1923-06-29

Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) moved:: That the third and final report of the Committee on Mines and Minerals be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) moved:: Redistribution
That the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of Chapter 12, 8-9, George V, an act respecting the Civil Service of Canada, be concurred in.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The report of this committee was placed before the House only a day or two ago. It contains a number of recommendations and is somewhat lengthy, and I doubt if hon. members of the House other than those who were members of the committee have had an opportunity to study it carefully. Among the recommendations there is, for example, an important one suggesting the introduction of a superannuation scheme. The report says:
Your committee is of the opinion that the adoption of a superannuation scheme substantially on the lines of that above described would remove one of the greatest deterrents to efficiency and curtailment of stalls in many of the departments of the public service and it therefore recommends that such a scheme be adopted by parliament at the earliest possible date.
In reference to that recommendation I may say that were it contemplated that the House should continue in session for any considerable time the government would be prepared to bring down forthwith a superannuation bill along the lines suggested by the committee. But as there will hardly be time to consider as important legislation as that at the present session, I may say that at the beginning of next session the government will be prepared to present to parliament a bill along the lines of the recommendations made. As to the other recommendations, some of them are of a minor character; some of them require a little more careful consideration, and I think it is only right that the government as well as hon. members should have an oportunity to go into them very thoroughly during the recess. T would not like to say at the moment that they will all be adopted or that any of them will be adopted; the disposition of the government would be to meet the wishes of the committee as far as appears to be in the public interest. With this assurance, Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will not press his motion for the adoption of the report, but will allow the report to remain on the Table.
Motion withdrawn.



REDISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: May I ask the government if an opportunity will be given to consider order No. 39, which has to do with Bill No. 15, an act to readjust the representation in the House
of Commons? The report was tabled yesterday by the chairman of that committee.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou, Acting Minister of National Defence):: 
John Frederick Johnston: Will there be an opportunity to discuss this-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is quite impossible for anyone at this end of the chamber to know what business is being carried on in the House. It is impossible to hear what is being said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I think in view of what the hon. member says the last conversation at least might be repeated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have no idea of what it is about.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is aware that queries are usually put at this stage, and perhaps he will hear better in future if he moves up. What I was saying in reference to the matter of moving the adoption of the report of the Redistribution committee-


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I might interrupt, I heard neither the question nor the answer


An hon. MEMBER:: That is true.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is rather early in the morning, and the auditory part of my hon. friend's make-up is probably not working. The hon. member for Last Mountain-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
simply ask the privilege of knowing what is going on in this House. At this end we cannot hear what is said in the tone that has been used this morning.


John Frederick Johnston: I am anxious that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and all other members should hear my question. It was, whether the government would give the House an opportunity of discussing order No. 39 which has to do with the report from the special committee appointed to deal with Bill No. 15, an Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In reply I stated to my hon. friend that a motion would be made for the adoption of the report either later in the day or to-morrow, of which I would give my hon. friend notice.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to return to the order of motions for the purpose of laying a return on the table?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The acoustic properties of the House are far better this year than they were last, and I do not see why the members should have to strain their voices to be heard by the House


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We cannnot hear at all down here.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



HARBOURS AND RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
Supplementary Estimates, I923-t-Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $2,800,090.06.
Arthur Meighen: I find some astonishing items in this vote, but no worse than practically all the rest of these estimates. I was not here when these estimates were first submitted, but I want to say now that the conduct of the government in submitting estimates of $14,700,000 accompanied by other commitments that aggregate at least $70,000,000 or more, probably $170,000,000 in the last week of the session is an affront to parliament, an affront to the country. To say that it is a blazing violation of their own professions when they were seeking office is, of course, only to repeat what everybody now knows. So bad indeed is it that I understand their own followers not far from here have expressed disgust and resisted their conduct; indeed, cast it out the door. The fact of bringing in estimates of this character and pretending that they can get consideration at the hands of the House when we are a few hours from prorogation, a few days at the most before they ever come down-and those days crowded with legislation the most important of any submitted the whole session, more important than all that the government has submitted to parliament in all the five months of the session-is a reflection of the character of the administration and the way it is serving this country.
I would ask particularly for some statement as to what is to be spent on the second item. The first I do not know just where it is,

but what is to be done in the way of harbour improvements at Belle River?


Mr. HEALY:: As the town of Belle River is in the constituency I come from I may take it upon myself to answer the right hon. leader of the Opposition. This is the enly port on that shore of lake St. Clair. It is used at the present time for the distribution of gravel which goes to build the provincial highways and the county roads in this district. Every government for the past twenty years has wasted money on this harbour by attempting to keep it open without putting in any permanent protection. This vote provides for a permanent protection on one side of the harbour. It may be necessary that both sides of the'harbour be permanently protected. If so I am going to advocate doing that work. This locality has been the centre of a fishing industry. And there is a great demand for gravel and sand there. The people of that district are entitled to have this harbour protected, the expenditure is justified in every way, and the total capital invested will pay for itself in two years by the amount of gravel and sand used. Every municipal and provincial purpose in the district will be served by this improvement.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us just what is intended to be done under this vote? The hon. member for the riding tells us there is to be some protection on one side of the harbour, and that he hopes it will go on to the other side, and that this expenditure will pay. I should like to know just the basis of it. I think we are all the more entitled to know because there has been a recent by-election there, and it is just possible that this vote has some relation to that election. One might almost imagine that, at least. I never had representations made to me as to the business value of this investment, in fact I think I had representations that were quite the contrary-that this is a purely political placing of money in order to take care of political obligations.


Albert Frederick Healy: I would be very pleased to answer the leader of the Opposition, in fact I am glad he has brought up the subject of the election at this time. We of the locality were delighted to have a visit from the leader of the Opposition. I am sorry, but I think his attitude in regard to this vote represents, perhaps, the disappointment he felt over the result of the election. I am also sorry that the applause my right hon. friend received in this very town of Belle River did not represent the real feeling of the people. When

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
distinguished gentlemen such as the leader of the Opposition visit our locality we attempt to show them every respect; and the party to which my right hon. friend belongs went so far as to hire, or have donated, about twenty-five automobiles. They filled these with political friends and made a tour through the county. If I were to use an expression common in theatrical circles I might say that those who followed the right hon. gentleman on that occasion were professional claqueurs. At any rate I can inform him that the applause he received on his visit to Belle River came from the gentlemen who followed him from the city of Windsor, and other places, and did not emanate from the people of Belle River. Consequently, when the election resulted as it did the right hon. gentleman was disappointed, because he had been received with applause and the vote did not bear out that applause. I also wish to thank the leader of the Opposition for the many speeches he made in this district during the election. He orated, I think, from milkstands and in town halls and in school houses-I do not think he spoke from any bams, but he did speak' from nearly every other description of building in the riding. When I advocated this very vote which was then proposed, for an improvement so urgently needed, he said, I believe, that it was log rolling. I do not like to make that statement, for this reason. During the by-election the leader of the Opposition sought to have the press correct so many statements published about what he said that I am afraid he will call upon me to make a retraction. However, I will leave it to the right hon. gentleman if he did not use that term on the occasion referred to.


Arthur Meighen: What was the term?


Albert Frederick Healy: " Log rolling."


Arthur Meighen: Very probably I did.


Albert Frederick Healy: Well, I am awfully glad to get that acknowledgement from you at least. As far as this vote is concerned, the people of this locality are entitled to it. My information is that it makes a breakwater on one side of this harbour and gives eleven or twelve feet of water thus permitting coal to be brought in through the channel, also the sand and gravel needed in the locality which comes in under a contract made with the Dominion government/. I may say that the provincial government insists on sand and gravel being furnished to the people of the locality at a cost of forty or fifty cents a yard less than they can buy it from private individuals. The engineer has
reported on this work, the late representative for the riding was in favour of it, and this expenditure is justified in every way. I will take the responsibility for this vote because I, not the leader of the Opposition, represent the riding. I repeat that it is justified in every way and I am going to insist on it going through.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure the House must have been impressed with the exceedingly argumentative and able presentation of the business value of this investment made by the member for North Essex. He says that I am very much disappointed that this vote is in the estimates. No, I am not disappointed in the least, I fully expected this vote; I had every reason to expect it. Nor was I very much disappointed in the result. I wonder if the hon. member feels that a great tribute was paid the government of the day by the vote in North Essex. I am not usually in the habit of arguing that election results are a reason against any public action. I leave that to those who can find no real reasons; but when the hon. member for North Essex-


Albert Frederick Healy: I understood you to say that this was a political appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and I will show a little reason for that in a moment. I leave the mere boasting of votes to those who are not competent to advance any other argument. But when a majority is reduced from 7,195 to about 1,000 it takes a pretty selfsatisfied representative to initiate the subject himself in the Commons as a matter of selfcongratulation. No, I am not disappointed in this vote being introduced. When I used the word "political" I used the most euphemistic adjective I could think of. During the campaign the promise of a vote of this kind wa,s the chief argument on behalf of the hon. member. Indeed, I can recall no other. As for correcting press misrepresentations, the correction I made was against the Minister of Finance and I made it out of a Liberal paper. The report of the Liberal newspaper of Windsor was right but the Minister of Finance was all wrong. He based his statement on some contortion appearing in the Globe from the Canadian Press, and I have in my office an apology from the Canadian Press for making a wrong report. So much for that. What has that to do with the proposition?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the hon. member takes the castigation that these "hear, hears" imply.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Albert Frederick Healy: You started the political discussion.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and I intend to end it. I hold in my hand a poster containing the announcement of this harbour improvement. This is the first of the literary efforts of the hon. gentleman's friends in regard to this marked achievement at the expense of the taxpayer. I will read it:
Vote for Healey and get
$86,000 Gov. Docks and Breakwater $25,000 Waterworks
Free gift from James Cooper.
$75,000 Brick and Tile Yard
to employ 30 hands the year round.
Vote for Robinson and get nothing but hot air.
King needs Tim; so do you.
Tim and King-that is the thing.
This is worth repeating. Of course it is illegal and it is a violation of the law which this government is sworn to obey; published without a statement as to who publishes it, but it is published on behalf of the member, by the man whose name appears here, and who is chief henchman in the riding. Everyone knows who he is. Everyone knows what he did to elect the hon. member and all about it.
Vote for Heals- and get $S6,000 government docks.
The note is maturing now and the country is paying for it.
And the breakwater; and the 825,000 waterworks-when that is to come is a matter, of [DOT] course, in the hands of the gods-and, I suppose, of Tim. The information I have- and it comes from the people of Belle River- is that this is utterly worthless, that it is chiefly for the personal benefit of the man who got out the dodger and for the political benefit of the representative of the riding. This vote is brought down the last few days of the session. I have a letter, which I will have here shortly, which deals with this matter. It is dated the 24th March, just a few days after the election, and states that the Liberals are now boasting that a vote of-I forget how many thousand dollars-will be in the estimates, but not in the main estimates. It will be held for the supplementaries, in order to carry out this pledge to the people, held till the last few days of the session so as to be jammed through in the dying moments, because "King needs Tim; Tim and King, that is the thing."


Mr. JACOBS:: It would be interesting to have that letter read.


Arthur Meighen: I had it here a day or two ago, thinking this matter would come

up then. I will get the letter; the hon. member need not worry. And I have two or three others. This is no worse than the rest of the administration of this government. It is just of a piece with all the rest. This is how they purpose to carry these estimates, with appropriations of the money of the people of Canada, looking to the by-elections that will probably be held this summer. I have often wondered what it is going to cost the Dominion to provide a Liberal successor for the prospective judge of the Exchequer Court? This is part of the cost of having this House adorned by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy). The information I have-and I believe it is correct-is from citizens of the town, that this is chiefly for the benefit of the man who got out the dodger and for his business and in pursuance of his pledge, contained in an illegal dodger, to elect illegally the hon. member.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The records
of the Department of Public Works show that my right hon. friend is very unjust to the member for North Essex. The record here shows that this matter was first brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works during the lifetime of the late lamented Hon. Mr. Kennedy by a resolution dated 7th April, 1922, of the municipal council of the township of Rochester, concurring with the village of Belle River and other municipalities re the urgency of the Belle River improvements. Later there was a letter from the Reeve of Belle River stating:
That- this is the only place on North shore of Essex county which could be made fit for a port and is the logical place for distribution of coal, gravel, etc., resulting in a saving of $5 a ton on coal.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. member give the House any information of the chief article that is included in the word " etc."?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am reading from the representations which were made by the reeve of Belle River-and I take it that that gentleman is a man of responsibility, and that the municipal council of the township of Rochester, who verify what the reeve of Belle River says, are also responsible. I think this House, recalling the late Minister of Railways who promoted this matter long before there was any election to fill the vacancy occasioned by his lamented death, will hardly credit my right hon. friend with all he says as to the reason of the vote being due to the by-election. The reeve of Belle River stated:
A tile and brick yard is building which will use 2,000 tons of coal a year, in addition to other in-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
dustries. It would re-establish the local fleet of sand boats which used to operate from here and have had to lie idle on account of the mouth of the river filling up.
The record shows that this little discussion about the North Essex by-election had no relation whatever to the consideration of this question by the Department of Public Works. The local municipality of Belle River, and the municipal council of which it formed a part, and the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy, had been pressing this matter, on the Department of Public Works, on behalf of the locality and the constituency, long before the death of the late minister.


Arthur Meighen: Is it a dock or a piece of a dock? Or what is it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should
have thought my right hon. friend ought to have known a little more about it before he denounced everybody indiscriminately.


Arthur Meighen: I just know what is here. I am asking what the vote is for.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will give the hon. member the information, if he will wait and forget there was a hand-bill and a North Essex election.


Arthur Meighen: I will not forget it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One of the troubles of my right hon. friend is that he belongs to that school of people known as the Bourbons. The work here is:
To construct 1,500 lineal feet double sheet pile wall, consisting of double three-inch sheeting for the length of 1,000 feet, and double 4-inch sheeting for the length of 500 feet, sheeting to be from eight to twenty feet in length, securely walled to round piles on each side of sheeting placed at 5-foot centres; also seven round pile stone filled cribs, 18 feet by 18 feet in area.
The memo I have reads:
The original estimated cost of this work was $72,500, the sheet pile wall being estimated at $60,000 sufficient to provide for an ultimate depth in the channel of 18 feet; but after further consideration it was decided that a wall to provide for the maintenance of a 10-foot channel would meet the requirements for some time to come at the above greatly reduced cost.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Perhaps the minister could tell us whether the merchandise which comes in under the heading " etc." comes in by motor boat.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not versed as to the Ontario Temperance Act operation or matters of that kind. Perhaps my hon. friend would know more about that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not live there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am giving to the House the information from the Department of Public Works coming from sources I have indicated, and this is to justify the expenditure which has been made there. Everyone is aware of the movement of the sand and the important business that has grown up in gravel alone lake St, Clair.
I am free to say that the record I have, showing the representations made by responsible people in the constituency and the efforts of the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy to have this matter dealt with before he departed, is so clear that it cannot be doubted.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I understand from what my hon. friend says, that the basis of this appropriation is representations made by the former member, the Hon. Mr. Kennedy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And the
reeve of Belle River and the municipal council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who joined with him in those representations, as I understand the matter. What possible excuse is there for this delay? We were told before that the reason why these supplementaries were bought down now was that there was no time to include them in the Main Estimates. Now we have something which, on the confession of the minister, is old, hoary, with nothing at all done recently to draw it to the attention of the government. The only excuse and reason for the late date of these supplementaries is that the matter could not be considered before. The government, on their own showing and their own admission, show that they have deliberately delayed the submission of this appropriation for the purpose of these supplementaries.


Mr. FIELDING:: Might I add a word of comment on the first part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen)? He said that it is an affront to parliament and the Canadian people to bring down estimates of this character at this late stage. I wonder if the word "effrontery" is a matter of parliamentary privilege. I am afraid it is not, and therefore I shall have to substitute a more moderate word. If I were not so familiar with the methods of my right hon. friend in dealing with public questions in this House, I would be amazed at the audacity of the statement he made to-day. The right hon. gentleman waxed indignant in the words he uttered to-day, and he repeated what he said a few days before in the evening when these estimates came down. 'He said "I

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
would like the minister to tell where in the history of Canada"-a pretty large story- "estimates of that magnitude were ever brought down in the last week of the session." If my right hon. friend had been here last night, he would have had the information which he apparently had neglected to obtain. He is indignant because we in these last days of the session have brought down estimates of $15,000,000. In the last session of the government of my right hon. friend, the session of 1921, and in the last week of that session, to use the very words he used, they brought down estimates of $23,000,000. At that time the Main Estimates were not all through the House, but that point is not important. According to the records, the message was brought down on a Monday, but, as a matter of fact, it was brought down in the email hours of Tuesday morning, according to my information, and the House prorogued on Saturday. They used all the machinery to Growd those estimates through the House. What can the country think of the right hon. gentleman who, in parliament, is virtuously indignant because we bring down estimates amounting to $15,000,000, and who challenges anybody to show anything of the kind in the history of Canada, when the record shows that he brought down in the last week of the session of 1921 estimates amounting to $23,000,000. It is things like this which prevent the public from having confidence in the statements of the right hon. gentleman. It is his utterly reckless manner of discussing public affairs which has tended to discredit him and to put him in the position which he now occupies.
Let me again repeat what the Prime Minister (Mr. Makenzie King) said the other day. There is no desire to rush these estimates through. If this House desires time to consider them, time shall be given, so far as the government is concerned. There will be no closure to crowd these estimates through, there will 'be no coercion-nothing that is not consistent with the principles of sound parliamentary government and free discussion. But when the right hon. gentleman indignantly challenges anyone to show when, in the history of all Canada, a government had brought down estimates of this magnitude in the last week of a session, and I point out the fact that, in the last week of the session of 1921, he brought down estimates amounting to $23,000,000, I think the right hon. gentleman will come to the conclusion that, perhaps, he had better think before he speaks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Fielding.)


Arthur Meighen: I would like to wait until hon. gentlemen have a good chance to get this off their chests, because they will get a rude disappointment in a moment. When I spoke the other day as I spoke to-day, I referred to all the government was committing the country to this last week.


William Stevens Fielding: No. His challenge was: " When did a government bring down Supplementary Estimates like this in the last week?"


Arthur Meighen: I do not think we ever did. Those estimates were nothing like the length of these, nor were the commitments of the last week of that session a fraction of what this government has brought down this last week. The minister himself is responsible for coming to this House and keeping out of the estimates, an amount which, I believe, will run to over $100,000,000. He brings this down in the last week of the session, and merely because it is in separate bills, he says that it is not estimates. The conduct of the minister, instead of being more to be commended on that account, is on that very account the most discreditable to a government in the history of our country. This government this week is down, in the dying hours of the session, with commitments that will run to $150,000,000 to this Dominion-commitments so preposterous that his own followers, not far from him, some of them the most loyal he ever had, have cast them ignominiously out of the door. That is where the government stands. What does the minister think of this kind of conduct? The minister says: " Oh, you have plenty of time; we are in no hurry." In the last week of 1921, I stood as Prime Minister and told the House that all the time the House wanted would be given to consider the estimates we had, and that was all we had. There was no closure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there was.


Mr. VIEN:: There were sittings all night.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, there were sittings all night, but I am satisfied they were not on the, estimates. That does not matter anyway; there was plenty of time given for consideration of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The vote for the Merchant Marine was put through under closure.


Arthur Meighen: That was not an estimate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: It was not a supplementary estimate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It represented an expenditure of $70,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: It was in the Main
Estimates. The question was considered for days, and there was no hurry whatever. Hon. members stood up and asked us to put on the closure. That was what they were asking for. That was what they were keeping us all night for. It was the greatest bluff that was ever put up. During the last week of that session I said that all the time wanted would be given for the consideration of what was brought down, and there was not a fraction or, at least, only a small fraction, of the commitments that1 this governlment has brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not the right hon. gentleman each evening resist strenuously the request of the opposition to adjourn at twelve o'clock, so that time might be given for proper discussion of the estimates? Did he not keep the House in session until the early hours of the morning, refusing any opportunity to consider them?


Arthur Meighen: Has this government not kept us sitting until the early hours of the morning?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it has not.


Arthur Meighen: This House has sat in the m6rning time and time again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House
this session, and last, has not sat past eleven o'clock a single night without the consent of every member; and during the discussion of estimates, the minute there has been a request that the House should adjourn, and if there has been any indication that that was the wish of hon. members, the House has adjourned.


Arthur Meighen: I am prepared to admit that the opposition has been much more reasonable than was the opposition of that day. The opposition of that day kept the talk going merely in order that they might force closure if they possibly could, and even in certain cases they got up and asked for it. That was the character of the opposition then, and I do not see that there has been much improvement now that those of that opposition have come into power.
On this estimate, in reply to the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who did not think I had the letter, I will read now from a letter I have from a private citizen of Belle River. This is dated the 24th March, the date I gave the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who signed it?


Arthur Meighen: I stated that it was a private letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Some hon. members
think it would be of great value to know the name. Do they think I have not the letter?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Surely under the rules of the House an hon. member may not read part of a letter, which he makes public by the reading, and then say that the rest is private.


Arthur Meighen: He can.


George Perry Graham: He might by following the example of some of my right hon. friend's followers in Toronto. But it is a rule of the House that any document from which a quotation is made must be laid on the Table.


Arthur Meighen: There is a rule, which I think my hon. friend has been in the House long enough to know, that if a member of the government quotes from a government document that document must be laid upon the Table. There is no rule that every member must divulge the name of a private citizen 'because he wishes to read from any letter written by such a person. Even if he quotes from the letter he is at liberty to divulge the name or not, as he sees fit, and that principle has been acted on time and time again.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member knows better than that.


Arthur Meighen: I know that what I have stated is absolutely correct. However, I have no particular objection to disclosing the name if I can obtain the consent of the writer to do so. But I will not give the name until I do obtain that consent.


George Perry Graham: I am not objecting to the fact that my hon. friend does not give the name. I do object, however, as I think I have a right to object, to his making public *a part of a letter which he says is private and 'asking us to fake it for granted that the letter is from some citizen.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member be good enough to recall the incident? I did not say I was going to read from the letter until the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) inquired whether I had it, suggesting, I think, that I read from it. Now I am only answering his challenge.


William Stevens Fielding: Apart from the point of order, which I do not raise, does my right



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
hon. friend not admit that the force of a letter must be drawn from the signature? And if the right hon. gentleman reads a private letter-his right to do which I am not questioning

surely he must realize that no one will pay respectful attention to it if its source is concealed.


Arthur Meighen: It is not very material to me whether I read the letter or not, but when I am challenged by an hon. member to read it and I am ready to do so it does seem strange, to say the least, that the same hon. gentlemen should raise an objection. However, I think the country will draw the same inference from the objection as it would draw from the letter, if I read it.


Samuel William Jacobs: The most important part of the letter would be the signature of the person who wrote it. It might have been dictated to an office boy, or an office boy might have written to the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: The signature appears on the letter; there is no doubt about that; and I have so much respect for it that I am ready to disclose the name to my hon. friend. These are some of the words it contains:
The Liberals here seem confident that a government dock will be built at Belle River this year, and state that the cost of same is to be included in the Supplemental Estimates.
The date of the letter is March 24, 1923. I have further communications to the effect that while some dredging, so as to allow a certain depth, could be justified, the work the government contemplates cannot be justified on any business ground whatever.


Mr. CAHILL:: Are they signed?


Arthur Meighen: They are signed, just as all letters are signed. I thought -the hon. gentleman had attained a business eminence that would have acquainted him with that fact. Now, -this is merely the payment of a political debt.


Frank S. Cahill: Anyone could write letters of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: I will move that the vote be reduced by $30,000. The fact that the debt is a fulfilment of a bribe is sufficient to nullify it in the judgment of the House. The hon. minister (Mr. Macdonald) says that someone wrote about the matter before the election. I do not doubt that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Pardon me; I did not say that someone wrote about it before the election. I stated that this municipality had passed a resolution concerning the matter and that there was a communication

from the reeve of the municipality on the same subject. I further pointed out that the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy, for over a year before he departed this life, had been dealing with the question with the Public Works department. The committee will see how my hon. friend argues. He said that I made the statement that someone had written about the matter before the election. What I said was precisely what I have just stated.


Arthur Meighen: Some one had written; the reeve, I think, wrote about the matter. The minister states that a resolution was passed by the municipal council, and that is the justification for going on with the work. Well, you can get resolutions of council for anything; and anyone who publishes a poster such as the one I have read, and has the ingenuity of the man that did it. can engineer such a resolution, even if it is to his own advantage to have the money spent in the municipality that passes the resolution. What I note is that the only commitment made was made when the by-election was on. There was no commitment made by the Hon. Mr. Kennedy; it was made as a bribe at the time of the by-election.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: And the bribe is now being paid. I shall move that the item be reduced by $30,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On this
question my right hon. friend is speaking recklessly. The evidence points conclusively to the fact that the matter was initiated the same as any other public work of importance in any locality originates. It was first dealt with by the local authorities over a year ago, and I can inform the committee that there had been improvements at Belle River, but owing to a movement of the sand
12 noon the proposed wall extension became imperative. The municipality considered the matter and it was placed before the late Mr. Kennedy long before there was any probability of his death or the possibility of any by-election. There is some question that this matter should have been brought down in the Main Estimates. The Main Estimates were laid on the Table immediately after the opening of the session, on the 1st of February, and the death of Mr. Kennedy did not occur until after that date, so that the by-election did not take place until March. Let me read what the engineer reports:
Wall extension proposed is of a public nature. Local municipality wishes to have entrance channel

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
redredged and proposed protection work constructed to permit bringing in coal, lumber and building materials, the carrying on and development of fishing industry and the taking out of sugar beets by water to Wallaceburg and Chatham. They have also asked for proposed extension to wrest pier to prevent the prevailing westerly winds from filling up bar across entrance to channel. New brick and tile works under construction and to be placed in operation at this point.
This shows why, beyond all question, the Department of Public Works took the matter into consideration. Having gone through the various reports touching these items, I am struck forcibly by this fact, that in these estimates there is no item behind which there is such an accumulation of evidence to establish an independent interest in behalf of the municipal and local authorities as in the case of this particular item. My hon. friend cannot forget that there was an election in North Essex or that bills were posted in that campaign, and for that reason we have had this exhibition this morning.


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the date of the engineer's report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the exact date; it is not in the record. The deputy tells me it would be about two months ago.


Albert Frederick Healy: Really the merits of this
vote have been lost sight of in the political discussion that has arisen upon it. The first knowledge I had of any vote, or of any work proposed at Belle River, came to me one night when I was attending a meeting there. I was confronted with the engineer's report and a letter written by the late Minister of Railways in which statements were made that the people of the district were desirous that the work should be gone on with; and the vote mentioned in the poster was $86,000. I made the statement that any promise made by the late Minister of Railways would be carried out so far as my influence could bring about this end. I made that statement then and I stand by it now. And this is the only opportunity I had of getting anything placed in the estimates, because I was not elected until the first of March. The letters with reference to this matter are contained in the files of the Public Works department and if my right hon. friend wishes to secure the information he can consult them. He can see the letters written by the late Minister of Railways as well as the report of the engineer and that of the municipality. The vote is entirely justifiable. It may be true that the handbill was circulated in the district, but I
want to tell the leader of the Opposition that it was the first circular I had ever seen.


Arthur Meighen: I have some others.


Albert Frederick Healy: I heard that such a circular was published, and the wording of it follows the wording of a circular that was used extensively by the leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt in my mind that the gentleman who wrote the circular considered that, while the effect would be different in this case, the phraseology was quite appropriate.
Now, I am not responsible for that circular. As a matter of fact the whole proposition comes from a squabble between two gentlemen who lived in Belle River, two gentlemen, I believe, who got into trouble between themselves over a shipment of goods that came into Belle River. One gentleman happens to be a strong Liberal; the other happens to be a strong Conservative. That is the secret of the whole thing. That accounts for the letters being produced. That accounts for this poor little vote for the poor little town of Belle River, which happens to be in the north riding of Essex, being attacked by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. A local political squabble, and it is brought up here at this time. The vote is justified; the people are entitled to it. They have been recognized by every government of this country for twenty years, but it is the first time that an intelligent effort has been made to put money where it belongs, where it will make a permanent improvement at a small cost, thus avoiding the expenditure of large amounts each year on dredging. This expenditure has been reduced from $86,000 to $30,000 at my own insistence. I conferred with the engineer and with the people of the district, and decided that a breakwater costing this amount would do the work as well as a larger expenditure. Any member of the House who knows the locality, or who would agree to visit the locality, would come to the same conclusion.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. leader of the Opposition is the happy possessor of many good qualities to which I freely offer the tribute of admiration. Unfortunately, like most of us, I suppose, there are some qualities on the other side, and one of his unfortunate habits is that when his mistakes-I use the word very mildly-are pointed out, instead of frankly admitting them he runs off at a tangent and tries to divert attention; he adopts the policy of abusing somebody else. It is not a good policy for any man, least of all is it
4(502

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
a good policy for a man holding the distinguished position of leader of the Opposition. Now, what was the issue? The right hon. gentleman said, two or three days ago, that the bringing down of these supplementary estimates-and he held them up and flourished them-was an affront to the people of Canada, an outrage, an incomprehensible thing. Now, we are not discussing the broader question of all the expenditure, if necessary we can still discuss that before the House closes; but we are confining our discussion to this particular point:	The bringing down of
these supplementary estimates at a late stage in the session-just that and nothing more. This is what the right hon. gentleman said, flourishing the estimates above his head:
Well, the House is faced to-night, two or three or four days before prorogation, with a set of estimates almost as big as the estimates that were produced in the middle of the session-estimates, page after page of them, that we ought to have had before us for weeks, even for months, before prorogation. I would like the minister to tell where in the history of Canada estimates of that magnitude were ever brought down in the last week of the session. Occasionally there would be a single page and that would be all, and there would be a row over that.
That is the statement I am challenging. May I point out that the right hon. gentleman in his own last session of parliament, three or four days before prorogation-to use his own words, in the last week of the session -brought down estimates not for $15,000,000, but for $23,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman the Estimates with him?


William Stevens Fielding: No; but is my right hon. friend challenging the accuracy of my statement? Now, I quoted the Montreal Gazette before on another matter and he was not pleased; he does not like the authority of the Montreal Gazette. But here is a quotation from that paper:
Supplementary estimates tabled in the House this evening by Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, totalled $23,950,000.
This is from the Montreal Gazette of May 21, 1921. Someone now hands me a copy of those Estimates; I did not have them at hand. I suppose my right hon. friend would like to say I imagined it. Here are the Estimates; but I am willing to take the Montreal Gazette's statement of the total without reading the document.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He will deny even the Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to say to my right hon. friend in all seriousness that he
IMr. Fielding.]
should not recklessly plunge into these rash statements. He should endeavour to have some regard for his position as ex-Prime Minister of this country and as leader of a political party-a once great party.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, they are going strong.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Arthur Meighen: Well, I must congratulate the minister on his energy.


William Stevens Fielding: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: The unfortunate feature is that what he has stated pretty well goes to prove what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: We knew it.


Arthur Meighen: The estimate that was bi ought down-indeed, I have not the date in my mind of the closing of parliament, but if the date of the article he read was the twenty-first of May-that is what he read-


William Stevens Fielding: The thirty-first. If I
read the twenty-first that was wrong.


Arthur Meighen: The minister gave it as the twenty-first.


William Stevens Fielding: The thirty-first is the date in the memorandum I have. Parliament prorogued on the fourth of June.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman gave the twenty-first as the date; it would require my looking into it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. I should like to know whether this discussion is on the item at present before the committee.


The CHAIRMAN:: The discussion is on the general vote, item No. 508, for the province of Ontario. It is being dealt with generally, as agreed by the committee last night; so that the discussion is not on any specific item of the vote.


Arthur Meighen: I am disposed to think that when I get time to go into it-


William Stevens Fielding: Confess and have it over.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: There will be no confession from me; the confession will come from the minister-that is to say, if he is honest with himself: I have not the exact date before me, but if the hon. member was right in the date he gave the House the estimates were brought down a long while before the end of the session.


William Stevens Fielding: They were not.


Arthur Meighen: But one item of those estimates was a revote of $12,000,000 in connection-[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: What difference does it make what the items were?


Arthur Meighen: All the difference in the world.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount of the estimates was the question. What is the difference what they are?


Arthur Meighen: All the difference in the world, even considering, as the minister insists on doing, that all we are comparing are the supplementary estimates of ours and the supplementary estimates of his, which are only a fraction of all that he has asked this House to put through in the last few days, only a fraction of the appropriations that he has concealed from the House under the cover of supplemental bills. One item of those estimates of ours was a revote of $12,000,000 loaned to the provinces-loaned, mark you- for housing. The hon. member will find it- a revote of $10,456,000-on page 4552 of Hansard of the 4th June.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to my hon. friend that $4,000,000 of these Supplementary Estimates is for the same purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Four million is very different from twelve million. That leaves only ten million and a fraction. I have not had time to go through it and see the rest, but I notice it is a whole lot less to be considered and covers a whole lot less for parliament than does their Supplementary Estimate alone. It is merely a small portion of the size and consists in the main of items which parliament had already considered and which are merely loans-a different thing altogether. I put myself in the judgment of the House if ever the conduct of this government in trying to gulp down these tremendous vast.amounts and present a whole new area for consideration in the last few days was ever equalled in the history of this or any other parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just take the words with which my hon. friend has concluded when he asks if ever in the history of this country there had been an effort made to gulp down such a vast amount as we are presenting at the present time? Fortunately it is possible to refer to the records of parliament in this matter and put the whole question beyond dispute. I have in my hand the Journals of the House for the last year in which my right hon. friend was Prime Minister, and I am going to ask the attention of the House to what took place in this House on the last three days of the session while my right hon. friend was Prime Minister and his colleague was Minister of Finance. This is the record of what was considered by the House on Wednesday 1st June, 1921, and I would ask the House to remember that parliament was prorogued that year on Saturday, 4th June. Here is what was forced on the House and forced through parliament on that day. I shall read only some of the items appearing under miscellaneous:
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income-Miscellaneous-Board of Railways Commissioners, $206,000.
Other items, $200,000, $5,000, $53,000, $10,000.


Arthur Meighen: Those were in the Main Estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but parliament never had an opportunity of considering the Main Estimates until the Wednesday prior to prorogation.


Arthur Meighen: Because you obstructed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will permit me I should like to read this list. I think it will amaze even himself. The other items are as follows:
Loan of $50,0000,000 to the Canadian National Railways.
Loan of $89,000,000 to the Grand Trunk.
Loan of $26,000,000 to the Grand Trunk System.
There were several other miscellaneous items and finally this:
To provide salaries and expenses in connection with an arbitration of the railways, $1,000,000.
There are a couple of hundred million dollars, in these items alone, put through this House within a few hours by the force of the majority which my right hon. friend had and the manner in which he used it. But this is only a fraction. Other items put through on the same day were as follows:
Canadian Government Railways, Railways and Canals, $7,000,000; Canals-staff and repairs, $2,270,000; Railways and Canals-to pay claims for right of way,


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, reading
lists of this kind was ruled out of order by you last night.


George Newcombe Gordon: The right hon. member is quite in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder my hon. friends are ashamed of the record.
In addition to those I have read the following were also passed on that same day:
Supplementary Estimates-Administration of Justice, $2,500, $3,000; Penitentiaries, $10,000; Miscellaneous, $30,000, $5,000, $20,000, $1,000; Demobilization, $6,000.
Main Estimates-Royal Canadian Mounted Police- Pay, $1,718,000, Subsistence, $1,800,000, Contingencies, $5,000; Soldiers' Land Settlement, $17,000; Advances to soldiers settling upon the land, $35,000,000; Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment:	Capital, $200,000; Care of
patients, $5,250,000; Vocational expense, $325,000; Salaries, $6,000,000; Pay and allowance (treatment), $3,750,000, (vocational), $2,000,000; Vocational Loans, $150,000; Interest on war service gratuity balances, $10,000; Operating expenses and working capita!, $1,500,000; Miscellaneous-Canada Gazette, $51,000; Printing Bureau, $20,000; Distribution of parliamentary documents, $40,000; Miscellaneous printing, $100,000; Contribution towards publication of international catalogue of scientific literature, $600; Expenses under Canada Temperance Act, $500,000; Other items under Miscellaneous, $31,000; $40,000, $68,000, $25,000, $2,000, $6,000, $35,000, $10,000, $50,000, $8,000; to provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, $2,000,000; Other items, $5,000, $5,000 $5,000, $2,000, $8,000, $2,500, $905,316, $3,000, $15,000, $80,442, $15,000, $5,000, $1,000, $15,000, $50,000, $15,640, $2,000, $12,000; Demobilization-Dominion Bureau of Statistics (including census 1921), $1,860,000; Trade and Commerce- Secretary of State, $50,000.
Supplementary Estimates.-Provisional bonus, allowance for inside and outside service of the Civil Service, $9,375,000.
That is as large as the whole of our Supplementary Estimates, exclusive of what is provided by way of loans.
Supplementary Estimates-Charges of Management- Offices of the Assistant Receiver General, etc., $12,000; Printing Dominion notes, $75,000; other items, $60,000, $1,000, $66,000; Civil Government-Printing etc., $1,700,

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
$4,800. $10,000; Department of Labour-contingencies, $20,000; High Commissioner's office, $7,000; Civil Service Commission, $4,800,	$5,120,	$10,000,	$10,000, $25,000,
$10,000; Legislation-Senate, $6,259, $7,800, $9,000, $4,700, $11,000, $8,800; Immigration and Colonization- contingencies in Canadian, British and Foreign agencies, and general immigration expenses, $150,000; Exhibitions, $5,000; Pensions-Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioner for Canada, $350,000: Militia and Defence-Royal Military College, $35,000.
Then follow a number of votes for pensions of different amounts, and a gratuity. Next come these items.
Labour-Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $5,000; Conciliation and Labour Act, $24,000, Emergency relief, $500,000; Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-care of patients and limb factory operations, $1,600,000; Unemployment relief, $1,100,000; Miscellaneous-Printing Bureau, $13,000; Grant to Navy League of Canada, $5,000; Administration of the Business Profits War Tax, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, $600,000: Expenses under the Naturalization Act, $12,000; Trade and Commerce-Canada Grain Act, Administration of, $60,000; Trade commissioners and commercial agents, $40,000; Weights and Measures, $10,000;
Civil Government-Department Secretary of State.
The items under this head relate to the departments of Secretary	of	State,	Agriculture, Public Works, Trade and Commerce, and include the following	amounts:	$3,375,



SI,125, S2,600, $2,400, $1,890, $1,800, $4,800, $2,880, $1,800, $1,800.

[Stage Direction]
High Commissioner's Office, $7,000; Department of External Affairs, $4,000; Department of Public Archives, $5,500; Civil Service Commission, $7,100; Legislation- Senate, certain sessional indemnities, $3,000; House of Commons, contingencies, $17,000.
There follow other items respecting the House of Commons and the Parliamentary library. Now these items:
Immigration and Colonization, $28,000; Pensions, $700; Militia and Defence, $10,000, 55,000, $20,000, $3,000; Royal Military College, $25,000; Public Works-chargeable to capital, $100,000.
Let me take the votes for public works: Public works-Nova Scotia, $1,500,	$6,000,	$3,000,
$3,000; Public Works, New Brunswick, $5,000, $1,500; Public works, Quebec, $2,200, $25,000, $1,400, $2,750; Montreal, General Post Office, $30,000; Quebec, Immigration building, $15,000; Quebec, Post Office, $10,000; Quebec, Savard Park Hospital. $10,000; Three Rivers, Public Building, $4,750.
Now the votes for Ontario.
Public works, Ontario, $1,600, $2,600, $30,000, $2,000, $7,500, $1,000, $1,131, $4,000, $25,000, $2,000. $8,500, $2,000, $10,000, $13,000, $3,000, $5,400, $22,000, $9,000, $5,500, $100,000, $10,084, $2,500, $4,500, $350,000, $6,000, $7,500, $4,252.
Other items of public works are:
Public works, Manitoba, $1,300; Public works, Saskatchewan, $7,500;	$2,009;	$4,500; Public works,
Alberta, $3,800, $1,000, $7,000, $2,400; Public works, British Columbia, $14,000, $3,500, $2,175, $6,000, $4,000; Generally-Public works. Armouries, $87,000; Dominion Public Buildings, $30,000; Rents, Repairs, Furniture Heating, etc.- Ottawa Public Buildings, $125,000; Telephone Service, $8,000; Dominion Public Buildings, $60,000.
In the matter of harbours and rivers there is a list of items as long as that presented in our estimates. The estimates for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick cover a page of the official record for simply harbours and rivers. The items for Quebec and Ontario occupy almost the same. The next page is covered with estimates for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Yukon territory. The votes for roads and bridges run into many thousands, if not millions. The estimates for British Columbia occupy half a page. The mail subsidies and steamship subventions cover part of a page. For public works chargeable to capital- Marine department-there is a vote of $85,000. There are also votes for lighthouse and coast service, labour, soldiers' civil re-esjablishment -oustside service-and miscellaneous. There are two votes under soldiers' civil re-establishment one amounting to $600,000 and the other to $623,000. Under miscellaneous there is a vote of $45,000 for the Printing bureau, and one of $24,670 for the Conservation commission.
These items, Mr. Chairman, were passed m the very closing days of the session. I could quote many other items from the record, but I will simply direct the attention of the House to the time at which the House adjourned; it was 5.28 in the morning. My right hon. friend has appealed to his record. Very well, I have given it. If there ever was a worse scandal in the history of parliament in the passing of estimates I should like my right hon. friend to point to it.
Arthur Meighen: I think the object of the Prime Minister in making this long and rather wearying harangue must have been to take up as much time and leave as little for consideration and discussion as possible. I do not know what other relevancy his speech had.


Mr. ROBB:: We have all next week before us.


Arthur Meighen: The estimates enumerated were the main estimates. All that the Prime Minister has been reading had been before parliament for weeks and months; before parliament during weeks and months of persistent obstruction by these same hon. gentlemen in order that at last they could claim that a terrible injustice had been committed in getting them through. Nor was closure passed on that occasion. My hon. friends had the right to discuss those estimates as long as they liked. They had been debated time and time again during the session, and went through the same as other estimates.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Let me recall the facts. The large items were loans to the railways, $75,000,000 and so forth. It will be remembered that those were the cases in which my hon. friends opposite used to make their great speeches against public ownership. When these items were up during the session they took occasion to harangue against the disastrous character of public ownership, and for days and nights they kept this hall ringing with denunciations and the scandal of putting $75,000,000 in the estimates for this public ownership that was going to ruin Canada and bring it to the brink of bankruptcy-yea, push it over the precipice. By such speeches they held up the estimates all the session, and then at the last-with their own consent the same as in any other case-[DOT] those estimates had to go through; there was no closure applied. What relation on earth, all this has to the subject we are discussing to-day-I am entirely at a loss to understand.


George Perry Graham: I will not discuss the remarks of the leader of the Opposition in regard to public ownership at the present time. An occasion will come probably, before the House closes, to point out who really are the enemies of public ownership in endeavouring at every step to wreck the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: The right hon. gentleman referred to "another place." I wiil not make any reference to it I will only say that I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman has such intimate knowledge of what is going to go on over there.


Arthur Meighen: I did not, at any stage,
make a reference to what was going to go on, I referred only to what had gone on.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend referred to a certain bill being kicked out, and the vote had not been taken at the time he was talking.


Arthur Meighen: I think it had. I was
so informed; perhaps I was wrongly informed.
I was informed it had been done on the motion of a Liberal Senator. ,


George Perry Graham: There was a motion made in another chamber last night by the leader of my right hon. friend's party in the Senate for the six months' hoist for a certain bill, but unless' the vote was taken a few moments after the House met this morning the matter was still undecided. However the facts as to that will develop in time. I wish to suggest to the committee that we get back to this item. I want to say this with respect to any

circulars that were issued: I suppose there is not a party represented in this House but has at some time or other issued such circulars. I remember some beautiful illustrations on the bill boards in the last general election containing my right hon. friend's physiog., and an inscription stating that the country would be wrecked if he did not stay at the helm.


Ernest Lapointe: -"Arthur will lead us through."


George Perry Graham: Yes. "Let Arthur do it". This is not a new work at Belle River. Up to this date $28,000 has been expended in keeping the harbour at Belle River open. Those who understand the situation will know that that vicinity is a flat country, almost on a level with lake St. Clair. Belle river runs in from the lake. Consequently in that entrance to the harbour up into the river there is constant silting, which has to be dredged practically every year. The proposition made now will be an economic one, to my mind, to put up a protection wall along the side of the channel and dredge it out, in the hope that this protection wall will do away with the necessity of an annual grant, which both sides of the House have been giving for years, to keep the channel open. As to coal and other commodities which are used and handled there, the desire is to make the channel deep enough to take a boat of a fifteen-foot draft. That is the whole story, and it is absolutely defensible. It will be an annual saving instead of being an annual grant to keep this channel clear.
I am not going to discuss the question of the election. I suppose even in Grenville there may have been some discussions. I have no doubt that it was said that when the Welland canal was finished they would have the elevators at Prescott. But I want to point out that one of the things impressed on me-* and I urged strongly to have it go into the estimates-by my predecessor in office was this very item, and before he went South he handed me a memorandum of this item to have it put in the estimates, stating that it was absolutely necessary for Belle River. If there had been no election and our late lamented friend had not been called away-and nobody ever dreamed of the sad occurrence that necessitated the by-election-the item would have been in the estimates just the same. This item can be defended on the ground of utility and economy.


Mr. FORKE:: 
Mr. HANSON:: My hon. friend's party
adopts the "Holier than thou" attitude.


Robert Forke: We can deal with my hon.
friend some other time. We are not at all afraid. It may seem presumptuous for some members who have not been in parliament very long to make a few remarks and compel some of those of superior wisdom to keen quiet during the time we have the floor. We are very much enlightened by the remarks which come from these quarters. I
do not know if I understand just exactly whether this is a proper item or not. It has been said that dredging has been carried on year after year. Now, if the government has been incurring this expense for years, and if this vote will obviate that expenditure in the future, I think it should pass. I am anxious-and I know the members behind me are anxious-to do what is right in this matter. I will confess that the quotations made by the Prime Minister a few moments ago were something of an eye-opener to me, in regard to passing these large sums of money in the closing days of the session. But that does not make it right. I think it is bad practice and should be discontinued as far as possible. At the same time I think I will have to vote for the appropriation in this particular case.


Mr. BAXTER:: I think, perhaps, the item
sinks into relative insignificance compared with the principle, or the lack of it, which has just been enunciated by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). On many occasions in this House we have been treated to declarations by the hon. member, and by some of the members of his party that the two old parties, not venerable at all because of their age, were absolutely worn out, and that we must look to these members to give us a lead and direction, and-shall I say-an uplift, in matters of public life. Yet we are read another lecture this morning, and we are told that matters which have been discussed are matters of utter indifference to this would-be great party. If there is anything in the matter bqing discussed this morning it is the question of whether the expenditures made by this parliament should be dictated by necessity and by principle, or whether the moneys of this Dominion should be flagrantly and openly used for the debauching of a particular constituency. And the hon. member for Brandon is utterly indifferent to such a thing as that. He refers to the two old parties and says that he will take no part in what he terms the squabble between those parties. If that be his attitude and the attitude of his party, he need not be at all surprised that the public is treating that party just in the way that that party deserved to be treated, in proportion to its hypocrisy with regard to the needs of .public life. If debauchment is a matter of indifference to this party, if they care not whether expenditures are right or wrong, if they see no principle or lack of principle, if they will not rise and condemn a violation of principle in public life, what shrift can they expect from the electors who sent them here

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to represent the higher principle of driving these errors of the two old parties out of public life?
What my hon. friend wants to know is only this, not whether this wharf is to be used for bootlegging or for some suspicious boat or boats to be tied up to, but where it will be located and how much it will cost. It is a matter of utter indifference to him whether it is applied to a constituency or not. As he speaks in the name of his party, so may he expect his party to be judged by the electorate of Canada-and the handwriting is pretty plain upon the wall at the present day. You have been "weighed in the balances and found wanting." You have lickspittled to the government through the whole of one session and part of another, and you have traded upon the rights of the rest of Canada. You have got what you could; you have got your small pittance, and in the hour of your disappointment you say to the people of Canada: "These matters in connection with the two old parties are of no interest to me." It is not a new road in the West; it is not a question of grain rates; it is only a violation of public principles, only a lowering 01 the standard of national honour

and these things are all matters of indifference to the men of the great, boundless sweep of the prairies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that I
wanted to ask a question with regard to this item. We were told that there was a recommendation for some large sum of money. This item is for only $30,000. I should like to have it clearly stated what the estimate was on the recommendation made by the engineers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The original estimate by the engineer of the cost of work of construction was $72,500, the sheet pile wall being estimated at $60,000 sufficient to provide for an ultimate dredging of the channel to a depth of eighteen feet. But after further consideration it was decided that a wall to provide for the maintenance of a ten-foot channel would provide a channel for some time to come at a greatly reduced cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
waiting to see what answers would be made by the sober and sensible members of the government in connection with the charges made and admitted in regard to this by-election.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Admitted
in what way?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member (Mr. Healy' said that he knew of this

circular although he had not seen it. I do not know how he managed to dodge it. It must have been hard to dodge, but I take his word that he did dodge it.


Albert Frederick Healy: Might I be permitted to
ask a question? I am afraid the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I have known for some time that the leader ot fhe Opposition (Mr. Meighen) had in his possession a circular which he proposed to use at an opportune moment. I have never seen the circular. I had heard that circulars were issued, but this is the first time I have ever seen it or heard it read. Whether it was issued by a friend of mine or by an enemy, I do not know. But I do know that the leading Conservative of Belle River and the gentleman who is mentioned in the circular got into a personal row over a shipment of a cargo of beer into that locality. Probably the gentleman whose letter has been produced here to-day, but whose name has not been given to us, is the man. I am not prepared to say. There is a circular, the only one I have ever seen. Whether it was issued by a friend or an enemy, 1 do not know. It is in print and there is no signature to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what the hon. gentleman interrupted me for. His interruption was certainly not to ask a question. What I said was that he said he had not seen this circular, and I did not know how he could dodge seeing it. He says that he does not know whether it was printed by a friend or an enemy. Let me tell him that it is printed by his friend, Mr. James Cooper.


Arthur Meighen: And paid for.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: How does the
right hon. gentleman know that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is printed. I do not propose to be drawn away from what is a real matter of public moment, and that is this: Does this government that wants to enforce the law, propose to be a party to this kind of illegal treatment and illegal practice? It is admittedly illegal. Or does the government intend to argue that this poster is legal? The government cannot do that; it knows that this is illegal. I will assume for the minute that it would be quite impossible to expect this government to enforce the law against its friends-let us assume that that will be too high a standard altogether to expect from this government, and that the law as against one of its friends will never be enforced. Let us go a step further. Is

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
this government of the view that public moneys ought to be voted by it for the purpose of implementing a corrupt election practice? That is the grave question to which we want an answer. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that he had never seen a greater scandal than what went on in former years when votes were being put through. I think the scandal consists rather in what is being done than in the amount of business that is being performed. I would ask my hon. friend if he could find in any of those votes consideration for value received, for goods delivered, for votes purchased? "King needs Tim'-So do you. Tim' and King, that's the thing." "Tim" is the first in this wonderful organization.


Mr. MARTELL:: Quite a good organization.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are delivering the goods, I admit. "Tim" starts the thing, but "King" is the man who is now supplying the money which enables this thing to be done. Hon. gentlemen say something about other circulars. They know that has absolutely nothing to do with the question. They know there can be honest circulars; they know there can be dishonest circulars which affront every single principle of our election law. It is cheap, easy, to refer to circulars, placards, of my right hon. friend adorning fences and that sort of thing. There was absolutely nothing wrong in that. No bribe was offered in any of those. We were not trying to bribe the electorate, nor did we.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen laugh. They think it is a matter for laughter that their party and their name can be associated with direct illegal promises, with direct bribes; and when anyone tries to say anything in connection with the matter, he is to be met with laughter, which is the only argument that can be advanced against a criminal proceeding.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he honestly say that that is what we are laughing at?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what my hon. friend could not or would not laugh at. He laughs when he thinks that will serve any party advantage. I do not know how many of them are real laughs and how many are forced laughs or laughs of another character.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What kind is my hon. friend's laugh?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This, of course, is the only sort of argument.


Samuel William Jacobs: The laugh that "speaks the vacant mind."


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there must be an awful lot of rooms to let over there. The government is responsible for the proper conduct of public business; it is responsible for the enforcement of Dominion legislation. Have hon. gentlemen no sense of decency loft at all? When the result of this purely, absolutely, admittedly, illegal thing is brought to their attention it is met by bursts of laughter displaying the "vacant minds" which the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) alludes to. Is that their idea of public decency? The Prime Minister talks about "scandal." Well, he is exhibiting the biggest kind of scandal; he is showing that the government are prepared to implement corrupt promises by votes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to cay on behalf of the government that this is the first time their attention has been called to the fact that there was such a circular in use in the by-election. Both the leader of the Opposition and my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) know very well that the question cf infractions of the election law is one that can be dealt with by the persons who engage m elections; and he and his friends, if there was any breach of the law, might very well have taken proceedings long ere this. My hon. friend is not fair: he entirely ignores the evidence, which is overwhelming, as to the representations to Mr. Kennedy of the municipality interested in regard to the expenditure cf the money on this very work which was made by my right hon. friend's government in 1919, recognizing the necessity for keeping up an avenue of communication at Belle River. This proposition which we are submitting to parliament was originated long before the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) came to the House. It was considered and reported upon by the engineers as a necessary public work which has been recognized by everyone in the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does the hon. member not withdraw the vote now that he knows it is wrong?
At one o'clock the committee took recess
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The question is on the amendment. Moved by Mr. Meighen

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
that vote No. 508 be reduced by $30,000 by striking out the item, "Belle River-harbour improvements."
Amendment, (Mr. Meighen) negatived; Yeas, 5; Nays, 29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-
St. John Harbour-improvements-further
amount required	 $ 8,000
Toronto - Harbour improvements - further
amount required	 600,000
Port Arthur and Fort William-Harbour improvements-further amount required.. 192,200
1800.200
Arthur Meighen: Was the Ontario vote carried before the estimates had time to be opened?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, they were opened.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know why the question was not put before one o'clock, or at one o'clock, when hon. illembers were here. However, the lesson is obvious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice there is a vote of $600,000 for Toronto harbour improvements. The government is under a contractual obligation in connection with works in that harbour. The order in council is old, I know, and it could not be all carried out at once, but the work is much overdue. Is my hon. friend going to start the bridge this year under this vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The following are the items which make up this $600,000:
(a) Reconstruction in concrete of a further 478 lineal feet of the east pier of the eastern entrance; (b) to pay R. Miller & Sons, Limited the drawback held in connection with their contract for the construction of the western breakwater, if item (c) is not proceeded with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the amounts?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are: $67,000 for the first and $50,000 for the second. Then:
(c) Toward the completion of the western breakwater, involving the construction of 4,270 lineal feet of breakwater, including returns, in 9 sections, fronting on approximately 4,760 feet of shore line along the exhibition grounds; total estimated cost, $1,033,340; amount required for 1923-24, $471,000. Then, (d) office maintenance, salaries, etc., further amount required, if breakwater to be completed, $12,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would point out that all that has been done here is in large part the work necessary to maintain the harbour itself; nothing is being done to imple-
[The Chairman.]
ment the undertaking with the city. The city has a very vital interest in the question of the bridges which were agreed to be constructed before the war. As the amount is cut down so much in connection with this programme, and as the city has spent ovei $20,000,000 on its part, when is the bridge to be built, and why is there no provision for it now?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am in* structed that a deputation representing the Toronto city council, the Exhibition commissioners and the city generally conferred with the Department of Public Works, and what is proposed to be done under this vote is the carrying out of their ideas. I am advised that they prefer that that should be done now rather than that the work should proceed on the bridges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure they did not abandon the question of the bridges.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And I am sure that this does not represent anything like what they wanted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can only say what I am advised by the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. GOULD:: By way of preface to an observation I wish to make on this item, I may say that hon. members opposite are very anxious to have these items passed without proper discussion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is shown by the frequent and insistent shouts of " carried." It would be a signal lesson to hon. gentlemen if by chance their names could be recorded to show how earnest they are in the matter of attention to what should be, and what is considered by this side, as the country's business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Oliver Robert Gould: We have the right here, perhaps, to administer little political lectures as well as to receive them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will permit me, I trust he will not misunderstand the attitude of the government. We are very anxious to have the fullest and freest discussion and to give all information.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: The taking of a vote at
2	o'clock, before hon. members were in, looks like it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I had nothing to do with it.


George Newcombe Gordon: I wish to say to the right hon. gentleman that the vote was taken considerably after 3 o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: I meant 3 o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: There was ample opportunity for all members tQ be present who desired to be here at 3 o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: It is not very much after
3	o'clock now. I was detained for one minute by a man calling me at the door, and just as I came in the vote carried after discussion of only one item, although a great many other hon. members were anxious to discuss other items in that same vote.


Mr. BELAND:: May I ask my right hon. friend who, in his estimation, is responsible for the passing of the item?-the committee?


Arthur Meighen: I would think so, yes. I think the committee knows who is responsible all right.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What else could we do?


Oliver Robert Gould: I appreciate the statement of the minister in charge of the estimates, but I think that statement might well be directed to the hon. gentleman of whom I have complained; it might have cooled their ardour and their anxiety for the passing of these estimates as indicated by the continuous shouting of " carried, carried." I wish to make an inquiry with regard to the sandbars, to which reference has repeatedly been made in connection with these estimates. These sands have accumulated in the harbours and around the wharves; it seems to me they must be of some commercial value, and I rose to ask whether any commercial utilization was made of them as a sort of salvage by the government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not
an expert on that subject. With regard to the conditions that exist on the Atlantic coast I can say for my hon. friend's information that this sand is used in a great many cases in connection with building operations. Owing to the tremendous storms on the Atlantic the sand bars that are to be found around our harbours are continually moving from one part to another, and wharves and breakwaters are put up to regulate and control the movements of the current and the shifting of the sand so that the harbours can be kept
open for navigation purposes. With regard to conditions on the St. Clair river near Detroit, the land there is very low-lying, almost on the level of the water, and there are also very large marshes. The sand shifts with the river current and breakwaters are necessary in order to maintain access to the harbour.


Oliver Robert Gould: Since the House rose at
one o'clock I had the opportunity of having a conversation with a gentleman who resides in the vicinity of this flat land that is spoken of by the minister. I do not know the man's politics, I do not think he was speaking politically; but he told me, when I asked for information, that these lands were so flat that no matter what sort of breakwater was built-


Frank S. Cahill: What item is the hon. gentleman speaking to?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am speaking of Belle
River.


Frank S. Cahill: That is passed.


Oliver Robert Gould: It has passed but the information might be useful to the committee. This man stated that in his opinion, no matter in what position a breakwater was put to block the sand it would not prevent the filling up of this harbour, because the land was so flat. The dredging of the harbour, he thought, would be another of these "hardy annuals" that I spoke of last night. If he is right, it does seem to me that the department or the government-not only this government but any government in power in this country- should always make an investigation first and determine whether it is possible in view of the current to prevent the movement of the silt and sand by means of a breakwater.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Any government or any responsible body that has to do with the expenditure of money must rely, not upon casual opinions given by gentlemen in the vicinity, but upon the opinions of their engineers who have been trained for this particular purpose., The recommendation to parliament in this case was made only after a study of the situation by the engineer of the department wrho has had long experience in this work. This is a technical matter, and we must rely upon the judgment of the engineer in each case.


Oliver Robert Gould: Again referring to sand bars, a large number of these items in the Supplementary Estimates are for dredging operations that must be carried on close to urban centres where sand is required for construction purposes, and it seems to me that the govern-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
ment should have before them some evidence to show that they have salvaged a lot of this sand for use in that way.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is in the records of the department, and I am sure the deputy minister will be glad to let my hon. friend have the information.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is there nothing on the
records before the minister?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the western part of Ontario there is an arrangement between the Public Works department and the province of Ontario by which the sand is distributed among the various municipalities and to individuals at a set price agreed upon.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is good information.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I should like to ask how it comes that the engineers are so unanimously in favour of improvements in the constituency of Muskoka? There are four votes here out of about thirty-five for that county, and it just happens that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Hammell) has recently changed his seat in this chamber.	,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
know anything about that, myself.


Mr. HAMMELL:: If I have the permission of the Chair I can tell the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) the reason why there are two or three small items here for that constituency.


Arthur Meighen: Why did you change?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why are you
over there?


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
please tell us why he is sitting where he is?


William James Hammell: I am not sitting at present.


Arthur Meighen: You won't be, very long.


William James Hammell: There is an item here of $2,700 for a breakwater in the town of Bracebridge. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Parry Sound has been at Brace-bridge at some time during his career. Brace-bridge is such an important centre, in fact, that the right hon. leader of the Opposition thought it worth his while to board a special train and deliver some of his eloquent speeches there during the campaign of 1921. The town wharf at Bracebridge is situated close to a large falls, and every spring during the freshet season sand is washed down from the foot ol the falls to the wharf, making it necessary for considerable dredging to be done theie
'Mr. Gould.1
every spring and summer. The engineers, some two or three years ago, reported that by the construction of a small breakwater the current could be diverted and this continual dredging be obviated. That is the reason why that item is there. Another item is for the village of Grassmere.


James Arthurs: What is the population?


William James Hammell: The population is quite considerable.


James Arthurs: How many?


George Newcombe Gordon: I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this vote has been passed, and he is not in order ;n discussing it now.


William James Hammell: I am quite satisfied.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are on resolution No. 491-St. John harbour improvements, Toronto harbour improvements, and Port Arthur and Fort William harbour improvements.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: This seems rather an unusual procedure. We took the other reso lotions item by item and passed them that way.


George Newcombe Gordon: It was agreed by the committee that the Ontario vote should be taken in bulk. It was asked by the hon. gentleman leading the opposition that the Nova Scotia vote be taken item by item, and it is only with the consent of the committee that the votes have been taken that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just to be accurate, Mr. Chairman, I did not ask that they should be taken item by item. The Chair did it, and perfectly properly. Then, later cn, we thought we might save time by taking ihem in bulk, and we did so.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member lead-ng the opposition was asked if we should take the first vote item by item. He gave his assent and the committee gave its assent also. That is the reason they were taken that way. We are now on resolution No. 491. Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings-Nova Scotia, $146,650.
Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt that it is the pleasure of the government, and probably of the hon. member for Halifax, that this vote carry. I notice that three of the items composing it are for the city of Halifax.-Halifax immigration building, $95,900, Halifax quarantine station. $17,000. and Hali-

Supply-Public Works
lax Rockhead hospital improvements, $25,000. Further on in the estimates very large sums will also be found for Halifax, and any who may have had any doubt as to the probability of a by-election in that riding this summer may now have their doubts set at rest.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The first- of the three items is really an inter-departmental matter, it involves a payment to the Railway department who are the owners of pier No. 2 which is used in connection with the immigration business. The second item, repairs to the quarantine station-in this the Department of Public Works bears its share. The vote for the quarantine station is one which was made at the request of the Department of Health. They are remodelling the quarantine buildings throughout the Dominion so as to afford better facilities for the treatment of people who happen to be ill when they come to our shores. In the case of parties suffering from measles, or diseases of a like character which are not very dangerous, instead of requiring i he ship to be sent to quarantine and holding the patients at some inaccessible point, necessitating also the holding up of people in sound health who are travelling at the same time, arrangements are being made now by the Department of Health not only at Halifax but at Quebec and other points where quarantine stations exist, whereby persons afflicted with disease of the character mentioned are brought ashore quickly for detention and treatment without detaining the other passengers. The request for this vote has come entirely from the Department of Health and from no other quarter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In regard to the vote of
$5,000 for a public building site at Edmunds-ton, I desire to offer my congratulat'ons to the department for making this provision. Has the site been selected yet and if so what price has been paid and on what street is it located?


George Newcombe Gordon: I have just declared
resolution No. 492 carried. The hon. member would be more in order in speaking on resolution 493 which includes the item	to	which
he refers,
Public buildings-New Brunswick-
Edmundston-public building site	 $ 5,000
St. John quarantine station-new buildings,
repairs, etc	 15,000
Sackville-public building	 15,000
Sussex-public building-improvement-revote	4,500
Tracadie lazaretto-installation of electric light system-improvements, etc	 6,500



$4C,000

Richard Burpee Hanson: I simply wish to know
whether the site at Edmundston has been purchased. If so, what is the purchase price and where is it situated?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) My information is that on account of the construction of the new international bridge at Edmundston there is necessity for this public building. No site has yet been purchased. I understand that it is desirable that the site, if possible, should be near the bridge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has never been a
decent post office at Edmundston since it has been a town. I had great pleasure in calling the attention of the minister last year to the necessity for this building. I am glad now to see that my efforts are bringing forth fruit.


Mr. BROWN:: I suppose it has not been
suggested that this vote is prompted by any political motive on the part of the minister?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You could not elect a
Tory there no matter what you did.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In this
resolution, No. 493, there is an item of $15,000 for a public building at Sackville. May I ask the minister what practice the government follows in connection with these new public buildings? Is the contract let by tender, or in what way is the work carried out?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All'this
work is done by contract after calling for tenders. Nothing is being done by day work.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is a
new building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Sackville is a university
town of very considerable importance, and a very large community would be served by this building. If the members of the House could see the structure that has served as a post office in Sackville since 1894, when I first knew that community, they would realize that this vote should have been made years ago. I should like to know if this is the total vote for the purpose? I do not think it is adequate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is intended merely for the purpose of obtaining a site and preparing plans so as to provide for building next year.


Robert Gardiner: What is this public
building used for?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a customs house and post office.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. GOOD:: Are we considering these votes item by item or in bulk form?


George Newcombe Gordon: We are considering the bulk vote. If the committee desire to consider these resolutions item by item, and so intimate, we will do so. We are now considering resolution 493.


William Charles Good: I suggest it would take up
very little more time if we considered the resolution item by item.


Mr. BUREAU:: The committee have already passed upon that.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. member moves a resolution to that effect and it carries that procedure will be adopted during the consideration of these estimates.


William Charles Good: I protest against considering these resolutions in bulk form.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A great many of these items are of a purely routine character and it would be a waste of time for the committee to discuss them. If my hon. friend, or any other member, wants information on any particular item as we go along I shall be [DOT] very glad to give it.


William Charles Good: It will take very little more time to read over each item and if we have no particular objection they can be carried. I tlynk that would be a very much better procedure: it would give an opportunity to any hon. member to say anything he wished with respect to any matter that arises.


George Newcombe Gordon: The opportunity is given to every member of the committee to discuss any item he wishes. The items are all read out. Now as to resolution 493, what is the pleasure of the committee?


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: One question more. In regard to the item of 315,000 for the quarantine station at St. John, what is the purpose of this station? Is it to segregate and quarantine immoral politicians, or what is the purpose?


George Perry Graham: At St. John? The idea!


Alfred Speakman: If it is, I will vote for it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Department of Health recommends this vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not want at all to delay the proceedings, but my hon. friend (Mr. Speakman) is generally so fair that I think his question should be answered. St. John quarantine station is the second most important station in Canada. It is a winter station for use when the station at Quebec is

closed. We receive through St. John a very large number of immigrants.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings-Prince Edward Island-
Charlottetown-old bank building-repairs to roof, $4 ,000. Souris building-installation of electric wires, *1,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Purely repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Maritime provinces generally-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs etc.-further amount required, $5,200.
Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to ask the minister to explain this vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is required for the following improvements and repairs: Halifax customs house, repointing the exterior walls; North Sydney naval station, repairs to roofs. The latter was established during the war and the roofs are found to be in such a bad condition as to result in complete decay unless repairs are made. The other item has been reported on in the regular way by the inspectors of public buildings.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister, I think, was talking of resolution 494. I was addressing myself to resolution 495.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what I was speaking of.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are there two public buildings to be dealt with?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will see that the vote applied to Dominion public buildings in the Maritime provinces. I gave the two purposes for which the vote was required; $4,000 in Halifax for repointing the exterior walls of the custom house; and $1,200 for repairs to the roof of the North Sydney naval station.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings-Quebec-repairs and improvements, $180,000. *
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we consider this resolution item by item, or deal with it generally?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If any hon. member desires information with respect to any particular item I shall be glad to give it.


James Arthurs: I should like to ask the minister what the policy of the department is in regard to new public buildings. I see this item in the resolution:
Terrebonne-new public building-re-vote $15,500.

Supply-Public Works
When we have asked for public buildings in various districts in Canada, we have been met with the objection that the country was poor and could not afford it. The people wanted some buildings in my riding, and I think other districts were in the same position, but they were put aside owing to the war. Large sums have been voted, but the construction was delayed owing to the war. If the policy of the government is to start a new programme now, and commence to erect public buildings in very unimportant places, I think the House should know it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Unless the necessities of the district require the building, it is not the policy of the government, except in exceptional cases, to indulge in the erection of any new buildings. But hon. members will recall the terrible fire that took place at Terrebonne last winter; they will remember that the town and all the facilities for carrying on the public affairs, post office and customs, were destroyed, and at present they have no building. In such a case the government feel it is only right the building should be replaced in order to enable the community to do business.


Jacques Bureau: The whole town was swept out of existence-


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings-Ontario, $316,400.
Richard Burpee Hanson: One item here is "Hailey-bury-Armoury and post office 335,000." Surely this government is not building a new armoury?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The town of Haileybury suffered from a disastrous fire. The building was insured, and we are simply taking insurance money to replace the buildings. There are no other new buildings.


George Perry Graham: It was insured by the municipality.


William Charles Good: Does the committee decide by the majority vote to take the estimates item by item, or otherwise?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


William Charles Good: Then I move that these estimates be taken item by item.


Jacques Bureau: That point was decided yesterday. The hon. member was not in the House yesterday, but that was not the fault of the committee. I do not see that we should reverse our decision simply because the hon. member did not see fit to attend the sessions of the committee yesterday.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
However, I am willing to stay here till September.
George Newcombe Gordon: I do not know that the decision yesterday would bind the committee during all its sessions. It was simply decided to adopt that course yesterday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no objection to the motion.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member stayed away yesterday, but returns to-day and objects to these items being taken in the manner we decided yesterday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Chairman will read each item, and if the hon. member wants any information in regard to an item as we go along, I will be delighted to give it to him. If any new expenditures are being inaugurated, it is only right and proper that they should be discussed. In the case of simple repairs, which have all been reported upon by the permanent engineers of the department, it seems to me that no good purpose will be served by going over them all. I hope the hon. member will adopt my suggestion.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: With
regard to the armouries and post office at Haileybury, I may inform the committee that practically about all that is asked for in this $35,000 vote is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,000. If you consider interest on $33,000 since the 10th of last October up to the present time, it will bring the amount close to $34,000, or about that sum. The armouries in Haileybury have been rented. It seems that the Public Works department or the Militia department do not rent their buildings, but they give them on the understanding that they shall be insured. The people of Haileybury were insuring these buildings any time they got the use of them for tombolas, dances or other entertainments, and they found it was expensive to insure them by the day-or night-or by the week. The board of trade and city council got together and decided to take out a yearly insurance. They placed $33,000 on the armouries, and about two months after the insurance had been effected the armouries were burned. Immediately afterwards, about the 10th October, the money was turned into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and all they are asking here is practically $1,000, in conjunction with their own money and interest to build a post office and put a roof on the armouries; so that they will be available for use.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Arthur Meighen: I do not think that is quite a fair statement of the situation. I do not pretend to know the conditions at Haileybury, or whether the armouries are needed or not. I never had very much sympathy with this talk about nothing being needed in military expenditure because of the League of Nations and because the last war was fought. That never appealed to me. It appealed more to hon. members of the government.


Angus McDonald: Would
the hon. member be in favour of voting $1,000 to the people who have been burned out and lost everything they owned there, so as to provide them with a post office, leaving out the question of the armouries?


Arthur Meighen: I am not saying whether the vote is right or wrong. I do not think the statement of the hon. member was an exact statement of the facts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Arthur Meighen: The fact that the armoury has been burned does not make the insurance money the property of the people of the district. It is the property of the people of Canada. It may be the insurance premium was paid as and by way of rental for the building, for the privilege of using it, because the danger of fire is greater in that case. That is the usual practice. That does not establish any claim on the insurance money. What we are deciding is whether we should erect the building. I am not objecting to that, but I do not want the hon. member's statement that it is the money of the district to go unchallenged.


George Perry Graham: If it had not been insured the government would not have got anything, and we should have been asked to vote this money just the same; but in the Militia department they endeavour to exact the protection of the public building by asking those who use it to insure. In this case the armoury was being used continually by the people of Haileybury. They carried the insurance and it did not cost the government anything. In the vote of this amount of money, we just place our building, with the insurance money, where it was before, and put up an armoury more suitable to Haileybury. It must be remembered that Haileybury was wiped out. I received a cheque for the insurance myself and handed it in to the Receiver General.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think any one is disputing the receipt of the cheque. My hon. friend is buying some new building

in Ottawa. Where is it? We start with $26,000. The item is:
Ottawa-towards purchase of building for government work shops, $26,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: While the hon. minister is looking up that information, does the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) desire to have his motion put to the committee, that we should deal with these estimates item by item while they are being passed?


William Charles Good: I was interrupted. I was going to speak again on that matter. I am sorry I was not present yesterday, but I do not understand that the vote was that all the contents of these pages should be voted in a lump sum. I thought it referred only to certain specified blocks of items. If I was misinformed, and if this committee and all the component parts of it agreed to a general principle of putting through the items, I shall have to abide by that decision. But it seems to me a very foolish kind of decision, if I may say so.


George Newcombe Gordon: I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that each numbered item is a vote made up of certain parts, any one of which, or the whole item, can be debated, and amendments introduced.


William Charles Good: If we had had time to go
through these lists carefully and to mark those items that we wished to take up, the situation would be different. As .it is, we are considering this very largely for the first time; and at the rate at which you read, it is pretty hard to form any adequate understanding of what is in one of these blocks of, maybe, twenty-five items. Very little longer time will be consumed if we take each item by itself, and if there is no objection, let it go through. If, however, the committee has come to a decision, I shall have to abide by the consequences.


William F. Carroll: While we are considering this as a bulk vote, that does not prevent any hon. gentleman from discussing any item in the vote to his entire satisfaction.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Good) claims that he has not had time to read the item. I would suggest that in order to make progress, we might suspend proceedings for about ten minutes, in order to give him an opportunity to read it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The workshops in connection with the Public Works department in Ottawa have been reported on by the foreman of heating and plumbing, the assistant mechanical engineer and the

Supply-Pubhc TTorfcs
junior mechanical engineer, as being absolutely unsanitary, and having conditions which have resulted in illness to the employees who work therein. Recommendations have been made to the department that they should obtain a building known as the Wine Vault building on George street, for government workshops in place of the Harris and Campbell building at the corner of Queen and O'Connor streets.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What is meant by
"government workshops?" What kind of work is carried on?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Carpenters,
plumbers, masons-all men of that character who are employed, I understand, permanently in connection with carrying on all the repairs of this building and every other public building in Ottawa belonging to the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the
owner of the building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Labelle & Brule.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
assessed value of the property?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
think we have that here. Negotiations have not been closed.


James Arthurs: Has the government not a large number of buildings on Wellington street which are at present unoccupied?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am going to take that matter up in a moment. *


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why are we
voting this money to purchase another building when we already have buildings unoccupied?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will remember that a plan of a most comprehensive character was prepared a number of years ago. If he looks at item No. 490, he will see that it reads:
Ottawa-new departmental buildings-compensation to architects for designs submitted, $30,001).
Hon. gentlemen are, perhaps, aware that a large tract of property running from the Supreme Court in a northwesterly direction along Wellington street was expropriated a number of years ago by the government. It was planned that there should be erected, in place of those old buildings which are very dilapidated, a series of permanent buildings where all the departments might be housed, instead of having them as they are to-day, in rented buildings scattered throughout Ottawa.
294J
In 1912, the then government asked for competition among architects for the submission of plans and designs for buildings that would cover that particular part of the city, so as to carry out the idea of the then government. Owing to the war and the financial conditions that followed, all proceedings in connection with those plans were abandoned. Until the country is in a position to carry on a comprehensive plan for dealing with the situation, it is the policy of the government not to spend any money in connection with it. I am instructed by the departmental officers that reports are on file in the department, having regard to the health of the men employed in the present workshops, as to the impossibility of their carrying on under present conditions. This building is situated in the immediate vicinity of and convenient to the Hunter building where the present offices are. The whole matter has been reported upon and recommended by the officials.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
himself shows that nothing is being done with the large plan. There are some very good buildings on the site. I do not think that the Minister of Finance is of opinion that we ought to embark on that large and expensive plan for many years. Why .could we not use some of our own property and stop buying property that we do not require?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The deputy minister advises me that all buildings there suitable for present governmental purposes are occupied and used by other departments.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will this amount be
sufficient to buy the building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this only a starter?
I really think the government should consider the withdrawal of this item for the purpose of buying a new building at this time, especially in view of the fact that the other Chamber is likely to give our bill in connection with railway extensions the six months' hoist on the ground that we have not the money to build branch lines to feed our present system of railways. It looks as if we were casting about in the archives of the old departments for plans or suggestions that we might spend more money. At this ti.me we should consider very seriously any new expenditures. There should be a great objection to bringing down Supplementary Estimates of this size at this late date of the session, but I am not going to discuss that feature of the question now. I have no objection even at this late date to Supplementary Estimates being
Supply-Public Works

brought down for necessary repairs for carrying on the necessary work of the country, but an item for the purchase of a new building should not be put in the Supplementary Estimates, and I would urge strongly on the minister that he consider the advisability of withdrawing this appropriation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is proposed to sell the present building which, according to the sanitary authorities, the medical authorities and the engineers, is not suitable, owing to the conditions under which the men have to work. It is proposed to negotiate for the purpose of the other building, using this particular vote for the purpose. That, I am instructed by the department, is the only reason why this should be done.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Where is the building
that is probably to be sold, and what price could the government get for it? Have we any idea what the new building will cost?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The building at present used is situated at the corner of Queen and O'Connor streets. It is the policy of the department that they should utilize the sale of this other building as a site for building purposes in connection with stores for the purpose of obtaining the new building. Under the exchange which, it is expected, will be made, this appropriation will cover the whole of the cost of making the change, with the result that the men who work in Ottawa permanently will work under better conditions.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Could the present building not be remodelled and made so that it would answer the purpose just as well? I do not wish to delay the discussion on this item, but I feel very strongly that this should be cut out. In order to facilitate business, I move that this item be reduced by the sum of $26,000, so as to cut out the item in connection with purchasing a building for government workshops.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a queer way of not delaying the proceedings.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On this
matter the government has no policy except the desire to do what is absolutely necessary. I think that the committee will pretty generally agree that the government cannot allow to continue a state of affairs in which carpenters, plumbers, masons and other workmen who are permanently employed by the department must carry on their work in unsanitary conditions that inevitably lead to bad health and sickness.
[Mr. Caldwell.!


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much of the plumbing, or of the masonry, on this house is done in buildings in some other part of the city? It seems to me that men who are engaged on a particular building should not have to spend very much of their time in some other part of the city.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am neither a carpenter nor a mason, nor do I believe my hon. friend is. I know enough about these occupations, however, to be convinced that these men must have some shops or some place where they can prepare their material before working on the particular building on which they are engaged. I am instructed by the officials that the conditions under which these men work are not satisfactory. As a matter of fact they are unsanitary, and it :s imperative that they be improved. My hon. friend must realize that a carpenter uses a variety of tools and a great quantity of accessories whi-h it is impossible for him to carry around with him. He simply must have a shop; at least, every carpenter and every plumber that I have ever known have found it necessary to have some place in which to store their tools, and all the appurtenances of their trades. Of course, if the workman is an itinerant gentleman and is content to walk around with his hat on his head then the conditions to which my hon. friend refers might exist.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I quite realize that a plumber needs a shop; but the minister's idea of a carpenter's work seems to me to be somewhat like a story I once heard of a tramp. He asked a farmer for dinner and was told to go and hoe some beans. The tramp wanted the dinner first and he got it, and when the farmer asked him, "What about the beans?" he replied, "Bring along your beans if you want them hoed." Evidently there are a lot of carpenters engaged on this work who want the work taken to them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are these shops underground?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Apparently
they are.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think anybody wants an unsatisfactory condition of affairs to continue. That is not the point. But here is a government that owns any amount of property in the city, a great deal of it idle.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, a great
deal of it, as anyone can see for himself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed by the deputy that that is not correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let anyone look for himself and see the vacant land owned by the government which is not being put to use.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend's government tried architects from all over the world and arranged for people to supervise the plans of this building. Does he mean to say that all that was done must be rendered futile?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend told us before that the government had to stop on account of financial conditions, and he knows perfectly well it will be many years before the plans can ever be gone on with. He knows also that we have any amount of property which we are renting at nominal rates because we cannot get any use for it: and this is the case both east and west. We have large tracts which are bringing in nominal rents of a dollar a year and the like. And yet the government at a time like this, undertakes new investments. The thing is ridiculous.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think my hon. friend would be the first to oppose any suggestion on the part of the Department of Public Works that we should vote 310,000,000 to put up new buildings. It should be done, but he would oppose it because this government is in power.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I appeal simply to the sense of fairness of the committee. I happen to be one of the members representing the city of Ottawa and as such I think I might offer an explanation. If any hon. member
who has spoken against the purchase of this property will go and examine for half an hour the building that now stands at the corner of Queen and O'Connor streets, and after that declare that the men working there are working under conditions that would be put up with in any civilized country, then he is not fit to be a member of this House. In that building at present there are about two or three hundred employees. It has been stated that some carpentering goes on there, and that is true. All the furniture that is repaired for the various departments is sent there, and the upholstering is done there. The masons and the plumbers have their quarters in the building, but thetir work constitutes only a small portion of the activi-4 p.m. ties that are carried on in the place. The men employed in the forge and those who are welding pipes are working underground in the areas under the sidewalks along Queen and O'Connor streets. These men are using drills and machinery weighing two or three tons, some very much .heavier than that; besides presses of all kinds. Molten metal is also taken out of some of the machines and formed into the equipment that is required in connection with the various departments. These men have to work in artificial light, and the only ventilation they have comes through the small windows situated immediately between the sidewalk and the ceiling. This condition has not been condemned by the provincial authorities because ihey have no power in the matter. In over ninety per cent of the offices there is no light because they are hemmed in by the adjoining buildings. There is a system of ventilation, it is true, but in all the offices the employees work in artificial light from morning till night the year round. It is true that the government owns large tracts of land along Victoria street and along Sussex street, and hon. gentlemen ask, why not establish the workshops in some of these buildings? Have they considered the practicability of installing the forges in these buildings in Victora street that are in a ramshackle, tumble-down state? Why two or three turns of the flywheel and the buildings would fall. Right along Sussex street, where this proposed purchase is to be made, there is the old Geological Museum now used for some purposes similar to those of the workshops in question. Next to that there is the large tract of land now used by the Department of Public Works for the storage of their cranes, trucks, sand, stone, piping and the like. This building is the only one that the architects have found suitable for the pur-
Supply-Public Works

pose, because of its reinforced concrete walls, ceilings and foundations, which will permit of the installation of the plant and will provide workable conditions for the employees. It was proposed in 1920 that this item should form part of the estimates. In 1921, it was recommended that the item go in, but for reasons of economy, probably, it was not included. I have always stood for economy, but I refuse to stand for economy when it is to the detriment of the working people. The government has had this building for eight years at a rental of 88,000 a year, eo that the building will in due time pay for itself. There is no doubt that, if not within the next few years, at least some time in the future, the proposed development in the matter of departmental buildings for Ottawa will take place, and in that event this building is just where it will serve the best purpose. I appeal to the spirit of fair play of the committee on behalf of the workingmen now engaged in the public service of Canada.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Does the
government own the building on the corner of Queen and O'Connor streets?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is
to be done with that building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have explained that it is the intention to sell it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am sure
that hon. members have no desire to keep our masons, plumbers and other workingmen in unsanitary surroundings, and the proposal of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that this item be reduced should not be coupled with any suggestion of that kind. Why, there are offices in the Parliament buildings where the members cannot carry on their work without the continuous use of artificial light, and where there is no ventilation except what is afforded through a window or door. So that the conditions are similar in some parts of this building to what has been described by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevier). The government owns a considerable quantity of land in the city upon which they intend ultimately to erect departmental offices, and I rather think the present is a poor time to embark upon the purchase of more property. If this building is unsanitary, why not fix it up; why not make it sanitary? That would be much better than starting out on the purchase of new property. This item is for 826,000, but the minister tells us that will not complete the purchase.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said it would, when the proceeds for the sale of the present building are added.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will that complete the entire plan which is proposed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what I am instructed.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: How many buildings in Ottawa are used by the government?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon
friend has asked me a big question. I thin! he had better wait till the Minister of Public Works himself is here.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: When we are voting this item, it is important to know what buildings are used by the government.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is not an item that should be in the Supplementary Estimates. The condition is not one that arose within the last month or two months; it seems it has been a permanent condition. I still think we should cut this item out and if necessary put it in the Main Estimates next year. We will have a chance then of considering it.


Mr. McGIVERIN:: My hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Chevrier) has stated the present condition of the shops: it is simply disgraceful. The present building was purchased sixteen or seventeen years ago at a price of, I think, 842,000; to-day it is worth two or two-and-a-half times that amount. The point is that it is not now suitable for the purposes for which it is used.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How long has it been used for its present purpose?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Ever since it was purchased-I think about seventeen years if my memory is correct.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How long is it since the government found it was not sanitary?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: It has been complained of for the last four or five years. The question has been raised whether any of these other buildings which were purchased in 1912 could be used for this purpose. The answer to that is that they are practically all old buildings which were taken over in connection with the plan for the erection of the new departmental offices. It seems to me that this is a very good exchange. The old building is in the central part of the city, and is very valuable. It could either be changed in some respects so that the upper parts could be used as offices, or it could be sold, and if it is sold I am convinced that the government can make a very good deal in connection with

Supply-Public Works
it. We do hope in time to have proper departmental buildings in Ottawa so that the payment of heavy rentals may be avoided. That may not be a very popular thing for me to say, but it is the sane, businesslike way to deal with the matter. I speak subject to correction on the advice of the Deputy Minister of Public Works, but I am sure that the government has no building suitable for this purpose. I think, therefore, that we should carry the item, not only because to do so will be in the interests of the workingmen, but because it is a sound business proposition.


James Arthurs: Has the government an option on this property?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes-$116,000.


James Arthurs: What will be the cost of repairs, installation of machinery and so on?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The estimate is 825,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the government any assurance as to what it will get for the old building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Valuations have been made upon it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But no offer?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The whole thing is to go through subject to that.
Amendment (Mr. Caldwell) negatived; Yeas, 38; Nays, 74.


William Charles Good: I should like a little information on two of these items, the Toronto casualty clearing station and the Toronto building for the Seed branch.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to the casualty clearing station item, which is in full and final settlement of all claims of the Canadian National Railways for property expropriated, this is really nothing more than a book-keeping entry; it is required to pay the Canadian National Railways in full and final settlement of all claims whether for compensation or otherwise in respect to the expropriation and possession of land lying west of McLennan Avenue. These lands originally belonged to the railway and they were taken over by this department during the war for the purpose of building a casualty clearing station. There is no further use for it, and this is simply a book-keeping entry to clear up the matter.
In regard to the building for the Seed branch this is simply a preliminary vote which has been placed in the estimates at the request of the Department of Agriculture, who desires to obtain a building in Toronto in connection with their seed work.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We have had
difficulty for a good many years now in securing proper accommodation for our seed laboratories. It is very essential to have a northern light for seed inspection and examination, and this vote is for the purpose of securing a site for such a building so that we shall not be dependent forever on rented quarters that invariably are not suited for the purpose.


John Livingstone Brown: Why is this money being spent in Toronto?


William Richard Motherwell: That has been the headquarters of the seed laboratory work for many years. It serves all of western Ontario and is the centre of a large portion of the clover and grass seed work which are two of the most important items in connection with our laboratory work.


Mr. HALBERT:: I notice that 8113,000 is being spent in Toronto. Is the minister sure that none of this is to debauch the Tory electors of Toronto?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend lives closer to Toronto than I do, but it seems to me it is pretty difficult to lead those Toronto Tories back to the true faith.


Thomas Langton Church: What about a custom
house for Toronto?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have a number of experimental farms and is there any reason why this laboratory could not be located on one of them?


William Richard Motherwell: There is only one
experimental farm on which it-could be located, and that is the Central farm at Ottawa. That is not the centre of the work. You would have to bring the whole of the work of western Ontario to Ottawa. Besides, the headquarters have been in Toronto since the inception of this laboratory work, right in the centre of the field where the work is required. The work has grown into great importance especially for export purposes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the great urgency for going on with this work this year? Cannot we wait a year or two longer? We have been doing very well, you know.


William Richard Motherwell: The urgency is that we have been constantly changing our quarters in the past on account of having to rent, and we have had great difficulty in getting
Supply-Public Works

quarters with the proper light. We think the time has come in the importance of this industry when we should have quarters of our own. Why not wait?-the hon. member says. Because we have frequently to change our quarters, and we have great difficulty in securing the proper light, and good light is the first essential in this work.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the minister can give no better reason for going on with the work this year-


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon. gentleman does not know enough about the work to know if it is a good reason or not.


Edward Joseph Garland: That may be the honourable and parliamentary retort of the minister. He usually retorts that way when he gets into difficulties. But may I suggest that he has not, in my opinion given a sufficient reason? And if there is no better reason I do not think the vote is justified this year. It may be that the time will come when it will be justified, but not under existing financial conditions. In two short years of parliamentary experience I have come to the conclusion that this government, which came into power on an economy platform, has been spending money like a drunken sailor. I think this item may well stand over.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Clark, the Seed Commissioner, tells me that in some of our laboratories we are not getting over sixty per cent efficiency, due to the bad light. If you can scarcely see to do your work you have to take just so much longer time. Mr. Clark has made a close analysis of the work performed by the staff under different lighting conditions and has found that between good and bad lighting conditions there is just the difference of between one hundred per cent and sixty per cent, and in addition you do not get proper results with a poor light. Why should we give excuses for this work? These are absolute reasons I am giving. Why should we object to spending money in Toronto on work that is required? This accommodation has been required for some years, and the need is becoming more urgent all the time because of the increased importance of the work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not ask for any excuse when I asked my question. I asked for a reason and I have not yet obtained it. Why could not the laboratory be located at the Experimental farm? There is good light there, and the only reply I got was that the laboratory has always been in Toronto. That is no reason. If Ottawa is sufficiently central to carry on experimental work of all 
kinds I cannot see why it would not be suitable for this work rather than spending money here, there and everywhere all over the country for buildings. I asked if there was any underlying reason why this work could not be done in connection with an experimental farm, and the minister has not yet given me an answer.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
speaks of this as experimental work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not use the
expression that this was experimental work. I asked why it could not be carried on in connection with an experimental farm.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, implying that it was experimental work. My hon. friend is familiar with the quarters in Winnipeg where the grain inspection is performed, and knows that the very first essential in this work is light. It is the same with this seed inspection work, only even more essential because the grass seeds are much smaller than the cereal seeds. Ottawa is not sufficiently central. Toronto is a more central city. Therefore if we are to give the proper service such as we want to do the building must be suitably located for the work necessary to be performed.


William Charles Good: Will the minister tell us what this vote is for? Is it to buy land and construct a building suitable for the purpose?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know the details of the vote; that information can be given by the Public Works department. I presume it is for the purpose of making a start. The first investment usually is to secure a site.


William Charles Good: I should like to have information on this point. I know something in regard to the subject.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As far as
the department of Public Works is concerned the position of affairs is this. The amount is required towards the purchase of a site on which to erect a building for the Seed branch of the Department of Agriculture. No plans or specifications have yet been decided upon. The matter was initiated for the first time by the Department of Agriculture a few weeks ago. Dr. Grisdale the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, writes as follows:
The department has been looking into the possibility of acquiring certain land and erecting a new building for our Seed branch in the city of Toronto. A site has been located for this purpose at 84 Collier Street, about two blocks north of Blcor street and about 200 yards east of Yonge street. This property contains a frontage of 84 feet and a depth on the level

Supply-Public Works
of the street of about 120 feet where the lot drops into a ravine 60 or 70 feet below the level of Collier street. The total depth of the lot is said to be 164 feet.
Nothing has yet been done beyond this request to the Department of Public Works to provide a vote for enabling a commencement to be made.


Mr. SHAW:: What is the proposed cost of this site? Surely we can have some general estimate of that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a department we have no information on the subject.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is not the site for this building very far up? What is the reason for the selection of such a site?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Dr. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture simply suggests the site on Collier street as a possible one. Nothing has been done by this department in the matter of making a purchase. The whole matter will be reviewed by the officials of the Public Works department before anything is done in regard to it.


John Livingstone Brown: Is this building intended to serve for the province of Ontario, and therefore Toronto chosen, or is it intended to serve the whole Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: The Dominion is
divided into, I think, six areas for seed purposes. This is the one for the province of Ontario. There is one at Calgary, another at Winnipeg, and still another in the Maritime provinces-five or six in all. There is a centre selected for each area and Toronto happens to be the centre for this particular one. If any better centre could be secured I suppose there would be no objection to taking it. Toronto is the centre for Ontario just -'S Winnipeg is the centre for Manitoba, and Calgary the centre for the western part of the prairies.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not think the minister can be accused of partisanship in this matter. If he desired to germinate political seeds in favour of the government he would hardly go to Toronto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think hon.
members may be well assured of one thing: Any single advantage that this government gives to Toronto is given because it cannot be helped.


William Charles Good: It seems to me, from the letter which was read from Dr. Grisdale and from the other information which we have had, that this is a new idea, in fact the statement
was made that it originated only a few weeks ago. It occurs to me that the vote should stand over for further investigation.
I happen to know something about the University buildings at Toronto and the buildings of the Agricultural co'lege at Guelph, and I should like to see whether some arrangement could not be made to utilize the buildings of these two institutions, which are empty for a great part of the year and where the most excellent facilities may be enjoyed.
I am not in a position to say that it would be convenient to do so, but it seems to me we should go rather cautiously in a proposition of this kind. I would strongly recommend that the matter be held over for further investigation. I do not think we have sufficient evidence at the present time to justify this expenditure.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to say on behalf of the Department of Public Works that the department will not regard itself bound to any particular site. It will go into the whole question with the greatest possible care in order to have the site for this building located in the proper place with the least expense and with a view to promoting the best interests of the country. Nothing whatever has been done to commit the department in any way, and the whole matter will be carefully considered before any expenditure is made.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Is this vote for the site only?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is only for the site.


George Black: What further expenditure is anticipated? Where is it going to end?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing
further can be done without parliament voting the money. But you cannot start to build without securing a site. My hon. friend will see I am sure, that fault would be found if we proposed to parliament a large expenditure without making all necessary inquiries and having complete information. We are proceeding cautiously. Nothing has been settled about a site; we have simply had a rcommendation from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Nothing further can be done without coming to parliament for authority and I say, on behalf of the department that nothing will be done without the greatest possible care and thorough examination of the location.
Supply-Public Works


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who are the present owners of this property on Collier street?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no information on that point. The only information the department has is contained in the letter from Dr. Grisdale.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He selected the site apparently?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, he suggests a site on Collier street. He does not say anything in his letter as to whom it belongs to.


Thomas Langton Church: I see an item here for Postal Station "A", Toronto. The receipts for the past fiscal year from the post office at Toronto amount to nearly 86,000,000 and the accommodation is not what it should be. It is deplorable to have a building of that character in the city of Toronto. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) asked the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) the other day what the government intended to do in the way of improvements, and was told that he would find that out from the Minister of Public Works, (Mr. King, Kootenay) when the Supplementnary Estimates came down. The receipts from the post office, customs, and other sources bring the total revenue which Toronto yields to the government up to 890,000,000. Cannot the minister give us better facilities than we now have there in the customs building? The building is a very dilapidated one and the business men are complaining very much. I should like to find out what is going to be done to improve matters in the next twelve months. The custom house is a public utility, but business men cannot satisfactorily transact business there with the existing facilities. Surely when Toronto is giving the treasury a revenue of 890,000,000 the government should do something better than they are doing in the matter of providing improvements. Business men say that the existing facilities at the custom house are a positive detriment to trade. I should like the minister to look into this matter during the recess, and see whether something cannot be done to meet the wishes of the industrial community, to say nothing of the general public. I warn the government that if better facilities are not provided the treasury will suffer a great loss of revenue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed by the deputy in regard to this vote of $30,000 to complete postal station "A" in Toronto, that it is the end of an expenditure of over $1,000,000 for that particular pur-

pose. I am also instructed that the postal station in Toronto, when completed will be one of the finest stations of the kind in the Dominion. The other matter to which my hon. friend refers has been engaging the attention of the minister and of the officials of the department.


Thomas Langton Church: I must say, Mr. Chairman, tha,t the vote for Ontario is most inadequate. You cannot take care of the post office and the custom house for the next fiscal year with this vote. You have no custom house in Toronto; you have simply a vacant lot. Surely you will not leave matters for another twelve months in the position in which they are at present, when the customs house does a business of $50,000,000 a year. Money is being spent in other parts of the country to provide facilities for doing business, but in the case of Toronto you are not 'giving anything back to the business men, from whom you are getting the money. I hope the minister will take this matter up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not a local knowledge of the wonderful city which is so ably represented by the distinguished member who has just spoken; but I may say that he has some ground of complaint in reference to the inadequate facilities in the customs house. I am sure the permanent minister of the department will read what the hon. member has said, and I will personally direct his attention to the necessity and wisdom of providing better facilities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection with the casualty clearing station, will the minister tell us what is the reason of that vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is for the purpose of settling up with the Canadian National Railways for the site.


William Charles Good: I do not see what possible harm can come from leaving this matter over until we have further information. It is evident that nothing can be done this year-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, yes.


William Charles Good: *-other than to purchase the site, and we have not had sufficient information to enable us to decide as to whether or not that is justifiable.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What information does the hon. member desire? I have told him that this vote does not commit us to any particular site. Its purpose-and this is the uniform practice, and the only way in which it can be done-is to enable the de-

Supply-Public Works
partment to find a suitable piece of ground on which a building can be erected. If we came to the House next session and said "We have bought a site and erected a building for seed purposes," my hon. friend would tell us we had no right to do it, because no vote had been passed. There is only one way by which these things can be done properly, and that is by taking the course we have adopted.


George Black: What is the cost of the building?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will have to come to the House next year and get the House to authorize the vote. We cannot spend a five-cent piece without the authority of parliament.


William Charles Good: I will tell the minister what we want, and why I think we should object to this item at the present time. We should not embark upon an enterprise of this kind without seeing our way clear and realizing the need. We do not know the need at the present time, and I would want some further information from the Seed Commisisoner himself in regard to the need for this particular building, and also in connection with the impossibility if such there be, of using some of the buildings already in existence for that purpose. I know that at the agricultural college at Guelph, which is not far from Toronto, They have a fine building largely devoted to the same purpose; and in the University of Toronto there are many places which might be used, so far as I know, for a large part of the year for this purpose. At both these places there are fine buildings which are not being used for six months of the year. I would like to have some information which would enable us to justify such an expenditure. What is the use of voting the money for the land, unless we are satisfied the whole project is justifiable? What is the objection to letting this matter stand over? We have been getting on well to-day; let us have full information in the Main Estimates next year. I am not taking an out-and-out stand against this proposition, but we have not sufficient information to justify the appropriation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid it is most difficult to satisfy the hon. member. Here is something primarily and solely in the interests of agriculture, and my hon. friend objects to it. I am afraid I will have to ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to explain.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want to
press this matter unduly. If the hon. member has any information he can give the department in regard to some other site where we
can get better accommodation, we want it; but I can assure him the work demands accommodation such as we have not had in the past. The work has been neglected for some time for lack of accommodation, We have been in rented quarters not suitable for the purpose. We have not been located permanently, and have had to move from time to time, thus disorganizing the work. What would the hon. member do, if he were in my place? This proposition has grown to great proportions. A large proportion of it is an export trade for which we must keep up the quality of the seed; and to do good work we must have good accommodation. Does the hon. member propose we should defer taking steps for another year? If he, in turn, has some reasons to give me, I will be agreeable to the suggestion to let this stand over until I get such information as will assist me in providing better accommodation in a better city or in a better location. I do not want to be exacting in regard to the matter; but, on the other hand, these are the requirements of my department, as I understand them. We have had difficulties in other cities in getting accommodation. In the city of Quebec, after spending a long time, we have got similar accommodation by renting premises. If my hon. friend has anything that he can furnish me as justification for dropping the matter and neglecting the work for another year, and seeking new temporary accommodation, it may be to our advantage in the end to drop it. I would like to hear from him along that line.


William Charles Good: I am not objecting to the
carrying on of the work. I know it is important work; but I do object to going into this expenditure, the extent of which we do not know at the present time, without any definite idea as to the needs of this particular matter of looking after our seeds. I have already made suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the possible utilization of buildings in Toronto and Guelph, which I think are very well suited for the purpose. I think the minister should have something definite from the seed commissioner himself in regard to the expenditure. If he has this information and will submit it to the House and give us the details, we may be in a position to approve, and I for one do not wish to withold my endorsation of the scheme, except that at the present time I do not know and have no information to enable me to form a judgment.


James Alexander Robb: It may be thought a bit extraordinary that a man from Quebec should rise in defence of a proposition in Toronto-
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not a Toronto proposition, and that is the reason the minister is up.


James Alexander Robb: I wish to point out that, if a
better building is required for the inspection of seed grain and particularly clover and grass seed, for a central location in Ontario, I submit Toronto is the right place to have that building; and I think I can convince the committee why it is more economical. For instance, we have a department of inspection under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the headquarters for inspection are in Toronto. This grain for export must be inspected and when it goes to the markets of the world must carry the inspector's certificate. There is another reason; the largest exporters of clovers and grass' seeds have headquarters in Toronto, where there are two very large firms, and the centre of the clover trade gravitates into Toronto; and I submit, without arguing whether the building is necessary or not, we must accept the statement of the men who are at the head of it, that it is necessary and that Toronto is the proper location; and I am convinced by what has been submitted to us that a better building is required. You cannot put up your machinery for inspecting grain and be under the necessity of moving about every year or two. We should have a permanent building for this work because the clover and grass seed export trade is becoming of enormous benefit to the agricultural districts of this country.


William Charles Good: Have we any idea of the total expense which will be involved before this project is completed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend apparently does not appreciate that all that is being done here is to enable a site to be bought somewhere, not necessarily in Toronto Nothing can be done, no money can be spent m connection with a building, without everything in connection with the matter being submitted first to parliament. All that is involved in this appropriation is a sum of money to purchase a site. If the government comes to parliament later on for an appropriation to erect a building, my hon. friend will be able to go into the question.


William Charles Good: The minister would not recommend spending $25,000 to purchase a site if there was some possibility of having the whole thing negatived next year owing to some outrageous expenditure for a building. The first thing we should do is to decide what kind of building is necessary.	t


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There could be no outrageous expenditure for a building

or a dollar spent upon a building without the leave of parliament next year.


William Charles Good: I know that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then why is my hon. friend talking about the country being committed to an expenditure of an outrageous character?


William Charles Good: What is the use of buying the land -without having an idea as to what sore of building is to be put on it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. T-iend is putting the cart before the horse. If it is desirable-and the Department of Agriculture says it is-to have a building in connection with their Seed branch, before you can get a building, you must have a property somewhere to put it on. That is all we are proposing to do. Nobody has been committed to an expensive building, and we are not suggesting that anybody should be. Next year the government may ask for an appropriation for a building. If my hon. friend thinks the amount is too large, or the building is in the wrong place, he can argue that out then. The only question at present involved is: Can a site be purchased for the building, not necessarily in Toronto, but anywhere the government may deeide that it should be purchased?


William Charles Good: Has the Minister of Agriculture a definite recommendation from the Seed Commissioner in this connection?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. The primaiy object of this laboratory is to give service to the farmers who grow the seed and to maintain the quality, especially for export. I shipped carloads of seed before the western laboratories were opened. I am surprised my hon. friend, who is familiar with the grass seed and clover seed industry, would seem to stand in the way of this enterprise, because it is urgently required. Mr. George Clark is one of the most careful and efficient officers in the service of the Department of Agriculture, and he certainly entered into this matter very carefully before making his recommendation.


William Charles Good: Would it not be better
for the minister to bring in an estimate next year covering the cost of the land and the building, and then we could consider the whole thing on its merits.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are proposing to ask the committee to vote this money. If my hon. friend wants to move against it, he can, but I think we have given

Supply-Public Works
him all the information that can possibly be given.


Mr. SPENCER:: I wish to support the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) in his stand. If you are going to buy an expensive lot. surely you have an idea of what sort of building you want to put on it. We should know what expenditure is involved in this. This reminds me of an incident where a lot was bought in a western town some ten years ago for some $10,000, to put a building on. The government never erected a building on that lot, and that lot is worth less than $200 to-day. We should have more details. The hon. member for Brant is on very good ground in the stand he is taking.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is again putting the cart before the horse. Pie is suggesting, if you are getting a place to install the Seed branch in, you should decide to buy your building before you buy your lot. The first question to be decided is where you want to put your building in Toronto or anywhere else; then you come to parliament and submit your proposal for the building you intend to erect.


William Charles Good: I do not suppose there is
any use in discussing this particular matter any further. There is another matter, not a very popular subject, to which I wish to call attention, because I think it is my duty to say something about it. Last year I made some comment upon the expense of Government House. There is an item in this	appropriation for alterations	andimprovements to Rideau Hall, $17,100. I have the highest regard personally for the Governor General; but last year I figured	up	the expense	that	this
country was put to in connection with this institution, and I think the total last year amounted to about $225,000. If I remember aright, there was in the estimates of last year an item of somewhat the same amount for improvements and alterations to Rideau Hall. It seems to me that at this time, when so many people in this country are in dire distress and want, these expenditures are totally unjustifiable. In that particular direction we ought to cut down.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend's policy is one that should be considered, but it is never a wise thing for people to allow their buildings to fall down or into disrepair. It is true economy to spend money in order to keep buildings in the necessary repair. Otherwise, when the catastrophe comes in the end, one will find that one was
penny wise and pound foolish. This amount of $17,100 is required for alterations to the palm house of the conservatory at Rideau Hall, which is in a very dangerous condition and must be renewed. The work includes alterations to the iron superstructure and steel framing, including the necessary glass, and also repairs to the substructure and foundations and the heating and water services, The reports are that this work is entirely necessary, or otherwise the building will not only fall into disrepair, but be in danger of falling down altogether.


William Charles Good: If this is simply a matter of repairs to prevent decay and dilapidation, then I withdraw my objection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On that matter I
notice in the Main Estimates an item has already been passed for Rideau Hall including grounds improvements, and so on, amounting to $60,000. I am glad this matter has been brought up by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). I know some may hes [DOT] tate to speak of a matter which concerns an official who may be regarded more or leas as a guest of this country. However, when we put together the various items concerning the upkeep of Government House, they amount to a very large figure. I am inclined to think the Governor General has been verv poorly advised with regard to conditions in Canada and the temper of Canadian people if this style which he has undertaken to keep up, is maintained. I should like to call attention to certain items which I have noticed in various departments and which have their bearing on this particular item: Governor General's salary, $48,666; Governor General's Secretary, $2,400; Governor General's Secretary, office, salaries, $31,915; printing and stationery, $3,000; sundries, one item, for which we have not the detail, $63,000. Under Public Works there is an item in connection with Rideau Hall of $60,000, and now in the Supplementary Estimates the sum of $17,100. Further allowance for fuel and light $19,000. In connection with another department, that of Railways and Canals, we find that for repairs to the Governor General's cars there has already been voted $10,000, and I notice that there is still an item in the Supplementary Estimates of not less than $40,000 additional fpr repairs. I cannot conceive at all what items can be involved in these large sums. There is nothing whatever down in the list for travelling expenses and I do not know how far the railways supply the equipment for that. I presume, however, that it amounts to a considerable sum. I have not seen in
Supply-Public Works

what department that comes or how it is arranged for, but these items alone that we know of total $295,081.66. When you have an expenditure of nearly $300,000 on one individual whose functions in this country are purely formal, then I suggest that the Governor General has been very ill-advised indeed in maintaining things on such a scale. I think I can speak for a considerable number of people when I say that we have no desire to set up anything like a feudal state over in this country. I take it that the great purpose of the Governor General's having been sent here is that there should be maintained cordial relationships between the Mother Country and Canada. But if this kind of thing persists I am of opinion that instead of maintaining cordial relationships it will rather work the other way and we shall have very strained relations. I do not think that these burdens should be placed upon people who are finding it exceedingly difficult as it is to obtain the merest necessities of life.


William Charles Good: I think I called attention last year to the unprecedented extravagance which Ontario, in my judgment, was guilty of a few years ago in building a palace on the Don river, and to the fact that during a coal famine some time ago, when the citizens of Toronto and the people of the province generally were pretty nearly freezing, a single house for just one functionary consumed about one thousand tons of coal. This sort of thing is bound to excite a great deal of resentment and uneasiness in the country and it must come to a stop some time or other.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I realize that a man is on rather dangerous ground when he undertakes to discuss a subject like this; he is apt to be charged with a lack of patriotism if not something worse. But the time has come, I think, when we ought to protest against such expenditures. I do not agree with the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) in attaching any blame in this regard to His Excellency. I think the matter rests entirely with the government; I do not believe His Excellency has anything to do with it; in fact I doubt very much whether he is aware that these votes are in the estimates. The government ought to consider all the circumstances very carefully before asking for these expenditures to be sanctioned.


Mr. BANCROFT:: What is the reason for putting in the Supplementary Estimates $75,000 for the Royal Military College at Kingston?
[Mr. Woodsworth.l


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question as to why certain items were not included in the Main Estimates has already been discussed at some length. It has always been the practice for the engineers to recommend supplementary estimates to cover any expenditures that could not have been decided upon in the Main Estimates. There has never been any objection to this course until the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) developed one of his freak notions on the point. With regard to the expenditure on the
5 p.m. Royal Military College, there is an attendance of between 25 and 30 boys who have not proper dormitory accommodations. At present two sleep together and this vote is to provide for a new dormitory.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have listened with some interest to explanations regarding military colleges, clearing stations, and one thing and another, but when it comes to spending $2,800 for the installation of revolving doors in a Hamilton public building I confess I am somewhat puzzled.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I move that that item be struck out. We want to be consistent; we are trying to practise economy and there is no sense in $2,800 being voted for revolving doors in Hamilton.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
Public building-Manitoba-
Brandon-public building-alterations.. - $ 2,500 00 Emerson public building-improvements
to lighting	
1,200	00Winnipeg-Elmwood postal station sitelocal improvement taxes	
1,008	00Winnipeg-Fort	Osborne barracks-improvements to heating	
11,200	00
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The first item in this estimate relates to Brandon; some alterations are necessary to the public building. There is an item for improvements to lighting in the Emerson public building, and the sum of $1,008 is being asked for local improvement taxes on the Elmwood postal station site at Winnipeg. The department must pay these taxes the same as any other owner of property. The fourth item is for improvements to Fort Osborne barracks.


Leland Payson Bancroft: What is the building at
Emerson?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The post
office and custom house.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Forke: I wonder whether the government is not making a mistake in voting this large sum of money for Manitoba. Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings-Saskatchewan-
Maple Creek public building-improvements to heating-revote	 $ 2,100 00
Moose Jaw public building-local improvement taxes	 3,427	14
Moose Jaw customs examining warehouse
-local improvement taxes	
1,708	50Prince Albert public building-local improvement taxes	
1,306	36
Regina public building-improvements to
heating	
7,500	00Weyburn public building-improvements to heating	
4,700	00


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the necessity for so much heating improvement in the Northwest this year? I notice, not only in Manitoba but in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well, large amounts have been necessary for the purpose.


George Perry Graham: Would it not be due to
the fact that the heating apparatus is being transformed to permit the use of Alberta coal?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think not.


Edward Joseph Garland: Evidence given before the committee on that subject has shown that very little if any change is required for the use of Alberta coal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to the Maple Creek building the Chief Architect states that in his report, dated September 4, 1920, Mr. Thomson, mechanical engineer at Winnipeg, reported that the heating apparatus was in a deplorable condition, that the boiler was totally unable to carry the present load of radiation, and that the latter was inadequate. None of these proposals are made except on the reports of the engineer.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Public buildings generally-
Experimental farms-new buildings, additions, alterations, etc	 $ 75,000
Military Hospitals-repairs and improvements-further amount	required	
16,000High Commissioners' Office,	Londonchange of premises	
25,000Installation of fuel saving devices for public buildings	
12,000
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: For about
twenty years the different governments in office have sought to obtain suitable quarters in London for the High Commissioner's office. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all have suitable buildings there-very much better, indeed, than anything Canada has. I think each government that has been in office has felt that our Dominion was being placed in a false light before all citizens in London at the heart of the Empire. Efforts were made by the late government to secure a suitable building, and when this government came into office the effort was continued. The High Commissioner has gone into the matter very carefully. Last year we thought we had obtained a building that would be suitable, but on giving the matter careful consideration we abandoned the idea of purchasing it.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that the Cox Bank building?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I forget at the moment what building it was. However, this year the High Commissioner did think there was an opportunity of securing the building to which my hon. friend has referred, namely, the Cox Bank building. This building was in course of erection; it was almost completed and there was an exceptional opportunity to obtain it. At one time the government thought it might be wise to secure it, having in mind, of course, the subletting of the greater part of it to different Canadian firms, banks, and so on, that have their offices in London. The High Commissioner went into the question very thoroughly; he felt that if that building could be secured it would pretty well carry itself through the rents to be obtained. However, when he began to negotiate in the matter there were one or two conditions that he did not feel he would be justified in accepting, and he abandoned altogether the thought of taking over the Cox building. He has since been looking at one or two others, but has not yet decided what building he will recommend; and that is where the matter stands. A suitable building in London is urgently required. As my hon. friend has suggested, notice
Supply-Public Works

recently had to be given of our intentions regarding our present offices; unless we took a lease for another term of years it was represented that we would have to relinquish the premises at the expiration of the present lease, about the first of July. The High Commissioner was willing to let the lease lapse rather than renew it for a term of years. As the offices will very shortly have to be vacated and transferred to other quarters until a new building is secured, this item is put in to meet any expenses that may arise in that connection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it from what the minister says that we are abandoning our present quarters; that we have no other quarters in view, and that this sum is to keep the office running for the year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To cover the period of transition, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nothing else is being asked for that purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government
taken an option for the purchase of a building in London?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of. As I said before my right hon. friend came in, negotiations were under way for the possible acquisition of the Cox Bank building. Those negotiations have been dropped, however, and I think the High Commissioner is at present considering the possibility of securing another building, but has not taken any official action upon it.


Arthur Meighen: No option has been secured?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say that an option has not been secured. I think the High Commissioner has arranged that at any rate before a certain building is disposed of he will be given the refusal of it. More than that I cannot say.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Sir Henry Thornton may possibly have bought a castle or two in London, and perhaps the thing may come in that way.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask whether the question will be considered of assembling all the Canadian offices in London? It seems too bad that the Ontario office should be in the Strand, the British Columbia offices in Pall Mall, and the High Commissioner's office in Victoria street. In the Strand one finds practically all the Australian offices combined

in one building, the result being a splendid advertisement for Australia. It struck me as being too bad that a similar situation could not be created for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question, because he has reminded me of the fact that last year we tried to acquire the British Columbia building. The federal government would have been prepared to take that building over had the British Columbia government been willing to part with it, but they have found that in that large building, which is so favourably located, they have an excellent investment; as a matter of fact I think they are making money on it. The present situation is that Canada has a much inferior building to that maintained in London by one of its provinces. The federal government rents part of the British Columbia building for offices connected with immigration work. The government has felt that Canada has been handicapped as compared with the other dominions in having its offices scattered about in various buildings throughout London-not only the offices of the different provinces, but the different federal offices that were created during the war. The office which has to do with the soldiers' overseas work is in one part of the city. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has offices for his agents in another part of the city. The immigration offices are in still another part and the High Commissioner's offices are elsewhere. We felt that it was desirable to acquire a building in which all these offices could be brought together and which would be large enough also to accommodate the representatives of the different provinces, but that kind of a building in London is not easily acquired, and rather than make a purchase which would not meet with the general approval of the country we have proceeded slowly in the matter. But the object is to do the very thing my hon. friend has said-to acquire a building that will serve all these purposes in a way that will reflect credit on the country.


William Charles Good: I would like some information on the first item in this list "experimental farms, $75,000."


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is for
additional buildings, and alterations at the experimental farms throughout the Dominion.


Edward Joseph Garland: What
money is to be spent on each farm, and for what purpose in each case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement is as follows:

Supply-Public Works
Ottawa Central Farm	 $76,000
Charlottetown, P.E.1	 5,100
Kentville, N.S	 4,000
Nappan, N.S	 3,200
Fredericton, N.B	 6,900
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que	 1,700
Cap Rouge, Que	 1,600
Lennoxville, Que	 350
La Ferme, Que	 3,700
Ivapuskasing, Ont	 1,200
Morden, Man	 6,500
Brandon, Man	 2,900
Indian Head, Sask	 2,900
Scott, Sask	 1,500
Lethbridge, Alta	 1,500
Laoombe, Alta	 500
Summerland, B.C	>
5,200
Agassiz, B.C	 2,200
Invermere, B.C	 1,150
Sidney, B.C	 1,900
The total asked for is $130,000 while this vote is for 875,000 and it will be allocated among the different farms.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the new buildings referred to, and what are their purposes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: These are
buildings which have been recommended by the Department of Agriculture at the different places indicated. I could give my hon. friend the details of any particular place if he wishes.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
not all going to be new buildings. There are going to be additions and alterations, according to the item. Where is that going to be done?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have
given a list of the places where the Department of Agriculture is asking for expenditures to be made, and my hon. friend will find them all in Hansard. The requirements are stated to be 8130,000. We are voting here $75,000 which will be spent by the Department of Agriculture among these different places.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I express my opinion in regard to this voting of money for experimental farms? A great deal of it is well expended; it is good work. But I think a great deal of it might well be saved. I would like to have a re-allocation of the expenditure in connection with the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa. We are often taunted in this quarter of the House with the amount of money spent on agriculture in this country, and these expenditures on farms and such like are all linked together and the whole sum is hurled at our heads. Now a vast sum of money is spent on the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa for a park. It is a magnificent, delightful show place, it is really a credit to the Dominion and affords delight
especially to visitors coming to Ottawa. But at the same time there is no justification for charging up all the expenses of the maintenance of that park to the Department of Agriculture or to its estimates. I would suggest that these expenses be segregated and the money that is spent on the park be charged against the Parks Branch of the Department if the Interior.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have very grave doubts indeed whether any of these experimental farms are of any practical use to the farmer at all. It is true, they raise some very excellent stock and grow fine varieties of different farm products, but these are all produced at a loss. Now, is it any consolation to the ordinary farmer to exhibit to him some very excellent products that are grown at a loss? I think the minister will agree with me that they cannot be grown except at a loss, and I think it is something we should take into serious consideration.
Mr.SPENCER: I would like a little further information in regard to the amount being spent at the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa. I think the minister said the amount was $76,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The details are as follows: Division of Botany, field laboratory, $4,500; new botanical building, estimated cost, 830,000; extension to chemistry' building, $22,000; division of forage plants, frame barn 30 x 50, ground floor and root cellar, $2,000; division of horticulture, greenhouse addition, $15,000; poultry division, new buildings, breeding house, $2,500; making a total of $76,000. That is $1,000 more than the amount we are voting, but my hon, friend will understand that in addition there is the difference between $75,000 and $130,000 which is said to be the estimated expenditure in all parts of the country. This $75,000 we are voting is to be allocated among the whole of these farms after a conference between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: The original amount asked for by myself and my staff was $200,000. The amount before parliament is $75,000, and in consequence we shall have to eliminate for the present a lot of the work that can with least disadvantage be done without, though it is all required. This $75,000 will have to be re-allocated to satisfy the most pressing requirements. A lot of the requirements we shall be unable to supply. During the four years of the war no expenditure was made by the late government on buildings for experimental farms. I am not blaming the former

Supply-Public Works

government for that, because they could not very well do otherwise nor in the years following the war could they take any other course. But now the time has come when we must equip these farms with proper buildings or close them up. Is anybody prepared to close them?


Edward Joseph Garland: Let us close them.


William Richard Motherwell: We would like to have some applications during the recess from any province that wants these farms closed. I cannot undertake the responsibility of operating these farms in a half-equipped condition.


Edward Joseph Garland: Let us close half of them, anyhow.


William Richard Motherwell: There is not a single dollar asked to be expended that is not most urgently required. I wish some of my friends would go out to the Central Experimental Farm, it is looking very beautiful now. And look at the accommodation we have for the botanical laboratory. You will find, if you put two or three good-sized beds there, you could hardly turn around without knocking over some chemicals. There are three or four men in a cubby-hole of an office where there should be only one. It is a most disgraceful building for an experimental farm system such as we have. Generally speaking, our experimental farms compare favourably with those of other countries, but some of the buildings are disgracefully out of date. I wish hon. gentlemen would go and see that botanical laboratory. We have just recently moved out of another laboratory, the biological laboratory, that we have had to put up with since 1904. There has been absolutely no extension to it for nearly twenty years and this year we were moved into a private building on Wellington street. So far as the departmental buildings and the buildings on the experimental farms are concerned there is not another department of agriculture that I know of on this continent, or anywhere else, that is housed in such poor buildings as the Department of Agriculture of Canada. To the buildings of the experimental farm system the same remarks will apply. I can assure my hon. friend that there is a clear lack in Ottawa in this respect. There are certain laboratories, particularly the botanical laboratory, which are decidedly lacking in suitable accommodation. The botanical laboratory does not possess the accommodation it should in order to cope with such diseases as lust-one of the most virulent and contagious in the entire list-that affect our cereals. Such

important problems as these are being studied and dealt with, and yet the quarters of the staff are nothing like what they should be. For experimental work intended to evolve a remedy for rust, an equipment and accommodation of the most efficient character should be provided, and yet we have undertaken an investigation of some of these big problems with accommodation which limits you to 50 per cent of efficiency.


Mr. EVANS:: I shall not go as far as the hon. member for Mackenzie and say that these experimental farms are of little or no value. I would say, however, that the Dominion is top-heavy with these institutions at the present time. While agriculture is languishing from one end of the Dominion to the other we are lavishly spending money year after year on these institutions, and I do not think it is right. Very much of the work done, we will say at Ottawa, is also undertaken by the provinces and there is a great deal of overlapping. I wish to protest against the lavish expenditure year after year on these farms.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister spoke of the need of more extensive offices in order to enable the scientists attached to his department to carry on their experiments. Let me tell the minister that some of the best work ever done in the interest of agriculture in the Dominion was done outside-it was not done in those offices. I have in mind a certain incident which occurred some years ago in connection with cut-worm. An active educational propaganda was being carried on by the department in order to try and combat the ravages of the cut-worm, and a number of pamphlets were issued on the subject. I know a boy, only twelve years old at that time, who collected evidence out in a summer fallow field that entirely upset the theory advanced in these pamphlets in respect to the cut-worm. According to that theory cutworms were supposed to hide themselves beneath the surface of the ground during the hours of daylight. Yet this boy I speak of gathered no less than sixteen different specimens out of thousands, yes millions, of worms, which were crawling all over that field between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock in the day. At that time the rays of the sun were pouring down with intense heat; I would say the temperature must have been 90 degrees in the shade. According to the teaching of the pamphlet these cut-worms should all have been under the surface of. the ground at that time, but there they were travelling in all directions-north, south, east and west.
Now as to the expenditure on experimental farms. The actual work of agriculture is car-
'ffi

Supply-Public Works
ried on, in many cases, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the Central Experimental farm. This vote proposes to expend $75,000 on the Central farm, and the balance on experimental farms at other points. In my opinion this proportion is not right. We who come here for a number of months every year, and have an opportunity of visiting the Central Experimental farm, are pleased to know that its status compares favourably with that of similar institutions in other countries, but it is on the provincial farms that the actual work is carried on and the facilities there are not such as they ought to be. I think the allocation which is being made is not in proportion to the necessities of the case; a larger amount should be expended at outside points, particularly in the grain areas of the West.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon. friend did not catch my statement when I pointed out that inasmuch as the vote for outside work had been reduced by more than one-half we would have to have a re-allocation. I will keep my hon. friend's suggestion in mind when we make that re-allocation. We were to get $200,000 when the estimates were first sent in. The amount has been reduced; therefore we will have to have a re-allocation.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would urge upon the minister that when he is making a re-allocation a larger proportion should go to the provinces.


William Charles Good: When the estimates of the
Department of Agriculture were under consideration on a former occasion the question of overlapping as between the provincial departments and the federal department was mentioned. This has been a serious matter for some time and undoubtedly there has been a waste of money in that way. I think the minister stated last year that the matter was under consideration. I should like to ask him if anything has been done in the meantime to prevent that overlapping, and if not whether he contemplates taking any action?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a work
which has to be undertaken gradually because it always involves a certain amount of disruption, especially when the provinces are more or less associated with the federal authorities. I may say that I have been in touch with the provinces in regard to the matter of overlapping and there is a satisfactory desire to co-operate in the matter. I had an opportunity of visiting the outside experimental farms and inspecting their work, more particularly in the province of Saskatchewan. We have a large number of illustra-
295i
tion farms there consisting of forty acres each. The University of Saskatchewan has the province mapped out into areas and is engaged in the same kind of work. We arranged that as soon as their plans were completed for this class of work we would retire and leave the field to them. Inasmuch as there has been no capital expenditure there will be no loss involved. In the live stock line, and every other activity, we are working in the direction suggested by my hon. friend.


Thomas Langton Church: Has the minister any
hundred dollar coal scuttles out at this farm?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-new departmental building-compensation to architects for designs submitted, $30,000.
William Charles Good: We should like to have some explanation of this vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The committee will remember that earlier in the afternoon I referred to the fact that a large number of buildings and a tract of land on Wellington street had been expropriated and taken over by. the government in 1913 with a view of doing away with the present system of renting buildings throughout the city and concentrating all the offices that were not in buildings owned by the government in that particular area. On April 14, 1913, an order in council was passed providing for a competition for designs for a new departmental block on Wellington street to cost from ten to twelve million dollars. That amount seems very large to-day when we look at the proposals for the construction of buildings, but that idea was in the mind of the government of the day in 1913. The Minister of Public Works appointed assessors to judge the designs. Conditions governing the competition were drawn up. The competition was advertised. Plans were received up to April 2nd, 1914. British and Canadian architects to the number of 59 submitted designs. Each set of plans consisted of from 18 to 30 drawings. It is estimated that the draughtsmanship alone cost the architects not less than $177,000. This only takes into account draughting-not the higher wo*'k of designing. Up to the present no competitor has received any return for his labour or expense. The conditions provided that of the competitors six should be chosen. These six were to make any further preliminary drawings required by the assessors. The assessors were then to choose from the six the one having the best design. The one selected was to be employed to carry out the work. The others were each to receive $3,000
Supply-Public Works


William Charles Good: The others of the six.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The others of the six were each to receive $3,000. The assessors out of the designs submitted selected the best six. Beyond this point the competitors did not proceed. The immediate delay was said to be caused by the desire to wait for the report of the Federal Town Planning Commission. Finally the war put an end co the whole thing. The six best designs having been chosen, the other competitors had no grievance. They were out of the race. The only question remaining was the remuneration which should be paid the six architects successful, in the first stage. The six successful competitors asked for settlement, but nothing satisfactory wras offered. One of them, Saxe & Archibald of Montreal then took the matter to the Exchequer Court. Suit was brought to recover $100,000, the amount allowed by the architects tariff for the province of Quebec for preparing and furnishing preliminary plans, being 1 per cent on $10,000,000, the estimated cost of the buildings. The matter was dealt with in the Exchequer Court. The Crown had tendered $3,000, and judgment was given for this amount. Last session $3,000 for each of the six architects was placed in the Estimates. This the architects refused to accept, and they put forward this claim:
1.	The plans called for were not mere sketches. They consisted of from 18 to 30 large drawings. The sum of $3,000 would not pay for the work of the draughtsman alone.
2.	In addition to what the architects had to pay for draughting they had other expenses incidental to studying the problems presented. One of the architects has produced vouchers showing that he actually disbursed over $9,000.
3.	This work was done prior to April 2nd, 1914. The architects have been out their money for nine years. The lowest prize offered, namely $3,000, would with interest now amount approximately to $5,000.
4.	This was no ordinary undertaking. It was the designing of a public building to cost over $10,000,000. The plans represented all the thought and genius these men were able to bring to the work. Other plans would have been necessary, but they would have been a matter of elaboration merely. The conception with all the effort involved was in these plans.
5.	Among the six men was the cue who must have been entrusted with the work of erec^.'ng the building. No one of these architects would have considered com-pet:ng for a prize of $3,000 or of $10,000. What each struggled for was the first prize, the honour of doing the work and the fee that went with it. It is submitted that it is unfair for the government of Canada to set 59 architects or firms of architects working for prizes and then when they have done the largest part of their work to say that there sh?.ll be no first prize-merely consolation prizes. Since it is now impossible to say which of the six should get the first prize the only thing that remains is to divide some part of it at least among the six.
Clause 28 of the general conditions provided that if the government abandoned the work

or failed to give instructions within twelve months from the selection of the successful architect he should be paid a sum equal to It per cent of the amount of the estimated expenditure. The amount to be divided by the government amongst these six architects would therefore have been as follows: li per cent on estimated cost of $10,000,000.. $125,000 $3,000 to each of the five other competitors.. 15,000

The architects think that they should be given at least $10,000 each. This would not do more than cover the ordinary draughting and other expenses incidental to the work. It would leave nothing for the work of the architects themselves. That is the whole situation, and the department submits to the House the suggestion that it is reasonable under the circumstances that these men having done this work should be paid. It is only honest and proper on the part of the government to do that which any individual would have done if he were in the same position. That is the position in which ths vote stands. Among the first six whose plans were approved by the assessors this amount of $30,000 would be divided.


Robert Forke: Has the minister the names of the different architects and their places of residence?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Messrs. Saxe and Archibald, Montreal; MacFarlane and Ranie, Montreal; Robb and Mitchell, Montreal; Hutchinson, Wood and Miller, Montreal; W. E. Noffke, Ottawa and D. A. Moodie, London, England. The men who submitted plans were from all over the world. These men whose names I have mentioned were among the first six.


Robert Forke: How long is it since these first plans were drafted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1913-14


Arthur Meighen: I do recall this matter. I recall resisting these claims for some years. Apparently, the government has let jt be a case of "heads I win and tails you lose.'' Archibald went to court and got $3,000, which was the amount to go to each of the six leading architects. So the government introduced an estimate to pay the same amount to each of the others. It seems to me that was right. But now the man who went to court and got the judgment for $3,000 is going to get $5,000 more. The government bring3 in an estimate which will pay them a total of $8,000 apiece.

Supply-Defence


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, $5,000


Arthur Meighen: I thought there was $3,000 apiece paid last year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, that was not accepted.


Arthur Meighen: That collapsed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, the architects
took the ground that, as professional meu having given their very best services in the matter, they would not take it.


Arthur Meighen: I understood they got the $3,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Arthur Meighen: They have not received anything yet?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Arthur Meighen: What was the value of the Exchequer Court action?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation was that the Crown at the time tendered $3,000 to Messrs. Saxe and Archibald.


Arthur Meighen: Then Archibald withdiew his action-?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, the
court held, on purely technical grounds, that the war -rendered it impossible for the Crown to proceed with the buildings, and that therefore the Crown could not carry out its contract. One of the matters among the questions of law decided by the Exchequer Court was that the Crown was not liable technically but the Crown had tendered $3,000. The conclusion of the judgment reads:
The suppliants are not entitled to any portion of the relief sought by their petition of right but through the benevolence of the Crown expressing its willingness to pay them $3,000, there will be judgment accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: It is rather an amusing incident.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is peculiar.


Arthur Meighen: We know they do some funny things through the use of the word "technical." The court held that as a matter of law, because of the intervention of that Great War-at least such was one reason- the government was not liable. How was that technical? I do not think anything could be very much more substantial. The court held the government was not liable, but the government came along and offered, as a matter of grace, $3,000. Judgment accordingly was entered for that amount and the government is ready to pay it-I do not think any exception is made-but because they do
not take it we are ready to pay $2,000 more apiece. Does the minister propose to come back next year in case they do not take this?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $533,884.60.
Arthur Meighen: Is Resolution No. 502 carried?


George Newcombe Gordon: This resolution, No. 504, is the only Public Works vote left, and one item of it, in connection with Little Anse, is still not carried.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That stands. Resolution stands.
National Defence-award to Major H. R. Northover in full settlement of all claims for inventions on Colt machine guns during the war, $5,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: May we have some explanation in connection with this matter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annual drill-further amount required, $8,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) here?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Arthur Meighen: Is this going back to militarism?
Supply-Defence


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. This is to assist the gathering of the clans which I hope my right hon. friend will attend when the Highland regiments of Nova Scotia will be together on the 15th July.


Oliver Robert Gould: I notice, taking the two items 470 and 471 in conjunction, that the same condition obtains under the present regime which obtained under the past regime, and of which I frequently complained. I refer to the fact that the amount for salaries and wages exceeds the amount for annual drill.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let me call this carried, and then my hon. friend can speak on item 471.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was just drawing the attention of the committee to the fact that the amount for salaries and wages exceeds the amount for annual drill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Annual drill is one item and salaries and wages another.


Oliver Robert Gould: Then I maintain that the order should be reversed. That is my protest. If proficiency in annual drill is the thing that we are after we should change the order of things.


George Perry Graham: The $10,000 item is civil, not military.


Arthur Meighen: Item 470 is "annual drill, further amount required." Why should it be put in that way, if it is really a vote to make a success of this gathering of the clans?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not
that. The situation is this: In Nova Scotia, this amount is to be used supplemental to the general vote for annual drill, because the Highland battalions in Nova Scotia are going to camp for some twelve days. This was not contemplated at the time the regular vote for annual drill was put through last winter. It is also due to the fact that they are going to camp in greater strength and numbers than they otherwise would. That is the explanation of the extra amount?


Arthur Meighen: I suppose they are going in greater strength and numbers on account of this celebration?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) That is one of the reasons.


Arthur Meighen: And the Hector appropriation of $15,000 is towards the same celebration?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That does
not come under the Department of National Defence.
[Mr. Meighen.}


Arthur Meighen: But it is toward the
same object.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will these events synchronize in any way with the byelection in Pictou?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to protest
against votes being granted for local purposes, such as celebrations of this kind. If some of the people down in Nova Scotia want to have a celebration in connection with some historic event, they have a perfect right to do so j but the situation is different when the whole of this country, with commitments as they are at present, is asked to contribute money for that purpose. We can just as well get up a celebration in Manitoba, or the people of British Columbia could do the same. There are a hundred local places which have a perfect right, since they have some historic background, to get up a celebration, and if one particular section does this, I cannot see why a hundred other sections cannot do so with equal right. I for one object decidedly to granting appropriations of this character. This is evidently a camouflaged item, this being brought under the military department, and another item being brought under a different department entirely.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is this connected
with another item, the Hector item in the Supplementary Estimates?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are these two different celebrations?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have already answered the right hon gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who is my hon. friend's leader. The Highland battalions of Nova Scotia are going to camp early in July. This was not contemplated at the time when the main vote for annual drill was decided upon. The vote for the celebration has nothing to do with the military side of the matter.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have no objection to the annual drill, but if this is in connection with the historical celebration, I have something to say in connection with the matter.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would gather from this
that the activities that took place on the water last year, as represented by the $5,000 appropriation for the international boat race are being repeated on land this year, and the amount is increased by $3,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Defence
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the Main
Estimates the vote for salaries and wages for 1923-24 was $250,000. This was an increase of $25,000 over the previous year and was intended to cover additional salaries required to be paid to civilians employed at the Tuxedo barracks hospital formerly used for war patients, but lately converted into a station hospital for the permanent and non-permanent militia. When this hospital was used for war patients, the cost of maintenance was charged to adjustment of war claims, but now it is chargeable to militia votes, the civil salaries being chargeable to salaries and wages. Upon completing the reorganization of the hospital on a peace basis, it was found that the salaries of civil employees would make an annual charge of $29,000 for which only $25,000 additional was included in the estimates, leaving an excess of $4,000 for which no provision was made. Although the most rigid economy has been exercised in the past year, it has been impossible to avoid an overdraft of $1,634.99 notwithstanding that the staff of caretakers, and so forth, for building and properties generally has been reduced to the minimum essential to the proper care and prevention of damage by frost and other causes.
With the additional amount now asked for there will be provided only enough funds to pay the staff now employed in which there have been no increases over 1922-23, except as mentioned above, and a small margin of $4,365.00 for contingent and unforeseen purposes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do I understand that this vote No. 470 is to provide for the drill of Scottish Highlanders in connection with the Scottish celebration that is to take place in July?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, this is for the regular drill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But it will come off at the same time. Shall we be allowed to discuss these two votes together?


George Newcombe Gordon: Item 470 has been carried.


William Stevens Fielding: The Hector item comes up later.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If these two events are going to be held in conjunction with each other-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They have nothing to do with each other.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then in that case I will reserve my remarks in regard to the Hector vote until it comes up.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will these two things come off at the same time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am really surprised that my hon. friend, who is a good Scotsman, should be so incredulous. The two regiments in Nova Scotia comprising about 1,000 men go into camp about the 7th of July. They are usually in camp for ten days and this vote is to defray the expenses in connection with that annual drill. On the 15th, 16th and 17th of July there is to be held in the same county a celebration commemorative of the landing of the first Scottish settlers in Canada.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister
will come out openly and say that these two matters are one and the same-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are
not.


Arthur Edward Ross: -I will hold up
both hands for it. But I do not think it is fair to combine the annual drill and the Scottish celebration in this camouflaged way.
I think we deserve something better.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is displaying an attitude which I do not think is quite Scottish in character. An annual camp has always been held in eastern Nova Scotia, in Pictou and in Cape Breton. This year they are being concentrated in Pictou county and arrangements are being made for the regular annual drill. The fact that this Scottish celebration takes place at the same time is what Sir Thomas White would call "a mere coincidence."


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not want it to
be thought that I am opposing anything in connection with that celebration because I have a great admiration for the Scottish people, being of Scottish descent myself. We have a very excellent Scottish colony in my riding. They arrived here fifty years ago next month, and I have an invitation to assist in my small way at the fiftieth anniversary to be celebrated on July 10. Will the minister extend any assistance in that case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have you
any Highland regiments in New Brunswick?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend is minister and he can answer that question better than I can. I do not know whether we have.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
think so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But I have seen the
kilts in New Brunswick on many occasions.


Mr. MacLAREN:: It is no doubt a coincidence that the holding of the camp and this celebration should occur at the same time, and
Supply-Defence

if it is I think it is a fortunate and happy eoineidenee. It is something that will give many people in this country a great deal of pleasure and I believe that it will contribute to the success of the celebration of a great historic event in this country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In what part of Nova
Scotia is the camp being held?


Mr.   MACDONAID@: In the county
of Pictou.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compassionate grant to C. Peachy, $33.
This man was caretaker at headquarters at Regina and the grant is made on account of his having been hurt in the execution of his duties.
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works-further amount required, $16,700.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The following is the report on this item.
Since the Main Estimates were submitted a considerable amount of work has become necessary which could not be foreseen previously.
The following two services, which could not be foreseen when the Main Estimates were put forward, are now considered to be very necessary:
(a)	To provide accommodation for ordnance stores, Esquimalt, by utilizing certain naval coal stores, Es-quimalt, $7,700.
(b)	To provide accommodation for Royal Canadian Regiment, Wolseley Barracks, London, Ont., $9,000.
The ordnance stores at Esquimalt are at present situated in a rented building, for which the government pays a rental of $3,600 per year. Naval coal sheds No. 2 to 5 have been offered for use as ordnance stores but are required to be fitted up, at a cost of $7 ,700. A saving in rental will ultimately be made.
Certain of the temporary buildings erected during the war at Tecumseh barracks, London, were reported on by the Colonel Commandant as infected with dry rot to such an extent that, in the interest of economy, it will not be advisable to make any further repairs. These buildings are also very inflammable and loss of life might result in case of fire.
The Colonel Commandant recommends that these buildings be condemned as quarters for soldiers and that a portion of Wolseley barracks be fitted up at an estimated cost of $9,000 to accommodate about 90 all ranks of the Royal Canadian Regiment, including regimental orderly room, cook house, etc. The portions of Wolseley barracks being refitted are:
Block "A",
Old barrack store building, block "B",
Old A.S.C. bunk house, block "G",
Old supply store, block "K",
Old supply store, block "L".
The above have been used chiefly as offices and barracks stores and have to be fitted up as single officers' quarters, barrack rooms for single men and other necessary regimental accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: Before the House rises I want to refer to a report in the afternoon (Mr. MacLaren.]	:	,
papers of my remarks this morning. There is nothing substantially wrong with the report, but it uses an expression which I did not use and which I do not care to have attributed to me. The report states that I said that the Belle River wharf was in the hands of "God and Tim." There must be something wrong with the hearing apparatus of the representatives of the press.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 251 (from the Senate), for the relief of Flossie May Pinkham.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The desire was expressed by some of the hon. members of the House that an opportunity should be given for discussing the Imperial conference and the Imperial Economic conference. I think possibly it would be advisable to take up these items at once so that there may be opportunity for the members to discuss them perhaps at greater length than if we delayed the discussion till another sitting.
Amount required for expenses of delegation to Imperial conference, $10,000.


Arthur Meighen: One would hardly think that this was such an occasion that hon. members had in mind to discuss what should be the conduct of the Canadian representatives at this conference or at the Imperial Economic conference. The House is the place to discuss that, and a day should have been set. This is not doing anything. Of course, we have a right I suppose to discuss the subject on this vote and in committee, but there is no concession here by the government at all. I understood from the answer given to an hon. gentleman on my left-I do not remember who it was-that a day would be fixed for this discussion, and that hon. members would know when it was so that they could prepare themselves for the occasion. This is no time for a discussion of that sort, and for a statement by the government of its intentions at the conference.

Supply-Imperial Conference


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to
my right hon. friend that I stated on two or three occasions when the opportunity would be given. I have before me the remarks I made and which appear in Hansard. On two occasions I mentioned that when the Supplementary Estimates were brought down they would contain an item with reference to the Imperial Conference and the Economic Conference, and that ample opportunity would be afforded members to discuss the whole question when that item was considered. The government as a matter of fact felt there would be greater freedom if the discussion took place in committee in the form in which it is now suggested. The last reference I made to the subject was in reply to my hon. friend the member for Brant (Mr. Good). The hon. member's question and my reply thereto appear in Hansard of June 22nd, as follows:
Mr. Good: When wiU the House have an opportunity of discussing the agenda of the Imperial Conference and the Economic Conference to be held this fall?
My reply was:
I have mentioned, I think, several times, that when the supplementary estimates are brought down, they will contain an item to make provision for the Economic Conference and the Imperial Conference, and that will be the appropriate time, I think, for the discussion to take place. I hope the supplementary estimates will be brought down possibly by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
I think it is perfectly clear to every member of the House that this was the time when the discussion would take place.


Arthur Meighen: This is not a discussion
in the House at all, this is a discussion in committee; the main point is not there. It is not appropriate to discuss in committee a subject of this magnitude and character and it has never been the practice to do so. We do not know-


Thomas Vien: Will my right hon. friend
allow me to ask him a question?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Thomas Vien: What is the difference between a discussion in committee and a discussion in the House? Everybody is present now.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, everybody is present, but if the hon. gentleman does not know the difference I do not think I will take time to explain it.


Thomas Vien: You will be much freer.


Arthur Meighen: My point is this: No
hon. member of the House knew this item was coming up now. We are called upon without one moment's notice to discuss what is to be the policy adopted by Canada at an
economic conference, and if the government think that is reasonable I am quite sure the House does not. The papers on the subject are not yet down. Some time ago I asked for and obtained what was described at the time as a partial list of the subjects that had been suggested for discussion-suggested from Great Britain. I cannot speak with certainty as to the exact words of the Prime Minister, but I have the impression that he promised to give later any other subjects that were submitted for discussion so that we would have the agenda and have some little time to consider it before the time would be fixed for discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
right hon. friend will allow me to say to him that I complied with that intention on the 5th June. I then gave to the House such further statements as I had received from the Home government. I would further say to my right hon. friend that there is before the House at the present time all the information that the government has received and which it is at liberty to place on the table. All the papers are down.


Arthur Meighen: Is the full agenda now
ready for discussion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The whole
agenda so far as the government has received it.


Arthur Meighen: Is the government prepared to state what its position is to be in reference to these subjects?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In so far as it is possible to state it. I notice that when my right hon. friend was similarly situated he indicated that he did not think he should be asked'to state what his position would be at the conference, inasmuch as it was impossible to do so until he was in conference with the other parties.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is absolutely the right stand but I did not expect it to come from the Prime Minister because he took the other view. I think the stand I took is right and should be his stand to-day. I was, however, met with a resolution of instructions which the Prime Minister supported, or rather which he moved. I was supposed to go tied round the neck with a lasso on a resolution moved by himself. I am glad his opinions in that respect are now reformed.


Thomas Vien: No, you needed it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman seems to have risen to be a critic on this subject now.
Supply-Imperial Conference


Thomas Vien: I say no, that you needed it.


Arthur Meighen: Possibly that is the opinion of the hon. member. As to whether it is the opinion of the country or not I will offer no comment at the moment. However, I am glad the hon. member is not to be one of the delegates himself. What I am asking for was a discussion in the House. If the government insist upon having that discussion in committee they will have to carry their insistence, but I do think the House is entitled to a little notification in advance of the time when discussion will take place on such an important matter as this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Good rising at the same time.


William Charles Good: Are we discussing the item?


George Newcombe Gordon: We are.


William Charles Good: I came in about two or three minutes late.


Frank S. Cahill: Try and get here on time and save us a lot of trouble.


William Charles Good: I wonder, Mr. Chairman if the Prime Minister would agree to bring this matter up to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


William Charles Good: I am prepared to go ahead with whatever information I may have in regard to the question if the rest of the committee are satisfied.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Charles Good: Mr. Chairman, I came down without any notes or papers and, perhaps, the committee will be very glad. In fact my experience this session has led me to believe that sometimes the support which one may expect or get will be in an inverse ratio to the amount of evidence one can bring forward to support his position. At least that might be a logical deduction from our experience in one of the committees.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has the floor or had.


Arthur Meighen: He thinks he has.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is usual for the Chairman to decide who has the floor. He has decided against me.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg to draw attention to what happened. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier was on his feet and the hon.

member for Brant interpolated more or less on a point of order, wanting to discuss the course being pursued on the same lines that the leader of the Opposition did. When he concluded his objections it appears to me it was then the privilege of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier to go on with his remarks. The hon. member for Brant having told us that he has not got his notes, he can avail himself of the opportunity to obtain them while my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) is speaking.


William Charles Good: I did not know that the hon. member had begun to discuss the matter. I will gladly give way to him.


Jacques Bureau: It will give you time to get your notes.,


George Perry Graham: Everybody would make
better speeches without notes.


Samuel William Jacobs: I gladly accept the support of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). I hope when my remarks are concluded he will still continue to give me support.
At the last Imperial Conference, Mr. Chairman, a resolution was proposed and carried in the following terms:
The conference while reaffirming the resolution of the Imperial War Conference of 1918, that each community of the British Commonwealth should enjoy complete control of the composition of its own population by means of restriction of immigration from any of the other communities, recognizes that there is an incongruity between the position of India as an equal member of the British Empire and the existence of disabilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled1 in other parts of the Empire. The conference accordingly is of the opinion that in the interests of the solidarity of the British Commonwealth, it is desirable that the rights of such Indians to citizenship should be recognized.
This resolution was supported by the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the Opposition, who was present at the conference; and in passing I wish to say that I commend the conduct of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion. No matter how opposite political views may be, I am glad to bear public tribute to him, putting it in the words of Kipling-
'E's a poor benighted 'eathen,
But a firstclass fighting man
The leader of the Opposition receives a considerable share of support from the people of the province of British Columbia. I do not say they are benighted heathens away out there, but for reasons which I am not going to discuss here, a large portion of the delegation on the other side of the House supports the hon. leader of the Opposition; and notwithstanding that,

Supply-Imperial Conference
he was prepared to back up this resolution, which I understand is not particularly popular in British Columbia. No matter what the views of the people of any particular province may be on a matter of this kind, I submit they ought to give way to the generally accepted views of the people of the Dominion of Canada as a whole and to the views of the Empire of which we are always proud to say we form an integral part. The question of the Hindu franchise is of great interest to this country. There i? no reason in the wide world, so far as I can see, why British subjects domiciled in Canada should be deprived of the franchise. They are British-born. Their skins may be a little duskier than ours, but they belong to the Aryan race, and in all respects they are quite as capable of using the franchise as any person who resides in this country. The franchise is given to the Chinese and the Japanese in eight provinces. I understand that in British Columbia they do not vote, but there is a vast difference between the Chinese and Japanese and the Hindu. The first difference is that these latter people are British subjects and are part of the British Empire.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Does the hon. member think it is right that a lawyer should have the privilege of pleading his client's case in this House?


Samuel William Jacobs: In answer to the hon. member, I would say that these people are not clients of mine. I would be very glad, indeed if they were because I understand they are a highly moral people, a respectable people, and that they pay legal fees when they are due. I cannot say as much for many of the white clients who come to my office. I was going to remark, Mr. Chairman, that the Hindu citizens have a big claim upon us by reason of the fact that they are part of the British Empire. The Chinese and Japanese come to this country. They have to be naturalized as British citizens. They forswear their allegiance to the country from which they come, and they are essentially a different race from the Hindus. They belong to what is known as the yellow race. I do not want to go into the question as to whether it is well to permit large numbers of people of this kind to come into this country or not because it is not a matter which concerns me just now. This question was urged upon the delegates at the Imperial Conference by the Right Hon. Mr. Sastri, who travelled through the country last year, and made what I consider an irrefutable case for his people who are resident here.
There are, I understand, 1,200 Hindus resident in Canada to-day. These people came here ten or twelve years ago. Hon. members will recollect that there was some question about their landing at the time. But they subsequently were permitted to land, and from that time until now they have been denied the right to which they are entitled; that is the right of the franchise which every person coming to this country ought to be given. It may be argued that if we give these people a foothold in this country they will increase and multiply, and after a time this country will no longer be a so-called white country. In answer to that objection, I say that no Hindus are now permitted to leave India for the purpose of coming to Canada to reside. Before it is possible for any of these people to leave their own country they must obtain a passport and a certificate from the Indian government, and that has been consistently refused in the interests of harmony with this country. No more of these people are permitted to come to Canada, and consequently we are only dealing with a handful of 1,200 people, who are, as I understand, all residents today in British Columbia. Mr. Sastri stated when he was here that he was delighted to know at the time that our government was going to fall in with the views of the representatives and delegates at the conference, but he said he found to his bitter experience that the intellectual acceptance of a theory sometimes was very far from its practical application, and he found, so far as this government seemed to be concerned, that there was no intention of putting into effect the promise given by the then Prime Minister of Canada at the conference.
If that be so, Mr. Chairman, it puts the right hon. leader of the Opposition in a very peculiar position. He found that he was putting his signature to a document which was not recognized, or is not recognized, by the present government. He is very much in the position of Mr. Woodrow Wilson after he had signed the Treaty of Versailles and returned to Washington, and found that the Senate refused to back up the solemn undertaking given by him. Surely, we do not want the present leader of the Opposition to become the Woodrow Wilson of this country. No, I think it is our duty to see to it that this undertaking given by him, properly delegated as he was, should be carried out. Those of us who had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Sastri when he was here were very much struck by his argument in favour of the inclusion of his countrymen in the franchise of this country. He pointed out that
Supply-Imperial Conference

India at the present time was disturbed by sedition. The Ghandi propaganda was generally accepted throughout India, and these people in India were making capital out of the fact that the sister commonwealths were not carrying out the undertaking which had been given to them at the conference.
I submit this is a very serious matter, and it is a matter of Imperial concern. We can understand 300,000,000 of people who are being fed with seditious matter using objections of this kind with the very greatest effect in their own country. Hon. members will recollect that last September,-I think it was September or October-we were nearly drawn into war in the matter of the Angora situation. The people of India, as we know, were practically on the crater of a volcano. It is a very simple matter to declare a civil war in Islam, and if that were done, the fat would be in the fire as far as India was concerned. All those considerations were something to be carefully thought over, and I am sure the statesmen gathered round the board at the Imperial conference did think matters of this kind over before they came to the conclusion, that in this particular matter, the commonwealths ought to listen to the combined reason of those who were present, and carry out the Views of Mr. Sastri and the Indian delegates.
It was also pointed out some time ago that, as regards India nationally and in its relation to the sister Dominions that country stands practically in the same position as any of the self-governing nations constituting the British Empire. It may be-and I concede the point -that as regards the internal affairs of India, they may not have the same degree of constitutional liberty which we in this country have or which the other commonwealths have. But as I said before, with regard to the dominions constituting the British Empire, India is treated in exactly the same way as the other dominions, and consequently when we deal with the inhabitants of India we have to deal with them in the same way as we deal with the people of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the other self-governing commonwealths. I should like to learn if it is the intention of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the other delegates who attend this conference, to carry out the undertakings given by our delegates at the last conference, or whether we intend to embark upon some new policy and to deny to those people the right to which I claim they are justly entitled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
undertaking?


Samuel William Jacobs: The undertaking as conveyed in this resolution which I read at the opening of my remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To what extent does my hon. friend read into that paragraph an obligation on the part of the government of Canada?


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the moral obligation is clearly seen there:
The conference while reaffirming the resolution of the Imperial War conference of 1918, that each community of the British commonwealth should enjoy complete control of the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration from any of the other communities, recognized that there is an incongruity between the position of India as an equal member of the British Empire and the existence of disabilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled in other parts of the Empire.
They say that this was the incongruity and that this was recognized by the conference of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, and he agreed to the resolution.
As I said before, I should like to learn what will be the position of the Prime Minister on this important question before the conference. It might be well that there should be an expression of opinion from this House on the matter so that his hands may be strengthened when he appears before that body as a member of the conference. So far as I can see, no valid reason can be urged against granting this franchise to those people. I have yet to learn any good reason which can be urged. I am sure the leader of the Opposition still has the same views on this question as he had in 1921. I heard him in a public address in Montreal, at a meeting at which Mr. Sastri was present, declaring that his views had not changed up to that time, and I have reason to believe that they are identically the same as they were then.
It is not a good thing for any country to have within its borders any people or class of people who are half slave and half free. Any person who is permitted to live in this country and who is denied the franchise, although he is a tax-payer of the country, is deprived of some of his liberties and is half free. I would rather keep those people out of this country altogether, debar them at the gates and not permit them to enter, than allow them to enter and then treat them as if they were not the equals of ourselves and as if they were slaves. I know the Prime Minister has certain notions on this matter, and I should be glad to hear them. It might be argued that this rule excluding the Hindus

Supply-Imperial Conference
from the franchise obtains only in British Columbia; that British Columbia is one of nine provinces; that in the other eight provinces or in eight-ninths of the Dominion of Canada they have the same rights as people of the white races, and that they ought to be satisfied with eight-ninths of the bargain and let it go at that.


William F. Carroll: Are the Hindus debarred
from the federal franchise in British Columbia?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, and debarred also
from the local franchise in British Columbia.
It ought to be borne in mind, and I am sure it will be noted by every person in this House that inasmuch as the twelve hundred of these Hindus are residing in that one-ninth of the country where they are debarred the privilege of voting, the eight-ninths amount to nothing at all; that we may as well bar them altogether as bar them in the province in which they have elected to reside. Therefore,
I claim we would be doing our duty as citizens of the British Empire in granting this franchise to the Hindus. We would be carrying out the undertaking of the leader of the Opposition, and we ourselves would be benefiting by the fact that every person who comes to this country, who has a stake in the community, who pays his taxes and who is an honourable citizen, should be given the same rights as we have, whether his skin be dark or fair. I should be glad to hear the views of the Prime Minister on this subject.


Alan Webster Neill: I propose to deal only very
briefly with the remarks of the hon member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who has expressed the desire to allow Hindus to vote in Canada, and to deal for a moment with the allegations-I will not call them arguments, because that would be sophistical -with which he attempted to buttress his position. I apologize to the House for proposing to take up time at this late hour of the session. It is only the urgent necessity of the case that compels me to do so. I wish the limits of the narrow confines of parliamentary language allowed me to express as the poet says "in language warm as could be breathed or penned" my opinion of the hon. gentleman in precipitating this subject into the political arena at this late hour. I am sorry to see that several of the members for British Columbia either are not in the House or have left. Consequently it behooves the one or two who are here to speak for the province. There is little difficulty m that because we know British Columbia is a unit on the subject. I can well say that this
is neither the time nor the place to discuss this subject.
The hon. gentleman based his remarks up-jn the resolution which he read from the order paper, a resolution which stands and has been standing in his name for nearly five months. We have been sitting through the apparently interminable length of this long weary session, not having accomplished very much either, as some people think, and that resolution was on the Order Paper and it was pasied over again and again either at the wish of the hon. member himself or because he was not present to do his duty in the House, while members from British Columbia have been sitting here in session day and night attending to the business. The hon. member reminds me of a beautiful butterfly; he descends at periods. Or
like a comet he comes along with a very doubtful periodicity and tells the House to do thus and so, and then flits away to some other scene or field of activity, or of rest and repose. Whether it is relaxation in the way of business, pleasure, or passion, I know not.
It is for him to say. But I do know that if he had been doing his duty this matter would have been debated in the proper way by hon. members long ago. The hon. member mentioned the number of Hindus in British Columbia and he was careful to say that he had been "told" there were 1,200. Let me inform him that he has been told wrong; the number of Hindus that came into the country in the years prior to July 1st, 1920, was 5.297. I suppose some of them have gone since then to the country from whose bourne no traveller returns, but not many of them; and there is a long distance between 5,000 and 1,200. But that statement by the hon. member is quite as near the facts as most of his other logic on the subject.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where did the hon. member obtain his figures?


Alan Webster Neill: The statement from which I obtained them is headed "Nationalities of 'immigrants for the fiscal year ended Maich 31st, 1920, and total immigration since July Jst, 1920." It begins with the British and goes through the list of other nationalities. It is a long statement and I will not weary the House by reading it. It was prepared by the librarian and the statistician of British Columbia.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the hon. gentleman the census figures from the department at Ottawa?


Alan Webster Neill: I got these figures from the librarian and the statistician of British Columbia.
Supply-Imperial Conference


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that they were prepared by the librarian.


Alan Webster Neill: And the statistician as well, I said.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not observe that the figures do not take account of emigrants, a great many of whom have gone South.


Alan Webster Neill: We are told that if we dd not pass the resolution or adhere to the principle suggested by the hon. member there will be a sore spot against Canada in the minds of the people of India. That point was dwelt upon very strongly on a previous occasion. Well, we shall not be alone in that respect, for the same precise conditions prevail, as regards India, in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, and if you add Canada to the list what considerable portion of the British Empire is left for India to be sore at? She will lave to be sore at the whole Empire and noo against this one particular section of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. member pretend that Australia and New Zealand were not parties to the understanding that the Hindus should be given the franchise?


Alan Webster Neill: I am not pretending anything. The subject is too serious for any pretence, and indeed no pretence is needed to bolster up my arguments; for what I say is true. In New Zealand the people of the Orient, including Hindus, are not allowed to vote, and if the hon. gentleman insists on corrobora-lion I may say that I have the Australian act here from which I can quote if necessary.
I do not want to detain the House however. It will be sufficient for me to observe that in Australia the Franchise Act says that no one born in Asia shall vote. I think that covers Indians. And as regards South Africa, the delegates from that part of the Empire hurried 10 put themselves right on this subject at the conference. They said, "We have no pari, nor lot with this principle and will not countenance it." They spoke right up and said they would have nothing to do with it.


Samuel William Jacobs: That was the only Dominion that did protest and my hon. friend knows it.


Alan Webster Neill: They went further in their opposition, because as late as April 18th in a press cable from Capetown the Minister of the Interior in the government of South Africa is reported thus:
He proposed to introduce a measure providing for residential and trading segregation next session.

That was in reference to Indians and it does not look as though they propose to take the Hindus to their heart and bosom in the matter of the franchise or in any other way:	Tllat disposes of that portion of the
British Empire.
Now my hon. friend drew a pitiful picture of the condition of these poor suffering people who are deprived of something which he represented as being almost as priceless to them as freedom itself, namely, the right to vote. Well, let us see what their condition was in the country from whence they came. The hon. member suggested that India was in the same position as Canada in regard to this matter. I am surprised that he should advance such a statement. Why, it is only since 1921, which is only two years ago-and all these Hindus came to this country long before that, when there was not even the faintest pretence at suffrage in India-that there was any form of popular legislature established in India. I have by me the year book, but I will not Pead from it. But there are 103 elected representatives in India at the present time in addition to a few nominated members; and as against 103 elected representatives there is a population in India of 247,000,000; so that on the basis of manhood suffrage each representative would have a constituency of 2,500,000. That is patently absurd, but it shows how much restricted is the franchise in India; and yet the hon. gentleman wants to give them the full advantage of our Canadian manhood suffrage. A constituency of 2,500,0001 How I should like to be a member there. On the basis of our population and our unit of representation it would mean that one Hindu in 8,000 would vote in Canada, and if the hon. gentleman will whittle down to that proportion the rep-iesentation which he would like to extend to these people in Canada I should not mind that fraction voting. But that is the proportion ; it would be one in 8,000 of these downtrodden people who would have the right to vote in Canada if they were subjected here to the conditions that exist in India-conditions that did not come into being until long after they left their own country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely the association with men like my hon. friend would be beneficial to these 1,200 Hindus in British Columbia?


Alan Webster Neill: The 5,927 Hindus in British Columbia do not associate with me. Now if it were thought advisable in any part of the world to give these people the vote or to allow them to have a voice in their government it surely would be in India where they

Supply-Imperial Conference
have lived all their lives and where they would be conversant with all the conditions and all the peculiar troubles that concern them. But no; they are to be transplanted here to a country of which they are ignorant in the extreme. They know not our language nor do they know our customs; and what is more, they do not want to know them. Yet we are to bring them here and give thqm the franchise such as we and our women enjoy, although we deny to the aborigines of Canada, the native sons of the country, brought up and educated here, the very privilege which the hon. member is anxious to give to the same class of people bom in some other country. An effort was made a year or two ago to give to the native Indians in this country the franchise in a limited degree but it proved a failure; but notwithstanding that denial to the aborigines of our own country the hon. member desires to give to the same class, so far as their position in the strata of society is concerned, people of the same standard of intelligence, the right to vote. He wants to give this right to people bom in India, a heathen and many of them a debased class of people.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Would my hon. friend deny entirely the franchise to these Hindu citizens, or would he be prepared to give them a limited franchise?


Alan Webster Neill: So far as British Columbia is concerned I deny them that right absolutely, but I will suggest a scheme later on for partially meeting the hon. member's proposal. Now we are told we must give way in this matter to that good old stalking horse "Imperial reasons." I think I am as much an imperialist as the hon. gentleman opposite, and I recall that a few weeks ago I suggested that it would not besmirch our reputations as Canadians if we accepted a title of honour from the sovereign that reigns over us. I cannot recall that I got much sympathy from the hon. members in that respect, but that surely was an indication of my imperialism.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I hope I may be allowed to interrupt my hon. friend in order to explain my position on the question he has just introduced. Notwithstanding the vote of the majority of hon. members on this side, I did my utmost to see that honours should De accepted in this country so long as Canada formed a part of the British Empire. I only desire to make my position clear on this question.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to find that there is one more intelligent man in the House.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I tell my hon. friend
that my imperialism and love of Empire is based on something that is sounder than mere ribbons or orders or decorations.


Alan Webster Neill: I could not help thinking
the other day, when we were passing the annuity to Dr. Banting and seeking in that way to do him honour, that that was one occasion on which perhaps' it might have been well if Dr. Banting had been able to receive a title of honour from the sovereign and the people he has so well served. It is said that we are asked to lay on the altar of imperialism this right. Mr. Chairman, we are not asked to do so by imperialism at all; we are asked by Mr. Sastri and a few amiable faddis-ts who follow him-that is all. Their audacity in asking is equalled only by their ignorance of what the granting of the request would mean. Amiable they are,
I admit it; faddists they are-the class of people that send bouquets to the cell of the condemned prisoner. Faddists they are from beginning to end, not imperialists. But Mr. Sastri, with his beautiful and flowery language, captivates their shallow minds, and they are following him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the members who compose the Imperial Conference when he speaks about shallow minds?


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am not. Did the hon. member think I was? Now, let us pause for a moment and see how the Imperial authorities regarded this question. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier says they promised -"promised" was the word he used a few minutes ago-the Hon. Mr. Sastri this concession; and in speaking to the Prime Minister he used the word "undertaking;" he said that an undertaking had been given by the leader of the Opposition. Now let us see what the Imperial authorities think. I suppose it will be admitted that the Hon. Winston Churchill -if that is his title-is an Imperial-
9 p.m. ist; he was Secretary of State I think, or Secretary of the Colonies at the time. Here is the report of the conference that the member alludes to at which this question was brought up, and this is what Winston Churchill says-I will quote only two sentences:
I think there is only one ideal that the British Empire can set before itself in this regard, and that is that there should be no barrier of race, colour, or creed which should prevent any man by merit from reaching any station if he is fitted for it.
Note that-"fitted for it." He then goes on to say:
Supply-Imperial Conference

But such a principle is to be very carefully and gradually applied, because intense local feelings are excited, and there is no doubt that extraordinary social stresses arise when populations are intimately mingled in some of these new countries and brought into severe economic competition.
Can we find in that anything that suggests a promise or undertaking? That is the very cautiously worded opinion, after hearing the full debate, of Hon. Mr. Churchill, and on that slim foundation the argument is bas'ed that we must give way, and we in Canada alone of all the British Empire. Why, Hon. Mr. Sastri himself is not so confident of success as my hon. friend opposite for we find him quoted in the press as saying that he is "not hopeful" of the franchise-and, that in spite of the pledge or undertaking that my hon. friend reads into what is not there. I quote from the press:
With regard to the provincial and municipal franchise he is not so hopeful of immediate results.
It all comes down to a hope. Well, there are a lot of things we may hope for, but we do not look upon them as undertakings; we do not call them promises. That is the expression Mr. Sastri used when he returned from Canada-that he had hope.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman not see a difference between being hopeful of obtaining the franchise in a municipality in British Columbia and obtaining the franchise from the parliament of Canada? There is surely some difference.
_ Mr. NEILL:	He also said he was doubtul about getting it in the Dominion. I am hopeful of going to Heaven some day, but there is no undertaking in that connection. The hon. gentleman tells us-and here I may be treading on dangerous ground, because he is a skilful lawyer-that the reason the Hindus do not now come to Canada is that they have to get a passport which is not obtainable from the Indian government. Well, I may be wrong in that regard, but my recollection of it is that they are not allowed to come to Canada unless they come by direct route. It is a quibble put in by this government to stop them from coming, because there is no direct steamship lines operating between India and Canada. Otherwise, they would be eligible to come in; but the order in council,
I think, is worded in that way-they cannot come unless they come in a ship direct from the point of origin. That is a different reason from that given by my hon. friend. Now. he says there are only twelve hundred of these people who would be affected. We will say there are five thousand; according to my hon. friend's argument we would grant them f,Mr. Neill.]
the franchise and that would be the end of it. Well, that would not be the end of it. Five thousand voters in British Columbia would have a very powerful influence on the electorate and on the result of the election. They would be skilfully handled; they would vote in a mass and for one object, and the result would be to swing perhaps two or three seats. What would that object be? Would it be the advancement of Canada as a whole or of British Columbia as a province, or would it be to secure some advantage for that colony of Hindus? Would it not be the latter ? Would it not be a case of those five thousand votes going to the candidate who would undertake to let these people bring in their women, their relations, or their friends? These votes would go solidly for the man who would do that or the party that would do that, and five thousand votes, especially in a provincial election, would cut an important figure. Moreover, the voters would soon cease to be only five thousand in number; they would increase very rapidly.
Another point is this: If you grant this privilege to the Hindus, can you deny it to others under similar conditions? The hon. member says there is a difference between these people; that the Hindus are British-born subjects and that differentiates them from Orientals such as Japanese and Chinese. But Japanese and Chinese are born in British Columbia, which is far more than the Hindu is. He too is a British subject, I admit; but when the oriental is born in British Columbia of naturalized parents how can we logically and with any sense of decency withhold the vote from him when he attains the age of twenty-one when we have given it to the Hindu, a worse fitted man, a man untrained, unaccustomed to our language? If we grant it to the Hindu how can we deny it to the oriental bom in British Columbia who speaks the same tongue as we do? It follows as the night the day that if we grant it to Hindus we must grant it to the other orientals.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that a
person born in any part of the British dominions, whether of British parentage or not, is regarded as a British subject? Japanese who are bom in a British dominion are British subjects, whether their parents are naturalized or not.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly they are; I was
not dealing with that aspect of it. I was saying that if we give the Hindus, who are British subjects, the vote, we should have to give it also to Japanese British subjects born in British Columbia. It is logical that we

Supply-Imperial Conference
should do so. Let me quote from what the Bishop of London said at a big meeting at London-I saw it in the paper only yesterday. He evidently had been over here, and this is what the report says:
He had been preaching in London, immigration to Canada, but he found it very unpopular, for the following reason: There were, he said, 38,000 Chinese in British Columbia and 5,000 Japanese babies were born every year on the Pacific coast. He gave it as his opinion that unless Canada was populated to a larger degree by people from the British Isles, the white inhabitants would eventually become extinct in the Dominion.
That is an exaggerated statement, as we know, but it indicates the influence that these conditions have upon the point of view in England. You know, they think the world of bishops in the Old Country-much more than we do; and when a bishop gets up and says that British Columbia is swarming with orientals they are liable to take that as a piece of advice. We know that in the years to come, especially if we give these people the vote, there will not be a white British Columbia but a yellow British Columbia.
I would not for the world-in fact, the rules forbid me-reflect upon the hon. member's motives. But this resolution is what I might call a chart which guides his course to the goal he has in view. If you will look at the next resolution on the order paper following the one upon which he has based his remarks, you will find that it is also by him and it embodies a proposal that all the bars should be let down and that wholesale immigration into Canada should be permitted. I wonder if these two resolutions could have anything to do with each other? I wonder if the one is the doormat leading to the door of the other? I saw the other day in a medical journal that a new alkaloid had been discovered; I believe the name of it is scopolamin; I cannot pronounce it correctly. It has this peculiar quality that if it is administered in small doses it prevents, to put it in the medical sense, the inhibition of will, or to put it in plain language it compels a man to speak the truth without removing from him his ability to speak. I wonder if we applied a small dose of this to the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier whether we would find that his motion was actuated by the imperialism of which he talks or with a desire to reach the next motion on the order paper and open the door to practically every kind of immigration. In case the hon. gentleman should be upset by my suggestion I would inform him that I would only prescribe for him a very small dose because I understand that if too strong a dose
is given the effects are permanent, and I know he is a lawyer and might find that awkward.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. gentleman tell me if he has any large quantity of that drug on hand and if he is able to spare a little of it?


Alan Webster Neill: Just one word more and I am done. I said at the beginning that this was not the place to discuss the question, and it is not. It is not a Dominion matter. It is a British Columbia problem. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Let us settle this problem in British Columbia. It has no more to do with the other provinces than if I were to interfere with some of the local customs and traditions of the province of Quebec. It is a British Columbia problem for this reason: the franchise invariably originates in the province. It is entirely a provincial matter. I would quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier who in 1917 laid down in most emphatic language in paragraph after paragraph that the true basis of our Dominion franchise under the British North America Act is the provincial franchise. He used the word "originates". The franchise originates in the province and then has to be translated into the Dominion act. The right hon. leader of the Opposition last year is on record in Hansard to substantially the same effect. He said that where prohibitions existed in the provincial franchise we carried them into the Dominion franchise, and if that is correct, and here we have two of the ablest men of our time on this subject, then the thing for us to do is to take this subject up in British Columbia and deal with it there, and the province of British Columbia would know how to deal with such a subject in the best interests of Canada as well as the best interests of the province. I would ask this House, therefore, not to force upon us in British Columbia a thing which is unconstitutional, and is against our customs and bitterly against our desires. There is no precedent for it whatever. Talk about creating a sore spot. Do this and you would create a canker in British Columbia that we as a nation would never recover from.
Let us go back to Quebec. I use that province as an illustration because it is the most united in its population and in its characteristics. If the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier is so enamoured of this proposition of which he has talked to us let him go to Quebec and get Quebec to pass a franchise law giving the Hindus and all kinds of orientals the right to vote there. Let him try that out for a while in the province of Quebec, and if these people value the franchise so



Supply-Imperial Conference
highly British Columbia will gladly send them down to Quebec. We will wish them Godspeed and pay their fares. We will be delighted to see them go, and see how the hon. member will get on under those conditions. Is it not fair to use the hon. gentleman's own argument against himself? He wants to give them the franchise. Then let him give it them in his own province. Then such a wave of reform will spread from Quebec that perhaps we in British Columbia may follow his example-perhaps. But let him begin with Quebec. Let him ask the Trench race, those men who have maintained for scores of generations the purity of their race, of their language, and of their religion and traditions to give up all that and. to take on the same plane of equality as themselves the lower strata of these orientals such as I have described, take them on the same level of political equality, take them on the same level of business equality, for the one follows the other, and take them on the same level of social equality for you cannot stop at business equality. Take them on the same plane of domestic equality, for you must go the whole length if you make a start. Ask the people of Quebec if they want to do that, and see what the answer is. I am sure they would repudiate the suggestion with scorn and indignation, and therefore I ask these Frenchmen, of whom our hon. Speaker is such an illustrious type, courtly eons of a courtly race, to give us in British Columbia only the same privilege that they would ask and demand for themselves. We ask no more and demand no less. We only ask that they shall treat us as they themselves would like to be treated, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope and trust that our representatives at this conference will go there with a determination to see that they preserve at that conference the right of British Columbia and of every other province to prescribe its own franchise, a right which I venture to suggest is the free right of a free people.


Thomas George McBride: It is not my intention to take up the time of the House for the ground has been fully covered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I say this though, that we in British Columbia want no more Hindus. Never did I value Canada and the laws of Canada more highly than when a boat-load of Hindus came from India to the port of Vancouver and was refused admittance to this country and sent back home by the previous government. I hope this government will maintain that stand. We have on the coast of British Columbia, Chinamen and Japs running our stores. They are running

the white people out. We have the Greeks there running our hotels and we have the Jews running our second-hand stores, and now some people want to bring in the Hindus to run our mills. We have had enough of that in the past, and if this government wants to cast British Columbia adrift let her cast it adrift and let her east it adrift before any more orientals come in. If they do, we white people out on the Pacific will prevent any more orientals coming to British Columbia.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not my purpose to answer the wild harangue of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It would be impossible for me to do it. It does not require an answer. It is not susceptible of an answer. I notice that these gentlemen from British Columbia as soon as any subject is brought before the House see in it danger. They see in the Japanese, the Chinese and the Hindus something which they have reason to fear. So far as I know these people, they not only work but they seem to be the only men who do the work in that part of the country. But it is not for me here to criticize British Columbia. I am looking at this matter from the wider, from the national standpoint. I do not care what franchise the British Columbians have for their provincial legislature. That is a matter that does not concern me. But this is a matter which concerns the Dominion of Canada, and that is the reason why I raise it here in this House.
My hon. friend referred to the fact that I had had this resolution on the order paper for a considerable time and only brought it up in the last hours of the session. Well, he knows very well, and I need not tell him, I think he is a victim like myself of the fact that private members' day was taken away somewhat early in the session and consequently private members could not discuss the resolutions standing in their names on the order paper. There were all kinds of resolutions placed on the order paper, some of them by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member's resolution is dated February 21st.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is dated February 23rd, and I did not have an opportunity of bringing it before the House before private members' day was taken away. I will admit as the hon. member has referred to it that I did not attend perhaps as assiduously as he did. and it is very possible that when the resolution was called I was not here to go on with it, but that ought not to be a reason for not

Supply-Imperial Conference
debating the matter when it can be legally-brought before the House. The hon. member seems to make a point of the fact that some British Columbia members have left for their homes, and he insinuated that I had taken occasion to bring this matter up in the absence of these members, but I can assure the hon. member that he is a host in himself and it is not necessary for any British Columbia member other than himself to be here when the subject of oriental immigration or franchise is brought up. I want to put upon Hansard a despatch from Simla, India, which has appeared in the daily papers. It is dated June 26:
Indians would retaliate against the Dominions
Simla, India, June 26.-In connection with the problem relating to the status of Indians overseas, there is a growing demand here for retaliatory legislation imposing on subjects of the dominions anti colonies similar disabilities to those imposed on Indian settlers in those countries. A leading democrat has given notice of a private permissive bill in the legislative assembly and three unofficial resolutions have also been laid on the table urging the government to legislate in the direction of reciprocity.
The adverse decision by the United. States supreme court regarding the naturalization of Indians has strengthened the elements favoring retaliation.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date of that?


Samuel William Jacobs: It was dated June 26, 1923 It is a despatch from Simla, India. May I also refer to an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of this week which is quite favourable to British Indians.
Fair play for British Indians
During last winter Rt. Hon. Mr. Sastri, a member of the King's Privy Council, visited Canada for the purpose of impressing upon the government the right of British India subjects resident in Canada to exercise the franchise. The request was so reasonable that on every hand Mr. Sastri received sympathy.


Alan Webster Neill: Is my hon. friend going to give the name of the writer of that article?


Samuel William Jacobs: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I did not write it nor did I inspire it.


Alan Webster Neill: The House would be interested in knowing the writer.


Samuel William Jacobs: This is an editorial in the Montreal Gazette.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought it was not customary to read extracts unless the writer's name was given?


Samuel William Jacobs: Editorials from the Montreal Gazette have been read in this House. With tome of them I agreed, with others I did not. This is one with which I agree.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps Sastri wrote it?


Samuel William Jacobs: Let me continue:
Yet no action has been taken. The parliamentary session is now drawing to a close, and it may be too late to initiate new legislation despite the apothegm that it's never too late to mend. Yet it is disappointing that the government has not moved to the end of justice, regrettable from both Empire and Canadian standpoints. Chinese enjoy and exercise the franchise, but East Indians are deprived of the right. Why? Surely not because the latter are British subjects? The larger question of opening the door to admission to Canada of all races is not involved in this matter. What Mr. Sastri urged was the fairness of granting to Indians domiciled in Canada the same political rights as other classes of Canadians enjoy, and it is difficult to understand the delay of the government in granting the concession. There is more than moral right involved, and more than Empire interest. Canada does some trade with British India, and desires to extend the same, but if the East Indians conceive the notion that Canada is a country of prejudices, narrow views, and illiberality, it may easily happen that British Indians will turn from trade with it, and look askance at the pretence of Empire solidity. Antipathy to Canadian business agencies in India is already being cultivated. A straw serves to show how the wind blows. The Parsee Chamber of Commerce recently adopted a series of resolutions of which the preamble was as follows: "Whereas the treatment meted out to Indians in the colonies has been unsatisfactory and has continued to be so in an acute form notwithstanding the efforts of the Indian public and the government of India to get the situation altered, this Assembly now resolves that the government of India should henceforth, and until the matters complained of are fully remedied, adopt the principle of retaliation towards the nationals of the colonies."
The spirit of that resolution does not make for Empire unity, nor give hope of increasing connection commercially between Canada and India. It may be that the larger question of an open door to Indian immigration may be referred to the coming Imperial Conference, though that is debatable, but of this there is no room for doubt East Indians domiciled in Canada should be given the right of franchise on the same terms and conditions as are applied to other residents. That was the request of Mr. Sastri, and it ought to be complied with.


Thomas George McBride: If my hon. friend had a daughter would he want her to live and associate with the Hindu?


Samuel William Jacobs: I would say this: I have
three daughters, and I would rather see them associate with respectable Hindus than with some white men I know. But that is not the question which comes up here to-night. It is not a question of the association of white men with the duskier races or anything of the kind. The question-


Thomas George McBride: That is exactly what it is, Mr. Chairman. It is forcing these coloured races in among white people, and making the people of British Columbia associate with them.


Samuel William Jacobs: Let me remind my hon.
friend that the people of British Columbia are associating with them now.


Thomas George McBride: Yes, and it is not a credit to this country.
Supply-Imperial Conference


Samuel William Jacobs: They are associating with them and would not associate with them any more if they had this right than they do now. The Hindus are there now and they are there to stay until, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi says, they go to their reward. None of these people are now coming into the country. As I have already stated they are prohibited by the Indian government from leaving their own shores to come to Canada and the non-continuous journey clause of the order in council regarding immigration does not apply at all to those coming from India direct. That is an added restriction that has been put upon them. They can neither come now by non-continuous route, nor can they come direct. That is the point I wish to make. As I say, these people are there now. They are tax-payers. There is nothing against their receiving a franchise except the fear on the part of the people of British Columbia that when they do receive this franchise, as the member for Comox-Alberni said, when they elect a representative to parliament or to the legislature they might work some injury to the white people of that province. I trust this parliament will rise above these narrow considerations which have been mentioned by the member for Comox-Alberni and do its duty. I think it will be generally admitted that my hon. friend (Mr. Neill) is perhaps not the best person to speak on this matter without prejudice. He is one of the most prejudiced members in this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel William Jacobs: -from British Columbia on the question


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel William Jacobs: -of orientals. He positively glories in it. He says: "I am against orientals in every form; I am against their immigration, I am against their franchise." He has constituted himself thfe authority in matters of this kind; I think he would look upon it as a piece of flattery if I were to tell him publicly as I do now, that in the matter of oriental immigration and oriental franchise there is no more prejudiced person in the House than he is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We perhaps are
somewhat in the dark in entering upon a discussion such as this, because of not having placed before us any very definite agenda as to the subjects that are likely to come, before either the Imperial or the Economic conference. A great deal will depend on the general intellectual background and attitude of

our delegates there. When we had the discussion the other day on the Halibut treaty I am sure a great many of us must have been very much pleased indeed at the attitude of the Prime Minister with regard to the relationship which should exist between Canada and the Empire; and I feel very confident that if he can retain that position, in the midst of the surroundings in which he will find himself placed on the other side of the water, Canada will be comparatively safe.
It is, perhaps, rather fitting in a way and yet somewhat of an ill omen, that accompanying the Prime Minister there should be the Acting Minister of National Defence. Unfortunately, in the past imperialism and militarism have been very closely associated, but I trust that this appointment does not mean that the matters chiefly to be discussed are military in character.
Just in passing I have often wondered as we have sat here during these last months, as to how long it will be before the appointment of the Acting Minister of National Defence shall be endorsed by the people. It has seemed to me that it is of the very essence of our British institutions that a man should not become the head of an important government department without his appointment being definitely endorsed by the people.
I could think of no better development that could take place in international affairs than that we should have the whole question placed on some other than a military basis. Ideally, I have no doubt whatever that the appointment of the Minister of Justice is the best that could be made. From a practical standpoint, I wish the Minister of Justice were not so closely associated with the big financiers of this country. Some of us believe that the big financial interests ought not to dominate the Imperial or Economic Conferences. I wish that in some way it were possible that the great producing classes of this country, the farmers and the labouring people, could be represented on the Economic Conference. I do not propose to-night to discuss the legal and constitutional aspects of our relations to the Empire. These have been dealt with by our constitutional authorities and our legal friends. A great deal of stress has often been laid by them upon precedent. It seems to me the time has come when we shall have to make new precedents, when we shall have to view the situation as it actually is to-day, and act, having regard to the developments which have taken place in recent years. We all recognize that there are certain sentimental attachments-I do not use that word in a disparaging sense at all-

Supply-Imperial Conference
which unite Canada with the Motherland. We remember our common origin. We remember that we have a common language, that we have common traditions and common institutions. These things, after all, are the most fundamental in maintaining the ties that unite this country with other countries composing the British Commonwealth of nations. But I should like to emphasize that loyalty does not in any way mean subserviency. Too often we have people on the floor of this House and elsewhere throughout the country deprecating any criticisms of policies which are regarded as British, or which are named British. Rather it would appear that in the effort to decide our own policies according to our best lights, we are preeminently British in spirit. Some people have still the colonial mind. They think of themselves as inferiors. They have what I suppose the psycho-analysts would call inferiority complex. I cannot conceive that we can take our real place in the British Empire until we outgrow that and remember that we in Canada are just as fit to discuss the affairs of the Empire as are the people in any other part of the Empire.
I should like to endorse a great deal of what has been said by the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). It seems to me he has placed the whole situation on a proper basis. I cannot but deprecate the attitude taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) with regard to the orientals. He has tried to disparage almost every other nationality than our own, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Greeks and the Jews. No, I think it was the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) who enumerated these particular groups. I cannot see that we	are going to	getvery far by	a	narrow bigotry	of
that kind. The member for Comox-Alberni, in referring to the fact that the orientals have no vote, said he was afraid that if the Indians should be given a vote it would result in a vote being given to other orientals. I should like to ask why not? I admit that I do not believe in admitting large numbers of these people at the present time because we are not in a fit position to take care of them. I do not believe we can have an intermingling of these races under existing conditions, but it is one thing to say to the orientals "it is not well for you to come in at the present time," and it is quite another thing after we have allowed them to come in and they are citizens with us, rate-payers with us and all the rest of it, to deny them
the fundamental rights of citizenship. Last summer when I was walking through Stanley Park I could not but think of the member for Comox-Alberni. At one spot I stood before a beautiful monument erected to the memory of the Japanese soldiers who had fallen during the great war in the cause of what we were told was British liberty. I cannot quite see just where is the British justice in accepting the sacrifice which these people made for the British Empire and then refusing them the common rights of citizenship. The member for Comox-Alberni spoke of the Indian people as a heathen and debased class. Any one who has had the most elementary knowledge of the great philosophies of India must realize how far the member is from at all correctly representing the situation. Even out in British Columbia several years ago, when I visited the Sikh temple in Vancouver, where several hundred Indians were met, and heard one educated Indian speaking to his fellow countrymen, and holding before them the very highest ideals, I could not help but realize our narrowness. I believe that, in dealing with these matters, difficult as they are-and I know they are difficult-we should rise above narrow prejudice and look at them from a little bit more of a world point of view.
There are several principles that have oc-cured to me, to which I would like to refer very briefly, which it would seem to me we ought to adhere to at this Imperial Conference; the first, clear understanding that from this time on Canada must be essentially autonomous. We need not worry as to our exact relationship to the other parts of the Empire. I suppose in time some arrangement will develop, through a series of conferences or something of that kind, which will enable us to keep in touch with other parts of the world, but the biggest thing we can emphasize is our own autonomy. I do not know that the position of labour on this point has ever been closely defined, but I would say that, on the whole, labour in this country echoes the thought of labour in the Old Country, and hence I should like to read a paragraph or two of the famous draft programme of the British labour party, as published several years ago.


Thomas George McBride: Let us hear from British Columbia.
Mr. W7OODSWORTH:	There are other
parts of the world than British Columbia. The paragraph 1 refer to reads:
We desire to maintain the most intimate relations with the labor party overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the projects of "Imperial Federa-
Supply-Imperial Conference

tion," in so far as these imply the subjection to a common imperial legislature wielding coercive power (including dangerous facilities for coercive imperial taxation and for enforced military service), either of the existing self-governing dominions, whose autonomy would be thereby invaded; or of the United Kingdom, whose freedom of democratic self-development would be thereby hampered; or if India and the colonial dependencies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a " White Empire." We do not intend, by any such " Imperial Senate," either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in controlling the growing popular democracies overseas. The autonomy of each self-governing part of the Empire must be intact.
And again, in speaking of international relationships :
And we carry the idea further. As regards our relations to foreign countries, we disavow and disclaim any desire or intention to dispossess or to impoverish any other state or nation. We seek no increase of territory. We disclaim all idea of "economic war." We ourselves object to all protective customs tariffs; but we hold that each nation must be left free to do what it thinks best for its own economic development, without thought of injuring others. We believe that nations are in no way damaged by each other's prosperity or commercial progress; but, on the contrary, that they are actually themselves mutually enriched thereby. We would therefore put an end to the old entanglements and justifications of secret diplomacy and the formation d*f leagues against leagues.
I would not urge a narrow nationalism in this regard. There are some who have even on the floor of this House suggested that we should cut ourselves almost entirely free from either the Motherland or international councils. The world has developed past that stage. There is such a close interrelation between its different parts to-day, such an essential unity, that no one nation can any longer live to itself. Canada cannot possibly turn the clock backward. Canada canot possibly play the role of an independent nation. We must meet with the other nations throughout the world; but let us meet with them recognizing that we are full grown and free to co-operate with them in all that will make for the common welfare.
We have been very frequently told that we in this country have nothing to do but to endorse what has been called British policy. I should like to pause for a moment to ask: What is British policy? Surely we do not have to read history very closely to recognize that British policy is as changeable as the policy of any other country; that it changes with each successive government; that it changes from year to year. I suppose we might talk about Canada's National policy. That, perhaps, is the most stable thing that I know anything about, because the Liberal party may come or the Conservative party
I Mr. Woodsworth.l
may come, but there is little difference-we have the self-same protective policy as we have had it for many years. At the same time we remember that there are considerable changes of policy from year to year. We cannot speak definitely of a British policy. It was the British policy a few months ago to bring Great Britain to the verge of another great war. A few months later the particular group that advocated that policy was discredited, and we had a new British policy. So I would suggest that the policy called the British policy, to which we have often been asked to subscribe, has been a policy simply of a little group of militarists and imperialists. I would venture to suggest to the Prime Minister and others who go in this delegation, that possibly they would be a great deal more nearly in line with the fundamental sympathies and ideals of the Canadian people if they followed not so much the representations of some of the old-time diplomats of Great Briitain, as the representations of the more humble people represented by the British Labour party.
With regard to our international relations, there are several points, I think, that ought to be held before us clearly at this time. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from a recent debate in the British House of Commons and to put forward the positions taken on the floor of that House as fairly representing the positions taken by many of us in this country. On May 10, in the House of Commons, Sir John Simon raised the question of a certain decree issued by the commission which is governing the Saar, or rather misgoverning it under the League of Nations. Mr. Asquith supported Sir John Simon. Lord Robert Cecil broadened out the debate and raised the general problem of Franco-German relations. In the course of that debate Mr. E. D. Morel gave utterance to some sentiments which I should like to place before this House. He said:
The real issue in this matter is not reparations. It never has been reparations. It is not security. It never has been security. The real issue in this matter is whether or not the present rulers of France are going to succeed in their fixed determined aim of disrupting Germany. That is the real issue. It is an issue of very great importance not only to France and Germany, but to the whole of the continent of Europe and to ourselves. All these discussions about reparations and security are really completely artificial when you are faced with a situation such as you are facing to-day-when a French army is paralysing the heart and lungs of industrial Germany, when the Saar valley is being virtually annexed to France under the cloak of the League of Nations, when the whole of the civil administration of the Rhineland is being ruthlessly stamped out and the whole country is being gallicized. Deportations to-day amount

Supply-Imperial Conference
to over 23,400 persons, including 33 editors, 5 Roman Catholic priests, 10 Protestant clergymen, and 150 teachers. This, I repeat, is the real issue-whether France is going to succeed in disrupting Germany. This country can no longer afford to ignore the real issue. The interest of our working classes, the interests of our commercial classes, and our national security are being more and more affected, and French policy is threatening more and more the peace, the immediate peace, of the world	
What is the truth? Put bluntly-and I shall make no reference whatever to French armaments as to which a great deal has recently been disclosed-the truth is this: The French General Staff is organizing the new Europe for war.
And he goes on to give in some detail the conditions which warrant him in making that statement. With regard to the Saar valley, Mr. Charles Buxton stated:
Here is a great miltary occupation going on, not by the League of Nations at all, not under the Treaty at all, because the Treaty says that you have to have a force formed of the population of the Saar itself. There is nothing of the kind. The French troops began, I think, speaking from recollection, at 2,000 or 3,000. They rose to 4,000, and have now risen to 10,000 men, for a wretchedly small district as regards size, and for a population, as I have said, of considerably under 1,000,000. Moreover, as I am reminded, they have their wives and families with them quartered on the country.
With regard to the Ruhr he said:
The hon. member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) has said something about the smooth and easy working of this-occupation of the Ruhr.


Thomas George McBride: I would like to know what bearing this has on the Hindu question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is hardly necessary to remind the House, although it might be necessary to remind the hon. member, that the Hindu question is not the only question that has to be discussed at the Imperial Conference.
He has ignored the fact that there prevails a reign of terror among the workers. He did not even pay any regard to the fact that a very large number of them have been shot down. The number amounts, if I have added up the figures rightly, to 52 who have already been killed, the majority of them working men, generally on the way to or from their work, suspected for aught I know of some evil intention or other, but in many cases with no overt act proved against them whatsoever, but simply shot as they were going about in the ordinary course of their business.


Joseph Archambault: From what paper is my hon. friend quoting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From the Official Debates of the British House of Commons. With regard to the Russian situation, too, I desire to give another brief quotation as to the attitude taken by those whom we labour people in this country regard as essentially representing our position in the Old Land. Mr. Ponsonby said:
The bottom of the trouble is our refusal to recognize The Russian government. The question, of recognition
is one of very great importance. Recognition of a government does not depend on its quality or its methods but purely and solely on its stability. That is the only point that ought to be taken into account in recognizing the sovereignty of another nation. I would refer the hon. gentleman in charge of the vote to the books on international law, and he will find there is no instance in history of so long a period elapsing in which a government- which has shown stability from the fact that after five and a-half years it is more firmly established'-has been denied recognition in the way we have denied it.


Mr. MORIN:: Who made the speech in the British House of Commons from which lhe hon. gentleman has quoted?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The first quotation was from Mr. Morel, the second from Mr. Charles Buxton, and the third from Mr. Ponsonby.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: I thought you mentioned Lord Robert Cecil and Sir John Simon.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mentioned them as taking part previously in the debate, but the quotations I gave were from those whom I have just mentioned. Without going at all mto the details of these great questions which are before Great Britain and Europe I would suggest that the representatives of this country urge upon the Imperial Conference the necessity for a modification of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, looking towards getting a little bit nearer the terms of the Armistice. I shall not weary the House to-night by quoting from that standard book of Mr. John M. Keyne's, in which he shows the iniquity of the Peace treaty and how far It is from the terms under which our enemy laid down his arms. I would refer anyone seeking information to (hat book by an expert.


Mr. LAFLAMME:: We have all read it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure it is sufficient to convince anyone who has read it.


Napoléon Kemner Laflamme: Did the hon. member lead Tardieu's answer to that book?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have read a number of them but not that one.


Napoléon Kemner Laflamme: You have a one-sided view of the situation if you have not read it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would also urge
upon our representatives that they insist upon the fixing of reparations in some form that will allow for the reconstruction of Europe and the bringing about of those stable conditions on which alone permanent peace depends. With regard to the League of Nations, I would point out, as I did in a previous discussion, the importance of making the league inclusive and democratic in its character.

Supply-Imperial Conference
The whole world has looked forward to some sort of institution, some super-national assembly, that would be a meeting place for the various nations for the interchange of opinions, where relations could be explained in order better to be understood, and where in some wajr discussion would be substituted for war as the arbiter in every dispute. I cannot see how this can be accomplished so long as any nation is excluded from what purports to be a league of the nations of the world; nor do I think it can be brought about until such a league has become more democratic than the existing one. It should be clearly recognized that the old policy of regarding armaments as a guarantee of pease has absolutely failed; and instead of fortifying Singapore, as I believe is being done at the present time, with the consent of, if not under pressure from some of the other dominions-instead of going still further on the road towards the preparation for war by air, we should recognize frankly that war has been a failure so far as the establishment of international peace is concerned. If these principles could be successfully maintained at the conference and some progress made in the direction of having them implemented the conference would serve an eminently useful purpose. Undoubtedly at the present time there is need for a better understanding between the various peoples of the world. But that is not sufficient. As the editor of a farm paper wrote me only a few days ago, until definite economic reforms are achieved war is inevitable; so long as the condtions making for war remain there can be no escape from it. I would urge upon men who have the great responsibility of representing Canada that they carry these ideals with them across the waters. We know that when President Wilson crossed to the great conference in France he carried with him the ideals of the majority of the people of America, and I think of a very great many other countries. Unfortunately, owing to a series of circumstances, he seemed to have been unable to impress his ideals upon that conference so that we find the treaty altogether different from any instrument which would really express those ideals. The result has been the disturbed condition that has existed in Europe since that time. 1 I should like our representatives in going overseas to carry with them some of the ideals that are so common among the ordinary people of this country. We are longing for' peace and for economic justice. We are a people whose forefathers came to this country prepared to 
work hard in the hope that they might be able to found homes for themselves and their children. We are a people who in the pioneer days knew a great deal of neighbourliness. We are not anxious to interfere with other people's affairs; wei are anxious to live and let live; and if we can only carry out these homely virtues in international relationships then the coming conference will be of value not merely to us, but as well to the world at large.


Robert Forke: I would call the attention
of the committee to the conditions that existed in pre-war days. Europe at that time was an armed camp. Large nations were arming one against the other, and the onlv epoch in history to which that time can be fittingly compared' was the Napoleonic era. But conditions have changed considerably since then. A conference was called in 1909 when the different communities comprising the British commonwealth assembled to discuss some very important questions. I believe that Australia undertook at that time to establish the nucleus of an Australian navy, while Canada undertook some naval contributions and New Zealand gave a promise of cash. Then came the war and all the concomitant conditions of war, and we find today an entirely different world from that which we knew before 1914. The great nation of Germany has almost, if not entirely, disappeared from the face of Europe as a military power and Russia is practically beyond the pale df international co-operation. In fact in Europe to-day we have about twenty-five nations in a more or less disorganized condition, each of them trying to maintain an army, all of them, perhaps, weak economically and in almost every other way. It seems to me to be one of the tragedies of the time that instead of getting together to hasten the day of peace and goodwill, the countries of Europe to-day are engendering quite a different feeling by hostile armies and hostile tariffs. They are building around themselves; they are shutting each other out; they imagine they are going to bring about prosperity in their own respective countries by having no communication with their neighbours. What is the world's greatest need at this time? I think it can be best expressed by the word that Bonar Law used when he came into power-'"tranquillity." What the world needs is tranquillity, stability, in order that men may devote themselves to the work of rebuilding, to the work of bringing back a condition of contentment and prosperity.
I would like to say just a word here in connection with the position that the United

Supply-Imperial Conference
States occupies. We all realize the great power and influence that the United States of America can have for good or for evil in the world. The United States occupies a position that has never been occupied by any other country. We speak of the United States as a nation; in reality it is a galaxy of nations, almost self-contained. They could almost build a fence around themselves and be complete in themselves. I know they require certain commodities that are necessary to civilization; yet the United States more than any othgr country can stand upon its own feet, can carry on almost without entering into communication with other lands. I do not believe, however, that anything like that is ever going to happen. I know there is a movement in the United States the purpose of which is to have that country live unto itself, to look only to its own welfare and its own prosperity. But it is only a passing phase; it will soon disappear and the United States will come back to the great position she should occupy in the world's affairs. Now, what is the view that the United States takes of the British Empire? I know we always speak of ourselves as a community of nations, each of which is complete in itself. Yet I venture to make the assertion to-day that outside of the politicians and the diplomats 10 p.m. in the United States, the general impression there is that Canada is little more than a colony of Great Britain. The great masses of the people of the United States do not, I believe, understand the position that Canada and the other nations occupy in the British Empire. The war has changed the whole aspect of our national life. I think I am correct in saying that during the war the supreme executive was composed of the British cabinet and the prime ministers of the different dominions. Canada during the war, through her sacrifice and the price she paid in that conflict, reached what may be called the status of nationhood; we realize that from the part she took in the framing of the Peace Treaty and the formation of the League of Nations. Conditions have entirely changed, and at the coming conference many important questions will have to be discussed and at least partly settled. Lloyd George's famous telegram with regard to the Chanak affair brought us very quickly to our senses and made us realize that some day we shall be forced to come to a rapid decision bearing upon the question just what position we occupy in the British Empire. I think the sentiment that was expressed in a great many quarters by a large number of the people of this Dominion in that connection was that no action should be taken by the government
of Canada without the consent of parliament. But that has not been settled; nothing is definite. These questions all remain to be settled in the future and I hope that when the decision is taken they will be settled rightly.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that? What question is it that is not settled?


Robert Forke: I was speaking about that famous telegram that came from England during the Chanak affair.


Arthur Meighen: The Chanak affair?


Robert Forke: The Near Eastern question.
I think I am correct in that.


Arthur Meighen: I was just asking what question it was that had not been settled.


Robert Forke: That is the question that is not settled: What position was Canada going to take when the requisition came from Great Britain? Or should war arise and assistance be sought from Canada and the other nations of the Empire, what position should we take? That is the question that is not settled. Does my right hon. friend understand my point?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not. I do not know any question that is not settled.


Robert Forke: I imagine that a great many
questions have not been settled. If the right hon. leader of the Opposition has settled the exact position of Canada in the Empire I hope we will get the benefit of his views when he speaks on this question.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the hon. gentleman said there was some question as to who decided what we would do in case of requisition. I do not know of any requisition. I certainly do not know of any question as to who decides.


Robert Forke: Perhaps we will leave the
question, because the right hon. gentleman does not understand me, and I do not understand him; we will call it quits.
India has been mentioned several times tonight. In discussing these questions we can hardly take India into consideration. India occupies a different position from that of any of the other nations making up the British commonwealth. We speak about India as a country; in reality India comprises many countries. There are eleven distinct languages in India, to say nothing of a great variety of dialects, and I suppose for the time being at least we shall have to leave India out of
Supply-Imperial Conference

consideration. I wish only to dwell for a few moments on certain conditions affecting the position occupied by the British commonwealth as a whole.
We are all a little disappointed, perhaps, at the extent of the influence the League of Nations has had upon the world's history during the last few years. I believe that in that same league is the germ of something that will in the years to come be of inestimable benefit to the civilized world. I like to think of the British commonwealth, or of the British Empire if you will-because it does not make any difference what phrase you use to express the same meaning-I do like to think of the British Empire as being in itself a League of Nations, a beginning of that wider and better league that we hope some day will embrace the whole civilized world. I only hope the day is not far distant when the United States will enter the League and thereby lend its great influence to the cause of promoting the peace and welfare of humanity.
As to what will take place at the conference, let me say a word. While retaining our own individuality as a nation, working out our own salvation, I wish to see no slacking of the ties that bind us in that Empire, the ties of sentiment and loyalty to the British Crown. I believe, however, that any attempt to bind the ties more tightly by any agreement will perhaps have the worst effect possible-will, in fact, have results that are not anticipated. I believe that nothing can bind us with stronger chains than those feelings of loyalty and those ties of sentiment that are the strongest feelings within the human breast, and I would warn those delegates who go over to represent Canada at that conference to be very, very careful in entering into any agreement that will be binding or constitute a legal tie of any kind that might be irksome because I do believe that there is no question of the loyalty of this country to the British Empire or of our remaining an integral- part of that great Empire. The world to-day is in need of a partnership of nations. That is its greatest need, to live down the feelings of hatred and envy that are so rampant everywhere. If we need a commonwealth of nations I come back to where I began and say, shall we do anything that will lessen the ties that bind the nations of the British commonwealth into one? I say no. By every means in our power let us strengthen those ties by those feelings of affection and loyalty that I have already mentioned.
What of the future? There has been some little misunderstanding about what I have

said to-night as to our future not being settled. Our future is not settled. Our position is not settled. We claim that we are a nation, that we are, as was quoted the other night, "daughter in our mother's house but mistress in our own." That is a very good phrase and perhaps it explains our position. But, Mr. Chairman, there are a great many things to be taken into consideration. A great many difficult problems will have to be solved, and I would only hold out this idea to those who go over to Great Britain to represent Canada, and that is to be careful, to go slow, to make no rash promises. I know the temptations will be great. I have read something about those conferences that were held during Chamberlain's time, when every influence was brought to bear to tie up the daughter nations a little more firmly than they were at that time. But it came to naught and I believe that any such attempts along the same lines at the present time will work nothing but evil. I have faith in the loyalty of the people of this country. I have faith that they will do the right thing when the occasion arises, that they will be loyal. Should the Mother Country be ever in necessity I know that this country will be ready to rise to the occasion. But there is danger in making an attempt to fix hard and fast lines. I believe the safe thing, to quote again, would be "to go on from precedent to precedent" until finally the stage has been reached when we shall know exactly what our destiny is to be.
I shall not take up any more time. I have not uttered anything I know that will help those who go over to represent us other than this, that they should be very careful in making any binding promises that may be irksome, and which would perhaps do more than anything else to disintegrate this Empire that is founded upon feelings of affection and reverence and love for the Mother Country.


Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention to broach the subject of the Hindus and Japanese or of any other people in the world. I rather wish to speak in behalf of the Canadian people. You are not without knowing, sir, what have been my views in the past and what they are to-day.
In the last war, the Great War as it is known, I was in favour of participating within the limit of our means. I was, however, against taking part to the extent of bringing ruin upon us, as we did. That is why I rise this evening to again warn, inasmuch as my humble voice can he heard, the right hon.

Supply-Imperial Conference
Prime Minister and his colleagues who will soon cross the Atlantic to confer with the statesmen of England. My sympathy accompanies them, for British diplomats have a way of outwitting all others. Therefore, let us pray God that our own statesmen may hold their own.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) sailed across the seas in 1921. He took part in an Imperial Conference. A report of this conference was tabled in the House; however, before laying down reports of that nature, it seems that great care is taken to withhold anjdhing that one does not wish the Canadian people to know. I might ask the right hon. leader of the Opposition if he understands what I am saying. If not, let him say so, and I shall repeat it in English. I might ask him if it is not a fact that we never have an exact report of the Imperial Conferences? I wish to know what took place; not only for myself, but for the electors whom I represent in this House, the whole country wants to know whether he has pledged himself to build naval stations here and there with a view to participating in future wars of the Empire ?
For my part, sir, I Shall not oppose those who wish to go and fight for the British Empire, so long as they do so at the expense of that Empire that they follow the example of the Frenchmen who were in our country when war broke out, and fought for their flag but always at the expense of the French government. I, myself, wish to uphold the British flag, but I want to do so within the limit of our means and no more; for one must not go beyond such means.
I do not think that the present Prime Minister, in whom I have faith, is the greatest advocate of imperialism in this House; on the contrary, I believe he has somewhat of my ideas on the subject, for I have read a little the biography of the Prime Minister's grandfather and I am led to believe that he is not an Imperialist but has at heart the interest of the Canadian people.	.
When I listen, very attentively indeed, to the right hon. leader of the Opposition who always shows ability as a debater, besides being very entertaining, when I witness his attacks against the government in regard to moneys voted here and there on wharves amounting to very little, when I note that he has become close, I might say like a Jew, I then ask myself how a man like him can still think of going to England to pledge Canada to the extent of hundreds of millions even billions of dollars. I cannot understand my right hon. friend's actions, at present, because we, the citizens of Quebec, those bad people to his mind, know fully well that he is one of those who ruined our country. Every one admits it. The ex-Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, as well as the late Prime Minister, the present right hon. leader of the Opposition, declared time after time that they would sacrifice our last man and last dollar to win the war. Just as if we had been left alone to win the war! But, Mr. Chairman, I have often stated and I do so again, we were not alone in this war; there must have been people in the British Isles, in the other colonies, in Belgium and in Italy. We were three against one German, at the beginning of the war. There must have been some people who did not take seriously to the war. I have reason to believe that the colonies were wiser than the remainder of the British Empire, at the outbreak of the war. However, let us change the subject.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition, as I previously stated a few moments ago, does not want any wharves; he says we are spending too much; in fact, I admit it. However, last year, he told us that we were spending only 17 cents per capita for the navy and that we should be ashamed to spend so little for such an object. I put the question to the right hon. leader of the Opposition: Why this navy ? With whom shall we go to war to-morrow? With our neighbours, the Americans? We do not need to make preparations to fight them, we are beaten in advance; they are 12 to 1. Now, if in the near future, war breaks out in Europe, and that England is still more interested than we are in these wars, I wish to tell the right hon. leader of the Opposition, For heaven's sake, let England first fight; and if she cannot do so alone, let her call upon our men and let her pay them to fight. At the present moment, England is paying off part of her debts While we are accumulating deficit after deficit, from year to year. Would it then be fair that we should take part again in European wars? I say no.
Why all these trips to the Imperial Conferences, if it is not to trap the Prime Ministers of the self-governing colonies, to make them take on responsibilities towards the Empire, like when the question of the Near East cropped up, when the late Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Meighen) wanted us to immediately declare ourselves in favour of participating in the mix-up. The right hon. leader of the Opposition seems to think that the moment Canada will enter a war, the enemies will say: We will fight no more, because these Canadians wipe out everybody and we are

Supply-Imperial Conference
afraid of them. If that is his opinion, such is not mine.
Does England need a navy? She certainly does need a navy to protect her trade over the whole world. Her existence is dependent on that trade 1 That is why she fought against Germany, for she feared Germany might displace her in the world's trade. England needs her merchant marine and her navy is absolutely indispensable to protect the former; but that is her business and I do not see what we have to do with it. Let us not disturb our mother-in-law, England, and let us go about our own business in this country. That is all I ask. During the last general election, in 1921, I proclaimed before the people of the county I represent, that I had not, so to speak, any recognized leader and I state in this House, in the presence of the leader I recognize to-day, that if I were again candidate in my county, and should the Prime Minister be in favour of taking part in the Imperial defence, either by a contribution in money or by the building of a Canadian navy in peace time, but for the defence of the Empire in war time, I declare now that I would not be that Prime Minister's candidate and that he would hear from me, should he blunder to that extent. I wish to always be consistent with my past and faithfully represent the electors that have sent me to parliament.


Samuel William Jacobs: Inasmuch as the right hon. leader of the Opposition was a delegate to the conference of 1921, and took part in the deliberations with respect to the Hindu franchise, would it be unreasonable to ask him to let us have the benefit of his views on this important question. If the discussion were to close without any expression of opinion from him it would be like playing Hamlet without the melancholy Dane.


Arthur Meighen: I was not aware that I still was Hamlet. I observed when the hon. member spoke first that he asked that the Prime Minister state what his position was, that he already knew mine. He repeated his appeal two or three times, but I do not see that it has been very successful. Since that I notice he has been down sitting with the Prime Minister. Now he has decided to ask me to state my position. I will answer him in one word: I stand just where I did, and my words are fully on record in the conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend one question. The resolution of the conference, or at least one clause of it is as follows:

The conference accordingly is of the opinion that in the interests of the solidarity of the British commonwealth, it is desirable that the rights of Buch Indians to citizenship should be recognized.
The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has said that these words imply an undertaking on the part of this parliament, or rather on the part of Canada, to see that the federal franchise is granted to the Indians in British Columbia. Is that correct or not?


Arthur Meighen: The words are English and the words are simple. I understand them fully, and if the Prime Minister does not I will have to leave him just where he is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
House is entitled to an answer from my right hon. friend. He represented this country at the Imperial conference. He knows better than anyone else what interpretation he placed on these words. I ask him, seeing be represented Canada at the Imperial conference when that resolution was passed, whether he understood that Canada was at that time giving an undertaking to the Indians in British Columbia to the effect that they would be entitled to the franchise.


Arthur Meighen: No human being understood anything of the sort. The words are very plain and there is no misunderstanding them. The right hon. gentleman is now Prime Minister and he had better take his responsibility.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am ready io take mine. I wanted to find out where my hon. friend stands.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I do not wish to prolong this discussion in any way. I wish to say, however, that I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), particularly as one of the representatives of the province whose population is largely composed of industrial workers. These workers are fully in accord with the views that have been expressed by my colleague from British Columbia to-night.
I should like to refer for a moment or two to one or two remarks made by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). That hon. gentleman stated that the representatives from British Columbia are opposed to oriental or Hindu immigration, or words to that effect. I should like to assure the House that the members from British Columbia are a unit on this question with which they have been identified to a greater degree than the members from any other province. You will understand, Mr. JUNE 29, 1923
Supply-Imperial Conference
Chairman, that the climatic conditions in British Columbia are such as to appeal to immigrants from the Orient. In the eastern provinces the climate is such that it is hardly likely to attract any very great number of the immigrants, and therefore those provinces will not be troubled with the problem that confronts us on the Pacific coast. Some few years ago a test case was made in British Columbia in regard to the admission of Hindus into Canada. The stand then taken by the people of the province was not based on any narrow ground. They did not look upon the question from the point of view that it was going to interfere with the industrial workers of the province, or with industrial activities carried on there. The stand they took was with the desire to reserve the province for the people for whom it was meant. The position that the people of British Columbia took at that time was very sound, and they have carried out that position from year to year. Some few years ago certain regulations were made which restricted the immigration of Hindus to this country, and if it were not for those regulations we would have in British Columbia, not 1,200 or 1,500, not 5,000, but we would have at least 500,000 or 1,000,000 Hindus. That, in a few words, is practically the situation, that is why the people of that province have taken this firm stand, and that is why the members from British Columbia are a unit on this question. At the present time there are only some few hundred, perhaps anywhere around 1,500 or 2,000 Hindus there. But the people of that province have expressed themselves very forcibly in regard to extending the franchise to these Hindus in reference to provincial and federal questions, and it is our belief that that expression of opinion should still be maintained. It is only through necessity that we have adopted that opinion and taken that firm stand in the past, and that we wish to maintain that attitude on it in the future. I can only add my few remarks to those expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) in saying that we can only urge the Prime Minister to keep in view the sentiment of the province of British Columbia and the position that we have taken in the past. We respectfully urge that at the coming conference the Prime Minister give every consideration to the views of the people as they have been expressed in British Columbia, and to the views that have been expressed in this House by members representing that province, particularly upon the oriental and Hindu question. I might
also add that the people of British Columbia do not take any second place with the other provinces in respect to their loyalty or the broadness of their views.


William Charles Good: When I rose before I was
under the impression that we were discussing item 563. I perceive, however, that we are discussing the Imperial Conference vote, and I shall confine my remarks at the present moment to that question, and reserve what I had in mind before for the subsequent vote on the Economic Conference.
I think the question under consideration is one of the most important that we can possibly give attention to. I am reminded of a statement which H. G. Wells makes in, I think, the concluding chapter of his Outline of History where he says that modern civilization faces three great classes of problems; those pertaining to property, those pertaining to currency, and those pertaining to international relations; and if any one will read his war novel Mr. Britling Sees it Through, I think he cannot help being convinced, if he had not been convinced before by his own observations, of the intimate relations that exist between what we might call foreign policy or international relations and the life and welfare of the individual. It seems to me that our citizens do not generally attach sufficient importance to the question of foreign relations. Sometimes I think of a little group of what we have called German junkers, sitting down prior to the great catastrophe, and, like a couple of men playing chess, figuring out how they were going to play the game of war. Little did they think at that time of the awful misery, bloodshed and loss that was to follow. Little did the people of the world think that those few men could plunge the whole world into such chaos. However, Mr. Chairman, unless the rank and file of the people of the world wake up, and take an interest in questions of this sort, at any time we may be plunged into the same sort of disaster. Our children may be slain, our fields devastated, and our cities razed to the ground. Therefore, I think it is of extreme importance that at this Imperial Conference, where the issues of war and peace and other matters of great importance will be under consideration, our delegation should keep in mind, not the playing of the game, not the old kind of diplo-mancy, but the interests and welfare of the rank and file of the masses of the people. I suppose most of the hon. members present, some at least, will have read that eloquent passage in Carlyle's Sartor Resartus, where he speaks of the twenty Britishers going
Supply-Imperial Conference

to meet the twenty Frenchmen, who had no quarrel with them, and each blowing out the brains of the other. This awful tragedy is something that statesmen will have to grapple with, that those who elect statesmen to office will also have to grapple with.
In regard to this matter, which no doubt will be considered at the conference, I would like to endorse what the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has already said in that connection. The condition in Europe at the present time is an object lesson to us, and we ourselves have suffered, and are suffering at the present time, from that condition. We are suffering directly and indirectly. Our farmers are suffering at the present time from dislocation of trade, from the loss of Europe as a purchaser of our commodities and I hope that the most serious consideration will be given at the approaching conference to some amendments of the Treaty of Versailles which would look towards the restoration of normal conditions in Europe.
In regard to questions which we might call domestic, I want to suggest to the Prime Minister and to the House one very definite matter which might possibly be taken up, and which I think ought to be taken up at the Imperial Conference, and that is the question of the right to amend our own constitution. I do think that this is a matter of prime importance. I was going to say it is a disgrace, but at all events, it is an ana-cronism, and an anomoly that Canada should not have the right to amend her own constitution, and if there were any way of submitting the matter to the House to be voted on, I would be only too glad to test the feeling of the House in regard thereto. I know these things have to develop gradually; but I submit in all earnestness that our delegation should take up with the British government, this question of obtaining the right to amend our constitution. I wonder whether some resolution could not be drafted in that direction. Perhaps this is premature; but may I at all events earnestly urge the Prime Minister and our delegation to discuss the matter, and when he comes back next session, to have something definite to report to the House in regard to ways and means and prospects of getting through such a constitutional change? I presume this would be simply an amendment to the British North America Act enabling us to change the act without the consent of the British parliament.
Now with regard to the question of the Hindu franchise, I should like to offer just one or two brief comments. We have not yet

fathomed this question. I think the discussion has been, if I may say so, without offending honl gentlemen who have spoken, rather shallow in respect to that matter. I sometimes think of the old and well-known statement "God hath made of one blood all nations of men." We will at some time or another have to recognize that truth.


Thomas George McBride: He put the sea between
them to keep them apart.


William Charles Good: Perhaps so, but the sea at
the present time is not something that keeps nations apart. It is rather a well-travelled road, a pathway between nations, and we have arrived at a stage in the history of the world when we have to think a little deeper than we have in the past in regard to these relationships between nations and races. I recognize full well the difficulties, but I would submit to the House that this is a matter that we ought to consider with the greatest possible degree of sympathy for those whose skins do not happen to be of our colour.
I venture, in conclusion, to ask some definite questions of the Prime Minister. I hope he will pay attention to those questions because I want him to answer them if possible as definitely as he can. I will ask the questions in order so that he can answer them. Have any recent proposals come to this government from the British government in connection with these conferences?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agenda
speaks for itself, and the agenda has been placed on record in Hansard.


William Charles Good: Has' there been nothing
further?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not
say that there has been nothing further, because there has been in the agenda a reference to one or two matters which the British government asked should, for the present, be regarded as confidential. I therefore am not at liberty to give to the House a statement in regard to them. Whether before I leave for England, the British government will take a different view of that or not, I cannot say.


William Charles Good: This is what I wanted to find out, namely whether or not there was anything of a confidential character that had come to the government's attention apart from the agenda which we had placed before us.
The next question is this: Will the Prime Minister give to the House to-night some declaration of general policy on his part or on the part of the government regarding

Supply-Imperial Conference
their attitude as they go to this conference? Will he, before this discussion is over, give some statement to the House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I find a little
difficulty in appreciating what my hon. friend means by a definite statement of attitude. If he asks me as regards any particular matter, I will endeavour to convey to him what the attitude of the government is. But I could not attempt in a statement to convey to mv hon. friend what view the government may take in regard to every question that will come up at the conference.


William Charles Good: I quite understand that the
Prime Minister cannot go into details in a matter of this sort, but it is very desirable that before the delegation goes to the conference, this House should have some rough idea of the point of view, shall I say, of the government. Let me ask one or two further questions. Are there likely to be raised any questions as to constitutional changes? Does this1 government propose to raise any such questions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can speak
only for this government; I cannot speak for the governments of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain. So far as we are concerned, we do not propose to raise any questions of constitutional changes. I may say further that in that regard the position of the government would be very much that expressed in a resolution which I moved when in opposition in reference to the conference which my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) was about to attend:
That the House, while recognizing the propriety of Canada being represented at any Imperial Conference or conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire that may be called, desires to record its opinion that at the coming conference no steps should be taken in any way involving any change in the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire.
I would feel that that is the attitude which the country would expect us to take if a question of that kind came up.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would kindly place the United Farmers of' Ontario platform, which was one to get in on and not to stand on, before the conference.


William Charles Good: Does the Prime Minister expect the question of imperial preferential tariffs to be raised? Does he propose to raise it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I imagine the question of imperial preferences will be raised. I understand that Australia has intimated that she would like to raise that question. If it is raised, the attitude which I will take as regards Canada will be that the matter of a preference is a matter for each parliament to decide for itself.


William Charles Good: Does the Prime Minister expect the question of imperial federation to be raised?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am inclined to think the question of imperial federation has gone to sleep for a time.


Mr. DICKIE:: I wish to say a few words on the Hindu question, a subject which has been pretty well ventilated in this House tonight. I hardly agree with many of the sentiments enunciated by hon. members who have spoken about those people, and who have prated about the brotherhood Of man. If they lived in British Columbia, they would have different ideas with respect to the oriental races.
With respect to the Hindus, it is generally understood that there are between 1,000 and 1,200 Hindus in British Columbia. If they were all of the caste or calibre of Mr. Sastri, the question would be a different one entirely; that gentleman seems to have hypnotized people throughout Canada by his brilliance. As regards the 1,200 or so Hindus we have in British Columbia, I should judge that about 1,000 at least were low caste Hindus. If they had a vote, they would not know what to do with it; they would simply be voted as a unit by the other 200.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is there not a chance that they would vote for the Tory party?


Charles Herbert Dickie: The hon. member might believe that such might be the case, if they were enfranchised, but I do not think the Tory party would want them. We do not need their votes in my constituency, in which there are many of them. They would vote when they got the promise that something would be given them in return. That is the way with the low caste Hindus. But the question of caste is too complex a one for me to enter into to-night, even if I were familiar enough with it to do so. Hon. gentlemen must realize this important fact, that these Hindus are not men such as we are; they have the mentality of children without childhood's innocence. You cannot comprehend the eastern mind unless you have lived among the people. They are shack-dwellers, men who do not make any effort whatever to improve the country, and they live under conditions that we could not tolerate for a moment. The Hindus will not work for us for any length of time, and they cannot adapt themselves
Supply-Imperial Conference

to our methods. In their natural community spirit, they club their funds together and erect a sawmill or engage in other undertakings, and it is impossible for us to compete with them. Those of them who go into the dairy business can live upon 10 or 15 cents a day. Our old fellows who are about ready to cross the divide used to be able to exist by means of market-gardening and from the sale of milk which they got from the one cow or so they kept. But that day has gone by, as a result of the intrusion of these orientals. I think it would be unwise on our part to grant the franchise to the Hindus. If they were all of the type of Mr. Sastri the question would be somewhat different, but as a broad principle it should be definitely laid down that we cannot afford to admit to the full citizenship of Canada any people with whom or their descendants we or our descendants cannot intermarry. On the Pacific coast we have only a strip of land, and yet we are the melting-pot for these orientals. The question is becoming a very grave one for us indeed. Since the advent of the Japanese, whose mode of living is like that of other orientals, it is exceedingly difficult for the poor white man to get along on the outskirts of any of the cities in British Columbia. The disability of the Hindus, so far as their not being allowed to vote is concerned, is a matter that is by no means so serious as some people would lead us to think. The fact that 1,000 low caste Indians in Canada have not the vote should not be a matter of grave consequence to India, for if these Hindus were in India their vote would not amount to anything, if indeed they would have any vote at all. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has pointed this out quite clearly and I need not emphasize this particular point. Most of these people at home would be subservient to some native prince, and without the vote in Canada they are very much better off and a great deal more satisfied than they have ever been in their lives at home. I have never heard any one of them express a wish to be enfranchised. They are getting along perfectly well without the vote they are living within their means and are prosperous. If they had the vote they would simply become tools in the hands of unscrupulous politicians of one party or another and in all probability the very first thing they would ask is that their families be brought out to this country. We have no room for them. If the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) lived in British Columbia I am sure he would not father any such resolution as this. But he does not understand the question as we do; indeed, he cannot understand it because he is living

apart from the facts. I claim to be absolutely unbiassed in reference to my attitude towards oriental people, whose economical virtues I quite recognize, but I repeat we have no room for them; and for the Hindu of low caste we have still less room than for others of the oriental races.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I regret that on account of the short notice which was given of the debate any remarks I may have to make on this important subject must necessarily be fragmentary. The prospective Imperial Conference seems to follow the lines laid down at prior colonial and imperial conferences. These conferences have, I think, quite frankly had in view one definite purpose, namely, of co-ordinating as far as possible the naval, military and air forces of the Empire for purposes of common defence. It has not always been expressed just in that language but I believe it will be admitted that this has been clearly the object since the first colonial conference was held. In the development of these conferences it was soon realized that the meetings could not ultimately result in the greatest success unless some method were devised by which each of the component parts of the Empire secured adequate representation. In other words, the various communities constituting the Empire were not prepared to spend their money without having control over the objects for which that money might be used. And so to-day we have developed a system of consultation, so-called, by which -usually subsequent to the event-the various component parts of the Empire are notified as to what has taken place, and are kept informed to some extent at least as to the progress of affairs. This problem will undoubtedly receive consideration at the Conference, but it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to evolve any system of consultation which will be adequate to serve Canadian purposes. Let me suggest that the consultation by the prime ministers of the various dominions, even during the period when the conference is in progress, is not adequate; and I want, if I may do so, to cite an incident of the last Imperial Conference in support of what I am stating. The conference in 1921, at which Canada was represented by the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), approved of a certain policy which Lord Cur-zon had given effect to with regard to Egypt. Subsequently, so far as we aTe informed, after the conference had given its approval to Lord Curzon's policy and had disbanded, Lloyd George, in consultation with Lord Allenby, completely reversed the policy of the confer-

Supply-Imperial Conference
ence with regard to Egypt and set out upon an entirely different tack, the dominions not being consulted.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say to what resolution he refers? I cannol recall any action by the conference respecting Egypt.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That point I shall come to in a moment. The information with regard to this conference is so inadequate that one finds it difficult to get at the facts. But I am judging only from a statement made by Premier Hughes in Australia when he said that the conference had given consideration to the situation in Egypt and had come to a conclusion in connection therewith.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I should say that there is no conclusion of the conference that is not embodied in a fitting resolution; none whatever; it does not matter what anyone says. The report of the conference speaks for itself.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Well, the report of the conference as it is presented to us is very inadequate indeed; that is all I can say. We [DOT] have little information as to what purposes invited the various resolutions that were before the conference. Unfortunately I have not before me the proceedings of the conference itself, but I state that the Egyptian policy as presented by Lord Curzon was approved of by the conference and subsequently after the conference had disbanded, the policy was reversed without any reference to the various dominions of such a vital and material change.
Not only that, but I suggest that if the policy approved by the conference had been maintained, this country and the other members of the Empire would probably have found themselves in the position of fighting Egypt. Now, if this difficulty prevails in regard to consultation when the conference members are present, what must the difficulty be when the various representatives of the dominions are scattered about the four quarters of the earth? I just want, in that connection, to point out what Premier Hughes of Australia said, speaking at this 1921 conference:
But the position in regard to policy in the future is very difficult. Every day a new situation arises, or may arise. How is it to be dealt with? We shall be scattered to the four quarters of the earth. How are the dominions to have an effective voice on foreign policy when, as things stand, they can only be told after things have been done, and are not consulted beforehand.
I may say also that the Prime Minister.
Lloyd George, said in a reference to consultation :
Communications by cable are not a means by which you can have real consultation, because you may have a particular point in view, and may alter it after hearing what is to be said on the other side.
Lord Milner apparently was of the same opinion, because he js reported to have said:
Experience has shown that the consultation which is necessary in order to keep the different interests of the Empire in line cannot be properly effected by telegrams and despatches, between half a dozen different governments.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier many years ago refused l- have any part in consultation, because, he said, consultation meant responsibility. I suggest that if we are going to take part iin the foreign policy of the Empire, then we must have a hand in the framing of that policy and in its execution. But if this prevailing system of consultattion is the only part we are going to have in that policy, the method js not only ineffective but absolutely dangerous.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier never took part in consultation on foreign policy?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, I make no such statement. I simply say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down the principle that consultation meant responsibility. I think he was correct in making that statement. Whether or not he adhered to it fully is a matter for argument. A question of foreign policy may, of course, be a question of peace or war. We realize fully in Canada to-day the significance of war, we realize what result it may have so far a< our own people are concerned. We realize it is dangerous, not only to the manhood of our country but also to the wealth of our country. Canada must know, before she engages in any future war, several things. She must know whether or not the cause is a just one. She must know whether or not it is a war in which Canada should properly be involved and in which Canadian interests are involved. In the third place, she must know whether or not the war is unavoidable These things can only be determined by Canadian representatives having a voice in the formation of the policy which may ultimately lead to war, and in addition, in the execution of that policy. I suggest that the
11 p.m. Prime Minister has laid down the proper principle for this country to 'ollow with regard to peace or. war, namely that there shall be no commitments, no declaration of war involving this country, unless the parliament of Canada first gives its approval to such a course. That, I think, is solid ground upon which to predicate our future.

Supply-Imperial Conference

I wish to speak very shortly about another matter which has been referred to by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) and that is whether or not it is proposed to discuss at this conference the advisability of subsequently holding a constitutional convention. I was very much interested in listening the other day to the remarks of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) during the discussion on the Halibut treaty, and also to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Morin). We hear many expressions of gratification at the status which Canada has achieved. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was not in his place at the time, otherwise I think he might have taken issue on that question of exactly what is Canada's status to-day. I remember reading last summer a statement reported in the press of that distinguished Canadian, Sir Allen Aylesworth, who suggested Canada was still a colony. Well, I suggest to hon. members of this committee that an important question is, what is our status? It is variously defined -sometimes as a partnership, sometimes as one of a league of nations within the Empire, sometimes as a component part of the Empire; and various other glittering terms are used to describe our present position. Sir Clifford Sifton, in a statement, claimed, and I think with much justification and truth, that we were allowing ourselves to be flattered by the language of the stump, and that really these terms did not correctly disclose our real status. In 1917 it was deemed advisable that at an early day a constitutional conference should be called for the purpose of defining, as far as possible, the exact status of Canada and the other dominions. In fact, it was on the programme for the 1921 conference that preparation should be made for such a constitutional conference, but, for reasons that I am not aware of, the conference was postponed. I think that was a very regrettable circumstance, and now early steps shouid be taken to hold a constitutional conference in order more adequately to determine the exact status of this country. That is a matter of importance for us, because when the distinguished statesmen in this country, as I have indicated, disagree, what can we expect statesmen in other countries to say? We may call ourselves a nation as much as we like, but unless foreign countries are prepared to take us at our own valuation it is simply a case of trying to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. So I suggest the urgent need for that constitutional conference, and I trust that the Prime Minister will see to it that steps are taken in that direction. I know Premier fMr. Shaw.]
Hughes of Australia has stated that it would be a very dangerous thing to do; that all sorts of catastrophes would be invited. I am not sure whether that prediction is justified, but I do know that the opposite is, in any case, equally true, namely, that if we proceed in the vague and indefinite course we are pursuing we may ultimately come to disaster.
I think the time has arrived for the appointment of a Canadian ambassador to Washington. Whatever misunderstanding there has been in the past with regard to that appointment, I think the Prime Minister should make it part of his duty at that conference to state our position frankly and clearly and to indicate that we as Canadians desire to have a representative at our neighbour's capital. Our interests are largely interwoven with the interests of the United States, and it is important that our representative should be there at the earliest possible date. I need only refer in proof of that to the latest instance we have had, the Halibut treaty. There is a case in which a triangular correspondence resulted not only in delay but in embarrassment, and in many cases in the future it might even result in disaster. I suggest that we want in Washington a Canadian who is thoroughly conversant with our conditions, who is familiar with our problems and who can speak authoritatively on behalf of the government of Canada. I trust that the Prime Minister will take adequate steps to see that whatever difficulties there may be in the way of that appointment are promptly removed in order that this much to be desired end may be accomplished.
One would think in listening to the members from British Columbia that this problem of the Indian question was a very simple one, that exclusion was the only adequate remedy, and that the question could be justly settled by that quick and easy method. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that this question will be one of the most serious problems that will confront the Imperial Conference? The question has been raised in the colony of Kenya in East Africa and is there to-day a vital problem. Representatives I believe of the various conflicting interests in Kenya colony are now in London and propose to take this matter up before the Imperial Conference. It is important that this matter be decided not on narrow, sectional lines but in a broad spirit of fairness and of justice, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will give to that problem the sincere and deep study that it merits.

Supply-Imperial Conference
I have just one other suggestion to make and it is this. We have heard much of late years about secret diplomacy and its perils. I trust that steps will be taken in order that the fullest publicity may be given to the proceedings of this Imperial Conference. I see no reason at all if peace be the object of that conference why the whole proceedings should not be made public. I know no reason for keeping from the Canadian public at least the full facts involved in all the problems and in addition the remarks of all the statesmen who may attend the conference and the conclusions at which they arrive. If we ever hope to get anywhere in this country it is by a full, frank and fair statement of the facts and by an equally frank; and candid discussion of those facts. I therefore trust that the Prime Minister will leave no stone unturned to see that the fullest publicity is given to the proceedings of this conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 'Just before the resolution carries I would like to say a word in regard to the granting of the franchise to the Indians which has been referred to. Perhaps I cannot do better than to state to the House just what I said to Mr. Sastri when he was in Ottawa. As hon. members will recall, Mr. Sastri made a trip through the different parts of the British Empire, visiting the several dominions, and came to Canada, I think, last of all. While he was in this country he was the guest of the country, and when he came to Ottawa we invited him to meet the members of the government in cabinet council. We discussed with him there very freely and openly the situation as we view it in Canada, pointing out the difficulties which we have in endeavouring to solve that problem, and seeking to gaiD from him the difficulties with which India is confronted through the situations that may arise in other parts of the Empire. When Mr. Sastri left I sent him the following letter expressing the government's attitude in the matter:
Ottawa, September 5, 1922.
The Right Honourable V. Srinivasa Sastri,
Chateau Laurier, Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Sastri,
In reply to the representations made by you at the interview with my colleagues and myself on Friday of last week, and which were the subject of further conference betwen us yesterday, I desire to assure you that, at the earliest favourable moment, the government will be pleased to invite the consideration of parliament to your request that natives of India resident in Canada be granted a Dominion parliamentary franchise on terms and conditions identical with those which govern the exercise of that right by Canadian citizens generally.
297i
The subject is necessarily one which parliament alone can determine. It will be submitted to parliament for consideration when the franchise law is under revision.
In conveying to the government of India an expression of the attitude of the government of Canada in this matter, we hope that you will not fail to make it clear that at the present time, in eight out of the nine provinces of which our Dominion is composed, the federal franchise is granted to natives of India resident in Canada, on terms which are identical with those applicable generally to Canadian citizens.
Your sincerely,
(sgd) W. L. Mackenzie King.
I might say that the point on which particular emphasis was laid in conversation with Mr. Sastri was the fact that our Dominion is a federation of provinces, that in the distribution of seats in this House regard is had primarily to the provinces, each province being allowed a certain proportion in relation to the others, and that at all times the provinces of the Dominion have had regard for each other's problems, that nothing could be more unfortunate than that an effort should be made on the part of any province or group of provinces to coerce, so to speak, any other province in regard to any matter which was of great concern to it, that the federal government could not afford to ignore the prevailing sentiment in any province. 1 pointed out to Mr. Sastri that when the Dominion franchise law would be under review, mentioning in that connection that it would come up for review in all probability before any general election was held, doubtless it would be referred to a committee of the House to consider and that the representations which he had made would be presented to the committee, but that what was of most importance was how the members from the province of British Columbia themselves would view the matter. I said quite frankly that if the members from the province of British Columbia regardless of political party were to be favourable to having the franchise granted to the Indians in British Columbia, the rest of parliament would fall cordially into harmony with their view, that on the other hand if there was no agreement among the members of the province of British Columbia on this question, if it were clear to the members of this House that so far as British Columbia was concerned instead of being in favour of granting the franchise they were all pretty much the other way, it was hardly probable that the members of parliament generally would seek to impose any view upon them which would be contrary to their wishes. In other words, that it was very doubtful how any situation of unrest in one part of the British Empire could be improved by creating a new condition of unrest in
4666	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
another part. That was broadly the nature of the representations made to Mr. Sastri. I believe it is the true situation. I cannot see unless there is among the people of British Columbia themselves some general agreement as to what is wisest and best in regard to this matter, and that after all is best attested by the members for the province of British Columbia in this House, that the rest of the Dominion would be helping the situation materially by forcing a view contrary to that which is entertained by its members in that province. If, however, the members of the province of British Columbia are divided on the matter and there is any preponderating view one way or the other, I think that is a circumstance of which parliament would take account, but the important factor is that the question of whether or not the franchise is to be granted to the Indians of British Columbia is a matter, so far as I can see, not to be determined at any Imperial Conference, but to be decided by this parliament in settling the franchise for membership in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for expenses of delegates to Imperial Economic conference, $25,000.
William Charles Good: When I rose before to speak on this question I remarked that I had left my notes upstairs. I continued to leave them there because I think the House is not deirous of hearing any long speech from me, or from anyone else, at the present time. I will be very brief. I simply want to suggest to the House and to the government that one matter of prime importance be submitted by this government to the Economic Conference-I refer to the question which we had under consideration in the committee on Banking and Commerce: that of the stabliz-ing the purchasing power of money. I do not suppose there has been any economic question or any economic problem which has been more serious, in recent years at all events, than that problem. We had before the committee Professor Irving Fisher, of Yale University, who has made a special study of this matter for some twenty years, and he gave us his assurance that a solution of the problem was quite within the realm of possibility or probability. Now, I have given some little thought and consideration to this matter, particularly since Professor Fisher was here and I want to state to the House that all authorities which I can find on the subject are agreed that the problem is one of tremendous importance-that the stabilizing of the price level, or in other

words the stabilizing of the purchasing power of money, is fundamental to prevent succeeding periods of what we call business booms and business depressions. Moreover, through the fluctuation in the purchasing power of money, great injustice has been done and is being done to our citizens. Dr. Fisher stated when he was here, that one of the economists in the United States had figured out that during the war years and shortly afterwards there had been an unjust transfer of wealth- what he described as wholesale pickpocketing-in the United States-to the extent of 40 billions of dollars; and he enumerated at considerable length the	continued misfortunes, disasters, difficulties and miseries that follow upon the	fluctuations in
the purchasing power of money. Dr. Fisher has written a number of books on the subject and recently, I presume owing party to his influence, the matter has been brought to the attention of the congress of the United States. Indeed, a bill was presented during the last session of congress dealing with this particular matter, a bill providing for stabilizing the purchasing power of money or, as Dr. Fisher puts it, "stabilizing the dollar." Now, in the course of the discussion which we had in the committee, it developed that there were two ways of doing this highly necessary and important thing. The first method was to regulate the amount of gold in the dollar where a country was on a. gold basis, or, to use Dr. Fisher's phrase, to standardize the gold standard. The second method was to control the volume of credit instruments through the regulation of the interest rate. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) the other day, and has received a good deal of attention from modern economists. When Dr. Fisher was here he. suggested that probably the most feasible means of stabilizing the purchasing power of money was through international action. The question was indeed considered to some extent at the Genoa Conference, and he suggested that at any future conferences this matter should be further considered. I should like to suggest therefore-if I were permitted I should like to move in the committee, although I do not know just in what shape we can put a motion through-that this question be sent forward from this parliament to the Economic Conference at London for consideration; because if something could be suggested in the way of joint action between the constituent parts of the British Empire I think it would be very easy to enlist the co-operation of

Supply-Civil Government
the United States, particularly in view of the fact that the matter has already entered the field of practical politics over there. Therefore, it is not unlikely that we might get all the English speaking nations of the world to take the matter up, and thus a very great gain might be secured in a relatively short time. I wish I were fully able, I wish I had the time-if the House was in the mood to listen-to submit evidence in support of the suggestion and recommendation that I make. But I will simply leave it at that. If the House will support the suggestion I shall be very glad; but if the matter continues to be ignored I shall at least have done my duty in bringing it to the attention of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Department of Justice-
To provide for a law clerk-stenographer.. $1,020
To provide for a clerk -stenographer	 960
Salary of James White, technical advisor..	6,000
Exchequer Court of Canada-one statutory increase omitted in the main estimates.. ..	180
William Charles Good: Could we have some explanation of the item of $6,000 in this resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. White is
an expert who has for some time past been devoting special study to one of the boundary disputes into which the Department of Justice is inquiring at the present time. For years he was secretary of the Conservation Commission. He has a very wide knowledge of scientific and technical problems, and is being retained in the Department of Justice where this inquiry is going on.


William Charles Good: Is he being added to the
staff of the Department of Justice, or has he been transferred from another department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was there
last year, but has not completed his work as yet.


George Perry Graham: He went to the Department of Justice from another department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Department of the Interior-to increase the salary of W. W. Cory, Deputy Minister of the Interior, to $8,000 per annum, $2,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection
with the increases we have here I observe that while there are a good many departments in which increases are made all of them do not appear in the list. I observe, for example, that the Department of Customs is not there. Nor is the Department of Agriculture there. I do not know why it is; because my hon. friend justly claimed that there was a great volume of work done there,
and as great responsibility in that department as in any other. But the Department of Customs is omitted. I would like to get some idea as to the lines on which the government is proceeding, and also as to whether the government really think, irrespective of the merits of these deputies, that in a year like the present, with a budget such as has been presented, it is advisable to advance salaries that are already as high as $6,000 a year.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the particular deputies mentioned, I can assure my hon. friend that there is no desire to discriminate. The Deputy Minister of Customs, to whom he referred, is a most faithful, able and efficient officer, and I would be the last to permit any discrimination against him. The salaries of the deputies is a troublesome question at all times. We have adopted a rule which, when I mention it, I think will be accepted. It was felt at first that the salaries of the deputies were not high and that there was fair claim for consideration. Then it was argued with some force that regard must be had to length of service, and the decision we reached was that in the case of any deputy in active service at the head of a department who had a service to his credit of ten years or more, we would consider that he was entitled to an advance; but those whose term of service were less than ten years were left out, not because they were not capable or efficient, but because it was held, and I think with reason, that some regard should be had to the term of service. At all events, that is the explanation. In every case where a deputy has served for ten years or more, and is in active service at the head of the department, he receives the increase, unless he already has the increased salary; but as to the others there is no discrimination, except that which arises from the term of service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The Minister of Finance has stated that it required ten years of service in order to get the increase. I have only to say that I happen to have had the honour of serving for five years under one of the best deputy ministers in any of the departments at Ottawa, Mr. Alexander Johnston; and I want to say there is not a man in the Dominion of Canada more capable of presiding over a department than Mr. Johnston. He happened to have had the extreme privilege of being born on the Atlantic seaboard, and he had received a good education which is backed up by good common sense. Mr. Johnston is a man who is capable of earn-
Supply-Civil Government

ing money outside of the department to a very much greater amount than he is receiving here. I believe that on one occasion he was offered a position at $20,000 a year, but he is in love with his present work. Being a maritime man he knows the work, and knows what is required of a man in the position of Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and I believe if ^he government of Canada never did anything else than to give Mr. Johnston a salary of $10,000-and it is only one-fifth of what he is worth-they would be doing sufficient to justify their being returned to power in this country. His salary should be $20,000. I know what I am talking about, because I served in that department and I have had practical knowledge which is more than most of the members of this1 House have had. I have this knowledge from having been born on the seaboard, having been a sailor, and having served under Mr. Johnston.	,


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not one of those who would refuse to give faithful servants adequate pay. I think that the move of the minister is a desirable one. I think if we are going to get competent men to handle these big departments of the government service, we must pay them adequate salaries. I desire to make it clear that I have no objection to the proposed increases. I do not know that I would go to the extent the government indicate in applying the increase after ten years to every officer of the standing of a deputy minister. There are some of these departments which must be more or less insignificant, when compared with large departments like the Departments of Marine and Fisheries and the Interior; and I do not know that I would apply the principle that far. I also want to make this suggestion: The deputy ministers in charge of large departments can, if they so desire, save thousands of dollars annually to the country. I do not know whether they are doing it or not. I think steps should be taken to see that the public services are properly co-ordinated, in order to ensure our getting the greatest possible efficiency. One can realize the tendency of deputy ministers. They are human as well as anybody else, and as soon as they get control of a large department, I suppose there is a desire to secure by accretion, other services, regardless of whatever services may be carried on of a similar nature in other departments. I have had occasion to look into this matter to some extent and when one finds that dredging service is carried on by three separate departments, apparently without much justification,

when one finds surveying services are carried on by three or more departments, it makes one wonder whether these deputy ministers are themselves co-ordinating the services. They apparently have not done it. I think the government should make it one of its first duties to see that these services are coordinated, to prevent overlapping and overmanning, and in this connection I am sure that if they do not secure, they will at any rate demand, the hearty co-operation of the ministers concerned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member (Mr. Martell) suggests that Mr. Johnston, the deputy minister, did have an offer a good deal bigger than his salary. That is true and Mr. Johnston did go with the British Steel Corporation but now he is back again, to take his $6,000. I think the manner in which the government is going about this matter is simply to follow the line of least resistance, and the worst line it can possibly take having any regard to efficiency or economy. Work ought to be paid for having regard to its importance. We have some departments here where the work is only a multiple of the work of other departments. There is no question about it. Everyone who knows anything about the matter knows that is perfectly true. That whole question of efficiency and of results is to be absolutely discarded for the purpose of adopting some safe and easy road, which will enable the government to increase the salaries of some picked deputies. That is being done. Merit has nothing to do with it at all. It only depends upon how long the man has been drawing his pay. Merit has absolutely nothing to do with this particular increase, which is merely on account of length of service. I would like the Finance Minister to tell this House what possible justification there is for the consideration of the increases in the Supplementary Estimates brought down now. What excuse can be given that would satisfy the most credulous that these matters ought not to have been considered in the Main Estimates instead of the Supplementaries? I am going to ask my hon. friend whether he does not think efficiency should have something to do with it, and whether he does not think that the weight of work ought to have something to do with it. I do not want to pick out a department here or a department there. I need not do it. He knows them just as well as I do and better, but he knows that some of the heaviest departments are not represented here. He mentioned Customs. I mentioned Customs myself. What about Agriculture?

Supply-Civil Government


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose we admit, for the sake of argument, that it would have been wiser that these things should have been brought down in the Main Estimates. Having dealt with that point, let us now consider the merits of the question. If we need a deputy-minister in this country and if a man is capable of filling that office, a salary of $8,000 a year is not too much to pay him. If he has had long service added to his merit and strength of character, $8,000 is not too much. The trouble is, I think, that in our higher positions we do not pay men enough, and men are therefore being drawn away from the service of Canada and taken into private service because we cannot pay them enough.
I have a case in mind of a man I should very well like to have had in the service of my department. I could not keep him because the ordinary custom of the House would not allow me to give him a proper salary, but he went to another place and received twice as much as he could get here. We must pay some regard to the dignity of this office, tc the importance of the duties. But my hon. friend must have found in his day that it was exceedingly difficult to distinguish. The law fixes the salaries of nearly all the deputies at one figure. When I came into the department first the deputies, with one or two exceptions, received $3,200 a year. Their salaries have been advanced from time to time and, I think, with regard to the changes that have taken place, the increases in all lines, $8,000 is not too much to pay a deputy if he is competent and has had ten years' service. Length of service is entitled to some consideration. I do not know how you can discriminate. You cannot make the minister of any department believe that the position of his deputy is inferior to that of any other. We all magnify our offices a little. The minister magnifies his and the deputy magnifies his. I know there are differences; I know there are some departments which are much heavier than others, but it is by no means an easy thing to distinguish between them. As regards the increase, I do not know any deputy who is getting $8,000 a year who is not deserving of that amount if he is capable of filling the office.


Oliver Robert Gould: I rise to ask a question: Are there any perquisites attached to the office, for instance, rent-free houses, motor cars, chauffeurs?


William Stevens Fielding: Nothing that I know of. I think in the Department of Agriculture some (.f the officials are provided with houses on the farms, but I think that is taken into consideration. As regards the deputies concerned in this vote, they have no perquisites whatever.


William Richard Motherwell: In the case of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture the amount, $500, is taken off his salary.


Mr. KAY:: I do not often agree with my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) but I think he has improved so much tonight that I can almost agree with some of the things that he has said. I find it difficult to understand on what principle some of the deputies receive $8,000 a year, some $6,000 and some $10,000. There are in the service four deputy ministers receiving $10,000 a year. At least two of these gentlemen have not been in the service or have not held the position of deputy minister for anything like ten years. The Commissioner of Taxation, I understand, receives $10,000 a year and he has not held that position for anything like ten years. I have nothing to say against the increases which are being proposed to-night. I think, as a rule, the higher civil servants are underpaid; but I wish to say a word on behalf of the deputies of two of the departments, who are not receiving this increase. I refer to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise. Both of these departments are very large and the work is very heavy and important. Both are manned by men of exceptional ability and particularly suited for their positions. Doctor Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is a man of very great ability, a man who has devoted all his life to the work of that department and of the experimental farms. He has been in the service of the government for some twenty-three or twenty-four years, and surely that length of service should be taken into consideration when we are considering raising the salaries of deputies. I do not wish to delay the committee at this time, but I would strongly urge the Minister of Finance to consider the work that these gentlemen have to do, the importance of their services to the country, the length of time that they have given to the service of the government, and that he grant the increase, a well-merited increase it would be, to the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture and of Customs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with the Minister of Finance that it is always difficult to do the right thing. Of course it is difficult to discriminate. It is always difficult to pick who is right and who is wrong. It is always easy to do the opposite.
Supply-Civil Government


William Stevens Fielding: What does my hon.
friend think would be right?


Henry Lumley Drayton: To pay the
salary where it is earned. My hon. friend is discriminating. I have discriminated; but when I became Minister of Finance, if I remember aright, the Deputy Minister of Justice was getting $10,000 a year. I increased the salary of the Commissioner of Taxation to $10,000 a year. I did that for very specific reasons.


William F. Carroll: What were they?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I could not lose him. If there was one man who had heavy responsibilities in an almost unchecked position, it would be the Commissioner of Taxation. A man, who, as the present Minister of Finance told us the day before yesterday, has handled $200,000,000 of taxation under regulations which had to be fixed and determined by him under the most intricate act, and who has collected everything except $8,000,000 to date, was a man who was worth keeping, and he was kept. My hon. friend comes in, and he in his turn does some discriminating. The present Deputy Minister of Finance was appointed three years ago, I think, say three and a half, certainly not more than that. My hon. friend makes his salary $10,000. My hon. friend did not deal with the matter on a question of a ten-year service. He dealt with it from a question of merit. What has been done here is merely to apply an arbitrary rule of length of employment, with absolutely no regard to the volume of work or to the importance of the department. The reason for the adoption of this plan, we are told, is the difficulty of making a selection. I think that the whole idea is entirely wrong. The increases ought to have been brought down in the Main Estimates and we should then have had an opportunity of looking into the various departments. But there is very little chance of doing that now. Were we not told that generally speaking these were votes that could not. have been put in the Main Estimates? Yet here we have something that has stood for so many years when the cost of living, according to my hon. friends, was higher than it is to-day and when the financial conditions looked as well as they do now, if, indeed, not better. If the government are determined to put this matter through in this way I do not want to delay them, but there is neither fairness nor any business idea in what they are doing. One would suppose that they would be anxious to economise, but if they insist that the salary of 
$6,000 paid to certain persons should be increased they can increase it. If they want to deal with an important question of this kind in the Supplementary Estimates, a method that deprives one absolutely of all opportunity for consideration, and of any means of answering the arguments advanced by my hon. friend from Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), they are, I suppose, at liberty to do so. But again I say, the responsibility is entirely theirs; and we have the spectacle of a party that prates about economy adopting this attitude in connection with this important matter.


Mr. MILLAR:: It is rather regrettable that this increase must be made at this time when the financial condition of Canada is so appalling. I can understand the difficulty of the government in retaining really good men when other concerns are willing to offer them more than they are now getting. But my mind goes back to two instances that came to my notice, one of which no doubt the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will recall. An able deputy minister left the service on a question of salary alone. He was a very good man and I well remember that it was not very many years after he had left the service before he discovered, when he went to s*ell his labour in the markets of the world, that his experience with the government had imbued him with very little appreciation of the value of money, and for that reason he did not make a success. The result was that he was very ready to come back; I think he was one of the most willing men to enter the service again. Another case I have in mind is that of a gentleman in the employ of the late government managing one of the farms. He was offered a large sum elsewhere and he thought he was going to be able to make twice as much as he was getting from the government. He left the service and after six or seven years-in fact, last fall-he was eager to return. I am not sure that he is under this government, but at any rate he is in a similar position to the one he held before. Both gentlemen, I am sure, were able in their respective fields, and I am convinced that from their experience neither of them would now think for a moment of leaving governmental employment. In my opinion, if any of the deputies contemplate taking such a step they would do well to consult these gentlemen to whom I have referred. If they did, and they acted on the advice they would no doubt receive, I believe they would reconsider their decision. It depends, I suppose, on the comparison you make in deciding whether deputies are receiving what they

are worth when they get $6,000. When you compare a salary of $6,000, as paid to a deputy minister, with salaries ranging from $15,000 to $20,000 paid to men engaged in occupations with big interests, the discrepancy would of course suggest that the deputies are being underpaid. But compare their salary with the salaries paid to the thousands of men in their own walk of life who are equally efficient and whose remuneration is by no means $15,000 or anything like it,-as a matter of fact, not a quarter as* much in many cases as the deputies receive-and you will realize that the deputies are not so ill-paid after all. It is difficult to say just what a man is worth, and we have nothing but the bald statement that gentlemen who fill these positions efficiently are worth $8,000. I believe that a deputy would be worth this sum if he were willing to save the thousands that he could save by standing firmly against the pressure brought to bear upon him by his staff in urging larger salaries for themselves. But I fear that in some departments, particularly in the Public Works and the Interior departments, there has not been anything like a firm stand against such pressure. It is apparent that in some departments there has been a considerable practice of economy; but in others this has not been true. All things considered, it would have been well had the government tried to get along for the present without raising the salaries in the way they propose, because there is no possibility of getting them down again. Not only will the present recipients get this extra $2,000, but it is altogether likely that the increased sum will stand for all time as the fixed salary for the office. It is very easy to raise salaries but not so easy to lower them. Not only that; the mere raising of the salaries of the deputies will have a tendency to excite an agitation for increases on the part of those subordinate to them. As soon as the deputies get $8,000 the employees will want their salaries raised, and it will mean on the whole a very much larger expenditure for the Dominion than if the government could get along with the salaries at present paid.


Mr. LOGAN:: Personally I think this is a
wise move that should have been made long ago. On the second page of the Supplementary Estimates there appear certain names the first of which I read is that of Sir Joseph Pope, to whom it is proposed to pay $8,000. Here is a man who has been forty years in the service of the country. He has been the trusted and loyal deputy of ministers of different political faiths and is probably the best in-
Supply-Civil Government
formed man in Canada on external affairs. Yet he is being paid just $8,000.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Six thousand.


Hance James Logan: I am referring to the new
estimates. On the other hand there are men employed in most inferior positions in big houses in the cities of the country that are drawing fifty per cent more than this proposed salary to this excellent officer. Take the next name, Mr. Alexander Johnston.


Lewis Herbert Martell: One of the best fellows
in Canada.


Hance James Logan: He is not only a good deputy, but is probably one of the ablest men we have in the Dominion. Does anyone say that $8,000 is too much for this man who protects the interests of the Marine and Fisheries department as if he owned the department? I think he devotes not eight hours a day, but eighteen hours a day to his work. Take the third man, Mr. J. B. Hunter, of the Public Works department, an extremely able man with an experience in the department extending over twenty-six or twenty-seven years. Mr. Hunter is a very competent official who never thinks of the hours he devotes to the service of the department. Then, take Mr. Thomas Mulvey. There is no doubt that Mr. Mulvey could go out of the Department of State and secure a position as counsel in any legal firm in Canada at a salary of $20,000 a year.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is Mr. Mulvey the author of Mulvey's Company Law of Canada?


Hance James Logan: He is the same man.


Lewis Herbert Martell: He would be knighted if we had titles in Canada.


Hance James Logan: The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has contended that we should pay deputy ministers according to the extent and importance of the work of the department. Does that apply to ministers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It ought to.


Hance James Logan: It does not; it has never been claimed that it did. Ministers are paid the same, whether Secretary of State, or Minister of Public Works, or Minister of Justice. There are two reasons why these men should receive adequate compensation: First, as a return for faithful and loyal service, and, second, as an inducement to them to remain in the service. Take the Deputy Minister of Justice. Why, not long ago there was a discussion about certain legal charges made in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration.

Supply-Civil Government


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend seeking to delay this estimate? There is no suggestion of increasing the salary of the Deputy Minister of Justice. He is already getting 810,000.


Hance James Logan: I am saying a word on behalf of men who are deserving and I am also objecting to the inference made by the hon. member in reference to my friend Alex. Johnston of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Newcombe could not have left the Department of Justice years ago and have received, not 810,000 a year, as he is paid now, but 850,000 a year, or, at the rate of remuneration given in the case of the Grand Trunk arbitration, 8100,000 a year? He has remained there not for the money that is in it, but out of loyalty to the department and to the service of this country. I believe in paying a man a worthy wage.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that these officials are very much underpaid. You cannot get a good man in the Civil Service to-day unless you pay him well. Any of these deputy ministers could go into the outside world and earn twice the salary they receive in the service. As a matter of fact, Jhe whole civil service is underpaid. I hope the government will next session bring down the cost of living bonus and make it permanent. There has been a period of high prices for five or ten years now. This increase of salaries is very well merited; it is but a small return for the service rendered.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Before this vote passes I would like to point out that the men who are listed here are all rendering excellent service. We as members have more or less to do with them, and we find them competent and obliging and quite capable of filling their positions. But I regret that one of the most important deputy ministers in the whole service, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, has not received an increase in salary. No industry in Canada is more capable of improving the business of the country or of bringing about prosperity than agriculture. In my opinion there is no more important industry from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in the office of no deputy minister is a greater or more varied knowledge required of the work in hand than in that of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. As minister in charge of that department for about two years I had an opportunity of working with Dr. Grisdale, who had already made a reputation for himself as Director of Experimental Farms and who as a deputy minister speaking both French and 
English was acceptable to the farmers in all parts of Canada. He rendered and is rendering most excellent service. I regret that he has not been included in this increase and I hope that the government will take the earliest opportunity of seeing that he is included.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does my hon. friend not believe that a man who is capable of being the deputy minister of any department should start on at least 88,000 a year? I agree with all he said about Dr. Grisdale. There should be a minimum of $8,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been stated that the higher paid civil servants are underpaid. I should like to call attention to the fact that the lower paid civil servants are very much underpaid. I have stated here before that in Winnipeg postal employees are receiving a smaller wage than the amount that it has been found necessary to give for the sustenance of people who are accepting municipal relief. It seems as if we ought not to advance the salaries of these higher
12 m. officials, however much they may deserve it, until there has been a general revision of salaries and the lower paid employees are looked after.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned last night that in order that no one should be under the impression that the government is anxious to hasten through the estimates I would move that to-night the committee rise at twelve o'clock. Now, the government is quite prepared to do that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -unless there is a desire on the part of all present to continue a little longer. I understand that [DOT] the Senate are pretty well finished with their work and are waiting for the Supply Bill to come from this House, and there is a possibility of our proroguing to-morrow if we conclude the estimates in time. There is nothing further in the way of legislation except a few items. But of course it is entirely for the committee to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend might just as well conclude now as in the morning; we have no time to get information on these things anyway. We can work just as well now as we could to-morrow morning; we shall get just as much information. We are not saying anything about the length of time we are talking about these things; it is the length of time we require to get informa-

Supply-Civil Government
tion so that we can talk intelligently-that is all. So far as going on to-night is concerned,
I think we ought to do so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Pension bill has been
returned to this House by the Senate and it has been so amended by that body that I shall find myself unable to agree with some of the amendments. If it is the desire of the committee to sit all night-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: -or two or three hours
more. I suggest that the committee rise in order that we may consider the Pension Act and make whatever suggestions to the Senate we have in mind; then we can return to Supply. In the meantime we can consider the Pension Act and make whatever suggestions we think necessary to the Senate, and then resume Supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly my
hon. friend might agree to continue with the estimates for an hour and then take up the matter he has in mind.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall item 438 carry?


Oliver Robert Gould: In regard to the proposed
salary increases for the various deputy heads I wish to place myself on record that I am not opposed to paying adequate remuneration where merit and competence is shown.
I have since being honoured with this position looked upon the deputy ministers both in the capacity of supervisors of their respective departments and advisers to the ministers at the head of the departments. So far as supervision is concerned I have no criticism to make or any comments to offer, but in their capacity of adviser to the minister I have frequently drawn to the attention of this committee that I would like evidence placed before it as to their interestedness in showing why these huge sums of money are being asked in the estimates from time to time. I have made these representations to the committee from time to time simply because I have not been satisfied in my own mind that the deputy ministers themselves have appreciated the value of a one dollar bill or the importance of getting one hundred cents for a dollar, and as a result of that inappreciation they have presented large amounts in the estimates to the ministers, who in turn present them on the floor of this House and ask parliament to vote them. It seems to me that another word reiterated not alone by myself but by other members of the House that the deputy ministers show greater interest in that phase of the question might
be a very good thing at this time when these increases of $2,000 for the deputies are before the committee. This is just another word that I have to offer on the subject at this time, and I think it is a word that should meet with serious consideration on the part of everyone concerned.


William Charles Good: I do not think we ought to
be niggardly in paying our deputy ministers, but I do think that this House ought to consider the financial situation at the present time. We are going behind every year and the Finance Minister does not hold out any hope of our catching up next year. There are a lot of people in this country who are paying this money who are not getting $6,000 nor S2,000 a year. I do not want to say anything in disparagement of these gentlemen, but it does seem to me that this is an inopportune time for increasing their salaries. Item agreed to.
Department of National Defence-to increase the
salary of G. J. Desbarats, Acting Deputy Minister of National Defence, to $8,000 per annum, $2,000.


William Charles Good: Has the gentleman mentioned here undertaken any additional work this
year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The gentleman named here is a civil servant of long experience. He was in charge of the Department of Naval Defence and then came to the Department of National Defence. He is an experienced official in every way, and in addition to the duties he performed before, he has had assigned to him the duties pertaining to the Militia department as well as the Air branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and Copyright Office-to increase the salary of Geo. F. O'Halloran, Commissioner of Patents, to |8,000 per annum, $2,000.
James Arthurs: In confirmation of what the ex-Minister of Agriculture has suggested I would call attention to the fact that while this item provides for an increase of $2,000 for the Commissioner of Patents and Item 445 provides for an increase of $2,000 for Mr. Doughty, the Dominion Archivist, there is no provision for an increase in the salary of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who has been just as long in the service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh no.


James Arthurs: He is just as valuable an officer as the Dominion Archivist and more important to the country. I have nothing to say against the Archivist, but it seems to
Supply-Legislation

me unreasonable that he should be granted an increase of $2,000 while the Deputy Minister of Agriculture with all his experience is not granted anything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Auditor General's office-contingencies-additional amount required for salaries of temporary clerks, $20,000; additional amount required for travelling expenses, $1,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the occasion for the very large increase in salaries, $20,000, for the Auditor General's clerks?


William Stevens Fielding: We have generally
adopted the rule to give the Acting Auditor General all the assistance he requires in order to induce him to get out the documents promptly. I do not know how it was with my honourable friend, but I have always told the Acting Auditor General that I relied on him to be reasonable and I have never refused him any increase in staff at a time when it was urgent that the public documents be got out promptly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have to plead guilty to following a different course and holding up his appointments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the reports
were not out in time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that we lost anything by it. Here we are paying out $20,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of justice, $20,560.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister be good enough to give us particulars of this item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Everyone is aware of the pride that the Canadian people have taken in maintaining justice in the extreme northern country. There are six Eskimos now in custody at Her-schel island up in the Arctic charged with murder and preparations are being made for their trial this summer. An expedition left Edmonton on the 12th of June for that purpose taking a judge and two counsel. The estimated cost of the expedition is $15,000. The amount here is appropriated for the purpose of carrying on the administration of justice in the extreme north.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the
counsel?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
James Arthurs: Will the Minister of Finance give an explanation of the last item?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a case where a by-election occurred, the two members-that is to say the former member and his successor *-dividing the sessional indemnity in proportion to their time.


James Arthurs: According to the wording each gets $4,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh no, they divide it.


Jacques Bureau: In proportion to the number of days.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-for experiments in the dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,500.
William Charles Good: I think we should have some explanation of this from the Minister of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: This is to provide for experimenting with the drying of fruit. We have a big crop again this year, and we will require all the facilities that are available for the purpose of taking care of fruit during the fall season, and extending the period of marketing by every possible means. Experiments will be conducted in the matter of dehydrating.


William Charles Good: Was this work under way last year, or is it new work?

Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: No it is just beginning this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-for expenditures in connection with trial shipment of chilled beef and fat cattle to Great Britain, $25,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How much of
that is for Duncan Marshall?


William Richard Motherwell: None of it at all. Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Sure?


William Richard Motherwell: We expect to make chilled beef of him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I don't know but that might be a useful purpose. Is it correct that Duncan Marshall is now called "High Commissioner of Canada for chilled meats"?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a new one. Sir HENRY DRAYTON: What is he now? Mr. MOTHERWELL: He is commissioner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is he doing over in England now?


William Richard Motherwell: He is not over there now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is he at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: I expect he will
arrive in Ottawa to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is immense.


Jacques Bureau: He will chill you in the morning.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister give a few more particulars in regard to this item?


William Richard Motherwell: I went into the
matter very fully on the Main Estimates. We made an experiment with about 100 to 125 head of cattle that we fed on the experimental farm. We sent some of them to be killed immediately on arrival there, others of them to be sold as stockers, and still others to be killed in Montreal and sent over as chilled beef. We have not got any reports of the first experiment yet. The intention is to continue the experiment during the three or four months of the summer for the purpose of keeping chilled beef on the British market and, if possible, finding out what advantage the chilled beef trade has over the Stocker trade, or if it has any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-for the suppression of foul brood in bees, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: We should like to have some particulars in regard to this item?


William Richard Motherwell: This foul brood is a very fatal and infectious disease which attacks bees when they are in the larva stage.
It has affected a large number of bees not only throughout this province but also throughout some of the adjoining provinces. Some time ago I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Hon. Manning Doherty and he agreed at that time, on behalf of this government, to put up $10,000, if we would put up $5,000 for the suppression of this disease. That is what we are doing.


William Charles Good: Under whose supervision is this work being done?


William Richard Motherwell: Under the supervision of the Bee Keepers' Association. That is, they will have charge of the work. R. F. Holterman, I think, is the president or secretary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-for the salary and expenses of an agricultural produce marketing agent in Great Britain, $7,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain this item?


William Richard Motherwell: For the last year or more there has been a great deal of agitation to have in Great Britain a representative of the farm produce of Canada, to ha\e somebody on the British market to look particularly after the exports of the farmers of Canada. Take dairy products and bacon. When they arrive on the British market if anything, is wrong, or requires reporting on. or does not meet the requirements of the market, we want to be apprised immediately. I might illustrate the value of that by an incident that occurred last year. Bacterial action had taken place in a few cheese from Canada that went over there and the fact gos into the British newspapers. It so happened that Dr. Grisdale was there at the time, and he corrected a false impression that went abroad in England, otherwise serious results might have ensued to our dairy industry. We need some person to take care of our exports.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the salary and how much wjll be allowed for expenses?


William Richard Motherwell: The gentleman is not appointed yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is his salary to be.
Supply-Miscellaneous


William Richard Motherwell: The minimum salary set by the Civil Service Commission is $5,040.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Fixed for this job? Has the minister got this job arranged by the Civil Service Commission already?


William Richard Motherwell: The Civil Service Commission has already classified the position, but it has not been advertised yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose this position will be advertised, there will not be any appointment by order in council?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think the man selected should have the rank of a deputy and should be appointed without going to the Civil Service Commission. We should have the very best man available in the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this salary of $7,000 fixed by the Civil Service Commission?


Jacques Bureau: The salary is not $7,000 it is $5,000.


William Richard Motherwell: The salary is $5,040, and the balance is to cover expenses incidental to the position.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The appointee will be recommended by the Civil Service Commission?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-further amount required for health of animals, $750,000.
William Charles Good: We should like some explanation of this item?


William Richard Motherwell: This work is expanding very rapidly. It has been behind -that is to say the payment has been behind -ever since I have had anything to do with it I have received a great many complaints from hon. members, especially from Alberta, that there was a good deal of delay in securing compensation for animals slaughtered. That has been due, to some extent, to not having enough money to make the necessary rayments. This vote will catch up with the deficit of last year and we hope to take care of the entire work this year.
Pensions-annuity to Dr. F. G. Banting, $7,500.


William Charles Good: I should like to know if Dr. Banting is getting any similar grants from other sources?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say, but whether he is or is not I think this is the least the parliament of Canada could do for him as an expression of national gratitude.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canadian Government Railways-Prince Edward Island Car Ferry Terminals-to pay claim, $196,417.63.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I can let this vote go through at the rate we have been going. As I am instructed, the vote ou^ht never to go through. I had a file sent over to me exactly three minutes ago. This is the size of the file, as hon. members can see. I have not been able to assimilate much information out of the file in that time. Has the Minister of Finance gone into this matter? I have been told-and I am speaking from partial memory-that this matter was entirely settled, that there was an agreement which covered the whole matter, and that this is something which need not be considered. If it should be considered, I submit Mr. Chairman, it ought not to be considered without some chance of going into it. I do not think it should have been put in the Supplementary Estimates. If the claim be a just one, I can see no reason in the world why it could not stand. I am going to ask the minister whether it may stand.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not read the file but I have heard the case explained by the Minister of Railways, and supported by his officials. I was satisfied from the information furnished that it was a fair and just claim, and I consented to having it put in the sup-plementaries. I am sure the Minister of Railways will be prepared to explain the matter to the hon. member.


George Perry Graham: This is a claim that perhaps will not be understood unless you know the men in connection with the claim. The government wished to do this work at Prince Edward Island which was a very difficult work to do. The gentlemen in question are Roger Miller and the late Mr. Caudel. The word of each of these gentlemen was as good as his bond. Because of the relationship of Mr. Roger Miller, the contractor, to the department and the confidence the department always had in him, whenever I became embarrassed or in difficulty over a contract, although he was a contractor, I called him in for consultation, and I gave him work to do that I felt could not be reliably done elsewhere. This difficult work at Prince Edward Island had to be undertaken. The minister advertised. He got one tender, I think, and the tenderer did not accept the contract.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What was the nature of the work?


George Perry Graham: It was the building of the terminal for the Prince Edward Island car ferry, and a very difficult job.

Supply-Railways and Canals


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


George Perry Graham: It was started in 1913. The first contractor that tendered did not take it. Then Mr. Roger Miller was called in, as I often called him in, to discuss with Mr. Cochrane the difficulties of this contract. There is no doubt in the world that Mr. Roger Miller was not looking for the contract. He was induced to take this contract by the minister. When I was minister I often induced him to take contracts for which he was not tendering. Tenders were called for in the regular way, and Roger Miller, as I absolutely believe, was asked to tender low, so that he would get the contract. In addition to that he was told by the minister that any loss he sustained would be made good, but he wanted him to tender and get that contract. Any person who has been at the head of the department can readily understand that attitude in a work of this kind when one contractor has backed out. He proceeded with the work. The legal gentlemen will say that when there is a written instrument it is the bargain, but not in this case. Roger Miller, whose word was as good as his bond, somewhere in the documents has made an affidavit pointing out that he took the contract with the distinct understanding mentioned and I can understand it thoroughly. He was to go on and do the work, and if it cost more than the contract he was to lose no money. He went on and did the work, and I think it ended in 1917 or 1918. His affidavit is in the file. I may be told that it is an old contract. Well, it is, but in 1917 under the contract, if this be taken as the bargain-which it is not	at	all in
my mind; I am absolutely certain it was not -he could not perhaps be allowed anything. The chief engineer thought so, under the strict terms of the contract, and he emphasized in his report the words "under the contract". Now the reason the matter was not settled before was this: It was necessary to purchase a special plant for this work, and as with all the contractors, a contract cannot be finally settled until the plant is disposed of or valued. From the conclusion of the contract until this spring there was no opportunity of disposing of the plant, and the department had sent auditors to find out, not any profit of Roger Miller, but what the absolute loss to him on this contract was, and this is the amount the auditors returned to me as the amount of loss. The affidavit of Mr. Miller, whose ability as a contractor and whose integrity are above reproach, points out that he did the work under these conditions, and I absolutely believe it to be true, knowing the man and understanding how under the circumstances he took the contract under the conditions stated. We have had the books audited to find out what the loss was, and this is the result.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to find out one or two facts. I cannot get anything out of this maze of documents. The contract was in 1913. When was the work done?


George Perry Graham: I think it was completed between 1917 and 1918.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the date of the final certificate?


George Perry Graham: I might say the contractors would not at any time accept any payment as final.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Here is a letter at the commencement of the file. The file I am interested in is the file with the contract in it, to show something about the inception of the matter. On the 29th January the Department of Railways forwarded the cheque of the Finance Department for $6,728.72 in payment of the final estimate, and then it is quite true that this letter of receipt from the Roger Miller Company shows that they do not accept it as a final cheque. The letter says:
We do not admit the validity of the claims amounting to $1,631.26, nor do we accept the cheque in question as a settlement of our final estimate, owing to the fact that there are matters pending between us and the department which will have to be gone into before the amount of the final estimate can be arrived at. We are sending you this intimation now, so that there may be no misunderstanding on the subject.
I point out that the final estimate and cheque were forwarded January 29 last. I wonder if the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are at all serious when they say that they want proper consideration given to these items. This is just a little bit of the file. Surely my hon. friend must see that this is a farce, and that the only proper thing to do is to transfer this item to the main vote of next year.


George Perry Graham: I try to run my department just as I would run my own business, and no person has accused me of doing anything else. It is a matter of straight business between man and man, and I think no government ought to do anything else. I have investigated this, and I am as convinced as I am living that the Department of Railways and Canals owes Roger Miller this money under the arrangement he made with Mr. Cochrane. If we were to go at the matter technically and work it out, I believe Roger Miller would have a bigger claim.

Supply-Railways and Canals
In fact, he claimed more than this, and we sent an auditor down for the purpose of going through his books; Mr. Miller threw all his books open; the auditor went through them from one end to the other, and he brought in a report. It is on the basis of that report that I am asking that this settlement shall be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
contract?


George Perry Graham: The contract would be in the law branch. I thought I had the whole file.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I told my hon. friend this afternoon that this was a matter which I thought ought to be looked into in the interest of the country.


George Perry Graham: A synopsis of the contract is in the order in council on the file.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be a
synopsis. Are there two contracts?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the work
done as originally proposed?


George Perry Graham: No, it was much more
expensive than originally proposed. They put in concrete instead of wood.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a
change. Was a contract entered into after the change was made?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
told explicitly that a contract was made for a specific sum.


George Perry Graham: I am informed that there was nothing of the kind; that there was only the original contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then if the
appropriation passes in this way that these files will be all open for our investigation, and that an investigation will be given into the whole of this matter, I do not propose to take up any more time.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has a
right to get these papers at any time he wants them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only time
that they are any good is now, unless we have an understanding that the whole of this is subject to re-opening.


George Perry Graham: What does my hon. friend mean by "re-opening?"
("Mr. Graham.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I mean an investigation at the time the next House sits.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend would
have a perfect right to do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I could be and would be voted down easily.


George Perry Graham: Our majority is not so
big.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It might be big enough then.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the vote carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not saying that the vote carries until I get information on the subject. Of course if we are to get no information, all right.


George Perry Graham: I have given my friend
all the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked for
the files this afternoon. I get part 7 at exactly twenty minutes past twelve. The item was called at twenty-three minutes past twelve, and what I started with was the final certificate. That looks like giving full information, does it not?


George Perry Graham: My deputy tells me that
the entire file is there. I did not expect this item to come on to-night. I gave the file to my hon. friend just as soon as I got it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Might I
suggest that the item stand until the hon. gentleman has time to peruse it? I think that would be satisfactory to the committee. I should like further information on the subject, and if he can find it for me that would be very satisfactory.


George Perry Graham: Then it will stand until
Tuesday.


Arthur Meighen: It can stand until next
session. I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) laughs. He is the author of the bill that was so described in this House this session that I would have thought he would withdraw from his party after the description given of it by the Minister of Justice. I do not know what he knows about this matter.


Mr. FINN:: I would like to ask the leader of the Opposition if it is a crime for any hon. gentleman in this House to Iaugih?
I was not laughing at the right hon. gentleman. I do not know what bill he refers to. If he would be more specific, perhaps he would do me the honour of giving me a definite answer instead of the uncalled-for insinuation on his part.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Arthur Meighen: The bill transferring land in Nova Scotia.


Robert Emmett Finn: I was not the author of that
bill.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend was
chairman of the committee that put it through.


Robert Emmett Finn: My right hon. friend has been
long enough in this House to know that a gentleman who is chairman of a committee is in no way, because of his occupying that position, the author of a bill.


Arthur Meighen: He is just as responsible.


Jacques Bureau: Not a bit of it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Can a chairman of a
committee be shown by parliamentary procedure to be the author of a bill?


Arthur Meighen: It is sufficient responsibility to be chairman of the committee. These are simply settlements being made out of court of claims that should not be paid unless established in court. They have been attempted to be settled in this way time and time again, and they have been refused, but now they have been yielded to by this government at the expense of this country. If there are estimates that are fitted for Main Estimates alone, they are these. Perhaps the minister would remember-he was not in the House-how in a Supplemenary Estimate brought down in 1921, an item was included to pay some $40,000, a judgment of the court of Quebec, taken to the Court of Appeal in Quebec and affirmed, taken from the Court of Appeal in Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada and affirmed. Then an item was put in to pay that claim after it had gone through three courts, judgment being given.
I think, in every court unanimously. But a terrible row was raised because this was put in the Supplementary Estimates. When it was raised, I withdrew the estimate because there was an allegation of wrongdoing. I promised an investigation and appointed a judge to investigate, and then those who rais-ed the row ran away and declined to give any evidence. Here are three cases that have not been proven, that are simply being paid out of the public treasury without any attempt to establish them before courts of law.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think the suggestion made
by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is reasonable. I understand from the minister that this claim of the contractor mentioned for this particular sum rests only on a verbal contract. That is a rather strange thing at



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
the outset. It seems to me it is only reasonable that he should be asked to prove his claim in a court of law, and then the country would be justified in paying it. Short of that, I must oppose the item.
George Perry Graham: I explained fully to the
committee that as a matter of law-the hon. member as a lawyer would raise the point-if that were upheld, many cdaims that are settled could not be settled in court, and technically that is not the ground on which I put this thing. The hon. member would know that in a court of law, under this contract there would be no case. I pointed that out. I know if Mr. Cochrane were alive this question would not be asked and the claim would be paid. I have not the file as I sent it to my hon. friend, but on the file there is a long affidavit from Mr. Roger Miller pointing out how he undertook this work; that he was sent for and asked to undertake it under those conditions. He makes an affidavit to that whole statement and we owe him the money just as much as I should owe a board-bill if I stayed at an hotel.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend (Mr
Shaw) is a lawyer of years' standing and he knows that often a person is unable to go to court because there is no written memorandum in reference to the contract. There might be a perfectly good verbal contract that could not be enforceable at law but there would be a claim in equity. My hon. friend knows that in many cases no action can be brought unless d note or a memorandum signed by the party can be produced. Nevertheless there is recourse in equity. As I understand the situation, the minister is not taking advantage of a technical objection, but is accepting what in equity would be a claim of contract.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not suggesting for a
moment that the statute of frauds should be raised in defence of this action; the minister need not raise that defence unless he wants to. Certainly it should be established to the satisfaction of the court that there had been made some sort of verbal contract or arrangement. The mere affidavit of the individual should not be sufficient for the purpose in a matter of this kind, however reputable he may be. Let the finding of the court on that issue be the determining factor, and in addition let the court ascertain the exact amount due.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Whether there is a
verbal contract or not-


Jacques Bureau: This is not a court of
law.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
46S0
Supply-Railways and Canals
Lewis Herbert Martell: -in many instances no
case can lie unless there is a note or a memorandum producible.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My hon. friend is mistaken
in his law. The statute must be pleaded before it is taken advantage of.


Jacques Bureau: Why argue points of law
here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a report from the chief engineer-


George Perry Graham: I quoted it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -dated April
30th, 1919. It reads:
It is true that in connection with this work there existed some unusual hazards, but the contractor is in error in implying that the department encouraged tenderers to accept the hazards at a lower cost than wTas warranted.
The whole claim was that he was coaxed into it.


George Perry Graham: I did not use the word
"coax."


Henry Lumley Drayton: The report goes on:
These hazards like all other parts of the work were subject to competitive tender and a comparison of the bids received shows that the bid of the Roger Miller * Company anticipated the risks that would be encountered.
There wore three offers.


George Perry Graham: And this was the lowest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The chief engineer states further:
During the progress of the work, certain changes were made which necessitated the construction of an additional piece of cnbtvork. This was ordered and paid for on the basis of cost plus 10 per cent as provided for in the contract. Such payment to the contractor for this additional piece of cribwork does not involve us in any liability for the cribwork constructed under the lump sum in the contractor's tender. The claim presented for the contractors by the Hon. Charles Murphy cannot be entertained as a claim under the contract.


George Perry Graham: That is what I said.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It appears that in 1919 the claim was not admitted.


Jacques Bureau: Under the contract. My
hon. friend is basing his argument on the legal right of the man under the contract. The minister has explained that such is not the view that is taken of the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend desires to discuss that phase of the question I think I can with perfect justice claim that apparently the Postmaster Gan-

eral (Mr. Murphy) has more influence today with the present government than he had with the last one.


Jacques Bureau: That would be a fair insinuation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Here is the claim presented and here is the report of the engineer. This is all I have been able so far to glean from this exhaustive file. If the government are determined to press the matter through without our knowing anything about it I will not hold them up. It is idle to talk about postponing it until Tuesday; it is not fair to hon. members, and I do not think they should be detained when it is evident that the government are determined to put the thing through. Will the government concede this much? Will they decide to take no action on this vote until we have had some opportunity of going through the files and of satisfying ourselves as to the fairness of the transaction?


Jacques Bureau: That is childish. The government is responsible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am submitting a perfectly fair offer.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member is not. Never in his time did we ever ask that the government should not assume responsibility for anything of this kind. We never asked that we be allowed to decide.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In our time reckless charges of graft were made and the government promptly withdrew the item. If my hon. friend is referring to us to support his contention then he should withdraw this item.


Jacques Bureau: We never asked that we
should be the judges of what should go through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We never attempted to push things through.


Jacques Bureau: You probably felt guilty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I am not to have an opportunity of reading this file?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: There are some 200 pages which we are given three minutes to read. If the government are determined to press the matter through, then all I can say is that they will have to take the responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway-construction, $350,000.
Mr. KNOX:: I am rising not to criticize this vote, because if I had any criticism to

Supply-Railways and Canals
offer it would be that the vote is not as large as it should be. We had hoped that a vote would be brought down which would indicate that something was going to be done towards the completion of this project. However, I feel that the government intends to carry out the statement made in the House when the resolution regarding the Hudson bay project was discussed, that the portion of the line on which steel was laid would be brought up to standard this year. I assume that this is the amount figured on for the work. Am I right in that assumption, and can we rest assured that work will be undertaken in the near future?


George Perry Graham: I cannot give the assurance that this amount will complete the work we have on hand. That cannot be decided until the engineers are on the line. It might take more, but this is all we can spend this year. My instructions are that the work of reclamation will be proceeded with.


Andrew Knox: In view of the rumours we have heard to-night in regard to the branch lines in the West, may we take it for granted that there will be plenty of opportunity for men and equipment for this work?


George Perry Graham: I should think so.


Andrew Knox: We might also hope, I think, for more than the completion of that portion of the line on which steel has been laid being brought up to standard.


George Perry Graham: We can only spend this amount of money.


Murray MacLaren: Has this item been recommended by the Canadian National Railway Board?


George Perry Graham: The amount, as I outlined last year, was recommended by the board. About 114 miles of the road have become dilapidated and the board has recommended that that portion be repaired. That is what this money is for.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that within the last two years certain of the rails were ordered taken up.


George Perry Graham: It was proposed that some heavy rails should be taken up on this portion of the line, but the line was in such bad shape that they did not even get in to do that.


Thomas Langton Church: The construction of the
Hudson Bay railway has been a political proposition from start to finish. I am sorry to say that the two old political parties have had a hand in it, and now the Progressive party
298i
is taking part in it as well. Canada has had too many political railways, and before any more money is spent on this project I think an account should be taken. The Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways have not had time to consider this matter, notwithstanding what has been said in that regard. I say this is a political matter and it becomes very active around election time. One reason why the taxes of the working classes have been so heavy is that an extravagant railway policy has been pursued in this country. Before any further expenditure is made on this road the following considerations should receive attention:
1.	The navigability of Hudson straits.
2.	The probable volume of eastbound and westbound traffic available.
3.	Local conditions and prospects for colonization.
4.	Operating revenues and expenses.
5.	Storage at Hudson bay.
6.	The linking up of the Hudson Bay railway with the transportation systems of the West.
The minister should be able to answer these questions before we pass this item. Ontario has a railway similar to this, the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario. They applied to the federal government for a subsidy, and what did the federal government say? They said it was not a work for the general advantage of the Crown as a colonization road, and of Canada. It was looked upon by the officers of the Crown as a colonization road, and Ontario is extending that road right up to James Bay. The condition is the same in Manitoba as respects the Hudson Bay railway; it is a colonization road, and if the federal government has regarded the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario as a colonization road, as a work not for the general advantage of Canada, then the same should apply to the Hudson Bay railway. In the first place, the Hudson bay route will not get the grain trade. I venture to say there are some seasons when the channel there is not open two months in the year. Grain which is sent to the head of the lakes can go out 365 days of the year-in the summer months via the lakes, Buffalo, and the St. Lawreence, and in the winter months via Chicago and New York and Montreal. This route was reported upon by a royal commission appointed by the government of Canada. That commission made a very extensive examination of the feasibility of this project, taking into account all considerations affecting finance, the movement of grain, the 1 a.m. probable volume of traffic, and so on. I am sorry the two old political
Supply-Railways and Canals

parties have not heeded the report of that commission, because it is the report of experts. We have enough deficits to meet now -Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Pacific, Canadian National. Roadis whiich were built under private ownership have had to be taken over by the people of Canada. Public ownership is not responsible for this condition. Now, let me read one paragraph of the report of this commission, which consisted of the present member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), Mr. W. M. Acworth, and Mr. A.
H.	Smith, president of the New York Central. It says:
We understand that construction work on the Hudson bay line has been suspended. We think that the work should not in any case be recommenced till more urgent needs have been met and money is more easily procurable. And if work on the line is begun again, we think it should be done in the most economical manner possible, and only up to the standard of a local line, bearing in mind that it cannot be expected for many years to come to be selfsupporting. Considering the small advantage in rail mileage from the grain-growing areas, which the Hudson bay possesses over the existing routes to Port Arthur, and that from many districts it possesses no advantage at all; considering further the short and uncertain period of navigation in the bay, and that grain consigned to port Nelson will consequently always be liable to be detained there for nine months till navigation is again opened; considering that higher ocean freights may be expected to absorb, if not more than absorb, any possible saving in rail rates,, we cannot believe that this route will ever secure any serious share in the export trade. Still less can we think that it will handle an import business. Unless considerable mineral wealth should be discovered in the territory which this line will open up, it must we fear, continue to be almost indefinitely a burden upon the people of Canada. And everything that can be done should be done to make this burden as small as possible.
I may say further that since the Hudson straits are open for specially constructed vessels between July first and the end of October, only the crop of the preceding year could be counted on for traffic. A good deal of that traffic would have to be at Port Nelson by the opening of navigation, so that there will have to be immense storage facilities at that point. But who would think it wise to lock up his export wheat at Port Nelson knowing that it could be shipped through only between July first and the end of October? The question answers itself. Now, let me quote further from an article on the subject:
Wheat is always somebody's property. It moves at the direction of its owner, and the owner wants it where he can be sure of making delivery by a specified date. The very essence of the export wheat business is time of delivery, and it is precisely that condition which, practically every year, from October 20 to December 5, forces nearly 70 per pent of Canadian export wheat out by way of Buffalo and New York, although the St. Lawrence route to Montreal offers from 2 to 5 cents per bushel lower carrying charges. There is nothing more definitely established than that 
our export wheat does not follow the cheapest channel or shortest channel, all economic theories or assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. It does the reverse, and that astounding fact cannot be ignored in considering the possibility of finding enough traffic to load one train per day, for six months in the year, for Hudson 'bay. People who merely look at a map and then become dogmatic about transportation have thus far done all the talking about this Hudson Bay railway.
We have wasted money enough on this project, money that the old central provinces have had to pay as well as the rest of Canada. The railways of the United States have also got into a deplorable condition; they have gone on making extensions against the reports of experts. Where is Sir Henry Thornton on this proposition? Has he had a chance in the short time he has been here to go over this district and find out if the route is feasible? Talk about giving the board a free hand, if this is how the government is going to do it I have no hope of the railways being a success. At this late hour I do not wish to detain the committee any longer, but I wish to protest against this expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway. I think it is a waste of money. I think the road will never pay the fixed charges on the investment. Talk about navigation. Why, you have not considered the question of terminals, the type of boats and many other questions from a navigation standpoint. If this road is to be built it should be built by the province of Manitoba just like the province of Ontario built a similar road to James bay.


Murray MacLaren: Has the minister the
report of the Railway Board on this construction?


George Perry Graham: This is not construction. Although the Hudson Bay railway is under construction, this is not for new construction. As I explained to the House last year, 114 miles of the road already built is being put 'in operating shape. There is nothing being done in the way of new construction.


Murray MacLaren: It says "construction" in the item.


George Perry Graham: The line is under construction until it is completed.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that the
Railway Board have recommended this construction. May we have their report?


George Perry Graham: I have not that report with me. I thought I went into this matter pretty fully last year. Before any further work is done there will be no other reports. The boards, if for no other reason, but this is not my reason, felt that even if only to take out

Supply-Railways and Canals
these rails my hon. friend has spoken of they had to put the road in shape to the end of the steel to bring them out. All that material would be wasted if the road was not put in shape.


Arthur Meighen: The minister gave the
impression when he spoke earlier this session that the decision to take up the rails on the Hudson Bay railway had been made prior to the arrival of Sir Henry Thornton, and that the reversal took place afterwards. I looked over the file immediately afterwards and found that the impression given by that language was entirely wrong. The recommendation of Sir Henry Thornton came to that effect. The recommendation to council, and I think the order in council itself by which the government decided to approve of the taking up the rails includes a reference to Sir Henry Thornton as agreeing thereto.


George Perry Graham: Oh no.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, it does.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend is absolutely wrong, because Sir Henry Thornton was not here at the time.


Arthur Meighen: He came here afterwards.


George Perry Graham: My deputy was then
acting chairman of the board.


Arthur Meighen: If the file is here I will show the minister. I went into it carefully. I have it upstairs. The government approved of it and the file shows that Sir Henry Thornton approved.


George Perry Graham: I do not agree with that.


Arthur Meighen: I wish the minister had the file. I know the impression he gave before, and it was distinctly wrong.


George Perry Graham: I do not agree with that either.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter whether the minister agrees with it or not. I do not know why the minister is objecting because if he looks at the correspondence ne will see what changed the decision of the government. What changed the decision of the government at least, whether it changed the decision of the board or not I will leave hon. members to conjecture, were the appeals and protests from Liberal associations 'n northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. When they arrived the opinions of both the government and the board changed.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to argui with my hon. friend but he is absolutely incorrect as to why the decision was changed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to add my protest against the expenditure of another dollar on the Hudson Bay railway. I want to tell the minister that the whole of eastern Canada i.3 opposed to the expenditure of another dollar on this railway.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member foa-Grenville is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot help what the hon. member for Grenville thinks. It does not bind my conscience in this matter.


George Perry Graham: He represents the East.


Jacques Bureau: And you cannot bind that of the East.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the expression we hear from eastern Canada is directly opposed to the expenditure of another dollar on this road, and the government might as well appreciate the force of public opinion in the East on this matter. At this late hour I am not going to say anything more about it, but eastern Canada will vote against this an i against any government that spends any money on that road.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I want to know if this vote is simply an attempt to carry out the pledge given by the Minister of Agriculture in a recent by-election in the West that the Hudson Bay railway would be completed before next Christmas. I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury who has just spoken that eastern Canada is absolutely opposed to this railway, and the common sense of all Canada is equally opposed to it. I would say further that I understand, and I am not going to quote my authority, which hesides is excellent, that Sir Henry Thornton himself started the operation of taking up the rails on this bit of road, which in my judgment should never have been built as it was nothing but a wildcat enterprise built to satisfy a demand from -western Canada, which was absolutely misled as to the purpose that could be served by the construction of this road. Sir Henry Thornton as a railway man started to take up the rails, my informant said, when "they" stopped the operation. When I asked who "they" were 1 was told, "Oh, there was a Mr. Stewart who was a director." I do not know who he is, but he was a director and was in touch with western interests, and apparently political influence was more powerful than the business aspect of this question. As far as I can see it, with the ice-bound bay, with the shifting sands and the danger of the route, it would be far more sensible to direct the trade of Canada in some other direction. Other parts
Supply-Railways and Canals

of Canada which could be vital to the carrying on of overseas trade are being absolutely neglected, and in the hope of getting somehow or other the support of certain members in this House who never will give their support to either party because they think themselves superior to both, the government is prepared to waste $350,000 more to get that which will never be delivered and they are willing to do it at the expense of all the rest of Canada. I want to put myself and the part of the country from which I come as absolutely and definitely on record against the flagrant misuse of the funds of Canada in building a railway that cannot serve either the farmer or any other interest adequately.


Murray MacLaren: Would the minister give the committee an explanation of this point? It was stated that it was the decision of the Railway Board to remove the rails to make use of them in other directions, and a certain number of rails were removed to be used in other portions of the country the view being taken that it was a useless railway. Now the vote here for $350,000 is to restore that railway. What I wished to ask the minister was if he would inform the committee of this change of attitude?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact the Canadian National Railway Board, with Major Bell in the chair, passed a resolution not to abandon the Hudson Bay railway but to secure these rails for the time that were not being used and use them on branch lines. But when they came to discuss the question practically they found they could not rescue these rails or ties without first virtually reconstructing the road or repairing it for about one hundred and some odd miles. If my hon. friend knew the locality he would understand thoroughly what I mean. Now, even if the road were not to be proceeded with to Nelson or Churchill, this money would have to be expended to put the road in shape out to the end of steel to bring in the material to rescue the rails and ties. I suppose there is a million dollars worth of material there. I am not saying this is to be done, but even if it were to be done this money would have to be expended before a yard of rails could be brought out.


Murray MacLaren: Is it proposed to bring any of the rails out after this is done?


George Perry Graham: That will be a matter for further consideration, but at present no. It does not look from what has taken place that we will need them for branch lines in the West.


Murray MacLaren: I record my dissent to this vote.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Did I understand the minister to say that we are asked to vote $350,000 without being assured that it is the government's intention, or the intention of the board that apparently advises the government, to take up the rails, or that this money is not to be spent for the completion of the line? Are we asked as sensible men to vote this money without knowing what we are voting it for? I cannot grasp what is contemplated from the statement of the minister. He says it may be necessary to spend it in order to save another million dollars worth of property and yet he says in the same breath it may be advisable to extend the railway to completion. I cannot follow his statement and I want to know what I am asked to vote this money for. If it is for the completion of the railway I am unalterably against it. It is one of the mad fancies the people of Canada have gone into, and the sooner it is abandoned the better.


George Perry Graham: There is not a dollar of this for the completion of the road.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is it for?


George Perry Graham: I pointed out three or four times that for 114 miles the line is absolutely in such a condition that the trestles have rotted down; there has not been anything done on it for years in the way of operation. The first thing the government must do before it can either take out the material or start the completion of the line for the last ninety miles is to put this portion of the line in a state of repair.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I ask the minister to tell me whether the government have resolved to build the line or take the rails up. I want to know which course they are going to pursue. Surely the people of Canada are entitled to know what is going to be done with their money.


George Perry Graham: If a vote should be asked to complete the line that will be proof that the government intends to do it. This is the commitment the government agreed to last session in this House and that is what this vote is for. Whether the line be completed or not this vote, and more too, will be necessary to put the line in a state of repair that will permit the taking out of the material.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What is the object of putting this portion of the line in a state of repair if the railway is not to be completed ultimately?

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Perry Graham: I have just given the reason. There is approximately, I am told, a million dollars worth of ties, fish plates, and other material which cannot be brought out unless this road is put into a condition for operating.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the vote necessary to complete the line, or is it just to move this material?


George Perry Graham: This vote is necessary no matter what may be done.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Surely we are not to
be asked to vote $350,000 without having a definite statement from the Railway department that they are going to carry the line to completion, or that they are going to take up the rails? Let us know which it is. They must know now which object they are going to carry out, unless we are going to have a repetition of the Hotel Scribe incident in Paris, and the government does not know what is going to be done by superior authority. If we are to be asked for an endorsement by somebody who has not yet indicated his views to the government, tell us even that, but let us know along what line we are asked to vote the money?


George Perry Graham: I have fully informed
my hon. friend of the reasons for the vote.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We have not got any
reason yet; I do not know what is going to be done.


Andrew Knox: I wish to say that I object
most strenuously to some of the statements that have been made here by the hon. members for St. John. I think the statements come with a very bad grace from either of these hon. gentlemen considering the amount of money which has been voted for harbours on the Atlantic coast from which we expect to get no revenue whatever. My hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) in his superior way told us this is purely a political matter. I wish to assure him that it is not a political matter in the West; it is a matter of bread and butter to the people out there. Because, unless we will get something that will enable us to get our produce on the markets of the world a little cheaper than vre are doing at the present time I do not know what the future of the West is going to be.


James Arthurs: Will the taking up of
these rails help?


Andrew Knox: We are not taking up the
rails.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister will not tell
us whether they are being taken up or not; we do not know.


Andrew Knox: I presume some of my hon.
friends to my right would like to see the rails taken up, judging from the way they are talking. I wish to assure them that the West will not stand for anything of the kind.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Reference has been made
to the position of the members for St. John. I think I might point out that the hon. member who has just spoken cannot possibly know from the cryptic utterances of the Minister of Railways whether the rails will be taken up, or whether they will be nailed down. Of course, it is only in keeping with the attitude of his party to which I referred earlier in the day. He is quite prepared, if he thinks he can get anything in the way of expenditure, no matter how useless, that will be directed towards his particular section of the country to follow the government with perhaps the hope of something more tangible than that. But for the rest of us, we want to know most definitely whether these rails are to be taken up, or whether the railway is to be extended. I would not expect a member from the West, that is from the Progressive party, to be at all interested in whether there would be at the end of the railway any machinery by which grain would be taken care of. I would not expect him to care whether it was a single track or a double track railroad. I would not expect him to care anything about the question of a possible congestion of cars at the end of the line. I would not expect him to care anything about the conditions of ice in Hudson bay. From what I have seen during this session I would not expect them to require anything but the expenditure of money in a fanciful attempt to carry out their purpose without regard to the uselessness to Canada of that expenditure. But the rest of us have a different idea. We want to know what is going to be accomplished by this expenditure. We want to know whether the government has decided to take up the rails or not, or whether the government has decided to build this railway to tide water. The hon. member, however, does not care so long as money is spent. The rest of us do care and we want to knew what the government proposes to do?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways was very direct and not any too considerate in his denial of my statement that
Supply-Railways and Canals

Sir Henry Thornton had agreed with the government's decision to take up the rails, he could scarcely have been more specific than he was. Although some months had elapsed since I had read this I felt sure of my ground, and can as surely confront the minister with a most definite confirmation of what I said. The government's order in council authorizing the taking up of the rails was passed on the 24th November. That order in council cited a report dated 22nd November from the Acting Minister of Kail-ways and Canals, representing in connection with the operation of the Hudson Bay railway that the vice-president and general manager of the Canadian National Railways had presented a report relative to the advisability of lifting the rails between miles 214 and 334, consisting of 120 miles of No. 1, eighty-pound rails the same to be used on the main line subdivision between Vermilion and Edmonton to replace sixty pound rails urgently requiring renewal.
There are certain other recitals not necessary to refer to, but this is the end-
The minister observes that until such time as the financial condition of the country would warrant the completion of the Hudson Bay railway project the using of the lifted rails on another portion of the system would appear to be an economical procedure, as if left where they are they would in short time deteriorate to such an extent as to become of no value.
The preceding paragraph reads:
The minister, upon the advice of the said board, concurred in by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, accordingly recommends that authority be granted to take up the track on the Hudson Bay railway from mile 214 to mile 334, and to use the material therefrom at such points upon the Canadian National Railways as the said board may deem expedient.
That is the order in council which decided the matter dated 24th November. To be brief, I will pass now to a document which is on the file dated 19th December. This order in council refers to a resolution, a decision, come to by the directors on the 20th October. The directors decided to the 20th October to take up the rails. That was included in a report in November, and the whole thing was given effect to in an order in council dated 24th November. On the 19th December the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals wrote the following letter to James Stewart, who at this time was director of the roads, and who had written the letter protesting against this policy: The letter reads:
In reply to your letter of the 11th instant, I may state that following meeting held by the Directors of the Canadian National Railways on the 20th October while inspecting the western lines, a communication

was addressed to the Acting Minister of Railways, pointing out to him the views expressed by the directors at this meeting, and requesting him to submit the matter to the Governor in Council for approval. This has been done, and an order in council has already been passed, authorizing the Board of Directors to proceed with the taking up of the rails between miles 214 and 334.
Since the arrival of the chairman, Sir Henry Thornton, this matter has been discussed with him at some length, and he has expressed his approval of the action taken by the Board of Directors during his absence. In view of this, I do not see that any good object would be served by having the matter brought up for reconsideration at the present time.
I hope the minister will now accept the situation.


George Perry Graham: I accept it absolutely.
My right hon. friend and I were discussing two different things.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend will
take an hour to straighten out a thing that needs no straightening. The decision to take up the rails was made before Sir Henry came here. That is what I had in my mind, and I pointed out to him-


Arthur Meighen: I said that Sir Henry
Thornton had agreed to it, and the minister distinctly contradicted me. That is all there was to it.


George Perry Graham: He would not even let
me agree with him if I wanted to. He would interrupt me if I were trying to agree with him. The decision to take up the rails was passed by the board before Sir Henry came here. I never heard anything of this letter between the deputy minister and Mr. Stewart. It never came to me and as far as my connection with it is concerned Sir Henry Thornton was not present when the decision was arrived at. If he agreed to it afterwards that is another thing.


Arthur Meighen: I said he had agreed to it and that is what the minister contradicted. I do not say he knew he was wrong but he should not have contradicted me unless he knew he was right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have had a chance of going through the next file while the matter is being discussed and I think I can tell hon. members what the government's policy is in connection with the Hudson Bay railway because I see that the next item is a refund to J. D. McArthur & Co. of 890,000 and I find from the file that under the contract and the arrangements that money can never be paid him until the railway is completed. I think the minister will agree with me.

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Perry Graham: I could not tell until I had read the file. That is not the way I read it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the road is not to be completed the money can be paid, but if the road is to be constructed the country has no right to give up the 890,000. Mr. McArthur states that the $90,000 is in the hands of the Department of Railways and Canals and is held pending the completion of the Hudson Bay line. I know that. Then I note that he got impatient about it, and made application to the late minister, the Hon. W. C. Kennedy, on August 9, 1922. Mr. Kennedy handed the letter over to the deputy, and this is what Major Bell says:
Your letter of August 9th to the minister is now before me. With reference to the agreement of the 5th April, 1919, you will note that the use of the word "temporarily" is relevant only to the suspension of the work at the time your contracts were in force. The agreement cancelled these contracts and provided for the retaining of $90,000-*
"until such time as His Majesty shall complete the works-
The word "temporarily" is not found in this latter connection, and I am advised that the time for completion of the work is entirely within the discretion of His Majesty. It is not necessary, nor in order, for me at the present time to deal with the contingency suggested by the expression in your letter-"if the government decides not to proceed with the work at all".
If your legal advisers entertain the opinion that a petition of right to obtain a refund now of the above sum will have any profitable result, this department will not, I apprehend, interpose any objection to the granting of a fiat, but, in the opinion of our legal department, such a proceeding would be absolutely futile. Under clause 8 of the agreement the Exchequer Court would have no jurisdiction, as the chief engineer is the sole arbitrator in all disputes.
In looking upon this $90,000 as an asset to be hypothecated, regard must have been had to the fact that it really was the payment of an estimated loss if the contracts were completed under conditions such as then existing, even though coupled with a prospect of some refund if construction costs were lower at some future time when the government might decide to complete.
The whole thing is that if the man. had not been let off his contract he would have lost $90,000. As a matter of fact, I think it would have been more. It is quite obvious that this refund never should be given unless the government lias definitely abandoned the Hudson Bay project. If the Hudson Bay railway is to be completed, in granting this refund the government is adding just that much to the cost and the country's expense.


George Perry Graham: I will make a statement of the other side of the case. My hon. friend has a little advantage of me in all these things, because he has the files.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has had them a long time. I have only had a chance to skim over them.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member has done pretty well. This is the situation for the committee to decide. McArthur had a contract to complete the Hudson Bay railway, and the late government had paid him so much money, but retained $90,000 as stated clearly in settlement to pay any loss that might accrue to the government if they proceeded to complete the road. That is, if the government in completing the road were compelled to pay more money than McArthur had contracted to build the road for, this $90,000 was to meet the loss. The engineers, under the estimate of that time, thought the loss could not be more than $90,000. If in completing the road, a greater cost was not incurred than was included in McArthur's contract, the whole $90,000 would come back. As a matter of fact, this $90,000 is McArthur's by the settlement, retained by the government as against the completion of the road. The only question is this: This has been retained for five years, perhaps, nearly six years. Is it fair for the government to sit down and keep McArthur's $90,000 for all eternity? It is his money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that when this road is going to be built?


George Perry Graham: You cannot compare time with eternity. It is his money retained by the government in case loss was incurred in connection with the completion of the contract. We cannot go on with the work this year. It does not look as if it would be gone on with next year. How long should the country retain this $90,000 belonging to McArthur? If the committee thinks five years is not long enough, my opinion is that if this had been a matter between private individuals, this $90,000 would have been handed back to him. When the matter comes up again, the contract will be made under new conditions and new terms; a new contract will be entered into. McArthur cannot get the money unless we vote it for him; but it is his money, as I say, retained by the government. Does the committee think it is time to give him back his $90,000?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not quite the way in which the matter should be put.


George Perry Graham: What is the right way? I want to be fair about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In 1919 he wanted to get rid of his contract and he got a good, big settlement. He got a just settlement. He got a settlement which he should be absolutely satisfied with.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Was Mr. McArthur prepared to go on with the contract, or did the government stop it?
Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: He certainly did not want to go on.


George Perry Graham: Did the government not stop the contract?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The deputy is there and he can give the minister the information.


George Perry Graham: The deputy informs me
that the work was stopped earlier than this time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, and I think the deputy will say something else too.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member has not answered the question. Did the government not stop the contract?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to get the information from the minister.


George Newcombe Gordon: The item before the
committee is the Hudson Bay railway construction, and the discussion is proceeding in connection with the McArthur claim.


George Perry Graham: We can pass the other one if the committee is willing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right.


Mr. BIRD:: No. I do not wish to detain the House more than a few minutes, but I desire to add a word of protest to those uttered by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) against the spirit of opposition manifested towards this western aspiration by one or two hon. members to our right. I trust that spirit is not widely shared by the members in any corner of this House. It would be very regrettable if a spirit of that kind prevailed in this House. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) seems to be obsessed by twin antipathies, one to the Progressive party and the other to the western part of Canada. Usually his judgment is to be relied upon. When his mind is working in a sphere with which it is familiar, we delight to listen to his utterances; but when he is under the influence of those pet aversions of his, his judgment seems to wander far from sound logic. I want to say, as I have tried to say before in this House, that the Hudson Bay railway transcends a mere political matter. It is an aspiration of the West and of the whole of the West. When hon. members stand up and say with superficial finality that the East will not do this and the East will not do the other, we can do what we regret to do, what we think it is always inadvisable to do, we can stand up and

say that the West will do this and the West will do the other. That is a spirit that ought not to be engendered in this House by responsible members. It is a spirit that ought to be avoided if possible. Where will this Dominion arrive at if hon. members deliberately on every occasion take the opportunity to stir up that kind of spirit of blind, unreasoning opposition between one part of Canada and another? I would not mind, no hon. member would mind, if that kind of thing was supported by facts and reasons; but the hon. member for St. John and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) have had ample opportunity in this House to array their facts upon this question, to stand up in a reasonable manner and to meet argument with argument previously in this session and in the last session. Did they do that? At this moment, in a totally unsupported manner, without a single fact, without the least suspicion of acquaintance with the facts, they stand up and deliberately tell this House and the West that the East is forever and for all time opposed to this aspiration of western Canada. One trembles almost to think what the repercussion in western Canada will be of a recent act of the Senior Chamber of this parliament. We want to know how far responsible statesmen in this country are going to go with matters of that kind. If some of these hon. members were a little better acquainted with the sentiment that prevails in western Canada, they would be a little more careful before adding fuel to fires that are already burning pretty briskly. Hon. members will stand up and proclaim their love for this wide Dominion of ours, speaking in superlatives, and yet when it comes to practical matters wherein all the sympathies of all parts of Canada may be legitimately sought these men will deliberately try to drive in the wedge and make it impossible for the country to work harmoniously and in a practical way I would advise these gentlemen to make their patriotism a little more practical. Let them use their imaginations in trying to visualize what the future of Canada can only hold if the communities in all parts of the country will co-operate under some form of reasonable compromise.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would recall the
attention of the hon. member to the fact that he has already dealt rather fully with the question of the failure of certain hon. members to appreciate certain things. There is a definite item before the committee, however, and I would ask him tc confine his remarks thereto.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Thomas William Bird: The item is an important
one, but the issue raised by the hon. gentleman to my right is of still greater importance.


George Newcombe Gordon: It does not happen
however to be the item before the committee. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the subject matter under discussion.


Thomas William Bird: Perhaps I am taking hon.
gentlemen too seriously.


An hon. MEMBER:: You certainly are.


Thomas William Bird: If that is the feeling of the
committee I am prepared to let the matter go so far as that particular aspect of it is concerned. With regard to the vote itself, what is provided now is a very small start, but I must be grateful for small mercies. I cannot understand just how this $350,000 is going to put that 300 miles of line into anything like its original condition. I understand the minister to say that it is to be applied to the northern 100 miles, but I gathered from the deputation that was down here some weeks ago that the whole of the line was in very bad repair. The first 200 miles, although it had been in partial operation some time, appeared to be in very poor condition, and if that is the case I can see that this $350,000 will not go very far.


Murray MacLaren: Does the hon. member
not think that $350,000 is sufficient for the purpose of taking up the rails?


Thomas William Bird: So far as I can understand,
the question is not of taking up but of putting down rails, or rather of repairing the rails that already exist. Now this should not be a political matter but it seems to me that there is a strong attempt being made to use it for political purposes. With regard to the original intention of the board to take up these rails, it was by accident that I was instrumental in making that fact generally known to the public, and from the knowledge I have of the circumstances I am of the opinion that Sir Henry Thornton's acquaintance with the question was subsequent to the action of the board. Even if he did approve of the board's action, that can be easily explained. Sir Henry Thornton was newly arrived in this country, and he would naturally know little of the necessities of western Canada; and had he been here before and been acquainted with the conditions that have existed so long it is inconceivable to me that he would have approved of that action of the board, which I will not begin to explain. I am not going to offer any criticism; probably the board considered themselves justified. No doubt
the desire was to get out the material; and so far as my knowledge goes, whenever Sir Henry Thornton knew the state of public opinion in the West concerning this matter he must immediately have disapproved of what had been done. Has the minister any expert advice as to what this amount of money will accomplish, and to what extent this 300 miles will be restored to its original condition? This is an important question and it would be useless spending all this money on the last 100 miles if the first 200 miles, which constitutes the mos-t useful part of the line, is to be given no attention.


George Perry Graham: The first 185-not 200-
miles is occasionally operated. As regards the condition of the line beyond that, no statement can be made until the engineers are on the ground. This $350,000, as I explained at the outset, will not put the entire line in proper condition, but it is all we can spend just now.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to make a single
reference to one statement of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) with regard to the responsibility of another Chamber concerning the Branch Lines Bill. The hon. member would know, if he had read the addresses, that all that has to be done if the government really want to go on with the branch lines is for them to add to the estimates already here such an amount as it deems sufficient, and no hon. members, at all events on one side of the Senate, would have the least objection to accepting it, and certainly none in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Refund to J. D. McArthur & Co., $90,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) asked me a question, but I see he is' not in the House. Let me read from a letter on the file. It was written in September 1918 from McArthur to the Minister of Railways and it shows how the matter in question came about:
As you are aware, it is impossible, owing to war conditions, to proceed at present to build at schedule prices the Hudson Bay railway referred to in contracts between myself and the Dominion.
Then he states what is being done. In September, 1918, the man found that he could not go on with the contract owing to increased prices. About that time, perhaps a little later, the government had on hand of his moneys $400,000 odd. They let him out of his responsibilities; they merely held back $90,000 as against the losses which they will have when they come to build the line. I think the

Supply-Railways and Canals
deputy would tell his minister, if his memory is at all good-and I think it is-that Mr. McArthur at that time was very much pleased to receive the money; that it was a very good settlement. He has no right to this now at all. There is the deputy's letter of only last year, there is the action of Hon. Mr. Kennedy only last year. It is absurd to bring down in a supplemental estimate a claim like this: Surely the government do not want to put themselves in the position of forcing a thing like this through at the present stage of the session. It is idle to say that the government will only have the House sit when hon. members want to sit; that is nonsense, piffle of the purest kind. The government know that hon. members want to get away. They know that members have made their arrangements. They know it is wrong to keep this House sitting longer. It is a first-rate foundation for a reputation of forcing through in the dying days of the session-yes, in the dying seconds of the session-claims, settlements which have no basis in law, which have stood for years, and of forcing them through in this way because it is the only way of getting them through.


George Perry Graham: There is no desire to do that at all. I have sat up until four or five o'clock in the morning when Sir Robert Borden's estimates were being put through and when there would be only three or four members behind me

sat up two nights before the closing of the session-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not object to that at all.


George Perry Graham: Then why make a fuss about it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing to be accomplished by misrepresenting my position. I am objecting because this is not a proper vote to be considered in the Supplementary Estimates.


George Perry Graham: I have not much objection to what my hon. friend says about the contract. The only question is that they made a contract, McArthur accepted it, they kept $90,000 of his money-have we kept it long enough? An arrangement of that kind would not be tolerated five minutes between men in business.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, the claim would not be tolerated.


George Perry Graham: Ninety thousand dollars was to be handed back when there was no work being done and no prospect of it in the immediate future. Contracts must be construed in the light of reason. Is five years a 
sufficient time to withhold a man's drawback as against some loss you may make in construction when there is not even a proposal before the House to build the road?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The order in council went through in 1919. When my hon. friend says it is five years he is a year previous.


Arthur Meighen: It js strange that this is just the right time to decide that the $90,000 is to go to Mr. McArthur. Why is it not in the Main Estimates this year? Why can it not be held over for the Main Estimates of next year? This kind of estimate should not be in the Supplementaries which are considered in the last few days of the session, and the minister knows it. Let him wait and just see what investigation reveals. Let him watt and see what will be said about this vote if it appears in the Main Estimates when hon. members will have a real opportunity, as he knows they have not now, to look into it and discuss it. Let the minister hold this one a3 the one was held at the end of the session of 1921; let him have an investigation-and 1 will guarantee we will not run away from it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If I understand the arrangements correctly, the $90,000 is held by the government against any possible loss when the line is completed. That is the definite arrangement between the government and Mr. McArthur and it seems to me the first thing for the government to do is to determine whether or not they are going to build the railway, and then, in the light of that fact, make the arrangements with Mr. McArthur. I do not think Mr. McArthur is entitled to the money under the circumstances; the people of Canada should hold it against any possible loss that may be incurred in the completion of the railway. If the government had decided not to build the railway, then it would be proper to consider whether or not the money should be returned, but that not having been decided, I say there ,is no reason why the right of the people of Canada to am' portion of that money should be forfeited.
Item agreed to: Yeas, 40; Nays, 24.
Welland canal-Port Colborne elevator-extension, $350,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why has it been necessary to bring this item down in the Supplementary Estimates?


George Perry Graham: We appointed a committee consisting of the manager of the Montreal Harbour Commission, Mr. Smith, the manager

Supply-Railways and Canals
of the Grand Trunk elevators, and Mr. Henry, to make an investigation as to the whole situation. They brought in a report after the Main Estimates were down. It is very urgent to get this elevator in use if possible this reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for full and final settlement of claim of Telesphore Paradis, $15,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How many more
ancient claims have we got?


George Perry Graham: A settlement of this claim has been offered for years. Dr. Reid offered to put in the estimates $17,500, but Mr. Paradis refused to take it and continued pressing his claim. I propose to offer him $15,000, and if he does not accept it the item will never appear again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
claim for?


George Perry Graham: He claims a loss of $57,000 through sparks from an Intercolonial railway engine burning his property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many years
ago?


George Perry Graham: Quite a number. All the
ministers have made him offers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the older the claim the more reason for a supplementary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau canal-improvements-repairs and replacement of dam9-claims, $9,036.62.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understand from remarks made by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) last year that it was necessary for the government to maintain this canal on account of some arrangement made with the Imperial government at the time it w'as built. I suggest on account of the more or less uselessness of this canal the Prime Minister when in England this year should endeavour to have this arrangement terminated so that the liability of the country will be thereby lessened.


George Perry Graham: He will have a nice time doing it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal-improvements-roadway north of Buck-horn lock, $4,000.
James Arthurs: As I have not had an opportunity earlier this session I might on this item, as it is for a roadway, bring to the attention of the minister and the House the needs of a town known as Depot Harbour, which is the terminus of the Ottawa line, the
old Canada Atlantic. This town is situated on an island, an Indian reserve. It has no connection with the mainland and these people are absolutely isolated. It has a population of from 1,000 to 1,500. The engineer of the department has made an estimate of the cost to provide a short roadway one and a half miles long to connect with the mainland. The difficulty in the past has been that the Ontario government had no right to build a road this being an Indian reserve, and there is no authority for the building of it except by the Railway department. While it was under the jurisdiction of the Grand Trunk Railway we had a difficulty in another way,, but now that the government has taken over the Grand Trunk I think there is absolutely no justification for withholding a small grant for this purpose in order to give these people access to the outer world. It is not a boomer town; many of the inhabitants have resided there for many years. Many of them have to send their children forty or fifty miles to a continuation school, whereas if we had a road they would have only a very short distance to travel. This matter has been brought to the attention of the department, and I am only repeating now what I have said before in order to impress it on the minister. I trust that before another session a grant will be made to give these people some relief. It would be justifiable in every way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor General's cars-repairs, $40,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like some explanation of this item. In the Main Estimates there was a vote of $10,000 for re. pairing the Governor General's cars. I cannot conceive at all what this item may involve.


George Perry Graham: The other item was for ordinary repairs to these cars, Two cars had to be repaired, but as a matter of fact, when they came to be stripped at the shop it was found that a great part of them had to be absolutely rebuilt and steel under-frames put in. That accounts for this estimate, which I admit is a very large sum.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are these railway cars?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and Inspections-railways-including expenses of Advisory Fuel Committee-additional amount required, $5,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask what amount of this is attributable to the expenses of the Advisory Fuel Committee?
Supply-Railways and Canals


George Perry Graham: One cannot tell just what their expenses will be, as it depends on what travelling they will have to do. Last year they did very important work, and did it very quietly and unostentatiously. Mr. Magrath and Mr. McCourt made many trips to Washington and other parts of the States trying to protect Canadians against a coal shortage, and they succeeded admirably. They work for nothing. This is merely to provide for their expenses. If they do not travel the money is not used. They would not accept any remuneration whatever.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to take the opportunity on this item of making a few remarks with regard to that very question. I am more convinced than I was even before the Fuel Committee took up the question of Canada's fuel supply, that this is a national question of practically the first importance. At the present time we find that the American anthracite supply is rapidly running out. It will run out within man's age at the rate it is now being used. The visible supply of anthracite in Wales is reduced to a very low amount, about 5,000,000 tons a year. Over half of this amount is at the present time consumed by Great Britain, and the balance goes to Norway, Holland and to some extent Denmark. We can never rely upon even Welsh coal for an adequate supply of fuel. We cannot rely on Pennsylvania coal in the future for very long, and the time has come when this country must turn its attention towards the establishment of an all-Canadian fuel supply. That ought to be the aspiration of hon. members of this House who are true Canadians, as I hope we all are, to develop the hope of an all-Canadian fuel supply. Few hon. gentlemen can conceive the vast amount of money we are spending in the United States annually for coal. In the last ten years we spent $580,000,000 or a little better than that in the United States for coal. Had that amount of Canadian money been spent in this country one does not need to exert his imagination very much to see what the result would be. We have in the province of Alberta, it is estimated, over 17 per cent of the world's total coal supply. Great Britain, famous for many years as one of the greatest coal producing countries in the world, has only 5 per cent, and that will perhaps give Canadians some conception of the potentialities of our coal supply. We have recently established definitely that in the northwest portion of the province there is an area of 100 square miles of almost exposed semi-anthracite higher in heating value

than the Pennsylvania anthracite, and 80 miles of road would bring that into the markets of the Pacific and possibly as far east as Winnipeg. We have in that deposit of coal the power to practically control the coal supply of the west coast. We have in that portion of the country every known form of coal adaptable for every known purpose, domestic, industrial and shipping. We could coal every boat on the Pacific ocean and every householder from the Yukon to San Francisco, and it is a practical proposition. It would be a national question to open up these coal fields and develop them as a national industry, and I submit that it is in the interest of Canada that that should be done as speedily as possible.
Many recommendations have been made by the Advisory Fuel Board whose estimate we are considering. Some of them are of great value and some of minor value. The one of greatest value I think is that our attention should be turned to the solution of our transportation problem in connection with the coal supply. There is no coal problem in Canada. We have so much coal that one cannot form an adequate conception of it. Think of it-1,234,269 millions of metric tons. That is the calculated coal resources of Canada. I hope hon. members will realize from the little picture I have given the necessity of solving the transportation problem. We have the coal and all we need is transportation, and that problem we must solve. I hope the government will digest the report that was made by the Fuel committee the other day, and just here I want to pay a tribute to the excellent way in which the chairman conducted that committee, and to his extreme courtesy to both witnesses and members. I hope the government will take that report into very serious consideration, and more than that, put into active practice the recommendations of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To increase the amount of loan authorized by vote 139, Main Estimates, 1923-24-additional amount required, $1,550,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this to cover.


George Perry Graham: This covers 25 per cent of the cost of 2,000 freight cars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see. This is in connection with the equipment that has been ordered?


George Perry Graham: For equipment required by the board. There was a vote in the Main

Supply-Railways and Canals
Estimates but the board decided it needed more two or three weeks ago and made the request.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the total amount of equipment bought this year?


George Perry Graham: I think I gave that in a general statement I brought down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have trouble in getting complete statements.


George Perry Graham: I think I laid a statement on the Table the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I got a statement from the minister the other day and I wrote him this letter on loth June, that is fourteen
days ago:
Dear Mr. Minister,
I have perused the statements supplementary to statement No. 1 set out on page 3790 and following pages in Hansard. In the main statement you have given the headings or grouping of the vote, but it does not appear that proper details have been given in the supplementary statement. Take for example, in item (e),-


George Perry Graham: What are you reading
from?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am reading
from a letter written to you on the 15th June.
Take for example, in item (e), estimates for construction and betterments, Canadian Northern Railway system. The vote for western lines is $3,355,432, for eastern lines, $1,650,000, and special items $766,262.33. Electric lines, $950,000. No information whatever is given as to what construction is to be made on the one hand and betterments on the other. The items are left mixed up.
What I wanted were particulars showing where the money is going to be spent, where the new construction would take place. Under this heading lands required for construction purposes could be included. There is nothing whatever to show how much of this vote is for land and where the land is.
The House has no idea what it is doing.
The particulars should indicate where the lands required are situated and what vote is asked for each parcel. The ordinary details supplied to you as Minister of Railways should give full particulars.
My hon. friend was very angry with me the other day when he said that no one before had been asked-


George Perry Graham: Never.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -to table his little black book.


George Perry Graham: Never.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I said I only did it to save the hon. gentleman's time. I pointed out to him at that time that I 'had written for this information. I have not yet got it.
Why are these not submitted, and if insufficient, accompanied by proper details? Is parliament not entitled to the full information as to where the money it votes will be applied?
I have not gone over the other items of the statement in detail, but what I have already said w'ill indicate what is required, having regard to all the different items.
Of course I have had no answer. I do not know yet what lands were covered by this grant. My hon. friend may know whether the lands bought in Toronto are covered by this grant.


George Perry Graham: The matter is in the
Exchequer Court.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Exchequer Court does not give the money.


George Perry Graham: The details are given.
I think the money is paid out of consolidated revenue fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the payments should be voted.


George Perry Graham: They should be voted
after the payments are made. I think the Exchequer Court payments are made out of the consolidated revenue fund and then an estimate is brought down to cover them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have the payments been made?


George Perry Graham: The transaction is not
completed yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I suppose we will be told about that next year; we shall get the details then. Now, this $1,500,000 is for the 2,000 ears is it?


George Perry Graham: Yes, it is 25 per cent of the cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Twenty-five per cent for 2,000 cars?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of
cars?


George Perry Graham: One thousand automobile cars and a thousand freight cars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where have they been ordered?


George Perry Graham: I imagine they have not
been ordered yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is it
proposed to order them?


George Perry Graham: Tenders will be called
for in the usual way.
Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend does not know his deputy may be able to tell me, whether it is in Canada or the United States?


George Perry Graham: They are going to be
ordered in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All of them are to be ordered in Canada?


George Perry Graham: I do not think there
is any question of buying them anywhere else.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A considerable
proportion of others were ordered in the United States.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is trying
to leave a wrong impression altogether. The Canadian National Railway Board advertises for tenders, but my hon. friend is endeavouring to lead the committee to think that Canadian money is going to buy American cars. Now, as a matter of fact, the Canadian National Railways have a big mileage in the United States and it would be reasonable to buy a proportion of their equipment in that country for some of our railways are there. That is all that is being done. I do not think the system could be carried on otherwise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about. I was simply asking whether he was buying cars in the United States?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said "I know some of the others were bought in the United States" endeavouring to create a wrong impression.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many were bought in the United States?


George Perry Graham: I gave the whole list the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Purchased where?


George Perry Graham: I gave a return of the
equipment bought since October.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Purchased where?


George Perry Graham: I brought down a statement showing where they were purchased and the price paid. All that information was put on the Table.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would ever get round to giving me this information. I suppose I may hope to get it some time after the House is closed.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, without telling any tales out of school, I have

never seen the letter my hon. friend read. It was passed on to the department for answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if my hon. friend is blaming me for that.


George Perry Graham: I would not say so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When I mentioned it the other day my hon. friend knew about it.


George Perry Graham: This information will be
given to my hon. friend as soon as we get it.


Arthur Meighen: When it is no good.


George Perry Graham: I would not say when it is no good. Information is good at any time.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should
like to ask the government, through the minister, if they would consider increasing this vote to meet the requirements for branch lines in western Canada? There is a grave suspicion in this part of the House-nay more than a suspicion-that the Railway Bill recently passed forward from this House has been hoisted into the ethereal regions through the process known as the six months' hoist.


George Perry Graham: We have no information on the subject from the other House as yet, I suppose I shall get it later on in the morning.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister have any objection to holding this item over? If he wants any more specific information we have very good ground for believing that the bill has been destroyed. I think in the interests of western Canada some arrangements should be made by this government to take care of the requirements there. It is an intensely serious problem. I do not intend to go into the matter in detail, but I tell you that the future of this country depends entirely on what action may be taken by the government in this matter. The people out there are not going to stand for this very much longer. There is a very gra ve and serious condition arising. There have been several cumulative instances of it towards the end of this session, and the government is not doing anything to lessen this condition.


George Perry Graham: That would not have anything to do with this vote. You cannot increase the vote. You can bring in other votes and estimates at some other time, but the committee has not power to increase the vote.
Mr. GARLAND Bow River): I am under the impression the government has the power

Supply-Railways arid Canals
to increase the vote when it wishes to, and if the government is sincere and earnest in this matter, if it really wishes to give the western lines which it knows are needed, this is the opportunity of doing it. I suggest the item stand till the government has the information it requires.
Mr. GRAHAM. That has not anything to do with this vote.


Arthur Meighen: All that is necessary is to increase this item 139, simply to bring down a slip of paper similar to the one the government brought down yesterday afternoon, with as many words as there are here in this item.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a different thing. You require to bring down a further estimate.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I am seeking to explain.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You want to amend this.


Arthur Meighen: No, I am trying to make this clear. It cannot be added to this item, but all the government has to do is to bring down the slip of paper similar to the one brought down yesterday. It is quite clear this is the proper course to pursue if the government wants to go ahead with the work. Here is an item for the purpose of equipment, $25,000. The balance will be by an equipment trust bond which the government guarantees. Why should the $25,000 be here and the rest never appear in the estimates at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member knows why.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know why. If the hon. member thinks he can elighten us, let him do so. Item 139 appears on page 31 of the estimates and it covers about a page, and it reads:
Amount not exceeding $73,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, hereinafter called "the Company", or any Company specified in the first schedule to the act incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company, being chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919, or by the Company in respept of any railways, properties or works entrusted to the Company from time to time under the provisions of section 11 of the said chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919, or by or on behalf of any Company specified or referred to in chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1920; or any one or more of them, on any of the following accounts:-
(a)	Operating deficits whenever incurred or ascertained.
(b)	Acquisition of property, materials and supplies.
(c)	Interest and sinking funds on notes, securities or obligations.
(d)	Principal and interest of maturing or matured, loans secured or unsecured.
(e)	Construction and betterments.
(f)	Co-ordination or consolidation of railway lines and facilities.
(g)	Guarantees of securities.
Then it goes over on the next page and reads:
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council:
(a)	To meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred by the Company in respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the Company as aforesaid.
(b)	By way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:
If by way of loans, the amount or amounts advanced shall be repayable on demand, with interest at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council, from time to time, payable half-yearly, secured if and when directed by the Governor in Council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve. [DOT]
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of one or more of the said Companies specified by the Governor in Council, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto.
Consequently this covers loans and guarantees for all these purposes, including construction of the Canadian National railway. Therefore, all the government needs to do is to bring down an estimate, which it can do in a few hours, and just simply add what it wants for construction purposes. The government knows that the severest attack on its own conduct comes from its own friends.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the hon. member be willing to support such an amendment?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; as to the action of the other House there is no question whatever judging from the speeches made there.
Mr. GRAHAM; We must not discuss the other House. The hon. member says the only reason they did not pass the other bill was because it was not brought down in the way he thought it should be brought down. If he says this item is not in proper form-


Arthur Meighen: No, I say it is the right form and in the form in which the other should be put. Why should a quarter of the vote for equipment be put in the estimates and not the balances? Because the equipment vote covers both. The whole thing should be there. There should be no bill to osten-



Supply-Railways and Canals
sibly authorize the guarantee of the balance of the equipment, but really to enable the government to do it without bringing it into this estimate, because if the government simply added this to the estimates the other three-quarters, as well as the quarter, then it would be enabled to guarantee the three-quarters under the provisions of the last quarter of the estimates.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member brought it down this way.


Arthur Meighen: No. we brought down the amounts.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend on December 1st 1919, though the act was passed on June 6th, 1919, issued bonds for #7,500,000 not in the estimates. The balance is in the estimates. Then on May 1st, 1920, bonds were issued for $15,000,000, not in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: Were those bonds guaranteed by the government.


George Perry Graham: I do not think they were.


Arthur Meighen: Why would it be in the estimates?


George Perry Graham: How is the government going to guarantee these equipment bonds? As I understand it, the Finance Minister had no authority under the act to guarantee equipment bonds.


Arthur Meighen: There is no objection in the world to giving him authority but I object to having out of the estimates any comit-ment in relation to pur railways. When these bonds were issued they were not guaranteed by the government.


William Stevens Fielding: Were they not obligations chargeable on the country?


Arthur Meighen: No, they were not obligations on the treasury of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The treasury of Canada is responsible for every obligation now issued by the company.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister had thought for a moment, he would not have made that statement. The treasury of Canada is not responsible in relation to bonds it does not guarantee.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is responsible for any securities issued by the Canadian National Railway Company, whether guaranteed or not.


Arthur Meighen: The company is responsible.


William Stevens Fielding: Who are the company.


Arthur Meighen: We own the stock of the railway. The minister is trying to confuse the stock of the company with ownership. It is true we have to protect it in order to protect our stock but nobody would suggest that there would be anything in the estimates unless the treasury were directly bound. They know they cannot confuse me on the matter and they should not try to confuse the committee.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
should not try to confuse anybody else.


Arthur Meighen: I never try to confuse
anyone.


George Perry Graham: Not me in particular. As a matter of fact, this estimate is exactly according to the method adopted by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is perfectly right. I
am not objecting to it.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and my right hon.
friend said twice:	"Why should you not put
the whole amount in the estimate?"


Arthur Meighen: If you are guaranteeing
it, yes.


George Perry Graham: The government has no right to guarantee it. Does my right hon. friend say that we have the right to guarantee the bonds?


Arthur Meighen: If the government have not, let them put their bill through to give them the power.


George Perry Graham: I am not discussing that. This estimate is inserted in exactly the same way as my hon. friend inserted it in 1919.


Arthur Meighen: We did not guarantee
the bonds.
Mr. GRAHAM. Our legal adviser says that we have no right to guarantee equipment bonds.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend
is preventing the bill from going through.


Arthur Meighen: I am not. I am only
preventing that feature of it in which an effort is made to escape the responsibility of putting the amount in the estimate.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's friends in another place

I must not mention it-denounced the passage of the bill of the Minister of Finance just as they are denouncing the

Supply-Railways and Canals
other bill, and it will probably meet the same fate if it ever gets there. At the present moment that bill is not through; there is no power to guarantee the equipment bonds, and we are advised under those conditions that this estimate is in the same position as the estimate put through by my right hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How have we
been guaranteeing bonds for the last three years?


George Perry Graham: Not for equipment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: None of them?


George Perry Graham: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We bought some equipment two or three years ago. Does my hon. friend say that there was no guarantee at all?


George Perry Graham: Not on equipment bonds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does he
make a distinction between equipment bonds and the other bonds? We guarantee the other bonds all right.


George Perry Graham: We are advised that the
law makes a difference; that we have not any authority.


Arthur Meighen: That may be until the
hour when the bill goes through which gives the power to guarantee. While I do not think it is a fact, it may be that they have not the power. But the government knows all it has to do is to strip from that bill as from the construction bill the clause which enables them to escape the responsibility of putting the amount in the estimates, and they will both go through without the least difficulty.


George Perry Graham: How does my hon. friend know that?


Arthur Meighen: I know it just the way
the minister knows it.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, the
Upper Chamber objects to many of the lines on the ground that they are not needed.


Arthur Meighen: They were chiefly of
a minor character.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have been endeavouring for some time to call the attention of the committee to a condition that exists with regard to equipment on the government roads and which, I think, might obviate the necessity of building so many cars. I believe there is an arrangement between the railroads of Canada and the United States that if either
retain cars of the other beyond a certain number of days, they pay one dollar rental a day for those cars. I think this is a very unwise arrangement for Canada for this reason: In a time of congestion when freight cars are badly needed, they are -worth more than a dollar a day. During the season we are shipping a large amount of produce to the United States, and they retain our cars while the rush is on. I may be wrong in this, and if so I am subject to correction. I understand they are able to retain them by paying a dollar a day rent for them. I think our railroads realize that this is no rental for a car, because if a Canadian occupies more than the 48 hours which is allowed for either unloading or loading a car, he is charged demurrage of one dollar for the first day, two dollars for the second day, and five dollars a day after that. If some such arrangement as this were made with the United States, they would return our cars much more promptly. I am informed on very good authority that hundreds, yes thousands of our cars arc retained by the United States during the grain-moving period, while our railroads are starved for cars to haul grain.


George Perry Graham: This matter is in charge
of the Car Association. There is no way of tracing a car up unless you keep rignt after it. When a Canadian car gets into the United States, it may be sent as far as possible from home and a dollar a day rental does not make much difference.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I realize that in a
charge of one dollar a day, there is nothing to induce the railways to send those cars back. I understand this is an international matter. During the grain movement, we send far more cars to United States' ports than we receive, so that they have a great advantage over us. The management of our government railroads would be well advised to endeavour to get some new arrangement in this particular, because this would help us out in the car shortage.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Railways and the leader of the Opposition have very successfully placed this whole question in a state of confusion so far as I am concerned and, I think, as regards most of the other hon. members, if not all of them. T should like to ask the Minister of Railways if he is willing to seek some properly legal means by which the western lines can be supplied. Is he willing to do something at this session before we prorogue to enable western Canada to get the lines that he acknowledges are required?

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Perry Graham: That is a very easy question to ask and a very hard one to answer. The government cannot sit down, and in two or three hours go over the whole system and take a line out that my hon. friend wants and think that will be all right.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister should not make inferences of that kind.


George Perry Graham: I will put jt on somebody else.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not asking for any particular line.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend should not Le so sensitive. I will say some other line This is a list of 28 lines that have been selected after week after week of study and consideration. The bill, according to reports I have heard, has been kicked out of some other place. We have no right to discuss that; but at this time in the session it is a pretty large order to endeavour to work this out in some other way than the only real practical way there was. I do not intend tc be put in the place of so easily doing what people call "passing the buck."


Edward Joseph Garland: Personally- and I think I may speak for members in this corner of the House-I think I can say that time is of no object to us in a matter of this importance. We will wait and allow him all the time he wants to bring in the necessary legislation.


Arthur Meighen: About ten seconds would be enough if the will were there. The estimate for the roads in the bill was, I think, 828,000,000. All the minister has to do is to estimate what would be spent the first year. I guarantee that 810,000,000 would cover a good deal more than would probably be completed. All he has to do is to add $10,000,000 to this estimate-that means eight figures -and it is all through. Personally I am in no hurry; I will give him time to write eight figures or eight thousand.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend after arranging with his friends to kill the government measure in regard to the Government railways is endeavouring once more to draw a herring across the trail.


Arthur Meighen: I will not allow the hon. member to say such things about me. I made no arrangement whatever. Every effort of mine was the other way, and the hon. member knows that too.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
know it.


Arthur Meighen: All the government has to do is to put the amount in. Let them try that and see if there is any difficulty.


Mr GARLAND (Bow River):: I want to have a direct answer from the government in regard to this matter. Perhaps the government would like to have a day or two to consider it, and I would suggest that it be allowed to stand.


Arthur Meighen: There is no necessity for the item to stand.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the item is going to carry I should like to have an answer.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I want to add my voice to what the member for Bow River has said in regard to some method being found of proceeding with the branch lines as proposed by the minister a few days ago. If the bill is not passed by the other Chamber I would strongly urge the minister that he take some definite action in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for surveys and investigation of a railway from a point on the Canadian National railway towards Peace river, $50,000.
Thomas George McBride: I think the committee
will agree that I have not been taking up the time of the House to any great extent, and in view of that fact I will claim the indulgence of hon. gentlemen for a short time in order that I may place before the government the facts in regard to this item. I have been responsible to a certain extent for having this $50,000 included in the estimates and when I am through, if the committee think that it is not good business to spend the money then I would ask that they vote against it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no objection to it.


Thomas George McBride: This is too serious a
matter to let slide without informing the House concerning it. I intended explaining this question when the budget was under consideration but I was asked to let it stand until some other time, for the reason that it was desired to take the vote on the budget on the 23rd of May. Now the Peace river country embraces an area of 74,000,000 acres, the greater part of which is good agricultural land. Of this amount 43,000,000 acres are in Alberta and 31,000,000 acres in British Columbia. The Dominion government also owns 3,500,000 on the British Columbia side of the boundary. Some people have stated that the Peace river is a navigable stream. I say it is not; it is a difficult stream to get at. The

Supply-Railways and Canals
banks of the river are from 500 to 1,500 feet high, and even if the river were navigable you cannot get up and down the banks to take anything to the river. In that district there is a water power at Hudson's Hope, which is supposed to be second only to Niagara, and it would be capable of furnishing power for all the trains of the Canadian National railways west of Lucerne. At Findlay Fort, above Hudson's Hope, where some five rivers meet, it has been stated by men who have prospected in the district for many years that if a pulp mill were erected in the locality there is timber enough to supply the mill with pulpwood, enough to turn out 1,000 tons of paper per day for 100 years. This is on the British Columbia side of the boundary. At Hudson's Hope there are to be found some of the best anthracite coal fields in Canada, and the Imperial Oil Company has bored a number of wells and is installing machinery to drill more. I am referring, of course, to the British Columbia side. On the Alberta side there are railway facilities. There is the Edmonton and Dunvegan line which was built by Mr. McArthur and later on taken over by the Alberta government. That line runs about 130 miles north from Edmonton then West to McLellan, a branch of it runs north again from McLellan, crosses the Peace river at Peace river crossing, and extends about 25 miles north of the river. The other branch runs east to Spirit river and there is still another branch running south from Spirit river to Grande Prairie. These lines provide the Alberta side of the Peace river country with a fair railway proposition; it gives ample railway transportation.
It is suggested that a line be run from Brule lake to Grande Prairie, and this is the line to which I want to direct the attention of the government. At Brule lake it would strike the Canadian National line at an elevation of 3,265 feet above the sea level. The Peace river country is from 1,300 to 1,400 feet above sea level, therefore it is obvious that the line would have a heavy grade from the Peace river country up to Brule lake. At Brule lake there are coal mines from which is obtained almost all the coal used by the Canadian National railways west of Edmonton and north of Kamloops. It has been stated that this coal is of first-class quality. That is not correct; only about 20 per cent of it is of first class quality; the rest of it, I should say, is third class quality, although the Canadian National Railways are using it. I might say that before the Canadian National railways were taken over by the government a contract was entered into by the owners of these mines which were directly
connected with the railways to supply them with coal for a number of years. That contract, I understand, has not yet expired.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must point out to the hon. member that he is very much limited m his discussion of this particular item.


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, I took this matter up with you personally and you practically consented to give me a free hand.


George Newcombe Gordon: I could not consent to give the hon. member a free hand. He must keep within the scope of the item.


Thomas George McBride: I am dealing with the question before the committee in regard to the extension of the railway from Brule lake tc Grande Prairie, and why it is suggested that this line should be built. There were three men around this building lobbying for over three months in connection with this line.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is no objection to the vote carrying.


Thomas George McBride: But I object to the vote being carried so far as this particular line is concerned. This line is supposed to tap some coal fields about half way between Brule lake and Grande Prairie, and it is suggested that these are the finest coal fields in Canada. Well, I question that for I have it on the authority of men who know these fields that this statement is not correct. It has been stated, and evidence was given to the effect before the committee on Mines and Minerals that these coal fields would look to Vancouver for their market, and the statement was also made that they would give from 3,000 to 4,000 tons a day to the railways to carry. I want to say that they have no market in Vancouver; and will not be able to sell their coal there.


William F. Carroll: Why?


Thomas George McBride: I will tell you why. I have said that Brule is 3,265 feet above the sea level. In his evidence before the committee Mr. Errington said:
The market is undoubtedly on the Pacific coast.
Then he was asked:
I suppose this coal is better than most coal in the West?
He does not answer that question. Then he was asked where he could get a market for it, and he said, the Pacific coast, Vancouver. He was asked how much he expected to get for the coal, and he said $4 or $5 at the mines. He said he would deliver it at Vancouver at $7 per ton. He says in another place in his evidence that the grade going

Supply-Railways and Canals
in there is something the same as the Crow3-nest pass. Now if Crowsnest pass has a good grade is the railway prepared to haul the coal at $2 from there to Vancouver? It costs $12 a ton to haul potatoes from Prince George to Vancouver, which is practically the same distance. I will cut that in two and take it at $6 a ton; add $5 to that and the cost in Vancouver would be $11. The Comox coal on Vancouver island is pronounced by the British navy to be the best coal not only in Canada but in the world. According to engineers' report there is enough coal there to last over a hundred years and it can be bought to-day for $8 per ton. Yet these men say they will take that coal from Brule lake to Vancouver and sell it at $7 a ton, whereas at the very least, according to their own figures, it would cost $10 to get it there. How can it compete under those conditions? Not only that, but you can buy oil in Vancouver at $1.25 a barrel, and four barrels of oil are equal to a ton of coal. Three men will do the work of twelve on a steamer when oil is burned instead of coal. Then where is the market for coal out in Vancouver? There is absolutely no market for it, yet these people come down here and want the government to invest $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 in the building of a line to take coal to Vancouver.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend not think that the propaganda carried on in connection with that road was more on behalf of the wheat interests than of the coal business?


Thomas George McBride: Well, I am coming to that. I will admit that if that line was built to Grand Prairie many million bushels of wheat would come out that way. The Grand Prairie district is one of the best mixed farming districts in Canada, but why should this government build a line in there to take the freight away from a railraod that has been built in good faith at the request of the people? What right has this government to tap a country that has been already tapped, when there is another section of this country equally as good without any railway facilities? Some years ago a line was supposed to be built from Vancouver into the Peace river country, known as the Pacific Great Eastern, but that line has practically been abandoned. I would just like the committee to note a few of the grades on that line in order to show that it would not be possible for it to carry grain or anything else out of the Peace river country at a fair rate to the farmer. It starts at North Vancouver and it 
runs out 12J miles to White Cliff. Then, because it gets into a difficult country, it skips 29 miles and starts in at Squamish. At Squamish it is on the sea leVel, but at Alta lake a little distance above Squamish, it rises to a height of 2,100 feet; then it drops down again to 700 feet. Then at Birkenhead it rises to 1,600 feet, and at Lillooet it drops again to 750 feet. Then at Kelly's lake it rises to 3,500 feet and it drops again at Clinton to 3,200. Then it rises again at Horse lake to 3,860 feet and at Quesnel it drops to 1,600 feet. How in the name of common sense could that road ever take grain out of the Peace river country to compete with a line which has a good grade? I am referring now to the Grand Trunk Pacific grade which is the best that can be found on the continent of America. About two years ago the provincial government got an expert engineer, Mr. Sullivan, to examine that railway and report upon it. That was done after they spent $42,000,000 on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I will read just a few lines of the engineer's report. Speaking of that portion of the road from Quesnel to Prince George which runs 82 miles south of Prince George, he says:
I have never before seen such a large area of country so adverse to railway construction and if built the maintenance of this section would be almost prohibitive.
He says further:
If such conditions had been encountered at the Panama canal I do not think the undertaking would ever have been completed. I therefore recommend that the road between Quesnel and Prince George be abandoned at once and that the tracks be taken up and sold.
I give this simply to show that that line will never be able to take grain out of the Peace river country; it is absolutely beyond reason. If the farmers would charge a sufficient freight rate to justify operation, the people would be prohibited from raising grain in the Peace river country. What I suggest is that there is a line started at Prince George: The highest altitude from Prince George into the Peace river country is less than 2,400 feet. When you leave Prince George if you take the Parsnip river you would be going through good agricultural land practically all the way. If you go through the Pine pass, which is a shorter route, there would be a portion of land that would not be very good for agricultural purposes, but that area extends only about half the way. Now, you may ask: Why start the line at Prince George? Prince George is a divisional point on the Grand Trunk Pacific. It has a population of over 2,000. It is built where

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the Fraser and the Nechako rivers meet. It is a good townsite; it has a never-failing supply of water, and, there are good routes from there into the Peace river country.
As I have already said, the highest point between Prince George and the Peace river country is 2,400 feet, which would make a very small resisting grade from the Peace river country to Prince George. There you could connect with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it would only be a little over 500 miles from Prince George. In other words, you would bring the Peace river country within about 600 miles of the seaport at Prince Rupert. That would put the Peace river country in a position to raise wheat, and the freight rate would be less than any other section of the prairie. There is nothing to equal it. There are great possibilities in that country-and this government owns three and a half million acres of the land in the Peace river district. Within a few years of this line being built there are possibilities of anywhere from ten to fifteen to twenty million bushels of wheat being raised every year. It is a splendid country, and if the government wants to connect up with the Edmonton-Dunvegan line, that line is graded through to the boundary at Pouce Coupe. There are some fifty-two miles of the line from Pouce Coupe to Spirit river. The grade is in but the rails are not laid. If this line was built in there it would supply freight enough to the western section of the Grand Trunk Pacific to put the road on a paying basis. If it is not built in there, I do not see where the road is going to get freight to put it on a paying basis. I do not ask the government to build this line if it is not a good business proposition, but I ask them to investigate and see what the possibilities of that country are.
I may say that the Canadian Pacific railway has four parties in that country at the present time investigating and if the government cannot see their way to build that line after investigating I would ask them to leave the course free to the Canadian Pacific. Do not. hold the country back. If the government will not build a line let the Canadian Pacific build out of Prince George and have running rights over the government railway on a rental basis. From the information I have the Canadian Pacific, if the government are not prepared to build, are quite prepared to go ahead and build.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the hon. member got up to address the committee I understood that he was in favour of this vote but after hearing his address I am rather confused about it, and I move that the item be struck out.


George Perry Graham: He is only joking, Mr. Chairman.
M. KENNEDY (Edmonton): Is it the intention to survey from the east or the west side of the Rockies north to the Peace river or both?


George Perry Graham: That will have to be
determined by the Canadian National Railway management. They are going to take charge of this work and I hope they will have the opportunity of making quite an investigation in addition to making the survey. Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-Halifax, Louisburg and Bay St. Lawrence, via way ports, steam service between, $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I just want to make a general observation on these steamship subventions. We have an awful lot of them, and the map is fairly criss-crossed with them if you try and follow them all along the coast. I am going to ask my hon. friend what is the necessity of having these new services? We have a tremendous1 lot now.


James Alexander Robb: There are four new ones, Items 523 and 524 for instance, but they are all serving new districts. The service provided by Item 524 is across the St. Lawrence to serve some people who are very far away from a railway. There is another item for $2,000, in settlement of a debt that was contracted last fall when we provided for getting fish out for the fishermen at a time when they could not get it out in any other way. I admit they are pretty hard to follow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everybody
knows perfectly well that this is a time to get rid of subventions instead of multiplying them. I am going to ask my hon. friend, will he take the trouble between now and next session to look at the map which he will find in his own department just crisscrossed with these services, and get busy and bring some order out of this chaos.


James Alexander Robb: Last year soon after the estimates were put through I instructed Mr. Tupper to make a very careful survey of the situation with a view to trying to eliminate some of these lines. He came back and I am bound to say that we did not succeed very well, but I could see that there was some reason for running these services into places where the people are without railways and would not have other means of communication.
Supply-M iscellaneous


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has subsidized services going over practically the same routes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the general nature of these services? Is it purely a mail service or traffic and mail?


James Alexander Robb: Both. They nearly all carry
mail.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there
any specific number of trips to be provided in connection with this service?


James Alexander Robb: That is provided in them all.
This amount is required to provide for a service between Halifax and ports on the south shore of Cape Breton and thence to the north shore. The service is performed by the Mayflower Shipping Company of Halifax, with the steamer May Queen, which is 114 feet long, freight capacity 150 tons, and a speed of 9 knots. It performs a freight service but has no passenger accommodation. This service wall give communication between Halifaix and the east coast and enable fishermen to market their fish in Halifax. At the present time the people on the north coast can do nothing with their fish but send it to Sydney, which, of course, is not a fish market.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Nova Scotia-miscellaneous and unforeaeen, further amount required, $25,000.
Charles A. Stewart: The insertion of this item is a mistake. It is not necessary to vote this $25,000. It got in through an error.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that resolution 535 be withdrawn? Resolution withdrawn.
Government of the Northwest Territories-purchase and maintenance of new ship, further amount required, $40,000.
To establish and operate wireless station at Mayo, $19,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why is this new ship required, and what is the character of the vessel?


Charles A. Stewart: The committee will remember that when the estimates for the northwest territory were going through I explained we were buying a ship from the British Admiralty, and that a further amount of $40,000 would be asked to complete the payment. The sum of $40,000 was voted in the original estimates; this is to complete the payment for the ship.	'


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the ship required for?
{Mr. Robb.l


Charles A. Stewart: To go to the Arctic.


Edward Joseph Garland: For what purpose?


Charles A. Stewart: To visit the ports in the Arctic.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Lands and Parks-
Compassionate allowance to T. W. Dwight, $1,000 To provide for the payment to Mrs. P. T. E.
Fortier of a compassionate allowance equal to the retiring allowance her husband would have been entitled to under the Public Service Retirement Act, chapter 49,	11-12
George V	 1,44*
Canadian National Parks-
Further amounted required	 25,000
Edward Joseph Garland: What is this further amount of $25,000 for the Canadian National Parks required for?


Charles A. Stewart: We require this amount for the slaughtering of the buffalo in W'ainwright park. The sum of $13,000 was voted for repairs to buildings but we need to hire men and must pay them their wages. As a matter of fact we cannot take the money from-the sale of the meat, therefore we hate to have a further amount for the purpose of carrying on this work of slaughtering the buffalo.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I understand that this $25,000 is to hire men to slaughter buffalo?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not merely for that, it is to cover the whole work in connection with it. We expect to slaughter a great number this year.


Edward Joseph Garland: I can inform the minister that if he needs men we can get a large number of competent persons in this district, anxious to get a little loose cash, who are quite willing to slaughter buffalo at a much lower rate than is involved in this amount of $25,000.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not only to pay for the labour, there is the shipping and care of the meat. We have to put this meat into cold storage, and ship it to Edmonton or points eastward wherever we will be able to sell it. There are a great many expenses connected with it but we hope to make some' money out of this work. We may not spend $25,000. I wish to assure my hon. friends we will not spend any more than is necessary but it is estimated we will require that amount in this work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Miscellaneous
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-amount required to provide salaries, transportation, travelling and general administrative expenses of Federal Appeal Board and District Boards of Review, etc., including provision for transportation and travelling expenses of applicants to and from seat of Appeal Board or District Boards of Review, remuneration to official soldiers' advisors and partial refund of expenses incurred in presentation of individual cases to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Board of Pension Commission, $357,996.
Alfred Speakman: Are we, in passing this vote, taking it for granted that in another place they are going to allow our bill to go through?


Arthur Meighen: It is through, I understand.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The bill has just been reported to the House. I have had the opportunity of looking over it for a moment and the provisions for the creation of District Appeal Boards have not been agreed to in the Senate. I will be in a position to give all details at the morning sitting later.


Alfred Speakman: Will this vote be required?


Henri Sévérin Béland: An estimate must be prepared and the money voted in advance.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not want to delay the committee except for a moment. I was asked to present a petition to the House dealing with the conduct of a certain official in connection with the legislation, I believe, before the Senate. I want to direct. the attention of the minister to the fact that apparently ills officials have taken a contrary attitude to that legislation in the Upper Chamber. That must create a rather interesting situation between the minister who is responsible for the legislation and the deputy minister. I suggest that it will probably have the effect of lessening the confidence of ex-service men in the officers of the department. I simply want to mention that to the minister for his consideration.


Mr. CLARK:: This item should be considered at the same time as the legislation out of which it arises. I do not see how the minister can estimate what amount will be required for this purpose until he knows the purpose for which the money will be required.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend knows it is usual to prepare an estimate on the legislation which goes through the House. We could not, for instance, wait to make an estimate until the bill was reported to the Senate and any amendments that were acceptable had been concurred in by the House. In some quarters the opinion js held that the estimate's
have been laid on the table rather late. I do rot think we could have waited much longer.


Arthur Meighen: That is claimed in four quarters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All quarters.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may say that in 1920 my hon. friends laid Supplementary Estimates on the table on the eve of prorogation.


Arthur Meighen: They were not of such a character as these.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They were brought down on the eve of prorogation.


Arthur Meighen: We do not object to this item.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Supplementary Supplementaries in 1927 amounted to $62,000,000.
Mr. [DOT] BELAND: The Supplementary Estimates to which I refer were brought down on the eve of prorogation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the hon. mem-l er wishes to have a debate on this subject now we can oblige him.


John Arthur Clark: It is only a matter of a
few hours. We ought to know what we are going to require the money for. Surely the minister can tell us what amount of monev will be needed. I cannot see the object of voting money until you know what you are voting it for.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We know what it is for.
My hon. friend, of course, will realize that the Senate having done away with these boards certain central machinery will have to be provided for, and I understand the amount will be larger than the provisions already in the bill. If the whole amount is not needed it will not be spent.


John Arthur Clark: The Senate has made certain amendments to the bill and surely the minister has those amendments before him. I think the minister should tell the House whether the government proposes to accept the amendments.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I cannot say until I have
considered them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of a technical investigation under the supervision of the Department of Insurance, into the merits of the various forms of roof coverings from the standpoint of fire prevention, $15,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Could we have
some explanation as to this item?
Supply-M iscellaneous


William Stevens Fielding: It is to provide for an
investigation to be held into the various roof coverings which are being offered to the country, as having an important bearing on the question of fire protection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Lord Selkirk Association towards the erection of a Monument to Peguis, the Saulteaux Indian Chief, $1,200.
George Newcombe Gordon: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
one of the items that continually appear in the estimates for monuments and things of that character. I wish to enter my protest against the general practice of voting sums for these monuments. I rose to my feet is the Chairman was reading that item, and was speaking when he said the item was carried. I claim the item was not carried.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member was in his seat when the item was declared carried The item was declared carried and there were not five members who rose to vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: I object to rushing business through.


Arthur Meighen: This is jamming the
business through.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any hon. member desire to speak to the item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: ' Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Empire Exhibition-further amount required, $150,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Can we have an explanation of that?


Charles A. Stewart: The committee will remember that when the $500,000
item was going through I notified the committee that I had been informed that that was not sufficient to carry the work of the exhibition forward far enough, and a further vote would be required. It is estimated that the exhibition will cost Canada all told about $900,000. I told the committee that we were not spending as much money as Australia, or some of the other overseas dominions. We were informed that Australia was spending $1,200,000.


Arthur Meighen: Is Duncan Marshall to
be in charge?


Charles A. Stewart: No. he is
not employed in the department over which I have charge. Mr. Tolmie is the man in charge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Purchasing Commission-salaries and contingency including salary of L. H. Beer as Salvage Officer at §5,000 per annum, §5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that a new
office ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, an officer appointed for the purpose of salvaging property of the government. An officer of this character could save the government many thousands of dollars every year.


Arthur Meighen: Where does the Civil
Service Commission come in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This particular person has had a wide experience in matters of this kind, and has himself prepared a plan which he submitted to the government for consideration, and on account of his experience in the work the government-wish to retain him. That is why parliament is asked to vote this amount.


Arthur Meighen: Putting the name in the Estimates is just a way of getting around the act-the only way it could be done. If he has all these qualifications the presumption is the commission would appoint him; but I presume he has certain political qualifications that might not be taken into account by the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Loans to provinces to encourage the erection of dwelling houses, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council of the 3rd of December, 1918, and amendments thereto from time to time made- to be applied only to cases in which - the respective provincial governments have already made commitments with the municipalities; the appropriation to cease entirely at the end of the present fical year. $4,000,000.
Levi William Humphrey: Could the minister tell the committee how the $4,000,000 is distributed and if any part of it is available for British Columbia.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the aim of the government to terminate this expenditure, and we thought we were able to do so, but it has been represented that in several of the provinces they have come under obligations to the municipality, and they have asked us to make provision to cover these matters. I think the province of British Columbia is not concerned in the matter. It is Quebec chiefly, and Nova Scotia has asked for a moderate sum. The bulk of the money is to fulfil obligations which the government of Quebec has entered into with its municipalities. I do not think British Columbia has asked anything.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume that both of these provinces had not drawn their full quota.


William Stevens Fielding: No, Quebec had not
drawn its full quota and I think Nova Scotia is in the same position. There has been no extension of the original quota.


Levi William Humphrey: If any obligations have been entered into by the other provinces, will any of this money be available?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if the quota is not
used.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Scottish Pioneer Association to assist in the "Hector" celebration, $15,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to have an explanation of this item.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A hundred
and fifty years ago there came from the western islands to this country of ours certain Scottish settlers who laid the foundation of the future development of Canada through their successors. They landed in the province of Nova Scotia, and an association of Scottish Pioneers has been formed which has at its head as horn, president the Right Hon. Bonar Law, the former Premier of Great Britain, and as vice-presidents distinguished men in all parts of Canada, This association was formed to commemorate the landing of these Scottish pioneers. The celebration will take place, beginning the 15th July next. The monument has been obtained by subscription entirely apart from this grant. The monument is to be unveiled by His Excellency Lord Byng, and the events which usually follow an occasion of that kind will take place in the town and county during that week. Men of the Scottish race in all parts of Canada, including prominent men in British Columbia and in the western provinces, are interested in this event. I hope the committee, in appreciation of those men who came out in days of privation and difficulty and whose successors have gone to all parts of Canada, will gladly give this grant which will be expended by an organization made up of men whose character and reputation are undoubted in the celebration which everyone ought to attend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) was interested in this matter. I think he wanted to find out why this grant was recommended, in view of the fact that refusals were made of requests for grants for exactly similar purposes. He told me that he did not expect to be here himself.
He said he had asked my hon. friend for a grant for a celebration of a very historic event at Kingston, and that my hon. friend had told him that he would have to reject it, having rejected a similar request for Nova Scotia, having reference to this same vote. Apparently the Nova Scotia request which was refused is now being granted, and the Kingston request remains refused. He also said that a large gathering was to be held at Belleville of the United Empire Loyalists, and a grant was refused on the same grounds. Perhaps my hon. friend can tell me what difference there was to change his mind other than the fact that we have now as a member of the cabinet the acting Minister of National Defence-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The matter is not a local one at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -who represents the country and whose by-election is not yet fixed.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember any applications made for a grant either at Kingston or Belleville, but I would have to know something more about these matters before I could speak definitely. I am quite sure it was nothing of a similar character because I know the applications would be dealt with on the same basis. There is a grant further down the list to aid in the construction of a monument at Orillia. While I do not say that no applications were made either by Kingston or Belleville, I should like tc look into these matters before speaking definitely.


Arthur Meighen: The Orillia case is not a parallel one at all.


William Stevens Fielding: They are both to celebrate great events.


Arthur Meighen: The grant at Orillia is to aid in the construction of the Champlain monument.


William Stevens Fielding: It is to celebrate a great ev ent.


Arthur Meighen: This "Hector" celebration is a different kind of a celebration, and our money is going to the celebration itself. The Champlain monument is not paralled to this case at all. I do not know what the Kingston case is.
Mr, FIELDING: Does my hon. friend
object to the celebration?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly do not.


William Stevens Fielding: Then we agree. Let us carry the item.
Supply-Miscellaneous


Arthur Meighen: Does it follow that
because one approves a celebration, he must pay for it out of the Dominion treasury?


William Stevens Fielding: If he approve the celebration, does he not the grant for the celebration?


Arthur Meighen: The minister was not drawing a parallel case. If there was a case at Kingston of the same character as this, it should have been dealt with on the same basis. A distinction should not have been made.


William Stevens Fielding: Is my right hon. friend prepared to state the nature of the Kingston case?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: If he does not know, he had better not complain in connection with it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not fair to speak of this celebration at Pictou as being purely local. The British government are sending four warships of the North Atlantic squadron. The United States government are sending two of their war vessels. The Governor of Massachusetts is to be in attendance, and His Excellency, the Governor General, is to be there. There will be no celebration at Kingston, in regard to anything relating to Scotch people coming to this country, that would be at all comparable with this one. One of the things the people of Nova Scotia take pride in is that Sir John A. Macdonald came to Ontario via Nova Scotia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A number of Scotchmen came into the Red River valley about a hundred years ago. Would the Minister of Finance consider an appropriation to cover a picnic in Winnipeg?


Edward Joseph Garland: The acting Minister of National Defence a moment ago made a little appeal to us on behalf of those pioneers who had come to this country in times of stress and hardship. We in western Canada went into that country in times of stress, and we have been suffering a considerable amount of hardship. In western Canada we require railways; we are not getting them on the plea that the expense is too great; but we are still voting sums of money of this size for little picnics on the Nova Scotia coast.
I,	like all Irishmen, love Scotchmen, but I do not love Scotchmen dearly enough to vote [DOT] them money like this at a time like this. I move, seconded by the 'hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) that this item be reduced by $14,000.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think this is establishing a very bad precedent. I have sufficient confidence in Scotchmen generally to believe that in those 150 years the descendants of the particular gentlemen who came over have long since accumulated much more than $15,000 and can readily put up the money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A few years ago we celebrated at Quebec the tercentenary of the landing of Champlain. I think it was a source of pride to all citizens of Canada that in that manner there was celebrated the beginning of the French settlement in Canada. This particular celebration is to commemorate the landing of the Scotch for a first time in this country. It was the beginning of the settlement of the Scotch race throughout the Dominion of Canada. It is not a local celebration. As every hon. member knows, there are different strains that go to make up the composition of our people. There are the French, the English, the Scotch and the Irish. I hope in some appropriate way the country will take cognizance of the beginning in this country of settlement from Ireland and from England as well as the beginning of settlement from Scotland. I think it is advisable that these landmarks in our history should be celebrated. The children of the country grow up to know a little more about their country's history. This is a small amount that we are voting at the present time to commemorate the first migration from Scotland to this country, when one thinks of the part the Scotch have played in the settlement of Canada. This is something, I think, this parliament is entitled to pay some attention to.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about the Japs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend regards the Japanese as being a part of the Canadian population in the same way.


Henry Elvins Spencer: We have heard a great deal of this band of Scotsmen that came 150 years ago, but we have not heard much tonight about that other band that came a few weeks ago and went to western Canada. I think that some money might have been spent in connection with them.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant towards the expenses of the Canadian Athletie Team at the International Olympio Games in 1924. $15,000.
Murray MacLaren: Where are the Olympic games to be held and what arrangement has

Supply-Miscellaneous
been made in regard to the selection of the Canadian team?


Lewis Herbert Martell: As we are celebrating the advent to Canada of one of the greatest races in the world I would suggest that we devote the money under this item towards that celebration. If we have any money to spend I think it should be spent on such an object as this.


Thomas Langton Church: 1 wanted to ask the Acting Minister of National Defence what was being done to fix up the forts in the Niagara district, but the item has apparently been rushed through. So far as this particular vote is concerned I think that the government should see to it that the money is given to the actual contestants representing Canada in the Olympic games. The province of Ontario has contributed $5,000 to the fund on the understanding that the money is to go to the competitors themselves and not to enable persons in an executive capacity to have a free trip, and I think that the government should insist on the same thing in connection with this vote.


Murray MacLaren: It is desirable that we should send a team from Canada representative of our best athletes, and the committee would no doubt like to know how the selection is to be made.


William Stevens Fielding: We shall have to be assured before the money is paid that proper means wall be taken to see that the athletes of all provinces are given a fair show. I have forgotten the names of the gentlemen of the delegation that waited upon me, but I think they were introduced by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). We felt that the object was a good one, because undoubtedly we are all proud of our athletes, and their participation in these games will be a splendid advertisement for Canada. We shall take pains to see that the various provinces are well represented, and I have not the slightest doubt that before the money is paid over we shall have satisfactory assurances on that score.


Murray MacLaren: I am not- objecting to this vote for a single moment, because I am sure the object is an excellent one. Indeed, representations were made to me to try to ensure that the principal athletic organizations of the country should be given a voice in the matter. I do ask the minister to see that these various organizations shall be heard and that the matter shall not rest with any one association.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a reasonable re>
quest and we will endeavour to meet it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives-arrears of cost of living bonus, $110.96.
William Stevens Fielding: I move that this item be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Further amount required for passport office, $2,000.
Arthur Meighen: Has the government any knowledge yet of the reported establishment of a Canadian publicity bureau in London under a Mr. Cranfield? I inquired in regard to this subject some weeks ago.


Charles A. Stewart: One-third
of the cost of this publicity work is bome by the government, one-third by the Canadian Pacific Railway and one-third by the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: How is it Mr. Cranfield
was selected?


Charles A. Stewart: He was
simply selected by the railways and the government for the purpose of carrying on puolicity work in connection with immigra tion. The work is under the control and supervision of Mr. Obed Smith.


Arthur Meighen: What is the annual expenditure?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
very considerable. I do not remember whether it is $15,000 or $25,000. I have the information in the office, but not here.


Arthur Meighen: What qualifications has
Mr. Cranfield? That is the point I am raising.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood he had been employed for some years by the government in publiaity work.


Arthur Meighen: I never heard of him.


Charles A. Stewart: That is my information.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is it the purpose of the department or of the government to continue the issuing of passports between Canada and, say, Great Britain or does this pertain to foreign countries?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the subject of passports was discussed in the House before, a question was asked as to the necessity for issuing passports to persons going to the British Isles. The Department of External Affairs, after the discussion which took place in the House, drew the attention of the British government to the circumstances and
470S
Supply-M iscellane ous

to the opinion expressed by some of the members that the time had come for the discontinuance of the issuing of passports to persons going to Great Britain from this country. A reply has not yet been received from the Brit-lsn government. The passport regulations are imposed by the British government; we have nottung to do with them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the removal of the span of the bridge over False Creek, B.C., to permit of the movements of vessels up to the end of 1923, $6,065.92.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this bridge span moved again? We have had this item before.


George Newcombe Gordon: $4,000 is a revote.


Arthur Meighen: That is not mentioned
here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do we vote a large sum like this every time the bridge span is moved?


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there
nobody in the government who can answer the hon. gentleman's question? Surely there is someone with the information at his disposal. I remember this item last year; it is here again this year. I support the hon. gentleman in his request for information.


Mr. MURDOCK:: I understand this is a
stationary bridge which occasionally has to be lifted and moved to let certain traffic through. The Canadian Pacific Railway is paid a certain amount every time that is done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do we originate
the traffic?


James Murdock: As to that I do not
know.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood that something of the first expense was in connection with certain government boats that were built up False creek, but I presume we are not continuing to build boats there, thus requiring the taking down of the bridge.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to mention a
railway matter here, because we are getting quite close to the end and an appropriate time may not come again. I have a report to the effect that the entire traffic staff of the Canadian National is being removed to Halifax from Truro. Can the minister give us any information as to whether that is correct?


George Perry Graham: I was asked that question to-day by some hon. member. I have not heard a word of it.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]


Arthur Meighen: While on the point, may I direct the minister's attention to a question on the order paper as to coal purchased by the Canadian National Railway? It has been on for some time, and if the next sitting of the House is the last for this session I have io draw the minister's attention to it tonight to be sure that we get the answer at the next sitting.


George Perry Graham: I think I have the answer upstairs.


Arthur Meighen: As long as I get it at
the next sitting, that will be quite satisfactory


George Perry Graham: I think the only trouble is as to the distribution. I am not sure we have that, but I think we have the other.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will agree to get the other information asked for as well. The Minister of Public Works is absent and his deputy is not available at the moment. I will have the information at the next sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay the creditors of the late Prince Rupert Dry Dock and Engineering Co., Ltd., for services rendered, material supplied or moneys advanced in connection with the construction of the Scottish and Britisher in Prince Rupert, B.C., $68,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: May we have some explanation of this vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The same appplies as to the other one. I will have it to-morrow.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would point out that in connection with the construction of two fishery cruisers at Victoria the builders got into difficulties. The merchants supplying goods to the contractors visited the marine office and the marine agent there promised that the government would guarantee payment of their bill. I understand that they have not been able to get any satisfaction in that respect. I simply draw the minister's attention to the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will make a note of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company towards construction of bridge over the Second Marrows of Burrard Inlet, B.C., being revote of portion of subsidy authorized by statute, chap. 46, sec. 3, 1913, $100,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: May we have some information as to this item?


Charles A. Stewart: The municipality-I am speaking from memory-are

Supply-Trade-Grain
constructing a bridge over the Burrard inlet. I have forgotten what the amount is-


John Arthur Clark: 81,000,000.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a contribution to the construction of that bridge over navigable waters.


John Arthur Clark: I would refer the committee to the statutes of 1913, under which subsidy in the amount of $350,000 was granted for this purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister will explain why it is in the estimates if it is a subsidy granted by statute.


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking from memory, I think the subsidy expired; it was granted some years ago but they were not able to use it. That is my recollection, though I am not quite certain of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of a Royal Commission to inquire into proposed prohibition or restriction of the export of pulpwood, $20,000.
Donald Sutherland: What does the government hope to accomplish by the appointment of this royal commission?


William Stevens Fielding: The question whether or not it is expedient to prohibit the export of p.ulpwood is quite a controversial one. I know some people think it is a very one-sided question, but we have abundant evidence that there are two sides to it. Our purpose is to afford all parties interested an opportunity to state their views.


Arthur Meighen: The government has already stated that there will be no prohibition of the pulpwood grown on farms, and if you except the pulpwood grown on farms and the pulpwood grown on Crown lands the rest of the pulpwood is hardly worth the commission. We have the bill now, and we have the commission, and we have to pay for the commission, and I may just venture the prediction that we will end up with the same policy with which we began.


George Perry Graham: It is the provinces that prohibit on Crown lands, is it not?


Arthur Meighen: I know.


Donald Sutherland: This would appear to me to be a matter that the government ought to be able to decide without the appointment of a commission. In any event there are enough officials in the employment of the government to obtain any information that any commission could obtain. This certainly should be a question of policy. This
seems to me a most absurd vote in view of the stand the government have already taken as pointed out by the leader of the Opposition with regard to the exportation of pulpwood from lands owned by private individuals.
I therefore move to reduce the item by $19,999.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one aspect of this question that I think is important and should be taken into account by the committee. There is probably no single economic problem more important than the conservation of our forests, and the extent to which the forests are being depleted partly through insects, largely through fires and to a certain extent through the export of our pulpwood is a factor that should become more generally known than it is. If pulpwood is to be prohibited from export it will be because of the rapidity of our forest depletion. The commission will be most helpful in helping to educate the public as to the extent to which the forests are being depleted, and if such action became necessary as to prohibit the export of pulpwood, will make it perfectly apparent to our neighbouring nation that the government's action in the matter is not prompted by any thought of retaliation for any purpose, but that the reason is an important economic one. I think that is one factor that the House should take into account in considering how very necessary and advisable it is that a commission should be appointed at this time to help give the country the fullest information with respect to the extent to which our forests are being depleted.


Oliver Robert Gould: It has occurred to me that if in connection with this commission appointed to look into the depletion of our forests as outlined by the Prime Minister some provision were made for cruising our timber limits to find out just what our timber resources are, a good purpose might be served. A vote of $20,000, of course, would not be sufficient to carry on that work in addition to what this commission is going to do. I think such a cruise would be worth while from an economic point of view, for then we would know just what our timber resources are.
Amendment (Mr. Sutherland) negatived; Yeas, 12; Nays, 44.
Canada Grain Act, administration of-additional amount required, $80,000


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What are the particulars of this?


James Alexander Robb: This is to provide for a reel assification and salary increases for the grain men at Fort William and other points. The
Supply-Trade-Grain

records show that the Board of Grain Commissioners have recommended these salary increases after discovering that most of the grain houses in Canada are paying higher wages than the board, and the board was in consequence losing many of its good men. This is to provide for the increase recommended by the board.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Are the officers in this branch under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Were these salary increases recommended by the Grain Commission?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, to the Civil Service Commission. The procedure is this: The Grain Commissioners make a recommendation for classification and salary increases which is submitted to the Civil Service Commission, and if approved by them the minister puts through an order in council covering it.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister states that private companies can afford to pay larger salaries than the Board of Grain Commissioners. That is undoubtedly due to the exorbitant profits they have taken from the people in the West through their practices in the past. If their profits were cut down to a legal point it is possible they would not become such great competitors with the Board of Grain Commissioners for help as the minister indicates, and consequently there would not be the necessity for increasing the salaries of these employees.


James Alexander Robb: I would not admit that.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government any method or any habit of inquiring into a request for increased expenditure, or is it the invariable rule to grant whatever is asked?


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no. Every request is goue into very carefully and sometimes it is [DOT]ejected.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to hear that. The minister might give me an instance of anything that has been rejected.


James Alexander Robb: I will tell my hon. friend right now, and I think it will come before the House at its next session if there are any amendments to the Canada Grain Act. We find that it is not easy to get men on the Grain Commission staff. For instance, one man who came to us recently claims that the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company were offering more money than was paid him by the Board of Grain Commissioners.
fMr. Robb,)


Oliver Robert Gould: I have in mind a return that was brought down by the Department of Trade and Commerce for one of our members here a short time ago, in which I noticed that the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur weighed out 19,000,000 bushels more in 1922 than they had taken in. I know part of this goes into the consolidated revenue fund but I wish to point out to the minister that the profits rightly belong to the people of the West who grew those nineteen million and odd bushels of wheat. In view of the profits made by these private companies it is no wonder they can afford to pay such salaries, and that the Grain Commissioners find it necessary to increase the stipends of their officers.


James Alexander Robb: I am not disputing the statement because there is really no evidence to prove it but I will give my hon. friend the other side of the shield. The eastern millers and grain buyers contend they have to pay for a shortage, because there is a shortage in the shipments that come across the lakes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has the judgment of the Supreme Court as to the validity of the Grain Act been received yet?


James Alexander Robb: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the salaries and expenses of the Grain Inquiry Commission, re lake grain rates, {13,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What salaries are paid to the commission, is there any special amount?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the order in council with me. My recollection is that it is $20 or $25 a day, I am not sure.


Mr. HOEY:: This will not meet the entire cost of the commission.


James Alexander Robb: I think it is to pay the balance. There was a vote last session.


Robert Alexander Hoey: You could not give us the entire cost?


James Alexander Robb: The amount voted in 1922-23 was $40,000 and the expenditure was $28,695 leaving an unexpended balance of $11,304. It has been estimated that about $13,000 will be required for the expenses of 1923-24. My hon. friends will understand that the vote for last year lapsed on the 31st March.


Arthur Meighen: What steps are the government taking to make this commission of any value? Perhaps the minister would give a list of Liberal lawyers that have been retained?


James Alexander Robb: That is under another item.

Supply-T rade-Grain


Arthur Meighen: I thought this was the commission.


James Alexander Robb: The other one is passed I think.


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard much about the work of the commission. It has been pretty quiet so far.


James Alexander Robb: The commission only opened at Edmonton this week, on Monday, I think.


Arthur Meighen: Who has the minister employed and what are his instructions? Is counsel instructed to go into all the practices of the grain exchange and the grain dealers?


James Alexander Robb: That is covered by an order in council. I have not a copy with me. I will get a copy and send it to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: The order in council appoints the commission and it directs an inquiry into this and that. What I want to know is what are the instructions to counsel. It is counsel that really conducts matters the commission act as judges. What are the instructions to counsel and who are the counsel?


James Alexander Robb: The order in council is a mandate to the commission and the commissioners give the instructions. The order in council is a mandate to the commission to go on and make this inquiry. If my right hon. friend will examine the order in council he will discover that it is wide open. No person is to be protected; we desire the fullest and freest inquiry with an idea of bringing before parliament such amendments to the Canada Grain Act that will cure alleged abuses if such abuses are discovered by the commission.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell me who the lawyer was? Did the government exercise as good political care in the appointment of the lawyers as they did in the appointment of the commission? Who is the head counsel if the minister cannot state the entire list?


James Alexander Robb: We asked Mr. Justice Turgeon to visit Winnipeg and pick out whom he thought the best man available. Mr. Justice Turgeon recommended Mr. C. P. Wilson. Perhaps my hon. friend will know him.


Arthur Meighen: The initials are those of Mr. Wilson.


James Alexander Robb: The government decided that $100 a day was ample recompense for a lawyer. We thought that was a reasonable fee but Mr. WTilson asked for $150 a day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


James Alexander Robb: As Mr. Justice Turgeon thought Mr. Wilson was the best man available we
said "You can give him $150 a day". Then he telegraphed declining to accept that amount unless we could guarantee him the price paid to a certain lawyer in Toronto, unnamed, who had conducted similar investigations, and we said "No, you will have to look elsewhere."


Arthur Meighen: What similar investigation?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my hon. friend, I am reciting what the telegram contained. Then we offered it to Mr. D'Arcy Scott, who had been for ten years a railway commissioner in Canada and had a wide experience in the grain trade. Mr. D'Arcy Scott was appointed with Mr. Fisher, of Winnipeg, as junior counsel.


Arthur Meighen: The minister made a bad slip there. He first said it was the commission that was looking after counsel. Afterwards, in a moment of weakness, he said "We offered it to Mr. D'Arcy Scott." I was pretty confident that is who really did offer the appointment. And Mr. Fisher is the junior?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: No political mistake in
the case of either of them.


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to say I do not
know the politics of Mr. Fisher. I am told that Mr. D'Arcy Scott was willing to be a Progressive candidate at the last election.


Arthur Meighen: That might be a great
guarantee of his political character anyway. The Minister of Agriculture would know. I think I can give a reasonable estimate now of the results of the commission. What is to be paid Mr. D'Arcy Scott?


James Alexander Robb: One hundred dollars a day.


Arthur Meighen: And what to Mr. Fisher?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure whether it is
$50 or $75, I think it is $75.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was paid to
Mr. Kelly?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Kelly's work was
just about a thousand times as important and heavy, and if this commission is as successful as the other I shall be more astonished than at any other time since 1 have been in parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Additional amount required to provide for the Canadian Exhibition in France, $60,000.
Frank S. Cahill: I would like to have an
explanation of this vote?

Supply-Trade-Grain


James Alexander Robb: The sum of $50,000 was voted in the Main Estimates for 1923-24. A similar amount was provided in the estimates for 1922-23, and of the said amount $6,504, was expended. The additional amount required is for the purpose of installing the exhibition for two or three months in L'Orangerie, in the Place de la Concorde. The French government have expressed their intention of spending in the vicinity of $100,000 to prepare the interior of this building for the Canadian Exhibition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British and Foreign News Service, $21,333.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this for?


James Alexander Robb: This is to provide a service
through Reuters, to send out news of business conditions generally throughout Canada and other matters that will interest readers overseas wherever Reuters have a connection. There will be a contract made with Reuters to put out 10,000 words monthly of Canadian news, designed to promote the interests of Canada. There is to be, in addition to the news which Reuters already cable to Canada from the world at large, and which they undertake to maintain at the present standard, the general dissemination throughout the United kingdom and the British dominions, of mail news calculated to arouse and maintain an interest in Canada and Canadian activities commercially, industrially and agriculturally.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who engaged these writers?


James Alexander Robb: Reuters is a world news service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought the hon. member said "writers." This is simply another subsidy for this particular news firm.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member may call it what he likes. We call it an advertisement for Canada, and of Canada. The government has nothing to do with putting out news. It is left to the representative of Reuters in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot see, with all the services that we have at present, that we require to still subsidize another service. We have exhibitions of all kinds, and are simply spending untold money advertising the country. If conditions were as they ought to be in this country I think the regular news services would look after that.


James Alexander Robb: That is the unfortunate part of it. The news going out from Canada is not such as would place Canada in a right light in another country. I hold in my hand-and my
[Mr. Cahill.1
hon. friend may have observed the item, because it has been published in the press-a despatch from London, England, dated 25th June, intimating that while the news going to England from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa placed those countries in a favourable light before the British people, the news going out from Canada sent out by news agents did not have that effect. The clipping goes on to state:
On the other hand, the Canadian news of the past month has dealt with such matters as the murders by Rogers, the North Bay bandit, the trial of Father Delorme for the alleged murder of his half-brother, the doings of bootleggers on the border, forest fires, floods and the difficulties of the emigrant party who recently left the Hebrides to settle in Canada.
We want to put Canada in a better light.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You will admit these things take place?


James Alexander Robb: I will admit it is not the best kind of advertising.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The things that go on in this House are not the best kind of advertising. At the same time these conditions prevail, and I might say that nearly all the labour papers in the Old Country are carrying news, a great deal of it taken from Hansard, which is not the best advertisement for Canada.


Jacques Bureau: It is the fault of those who make the speeches.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is the truth nevertheless.


Jacques Bureau: We deny it.


William Stevens Fielding: Would the hon. member tell the House from whose speeches they quote?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They make their own selection, but they are quoting Hansard in the Daily Herald as well as in the Glasgow Forward and the Labour Leader. You might: find extracts from speeches given during the last few sessions in which are stated the actual
conditions which prevail in western Canada?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would like to ask the minister about a grant of $50,000 to the Canadian Press. I have never come across it.


James Alexander Robb: That is not in this department. It is in the main estimates and we will come to it later.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It has not been reached.


James Alexander Robb: Not yet.


Arthur Meighen: In connection with this item, I do not know what control the minister

Supply-Trade-Gram
has. I fancy Reuters will get the news that sells, as well as the other people. It is the news that sells that is dealt with.


Jacques Bureau: And it favours the Tory party.


Arthur Meighen: The Rogers murder at North Bay, and those terrible things that have occurred lately, would indicate that we have not got the new Heaven and earth under this party although we were promised it. The kind of news sent out is frequently the product of the conditions that the times are cursed with. A little while ago I asked the minister if he could think of anything in the way of appeal for money or a voracious demand that this government had refused? Looking back over the years and seeing them one by one yielding to these requests, I thought I would inquire if anything had been refused at any time. The minister did not give me any answer at the time. Perhaps he can think of an item now.


James Alexander Robb: The proposed scheme is not new. It was originally presented to the government three years ago. It was recommended to council for acceptance by Sir Robert Borden on June 11th 1920, but action was deferred until September of that year, when the proposals were reconsidered by Mr. Meighen at a conference with Sir Roderick Jones, chairman and managing director of Reuters. The proposals however have since been left in abeyance, owing, it is stated, wholly to various other exigencies, though the scheme went as far as having the Justice department prepare a draft agreement.


Oliver Robert Gould: The item for British and foreign news service, $21,333,34, suggests to me that it is a third of the total item.


James Alexander Robb: I should have told my hon. friend that the contract is for $32,000 a year, but as the service will begin on the 1st of August, this amount is for the balance of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Towards the construction of a grain elevator at Halifax, N.S., $200,000.
Arthur Meighen: The information I have is that there was an elevator there that had a little grain in it some years, and for some years none. I fancy it was burned down. Any way it is not there now. I had a return on this the other day. I think it was used substantially just once. I believe it was partly built by the railway and partly by the city. At any rate there were joint contributions. Can the hon. member tell us just what special event the government has in mind that caused it to deem it the part of wisdom to build a large elevator there?


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I am rather at a loss to understand just what the right hon. leader of the Opposition means by the lemarks he has made and the remarks which he has previously made, but which I did not hear. He was criticizing the remarks of another hon. member this evening and suggesting that the hon. member was tired or sleepy, possibly dreaming. This may be the reason of the remarks of my hon. friend iu respect of certain expenditures in the county of Halifax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The estimates are no dream.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I might say that the construction of a grain elevator at Halifax was projected in 1912, under the government then led by Sir Robert Borden, and which my hon. friend supported. In that year my right hon. friend will remember that it was decided that the railway terminals of Halifax were to be properly or improperly- improperly, I think-removed from one end of the city to the other, and the erection of this elevator was a portion of that project. The present elevator, which was constructed jointly, I think, by the city, the government of Nova Scotia, and the Dominion government many years ago, cannot now very well be used by reason of the fact that the railway terminal facilities have been moved to another end of the city. Further, the present grain elevator is obsolete and not suitable for the handling of grain.
I cannot say, and I am sure my hon. friend cannot very accurately tell us, what quantity of grain has gone through the Halifax elevator. It is true that port is not a big grain exporting port. The business men of Halifax hardly expect it to be a large grain exporting port, but still a certain quantity may very profitably find an outlet through Halifax. I have been personally advised by two or three of the largest shipping companies using that port during the past winter, that a modem elevator of a million bushels capacity would be of great service to the port and to shipping. At the present time a great deal of shipping might go to Halifax were it not for the reason that they are unable to secure grain as a partial cargo.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the hon. gentleman not think of something that might be useful to Halifax and at the same time would cost a little less money?
Supply-Trade-Grain

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) I am told by shipping men and business men of Halifax that this expenditure would be extremely useful to the port of Halifax. I believe that is a fact. The quantity of shipping which enters or leaves any Canadian port is largely determined by whether or not they can obtain a partial loading of grain. That is necessary as regards the * port of Halifax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that Halifax has not handled grain for years, except during the war. When there was the grain to handle, the elevator handled it all right. But the business there is absolutely negligible and must be so as long as we have a charge for hauling grain on the railway and railway costs are heavy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend is entirely wrong in saying that very small grain shipments have gone through the port of Halifax. It is true that grain shipments from Halifax have not been large in any one year, but a substantial quantity of grain has gone through that port. There is a difference in the freight rates as between St. John and Halifax of one cent per 100 pounds. I hope, however, this differential will be abolished as it should be. I am instructed that it costs more to move grain from St. John to St. John West where the grain is placed on board steamers than it would cost to move that grain to Halifax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have that
from persons who have actual knowledge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend thinks any business for the elevator is going to come in that way, he is very much mistaken. I think my hon. friend really knows there is no business there. How much is to be the total cost of this elevator which may be very useful in another direction in a very short time?


James Alexander Robb: We have put this amount
in the estimates primarily to prepare the plans and to be in a position, if such is deemed proper, to start work on that elevator early enough so that it will be ready for next season's crop. There is no probability of getting it ready for this season's crop. We shall be guided by the advice of experts as to the capacity of an elevator that would pay at that port. My hon. friend has hinted at a reclassification of rates. That will be taken into consideration.
{Sir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the situation this that the government has no idea of the quantity of grain likely to go through that port or the capacity of the elevator required? They are sure of nothing except that there is to be an election.


William Stevens Fielding: Did the large and expensive scheme of terminals constructed by the late government not include an elevator? They spent, I do not know how many millions there. I would almost think this elevator would be as useful as the terminals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be;
but the elevator was not gone on with for a very good reason, and that was that the business was not offering for it. Business is not now offering for the elevator. If I am wrong, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to correct me. According to his own statement, he does not know what size of an elevator he has to put up or the business likely to be obtained. He is to have somebody inquire into the matter.


Frank S. Cahill: Why did the late government spend $22,000,000 there on terminals?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend overlooked one thing, namely that the quantity of grain moved depends upon whether ships will be available to carry it. Contracts to carry grain are not made by the railway people themselves, and the grain broker who wants to ship to Liverpool will ship via Halifax if there are facilities and ships there to carry the grain. During the past few years merchants have not been regularly shipping to Halifax because there has not been space. Indications are that this space will be obtained and work will come for the elevator. My hon. friend ought surely to encourage the idea that we should have facilities in our ports in winter for shipments of grain instead of sending the ships to American ports. If he wants to oppose the idea that we should have within our own boundaries and harbours facilities by which Canadian produce can be carried abroad and imports can be brought to our ports, that is a very curious policy. If he wishes to have the ships in winter going to Boston and other American ports instead of to Canadian ports, that will be the policy of my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend always conveniently forgets everything he likes to forget. There is another winter port, that is neither Portland nor any other American port, and that is St. John. He also forgets that usually grain travels by the cheapest railway route.

Supply-Trade-Grain


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Halifax is
the nearest port to the British Isles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose he
says it is just as cheap to carry grain by rail as by water.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not
said that at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the same thing. You have an extra 276 miles' haul, if I remember rightly. That, however, is getting away from the point. What information has my hon. friend as to the income of the port and the quantity of grain to be handled?


James Alexander Robb: My information is, according
to the estimates of the previous government, that the requirements of that port would be for an elevator with a capacity of from 750,000 to 1,000,000 bushels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that we used to use about 60,000 bushels in trimming during the busy period.


James Alexander Robb: Each trip?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In a day when things were busy-60,000 bushels in and 60,000 out.


James Alexander Robb: That is an admission that an
elevator is required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was during the war period.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No grain went through the port of Halifax during the war.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had at one time a movement of as much as thirty cars a day.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to get into
a dispute between my two hon. friends who
were members of the same government at that time.


Robert Emmett Finn: It seems to me that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) takes a very pessimistic and gloomy view of the development of an eastern national port, namely the port of Halifax. It is equally as pessimistic a view as my hon. friend took when, as chairman of the Railway Commission, he laid down that very explicit doctrine that geographical disadvantages should not be taken into consideration in the fixing of rates. We are a part of this great confederation; and the great leaders who have passed to the beyond held out to us in Nova Scotia and to the citizens of Halifax the promise that if the province remained in confederation Nova Scotia and Halifax would become the Atlantic

frontage of the Dominion. And if my hon. friend will only go and look at the motto above the entrance to this magnificent structure, raised and reared by his government, he will see there written these words:
The wnoiesome sea is at her e,utes,
Her gates both East and West.
We may have the wholesome sea but we have not the gates. But it was in the wisdom of the late Liberal Chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier,to foresee the future and build the Transcontinental, taking the road to Moncton as a common centre for the shipment of grain and other products of the West in winter, from Halifax and St. John. When the short line is completed from a point above Port Arthur on the Canadian National up to the Transcontinental, with easier grades and shorter mileage, the people of Halifax feel that it will be the duty of the Canadian National system to see that grain and other products of the West not routed through any other ports shall be carried to the ports of Halifax and St. John in winter. If these things are not done then perhaps, some of the things spoken of by a gentleman in the legislature of Nova Scotia and referred to in the press of the Maritime provinces may come to be more than mere words and cold type. I regret that the state of my health to-night forbids my entering as largely into this subject as I should like. But it is vital to the interests of Nova Scotia, it is vital to the city of Halifax, that proper attention be given this matter. I say it is vital to the city of Halifax, which Sir Charles Tupper declared would be, as a result of this national policy, a forest of masts if that province remained true to confederation. We are spending to-day millions of money for the development of the port of Portland, and this is the result of an act of administration on the part of the right hon. the leader .of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen in the taking over of the Grand Trunk and the terminals at Portland. This was a legacy bequeathed to the present government, who have in turn handed it over to Sir Henry Thornton and his board of management. I believe that Sir Henry Thornton is willing to do the right thing by the Maritime provinces, and my hon. friend must know that Sir Henry has recommended that an elevator should be built at Halifax with a capacity of at least 750,000 bushels, if not a million. It is his intention to divert to Halifax, as he has a right to do, that proportion of the grain and other products from the West that can and ought to be carried through this port. The rate to Halifax will then be the same as to St. John or Portland or
Supply-T rade-Grain

New York. Montreal carries one cent less and when the differential referred to by my hon. colleague (Mr. Maclean) is removed as between St. John and Halifax, then New York, Portland, St. John and Halifax will be on a parity. There is no sound reason why Halifax should not share as a national port in the shipment of products of the West and of central Canada to the Old Country and the Mediterranean in future. These are my hopes; and I regret that my hon. friend should take the gloomy, pessimistic view he has displayed in reference to the future of Halifax as a port. I do not share that view and I am sure that if we both live a few years longer and Halifax is given an opportunity he will have reason to revise his opinion and will be quite willing to help to make it what it was always intended to be, the eastern gateway, one of the national ports of Canada.


Donald Sutherland: I have listened with a great deal of interest, not to say amazement, to some of the remarks which have been made in this House by the representatives from the East and the West, who suggest that, if certain concessions are not granted them, certain veiled threats which they make are going to be carried into effect. I have almost come to the conclusion that the government are prepared to outdo that last awful night in the city of Toronto, a few sessions ago. We are nearing the dawn of another day and we hear now the story of the building of the Transcontinentl railway and what it is going to bring about in this country; and this is the justification for an expenditure of $200,000 to be voted in the Supplementary Estimates, which certainly, at any rate, should have appeared in the Main Estimates. There are two items here of a similar nature, notwithstanding that there are many parts of this country where the government would be much. more justified in expending money in the building of elevators than at these particular points. I refer to the province of Ontario where there are no internal elevators for the accommodation of the farmers. They are not receiving any consideration of this kind, but we are not coming before the government and making all sorts of veiled threats as to what may take place; we are not hinting at secession if certain concessions are not made. I never heard a more absurd argument advanced in support of any proposition than that which has been offered by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Finn). No doubt the nature of his argument is due to the fact, which he mentioned a moment ago, that he i* not in good health to-night.
I Mr. Finn.]


Robert Emmett Finn: When I made the remark in regard to threats I said that the leader of the Opposition in Nova Scotia, the gentleman that was responsible for the statement, was the leader of the Tory party in the legislature of the province; and the Halifax Herald, the leading Tory paper in Nova Scotia, echoed the same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Towards the construction of a grain elevator at Edmonton, Alta, $200,000.
Mr. JELLIFF:: In whatever I may say on this vote I do not want to be construed either by the administration or by the people of Edmonton as opposing any legitimate wish that might be expressed founded on the necessities of the grain trade there or of the railways for the construction of an internal elevator at that point. I object to the government overlooking a claim that has been admitted by Dr. Magill, Chairman of the Grain Commission, and that has been on record for the last ten or twelve years, a claim for the establishment of an internal storage elevator at Lethbridge. I was very much surprised when I saw this item of $200,000 in the Estimates. I want to point out the difference between the crop production and the
5 a.m. facilities afforded at Edmonton compared with Lethbridge. Three transcontinental railways run into Edmonton, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific, and two of these lines run to western ports. On the other hand, in the Lethbridge district we are tied up to one railway system, the Canadian Pacific, which, in spite of a most efficient administration, has always fallen short of its ability to cope with the demands connected with the handling of our grain in that district. One of the main reasons for the establishing of this elevator at Edmonton is to facilitate the movement of grain westward to the Pacific coast and to try to effect a saving for the farmer. I heartily agree with that, but I would point out that last year in the freight district of Lethbridge we produced 22,000,000 bushels of wheat, over one-third the entire production of Alberta, a condition which, however, resulted in a serious shortage of cars in that district. At one time last season there were in Cardston at least one hundred four-horse teams with loads of wheat, some of it drawn from a distance of twenty miles, and that wheat was there from one to three days because of lack of elevator space, due, in turn, to the lack of cars. The same was true at Woolford Station, east of Cardstoi* and at other points throughout that district. In

Supply-Trade-Grain
1915 we had a crop in the Lethbridge freight district of 41,000,000 bushels of wheat, nearly one-half the entire crop production of Alberta. The result was that the elevators were filled up and the delivery was continued until June and July of the following season. I believe the ex-Minister of Finance was given that record when he was out in our countrv investigating the railway situation. Thousands upon thousands of acres of wheat remained in the stook all winter, simply on account of that car shortage and lack of elevator space. Thousands upon thousands of bushels of grain were threshed into open bins in the fields; the grain bleached and deteriorated in quality and the farmers suffered losses running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. If there is a district in Canada that needs an internal storage elevator it is in Lethbridge district. This whole system of internal storage elevators originated in the Lethbridge district.


Frank S. Cahill: With what government?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: That was in 1904 or 1905. The whole thing was founded upon the acute shortage of cars which was occurring year after year and of course, the large crops we were producing in that district. Lethbridge is one of the largest coal producing districts in Canada, and the season for the hauling of coal is concurrent with the period during which the heavy hauling of wheat should proceed. At least 200 cars a day are required to move the coal product at that period, and it is natural that when there are two demands of that kind the more urgent should be met, namely, the transport of coal to the people of the prairies. I have two telegrams here that I want to read. The first is dated at Lethbridge, June 27, and reads as follows:
Press despatch to-day states supplementary estimates provide internal e/levators Edmonton. No mention Lethbridge. Urge you press our claim. One-third Alberta wheat last year grown on Lethbridge Railway division. Manifestly unfair government overlook this district where grain grown and elevator badly needed.
That is from the president of the Lethbridge Board of Trade. Here is another telegram I got early this morning from the secretary of the Lethbridge Board of Trade:
Our board passed strong resolution to-day urging you to protest government's action locating proposed elevator at Edmonton. Northern Alberta heaviest crop is oats-
That means in the Edmonton district.
-which is not exportable commodity via Vancouver and the Panama canal. Provincial government estimates between forty and fifty million bushels wheat crop on Lethbridge Railway division this year. Dry lands crops augmented by future irrigation crops
warrant and will sustain elevator here. Farmers in this district have been led to belive that favorable consideration would be given to Lethbridge when any additional elevators were establishd.
They have been led to believe that for years. The movement for the construction of these internal storage elevators, as I have already stated, began in that district, and began on account of the yearly shortage which we experienced there of cars necessary to handle our grain crop. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I claim that I am the parent of the internal storage elevator idea It is the only thing in the country I can lay claim to being parent to. On account of the difficulty of securing sufficient storage and sufficient cars in southern Alberta a conference was called some twenty years ago by the Hon. Mr. Rutherford, at that time premier of the province of Alberta. Mr. Rutherford kindly sent me an invitation to attend that conference, which was composed of farmers, business men, railway men, grain men and bankers. At that conference the main subject of discussion was the western shipment of grain. Delegates were there from Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster, from all over Alberta, and one or two I think from Saskatchewan, and the burden upon their thoughts at that time was shipping by the A.B.C. route as it was called, which meant the Alberta-British Columbia route. At that conference the question of car shortage came up. I was asked to open the discussion on what was known as our old Manitoba Grain Act, and in connection therewith I advocated the building of internal storage elevators to relieve the shortage of cars for one thing, in the second place to encourage the development of the milling industry in our principal cities in the West, and in the third place to minister to the wants of our mixed farming industry. These were the three points that were involved.
A short time after that convention this matter was taken up by the Board of Grain Commissioners. They came out to Lethbridge and held quite a long sitting there. I was before the board at that time and this question of the establishment of internal storage elevators was thoroughly canvassed. The board returned and presented their report to parliament recommending the building of these internal storage elevators for the purposes to which I have referred. Then the board went out again through the western country to determine where they should locate these internal storage elevators. They thoroughly canvassed every locality in which their meet-
Supply-Trade-Grain

mgs were held, and they decided that Lethbridge was one of the points where one of these elevators should be located, and they so reported to parliament. The recommendation was made by Dr. Magill, the chairman of the Grain Board. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will find that recommendation in his files. I do not know how it happened but the government built three of these storage elevators, one at Moose Jaw, one at Saskatoon, and one at Calgary. It is not for me to comment upon the location of these elevators, but the government overlooked the one place where the movement had orginated and where the car situation is at different times the most acute of any place in the country that I know of. They placed these elevators at these other points. Now continually from that time up till now, born of necessity of the situation there, petition after petition, letter after letter, presentation after presentation has been sent to Ottawa urging the construction of an internal storage elevator to meet our needs at that point, and I cannot see why that request has not been granted. I cannot see why these other elevators should be provided for at this time and Lethbridge again be left out. We have here in this telegram the statement, and I am sure this will be pleasing to the Minister of Finance because he was speaking of the prospects of the West a few nights ago, that the estimate of the provincial government is that we shall have a wheat crop of from forty to fifty million bushels in the Lethbridge district this year. If that is the case the same situation will be repeated that occurred in 1915, and all over that part of the country grain will be standing in the stook all winter, and there will be a loss of thousands and thousands of dollars to those farmers. Now I am going to make this appeal to the government. I am not finding fault with these elevators. If they need that elevator at Edmonton in order to facilitate the shipment eastward or westward-


Donald Sutherland: Is there any reason why the farmers in the West cannot have granaries to take care of their grain?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: It is impossible to build granaries in the condition we are in to house all that grain. The condition is largely one of car shortage, and that can only be met by giving your rolling stock a shorter journey, letting them run back and forth to the internal elevator, for in that way they give ten times the car service that you get when the rolling stock is moving 1,200 miles to Winnipeg or 780 miles to the west coast. That is the kernel

of the whole situation. Now I am going to appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, who knows what that situation means to these mixed farmers to bring down a further Supplementary Estimate and provide for the construction of an elevator at Lethbridge.


William Richard Motherwell: Let us get to bed and we will give you half a dozen elevators.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I think the government
is the cause of the lateness of the hour and not I. I sincerely beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, for delaying you so long but this cause is one that has been dear to my heart for the last twenty years. It is time it was attended to, and attended to right off. I appeal to the Prime Minister to bring down a further Supplementary Estimate and build that elevator.


James Alexander Robb: Into the division of opinion
as to Edmonton and Lethbridge, I am not going to enter. It is only fair to my hon. friend to say that he has urged upon the government the construction of an elevator at Lethbridge, and as I listened to his speech to-night it almost seemed as though we were back in other days because I can recall when the former member for that constituency, Mr. Buchanan, had tried with equal force to impress upon previous governments the importance and necessity of an elevator at Lethbridge. But another thought came to my mind when my hon. friend was speaking. Listening to the account of the crop they had in his district last year, the crop they expect to have this year, and the number of cattle and sheep they have, it occurred to me that the hard luck stories we have been hearing have not been quite well founded.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: If I may interrupt, I may
say that some time ago the Lethbridge Board of Trade prepared a statement as to the situation last year. One copy was presented to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a second to the Prime Minister, and the third to the Minister of the Interior. The facts which I have recited as to last year's crop are given there. They were carefully taken from the Canadian Pacific Railway records and I am very sure they are correct.


James Alexander Robb: I do not dispute that. I am
quite of that opinion.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I do not think I painted
a very gloomy picture myself. I believe there is the very greatest hope for the future of

Supply-Trade-Grain
Alberta, although we did have two or three seasons there when we ran badly behind.


James Alexander Robb: It is true there are three railways running into Edmonton to fill the elevator there, but the door has not been closed to Lethbridge. In order that my hon. friend may take something home, I may say that the Grain Commissioners have promised to review the whole situation and make a recommendation to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Just a minute. I want to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the situation was very carefully canvassed out there years ago by the grain commission. The facts are all known; there is no need of any further investigation. Lethbridge has been side tracked without reason, and I hope that the Prime Minister will do as I have suggested, bring down a supplementary estimate to help our cause.


Thomas Langton Church: I agree with what the
hon. gentleman has said about the necessity for an elevator for this district. Additional elevator accommodation is needed for the whole of Canada. We are behind the times in that respect. I also agree with what has been sajid regarding the dire need of a terminal elevator in central Ontario. In the debate the other night I read the remarks of Mr. Julius H. Barnes, one of the ablest transportation and grain men on the American continent about the elevator capacity of this country and the United States. This statement, which was published in the last month's issue of the National City Bank shows that the elevators across the border, from Dakota right down to Buffalo are congested and cannot contain any more grain. We are going to be in the same position in this country unless additional elevator accommodation is provided. What is needed for Canada is a big, forward elevator policy which will provide for elevators all along the great lakes and the St. Lawrence. On the 2nd of May, 1919 a deputation came down to Ottawa to interview the government. I prepared a memorandum for the deputation which was laid before the government of the day. Mr. Manning Doherty, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, was present on that occasion, with representatives of the United Farmers of Ontario, the United Farmers' Cooperative Company, and representatives of the grain trade.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the item relates to the elevator at Edmonton, and that
what he is saying is hot relevant to the question.


Thomas Langton Church: But you have allowed the hon. member for Lethbridge to urge the need of an elevator in that district.


George Newcombe Gordon: That does not make
any difference.


Thomas Langton Church: We have as much right
to urge the establishment of an elevator for central Ontario as the hon. member in question has to argue in favour of an elevator for Lethbridge. The government must adopt a forward and progressive policy upon this elevator question.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not a question of policy at all.


Thomas Langton Church: I have a memorandum
here but I do not wish to read the whole of it. It urges the need and utility of a terminal elevator, such as is being built in Edmonton and Halifax, in central Ontario. There was an election the other day in the province of Ontario and one of the main questions argued at that time was the need of these elevators.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must again draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: Surely I am in order in making a few quotations from the memorandum. We were told that when the estimates for the construction of elevators were brought down opportunity would be afforded for a discussion of the whole elevator policy of the country and yet we are not to be permitted to discuss it. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when his estimates were before the House, and we would not have allowed those estimates to go through so quickly if the minister had not promised to afford me an opportunity of bringing the need of a terminal elevator in central Ontario before the committee. I shall only occupy four or five minutes. An elevator is not a luxury; it is a necessity.


Frank S. Cahill: I must rise to a point of
order. The hon. member has been out of order for some time. If he wishes to appeal against the decision of the Chair he may do so by calling for a vote of the committee, otherwise he is entirely out of order. If the hon. member does not call for a vote let us pass this item and proceed to the next one.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is only fair that the hon. member for North Toronto should be afforded the same opportunity as the hon. member for Lethbridge who spoke on the
Supply-Trade-Grain

necessity of an elevator in his section of the country. The hon. member for North Toronto is giving reasons why there should be a terminal elevator for central Ontario.


George Newcombe Gordon: The difficulty is that the hon. member cannot move a capital expenditure or a public charge. The distinction is that the hon. member for Lethbridge was suggesting to the committee that, instead of the Edmonton elevator there should be a provision for the construction of an elevator at Lethbridge, for that same province, but in a different part. In this debate the hon. member for North Toronto is speaking of the establishment of elevators and the general policy of elevator construction in Ontario which is altogether different.


Thomas Langton Church: I may say that Ontario produces approximately 200,000,000 bushels of grain annually. In 1919 that total aggregated nearly 225,000,000 bushels, but this was an exceptionally favourable year for grain crops. It will be seen that in the average year Ontario produces enormous quantities of grain. A very considerable quantity of this grain is used for live stock feeding as the live stock industry is a prominent one in the province of Ontario. At the same time there is no doubt out that millions of bushels change hands each year the grain being sold either in the local trade, in interprovincial trade, or for export. At the present time there is no government interior terminal elevator in the province at which grain may be officially weighed and graded, as is done in the other provinces. At the present time the Grain Commission is endeavouring to purchase over 500,000 bushels of oats in Ontario, but there is no central point at which this grain can be officially assembled, weighed and graded. The absence of these facilities in Ontario has proven a loss to the farmers, a great inconvenience to those engaged in the grain trade, and a handicap to the province in competing in these lines with other provinces which have the benefit of such facilities.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the Chairman of the committee rules an hon. member out of order, there is no justification for the member disregarding the rule. If the member wishes to apeal from the decision of the chair, he can do so.


Donald Sutherland: With regard to the point of order, I am a litle surprised that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) should be permitted to discuss the situation with regard to Lethbridge, because it is a little nearer to Edmonton than the points the hon.

member for Toronto wishes to discuss. I can hardly conceive of such a provincial idea creeping into a discussion of this kind.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that there is a rule of the House that the judgment of the Chair cannot be criticized when it has once been given. I do not think a point of order was raised with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member for Lethbridge spoke at considerable length.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Donald Sutherland: What is the point of order? I do not think this item has been passed. It is still before the committee, and we have a perfect right to discuss it. The objection raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge with regard to the item of $200,000 for an elevator at Edmonton was based on what he contended was the advantage of having an elevator capacity in western Canada, that would permit short hauls on the railway to those elevators. The same arguments might be used in other parts of the country, and I am surprised that this provincialism should be drawn so strictly that we are barred from discussing that question, but I am not going to dispute the ruling of the Chair. I have respect for the rules of the House, and while I may differ, I am going to strictly confine myself to the item before the committee with regard to the building of a $200,000 elevator at Edmonton. The member for Lethbridge argued that the short haul would enable so many cars to be used. This is an old question in this country. The western farmer has been contending for years that he should have cars available as soon as he threshes, in order to take care of his grain; consequently we are bound to have a car shortage at certain times in the year, and now we are asked to meet this condition, to enable those people to avoid this cost. The people in Ontario have always had to take care of their grain, and I believe that if the farmers in western Canada would pursue the policy carried out in other parts they would not have as many difficulties as they have to-day, and you would not find a glut of wheat on the market at one time, and then for several months nothing for the railways to do. Western farmers are not able to take advantage of the market to the same extent that they would if they were carrying their own grain, as the farmers do in other parts of the country. It may be said that, owing to the immense quantities of grain grown by the farmers in the West, it is absolutely impossible for them to do it.	.

S u pply- Trade-Grain


Mr. LOVETT:: I thought the hon. member for North Toronto had the floor?


Donald Sutherland: If the hon. member has any question to ask I will be glad to answer it.
An bon. MEMBER:	Oh no, you w;ill talk
all night.


Donald Sutherland: I do not know that the House is called on to pay any attention to what the hon. member thought.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Exercise a little courtesy and give the member the floor.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member for North Toronto is quite capable of taking care of himself.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: He has been trying to get the floor.


Donald Sutherland: This item of $200,000 is just another example of what has been done particularly with regard to the estimates which are now before the House. I question if there has ever been a more glaring example of an attempt being made to satisfy certain sections of the community, without regard to the public interest, than we have had in regard to the estimates passed by this House to-night, which have been jammed through. We have sat till broad daylight, and the government is still endeavouring to crowd these estimates through. An item of $200,000 in the supplementaries is altogether too large to be passed in this manner. There was ample opportunity to have these items passed in the main estimates, if it was desired to put them through, or if there was any justification for putting them through. The fact that they appear in the estimates in the dying hours of the session indicates that they are not items such as should be passed by this House without reasonable discussion.


Thomas Langton Church: As I understand the ruling on the point of order when an item relating to a post office is before the committee you can discuss the needs of any post office in another part of the country. Now, I am not preventing the committee from rising. I would have been glad to see the House rise two months ago. We have tried to play the game with the government and we have done our best but we do not want anything unfair. The counties which are asking for this particular item are Liberal counties and have gone Liberal. Regarding these particular elevators at Edmonton and at Halifax, I would like to
ask the minister one or two questions. I think it is necessary when an elevator is to be built that it should be constructed in the proper place. Some mistakes have been made in erecting elevators in certain localities. Can the minister tell the committee whether these elevators will provide sufficient accommodation for weighing, drying, cleaning, storing and grading of all kinds of grain in Nova Scotia and Alberta? Second, will they be of advantage to individual farmers of those two provinces by enabling them to ship carload lots of grain which would be officially weighed and stored and for which there would be issued an official certificate which would be recognized by the bank at once, thus broadening the farmer's market, and will similar accommodation be available to the grain trade? Another point in connection with these elevators is this: Will the erection of these two $200,000 elevators provide facilities for the storing, cleaning and grading of different kinds of seed? This would be of great advantage to the farmers of Nova Scotia and Alberta, particularly with reference to grass and clover seed. Will they be of much advantage to the live stock industry of those provinces by facilitating the distribution of feeding stock from one section to another in the case of short crops in the local districts or in the provinces as a whole? Will these elevators be able to perform a distinct service in preventing the deterioration of certain crops in the provinces in years of too much moisture, as was illustrated in the bean crop in recent years? The crop of buckwheat in one year had to be dried because of wet weather which prevailed at the time of harvesting. Special emphasis, 1 might say, should be laid on the fact that such an elevator as these two elevators, should be a public elevator, and certificates should be issued that would be official government certificates, both of which are advantages affording great protection to the public and not available in the same sense from private enterprise.
From the commercial side, I believe these two elevators may be a success. I am not speaking in order to kill time. I appreciate the work of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Robb). I think he has been a very fair minister. He has no doubt been very busy in the past, and I should like to be fair to the ministers because they are overworked. I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to come up to Toronto, meet the United Farmers, the Harbour Commissioners, the Peterborough people, and the other people interested in this matter and see if something can be done to relieve the situation.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
At flag stations, throughout central Ontario, the railways will not take the crops, there is a great hardship owing to lack of these facilities. For that reason I presented this memorial, which I hold in my hand, to the government in 1919, but not a thing has been done since. The central counties of Ontario, the Yorks, Peel, Brant, the Simcoes, and many other counties have no way of putting their crops into cars at a railway station; they have no place to leave their crops and in some cases they are rotting in the ground for lack of transportation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Little Anse-In full and final settlement of T. D. Morrison's claim in connection with contract for construction of a breakwater, J3.234.60.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last evening this item stood on account of the fact that I did not have before me full data in connection with the matter. The committee is aware of the circumstances under which I was dealing with the estimates. The situation regarding this matter I will put very briefly before the committee. Mr. Morrison obtained a contract in 1911-12 for the construction of a breakwater at Little Anse. He had proceeded with the construction of the work, and it had been completed, when on December 28, 1912, one of those abnormal storms and, in fact, gales which sometimes sweep the eastern coasts of our country, came up and destroyed the outer end of the breakwater. In the contract which he had signed for its construction was a clause providing that the contractor was to take the risk of a storm. He proceeded to replace the part that was destroyed, and then he made a claim upon the department asking that he should be compensated for this extra work which he was compelled to do by reason of the storm. The engineer at that time, Mr Bemas-coni, took the ground that by reason of the strict terms of the contract no allowance should be made to him on account of this. The next year, 1913, a broader construction was placed upon contracts under conditions like these. The department, in the case of a contract at Devil's Island was authorized by order in council, to pay the contractor $4,813, to compensate him for the extra work which he was compelled to do as a result of the storm. In the next year, in a place called Sandy Cove, a contracting firm called John E. Bigelow & Son was paid amounts which together reached $1,995, under exactly similar circumstances. Again at Dipper Harbour and again at Three Fathom Harbour, amounts were paid by the department to contractors whose work had been destroyed by storms. The Department of Public Works proceeded to change the form
mfr Church. 1
of contract by which the liability occasioned by result of abnormal gales was taken from :the contractor and admitted by the department.
This contractor, Mr. Morrison, then came to the Department of Public Works and asked that his claim should be reviewed. It was considered by Mr. Locke, who was second in command amongst the engineering staff of the province pf Nova Scotia. Mr Locke, reviewing the whole circumstances, held that this storm of 1921 was an absolutely abnormal, one, one which could not have been contemplated at the time the contract was made, and his report winds up as follows:
I, therefore, beg to report that Mr. Morrison's claim for extras be allowed and as to what the amount of this claim should be I respectfully submit the following figures:
He goes into details and makes the figures to be $3,234.60. Going into the matter in detail, he further concludes:
I would, therefore, recommend that Mr. Morrison be paid in connection with this work the additional sum of $3,234.60. As to the question of whether interest should be allowed or not for the nine years which have expired since that time, I consider this a matter for the higher officials of the department to decide upon.


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


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: June 27, 1922. Then Mr. Dodwell who has been Chief Engineer of Public Works in Nova Scotia for the last twenty-five years, a man of long experience who has served under every government, appointed originally by the government of Sir John Thompson and who has been an official ever since, reviewed the claim of Mr. Morrison. Speaking of the conditions he said:
The evidence goes to show that this was a storm of extraordinary and almost unprecedented severity. It was a whole gale from the S.S.E., the direction of greatest exposure, and it was accompanied by a tide or tidal wave of a height unknown for many years.
He went on to say:
It is true that Morrison's contract explicitly provided that he would be responsible during the whole period of the construction for all damage done thereto by gales, storms and other causes, and no relief from responsibility is given or implied in the case of a storm of extraordinary or unprecedented magnitude. That this provision in the form of contracts in vogue in 1911 was deemed of an arbitrary or unfair severity is shown by the fact that in contracts of later date, as for instance the one at Sandy Cove, clause 21 of the specification provides that the contractor is responsible for all damage	" excepting in such
cases of an uncontrollable action of nature which it would be impossible to guard against." It is admittedly difficult to draw a line between an ordinary storm doing damage that the contractors must make good at their own expense, and an extraordinary one with its resultant damage for which a contractor is not liable.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
but if we suppose that the breakwater at Little Anse before its completion had been damaged or destroyed by an earthquake, the department would hardly be justified-not in equity at least-in penalizing the contractor for such a catastrophe.
After a careful and thorough review of the circumstances of this claim, I find myself unable to reach any other opinion than that Mr. T. D. Morrison is fairly and properly entitled to be paid the amount of damages estimated by Mr. Locke in his report attached hereto at $3,324.60. If, moreover, he is entitled to this amount as principal, he would also be entitled to interest and the amount payable to him would therefore be
Principal	 $3,234 60
Nine years' interest at 5 per cent.. ..	1,455 57

Here is a case in which the two leading officers of the department have recognized the claim. I am aware that Mr. Bernasconi in 1920 reported against the claim. He was a young man and a junior engineer who had charge of the construction, and he reported, on account of the contract at that time making the explicit provision in regard to the liability of the contractor, that he was prevented from considering the claim. But inasmuch as my hon. friend's government changed the form of contract and allowed in proper cases in which the evidence was cleat that the work of the contractor had been destroyed by storms of unusual severity, that compensation should be made, the minister of this department felt that he had a right to ask that the money be paid. I submit with absolute confidence, after going through the records and speaking not from any legal standpoint but with full responsibility as acting minister, that the vote is justifiable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a very good kind of case for discussion, because it shows what can be done if a minister wants to put through a supplementary estimate. One of the best things to do is to bring in witnesses afterwards who knew nothing about the facts at the time. For example, if you want to obtain a different decision from the one that was previously arrived at just send an engineer who was not originally on the work, and have his report considered by some one who was not the original engineer either.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Both Mr. Locke and Mr. Dodwell have been in the service 25 years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say anything to the contrary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend spoke about sending an engineer down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly; they
were sent to look into the claim.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Locke
was.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now I am going to try to get at the facts. This contract was entered into in 1911 or 1912 and the report on the storm was made on January 7, 1913. There was no claim put in for damages as a result of the storm; at that time no reform politician had come upon the scene to tell this gentleman that he might get his claim settled. The final estimate under this precious contract was given on August 27, 1913, and in that final estimate there was an allowance for $300 extra, the original contract being for $21,500. These extras were accepted, and the first- reference I find to any claim appears in the file on the 29th of July, 1920. The claim was referred by the then minister to the local engineer, Mr. Bernasconi and he reported upon it in the ordinary way. The district engineer reported against the claim on October 22, 1920, to the chief engineer, Mr. St. Laurent, who endorsed the report. The report of the chief engineer is dated November 8, 1920, and a letter was written to Mr. Morrison refusing his claim on November 10. The next thing I find is a letter from the initial engineer to the minister who at that time was the Hon. Mr. McCurdy. The matter was again considered and referred to the engineers, and again on March 14, 1921, a letter was written to Mr. Morrison stating that his claim could not be acceded to. Then a long petition is worked up winding up with a statement that is forwarded "through our worthy and popular representative Mr. George W. Kyte". When this petition comes in Mr. St. Laurent gets hold of it in the first instance. The memorandum filed by Mr. St. Laurent on the 21st of April, 1922, is against the claim, and so it is necessary, of course, that there should be a new set of engineers, if this claim, which never really existed at any time between 1913 and 1920, was to be made alive. There were therefore two other engineers whose names we have heard. Now there is only one thing I can say about this matter. The claim had been refused regularly by engineers that were familiar with the whole thing, and it was declined when appeal was had to the former Minister of Public Works.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Was the engineer who recommended it a senior engineer?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The engineer who did not recommend it was the chief engineer. There is just one moral to be drawn from the whole matter and that is as to what politics can do.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Lewis Herbert Martell: You are measuring every one by your own half measure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all. The minister talks about a compassionate allowance. When he first introduced the matter he said, in answer to a question, that he fancied it was because Mr. Morrison, the gentleman who happened to have the contract, was a Liberal and his hon. friends who came into power in 1911 did not want to recognize the claim although it was perfectly legal. That is the kind of hypothesis on which the minister has acted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have
lots of precedents for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as any
legal claim is concerned, of course there is none. How easy it is to be generous with somebody else's money-that is the whole moral of it all. What justification the minister of Finance can put forward for a claim of this kind, standing under a contract made in 1911; what justification he has for bringing it up in the supplementary estimates, absolutely passes my understanding.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have not heard the previous discussion in connection with this item, but it is rather peculiar that a claim so long out-lawed as this can now be resurrected. If the circumstances narrated by the ex-Minister of Finance are correct, this claim would look very suspicious. Apparently it was rejected by the department during the regime of the late government, and now it is resurrected. The minister suggests that after giving it careful consideration he comes to the conclusion that there is a legal claim. If the contract provides that the responsibility in the case of the eventuality mentioned rests with the contractor, how can legal liability now be imposed on the government?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The construction placed by the government on contracts of that kind is that that is the proper course where there is the intervention of a storm of unprecedented severity. The exMinister of Finance has given a very jaundiced and distorted version of the facts, and he impugns the engineers who made the reports and who have been in the department for twenty-five years. Mr. Cameron, Acting Chief Engineer for the Department of Public Works reviews the whole case, and he cannot be accused of dealing with the claim in any way other than what he thought was proper.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was Mr. Cameron's inspection made?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He made
no inspection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then how could he report?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is Acting Chief Engineer for the department. Contracts of all classes come before him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, my hon.
friend said I had given a jaundiced version of the facts and that I have made misrepresentations. Wherein did I make a misrepresentation?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend's speech was one continued accusation that this was a matter of political dealing by the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then let us get down to the facts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend cannot find any evidence of political interference with these engineers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will tell me wherein my facts are wrong. The first engineer who reported was Mr. Bemas-coni. The minister said that he always reported against it. Is that right?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but why? I know the young man; he had not had much experience and did not know anything about the law. According to his construction the contract did not permit of the interpretation that Mr. Morrison 6 am. was entitled to this money. But he admitted the facts; he admitted the storm and all that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He reported
against it. Then Mr. St. Laurent went over it and also reported against it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He did not visit the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Neither did the Mr. Cameron you spoke about. Mr. St. Laurent was chief engineer; he went over that report and found it was correct?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. But what about Mr. Locke, who visited the place?


Henry Lumley Drayton: When?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He went
to the plane, interviewed everybody connected with it, and made his recommendation at that time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The truth is that the one man who saw this at the time anything could be learned about it was Berras-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
coni. Then there was another storm, as shown by the file, on February 4, 1915, and the very next report my hon. friend can refer to is in 1916. So the man who knew reported against it; the chief engineer with him reported against it twice. As to the two engineers upon whom my hon. friend is basing his case, neither of them reported in favour of the claim, but the two new engineers did. Was I wrong in saying that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Two new engineers? My hon. friend has been talking all through this matter as if some engineers were dug up from somewhere and sent down to report on the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Two other engineers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Two regular engineers in the Nova Scotia district, Mr. Locke, and Mr. Dodwell, Mr, Bemasconi being an understrapper who undertook to construe the law. He agreed, however, that the storm was of exceptional severity, though he undertook to say that under the contract there could not be a claim. Mr. Locke, who was his superior, visited the place and ascertained the facts before making his recommendation. Mr. Dodwell is a man of long experience who was appointed under Sir John Thompson's government. My hon. friend's suggestion about politics is therefore perfectly ridiculous. Who in Nova Scotia would ever think of Mr. Dodwell being influenced in a matter politically in the interests of the Liberal party or anyone connected with it? My hon. friend's insinuation about the utilizing of engineers is wholly unwarranted. Mr. Cameron, the successor of Mr. St. Laurent, to whom the whole matter was referred, recommends to the minister, with a full sense of his responsibility, that he should go to parliament and ask for this money. Why should there be any question about it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are lots of reasons. When did my hon. friend send Mr. Locke down?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was sent down by my hon. friend's government in 1916.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon. friend the report from Mr Locke in 1916 in favour of this scheme?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, it is here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like him to show it. In fact, if my hon. friend produces the file and leaves it here I can show him that there was no claim made until 1920, so what is the use of his saying that Mr. Locke
went down in 1916 and reported in favour ol it? If this be so proper and right and legal why does not the government waive any question of statutory limitation and give a fiat and let the man sue?


Jacques Bureau: The fiat game is played out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it is. The money could never be collected in the world. Other people's money could not be given with the fiat.


Jacques Bureau: That is an insinuation against the courts, that they are prejudiced.


Mr. KYTE:: I am rather surprised at the unwonted heat displayed by my hon. friend from West York with regard to this matter. As to his suspicion that this is a political matter I desire to say what I stated when this matter was before the committee before, that Mr. Morrison is not a supporter of mine and was not a worker of mine in the last election. Mr. Morrison is a contractor in a small way. He belongs to my county, and the only interest I have had in the matter at all was because he was a resident in my county, and whether he was a Liberal or Conservative I would be very glad to make such representations to the department as would put his case in a proper light.
This matter was pressed upon the department for some time, but the information that I had was that they had not evidence as to the character of the storm which was represented to the department as being an unusually severe one. I went to the gentleman who kept the meteorological records in the county town of Richmond county, and he gave the information which satisfied the engineer that the storm was of an unusual character. At the present session of this committee we had a claim brought down by the Minister of Railways and Canals of $196,417.63, and my hon. friend from West York argued that it was an illegal claim and that the Minister of Railways had no right to place it in the estimates. His own leader sitting beside him argued that it was an illegal claim, but strange to say they did not press it as strenuously as my hon. friend from West York is now pressing against this claim this morning. Note the distinction. In the one case the claim was for $196,000 made by a big contractor, whereas the man having the claim for $3,000 is only a small contractor. The small contractor apparentlv must be treated differently from the big contractor.	'


Jacques Bureau: And they call that democracy.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


George William Kyte: I do not know what they call that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend calls that logical?


George William Kyte: I call it inconsistent on the part of my hon. friend and his leader. I have nothing further to say in regard to the matter. It is a matter of absolute indifference to me whether the claim is paid or not. But this man did the work for the government and he suffered very great loss for a person of his means. Shortly after the government, in order to provide against such losses changed their form of contract and assumed liability for losses in respect of storms of that character. Is this man going tc suffer loss because the change in the form of contract was not made a few months earlier than it was?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says that I showed unwonted heat. If anything was displayed it was displayed after the minister in charge of this matter accused me of unfairness. If heat was displayed it is then it was displayed. He is not quite as sympathetic and as good natured as our genial friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, and if people want trouble they can get it without very much trouble.
So far as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond is concerned, I am surprised at him. I thought better of him than to think he would say we are only opposing this because it is a small claim.


George William Kyte: That is the inference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is a very poor drawer of inferences. This claim is something which has absolutely no legal foundation-absolutely none. My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he says, why should the man lose money because his contract was a hard contract and the form had not been changed? He signed it, and my hon. friend who is a lawyer knows he has no claim at all.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend said that the man who presented a claim for $196,000 had no claim at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah, but on the
other hand-


Jacques Bureau: He had the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I believe the hon. Minister of Customs is speaking from the fullness of his heart and showing what would most influence him.


Jacques Bureau: I am never influenced by anything.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
had a very different story. He spoke of his own personal knowledge of the man, and he practically pledged himself to it, and besides that he had an affidavit which he said he could absolutely rely on. In this case no claim was made until 1920. Of course, as I say, it is awfully easy to be generous with other people's money, and all we can do is to protest. You cannot make a very much better case of jt:	contract, 1911; damage,
winter of 1912-13; no claim made till 1920; passed upon by the department's engineers and thrown out; appealed from them to th* former minister who had some regard for other people's money; the claim again thrown out; two other engineers sent to inspect; the claim allowed. I am going to ask whether fhe government have any objection to the file being tabled.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall have to consult the officers of my department with regard to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do I understand
there is any objection?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has been browsing through the file the whole afternoon. I do not see why the department should give possession of a file like this upon which a claim is based to the Clerk of the House. I have not sufficient experience myself in the department to be able to say anything about it. I shall have to consult the officers of the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me correct my hon. friend. He let me have the file not this afternoon but earlier, and he got it back. He has had a chance of going through it after I have. Can my hon. friend give me any reason why a public document when requested to be filed and on which this extraordinary action is taken cannot be tabled?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will have access to this file in the department at any time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will undertake to see that he does.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is another matter a little more pleasant which I wonder if I could speak about now, Mr. Chairman, before my hon. friend the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establisment drops off again. I want

Supply-Canadian Press
to mention a matter that I know must have been drawn to his attention before. I have received representations from a large number of very estimable societies in connection with the case of Mrs. Van Koughnet, a very estimable lady who did a tremendous amount of work during the war, who worked eight years for the government without salary at all, and who apparently has been released from her job without anything more one way or the other. The societies appear to be very indignant about it. They are certainly most sincere in their representations, and I would ask my friend what the position is.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mrs. Van Koughnet was the honorary superintendent of the Soldiers' Comfort branch. The activities of the department in the regular hospitals have greatly decreased, and it was thought advisable by the officials of the department in conference with me, that with a view to effecting economy in the service the branch should be merged with the regular activities of the department. The cost per year is between $30,000 and $40,000, and we expect to effect an economy of from fifteen to twenty thousand dollars by merging the two. Mrs. Van Koughnet has rendered valuable service in a very disinterested manner and it is a pleasure for me to render testimony verbally, as I have done in writing, to the work which she has performed on behalf of the returned men generally. She is not the only one in that category. Many other ladies in this country have rendered like service since the war in the same kind of work. I have taken occasion by letter to express my personal thanks, and those of the department, to Mrs. Van Koughnet for her great services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Press, Limited-Canadian telegraph service, $50,000.
Canadian Press, Limited-British cable service, $8,000.
Frank S. Cahill: It is usual to pass such estimates as these during the dark hours of the night. The first of these items should properly come up in the dark rather than in daylight because it is undoubtedly a case of blackmail when the Canadian Press are permitted to take from the people of Canada the sum of $50,000 for a press service in this country. The second item of $8,000 for an Imperial or overseas press service is no more justifiable than is the $50,000 grant. I think the government are ill advised in voting $50,000 of the people's money for a press service, especially at this hour in the morning. I think the government should at least hold this vote over until we have had time to reconsider the proposition, and sleep over it;
no harm will be done by deferring it until later in the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we are all anxious to conclude the consideration of the estimates. These are the last items and there would be no advantage in holding them over until later in the day. The item of $50,000 is one which has appeared in the estimates for a number of years. No exception has been taken to it until this year when there was some reason to believe that possibly the Press more or less controlled a number of papers that might be entitled to new3 which, perhaps, they were receiving notwithstanding the government's assistance. I confess there was considerable doubt in the mind of the government as to the wisdom of continuing this vote in view of that circumstance. However, the government has gone carefully into the matter and, as far as we are able to learn, the immediate cancellation of this vote would simply mean that some of the smaller papers of the country would lose considerable news which they are at present receiving. It would make no difference to the larger papers; but we are told, and I believe on reliable authority, that a few of the papers in the Maritime Provinces and some in western Canada would suffer a considerable cut in the news they receive if that course were pursued. Under the circumstances, and bearing in mind the fact that this item appeared in the estimates before this matter came up for consideration, and inasmuch as the Press may have counted on it, the government has thought that for this year the item should be allowed to stand. However, I should like to intimate to my hon. friend that the government has decided that in subsequent estimates these amounts will not be included.


Frank S. Cahill: I should like to make just one thing clear. Since I have been in this House, and I entered it in 1917, I have always opposed this item in the estimates. The present leader of the government, who came in in 1919 I think, agreed with me in opposition to this amendment when we sat on the other side. The estimate ever since it came into effect has always been opposed by the Liberal party. It originated in 1917, and I never could see any justification for it. I never could see why the press of Canada should tax the people of this country to the extent of $50,000 in order to put over on the Canadian public the propaganda that they wish to put from year to year. I opposed this item when we were in opposition, I was opposed to it last year when it was voted, and I am opposed to it to-day. I think the principle

472S
Supply-Canadian Press

involved is a wrong one. I can see no advantage to the Canadian people in this vote, and if I have any support in this House this morning I will have much pleasure in voting against it. The Canadian Press have no more claim on the Canadian people than any other enterprise. I am sure that the members of the official opposition in the House will oppose this vote. I repeat the Canadian Press have no more right to a vote of $50,000 of the people's money to carry on their enterprise than any other business organization has. Not only should they be debarred this vote, not only should they fail to receive the support ox the people, but they are a big combine in Canada. When the Liberal party applied for a newspaper franchise in Ottawa the Canadian Press told those who made the application they could not have it. This vote looks too much like blackmail for me to support it. I think the government are using bad judgment in voting $50,000 towards the support of this enterprise, and I shall oppose it.


Albert Frederick Healy: I am going to take up just a few minutes time in stating facts which I think should be made known to the members of the committee at this time. I do this because I personally was brought into the controversy in regard to the Canadian Press during the discussion which occurred when Bill No. 54 was before the House. Fortunately we have the report of the annual meeting of the Canadian Press, we have the official report of the gentlemen who are working for and receiving this donation from the people of Canada, and I wish to draw the attention of members of the committee to the attitude taken by the directors at their annual meeting. I wish simply to quote one clause from the by-laws of this association. The gentlemen who control the Canadian Press took it upon themselves to define the business conditions and public service that should govern in the granting of a new franchise. They say that such application should not be granted " except under conditions which, in the opinion of the Board of Directors are essential to commercial success, and lacking which no real, adequate permanent and satisfactory service can be rendered to the country." Two cases occurred this year in which the question of granting a franchise arose. The first was in my home city of Windsor, and finally, after a writ had been issued, after these gentlemen were to be brought before a judge and jury, after the facts were to be disclosed to the public, the franchise in that city was granted. The next case occurred in Ottawa when these gentlemen took it upon themselves to say that because the franchise in this city was owned by three individuals they would not grant a franchise

to any other individual or company that desired to start a newspaper. These gentlemen have already received from the people of Canada the sum of $350,000. The government may feel that they are committed to the grant this year and perhaps it will be necessary in order to give these gentlemen a fair deal. This is a news gathering association. They gather the news at cost to themselves and they sell it at a tremendous profit to the public. For that reason I do not believe that the people of Canada should be asked to grant a subsidy year by year to this association. If the government feel it is necessary in order to be square with this association that the grant should be given this year, I am not going to say it should not be given, but I simply wish to point out that I do not believe the government, or parliament, or the people of this country, should be called upon to support what is really the creation of monopolies throughout this country. I will show how it works. I know of one company which owns a string of five franchises, and I know another which owns eight or ten franchises. In the province of Ontario when a man goes into a city and purchases two papers, he combines them into one; that gives him an absolute monopoly in that city, and the privilege of charging what he wishes for advertising and for subscriptions and it is a notice to the other newspaper men in this country that, for all time to come, no other paper can be established in that locality. It is absolutely an offence against British fair play and free speech. That 'has been carried to such an extent that an inside ring controls the Canadian press of this country. The great newspapers of Canada are not in accord with this monopoly, because when a writ was issued, and these people brought into court and were going to be placed in the position of being compelled to tell their sordid tale to a judge (and jury, the great newspaper owners were men enough to say " Grant this franchise." I do not know whether it was the fear of the law or the desire for fair play of the newspaper men that caused them to grant the franchise in my own city.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am opposed to this subsidy, but in view of the fact that the government is going to grant it, I desire to say that I am informed that the association uses the Canadian Pacific Company as the means of its telegraph communication. Is there no way by which a large proportion of this sum might be used by our own telegraph system? The grant might be made subject to the use of the Canadian National lines.

Supply-Canadian Press


Thomas Langton Church: I do not believe we will
have a free press, if it is to be subsidized. There is a strong prejudice against this vote. There are many industries in Canada which have been driven to the wall and are not receiving help; but here is an industiy which is self sustaining and yet coming to parliament for a subsidy. The people of Canada are sick and tired of this organization receiving a subsidy. They have never made out a case for it and it is wrong in principle.


Frank S. Cahill: If the rules of this House
are carried out and the committee continues until 11 o'clock, and if no other member will take the floor between now and that hour I will attempt to occupy the time until then rather than submit to having this vote carried over my head. It is a wrong vote and never should have been authorized by the parliament of Canada. There never was any authority from the people of Canada to vote $50,000 to the subsidized press. There was never any authority for it from any government, let alone a Liberal government. I fought this matter when I was in opposition. I fought it in the country during my election, just as I have fought other things in my life, and I say it is not a Liberal principle. I want to tell the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister that Canada cannot afford to spend $50,000 of the people's money to subsidize the press, or to prostitute the news. This vote will defeat this government as it would defeat any government. We have voted many million dollars to-night, and every member of this government has attempted to justify the different expenditures; but not one has attempted to justify this expenditure. I ask the leader of the Government to try and justify this vote which is designed to prostitute the press of Canada. Can any minister defend it?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Frank S. Cahill: Who made the demand on the government for this grant?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not seen any human being on the subject. I am speaking from my knowledge of the public service.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Would the minister be good enough to answer the request which I addressed to the Prime Minister, that is, whether or not the government will attach a string to this grant to see that the benefit of it accrues as far as possible to the Canadian National Railways?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not mean not to reply to my hon. friend. The government is not in a position to know at the present time what contracts the Canadian press
4V30
Supply-Canadian Press

has entered into for its communications. I cannot say at the moment whether my hon. friend's view is right or wrong that the Canadian press send their despatches over the Canadian Pacific line. I imagine that any arrangements they would have would be arrangements that would bind throughout the year. Under the circumstances I do not think the government would be justified in adopting the particular condition which my hon. friend suggests. Three months of the year have already gone by during which the Canadian press have had reason to believe that parliament would vote this amount. This js simply an obligation, perhaps not the most urgent in the world, but nevertheless one which the government should respect and having regard to the sum in the estimates, I think we should vote it at least for the present year.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If there is any obligation, certainly the government must meet its obligations. But as regards the Canadian National Railways receiving fair consideration, I would like the assurance of the minister that that would be taken into consideration now, and if the grant is continued next year that due consideration will be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have intimated that it is the intention of the government to discontinue this grant at the end of the year, not to renew it.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the information of this government with regard to this vote? When did it originate? I understand in 1917 there was a vote of $7,000 or $8,000 for the overseas service. In 1917, when many of us had to suffer in this country, my hon. friends who are now occupying the opposition benches voted $50,000 to the Canadian press. Eor what purpose? For the pure purpose of propaganda, against whom? Against the Liberal party and against the people of Quebec, against my province. There is no justification for this vote in past history. There never has been any justification for a vote of $50,000 of the money of the people of this Dominion to the Canadian press. It was promoted by the Union government in 1917 and they could, not justify the vote. I opposed it in 1917 and I have opposed it ever since. It has been proposed in this parliament from that time to this, and I think the government are making a great mistake to-day in again proposing it. They say that the vote has been going on for a few years. Is that any justification for the vote? Should the government not treat every estimate that comes before them on its merits? Should they not take the vote when it comes before them as a business proposition? No, they say that [Mr. Mackenzie King.l
this vote has been in the estimates for the last five, six or seven years, and they propose to pass it now because it has been in the estimates in the past. Who is asking for this vote? The government do not propose to tell me. They do not know who is asking for it. This vote of $50,000 for the Canadian press is being proposed without any justification on the part of the government. The Liberal party of Canada a few months ago asked the Canadian press for a franchise for a Liberal paper at Ottawa and they waved their hand at the Liberal party and said: "No, we do not propose to grant you a franchise; we are a law unto ourselves." They did not grant that franchise. It was intimated, I understand, to the Canadian press that this appropriation of $50,000 might not be voted, but they said: "Oh, I guess it will; it is all right: we will leave it at that." The $50,000 item was not proposed in the main estimates, but it came in the supplementaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. It is in the Main Estimates.


Frank S. Cahill: It is in the Main Estimates, but it was not proposed before now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been in the Main Estimates before the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is two-thirds of $8,000 and two thirds of $50,000.


Frank S. Cahill: The Chairman of this committee should know better than to quibble about calling an item-


George Newcombe Gordon: This item was called by me in the House one evening and was asked to stand.


Frank S. Cahill: This item was called for one-twelfth or one-sixth of the amount. It is well understood in this House that a proportion of a vote is not considered as a vote of the estimate. I told the leader of the Government that this was bad legislation and that I proposed to oppose it. I object to voting the money of the people of Canada and of the county of Pontiac to be given to the press that will not allow the establishment of free and independent newspapers throughout Canada. The press of this country should be as free as trade. You must have freedom or slavery. If you do not stand for the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, what do you stand for? You must have a free press and a free and a liberal government, or you have nothing.


Thomas George McBride: Let us have a vote on it.


Frank S. Cahill: Hon. gentlemen spoke at great length last night on the freedom of

Supply-Canadian Press
Hindus, who are an infinitesimal proportion of the population of this country; but their freedom is of absolutely no account compared to the freedom of the press. If you are to be hobbled and bound by a press that is subsidized by the government to peddle news that is paid for you cannot be a free people. The leader of the Government knows that as well as I do. Let us get away from this bondage. Is the government afraid of the press of this country? If it is, I can tell the Prime Minister that the people are not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend and I talked this matter over and we know each other's mind fairly well, I think. It is not the intention of the government, I can assure my hon. friend, to renew the subsidy another year. The government has viewed the matter from all aspects in the endeavour to see that there is no injustice, or misunderstanding, or misrepresentation regarding its attitude, but we have thought it wrell to allow the vote to pass this year.


Frank S. Cahill: What justification is there for voting $50,000 of the people's money for this purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is veo' much in the interests of the whole Dominion that the various parts of the country should be kept in touch with one another. This subsidy has been used to distribute news throughout Canada to a greater extent than would have been possible but for it, particularly in the West and in the Maritime provinces. We are informed, and I think reliably, that if the subsidy were cut off immediately the effect would be very injurious, not to the large newspapers but to the smaller ones which would not receive that amount of news, concerning various occurrences in different parts of the country, which in the interests of the people as a whole should be circulated. I think hon. members will agree to let the vote go through when they realize the loss that would be involved in its withdrawal.


Frank S. Cahill: I am informed by some of
the newspaper men of the country that the subsidy has not the effect which the Prime Minister suggests, of distributing news to the East and the West. In my opinion it is simply used as a threat to the smaller papers. The larger newspapers say, " If we do not get the subsidy we shall have to charge you a higher rate for the news service you get." I am also informed by people who I think are fairly conversant with the facts that the cost to the smaller newspapers would be a trifling matter, not more than $200 or $300 a year. This grant, or dole, or subsidy, has been opposed
by some of the newspapers of Canada for a great many years.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I wonder whether the government would consider the advisability of allowing this matter to stand until the next sitting of the House. It is getting so near the breakfast hour now that it might be well to postpone the matter until we meet again.


Frank S. Cahill: I am willing to allow it to go over until eleven o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is a Supply Bill
to follow which it is absolutely necessary to get to the Senate. That Chamber is meeting at eleven o'clock, and, if I may be permitted the remark, I think the object in view is to dispose of Supply now.


Frank S. Cahill: There are no items in the Supply Bill except this one. All the other items of supply are in the Supplementary Estimates. I do not see any necessity for rushing this matter now; it could very welt stand over until eleven o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: What would be gained?


Frank S. Cahill: That is for you to answer.


Jacques Bureau: Then my answer is that
nothing would be gained.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend is a poor
guesser.


Jacques Bureau: It is not a guess, it is a
question of fact.


Frank S. Cahill: He has proved so in the
past and I should not be surprised if he were the same in the future.


Jacques Bureau: Fortunately I know youi
judgment.


Frank S. Cahill: Just as I know your inclination.


Jacques Bureau: What is it?


Frank S. Cahill: There is nothing to be lost to me in pressing this objection. I am speaking purely on principle.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. member
want to keep the House sitting until eleven o'clock? If he does we are prepared to stay.


Frank S. Cahill: If the government is going to continue to vote money at this rate they will find themselves in a very difficult position. I have not heard any reason why this vote should be io the estimates. What is the benefit to the Canadian people? Is 't proposed to propagate the idea of the protected interests, of the financial interests of this country? I asked the late government
Supply-Canadian Press

how they justified a similar vote; they were not able to answer the question, and their failure to answer it was responsible to some extent for the result of the election of 1921. The people cannot afford to subsidize a press in order that they may be fed with the kind of news that the interests of this country wish them to be provided with. It is not legitimate; it is not Canadian; it is not free; it certainly is not Liberal. Every item of the estimates that has been voted, with the exception of this vote to the Canadian press, has had some justification and has been accompanied by some reasonable explanation. But. this item should not be in the estimates. It should not have been voted in 1917. It should not have been voted in 1918, and I opposed it. It should not have been voted in 1919, and I opposed it, as members of the Liberal party did. It should not have been voted in 1920, 1921, and in 1922, and there is no justification for its appearance this year. The people of Canada are suffering from excessive taxation, from business depression, and from bad conditions generally, and they are not prepared to sanction additional taxation for the benefit of the newspaper publishers of this country. They are willing to bear the burden of taxation provided that the purposes of that taxation are legitimate. They felt that the Liberal party would, when they came into power in 1921, give them a new deal, give them less taxation, bring about better conditions, and they are still hopeful that conditions will be better. But with the present newspaper propaganda they are beginning to doubt, and that doubt is increased when they are asked by this vote to contribute $50,000 to the Canadian Press. I think the government should leave this matter over till eleven o'clock and reconsider it, and give this House some reason why this vote should be continued. If the elimination of this vote would work a hardship on the smaller papers I think the Minister of Finance should tell the House just how they would be affected, and how it would affect the dissemination of news between the East and the West and as between the different provinces. If the government wishes to give us this information as to the news service that is to be distributed among the different provinces I am quite prepared to hear their representations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think all the members of the House are anxious that we should prorogue to-day, and as there are still some measures on the order paper that have not been disposed of and which it is important should get over to the Senate as soon as the 	j
Senate reconvenes. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



CONCURRENCE

William Stevens Fielding: I move that the resolutions reported this day be now read a second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolutions read a second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 244, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to committee of the whole with instructions to amend same by providing that the amount of any guarantees binding on the country given under the said bill be first included in the estimates and voted by parliament.
Amendment negatived on division.
Main motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 43, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
' Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou): The Senate have made several amendments to this measure, some of which I propose that this House concur in. The first amendment is to paragraph (c) of section 1 in which they strike out the words " or brewer " wherever they appear in that paragraph. Paragraph (c) is also amended by adding after the word " distiller " the following " under the supervision of the Department of Customs and Excise." The next amendment is one relating to placing the burden of proof upon the person with liquor in his possession. It reads as follows:
And where the person accused is a person duly licensed by the Government of Canada to carry on the business or trade of a distiller, the burden shall also be on him of proving that all intoxicating liquor imported by him is imported solely for the purpose of being used for blending with or flavouring the products of the business or trade of a distiller carried on by him in the province and that all intoxicating liquor

Criminal Code-Betting
imported and kept by him in the province is kept in a place or warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such places or warehouses and that all intoxicating liquor imported by him is used solely for blending with or flavouring the products of his said business or trade.
To that amendment I propose that we should agree. The objectionable amendment is the one that relates to clause 5. The clause as it left this House provided that:
Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of Canada of a duly certified copy of an order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province in which there is, at any time, in force a law vesting in His Majesty or the Executive Government of the province authority for the control and sale of intoxicating liquor in the province, or in any board, commission, officer or other governmental agency the right of selling intoxicating liquor in the province, requesting that the prohibitions contained in subsection one of this section be brought into force in that province, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, declare the prohibitions of subsection one of this section in force in that province and the same shall thereupon be and continue in force therein.
The Senate have struck out that clause and substituted the following:
(5) Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of Canada of a duly certified copy of an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province in which there is at any time in force a law vesting in His Majesty or the executive government of the province authority for the control and sale of intoxicating liquor in the province or in any board, commission, officer, or other governmental agency, the right of selling intoxicating liquor in the province requesting that the votes of the electors maybe taken for or against the following prohibition, that is to say:
" That the importation and the bringing of intoxicating liquors into such province may be forbidden."
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may proceed to take a vote on such question in the manner provided in section 152, and the provisions of sections 152 and 152a and 153 shall as far as applicable mutatis mutandis apply to the taking of such vote.
5b. If the prohibition is declared to be in force, the Governor in Council may by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette declare the prohibitions of subsection 1 of this section in that province, and the same shall thereupon be and continue in force therein.
To that clause I would ask the House to disagree. I therefore move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House hath agreed to their amendments to Bill No. 43. an Act to amend the Canada Temperance Act, with the exception of those made to subsection 5 of section 163 of part V of said bill for the following reason:
1. Because it proposes that the federal authority should impose an wholly unnecessary expense upon the provinces affected.
And that the clerk do carry this message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 245, to Constitute the Board of Audit.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain?


William Stevens Fielding: The amendment consists of a mere verbal change.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (for the Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 102, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: The House will recall the proposal that was made by the Minister of Justice in regard to the question of prohibiting other than the publication of betting information. The Senate have struck out that section and substituted therefor the following:
3. Section 235 of the said act is hereby amended by adding to paragraph (f) thereof the following:
(11) Imports or brings into Canada any matter, whether printed or in writing which from the nature of its contents or other evidence adduced is not a newspaper published in good faith mainly for the purpose of supplying news and comment, other than information intended or likely to promote, assist in or be of use in gambling, book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering upon any race of any kind, fight, game or sport whether held within or without Canada and whether published before, during or after such race, fight, game or sport; or is not a magazine or other periodical published in good faith mainly for the purpose of supplying literature and comment, other than such information as aforesaid; but is intended or likely to afford such information as aforesaid; or
The effect of the provisioa is to prevent the importation of the paper known as "Racing Information." The amendment falls short of the provisions adopted by the House but in order that we may get the advantage of the prohibition it contains I would propose that the House agree to adopt it.
The Senate have struck out section 4 raising the age of consent from fourteen to sixteen years. They have also struck out section 5 with respect to carnally knowing girls between fourteen and sixteen.
They have introduced another amendment with respect to the percentages collectible in the case of money staked on race tracks, but there is no very material change from the law as it formerly Stood. It is only to make more clear the intention of the law. The Senate have also added a very important provision 'by which there is given to a person who has been convicted the right of *appeal upon grounds which never existed before. This measure had been very carefully drawn and followed the principle of the law Which had been established in England with regard to the right to appeal in the case of persons who had been convicted.
Motion agreed to.
Soldiers' Insurance Act


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 232 to Amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
He said: The amendment which the Senate has made to this bill is the addition of the following section:
38A. The Senate or the House of Commons may respectively make regulations, from time to time, by rule or by order, rendering more stringent upon its own members the provisions of this act which relate to attendance of members or to deductions to be made from the sessional allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 203 to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
He said: In connection with the three bills passed by this House relating to returned soldiers, that to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act is not so long and not so important as that relating to the Pension Act. The Senate has made several amendments to this bill, but they are of the same nature as applied to the three different bills. The intention of the original bill was that in cases where the insurance policies had been refused for certain reasons and on account of certain regulations, the policies should now be issued without any question. The bill was prepared with that end in view. The Senate provides in the amendment to the preamble that only those soldiers with actual dependents may have their policies revived; and only in the case of deceased men having, at the time of their death, actual dependents can the benefit of insurance be availed of. When the amendment to the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was under consideration in the House last year, some restrictions were provided for in the schedule which was attached to the act. On that occasion the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) moved that all applicants for insurance before the 1st January, 1903; having dependents should not be subjected to the schedule attached to the act. Originally the insurance was available to every returned soldier; but the main object was to provide insurance for the dependents of returned soldiers, and the same clauses of the original act, if they are perused, will tend to reveal that that was the spirit that permeated the

House at the time of the passing of the original measure. I think, as only 71 cases are involved, and as the majority of them had dependents when they died w*e can concur in the Senate amendments. I will therefore move accordingly.
Levi William Humphrey: It seems very regrettable that we should be called upon to pass this legislation at this hour of the morning and at this stage of the session. Asking the House to pass upon these amendments to the Insurance Bill is really not giving the members of the House, the people of the country and the returned men as a whole, the fair chance they should have. After one solid year's consideration of this question by a commission appointed by this government, this bill with others has been passed. Now it is returned to us in its present shape; and it does not seem right that we should be asked to pass it before we really have a knowledge of it. I do not wish to obstruct any legislation, but I desire to place my own personal views upon record in connection with the manner in which this legislation has been returned to us and the reasons given for it. It is a well known fact that these amendments have been made on account of the increased cost of administration and other reasons. I have not hesitated to attend the sessions of the committee and devoted my time to the consideration of these matters.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no desire to press for the passing of the amendment before the House. The most important bill by far is the Pension Act, but I have no objection to postpone the consideration of the amendment until the next sitting of the House at 11 o'clock.


Levi William Humphrey: I was prefacing my remarks in a general way, in order to cover the three bills at once, perhaps extending over a little wider area than the insurance question. I do not wish it to be inferred that this legislation is being hurried through in any way; but I think adequate time should be given to this legislation. Whatever action this House takes, I wish it to be made clear in every way that I feel that I cannot concur in the changes which have been made. I simply wish now to cover, in a brief manner, some of my objections to this bill, and perhaps at the same time cover the amendments to the Pension Act. The principal reason, as I have gathered, for the changes which have been proposed is the expense of the administration, particularly in regard to the Insurance Act. After the country has gone to the expense of appointing a royal commission which went into the matter thoroughly and brought reports to this House,.

Supply

Concurrence
it is only fair that members of the House should stand firm, and insist upon passing the bills as they left the House of Commons. Although we are in the dying days of the session, if it is necessary to stay another week or month I am quite prepared to remain in order to see that legislation which will be to the advantage of the returned soldier is enacted.
I have followed with great interest the discussion during the night, and have noticed how the government, with the sanction of the House, have approved money grants, which probably are justified, for celebrations and monuments. I wish to assure hon. members this morning that there are throughout the Dominion of Canada to-day many walking monuments without any provision. I wish again to assure hon. members that the only way the returned men throughout the country have of presenting the different cases and of asking what they consider is within their rights, is through their united efforts and their organized method of procedure. I feel sure that the changes that are now taking place in the Insurance bill, the Pension bill, and the Re-establishment bill will not meet with the approval of this country, and this is going to continue in every way the dissatisfaction that at present exists. I am well aware of the attitude assumed by the present government and of the attitude assumed by the minister. I am well aware of the opposition with which they have met. On the other hand, while I hesitate delaying this legislation, I feel so keenly on the subject that I wish to place on record my views on this legislation, the changes that have taken place regarding the Insurance Act, and in respect to other changes that have taken place contrary to the findings of the royal commission and contrary to the sanction of this House of Commons. I do not wish to be a party to those changes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is desirable that there should be ample opportunity to discuss the changes made by the Senate to this legislation, and for that reason I think it would be advisable if we postpone further discussion at the present time and take the matter up at the next sitting of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree with my right hon. friend's suggestion, but it is also of importance that we get something; that the legislation ought not to be wasted in any way. I would assume the House would appoint managers to go into conference with the Senate, and we should make that provision at the earliest possible moment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will take
some little time to have concurrence to Supply moved and I think that if possible we should immediately complete the voting of the Supply. I therefore suggest that the House return to Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Canadian Press, Limited-Canadian telegraph service, $50,000.
Canadian Press, Limited-British cable service, $8,000. Items agreed to.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

William Stevens Fielding: I beg to ask the consent of the House to motions for concurrence. I beg to move the following resolution:
Resolved, that two-thirds of the amount of the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply from the 20th February last to the 20th March last, inclusive, forming a total of $33,540,785.30; and two-thirds of the amount of resolutions reported from Committee of Supply from the 27th March last to the 8th June last, inclusive, forming a total of $103,857,326.70; and two-thirds of the amount of the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply from the 11th J line instant to the 29th June instant, inclusive, and forming a total of $41,477,010.06; granting to His Majesty amounts voted of the Main Estimates, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution concurred in.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move the following resolution:
Resolved, that two-thirds of the amount of the resolution reported from Committee of Supply on the 13th April, 1923, providing provisional bonus allowance for the Inside and Outside Services of the Civil Service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1924, and forming a total of $3,666,666.67 be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolutions concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1924, the sum of $196,870,229.79 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1923, the sum of $18,202,105.66 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
Resolutions reported and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 252 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal years ending respectively March 31, 1923, and March 31, 1924.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House doth agree to their address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency will be pleased to transmit our joint resolution that parliament do approve of the treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America providing effective measures for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean, which was signed at Washington on the 2nd day of March, 1923, a copy of which has been laid before parliament and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty acting for Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, by filling up the blank therein with the words " and Commons


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 190 to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
He said: The House reassembles at eleven o'clock. I think the Government is fairly safe in assuming that it will be possible to arrange prorogation for three o'clock in the afternoon. It is impossible to fix the time definitely, because there is no telling what debate we may have after we assemble at eleven o'clock. There are one or two matters to be taken up, but for the time being we might assume that prorogation will be at three.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 7.55 a.m. (Saturday).
Saturday, June 30, 1923.