1923-06-21

QUEBEC SAVINGS BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 231, to amend the Quebec Savings Bank Act, 1913.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 226 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Conkey.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 227 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Marie Pope.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 228 (from the Senate), for the relief of Loretta May Girard.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 229 (from the Senate), for the relief of Birdena Frances Wallace LeMay.- Mr. Guthrie.

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

Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Why was James Conley dismissed from the position of keeper of Noel Light on Noel wharf, Hants county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Upon whose recommendation was the dismissal made, and upon whose recommendation was hi* successor appointed?
3.	At the time of making the dismissal, or subsequently, was the Department of Marine and Fisherie* aware that Conley had permission from the Inspector of lights to have the light attended to by his wife during his absence?
4.	What was then, and is now, the remuneration fo* keeping said light?

Questions


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	He was dismissed on the ground that he did not attend to the duties of lightkeeper, contrary to the rule and practice of the department.
2.	The dismissal and appointment were made on the recommendation of the Hon. Jacques Bureau, at the time Acting Minister of the department.
3.	Subsequent to the dismissal of Conley, the department was informed that he had permission from the Inspector of Lights. The inspector, however, had no authority to vary any rule or practice.
4.	Conley was receiving $150 per annum. His successor is receiving $120 per annum.


METAPEDIA BRIDGE
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	How much lumber was used in the repairs to the Interprovincial Bridge at Metapedia, Quebec, last fall?
2.	(a) Who supplied same, (b) what was the price per thousand feet, and (c) the total amount paid for the lumber?
3.	What men worked on the bridge, at what wages and for what time were they respectively paid?
4.	(a) What men hauled the lumber, (b) at what wages per day for horse and man, and (c) what was the total amount paid for this service?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	30,385 feet.
2.	(a) Chas. H. Nadeau and Jas. H. Adams; (b) $25 per M. feet; (c) $759.63.
3.	S. M. Adams, conductor $4 a day, 21 days in November, 6 in December; Jas. H. Adams, sub-conductor, $3 a day, 21 days in November, 6 in December; D. F. Adams, labourer, $3 a day, 20 days in November, 6 in December; Alex. Gallant, labourer, $2.50 a day, 19 days in November, 5 in December; Herbert Adams, labourer, $2.50 a day, 16 days in November, 6 in December; John Firter, labourer, $2.50 a day, 8 days in November, 6 in December; Malcolm Lawlor, labourer, $3 a day, 1 day in November; Octave Gallant, labourer, $2.50 a day, 1 day in November; John A. Adams, labourer, $2.50 a day, 6 days in November.
4.	(a) Gordon Lawlor and D. F. Adams; (b) $4 a day to Lawlor for 17i days, and $4.50 a day to Adams for 1 day; (c) $74.50.


WOOLLEN INDUSTRY IN CANADA
Mr. CHURCH:: Is it intended to introduce any legislation this session to assist the woollen industry in Canada?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: No legislation with special reference to the woollen industry is proposed.


CATTLE EMBARGO-INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. STEVENS:: I should like to ask again if the correspondence requested yesterday, and which was ordered on February 12th, regarding the removal of the cattle embargo, is ready yet for presentation to the House?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not personally
familiar with the matter. I will inquire of the Minister of Agriculture and ascertain during the day.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House do this day resolve itself into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, chapter ten of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by providing-
1.	That the present sessional allowance of members of the Senate and House of Commons shall be paid to every member of either House who attends a session of Padiament extending over a period of fifty days or more; that a member shall not be entitled to the sessional allowance for less than fifty days' attendance but that his allowance for any less number of days shall be twenty-five dollars for each day's attendance; and that the said allowance may be paid on the last day of each month to the extent of twenty dollars per day for each day's attendance;
2.	That a deduction at the rate of twenty-five dollars per day shall be made from such sessional allowance for every day beyond fifteen on which the member does not attend a sitting of the House, if the House sits on that day; provided that in the case of a member elected or appointed after the commencement of a session, no day of the session previous to such election or appointment shall be reckoned as one of such fifteen days, and that each day during the session on which there has been no sitting of such House in consequence of its having adjourned over such day, shall be reckoned as a day of attendance at such session, for the purpose of the indemnity; and
3.	That the above amendments wi h the ^xceptioi of that concerning the payment of the ;ndemu ty on +hc last day of each month at the rate of twenty dollars per day, shall apply to .the present session of Parha -ment.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, and recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Before the resolution is reported I should like to ask if the purport is to permit the bringing in of a bill to remove some of the restrictions that formerly existed? For example, I understand

Senate and House of Commons Act
there was a regulation that if a member were absent any day during the last fifteen days of the session he was fined $25 for that day's absence. Does the bill to be founded on this resolution remove that restriction?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I understand that
it does.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I
wish to protest. I shall vote against the resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Very good.


Mr. RINFRET:: You do not have to take the money.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On the motion of Mr. Fielding for the second reading:


Mr. SHAW:: I wish to make one or two observations at this time. In so far as this bill proposes to lift the restrictions which were imposed, as I believe for very good reasons I am opposed to it. In so far as it proposes to clarify the situation, I have no objection
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. FIELDING thereupon moved that the House go into committee of the whole upon the bill.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is this bill printed and distributed?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know whethe' it is distributed. I have a printed copy.


Robert Gardiner: I desire to prote against the bill proceeding any further until it has been distributed.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member objects, the bill will have to stand, and we will take the second reading to-morrow.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The second reading has iaken place now by common consent.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member object?


Hewitt Bostock: The motion for the second reading has been carried, and it has been moved that I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


Robert Gardiner: I desire to enter a protest.
267J


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable, according to rule I7A. The hon. member will have plenty of opportunity to object when the bill is in committee.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Sessional allowance and allowance for attendance less than 50 days.


Robert Gardiner: I still desire to enter an emphatic protest against considering this bill or any bill, until such time as the bill has been printed and distributed to the members of the House. I will, therefore, move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I wish to say-


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member
seriously objects to the motion, I will not press it any further to-day.


Robert Gardiner: I object to the motion, and I object to the principle that members of this House should be called upon to consider bills which are not printed and not in the hands of members; because we should have an opportunity of considering the details.


William Stevens Fielding: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 175, to repeal The Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third 'ime and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Geo. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the construction of Canadian National Railway lines, and to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may provide for the construction and completion by the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the
C.N.R.-Construction
[Stage Direction]
Company") of the lines of railway mentioned or referred to in the schedule to these resolutions (hereinafter called "the said lines of railway");
2.	That any of the said lines of railway connecting with the Canadian Government Railways may be declared by the Governor in Council to form part of the Canadian Government Railways. Lines of railway so declared (hereinafter called "Government Railway lines") shall be constructed by the company on behalf of His Majesty and the company shall cause the title to the necessary lands or interests in lands to be acquired in the name of His Majesty.
3.	That with respect to Government Railway lines the Governor in Council may authorize advances to be made to the company from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to cover the necessary expenditure in acquiring such lands or interests in lands and in constructing and completing such lines of railway.
4.	That with respect to the lines of railway mentioned or referred to in the said schedule' other than Government Railway lines (which other lines are hereinafter referred to as "National Railway lines") the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee of the principal and interest of the securities of the company issued under the provisions (save as herein varied) of section 26 of chapter 13 of the statutes of 1919, to an amount approved by the Governor in Council but not exceeding $40,000 per mile of such National Railway lines.
5. That the certificate of the minister as to the mileage of the National Railway lines shall for these purposes be conclusive, but the minister may issue interim certificates from time to time based upon the estimated mileage and a final certificate to accord with the miles and fractions of miles actually constructed, each line of railway being treated as a separate line.
6.	That the mileage of the said lines of railway and the cost of construction thereof mentioned in the schedule hereto shall be deemed to be merely estimated distances and costs.
7. That the nature and form of securities to be issued and guaranteed shall be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance, and may, as the Governor in Council decides, be secured by mortgage or deed of trust.
8.	That to enable the work of construction and completion of the National Railway lines to proceed forthwith the Governor in Council, pending the issue and disposal of such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the company from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty by the company from the proceeds of the sale or disposition of such guaranteed securities.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On clause 1:
Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish to make an explanation. The suggestion was made last night by the hon. member for Vancouver in reference to another bill that the resolutions might be allowed to go through their formal course, and that we should get these resolutions in the shape of a bill, so that every member could have it in his hands. I have a bill drafted on these resolutions. If the House would consent, we would get these resolutions in the form of a bill, and then let the matter stand for two or three days, till each member has a copy of the bill and can look over it. fSir Lomer Gouin.]


Mr. HANSON:: When does the minister suggest that consideration should be given to the bill?


George Perry Graham: Very soon, for the simple reason that when we go into the details of the bill it will be necessary to have some members of the staff from Montreal here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is a reasonable request.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that the consideration of the bill be taken up on Monday, if that is agreeable to the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: No objection.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I do not desire to object to proceeding with the resolution, but I wish to draw the attention of the government, and the Minister of Railways more especially, to the fact that they are going into an expenditure of about $25,000,000 for the construction of branch lines. I scanned the resolution very rapidly, and I observed that 71 miles are located in Nova Scotia, 25 miles in New Brunswick, 14 miles in Quebec, and 29 miles in Ontario, and all the rest goes to the west. I do not object that the proposal be adopted. I have had the honour of representing my constituency for twenty-five years, and his Honour the Speaker (Mr. Lemieux) has represented Gaspe, the adjoining constituency, for a longer period. We have on several occasions called the attention of governments in the past to the singular position in which the people of the Gaspe peninsula are situated. In twelve years from now the four-hundredth anniversary of the landing of Jacques Cartier on Canadian soil will occur in this the oldest-inhabited part of Canada. And we are still asking for a decent railway service. When Sir Wilfred Laurier took office in 1896, one hundred miles of railway had been built, as far as New Carlisle, following out a proposal made to the parliament of that day by Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Charles Tup-per in 1882. Sir Hector Langevin at that time was Minister of Public Works and leader in the province of Quebec, Sir Charles Tupper was Minister of Railways. In 1882, parliament voted an amount for the construction of this branch of the Intercolonial railway from Matapedia towards Gaspe Basin. This undertaking was handed over to a private company, and the misfortunes of that district began with that date. Sir Wilfred Laurier took office in 1896, and the present Speaker of this House asked, very fairly for his constituency-because at that time Gaspe was the only constituency in Quebec which

C .N.R .-Construction
had no railway service whatever-that the line should be continued from New Carlisle to Gaspe. The remaining one hundred miles were completed, making in all two hundred miles of railway. The late Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) had a law passed through this House by which any two hundred miles of railway connecting with the Intercolonial or with government-owned railways might be merged into the Canadian National system. We have urged this for many years without success. The present two hundred miles of railway line are owned by two companies, the shareholders of which reside in England. They give service merely to keep the railway alive, and the result is that that part of Quebec, which is the most interesting from its maritime aspect, from its valuable resources, from the attractiveness of its territory and from its very energetic population, has remained to this date the most poorly served part of Canada in the matter of railways. It seems strange to these people, inhabiting the oldest part of Canada, while we are voting millions for new parts of Canada which are barely settled at the present time, or which are yet to be settled by newcomers to this country whom we welcome

that the oldest settlers, the people of the oldest part of Canada, should remain still without any adequate railway service.
Lately we have called the attention of Sir Henry Thornton to this state of affairs. Sir Henry Thornton volunteered to have an inspection made of these lines and to have them operated as if they were the property of the Dominion, as branch lines of the Intercolonial railway, because they are de facto branch lines of that road. The two counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure are inhabited by 60,000 people, and we could easily have three times that population if we had a proper railway service. These two constituencies cover 10,000 square miles of the most fertile territory in the province of Quebec, with a double advantage of being situated by the sea, having thousands of miles of timber and pulpwood, mineral resources, fertile soil, and splendid fisheries producing some of the finest fish of the North American continent. Our rivers are visited yearly by the cream of American and Canadian society, from His Excellency down, and that has been the case for the last forty years. A member of the Royal House has gone to the extent of establishing a residence at New Richmond to take advantage of the fisheries in these attractive regions. Nevertheless the district has remained in a quiescent state. During the first ten years that I had the honour
of representing the constituency in this House, the population increased in one county alone by 5,000. During the next decade, from 1911 to 1921, the population increased by only 500. Why? Because the industries in both Gaspe and Bonaventure, one after another moved away across the Baie des Chaleurs to the Intercolonial where they could get service over which they could send their produce. At Nouvelle, to begin with, the Province of Quebec Lumber Association transferred all its lumber over to Dal-housie, and it is operating on the main line of the Intercolonial. The same thing happened at Bonaventure and New Richmond where the mills of the McLean Lumber Corporation were transferred to Bathurst, and to-day we witness the spectacle of this lumber being cut in these two countries and being transported in booms across the Baie des Chaleurs, a distance ranging from 25 to 50 miles to be sawn and placed on board cars to be exported to the Canadian and American markets at great disadvantage and loss. The result of this is that the young people are leaving these two counties daily, and settling, unfortunately a large number of them, in the United States. We are losing our population, and this because we have not an efficient railway service which would develop the resources of these two constituencies as they should be developed. I know the Minister of Railways or the government has handed over the operation of the Canadian National Railways to a board of directors. Sir Henry Thornton ia willing to operate these lines as branches of the Intercolonial. We find ourselves in presence of these two companies holding these roads for a price, and between the two the people are not getting the service. There must be a solution to this, and I wish to attract the attention of the Minister of Railways and the government of Canada to this fact. Hon. Mr. Carvell and some of his associates on the Railway Commission visited the constituencies two or three years ago and made an elaborate report, which is now in the possession of the Minister of Railways, pointing out that these two constituencies did not have the railway service to which thev were entitled. And if an application were made to the Railway Commission to-morrow, I have no doubt that an order would be issued which would place these two Enelish companies in the position of having to give up the operation of these railways, because I understand their resources are not sufficient, to give the country the service to which it is entitled.
C.N.R.-Construction

We have on these two roads some very antiquated locomotives. We have no rolling stock whatever. The rolling stock that we have comes from other roads, and still every pound of freight and every passenger coming over these 200 miles of territory cannot reach any other railway than the Intercolonial. After the hon. the Speaker had succeeded in having the second hundred miles of this road completed, I had the honour of introducing in this House in 1904 a bill to authorize the contraction of the interprovincial railway bridge over the Restigouche river between Cross Point and Campbellton, the reason at that time being to link up these two railways with the Intercolonial Railway at Campbellton. We have now communication with Matapedia by which we can easily reach Montreal, Quebec, Ontario and the West. But our communication with the American market and with the Maritime provinces is defective. By the construction of this bridge over the Restigouche river between Quebec and New Brunswick, we would have an easy access to these railways, to the Intercolonial going east and west, to the International running from Campbellton to St. Leonards and the border of the state of Maine, where it would connect with the American system of railways and would place the entire Gaspe Peninsula within 24 hours of Boston, the great .fish market of the United States. .We have in the Baie des Chaleurs some of the most magnificent fish in the province. We have pulpwood galore. We have untold wealth in minerals. We have all these resources, but we need a much better railway service. Before the Minister of Railways proceeds much further with this railway legislation, I trust he will give this state of affairs his serious consideration. He will find in the archives of his department a very elaborate report issued last year by one of his officials, Mr. Fraser, who went down there and made a thorough investigation into the whole system. In this report Mr. Fraser points out that these 200 miles are the most valuable branch of the Intercolonial east of Montreal. Still they are inadequately unoperated, the people have not the service, and the Canadian National Railways are without the proceeds that would be derived from the proper operation of these roads. We have a huge deficit in connection with our Canadian National Railways and the only way in which that deficit can be reduced is by obtaining business for the system. Here is an excellent opportunity. People are willing to stay at home here and are anxious to develop the place. We find here large families, and the people are not 
troubled with any advanced hour or any eight-hour-a-day system, nor are they bothered with labour unions. They are of the old type of Canadians who inhabited this country years ago. This is an ideal country for the development of all our industries and, as I have observed, there are large families-families of ten, twelve and fifteen children are frequent. We have lately seen at Gaspe itself the creation of a new diocese, which in the province of Quebec means the centre of a large district; and the absorbing powers of the French-Canadian race are strikingly exemplified in the fact that the first Roman Catholic bishop of this diocese is the Right Rev. Monseigneur Ross, the descendant of a Scotsman, though a French-Canadian himself. This part of the province of Quebec has thus become the nucleus of a new district, and when the Minister of Railways is considering this development of the National Railway system generally he will find a very notable example of what has occurred in the Lake St. John district as well as in the Chicoutimi district in the fact that this part of the province of Quebec has been erected into a diocese with a bishop in charge. He will also see in the Three Rivers district a section of the country that is fast becoming the industrial centre of the whole of Canada.
I am in favour of immigration, and during the past twenty-five years I have voted for the expenditure of millions untold for this purpose, for the construction of railways, and for the advancement of Canada generally. But really I consider that this part of the province of Quebec has been overlooked; and when His Honour the Speaker and myself placed the matter before Sir Henry Thornton on a purely business basis he was amazed at the state of affairs that actually existed. To such an extent, indeed, did it appeal to him that he offered at once to undertake the operation of these railways as branch lines of 'the Intercolonial. But we are held up by these English companies who are keeping the roads alive merely for the purpose of obtaining their price. Now, there must be a solution for this condition of things, and I call upon the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who is familiar with the province of Quebec, his colleague, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and the government, to p-ovide this solution as soon as possible. We are not asking for the construction of railways; we are merely asking for the operation of a railway that has already been constructed, a portion of it forty years ago and the other portion within the last fifteen years. We simply want to give to the people the service to which they

C.N.R.-Cons true tion
are entitled; and that they are entitled to this service is admitted by the Railway Commission and all officials who have gone over the ground. I trust therefore that proper attention will be given tins matter before long and that the people of Gaspe peninsula will receive that consideration which they have a right to expect at the hands of the country.
Mr. HANSON; I am sure the Minister of Railways must have a heart of stone if he does not give heed to the eloquence of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. MarcilV While this subject is under consideration I want to call to his attention the position of a branch line of the Intercolonial railway.


Charles Marcil: Would the hon. member bo kind enough to allow me just a few more words beforp he proceeds?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should rather like to continue; the topic I propose discussing is akin to the one just dealt with by my hon. friend. There is in the province of New Brunswick a line known as the Kent Northern railway, the only branch line in the province which has not been taken over by the Dominion. That line was included in the scheme projected by the Minister of Railways in the late government, and but for the attitude of the owners it would ere this have formed a part of the government railway system. I understand that the only difficulty in the old days was with regard to the price. The government at that time were willing to pay $60,000 for the twenty-eight miles of railway line, while the company that owned the property expected considerable more. It has lately come to my knowledge, however, that the company is now willing to sell at the offer originally made by the government, and I will ask that the Minister of Railways, while he is taking into consideration the appeal of the hon. member for Bonaventure. to give serious heed to the request of the people of the county of Kent in New Brunswick, that that line be taken over. During the recent very severe winter the people of that county, numbering some 25,000, were for forty-two days without railway communication. This is a great handicap to a part of the country, such as this is, that is well settled and is thriving industrially, besides being a considerable farming and fishing community. These people are entitled to a better service and the only possible means of providing such a service is for the government to take over this branch line. Again I ask the minister to take into earnest and serious consideration the question of acquiring that line.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: While in opposition I took the opportunity on various occasions to call to the attention of the Minister of Railways the situation in regard to certain branch lines which were at that time needed in the county I have the honour to represent, the county of Charlevoix. These two branch lines extend respectively from Baie St. Paul to St. Urbain and from Murray Bay to Naim fall. The distance between St. Paul and St. Urbain is nine miles and the line would cost approximately $200,000. I had the assurance of the Minister of Railways at that time, Hon. J. D. Reid, that he would send his engineers to look over the site with a view to seeing whether something could not be done in the immediate future. This, I might observe, was in the year 1920, or perhaps in 1921. There is a great mine operated by the Titanium Ore Company in this district; and the General Electric Company of the United States, during the war, succes-fully operated a mine next to it. I have no doubt that if proper facilities were afforded by a branch line the people that now own the capital stock of the Titanium Ore Company, and who belong to the province of Quebec would be able to carry on operations that would prove of great benefit to that district. At St. Urbain there is a national park which the Department of the Interior has set aside as a special reserve for fishing and hunting, while there are a great number of clubs under the control of the provincial government in this locality. As in the case of the county which my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) represents a great number of visitors from various parts of Canada, as well as from the United States, and indeed, from other parts of the province of Quebec, pass through this district of which I am speaking, every year, spring, summer and fall, and I am sanguine that if this branch line were built it would increase that traffic and bring more money and people to the place. This district is also a great farming centre, from which butter, cheese and other products are shipped to other parts of the province of Quebec. Then there is the other branch line to which I have referred, from Murray Bay to Naim fall. It was constructed eleven years ago before the main line of the Saguenay railway was built. But up to the present time the government has not officially taken possession of it. The line has been leased for a nominal rental to a pulp company. I am informed that about $100,000 would put the line into proper shape. A great deal of cheese and butter
C.N.R.-Construction

is produced in this district and extensive lumbering operations are carried on, so that there is plenty of freight business for the railway. Although the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and the new board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have apparently overlooked the transportation requirements of my district, I hope that they will take the matter once more into consideration and do something. There is also the completion of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, to Chicoutimi from Murray Bay, a distance of about 55 miles, which has to be undertaken in the very near future if the main railway is to be made to pay. The previous government was very free with assurances that in the very near future they would do something for these people, but apparently these were merely election promises. I hope the new government will do better than their predecessors. To this end, I would extend to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals another invitation to visit this district next July, when I am sure they will agree with me that Baie St. Paul and Murray Bay for scenic beauty are not equalled anywhere else in the Dominion-in fact they will be charmed with the delightful county of Charlevoix-Montmorency.


Mr. LEGER:: I can assure my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that the railway in Kent was looked after by those more closely concerned in the interests of the county long before he was politically born. If we have not control of the branch lines down there it is not the fault of the Conservative government; they made an offer to the provincial authorities, which offer was declined. I for one have done all I could with reference to the matter, without bringing it before the House as a complaint against any government, and to-day it is being looked after by this government in a way which I think will be for the advantage of my county.
I can assure my hon. friend that this business is in good hands and that we can get along fairly well without his interference.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Mr. Chairman, here is a very interesting situation for the Minister of Railways. The pathetic plea made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has at least excited the sympathy of my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) because they have a fellow-feeling; they both have railways in their respective counties that have been built for forty years, operated by private companies during all that 4 p.m time, and now that these companies are unable to go on any longer my hon. friends want to dump the lines on to the 
government. They want to attach them to the 'National Railways, notwithstanding that my hon. friends from the province of Quebec are always complaining about our National Railway deficits. There is no hope of escaping these deficits-


Mr. VIEN:: If my hon. friend will allow me- does he know that in the province of Quebec we have the shortest railway mileage per thousand of population in the whole Dominion, and that our railways always show a surplus?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If there is a deficit on the National Railways it is not due to lack of traffic in the province of Ontario.


Thomas Vien: Nor in Quebec, either.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think my hon. friends will deny that in the province of Quebec there is a strong sentiment against government ownership and operation of railways, and I base my remarks upon that fact.


Thomas Vien: If I might correct my hon. friend-the sentiment is much less strong since the new management took over the National Railways.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, and, to me, very satisfactory. It has really been worth while to have a change in the management if it has resulted in removing the antipathy to government ownership and operation of railways that formerly existed in the province of Quebec. With the hon. gentleman's province in favour of public ownership, I think we may safely say that the whole Dominion is favourable. So I am very glad to hear from my hon. friend of this change of sentiment in his province. I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. friend from Bonaventure with his two hundred miles of railway built forty years ago and still in the hands of a private company. We are told, mostly by the press of the province of Quebec, including the Montreal Gazette, that the only way to run railways is by private ownership. Yet here is a railway in the beautiful county of Gaspe, a county of fertile soil and rich in natural resources, where the traffic is so light that no private capital can be induced to continue the operation of this forty-year-old road. Therefore what private capital has thrown aside parliament is urged to transfer to our National Railways. I am not taking the position that some relief should not be given tc that beautiful county, but I just want to draw the attention of the House to the remarkable situation. Not only in the county

C.N.R.-Construction
of Gaspe, but down in the province of New Brunswick there is a line that excites sympathy.


Charles Marcil: The first
part of the line I referred to was built forty years ago, the other part at a later date Every year there is a surplus on the first hundred miles of between $50,000 and $60,000, but on the second hundred miles there is always a deficit; so one practically balances the other. What we are urging the government to do is merely to give service on these branch lines that they give on the other branch lines of the Intercolonial Railway. Last September although four hundred cars were required only forty were received in the district, and of course this means that business is being lost. I merely want Sir Henry Thornton to operate these lines as if they were branches of the Intercolonial Railway The Dominion has spent a million dollars in subsidies, for which no results are being obtained.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is very interesting, too, but the fact still stands out that the private ownership of this railway has not been a success; and not being a success, my hon. friend turns to national ownership and wants the burden of this unsuccessful railway to be assumed by the National Railways.


Thomas Vien: Was it not the same in respect to our National Railways?-that their unsuccessful operation under private ownership prompted my hon. friends to try government ownership?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I see, Mr. Chairman, I have got myself into a lot of trouble in merely trying to elucidate a point which I thought it well to bring to the attention of the House. I may inform my hon. friend that it was the failure of private ownership, supported-unwisely supported, extravagantly supported-by the government of my hon. friends opposite which built the National T ranscontinental.


George Perry Graham: Who built the Grand
Trunk?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who built the Grand
Trunk Pacific?


George Perry Graham: Not the government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The Grand Trunk Pacific never would have been built but for the support and assistance given by the government of that day.


George Perry Graham: They all got support.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes. I admit that private ownership failed. But not in the province of Ontario; it was always profitable there. It was when we went out into the West and built thousands of miles of railway through a wilderness that private ownership failed, and this country had to face the alternative of handing over to private corporations anywhere from fifty million to one hundred million dollars a year or else take over their failing railways. There was nothing else to do, as I see it, but to take over the system. My hon. friend has drawn me a little away from the point I was making. I am not raising any particular objection to the pathetic plea of my hon. friend from Bonaventure, but I wanted to point out the change that has taken place when the men who have been condemning private ownership now turn to public ownership to escape the burden that private ownership will not carry.


Thomas Vien: Is there not a greater change in my hon. friend's attitude? He advocated public ownership when private ownership failed in his province and elsewhere, and he is now contending that we should not now carry out the same principle in respect to a railway in a province where the population per mile of railway is less than anywhere else in Canada. It is all very well to talk of public ownership in provinces where there is great density of population, but when it comes to assisting a certain branch line that cannot carry on by itself in the province of Quebec, where we have the smallest population per mile of railway, my hon. friend reverses1 his principles. He is opposed to the taking over of that railway by the National system, though he advocated the taking over of the railways in his own province and elsewhere that had failed under private ownership.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would like to draw
the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that this resolution deals with specific lines of railway, and the question whether public ownership or private ownership is the more profitable is really beyond the bounds of paragraph 1 and the schedule which forms a part of it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend has made four speeches while I am on my feet.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am simply informing the committee what I must rule in regard to this paragraph.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend misrepresented my attitude absolutely. I thought
C.NJt.-C onstruc tion

I had taken pains to say that I was not opposing what my hon. friend from Bonaven-ture asked. I did not oppose that.


Thomas Vien: I did not understand you to
approve of it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Perhaps I was not as clear as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere, but I tried to make it clear that I was not opposing it. I was drawing attention to this particular situation-


Thomas Vien: Must we understand that you approve of it?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The Chairman will be ruling you out of order.


Thomas Vien: May I ask my hon. friend a
question? Must we understand that my hon. friend is in favour of it?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am in favour of this:
If the president of the National Railway says that this is something that ought to be done I think this parliament ought to listen with very careful attention and give fair consideration to his recommendation. The other fact to which I wish to draw attention-and I think I am within the rules in this, Mr. Chairman -is the generosity of the Minister of Railways towards our friends in western Canada. I think it was something like five million dollars that we voted for the Hudson Bay Railway. I find that this totals up an expenditure of $21,133,900 for railway extensions in western Canada.


Mr. FORKE:: It is a paying proposition.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It may be, but I doubt
very much if it will pay for some time. And even if it is a paying proposition I want to point out that the Minister of Railways is very generous in his treatment of the West. I \m not objecting to that.


Robert Forke: It is good business.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I say that our friends in western Canada ought to feel grateful for it. They ought to go home and tell their friends that this parliament of Canada representing the effete East as well as the West is not unsympathetic with the men who are growing grain on the prairies.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not so
much so as the late government my hon. friend supported.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that is out of
order, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Vien: You invited it,


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Because if I attempted
to answer it I am afraid I should take all afternoon.


George Newcombe Gordon: I cannot prevent interjections if the hon. member does not object to them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You know, Mr. Chairman, that I am not accustomed to wasting the time of the House, but I could make a defence of the late government particularly in its treatment of the West. I say that over $21,000,000 is to be spent for railway construction in western Canada, and if you include the Hudson Bay Railway it is nearly $27,000,000; and only $7,276,000 is to be spent in all the rest of Canada. I want my friends from the West to go home and tell their constituents that this parliament is just as anxious for the prosperity of the West as the men who are growing grain on the prairies, and we are proving it by voting this large sum for railway extensions in that part of the country. I do not object to the cost because I conclude-


Robert Forke: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member realize that the city of Toronto will benefit more by the extension of these railway lines than the people living in the West?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I do not realize that at all, but I realize this, that of the money that will be spent in this direction the city of Toronto will pay more than any other part of the country.


Mr. FORRESTER:: Where do they get it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about Montreal?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Montreal will also contribute. Every large centre of population and of industry and wealth will pay its share.


Robert Forke: Where do they get the wealth?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I might tell my hon. friend this, but I am afraid I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal were flourishing and prosperous before there was any West. Their prosperity may have been increased by the West.


William Forrester: You were only a camp of gypsies.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think my hon. friend is out of order, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am trying to point out to my hon. friends from the West and to this

C.N.R.-Construction
House with what generosity they are being treated in the matter of railway construction. When they charge the constituency I represent with deriving the greater part of the profit from such extensions as this, I say that is not the case. The city of Toronto, the city of Montreal, and all the big cities in this country are the tax-paying centres of Canada.


William Forrester: Rats!


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Somebody said "rats."
Look at the tax returns and especially the income tax and sales tax returns, the post office and custom house and all the rest of it, and what I say will be proven. This government derives its money, and its collection is made easy, because of the concentration of wealth in those cities.


Robert Forke: What about that four hundred million bushels of wheat from the West?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That contributes a great deal to the prosperity of the railways, but it also contributes to the prosperity of the men who grow the wheat. My attitude in this House has always been, and is now, that the best thing that parliament can do for the West is to improve its transportation, and that is what we are doing. The only way you can get more money for your grain and obtain lower rates is to improve the railway and all other forms of transportation. I just rose for two purposes and I have been drawn over several different concession lines until I have diverted from those purposes. I wanted to point out to people interested in public ownership throughout this Dominion-not only in Ontario and the West, but also in the province which up to the present time has not been very sympathetic towards that policy-that the West is getting a tremendous railway expenditure of $27,000,000.


Robert Forke: That was a business proposition, to the advantage of Canada, and the city of Toronto would benefit from this expenditure as well as the West.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That may be true, but I
wonder if my hon. friend disputes the logic of my statement. Are we spending $27,000,000 in the West or are we not?


Robert Forke: We have not spent it yet.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is that not what is proposed and are you not going to vote for it?


Robert Forke: I am not in the witness box yet.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then my hon. friend
does not know whether he is going to vote for it or not.


Robert Forke: Indeed he does.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I venture the guess that
he will vote for it. Now, what I hope is that the members of this House who represent western constituencies-and I believe since they came here they have changed their viewpoint as to what the attitude of the East is towards the West-will tell their friends when they go home that there is nothing the parliament of Canada is more deeply interested in than contributing to the prosperity of the western part of this Dominion.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I only intend to speak for two or three minutes and I do not propose to say anything about public ownership as against private ownership other than this:	The people have before them to-day
evidence of the development of the Canadian National system, which is based on public ownership, and in which system they are the shareholders. If: you wish to see a further illustration of the success of public ownership look at the local street railway in Toronto and the development of power distribution in the province of Ontario. Then wait for the verdict of the people of the province in that respect on Monday next.
I want to deal with a matter of railway service which has apparently been ignored in the proposal before the House. In the province of Ontario it is proposed to spend nearly S2,000,000 on the Lac line which connects the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental railway, and effects a great economy in the consumption of coal alone representing a saving of millions of capital. I thoroughly approve of the vote for this purpose and I am glad to see the item in the estimates.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It will improve transportation from the east to the west and from the west to the east.


William Findlay Maclean: It is in reality
a work for the general advantage of Canada and I am glad to see a vote for this purpose. I should also like to see the present management of the Canadian National Railways take up and carry out improvements in connection with their system at Toronto which would involve a comparatively small expenditure. Toronto believes in public ownership and supports it, and yet obstacles still exist to the complete unification of the government railways running into that city. The old Grand Trunk, the old Canadian Northern,
C.N.R.-Construction

and the "new National," as it is termed, have been consolidated. An evidence of that is given in the connection proposed with the Long Lac lines. But Toronto would like to see the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways entering that city under better conditions than now prevail. The two tracks entering the city by the east are four miles apart and the grades are over one per cent. Between the two tracks there was discovered some years ago a grade of one-half of one per cent which ought to be used. This could be done at very small expenditure, and I was under the impression there would have been provision made this year for that purpose. It would help to put the new station at Toronto, which represents an expenditure of four or five million dollars into use for it is not in use yet. The reason for the delay, I presume, is that the president and managing board of the National Railways have not yet prepared an estimate to lay before the government for the unification of the National lines running into Toronto. While an expenditure of four or five million dollars might be involved-perhaps a little more-the saving in the consumption of coal alone, in the overcoming of grades and the taking of a whole lot of traffic from the front of the city across town and farther to the north, would be so great, and would facilitate the economical handling of business to such an extent, that it would be worth, I imagine, three times the expense which may be involved. Therefore I would like to suggest to the minister-not that I hold him absolutely responsible for the administration of the National roads at the present time, seeing that the administration is now in the hands of the new president and his co-directors-the necessity of drawing the attention of the new management to that condition of affairs, and to ask for improvement there even though it necessitate a considerable expenditure. Because, as I have pointed out, the economies and benefits to be gained would more than compensate for the expenditure in question, I hope, therefore, the Minister of Railways will take an early opportunity of bringing to the attention of the board of management the statements I make here to-day. Probably the minister knows more about the situation - than the directors do because he is cognizant of what has occurred in the past. And there may be other parts of the country where similar improvements can be carried out. The unification of the system of railways that we have taken over has not been accomplished yet. There are a great many places where improvements like that proposed at Long Lac can be carried out at comparatively small expense and the 
great saving in the upkeep to say nothing of the improvement in the service would more than pay for the outlay in the course of three or four years. Unification is certainly most desirable in connection with the National railway system in the city of Toronto. At present there is an agitation going on rather to the discredit of the National system of railways. The public press are taking the matter up now and are wanting to know why the new union station-in reality it is not new it is five years old-has not been used. I hope the minister will draw the attention of the president and the board of management to this situation. Perhaps there will be an item in the supplementary estimates yet to be brought in that will make provision for this purpose. If that proves to be the case the government and the administration of the National road will be taking a still further step towards earning the appreciation of the people of the country.
As to what my hon. friend from Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) has said here to-day in regard to the local railway in his constituency -and I imagine that he is also expressing the views of the present Speaker (Mr. Le-mieux) in regard to the railway condition in Gaspe-the situation referred to ought to be cured. Perhaps it will be cured by the installation of gasoline engines capable of drawing passengers cars as well as freight cars. This will be a great advance in transportation in that district. I notice that the Canadian National Railway board is taking up that matter in various parts of Canada and perhaps relief may be found in that direction. While I do not want to interfere in any way with the freedom which has been given to the president and directorate of the National system in dealing with the railway question, I think no mistake is made in drawing the attention of the House, as well as the board of management, to the railway grievance that exists in Toronto and to the need for improvements which will effect a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the maintenance charges, greatly assist the movement of traffic, help the development of Toronto, and make the investment we have made in these railways a striking success.
And this is all the more in favour of public ownership as against private ownership, and probably I have a right to bring it up now. I repeat what I said the other day, that company ownership has been an absolute failure in the United States. There is no provision for the recovery of the privately-owned companies and railways in the United States, except the intervention of the

C.N.R.-C onstruction
national government and the payment of immense subsidies to them for the reconstruction, electrification and re-equipment of the company-owned railways in that country. They have absolutely failed in the United States, the people there have no longer faith in them, and the only relief ahead of them, as far as I can see is public ownership. We shall hear the announcement in the speeches which will be made by President Harding when he goes to the people-as he intends to go to them on the railway question almost in the next few days-that private ownership has failed. The New York Central railway and the Pennsylvania railway have failed. They cannot finance for reconstruction, electrification, or re-equipment.
Referring to my hon. friends from Qudbec, I do not propose to say anything offensive to them, but I will compliment them on getting behind the movement for the nationalization of the railways and the improvemeuu of the railways in the direction of giving the people better transportation facilities, especially in connection with the waterways. We have not only to regulate the railways and take them over, but we have to find the money to improve the waterways, and at the same time we must regulate the steamships which now use these waterways to levy unjust charges upon the people who use their system.


Mr. DAVIES:: 
Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not Ontario.


Claudius Charles Davies: -and the Maritime provinces.
I would ask the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), when he goes home at the end of the week, and probably makes a political speech, to quote these figures to his constituents. During the last ten years, from 1913 to the year 1920-23, the Public-Works department, or the government, have spent in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario the sum of 198,916,428 on public buildings, dredging, docks and so forth. In the three western provinces during that period they spent a total sum of $10,465,000. When I go to the west I am going to tell them that we are rather grateful to Sir Henry Thornton for the proposal to spend these large sums of money on the western Canadian roads.
I am also going to quote these figures of expenditures made in the East. No good purpose is ever served in this House, or on the hustings or anywhere else, by making such speeches as were made by my hon. friend from West Toronto in this House this afternoon.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think some consideration should be given to the stand we are taking on this matter. This is a demand on parliament for the construction of branch railways to the extent of 1,000 miles, representing an expenditure about $25,000,000. Before the day is over I suppose there will be a demand from members of the House for an additional 1,000 miles of branch lines and an additional expenditure of $25,000,000. I may be permitted very frankly to state the awkward position in which some of us are placed concerning the management of the railways. This is another instance where we have a clash between control and responsibility. Speaking in Montreal some time ago before the Cartier Club, the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) stated that we on this side had abandoned our policy in railway matters to rally to his viewpoint, and that you could not point to a Liberal who would dare advocate private ownership. But on the estimates of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) the leader of the Opposition took the opposite stand, and after vigorously setting forth his policy, stated that we were merely carrying out the scheme laid down by Mr. Ballantyne; and I suppose, after we have allowed this resolution to pass and approved of it, he will say that we lack consistency, and that events are bearing testimony to the excellency of his own policy as against ours. The hon. member for West Toronto only a minute ago tbok the.occasion of this resolution to raise once more the question of public and private ownership coming into conflict.
C .N.R.-Construction

Now, we have to deal with facts. The question now is not whether or not we should enter into a scheme of government ownership, but it is how best we can deal with the situation as it is and as we found it when we came into power in 1921. The choice is not to be made, it was made by hon. members opposite when they were in power, and it was the late government which loaded on this government the system that we have now to deal with. In opposition we said, and still say, at least I still say, that it was a mistake to acquire these roads on the conditions on which they were purchased, by accepting at par all the obligations and debts which these railways carried at the time. We said in opposition, and we also believe now, that it was a mistake for the late government to complete the ship programme of the late government, when it became evident that these ships might as well be burned or sunk, because they would be useless. But, as a matter of fact, we have the railways and we have the ships. The fact that we have resolved to submit them to a fair trial is no indication at all that we accept the principle against which we voted, or that we withdraw anything of the criticisms which we offered when these matters were first before parliament. It ill behooves the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to sneer at the government now or at some of the Liberal members, when he more than any other is responsible for the present situation. We are now asked to add a number of miles of railway to this system.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What alternative had the country at the time the railways were taken over?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My point is: What alternative have we to-day?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am asking what alternative there was when the railways were taken over.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not discussing that It was ruled that it was out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Side-stepping.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I say that after we have decided to submit these railways to a fair trial, it is unfair for the leader of the Opposition to claim that we have abandoned our principle of private ownership. I will not discuss what alternative there was some years ago, because that is not the question here; I say that we haye no alternative now I will go further, I have no hesitation in saying that if we had an alternative, I for

one would favour at once the disposal of these railways to private ownership.


An hon. MEMBER:: At what price?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: One dollar.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
George Perry Graham: I am afraid that the discussion has, perhaps, gone beyond these resolutions. I do not, however, object to anything that has been said, because I feel that the committee and members of parliament have a duty to perform. I think we could expedite the business of parliament if we could let these resolutions go through and get into the hands of every member the bill based on them with all the details. Then they would be prepared to discuss it, taking as much time as they like. I am not going to discuss government ownership, because we have it. We want to do the best possible in the circumstances, and the sentiment of the House seems to be in that direction.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has stated the case of the railway in which he is interested, and all he has said is true. Some years ago, the second portion of this railway was built, heavy subsidies, excess subsidies being paid on account of the many bridges, and the construction was very expensive. But of late, at least, the operation of that line has been anything but satisfactory. Sir Henry Ihemton, I think, had a conference with the president of that road, and he expressed a willingness, on terms, to take over the operation, but up to the present time no arrangement has been arrived at. I agree that there ought to be some way, particularly as regards a line that was largely built by the government, by which the people in the district who depend upon that line might get some service.
The thing that appealed to me in the remarks of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), was the invitation to come down. I understand the situation in which the lines that he spoke of are placed. I assure him that I will bring his remarks to the attention of Sir Henry Thornton and the board. I might point out that in these resolutions there is not a single line that has not been recommended by the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles Marcil: Do all the lines included in these resolutions connect with government-owned railway lines?


George Perry Graham: These lines are divided into two classes. Those of one class are called government railways, including the old government line. These are dealt with separately in these resolutions. Then these other lines that are proposed will become branches of the Canadian National system. As to the county of Kent, New Brunswick, the Kent Northern railway is twenty-seven miles long, and I quite appreciate the fact that it might just as well have been twenty-seven inches long so far as its operation has been of any practical value. The question has been discussed as to how these people can best be served in that section of the country, because they are not served now. An effort was made by the previous government to take over the Kent Northern, and large petitions have come in from the county of Kent asking that the Moncton-Buctouche line be extended 18 miles to serve a greater number of people outside of the town of Richibucto, or Rexton, I believe, through which it passes. These matters are under consideration, and I have asked the management of the Canadian National Railways, as soon as they can possibly
C.N.R.-Construction

do so, to make a thorough investigation of the situation in the county of Kent, because my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Leger) has made my life miserable for the past three months over the question and will continue to do so, I am afraid, if I do not do something. However, I am awaiting reports from the Canadian National board. Under the Branch Lines Act lines connecting with the government railways can be dealt with, but any bargains made must be approved by parliament.
The question of the Inverness railway has also come before the Canadian National board, and so far as I can ascertain from previous reports, the people of that section are not being served by that railway. It was owned by a coal company; and while I must not say harsh things, it has b.een represented to me, nevertheless, with some fair show of credibility, as I think, that, like some of the big railways in the United States, this company has squeezed out any other that tried to do business because it gave all its traffic to the railway it owned itself. This is the situation in regard to the Inverness railway and it is possible that something practical may be done in the matter before another session of parliament.
With regard to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), I like that hon. gentleman because he keeps good-natured every day, except on the Twelfth of July, and he is always a strong advocate of public ownership; in fact he could not get elected in the city of Toronto if he were not. But he made this mistake, though not intentionally, that the programme will only extend over three years, the amount of money he suggested for the whole project being some $27,000,000 or $28,000,000. So that for the present year the appropriation would be one-third of that.


William Findlay Maclean: There are some lines that ought to be completed, such as, for instance, the Long Lac line.


George Perry Graham: That is under construction now. As to the Hudson Bay railway, nothing has been voted yet, so that the hon. gentleman was in error in that regard. There was a small vote, but it was for the purpose of protecting works that we have there now. I might intimate to the committee, however, that believing that the promises of the government and of parliament should be carried out, I shall consider putting a certain amount in the Supplementary Estimates in this connection. Now, my hon. friend from East York-is it? or South York? I do not know which, for they have changed the designation of the constituencies since I used to campaign

against him (Mr. Maclean)-suggests amalgamating these lines at once. Towns and villages have sprung up outside Toronto, and they need railway accommodation. You cannot very easily or quickly make any change in that respect, however. The question of grading has something to do with it. The old Grand Trunk tried to get a better grade from Scarborough Heights into Toronto, but they discovered that to go by the lake front would raise a riot, and my hon. friend's paper kicked up a fuss about it.


William Findlay Maclean: What was needed was a real scheme.


George Perry Graham: There was another scheme my hon. friend suggested, but it would cost a great deal of money. However, these things will no doubt be accomplished in time. At present the board is endeavouring to uniform the whole system as expeditiously as possible, and so far as this is concerned there is no difference in opinion as regards east or west, north or south. What I have submitted is the Canadian National board's programme, as handed to me, and which I think is a good thing for the railways and for the country generally. One of the reasons for this three-year programme being placed on the statutes is that the people may understand exactly what they are going to get for some time. It has been stated, and quite properly so, that the psychology of those who advocate a thing has a great deal to do with influencing its promotion. Many of these branch lines in the West are not new structures; very many miles of these lines have been graded, some of the grades having been constructed since the war, although the rails have not been laid down. There are some four hundred miles of grading already done, and all we propose to do is to lay the rails. Surely, no one would suggest that it is bad business, if after investigation the previous board decided to build these lines, for the present board to complete the work. It will be a good investment for the company and for the country as well. If the committee will agree to my suggestion and let us get this matter embodied in a bill I think it will expedite our business. Every member will have the bill before him and we shall bring it up on Monday in order to discuss the details.


Mr. GOULD:: I will comply with the request of the minister and defer my remarks until the bill is distributed.


Mr. LUCAS:: In view of the minister's
request, I do not want to enter into any discussion of this matter now, but I want to know whether he can give us any information

C.N.R.-Construction
as to why a certain branch line in the province of Alberta has been eliminated from this schedule. The line to which I refer is known as the Bruederheim railway. In the month of March the Alberta members, realizing that Sir Henry Thornton is a very busy man, got together and decided that one meeting with him should be made to cover all the various points which they desired to submit to him. We all had railway troubles in our constituencies, and we laid our grievances before Sir Henry Thornton, who presented to us a schedule which I understood at the time-as I think other hon. members from Alberta will bear me out-was practically along the same line as that which we have before us to-day. In that schedule was this proposed railway commencing at the town of Bruederheim and extending easterly for a distance of 31 miles. The people have been asking for this railway for a number of years, and they had the assurance of Sir Henry Thornton that it would be undertaken; at least it was in the schedule, which was submitted to the delegation and all it required was the attention of parliament. But before going any further, some few *weeks later, he being out of town, I telephoned to the deputy minister. He was i)ot in at the time, so I asked the gentleman who answered the telephone to ascertain if it was correct that the schedule which had been presented to me by Sir Henry Thornton was O.K.. A couple of hours later he telephoned me that my information was correct. Naturally, I am very much disappointed to find that this line is omitted from the schedule to the resolution. If this is an oversight, I hope that before the minister brings down the bill he will make good the omission.


Mr. SPENCER:: I wish to confirm the
remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Lucas). The line he mentions is very, very badly needed. I understand it was promised about twenty years ago to the people in the country through which it will run. In my own constituency men are hauling their grain to the railroad for distances up to thirty miles, and this, as 5 p.m. is well known, is such a severe handicap that they cannot possibly carry on their farming at a profit. On account of the continued failure to build this line many people have left the district, and the only way in which we can induce those who are still there to remain, and can also encourage new settlers, is to construct this railway without further delay. I sincerely hope therefore that there is an oversight in not including this line in the schedule of proposed branch line construction; and, if so, that it will be included at an early date.


Mr. FORTIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, it is a real pleasure to rise and express my appreciation for the happy thought the government has had in extending into the county of Labelle, one of the main branches of the National Railways. Indeed, in this proposed measure before the House we note that fourteen miles have been added to the National Railways in the province of Quebec. These fourteen miles, I am happy to say, lend themselves for the most part to the development of this important branch which projects from the main line, near Montreal, and penetrating into the region of the Laur-entides extends to the county of Labelle.
I therefore wish to express my thanks and those of my electors to the government for having realized this important work, of extending this railway. In fact, twelve of the fourteen miles will be built for the purpose of connecting the main line from Montreal to Ottawa at a place known as Freniere with another point called Rinfret Junction which is the beginning point of the railway known as Montfort, and which has existed for a great number of years in that region. These twelve miles of rail will therefore be built in such a way as to link up the Montfort railway with the National main line from Montreal to Ottawa. This connection is very important; it is absolutely necessary and will contribute in making of this branch line one of the important lines of the province of Quebec. I especially wish to thank the government for having completed the branch line of the Montfort railway which was later on acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway and finally was included in our national system of railways. This completed work comprises the construction of about two miles of railway, from a point called China Clay extending to the village of St. Remi d'Amherst which is situated close to the centre of the county of Labelle. These two miles of rail were only laid down so as to complete the main branch line. In fact, for a great number of years, the railway existed up to the village of Huberdeau, situated on the borders of the county of Argenteuil. Later, so as to help the mining industry, the rails were extended about nine miles into the county of Labelle, on the borders of the townships of Ponsonby and Amherst; however, this extension covering nine miles was simply built for the transportation of freight and the products of the mine. Heretofore passenger trains had not been in circulation as far as that point. For ever so long the people of Labelle have

42C0
C.N.R.-Construction

petitioned the government. I had the pleasure to accompany their delegations to request the late government to finish this work by building these few miles which were absolutely necessary to connect this railway with those southern settled districts of the county of Labelle. As a result of these steps, I am glad to see that the Liberal government has generously acceded to the request of the electors of my county and that in the proposed measure there is an item of $65,000 for the construction of these two miles of railway which will extend the National Railway up to the village of Saint Remi d'Amherst and which, later on I hope, will be followed by a further extension, as conditions render this work indispensable and which, I again state, will make of this line one of the most important branches of the National Railways in the province of Quebec. By thus establishing, through this branch line, its terminus at St. Remi d'Amherst, the National Railway Company comes to the rescue of the parishes which are settled in that region for a great number of years. The government desires to help colonization, this so important work, a truly national effort, that we propose to develop in the province and especially in the district of Labelle. The government assures itself, by linking these parishes, of an increase in traffic which will, I am sure, make of this line one of the most paying propositions of the National Railways.
The question of the National Railways is certainly one of the most important problems of the day. Since the beginning of this debate the subject has been dealt with most ably by the members who have preceded me. It is absolutely important, in a young country like ours, to further the work in connection with our railways. It is in settlements like those we have in the province of Quebec that we note the immense progress accomplished thanks to railway construction. I have but to point out, as an example, the north west of Montreal the beautiful region of Labelle, which was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Radway. This region like the one still older found in Gaspe, has now its diocese, it is inhabited by numerous and intelligent settlers who have made the heart of the Laurentian hills like a new province. It is due to the development of railways that this region has been settled -the work shall be carried on, I know, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for I have their promise, as far as the distant valley of the Lievre, to the north of Mont Laurier, in the parishes of Ferme-Neuve and Sainte-Anne du Lac-and we will witness great strides in colonization in that part of the

province which is so dear to us. The sam: thing is being enacted in the centre of tha county of Labelle, and it is thanks to th: work done by the government through the extension of this line of the Canadian National Railway, as far as Saint-Remi d'Amherst that the settlers may rejoice in having new means to develop that part of the country. Numerous and rich mining industries are already established at Saint-Rem. d'Amherst, the farming industry has been progressing in that place for many years and this parish is surrounded by other flourishing parishes situated in the heart of Labelle county, which, at present, is at a distance of 20 to 40 miles from the northern system of the Canadian Pacific railway, and which now is directly connected, through this branch line of the Canadian National Railway, with the metropolis of Canada.
By opening up the colonization region of the county of Labelle the government insures the progress of the National Railways, because as it was pointed out with a great deal of truth, probably the chief cause of the deficits of our railways rests in the fact that we own, up to the present, great transcontinentals. only, which however, were necessary at the time of their construction. These branch lines which will extend to the northern parts of our province, to the extreme limits of settlements, and will afford us the advantage of opening up new districts to settlers, will also afford us the means of considerably increasing the traffic of our railways, owing to our rich natural resources which are unlimited in the northern parts of our province. Thereby, I say, will the government ensure the successful operation of our National Railways. We congratulate them and I heartily thank them both in my name and that of the electors of the county of Labelle, for the happy thought they had in developing the National railway and extending it as far as Saint-Remi d'Amherst.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I would ask the minister if provision will be made this session for a railway survey between Grande Prairie and the Canadian National Railway?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has heard me being chastised a few moments ago for disclosing arrangements prematurely. I shall have to follow the lines of the Minister of Finance and say, "Wait and see."
In regard to the other matter, I might say that perhaps a hundred lines are being pressed on the board, and as my hon. friend from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) said in reference to the amendment to the act providing for the

Dominion Lands Act
indemnities, I told them to take it back and clarify it. We can only spend so much money, and the clarified list is the one I have here now. It will take some years to get around to the point where we would have been had there been no war, but if members will be patient, as fast as the Canadian National Railway board can see its way clear after investigation to recommend further construction, the government, so far as the finances of the country will warrant, will meet the situation. The Canadian National Railway board had a much larger list for consideration, but on account of the financial situation they were asked to "clarify" it, and this is the "clarified" list.


Mr. McCONICA:: There is one point that I think has not been brought to the attention of the House as to these western lines. I think I am correct when I say that there is not a single new line under contemplation here. They all represent, as I understand it, the continuation of work that was started before the war; they are rounding out the system-connecting up all the loose ends, as it were. Now these loose ends having been laid out, located, and in some cases work commenced upon them, the territory along these lines has been filled up with settlers. They have been waiting there for years, and the completion of these lines will mean an immediate increase in the tonnage of the various roads. This is not new construction. It is not like starting out to build a new line somewhere, but is simply carrying out the plans that were agreed upon and the finishing of work that was interrupted by the war. I would ask the minister if I am not correct in that.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend is in the main correct. His remarks might not apply to every case, but practically they cover the case.


Mr. LEWIS:: I would ask the minister when the bill comes up on Monday, if that is the day set, to bring down as much definite information as possible in regard to No. 19, the Dunblane branch to Mawer, Saskatchewan, about which I spoke to him last night. I have received further telegrams to-day asking that from the standpoint of economy the existing line up to the river be utilized as far as possible. It was pointed out to me to-day that if the line was to be built as proposed it would open up no new territory and bring no more traffic to the Canadian National line, but would involve the construction of about thirty miles of new road. We have a road already existing in that territory, and if
the minister could see fit to utilize this existing line as far as the river it would give a more direct connection and be more economical. An expensive dam was built on the river about a year and a half ago; if is a divisional point and within eight miles of the Beachy line, and I can see no reason why the connection across the river should not be made as direct as possible, unless it is that there are insurmountable difficulties in the way of bridging the river at Riverhurst. I would ask the minister to bring down all the information when this matter next comes up.


George Perry Graham: I expect that when the bill comes up next I shall have to have here with me one or two railway men from the head office in Montreal.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Before paragraph l of the resolution, which I believe embodies the schedule, carries, I would point out to Ihe minister the need for a correction in the spelling of one wo*d in Item No. 15 of the schedule. It says the "Eaton Branch." There was some years ago a town a few stations west of Eston called Eaton, and there was such a mix-up in mails that it became necessary to change the name of Eaton to Eaton ia. The word here should be Eston, not Eaton, and I would suggest that the correction be made in the bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the word "Eston" be substituted for the word "Eaton"?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 234, respecting the construction of the Canadian National lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 139 to amend the Bankruptcy Act were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of the Interior) for the House to again go into committee on Bill No. 222, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a bill that the
right hon. leader of the Opposition is particularly interested in, and if the minister is
Dominion Lands Act

agreeable, I would prefer to have it stand There are other bills that can be gone on with unless some particular reason exists for proceeding with the present measure.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I know there is one clause the leader of the Opposition is interested in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the minister
would like to proceed with the bill, with the consent of the House, and hold that particular clause in committee.


Charles A. Stewart: I think we
had better proceed. We can leave the bill in committee and allow the clause to stand that the leader of the Opposition is interested in.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Transfer of holders of letters patent in pre-emption and purchased homestead area to another homestead, by provincial certificate.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the clause the leader of the Opposition is particularly interested in. We could let it stand.
Section stands.
On section 3-Issue of patent after death of applicant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it would be better if the minister, as we take up each clause, were to give reasons for the amendments and changes proposed.


Charles A. Stewart: Section 3
provides that when a homesteader dies before completing the duties necessary to earn patent, his legal representatives are excused from doing any further residence duty. The act as it stands calls for the erection of a house and the completion of cultivation, but as no further residence is required it is considered unnecessary to insist on the erection of the house, it being frequently the case that a house so erected will deteriorate in value before the estate could secure the opportunity of disposing of the land. In cases of decease this dispenses with the necessity of constructing a habitable house to earn patent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Issue of patent if applicant becomes insane.
Charles A. Stewart: The same
thing applies where the applicant becomes insane.


Mr. McTAGGART:: Would the provisions
of this section apply in cases of pre-emption as well?


Charles A. Stewart: No, there
is a little different provision in the case of pre-emption. This applies only to a homestead.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Sections 11 and 29 in each township, together with gold and silver and other minerals, set apart as school lands.
Charles A. Stewart: This section is to make it clear that the minerals belong to the provinces. There was necessity for clarity here. The lands themselves are the property of the province, and all receipts from the lands are treated as trust funds, at least for educational purposes. We are now putting minerals in the same category.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Is it not a fact that some lands other than sections 11 and 29 are considered as school lands?


Charles A. Stewart: That has happened in some cases of transfer, and in other cases.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Would they be covered by this?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, all lands that are designated school lands would be covered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Terms of payment for school lands.
Archibald M. Carmichael: In connection with ihis clause, I notice that the provision for selling applies after the first day of January, 1923, the purchase price being divided into twenty equal amounts. I was wondering if the department is going to do anything to relieve the settlers who have purchased school lands under the old agreement. There are a great many settlers with whom I am acquainted who have purchased school lands on the old conditions providing for payment in ten years and have made payment of one-tenth of the purchase price. Some of them have improved that land, brought it all under cultivation, built houses and bams, and put down wells. A purchaser has such a place as this home but he has been unable to make, possibly, any further payment or, if any, only a very small one, and the interest has been accumulating. Now, I have had correspondence from several to the effect that they are unable to pay the principal and unable to meet even the interest, and in different cases they have

Dominion Lands Act
requested that some concessions be made to them to enable them to carry on. I believe, generally speaking, they are quite willing to pay the original purchase price, but in some cases they ask that the interest be deleted from the agreement. In view of the fact that a special concession is to be made for all new purchasers would it not be consistent that some concession should also be made for the old purchasers who have been struggling along for several years, who are good settlers, and who are anxious and willing to make good if given a chance. Has the minister any plan in view that is likely to be adopted for relief in such cases?


Charles A. Stewart: I might point out to the hon. member that, in the position we occupy, our trusteeship is of rather a limited character. The provinces are consulted as to the areas that shall be sold and as to the terms upon which the lands shall be sold. They were consulted in this instance as to an extension of the periods over which payment of principal might be made. This matter came up in the discussion. The amendment as outlined by my hon. friend makes the period for the payment of principal twenty years instead of ten years, as under the old provision. The provinces agreed to this. Indeed, it is at their request, because they think the land will bring a greater price than it would under the old provision. The question of making it retroactive is a little difficult ; but as we are acting as a trustee we can be lenient in the collection of the principal. I think many of the contracts that are outstanding to-day will run twenty years. We have not pressed for payment of principal. Very frequently there are large delayed payments of interest; but if the cultivation is going on we do not press for payment. Sc that, without touching the contract in existence, the party who has the land under contract may run for fifteen or twenty years before he has finally paid up his principal.


Mr. BROWN:: In regard to the interest charged on the amounts overdue, a few years ago a regulation was issued charging 7 per cent on agreements entered into at 5 per cent on payments that were overdue. Is that still the policy of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that
still stands. That also was an arrangement with the provinces.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not fully satisfied with the explanation, because this morning I received a letter from one of my constituents who was on the land referred to, and ho enclosed a letter which he received
from the department, which pointed out very clearly and explicitly that he was in arrears several years on his contract for principal and interest, and that unless he showed very good and sufficient reason in the near future why he should be carried any longer, without paying up some of the arrears, the contract would be immediately cancelled. That is the kind of thing the settler is up against. He is in constant fear of having his contract cancelled, unless he appeals to the department for special extensions of one year at a time. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway, as I believe, has written up all its own contracts for a long period of time, to give settlers a chance, I would think it almost incumbent on the department to do likewise. Will the minister state if it is within the jurisdiction of the department to do this, without first getting the consent of the provincial government?


Charles A. Stewart: I think we could do it without consent, but I do not think it would be wise for us to do it without consultation and consent. So far it has not been done. We have kept the provinces fully informed of any suggested changes, and usually the changes have been suggested by the provinces themselves. The difficulty in the case the hon. member mentions is not particularly the arrears of principal, but the failure to pay interest. We do not wish to be hard on any one but as trustee for the province, without being unduly harsh and without creating hardship, we will have to try to collect the interest. That is one of the very serious complaints. I could produce innumerable letters, particularly from the departments of education of the prairie provinces, complaining bitterly that we are neglecting the collection of the interest payments due on these school lands sales. In the case of Alberta, I think the ordinary amounts of interest payments received this year by the province have fallen off over $100,000, and the province is largely, though not altogether, dependent upon that fund for carrying on its schools. It is of very real assistance to it in carying on its school work, and the pressure comes from the province to collect the interest. The provinces are not vitally interested in the collection of principal, because if they are receiving the interest the principal is a trust fund for that purpose anyway. They do insist on our trying to collect the interest, and while we are not desirous of creating haMshio yet we look upon it as a duty to try to collect, as far as possible, the interest which has accrued on these sales.
Dominion Lands Act


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Has the question of
making the amendment retroactive been discussed with the provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
thought I mentioned that. It was discussed at the time we discussed the extensions, but it was felt, inasmuch as we did not press for principal payments that no great harm was being done. It would not make any change in the situation. It might, to some extent of course, relieve, if that were possible the payment of the 7 per cent, or the 1 per cent additional, on money that was overdue; but that would be a somewhat involved process, because of the difficulty that probably six per cent of the people under contract have paid. Clearly the only relief that could be given would be to those who did not pay; and it would be discrimination against those who did pay, so that it presents a somewhat difficult problem.


Alfred Speakman: In that point of view, I would like to support the contention of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) , not in regard to the department making no effort to recover the interest-I quite see the position in that respect-but in reference to making the amendment dealing with the payment of interest retroactive; because, while I recognize that the department has in very few cases pressed for the payment of the principal, at the same time I think it would tend to reassure the purchasers that the principal payments which they were expected to make from year to year would be reduced by that amount. I believe the precedent set by the Canadian Pacific Railway is a sound one in that respect. I believe the precedent set in our amendment to the Soldiers' Settlement Act was in the same direction; that is to re-assure these people that year by year the payments would not be greater than they could reasonably be expected to meet. Although pressure is not being exerted, I do think the moral assurance to the men in knowing that they could take advantage of this provision, and that they would not be expected to pay the principal, would have a beneficial effect. A good many cases have been brought to my notice, and I mentioned to the people concerned that I thought an amendment to this effect would be brought down in the bill which would be introduced, and that there would probably be an extension of time for payment of principal. I hope the minister will see his way to make the bill retroactive in that respect, thus affording the men who have already purchased and are in difficulty the

same opportunity of extending the payments as will be afforded under the new act.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Would the minister state what is the practice of the department in reference to the school lands which were sold and afterwards abandoned? Some of them were broken up and a good many were abandoned.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
possible we tried to lease them. There was a suggstion-if not a suggestion, a complaint-I think from the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) with respect to the number of sales that have taken place in recent years where prices were very high, running well over $50 per acre for raw land. Those people who have contracted to pay that price, find themselves in serious difficulties. He was asking if some relief could not be afforded in those cases. That is a very difficult matter, and I do not know how to get around it unless we do this: Where an individual, under a contract of sale, finds himself in difficulties, we lease to him, indeed we are glad to lease to him if he surrenders his contract, and then on the next occasion when the sale comes around, if the lands do not sell for the prices they did formerly, he can become a purchaser under the new contract. In the meantime he can be a tenant until such time as it is deemed advisable to re-sell the land. But of course we try in every case, if possible, to lease the land and to keep it from getting dirty and weedy.


William Findlay Maclean: When the sale of theoc iands is completed and the money as I understand, is turned in to the Dominion government, do you still continue to pay a rate of interest to the schools on that money for the benefit of the provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: We are
simply trustees in the matter. We turn over such money as we collect, less cost of collection only, to the provinces, for them to distribute to the school districts of the provinces. They, in turn, distribute it.


Mr MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: Is the
money derived from the sale not turned in to the Dominion government?
Mr. STEWART. (Argenteuil): Yes, we are trustees, the money comes to the Dominion government.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Charles A. Stewart: No. We
simply turn over such interest as we collect. The trust fund itself is an interest bearing fund, of course, and the interest is turned over to the provinces as well. The trust fund is in the hands of the Dominion government.


Oliver Robert Gould: 1 have in mind a certain
district in my part of the country where a sale of school lands took place some years ago, and the residents, because of that, formed themselves into a school district. Some of the lands were abandoned later on, and I believe the secretary-treasurers1 of the districts have endeavoured to collect taxes on these lands from the Dominion government. When I took the question up with the department, the advice which I received was that they did not feel bound to pay the taxes to the school districts. I merely call to the minister's attention the circumstance that the school districts thus formed are in a very precarious position because of those abandoned lands, and because the government does not assume the responsibility of paying school taxes. I have particularly in mind an area in the Moose mountain country, districts that were opened up in 1916, the lands1 being sold in 1917.
Mr. SPEAKMAN1 Would the minister take the question of making this amendment retroactive very seriously into his consideration during the recess, take it up with the provinces further and, if they are agreeable, bring down an amendment to the legislation? Because I believe this would be a great benefit, would lift a certain load, and would give an amount of moral reassurance to the men who purchased under the act.


Charles A. Stewart: Inasmuch
as we hope to get through shortly, I was going to suggest that I would be very glad to take this matter up with the provinces during the recess. There will be no pressure during the year, and if the provinces are agreeable, the matter is1 immaterial to the department.


Alfred Speakman: That was my idea.


Charles A. Stewart: It was felt
that really no hardship would result unless the Dominion government pressed for payment of principal on those lands. If we pressed for payment of principal money, of course there would be a very serious hardship; but so long as the provinces were content to allow extensions to be granted, provided, of course, that the interest or reasonable amounts of interest were being paid, then the individual holding the contract would suffer no great hardship. That was the feeling, I may say, when we discussed the matter before. But I will undertake to
take it up again with the provincial representatives and to present the views of members of the committee on the matter.


Alfred Speakman: I am very glad, because I feel that although no actual hardship may be suffered, except by reason of the accrued interest, still there is a certain amount of hardship in feeling that heavy payments are impending, when they know that they will not be able to meet them; that they must apply for an extension year after year with the certainty that they will not be able to pay the principal.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister has not replied in regard to the point that I brought up.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is back to the vexed question of Crown lands paying taxes. So far as possible, we insist on the tenant, where land is leased, paying the ordinary taxes of the municipality; but where land is unoccupied, held by the Crown, I could not enlarge on what I have already said in respect to the matter.


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not think I have had any requests from a municipal point of view. The requests have been merely from the school districts themselves. These lands are unoccupied. There was another question which I have mentioned a couple of times. I believe, during the session. It is prompted also by correspondence which I have received from people who, in former years, have bought school lands, that is, 'who have made a contract with the Dominion government to pay principal and interest based on a rate of interest of 5 per cent. I myself was one of the guilty parties in the year 1916. The minister knows, and the committee is well aware of the fact that we have visitations of hail, grasshoppers, drouth and various other things, which oblige people to defer interest or principal payments. I believe an order in council was passed by the former minister, which penalized the people by raising the rate of interest to 7 per cent. That was quite a hardship on people residing in the West, and I have received several protests from people who were under that disability. They have asked me to present their case in order to see if some concession could not be made, if the interest rate could not remain as it was before to all bona fide purchasers who are keeping up their payments, so that no penalty, by way of an increase of 2 per cent in the rate of interest, might be imposed upon them by reason of a visitation of Providence.


Charles A. Stewart: This matter was discussed at a provincial conference. I believe I must pead guilty to being the Al-
Dominion Lands Act

berta representative. Mr. Martin represented Saskatchewan, and, I believe, Mr. Norris represented Manitoba. Inasmuch as the interest received from the sale of school lands played such an important part in the revenues for the running of our public schools, we were anxious that large amounts outstanding should be collected. It was suggested at that conference that this was one way to hasten that collection, and we all agreed to it. I must take my share of the responsibility. The object that we had in view was to get in those large outstanding amounts of interest that had accrued against those lands and to utilize them, of course, for the carrying on of our educational work in the provinces. Therefore, in fairness to the federal government, I think they should be given only their share of the responsibility. That was our hope. Unfortunately, in subsequent years, we have had drouth in most of the western provinces, and this is somewhat of a hardship on people owning school lands. I think, however, my hon. friend will agree with me that we did this with the best intention in the world, in the hope that we would assist struggling school districts who needed so badly the distribution of the school funds in all the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7, paragraph (b)-Limits of areas of timber limits.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is possibly an error in paragraph (b), or, perhaps, I do not read it correctly. The paragraph reads:
Permits to cut timber as cordwood, pulpwood, fence posts or telegraph poles for mining purposes.
Should not that be "telegraph poles or props for mining purposes?" There are no telegraph poles for mining purposes?


Charles A. Stewart: I had not noticed that before; the hon. member is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While the minister is making the correction I would ask him this question. Does this amendment relate to the order in council which was passed early in the year? I cannot recall the exact terms of it, but I read it some months ago and 1 remember that it provides for certain things with reference to pulpwood areas in Manitoba.


Charles A. Stewart: No, this is a different matter. Our difficulty, I may explain, lies in the areas where we want to give permits to individuals to take out pulpwood, cordwood and so forth. Take British Columbia, for instance. In a large part of that province these areas are under the forestry

regulations and can be let under lease only so that the small man has no opportunity to get in at all. We' cannot at present give him any permit to cut his fence posts or take out cord wood, and this gives the small man the opportunity he has not heretofore enjoyed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it not a pretty wide and general power that is taken here? It is all to be done by the Governor in Council, iipparently without any restrictions.


Charles A. Stewart: We are subject to restrictions, with the exception that in the burnt areas the dues are one-half those that obtain in the green timber areas; and when the cut wood is measured the full dues are charged on all that is not burnt.


Mr STEVENS:: That is provided for elsewhere, I suppose.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I move to amend paragraph (b) by inserting after the word "poles" in line 38 the words "or props for mining purposes."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Governor in Council may authorize inquiry before or after issue of patent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This appears to be a rather important section; it empowers imprisonment in a common gaol. Is this a new provision or is it an adjustment of one that already exists?


Charles A. Stewart: The department are not very clear as to whether they have statutory authority. But if fraud is committed in the securing of a patent and it is afterwards discovered they can take action.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that action taken through ordinary procedure in the courts or at the instance of the departmental officials?


Charles A. Stewart: Through the officials of the department. Under paragraph (g) of section 76 the Governor in Council has authority to institute an inquiry in respect of Dominion lands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-No employee to purchase or acquire interest in Dominion lands.
Charles A. Stewart: This merely extends to the officials of all departments the prohibition which hitherto applied only to the Department of the Interior. There has been a provision that no official of the Department of the Interior could be interested in

Inland Revenue Act
the lands in question or have any mining rights therein. That provision now extends to all departments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 217, respecting the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 10-Expropriation of lands.
Mr. BUREAU:: This is a copy of section 25 of the act in reference to Vancouver harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-By-laws.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: These are the usual
clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Borrowing powers.
Ernest Lapointe: I move that this section be amended by adding after the word "of" in line 22 the word "constructing" so that it will now read-
-and for the further purpose of constructing, repairing and improving.
I also want to amend the section by striking out the word "the" before "wharves."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 218, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 223, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-License fee:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give a brief explanation of this?


Ernest Lapointe: The annual fee for a salmon canner's license was $500. In addition to that the canner has to pay a fee of 4 cents on each case of forty-eight 1-pound cans of sockeye salmon and 3 cents on each case of forty-eight 1-pound cans of any other species of salmon. The object of the bill is to reduce the license fee from $500 to $20. It has been the intention of the department to do that for some time, and it was recommended unanimously by the Fisherise Commission.
< lustoms and. Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 225, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed. INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of
Alfred Speakman: Has this bill been printed, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, but copies are not on the table. We have sent for copies and they will be distributed in a moment.


Jacques Bureau: The bill has been printed a long while.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps while we are waiting for copies of the bill the minister will give us an explanation.


Jacques Bureau: The old clauses are being repealed, and the amendments are shown in italics. One of the amendments is to extend the interpretation of the word "analyst." Heretofore the meaning of the word has been confined to the analyst in the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. frieDu did explain this the other day.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, I explained the whole thing. This is to give a wider meaning to the word analyst so that the juniors who really make the analysis may be heard in court. The other amendment is to provide a penalty for those who deodorize denatured alcohol. Heretofore a penalty could only be imposed in the case of methylated alcohol.
On section 2-Departmental analyst.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember the minister explaining this bill yesterday. I understoo 1
Companies Act

him to say this provision was made necessary owing to some difficulty that had been experienced in proving the case in prosecutions, or something to that effect. Would the minister tell the committee if the bill has been submitted to the Justice department and a satisfactory assurance given with respect to it? Because the matter is apparently a technical one having to do with the administration of the law.


Jacques Bureau: In cases where a .junior
chemist or one of ' - chemists in the department made an -:alysis the judge of the court refused to accept the certificate because the term "departmental analyst" was defined in the act and the junior chemist or officers of a lower grade were not included. Moreover the old clause only applied to prosecutions under this section. It is proposed to make a new definition of "analyst" which will include any employee classified as junior chemist, assistant chemist or chemist in a laboratory in the Department of Customs and Excise or of any department of the government, and this will apply to all prosecutions under the act. The definition will be general in its application.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Tobacco cultivated for private use.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What has made this necessary?


Jacques Bureau: This is made necessary for the following reasons: In 1914 the act was amended, and in subsection 3 of section 27 ?, the rate was changed from five cents to ten cents. In 1918 the subsection w'as further amended and the amount was increased from ten cents to twenty cents. On both occasions it was forgotten that there was another section purporting to have the same effect. That section is useless, it only creates confusion, and we are asking that it be repealed.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

On section 2-When company may be created a private company:
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is apparently a very important bill. I notice the minister has it very well prepared, the explanatory notes being printed on the opposite page, but I think it would be wise to have an explanation as each clause is called whether it is asked for or not. We do not want to interrupt too much, but any important changes ought to be carefully explained. This is one of our most important statutes. Personally I have not had time to go over the bill, and I have not gathered what these changes really mean.


Mr. COPP:: The matter has received very careful consideration at the hands of the legal branch of the department, and we also took the trouble of referring the bill to a large number of corporation lawyers in different parts of the country, particularly Montreal and Toronto, for consideration. The majority of the sections make really only verbal changes and the idea is to have them conform with other sections passed when the act was formerly amended. In section 43c of the principal act a private company is defined, but there is no provision for the creation of a private company. The present section simply provides for the creation of a private company that is already defined in that section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 1-Issue of shares without nominal or par value.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This clause is either new or it is a departure from the old act. Will the minister give an explanation of it?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The amending act of 1917 provided for the issue of shares without nominal or par value. This is a method of company organization which has prevailed for many years on the continent of Europe. After a prolonged consideration and discussion, the first legislation authorizing shares without par value was introduced in the state of New York in the year 1912. It was from this statute that the amending act of 1917 was adopted. Even at that time the legislation was, to some extent, experimental. It was doubtful whether complications would arise in the organization of companies under these provisions and whether they would meet with the approval of financial interests. In the United States the legislation has been very successful, and the number of companies having shares without par value is steadily increasing. Many of them are quoted on the exchanges, and it is quite apparent that this method meets business interests.

Companies Act
Since 1917 this legislation has developed in the United States. Moreover it has been found that this development has been due to business requirements. The principal change aas been brought about to meet the following circumstances.
As the act stood in the amendment of 1917, a company could not commence business until the total amount of its preferred shares of $5 on each share without par value had been subscribed and paid up. In cases of reorganization this created no difficulty, but it largely prevented new enterprises being undertaken under this method. The regulations of the Department of the Interior require that all oil companies holding leases in the Northwest Territories must be incorporated under this provision. For such companies this section created almost impossible difficulties.
Under the section as amended, section 26 of the act is applicable under paragraph (b) of subsection 4, and the company may commence business as soon as 10 per cent of its capital is subscribed. This would, undoubtedly, mean 10 per cent of the preferred shares and one tenth of the number of shares without nominal or par value.
Moreover, under the amending act of 1917 there was some doubt whether preferred shares without par value could be issued. Many of the companies' acts of the different states provide for preferred shares without par value where the preference is only to the extent of dividend. The section, as amended by the bill, also permits the issue of such shares. Subsection 7b was taken, with verbal alterations, from the legislation of the state of New York for the year 1912. This has been the law of several of the states in the United States since 1912. This section is intended to give us a little more definite information as to the working of the act.


William Findlay Maclean: Can the minister say that this provision would probably be applied in the case of the Dome Mines Company and the Ontario Gold Fields ir Porcupine?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the section will apply.


William Findlay Maclean: Will it apply to the case which has been before the public in connection with the Dome Mines of Porcupine?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed that company
would come under it.


William Findlay Maclean: Then it may be
a good measure, though I think perhaps it is more in the interest of booming the stock market than anything else. If there is a company in regard to which inflation might be justifiable it is this company which has one of the richest mines in Porcupine. Its capital stock, as I understood, consisted of $5 shares paid up, and not long ago the company repaid a one dollar capital bonus to the shareholders. Now you propose to declare these shares to be of no par value. This clause is introducing an absolutely new factor. I want it clearly understood that from my point of view, though it may be a good measure, it is more or less for the advantage of those who deal with these stocks on the market, and the net result, as it affects this mine, will be that while these shares run to $30 and $40, by possible inflation these shares will go to two and three times their present values on the stock market. As long as the public know that this is the object of the proposition, perhaps it is all right, but it should be carefully considered, because if we introduce this provision, then in all the prosperous mines this conversion will take place and they will be issuing no par value shares, and one man will have five no par value shares where at the commencement he had only one five dollar share. The net result will be that the Dome Mine shares, which are now quoted at $30 or $40, may go to four times that amount. I hope the result will justify the bill, but it is a new departure, and it is following the American practice. If we are to follow the American practice, the matter must be looked into carefully and the public ought to know what the object of the amendment really is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the minister is dealing with that point, will he make this further point clear:	In the case of a company issuing no par value shares, is it necessary under this section that before any such block of shares may be issued it must clearly set forth, either in a registered agreement or in the letters patent, the value for which the shares are to be issued.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That may be fixed in the
charter or by the directors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not may, it is
"must." It must be so fixed. I am only reading this casually, but subsection 3 of section 5 says:
(3) The issue and allotment of shares authorized by this section, other than shares of preferred stock having a preference as to principal, may be made from time to time for such consideration as may be prescribed in the letters patent, or as may be fixed by the board of directors.
When shares of no par value are issued, must the aggregate amount of money or value be set forth in the letters patent? Is it obligatory?
Companies Act


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is not obligatory to set
it out in the letters patent, but it may be fixed by the board of directors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it is not necessary
to disclose it.


William Findlay Maclean: No, and in no
way will the public know what the actual issue of shares of the company was in connection with the shares now converted. There is a conversion to shares of no par value, and it may be a justifiable conversion. In the case of the Dome Mines it was a five dollar proposition when the shares were issued, together with a one dollar bonus. These shares may each be converted into four shares I think the public should know about this conversion, so that when they are purchasing no par value shares, they-will have some idea what they are dealing in. I am quite sure that all the high-priced and successful stock mining companies will take advantage of this provision, and there will be a great inflation of the value of these shares. Let there be inflation, but I think the public ought to know, by some declaration or record made by the company, what the shares are worth and what their original value was and how much has been paid on them in each particular company. They should know the original amount of capital that these shares represent to the company. It is only fair to the public that some statement of that kind should be provided, because, if it is not, you will see a wide conversion of the capital stock, especially of these mining companies, there will be a complete change, and shares will be dealt in which have no par ' value, nominally at least; but still they have a value.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Dome Mine my hon.
friend referred to is not affected by this section any more than any other company. After the organization of the company and when they proceed to sell the stock, the information is all set out in the prospectus. To-day, under the old act, they have the privilege of issuing no par value stock in that way. This does not change to any extent the situation as we have it to-day, and it is not the purpose to interfere with or change the organization of any particular mine or company. Of course this bill will apply to any mining or other company in the future.


William Findlay Maclean: The effect of that is that soon we shall have an issue of no par value government bonds. Where is this to end in the issue of stock of no par value? This may be all right in mines, and it may be perfectly justified in the case of this par-

ticular mine. I will not say that it is a danger; but it is a principle that must be carefully guarded, and while I do not say that the minister can guard it at the present moment, I suggest to him that he should give the matter further consideration later on. I am sure there will be an agitation in this country for a clearer definition of what a no par value share is, and in that way the public can be protected. With that suggestion I am going to leave the matter, but I hope the minister will take it into consideration.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be glad to take the
matter into consideration. I do not know that I can do so just as this moment.


William Findlay Maclean: The matter will certainly come up again.'


Mr. BAXTER:: I think sometimes from
the public standpoint the no par value share has an advantage over the par value share. When the par value share is used, there is an assumption, for instance, that a $100 share has $100 behind it. One is apt to criticize anything that may have the appearance of deceiving the public, and that is quite right. When you issue no par value stock, there is no deception, because a stockholder is entitled simply to an aliquot part of the total assets or surplus. There is nothing on his certificate or in the external record of the company to deceive anyone. There is no misleading on the face of the certificate. You are not handed a certificate with a gilt seal on it and a statement that this represents $100. The certificate states simply that you are entitled to a share, without the value being indicated.


William Findlay Maclean: In view of stock operations of this kind, the matter should >e put into concrete form. Heretofore, there was supposed to be some protection as to the amount of money involved in the certificate, but clearly we are having an absolute change in this matter. I say that this should be very carefully looked into, and if the bill is passed, should be passed with the reservation that later on it may be in the interest of the public more clearly to define the rights of the public in connection with these issues.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 4-Amount of capital required.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I move to amend this subsection by striking out the words "received as" and inserting instead thereof the words 'of the." The subclause will then read:

Companies Act
The amount of capital with which the company shall carry on business shall be not less than the aggregate amount of the consideration for the issue-
And so on.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The consideration may not necessarily be money; it may be property?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: When a prosperous company like this issues more stock, it will give the buyers shares of no par value, and that may be a good proposition; but it is a proposition that should be carefully defined, and the rights of the public should be protected in some way. The public should know that, at least, they are protected in connection with mining companies in this country where the stock is set out to be of no par value. Perhaps, as my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) has said, it may be a good thing to do away with these gilt seals on certificates, and where there is a large amount stated as capital, the public will be, perhaps, more careful hereafter. If this is done, it must be carefully watched, and it may be necessary to change the legislation later on.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Company may obtain change of name.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I move to amend this clause by striking out the words "in value of the shares represented" and substituting in place thereof the words "of the votes cast."


William Findlay Maclean: Can the shareholders vote by proxy?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, just the same as before.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Has the minister had in mind the possibility of a company regulating its voting powers by by-law, as I think they do under the Dominion act? As long as the method is "one share, one vote," which is the normal principle, this is all right; but what would be the effect, if, for instance, in some way, a shareholder had to have ten shares i/ order to have one vote, and then receive so many votes for each additional share, or some scheme like that? I am not quite sure how that would work out. The wording "two-thirds of the votes cast" would seem to be a protection, but it might be very difficult to do the business the company desires.


Mr COPP:: I am informed that this makes it easier. This is the statement in regard to the matter. It refers to a number of sections, and I may not refer to them all. The memorandum reads:
Sections 6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 are all for the purpose of unifying and simplifying the phraseology defining the vote at special meetings of shareholders in certain cases. As the act stood, the phraseology was not uniform. For instance, section 34 provides for a vote of shareholders "representing at least two-thirds in value of the subscribed stock." Section 44 provides for a vote of "not less than two-thirds in value of the capital stock represented at a meeting." This phrase is doubtful because it is open to two constructions, whether it is two-thirds of all the subscribed capital or two-thirds of those represented at the meeting.
The situation is rendered more difficult in the case of companies having shares without par value. It is then impossible to comply with the provisions of these sections. A further complication arises where preferred shares are issued without any right to vote.
It is considered advisable to make the language uniform and to provide that the resolution or bylaw is to be carried by two-thirds of the votes at the meeting. The charter and by-laws define who should be entitled to vote. Everyone entitled to vote must be given notice of the meeting, and it seems preferable that the control should be placed in the hands of those present or represented at the meeting to the extent of two-thirds.
That refers to all the sections.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think it is good. I am entirely in accord with the legislation so far as it is directed to having one uniform rule whereas, as the minister has stated, we have heretofore had more or less conflicting practices. If I may say so, we had some sections of rather doubtful interpretation. What I am trying to point out, however, is this: If a company is to take action under the voting power of the shares it might make it somewhat difficult to apply this section. The section must be broad enough to apply to nonpar value as well as to the ordinary class of shares. The* words "in value" might therefore very well be left out. But still I think that the phrase "two-thirds of the shares represented," would' be the best expression. I would suggest two-thirds of the shares represented, whether par value or non-par value; that would be dealing with the very structure of the company itself. This would make it impossible to have any interference by special by-laws that might restrict voting powers and you would really have one uniform rule, instead of allowing companies to do something that might to a certain extent interfere with the general principle proposed. The words "in value" do not really mean anything, because a man would have equal voting power, even though his share were not paid up, with the man whose shares were paid up. The words "two-thirds of the shares represented," whether par value, or non-par value, would go to the very root of the voting structure of the company, and I would suggest to the minister that expression.

Companies Act


William Findlay Maclean: I still think that the committee should give the proposed legislation the fullest consideration and time given to the public interested in such non-par value securities to look into it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think that the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John would make very much difference.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps some of the shareholders might lie back quietly and take an attitude of indifference. They might say that they do not care how the thing is run. We do not want that, and I think it is too much to ask that two-thirds of the total capital or total number of shares should be represented. All the shares might not be represented at any meeting, but there should be a vote from at least two-thirds of those who are actually present, and unless you can secure a vote from two-thirds of the shares represented then an important change should not be made. Some shareholders might say, "Well, you people called the meeting and now we are here we shall sit back as spectators and see how far you will get"; but two-thirds of the votes cast would decide the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no particular objection to the amendment my hon. friend proposes, but I really do not think it makes very much difference. The matter has been carefully considered by the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the principle that runs through all the sections of the bill, namely, that two-thirds of the votes cast will decide any question?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, that is the principle.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It seems to me that "two-thirds of the shares represented" would express as accurately as possible what it is intended to convey.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I move then that the section be amended by striking out the words "in value" in line 37.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Commission for procuring subscriptions.
Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a new provision taken from the English act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it an exact copy from the English act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is taken wholly from a corresponding section in the English act which allows a company to pay a commission on the shares it may sell. It is a universal prac-

tice, and while there is some doubt as to its legality, it is considered well to regulate the practice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Repeal.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The section which is being repealed provides that the situation of the office or head office shall be published in the Canada Gazette. It is always published when the letters patent are received, and the present provision calls for a publication if any supplementary letters are issued.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is, a separate publication?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Company may authorize directors to apply to extend or reduce powers.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The principle in this section is the same as that in section 6. I move that the words "in value" in line 18 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-How private company may become public company.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The words "in value" should also be deleted from this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Requirements as to particulars in prospectus.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is new in this section?


Mr COPP:: Instead of requiring that the objects of the company be set out in detail in the prospectus this amendment permits a summary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Conditions on which company may purchase stock of other companies.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The words "in value" should be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-By-law to be sanctioned.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The words "in value" should be stricken from this section too.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not think there is any change in the last lines of this clause, "or

Companies Act
until the same shall be unanimously sanctioned in writing by the shareholders of the company." This is the present law, but as there is no provision for authenticating the act of the individual shareholders, I doubt whether there is any value in the words I have quoted and I think they might be struck out.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I beg to move that the words:
-or until the same shall be unanimously sanctioned in writing by the shareholders of the company.
be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18, subsection 1-Increase of capital.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not see any point in fixing the percentage at ninety.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Many requests have been made to fix it at even less than ninety.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is what I would think.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We thought we had better leave it at that arbitrary figure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As the law now stands it assumes that a company will not increase its capital until it has virtually exhausted ns treasury stock. But that may not be the reason at all. A company may organize, for instance, with a capital of $1,000,000 and find that that is altogether inadequate and want $5,000,000. It may be that it is unable to function simply because of the inadequacy of its capitalization, and yet it may have a perfectly good proposition and by raising its capitalization to $5,000,000 be able to function properly and sell its stock. So I
9 p.m. certainly think that that arbitrary figure of ninety per cent is not wise. It is not based I think on any sound principle in practice.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What would my hon. friend suggest?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think sixty per cent would be ample, but I do not know that there is any need of fixing a figure at all, because this is assuming that there is only one reason for increasing capital, namely, that they had exhausted -the assets in the treasury. But that may not be the reason at all. The common reason is that either because of expansion of business it is desirable to increase the capitalization, or because the capitalization is insufficient to realize what they anticipated in the way of provision for business. So unless there be some definite objection I see no reason why it should not be reduced to fifty per cent in both cases.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I see no reason for retaining that figure. We have had many requests to reduce it to fifty per cent, but ninety per cent was in the old act and we have left it in


William Findlay Maclean: Where did the requests come from, and what reasons did they give for asking the change?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This has not been changed.
Many lawyers suggested that it be reduced to >
a lower percentage. I have no objection to making it fifty per cent, and I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I move that the words ''in value" in line 13, subsection 2 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Borrowing powers.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I am adding a new clause 19 and renumbering the present section 19 and following sections. The new clause which I now move will read as follows:
No by-law for redyeing the capital stock of the company shall have any force or effect whatsoever until it is approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a special general meeting of the company duly called to consider the same and afterwards confirmed by supplementary letters patent.
The old act read:	[DOT]
No by-law for reducing the capital stock of the company, or for subdividing the shares, shall have any force or effect whatsoever, until it is approved by the votes of shareholders representing at least two-thirds in value of the subscribed stock of the company at a special general meeting of the company duly called for considering the same, and afterwards confirmed by supplementary letters patent.
We can change the amendment to read two-thirds of the shares represented, to make it conform with the other sections.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was just going to ask the minister as to that. In the other cases I do not think you could do any harm, but when you deal with a reduction of capital it may work in two ways: You may have a reduction of capital because the company is contracting its business but is yet solvent, and you may have a reduction of capital for the purpose of trying to avoid liability. Of course, the sanction of the minister has to be obtained I believe, but it is a question of whether there might not be seme different rule in regard to the shareholders in this case.
I submit that for consideration


Arthur Bliss Copp: If we make it two-thirds the sections would then be uniform. I do not think there is any danger.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the wording the minister proposes?
Companies Act


Arthur Bliss Copp: The amendment reads:
No by-law for reducing tlie capital stock of the company shall have any force or effect whatsoever until it is approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a special general meeting of the company duly called to consider the same and afterwards confirmed by supplementary letters patent.
We can make that two-thirds of the shares represented to conform with the other sections.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is proposed that section 19 be struck out and the amendment submitted be substituted therefor. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to call the minister's attention to what appears to be a mistake in the motion put by the chairman. I do not think the minister intends to strike out the clause, does he?
Mr, COPP: No, it is a new clause to be added.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amended clause to be known as section 19.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You want that to harmonize with the others, do you not? Are you not going to strike out the words "in value"?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall section 19 as amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then section 19 appearing in the bill will now be section 20 and the following sections will be renumbered.
On section 20-Borrowing powers.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I move to strike out the words "in value" in line 23 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: The original section 20 is now section 21.
On section 21-Dividends payable out of funds when assets of a wasting character.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We ought to have an explanation as apparently this is a new section.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Section 70 of the principal act reads as follows:
No dividend shall be declared which will impair the capital of the company.
That is the whole section. Now, companies such as mining companies have wasting assets because their value is decreasing

as the mines are worked. This section makes provision to pay the dividends out of the profits made even if, to a certain extent, the assets are wasting.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Why was the doubt raised about this? I think there is a little danger in it because where you have wasting assets, and there is a bond issue, there must always be a sinking fund. Some directors might think this provision would relieve them of the necessity of providing a sinking fund. I cannot understand how doubts could ever have been raised about the law as it stands at present.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) introduced a private bill dealing with this subject earlier in the session and as we decided to introduce some general amendments the provision was incorporated in the present bill. It was brought to my attention that doubt has arisen in the minds of the directors of some mining companies and that is why this particular legislation is required. There is a clause in the Ontario act covering the same point.


William Findlay Maclean: I would ask the Secretary of State whether he does not think this bill should be reprinted and circulated a day or two in advance of its being taken up in the Senate? Then those who are interested in the measure-and there is a very large interest growing up in this country in connection with our mines-and the general public, will have an opportunity of learning exactly what is contemplated. These changes are being made just at the end of the session and inasmuch as the House will be sitting for a considerable part if not all of next week, by the reprinting and circulation of the bill those interested and the general public will have an opportunity of studying the changes and if any objection is taken it can be given expression to in the Senate later on. Has the Secretary of State any objection to that course being pursued?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no objection at all
but I hardly see the necessity for it.


William Findlay Maclean: As I understand the bill it is far reaching in its effects.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think it is. However, if the committee thinks it better to have the bill reprinted I will give the matter consideration.


William Findlay Maclean: The advantage
will be that those interested will have aD opportunity of studying what is proposed before the bill passes its final stage in the Senate.

Companies Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not had time to
read the clause when I asked the minister a question. Now I clearly see the force of what is proposed and I must say I am thoroughly satisfied with this amendment which seems to be in the interest of mining companies.


William Findlay Maclean: Does my hon
friend object to my proposition for the bill to be reprinted and circulated so that the public will be given time to consider it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the Secretary of State will consent to that being done.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The bill will be reprinted
before it goes to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Qualifications of directors
elected.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The first subsection seems to be all right but I cannot say the same of subsection 2 as to the requirements on the part of the person to be named as director. When are we going to get rid of this minute in our legislation? The subsection reads as follows:
(2) A person named as a director or proposed directoi in any prospectus or in any statement in lieu of prospectus, issued by or on behalf of the company, shall not be capable of being appointed director of the company, unless, at the time of the publication of the prospectus or statement in lieu of prospectus, he has by himself or by his agent authorized in writing,-
(i)	Signed and filed with the Secretary of State of Canada a consent in writing to act as such director; and
(ii)	Either signed the petition for incorporation and memorandum of agreement and stock book for a number of shares not less than his qualification or signed and filed with the Secretary of State of Canada a contract in writing to take from the company and pay for his qualification shares.
It is owing to requirements such as this that we find when we come to consider the estimates of civil government such an appalling number of filing clerks and other unnecessary officials foisted upon the country I am going to ask the minister to display a little common sense, and let a company do its own business.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is an exact copy of the
provision in the act of 1917-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It was a very bad House
that passed it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not making that as an
argument, but with a single verbal change it is exactly the provision we have been
working under since 1917. The change just seeks to correct one word in the existing act. This clause is a substantial part of the legislation respecting prospectuses which has been in force in England, and many of the provinces for twenty years, and the elimination of this clause would perhaps nullify the prospectus clauses.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not think you ought
to have it.


William Findlay Maclean: In view of the
government's desire to reach prorogation at an early stage I think this bill ought to be reprinted forthwith and copies furnished to the public so that they will see exactly what is proposed. They would also have the benefit of reading this discussion.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On section 23-By-laws for increase or decrease of number.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I move that the words "in value" in line 34 of this section be struck out.
Amendment agreed to
Section ag-.erd to
On section 25-Annual meeting.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the verbal change there?
Mr. COPP In the 1917 act the words were 

"the place named in the special act or letters patent as the place of." These words are struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Amounts in annual return.
Arthur Bliss Copp: There is a change in the wording here-just a transposition of the words. The old section reads:
The total amount paid on shares otherwise than in cash, showing severally the amount paid by services commissions or assets acquired since the last annual return.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Subscriptions in return.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the change?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The old section read:
The total amount paid on such shares.
We are adding the words "of subscriptions."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are you making it any
better? If you pay the money in you are paying it on account of the shares.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They might make payments annuallj'.

Companies Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the wording of the new section is not nearly as good as the old. I think it is making it more obscure.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think it makes any difference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not like to quibble over it, but I cannot see any improvement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think there is a little improvement. In the first place the section is designed to obtain information as to payments on shares other than in cash, and if you take the words of the old section it might have reference to notes given in payment which would not be cash.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-Summary to be filed, signed and verified.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the change there?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This section says:
(2) The said summary must be completed and filed in duplicate in the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada on or before the first day of June aforesaid. Each of the said duplicates shall be signed by the president and the manager, or, if these are the same person, by the president and by the secretary of the company, and shall be duly verified by their affidavits. Provided ttyat if one or both of such officers be unable to sign the said summary on account of absence or any other cause, the summary shall be signed instead by such other director or directors as shall be authorized thereto by the company and the affidavit of verification of the signature of each such substitute director shall include an explanation of the reason for failure of the absent or incapable officer to sign and of the authority of such substitute so to act. The said affidavits shall also verify that the copies of the said summary are duplicates.
This provision is made in case the president or other officer is absent and cannot sign. In that case, some director can do it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 29-Meetings of creditors ordered by Secretary of State. When compromise binding on all creditors.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I move in amendment to section 29, that the original section 28 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
112A. (1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and its shareholders or any class of them affecting the rights of shareholders or any class of them, under the company's letters patent or supplementary letters patent or by-laws, the Secretary of State may on application in a summary way of the company, or of any shareholder, order a meeting of the shareholders of the company or of any class of shareholders, as the case may be, to be summoned in such manner as the Secretary of State directs.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I understand it. I tried to give a little attention to this and there are

three classes dealt with. The first is where there were some compromises between the company and its shareholders or class of shareholders-a thing within the company. The second is where the company is being dealt with under the Winding-up Act, and, third, where it is being dealt with under the Bankruptcy Act. I think it is a perfectly proper thing for judicial sanction. I would suggest that, instead of having the Secretary of State direct the manner in which the meeting is to be summoned, it should be left to judges in the provinces where the head offices of the company are situated. Let them all be dealt with judicially. I do not think my hon. friend wants to have his department used as a half court or something of that kind. It is not at all advisable. Get some general term. It should be a judge of any superior court. I do not know whether the words "supreme court" would be the proper ones. I think it should be a judge, not necessarily of an appellate court, but of a court of the highest jurisdiction. What is a superior court judge in the province of Quebec? Where does he come in? I am trying to get a little information if the minister could give it us as to the status of the superior court judges in his province. Is that the highest rank of judge, outside of the appellate judges.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, that will be all right -a judge of the supreme or appellate court in the province in which the head office of the company is situated.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I agree. I prefer that the power be delegated to a judge.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have struck out the words "the Secretary of State" in the sixth line of the amendment and substituted therefor the words " a judge of the Supreme or a superior court ".


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Of the province in which the head office of the company is situated.


George Newcombe Gordon: The subclause will read in part:
A judge of the Supreme or a superior court of the province in which the head office of the company is situated, may on application in a summary way of the company or of any shareholder order a meeting of the shareholders of the company or of any class of shareholders, as the case may be, to be summoned in such manner as the said judge directs.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 2.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the shareholders, or class of shareholders, as the case may be, present in person or by proxy at the meeting, by three-fourths of the votes cast-

Companies Act


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister is going to use " three-fourths," we had better continue our desire for uniformity, by saying " three-fourths of the shares issued ", so as to keep this uniform with the other clauses.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved that the words " votes cast " shall be stricken out, and the words " shares represented " inserted instead thereof. The subclause will now read:
If the shareholders, or class of shareholders, as the case may be, present in person or by proxy at the meeting, by three-fourths of the shares represented agree to the compromise or arrangement either as proposed or as altered or modified at such meeting, such compromise or arrangement may be sanctioned by a judge as aforesaid, and if so sanctioned, such compromise or arrangement and any reduction or increase of share capital and any provisions for the allotment or disposition thereof by sale or otherwise as therein set forth, shall be confirmed by supplementary letters patent which shall be binding on the company and the shareholders or class of shareholders, as the case may be.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to ask the minister if in the English Companies Act, from which this clause is apparently taken, the jurisdiction is given to the recorder or registrar there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is given to the courts.
Subsection 2 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: A new section is submitted to be known as section 30:
(1)	Where a compromise or arrangement is .proposed between a company which is subject to any pending proceedings under the Winding-Up Act chapter one hundred and forty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and its creditors or any class of them or its shareholders or any class of them, affecting or cancelling, conditionally or otherwise, the rights of shareholders or any class of them under the company's letters patent or supplementary letters patent or by-laws, the court having jurisdiction in such pending proceedings as aforesaid may on application in a summary way of the company or any shareholder or liquidator order a meeting of the shareholders or class of shareholders to be summoned in such manner as the court directs.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: As regards subsection 2, it is suggested that in line 3 the words "votes cast" shall be struck out, and the words "shares represented" be substituted therefor. Subsection 2 will read:
(2)	If the shareholders or class of shareholders, as the case may be, present either in person or by proxy at the meeting, by three-fourths of the shares represented agree to a compromise or arrangement, as proposed or as altered or modified at such meeting and if the requisite majority of the creditors or class of creditors under any relative provisions of the Winding-Up Act also agree to such compromise or arrangement, the court having jurisdiction in such pending proceedings as aforesaid may sanction such
269i
compromise or arrangement, and if so sanctioned by the court, a certified copy of such compromise or arrangement as so sanctioned and of the order or judgment of the'court sanctioning the same shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, and such compromise or arrangement and any reduction or cancellation of share capital and any increase or creation of new share capital, and any provisions for the allotment or disposition thereof by sale or otherwise as therein set forth, shall be confirmed by supplementary letters patent, which shall be binding upon all the creditors or class of creditors and shareholders or class of shareholders, and on any liquidator or contributories concerned.
Should that not be "and" all the way through?


Arthur Bliss Copp: All right.


George Newcombe Gordon: It will read:
And on any liquidator and contributories concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Subsection 3 reads:
(3) Where a compromise or arrangement proposed between a company which is subject to any pending proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act, chapter thirty-six of the statutes of 1919, and its creditors or any class of them or its shareholders or any class of them, affecting or cancelling conditionally or otherwise the rights of shareholders or any class of them under the company's letters patent or supplementary letters patent or by-laws,. has been approved by the court having jurisdiction in such pending proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act, a certified copy of such compromise or arrangement as so approved and of the order or judgment of the court approving the same shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, and such compromise or arrangement and any reduction or cancellation of share capital and any increase or creation of new share capital and any provisions for the allotment or disposition thereof by sale or otherwise as therein set forth shall be confirmed by supplementary letters patent, which shall be binding upon all the creditors or class of creditors and shareholders or class of shareholders and on any custodian Dr trustee concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the old clause 26, the new clause 27, was being considered, I spoke upon it thinking that the preceding clause was under consideration, and my remarks must have appeared unintelligible to the committee. My attention has since been called to that fact, and I do not think that the clause is very intelligible as it reads. I think it would be better to say "the total amount paid on such subscribed shares."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is perfectly clear that it is the shares that you pay for.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am prepared to accept the amendment. I move that the section be amended by striking out the words "of sub-
Lake Grain Rates

scriptions" and inserting after the word "such" the word "subscribed."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure with respect to freight rates for the carriage of grain by lake and river navigation, and to provide,-
1.	That an3r shipping company or any shipowner or person who carries or who offers, advertises or proposes to carry grain for hire between Fort William or Port Arthur and any other port or place in Canada or the United States of America, by lake or river navigation, shall within a prescribed period file with the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada the tariff of rates which is proposed to be charged, and also any change or variation of such tariff of rates.
2.	That the said board shall receive and tabulate all such tariffs and rates, and ascertain by all available means the rates of freight which prevail or are exacted for the carriage of grain as aforesaid, and report to the minister the facts in respect to deficiency of cargo space, excessive freight charge, or discrimination in rates, and all shippers shall upon request furnish the board with such information as they possess relating to these matters.
3.	That when in the opinion of the board the rates are unreasonable and excessive, the board may prescribe such maximum rates as it may consider reasonable, which may be varied or limited in their operation as the board may prescribe.
4.	That provisions be made as to the posting in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and in the office of the Board of Grain Commissioners by vessel brokers and agents of statements in detail of cargo space, time for shipment and destination on contracts or charters made on the day last preceding, and to prohibit any vessel broker or agent from soliciting any risk, or issuing or delivering any receipt-or policy of insurance, or collecting or receiving any premium in whole or in part, or inspecting any risk or adjusting any loss upon any consignment of grain to be carried.
5.	That penalties be enacted for the violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a very important resolution, dealing with a matter of more than passing concern both to the country and to the various interests affected I do not rise at all for the purpose of unfairly or unkindly criticizing the resolution, but I am anxious to have as much information as possible on a number of questions. I trust therefore that the minister will not feel that I am in any way trying to embarrass him. If the questions I ask do not seem particularly relevant to the first subsection under consideration I would ask that they be allowed notwithstanding that fact, because the whole discussion

might very well centre to a large extent around the first section. First of all, I should like to know what reason there is for submitting to the Grain Commission rather than to the Railway Board the question as to the fixation of lake rates. The Grain Commission have no machinery, nor have they experts as in an established department; whereas the Railway Board, having the advantage of many years' experience, and equipped with the necessary technical and clerical machinery, are well organized and able to study any question of this kind. First of all the minister might outline the reasons why this important matter should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Grain Commissioners rather than before the Railway Board.


Mr. ROBB:: The Grain Commission have charge of the handling of grain, and are in touch with the elevators at the head of the lakes and the interior elevators. Furthermore, they have a perfect knowledge of the grain, first back in the country and next at the terminal elevators at the head of the lakes and in the elevators east of them. The bill to be introduced based upon this resolution provides not only for the fixing of the maximum rate, but for the regulation of the method of shipping and for the advising of the public as to space available. Early last summer, I think in the month of July, the government had complaints from certain shippers, some of them large shippers, that there was discrimination in the freight rates on the upper lakes as between Canadian and United States ports. There was a difference of opinion between the shippers and the lake carriers. The government tried to induce the lake carriers to remove this discrimination, which they themselves admitted. The carriers, however, contended that the rates quoted to Buffalo were what are known as "distress" rates; on account of strikes in the United States in the coal areas many vessels that otherwise would be carrying coal and iron were offering to carry freight from Fort William and Port Arthur to Buffalo at very much lower rates than the rates charged generally by Canadian companies. We urged upon the Canadian companies that if they could afford to carry grain to Buffalo at rates they themselves admitted, they should at least carry it to Port Colbome at a very small percentage over those rates. The experience of past years was that, generally speaking, they got a quarter of a cent a bushel more to Port Colborne than to Buffalo; in some cases the rate charged was considerably more-almost double. Unfortunately we were unable to induce them to deal fairly

Lake Grain Rates
with Canadian shippers, there being no machinery that we could invoke for the purpose.
Now, based upon this resolution a bill will be introduced providing that shipowners and ship brokers shall file with the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada the rates at which they charter vessels*. It will be the duty of the board to secure such information and have it on file for the minister. Certain penalties will be imposed upon shipowners who refuse to file their rates. I may say that they now give this information to our statistical department, but it comes to us too late to be of any use. If in the judgment of the board the rates charged out of Fort William or Port Arthur are excessive as compared with the rates charged for similar traffic from United States ports, it will be within its power to fix a maximum rate. Of course, this power must be exercised with discretion. A maximum rate must be a fair rate based upon the traffic available for the ships that are doing business. If this maximum rate is fixed too high, the shipowner may consider it the minimum rate; on the other hand, if it is fixed too low it may drive shipping away altogether from Canadian ports over to Duluth, and it might divert our grain to that port, or the shipowner might tie up his vessels. I admit at once that in my judgment we cannot compel any shipowner to run his boats if he is not satisfied with the maximum rate we fix. Therefore, as I say. care and discretion must, and we expect will, be exercised in this regard. We believe that the Board of Grain Commissioners at the head of the lakes, being conversant with the conditions of the grain trade from day to day, are in a much better position to handle this rate question intelligently than a board located at Ottawa far away from the scene of operations. This is one reason which induced the government to select the Board of Grain Commissioners for this purpose.
Right here I may say that in addition to these powers the bill will provide for the preventing of what is regarded by the producers and shippers of grain as an unfair method of booking space; that is, of the vessel broker or agent saying to the shipper: "Unless you take insurance with me you cannot have the space you require." We propose to get rid of this trouble by prohibiting the broker or agent from either writing the insurance or inspecting any risk.
This, generally speaking is an outline of the bill. The government invites advice from the House. We do not believe that this proposal will be a cure-all, but it is an honest effort, through publicity primarily, to
obtain reasonable rates for the shippers of grain.


William Findlay Maclean: Are there any
penalties besides publicity?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, quite severe penalties.
We do not want to go through the experience of last season. Early in the season it was aomplained that there was discrimination as between Canadian and United States ports: later on the complaint was that the rates were unduly advanced. As regards the latter complaint, I am bound to say that from the information I have gathered the blame was not all on one side. I understand the exporters sold for export large quantities of grain without taking the precaution of securing lake space. They bought their ocean space and intended to route the grain by Buffalo to American ports. As soon as the coal strike was settled and cars were requisitioned to carry coal, Buffalo fell down and instead of putting out a thousand cars a day the number fell to about two hundred, and, of course, Buffalo became congested. Thereupon the grain was brought around to Montreal and Quebec and the exporters put their brokers in the pit and offered the shipowners advanced rates. As a result a good many of the exporters lost money, particularly the United States exporters. Now, while the exporters lost money on the grain exported early in the year, the loss backed up on the crop in the country and depressed the price of the grain which later came on the market. We are attempting to regulate this traffic so there will be more reasonable rates for the carriage of grain, and so that the shippers will have every day during the shipping season at Fort William, Port Arthur and Winnipeg information as to what space has been booked and what is still available. We hope through publicity-which after all is the great curative agency-that the rates prevailing during the coming season will be fairer than they were last season.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did not the government
have power last year to suspend the coasting laws?
Mr, ROBB:	That power was exercised
by our predecessors under the War Measures Act, and we exercised it last year, to cover grain carried across the lakes for storage so that we might have the business for our own railways. But if the matter had been taken to the courts I am not sure whether our action could have been upheld.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If there is discrimination against Canadian ports in relation to the rates obtaining to American ports, is not that
Lake Grain Rates

the obvious and quickest method of overcoming it? Under this legislation you cannot empower the Grain Commission to
10 p.m. fix a rate from Fort William to Buffalo, or from Duluth to Port Colborne. To put it another way, it will be impossible for parliament to confer power on the Grain Commission to fix rates from a Canadian port to an American port or vice versa. Now if we recognize that, then there is but very little force in the law to fix it from one Canadian port to another, because the diversion from the Canadian port to the American port will then follow as a natural sequence to the limit of the capacity of the American receiving ports. I think that is obvious. The only remedy would be to suspend the coasting laws. Then you effectively cover'the discrimination or the excess rate. What I am trying to impress upon the minister, and what I really think the committee should consider, is whether it is advisable at all to frame a law which may give the impression that you are going to deal with a problem but which in its essence will not deal with the problem at all. That is, I think, the point we ought to consider in this committee, and it is a very important consideration.	*
I do not want to embarrass the minister with too many questions, but he is well acquainted with this matter and will follow me, and then I shall not have to bother him so much later on. Take the question of demurrage. If the Board of Grain Commissioners is to have power to fix rates they certainly twill have to take into consideration the question of demurrage. Now I submit this, that no shipping company can possibly gauge or anticipate what would be an exactly fair rate unless it knows what the demurrage is going to be. If they take a chance on demurrage and the demurrage seems to be threatening seriously, the rates are going to go up. There ifi no question about that. It is the only protection the shipping company has. So if a shipping company anticipating a demurrage increases its rate for its own protection, w'hich it would have a right to do, the Grain Board might step in and say: Your rates are too high, atid it would reduce the rates and the shipping company would lose unfairly because of demurrage over which it has no control at all. These, I think, are very important considerations.
While I have the most profound sympathy with the desire to lower the cost of transportation I am very, very doubtful if you are going to do it by this bill at all. In fact, I really think that the net result of this bill
X Mr. Stevens.]
will be to maintain generally speaking a higher rate. As it is to-day there have been and very frequently are periods when rates are abnormally low. Then occasionally like last year there comes a period when the rate is abnormally and perhaps unfairly high, but these periods of excessively high rates are comparatively rare, so that in the main I think in the past the lower rates have fairly well compensated for the higher. But if you give power to a commission such as the Grain Board to fix rates I am firmly convinced of this from my study of the question, and this same problem was threshed out in the House on several occasions in years gone by, that the average cost for transporting grain over the Great Lakes year in and year out will be higher than if there were no fixation of rates. What I do think is this, that the minister or the government could adequately and safely provide against these abnormal, excessive rates in occasional periods by a vigorous yet careful application of the suspension of the coasting laws. Let it be clearly understood and known that that may happen; let that weapon be ready at hand and be looked upon as a remedy.
The minister perhaps has already given consideration to all these points. I would like to ask him to give to the committee the fullest possible information and answer to these suggestions because to me they are very important. I am very, very much afraid that the net result of this legislation in its working out will be to make the average rate year in and year out higher than it has been in the past.


James Alexander Robb: I am not finding much fault with the observations of my hon. friend. I thought I had made it clear that in my judgment the power of fixing a maximum rate would have to be exercised with great discretion and only after very careful consideration. If the resolution itself does not say so, the bill provides that the Grain Commissioners have that power, but I have tried to make it clear that the power should only be exercised after the most careful consideration because I realize, as my hon. friend has said, that there is a possibility of driving shipping away from our ports. If my hon. friend will look at the very next item on the order paper he will observe that my colleague the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is providing for an amendment to the Shipping Act which will give us the very power he is now advocating, so that we shall then have two levers. We shall have the right to suspend the coasting laws, and we shall have this machinery here to give the fullest

Lake Grain Rates
publicity to rates. We believe that these two will go a long way towards giving the producer a fair deal.


Mr. MILLAR:: May I point out in reply to what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said that at the present time the American government are exercising a similar power of fixing a maximum rate. It does not apply to bulk freight, I believe, but to other freight.
There is also this point: During the last shipping season the rates between Canadian ports were higher than the rates from Canadian ports to American ports. Also the rates charged .by Canadian boats from one Canadian point to another Canadian point were higher than those charged between American points. While some are under the impression that this power ought to be placed in the hands of the Railway Commission it seems to me that it would work much better if it were placed in the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and for this reason: The Board of Grain Commissioners are more closely in touch with the producers, and the producers are practically the only losers when rates go astray as they did last session. Whenever the rates go astray the producers are practically the only losers.


James Alexander Robb: I would not admit that they were the only losers last year.


John Millar: Let me follow that up. The price of the grain that we sell, even though it may be sold right at the elevator, is based on the price of the same grain at Liverpool or London less all the costs of transportation, insurance, and so forth. If you will read carefully the report of the Grain Commission which has just been handed in you will find this statement:	That so far as insurance is
concerned the shippers do not care very much what insurance they pay so long as they can get as good a rate as their competitors. In a report that was handed in by the commission that investigated the grain trade in, I think, 1914-1 refer to the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan government- you will also find this statement.
That the shippers care very little what lake rates they pay provided they can get as good rates as their competitors.
Now, that is the point. Some people suppose that the shippers are very anxious to fight for low rates, but that is not the case. They care very little what the rates are so long as their competitors get no better rates than they enjoy. The Board of Grain Commissioners at the present time is composed of three men. Two of the number grew up
with farming in the West, grew up with the various organizations that were established there, and I think members of this House will recognize that those who have once lived on the farm and know the difficulties that have to be overcome are likely to have a greater sympathy and understanding of. the problem, and the obstacles that need to be surmounted, than those who have not had that experience. I wish to connect with this the statement I made a moment ago, that it is the producer that should be considered because practically all the losses sustained are encountered by him. The minister has just said he will not admit that is the case. I suppose he means that the shippers sometimes sustained losses last year. To a small extent that may be the case but let me point this out: I could not refer exactly to the page of the report of the commission, or to the specific statement in any investigations that have taken place, but I think it has been shown that the shippers follow this practice: If they do not know exactly what the rate is going to be and if the rate ranges from six to nine cents they will buy the grain on the basis of nine cents and if they get a lower rate than that estimated they do not suffer any loss.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Millar: No, not carried yet by
any means. This is too important a matter to be passed without discussion. Later perhaps, I may enter more fully into this question, show the nature of the monopoly which exists, and present a great deal more information, but as we progress now I shall only deal with one point at a time. It would seem to me to be a more rational proposition to place the control of rates under the Board of Railway Commissioners. Such a course as that would be likely to give better satisfaction and work out more successfully. Had the proposition to place the matter under the Board of Grain Commissioners been made a year and a half or three years ago before the change in the personnel of the commission took place, it would not have been received with the same approval as at present. Let me go back a great many years. I can remember the time when Mr. Castle was the warehouse commissioner and Mr. Snow, who is now on the Board of Grain Commissioners, acted as his deputy. Whenever complaints in writing were sent in by any producer, or grain handler for that matter, he was the gentleman sent at the government's expense to look into the matter and adjust the claims. There came a time aft'er that when a commission was appointed and that com-
Lake Grain Rates

mission might as well have been in Jerusalem; I think the western public had practically no confidence in it. That is a strong statement to make but if hon. members had suffered as long as the western farmer has suffered by reason of neglect they perhaps would be ready to make statements just as strong. The change now accomplished has been very much for the better. I have heard the present chairman of the board spoken of very highly. I know the other two gentlemen and I have the greatest confidence in their integrity and ability. I therefore am inclined to look with favour on the placing of this matter under the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to ask
the minister what legal position he thinks the government were in last year with regard to the suspension of the coasting law? I understood him to say that the suspension under the former government was made under the War Measures Act. But there was a suspension of the coasting laws in 1913, and I understand that this government could have exercised last fall the same power that was exercised by the former government in 1913.


James Alexander Robb: The suspension of the coasting laws is not dealt with in this resolution. It will come up later in a resolution to be brought forward by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Robert Forke: I wish to make a few remarks at this particular time but not at any great length; we will have an opportunity of further discussion when the bill to be founded on this resolution is taken up in committee. At the risk of being tedious I must say a few words by way of introduction about the condition of the western farmer and the interest he feels in the provision of this resolution. I know that sometimes the producers of the West are very much sympathized with in this House. I should like to say, however, that, perhaps, the epic of the western prairie provinces has never yet been written. The story of the struggles, the courage, the patience, and the industry of those determined and courageous people who developed the prairies has never yet been adequately recognized. I know very well the problem to be solved is looked upon with a great deal of sympathy but sometimes, unfortunately, misstatements and misinformation distort peoples' vision so that they do not get a proper perspective.
As has already been stated, the great problem we have to deal with in the central prairie 
provinces is that of transportation. The agricultural potentialities of that part of Canada are great indeed but unfortunately those rich alluvial soils are located in the very centre of the Dominion and for all time to come transportation will be one of the greatest problems we shall have to solve in developing that country and furthering the prosperity of the people who live there. Last year we waged a strong fight in connection with freight rates and hon. members will not think that I am boasting if I say that we went home thoroughly satisfied with the struggle we had maintained and the conclusion come to in regard to railway rates from the West. But after producing a large crop, after having secured reduction of railway rates, what was the consternation of the people in the West when they learned that all the advantage that had been gained in that freight rate reduction was to be absorbed by an increase in lake freights. [DOT]
I have listened to the remarks made by the minister (Mr. Robb) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Those remarks were very fair I admit and each gentleman perhaps, presented the case from his own standpoint. But we are always met with the same stoi-y when we attempt to remedy an abuse-we must be very careful for fear we shall hamper business in any way. Now, I realize the situation just as well as any hon. member of this House but I must confess I think the members of the lake shipping combine, if you will let me use the term, are quite capable of taking care of themselves. They will be able to do so no matter what kind of legislation you pass here. I have heard the same story before, it is not new to me. "That if you hamper trade we will move over to the United States and leave you in the lurch altogether." I do not think there is' any danger of that. These people will stay just as long as there is any business for them to do, and they will get their share of that business and get their profits-there is no doubt about it.
Now, what happened? I am not going to-review the whole situation because there will be other opportunities of doing that, but we know that at the beginning of the season the rates had been fixed at three cents per bushel from Bay ports to Buffalo. Then came this enormous crop, and we had that famous meeting that took place in Toronto in May 1922,. when half a dozen shipping companies got together and formed what you may call a 'combine, because there is no other name that would be appropriate for it, and they agreed

Lake Grain Rates
to fix the rate at 7 or 8 cents immediately after. I do not think there was any congestion at Buffalo at the time these rates were increased to that amount. The rates went even higher than that. I will mention another fact in connection with the brokerage and shipping agents. As has been stated already, the brokers had claimed the right of getting the insurance when they gave space, and I think we find it in the evidence in this report,-at least the evidence was submitted, or published in the papers, during the time that commission was taking evidence-that when a shipper would go to a broker in the city of Winnipeg and ask for space, even although he knew the rate had been fixed at 3 cents, he was frequently told the rate was 7 cents, and when the question of insurance was brought up he made the remark that he was able to insure himself, and he was told, "If you do not place the insurance with me you cannot have space." We know that in the season of 1922 the brokerage agents got about $448,000 of commissions for selling insurance. As high as $2,000 commission was paid on insuring some cargoes of grain.


Mr. DUFF:: Did the Winnipeg brokers
charge a greater premium for this insurance than it could be got for outside?


Robert Forke: Just 100 per cent more than the rate which could have been obtained from private operators or companies furnishing insurance themselves. It was double in many cases. There is another peculiar situation in regard to this matter. When the question of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine came up-and I think the hon. member for Lunenburg will be wide awake now-


William Duff: I am awake all right.


Robert Forke: When the Canadian Government Merchant Marine came up for discussion, we were told the government had no vessels fit to carry grain. I find in the evidence submitted before the commission that at the very time the trouble was taking place on the lakes the government had 10 or 11 boats fit for carrying grain, and they had 'leased two grain carrying boats to one of the shipping companies in that combine. I do not know why these vessels were tied up, or not in commission, and why they were not carrying grain or doing something to break up that combination on the lakes at that particular time. Perhaps the minister will be able to give us some information on that point. I think perhaps there is an idea sometimes of driving the trade to Buffalo instead of to the Bay ports or other Canadian ports.
We hear a great deal about mixing grain, and it pays the shipper sometimes to mix grain, and perhaps it is a disadvantage that our grain should be shipped by Buffalo any more than we can possibly help. I believe in letting the grain go to the ocean by the cheapest route no matter where that route is. That is the only method and system that will stand the test of time. We were told that those government vessels were unfit for carrying grain. I was rather chagrined the other day, on reading the report of the Senate proceedings, to notice that Senator Bennett had made some nice statements about my sincerity and honesty, but he was rather sorry for my ignorance in regard to this matter, because I had innocently asked if there were no Canadian boats able to carry grain. He immediately stated that there were five or six Canadian ships suited for carrying grain on the Great Lakes. I do not know the facts, but these are the statements made, and I have no doubt the speaker had some reason for making them.


James Alexander Robb: I think there were six government boats in commission last fall on the upper lakes.


Robert Forke: The phrase used was that they were "tied up" on the lakes.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member is quite right. They were tied up until the government came in and insisted-notwithstanding the statement that we should not interfere in their management of these roads-that these ships should be put into commission, and that was done.


Robert Forke: At what rate?


James Alexander Robb: The government has nothing to do with the operation of the roads. The government keeps its hands off that. That is done by the management of the railway.


Robert Forke: I have an idea that this Canadian Government Merchant Marine entered the combine and charged the same rates as the other boats were charging. I know there is that old school of politicians known as the Manchester School, that never believed in interference in trade but wished to remove all restrictions and allow each individual to operate for himself; claiming that everything would come right by competition. But a great deal of water has passed under the bridge since that time, and a great many things taken place that those economists knew nothing about. Combinations in restraint of trade and gigantic combines were not known in those days, and, if hon. members
Lake Grain Bates

will allow a vulgar phrase, sometimes you have to fight the devil with his own weapons, and when we take into consideration combinations and restrictions to prevent the free interchange of trade, it becomes absolutely necessary that there should be some law guiding and controlling freights and other methods of doing business with these combinations.
I would like to say a few words in regard to who pays the bill. I know that it gets tiresome in this House to be continually falling back on the farmer, but really, Mr. Chairman, I have forgotten all my economics if I cannot see that the cost always falls back on the producer-I do not care what line of business it is. I have had a good deal to do with business in the way of paying taxes, and I find among the men and merchants doing business on the prairies there is a great deal of grumbling about taxation. How is taxation levied? Simply on the cost of doing business, and it has to come back to the production of the soil, and the man on the farm is paying the taxes. The man on the farm in western Canada pays the bill, I do not care what restrictions you put on.
It may happen that in the raising of freight rates, or in some other way, the shipper loses money on one ship load, but, take it on the whole, the cost of doing business and the increased cost of transportation must fall back on the producer.
Last year we heard a great deal about the enormous crop produced in western Canada. We heard about 400,000,000 bushels of wheat being produced there. We were told about the great stream of wealth that flowed from the western prairie down to eastern Canada and helped to revive trade and set things moving all over the country. Is it not a tragedy, and is it not something to be sorry for when we realize that the people who raised that great amount of wealth have not reaped the benefit, and are worse off to-day than perhaps a year ago? Is it not strange that there should be perhaps a little work-up over any combination that will put a charge on every bushel of wheat the farmers produce? Already we are beginning to hear that next year we are going to produce 500,000,000 bushels of wheat; and what is happening? We find the price is dropping rapidly, on the theory that there is going to be a large production next season. No one can tell what the crops will be on the prairie. Those who know anything about western conditions will know that in two weeks' time the crops will either be made or broken, according to climatic conditions. The prospects are good to-day, but, no one can tell what they will be in the month of August.

I will not take up any more time at the present. We have the recommendations made by the commission which sat and took evidence in this matter. For my part, I would be inclined to accept those recommendations as they have been made by the commission. I have no fear that they will not work out to the benefit and advantage of everyone concerned. I have no fear of any commission ever fixing maximum rates at a figure that will damage lake shipping to any great extent. Producers even are reasonable, and I think they will be willing to pay a fair rate for getting their grain shipped across the Great Lakes. I shall have an opportunity of speaking to this question again. I have made only a few remarks, and I hope the committee will give the matter very serious consideration, because it affects, not only western Canada, but the prosperity of the Dominion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot profess that I know very much concerning the facts at issue in this particular matter which is before the committee, but I am somewhat perplexed as to what should be my duty upon this measure. I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Forke) has minimized my difficulties in the matter, because he has hardly made reference to the legislation which is before the committee; that is, he fails to demonstrate whether or not it would be effective and, in the ultimate end, a measure in the interest of the people of Canada and in the interest of the particular class in which he is concerned


Robert Forke: I failed to say that, perhaps, the publicity which will be given to the whole affair will be the best cure for the conditions complained of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not mean to suggest that my hon. friend has yet exhausted all his arguments. I merely mean to say that, up to the point reached in his remarks, he did not touch upon those features of this proposed legislation which, to me at least, are objectionable, unless I have some explanation to the contrary. For those whose products must find their outlet to the ocean, in this particular case through the Great Lakes, I have every sympathy, and I presume every hon. gentleman in this House has. The question, however, is: Will this legislation bring about any desired end? Is it wise legislation? Ultimately, will it be in the interest of the producer, the shipper or the country generally?


Mr. HOEY:: It is better than no legislation at all.

Lake Grain Rates


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt that very much. Ineffective legislation is frequently worse than no legislation, and I may refer to that before I take my seat. As I said before, I hardly know the facts that were revealed before the commission, but I understand that the charge is that unconscionably high rates were exacted by owners of shipping on the Great Lakes. If that is true, it was wrong, and the question before the committee is: How are we going to remedy that wrong? We ought to approach the question in that spirit, and it should not be said by hon. gentlemen who are, perhaps, particularly interested because many of their constituents are shippers, that because one is disposed to doubt the efficacy of the legislation, therefore, he is opposed to the interest of those people. I resent that form of argument, and it should not be tolerated in legislative halls. I hope it will not be too frequently made.


Robert Forke: I do not think I was guilty of that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, but somebody else said that. The newspapers have discussed this matter; but again I say that my reading would be quite casual, and I would not like to predicate an argument upon it. I suppose a great deal of evidence was taken, and I presume it will be printed before we proceed much further with the bill. A few days ago we were discussing the Bank Act, and the evidence was printed daily. The Bank Act was a fairly simple subject. It might be discussed in a young ladies' seminary or a kindergarten school with great ease and be made plain to everybody. I do not mean to *say that banking itself or finance generally is an easy subject; but when you are dealing with a concrete question such as the Bank Act, it is quite easy.


Mr. SALES:: Has the hon. member seen to-night's paper with the report of the Union Bank in it?
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax); Yes. I do not know what my hon. friend wants to draw from that.


Thomas Sales: Is it a very simple matter?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think It is anything that will reflect upon the actions of the majority of the committee. It -might cause some misgivings on the part of some other hon. gentlemen, including, perhaps, my hon. friend. The point I want to make is this: Last night I heard for, I suppose, the hundredth time, that it was unfair and unjust to proceed to the consideration of .a measure Which had been before a committee for two months, until the people had had an opportunity of reading and studying the evidence. The evidence in that case had been printed daily, and it was before the country and parliament. I want to suggest to the minister that he is going to meet with tremendous opposition from our hon. friends directly opposite, because I am sure they will not consent to a favourable consideration of the bill until the evidence is printed, so that they may know what they are doing.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How long is it since the report of the commission was tabled?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the report of a commission, a report made by three men who are not infallible.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Were the members of the Banking committee infallible?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not allege that at all. I merely mean to say-and I am sure everybody opposite to me will agree and they must say that later this evening- that it would be unfair and unjust to proceed further in this matter until the evidence is printed, so that we may know what we are doing and whatever course we shall take


Robert Alexander Hoey: They will have stolen another crop if we wait that length of time.


Robert Gardiner: I might suggest that we put them in gaol first, and then wait for the evidence.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the hon. member aware that the fact of a combination between the shipping companies was proved and is within the knowledge of the House now?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not quite jnderstand my hon. friend's question.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the hon. member does not wish to answer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I thought it was a good opportunity to remind my hon. friends right opposite me that this might be a good chance to be consistent upon such an important question.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Do I understand that my hon. friend now adopts the arguments that were propounded from this side of the House yesterday?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I do not go even so far as to say that I would personally demand the printing of the evidence. I am simply advising the minister that he must expect most powerful opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite to this bill being pro-
Lake Grain Rates

ceeded with further until the evidence is printed, so that they may know what they are doing.


Robert Forke: The hon. member for Halifax thinks misery likes company. He would like to see the minister in the same box.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The subject involved in this resolution has been before this House on many occasions in the past. 1 was always opposed to it and I think the majority of members of parliament were usually opposed to it. I shall still be opposed to the principle involved in this resolution, unless I hear some stronger reasons to the contrary from some hon. gentlemen who may yet speak. I refer to the motions that were made annually by Mr. Armstrong, one of the members from Ontario, motions which practically covered the same ground as this resolution purports to cover. In so far as the bill proposes taking powers to suspend the coasting laws, I do not object to it. Perhaps that is a fair power for the Governor in Council to have for many reasons, and in view of rhe report of the commission, I do not complain that that power is proposed to be taken by the minister. If there was a combine, and if there was exacted excessively high, unconscionable rates, it is our duty, by amending the general law, the Combines Act, to meet that case. That surely is a fair proposition; and if it is possible to meet that particular situation, then I say it should be met by an amendment to the general law. I object to paternal legislation and to all efforts to meet by means of specific enactments every little grievance.
I should not like my hon. friend to go the length of adopting the laissez faire policy of the Manchester School of economists. I remember that when I first learned that Bright and Cobden had opposed some labour legislation which seemed obviously defensible I was astounded. I do admit that, as we progress, special legislation must be introduced to meet special conditions of the day; but I do not think that this is a case in which we should adopt the legislation proposed in the resolution. The resolution proposes to control prices. Now freight is a commodity like anything else, and I do not know of any case where prices have been successfully controlled. It is possible that during the war many countries successfully exercised some control over prices in different directions.


Mr. KNOX:: Does the hon. gentleman not think that there is some comparison between this question and the Railway Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No; I shall come to that later. I was observing that during the war, when imports and exports were controlled, a control of prices was possible and perhaps successful, although since then economists who have studied the question have declared that price control was unsuccessful and disastrous. I was reading only yesterday a book by an eminent European economist who, discussing this very matter, contends that during the war high prices were due not to the exactions of middlemen, or of trusts, or of any combinations of that character, but to great inflation of credit, which produced competition for the world's output. I think the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) and one of the hon. members for Calgary would agree with that view; the rise of prices was due to that cause rather than to any great profits exacted by producers and sellers. I admit, of course, that in many cases there was profiteering of a very objectionable nature.


John Millar: If the hon. member has read the report carefully he will find that the commissioners state that the rates on all commodities on the lakes except grain are controlled in one way or another. By a contractual arrangement the rates on ore, which is one of the largest cargoes carried, and on coal as well, are controlled. The commissioners declare that everything is controlled except grain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not contending that there was not a combination and that, perhaps, some remedial legislation is not necessary. I am simply arguing that the proposal contained in the resolution does not provide the proper procedure. Some hon. gentlemen asked me a few moments ago whether, if it was fair to' control railway rates, it was not equally fair to control shipping rates. I say there is no analogy whatever between the two cases. The railways constitute a monopoly in this country, as in all countries. The construction of railways must of necessity be limited, so that in all respects railways are a monopoly that should be controlled. No person or corporation is permitted to build railways in this country in competition with existing lines without statutory authority because it is not deemed prudent to allow people to build such railways everywhere they please; it is not considered in the national interests. On the contrary, it is considered wise from the national point of view to select the corporations who shall be allowed to build and operate railways. So that with deliberation the state constitutes a monopoly in this regard. In shipping, the analogous case would consist in confining steamship operations

Lake Grain Rates
on the Great Lakes to one or two or three lines and then controlling rates. That would be analogous to the railway situation, and the control of rates in that case might be justifiable. Still no one would support that view. Again I doubt whether this parliament has the jurisdiction to enact the legislation proposed in the resolution. I do not believe there is one single proposal in the resolution that ultimately will be held to be within the legislative powers of this parliament. More than that, I doubt very much the wisdom-


Mr. CARROLL:: Would the hon. gentleman specify his reasons for doubting parliament's jurisdiction?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I say, I doubt very much the wisdom, if there is any doubt about the jurisdiction, of enacting this legislation. We do not want to go through the same experience we had in connection with the Board of Commerce. I am not going to give my reasons for my doubts as to the competency of this parliament to pass this legislation. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be made known to parliament and whatever it is it will be acceptable to me.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) approved of it


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I really do not know that he has.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, he has through his government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For that matter legislation is frequently presented to parliament by governments without any special attention having been given to the question of jurisdiction or constitutionality


William Findlay Maclean: Then he is not competent to be Minister of Justice.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Whenever the question is raised I think it will be the duty of the Department of Justice to give it consideration and advise parliament in the premises. Now, if it is fair to introduce this legislation in respect of shipping on the Great Lakes, someone will come along and say that the same thing should be done on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic. We have free trade m shipping.


Mr. GOOD:: No, we have not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, subject to the alleged combination; it is qualified of course, to that extent. But there is nothing to prohibit anybody going into the lake freight business.


Robert Forke: When you recollect that there are six strong companies doing business on the lakes, is it possible for a single competitor to do business against that combination?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Such competition might ' be difficult. But what would happen if this legislation had the effect of decreasing that number? I do not say that this will happen, but I simply put the question to my hon. friend. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, who stand as exponents of legislation which permits an equal opportunity to all; and if those hon. gentlemen take the same point of view as they take in connection with analogous matters, then I am sure they will be opposed to this legislation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I doubt the power of parliament to legislate. In the second place, if this measure is put on the statute book I say it will be ineffective. It is an attempt to control prices, and this is always ineffectual. It is unsound, and I do not believe that hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support of the resolution believe in the control of prices. It never gets you anywhere; it hurts everybody and accomplishes no good results.


Andrew Knox: Does the hon. member believe in this scale of rates last season running from three to eleven cents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not discussing rates at all. Let me repeat, if the rates charged were so excessive as to become what we might term unconscionable, and we think that something should be done to prevent a recurrence', let us amend the AntiCombines Act or pass general legislation which will be applicable to the whole country.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the minister tell us if the government have consulted the law officers of the Crown with regard to their power under the Criminal Code to prosecute the men who constituted this combine? I understood that during the investigation two or three of these-I hesitate to call them what their conduct merits; I certainly would not call them Canadians-were down at Palm Beach. But it is altogether likely that they have since returned to Canada. Numerous representations have been made to me on the subject and I am convinced that western Canada in its present mood is going to demand the prosecution of these men. Before I leave the Chamber to-night I should like to know if the government have consulted the law officers of the Crown with regard to their
Lake Grain Rates

power to proceed under the Criminal Code. If not, what justification has the minister to give to the House?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I imagine my hon. friend has in mind a prosecution under the Criminal Code. I am not a legal man, but I would advise my hon. friend that if any one in western Canada desires to prosecute the persons referred to, the Criminal Code is open to him as to anyone else. In reply to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) I gather he is in favour of the legislation proposed in the next resolution for the suspension of the coasting laws, but that he objects to the government gathering the very information necessary before we can intelligently decide whether or not we should suspend those laws.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not object to the proposal to suspend the coasting laws, because there seems to be a general demand for such suspension and many people think it might prevent a repetition of what occurred last year. I do not believe in it as a matter of principle, but I conceive it may be necessary at the present time.


James Alexander Robb: But the government before deciding whether suspension is necessary or not must have certain information. This bill will empower the Board of Grain Commissioners to gather such information from time to time. This should satisfy my hon. friend that part of the legislation at least is necessary. My hon. friend doubts the legality of this proposed legislation. I am bound to admit that it may be challenged before the courts and declared illegal. The Grain Act was taken into the courts, but the gentlemen who did so are sorry to-day because they have cast some doubt upon that legislation. It is always possible to destroy the usefulness of measures which are enacted for the good of the people generally, for there are always clever lawyers ready to plead their clients' case. I am not prepared to say whether some one might not successfully contest the validity of this bill after its enactment, but it has been prepared by the law officers of the Crown, and the government believe in its legality.


Robert Forke: Would the minister state upon what advice the Governor in Council would be prepared to act in suspending the coasting laws?


James Alexander Robb: That would be determined
later after the necessary information was secured. Last year the government received telephone messages urging the suspension of

the coasting laws. We replied that we must have something in writing, and eventually we received telegrams. But other gentlemen telegraphed the government that it was not necessary to suspend the coasting laws. This shows the necessity of some machinery for gathering the information we require before we can act intelligently, and what better machinery can we have for this purpose than the Board of Grain Commissioners who understand the necessities of the grain trade?


Robert Forke: That is all right.


Thomas Sales: I have followed with interest the ingenious arguments of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean)-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were not ingenious at all.


Thomas Sales: -in his attempt to convince us that we should vote against this bill. As usual, he tendered us his sympathy. We have had a good deal of sympathy already and will have a lot of it to take back to oui people in the West. Of course, it is a very cheap commodity. But I can assure him that he will not find any objection to this bill from this quarter of the House unless I am very much mistaken. His whole argument i* against the fixing of the lake rates. I would reply, Mr. Chairman, that it all depends on who does the fixing. These rates have been fixed a long, long time for us-but not by us. Yesterday the fixing of the bank interest rate was objected to. It has been fixed a good long time. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, why the lake rates should not be controlled. Here we have a magnificent waterway, we have spent millions of dollars on it and we are still spending many more millions. And the people who settled in the West have always hoped that this waterway would be used to convey their grain at very cheap rates. We have been told time and again-by our friends on the right especially, who are so strong in advocating the St. Lawrence route -that the opening of this route will mean a saving of at least five cents a bushel to the farmer on his grain. I have never believed it because experience has shown that the more money we spend on these waterways the higher the rates go. I wonder how the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) would explain this situation-that Canadian boats carry grain from American ports at rates 50 per cent cheaper than from Canadian ports. We find many instances of this discrimination in the evidence taken before the special commission. Here are a few of them. [DOT] Fort William to Port Colborne, 3| cents; Duluth to Port Colborne, 2.1 cents. These

Lake Grain Rates
rates were in effect the same day for practically the same distance-perhaps a little farther from Duluth. Fort William to Port McNicoll, 3 cents; Chicago to Depot Harbour, 2 cents. And so on all the way down the line. The finding of the commission is that the rates are practically 50 per cem higher from Canadian ports than
11 p.m. from American. How would my hon. friend justify that? Doe3 he wonder that we think some sort of control is necessary? My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) argued that the producer pays the bill. He certainly does. When the exporter finds it is costing him so much to ship his grain, he makes his bid on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in accordance with that cost, and the price for the day is communicated to the elevators in the country, thus affecting the farmers' price.
With regard to the situation last fall 1 know that representations were made to the minister to put into effect the suspension of the coasting laws. They were asking a price for May even during the winter which affected every bushel of wheat marketed in the West during all the winter months. But no action was taken by the government until late last fall when boats were used for winter storage. As to the legality, I would point out that such action was taken years ago by the then existing Conservative government by order in council, and its action was never challenged at all.
I was very greatly disappointed with the answer given by the minister that no action would be taken against thes"e men who had been found guilty of fleecing the western producer of millions of dollars. I was very greatly disappointed with his reply that it is open to anybody in the West to prosecute these men. To my mind that is not a satisfactory situation at all, and if this government has the interests of the producer at heart they should if at all possible take action against these men. There is sufficient evidence I think to prove that a combine in restraint of trade existed not only in regard to rates but also in regard to insurance.


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend's argument, but may I remind him that the administration of the criminal law is left entirely to the provinces.


Thomas Sales: Then will the minister explain to the committee how he expects to get action under the new anti-Combines Act?


William Duff: The provinces will have to
prosecute.


Thomas Sales: I did not understand it that way. I thought when we passed this legislation it had teeth in it and that this government would be able to take action.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sold again.


Thomas Sales: Sold again as my hon. friend
says, I believe is correct.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Ju(st in
order to make that point clear, under the British North America Act the administration of the criminal law and its enforcement rests with the Attorney General of any province where the offence is committed, and if there was a combine in regard to rates formed in Winnipeg last year constituting an offence under the Criminal Code, the Attorney General of Manitoba would be the person who should prosecute. The anti-Combines Act passed this session provides for investigation and lays down how all proceedings may be taken under it, and so far as any of its provisions relate to this governmerlt they will be carried out.


Robert Forke: This combination was formed in Toronto, Chicago and Winnipeg.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That just
illustrates the difficulty, which I am sure my hon friend will appreciate, of this government undertaking to legislate in regard to matters that affect not only Canada but the United States.


Robert Forke: But the offence was committed in Canada.


Thomas Sales: May I ask for information
how you would deal with a combine that was shipping grain from Fort William to Montreal, operating in two provinces, Ontario and Quebec?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Wherever the combine is formed, if it is a criminal offence the law would be enforced by the Attorney General of the province.


Thomas Sales: Supposing as they did in this case, that they move from Toronto to New York, and that we found in conference not only representatives of the shipping companies but representatives of the government owned lines. It was brought out in evidence that the representatives of the government line attended those meetings with Mr. Wolvin, Mr. Enderby of the Canada Steamship Lines, and Mr. Matthews of the Matthews Line. Will that combine be considered to have been formed in New York and therefore be regarded as outside the jurisdiction of this country?
Lake Grain Rates


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is confusing the question of the administration of the Criminal Code with the carrying into effect of the provisions of the antiCombines Act. The anti-Combines Act that passed this House would not have any effect as regards a combine formed last summer unless it is in existence now. No act is retroactive unless it is specially declared to be so. My hon. friend is familiar with the provisions of the anti-Combines Act, and so far as its provisions relate to this government they will be carried out, but the administration of the Criminal Code rests with the province where the offence is committed.


Thomas Sales: I was simply taking my hon. friend's statement that the party who should prosecute would be the Attorney General of the province where the offence was committed, and I went on to say that this combine was formed in New York, and wanted to know whether the Criminal Code could be applied in that case, or would it be considered as being outside the jurisdiction of this country?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend had better ask the hon. member for Calgary West, who I understand supplies the law for that side of the House on legal questions.


Thomas Sales: Why should I be given an answer like that when the Minister of Justice is sitting in his seat? If the disposition of the government is to pass us by with answers such as was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the one that is now given by the Acting Minister of National Defence, what is the use of our trying to get information? If the Minister of Justice would care to give the information I should be very pleased to receive it.


Lomer Gouin: If the hon. member will be good enough to put his question I will try and answer it. What is the question please?


Thomas Sales: The question is this: Three of these shipping men who practically control the whole shipping on the Great Lakes so far as Canada is concerned meet in New York with representatives of our government-owned lines and make a combine to fix rates. Now would action against that combine be considered to be outside the jurisdiction of this country?


Lomer Gouin: I would prefer to have a little time to consider the question, but answering offhand I would be inclined

to say that this would not constitute a combine on which prosecution could be instituted in this country.


Thomas Sales: I do not intend to take up any more time at this stage. Anything I have to say on the insurance and brokerage clauses I will say when they come up.


William F. Carroll: This question of shipping on the Great Lakes is rather an old one. For twenty years or more the shipping interests of the United States have been endeavouring to gain a foothold in what we might call local Canadian shipping. I have been told that some ten or twelve years ago the government, which at that time owned the elevators at Montreal, offered to certain men who were prepared to put up a certain amount of capital for shipping on the Great Lakes the use of the elevators at Montreal without cost providing that they would ship through these elevators five million bushels of wheat. While we may talk about combines, the fact is that certain men in this country made a proposition that they would put their money into a shipping enterprise which would carry wheat and other commodities from the head of the lakes to Montreal. In those days it was a marvellous thing to think that at any time in the future 5,000,000 bushels of wheat might be shipped to the grain elevators of Montreal. So huge an enterprise did it appear that the gentlemen who had the proposition in hand refused to give any undertaking in the matter. But what do we find to-day? Instead of 5,000,000 bushels of wheat, over 150,000,000 bushels last year went through the elevators of Montreal I believe, that a development of such a character is in the interest of Canadian shipping and of Canadian business. My hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), I think it was, said that we had little sympathy with certain propositions which he had to make. Well, personally, as a general rule I am more or less in sympathy with propositions intended to benefit Canadian industry and the Canadian people; but I do not believe we should consider a proposition which will place Canadian shipping on the Great Lakes in the Lands of American companies, as will be the case if this bill becomes law. May I say that I have been reading American papers for some days past, ever since the announcement of this proposed legislation was made, and it i3 a marvellous thing to consider that within twenty-four hours from the time it became known an American company was formed at Duluth for the purpose of interfering-shall I say?-with Canadian and American trade-

Lake G\ 11 Rates


Mr. McMURRAY:: Competing would be better.


Mr CARROLL:: No I say interfering; it is not a case of competing. I will answer my hon. friend by saying this: If our government had made certain propositions whereby our Canadian coasting vessels on the Great Lakes would be given the same rights in the United States as this bill proposes to give American shipping in Canada, I would say it was a fair proposition.


Ernest Lapointe: We have got that provision in our law.


William F. Carroll: I should like to see it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is to be found in section 958 of the Shipping Act which provides that:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, declare that the foregoing provisions of this part shall not apply to the ships or vessels of any foreign country in which British ships are admitted to the coasting trade of such country, and to carry goods and passengers from one port or place to another in such country.
So we already have this provision in our law.


William F. Carroll: Has the minister had any undertaking on behalf of the American government that the thing will be made effective? Certainly not, but we are giving away certain rights that we have on the Great Lakes which I think we should hold dear and sacred. While I do not wish to oppose a government measure I consider the time has come when we as Canadians should uphold our rights and privileges, and treat as they deserve any company or any combine who may propose to take away from us those trading rights which American companies will enjoy if this bill goes into effect.
My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) made some observations as to the constitutionality of this question. Well, I think he is right. However, I am not going into that question at all. I say we have developed a trade on the Great Lakes which we are foolish to abandon to competitors in the United States.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Whom does my hon.
friend mean by "we?"


William F. Carroll: I mean we Canadians.
Perhaps my hon. friend does not belong to that class; I am afraid he does not. I mean that we Canadians have developed a trade on the Great Lakes which we should preserve [DOT]to the utmost of our ability. My hon. friend asks "Who are we?" Propositions were made years ago, as I have already said, to various 270
shipping interests to gt into this business and attempt to draw the \ rain trade from Fort William and the various lake ports to Montreal. They have done that successfully but I do say this: If they have combined to charge unjustifiable freight rates on the upper lakes they should be brought to task; but it is unfair, and the argument cannot be justified, to maintain that we should throw open our ports to American interests, and permit them to divert our grain trade from Montreal or Quebec to United States ports. I am that kind of an American-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William F. Carroll: Or I should say rather
that kind of Canadian.


John Millar: Is my hon. friend aware
that the amount of grain going through American ports has increased steadily during the last three or four years, and that at the present time the Canadian boats are giving the preference to Buffalo-that is carrying grain much cheaper to Buffalo than to Canadian ports?


William F. Carroll: I am not aware of that.


John Millar: It is a fact all the same.


William F. Carroll: I am aware of this fact- that twelve years ago we were shipping
5.000.	000 bushels a week to the ports of Montreal and Quebec and to-day we are shipping
150.000.	000 bushels to those same ports.


John Millar: I rather think you must
be wrong in your dates.


William F. Carroll: Then let my hon. friend
correct me.


John Millar: The port of Montreal was under the Harbour Commission more than twelve years ago.


William F. Carroll: Perhaps I should say
thirteen years ago. I obtained authoritative figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce and Marine and Fisheries.
There is another aspect of this question I would like to discuss very briefly. A commission investigated the freight rates on the Great Lakes, and I have no hesitation in saying that the three gentlemen that composed it were three very excellent men. But I would suggest to you, Sir, that if, when this government appointed a commission to investigate the operations of the Pension Act, they had selected as commissioners a farmer, a blacksmith or a lawyer there would have been a great outcry against the proceeding.

Lake Grain Rates

And why? Because those men would not know anything about the question of pensions.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about a lawyer?


William F. Carroll: A lawyer would not know very much about the pension question unless he was directly connected with the Pension Board or acted in some similar capacity. What do we find here? We appoint a commission. I ask hon. members: Who were on that commission who knew anything about rates on the Great Lakes or elsewhere? They make a report. Are we bound to accept a report which comes from people who know as little about freight rates on the Great Lakes or elsewhere in Canada as I do? I know nothing about it. This is a proposition which should be carefully considered.


John Millar: May I point out that Mr. Symington of Winnipeg who is perhaps one of the greatest rate experts in Canada was solicitor for this commission.


William F. Carroll: He may have been a fine solicitor. I understand he was not a member of this board. He may have been a solicitor for the board-I do not know. Can the hon. member tell me who was connected with that board who knows anything about shipping rates or transportation?


John Millar: I have pleasure in answering the question. I am not personally ec-quainted with Mr. McLean who was chairman of the commission but I have read in the papers that he was a very great expert on this matter.


William F. Carroll: Who told the hon. member that Mr. McLean was an expert on any question of freight rates? He never had any experience in the world. Mr. Thomson, who was a member of this House at one time, a very estimable gentleman, was on the board.


Robert Forke: Does the hon. member see the position he is putting the government in just now?


William F. Carroll: I am not particular about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) be worried about it? He is altogether too anxious about the government.


Robert Forke: It really seems a very strange position that we from this side of the House should be defending the actions of the government, while a member from the other side of the House is condemning the government; but I am not worried.


William F. Carroll: I am not worrying, my conscience is clear.


Robert Forke: A member on the Conservative side is worrying.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am pointing out the incongruity of it.


Robert Forke: I think the hon. member is lacking in a sense of humour.


William F. Carroll: I appreciate what the leader of the Progressives has said; but I am as independent as he is, when it comes to a question whether I should take a certain stand. I cannot agree with my hon. friend for South York (Mr. Maclean) because his anxiety is shown in this particular connection.


Leland Payson Bancroft: The member for South York was anxious yesterday.


William F. Carroll: But my hon. friend the
leader of the Progressives must not forget that we on this side of the House are not bound down. We are not slaves to any policy the government may bring down. On this side of the House we sometimes use our common sense and judgment; and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that our judgment is generally correct. If the leader of the Progressives were following this government, he would sit down in a servile manner and support any proposition they might introduce. I think that is his position to-night. But if there is a proposition brought forth which I consider to be unfavourable to Canadian interests, un-Canadian in the extreme, I will oppose it. I did not read very extensively the report of this commission, but I would just as soon take the report of three seamen on grain or freight rates as I would accept the proposition which has been placed before us by this commission. I take the stand-and my friends on the government benches do not like my proposition very much-


Charles A. Stewart: Go right ahead.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I do not think they are paying much attention to it.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has taken the course which perhaps lets him out rather easily-a constitutional course. I would rather suggest to my hon. friend from Halifax that he should take the common sense of this thing, and let the constitutional aspect be governed more or less by the Minister of Justice, who is always ready and willing to give an opinion, and I think any decision coming from his department is right.

I would ask the government to take into consideration, quietly, calmly and deliberately, the proposition as to whether or not we are going to destroy a Canadian industry which has taken some 15 years to build up, in favour of American industries, and American companies, which to-day are being organized in the various states along the Great Lakes, to the detriment of our Canadian trade. I would think, although not having given very serious thought to the question, that there must be some way of dealing with exorbitant rates on the Great Lakes without throwing into the hands of a foreign government the shipping interests on those lakes. We might have another commission, for example, composed of a fisherman, a blacksmith and a banker, who know nothing about shipping interests on the Great Lakes, who would advise the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to how he could control those rates. I do not think any person can see that I am very antagonistic towards the government, but I for one, as a Canadian, do not like the proposition to throw open an industry which has taken twenty years to establish, which has in a few years increased our grain exports from Montreal from 5,000,000 bushels to
150,000,000 bushels. I do not think we should rush in and give those interests which were opposing us the right to interfere with our lake freight rates, unless we get the same treatment from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: I did not wish to interrupt my hon. friend in his speech, because I noticed that he has given careful consideration to this subject; but apparently he was under a misapprehension and thought that it was another resolution that was under consideration. The resolution now before the House has nothing whatever to do, more than the gathering of information, with the suspension of the coasting laws. The objections of my hon. friend would come quite correctly in the consideration of the next bill to be placed before the House. All we are doing now is to provide publicity; so that the shipper will be compelled to publish his rates, and	to publish the space	available;
If the Board of Grain Commissioners so determine, they may fix a maximum rate. I will not follow this any further than to make this statement. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) referred to the enor-mouse increase in the export of grain through the port of Montreal, and he objected very strenuously to Canada permitting American ships to come into our waters. May I say right now that most of the grain ^ going through the port of Montreal comes in now on American ships?
Lake Grain Rates


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: American grain.


James Alexander Robb: This does no injury to Canadian trade. It gives labour to Canadian citizens; it makes revenue for Canadian merchants and shippers, and incidentally the taxes come back in a degree to the government.


William F. Carroll: Is that coast-wise trade?


James Alexander Robb: No.


William F. Carroll: Certainly not.


James Alexander Robb: A few days ago when we had under consideration something regarding shipping, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) questioned my statement and asserted that no grain went through the Quebec elevator last year.


John Millar: No. The statement I made was that last year no boats carrying export grain were diverted from Montreal to Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: As I think Hansard will show, and as my recollection goes, my hon. friend stated that no grain or very little was put through that elevator. I will, however, accept my hon. friend's correction. Last year there was put through the port of Montreal 147,564,328 bushels, and of that quantity, 83,944,389 bushels consisted of United States grain, as against 63,000,000 bushels Canadian grain, or about 20,000,000 bushels less Canadian grain than American grain were put through the port of Montreal. Through the port of Quebec we put a total of 5,968,765 bushels last year. My hon. friend who represents that city in this House, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) tells me that already in the first month of navigation, the elevator at Quebec has put through something over a million bushels. We have had a very reasonable discussion upon this resolution. We have in some regards got away from it-[DOT]


Milton Neil Campbell: Did the grain that went through the port of Quebec come in by boat or rail?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the information for last year, but I gather that part of it must have gone in by boat. This year it is going in by boat. Last year there were 13,000,000 bushels of United States corn, and corn is always largely shipped to this country by water. This is a better route for corn than the southern route. The corn cools off with the transshipment, and it carries better.
I was proceeding to say that we have had a reasonable discussion upon the resolution, and the bill will come along to-morrow. It is getting late, and while I do not want to stop any further discussion, I would ask that
Lake Grain Rates

if lion, members discuss this resolution, they keep to the question of the resolution, and we *will take up the coasting laws later on.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I should like to say just a word in connection with this resolution. A couple of hon. members asked a question why grain was carried from Canadian ports into American ports more cheaply than it was between two Canadian ports. While I am frank to admit that I know nothing about shipping regulations on the Great Lakes, I know a little about them in Vancouver. I may say that I was interested in some trading steamers on the Pacific coast, and we always gave a better rate into an American port than we did from one Canadian port to another. I will tell you the reason why. We could go into Seattle, for instance, at 6 o'clock in the evening, and we could get discharged and leave at 6 o'clock the next morning We could never get that in a Canadian port. If we went into Victoria at 6 o'clock in the evening, we would have to wait until 8 o'clock the next morning before we started to unload. Time counts, more particularly when you are paying your crews and other expenses. We gave a better rate and we made money by doing so.
A good deal has been said on this side of the House in connection with freight rates I understand that six of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are on the Great Lakes, and I am going to put up a suggestion to the government, namely that this government give the grain commissioners a charter of those six steamers for a dollar each per annum; that they operate them, and that the profit they make on those steamers for the season control the rate that is charged on the Great Lakes, they to put their own crews and their own captains on the ships, and be responsible for the ships. All the government should ask them to do is to pay a dollar each and to cover them with insurance.


William Duff: The rates will foe twice as high as they are now.


Thomas George McBride: I think the people on the lakes would be perfectly satisfied with the rates that this would establish.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to make a reference or two to some statements that have been made this evening. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll' seems to question the ability of the commissioners to examine into this question. While, perhaps, it is the prerogative of the government to defend those men, I submit that it is impossible to get men of the same profession or of the same class to examine into a business of this kind. According to the hoi.

Aj
member for South Cape Breton, it would be necessary to have grain shippers themselve.' examine into this matter. Could we get a fair decision from men engaged in grain shipping? According to his argument, if you had a liquor case to investigate, the prosecution would have to have a bootlegger to conduct the investigation. That is the sum and substance of his argument.
As regards the remarks made by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) I think he has not read very carefully the report of the commission, because it conclusively proves that unloading conditions and conditions with regard to return cargoes and everything else were just as favourable at Canadian ports as they were at American ports. The commissioners point that out most conclusively, and state that there was no particular reason whatever for the discrimination. I should like to make just one reference in this respect. They refer particularly to the Standard Shipping Company, which charters or controls, and still does to-day, 54 per cent of the Canadian space on the Great Lakes, and which controls 27 per cent on the American lakes. They make this reference:
It seems clear that competition on the Canadian side is not nearly so keen as on the American side. In fact, among Winnipeg brokers-
That is those who are handling or who have control of all the space on the lakes.
-it is almost non-existent.


Thomas Sales: 
James Alexander Robb: That will depend on when the argument is through. If my hon. friend is going to talk all night-


Thomas Sales: It is through so far as I am concerned, if the minister will give me the information.


James Alexander Robb: I can give my hon. friend no information until the resolution is passed

Canada Shipping Act
Then I shall be prepared to give him the information immediately.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister stated that the bill will compel shippers to show the rates, amount of space available, and so on. According to the evidence adduced before the commission, and as I think myself, that would tend to give these men an opportunity of submitting to the government statements similar to those which they have placed be-. fore the commission,-statements advancing their own point of view but entirely out of keeping with the facts as they were proved to exist. These men have deceived us twice: they deceived us when they erected this combine on the lakes, and they deceived, or at least attempted to deceive, the commission which the government appointed to investigate their activities. This notwithstanding, however, the government proposes now to accept their word again in regard to the advertising of rates, and so forth. I am not in the mood now to tolerate that. They burnt us twice, and I think we should be careful now. There is particular mention in the introduction of the reasons that impelled the government to institute a commission to investigate the whole matter, as it applies to western Canada. I am pleased to note that special reference is made to that part of the country, because we feel that we have been oppressed time and time again. We do not want to rehearse the various ways in which we have been harassed, and our products practically stolen from us, but we undoubtedly want the government to do something by way of legislation to prevent these people from taking an unfair advantage of us again. An exhibition should be made of some of these men instead of their word being taken again after they have deceived the community as they have done. Does the minister not think that we have a right to demand other tribunals to show to the government what the facts and the conditions warrant in the way of rates?


Thomas George McBride: Would the hon. member be in favour of the Grain Commission taking over the six steamers the government has on the lakes?


James Alexander Robb: I am reminded that a few moments ago the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) thought that he was rising to the defence of the government. If this legislation is not satisfactory to my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) then he might offer some suggestions as to how it can be improved. When we get into committee he can submit those suggestions; but if hon. gentlemen are disposed to delay the legislation, if they do not want to let it go through, I do not see why we should press it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 235 with respect to Freight Rates for the Carriage of Grain by Lake and River Navigation.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read the second time?


James Alexander Robb: I hope to proceed with the bill either to-morrow or Monday.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal section 958 of the Canada Shipping Act, as enacted by chapter sixty-four of the statutes of 1908, and to enact in lieu thereof that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part shall not, for the period specified in such order in council, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
William Duff: Is it the purpose of the government to suspend the laws in regard to American ships if the American government does not suspend its laws so far as Canadian ships are concerned?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the law as it is we have the power to suspend the coastal laws as they affect a foreign country if that country is willing to reciprocate. We are seeking to change the law to give the Governor in Council power in any emergency, if the necessity arises, to suspend the coastal laws for a time in any particular district or in regard to certain vessels. Of course, this power will be exercised with discretion and will be invoked 8nly when it is absolutely necessary. I think we may safely trust the government not to injure Canadian shipping. What we propose to do is intended not for the benefit of American shipping but in the interests of the Dominion, and will be resorted to only to serve that end.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under what power were the coastal laws suspended last fall, and also by a previous government a few years ago?

Senate and House of Commons


Ernest Lapointe: I really am not in a position to answer that question. Under the law as it stands there is certainly nothing to entitle the government to suspend the coastal laws. I understand that in 1913 they were suspended, but only by virtue of an agreement with the companies themselves who submitted without questioning the legality or otherwise of the action. Last year I believe they were suspended only for one or two trips of the season. The government undoubtedly took a chance, because under the law as it stands they have no power in the matter.


Robert Forke: I would point out to the
minister that when the coasting laws were suspended the suspension was a dead letter. The chances were that if any ships went into the Bay ports at that time they would never get out again.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 236 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the said
bill be read a second time?


Ernest Lapointe: If there is no objection
I shall be willing to proceed now.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent-


Thomas Sales: Next sitting.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Next sitting.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the
House.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT

Lomer Gouin: I understand that the bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act has been distributed. If the House is willing, we might consider this bill now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: When this bill was called this afternoon its consideration was fixed for the next sitting, and unless the House agrees to revert to that order the bill cannot be considered to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Sir LOMER GOUIN moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 232 to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.

Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 1-Sessional allowance.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
say that after discussing this clause with a certain number of hon. members of the opposition and ministers of the Crown it has been decided to amend it to meet the objection -which was made the other day upon the motion for concurrence in the report of the committee, by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) . He pointed out that if a session of fifty days or more did not exceed sixty-five days, some hon. members might receive a full sessional indemnity, whereas other hon. members who were unavoidably absent for only a few days would only be paid at the rate of S25 per day. There is a genera! desire to meet any legitimate objection and I therefore move to substitute for the word "fifty' in the second line of section 32, the word "sixty-five."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, all
last session and this session we have heard economy preached in this House not only by one particular group but by all groups. Unfortunately no economy can be practised without hurting somebody; it must stop works which would give employment to people, or less wages must be paid. Yet it would seem that at the rate at which expenditures are increasing and the earning power of a great portion of the people decreasing, something will have to be done in the way of rigid and painful economy. I believe that economy, like charity, should begin at home. Possibly it would hurt the other (fellow less, he who has been practising economy until it does hurt, if we here practised a little economy of our own. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on May 23, 1922, said:
I must to-day present two thoughts which ares of paramount importance. The first is as to the need, the deep and earnest need, of economy. That means that we must appeal both to members of parliament and to the people to pass what I may call self-denying ordinances.
I believe that when the indemnity was increased in 1920 the chief argument in its favour was that the price of everything had gone up. If that argument was good then, it is surely true that the opposite argument is good now, because the cost of living is surely, if slowly, becoming less. Farm products have almost lost their value. I have heard members in this House admit that last

Senate and House of Commons
year they took part of their indemnity to make up the deficiency on their farms. That makes me wonder how the man is getting along who has a farm but no indemnity.
I intend to move an amendment to this clause which will ask members to place upon themselves a self-denying ordinance. If we do this we shall then have much more weight in explaining to our constituents that it is bad policy to ask for what might be called "grab" improvements for any particular constituency. There is no need to dwell upon the severe economic depression through which we are passing. Some believe that we are through the worst of it, and I hope they are right, but at least it can be said that Ontario agriculturists to-day are suffering more acutely than for many years past. I am led to move this amendment because I know a great maDy people have been forced this year to do without telephones and daily pape;, not because they are luxuries, but because they must do without something in order to make their income and their expenses meet.
The real reason however, that I am anxious to amend this clause is that those who are suffering because of the rigid economy which they must practise would be helped in spirit by us here passing upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance. Of late years the impression has gone abroad that members of parliament are more concerned about themselves-which would include their pay-than about anyone else. This is not a desirable condition, and possibly if at great suffering to ourselves we decreased our pay, ultimately this suspicion would be removed and our selfdenial 'would really do a great deal towards putting heart into the people who to-day are suffering.
Now possibly it will be said, or at least it will be thought by a great many members that it is expensive to be a member of parliament, that we are supposed to give to all charitable and all sporting and all literary needs in our constituencies. My own opinion is that generous giving to many things in a constituency is a subtle way of buying popularity. I do not mean by that that we should be robbed of the privilege as individuals of giving where we think we should, but this wholesale sort of giving that one associates with politics and politicians is, I am convinced, bad for the giver and bad for the receiver of the gift. That is one thing on which I took a rigid stand during my campaign. I carefully explained that I would not give to people who came begging for gifts, and I have lived up to that, with I believe no disastrous results either to myself or those
asking for the gifts. It is true that a member of parliament between sessions because of an awakened and interested electorate works much more strenuously now than in days gone by. I think that sort of thing should be increased and encouraged. I for one intend to cover thoroughly as I did last recess my riding, but I do not think the cut which I shall ask at the conclusion of this speech will prevent any member so inclined from meeting his electorate.
I believe that another one of the chief pleas that was put up by the members of the government of 1920 when this' increase was made was that it would do away with the party fund, that if the members were given $4,000 a year they would not be slaves to the party nor to the party fund. The best proof that that is not true is the voting as we have witnessed it in this House. Then is it asking too much-


Thomas Vien: Would my hon. friend allov
me a question? Does she mean that we are voting to-day in this House because we are dictated to by those who subscribed the electoral funds? Is that what my hon. friend means?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The hon. member who asked the question knows the answer better than I do.


Thomas Vien: Then, Mr. Chairman, I protest, and I rise to a point of order. I am extremely sorry to call my lady colleague to order but I cannot bear either her or anybody else to say tha; my vote in this House is being dictated by those who contribute my electoral funds. I for one received no electoral funds from anybody under the sun either in my election of 1917 or my election of 1921, and I would like to know how much my hon. friend received hersrif from the associations who support the party that sends her here. My hon. friend in committee and in the House-


Robert Gardiner: Order.


Thomas Vien: I am speaking on the point
of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is the point of order that is being discussed.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend in committee
as well as in the House is prompt to say that our votes are dictated by the powers that be or by big interests. I for one at least protest against that habit, and I for one at least may say that my votes are dictated only by my conscience. I trust that the votes of my hon. friend are the same.

Senate, and Home of Commons
I think, Mr. Chairman, that I have the right to ask my hon. friend to withdraw that aspersion.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any other hon.
gentleman desire to speak on the point of order? Does the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) desire to speak on the point of order?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If I have anything to say on the point of order I would say that the hon. gentleman doth protest too much. I did not accuse anybody. I simply said this. I will quote from the member who is now the Speaker of the House.


Jacques Bureau: Withdraw.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: When I have explained my position it will be time to withdraw.


Jacques Bureau: Explain or withdraw.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I would ask
the hon. member for Southeast Grey to proceed. I understand that she was going to repeat what was said. I did not get it very clearly and I am anxious to get that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I simply said that
one of the pleas in 1920 for increasing the indemnity was that it would do away with the party fund, and the fact that it did not do away with the party fund is best proven by the voting in the House.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is1 a reflection on the whole House. That is what you should take back.


George Newcombe Gordon: Unless the hon. member is going to speak to the point of order I will give my ruling.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am speaking to the point of order. The present Speaker of the House of Commons in 1920 said:
The independence of parliament will be secured by the adoption of this measure. Let us extirpate the corruptions which the party fund at the general election engenders, creates and perpetuates.


Thomas Vien: I rise again to the point of order. I think that the hon. member is not arguing the point of order. I will listen with great pleasure to my hon. friend arguing the point of order, but I think I am entitled to a ruling if my hon. friend continues her main argument.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: This is on the party fund entirely.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is whether the language of the hon. member reflected on the honour and integrity of the members of the House of Commons. If she desires to speak on that particular point as to whether

her words should be so interpreted, I shall be very pleased to hear her before giving my ruling.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I thought that if I quoted what a good man who had been in the party I believe for as long as twenty-five years had said about party funds, that would be on the point of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is whether the words used by the hon. member should be interpreted as reflecting on the honour and integrity of the members of the House of Commons.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would suggest that the hon. member for Lotbiniere has perhaps put too literal an interpretation on the words used by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think that she had no desire to pass any reflection on the members of the House at all.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Let her say so then.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If the hon. member will give her an opportunity perhaps we may have the privilege of hearing what she has to say, but I did not understand her to say she had any desire to pass any reflection on any member of the House of Commons.


Mr. MORIN:: She did the very same thing in the Banking committee.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What would the hon. member from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) take from the words which are under challenge?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Perhaps the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam) can tell us how he would interpret her language.


Harold Putnam: I would take it that its significance was a general accusation of bribery, that the members of the House of Commons are following the behests of those who supply the party funds. I am sony to say that the words were not ambiguous.


Robert Forke: Speaking on the point of order, I think probably the member for Southeast Grey made a mistake, but had she been more accustomed to the rules of the House of Commons and had the experience of a great many members she would have been able to convey exactly the same thing and keep within the rules. I do not think the House is very much hurt by what has been said. I would advise the hon. member to withdraw, but I do not think there is very much to be gained by this terrible excitement over the simple remark she made.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member for Southeast Grey would only say what the leader

Senate and House of Commons
of the Progressive party has just said I would be satisfied, but we do not hear those words from her lips.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have no desire to reflect on the honour of any member of this House.


Thomas Vien: Then I shall have to ask my hon. friend what she meant by her language.


Mr. BIRD:: I should like to know specifically what rule has been infringed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think the charge made is a very general one and if there is such a rule of the House I think that rule has been violated many times during last session and the present one.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you speaking to?


Thomas William Bird: I am speaking to the point of order if there is one.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is a point of order.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Chairman, will you kindly state the point of order so that we may know what to do.


George Newcombe Gordon: A point of order was raised that the hon. member for Southeast Grey had made a statement which reflects upon the independence of the members of the House of Commons and upon their integrity. That particular point is under discussion; that is the point of order.


Thomas William Bird: I remember distinctly that last session, I think it was in the debate upon the Address, two distinct charges were made from the benches to my right that the government had been returned to power by cer-tan interests in this country. Those charges were allowed to go unchallenged. I think it is the rule in this House to permit general charges of that character as long as they are not personal. I do not know how this applies. On page 63 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I find this paragraph :
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the House or the Chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the House he may state whatever he may think fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character of individuals;
There is nothing personal in the statement of the hon. member for Southeast Grey but the general charge she made has been interpreted as being something personal. If a charge is personal it is against the rules of the House but that cannot be said of a general statement such as the hon. member made.


Georges Henri Boivin: I desire to say one word upon the point of order. If I understood the hon. member for Southeast Grey correctly, in the course of her remarks she made the statement that one of the reasons why the sessional indemnity had been increased in the year 1920 was the fact that it would do away with what is commonly known as an election fund, and she proceeded to base her statement upon a remark made in 1920 by the present Speaker of this House. Up to that point there was certainly no infringement of the. rules of order. But the hon. member for Southeast Grey proceeded immediately afterwards to say that the increase of the indemnity did not have this effect as was proven by the votes given in the House at the present time. That is the statement complained of. If that statement means anything, it means that hon. members of this House owing to the fact that they have received campaign funds, or that they expect to receive campaign funds from some source, vote according to the dictates of the sources from which these funds are supplied. There can be no other interpretation to these words. I respectfully submit that under the ordinary rules and usages of parliament, it is forbidden for any hon. member to cast a reflection upon the honour and integrity of any individual member, or upon the honour or integrity of the House as a whole. If a reflection has not been cast upon an individual member, it certainly has been cast upon the integrity of the House as a whole, and for that reason the words should be retracted. If not retracted the hon. member for Southeast Grey should at least explain to the House that such was not the significance that she desired to give to the words that were uttered.


William Charles Good: I should like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken how he applies his present position and argument to the charges that have been frequently made in this House, according to my recollection, that the government or a certain party has been assisted into power, so to speak, by certain large financial interests. We have heard these charges commonly. I should therefore like to know how the particular point of order applies to cases like that?


Georges Henri Boivin: I may be allowed to reply to my hon. friend without departing from the point of order. The answer is very easy to give. In the one case, certain interests are accused of having elected members to this House and the accusation is levelled at some person or persons outside of the House. In

Senate and Home oj Commons
this particular instance, the members of this House are accused of voting in order to please those interests. There is a great difference between the two cases.


Thomas William Bird: I want to raise the point as to whether the remark in question is a reflection upon the honour of any member of this House, because I have heard it seriously contended that it is the duty of members who associate themselves with a' party to vote according to the views of that party-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: and for the reason that they are supported in this House by the party caucus. I am saying that quite seriously. That is seriously contended by those who argue against group government. And so 1 would say there is no direct onslaught upon the honour of any member of this House by the general reflection just made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think it is stretching the point a little too far to say that is an attack upon the honour of any member of this House.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to point out that the hon. member for Southeast Grey qualified her remark. She stated definitely that she had no intention of reflecting on the integrity of any members of the House. That is a sufficient qualification and retraction of what she said before. As it has been customary to accept such a statement as a retraction I think we ought to pursue that course in her case as well as in others.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will withdraw the statement if it is unparliamentary and beg everybody's pardon. The thing I want to say, if I may be allowed to do so, is this: When some of the good party men have declared their views outside on certain questions and we see them come in and vote u the opposite way what are we to think? Let me continue with the quotation of what the present Speaker of the House said in his speech upon the increase in the indemnity He said:
A party gets funds to elect its candidates, the men who contribute to that party fund expect the member elected in return for the aid received, will do the bidding of those who have paid the election expenses. Sir, I am right in saying that with the increased indemnities, the party fund will be a thing of the past, and if for no other reason the people of Canada would approve the action of parliament in this regard.
Recalling the argument that was advanced in 1920 for the increase in the indemnity, an argument in the very opposite direction can be made now in favour of a decrease. I believe that out of sympathy for the people

in general because of the severe economi" depression through which we are passing- we should do all we can to help and if we practise economy we will do much to strengthen the morale of the people and make them feel that we are indeed their servants and their brothers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) that the words " four thousand " as they appear in section 32 be struck out and that the words " three thousand five hundred" be substituted therefor.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted to make a few observations I should like to say that in 1920 I voted for the increased indemnity and I am prepared now to vote against this amendment. Furthermore, if I had a seconder I should be inclined to move an amendment providing that the indemnity should be So,.000 instead of $4,000 and I think the majority of the House would support me.


Ernest Lapointe: Especially those who
have many children.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Well it may come to that. I was under the impression in 1920 that members of parliament should be pai l a reasonable indemnity to permit them to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner and to give all time necessary to the affairs of this country. I think that by giving a fair indemnity, by paying a reasonable amount, men who are qualified in every way will be attracted to the service of their country. If that is not done professional or business men will not be induced to abandon *heir profession or their business, sometimes for eight months in the year, to attend to the affairs of the people in this House.


William F. Carroll: What about the children?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I will leave the answer to my hon. friend. It is well enough for any hon. member who has not very many obligations, who does not keep up a house in his own locality, or maintain a large family, to say that an indemnity of $2,000 a year is quite enough. It may be quite enough, and probably too much for some of those hon. members; but for anyone who has to leave his business for a certain period and keep up his household and family, and come here to Ottawa and remain for a few months under double expense, I think $4,000 is really too little under the circumstances. If the members of this House were well paid, I think it would be the means of attracting the best qualified men of the country to the House to represent the people of their districts.

Senate and House of Commons


Henry Herbert Stevens: I feel that something ought to be said in regard to this amendment. I have been in this House, as many other members have, for a great many years. I have witnessed from time to time resolutions of this kind moved with variant motives for a reduction of the indemnity paid to members. I happen to be in, perhaps, a fortunate position to-night, as far as I am personally concerned because, before the last election and subsequent to the increased indemnity, I was publicly asked, before an audience in Vancouver of perhaps two or three thousand citizens, my reasons for supporting the increased indemnity I answered the question as briefly as I could in such words as this, that if the electors of Vancouver did not consider that my services as a representative of that city were worth $4,000 the proper course would be to vote against me and leave me at home. I returned to this House with a majority of some 5,000 votes, which I consider at least vindicates my personal position in this matter.
I want to say something further, not perhaps so personal. I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman, that if I attended the House not too assiduously, if I were present in my seat half of the time, if I did not give that attention to the matters coming before the House which I considered they certainly merited, and my conscience was still alive, I might hesitate to accept the full indemnity. I am not constituting myself a judge of the action of any member. It may be that some members do not give close attention to their duty. It is not my purpose or duty to judge of them. I am responsible for my own action, but I will say this with all the emphasis of which I am capable: that when I leave my home and family, maintain that home on the Pacific coast and live in Ottawa for approximately six months-and I think it will be fully six months by the .time I get back to my home again-and attend to these duties as assiduously as I can, an indemnity of $4,000 a year is certainly not too much. There are members who have few responsibilities, or perhaps no responsibility, no family connections, no particular expenditure in maintaining a house, and no losses in business. They are happy and fortunate, from a monetary standpoint perhaps, and ahead of the game. If such a member feels that the indemnity under those circumstances is altogether too high, the remedy is very simple. Let him return to the coffers, as has been done by individual members, that portion of the indemnity which he feels he is not entitled to take. But I do wish to say that a member fortunately, or I think perhaps unfortunately, placed in that position, who has no responsibility or no
ties of this kind, should not constitute himself a judge of what is due to those who certainly lose and lose heavily.	[DOT]
It might be advisable to say this-and I think I will be acquitted of any censoriousness in saying it-that a member should attend the sessions of this House closely and assiduously, should be. in his seat regularly, sometimes perhaps for very long hours, should attend the committee work of the House and the variant duties which devolve upon a member of parliament in this country, and during the recess should give careful attention to the public welfare. If he does that, there is not too much in the indemnity for the services rendered:	Furthermore I do not
think the people of Canada begrudge any member of parliament who gives conscientious attention to his duties along these lines the indemnity which members have been drawing. Of course we all know perfectly well that there is a certain amount of glamour surrounding the so-called sacrifice of boldly moving in the House for the voluntary reduction of the indemnity, when that is positively or practically safeguarded by a general committal of the House to the indemnity before the question is brought up. That is a situation which has arisen in the past, and sometimes does present itself; but I do not appreciate very highly the action based on conditions and circumstances of that kind. It is not usual for a bill of this kind to be introduced in the House until it has been considered carefully by a committee, and until there has been knowledge of it, and an opportunity of expression of opinion, so that there may be reasonable unanimity; and that is a reasonable proposition. Under cover of that known unanimity or approximate unanimity, occasionally there are those who will say: So far as I am concerned I do not intend to accept this indemnity and I move for its reduction. I cannot very highly appreciate that course of action. Perhaps I have spoken plainly, but I do think when we are discussing a matter of this kind it is desirable to be very frank and very plain as to the position that we take.


Robert Forke: I do not wish to shirk stating my opinion upon this matter. I should like, in commencing, to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) for her sincerity of purpose and for the absolutely honesty of the attempt that she is making at the present time to reduce the indemnity. I do not know for a certainty, but I am credibly informed that she returned $1,500 of her salary last year-I may be wrong, but I think that was correct-and that is a

Senate and House of Commons
very good proof that she is quite in earnest in the move that she is making.
Mr. DUF*F: She can do that again this year.


Robert Forke: That is so. Still, every member has a right to his or her opinions, and probably the moral effect may be worth thinking about if some sacrifice is attached to the action. I do not believe for one moment that the thing has been done for any spectacular effect. I am perfectly convinced that the action is sincere and honest right through.
As regards the amount, I cannot support the amendment. I know my own circumstances. I have rather a large farm; I have no boys of my own, and I have four hired men engaged there at the present time running my farm. I shall be away for nearly six months, and anyone who knows about conditions, knows exactly what it means to neglect the business for that time. I know what the expense of keeping a house in Ottawa is, and the expense of keeping a house in Manitoba and running back there. I am perfectly satisfied that I for one could not be in public life if the salary is going to 'be reduced very much lower than it is at the present time. I state that opinion sincerely, and I am quite prepared to take the verdict of my people a', home. I am speaking simply because I want to place myself on record. I believe that members should conscientiously try to do their duty in the House; that they ought to giye serious consideration to all questions that come up; that they should take t.heir duty seriously. We are here in the parliament of Canada, and our actions have a tremendous effect for good or evil throughout this Dominion. Although not taking a very large part in the work of the House at times, I feel the responsibility of every act that we take, and I think, perhaps, the country will not begrudge us the salary of $4,000. In conclusion, let me say again, because I want to emphasize this, that I sincerely believe in the honesty of motive and purpose of the hon. member for Southeast Grey.
Amendment (Miss Maephail) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Deduction for non-attendance.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, if you can hear my voice above the din of conversation, I should be glad to make a few remarks with regard to this clause, clause 3 of the bill dealing with section 35 of the original act. If hon. members will look at the act as it originally was,

they will find that in the present bill before them, there has been deleted from subsection (1) the following words:
Provided also that the deduction shall be made for every day on which a member does not attend a sitting of the House of which he is a member, during the last two weeks of any session of parliament.
The effect of the bill now introduced will be to relieve the members of that restriction. It is indeed significant that such a proposal should be brought to this House at this time. I would ask you, Sir: If there happened to be a provincial election in British Columbia or in Alberta and members from those provinces were to press for such a proposal as this, would it meet with the general approval of members of this House, or if it did, would it meet with the approval of the people of this country? Of the latter, there is no doubt in my mind. Their rejection of a proposal of that kind would probably be very loudly voiced. During the last two weeks of the last session, which is the only one excepting this one that I have had the privilege of being in this House, and during any other sessions of which hon. members have spoken to me, it appears almost a certainty, a constant happening, that during those two weeks there comes up the greatest bulk of the most important legislation. When that restriction was formerly introduced into the act, it was for the purpose of keeping members here who might otherwise be anxious to go on a holiday or to go home on business.


William Duff: That is rather a reflection
on the members of parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member will find that in Hansard if he will hunt it up.


William Duff: It does not matter where it
is, it is a reflection.


Edward Joseph Garland: It would
not have been a reflection, but if it was, my hon. friend and his colleagues in those days supported the reflection. I see no good reason why that restriction should be lifted, especially this year. There is a great bulk of most important legislation to be dealt with. There is unfortunately only too great anxiety on the part of hon. members to dabble in provincial matters. I do not think it is in the best interest of this country that the restriction should be removed, and it is my intention to vote against this clause.


Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, with your kind permission, I wish to say a few words regarding the question under

Senate and House oj Commons
discussion. My impression was that a number of members would give their views on the reduction of the parliamentary indemnity, because at the opening session of this Parliament, I was requested by a number of the Progressive party to give my opinion on this matter. They wanted me again to bring up the question; however, my answer was that I would support them if they would follow the course that I had taken.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that, in 1920, when the increase of the parliamentary indemnity was moved by Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister, he had stated in this House, on the 23rd of June, that he could not meet the wish of hon. gentlemen owing to there being too many pressing needs in behalf of the returned soldier and too many public works to be carried on in the country. A caucus took place on the following day, that is the 24th.


An hon. MEMBER:: A Liberal or Conservative caucus?


Roch Lanctôt: A Tory or rather a
Unionist caucus. I was not present, however, it was rumoured that a revolt had broken out to the effect that should the Prime Minister not acquiesce to the wish of his party a strike would be called in the workshop. He had already been threatened with such a fate a few weeks previous because the Unionist party of the day had seen its majority of 71 dwindle down to 5. It was therefore agreed at that caucus to increase the parliamentary indemnity. The following day, on the 25th, a bill to that effect was brought down and the parliamentary indemnity was increased to S4,000 per year. At that time, I made my position clear: I moved an amendment against the parliamentary increase, not however, that I thought at the time no more than I do to-day that $4,000 was too much for the members to receive as an indemnity, but to me, it was a question of principle, I would not accept that amount from the hands of the master of the day, because I was fully aware that ho would not be long at the head of the affairs of this country. This is the reason, I was the strongest opponent of the measure. We had at that time, as we have to-day a great deal of war expenditures; we had purchased a number of railways and I foresaw that once this increase was granted it would be difficult to remedy it. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) must have noticed it even to-day by the behaviour of those who induced her to propose that amendment when this measure
was first introduced, I made up my mind to strongly oppose this increase of indemnity, and, should it be voted, to abstain from applying it to my own pecuniary advantage. My views in the meantime, have not changed. If the hon. members opposite me were sincere-especially those from Ontario as I am informed-when they proclaimed to the people, in 1921, that it was not worth more than $2,500 to be a member at Ottawa; if they were sincere at that time, they must necessarily be now, as I am, and if they always believe that this increase of $1,500 should never have been granted, why do they not distribute it to their electors as I have twice done. They must not pose to-day as champions of economy, preach against this increase and at the same time pocket the money for their personal benefit. That is why I thought it appropriate to make a few remarks. I insist on it, my views have not changed any and when I gave my word to this House that I would not benefit by this increase, I kept my word. I state in all frankness that I did not profit from such an increase. It has cost me $3,000 and I am not complaining over it.


Mr. LEADER:: I want to register' my protest against removing the restrictions in regard to the last fifteen days of the session of parliament. I am very sorry I was unable to grasp what was said by the last hon. gentleman (Mr. Lanctot).


Roch Lanctôt: Too bad.


Harry Leader: I am sorry, but I have
no doubt the hon. gentleman is consistent; I quite believe that what he has been saying is in harmony with the language he used iD this House a couple of years ago.


Mr. GERVAIS:: He was simply saying that you were not consistent. He was complaining that your attitude was not consistent with what you said privately.


Harry Leader: I do not know what he
said.


Mr. POWER:: Do not talk about it then.


Harry Leader: The hon. gentleman made a speech in this House on the 29th day of June, 1920, and while I do not understand what he has said to-night I have no doubt his sentiments are the same as those he expressed at that time.


Georges Henri Boivin: They are the same.


Harry Leader: Let me quote what the
hon. gentleman said:
Now, even if it be true that an increase in salary is necessary, should this increase be made during the
4244	COMMONS
Senate and House oj Commons
present session? When a business man has hired a clerk in his office for $2,500 and this clerk comes to his employer three or four days before his year is up and says: "I want an increase of $1,500 for the work I have done this year," what does the boss say? He says: ''That is out of the question. Finish your year and I'll settle with you." Well, that is the position of hon. members in this House, for the present session at any rate. The session is over. It has already come to an end for several, since they have taken their trunks and gone back to their homes. So the argument that members of parliament should receive more money does not apply to the present session at least, because the session is over, and the amount allowed was $2,500.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) opposes this clause for practically the same reasons. When hon. members get up and declare that it is the duty of public men to keep to their seats in this House and diligently perform their duties, I would ask them to look behind the hon. gentlemen who now sit in the front row to my right. Now I want to quote what the hon. gentleman who to-day dignifies the Speaker's chair said on the same occasion to which' f have already referred.


Charles Marcil: I must remind the hon. member that the committee is discussing section 3, which relates to the deduction of indemnity for nonattendance. A general discussion is not permissible under that section and I must request the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subject matter under consideration.


Harry Leader: I respectfully submit that
I am discussing a matter that is relevant to the section under consideration. However, if I am out of order I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and shall endeavour to confine myself to the subject matter before the Chair. The present Speaker of the House, speaking in favour of an increase used these words:
There has been no regular attendance as there was in the old days when the indemnity was sufficient to keep members at Ottawa, to enable them to give their time to matters connected with the administration of public affairs. For many sessions now I have seen empty seats during sittings of the House, sometimes a practically empty Chamber. I do not say it boastfully, Mr. Speaker, but you know i;that I am a regular attendant at the sittings of the House, and time and again I have seen the House debate measures when there was hardly a quorum of members iD attendance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Marcil: OrdeT. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the section under discussion. A general debate is out of order at the present juncture.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Why do you not make a speech of your own?


Harry Leader: I am reminded of a statement that is ascribed to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, being unduly assailed in the House, declared that the lion always hunted alone, but the wolves hunted in packs. Now I do not pretend to be lion-like, but I do think that the latter truth might apply to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Charles Marcil: I must
ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Be a sport.


Charles Marcil: The last remark made by the hon.
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) should, I think, be withdrawn. Any language that reflects directly or indirectly upon the character of hon. members is unparliamentary and should be retracted.


Harry Leader: I was only following an
eminent precedent, Mr. Chairman. However, I withdraw the remark.


Jacques Bureau: Give the lion a chance.


Harry Leader: (reading):
Why is it that there is not the attendance at the sittings of the House which the people have the right to expect from their representatives?


Mr. MERCIER:: The hon. gentleman
should not be quoting irrelevant matter on this section.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: When he is paid $4,000, he ought to make a speech of his own.


Harry Leader: In order to expedite the
business of the House-because no one is more anxious to get home than I am, although I am prepared to carry out my duties to the fullest extent-I shall bring my remarks to a close, especially in view of the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are apparently determined to obstruct me. I simply wish to declare myself opposed to any attempt to remove the restrictions with regard to the last fifteen days of the session of parliament.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the motion is carried I think a word should be said in answer to my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) who, I am sure, was sincere in the remarks he made concerning the removal of the special restrictions applied to the last fifteen days of a session. I must point out, and I should like the press and the country as well as the House of Commons to understand, that the present bill has not for its object the giving of any permission to hon. members to leave the House during the last fifteen days any more than at any other time during the ses-

Senate and House oj Commons
sion. If any hon. member is absent from the House for more than fifteen days during the session he is penalized to the extent of $25 for every day beyond the fifteen, whether the absence occurs at the beginning or during the latter part of the session. I am prepared to admit that much important legislation is introduced during the last days of the session but I also maintain that very many important measures are introduced during the first weeks. The budget speech and tariff resolutions, for instance, generally come before the last two weeks of the session, and there is nothing more important than the budget. The hon. member says that we should remain during the last weeks. I say we should remain all the time. The government cannot be blamed for the date or period when legislation is introduced. There is no desire on the part of the government to leave important legislation until the dying days of the session. This is due to the natural trend of events. Measures are submitted and sent to committees, and engage their attention during nearly the entire session, and it is only after the committees have reported to the House that such measures can be finally dealt with. I maintain that it is just as important for members to be present while those measures are being considered by committees before presentation to the House as when they go through the final stages in the House itself.
Apart from that, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) says that this legislation should not be amended as proposed owing to the fact that certain members are now absent taking part in a provincial election. And he asks: What would be said if a provincial election were being held in Alberta and we were to leave the House to take part in it?


Edward Joseph Garland: I suggested that in the event of a provincial election being held in Alberta, and we pressed for such an amendment, we might be criticized.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was just coming to that. He suggested that if in order to take part in such an election he pressed for this amendment, he might be blamed. I respectfully submit to the House that his electors are really the persons to say whether an hon. member should take part in a provincial election or not. The result of a provincial election may be very vital to the welfare of his particular riding, and his electors will seldom blame him for not attending to his duties in the House of Commons at that time. If the electors in the various constituencies where federal members are taking part in the provincial elections-and are therefore in their own way looking after the interests of their constituents-think it would be better for their representatives to remain in the House of Commons, they have their redress, they can vote against those members in the next election and so punish them. But it will be found that in every instance where a provincial election does take place, the electors are keenly disappointed if the federal member takes no part in it but remains at Ottawa to draw his indemnity. Furthermore, a provincial election might take place at some other stage of the session, and under the law as it now stands upon the statute book hon. members could be absent for fifteen days to take part in that election and would not be fined if they were regular in their attendance during the rest of the session.
But there is another view to take. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) in suggesting an amendment which we were glad to accept and incorporate in the bill, stated that if a session lasted for fifty days or over, and some hon. members were absent during the first fifty days, it would be necessary to keep the House in session for another fifteen days in order that they might draw their full indemnity. In the present instance if some hon. members desired to allow their colleagues to take part in the provincial elections in Ontario or in any other province at any other time, they could certainly block legislation for fifteen days to enable those members to come back and escape being fined for their fifteen days' absence. The result would be to put the country to extra expense and nothing would be gained. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee that when this matter was discussed by the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate there was no desire to relieve any hon. member from attendance in this House. The desire was to make the rule fair, just and equitable for all members at all times during a session. We felt, as I have already explained, that if an hon. member was called away for some reason of urgent public importance in his constituency or for legitimate family reasons during the latter part of a session, he should be treated absolutely the same as the hon. member who happened to be called away for similar reasons during an earlier period of the session.
There is no doubt that when the law was amended in 1920 it was done hastily. If I remember rightly the hon. leader of the party then in power declared in the House about two weeks before the law was amended that there would be no amendment and that the indemnity would not be increased. Pressure

Senate and House oj Commons
was brought to bear upon him and he became convinced by the arguments of his supporters -and I say this with no intention of disparaging the hon. gentleman-that the indemnity should be raised to $4,000. Thereupon legislation was hastily prepared and introduced for the purpose of making the rules more rigid. We have carried out that intention in the present amending act. We have fixed the duration of a session at sixty-five days instead of thirty before any member of this House can draw his full indemnity of $4,000. We have also increased the attendance of the individual member from thirty to fifty days. In spite of the lengthy sessions we have not sought to increase the days of absence although the question was raised in the committee and we have been requested by some hon. members to increase the number of days during which a member could be 1 a.m. absent without sacrificing any part of his indemnity. We did not think such a change would be in the interests of the country. The fine for absence has been increased from $15 to $25 a day. I want once more to make it perfectly clear that this legislation does not give wholesale permission to members to be absent during the last fifteen days but only treats those days on the same basis as all the other days of the session which are equally important.


Harry Leader: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the remark of the last speaker that the electors are the best judges of whether their representative should be here or not. I would suggest, in view of the fact that the electors are not always cognizant of the attitude of the member in the House and at times have no means of finding out, that we have some form of registration such as obtains in the Senate-that every day the roll be called and each member's name be taken down. I might add that the present Speaker of the House in 1920-


Thomas Vien: Would my hon. friend allow me a question?


Harry Leader: -made this same suggestion. Sir Robert Borden in reply said that he had discussed the matter with Sir Wilfrid Laurier who agreed that it was the proper course to take, but he said that the other members of the committee chased them to the tali timbers or words to that effect. I suggest most respectfully that that rule be adopted and that we register the members every day in the House.


Thomas Vien: I respectfully suggest that I respect the oat'h of a member of parliament who declares at the end of every month his
[Mr. Boivin.l
days of attendance as much as an attendance record kept by a servant of the House.


Harry Leader: Then why object to the roll call?


Jacques Bureau: We do not want to go back to school.	*


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a slight amendment which must now be made. It is merely a consequential amendment and arises from the fact that the length of the session m section 1 has been increased from fifty to sixty-five days. It is to amend clause 3 by inserting after the words "any session" in the second line of section 37, which is the seventeenth line on page 2, the following words, "extending over a period of sixty-five days or more." I so move. Amendment agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is another consequential amendment rendered necessary by the same change. It is now provided that in every session of parliament under fifty days the member shall be paid a salary of $25 for each day's attendance. I beg to move that clause 3 be amended by striking out the word "and" in the first line by inserting after the word "thirty-seven" in the same line the words "and thirty-eight" and by adding at the end of the said clause, the following-"38. In every session of parliament covering a period of less than sixty-five days, there shall be payable to every member of the Senate and House of Commons attending at such session, twenty-five dollars for each day's attendance."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Sir Lomer Gouin for the third reading of the bill:
Robert Gardiner: This legislation has come before the House in a very hurried manner and I feel that the House has not had sufficient opportunity to go properly into this question in order that we may be assured of exactly what we are voting for. It is very regrettable indeed that legislation should have been brought down to this House and decided upon in such a short space of time. Therefore, I move:
That Bill No. 232 be not now read a third time but that it be read this day six months.
Amendment negatived.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.

Senate and House of Commons
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	I beg to move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following words be substituted therefor:
That bill No. 232 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend section 32 thereof by striking out the words "four thousand" wherever they appear in said section and substituting therefor the words "three thousand five hundred".
Amendment negatived.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West):	In
connection with the main motion I want to suggest that this question of fixing the indemnities of members of parliament by the members themselves is a very unfortunate matter. It would be very desirable if the indemnity could be fixed by some other organization, by somebody outside.


Mr. PARENT:: The Civil Service Commission.	' [DOT]


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to order and to be heard in this House.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to suggest that at the time the application was made for an increase in the indemnity in 1920, in my humble judgment, and I only offer it as a humble judgment, no adequate reason was given for the increase of the indemnity to the amount suggested. I have no doubt that facts did exist which justified an increase of some character, but whether it justified an increase to 84,000 is more than I know. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey this evening also, if I may respectfully suggest it, contained no adequate reason for a reduction to the amount suggested. I want to say, however, that so far as I am concerned I would have no objection if called upon, to vote for the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, not that I think any substantial reason was urged but simply as an earnest of the desire of the House to economize wherever possible and for the other reason that I feel it is unfortunate that motives should be imputed to members of this House. It is one of those matters in which no matter what action you take you are, so far as the public is concerned, damned if you do one thing and damned if you do the other.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



YUKON ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STEVENS (for Mr. Black, Yukon) moved the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Recovery or defining of claims, mining property or mineral locations.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I will briefly explain this bill and in doing so I wish to expressly thank the Minister of Justice for his courtesy in permitting it to come up. This is a somewhat technical and formal amendment to the Yukon Act. The Yukon Act, as originally drafted, provided for trials, and so forth, but did not include provision for jury trials in certain cases. The reason for it was this: When Yukon was first opened up and this act was originally passed it was in the days of what was known as "the stampede." Conditions there were in an exceedingly disturbed state, and it was felt that it was not desirable to place such cases as mineral claims and disputes under jury trial as was the case in all other provinces. That condition has long since passed, twenty years ago or nearly so, and to-day Yukon is just as settled and as sober 

shall I say?-in its thought and in its administration as any other part of Canada. All the feverish excitement has long since passed.	This is simply to give to Yukon
rights which are enjoyed by the other provinces.


Lomer Gouin: I have an amendment to offer to this section. The first clause provides for an appeal on interlocutory and final judgments in mining property cases. I do not think it would be advisable to permit appeals on interlocutory judgment; we should limit the appeal to final judgments. I therefore propose to amend the clause so that it will read:
1.	Section forty-six of the Yukon Act, chapter sixty-three of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1908, as enacted by section two of chapter fifty-six of the statutes of 1912, is amended by adding at the end of subsection two thereof the following:-"or if the action be for the recovery of a claim, mining property, mineral claim or location, as defined by the Yukon Placer Mining Act, chapter sixty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, or by the regulations for 'the disposal of quartz mining claims on Dominion lands in the Yukon territory, or of any interest therein or to establish title thereto, or for the definition of or establishment of the boundaries of any such claim, mining property, mineral claim or location, or to establish the right of a claimant to any such claim, raining property, mineral claim or location or interest therein, or to have included within said claim, mining property, mineral claim or location, any land or property, or if the action be for divorce or judicial separation.

Yukon Act

This will give an appeal in mining property cases for final judgments only.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Action for recovery, etc., of claims, mining property or mineral locations.
Lomer Gouin: Section 2 provides for a jury trial in mining property cases, as in the province of British Columbia, and also in cases of divorce and judicial separation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin the House adjourned at 1.20 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 22, 1923