeling of despair-whether I can succeed in convincing the minister, but I should like to convince the House. I am not certain that I can do that but I am going to do the best I can. Of the state of the law I do not think there is any doubt, but it does not matter a particle whether there is or not, so far as the merits of this legislation go. It is not always an easy matter to make a legal proposition clear. Fortunately, in this case it does not matter which end of the dilemma the hon. gentleman takes, not in the least.
He says, first of all, that he wants to secure government control of bond issues of the Canadian National Railway Company, and I as'k the House to remember there is only one such company which was created by the statutes of 1919, chapter 13. That company has included in its system other companies. Those companies had their own charters from parliament and their own powers, the parent company gets no power from those. That is my opinion. I do not care whether it is accepted or not, its acceptance or otherwise does not matter in the least. We are dealing in this bill with the parent company and no other, hon. members only need to read the bill to see that. The bill deals with the parent company and only the parent company. I say the parent company never had power to issue a dollar of security without the approval of the Governor in Council, and never issued a dollar, and how in the world the most elementary first-form student in the government can think of anything else I do not know. I do not think any of them do think anything else, and I will say what I really think in a minute. Section 26 which starts this way-
The company-
The company is defined in the act. Nobody suggests that the company means anything except the Canadian National Railway Company.
The company may with the approval of the Governor in Council issue bonds.
How can anything be more specific? It is just the language that is used here. This says that no security can be issued unless the form, and so on, are approved by the Governor-in-Council It may be asked, why is this put in? It is just put in as a smoke screen to get the second section through no other reason at all. There is no more reason for that first clause than there is for the hon. minister to take an excerpt from a novel and put it there. It is merely as something to introduce the second section. The government thought it would look just a little too naked, and the object would be a little too clear if the second section appeared there alone. Let us come to the second section. The second section says that once they get the approval of the Governor-in-Council, which they always had to get, the government might guarantee the bonds. I have never objected to the government having power to guarantee the bonds. I do not object to it. I do not think there is the slightest need of it. The government has the power to-day to guarantee the bonds. If anybody has any doubt about it, I will accept his doubt and assume they have not the power. Does the minister
C. N. R.-Securities

not know we have to guarantee them over and over again? Why did he not tell the House last session of the brilliant sale he made in New York of government guaranteed bonds? Does he imagine the counsel for the purchasers did not examine the authority of the guarantee, to be sure it was legal? Why, of course they did, and there has never been a question raised that I have heard that they had the power to guarantee. But let me assume they have not the power, that somebody in the Justice department or in the Railway department has told them there may be a little doubt about having the power to guarantee. I will assume he is right. Here is what they are doing. They are taking the power to do it, without including the amount of the guarantee in the estimates, something which they never did before. That is the whole effect of the legislation. Just add to it that they have to place the amount of the guarantee in the estimates, and the government will reject the bill, and that is what they do not want to do. Why should this be? The minister did not mention it. Why does he not want that? Why did he not put it in the estimates? I do not see the object unless he wants to make the estimates appear low to the country and take carte blanche himself to give any guarantees he likes. The minister thinks it will be more advantageous to himself, his government or his party. I do not know why. The minister says we are very suspicious. Well, what is an opposition for?


William Stevens Fielding: To be reasonable.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, to be reasonable. I will take the reason from the mouth of the minister himself. He called attention to the absence of this in a bill four years ago. I am not sure that he himself did it, but I am pretty sure that he did. I know the Prime Minister did. I know we acceded to it.


William Stevens Fielding: What restrictions will the hon. member put in?


Arthur Meighen: That the amount of the guarantee shall be put in and voted by parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: I will deal with that in a minute.


Arthur Meighen: It is a wonder the minister did not mention it. I am prepared to let it go through, if that restriction is applied.
J hat is all I am fighting for. Why should the minister not accept it?


William Stevens Fielding: Go on and finish and I will answer.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might tell me now.


William Stevens Fielding: We are getting back to
the old trouble. I am asked, why should we not put the guarantee in the estimates? Because it has never been the practice of parliament to put guarantees in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: In the annual vote that we make there is a provision including guarantees within the limitation of that vote; but the general powers to guarantee the bonds of the company are not usually expressed; and in the estimates there is no departure from the custom. The only exception you will find is in the regular vote for the railways, where the sum is voted, and you may apply that vote by cash or guarantee Or any other way. But the statement that the guarantees of the Canadian Northern have always been voted in the estimates is absolutely at variance with the facts.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is simply
wrong.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not wrong. My
hon. friend will find that every act to guarantee the bond of a railway company has been an act in itself, and not shown in the estimates'. And that is reason and common sense. What are the purposes of the bill? The hon. member says we have the power already to prevent the issue of bonds, without the consent of the Governor in Council. That may be debatable. I am advised there is a doubt about that. But assuming there is no doubt about it, will the hon. member tell me what harm is done when we make assurance doubly sure by making it clear this railway company shall not issue any securities without the knowledge and approval of the Governor in Council. What is wrong with that? Nothing. We come to the guarantee. We can only guarantee bonds which are lawfully issued, and if any bond is to be lawfully issued by the Canadian National railway, that is the bond of the government of Canada. If it is issued simply as the bond of the Canadian National Railway, it has only a diminished value. Since we are going to be responsible for it, why should we not make it in a form and condition which will enable us to- sell it at the best price? That is the whole story.
I will cite a case in point. My hon. friend says we have all the power. We have not. I am advised that with regard to the Canadian National equipment which the commission require, we have not the power to supply it

C. N. R.-Securities
without this bill. Without this bill the bonds would be sold in the market without the guarantee.


Arthur Meighen: To a lot of what the
minister has said, no reply is necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I do not care whether
he is right or wrong; that is as to having the power to guarantee the equipment bonds. If he is right it serves my purpose just as well. If he is wrong, if he feels he needs additional power, I do not object to give it to him at all. But when he says this is what has always been done -unlimited of guarantee-


William Stevens Fielding: Not unlimited power.


Arthur Meighen: Where is the limit?


William Stevens Fielding: They can only guarantee the bonds where lawfully issued and the onus will be on the party issuing them.


Arthur Meighen: If they should issue
bonds for 85,000,000, have they not the power to issue them?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Meighen: Where is the restraint?


William Stevens Fielding: They can only guarantee a bond that is lawfully issued and the proposal to issue $5,000,000 of bonds without legislative authority certainly would not come within the provisions of the act.


Arthur Meighen: Without any legislative
authority?-Have they not just as much legislative authority to issue bonds for $5,000000,000 as for $5,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the legislative authority will apply in each case. There is no power to issue for $5,000,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: There is no special authority for any bond here-none whatever- no authority for a bond for $1,000. And there is just as much authority for a bond of $5,000,000,000. They have power to issue such bonds to-day, if they have power to issue anything. Consequently there is no limit here to the power of the guarantee. The whole point is this-and I ask the House not to be confused by the introduction of any other matter- whether the amount should be in the estimates or not. The minister says it never has been in the estimates, and he says we have given railway guarantees without it. The latter statement is right, but we never gave a guarantee to the Canadian National without it, and this bill is to guarantee the Canadian National railway bonds. Certainly,
every time when we guaranteed the bonds of private companies we did not include it in the estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is changing his ground.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, and no one in this House thinks I am. What I say is this, that we have always included in the estimates, our guarantees as well as our cash advances. The minister cannot point to a dollar that was ever guaranteed the Canadian National that we failed to put right in the Estimates, so that the country knew the amount. I want to know why the minister wants that changed. What is the effect of all this? The minister, if this legislation passes, can guarantee just at his will, and the country will have no knowledge whatsoever, that is, in compact and unified form, of what the country's commitments to our National railways are. Instead of making cash advances each year to the railways and putting that in the Estimates if this legislation passes, the company can issue bonds, and the minister will guarantee them.


William Stevens Fielding: That is nonsense.


Arthur Meighen: He will do that. Why should we pass legislation to let him do nonsense whether he wants it or not? I do not attribute lack of intelligence to the minister, but he cannot suggest honestly that he should have power to do that.


William Stevens Fielding: I say that we would have no power to do it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is hopeless, if he takes a position of that sort.


William Stevens Fielding: I know he is.


Arthur Meighen: Why would he not have power? Will he tell me anything he has not power to do if this passes? And then I will suggest something a minute afterwards.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. gentleman had better make his minute-afterwards suggestion now.


Arthur Meighen: All right. I will suggest the alternative now. Supposing the company issue a $15,000,000 equipment bond and the minister guarantees that. He says that if this passes, the company will have power to do that and the minister will have power. to guarantee it.


William Stevens Fielding: Not by this legislation. The company have the power already. All we ask is the power to guarantee the bond.


Arthur Meighen: I am not bothering about that. I am not asking about that. If this legislation passes, the company will have

C. N. R.-Securities

power to issue such a bond, and the minister will have power to guarantee it.


William Stevens Fielding: The power to issue is not in this legislation; the power to guarantee is.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference? There is not a particle of difference. I am afraid the minister is trying to mislead the House.


William Stevens Fielding: That is unkind.


Arthur Meighen: I will put the matter in this way. They have the power now to issue bonds, and if this legislation passes, the government has power to guarantee them. Supposing, instead of issuing bonds to cover equipment, they issued bonds to cover the deficit for the year-suppose they have a deficit of 810,000,000, and that they issue a bond for $50,000,000 instead of $15,000,000. The bond covers equipment and deficit. Does the minister say that if this legislation passes, the company will have power to do that, and he will have power to guarantee the bond?


William Stevens Fielding: I have some difficulty in understanding what my right hon. friend is driving at. I cannot understand that we have power to guarantee anything that is not already authorized by parliament. The Canadian National Railway Act does not deal specifically with equipment bonds. This is only an illustration. Equipment bonds are not issued in the usual way; they are not covered by an ordinary guarantee, and therefore it is desirable, if we want those bonds to be sold at the best market price, that they should be put before the public in the best possible form. If this bill does not pass, what will happen? The Canadian National Railways will issue $15,000,000 worth of equipment bonds on their own credit. They are a good class of bond. If they are issued on the New York market, they will not, perhaps, benefit very much by a guarantee. If they are issued on the Canadian market, the Canadian government guarantee will be helpful. The question is: Which of the two ways should we, who have the responsibility of dealing with the matter, pursue-put the bonds on the market in such a shape that they will command the highest price, or issue them with the full knowledge that they are going to be sold at a sacrifice price?


Arthur Meighen: Why does the Minister keep saying that, instead of answering the question in the form in which he asked for it himself? I do not object to his guaranteeing the bonds. Can I repeat that too often?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Meighen: I showed, I think, to everyone who wants to understand and who approaches the matter impartially, that either as the act now is, or as it will be when amended-I do not care which-the company can issue any bonds so long as the government approves.


George Perry Graham: Could they issue a bond for a deficit?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly they could, with the approval of the government, issue a bond to pay their debts.


George Perry Graham: A great bond!


Arthur Meighen: With the approval of the government, they can issue a bond to pay their debts. That would be the least objectionable. Supposing they issued a bond for equipment to any extent whatever, say to $100,000,000, does the Minister suggest that they would not have power to do that?


George Perry Graham: It seems clear to me. My right hon. friend-


Arthur Meighen: Why cannot the Minister answer that, " yes " or " no "?


George Perry Graham: If the right hon. member does not want my answer, all right.


Arthur Meighen: Let him answer anyway he likes, but I do not understand why he cannot answer, " yes " or " no ". The Minister is trying to confuse the House over this bill.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is trying to confuse the House, but he is not making a good shot at that.


Arthur Meighen: If this bill passes, the company can issue bonds to any extent at all, and the government do not need to come to parliament and show what they are going to guarantee for a single year. All I ask is that the latter be conceded, and I give
12 noon this House warning now, that no such power has ever before been given to a government in relation to our roads and no such power should be given. It is going to tend to confuse the country and parliament as to the actual financial history of the railways. It is going to change the whole method of presenting to the country the record of our railways. That is the purpose of it. Let hon. members read page 33 of the Estimates for last year, or practically the same page of the Estimates for this year. Let them read how the Estimates read in previous years, showing that the amount every time included not only the cash advances, but the guarantees. That had to be done.


William Stevens Fielding: No.

C. N. R.-Securities


Arthur Meighen: The Minister says, " no ". It did. There is no use in telling the Minister anything.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid not.


Arthur Meighen: Let the Minister show me a dollar that was guaranteed that was not included in the Estimates. If he gets up, he will likely go back to private roads.


William Stevens Fielding: I will go back to the facts.


Arthur Meighen: Let him adhere to the Canadian National Railways and tell me of a dollar that was guaranteed or a dollar that was advanced that was not included in the Estimates and authorized in the Estimates by parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: The annual appropriation to make up what is estimated to be the possible deficit of the Canadian National Railways includes the statement that the advances to be made may be by loan, or by cash, or in any other way. It does not have reference to transactions like this at all. The right hon. gentleman got wrong first, and he has been wandering around ever since and trying to get right.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Meighen: What?


William Stevens Fielding: Go on.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what is wrong with the minister. (Reading):
(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.
Is that the annual deficit on operations?
(/) Co-ordination or consolidation on railway lines and facilities.
(f7>
Guarantees of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Everything is included, and the whole of the Estimates there includes what the government does by cash or guarantee in relation to anyone of them.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. gentleman began by getting wrong as to the relation between Estimates and railway appropriations. He began with a statement, made with a great flourish of trumpets, that previously the appropriations for these various purposes had been shown in the Estimates, and he flourished the Estimates. Then also with a modest flourish of trumpets, we pointed out that millions have been provided for railway aid without being shown in the Estimates. When he was beaten on that ground, he shifted around to the other.


Mr MEIGHEN:: The minister knows right well and this House knows, that I have discussed from the beginning the Canadian National Railways and nothing else. There has been no shifting of ground, and I will not let anyone, who does not want to be, be confused by what the minister is trying to say about my shifting ground. I have referred to that and to that alone, and from the beginning stated I had no reference to cur conduct as related to private roads.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend did not make any qualification at the beginning.


Arthur Meighen: None was needed.


William Stevens Fielding: When I stated that appropriations for railway subsidies were not shown in the Estimates, he said I was mistaken; then he revised that and said he did not know. We have on the order paper today a resolution authorizing the loan of $10000,000 to the harbour commission of Montreal. We have voted these appropriations again and again and not one is shown in the Estimates, and the hon. gentleman knows it. Therefore his contention that every appropriation is shown in the Estimates is absolutely wrong.


Arthur Meighen: I never so contended.


William Stevens Fielding: Another point. The Railway department, following the usual practice, contemplated the issue of these bonds-as they had power to do-and they did not include them in the estimates sent to us. But they had the power to issue these fifteen million dollars worth of bonds, and all we do by this bill is to say: Instead of issuing these bonds in the name of the Canadian National Railways, and selling them at a sacrifice, you shall have endorsed on them the guarantee of the government of Canada, and so sell them at a good price. That is the whole story.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minster's effort is getting plain. I have argued this on the basis of National Railway appropriations; in respect to other matters the question is not affected at all. If in the past we have had advances for harbour improvements and the like authorized by statute and not included in the Estimates, then there is going to be no confusion in making comparisons; but in relation to our railways, from this time on
C. A\ R

Securities

there will be kept out of the Estimates those things that were always in before. It is just as plain to the minister as to anybody else, but he has got to make a fight to get this through. He is determined to exclude these from the Estimates where they have always been in relation to our National Railways. If he thinks equipment is not included in supplies for railways, all right, put it in; but put it in where it has always been before, and where it ought to be in the Estimates. Let him amend his Supplementary Estimates and put it there, and I will raise no objection at all. Now it is plain what the minister wants.


William Stevens Fielding: It is, but it is not plain what my hon. friend wants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if we connot agree upon some things without any unnecessary heat. After all, there ought to be no real object in anyone trying to mislead this House upon what is really a matter very important to public business. In connection with the railways we embarked upon something which is entirely new. It did not have anything to do with railway subsidies for private companies. It had absolutely nothing to do with advances to the Montreal Harbour Commission. It was something which, as I say, was not only entirely novel, but it was the particular business of the country; it was something that we were doing eurselves. It was not any question of how many thousand dollars per mile this House had authorized the government to guarantee for the Canadian Pacific Railway; it was our own business, the management and running of our own lines. We went about it under the act of 19,19. We had extracts read the other day from the debate upon that act, and it was shown that the point had been raised under the statutes of 1919, that parliamentary control of capital account ought to be maintained. Why, the present Prime Minister said that the last vestige of parliamentary control would disappear if that was not done, and the then government very cheerfully agreed at once; they never expected anything else.
My hon. friend says that this has never been in the Estimates. I am sure he does not mean it. I want to give my friend every credit for sincerity just as long as it is possible for me to do so, and I think what he means is that the ordinary guarantees of privately-owned railway bonds did not appear in the Estimates. I tell the House that I believe absolutely that not one single guarantee was given, so far as I know, that was not included in the bulk amount voted by parliament. Does my hon. friend dispute that statement?
I Mr. Meiehen.l


William Stevens Fielding: Go on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to get this thing cleared up, to get rid of the mists and come down to facts. If my bon. friend disputes that statement, now is the time for him to do so.


William Stevens Fielding: Go on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good, there is no dispute.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, it cannot be disputed. Why, my hon. friend himself shows how it cannot be disputed. This year a different plan has been adopted. He himself a few minutes ago, speaking on this very question of the Estimates, says that this year the fifteen million dollars is not included in his seventy-two million dollars. We had an equipment guarantee last year-it was included without any such bill as this.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is wrong. We had no guarantee last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did not my hon. friend guarantee the equipment securities that he reported to the House last session and sold in New York?


William Stevens Fielding: They were not equipment securities. My hon. friend is all wrong in the facts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of securities were they?


William Stevens Fielding: They were securities of the Canadian Northern Railway at one stage, afterwards they were securities of the Dominion government, upon which we borrowed one hundred million dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not speaking of those securities, but it makes no difference.


William Stevens Fielding: It does.


George Perry Graham: Were there any equipment bonds guaranteed last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It makes no
difference whether it is equipment or whether it is any other kind of security that is guaranteed, the principle is exactly the same. They may not have been equipment securities, but they were railway securities, and they were guaranteed without such legislation as this, simply because the amount of the guarantee was included in the Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my recollection is that it was not included in the Estimates.

C. N. R.-Securities


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure my hon. friend will find that they were. If he could do so without their being included in the Estimates, however, what earthly justification is there for this bill? The whole idea of this measure is to see that the securities are sold properly. Were not the securities sold properly at that time? Did not my hon. friend get a good price for them? Of course, they were in the Estimates. The wording was carefully worked out to cover all these things, and my hon. friend practically admits it in his own statement when he says that this fifteen million dollars is not included in this main vote. Those having been included in the main vote, he had a right to guarantee them. I ask the government to look at page 31 of their own Estimates of this year and ask themselves whether that means anything except that power is taken for the purpose of guaranteeing securities of all classes. Why, we can even guarantee securities for operating deficits; it is not done, I know, but it could be done. The vote says, "Acquisition of property, materials and supplies," and to wind it up you have an omnibus provision, "guarantees of securities." The government said: We ask for all this and we agree to keep ourselves within the limit that parliament sets upon it. Then the estimate becomes a statute thus making the provisions enacted perfectly valid and binding. In fact that is how the business has always been done. .
I am at a loss to understand my hon. friend's position. Bonds and securities have been successfully sold in the past without this act; he himself has done it. Yet he tells us that the whole object of this act is to enable the sale of securities. Why, his own record shows that that is [nonsense, that his argument is pure piffle. This question of giving a blank cheque to the administration is a novel thing. We were told in connection with the construction programme that one reason why this unlimited power should be given was that works were contemplated which would run over more than one year and that the only proper thing to do was to arrange for the whole matter at once. That was the only argument that amounted to anything in connection with that bill, and that argument does not apply here at all. The only possible object of this legislation is to enable the government to put themselves in a position to do just what they please. What the Minister of Railways said is quite right, that there is a distinction between the right to issue a security and the
right to guarantee, and it is also true that under this provision the government should only guarantee bonds which may be legally issued by the corporation. But under the statutory borrowing powers of the company they may raise $75,000 a mile on their whole mileage. I forget the exact figures of the existing bonded indebtedness per mile; the Minister of Railways will know it-but I venture to say that the exact amount of securities issued is much below $75,000 per mile.


George Perry Graham: I think that is true.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it is true; the minister admits it. Up to the extent, then, of $75,000 per mile the right to issue exists and the right to guarantee is given. There is no limit so far as the issue of bonds for equipment purpose is concerned.


George Perry Graham: Is my hon. friend clear that the Canadian National Railway Company could issue securities against the Canadian Northern system? Legally and technically the Canadian Northern system has never been brought into the Canadian National system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am surprised to hear that; I understood, the last time this subject was discussed, that we now had proper co-ordination.


George Perry Graham: There are certain difficulties concerning a portion of the stock which the government is taking steps to get possession of. It had not got the possession yet, and legally and technically the Canadian Northern is not, as I am advised, a part of the Canadian National Railway system. That is why I asked the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the act which deals with the question of borrowing powers makes that perfectly clear. If there is any doubt about it, I do not see how securities have been sold in the past. They have been sold under this act and they have been regarded by very eminent New York counsel as perfectly good securities. The act says that the company may with the approval of the Governor in Council issue bonds and debentures, then it takes out from the application of the computation of $75,000 a mile the government railways, but it leaves everything else in. The schedule specifically mentions the Canadian Northern and a great many other companies.


George Perry Graham: That would be when they are in.
C. N. R.-Securities


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no limit, except the proper business limit; there is no legal limit to the issue of securities against equipment. The equipment itself forms the security.


George Perry Graham: The Government by an estimate, I think, provided that twenty-five per cent of the balance could be issued by the company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In this legislation we are getting away from the provision of these things in the Estimates, and the fact is that there will be no limit. Are we going to do something which was excused the other day only because it covered a three-year programme and the work could not be done all at once? Are we going to do something which changes all our previous practice? Are we going to write this blank cheque to the government?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend began his observations by saying he was unable to understand my position. Well, I think I can understand his; he got in wrong at the beginning and he is now trying to maintain an utterly indefensible position. What is the issue? This resolution does not create the power to issue any securities; not a doliar can be issued under this bill. If there is an outstanding authority granted by parliament to the Canadian National Railway Company to issue bonds, then in the judgment of the Governor in Council those bonds may be guaranteed. That is the essential feature. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) say that every obligation that is assumed, every guarantee and every appropriation, must be shown in the Estimates; that is the great principle they are struggling for. Then my hon. friend in vain tried to bolster up that argument by saying that a year or two ago we issued an equipment security guarantee; why not do jt now? Well, the answer is that we did not issue an equipment security guarantee then; l<e is materially wrong in his facts. Then he says that we issued guaranteed securities in New York at another time and asks why we should not do so now. We issued securities which were guaranteed by act of the parliament of Canada in the name of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. There was a law providing for it, and the issue was made under the provisions of that law. My hon. friend djd the same thing a year or two ago and did not show it in the Estimates. He issued a guarantee for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and for the Canadian

Northern Railway Company, and he dad not show it in the Estimates; he did not do the thing he now says is essential.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to give particulars of any guarantee we made that was not shown in the Estimates?


William Stevens Fielding: I say he issued two loans -and I am not criticising him-guaranteed in the qity of New York, one for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and one for the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and to the best of my knowledge and belief neither was shown in the Estimates. It is not. customary to show guarantees in the Estimates. So in relation to all these material facts my hon. friend is wrong. Now, the whole story is this-and I repeat: not a dollar cf bonds can be issued under this legislation. If there is already an authority to issue bonds, is it better that they should go on the market at a sacrifice price, or is it better that we should put the endorsation of the government upon them and sell at the best possible price?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to tell my hon. friend that so far as these Canadian government bonds he refers to are concerned, they were included in the total amount of the Estimates, and we never exceeded it.


George Perry Graham: Never what?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They were included in the Estimates. It is true they were not included by name.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the " oh " for? We do not ask in this case that it be included by name; we simply ask that the country know what the total payment is, that is all. My hon. friend makes a splurge about the matter of equipment, but so far as that is concerned it does not make the slightest difference. These loans were made under previously existing powers, and there was no trouble. The whole truth is that the minister wants to get away from this limitation. What is the use of talking about wanting to issue bonds so that they will sell well; they were sold well before. That has nothing to do with it. I started out to give some reasons for this change, and I could give others, as I am sure my hon. friend could himself give them. For example, was there anything but a political reason for the appointment of the gentleman who now represents the city of Quebec on the board?

C. N. R.-Securities


William Stevens Fielding: What has that to do with this matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everything;
they are the people with whom you have to deal; people in your own class, in your own scale.


William Stevens Fielding: Thank you.


Henry Lumley Drayton: People into
whose hands you put the whole of these matters. Take it out of politics, yes-and put it in the hands of your political followers.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that the appointment of the gentleman representing the city of Quebec on the board was a political one?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked whether there were any but political reasons for the appointment. The gentleman was the former member for Bellechasse, Colonel Talbot. We had a series of questions to try to find out something in this connection and there was some difficulty in getting at the facts; I think there were three series before we got them. We found that this gentleman had been given a position in the pay of the Quebec government at $2,000 a year; that he had remained in that position and has since been made one of the directors of the Canadian National system, his emolument thus being increased from $2,500 to $4,500 a year. My question was a perfectly innocent one; I merely asked if there were any except political reasons for his appointment.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I can tell my hon.
friend the reason for the appointment of a representative of the city of Quebec on the board. The city and district of Quebec were so badly neglected by the late government, in which my hon. friend was Minister of Finance, that they were entitled to have someone to represent their interests.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree entirely with that.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: We are perfectly satisfied with the appointment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt that you should have representation, but I would point out that when the matter was discussed before, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) said that the nomination came as a complete surprise.


The CHAIRMAN:: The discussion of the board of directors at this stage is out of order. The matter under consideration is the question of guarantees. Shall section 2 carry?


Mr. EVANS:: I have been trying to understand this question from the controversy that has been going on, but I do not know even yet whether the Minister of Finance has told the whole story. As I understand it, the purpose of this act is to give the government power to issue these equipment certificates or obligations without the consent of parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: The power is there already. All this gives is the right to guarantee.


John Evans: This will be done without the consent of parliament?


William Stevens Fielding: This is the consent of parliament now.


John Evans: Then the power is to be given to issue these guarantees without the consent of parliament and without having the amounts placed in the Estimates?


William Stevens Fielding: Oh no, no.


John Evans: If that is so it is a dangerous precedent to create.


William Stevens Fielding: I assure my hon. friend that this legislation creates no power to issue securities. If any security already authorized by parliament is to be issued, the government may in their wisdom guarantee it; that is the whole story. It guarantees nothing in the future; the legislation is confined entirely to authority already issued by parliament. We cannot grant a guarantee on anything not already authorized by parliament.


Mr. STEVENS:: With respect to the financial railway commitments of this session, as I understand it we are committed in the main estimates to $73,000,000 for deficits and so forth. We are committed by the bill of the other day to $28,000,000 for construction. We are making a committal now for $15,000,000 or more for equipment, making a total of committals in respect of the National Railways for this year of $116,000,000, part of which will be expended over a period of approximately three years. That is, I think, a correct statement. The House should keep it in mind that unquestionably next year we shall be asked to make other commitments in the matter of extensions, equipment, and so forth, so that while the expenditure may be over three years, during those three years other commitments will be added. My point is simply this and I wish to make it clear that this session the parliament of Canada is committing the country to an expenditure of $116,000,000 to cover deficits, equipment bonds and new construction of branch lines for the National Railways.

C. N. R.-Securities


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is at all events not correct in regard to the equipment; we are not by this legislation assuming any new obligations; the power to issue the bonds for equipment purposes exists to-day. We have the choice of allowing those bonds to be issued without the guarantee and sold at a low price, or of putting our guarantee upon them and getting the best price. That is the story of the equipment bonds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister does not want to make the committee believe that we are not committing the country to expenditure, whether it is by guarantee, voting the estimates, or any other way.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. The country has already authorized the issue of these bonds. If we do not put on the guarantee the bonds will still be issued, but they will be sold at a depreciated price, that is all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that perfectly, but I am not going to be-what shall I say?-diverted from this fact, and I want the committee to get it: under the present legislation certainly the bonds can be issued, and under the statutory legislation and the Estimates the bonds can be guaranteed. Now, let me state the case again: Under the statutory powers of the Estimates we are guaranteeing or paying out of consolidated fund, one or the other, 873,000,000; under the statutory powers of a bill passed the other day we are guaranteeing $28,000,000; under the statutory powers of this bill we are guaranteeing $15,000,000 or more, in all $116,000,000.


Mr. GOOD:: I should like to find out from the Minister of Finance what objection there is to adopting the suggestion made to include these amounts in the Estimates. That seems to be very fair.


William Stevens Fielding: Because it has not been the practice in the past and I see no reason why we should depart from what has been practice.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should not make that statement to the House. It has been the invariable practice in connection with the National Railways, and the minister does not do justice to the position he holds to lead anyone to suppose otherwise. With relation to the Canadian National Railways there has never been a dollar guaranteed-the minister cannot produce proof to the contrary; if he postponed the matter until next session he could not do so-that was not included in the amount voted by parliament for the purpose.
IMr. Stevens.]


William Stevens Fielding: What difference does it make as respects the obligation of the country whether we grant the money in the name of the Canadian National Railways or any other railway? The obligations of the country are the same with respect to a guarantee in either case?


Arthur Meighen: Now we are getting it.


William Charles Good: Even if this has not been the custom, if it is a good thing why not adopt it?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it is a good thing.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has been the invariable custom.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the clause carry?


Arthur Meighen: Not yet, certainly not.


Thomas Langton Church: Sub-section 3 of section 2 of the bill reads as follows:
The said securities so approved may be guaranteed by His Majesty and any such guarantee may be in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine-
And so forth. We have no control over the policy and administration of the National Railways Company. Now, as a matter of fact the success of an issue of securities, more particularly in the case of a railway system of this kind, depends upon the manner and method of administration. We have heard it said often in the last year or two that we should give these railways a free hand. Is parliament to be debarred from any say as to these expenditures? It was not public ownership that got the railways into the condition where they show such large deficits, it was private ownership. What is going to become of responsible government in this country if we are to continue to spend money on these railways at the rate we are doing? Just think of it, a deficit of $73,000,000; $28,000,000 to be expended on branch lines, and $15,000,000 to be spent upon equipment, a total of $116,000,000. Compare that expenditure upon the railway system alone and then recall the fact that in 1896 the entire Dominion expenditure amounted to only $36,000,000. It is all very well to talk about giving the railways a free hand but no country in the world would confer upon a railway company such powers as we propose to grant without adequate parliamentary control. At the rate charges have been accumulating on these railways I do not know how matters are going to end. And yet some people talk of the necessity of giving the National Railways a free hand. Now, we have these deficits to which I have referred, and the expenditure of the railway system is piling up at a rapid

C. N. R.-Securities
rate. It should be borne in mind that extravagance in operation is likely to seriously affect railway securities when they are placed upon the market. Is there ground for the assertion that extravagance has characterized the management of our railways? I think there is. For example, a sum of from $80,000 to $100,000 has been expended in fixing up a private car to enable the directors to travel all over Canada. I contend this is extravagance which should not exist, and it does not exist in the operation of railways under private management. I am friendly to public ownership, but I confess I am very much alarmed at the extravagance of the directors in conducting our national railways. Giving them a free hand, if carried to its logical conclusion, will bankrupt the national railways and, speaking metaphorically, drive them into the poor house. Look at the position in which the great railways in the United States find themselves. They are short of rolling stock, short of equipment in every respect, and their securities are not selling at nearly the former prices. Shaughnessy and Van Horne are said to have made a great success of railway administration in the United States a great many years ago, and afterwards they were identified with the Canadian Pacific Railway in this country. But not even the genius of a Shaughnessy or a Van Home could have made of the Canadian Pacific the success it has been had it not been for the liberal "handout" given by this country. Of course there was also efficiency in operation. I doubt whether either of those railway magnates could make a success of the Canadian National Railways under the extravagant methods that now seem to prevail. The issue of bonds and securities by the Canadian National Railways should be made a matter of consideration and approval by the Railway Commission. What was the object of creating such a body if it was not to deal with matters of this kind. It is folly to talk about giving the management of our railways a free hand when there is such a lack of economy and efficient control. If parliament is going to give the management a free hand it will be a ruinous policy. We shall not, however, see any improvement until we return to the system of responsible government and parliamentary authority for expenditures.


Arthur Meighen: I want to take every
step in my power to prevent this kind of legislation going through unguarded. I think the House as a whole now understands the attempts at concealment. There is only one thing in issue. It is not any question of the amount of the liability we are involved in,
it is not a question of the powers we are granting, it is merely a question of whether we are going to depart from the custom we have observed from the commencement of the National Railways, of including the country's commitments in the Estimates. That is the whole question, and I do not think anybody can be honestly convinced to the contrary. When the same question was up before, in connection with new construction, the ministers had a better chance. They said, " Oh, this is for three years and we might not have enough in the Estimates to last just over the end of the fiscal year, and a contractor might have to stop," as if that would not apply to any other public work just the same. But they managed to confuse hon. members, and I have thought they must have had a good laugh in council, when they got through, over the way they did it. They cannot use that argument in this case, consequently they have been less successful. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Tolmie:
That there be added to subsection 3 of section 2 the following words:
Provided that before any guarantee is given the amount of same shall be included each year in the estimates and be voted by parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: The principle involved
is scarcely worthy of a moment's consideration. The right hon. gentleman takes the ground that every appropriation and every obligation for the year undertaken by the government of Canada must be set forth in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


William Stevens Fielding: If the right hon. gentleman did not say that it is the substance of his argument. That is a departure from the practice of parliament. We do not set forth every obligation. There are many cases-I have already given illustrations, I can furnish many more-where appropriations are made by special act and are not set forth in the estimates. It makes no earthly difference whether they are voted in the estimates or are authorized by special act; the essence of the whole thing is that these obligations cannot be assumed without the vote of the House; and whether you have it on this page or that page, in this blue book or that blue book, what earthly difference does it make to the people of Canada? The obligations are assumed on parliamentary authority and are set forth and shown in the public accounts. There have been cases again and again-there always have been under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, there were such cases under our administration, and there will be in the future-when it is deemed right and
Post Office Act

proper to provide for special appropriations in acts of parliament. You may lay down the rule that in every case the amount must be shown in the Estimates but I say it is a matter of no earthly importance to the parliament or the people of Canada so long as the rule is recognized of parliamentary control, and that no appropriation can be made unless it is made by this House. That is the essence of the whole thing. That is the principle for which we stand.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived: Yeas 37, Nays 67.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of
Customs) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill 225, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
He said: The amendment consists in substituting the words "prima facie" for the word "conclusive." We provided in the bill that the report of the analyst would be taken as conclusive evidence, and the Senate substituted the words "prima facie" in lieu of conclusive, which I think is right.
Arthur Meighen: It is a very small verbal change, but it might have a vast effect- something like leaving out the word "not." Changing the word "conclusive" to "prima facie" entails the necessity of having some one competent and authorized to determine what is conclusive.


Mr. BUREAU:: It does not bar anyone
from disputing the report of the analyst.


Arthur Meighen: The matter can wait for committee.


Jacques Bureau: I objected to the word "conclusive," but I decided to let it go to the House. I thought it would not be right to bar a man from bringing evidence to dispute the evidence of the officers of the department.
Motion agreed to and amendment read the second time, and concurred in.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General), moved the second reading of Bill 246, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

On section 1-Postage rates on certain newspapers and periodicals reduced from li cents to li cents.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
minister might explain this section.


Mr. MURPHY:: The explanation was
given yesterday. Summarized it is a changing of the maximum postal rates on periodicals from li to li cents per pound.


Arthur Meighen: This is a lot more important than appears on the surface. The minister did give a fairly full explanation the other day. The rate was formerly very low entailing a tremendous loss to the country for the carriage of newspapers; and it is only fair that the House should know-which the minister did not say-that this loss necessarily was borne by the whole country, except the few who got the benefit of it. While it is true in a slight degree that the small newspapers get some benefit, the newspapers which get the real benefit are the great big newspapers that travel all over the Dominion, that go out of Montreal and Toronto and circulate from end to end of the country. The Dominion, as a matter of fact, was shouldering a heavy obligation in carrying newspapers, entailing, I cannot recall just how much, but running into hundreds of thousands-yes, running into millions of dollars; I am pretty sure I am right on that point, the minister should be able to tell us. So that it really amounted to a subsidy. The late government started to correct that state of affairs, and by a graduated scale we provided-and parliament accepted the provision -that the rate should go up to, I think, li cents per pound. My recollection was, and the minister confirmed it yesterday, that even then we had not overtaken the loss by any means, and that it cost a great deal more to distribute than li cents per pound.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I did not think I was out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I had reference to the conversation in the chamber.
Mr. MEIGHEN I appreciate the importance atached to my words by the Chair, because certainly all ought to hear them. This government has evidently submitted to importunities and proposes to go back, not all but part of the road, and leave the rate at li cents. I do not know what is involved in this li cents. The quarter of a cent difference amounts to a charge on the treasury of a very substantial sum, and the benefit goes,

Post Office Act
not to the small papers-the amount that they are interested in, while of course it is something, is very little. The great benefit goes to the big newspapers. Let me emphasize this. The small newspaper is really hurt, I would think, by the low rate, for the reason that the field of the small newspaper is then more easily invaded by the large. The large newspaper gets into the small newspaper's field at the public expense, because of the cheap rate, and consequently curtails the circulation of the small newspaper. Is the minister not doing an injustice rather than a favour to the small newspapers? Ostensibly, perhaps, the small newspaper proprietor will think: "I would like to get my paper out as cheaply as I can, more cheaply than actual cost," but he will find his field more easily invaded by the big paper. According to the law, I understand the rate of postage is the same for a long distance as for a short. I am pretty sure I am right in that. Therefore a ne.wspapr is carried from Montreal to Vancouver at the same rate as that for which the proprietor of a small newspaper gets his paper carried perhaps, a ride of eight miles. Thus, the more you go below the cost, the greater the advantage to the big newspaper in its competition with the smaller one, particularly in view of the statements that have reached the people through the press of the great economies the minister is effecting, all of which were due to the continuing of the ascending scale rate that we put into effect. I would not like to see the minister robbed of the benefit of that just as the time of fruition is arriving. I would like to see him get the benefit of the better showing which our legislation might bring forth. Why should he want to deny himself now? Would he not have been better to stand to his guns and be, at least, in a position to show the result of the legislation of others?


Charles Murphy: May I say, in brief, that the argument which my right hon. friend has just placed before the House from different standpoints, is incorrect from each standpoint? As regards what he said last, that the increase-


Arthur Meighen: The better showing.


Charles Murphy: -the " better showing " was due to an act passed in 1920, that is not the fact. May I take the House into confidence for a moment, and say that when I came into office, I found that an order in council had been passed by the administration of which my right hon. friend was a member, taking away from the Postmaster General the right to make railway mail rates and vesting that power in the Board of Railway Commissioners? That was obviously done to make a better showing for the Canadian National railways, and it was of course acquiesced in by the other railways. I went to the trouble of taking a staff of officers to New York to investigate railway mail rates inasmuch as the order in council passed here was professedly based on American practice. After a week's intensive investigation in New York, I discovered, with the aid of my officials, that the Post Office Department was paying the railways of Canada as much to carry one mail bag in a baggage car, as the same railways charged to carry two passengers with their bags in a parlour car. Naturally, being a business man, I was not quite so innocent as to let that sort of thing continue. I had the order in council repealed and a new scale of railway mail rates adopted, as a result of which at one stroke we saved $400,000. In addition, I found that a considerable number of accounts for the carriage of mails of foreign countries across Canadian territory had not been attended to, nor had settlements been made. Settlements were negotiated, and eventually we succeeded in getting all those accounts settled, with the result that the treasury of the Dominion of Canada benefited to the extent of $950,000.
As a result of the International Postal Conference that was held last fall-and by the way it may surprise the committee to know that the work of that conference was concreted into a treaty which I signed, without any ambassador, British or American, intervening, acting solely under the powers conferred upon me as Canadian Postmaster General by the Canada Post Office Act-we saved at one stroke $110,000 which we formerly paid for the carriage of American mail across our territory from Buffalo to Detroit. Under the provisions of the treaty that we made last December the Americans agreed to relieve us of that payment. A further change that was made in consequence of the conference, was that we get from the United States payment on the excess parcels carried to Canada, an amount that will aggregate about $300,000 per annum. These are some of the new sources of revenue of the Post Office Department, without my going into the question of these rates at all.
As to the other argument of my right hon. friend that it is the small paper that is really affected, representations made to me are entirely contrary to that. The small papers are the papers that have pressed for this deduction. Only this morning I was informed by a gentleman engaged in the publication of a weekly newspaper, who is a very ardent supporter of my right hon. friend, that it is the
Post Office Act

small papers that will be benefited, because they are the ones that are most affected.
The other argument that my right hon. friend used-that the daily papers would invade particularly the field of the local papers -is not a fact, because the big newspapers do not, as a matter of fact, use the post office for transmission within short distances. They send their papers by express. In the act, there is a section with which my right hon. friend was not familiar, which provides that papers issued not more than once a week are carried free of postage within an area of forty miles. I think that disposes of my right hon. friend's arguments.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has taken occasion to review matters not connected at all with his bill-


Charles Murphy: Yes, arising out of the
economies.


Arthur Meighen: -matters which consequently would not be investigated by hon. members for the purpose of replying to him. I notice that the one large item which he mentioned, was an item of collection of debts. I would presufne that such items would appear almost every year. There certainly would be debts to collect, and while, sometimes, it is an achievement to collect them, I would fancy that in these cases, it would be practically no achievement at all.


Charles Murphy: These were three years
overdue.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and if this government is in power for three years-and I doubt that-it will have debts which are overdue, too.


Charles Murphy: No.


Arthur Meighen: Some of them I can
name now. As regards the savings in connection with his postal conference, I only hope they are correct.


Charles Murphy: They are correct.


Arthur Meighen: I have not been able to go into them, and I only hope they are correct. There is no reason why there should not be improvement in this' regard, nor in connection with the carriage of mails. I would not think it was a colossal achievement, warranting us in sending a wreath of flowers to the Postmaster General, that at a time when all rates are or ought to be going down, there should be some reduction in these rates. I understand from the minister the matter of railway mail rates was placed under the Railway Commission. I do not know myself why

that should not be. That would seem to me to be the appropriate place.


Charles Murphy: That was done in violation of the act.


Arthur Meighen: Then the commission
would not have power.


Charles Murphy: They acted.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know. I have not looked into the legal aspect of the matter at all, but it seems to me that the Railway Commission is the proper place in which to discuss the railway mail rates.


Charles Murphy: The Post Office Act empowers the Postmaster General to make all rates.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. I am not speaking now as a matter of law but as a matter of policy. I do not know why one thing after the other should be taken from the commission unless we are to abolish it. I would fancy it was the proper body. I would expect that when reducing newspaper rates mail rates would also be reduced. But why should this rate be reduced when it is below cost? The minister says the small publishers want the reduction. There may be some who do. My recollection is that the pressure did r.ot come from them, but I do recall very strong pressure indeed from other sources. I am just as anxious to help large papers as any ethers, but there is a limit to the help that ought to be given out of the Treasury. The minister says that he was terribly shocked in New York to find that the railways were getting the same for carrying a mail bag as for carrying two persons with their baggage. Such anomalies can be found anywhere in transportation service. Right under this bill-if the minister gets it through- he is providing the same charge for carrying the Montreal Star fiom Montreal to Vancouver, 5,000 miles, as for carrying the Portage la Prairie Graphic out to Carberry, 45 miles. Is not this disparity infinitely greater than that of the case he mentions? These disparities inevitably occur in railway transportation, so there is really nothing remarkable about what he found in New York. I have grave doubts as to the wisdom of this bill. I should like the minister to produce figures so that the committee may understand just what amounts are involved. How much are we losing now on the carriage of mails? And what does this mean in the way of voting money out of the Treasury?


Charles Murphy: In reply to my right hon. friend's request made yesterday, the department informs me that newspapers are carried

Post Office Act
as part of the general mails, and it is practically impossible to segregate the cost of their carriage. The difference in postal revenue under this reduction will amount to about $200,000.


Arthur Meighen: The difference between the It and the H cent rate?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not see why periodicals and newspapers should be given reduced rates unless the reduction is extended to other mail matter. The Postmaster General might well follow the example of his illustrious precedessor, Sir William Mulock, and reduce the postage rates to the pre-war level. There might be deficits at first but within a year or two the increased business would result in a surplus. There should be some way of separating the receipts of the postal department so as to show the revenue from postal business and from revenue stamps.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) is quite correct. I know that very complete statements were made up by the post office, and I would ask him to bring down the file showing the calculations made for the information of a subcommittee that went into this matter very carefully.


Charles Murphy: When?


Henry Lumley Drayton: At the time the order went through for increasing these rates. The increase was not jumped at. Does my hon. friend know what the cost in the States is for the carrying of newspapers?


Charles Murphy: I have not that statement at hand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely he knows the American rates?


Charles Murphy: What sub-committee does my hon. friend refer to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was a subcommittee that reported on the cost of distributing this newspaper mail. There should be officials in his department capable of furnishing this information, unless he has got rid of everyone who knows anything. Dr. Coulter would certainly know, and also former Inspector Ross. !0f course, these two gentlemen are no longer in the department. I ask my hon. friend to bring that report down, as well as information regarding the American newspaper rates.


Arthur Meighen: Corresponding to these.


Charles Murphy: I have not any of the information for which my hon. friend asks. If
he insists on its being furnished we will have to adjourn.
At one oclock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see that my genial friend the minister is here with the information that I was asking for.


Charles Murphy: Before the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) made reference to a sub-committee to consider the question of increased postal rates on newspapers in 1920. My hon. friend was unable to give me exact information as to the sub-committee in question, but I have found out since that it was a sub-committee of the cabinet and that the data was prepared for the information of that sub-committee. My hon. friend also mentioned that Dr. Coulter or Mr. Ross would be certain to have the information if they were available, but as they were not around he thought it might not be obtainable from the other officials in the department. As to that I may say that the data was prepared in 1920 by Mr. Webster, secretary of the department, and the same gentleman, Mr. Webster, handed me the data since one o'clock. I find that the United States rates, in regard to which my hon. friend as well as the hon. leader of the Opposition were inquiring, are l\ cents a pound on the news section of newspapers, and from 2 to 10 cents a pound on the advertising sections, depending on the distance. That is, zones have been established varying from 150 miles to 1,800 miles and over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That applies to the news sections as well as to the advertising.


Charles Murphy: Not to the reading matter. The rate applying to reading matter- that is, the news sections-is li cents a pound.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise not for the purpose of opposing the bill so much as for the purpose of showing why the rate was put in. The information the minister has been good enough to give me I also found upstairs. He did not tell me anything about costs, and I will give Mr. Webster's information on that question. The report reads:
According to statistics taken in August, 1918, the total weight of newspapers carried by post is 87,501,490 pounds per annum. The sum collected for newspaper postage last year amounted to only $291,104. Newspapers now occupy 60 per cent of the floor space required for the transportation of the mails.
Post Office Act

Just there I would ask the minister what proportion is now taken by the newspapers.


Charles Murphy: I think it would be about the same.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so, too. The report continues:
As tliis is paid for by the car mile it means that for railway transportation alone papers cost the department over $2,000,000 per annum. This cost is for carriage alone and does not include a single cent for transfer to stations, transfer between trains and stations, sortation and distribution at the office of posting and on trains, mail courier service, handling and delivery at post office of destination, etc. The total expenditure for the carriage of mails and the cost of mail bags during the fiscal year 1918 was $8,293,515.24. Sixty per cent of this amount, or $4,976,109.15 might therefore be charged to newspaper service, in addition to a percentage of the salaries of postmasters and other post office employees, which it would be difficult to apportion.
In the last analysis the question is one of transportation. The department pays for the carriage of mails across the country by the car mile, and every car added means a very considerable amount added to the cost of transportation.
Then it is pointed out that newspapers are carried by post not only without profit but at an immense loss. What did the receipts from the carriage of newspapers amount to last year at the increased rate?


Charles Murphy: My information is, about $1,300,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So then if the figures of my hon. friend's clerk are correct we got $1,300,000 from a service that costs $4,900,000. Is that correct?


Charles Murphy: I would not admit that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just taking the data my hon. friend has referred to- sixty per cent of this amount or $4,967,109.15 as the cost of giving this service. If my hon. friend has any other figure I would like to consider it now.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend will appreciate that between one o'clock and now there has not been much time to check the figures, but roughly speaking the amount is between two and three millions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole difference that my hon. friend gave in cost was a small item of $400,000 in connection with the railways.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend is confusing two things. That is what the railways charge the post office for carrying the mails.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not confusing them at all. One figure is $2,000,000 for railway transportation. There has been a

saving in the whole transportation of $400,000. We have to take the same fraction in connection with the $4,000,000, which would give us $240,000, so in relation to a cost of $2,000,000 we would have a cost to-day of that sum less $240,000.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend will appreciate that even the amount stated was only an approximate amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend has nothing else, and this was prepared by a gentleman to whom he gave a good character just a few minutes ago. Now as to the volume of business, I wonder if this is right: Over two-thirds of the newspapers the post office carries are dailies, or about 65,000,000 copies per annum. Has my hon. friend information on that now?


Charles Murphy: I would suppose the proportion would be maintained.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The postage on the dailies at that time was $162,500. What is the present postage?


Charles Murphy: I have only the details
mentioned. I think it is $1,300,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, as to the weeklies, there were only 20,000,000 pounds of weekly newspapers carried with a postage of $40,000. The net result would be that the rate at that [time amounted to $200,000 roughly speaking, which has been increased to $1,300,000.


Charles Murphy: The quarter-cent rate
prevailed at that time. It amounted to $290,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The memorandum goes on as follows:
No other country has as low a postage rate for newspapers as Canada. In fact, in every other country in the world, except Canada and the United States, postage on newspapers is prepaid by stamp affixed to each copy, [n many cases the rates go from 3 to 7 cents per pound. The rate is really more than this when it is considered that it is not a bulk rate but that each paper must bear its own postage, so that advantage cannot be taken of fractions as is the case in Canada and the United States where the rates are on the bulk weight of the mailings.
I would ask my hon. friend if that same condition applies to-day.


Charles Murphy: I would expect it would,
but I have not definite information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Charles Murphy: I am so informed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So, although the American rates were higher than ours they have been increased to a still greater sum.


Charles Murphy: I think the rates mentioned by my hon. friend are the rates in force at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be an increase from a minimum of two cents to a maximum of ten cents a pound according to the distance. In Great Britain the rate is a flat one of one cent per copy, which means a rate of at least three or four cents per pound on the bulk weight. Is that correct to-day?


Charles Murphy: I have no information as to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Again, am I right in this, that there was practically no increase made in so far as the rural weekly newspapers throughout the country are concerned, as a large part of their circulation is carried postage free. Does my hon. friend propose to disturb those conditions?


Charles Murphy: There was an exception
made for papers published not more than once a week. The weeklies were carried free within a radius of forty miles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: .Quite right,
could my hon. friend give me any other reasons for the adoption of the act other than those already given?


Charles Murphy: I do not know that I can add anything to the reasons already given. The representations made have been made, as I explained to the committee, at the instance largely of the smaller newspapers, the weekly papers, religious papers, technical papers, trade papers and other publications of that character.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It will be noticed from the figures supplied by the department itself, then, that it is the small end that is interested. The large end, the eighty per cent, are not interested in it at all. It used to be otherwise in days gone by. The big people, the eighty per cent, were the interested people and they thought they were paying a great deal too much and that we were doing a great deal for the small people in leaving
them as they were left. What I am doing now is merely showing justification for the action taken by the former government. I am not now going to oppose what my hon. friend is doing. I know it is no good, but I think we have to show a complete justification for our course, Mr. Chairman, when on the admitted figures the revenues then obtained were $290,000 and the cost of carrying the service was over $4,900,000. The revenue to-day is bettered being $1,300,000 as stated by my hon. friend, but the cost apparently remains constant with the exception of sixty per cent of $400,000, or $240,000. Of course, my hon. friend does not dispute the original figures. What is my hon. friend's estimate as to the reduction in revenue when this change is made?


Charles Murphy: The estimated reduction
will be about $200,000 on the $1,300,000. I would draw attention to the fact that the special committee of the cabinet, of which my hon. friend was a member, had before it all this data and with that data before it it decided not to impose a higher maximum rate, than l\ cents.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that my hon. friend agrees that we went far enough.


Charles Murphy: It has been claimed you went too far.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend evidently thinks we went far enough. Although the deficits were great we did not take it all up, I admit that. Has my hon. friend any figures in connection with the supplementary estimates that are brought down?


Charles Murphy: The Post Office has complied strictly with the request of the Minister of Finance to practise economy and has brought down no supplementary estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad to hear that, and yet I am sorry, because I wanted to discuss a matter with the minister. I was going to ask him when the orders and the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission are going to be given effect to in his department.


Charles Murphy: The orders and recommendations of the Civil Service Commission have been given effect to as rapidly as possible, and if there are any still remaining for attention they will receive my attention as soon as the House prorogues.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad to have that assurance from my hon. friend, because it has seemed to be years before we could get any action out of the department.
Post Office Act

The weather is warm and molasses ought to move freely now but in this case the molasses seems to be frozen all the time. There are appointments dating back for many months. If the minister looks into the matter he will find there was a list given to the House, but the Acting Postmaster General could not do anything about it in the absence of the head of the department. I do hope that something will be done now. I merely want to point out to my hon. friend that, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the period of time allowed in connection with temporary appointees is long since passed and that the payments made to them are entirely illegal.


Mr. FORKE:: I almost hesitate to intervene in the dialogue between the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), but I should like to say a word in connection with the rate on newspapers. I do not think the rate affects dailies as much as some would suppose, but it is a matter of concern to quite a few very important weekly newspapers that circulate all over the Dominion. I must say that it benefits our people to a very large extent to be furnished with these papers at a reasonable rate. In the case of these weeklies I should think the increase in the rate per pound would affect them very seriously. For that reason I should almost be inclined to reduce the rate to one cent instead of one and a quarter cents. However, since the exMinister of Finance is pleased with it I think we might, perhaps, let the proposed rate go through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not express any such opinion.


Robert Forke: I do not know whether this is the proper time to register a protest against the increasing size of the newspapers of today. I think they are becoming almost a nuisance on that account. It may be deemed presumptuous on my part to indulge in anything like criticism along this line, but it does seem pertinent when we hear the talk about the increasing cost of paper and other expenses in connection with the production of newspapers. I suppose the increased size of our daily journals is to be attributed to the volume of advertising. I sometimes pick up a newspaper and notice that it is entirely blank except for some such announcement as this: "This space is reserved. Watch out for to-morrow." I think that in the matter of size our newspapers are almost getting beyond the limit, and if this policy continues I should almost be inclined to add a little more to the postage rate.
fSir Henry Drayton.]
There is another thing to which I desire to refer. I do not want to waste time but I should like to take this opportunity of making this statement. I hope I am not lacking in a sense of humour, but I do not always like the funny page in our newspapers. I do protest against pages that are supposed to be funny but in reality are not so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do not cut out "Mutt and Jeff."


Robert Forke: Of course, other people may view this matter in a different light. I am pleased to see this reduction in the rate on newspapers. I think it will be of advantage to people living in rural communities. Living in this city, as I have been for the past five months, I appreciate the privilege city people have of getting the newspaper handed in to them at their door every morning, and I am prepared to encourage as much as possible anything that will promote the circulation of newspapers in the rural districts.


Mr. HANSON:: I should like to ask the minister a question but first I will say for the benefit of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) that probably the managers of some of the large newspapers in this country had better send for him so that he may tell them how to run their journals.


Robert Forke: Thank you, you are very kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It reminds me of the statement made by some hon. gentlemen to my left that a great many people are telling the farmers how to farm. In this case the hon. member for Brandon is telling the newspapers how to conduct their business.


Robert Forke: Excuse me. I did not speak about the production of newspapers, I spoke from the viewpoint of the reader.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It did not strike me that way. The Postmaster General was good enough to say to the ex-Minister of Finance that immediately after prorogation he would attend to cases where certificates of appointment have been given postmasters, and other officials of the department, by the Civil Service Commission, but had not been acted on. During the Postmaster General's absence we had a short discussion here on the appointment of a postmaster at Clementsport, Nova Scotia. I beg to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that the gentleman designated by-


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that such a matter

Post Office Act
can hardly come up in connection with the postage rate on newspapers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you will allow me to continue my statement I will not occupy a minute. In the case of the Clementsport post office a certificate was granted in May, 1922, but the gentleman has not yet been installed in office.


Charles Murphy: I shall look into the matter immediately.


Mr. RINFRET:: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): I ask the House to receive a petition which has been sent to me for presentation to the House. I understand that, under the rules, petitions should be presented prior to the introduction of bills, but in view of the fact the House will close shortly I ask the indulgence of hon. members to have the petition read by the Clerk at this time.
Hewitt Bostock: With the unanimous consent of the House, the hon. member may present the petition. Petitions are presented on routine proceedings, but by unanimous consent the petition can be presented now.
The petition was read, as follows:
To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled
The petition of the Dominion Veterans' Alliance of Canada
Humbly Sheweth:-
That John Thompson, Chairman, John Paton, Secretary, Board of Pension Commissioners, and N. F. Parkinson, Deputy Minister, E. Flexman, Director of Administration, W. C. Arnold, Director of Medical Services, Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, be instructed to refrain from further expression of opposition to the enactment of legislation approved by the House of Commons upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Pensions and Re-establishment; and that said officials be cautioned to exercise greater sympathy toward disabled ex-service men and dependents of deceased ex-service men; and that assurance as to the intentions of the Honourable Members of the House of Commons in this regard be conveyed to the various organizations of ex-service men, who unanimously support this Petition.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House may be pleased to pass a resolution for the purposes above mentioned.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Dated at Ottawa this Twenty-eight day of June, A.D. 1923.
C. G. MacNeh,,
Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, The Great War Veterans' Association of Canada, and Chairman of the Legislative Committee of The Dominion Veterans' Alliance.

Chinese Immigration Act



H. COLEBOURNE,

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, The Army and Navy Veterans in Canada, and Member of the Legislative Committee of The Dominion Veterans' Alliance.
J. S. Keeling,
Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, The Tuberculous Veterans' Association, and Member of the Legislative Committee of The Dominion Veterans' Alliance.
J. Mackenzie,
Representing the Imperial Veterans in Canada, and Member of the Legislative Committee of The Dominion Veterans' Alliance.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1924, was presented by Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Speaker to the House and referred to the committee of supply.
William Stevens Fielding: May I be permitted to ask that, to avoid delay, these supplementary estimates include two items, one of $30,000 for the administration of the Combines Act, and one for $10,000 a grant to the Canadian National Institute for the blind. These are two items omitted which should have been included.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 45, an Act respecting Chinese Immigration.
He said: I do not wish to concur in all the amendments without discussion.


Arthur Meighen: The usual move is for the House to receive the senate amendments and deal with them in the regular procedure, but a part of that procedure is a full explanation to the House.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member might explain the nature of the amendments, and then the question could be put.


Charles A. Stewart: The senate has amended paragraph n of section 8. That paragraph reads:
(n) Persons over fifteen years of age, physically capable of reading, who cannot read the English or the French language or some other language or dialect. For the purpose of ascertaining whether aliens can read, the immigration officer shall use slips of uniform size pre-

pared by direction of the minister, each containing not less than thirty and not more than forty words in ordinary use printed in plainly legible type in the language or dialect the person may designate as the one in which he desires the examination to be made, and he shall be required to read the words printed on the slip in such language or dialect. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Canadian citizens, or to persons in transit through Canada;
They have struck out the words-
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Canadian citizens or to persons in transit through Canada;
And they have substituted:
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to persons residing in Canada at the date of the passing of this act, nor to Canadian citizens.
I may say for the information of the House that evidently the intent of the Senate was that it should not apply to Chinese now resident in Canada. I have no serious objection to offer to this, because in cases where the question of deportation of Chinese nationals who are in Canada might come up, we would not be likely to utilize this method of deporting.
Then clause 10 reads:
10. (1) The controller shall have authority to determine whether an immigrant, passenger or other person seeking to enter or land in Canada or detained for any cause under this Act is of Chinese origin or descent and whether such immigrant, passenger or other person, if found to be of Chinese origin or descent, shall be allowed to enter, land or remain in Canada or shall be rejected and deported.
(2) The examination of persons of Chinese origin or descent applying for admission or entry to Canada shall be separate and apart from the public and in the presence of such persons only as the controller shall permit.
They have added to that this clause:
Provided that if, on the preliminary hearing, the controller is not satisfied that such person is entitled to remain in Canada, the hearing shall be thereupon adjourned for forty-eight hours or for such longer period as the controller may see fit, and an opportunity shall be given such person to consult with duly accredited legal counsel who shall be entitled to represent him upon the hearing and upon all subsequent proceedings.
What it means is that when a decision that involves deportation is arrived at by the controller, a further hearing is guaranteed the applicant after the period of forty eight hours to permit him to secure counsel. I do not know that one should object to that particularly.
An amendment is made by the Senate to clause 18. The clause reads:
Within 12 months after the coming into force of this act and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Governor General in Council for the purpose, every person of Chinese origin or descent in Canada, irrespective of allegiance or citizenship, shall register with such officer or officers and at such place

Chinese Immigration Act
or places as are designated by the Governor General in Council for that purpose, and obtain a certificate in the form prescribed.
The amendment is to insert the following:
Provided that those persons who may, during the time fixed for registration, be absent from Canada with authority to return, may register upon their return.
It will be somewhat embarrassing to registration officials to work this out, because it will have to be done at a designated time and over a designated period. If a resident of Canada is absent on permit and does not return within the specified time when the registration is going on, this is evidently for the purpose of allowing him to become registered or to make application for registration.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does not the bill as introduced by the minister provide that when an oriental leaves this country and goes to his home, he may not return?


Charles A. Stewart: No. He
gets a permit upon which he may be absent for a specified time, and upon his return he presents that certificate.
Clause 26 has been amended. When the bill was in committee, one important amendment to clause 26 was submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). The clause as passed by this House reads:
Whenever any officer or peace officer has reason to believe that any person of Chinese origin or descent has entered or remains in Canada-
The amendment of my hon. friend added to the officers who would have authority to demand the production of a certificate or to make an explanation of any who were thought to be in Canada illegally. Instead of this being confined to officers of the department, peace officers of the government were included. The Senate amendment is to strike out the words "or peace officer."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister approve that? If he does, I should like to say a word in regard to it, but if not,-


Charles A. Stewart: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Charles A. Stewart: That is my understanding.


Mr. NEILL:: Presumably the Senate were
animated by some reason or motive. Did they hint at or give any explanation of what that reason was?


Charles A. Stewart: I think representations were made to the Senate by people acting on behalf of the Chinese that this was rather drastic, and they thought, perhaps, it was too drastic to include the whole police force in this particular work. As I pointed out to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), there may be some virtue in making selections of various persons throughout the country to do this particular work.
Further down, the same clause 26 reads:
The officer may detain such person in custody and bring him before the nearest controller for examination, and if the controller finds that he has entered or remains in Canada contrary to the provisions of this act or the Chinese Immigration Act or any amendment thereof, such person shall be deported.
The Senate have substituted the word "'may" for the word "shall." We had some discussion upon the meaning of that particular word when we were discussing the bill in committee, but I do not believe this amendment makes much difference. It is in the discretion of the minister or the controller how he shall act in that particular case.
Clause 27 of the bill is struck out entirely and a new clause substituted. The new clause reads:
27. (1) Every person of Chinese origin or descent resident in Canada at the date of the coming into force of this act, who was admitted under the provisions of any act now or heretofore in force, and did not secure such admission by fraudulent misrepresentation, and does not belong to any of the prohibited classes of persons described in section 8 of this act, shall be deemed to be entitled to continue to reside in Canada: Provided, however, that any such person who was. subsequent to the 25th day of July, 1917, admitted without payment of the head tax because of his being a merchant and who has ceased to belong to such class, shall pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada the sum of five hundred dollars, and if he refuses or fails to make such payment he shall ipso facto forfeit his right to remain in Canada, and may be arrested by any officer without a warrant and brought before a controller for examination, whereupon he shall be dealt with to all intents and purposes in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as in the case of a person apprehended under section 26 of this act.
(2) Any person admitted under this act who at any time after admission ceases to belong to any of the classes admissible under this Act shall, unless he is a Canadian citizen, ipso facto forfeit his right to remain in Canada and may be arrested by any officer without a warrant and brought before a controller for examination, whereupon he shall be dealt with to all intents and purposes in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as in the case of a person apprehended under section 26 of this act.
Chinese Immigration Act

It was not the intention of the department to do anything more than is contained in this amendment. That is, it was not the intention of the department to disturb any Chinese national who was in Canada legally at the time of the registration, because this refers to the registration. The intention
4 p.m. was to deal only with those who were illegally in Canada at that time. It is alleged that in 1920 a very considerable number including many labourers, came in under a section permitting merchants to enter Canada. This amendment makes it a little difficult to deal with a labourer who came in two years ago as a merchant, but has been engaged in manual labour since, a3 it gives him the choice of paying the $500 head tax or being deported. In dealing with the nationals of any country who are admitted by making false representations, we have not very much leeway. The natural course would be to deport them. Probably not more than thirteen or fourteen hundred persons would be affected by this amendment.


William F. Carroll: Who would be the judge of whether a man is a merchant or a labourer?


Charles A. Stewart: It is alleged that a number of these men never were merchants, and came in by misrepresentation. However, Mr. Speaker, rather than lose the effect of the balance of the legislation which we think it is in the interests of the department to have, I move that we accept the Senate amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



FEEDING STUFFS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on bill No. 238 to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Definition. Bran, pure shorts, etc.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Has the minister any explanation to give the committee regarding the proposed changes in the bill?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The committee will recall that this matter was pretty fully discussed under the resolution, which was changed to a certain extent. Since then the millers' representatives have discussed the bill with some of the members of the Advisory Board under the Seed Control Act, who informed me that the agreement arrived at between the millers, the live stock men and the produce dealers is, in their estimation, the fairest

arrangement that can be devised. I pointed out to them that this House has the last word in respect to these matters, and that the consensus of opinion seemed to be in favour of keeping each mill by-product distinct. The millers' representatives pointed out that if this were done the millers would once more have to change their appliances, having already changed them to comply with the recommendations of the Advisory Board in such a way as to have four of the by-products pure, with a fifth consisting of a mixture of screenings and shorts. I have looked into the matter pretty carefully and I think that if we get four by-products of the mill in their purity it will be in the interests of buyers to allow a mixed feed of screenings and shorts, for which there must be a demand or the mills would not make it. Primarily the demand for this mixture must come from those who use it, mostly farmers. Naturally the millers want to meet that detnand.
i


Mr. HALBERT:: Has the department full knowledge that the millers could not buy screenings at Fort William for shipment to their mills, there to be ground and mixed with shorts?


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite right, the millers could do so. But as far as I can make out screenings are not sufficiently popular down here for the millers to do so.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the minister satisfied that the demand by farmers for mixed feed is sufficient to justify the mixture?


William Richard Motherwell: What else would induce the millers to manufacture it? I am trying to be fair to all sides. As far as I understand the situation, while the millers may defeat the purpose of the bill, it seems to me it is in their interests not to do so, because they must please their customers with this mixture. They have four by-products in their purity-bran, shorts, middlings and low grade flour, and it is at the option of the buyer to ask for a mixture of screenings and shorts. Really, in our own interests as farmers I do not think we should be so exacting in our determination to have all these byproducts in such an absolute condition of purity. You cannot get the best-balanced ration of fodder without a mixture. I am not a miller, fc>ut I am placing the arguments of the millers before hon. members. They take this ground: If you do not permit us to mix anything with the screenings to make them more acceptable to the buyer, we have to lose money by selling the screenings unmixed.
I understand that they are quite unpopular down here.

Feeding Stuffs Act


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Not because they are bad feed.


George Black: Yes, there is nothing else in it but screenings.


William Richard Motherwell: The term "mill
screenings" suggests refuse, more or less. I have bought mill screenings at the Saskatoon elevator that were as good a hog feed as I ever fed. I do not understand the prejudice against it down here, but it does seem to exist. If they have to dispose of these screenings without being permitted to mix them with anything to make them more acceptable, there will have to be a loss and I suppose they will have to make it up on something else. I do not know whether there is anything in that or not, but I am placing the matter before the committee. We want to do what is in the interests of both parties concerned, the mills and the buyers of mill products.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Waterloo):: I understand
that when the wheat is bought by the miller it is bought with a certain dockage; the screenings are the result of the dockage and cost the miller practically nothing. It should be insisted upon that an analysis of these different foods be set out on the label attached to each sack. I have in mind the situation that existed during the war where the millers in Ontario reground bran and sold it to the farmers as shorts. Had an analysis of that material been furnished, it would clearly have been shown to be bran, but as it was, the persons who bought it were deceived; they not only paid a higher price but they paid for something they did not really get. There has been a lot of deception in the case of mill feeds and I think we should provide every possible safeguard. I am against anything being done to allow the millers to mix feeds unless they will state on the tags exactly what the analysis of the mixture is. That is a necessary safeguard to the buyers of the product.


William Richard Motherwell: That is fair enough. The bill provides exactly for that.


William Elliott: Not the analysis.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the analysis is here; the exact fibre content is shown. If the bran is ground into shorts, that will be known, because the fibre content will be stated.


William Elliott: It will not state the amount of protein, carbohydrates and fat.


William Richard Motherwell: No, you will have to go into that further. But the fibre content is an indication of whether the material is bran or shorts or whether one has been converted into the other. As to the cost, my experience has been that wheat stored in the terminals, from which the millers usually buy, is purchased out of the terminals and paid for on its gross weight. When it is inspected at Winnipeg the inspection certificate will state not only the grade but also the dockage, if any. When it is sent to Fort William the inspectors must see thaut when it is unloaded it is put into its proper grade, and the proper amount of cleaning is done to make it come up to the inspection certificate. When that is done and it is warehoused it is bought as wheat and paid for as wheat. That is my understanding of it, and I have reasonable knowledge of the conditions. What other system could you have? When that wheat goes into the Fort William or any other terminal elevator and is commercially cleaned, it still contains so much screenings that it cannot be ground out that way. You have to go further than having it commercially cleaned; as a miller you have to clean it yourself and take out certain commodities in the way of refuse. It is permissible for this stuff to go into the general bin and even to go over for export, but it has to be taken out by whatever miller uses the wheat. Yet it is paid for as wheat. Well, what are you going to do with it? It is really a mill by-product; it is what was grown by and bought from the farmers. The contention is that if a mixture is produced of these screenings and short3 and they are labelled accordingly, there will be no deception.
What I want to get at is the best possible way of dealing with this question that has been on the boards now for quite a while. I am afraid that the milling industry ran a little loose some years ago in the unauthorized mixing of screenings. Legislation was later brought in under which they were authorized to do general mixing, and you could hardly get a better brand of shorts which has none of these mill screenings in it. There is still the suggestion that a compounding of mill screenings and shorts be permitted. If the committee do not want that; if they think it is not in the interests of anybody, particularly of the buyer, let us have it out, but let us not, out of prejudice to the mill, hurt those who have to buy this product. I assume that the reason why the mills want to make it that way is because somebody wants to buy it that way.
Feeding Stuffs Act


Donald Sutherland: But the buyers cannot get anything else. They have to take the adulterated stuff; they have no option in the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, they have the option.


Donald Sutherland: It is not available; the mills do not manufacture it.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister laid emphasis on the fact that the millers buy wheat and pay for it as wheat, notwithstanding the fact that there is a certain proportion of screenings in it. That is true, of course, in regard to the wheat actually going through the terminals at Fort William. But how about the mills situated all through western Canada which buy wheat from the threshing machines, which buy large quantities of screenings that they do not pay for? In that case they get the stuff absolutely free. I saw something in one of the mills last fall that made me feel pretty strongly on this point.
I saw not only screenings, but scourings, dirt, sweepings, going into the shorts, and when I remembered that that shorts was on occasions used for human food, I felt disgusted. It is unfortunate that we should have to make regulations governing the mills in the interests of the consumer, but I do not see how we can do anything else. These mills are equipped with the very best machinery to take out every grain of wild oats, every one of the smallest seeds. The wheat is ground absolutely pure, so that the flour is pure, the bran and shorts are pure. Now, are we to allow them to go back and mix in all kinds of rubbish? It may be said that the miller should be allowed to do what he pleases with his own product. But this stuff is palmed off on a helpless public, who, in the great majority of cases have no opportunity of knowing what they are buying, who are compelled to buy this stuff because they cannot get a pure product. I do not think we should countenance any other law than that these products should be kept absolutely pure. I am aware that many of our western screenings have good feeding value, such as wild oats, wild buckwheat, and that some of the screenings are made up of cracked and broken wheat, which has a large feed value. But there are years when our western crops contain large quantities of seeds that are of little or no value compared with these. Very often we have large quantities of pigweed seed, French weed, mustard and other weeds.' These things are all ground up and put into the bran and shorts, and sometimes the bran and shorts are left in such a way that
I Mr. Motherwell.]
they are so unpalatable to the stock that they will not take them, and the man who has bought them has no redress. The minister knows this as well as the rest of us from the West. We do not need to convince him personally that the interests of the public are jeopardized so long as this mixing of screenings with good wholesome bran and shorts goes on. If it continues to go on, probably pure bran and shorts will be on the market in such limited quantities that it will not be possible for us to get them at all.


George Black: Does the minister
know that the millers in the province of Ontario mix with the bran and shorts the dust and dust screenings from oatmeal? I know that hundreds of tons of these dust screenings are mixed in with other feed in the province of Ontario. I am strongly opposed to anything being mixed with these screenings.


William Richard Motherwell: There are two
sides to the question. There have been abuses with regard to mixing feeds in the past, and the point is, shall we go from the one extreme of allowing indiscriminate mixing to the other extreme of not allowing any mixing at all? That is the alternative. Is there not a middle course of having a mixture for the buyer who wants to buy mixed feed? If there is I would suggest to every member of the committee that, after we are through discussing it, we have a vote regardless of where we are sitting, just on the merits of the question, and see if we cannot come to a decision. If we do that nobody can have any grievance; I am sure I will not have. I think that is the best course to take in regard to the matter because it seems to me unwise to rush from the one extreme of indiscriminate mixing to the other extreme of not allowing any mixing at all. I have indicated to the millers' representatives that if one mixture is allowed, that is the mixture of screenings and shorts, and they do not play fair with it in the next year, I shall be one of the very first to cut this mixing down to a minimum. We are giving them that advantage not in their interests alone but in the interests of the buyers of these feeds.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I
suggest to the minister that the mixing can always be done, and it is done to a large extent to-day, by the producer of the stock. If I want a mixed feed I can buy the feeds and mix them myself. I much prefer mixing my own feeds to having them mixed by someone I do not know anything about.

Feeding Stuffs Act


William Richard Motherwell: It is not often
done.


Edward Joseph Garland: It will be done.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I was not in when this discussion started and I am surprised at the trend of it now because I thought this matter was1 all settled on June 22 when the bill was up for second reading. On that occasion the minister moved an amendment which was agreed to by the House, and which will be found on page 4425 of Hansard, in which he proposed to cut out the word "pure" and the words "shorts and screenings."


William Richard Motherwell: I am sympathetically that way yet.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But now he talks of taking a vote. I had supposed that all we had to do was give this bill its third reading. There was no objection to this amendment when it was moved by the minister on the 22nd and I hope that he is not going to go back on the stand he took then, which I think was a very good one. I think he was absolutely right, and I hope he will stand by his bill as he amended it the other evening.


William Richard Motherwell: One of the reasons the bill is before my hon. friend in the form it is, is that it was reprinted in accordance with the amended resolution, but unfortunately one page of it was left exactly the way it was, while the other was according to the resolution. We had to take something, so we took the original bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister seems to
have very bad luck in having his bills printed. Pei'haps we should get a special proof-reader for his bills. But the minister's explanation is no excuse for going back on the amendment that was adopted the other evening, and I would suggest to him that if we do not make the corrections in committee here now, he had better withdraw the bill and have it reprinted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister suggests that we take a vote. We cannot take a vote in committee unless there is a motion made to amend the bill or on a motion that the committee rise or a clause be passed.


William Richard Motherwell: We have not yet
reached the stage of making a motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister permit the committee to discuss the motion before we vote on it? If he is going to have a motion let us have it.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not going to move one. I am willing to take the bill the
way it is, as a compromise.


Mr. KAY:: Perhaps the committee will allow me to make a few remarks on this question. As chairman of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization, I was present as a member of the advisory council which met here in the winter. On that council were representatives of the feeders, the breeders, the millers-


George Black: What were their
names?


William Frederic Kay: I have not a list of the names here.


George Black: We would like to have them.


William Frederic Kay: The department would have the list.


George Black: Who appointed this committee?


William Frederic Kay: It was appointed, I think, by the department or by the Seed branch.


William Richard Motherwell: I forget the names of the members. They were from western Ontario. I think one of them was Mr. Breth-our. Two of the millers were Mr. Cornell and Mr. G. B. Watts, of Toronto. There were twelve or fifteen representatives altogether, and I had met only two or three of them before. All interests were represented on that council. My hon. friend should not shake his head. It is a regular thing to have advisory boards of this character. There are advisory boards in connection with half of the acts we pass. He must not be disappointed if I cannot remember all the names.


Donald Sutherland: Is it not on the recommendation of the minister that this board is appointed? He names the members of the board.


William Richard Motherwell: No, the live stock associations select their own representatives, the produce men and the millers theirs. The department has one or two representatives on the board including Mr. Clark of the Seed branch, but the others are appointed by the different interests.


Donald Sutherland: Section 14 of the act clearly provides that the minister shall have power to appoint an advisory board who will at his request prepare and recommend to him such regulations as appear to them advisable to make under this act. This is the authority of the minister to appoint this advisory council.
Feeding Stuffs Act


William Richard Motherwell: We will do the formal appointing, I have no doubt, on the recommendations given to us by these respective bodies.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the fact that there are seven pages of regulations in connection with the act made on the recommendations of this board, I think it is proper that the committee should know the status of this board and the names of those who were present considering this matter.


George Black: Who were the live stock men?


William Frederic Kay: I remember that Mr. Stonehouse was there, representing the Eastern Dairymens' Association; Mr. Brethour representing the Swine Breeders' Association, and two or three other members representing live stock associations. I was appointed to represent the committee on Agriculture on that board. Dr. Grisdale was also there, Dr. Shutt, Mr. Archibald, Mr. White, all of the Department of Agriculture; and Mr. Clark, the Seed Commissioner, was the chairman. After three days' discussion on the various matters relating to live stock industry, on feeds and other questions of interest to the breeders, a day was spent in discussing bran, shorts, and middlings. This bill practically represents the conclusions which were arrived at at that meeting. The live stock men there felt that it was most desirable that all the mill feeds- bran, shorts, middlings and feeding flour-should be absolutely pure. That is the aim which all the live stock men hope to attain ultimately. But during the conference the point of view of the millers was advanced. And we came to the conclusion that under the present conditions-so long as the farmers will grow weeds and produce weed seeds and screenings, and in view of the fact that the millers buy these screenings and must dispose of them after having bought them-the best interests of the live stock men would be served by having bran, middlings, and feed flour always pure, but allowing the screening, to a certain extent, to be mixed with the shorts. Feeders will remember that for many years screenings have been mixed with shorts, bran and feed flour, and it was with the object of having the screenings in one place and one place only that this agreement was arrived at
The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) asked the minister, if the mills could buy screenings as such by the car load, and bring them in and mix them up with their shorts. I understand that Mr. Clark, of the Seed branch, and the department know or can
I Mr. Sutherland.]
ascertain where every car load of screenings goes which leaves Fort William. Now, it is no doubt true that the mills who buy from the interior elevators buy their wheat subject to dockage-


Robert Henry Halbert: You say the department know where every load of screenings goes? Knowing that why can they not prohibit the millers from grinding screenings and mixing them with shorts?


William Frederic Kay: The department are enabled to ascertain whether the millers are doing this or not. If the millers buy any quantities of screenings separately from the wheat, the officials of the department know that and steps can be taken to prevent their buying screenings in order to mix them with shorts.. As far as the wheat bought from the elevators at Fort William is concerned I understand it contains a certain percentage of weed seeds or screenings up to about three per cent. Those screenings the millers pay for as wheat and wish to incorporate in the shorts. Now if there is not more than three per cent of screenings from the wheat which the millers buy and that is mixed with the shorts, I do not think the farmers will suffer to any great extent, because it was brought out at that meeting by many of the breeders that they desired to buy screenings as they were valuable for food. The chemical analysis given by Dr. Shutt of the value of screenings is very high, showing that they are worth more as a feed than shorts. Farmers well know that you cannot use screenings, however, for feeding young animals. If young pigs, for example, are fed with screenings to any extent it will cause indigestion and very often death.


George Black: I have seen screenings mixed with shorts and hogs refused to eat it. Other farmers have seen the same thing happen.


William Frederic Kay: Of course, screenings should not be fed to young pigs or young calves, but they appear to be an excellent food for mature stock.


Robert Henry Halbert: You say the department knows where every car load of screenings goes. Now, suppose the department finds that a miller is buying screenings and mixing them with shorts, is there no way of penalizing the miller for doing so? What procedure does the department take in such a case?


William Richard Motherwell: In the past it has been legal for them to do so.


Robert Henry Halbert: But will it be under the bill as now proposed?

Feeding Stuffs Act


William Frederic Kay: I do not think there is anything in this bill to prevent it. But the minister says that if the millers are found to be buying screenings and mixing them up with their feeds he will bring down legislation to prevent it another year. I do not think the millers could do that to any great extent without being found out.


William Elliott: Do you think the millers would undergo any hardship in being compelled to grind screenings separately and selling them for what they are? My impression is that if you allow this privilege to the millers of mixing feeds we are going to have feeds foisted on the purchaser that are not of the character he thinks they are.
I think there can be no hardship, none at any rate that I can see, in saying to the miller "You grind your shorts separately and sell it as shorts, grind your screenings and shorts separately." The purchaser can mix them if he wants to.


William Frederic Kay: To hark back to this advisory council. I am quite frank in saying that my own desire, and the desire of the breeders and the department officials who were present at the conference, was to have all the mill offal from wheat absolutely pure. I make no bones about that. I look forward to the day when that will be brought about.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not now?


William Frederic Kay: I will explain why the advisory council came to the decision they did. The millers have their point of view. They pointed out that they were paying for these screenings and were entitled to sell them. They pointed out that if they were compelled to keep the screenings separate and not mix them with one of the three by-products it would entail very heavy expense in changing the machinery of the mill. It would mean that every miller would have to add another conveyor to his mill, in order to have the screenings separated from the other feed.


George Black: Why did the millers not wait till the bill went through before doing anything? They fixed the mill over before the bill went through, and now they want the matter arranged after we pass the act. Why did they not wait till the bill went through the committee? You say millers have changed their mills.


William Frederic Kay: No, they would have to change them. If you do not allow screenings to be added to the three by-products, the millers will have to change their mills, and will have
to add another conveyor, in order to keep the screenings away from the mill feeds.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that the screenings and shorts are now separate, and they have to have a conveyor to convey them together? Would it not simplify the matter to keep them separate when they are separate?


William Frederic Kay: I am afraid I am not an expert on milling; I know very little about it. But the millers who appeared before this committee were able to convince the committee that they had a good case, and that was the argument they put up. The members of that committee were a pretty representative body of men. They had a desire for pure feed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just to make my question a little clearer, is it not a fact that the screenings are all separate in wheat before it is ground, and when the wheat is ground and the shorts separated from the bran and other mill feeds, they are all apart? They have to put in conveyors to convey their screenings into the shorts at the present time and mix them again.


William Frederic Kay: Well, I have stated the argument that they put up. I am not going to undertake to go into the details of the milling business. I understand that it would entail a very heavy expenditure on each mill, if they were compelled to keep their screenings separate. I understand, there is a conveyor for bran, another for shorts and another for middlings-three conveyors. This is to convey the ground feed to the mixing room. They can take the screening.? and mix them with one of the three products, or mix them with all three, and use the machinery they have. That is the argument which they presented to this committee. If you compel the mills to add this expense and make the extra investment, the result will be that the cost of our feed will go up.


George Black: I would like the hon. member to show where the extra expense is; because certainly the waste is taken away from the wheat before it is ground. It is then reground and run back through the same spout as the other wheat.


William Frederic Kay: If my hon. friends who are asking questions are experts on milling I would be glad if they will tell us the process of milling and grinding. I have said that I do not know. I only know what was stated before the advisory board. The arguments were advanced by the millers and feeders, and this bill represents the best judgment of that committee.
Feeding Stuffs Act


Robert Henry Halbert: Perhaps the hon. member would let the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) tell us about the expense.


William Frederic Kay: I think I had better finish my remarks, and the other members may then address the Chair.


Donald Sutherland: Would the hon. member consider it more advisable to allow the millers to continue the present process by having some machinery in, rather than to discourage the breeding of live stock in this country? Which is the more important?


William Frederic Kay: I do not quite get the gist of my hon. friend's remarks. I hope ultimately to have all the by-products of wheat pure; but I believe, and the members who were on this committee with me believed, that for the present the best interests of the farmers of this country and the interest of the breeders would be served by allowing the screenings to be mixed with the shorts.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask a question?


William Frederic Kay: I think I should be permitted
to finish and then I shall be pleased to answer questions later.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is not a technical <juestion. I would like to ask the hon. member, just in what way did the committee consider it would benefit the breeders of live stock to have filth and screenings mixed with good feed?


William Frederic Kay: There is a demand from many breeders for recleaned screenings. The millers said, "If you compel us to make all the byproducts of wheat pure, we will have to put up the price of the bran and shorts, feed-flour and middlings." It seemed to the majority of the members of that committee-and they were practically unanimous-that this was the best arrangement we could arrive at. That was the feeling after the meeting was over, because it was thought the screenings were a good thing. There is a certain demand for screenings, and screenings for the feeding of mature stock are a better food than shorts alone. So long as the farmer knows what he is buying,-so long as the container is marked "shorts" and "screenings," in letters the same size, or "pure shorts," or "pure bran," or "pure middlings" or "pure feed-flour," it was thought the farmers would be adequately protected against feeding screenings to young .stock, to which it would be injurious, as against compelling the mills to make it all pure. The reason was that we would get our *other feed at a cheaper price. That sums

up the argument as presented to us. I understand that the amount of recleaned screenings which left Fort William for the East last year was 12,000 tons, and 24,000 tons left the elevators to go West; and the total output of all the mills for the same year was 600,000 tons.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Of what?


William Frederic Kay: The output of the mills of bran, shorts and feed-flour.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And flour too?


William Frederic Kay: No.


John Livingstone Brown: If the mills would only
grind that recleaned screening there would not be any necessity for mixing it with anything else in order to have it sold at its feeding value. It is only because they want to mix in some of that dirt that has no feeding value that they want to cover it up in the bran and shorts. That is the plain situation- that our cleaned screenings are good feed, and no one will refuse to buy them at their value. We have seen them composed of a certain percentage of wild oats, cracked wheat and the flax and stuff that is real good, and will sell at their value anywhere; and it is only because the millers want to cover up the mustard and dirt and the wild unpalatable stuff that they put this in at all.


William Frederic Kay: The weeds that go into the
large mills are very thoroughly cleaned. The mustard and the similar weeds are all taken out.


Edward Joseph Garland: The contrary is absolutely the case.


William Frederic Kay: I am nob talking about screenings which come from an elevator. I am talking about screenings which come from a mill after the wheat is cleaned ready for grinding. That is what goes into shorts at present. For the last year the mills, following this bill almost exactly, have been putting their screenings into their shorts, and they have been making bran middlings and feed-flour, clean.


John Livingstone Brown: On the advisory council, did these gentlemen mention anything about the point I brought up, about scourings being put in? I say that scourings are put in, and I know whereof I speak.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brown). The millers in the first place clean that wheat as thoroughly as

Feeding Stuffs Act
it is possible to clean it from all foreign substances. Now they want to pollute the by-products with mill sweepings and dirt of all kinds, and to make the mixture so that it is not fit for animal food. In my experience as a cattle breeder, I have come across instances where this was adulterated to such an extent that it was not fit for food at all. If they want to sell rubbish, let them sell it on its merits; if they want to sell screenings, let them sell that on its merits; but let them sell bran and shorts for what they really are as they come from the mill.
At the end of paragraph (d) clause 2, there are two lines which read:
No person shall manufacture pure shorts and shorts and mill screenings at the same mill.
What does that mean?


William Richard Motherwell: It was decided the other day to cut that out.


William Frederic Kay: There is only one way by which we will get all our feeds pure, and that is when our friends in the West will have their grain cleaned as it leaves the elevators and will keep their dirt, weeds, and so forth, on their own farms.


John Livingstone Brown: That is our business.


George Black: What does the hon. member think of Ontario where we feed hundreds of thousands of tons of that stuff that comes east? How are we going to keep our farms in Ontario clean? No mill can grind all that stuff so as to kill all the weeds. We on this side of the House would like to know who on that committee were real farmers. I am afraid on that .committee there were only one or two men belonging to the farming industry. The rest were millers and sympathizers with the millers.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think my hon. friend should make that statement. Why make a reflection-


George Black: It is no reflection.


William Richard Motherwell: -of that nature, when there is no justification for it?


Edward Joseph Garland: He is not making a reflection.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman pointed out that, with the exception of two men, the rest were sympathizers with the millers.


Edward Joseph Garland: All right.


William Richard Motherwell: I was at a luncheon with them. Am I to be classified as a sympathizer with the millers?


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
may take that attitude if he likes. I said that I did not believe in going to the one extreme of mixing things indiscriminately, or to the other extreme of prohibiting mixing altogether.


Edward Joseph Garland: Let us do the mixing ourselves.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
knew a little more about the matter, he would know that that was not practicable. As regards what the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) says, if these mills all bought their wheat directly from the farmers, he is absolutely right that they could do what they liked with the screenings; that they could 5 p.m. throw it into the gutter if they liked. It did not cost them anything except for handling. I do not know what percentage of wheat is marketed in that way, but a comparatively small quantity is purchased directly from the farmers, when one considers that our wheat is spread over the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Let us forget the millers and think of those who are using those by-products. What is in their best interest? I am confident, if a waste ensues as a result of millers buying these screenings as wheat and not being able to sell it to advantage, or if a loss ensues thereby to the millers, they are bound to make that up by larger profits on some other branch of their activities. This is not like farming. If a farmer loses, he has to lose-I do not know how that comes about, but that is the way the thing works-if a manufacturer loses, he has some way of tacking that on to something else. You may think that is not right, but that is what happens. The miller i3 going to make more on his bran, shorts, middlings and low-grade flour, probably on his high-grade flour, to make up what he loses on the wheat. I am not arguing that that is right, but that is the way in which the thing works out. Is it in our interest to make a provision that results in that, and possibly to disappoint many farmers who want to buy that mixture? I see the hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) having a good time listening. I do not suppose there is in this chamber an hon. gentleman who has more experience than he with regard to feeding by-products. I do not profess to
Feeding Stuffs Act

have such recent knowledge as he has, and I should like to hear what he has to say. My impression, as I say, is against any form of mixture. My judgment is that it is not wise to go to the other extreme and to prohibit it altogether. There are certain people who want to buy a blend. Why prevent them from buying it? There would be no deception. The fact that-it is a mixture will be marked on the bag. If you do not like to buy it, you lo not need to do so. You can take the pure stuff. You have the two choices, the mixture on the one hand, and the pure bran or shorts or middlings on the other. Let us forget that we have any sympathies or prejudices, and let us just use our judgment and get the best bill possible under the circumstances.


Robert Henry Halbert: Would we have any way of knowing what quantity of shorts and screenings there were in the mixture? There might be a gallon of shorts and the rest screenings.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that is hard to regulate, but it is spoken of as "mill run.''


George Black: The minister says that there is no deception. Why not keep the screenings by themselves and let us do the mixing ourselves? Then there will be no deception.


William Richard Motherwell: If the committee is willing, I am agreeable.


Mr. HAMMELL:: I would like to give the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Black) a list of the members on that committee. He stated that there were no members there representing the farmers. The chairman was Mr. Clark, Seed Commissioner of Canada. There was Dr. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who could not be said to be in sympathy with the millers. Mr. J. E. Brethour, representing the Swine Breeders' Association of Ontario was a member. My hon. friend will know him as one of the best and biggest farmers in western Ontario. Mr. Stonehouse, of the National Dairy Council, was another member who was there representing the Eastern Dairymens' Association. The hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) was a member, and he is a farmer of some repute. I do not think the hon. gentleman will doubt that statement. I happen to have had the privilege of being there myself. There were only three other gentlemen there representing the millers, as compared with six of us representing the farmers.


George Newcombe Gordon: The debate is getting away from clause 1 which we are considering.


Mr. LOVIE:: There seems to be a good
deal of discussion how bran, shorts and flour are manufactured. In my district there has been for the last thirty years, a mill to which we take wheat and get back flour, bran and shorts. Only those three products, nothing else, are manufactured at that mill. The wheat is certainly cleaned before it is ground, and the screenings are crushed and sold. These are the products: flour, bran, shorts, and the ground screenings can be purchased as chop which is good feed for either cattle or hogs. As regards the quantity, that miller would always give 36 pounds of flour, 10 of bran and 10 of shorts. There was thus 4 pounds left to take care of anything left in the wheat. They figured this a loss of four pounds on every bushel. Consequently the miller is suffering no loss at all. We know with certainty that the milling companies, having their elevators all over the three prairie provinces, are able to buy wheat extensively and it is docked as bought. The farmer is not paid for any screenings; these are made a present of to the miller and the freight is paid to Fort William. Besides, the millers are able to purchase wheat at the street price, that is, the Fort William price less storage and transportation charges; consequently if they ship those screenings out the freight is already paid. Therefore we who want pure bran and shorts demand the opportunity of getting them absolutely pure. Those of us last winter who wanted to buy pure bran could not get it, -there was 7 per cent of screenings in it. No mill in the country is so equipped as to be able to grind these screenings, they can be ground only at the big central mills. In a word, the mixture of screenings in our feed stuffs is a fraud, and we do not want to see it carried on any longer.


Donald Sutherland: We are getting a
little light on this question of commercial feed stuffs. The minister (Mr. Motherwell) states that he is sympathetic with the desire to have all mill feeds pure, and the chairman of the committee on Agriculture (Mr. Kay) states that that is his view also, and that he hopes ultimately we will arrive at this desirable state of affairs. It seems to me that we are becoming a little more involved from year to year in dealing with this question. In 1919 the millers' representatives gave evidence before the committee on the Cost of Living, evidence which does not bear out the conclusions reached by the chairman of the committee on Agriculture. They claimed there was no difficulty whatever in keeping screenings separate, in fact it was stated that the

Feeding Stuffs Act
wheat had to go through seven different processes before it was in a condition fit to be milled into flour, and that the large mills contained up to date appliances by which the screenings could be ground and distributed equally among the by-products. It was claimed by the millers' representatives at that time that if they were not permitted to dispose of the screenings in this way they would have to increase the price of their flour. This was the excuse put forward. And in face of that we had abundance of evidence to show that thousands of animals were being poisoned as a result of this stuff being fed to them.


William Frederic Kay: I do not think my hon. friend
wishes to misrepresent me. I do not say that the millers cannot separate the screenings from the other mill feed, but if they do separate them it will entail a heavy inves-ment on the part of each mill.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Black, of the
Ogdvie Milling Company, in his sworn evidence before the committee on June 23rd, 1919, was asked the question:
Nothing to do with the mills?
And he said in reply:
Nothing whatever. However, we could eliminate that if it was so desired, but we then would turn it over and sell it for what we could get. That might mean that you would have to increase the cost of the flour to some extent, because we might not be able to get as much for it in some other form as in brail or shorts.
They know very well they could not dispose of it as flour, but owing to the dark colour of the bran and shorts they could mix screenings and other dirt with it and in that way dispose of it. We had some very good evidence from the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) this session with regard to the methods pursued in the West. Apparently the latter has had practical experience, and so has the Minister of Agriculture. The member for Saltcoats was explaining how easy it was to take out most of these objectionable seeds right at the farm when the grain was being threshed. It is a very simple process. The thresher is paid so much per bushel but when there is a lot of weeds in the grain he stated that the farmer will not pay the thresher for the weed seeds if separated from the grain, consequently the thresher closes the shoe and allows all the weed seeds to come out with the grain, in this way getting paid for his threshing. "Everyone knows that," the minister called out across the House; "that is exactly what they do." Or words to that effect.
So we might as well look at this matter fairly and squarely. In fact the wheat purchased in western Canada that does not pass through the terminal elevators contains as much as 10 per cent weed seeds. Evidence before the committee showed that that is very often the case. Naturally, there is a great inducement for the millers to utilize this stuff in some way and dispose of it at a profit. I do not think there is any other way of dealing with this adulteration than by absolutely prohibiting millers mixing screenings with feed stuffs. Of course, they cannot possibly adulterate their flour in this way, but, so far as bran and shorts are concerned, the millers should not be permitted to put this dirt back into the bran and shorts.


William James Lovie: Did the millers pay for the 10 per cent screenings in the wheat they purchased?


Donald Sutherland: Not in the West. Where wheat is purchased at the elevators and cleaned and contains less than 3 per cent, the millers do pay; but not on grain purchased on the street and shipped direct without passing through the terminal elevator, unless they dock the seller of the grain. I do not know whether they do or not. In 1919 as a result of the evidence then obtained a bill was introduced by myself and referred to the committee on Agriculture for their consideration. The committee recommended that the bill should be put into effect. Thereupon the House passed the bill, which absolutely prohibited the adulteration of mill feeds such as bran and shorts in any way. The following session a Department of Health was created, and it took over part of the machinery for enforcing the act. I believe there is a fragment of this act on the statute books to-day. In the following session the present act was passed, and at the time I pointed out what I thought would be the result. I regret to say that exactly what I predicted has happened. I might be permitted to read one paragraph of my statement:
The effect of this clause will be that mill feeds of this kind will be mixed and you will get but a very small proportion of pure bran and shorts. This clause is a departure from the old act, end instead of being an advance along the lines which we desire, it is going in the opposite direction. It is making provision for the mixing of all these feeding stuffs and having the mixture disposed of to suit the convenience of the mill feed men.
What have we experienced since that time? We have found in Ontario-which I know better than any other part of the Dominion- that it is absolutely impossible to buy pure bran and shorts, although provision was made in the act for keeping those pure. But there is a distinction. These are sold as feed stuffs; the other is sold as commercial feed stuff, and
Feeding Stufis Act

must have printed on the container, "Screenings not exceeding mill run." You will find these words on the bottom of the container, but it gets covered over and no one realizes it is there. Under the present act a farmer is not often able to purchase pure mill feed, but has to take what he can get at the price demanded. This stuff is being palmed off on the farmers and their stock poisoned in consequence. The Department of Agriculture has abundant evidence to show that this is the case. This evidence has been put on record on previous occasions, and I shall not take up the time of the committee in referring to it. But the minister says he has intimate knowledge of the conditions both in western and in eastern Canada, and he says that his sympathies are with the keeping of mill feeds pure. He should, therefore, take steps to see that that is done. I wrote the minister a year ago in regard to the matter and was informed that some steps were to be taken to provide a remedy. I directed his attention to the subject on two or three occasions during the present session, and I was informed that a bill to this effect would be brought down. I have only to-day had an opportunity of looking over the bill;-I was not here when the resolution was discussed last week,-and I must say I am very much disappointed to find that there is to be no progress along the desired lines.
What is the use of trying to make the people believe that the millers cannot overcome the difficulties? The millers can adapt themselves to these conditions very quickly, if a change is demanded and if they do so they will find it much more satisfactory in the end; they will find that there will be a greater demand for mill feeds than there has ever been. The farmers are passing through a trying period. The one hope for the future of agriculture is the live stock industry, and you cannot successfully engage in that industry without an abundance of mill feeds such as bran and shorts. Under the old system of milling there were only the three products, but with the modern system there are four or five different products. By the way, this matter of an increase in products was referred to the committee on Agriculture two years ago and it was then decided that the sale of a new product of the milling of wheat would not be permitted. I was amazed to find that notwithstanding that attitude of the committee on Agriculture, the department did put this measure into effect. The recommendations of the committee were adsolutely ignored and the requests of the millers were granted. I am afraid the millers are the only ones who are receiving considera-
[ Mr. Sutherland.]
tion to-day. I regret very much to have to speak in this way, but I have taken a stand on this matter for the last ten years, and the conditions instead of getting better are getting worse from year to year. The farmers are getting discouraged. Buildings that have cost them hundreds, in some cases, thousands of dollars, are to-day empty. They are not engaging in the raising of hogs, a branch of farming that should be very profitable, to anything like the extent desirable. Now, something should be done. The minister does not appear to realize that this advisory committee was appointed on his recommendation.


William Richard Motherwell: The names were
recommended to me.


Donald Sutherland: The member for
Muskoka (Mr. Hammell) has given us some information as to who they were; I believe there was authority for appointing about sixteen members on that committee. Now, we have had a special committee on Agriculture sitting from almost the beginning to the end of this session; they could have looked into this matter had it been referred to them, and I think they would have been better employed than they were, because apparently not much consideration was given to this question. Let me inform the committee as to something that happened in 1917. A very strenuous debate has taken place for several sessions with regard to the manufacture of oleomargarine. It is important to note that the first steps taken to destroy the commercial feed stuffs and the grain standards of this country were taken by order in council in December 1917 on the recommendation of the then Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). I have copies of the orders in council here. Steps were taken also to purchase the screenings at the terminal elevators at S35 a ton, and for some time they were disposed of to the farmer. In view of the mixture which was permitted I have come to the conclusion-because the Oleomargarine Act was put through just about the same time-that the idea was to obtain a feed for a dairy cow with a view to producing oleomargarine instead of butter. There is an item in the supplementary estimates of $700,000 for the health of animals. I say that if you put something in this bill that will prevent the adulteration of mill feeds you will do more for the health of animals than the voting of this $700,000 to which I refer, or than the payment of $900,000 for veterinary and lay inspectors in the abattoirs and elsewhere throughout the country, as now provided for.

Feeding Stuffs Act


Mr. MILLAR:: I do not wish to delay the committee very long, because several members have already referred to the extent of the practice of mixing foul seed with mill feed. For many years it has been most difficult to get bran that is fit to feed to thfc>
stock, in fact in many cases the stock turn from it. One hon. member has stated that if we do not enact the legislation now before us, it will be necessary for the mills, at considerable expense, to change their machinery. But I assure the committee that unless a change is made very soon it will be a case either of the mills changing their machinery or of some of the live stock changing their digestive apparatus. When foul seed, which are bitter in taste, are ground up and mixed with the bran the resulting mixture is not only unpalatable but injurious to the health of the animals. At first it appeared to me to be not unwise to allow this bill to go through, the Minister of Agriculture having said that the purchasers would have an opportunity of buying or of not buying, as they pleased; they could get the pure bran or they could get the mixture. On second thought, however, I do not think it would be wise to do that. There has been much abuse in the past, and in all probability very little of the pure bran would be offered for sale if this was permitted. The farmers who wanted feed very badly would be willing to pay a higher price for the pure feed if they could get it, but the pure feed not being available they would be forced to buy the impure stuff. I do not see any reason why any suggested necessity for change in machinery should be allowed to affect the case. That is a mere excuse; there is really no good reason in it at all. It has been pointed out that the seeds must be cleaned from the grain in any case. I would point out that it is often cheaper to handle a large quantity of one kind of commodity than to have it divided up into a large number of classes. This bill will provide for several such classes, and the result will be to add to the expense. I feel certain that those who are feeding the stock will be better served if they can have the bran in its pure state.


William Richard Motherwell: The bran cannot be put into the screenings-shorts and screenings is the mixture we are dealing with. Bran will be sold in its purity.


John Millar: My argument, then, would apply to shorts only, not to bran. I think it is better to have shorts in its pure state and that the screenings be sold for what they actually are. If that is done the result will be more satisfactory to the buyers. They have experience enough to know just what
they are suitable for, and I know quite well that this material can be fed to advantage. For that reason I feel I must support the amendment. I do not know that it has been moved yet, but I understand an amendment is to be moved to have these mill products sold for what they really are.


Mr. ROBB:: The debate this afternoon has shown that the country is unanimous in its desire for pure feeds for live stock, and with that view I am entirely in sympathy, but may I point out that there is one way, and a primary way, in which we could help to provide the eastern dairymen and the western breeder with pure feed for live stock that would avoid the mixing of weed seed, and that is not to grow weed seeds. Do hon. gentlemen object to that?


Robert Forke: It is utterly impossible.


James Alexander Robb: How is it that we cannot get the good mill feed to-day that we could buy some years ago, is a question often asked. Well, some years ago the millers of this country were able to buy grain that was comparatively free from dirty weed seeds.


Donald Sutherland: Is it not true that the weeds purchased with these mill feeds have been distributed all over the old provinces?


James Alexander Robb: I was just coming to that. But there developed a method of farming in this country, surface farming, what is called in western Canada mining a farm, the result of which has been that the pure virgin soil on which good clean grain used to be grown has now reached a condition through careless methods of farming where it grows a very large percentage of dirty weed seeds. I think all hon. gentlemen will admit that. These dirty weed seeds have been carried over to eastern Canada through the mill feeds and the grain bought, and they have dirtied all the farms so that as you drive through the countryside you notice the deplorably dirty conditions of the farms.


Mr. SALES:: Where did the seeds come from into that grain grown in the West?


James Alexander Robb: I have had some experience. I was brought up on a farm and day after day we were sent out to weed mustard and keep the farm clean. I admit that that cannot be done on a large farm in the West, but I say that that is one way in which everyone oan help to eliminate these weed seeds.
There is another way in the meantime which will help, and it was pointed out by my hon. friend from Oxford county. There is, I am told, a threshing separator that cleans these
Feeding Stuffs Act

weed seeds fairly well on the farm, and if the farmers would help in that way and take out as much of the weed seeds as they could on the farm, there would be that much less to go to the mill. You would really believe to listen to the debate to-day that the average miller Wanted dirty weed seeds. Surely no one believes that. The better and cleaner the wheat, the more the miller is willing to pay for it and the more profit he can make. In anything the Minister of Agriculture can do to compel the sale of pure mill feed I am with him. I am in the business. I represent two firms that pride themselves on pure mill feed?, but I also know that if a man goes out and offers a mill feed with some dirt in it for 25 cents less the feeder is ready to buy the dirt3' feed. There are a very limited number of mills in Canada, and I know them, that are running their dirty seeds into the mill feed.
There is another danger, however, to live stock that in my judgment is far more feared than the weed seeds coming from the run of the mills or from the elevators, and that is the oatmeal mill that grinds out the hulls and runs them into the bran and shorts. I think that is a greater danger to the stock than the seeds if they are ground up fine. I have said enough, I think, to indicate that I am in favour of pure mill feed, and in favour of anything that can be done to secure a larger supply of pure mill feed.
We have had a complaint from some hon. gentlemen that bran was unobtainable, that they could not buy bran at any price. That is true in a degree, and possibly the more restrictions we impose and the more we hamper trade the harder we make it for ourselves to get what we want, for after all there are only a limited number of mills that follow this practice of mixing their seeds. The majority of mills in Canada pride themselves on putting out good mill feed. I will give hon. gentlemen one reason why mill feed is scarce in this country. I have here the records of exports for the ye'ars 1921, 1922 and 1923, and I find that in the year 1922 the total export of bran, shorts and middlings was 729,718 bags of 100 pounds each. In 1923 the total export was 2,300,353 bags of 100 pounds each, so we exported in 1923 almost three times the quantity exported in 1922. I am not stating that the regulations imposed had anything to do with this increased export, but it is clear that the export business was more profitable to the miller and consequently he put his stuff in another market. I am reminded that quite recently we in Canada were very much disturbed over certain regulations that the British government proposed to impose on the 
import of flour to that country. They were going to compel all importers of flour to import along with a bag of flour its equivalent in mill feed so far as weight is concerned. That shows the importance of supporting such measures as will secure to us good feed, but let us not put such restrictions upon mill feed in this country as will make it more profitable for the millers to export their mill feed to another country. I am with the Minister of Agriculture in anything he can do in this matter. I favoured the bill he had the other day for pure bran, pure shorts and pure middlings, and for the sale of screenings as screenings and branded as screenings. If that is done, Mr. Chairman, it is not the Canadian miller who will suffer. It will not hurt his business but it might hurt the man who is growing weed seeds.


Thomas Sales: There is a difference between the situation in the West and in the East.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Thomas Sales: In the West-there are very large mills situated at Calgary, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Winnipeg into which the farmer's wheat goes directly and is graded and docked. The millers get the screenings and the seeds absolutely free, with the freight paid not only into their mills but as far as Fort William; it costs them nothing. I say that if this regulation goes into effect it will be absolutely impossible for the western farmer to buy shorts at all, that is pure shorts, because whether the percentage of seeds is one per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or even 8 per cent the millers will endeavour to get rid of the whole thing, which is a gift to them, as shorts and screenings. With regard to the eastern miller the situation is somewhat different. If the inspector at the head of the lakes is not doing his duty, and is allowing screenings and seeds to go through there, it seems to me the course for the millers to take is to appeal against that inspection. I find there is a provision in the Grain Act for a grain survey board. It is provided that on the recommendation of the boards of trade of Toronto and Montreal respectively there may be appointed for any eastern division a grain survey board composed of such number of fit and skilful persons in each case as is considered necessary. There is also a provision that when the owner of any inspected grain is not satisfied he may appeal to the chief inspector; and further, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the chief inspector he may appeal to the board. I think that is the proper course for the eastern miller to take in this

Feeding Stuffs Act
regard, instead of trying to pass off a camouflaged adulteration. We have far too much adulteration in this country. The minister of Agriculture says that if we do not want to buy this so-called shorts we need not. I may say, however, that time and time again we cannot buy either bran or shorts unless we are prepared to take the flour with it.
Now as to the point the Minister of Trade and Commerce made when he quoted the figures that seven hundred and some odd thousand hundredweight had been exported in 1922.
I happen to have here figures prepared by the Bureau of Statistics and they show 854,829 hundredweight were exported in 1922. But there is another interesting point which the minister did not mention-


James Alexander Robb: There seems to be a difference in the figures. To what period do my hon. friend's figures apply?


Thomas Sales: To the period ending March 31st.


James Alexander Robb: The figures I quoted were for the period ending in May.


Thomas Sales: But the interesting point is this: The value is also given and it is $939,910. This works out at 51.02 per hundred weight, showing a value of over 520 a ton. I should like to ask any hon. member sitting near me. from the West or from the East, if he was able to buy either bran, or shorts, or middlings at 520 per ton in 1922.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend allow me right there?-the explanation will run in line with his figures. These exports are based on the f.o.b. price at the point of shipment. Now, most of this mill feed is exported from western mills so that the figures are based on the price f.o.b. at that mill. To arrive at the price at which the feed is sold in eastern Canada you would have to add the cost of the freight, seeing that the shipment may have been made from Alberta or western Saskatchewan.


Thomas Sales: That does not quite explain the situation either.


James Alexander Robb: It may not as regards the West but it does in the case of the East.


Thomas Sales: That will pot explain the
situation in the West where no freight cost is incurred whatever. For instance take Saskatoon or Moose Jaw where the farmers live around the mills. When the feed is sold to them there is no charge for freight to Fort William. The millers grind the wheat there and yet at times we have not been able to get
sufficient feed at any price. The price to us has been 524 a ton when apparently they were willing to ship feed out at 520. That situation is not right. The same thing occurs in the case of flour. We pay very nearly the same price for flour right at the point where it is ground, without any freight on it, that Montreal flour is quoted at. I am glad to receive the minister's assurance on the matter because I did not understand at what point the freight was added, but even with his explanation I contend that the farmers of the West are suffering a great injustice by reason of the price they have to pay for flour and for bran and shorts. If any amendment is moved I shall certainly support it. I should like to see the words "shorts" and "mill screenings" cut out altogether and make it read "pure bran, shorts, feed flour and screenings." I understood the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) to say that these screenings1 had a great feeding value, and that they were even worth more than shorts. If the screenings are so good let the millers sell them for what they are and get all the profit they can out of them; we do not want to deprive them of that profit when the screenings are sold separately.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no amendment before the committee. The unfortunate thing is we have not a bill here based on the amended resolution. I have one of the other bills that has been amended in accordance with the resolution. There is nothing for it but to pass the bill in conformity with the resolution, or else get a new bill drafted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In conformity with the amended resolution?


William Richard Motherwell: The amended resolution. If we strike out the word "pure" in subsection (d) of section 1 it will be in conformity with the resolution as amended the other day.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the word "pure" be struck from the sub-paragraph (d)?


Donald Sutherland: Sub-paragraph (d)
refers to "bran, shorts or middlings when unmixed with other materials." I am unable to grasp what the minister means by proposing to strike out the word "pure." The bill is so ambiguous that I doubt whether anyone can make head or tail of it in its present form. It appears to me as though the object were to enable people to evade its provisions.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not necessary
to have the word "pure." The clause was

Feeding Stuffs Act

drawn that way when it provided for a mixture of shorts and screenings. That would imply that there is another kind of shorts that is not pure. Consequently it is thought better to omit the word "pure."


Donald Sutherland: The minister will understand that there is really no difference between bran and shorts except that one contains about one per cent more protein. The bran is gound up fine now and disposed of as shorts. This has been the custom in the past. By adding some of the screenings or lower grade flour, they were able to dispose of the bran as shorts. To-day it is almost impossible to purchase pure bran, notwithst anding it is claimed they are not permitted to adulterate it now but it is ground up and disposed of in this way. I think the minister would be well advised, even at this late date, to alter the bill, so that it would conform with the view expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The importance of this bill to the live stock industry under present conditions is so great that I think it would be most unfortunate if this session should end without something being done along this line. I am satisfied that pure mill feed would mean more to agriculture in this country than all the money that is being spent for agricultural purposes. I am so firmly convinced as to this that I will venture to make that statement. The millers admit there is absolutely no difficulty; and if you put this into effect you will find the millers will be quite competent to take care of themselves, that nobody will be able to sell weed seeds to the millers and get anything for them, and that consequently it will encourage better farming, and overcome the great difficulty which we have. These weed seeds came into the country in an insidious way, and obtained a foothold before the people realized in many instances what they were at all. I can understand the difficulties they have to contend with in farming in western Canada. In fact, weed seeds were introduced into western Canada and even into Ontario from Europe, but it is only recently that people have become acquainted with the fact, and if it continues for a few years, it will be almost impossible to eradicate them. Better farming will be of immense benefit to the country, and live stock is the basis on which agriculture must be built up.


William Richard Motherwell: If the word "pure" is to appear before the word "shorts," it should be placed before every one of these by-products, middlings, feed-flour and so on.
I think we will have to either cut out the

word "pure," or if we leave it in, we will have to place it before each one of these commodities. Therefore, I think it should be eliminated and that the words "when sold separately and immixed with other materials," should be struck out, because that implies the other. Then, after cutting out those words, the word "screenings" should be inserted, because it is a fifth by-product. It appears in the next section. It will then read, "bran, tehorts, middlings, feed-flour and screenings."


Thomas Sales: If the minister consents to *cutting out the word "pure" and to the other changes, will he allow section 9 on page 2 to stand?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, that will be cut out, too. The words "shorts and" would require to be cut out as well.


William Richard Motherwell: It will have to bo made to conform to the idea of a pure article all through.


Thomas Sales: The point I am making is that adulteration or misleading tagging or labelling, and so on, is absolutely prohibited.


William Richard Motherwell: I think when we get to that, it will have to be made to conform with the idea that every one of the five must be in itself distinct with nothing attached to it.


Donald Sutherland: Before the motion is carried, would it not be well for the officers of the department to look into this matter, and have the amendment made, so that the 'bill will operate successfully.


William Richard Motherwell: The worst is past, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Sutherland: I think the consensus of opinion is the same as in 1919. I will read a resolution which was moved by me which was passed by the committee of Agriculture at that time, when my bill was referred to it. It reads:
That in view of the serious results from the feeding of adulterated bran and shorts by adding thereto great quantities of weed seeds both ground and unground annually resulting in the death of many animals and serious injury to the health of others, besides distributing harmful weed seeds throughout the country to the detriment of those who engage in agriculture, this committee would respectfully recommend that immediate action should be taken to deal with this question by passing and putting into effect at the earliest opportunity bill No. 7 an act to amend the adulteration act.
That resolution absolutely prohibits mixing.

Feeding Stuffs Act


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the word "pure" be struck out?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: Strike out the word "and" before the words "feed-flour".


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the words "the products of wheat" are to remain, and the words "when sold separately and unmixed with other materials" are to be struck out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what we agreed just now should be cut out.
On the "yeas" and "nays" being called:


George Newcombe Gordon: I declare the amendment carried. Then paragraph (d) will read-
Bran, pure shorts, middlings, feed-flour, and screenings, the products of wheat.


Donald Sutherland: I did not hear the amendment read.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There seems to be a contradiction. Screenings are not a product of wheat.


William Richard Motherwell: The product of wheat and wheat screening. You will get the wheat as the result of screening, and the other four by-products as the result of milling.


Donald Sutherland: Is this not merely a definition as to what constitutes food stuffs? The commercial feed stuffs are left as they were.


James Alexander Robb: Have the words "when sold separately and unmixed with other materials" been struck out?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: I think it should read this way, "when sold separately and unmixed."


William Richard Motherwell: But that is implying that it is mixed. That will be a mistake, because it is giving a tip for them to go on mixing.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (a)-By-products resulting from cleaning, etc., of wheat forbidden, except when properly tagged.


George Newcombe Gordon: An amendment has been proposed by Mr. Caldwell that the words, in the 23rd line, "shorts and mill screenings" be struck out.


William Richard Motherwell: That is in subsection (a) ? In the same line I think the word "pure" should be struck out, before the words "shorts and mill screenings".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On Section 2, paragraph (b)-When free from certain admixture.
William Richard Motherwell: I move that the
word "pure" before the word "shorts" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On Section 2, paragraph (c)-Percentage by weight in each case.
William Richard Motherwell: I move that in the first line the word "pure" before the word "shorts" and the words "shorts and" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to call
the minister's attention to line 9. The words "shorts and" should be struck out and the words "mill screenings" left.


William Richard Motherwell: In the schedule,
showing the percentage of fibre, I move that the word "pure" before the word "shorts" be struck out and the words "shorts and" before the words "mill screenings" be struck out. The other classifications remain the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On Section 2, paragraph (d)-Registration and contents.
William Richard Motherwell: I move that paragraph (d) be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: Might I point out that there is possibly a considerable stock of old mill feed on hand? What date does the committee think would be a suitable date on which to bring this legislation into force? It occurred to me that the date should be the. 1st of October. That would give us an opportunity of getting these pure mills feeds for the fall litters of pigs, so that they would not have too much fibre in their feed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: Should this aci
come into force on the first day of October, 1923, or had we better let it come into force by proclamation?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It would be better io
name the date.


William Richard Motherwell: I move an amendment that there be added section 4:
4. This act shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Supply-Public, Works-N.S.
[Stage Direction]


The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: It being six o'clock, I
do not suppose you wish to sit further?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scot .a, $533,884.60.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we take this vote item by item?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will make some general explanation as to these further estimates brought down, as they are, in the very dying days of the session when we have a great deal of work to dispose of. I would point out to him that we now have our Main Estimates of $466,000,000, the sup-plementaries of $14,000,000, the construction programme of $28,000,000, the additional sup-plementarias brought down for the year closed of $18,000,000, the bonus supplement of $5,500,000, the liability to be undertaken in connection with the endorsement under the bill which has received second reading of $15,000,000, and the Supplementary Estimates tabled to-day of nearly $15,000,000-making a grand total of $548,750,714. With a very large deficit this year, and with an estimated revenue much less than last year, how does my hon. friend expect we are going to pay for all this-where is the money coming from -what is the loaning programme-how is the country to be financed? Surely we should have some idea where the money is coming from in connection with this vote.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that it has been deemed necessary to bring down these estimates at a late stage of the session. If that is a criticism, I am willing to admit there is some ground for it. The only explanation is that we have all been pretty busy-I plead guilty to having had an occasional busy day myself. However, apart from that there is nothing in these estimates that calls for any special criticism or any special explanation. The money is to come from those projects which we have disclosed to the House. If my hon. friend knows any part of these estimates which is not fair and

reasonable, it is his pleasure and his duty to point it out to us and, if necessary, challenge the vote of the House upon it. If he is not prepared to do that, I tell him he is not going to alarm the country by rolling up all these figures. Each estimate must stand on its merits. I do not think my hon. friend is going to scare the people at all by his figures. I see nothing remarkable in the situation at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought we had done something. We at least did our best to criticize the estimates that have already been brought down, but our protests were absolutely unavailing and, indeed, some people think we talked too much upon them. That is all we can do. As I pointed out, there is more than the mere voting of the estimates. Here we have a deficit on last year's operations of $58,000,000-


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend knows that that is not correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend is doing himself justice when he makes that remark. He got a credit from other years' operations of $8,000,000 on exchange. He taking credit-


William Stevens Fielding: I am not taking credit for it. The item appears in the accounts. There is no other place to put it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He taking credit for that, reduces the total sum of the deficit. There is no doubt about that. He never for one moment tried to conceal it. Therefore my hon. friend is not doing himself justice when he says I am saying something that I know is not so. I do not think he meant to say it. At any rate I am going to think that he did not mean it. We will take the deficit as we have it with the adventitious fund of $8,000,000. Such a windfall will not occur again this year, and even with it the deficit is bad enough. Now in the face of this total vote of over $548,000,000, surely my hon. friend cannot think that one is merely trying to alarm the public by referring to what he is doing. There is no attempt at alarming the public. We are all interested in trying to get things down to something like a normal working basis. The income called for by my hon. friend's budget falls very far short of this huge total. I did ask him in all sincerity where the money is coming from. He is not telling me. I can do nothing more than I have done already in connection with the votes that have been passed-simply register my protest.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman (Sir Henry Drayton) who has just

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
taken his seat called attention to the lateness of the tabling of the Supplementary Estimates. Last Tuesday, after they were tabled, the right hon. leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to tell him when in the history of Canada such estimates had been tabled during the last week of the session. I have taken the trouble to go through certain records and have found one precedent. In the session of 1921 when the right hon. leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister-


William Stevens Fielding: And my hon. friend was Minister of Finance.


Louis Joseph Papineau: On Monday, the 30th May, 1921, at about one o'clock in the morning, Supplementary Estimates for $23,959,842.14 were tabled. The House prorogued on the 4th of June; that was the Saturday following. That was I think the precedent which the right hon. leader of the Opposition wanted, and he himself is the one who created this precedent when, he was then Prime Minister.
The Montreal Gazette of the 31st of May speaking of the Supplementary Estimates amounting to $23,959,842.14 tabled on the 30th of May says:
The figure is low and indicates a close scrutiny of expenditures. The Main Supplementaries last year totalled $62,000,000 and the year before $36,700,000.
That was not including the bonus for the Civil Service which the leader of the Opposition wanted to include in the supplementaries this year. There may be, I admit, some discussion as to whether these supplementaries might not have been brought down a little earlier in the session, but I do not believe that the strong protest of the right hon. leader of the Opposition was justified in any way, shape or form.


Robert Forke: I wish to say a few words
with regard to these Supplementary Estimates, and what I am going to say I am sure is without prejudice. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference to consider this right or wrong now because it has been done before. I notice that the Supplementary Estimates for public works in Nova Scotia are larger than the main estimates for that purpose.


Mr. VIEN:: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Does he not believe in the principle "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone?"


Robert Forke: I hardly know where I have sinned anyway. The thing is in bad practice. I have no great experience with procedure in the House of Commons, but just from a
common business standpoint I think it is bad practice to bring down such a large amount of estimates at the end of the session. Among the items that appear in these estimates I might mention the increase in salaries to the deputy ministers. I am not in a position to make any criticism as to whether that is right or wrong. I believe in paying what the work is worth, and if we get efficient servants to do our work we ought to pay them a reasonable sum, but I do claim, Mr. Chairman, that this must have been within the knowledge of the government when the Main Estimates were brought down, and I should like to know why it was not included in the Main Estimates. I want to register my protest against such a large sum being brought down at the end of the session when we have not time to get the information to enable us to criticise these different items. Take the estimates for Nova Scotia for instance. What information have we in this part of the House, at all events, upon which we could offer any intelligent criticism other than that we think this is a large sum of money for the purpose?


William F. Carroll: I would ask the hon.
member, does he take exception to any specific vote for Nova Scotia in these Supplementary Estimates, and if so which one?


Robert Forke: I was just on that point when the hon. gentleman interrupted me. I was saying that it was a large sum of money, and that we were not in a position to criticize. It is a large sum of money to vote without any particular knowledge of the circumstances. Had these been brought down at the time of the Main Estimates we could have made inquiries and got some information before we were asked to vote this money. We are not finding fault if the money is properly spent. You can be extravagant in spending a little, and you can practise economy in spending a great deal. It all depends on how you spend it. I want to register my protest against this practice. I believe it is a wrong principle, and because hon. gentlemen opposite are not able to cast the first stone does not make it any better.
While I am on my feet I just want to say that we are nearing the end of the session, and I think we are all anxious to get through. I do not want to be critical, though I think that intelligent criticism is all right, but I should like to say that we waste a good deal of time in this House in wandering into bypaths and raking up old things that took place years ago and that are of no interest to us in this part of the House at all events.
Supply-Public Works-N.S.

I am not referring to intelligent criticism. I would like if possible to come right down to business. Let us get on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to say just a word in reference more particularly to the remarks of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance and the right hon. leader of the Opposition. As far as I have been able to gather, the impression they have sought to convey is that the government in some way or other has sought to delay bringing down the estimates till the last of the month. I think it is important that not only the House but the country should understand that so far as the Main Estimates are concerned, and they are the large amounts covering the business of the government as a whole, the entire Main Estimates with the exception of one item had been passed on the 15th of this month. There has been no effort whatever in any way to prevent full discussion of the estimates. It has been a part of the government policy to begin almost immediately after the opening of the House with the estimates, and distribute them day by day over the session so that there would be ample opportunity for the members of the House to discuss every department and every branch of government. Wihat we took such strong exception to in opposition was that the government of the day, while it brought down it3 estimates at a certain time after the opening of the House, refrained from bringing before the House for purposes of discussion a very large part of the Main Estimates until the last few days of the session. I think if one will look through the records of parliament one will find that the last week or two of parliament during the last few sessions at least- I know that when we were in opposition the end of the session was taken up almost entirely with discussing Main Estimates. Not only that but a great proportion of the Main Estimates were discussed after midnight and until five in the morning. I remember sitting where my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) is sitting now while the government of which he was a member was busy putting through estimates here at night to the amount of millions, and sitting right on until daylight came in through the windows above. I protested strongly, and pointed out that the government was trying to railroad the estimates through the House at a time when it was impossib't to have any discussion and I maintained that if ever the then opposition came into office we would see that nothing of that kind was repeated. I just wish to demonstrate to the House the truth of what I have said. If members will look at the Orders of the Day they

will find there the dates on which the diffei-ent supply has been put through this House. They run as follows on the order paper: February 20, February 23, February 27, March 2, March 6, March 8, March 9, March 15, March 22, March 23, March 27, March 28, April 10, April 11, April 12, April 13, April 16, April 19, April 23, April 24, May 4, May 8, May 11, May 28, May 29, May 30, May 31, June 7, June 8, June 11, June 12, June 13, June 14, June 15.
That is the manner in which the present government has submitted the estimates to the House for the purpose of discussion. They have been distributed as evenly as possible over the entire session, giving notice to members always in advance of what was in contemplation so that there would be ample opportunity of discussing fully every item of supply.
Might I draw the attention of the House to this further fact ? While we were discussing the estimates I do not think there was a single night, unless by consent all round, that we sat beyond eleven o'clock. What I took strong exception to when in opposition was the fact that items would be passed in supply long after it was possible for members of the press gallery to take any record of what was being said or to send any communication to the press of the country as to the discussion that was taking place here. It has been a deliberate part of the government policy to see that the members of the House had the fullest opportunity of discussing supply, that the country should know every word that was said by any member which might be deemed by the press to be of importance in that regard. We have presented our estimates in consequence in that way and all the main supply was completed by the 15th of this month.
The Supplementary Estimates are possibly a little late in being brought down but, as hon. members know, we have been very busy discussing the budget and there has not been time to give to the Supplementary Estimates, until the greater part of the budget was out of the way, the careful consideration which should be given. But let me say in regard to the Supplementary Estimates-and I say it particularly to my hon. friend from Brandon who has just spoken as to the matter of time, we are all anxious I think to get away at the end of this week if possible- if any member feels that in any particular it is going to prevent or even shorten discussion for the House to prorogue this week I hope he will at once dismiss from his mind any intention on the part of the government to

Sup-ply-Public Works-N.S.
have it so prorogue. I purpose to-night to have the House adjourn at twelve o'clock so that there will be no discussion on estimates after midnight, and if we are not through tomorrow by midnight we will rise and continue on Saturday till midnight, and if we are not through then we will adjourn and reassemble for discussion of the estimates on Tuesday. I would like that to be thoroughly understood. The government is not going to seek to railroad these estimates through in any particular. Members may have all the time they wish.
Let me add further so far as the Supplementary Estimates are concerned, we have sought to avoid bringing down in the supple-mentaries items which we thought in any particular would be contentious. My hon. friend from Brandon says that these Supplementary Estimates so far as public works in the province of Nova Scotia are concerned are larger in amount than the Main Estimates, but did my hon. friend take close cognizance of the nature of the Main Estimates? If hon. gentlemen will look through the estimates they will find that so far as new work is concerned, the government both in the Main Estimates and in the supplememtaries has resisted to the very limit the demands that are coming from the different constituencies of this country to start any new public works or public buildings. Here and there there are one or two public buildings which have become an absolute necessity and the commencement of which the Minister of Public Works felt he could not possibly longer delay, but looking through the list one will find that practically all the items for public works set forth in these estimates are in the nature of repairs, and looking through the Main Estimates also one will find that practically all the work is in the nature of repairs. May I point out this to my hon. friend? It is not until the spring of the year very often that it becomes possible for the officers of the Department of Public Works to discover what is essential in the nature of repairs. These are largely repairs to wharves and the like. It is the damage done in the winter that necessitate^ this work. We could let all of that go if hon. members thought it was in the public interest, but it is to save the property belonging to the Dominion that makes it necessary to bring in these estimates. The Public Works estimates so far as the province of Nova Scotia and all the other provinces are concerned are absolutely wanting in anything in the nature of public expenditure for new work. We have I think gone a little too far in that regard. Members of all three groups
have pressed the government hard in regard to necessities in particular constituencies in the way of new buildings, and we have steadily refused. So far as these Supplementary Estimates are concerned while the amounts may be a little larger for the repair work and th* like than in the Main Estimates it is due t' the circumstances I have mentioned. The need for repairs has become more apparent after the winter months, and we refused in the Main Estimates to consider anything in the different constituencies until we had some opportunity of getting further particulars as to these necessities.
In these Supplementary Estimates there are a few amounts occasioned by the legislation that has been passed this session. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance drew attention to the last items brought down to provide for the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. That was inadvertently overlooked. I suppose I am primarily responsible. It was my fault that it was left out of the Main Estimates, and I asked the Minister of Finance to put in a sufficient amount to administer the act which this parliament had assented to.
As to the deputy ministers, I might say a word on that at this moment. There are so far as the increases there mentioned are concerned no general increases in the salaries of the deputy ministers. What the government has done is this. We have ascertained, we have had reason to know, that some of the men who hold these responsible positions in the public service are staying on in the public service to-day resisting offers much more considerable in amount than the salaries they are receiving at the present time.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Well, well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I tell my hon. friend it is true.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Which one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could name several. One of the deputy ministers refused an offer of 820,000 to stay in the service at $10,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will tell my hon. friend if he wishes to know. It was Major Bell, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals. He was offered $20,000 to leave the service and go into other work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is not on this list.
Supply-Public Works-N.S.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government found it necessary to give him $10,000 to retain him, and having given him $10,000 with the extra duties he has, the government felt that where there are members of the public service that have been deputy heads of departments for ten years they were entitled to receive an increase to the extent of making their salaries $8,000. That is what is meant by the increases here set forth. Any deputy who has been at the head of a department for ten years or over is named here for an increase in salary. It is not an increase to the office, it is not an increase to the department; it is an increase to the deputy head who h^p served ten years, simply recognizing the system is general through the Civil Service that length of service be remunerated at perhaps a larger figure. I think if hon. gentlemen opposite will go through these estimates with an eye to the necessity of presenting them in this form at this particular time they will find very little to criticize.
May I add this? Of these estimates brought down at the present time the amount of $5,800,000 is not in the nature of an appropriation for some new work. It is in the nature of a loan. There is one item here of $4,000,000 for loans to provinces for housing advances. Why is that item here? The government in the Main Estimates made it plain to the House that we had felt that previous administrations had made a mistake in voting such large sums of money to the provinces for a number of different purposes to enable the provinces to carry on work which they themselves should carry on. Large sums of money have been voted out of the federal treasury by past administrations for road making, for instance, several millions for aid in agricultural instruction, several millions for aid in technical education, several millions in the form of loans to the provinces for putting up houses in cities and towns. All of this was work which this present government inherited, so to speak, in virtue of the statutes under which these provincial grants were made. They were grants running over a term of years, and if the total of our estimates soems large it is in large part because we have had to carry on from year to year commitments made before we ever came into office at all. We tried to stop certain of these grants from the federal to the provincial treasuries, and among the number we stopped the grants to the provinces for housing loans. We thought it was a mistaken policy on the part of the federal government

to be assisting the provinces in the erection of dwellings in cities and towns. Earlier in the session some reference was made to it and I confess I agreed with an hon. gentleman opposite that it would be much better if we were to spend money for the purpose of housing, to spend it on housing for farm dwellers rather than city dwellers. But we discovered that under the plan previously made a number of the provinces had made commitments with the municipalities that had not exhausted their full amounts to advance them sums which they were expecting to get from the federal treasury, and which they became responsible for in the matter of loans paying us interest on them. When we discovered that we were faced with the alternative of having to say to our friends "well, we will have to go back altogether on the undertaking that has been given by the previous government or else make good this amount." That is why this item of $4,000,000 appears in the Supplementary Estimates at the present time. But I have made it plain, in that once the present year is past further advances shall not be continued. I apologize for taking up so much time, but if hon,. members will look carefully at the estimates they will see that the government has, if anything, erred on the side of refusing to do in the way of public works throughout this country a great deal that is very much required at the present time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to protest against
the increases in salary to the deputy ministers.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to draw
the hon. member's attention to the fact that the three leaders of the respective groups have dealt generally with the estimates. At present we are considering one item for wharf repairs in Nova Scotia, and I think it is only fair to the committee to say that a general discussion is out of order.


William Stevens Fielding: We will reach the vote
for the increase in the salaries of deputy ministers shortly.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. member
will defer his remarks on the subject of the increase in the salaries of the deputy ministers until that vote comes up, he will be acting more in accordance with the rules.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the Chair rule that there is to be no answer to the speech of the Prime Minister?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You have made your
statement.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Mr. GOULD:: Seeing there is an item concerning Nova Scotia under consideration I have made a note in regard to some items in the estimates, and I think the inference which I draw should be placed before the committee and before the country. Undoubtedly during the progress of the discussion upon the various items endeavours will be made to explain what I look upon as an anomaly. I have gone carefully over these estimates and have eliminated the details of civil government, the administration of justice, and so forth. The items I have taken are: Railways and Canals chargeable to income, Public Works chargeable to capital, Public Works chargeable to income, and telegraph and telephone lines. I have segregated these items and I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the figures I have compiled and the inference I draw therefrom.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are now dealing with a specific item, and I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that while he may be able to deal with some of the items, I question the relevancy of a general discussion of the estimates, main or supplementary, at the present time. It is usual in committee when the Supplementary Estimates are taken up, I am told, for the leaders of the respective groups to deal generally with the estimates as a whole, but I doubt the right of any other member to debate the general question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the point of order, may I suggest that we have had very little chance of discussion. A great deal of hew matter has been brought up by the Prime Minister and I had no opportunity of answering his statements in that regard. I do not think his statements are very important and I am not worrying very much about them. However, may I not avail myself of what I think ought to be my right of reply to the remarks of my hon. friend friend from Assiniboia?


William Stevens Fielding: Then would he have a right to reply to you?	*


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not replying at all.


Oliver Robert Gould: I wish to comply with your ruling Mr. Chairman.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a question of order to be settled. When we consider the effect of the estimates surely we have a right to take them in bulk. Surely we have a right to consider, having regard to any particular part of the country, the
total amount that is going to be expended there bearing in mind the total requirements and the sums that are going to other districts.


George Newcombe Gordon: Generally speaking,that discussion should be on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and not on any individual item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure that no one could have got ready for a discussion on a motion to go into Committee of Supply on these estimates. There is this further fact, that we went into committee to-day without a motion. Now, if your ruling be correct, Mr. Chairman, we can have no general discussion on these supplement-aries.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend say that now is the time to raise that point?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly say we should have the right to discuss these estimates generally. We would have the right to discuss them on a motion to go into Committee of Supply according to your ruling, but as we went into Committee of Supply to-day without a motion no opportunity has been afforded for such discussion.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let me read to the hon. gentleman the rule which is applicable in such a case as this; I refer to paragraph 165, page 42, of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
Each grant is a separate motion which must bo proposed and discussed as a distinct question, and when it has been formally carried, no reference can be made again thereto. Neither is it regular to discuss any resolution before it has been formally proposed from the chair.
Now, what I am suggesting is this: While there may be, for the purposes of comparison, a reference to certain items, or to an aggregate of items, I feel that I am bound to declare that a general discussion such as the respective leaders have indulged in would not be within the rules for other hon. members.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do not let us have any misunderstanding about the matter. I do not propose to go to that length at all. As I understand it, the object of the member for Assiniboia is to present the totals having regard to specific votes and specific places which he has compiled. Now, let me deal for a moment with the rule which has been read. No doubt there is a certain limitation in regard to particular items, but there is a very broad discretion as to what can be considered in connection with them. For example in
ou/j/ny-r uuuc vv otks-iv ,o.

connection with every single item we have a right to consider the manner in which it can be financed, where the money is coming from, the necessities of the country, and the like. In connection with every item we can not only consider the item itself, but the cumulative effect having regard to other items of the same character in the same district.


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not wish to depart at all from the ruling of the Chair but I desire to present the facts which I have prepared in a manner altogether different from the way they have been advanced before. I think the information I have should be placed before the committee and before the country as well. Under the circumstances I think I should be accorded this privilege if privilege it be. As I stated before, ample opportunity will be afforded to other members to explain what I may term an irregularity or an anomaly. The statement I wish to make will not occupy more than one or two minutes. I was proceeding to enumerate the headings under which I have compiled my figures, and I stated that I had eliminated items from the total which I considered had no bearing upon the case. I may add that I had prepared a more elaborate statement along the same line in connection with the Main Estimates for the purposes of illustration last year, and in previous years, but being a young member my courage failed me when it came to submitting it to the House. However at this late period I have taken my courage in my hand and now wish to make a comparison in connection with the Supplementary Estimates. I wish to assure the committee that my computations for the past have borne out the results which I show here. I have a statement of the per capita return to the provinces out of the expenditures provided for by these supplementary estimates. We find that under the several items the per capita returns are as follows:
Per capita return
Nova Scotia	$1.25
Ontario	$1.05
Prince Edward Island	45
British Columbia	$1.05
New Brunswick	66
Manitoba	36
Alberta	095
Saskatchewan	04$
British Columbia	 1.06*
It is quite possible that this may be explained, and I think it is due to the committee, and likewise to the country, that we should have a real explanation of this condition. It should likewise be explained whether in the Main Estimates, not only of this year, or last year, but former years, the

returns average up according to the illustration which I have just given.


Mr. MARTELL:: Will the hon. member
state whether he embraced, in his per capita expenditure as regards Alberta and Saskatchewan, the amount which this country is spending in the West for railways; and whether he will find breakwater and wharves1 that need improvement in Alberta? He might possibly require something to keep the gophers off the land.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have not taken into consideration any of the items in the Main Estimates yet. I think the hon. member will accept my word that my computation of the Main Estimates will bear out what I have stated.


Mr. WALLACE:: I would like to point out that there is a vast difference between the amounts voted for railway construction and the amounts voted for other purposes. In connection with the railways we have the whole debt carried on from year to year and charged to capital account while ordinary expenditures are charged against revenue.


William Stevens Fielding: May I express regret
that any hon. member should enter into abstruse calculations regarding per capita expenditures? That is a distinctly provincial view. One province may require one -class of work, and another province may require another class1. If it can be shown in any province of Canada that there is any deserving public work requiring attention which is not receiving attention, no matter what the per capita shows, it is a just complaint. But if the estimates are devoted to the practical things of a province, one province having wharves and breakwaters and another province having railways, I earnestly implore hon. members not to bring it down to a per capita basis. If there is any public work in any province in Canada deserving of consideration and not receiving it, that will be a just cause of complaint,
Advocate-wharf repairs, $2,000.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In this connection I
would like to voice my protest against the majority of the items in this vote for Nova Scotia. I believe the proper course for the government would have been to bring these items down in the Main Estimates. It is impossible for any member of the House tonight, without obstructing, to obtain any reasonable figures as regards most of those votes. I may say that 60 per cent of the towns or places mentioned in this vote for Nova Scotia cannot be found

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
in any geography. They are not there, and as a result there is no means by which we can tell whether we are voting money to be spent in a wilderness or in a town. The first item is for wharf repairs at Advocate. That is one place that is on the map, but in the last 20 years the population of that place decreased from 1,598 to 798, or 50 per cent. The next place mentioned is not on the map. I think it is absolutely unfair that the government should bring down a large vote of this kind so late in the session when we have no reasonable chance to discuss it, unless we obstruct.


Mr. LOGAN:: Put these places on the map.


James Arthurs: The estimates should
have been brought down earlier in the session, or the votes included in the Main Estimates.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What map does the hon.
member refer to?
ME ARTHURS:	The Gazette of the
province of Nova Scotia.


John Millar: I am going to ask a question which I have asked before, and to which I have not received a satisfactory answer. If I possibly could get an answer I would like to have it. The government has spent a lot of money in building wharves at very small places. Some of them are very, very small. I know of one case for which $3,500 appears in the estimates. It is only a little place, where nearly all the boats are small craft which are pulled up on the mud flats by men.


William F. Carroll: Where is that?


John Millar: There are lots of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ecurn Secum.


John Millar: If the government follow this policy, I suppose they have some good reason and believe they are right in the course they are pursuing. If they spend money in building wharves at the very small places where there is no national or international trade, why do they not spend money in the same way in other places? Would it be sound policy to spend money in an outlying district where they have no creamery? The only argument I have heard in favour of these expenditures is that if you did not build a wharf you would not have any settlement. There are lots of districts where you would have a settlement if you built a creamery, but you never think of doing it. There are other places where they need an elevator. Why not build one? Is it
sound policy? I wish the minister would not side-step. I have put the question and there has been too much side-stepping.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Older, order.
Mr. .MILLAR: The Minister of Finance has stated that some of us are taking a provincial view of this matter, and he is perfectly right. Looking at the matter broadly, if all the provinces are receiving fair consideration, even though they are not getting it in the shape of wharves but are getting it in some other way, there is no need to complain, provided the policy is a sound one. However, it looks to me as if Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta are not getting their fair share, because they have not places to put wharves. Being youug in the House, I have the temerity to ask that the minister should show us how it is a sound policy for the Dominion government to pursue. I can see that it would be more justifiable in the case of a provincial government.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) (for Minister of Public Works) My hon. friend is quite right in asking for the fullest information in reference to all the items appearing in the Supplementary Estimates, and I shall be delighted to give him all the information. When we speak about the general question as to whether or not the policy of this or any federal government should be to provide accommodation for the people who make their living by the sea, I say my hon. friend has advanced a novel argument because every government which has been in power since confederation having to do, as we have to do, with trade and commerce, has followed the policy of encouraging the erection of wharves and facilities by which the people who live by the ocean and who have their traffic on the ocean, can pursue their vocation to the best advantage. As the people in the district my hon. friend comes from make their living on the prairies, they should have proper access to the land. The Maritime provinces generally are made up of a class of people, particularly in the southern portion of Nova Scotia, whose business is entirety on the sea. In the county of Lunenburg there is a tremendous fleet of fishing vessels which goes out on the Grand Banks, catches the fish, cures them, and sends them to the Mediterranean and West Indies. These fishermen do not all live in the bigger towns, but they live in the little inland towns and in places where they and their fathers have been accustomed to live. They must have access to the seas for their trade and commerce. I may say that the total expenditure for this year, so far as new works or
Supply-Public Works-N.S.

repairs in that province are concerned only amounts to $533,000. The past winter was the worst that we have had there for 25 years; there were storms in which wharves and breakwaters were destroyed and conditions created that unless the government followed out the policy of maintaining this means of access to the sea, the result would be that those people who make t'heir living on the ocean, would not have the most ordinary facilities found in every civilized country for doing business. With regard to each one of these items, I would be glad to give my 'hon. friend the information he desires.


Thomas Langton Church: On what principle is this vote of over half a million dollars for Nova Scotia justified? The people of Ontario see the Maritime provinces getting everything on a plea of lack of transportation facilities. On what principle are these votes for harbours made, for example? Canada never had a definite programme as regards improvement of harbours, or canal improvements. Money has been spent on some canals when it should not have been spent, and in other instances, money has not been spent when it should have been spent. It seems that all of a sudden the walls of old wharves in the Maritime provinces fall down. I understand that the policy of the government is economy. I did not see in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of parliament, any statement referring to Supplementary Estimates of fifteen or sixteen million dollars. Every country in the world to-day is reducing its capital debt. France, the United States, England, are reducing their capital debts and also their maintenance charges. In Canada we have a very heavy debt. This year, $73,000,000 for railways must come out of the taxpayers of this country, and the taxpayers have to pay huge sums to maintain the public services of the Dominion. In my opinion, these improvements in the Maritime provinces to breakwaters, wharves and other public works are unnecessary.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that a specific item which has been called from the Chair is being dealt with, and a general debate is not in order upon it.


Thomas Langton Church: I was debating item No. 504, in connection with the Maritime provinces.


George Newcombe Gordon: By agreement of the committee, we are debating the first item of vote No. 504. We are taking up each work as it appears in the list.


Thomas Langton Church: I am discussing the principle of the appropriation.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is too late to discuss the principle at this particular time.


Thomas Langton Church: The government is proposing a great deal of expenditure that, in my opinion, is not necessary. I do not think these are public works within the meaning of the British North America Act. In the United States, this class of work is done under the local improvement system, by which as regards a harbour or a depot port, there must be some revenue from that port to meet the expenditures. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) is not here.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I have to ask the committee a little later on to vote some $600,000 for some harbour improvements in Toronto. I wonder if my hon. friend will be as economical when that item is under discussion.


Thomas Langton Church: How much revenue is
derived from these wharves throughout the country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of these 68
items are in the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria, and what is the aggregate amount for items in that particular constituency?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: H my hon. friend will keep'track of them as we go along, he can add them up himself, because I never attempted to add them up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman should tell me how many are in that constituency.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will tell my hon. friend as we go along.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Point them out as we go along.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to
give my hon. friend the pleasure that he so earnestly asked for a few minutes ago, of having an opportunity to give us full details on this appropriation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This work
is required for the purpose of re-topping 135 feet in length of the wharf, with occasional renewals over the whole work, including a large portion of the sheathing. This is the only wharf in the locality situated 33 miles from a railway. About 400,000 lineal feet of piling, 2,000,000 feet of lumber and farm produce valued at $15,000 is shipped from this wharf annually, and general supplies for the locality are landed there. The Department of Marine and Fisheries in letters of

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
February 28, 1923, and January 31, 1923, state that "Advice has been received that a great deal of the sheathing of the public wharf at Advocate harbour, N. S., is loose and will be carried away by ice in the spring unless something i3 done to save it." The wharf was constructed in 1899-90. No departmental works are in the immediate vicinity. The nearest public wharf is the breakwater at West Advocate, about 3 miles west of this wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What county
is it in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Cumberland county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Abbott's harbour-breakwater extension, $1,350.
Thomas Langton Church: How many ships of the
Merchant Marine have come into Abbott's harbour in the last year?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is the geographical
location of this harbour?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is situated in Yarmouth county. It is proposed to construct a cribwork extension 50 feet long and 12 feet wide to the existing breakwater.
This is one of the fishing vil-9 p.m. lages of which I spoke a few minutes ago, where the fishing business on the Atlantic is carried on by the people who live in the vicinity. The wharf is their only convenience.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Do the local
people take any part in the repairs to these breakwaters? In Ontario, along the lakes, where a breakwater is established, it is paid for by the municipality.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed by the official here that my hon. friend from Kingston is hardly accurate about that. In our province, where we require to protect low-lying settlements by a system of dykes, those are carried on under provincial authority, but works along the lakes are carried out by the Dominion authorities.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am asking about breakwaters. There is no question about protecting low-lying land in Ontario. That work is undertaken by the provincial legislature, but in Ontario a local breakwater is usually paid for by the municipality.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. My
hon. friend wall find, if he looks at the estimates, that there are appropriations for breakwaters in his province.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is one in
Kingston, but it is the military college.


Hance James Logan: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Estimates he will find a certain amount provided for "Repairs to drydock at Kingston, Ontario."


Arthur Edward Ross: That is government property.


Mr LOGAN:: That is government property too.


Arthur Edward Ross: The drydock is for the protection of government property.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend has not studied the Estimates. On page 11 he will find two items for Ontario.


Thomas Langton Church: What is the necessity of this item for breakwater extension at Abbott's Harbour? It could well have been included in the Main Estimates. Why sell the Canadian Government Merchant Marine if this harbour is to be kept up?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Thomas Langton Church: I should like an answer to my question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend's question was answered some time ago in replying to other hon. gentlemen. I am sorry he did not hear the answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What county is this in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Queen's and Shelburne.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bass river-improvements, $1,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What county?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Colchester.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battery point-breakwater extension, $9,600.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What county?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Annapolis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This looks like another new item. I understood from the general remarks of the Prime Minister that there were to be no new works at all, only repairs. An extension is a new work. Why is the Prime Minister's rule being departed from here?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend should not be querulous about this item. When he was minister in 1920 his friends pro-
Supply-Public Works-N.S.

posed to make an extension to the breakwater -which is nothing more or less than building an addition to it to better protect access to the harbour-and in 1920 my hon. friend's Minister of Public Works asked for tenders for a proposed expenditure of $12,000 or $14,000. There is no new work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An extension is new work.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend must know that an extension of a breakwater is not new work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is putting on new work for extending an old one. We might as well be frank and honest with each other.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Broad Cove marsh-replacement breakwater-wharf, $8,400.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in Inverness county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the engineer's report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This vote is for the construction of a cribwork wharf, 200 feet long and 28 feet wide, to replace the existing structure, which is in a dilapidated condition through storms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burlington Centre-wharf extension, $7,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What county?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What justification could there be for any new work in Hants?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is a
cribwork extension to a public wharf, 20 feet by 50 feet. The extension is asked for to give more room at this wharf for shipping.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would feel more comfortable about this vote if it were supported by the eloquent member for Hants (Mr. Hanson).


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You want to hear speeches, not to pass votes.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is the work to be carried on by public contract, or is the money to be given to individuals or municipalities to look after the work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Tenders will be called for and the work let to the highest tender-I mean the lowest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada creek-rebuilding shore end of breakwater, $1,300.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this?


Mr MACDONALD (Pictou):: Canada creek is in King's county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cariboo island-breakwater reconstruction, $6,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Cariboo island?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the
county of Pictou.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is going to be done with the wharf?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not a wharf. This work is to raise the level of the breakwater from two to three feet for a length of fourteen feet and a width of sixteen feet. The storms of last autumn and winter practically destroyed this breakwater.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this to be done by day labour, contract or what?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have any advertisements been issued?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, we do not ask for contracts until the House permits the money to be expended.


Mr. BOYS:: I see there are no less than sixty-eight of these items for Nova Scotia. Are there any wharves whatever in the whole province that are not being either extended or repaired. If so, I should like to know where they are.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid my genial friend from South Simcoe has not visited our province or he would realize that it is an island.


William Alves Boys: I know it is an island. I do not want a geographical description. I asked the minister: Are there any wharves in the whole province that are not being either extended or repaired? I should like an answer.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not relevant to this particular item.


William Alves Boys: I submit it is, Mr. Chairman.
M. MACDONALD (Pictou): My officer informs me that we have no data to indicate the total number of wharves in Nova Scotia. If my hon. friend is really sincere, I will get the information and give it to him tomorrow.


William Alves Boys: I am sincere, for certain
reasons. I do not want to be too critical of the acting minister, but I made a most modest

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
request-I do not know whether this js in order or not, but it seems an appropriate place to refer to it-for a very small expenditure in connection with a government proposition, and could not get $6,000 for it; yet here are sixty-eight items in one single province involving an expenditure of over half *>, million dollars. In the face of this we are told that Canada has not enough money to build a decent road over which expensive government trucks attached to Camp Borden are being damaged daily. The road is nothing but an Indian trail. I am not speaking for my riding or politically, I am speaking for something that is absolutely essential for the ordinary user of Camp Borden. This road is used by thousands of people every year. Camp Borden is a wonderful camp, and I trust it will be kept up. But what startles me is that we find this tremendous number of items here for one province, while we cannot get $5,000 to improve a government property in another province in order that damage which is now daily done to trucks owned by this government may be avoided. I do not blame the acting minister; it is true this has not been pressed upon him for very long. But it has been pressed for a long time upon others; and it does arouse my interest when I see these sums of money being voted here- $5,000 or $6,000, $40,000, $50,000 when we cannot get the small amount required for this much needed work. I am not asking the acting minister to expend a large sum of money; I merely ask for an ordinary gravelled road so that the people using this camp can get in and out and so that the trucks can be used without being seriously damaged. I do think the government should give some attention to a matter of this kind; we should not be called upon to vote huge sums in certain provinces while a small but important work of this kind is ignored. Is every wharf in Nova Scotia receiving attention? I know that Nova Scotia is represented by sixteen Liberals; they are all first-class fellows as far as I know them and I do not blame them for asking for what they think they are entitled to. Personally I should be prepared to support what they are entitled to, but I do not want to support that while the needs of other parts of Canada are passed over.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think my hon. friend is hardly fair in the position he has taken. During the war these wharves and breakwaters in the Maritime provinces were neglected owing to the demands made by war necessities; hence it is that attention must be given to them now. Moreover, last winter was the worst we have had for a quarter of a century, and the injury to these harbours and wharves was very great. As to the road to Borden, the committee will recall that there has not been much disposition these last two years to be very liberal in expenditures connected with national defence or the militia, and the amount of funds at the disposal of that department is not very great. I know that my hon. friend called my attention not more than two weeks ago to the necessity of having improvements made on that road to Borden.


William Alves Boys: I called the attention of my hon. friend's predecessor to it as well. I have said that I am not blaming the acting minister; nevertheless the records ought to be in his department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When my
hon. friend called my attention to the condition of this road I made inquiries from the officers of the department, who reported that there was good ground for the complaint made, but that a large vote would be necessary to give the matter proper attention. I gave instructions that the matter be . looked into fully and that plans be prepared for submission next year so that we might consider the question of asking parliament then to provide something for that purpose.


William Alves Boys: I want to say right here and now that this business of getting extensive plans is a farce. During this recent campaign I travelled on a road, for instance, in the county of Grey from Meaford to Clarksburg, a first class gravelled road, about twenty-two feet wide, on which a motor car can travel fifty miles an hour with safety. That road cost $8,000 a mile. The road to which I have been referring is a mile and a quarter or a mile and a half long. The matter was brought to the attention of the previous minister, not by myself, but by one of the most enthusiastic Liberals in the county of Simcoe. If the country has so much money to spend as is indicated by these Supplementary Estimates, I do not see why we cannot get a work of this kind done. You do not need plans for it at all. It is nothing but an Indian trail at present; all you have to do is to grade the road and put some gravel on it so as to make it fit for travel. In its present condition it is utterly unfit for travel. I say that if these huge sums are to be voted so freely; some expenditure might well be made on the road of which I speak. I ask the minister, are there any wharves at all in the whole of Nova Scotia that are not being either repaired or extended? I shall be pleased to have that information.
Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend ought not to assume that attitude. I can tell him that there are hundreds of wharves in Nova Scotia that are not being repaired or extended.


William Alves Boys: Is my hon. friend serious in that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am serious.


William Alves Boys: Hundreds of wharves?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely.


William Alves Boys: The minister will give me the information?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will get the information.


Mr. BELAND:: My hon. friend is exercised over the fact that there is certain work in his district that has not been done.


William Alves Boys: I am; I admit it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is probably right,
but I would point out that in 1920, when the party he supports was in power, the same item for harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia, No. 490, contained fifty-five items for wharf repairs and extensions and piers. Most of them are not mentioned in this one.


William Alves Boys: Then if there were 55 in 1920, there is no earthly reason for having 68 now.


Thomas Langton Church: I suggest that the minister should read the report of the Deputy Minister of Public Works regarding the necessity for this work, because in all expenditures of this kind the report of an engineer is furnished as to the utility of the work, and so on. What do the Progressives think of an expenditure like this? The Progressives were elected on a policy of economy and retrenchment.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he must deal specifically with the item under consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: I think it is quite relevant.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not relevant; the hon. gentleman must deal specifically with the item.


Thomas Langton Church: This work is not a work for the general advantage of Canada. I would like the minister to give the figures of the expenditure on this harbour for the past fifteen years. It is my opinion that the work is not necessary at all. In view of the large deficits on our National Railways; in view of the heavy debt under which Canada labours, there must be retrenchment. England the United

States, France-all these countries are trying to live within their income. I would like some information about this item. Is this expenditure to be a capital charge or a maintenance charge, and is the money to come out of revenue?


Oliver Robert Gould: This vote involves an expenditure of 8533,884.60, and the greater part of it is for the repairing of wharves and breakwaters. A few moments ago I asked the minister if the tenders had been received for these works, and he replied in the affirmative. It occurs to me that as this is a hardy annual and as the province of Nova Scotia has grown old in the receipt of these payments, it would be a good business proposition if the government would have a small crew with equipment to go round this island or peninsula and complete the work. That might result in a material saving from year to year.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: In the Main Estimates the items for harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia, totalled $293,000. Evidently those estimates were prepared when the present Minister of Railways was in the office, and since the new minister has come in he has brought down Supplementary Estimates amounting to over $533,000. If this is the spirit of the new minister coming in I think probably we were wrong in getting a new minister. We might as well have left the old one there.


Mr. BAXTER:: I understand that the item that we have not passed yet is this Canada Creek.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is passed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is not passed. I have been trying to speak for the last fifteen minutes.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Canada Creek item is passed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have been trying to speak to it for the last fifteen minutes. If it is passed I am going to refer to it just the same, and for this purpose. I heard the minister giving some figures. I have heard him imperfectly as the House has not been as quiet as it might have been, but I rather gathered from the quantity of material that was mentioned that the sum of money was not likely to accomplish the work. Now I want to ask the minister a general question in regard to all these items because I think we might just as well have it clearly in the minds of the committee now as item by item. I would ask the minister to distinguish in each instance between the amounts that will com-

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
plete the whole work and the amounts that will only partially complete it. In other words I want to know, and I think the committee would like to know whether these, amounts embrace everything that is to be done or is it only to cover a part of the work. The minister will recognize that it is a perfectly fair question to ask, and if that principle is applied right through by the minister I think we shall save time.
I am not going to criticize particular items because being fortunate enough to come from the Maritime provinces I know the extreme necessity there is there for a great deal of work, and it would not hurt the Dominion very much if perhaps the suggestion of the hon. member were taken and we had a sort of wharf built all around some of our provinces if we could induce the other provinces to make use of our Maritime provinces in the way we would like to be able to do. We still like to feel we are a part of Canada. We do not want to be the only part of Canada, but we do not propose to be excluded from confederation even by some of our too zealous allies. The only criticism I have to make is this, and it reflects on the Department of Public Works, it shows gross carelessness to my mind: There is no reason in the world, despite a hard winter and all that sort of thing, why these items should not have been in the Main Estimates. The information that was available for the Main Estimates was of precisely the same class as we are getting on the supplementaries, and it shows a want of grip in the department that the acting minister is not responsible for but that someone is responsible for, that the House should have to be asking these questions at this hour when these matters might just as well have been dealt with in the Main Estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the hon.
member for St. John to ask the acting minister to state in every case whether the amount mentioned in the estimates was the total amount required to complete the work, or whether it was simply a partial vote and the item would come back to us another year in this or some other form. That is a practice that has been quite common in the last few years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be very glad to give the information. The engineer's report in regard to Canada Creek is to the effect that $1,300 is ample to complete the work.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I trouble the minister to repeat the dimensions of that work? I might not have heard him correctly, but if the figures were as I understood them 81,300 would not do it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The proposed work consists of tearing down and rebuilding a portion of the breakwater, 40 feet long, 10 feet wide and 21 feet high. In regard to Cariboo Island $6,000 is stated by the engineers to be ample for the purpose of completing the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cheverie-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hants
county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this sufficient to cover the whole work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.
Item ageed to.
Colloden-breakwater extension, $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


William Stevens Fielding: Digby county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does my hon. friend say as to the sufficiency of the estimate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The estimated cost of this work is 815,000. The amount of 85,000 is asked for to provide for the construction of a crib and extension, 100 feet long and 30 feet wide, to the existing breakwater.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is only a
partial vote? I understood my hon. friend to say the total cost would be $15,000. I thought my hon. friend was going to distinguish between the items that would be completed for the amounts stated here and the partial votes, as suggested by my hon. friend from St. John.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I gave no
general answer. I said I could give the answer in each particular case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what is
the necessity for going on with this work that is going to cost $15,000 ultimately?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?



Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The necessity for this work was reported on by the district engineer. It was asked for by a very largely signed petition containing 215 signatures. It is claimed that the present breakwater is too short to afford the protection required.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population
of this place?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In addition
to the fishing village itself, in which there are about fifty families, this breakwater serves the whole settlement and district around. There are many people scattered along the shore.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
D'Escousse-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We want to
know the county in each case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: South Cape Breton.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And whether
this is the final estimate or only a partial vote in each case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to
complete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dartmouth-pier and dredging, $75,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of
a repair job is this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend has misread the item I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No,, I was remembering the remarks of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said most of them. I did not say all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Dartmouth
is a very prosperous town with a population of between six and seven thousand. It is situated right across from the city of Halifax. This is new work. There is no wharf accommodation at Dartmouth and has not been. Some years ago my hon. friend's friends constructed a railway running from Dartmouth to the eastern part of
[The Chairman.]
Nova Scotia, and through that railway there has been brought to Dartmouth very large quantities of lumber. The opening up of the district has reshlted in great development. The necessity of the work has been vouched for by the people of Halifax county generally and has been favourably reported upon by the engineers. I am satisfied my hon. friends will not make the slightest mistake in supporting it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is right about that vote.


Thomas Langton Church: Does the Prime Minister
approve of this extravagance? In the case of all works calling for an expenditure of over $3,000 will tenders be called for, and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer after fair competition in the open market? Does the Prime Minister approve of this extravagant expenditure on wharves in harbours where there is no business, and where the government derives no revenue? I think I could better justify an expenditure to enable vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to carry coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal for consumption in central Ontario where it is needed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend asking me a question or making a speech?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to
what I gather to be my hon. friend's question I wish to say that the statutes provide-in the case of public works, where the amount to be expended exceeds a certain sum-that public tenders must be called for. Other conditions are also set forth. The provisions of the law in this respect will be fully complied with. I may say further that any public works for which the government asks an appropriation are required in the public interest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Digby-dredging, $15,100.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What part of Digby harbour is it proposed to dredge; also, how much money has been spent in dredging in that harbour in the last five years?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou), I will give the information we have. The purpose of this work is to deepen the berth between the two piers so that steamers with a loaded draught of twenty-four feet can load at low water, ordinary spring tides. The area to be dredged is 53,000 square feet. A report on the necessity of this work was made by the regular

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
district engineer. Digby is a very important place in the province. It is' on the bay of Fundy as my hon. friend knows very well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a government
pier at Digby?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not a vote in the main estimates for dredging at Digby? I think there was a vote of some kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eastern Harbour-improvements, $38,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Eastern Harbour?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Eastern
Harbour is in Inverness county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a large expenditure, and, I take it, a new one. What is the nature of the expenditures, and how many people live in Eastern Harbour?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to say-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was addressing my question to the minister. He has his memoranda before him and can answer the question.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think, possibly, if my
hon. friend will grant me the courtesy of allowing me to speak occasionally, I do not take up as much time of the House as my hon. friend does. Let me tell him that he is not going to get me to sit down in the House when I am in order. This expenditure is for dredging Eastern Harbour which is surrounded by a population of five hundred families. There is a large gypsum deposit there and a new industry has been started. A very substantial amount has been spent in erecting a gypsum plant which was closed down during the war. Capital is once more being invested in the industry which is to be operated on a large scale. At present gypsum cannot be shipped from Eastern Harbour until some dredging has been done. Unfortunately we are about fifty miles from a railway. The harbour is a very good one, but there is not enough water at present for ships to come in and load in "onnection with this industry. For fishing and such like needs the depth of water is sufficient. For the purposes of the gypsum industry larger vessels, having a draught of between twenty and twenty-one feet are necessary. That is the object of this dredging. Were it not for this new industry I would not press the department for this vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to say that I meant no intentional discourtesy to the hon.
291 i
member. I asked the minister a very courteous question in a very polite way. I do not think there was any necessity for a threat from the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm). He has taken as a personal affront a purely harmless question. Now, I asked the minister for a statement and perhaps we had better have it now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend asked how many people there were in that vicinity, and I thought the representative for the county was in a better position to give him the information.


James Dew Chaplin: Can the minister tell us how it happens there are dredging items here, whereas in the main estimates a blank cheque for $600,000 was given to the Maritime provinces for dredging? How is it that the department is not using its own dredges on this work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The general vote for dredging in the main estimates is for the purpose of operating the dredges which belong to the government. They have to be used continuously in certain portions of the Maritime provinces for maintaining access to the harbours. These special votes are for dredging to be done by private parties. Tenders will be asked for and contracts awarded for the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell us what we are spending the $600,000 on so that we can be sure there is no overlapping here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed by the deputy minister that that information was given earlier in the session when the main items were under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking for the information now so as to be sure that we are not voting the same expenditure twice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are not asking for money for the same purpose twice as my hon. friend knows very well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No I do not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed by the deputy minister that when the vote in the Main Estimates was passed complete information was given to the House as to the number of dredges and everything connected with them. This work is not intended to be done by government dredges but by contract after calling for tenders.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I again ask my hon. friend what dredging the government dredges are doing? Why cannot they be employed on this work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will be very glad to give my hon. friend that information in detail to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let the item
stand until we get the information.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That will be a matter for the committee entirely. I have asked a perfectly pertinent question and I have not yet received the information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend does not apprehend what I say. These votes are for the purpose of dredging other than by government dredges. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend full information tomorrow as to where the government dredges are, the work they are doing, and so forth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have thought that that information would be given before we were called upon to vote the item.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That was
all explained on the main estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That cannot
be so, because at the time on the main estimates we were not discussing this item, and we were not endeavouring to ascertain whether this dredging could be done by the government dredges.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me that in a town so close to the main centres as Digby or Dartmouth our own dredges should be able to do the work instead of the government hiring dredges from private individuals. Dartmouth is right inside the Halifax harbour.


William Stevens Fielding: If the government
dredge is already employed how can it do the work? The minister has explained that the government dredges were covered by the earlier vote but the amount of dredging is far in excess of what the government dredges should do, and therefore private contracts are made.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think certain friends of
the government in that district own dredges and have been looking for work. They have always been looking for work, and have always received it from this government.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there are more
private dredges seeking work in the city of St. John than in the city of Halifax.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) should not be so ungenerous." I am in a position to state that one of the difficulties in carrying out these works is to find dredge owners in Nova Scotia who are willing to tender for the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister should ask
some of his friends in St. John to tender.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
East Sandy Cove-wharf, $9,350.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Digby and
Annapolis.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is this the whole estimate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of
repair job is it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to
construct a cribwork approach 100 feet long by 25 feet wide, and a pilework wharf 100 feet long and 25 feet wide including a head 40 feet by 30 feet. This place is a port of call for a small steamer and the present wharf is inadequate. The value of freight landed annually is from $20,000 to $25,000. The value of fish, fresh and salt, annually shipped amounts to about $10,000.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Seven hundred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the engineer report
in favour of it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When did he make the
report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the
spring of the year.


William Alves Boys: In the spring, or in January.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the exact date. It was since the main estimate was brought down. I will get the date.


William Alves Boys: Are all these items supported
by reports from the engineers, and were all reports made subsequent to the introduction of the main estimates?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many were made
subsequent to the main estimates?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
know.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The deputy minister
could give the information. Is Sandy Cove the summer resort just east of Digby on the main shore, and does the minister say there are 700 people at Sandy Cove? There might be one or two days in the summer time when there would be that many people there, but they would not be there the year around.


Mr. SPENCE:: I think according to the
census, there is no population there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is not a good authority in that regard, at least not as good as the engineer of the department because the engineer says the returns from the census of 1921 showed 685 people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a serious question with reference to the accuracy -of all these engineers' reports. Here is the government's census return showing no population and the engineer's report giving a population of 600 odd. I wonder whether the 'hon. member has the right, address down there.


Frank S. Cahill: Has my hon. friend the right address?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we will have to rely on the census, because it has been published by the government.


Mr. LOVETT:: I am very well acquainted with that district. It is in my constituency. The engineer's report is quite correct. That district serves a large part of the country outside.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON- Where is that?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Digby Neck.


An hon. MEMBER:: It may have a boil.


David Spence: I think the minister ought to get the name changed.
Ecum Secum-completing wharf and building road,


Henry Lumley Drayton: We were to get the dates of these reports. The minister said he would let us have the dates as we went -along, and he would let us know whether it was a full or partial statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will be glad to do so, but the hon. member is talking all the time and I have no chance. This is in the county of Halifax and the engineer's report was made last winter. I have not the exact date. Two reports were made upon that, one in March, 1922, but I have not the date of the report last winter. The necessity of this work is as follows:
District Engineer Dodwell reported that the proposed work was necessary to complete the wharf which has settled to a greater extent than was expected from the time it commenced in 1913 until it was recommenced in 1920. Owing to the lateness of the season when labour and material could not be procured it was found impossible to complete the work in 1920.
Again, my hon. friend started out to do the work when he was in power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the final estimate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Five Islands-wharf extension,$5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in the county of Colchester. This is the amount [DOT]expected to be necessary to complete the work as requested by the district engineer, Mr. Dodwell, in estimates of 1922-23.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many people are there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The number of people is 524. It is a very good district in the county of Colchester and very well known in the province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fluid's Point-wharf repairs, $4,900.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is in the county of Shelburne. The amount proposed will complete the work and it was reported upon, November 23, 1922, by the engineer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was it not included in the Main Estimate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question was as to whether or not it should be dealt with by the Department of Railways and Canals or by the Public Works department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why the Department of *Railways? Why should there be any question about it? Is there a railway there now?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The railway runs along the southern shore.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gillis Point-wharf repairs, $1,100.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in the county of Victoria. These are ordinary repairs to the wharf which are recommended by the engineer.
Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend would remember the particulars we want, I would not have to repeat my question so often. My hon. friend has not told us whether this is a complete estimate or not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Narrows-wharf extension, 42,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is also in the county of Cape Breton North and Victoria. It was reported on by the engineer. This is to construct pile work extension to the wharf. The amount voted is expected to complete the work.


David Spence: I should be glad if the
acting minister would speak a little louder. Hon. members on this side who are interested in these matters cannot hear what is said.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would ask the members of the committee to cease the conversation that is going on in the chamber. It is very difficult sometimes to hear even here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Half Island Cove-rebuilding breakwater-further amount required, $1,650.
David Spence: Is this on the Atlantic coast or not, or does it go into a private home? We do not seem to be able to get any information on these items. These breakwaters and wharves seem to be about every hundred yards. These places are summer resorts pure and simple. In the census of 1921, more than nine-tenths of the whole of them are not mentioned at all, having no population. This is simply buying a vote here and a vote there.


An hon. MEMBER:: If there is no population, how can you buy a vote?


Mr. McISAAC:: For the benefit of the hon. gentleman from Toronto, who, like another colleague of his, either never went to school, or never studied geography, I want to tell him that Half Island Cove is a very important seaport on the Atlantic ocean, 20 miles east of Guysborough. It is a very important fishing district.


David Spence: Do many boats come in there?


Colin Francis McIsaac: Yes, a packet calls there
three or four times a week, and there is quite a fleet of fishing boats and schooners there. Phe quantity of fish shipped from there yearly is very large. If my hon. friend along with other Ontario members would take advantage of their passes over the Canadian National Railways and visit the Maritime provinces,

some light would be shed on them, and they would not make such an exhibition of themselves in this House. Millions of Money are expended on Toronto harbour every year, and they think it is the only place on earth. Some people go bathing in that harbour, and I pity the people who have to bathe in the muddy water of Toronto harbour. If they would visit the Maritime provinces and give themselves some nice, clean bathing in the salt water on the coast of Nova Scotia, they would have a more intelligent understanding of public questions, and they would be better physically and intellectually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hampton-breakwater repairs, $8,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder whether we could not have another statement from the hon. member on this item.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This work
is in Digby county. It is to rebuild a crib work 80 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 22 feet high. The amount proposed will complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the date of the report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: April 23, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inverness-repairs to piers, $4,400.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This will complete the work; it is to close-pile 120 feet of the channel face of the east pier and construct 150 feet of the sea-wall-to complete the improvements commenced in 1922-23. This is not a new work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Anse-in full and final settlement of T. D. Morrison's claim in connection with contract for construction of a breakwater, $3,234.60.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give us the report in connection with this work?


Mr.   MACDONAID@Pictou: On May 31, 1911 a contract was let to Mr. T. D. Morrison for the construction of a breakwater at Little Anse, for the sum of $21,500. The work was completed and the final estimate paid- $21,800, but while the work was in progress- on December 27 and 28, 1912,-a gale which attained a maximum velocity of 53 miles an hour destroyed the outer 70 feet in length of the uncompleted structure to a depth of 10 feet and emptied the ballast out of a further length of 160 feet of the breakwater

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
to practically low water mark. The contractor put in a claim of $3,500 for additional work rendered necessary by the damage done by the storm.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was that claim put in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last year-
I am informed by the deputy that it was made some time before that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the work done?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1912-13.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the date of the storm?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that a lump contract or a quantity contract, or what?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The information I have at hand indicates that the contract was let for $21,500, but the deputy informs me that he is unable to say at the moment whether or not it was for a lump sum, or a quantity contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a compassionate
allowance to a man who lost money through an act of God, or is there a legal liability to pay his claim? Let us have the truth in regard to this matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I, of course, acting in the absence of the minister who has unfortunately had to go to his province to attend an engagement, am speaking without personal knowledge of these 10 p.m. matters, and am giving the information which comes to me through the officers. I am informed that this has been a frequent practice followed by all governments, where there was a contract and work was destroyed under unfortunate circumstances as a result of the elements. This case is an ordinary one, and the claim has been recommended by the engineer.


James Dew Chaplin: When was the claim first
made on the department?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Immediately after the completion of the work, at the time when the storm occurred and the necessity for the additional work arose.


James Dew Chaplin: I presume the engineer of that time must have made some report on this matter. This is 11 years ago. What report was made at the time by the engineer in respect of this claim?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would
fancy myself, for the information of my hon. friend, it was because Mr. Morrison, this gentleman who happened to have this contract, was a Liberal and my hon. friend and his friends who came into power in 1911, did not want to recognize a claim which was perfectly legal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is the only suggestion my hon. friend has to make, there is another suggestion which would be much more in point at the present time; that is, that because Mr. Morrison is a Liberal, and probably a Liberal worker, this government is going round resurrecting an outlawed claim. My hon. friend has no right to make that statement in connection with his engineers. Has he no trust in the honesty of the engineers of the department? Does he insinuate that the engineer then in charge made a false report because this man was alleged to be a Liberal? Surely my hon. friend is not serious.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the matter with my hon. friend? I told him that the information here disclosed that this matter was dealt with on the report of the engineer of the department. My hon. friend seems to have forgotten.


William Alves Boys: What was the report of the engineer when this claim was presented? Why was it not paid?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After a careful and thorough review of the circumstances the engineer thought the contractor was fairly and properly entitled to be paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the date of this report? Mr. Chairman, in a case of this kind the least the committee is entitled to is production of all the papers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What doe3
my hon. friend want?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The file.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


William Alves Boys: We want the report that was made when this was a living claim. As I understand, the contract was let in 1911.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On May
31st, 1911.


William Alves Boys: I take it for granted that the * contractor made his claim, if not in the latter part of that year, at least in the early part of the following year. I presume the claim was investigated and that the engineer made a report on it. I go further. I take it for granted that the present minister, before he would resurrect an outlawed claim more than ten years old, would investigate and find out what the report of the engineer was. Before we are asked to deal with a matter that is now twelve years old, I think we ought to know exactly what was reported at the time, and why the claim was not paid.


Mr. KYTE:: This work was performed in the county of Cape Breton South and Richmond. During its progress a storm of unprecedented severity occurred along the coast and a great deal of property was destroyed. As a matter of fact buildings were washed off the wharves and along the waterfront. The oldest records in the community recount no such high tide or so severe a windstorm as on that occasion. Mr. Morrison had his work well under way when the storm overtook it. As a result he suffered very substantial loss. It has not been an unusual practice of the Public Works department under both governments to come to the assistance of a contractor who while carrying on work under his contract suffered loss under these circumstances. As to the politics of the contractor, I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, if the matter is of any interest, that he was not a supporter of mine nor a worker at all in the last election. He came to me,' however, after I 'was elected, being a resident of my county. I felt that he had a strong claim to be recompensed for his loss, otherwise he would be in very serious financial difficulties. I beg to assure hon. members that the claim is one which merits the favourable consideration of the committee, and that it is not presented on account of political considerations.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend was a member of this House from 1911 to 1917. I presume he knew of this claim during that period?


George William Kyte: I knew-


William Alves Boys: Just one minute until I put my question. I would not have anything ruffie the most delightful relations that have existed between my hon. friend and myself during this 
session. I would ask him whether or not during that period of six years he investigated this claim and pressed it upon the former minister? If he did, was there an engineer's report in favour of it? And if so, why was the claim not recognized during the years I have referred to?


George William Kyte: Mr. Morrison did not consult me in regard to his claim; he went to other sources of support. I think he did consult the gentleman who was my political opponent in the election of 1911, but he never came to me or gave me any information in regard to it until the last two years.


Mr. BCD  S@: J hen did my hon. friend himself investigate this claim and ascertain whether or not there had been an engineer's report favourable to it? Or did he simply, as it were, "go it blind," desiring to be kindiy when the matter was pressed upon him? If my hon. friend cannot answer that, then I ihink we must once more turn to the acting minster and ask him for this information. Surely it is not proper for the committee to pass a claim that is absolutely outlawed. I am not suggesting that the government should plead the Statute of Limitations; surely that would never be done to defeat a righteous claim. But the committee is entitled to this information now, and we have not got any from the acting minister or from my hon. friend who is more or less familiar and sympathetic with the matter.


George William Kyte: I have no information with regard to any report. All I did was to ascertain the correctness of the claim with respect to the severe storm. I did investigate that and I furnished the information to the deI artment within the last year. I know nothing about any further report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has enunciated a principle which, to me at all events, is brand new:	That when a
contractor enters into a contract with the government and assumes the ordinary risk under it, if by any fortuitous circumstance, whether by act of God or anything of that sort, he loses money, he can then come back to the government for compensation, and that it has been the practice of all governments in days gone by to make good such losses. That is not the practice of the government ;n the other departments. It certainly is not the practice of the Railway department with contractors who have built bridges and substructures of bridges, I can assure the committee. If that be the practice of the Public Works department, there must have been a

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
report adverse to the payment of this claim, and I ask the minister in all fairness to give us the full facts. Or is this simply a compassionate vote? If he will put it on the true ground, and say it is purely a compassionate vote, and that it has merit, I am not going to oppose the vote, but I should like to have it put on a proper basis. Was there a legal liability in the first place-we will waive the Statute of Limitations; I do not think the government ought to plead the statute, although it has been done, and no doubt will have to be done again-or is it a compassionate allowance? Let us have the truth.


George William Kyte: Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted, there was a similar claim made upon the late government in respect to a contract carried on at Chimney Corner in the county of Inverness in 1919 and 1920. The contractor suffered loss, which he alleged was in the neighbourhood of $800. His claim was paid by the late government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, the only information we have as to th s claim is that it was taken up and advocated ly my hon. friend's political opponent. Evidently he did not have as much influence with the department as my hon. friend has.


George William Kyte: My opponent was not elected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I congratulate
my hon. friend upon his influence with the department in getting this old claim resurrected. Mr. Chairman, I again call for the file in this case. I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) what in his view is justification for placing a claim as old as this in the list of supplementary items? Here is a claim that not only was known about when this parliament met, but it had existed since 1912. It is brought down here without a single bit of information; we cannot get the files, we cannot get the reports. What possible justification is there for bringing up a thing of this kind and putting it in the supplementary estimates? Under the circumstances I think my hon. friend ought at least to take the item out of these estimates and have it considered in the main estimates next year.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit I am sometimes suspicious of old claims, almost as suspicious as my hon. friend is when there is no ground for suspicion. But after all, the question is, is the money due? This matter came to my notice only recently; I did make inquiries of the department, and I was satisfied that investigation by the departmental engineers had shown that the money was due. The Minister of Public Works gave the matter much consideration and I had his assurance that his engineers and officers were decidedly of the opinion that the money was justly due, and upon that statement I consented to its going into the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I press
for the production of the files.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not debating that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any objection to producing the file? Is there any objection to the committee getting the facts in the matter?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I ask for the file.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In contracts for the construction of work of this character a clause is inserted which provides that where the work is prevented or interfered with by storm or other action of the elements, and so on, compensation may be had or performance of the contract would be regarded as having been made. I understand that in 1918, the then government had the question before them, in a case I have in mind, as to what should be done in such circumstances. I am instructed that investigation has shown that the parties acted in good faith and that they are entitled to settlement of the claim. I shall be glad, however, to have the file brought down, and to that end I ask that the item stand.	[DOT]
Item stands.
Little Harbour (Lower L'Ardoise)-breakwater extension and repairs, $2,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In Richmond county. The vote will cover the total cost of the necessary work-extension to wharf.	,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Harbour-breakwater repairs, $1,500.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the county of Shelburne and Queens. The amount voted will complete the work. It is a matter of repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-N.S.
Livingstone's Cove-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is :n
Antigonish and Guysborough. The vote will complete the repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lunenburg-dredging, $40,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think this
item and the next-Malagash, dredging, $15,700-might be considered together; the same question is involved that we were dealing with before. Here is a lot of work in connection with which the government dredges might well be employed.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Is this an annual expenditure, or is it only for the present year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Lunenburg is an important fishing town as well as a shipbuilding centre. The docks have to be cleaned out to provide adequate means of docking vessels and handling supplies at all stages of the tide. The channel has to be dredged along the face of the wharf so that approach may be possible at low tide. The estimated cost of the dredging is $103,000. The work will be done by tender and contract. The population of Lunenburg is 3,000. It is in the immediate vicinity of Chester, an important summer resort. I should think that this expenditure would be amply justified. As to the next vote, in regard to Malagash, this point is in the county of Cumberland, where three or four years ago a very valuable and extensive deposit of salt was found. Salt mines have been operated there and large quantities of it are shipped. This dredging has to be done to enable shipments to be carried on by vessels of such size as would transport material of this kind to the larger centres. I may say that information as to the disposition of the government owned dredges may be had by reference to Hansard of the earlier part of the session when the Main Estimates were under consideration. We have no adequate government dredging equipment to carry out the work that is necessary in these particular places. The same thing applies to the vote in connection with Pictou. No dredging of any kind has been done there for twelve years. A great deal of lumber is shipped from that port, and the dredging is necessary in order that the steamers can go in there and take freight. It is only with great difficulty that dredges can be found to do this work. One has been found and has been operating there for some little time. The information with regard to the government dredges my hon. friend will fnd in Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The trouble is that we cannot find it so that we can put it to any useful purpose now. I am confident we have not any information in Hansard which will enable us to draw any conclusions in the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed by the deputy that the whole programme is there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As to this particular matter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Government dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the price per yard for dredging here?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That would be determined by the tenders.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is the amount of this estimate arrived at?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The estimate of the engineer is 102,000 cubic yards scow measure of mud to be removed at 65 cents a yard; broken rock at $1 per cubic yard; solid rock at $7.


Hugh Guthrie: These items have been before the committee for the last couple of hours and there has been a good deal of discussion which certainly would give the committee the impression that we on this side are not in favour of these items, although we have not expressly challenged them by a division of the committee. This is an item, I think, upon which we may well have an expression of the opinion of the committee in regard to the whole of the expenditure contemplated in item No. 504 of the Supplementary Estimates, which amounts in all to $533,884. I am not selecting the item with respect to the dredging to be done at Lunenburg for any particular purpose except that it appears to be one of the larger items. The government contemplates an expenditure of $40,000 this year on work for which they have an estimate showing that a total of $103,000 or thereabouts will be required. There has nothing been offered to the House by the minister or by others to show there is any urgency in the matter, to show that the expenditure must be made at once. In fact the minister only proposes to do a little over one-third of it during the present year. The objection which we take on this side of the House is this: All these expenditures or the greater portion of them should have been in the Main Estimates.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend does not know that we are simply carrying on the work that was started by the government with which he was connected. Money was voted for this work in 1914-1915, 1915-1916 and in 1916-1917, so my hon. friend might well spare his eloquence.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going to spare my eloquence on that explanation. The contemplated expenditure is S103,000 for the whole work. This year the government proposes to expend $40,000. Now the objection which we in this part of the House take to the whole vote is that in the majority of instances these various items should have appeared in the main estimates, which were considered in this House in February, March and April of this year. But instead of that course the government has taken another. It has come down here in the last days of the session at a time when the opposition in this House has had practically no opportunity to inquire into or investigate the proposed expenditure. Now I submit that that is not good practice. I submit it is not fair to the House or to the country. We are entitled on this side of the House to just as full information in regard to each item as is the government. The government may have the knowledge but we have not and we are practically asked to vote these amounts blindly with very little information and practically no intelligent discussion or criticism. I for one at least, speaking for myself, object to that procedure. I have sat in this House and I have heard my hon. friend the Minister of Finance take a similar objection. In the last two sessions under the late government he complained that in the last hours of the session the government was bringing down heavy votes for the expenditure of large sums of money. I know that I shall be met by someone saying: Oh, your government did the same thing. The acting minister has already interrupted me to say, your government did the same thing. Of course, there is hardly a day passes in this House when that retort is not made from some quarter on the government benches, but it is the principle I am arguing for now, and I say the principle is a bad one. I say it is unsound to bring down in the dying hours of the session proposals for the expenditure of large amounts of money involving millions of dollars, which, if voted at all, is voted upon the scantiest information. There is nothing in the nature of urgency in regard to this particular item. For all we know the expenditure of five or ten thousand dollars this year would be just as well as an expenditure of $40,000. It is a
matter of dredging, and I suppose some of it has to be done every year. Why the amount of $40,000 has been fixed upon I do not know, but in order to take the sense of the committee and to test the matter not only in regard to this item but in regard to all the items, because if we do not test it it will be said of us in the future that we did not vote against it-why did we allow it to pass? why didn't you move to reduce it?-if we merely sit here and utter our protests as we have done on item after item that gets us nowhere. Those protests, strong as they may be, are not put down as any opposition to the actual passage of the item, and for all that appears in the records of the House these items pass practically unopposed. Now to test this matter and to take only a single item, but to apply it to all the items comprised in vote No. 504 I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for South Simcoe:
That the item of $40,000 for "Lunenburg-Dredging" be reduced by the sum of $15,000.
That will leave $25,000 for the expenditure this year.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think we can find any fault with the hon. gentleman's making a motion. I am rather glad he couples with it the statement that he intends it to mean the condemnation of all these items for the province of Nova Scotia. Let it go on record.


Robert Forke: I would rather the hon. member who has moved this amendment had not made that declaration in regard to all the other items because I feel like supporting his motion, but I do not fed like subscribing to his declaration. I do not want to criticize unduly, but it does seem strange to me that there is no item for dredging at Lunenburg in the main estimates, while here we have an item of $40,000 for that purpose. For this reason I would support the amendment, but not subscribe to the statement in regard to all the other items because I cannot see the room for the same criticism in regard to them. I might say while I am on my feet that I think it would save time if the Acting Minister of Public Works would answer a few stock questions right away when each item is called.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I really do not know why my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has assumed this sudden attitude of virtue and horror at the government bringing down these supplementary estimates. It is rather a new role for him, though I have noticed a disposition along that line lately on his part. But my

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
hon. friend is not logical in this matter, and he knows it. There can be no suggestion of impropriety about this proposal for dredging at Lunenburg. My hon. friend has sat in this House long enough, and I sat with him long enough to know that this attitude of virtue on his part is largely assumed. It is really not sincere. My hon. friend will not venture to lay down the principle or attempt with any sincerity to argue that there can be any reasonable objection to this dredging proposal at Lunenburg. That port is a little Gloucester in Canada, and there is probably more business carried on there in connection with fishing than in any three or four other places in Canada. There are piers and business places along the waterfront and this dredging work which was initiated by my hon. friend's friends and carried out by them on a regular programme-a contract was let for the dredging, and in one year the work was done by government dredges-is absolutely necessary. Does my hon. friend mean to say that this dredging should not be done? What does he mean by this fantastic theory that this should have been in the Main Estimates? My hon. friend knows that that is not a practical proposal. He is not taking a sincere stand, and why he assumes this attitude I do not know. I think he ought to meet the issue squarely and say that there should be no dredging and repairs to public works in Nova Scotia. If he is speaking for his party let us know it.


William Alves Boys: As the seconder of the motion I say that there is no such suggestion. There is not the slightest ground for the Acting Minister of Public Works throwing out such a thought. Many items have already been passed. We are entitled to information, and we are not getting it as fully as we should.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What do
you want?


William Alves Boys: I have asked for some information and it has been promised. The minister challenges me as if I had asked for something that I had got. The minister has promised me the information and I suppose I shall get it to-morrow. With respect to these items that are being submitted to the committee, we say that many of them should have appeared in the Main Estimates, and I have not heard anything from the minister which would indicate that this item in particular should not have been in the Main Estimates. He justifies it on the ground that it was commenced years and years ago. If that be the case there is every reason why the government should

have known about this in January or February and submitted it earlier. No reason has been given why it was not submitted. All this amendment does is to say that this item should be reduced by $15,000. It does not in any way condemn all the works in the province of Nova Scotia.


Arthur Edward Ross: When are the main estimates compiled? As I understand it they are compiled about November of the year before. I am a little interested in this matter because in the Ontario estimates there is an. item for dredging in Collingwood harbour. That is not new work; it is unfinished work which has been laid over since 1917. However, it is absolutely needed in the interest of navigation in Collingwood harbour where grain is brought down by large boats from the head of the lakes to the elevators. I do not feel that I can support the amendment because the estimate for this work appears in the supplementary estimates. That is because we did not know that the main estimates were made up; we did not know anything about it at that time. Even so I shall be prepared to defend the item when the proper time comes.


George Perry Graham: May I say a word. My hon. friend the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says this is to be a reduction. Well, it might apply to the whole list of items, including those in Ontario, Quebec and everywhere else. It will not do to single out one province and make all the reductions there. This fact should be remembered when we come to deal with the vote of $600,000 for the continuation of the work in Toronto harbour.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Cut it out.


George Perry Graham: In that case might we not expect the same principle to be applied?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Is not that appropriation being made in pursuance of an agreement. This government has agreed to expend that amount of money and we expect it to implement its promise.


George Perry Graham: I am not arguing against the expenditure I am just indicating how the argument of my hon. friends might be applied. It is just as well that we should know where we are heading. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Ross) made a very good point. Every member of the preceding government knows that the estimates are made up in the autumn, and information continues to come in with respect to them month after month in the manner which has been described. If we are going to say that supplementary estimates must be brought in at a certain date after the opening of parliament

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
let us establish that principle some day next session, so that members of parliament will be made aware of the fact and will have ample notice of it. But to begin to establish that principle now, to re-organize the whole system that has prevailed ever since I have been a member of parliament, is something that cannot be done. This practice has been in vogue ever since I can remember. I say frankly that my office has frequently been filled by members of parliament from both sides ever since the session opened. The majority of them do not come to Ottawa until their sessional duties demand their presence. Have we not right to listen to representations from any member of the House on the subject of estimates? The main estimates are made up and closed, as a rule, before any member comes here and information which is needed from members as to any particular item cannot be collected until the House meets. Practically every government that has ever been in power in Canada has recognized that fact. Have not hon. members the right to come and discuss these matters with the minister? I am free to say that I am glad to see members on either side of the House. I do not object to meeting them and I think none of them object to coming to see me about any of these matters relating to my department. When in opposition I have sat up in this House until very late in order to put through estimates at the end of the session. I do not think my hon. friend from South Wellington stayed to help me; he went home and did not remain the greater part of the night. With three or four Liberal colleagues I have remained until four or five o'clock in the morning when my Conservative friends were putting their estimates through, and prorogation took place the next evening.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, on the same day.


George Perry Graham: Yes. Circumstances sometimes arise when you have to do these things. The hon. member for South Wellington at first said he was laying down a principle, but he took that back. He said he did not take any exception to the principle of voting the estimates but only to the amount. It is not a principle then which is involved but only an amount. The question here is should we spend $25,000 or $40,000. That is not a statement of a principle. If the House wished to establish a principle the proper thing to do would be to have a discussion early next, session, as to whether the Supplementary Estimates should be brought in late except under the most extraordinary circumstances. Let the question be discussed then and settled so that the members will all know there will
not be any Supplementary Estimates brought down after a certain date. We cannot get away by a vote of this kind from the principle and practice that has been followed by every government ever since there has been a parliament in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that my hon. friend is quite fair in his statement of the position in this case. There is no objection whatever to Supplementary Estimates. We have to have Supplementary Estimates, there is no question about that. He is also not quite fair when he says that the estimates are finished the autumn before. Why, the Estimates this year were not finished until after the return of the Minister of Finance from overseas.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows
that every department had its Main Estimates well advanced, if not actually completed, before the new government came into power.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON; It seems to me my hon. friend did not ask a question, he made a statement.


George Perry Graham: I apologize.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everyone who
has been in a government knows that the estimates have to be got out in time and that parliament generally meets before they are printed. This very year parliament was in session and the Speech from the Throne was being discussed before the estimates were printed. You also have to have Supplementary Estimates, there is no question about that either. Nor is there any doubt that the ministers have to meet members of parliament. The only thing we want to do is to find out what the view of the House is on this question. That is, admitting the necessity, as we do, of these Supplementary Estimates, and admitting the necessity of a lot of the things we have heard, the question is whether the Supplementary Estimates are to be brought in at a time which will allow discussion and investigation or not. That is all we are trying to establish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I said before this House will remain in session for another week and discuss these estimates if any single member desires it and we will not sit later than midnight. There will be ample time afforded for discussing these items if it is desired.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know about that at all. My right hon. friend knows very well that arrangements have been made for members to leave.
45S0
Supply-Public Works-N.S.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No arrangements have been made.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot resist my hon. friend's smiling countenance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What has been the custom in the past in dealing with Supplementary Estimates? How many days before prorogation have they been discussed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah, I am ready to remember some of the admonitions of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and one in particular about ''Those Bourbons that never forget and never learn."


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend forgets but he does not leam.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are learning.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to teach you something else.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not saying it was not done in the past. Of course it was. I do not know whether we did it in the past when there was such a rush of legislation as we have had in the last two or three days. But is it the idea of the House that this is the proper thing to do? Do not run away with the thought that the Minister of Railways, has propounded, that we are against supplementary estimates. We know that we have to have them, but we are of the view that they should be brought down in time, not only for discussion but for full investigation. So far as this vote is concerned, it is merely to register what the feeling of the House is upon the question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will take the opportunity of presenting Revised Hansard of March 9, 1923, page 1009, where the minister gave in detail the work of the government dredges for the coming year, and dealt with the whole matter. With that information before the House, which my hon. friend for North Wellington could very wrell have got, if he had had any curiosity on the subject, by sending for Hansard, I should like to know what he means by the motion. Are we going to have a motion to reduce an estimate by $15,000 because, forsooth, the estimates should have been brought down sooner? What possible logic is there in a request to reduce the vote by $15,000, because he thinks the estimates should have been brought down sooner? The reason why the item was not brought down in the main estimates was because the programme of the government dredges for the

year had to be made up, and it was not known during the winter months whether or not Lunenburg could be included in that programme?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister can hardly say that, when he gives me the whole programme back in March.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, I can. This motion is perfectly absurd.


Mr. GARDINER:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to this little squabble which has been going on all evening. I am not particularly interested in the controversy between the two parties in the House, but I am particularly interested in the question as to whether this $40,000 is actually required or not. The minister has not given the House the information as to this particular vote, that he should give if he expects the vote to go through. If he does not, I will consider that the vote is not necessary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. member will tell me what information he wants, I will give it. I have mentioned the quantities of material and have told hon. members the kind of place Lunenburg is, the necessity for the work and the estimated cost. If he wants to know anything more I shall be glad to give it.


Robert Gardiner: Any information the acting minister has given has been more or less in a conversational tone, with his friends on the opposite side. We have heard nothing at all of the discussion which has been proceeding all evening, and if the minister does not wish to give us the information we ask for, I am going to vote against the amendment.
The committee divided on the amendment (Mr. Guthrie) which was negatived. Yeas, 27; Nays, 91.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Malagash-dredging, $15,700.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister seriously suggest that any portion of the product of the salt or potash works at Malagash will be taken out by steamer?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend has a fashion of uttering innuendos. I know that some of the most, important men in my county are interested in this matter and some friends of the hon. member. I have a letter on the subject from Messrs. Chambers and MacKay, miners and manufacturers of Malagash salt, asking for the completion of dredging, to permit steamer shipments from the Malagash salt mines, and stating further:

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
When the dredging is completed within the areas shown to the proposed depth of 15 feet at low water, and a cut provided so that a 250 foot steamer can move back and forth to load all hatches under a conveyor that we will require to build from the shore to the wharf head, which provision your engineers have in mind, we will be able then not only to load the craft supplying the fishing trade, but also to load lake steamers and thus be able to go after the general demand and the chemical and pulp requirements for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
And so they go on. The nature of the deposit there is unquestioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No doubt about that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend lives so close to Nova Scotia that he ought to know what is going on. The estimated cost is the amount of the vote. My memorandum of the proposed works reads:
To increase the area of the basin to a length of 250 feet, and width of 400 feet, and provide a depth of 15 feet at low water.
It is recommended by the engineer and there is no question about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the complete estimate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is	it getting
down to a new basis, or is it just maintaining the present channel?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: New requirements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it new work? Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):	I read the
letter from Messrs. Chambers and MacKay about the steamers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Margaree harbour-repairs to harbour works, $9,700.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the
estimated cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Date of report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Requested
by engineer Dodwell in estimates of 1923-24.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Margaretville-repairs to breakwater, $2,400.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in
the county of Annapolis, and this will complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of the report in that case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The report
is from the district engineer in his estimates for 1923-24.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of the report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is the
general report making up the requirements for the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No apparent
reason why that was not in the Main Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteghan-wharf extension, $7,600.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is in
the counties of Yarmouth and Clare.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister givt
the explanation in a little louder voice?


George Newcombe Gordon: I would like member!
of the committee to desist from conversation There are several members of the committee, in different groups, discussing various matters, making it absolutely impossible sometimes for the Chair to hear the questions put or the minister's response. I would urge that conversation be not continued. It makes it very difficult for us to hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This proposal is for the extension of a wharf in the village of Meteghan in the county of Clare. It is to construct a cribwork extension 60 feet long, 28 feet high, to the existing wharf. The estimated cost is the amount contained in the vote and should complete the work.


James Arthurs: What is the population?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My information is that there is a population of 1,000. I know the district surrounding it is a very progressive part of the county of Clare and Yarmouth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Harris-wharf, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a repair again?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is to construct a block and span wharf with creosoted timber substructure extending to 12 feet at low water. The estimated cost is $5,000. It is to enable the steamer "Marion" which passes here daily during the season to call with freight and passengers. The nearest wharf is 6 miles distant, and the roads around are on the side of a steep mountain and are at times impassable.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not a repair?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


William Alves Boys: Is it inland?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, on the shore.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the final amount?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is there to show the necessity of a new wharf there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The steamer "Marion" which is the steamer which travels in that vicinity, comes in there. The engineer's report is as follows:
The steamer plying between Sydney and Whycoco-magh goes by this settlement during open navigation three days a week, going up * to Whycocomagh and three days a week coming down. There are also various other boats, some of them subsidized, passing through the Bras d'Or lakes, and they could call at some suitable point at this district if there was a wharf, but there being none, the people in this section of country have either to travel to New Campbellton or to Big Harbour in order to take advantage of the boats going through the lakes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nyanza wharf repairs, $1,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is in North Cape Breton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North Ingonish (McLeod's)-reconstruction of breakwater and dredging, $34,700.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give us some general information in regard to this item which is a pretty large one?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to reconstruct the destroyed portion of the breakwater on a length of 277 feet, width 22 to 24 feet and height 12 feet. Creosoted timber to be used to 3 feet above low water level, and native timber above this level. It is also to construct a concrete retaining wall 90 feet long, 2 feet wide at top and 5 feet wide at the bottom. There is dredging to be done at the outer end of the breakwater involving the removal of 10,500 cubic yards of sand and gravel and the removal of 5,000 cubic yards of sand and ballast from the inside of the breakwater where it has been carried from the destroyed section of the dock. The estimated cost is $34,625, or about the amount of the vote.
This work was seriously damaged some years ago, and at present the superstructure of the outer 277 feet is completely destroyed.

The inner portion of the breakwater which has not been wrecked, is to be protected by a concrete wall, to prevent it from being carried away. For the safety of the structure, it is necessary that the whole of this work be done. There a^e 105 boats that fish from this harbour, and the value of fish landed annually is approximately 852,000. There was an appropriation voted on this wharf in 1920. Tenders were called for the work, but a contract was not awarded.


Hugh Guthrie: Is the fishing trade of
$52,000 all the trade that is done at this point, or are there other trades?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: North Ingonish is one of the famous spots in Cape Breton county. In addition to its being a fishing centre, for the fishing between Cape Smoky and Cape North, it is also the centre of a very large lumber business. I think from North Ingonish shipments of pulp are being made, and a very large business is being carried from there into the centre of the county by the Oxford Paper Company.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any railroad to
that point?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.
North Sydney-breakwater repairs, $3,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this
county?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in
North Cape Breton. It is right near the town.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the
report say on this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the
breakwater which protects the harbour of North Sydney which was damaged by the storm of last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is this
$3,000 worth of work proposed to be done?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By tender
and contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
present rules of tender and contract? I forget them. How long has the advertising to continue?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am told
there is no change since my hon. friend's time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I said that I had forgotten. I am asking for information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely not.

Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely yes. What are the rules as to advertising for tenders?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: About three weeks in the newspapers in the province where the work is to be carried on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In this particular case, is there any restriction as to plant or anything else?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The amount is not very great. It is only to get the 16,000 cubic feet of native timber, and place it in position. That is practically all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a pretty simple matter.


Oliver Robert Gould: As regards the various items, what supervision does the department take over the completed work to see that the work is built to specification?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: An engineer inspects every work to see that the specifications are lived up to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Parrsboro-repairs to breakwater and shed on wharf, $1,350.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is in
the county of Cumberland.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
date of the report there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May 28,
1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou Light Beach-repairs and reconstruction of protection work, $1,200.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to
protect a sand beach at the end of which a lighthouse stands. There have been encroachments by the sea, and if this is not protected, the whole lighthouse might be cut out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose this
is in the county of Pictou?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: This item reads: "Reconstruction of protection work." One might infer from that that some neglect of work had happened in the past.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. In many eases in the Maritime provinces at entrances to our harbours, sand bars run out. The whirling of the sand by the surrounding waters of the ocean for years, causes sand to accumulate. At the mouth of Halifax harbour, which is one of the greatest harbours in the country, a sand bar runs out, and at
the end of the sand bar a lighthouse is erected. The same is true at Pictou and Sydney harbours. In order to preserve the sand bar so that it will not be destroyed by storms cutting it completely, works have been erected continually for years. As the wood is destroyed by the teredo nivalis it has to be renewed, otherwise the lighthouse would be lost and there would be no protection to the mariners. The life of these protected works is somewhere between eight and nine years. If the wood is not creosoted the works will not last long.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Piper's cove-wharf repairs, $1,100.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: North Cape Breton county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Point Aconi-breakwater, $10,000.
Oliver Robert Gould: What will this be constructed of?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Creosoted timber will have to be used in order to prevent destruction by the worm or teredo as it is called. This breakwater will cost $25,000 according to the estimate. It is recommended by Mr. Dodwell, the district engineer. It is situated between the entrance to great and little Bras d'or channel. The work is necessary for the protection of the coast as well as for the fishing and farming population. The breakwater is 492 feet long.


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the total cubic feet of the completed work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 108,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose we cannot work that in as a repair, anyway?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Beckerton-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Antigonish and Guysborough county. It is the estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Greville-further amount required for breakwater repairs and harbour improvements, $18,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in the county of Cumberland, and the estimated cost 'of the work is the amount of the vote. It ^consists of repairs to the breakwater and wharf to overcome damage occasioned by storms.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is repair and how much harbour improvement?



Supply-Public Works-N.S.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Repairs to breakwater, $12,000, wharf 83,000, beach protection, $3,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is all repairs. This is wrongly worded.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the estimated price per thousand feet on the timber?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Estimated by the cubic foot, creosoted 'timber 35 cents, native timber 15 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Portuguese cove-breakwater, $5,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Halifax
county. The repairs comprise construction of cribwork breakwater. This is one of the most exposed locations on the Atlantic coast where supplies for the wireless station at Camperdown are landed. It is one of the best known fishing villages on the coast.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I daresay, but most of the heavy items are not repairs at all, they are new works.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not quite accurate. District Engineer Dodwell reports that the old work was so badly damaged by the storm in 1919 that it is not considered advisable to attempt to repair it, as the money expended would exceed the cost of a new breakwater.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is in substitution?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou-dredging, $15,200.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in Pictou county and is to provide for coal and lumber shipping.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the dredging to be done in the harbour at Pictou?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pembroke-wharf extension, $3,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hants county. This is an extension of the existing wharf. The estimated cost is the amount of the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Lome-breakwater extension, $9,600.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the estimated cost. Digby and Annapolis county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Riverport-revetment wall for dredged soil, $20,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to provide towards construction of retaining wall barriers to retard the flowing of the material back into the channel which is being dredged near the mouth of the Lahave river. The estimate for 1922-23 is $12,000 to provide for construction of a retaining barrier between Parks island and the mainland. The material dredged last season was dumped behind this barrier, which worked successfully. The district engineer proposes to raise 1he height of the barrier at a cost of $14,000 To construct the barrier between the north end of Parks island and the mainland will cost $6,000.


James Arthurs: Is the dredging being done by the government dredge?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: The Atlantic ocean being on the eastern side and the bay of Fundy on the western side of Nova Scotia, on which side does the minister find it most expensive to keep the various wharves and breakwaters in repair?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It depends whether native wood be found in the vicinity of the work to be constructed. Where the material has to be carried a long distance, of course the cost is increased.


Oliver Robert Gould: Native wood is used?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As well as creosoted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Round Hill-wharf repairs, $1,700.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Digby and Annapolis county. Estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sanford-retaining wall, $1,800.
Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is that used for navigation too?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. It is ,in Yarmouth county. Full estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Scott's bay-rebuilding part of north breakwater,
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: King's county. Full estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Scotch Cove (White Point)-breakwater repairs, $2,600.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Estimated cost. North Cape Breton county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

___	Supply-Public Works-N.S.
Shad bay-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Halifax
county. Estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheet Harbour West-rebuilding wharf, $5,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Halifax
county. Full estimated cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shelburne-wharf repairs, $4,500.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: County,
Shelburne and Queen's. Estimated cost to : enow stringers, guard rails and planking in i he wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Smith's cove-breakwater extension and beach protection, $2,400.
Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: What is this beach protection?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is at Smith's cove in the county of Inverness. The amount to be expended is the estimated cost.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is that to protect, the village? ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sonora-purchase of wharf and rebuilding same, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What county
is this in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Antigonish.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the
wharf repurchased from, and why?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This amount is to purchase the McCutcheon wharf at Sonora. The district engineer reports that the owners of the wharf asked $5,000 for it, but as the wharf is in a dilapidated condition they considered the price too high and recommended that the owners be offered $3,500, which is their own price less the cost of rehabilitation. The owners are reported to have spent $5,000 to $7,000 in repairs during the last three years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
idea of purchasing this wharf? Apparently you are purchasing a liability.


Colin Francis McIsaac: This is an important fishing district, and the fishermen there have petitioned for a wharf. This wharf at Sonora was owned by McCutcheon Brothers who were in business some years ago, but they went out of business lately and are not going to
292J
continue to keep the wharf in repair. When the engineers were sent down to report on the matter they examined several localities in search of a suitable place for a wharf, and they found that it would be cheaper and in the public interest to buy this wharf rather than build a new one. The owners asked $5,000 for it, but the engineers offered only $3,500, and with an additional $1,500 the wharf can be made as good as new. It is necessary to have a wharf in that locality, because the needs of a large and important fishing community will thereby be served.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where do the
boats go now?


Colin Francis McIsaac: From there, but they have to pull their boats up on the shore and perhaps get them smashed to pieces, as frequently happens in other places.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
dimensions of this wharf?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) The wharf is 150 feet long and 36 feet wide. The outer end is on the river channel and is 20.5 feet high along the outer face, the shoreward 120 feet of its length averaging 6.5 feet in height.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this wharf
in a private water lot, or in open water, Crown property?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It would
be private property under our law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what
about the approach? Is that included in the purchase?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) What has been obtained is not only the wharf but the approach to the main highway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
South lake-breakwater extension, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Antigonish. It is for extension and repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much for
extension and how much for repairs?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The estimated cost of 48,600 cubic feet of cribwork at 20 cents is $9,400. The district engineer reports that the channel has shoaled so that it is of little service. A wing addition to the south breakwater is proposed to narrow

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
the channel so as to create scour and make it navigable for small boats.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ship harbour-wharf repairs, $4,200.
Oliver Robert Gould: I suggest that as Nova
Scotia owns her own natural resources she might at least be called upon to build the approaches to these various wharves.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not
say we were going to build the approaches to the wharves. The reference in the last item was to the narrowing of the channel so as to make it navigable for small boats. Ship Harbour is in Halifax county. The estimated cost is the amount of the vote. It is to construct a pilework wharf 80 feet long and 20 feet wide with an ell 20 feet by 30 feet. The purpose is to provide shipping accommodations for the residents of Ship Harbour and the surrounding districts by shortening the haul from the mills to the now only available wharf by a distance of about 4 \ miles, over a very hilly road. It is a farming and fishing district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Summerville-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is in Hants county. It is for repairs to wharf, consisting of the building of the outer fifty feet destroyed by ice in April, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Windsor-wharf, $22,000.
Oliver Robert Gould: The good things of life do not appear to be very evenly distributed. There seems to be too much salt water down in the Maritime provinces, and too many blue-noses.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Too few, the hon. gentleman means.


Oliver Robert Gould: The capital expenditures are not, in my estimation, exactly what they should be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of
repair work is this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The conditions along the shore of Hants county are very difficult to appreciate. The tide in the Bay of Fundy rises and falls about sixty feet, a condition which does not prevail in any other part of the country. The result is that the maintenance of wharves and approaches is very difficult indeed, because when the tide is out there may be nothing there but the bottom of the bay. The wharves can only be approached at

high tide. This extension work is to consist of a public wharf along the water front in a westerly direction from the railroad wharf. The only wharf owned by the Public Works department is a small pier made of cribwork having a 70 foot frontage, which is inadequate for the shipping to and from this port. There are very large shipments of gypsum and lumber made from Windsor. There is a tremendous industry carried on there by the King Company who carry gypsum from Windsor to Bayonne, New Jersey. Hants county is also one of our greatest lumbering counties. There have been grave complaints about the lack of wharf accommodation at this place for a long time. There were four million feet of lumber shipped from there last fall and the possibilities of greater shipments and greater trade are very bright. Favourable reports are made on the proposal by the engineer for the department and by everyone who has investigated the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it the
local member has not very much objection.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Hants county is all
right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And its member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Prince Edward Island-Beach Point-wharf, $7,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of
repairs are to be done at Beach wharf?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is to
construct a cribwork wharf 238 feet long and from 20 to 30 feet wide. The estimated cost is 87,500. The only wharf accommodation in this vicinity is a small privately owned structure known as Prowse and Sons' wharf, located at the extreme outer end of Old Store Point immediately at the harbour's entrance, the road approach to which is over a long sand beach very unsuitable for heavy traffic, and further, drifting sand frequently shoals up the water in front of this wharf to such an extent that at times it becomes entirely useless for shipping purposes.
The residents of Beach Point and vicinity, numbering several hundred, who have surplus farm produce to ship each season estimated in value at $50,000, and also desire to import their coal, and so forth, by water, therefore, request that suitable accommodation be provided for this business as well as the fishing industry, by constructing a small wharf or landing from the shore, near Irving's Lane, to keep water in the basin recently dredged.

Supply-Public Works-N. B.
There are 50 to 60 fishermen at this place whose season's catch of lobster, cod and other fish is estimated at from $30,000 to $40,000 annually.
Georgetown-to take over and repair C.N.R. wharf,


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
justification for taking over the Canadian National wharf at Georgetown? Is this another scheme to relieve the railway of its ordinary obligations?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can give
some explanation of this matter having been in Georgetown a year or so ago. Formerly Georgetown was the port in Price Edward Island through which communication wals maintained in winter between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. A very large expenditure involving a very great annual loss was begun in 1912 by the construction of the works at Cape Borden and Cape Tormen-tine and the standard gauging of the railway in Prince Edward Island, and the maintaining of the very expensive boats for carrying the trains over. This wharf at Georgetown was the only wharf available for the people of the town for carrying on their business. It had been built by the railway and was used by the steamers in connection with the town's export business. When the change came in regard to the connections with the mainland and the boats ran no more to Georgetown in winter, the railway simply let the wharf go into absolute decay. It spent no money on it and in consequence the business people of the town had no means by which they could ship by water. The railway had no further interest in it on account of the change in the management. That I think is the situation and the warrant for this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the wharf originally put up?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was constructed in 1905, creosoted piling being used, and it is assumed that such portion is still in serviceable condition. Here is a letter from Sir Henry Thornton with reference to the wharf:
I am in hopes that the Public Works department will see their way clear to take this wharf and shed over, because so far as the railway is concerned, there is practically no business handled over the wharf and there is no justification for the company being called upon to stand the expense necessary to repair the dock. We would be willing to turn the wharf and shed over to the Public Works department on a reasonable valuation, and it really seems to me a public work that should be looked after by that department of the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is being paid to the system for it? It seems to me the Public Works department is taking over a liability. I think they should be paid by the railway for taking it over instead of paying the railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is expected by the department that they will be able to get control of the wharf without paying anything to the railway. Sir Henry Thornton states that it is of no further use to the railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is taking over a responsibility, it seems to me. What about this $20,000? How is that divided?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The estimated cost is as follows: Renewal of approacn, $10,000; renewal of dock on west side, $9,000; renewal of dock on east side, say $1,000; making a total of $20,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would put it in good shape, would it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Negro Point- breakwater extension, $8,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not complaining at all but I just wanted to ask the minister a question in regard to the Negro Point breakwater extension. We are very glad to have this amount voted, but I think the estimate was considerably over a million dollars for the whole work and with this $100,000 very little can be done. There would be some danger in the winter season of possible dislocation of what might be done with only $100,000. Since we are having supplementaries, would it not be possible to raise this to at least one-fourth of the amount that will be required and make a more substantial commencement this season?


James Alexander Robb: How much would the hon. member suggest?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I suggest putting $250,000 in the estimates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As my hon. friend knows these are the last estimates that are coming down this session, and I would not like to take the responsibility in the absence of the regular minister of increasing this amount, although I am sure he sympathizes with my hon. friend's ambitions.
Mr. BAXTER; Just change the figure.

Supply-Public Wrorfcs-Que.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we might as well take all the votes in bulk unless hon. gentlemen have objections. We have tried to get information item by item on the first province that was called and we know no more about the necessities of any single vote than if we had not asked a question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not say that after my talking all night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec-Rimouski-in full and final settlement of claim of Messrs. Raymond and Talbot in connection with their contract for harbour improvements, $51,892.85.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We should have a little information about this item.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: While the minister is getting the information asked for I should like to ask him if the statement in the St. John papers that the department intends to close the gap at Negro Point by a solid structure is correct? I also notice in the press that there is a possibility of using some system of compressed air that would be available during storms?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed the matter is now being investigated and the probabilities point to the course my hon. friend has spoken of being adopted.
Now as to the Raymond-Talbot contract: This contract was entered into on March 21, 1914, with Messrs. Raymond and Talbot, and it was to have been completed in 1916. One of the stipulations of the contract was that it was to have been completed within two years of its being signed. On April 18th, 1914, the contractors were ordered to go on with the work. During the summer of 1914 the war broke out. Early in 1915 the contractors were advised not to go on with the work until further orders. In 1915 the government did not ask parliament for a vote for this work. In 1916 the contractors were to go on with it. They did so during the seasons of 1916-17 but claimed that on account of the great increase in the cost of labour and materials due to the war, and for other reasons, they had incurred certain losses. By authority of an order in council passed on the 4th November, 1918, a copy of which I will send to my hon. friend, it was provided that the department should take over the contractor's plant at actual cost less depreciation, and that the chief engineer should make a careful investigation and report as to the fairest and most equitable final settlement with the contractors after careful consideration of their claim for compensation in connection with alleged losses and reasons for the same.

The chief engineer went fully into the matter and came to the conclusion to recommend a payment of $48,384 with interest. He did this in pursuance of the terms of an order in council passed in 1918.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has given us information from the engineer's report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice in vote No. 507 which we are now considering this
item:
Ste Petronille (Island of Orleans)-to purchase and repair wharf, $37,100.
I should like to know whether this wharf has been purchased and from whom?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This amount of $37,100 is required to purchase or expropriate from La Cie Maritime & Industrielle de Levis its timber wharf as Ste. Petronille. The wharf is at the south-western end of the island in the most suitable place, away from bad currents and sheltered against prevailing winds. The district engineer's valuation of the wharf is $21,819; his valuation of the land $3,000; and the estimated cost of repairs required $12,250.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister tell us how many wharves there are already on the island?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Perhaps I would be permitted to answer the question. There are six wharves on the island but this one affords the most convenient outlet. The wharf is in very bad condition. It is owned by La Com-pagnie Maritime Industrielle de Levis. The whole population of the island, which consists of six very important parishes, has united in asking the government to purchase this wharf and put it in good condition so that it might be available for the use of any one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $564,171.
Mr. MEWBURN:: Now that we are taking up the items for Ontario I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to a remark he made earlier in the evening. I think I am correct in attributing to him the statement that where any government wharves were carrying on a proper commercial business it would be a very fair subject for criticism if attention was not given to them. I regret the Minister of Railways is not in his seat; I should like him to have heard the statement I am about to make. For the last two years representations have been made to the government regarding the piers al

Supply-Public Works-Ont.
Fort Maitland on Lake Erie. I may say this is not in my constituency so I am not personally interested in it. The parties who were making the representations for the repairing of this wharf were referred from the Public Works department to the Department of Railways, both departments refusing to take charge of the "baby." However, this year the latter department admitted they were responsible for it and it was represented that some provision would be made in the Supplementary Estimates. I may say this pier or wharf at Port Maitland is badly in need of ,epair. Some 250 or 300 feet of the east pier have been washed away, seriously menacing the safety of the channel and the west pier. A great deal of expense has been incurred by ihe government in dredging thjs channel and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company have been runnmg for some time a car ferry across lake Erie. Last year they carried 5,462 loaded cars representing 244,296 :ons, which tonnage would have been very much higher had it not been for the coal strike. The commodities carried on that ferry north bound consisted of coal, coke, steel, sand and brick, stone, chemicals, oil, meat and miscellaneous. South bound the commodities consisted of machinery and implements, foods, carbide and ore, scrap iron, paper, pulp, lumber, asbestos and chemicals. The wharf is in such a dangerous condition that it is a menace to the other pier there and it will only be a very short time before the government will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars whereas a moderate expenditure at this time would effect a large saving. I should l.ike to have some explanation from the government as to why an important work of this nature should have been ignored, whereas sums amounting to $100,001'. are being spent elsewhere.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The wharf or pier to which my hon. friend refers is under the control of the Railway department. I am sorry the minister is not in the chamber at present, but I will be very glad to direct his attention to the matter.
Jackson's Point-to purchase and reconstruct wharf,


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the minister be good enough to tell us what amount of this item is required for the purchase and what portion for reconstruction-not necessaarily whose riding it is in.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The object
of this vote is to purchase or expropriate from Mr. J. M. McDonald a timber cribwork wharf 159 feet long by 36 feet wide, including
a warehouse and right of way thereto, and to reconstruct the wharf superstructure. The district engineer's estimate of the value of the wharf and right of way is $6,000, and to reconstruct the superstructure will cost $2,000, making a total amount of $8,000. The request for this work to be done came from Mr. A. B. Anderson, secretary, Sutton and Jackson's Point Board of Trade, Sutton West, Ont., in which he forwards a petition with reference to the harbour and wharf at Jackson s Point, together with letters from Mr. T. L. Church, M.P., Mr. T. Herbert Lennox, K.C., M.P.P., and a letter and blueprints from Mr. J. M. McDonald the present owner of the property.


Joseph Henry Harris: How much was paid for
it? ,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing has been paid.


Joseph Henry Harris: How much is going to be
paid?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is estimated the value of the wharf is $6,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think in looking over the Ontario vote we will not be able to get rid of it very quickly. I suggest that we let it stand and go on with the next.
Item stands.
Harbours and rivers-Manitoba, $71,650.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Evidently there are not many docks in Manitoba, but there seem to be some sewers. What is meant by this?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I asked the question,
Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: It was explained several times. Surely the hon. member heard the explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Saskatchewan and Alberta, $13,000.
Oliver Robert Gould: Pretty small vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Roads and Bridges:
Grand Etang-Construction of bridge .. .. $13,200 00 International bridge over river St. John between Edmundston, N.B., and Fort Kent,
Me., the state of Maine to provide $15,000, county of Aroostook $10,000, and town of Fort Kent $5.000-revote of lapsed amount 29,000 00 Interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Ontario and Quebec governments to each contribute one-third of the cost	 40,000 00
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Interprovincial bridge over Ottawa river between Ottawa and Hull-paving of approach	 5,000 00
William Stevens Fielding: There is an error in this item. Strike out the word "Edmundston" and insert " Clair."


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury? When was the agreement arrived at? Is that a new matter or one of the old things?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Arrangement was
made, as indicated in the vote, between the Ontario and Quebec governments for the construction of an interprovincial bridge across the river between Hawkesbury and Grenville, the Ontario and Quebec governments each to contribute one-third of the cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the date
of the agreement?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no actual agreement in writing between the parties. This vote is proposed to be taken, so that if an agreement is arrived at between the parties it will be available for the construction of the bridge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What authority is going to build the bridge?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The federal government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Nova Scotia, $9,600.
Henry Lumley Drayton: These telegraph items are practically all the same?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The House could get no explanation at the present time that would be any good, but some of the items look rather serious. There is one of $20,000. Some time ago the question of doing away with all these poles that are a constant source of expense was under consideration. I know that the late government determined to get rid of the constant expense and to put in wireless. Has that matter been proceeded with? We are going on spending a lot more money, and we are going to lose it. It is only a question of time till the change is made.


Charles A. Stewart: I think that applies principally to the northern line in British Columbia running through to the Yukon. That line has been practically abandoned. Annually, it appears to have cost a good deal of money. These small
IMr. Gould.]
lines are not in that particular locality but in the general estimates there are considerable amounts for these particular lines. There was also a sum voted for the construction of wireless equipment at Dawson City. We are now asking for a further amount of $19,000 to connect with Dawson.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are spending money on these lines now. Here is $45,000 for a service which ought to be performed by wireless. What is the good of going on with wireless while maintaining all these other lines?


Charles A. Stewart: That will not be done. This money will not all be spent-that is not for the whole line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is for the whole line in the supplementaries.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had a number of these lines at one time, and got rid of them. We made a lot of money by disposing of them for nothing. The provinces turned them into telephone lines. This was done in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is a source of expense to the government and they are getting nothing out of it. We are spending money looking after the old lines. I hope before another year we will have a definite plan.


Charles A. Stewart: Some of the work comes under the Department of Public Works, but I understand there will be no overlapping. In British Columbia there appears to be a considerable number of these lines still remaining.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-Maritime provinces, further amount required. $25,000.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec, further amount required, $50,000.
Dredging-British Columbia, further amount required, $16,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister give us some information in regard to this dredging item? The Main Estimates contain item No. 164 for dredging in the Maritime provinces, $600,000. When that estimate was under discussion, I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) what dredging it was proposed to do, and the answer he gave me appears in Hansard of March 9 last. Out of that amount of $600,000, he proposed to dredge Lunenburg harbour. To-night a couple of hours ago, for Lunenburg again, we voted another $40,000, and in this item we have a further amount required for

Supply-Public Works
dredging of $25,000. I do not understand on what principle this money is asked for, and I would be very much obliged if the minister would enlighten the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the places in the Maritime provinces which have to be dredged in addition to the list given before. My hon. friend will find that these total $45,000 approximately :
Nova Scotia
Canso (Antigonish-Guysboro Co.)..	.. 9,600
Cape St. Mary (Yarmouth-Clare Co.) .. 3.400 Deep Brook (Digby Annapolis Co.) .. .. 1.000
Eastern Points (Lunenburg Co.)	 771
Jordan Bay (Shelburne & Queen's Co.) 1,340 McLeod's Harbour (Lunenburg Co.) .. 1.021 Port Medway (Shelburne & Queen's Co.) 1,000
Wolfville (King's Co.)	 2,000

New Brunswick
Cocagne Harbour (Kent Co.)	 1,150
Kouchibouguac Narrows (Kent Co.).. 10,000
Neguac (Northumberland Co.)	 2,800
Wilson's Beach (Charlotte Co.)	 2.300

	16,250
Prince Edward Island
Savage Harbour (King's Co.)	8,500

	8,500
Grand Total	$44,882


Hugh Guthrie: That hardly gives the information I desire. My point is that we voted $600,000 in the Main Estimates, and the minister gave us a list, as appears in Hansard of March 9, of the dredging work he proposed to carry on. In that list, Lunenburg is mentioned for 200,000 cubic yards. To-night we have been asked to vote, and have voted, $40,000 for Lunenburg. Now comes a third vote of $25,000 for dredging in the Maritime provinces. What is the necessity of three votes? Why were they not all put into one, or at most, into two? It is certain, when the minister made his statement on March 0, he intended the $600,000 which we then voted, to cover Lunenburg, and I assume he also intended that amount to cover the other dredging in that part of the country. I cannot understand what this extra $25,000 is intended for.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister will like to say something upon this point. I do not think he would like it to be thought for one minute-and I am sure he did not do so intentionally-that he deceived the committee. I asked for a delay at one time for the purpose of looking into this very question, to see whether the dredging under the main vote was to be allocated for
the particular work we had in the item then under discussion. He sent the information to me after the vote was finished. He assured us that it had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the places we were discussing. I am quite sure my hon. friend did not have the information before him, and he would like to straighten out the matter to the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The matter is quite simple. If my hon. friend would stop and think for a moment, he would at once see it. What the Minister of Public Works did on March 9 was to give to the committee the programme of the number of cubic yards that he expected to be handled at that time. When they came to work the matter out in an endeavour to work in the government dredge, in order to get this work actually done, they found, so I am instructed, that it was impossible to do this with the item of $600,000 that was voted. Therefore they come to parliament in order to get the extra amount of $25,000. This extra work, the items of which I gave to-night, will have to be done by private dredges, outside of the government dredges, all of which are employed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend knows what we wanted this information for. It was to see whether the government could put the dredges in the places where the work was to be done. I certainly understood the minister to say that this had nothing at all to do with those places. He says, however, that the matter is perfectly simple. We have three different jobs going on all at once!


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not understand my hon. friend. I think the explanation is very clear. I did not see the statement when I was speaking about Lunenburg, but the statement I made about Lunenburg stands good. This is the programme made out during the winter of what the government wanted to do at that time. They figured that $600,000 would cover it. They found, with all the demands that were made, that more money was required for dredging and they came here to get it. When they came to work the matter out, so that the government dredge could be in that place or in this place, they found that it would pay them better, in order to get the work actually done, to call for tenders at Lunenburg, the work at which at that time they may have thought they could accomplish by the government dredge. This is merely a case of allocation.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it is. The minister will see that in the statement of the
Civil Service Act

Minister of Public Works, Lunenburg is included for 200,000 cubic yards in the appropriation of $600,000. In my hon. friend's statement to the committee to-night, if I remember the figure, he said that the quantity at Lunenburg was 102,000 to 103,000 cubic yards. If 200,000 cubic yards were included in the $600,000 in the Main Estimates, that certainly more than included the 102,000 cubic yards that he speaks of as the total dredging to-be done there over a period of three years. It staggers one to find a further Supplementary Estimate of $25,000 for dredging in the Maritime provinces.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I intimated earlier in the evening that my hon. friend was developing some new qualities. My hon. friend is endeavouring to lead the committee to believe that in the item that was given on March 9, dredging in Lunenburg was included. That is not correct.


Hugh Guthrie: That is as I understood it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, as my hon. friend understood it!


Hugh Guthrie: If I am mistaken, I am ready to be put right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is here is not dredging at Lunenburg, but dredging at Riverport, Lunenburg county, an entirely different place where the dredging is being done by the government dredge.


Hugh Guthrie: The House did not have that explanation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend might know very well when he saw that, that it was not Lunenburg but Riverport, Lunenburg county, and my hon. friend was either misleading the committee-


Hugh Guthrie: I did not know, and my hon. friend himself has only discovered this after a great deal of discussion in the House. He passed it over in the earlier part of the discussion, without ever seeing it. I am glad he has given us the explanation, but it took him a long time to do it, although he is himself from Nova Scotia and has charge of the estimates. It would strike anyone as being very extraordinary that after having voted several specific items we should be called upon now for another $25,000.


William Stevens Fielding: It being twelve o'clock
I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate advising this House that the Senate do insist upon their amendments made to Bill No. 84, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, for the following reasons:
1.	Because the provisions of the act should be equally applicable to employer and employee.
2.	Because the selection of the third arbitrator by the chief justice of a court would remove any possible objection that the person selected might be more closely associated with either one of the contending parties.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 251 (from the Senate), for the relief of Flossie May Pinkham.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
recommend to the House that the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, adopted by the House on June 20, 1922, be amended by making the changes set out in the details which I am laying on the table.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, seconded by Mr. Fielding, that the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid on the Table of this House, respecting certain changes in the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 29, 1923.