1923-02-13

REDISTRIBUTION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a measure to effect a readjustment of the membership of the House of Commons. In doing so, I need not remind hon. members that the government is not exercising any discretionary right, but is rather performing a constitutional duty which is imposed upon it. Under our constitution, the redistribution of the membership of the House of Commons must be made after each decennial census. There have been, since confederation, several redistributions. The first was made in 1872, the next in 1882, the

next in 1892, the next in 1903, and the last redistribution was made in 1914. There have been in the interval partial redistributions for the purpose of providing for representation of territory and provinces which were not in the Dominion when confederation was originally formed. There was a partial redistribution in 1871, to give Manitoba representation, and a partial redistribution in 1887, to provide for representation of the Northwest Territories. There was a partial redistribution in 1907 to provide for representation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which were subsequently formed out of the Northwest Territories. In 1915, an amendment was passed to the British North America Act, relating more particularly to the province of Prince Edward Island. It was in the nature of a partial redistribution affecting that province, and added to the British North America Act as section 51a thereof the following provision:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
By section 1, subsections (1) paragraph (ii) of the Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, being 5-6 George V, Chapter 45, the representation of Prince Edward Island in the Senate was fixed at four members. The census prior to that partial redistribution would have affected the representation of Prince Edward Island to the extent of the loss of one member, but for this amendment to the act, which provided that no province shall have in the House a smaller representation than it has in the Senate.
Another partial redistribution was made to give the Yukon Territory representation in the House of Commons. The Yukon Territory obtained its right to representation under the act known as the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902, assented to on the 15th May of that year. The clause that relates to this matter reads:
The Yukon Territory, as that territory is defined and constituted by section 13. of, and the schedule to, chapter 41 of the statutes of 1901, shall be an electoral district and shall return one member to the House of Commons of Canada.
The Yukon Territory received its representation under the redistribution of 1903.
The time has now come when a general redistribution should be made under the last census. The sections of the British North America Act which have to do with numerical representation by provinces in the House of Commons, and which are pertinent to the present redistribution are as follows:

Redistribution
Section 37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this act, consist of 181 members, of whom 82 shall be elected for Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 19 for Nova Scotia, and 15 for New Brunswick.
Section 51. On the completion of the census in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
(1)	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members;
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained) ;
(3)	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number;
(4)	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards;
(5)	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
Section 52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
I think it will be of interest to hon. members, in connection with the redistribution we are about to make, were I to incorporate in my remarks a statement showing the representation of the various provinces in this House of Commons after the several redistributions that have taken place:
	Census 1911 (Unit 30,819)			Census 1921 (Unit 36,283)		
Province	Population	Quotient based on Unit	Actual Repre- sentation	Population	Quotient based on Unit	Actual Repre- sentation93,728	304	4	88,615	2-44	4492,338	15-95	16	523,837	14-44	14351,889	11-40	11	387,876	10-69	112,527,292 461,394	81-90	82	2,933,662	80-86	8214-95	15	610,118	16-82	17492,432	15-96	16	757,510	20-88	21374,295	12-13	12	588,454	16-22	16392,480	12-72	13	524,582	14-46	142,005,776	65-00	65	2,358,412	65 00	658,512	1	4,157	1
The representation of Prince Edward Island was increased from three to four by partial redistribution in 1915 under the amendment to the British North America Act to which I have referred.
May I say a word now with respect to the application of the recent census to the redistribution about to be effected. First of all I would point out that the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, which was passed in 1912 and which enlarged the boundaries of the province of Quebec, contained a provision under which the population of the additional territory brought into the province was not to be counted, for the purposes of redistribution, as part of the population of the province of Quebec in determining the unit of representation in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act on that point. The Quebec Boundaries Act contains the following section:
That the population of the territory hereby added to the province of Quebec shall be excluded in ascertaining the population of the said province for the purposes of any readjustment of representation of the other provinces consequent upon any census.
Account of this provision must necessarily be taken in determining the unit of representation according to the census. The population of the province of Quebec-exclusive of the area added by the Quebec Boundaries Act of 1912-enumerated in the sixth census, June 1, 1921, numbered 2,358,412, which, divided by 65, gives a unit of representation of 36,283;-the unit was 30,819 in 1911. The quotient obtained by dividing the population of each province, except Brince Edward Island, as shown at the date of the census, by the unit 36,283 indicates, except where section 51 subsection 4 of the British North America Act applies, the number of members to which each province is entitled. The result is as follows. I shall give for sake of comparison the figures of the redistribution effected after the census of 1911 as well as the figures of the 1911 census, and the figures of the redistribution to be effected under the last census that of 1921 and the census figures themselves. The House will kindly bear with, me while I put these figures on record:
Redistribution



GENERAL AND PARTIAL REDISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUENCIES

[Stage Direction]
Year	No. of Constituencies	Ont.	Que.	N.S.	N.B1867	181	82	65	15	19*1871	185	82	65	15	1911872	200	86	65	21	1611882	211	92	65	21	16*1887	215	92	65	21	16tl892	213	92	65	20	14fl903	214	86	65	18	13*1907	221	86	65	18	13tl914	234	82	65	16	11*1915	235	82	65	16	aMan.	B.C.	P.E.I.	N.W.T.	Yukon
4					
4	6				
5	6	6	5	6	6	4	7	6	5	4	10	7	4	10	iSasJe.	Alta.	10	7	4	10	7	i15	13	3	16	12	115	13	4	16	12	i
'Partial Redistribution. fGeneral Redistribution.
Arthur Meighen: Did not the Prime Minister make a mistake? Has not Ontario SI members instead of 82?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is misinformed; I am quoting figures given by the Dominion Statistician.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend
gave the unit as 80-86 and the actual representation as 82. Should it not be 81?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is forgetting the sections of the British North America Act which bear particularly on the proportion of reduction in population of each province relative to the total population of the Dominion as between the census figures of 1921 and 1911.


Arthur Meighen: That is right. That is
the 120th section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I shall
refer to it in a moment.
Now I come to the point to which my right hon. friend referred a moment ago. Before there can be any reduction in the representation of any province the provisions of section 51, subsection 4, of the British North America Act have to be considered. Let me repeat the subsection. It is somewhat involved, but I think its meaning perhaps will become clear if I afterwards express it in different words. This is the subsection:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards.
In other words, the proportion of the population of the province to the aggregate popu-
lation of the Dominion must fall below one-twentieth less than the proportion of the population of the province to the aggregate population of the Dominion at the last preceding census before a reduction in the representation of that province can result.
The application of these provisions to Ontario and Nova Scotia is shown by the following table:
The proportion which the population of each province bears to the total population of Canada:
Ontario; According to the census of 1911 .35069 -	1921 .33380
Nova Scotia: According to the census of 1911 .06831
1921 .05960
That is a decrease in proportion from 1911 to 1921 in the case of Ontario of .01689; in the case of Nova Scotia of .00871.
The ratio of decrease in population from 1911 to 1921 in proportion to 1911 in the case of Ontario was .0481, which it will be observed is a little below the one-twentieth mark, .05. Nova Scotia is .1275, which unfortunately is just above the one-twentieth proportion. In the case of Ontario the proportion is less, in the case of Nova Scotia it is greater than the one-twentieth to which the Act refers.
These figures show that under the provisions of section 51, subsection 4 of the British North America Act, no reduction should take place in the representation of Ontario, because the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada, based on the census of 1911 is ascertained at the census of 1921 to be diminished by less than one-twentieth part. The proportion for Nova Scotia, having diminished by more than one-twentieth part, the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51 do not apply, and the representation of that province must therefore be reduced in accordance with

Redistribution
the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of section 51.
May I in brief form give to the House the net result of the effect of the census upon the redistribution as it will be under the legislation of this year as compared with the legislation of 1914. The unit of representation as I have already mentioned, this year is 36,283 as against 30,819 in 1914. The total membership of the House of Commons will hereafter during the next ten years be 245 as against 235 during the past ten years, or an increase, in all, of ten members.
In the case of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon the representation will remain the same as it is at the present time, respectively 82, 65, 11, 4 and 1. In the case of British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the representation will be increased-in the case of British Columbia by 1, from 13 to 14; in the case of Manitoba by 2, from 15 to 17; in the case of Alberta by 4, from 12 to 16; in the case of Saskatchewan by 5, from 16 to 21. In the case of Nova Scotia, unfortunately there will under the provisions of the British North America Act be a reduction of two, from 16 to 14.
I need hardly say. particularly to our friends from Nova Scotia, that in this matter of redistribution the government is not, as I mentioned at the outset, exercising any discretionary right; nor, indeed, has it any discretionary powers. It is simply obliged to accept the law as it is and to apply its provisions as set out in the act. In the application of the law it is very largely a matter simply of mathematics.
That, I think, is-all I need say with reference to the representation of the several provinces so far as its numerical aspect is concerned.
I come now to the method whereby the government proposes to effect the redistribution of the various constituencies or electoral districts under the measure which is being introduced. Prior to 1903 the government of the day in introducing a redistribution bill brought down a measure which it had previously prepared in a complete form. The measure outlined the electoral districts as. the government of the day had prepared them in advance. The bill was submitted to the House in that form, and as all who are familiar with Canadian political history will recall, the redistributions effected in that manner gave rise to perhaps the bitterest controversies which have taken place in this Chamber and in our public life. Too often those redistributions suggested an element of unfairness, and endeavour on the part of the government of the
day to profit at the expense of its political opponents in virtue of the power that it possessed.
In 1903, under the administration of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a new principle was adopted. Sir Wilfrid brought into the House, not a bill which contained the boundaries of all the constituencies as originally drafted by the government itself, but a bill which set forth the number of members to which each province under the redistribution was entitled, leaving blank for subsequent determination the delimitations or definitions of the several constituencies to be represented. Sir Wilfrid proposed when in power what he had suggested when in oppo- -sition. He maintained that in seeking to effect a redistribution, a larger measure of satisfaction in the House and greater confidence throughout the country would result if the government invited the opposition to join with it in a committee to work out the details of redistribution. The hope was expressed that the conferences in the committee room would be carried out in such a spirit of fair play and goodwill that the bill could be brought back to the House of Commons and passed without contention or dispute. The adoption of that principle by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1903 had beneficial results, so much so that when the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden had occasion in 1914 to introduce a redistribution measure, Sir Robert followed the principle that Sir Wilfrid had adopted and invited the opposition to name members on a committeee to join with the government members in determining the boundaries of the constituencies which were to be arranged under the redistribution. We propose to follow the example set by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and later followed by Sir Robert Borden, and I think in doing so we shall meet what my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), when speaking on the Address, said he hoped the government would do, namely, have the details of the redistribution measure worked out by a joint committee of hon. members of this House.
The bill which I am about to introduce sets forth the number of members to which each province is entitled under the redistribution and makes provision for the division of the province and the territory into electoral districts as provided in a schedule to the act. The schedule to the act, however, is being introduced, so far as this bill in its present form is concerned, in blank. It is the purpose of the government, if hon. gentlemen op-
Redistribution

posite will meet us in the same spirit in which we approach the matter, to refer this bill after the second reading to a committee on which there will be representatives of the three parties at present comprising this House, the committee to have power to work out the details of the redistribution.	Except for
the changes in wording and figures which are necessary as a consequence of the census, the bill that I am about to present is to all intents and purposes the same in form and wording as the bill which was introduced in 1914, which in itself was a copy of the bill introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1903. Its provisions are not long, and as I have observed that on previous occasions the bill has been read in its entirety at the time of its introduction. I will venture to read its provisions. They are as follows:
An act to readjust the Representation in the House of Commons. Whereas the' results of the census of 1921 necessitate a readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, and the other statutes in that behalf; Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1.	This act may be cited as The Representation Act, 1923.
2.	The House of Commons shall consist of two hundred and forty-five members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for the province of Ontario, sixty-five for the province of Quebec, fourteen for the province of Nova Scotia, eleven for the province of New Brunswick, seventeen for the province of Manitoba, fourteen for the province of British Columbia, four for the province of Prince Edward Island, twenty-one for the province of Saskatchewan, sixteen for the province of Alberta, and one for the Yukon Territory.
3.	The said provinces and territory respectively shall, for the purposes of election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented as provided in the schedule to this act.
4.	Every city, town, village, township, parish or place, or part thereof, lying within the territorial limits of any electoral district, and not specifically included in any other electoral district by the said schedule, shall be and be taken to be part of the electoral district in which it is so locally situate.
5.	Wherever in the said schedule any word or expression is used to denote the name of any territorial division, such word or expression shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as indicating such territorial division as it exists and is bounded at the date of the passing of this act.	.
6.	Wherever in the said schedule a municipality or place is wrongly referred to as a city, or a town, or a village, but there is within the territorial limits of the electoral district, in the description of which the reference occurs, a municipality or place of the same name which is a city, or a town, or a village, but is not of the class,-city, town or village, as the case may be, specified in the schedule, the reference shall be taken to be that municipality or place.
7.	This act shall take effect only upon the dissolution of the present Parliament.
I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker, except to emphasize what I have already said,

that in adopting this method of working out the details of redistribution the government has in view but the one object of bringing about a measure of redistribution which will be regarded in this House and throughout the country as eminently fair and just. I believe that all parties, working together in a joint committee, having the common object of arriving at a fair and equitable basis of redistribution, should be able to send back to this House a bill which it will be possible for us to accept without controversy or discussion; a bill that will meet with the general approval of all hon. members, a bill that will help to inspire throughout the country a greater measure of confidence in our parliamentary institutions because of a realization of the accuracy and justice of the foundations on which they rest.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday, the 13th of February instant, it stand adjourned until Thursday, the 15th instant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, it was stated in the Speech from the Throne that a bill would be submitted to safeguard the interests of consumers and producers from undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade by combines, monopolies, trusts, or mergers. I have information from the city of Montreal that there is an extreme situation there at the present time with regard to coal. The coal situation is bad in all our cities, but the Montreal papers say that $25 per ton is being charged there for coal in small lots, and that one householder was unable to obtain coal though he had offered $35 per ton. The suffering among certain sections of the populace has been great. I should like to ask whether the measure that is being introduced will protect consumers during this present season, when protection is so much needed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will depend very largely upon the length of time that it takes to get the measure through the House. The government will endeavour to expedite it, and perhaps my hon. friend will help us.

Vancouver Harbour



THE BANK ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Some few months ago the Canadian Council of Agriculture, representing the farming interests of Canada, held a meeting and passed a resolution calling on the government to appoint a commission to inquire into banking matters in Canada, and particularly into the merits or demerits of the Commonwealth system of banking in Australia, and the Federal Reserve banking system in the United States, with a view to the possible embodiment of their good points in the Canadian banking system. I should like to know, in the first place, whether the government have received such a communication from the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and if so, what action has been taken, or what the attitude of the government is at the present time in connection with this matter.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I think the communication was received in due course from the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The view of the government is that the decennial revision of the Bank Act should be taken up, and at a very early date we hope to introduce a bill to revise the Bank Act. We shall then, with the consent of the House, ask that it be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce with a view to being fully investigated. That committee will then have the opportunity of receiving suggestions from any quarter bearing in any way upon the banking system of the country.



THE FINANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Does the government purpose any legislation affecting the Finance Act?


William Stevens Fielding: I think at a later stage it will probably be necessary. The Finance Act is not necessarily associated with the Bank Act, but it has some relation to it. My impression is that it will be desirable to continue the Finance Act in whole or in part, but that is a matter which can arise a little later.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Corporation of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, hereinafter called "the Corporation," such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of five million dollars, as are required to enable the Corporation to carry on the construction of such terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the Port of Vancouver.
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these Resolutions the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances shall be deemed to be money required to construct and to be part of the cost of construction of the said terminal facilities, and such interest may by paid out of the said sum of five million dollars.
3.	That the Corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances, with statements showing total expenditure on different items in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	That the Corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the Corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
5.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these Resolutions shall be payable by the Corporation out of all its property, assets, tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall rank as a charge thereon and have precedence in regard to payment next after the payments provided for in Section 27 of Chapter 54 of the Statutes of 1913.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. STEVENS:: I wish at once to approve the minister's action and to congratulate him upon his sound business sense in continuing the harbour development work at the port at Vancouver. I think, however, the committee ought to be made aware of one or two matters in connection with this work in order to appreciate the wisdom of this move.
It will be remembered that a similar bill was passed about three or four years ago, and I think that the House will be interested to know that the Board of Harbour Commissioners for the port of Vancouver has provided for the interest on these bonds, and has provided also a sinking fund for their retirement at maturity. It might be interesting to know also that this sinking fund has been properly kept up, and that if the same policy that has been followed by the Vancouver Harbour Board up to this year is continued, the bonds will be met and retired.
This is a loan by the federal government to the harbour commissioners. It is not an item of public works. It does not come out of the general funds of the country to

Vancouver Harbour
be spent in the usual way; but it is a loan properly provided for and secured, and it will be repaid.
I would ask the minister to be good enough to give to the committee a brief explanation as to how this money will be expended. If I remember correctly, the harbour board on the previous occasion submitted their plans and proposals to the government, and after they had been approved, the money was expended on a definite programme.
I also wish to make reference to a very important matter, one which I am sure will be of interest and which has already been referred to by a number of the hon. members from the western prairie provinces, and that is, the total inadequacy of the facilities at the port of Vancouver for handling grain from the prairie provinces. I think it was in the year 1913, or 1914, that an elevator was constructed. No grain moved that way for several years, and there was a question in the minds of some whether or not the previous government had acted wisely in constructing this elevator. But there was a definite reason why the elevator was not used, and I think it will be well to make a brief explanation on that point, and also to point out the requirements at the present time. The reason the elevator was not used to any great extent was simply this-that owing to the war there was no tonnage on the Pacific; practically all the tonnage, with Very few exceptions, was taken over from the Pacific ocean to the Atlantic for war purposes, so that there were no shipping facilities. On the conclusion of war, however, and with the readjustment of tonnage after the war, grain commenced to go westward and in the last two years there has been an increasing flow of grain in that direction. Last year, owing to the congestion at the port of Vancouver, a permit or embargo system had to be inaugurated at Edmonton and Calgary. That is, cars were not allowed to go forward unless the elevator was clear, and there was opportunity to handle the cars and transfer their contents to the shipping. Now, this meant that there was difficulty in handling wheat by that route. There was another difficulty, and that was in handling damaged, smutty or tough wheat. There were no facilities at the coast at that time for cleaning, drying and treating damaged grain. Very often bins would be occupied with grain more or less damaged in one form or another, thus curtailing the capacity for storage. Provision has been made to remedy this by the installation of cleaning and drying plants in connection with the elevator. This year-and

this is what I wish to point out particularly to the minister, and I know I am appealing to sympathetic ears-there was such a flow of wheat directed to the Pacific coast, arising from purely sound, economic reasons, that the congestion was not only marked but became quite startling, and again they had to inaugurate the embargo system and only ship grain that way by permit. Up to about a week ago nearly eleven million bushels of grain had been shipped by the Pacific route, and had there been storage capacity sufficient to handle what was offered there the amount would easily have been doubled. That route, as we know, is open the year round, and upon the closing of the eastern route there would be a continuously increasing amount flowing westward.
Another point I wish to make is this: Doubt has arisen in the past as to the wisdom of installing extended facilities there, and this question has presented itself-that the facilities would only be used during the closed season. I would draw the attention of the committee, and of the minister, to the fact that right from the opening of the grain season, that is, right from the commencement of threshing operations on the prairies, grain has flowed westward, thus fully demonstrating that the route had certain definite advantages to all the sections of the prairies lying westward of a line drawn approximately between Prince Albert and Regina. What I wish to call the attention of the minister to is this: At a very moderate cost the existing elevator could be increased in capacity by about two million bushels, the present capacity being 1,250,000 bushels. The working house, the conveyors, and the other paraphernalia necessary to handle grain effectively and rapidly are all there. By the increase of the storage capacity by, say, another two million bushels we could meet, in a slight degree at least, the congestion which occurred this year and last year. I do not know whether the minister contemplates to do that work out of this $5,000,000. I understand that the elevator which originally was built by the government.
under the Grain Commission or
4 p.m. Department of Trade and Commerce, has been turned over to the harbour board for operation, and, indeed, I believe, for ownership, by them. The harbour board, I understand, pay a certain sum into the exchequer for this transfer. If the minister would be good enough, when he is speaking, to explain the exact state of this elevator at the present time, and the intention in regard to the increasing of its capacity, we would appreciate that information.

Vancouver Harbour
Before I sit down I would further draw attention to this-that we are just about completing a large pier, one of the best on the continent, called, I think, the Ballantyne pier. That pier will be completed, I should judge, this season. Unfortunately there is no elevator provided for in connection with that pier. I am not offering my opinion in any arbitrary fashion, but after consulting with some of the best qualified advisers on the subject the suggestion is made that another elevator might be constructed, adjacent to this pier, which would add very much materially to the grain handling facilities without too much cost. That is to say, you have the pier and there will be at least four first-class deep-water berths, so that a very large portion of the cost has already been provided for, and all that would be necessarjr would be the construction of the elevator itself. If the government would construct another elevator equal in capacity to the enlarged existing elevator it would supply a very excellent facility, I think, for the handling of grain. That, of course, does not interfere with the establishment in that port of other elevators by private interests if they so desire. I believe that one or two private concerns are at present contemplating establishing elevators there, but the establishment of government elevators exercises a very wholesome influence on the grain handling business. A port perhaps wholly under the control of private grain handling concerns might give some cause for complaint by way of charges of monopoly, imaginary at least if not real, but with the existence of government elevators, such as I have mentioned, such complaints would be very largely obviated.
We have, of course another subject which will be discussed under another resolution and I do not wish to interject that matter here. That is, the question of the adverse freight rates. All I intend to say in that regard here is, that in spite of this adverse rate from the prairies to the coast of approximately seven cents a bushel we have been able to handle grain by that route, giving to the shipper an advantage over the eastern route, on some occasions, of as high as six and seven cents a bushel; that is, to those shippers from the western part of the prairie provinces. This is a distinct and real advantage to the producers of grain on the prairies. It is an advantage that they are entitled to, and I think this parliament is now ready to recognize that fact and is prepared to support the government in any reasonable effort to give that advantage to the producer on the prairies. As the discussion proceeds, other points may arise, but
that is all I wish to say at this moment in connection with the resolution.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am glad, indeed, that the resolution which I have the honour to introduce commends itself to the support of my hon. friend. As he said, prior to a very short time ago there was very little grain going through Vancouver,-prior to 1921, I do not think there was any. In 1921, a little over one million bushels was shipped via Vancouver, and in 1922, the quantity so shipped was 14,000,000 bushels. In the first days of January of this year, there were orders for upwards of 5,000,000 bushels of wheat to be shipped through Vancouver. It is in order to meet these requirements and to give better facilities and larger accommodation


Arthur Meighen: Was the hon. gentleman not wrong as to the year? I understand there was a substantial traffic in 1920.


Ernest Lapointe: My information is that it started in 1921.


Mr. CLARK:: Can the minister state how many bushels altogether were shipped prior to the end of July, 1921?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot give those figures now, but I shall be pleased to give them to my hon. friend when the bill comes up for second reading.


Mr. MANION:: How much of the 14,000,000 bushels went to the Orient and how much to Europe?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not that information, either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I could assist the minister for a moment. I am not sure of the exact figures, and in my figures I quote rather seasonal than calendar year shipments, to which latter the minister is now referring. Last shipping season, that is about a year ago, about one-half went to the Orient and about one-half to Europe, chiefly to the United Kingdom. This shipping season, say from September to January, less than one-half went to the Orient; but in the month of December, a large number of contracts were entered into for oriental shipment, and these, perhaps, would bring the ratio of later months up to approximately 50 per cent.


Ernest Lapointe: All this shows that from now on, increasing quantities of grain will find their way through Vancouver, and it is, therefore, necessary and important that more facilities should be provided there, especially in the way of further elevator accommodation.
The Vancouver Harbour Commission was organized in 1913. In 1919, this parliament

Vancouver Harbour

authorized advances to be made to the commissioners to an amount of 85,000,000, and I think this country is entitled to know what has been done with that money. First, an amount of 8300,000 was paid to redeem bonds which had been issued by the harbour commissioners. Then they acquired property for the site of the pier to which my hon. friend has referred, called the Ballantyne pier, for an amount of $672,900. Other expenditures included:
Repairing foundations and dredging, berthing
and turning basin for the main pier	$ 512,095
Work to December 31, 1922, on construction
of pier and sheds	 2,814,871
Engineering and contingencies	 121,583
Development of other harbour property and acquisition of plant and tools for harbour
work	 35,319
Interest during construction charged to capital account	 68,032
This makes a total expenditure of $4,524,800. There remains a balance of $475,200 available for future expenditures from this loan of 1919. The Ballantyne pier is not altogether completed, and a further amount of $1,760,765 will be required to complete it-that is, in addition to the $475,200 which remains of the loan of $5,000,000. As to what will be done to increase elevator accommodation, the commissioners have engaged the services of an expert, Mr. Rolph, of the J. S. Metcalf Company, of Montreal, who is studying the question with them presently in order to take the best course, and especially the most speedy course, for the handling of grain,-if possible, the next crop. What is proposed now-but it is not definite-is that the present elevator, which has a capacity of 1,250,000 bushels, should be enlarged by an extension which would give a further capacity of 5(30,000 bushels, or a total capacity of 1,750,000 bushels. That would cost $400,000. Then, another elevator would be built at the place suggested by my hon. friend, on Ballantyne pier, this elevator to have a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels and to be built at a cost of $2,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the minister at
this point say what the existing elevator cost?


Ernest Lapointe: Between $800,000 and
$900,000. The other works which would be constructed with the money which would be advanced to the commissioners are as follows:
Log booming ground	 $171,000
Marine ferry terminal	  155,375
Ballantyne stage yards	 76,000
Railway equipment	 81,000
Strips of land adjacent present Government
elevator	 50,000
Lumber assembling wharf	 190,000

Grenville Island Harbour	 27,000
Overhead approach to Ballantyne	pier	 65,000
Contingencies	 23,860
As to the financial condition of the harbour,
I might say that it is excellent, indeed, and I have no doubt that within a very short time the Vancouver Harbour Board will be selfsustaining and that interest will be paid to the government on all the money which may be advanced to the commission.


Mr. LADNER:: Is it not a fact that last year's operations disclosed a profit above operating expenses of some $38,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The receipts last year amounted to $423,307.98 while the expenditures totalled $131,240.75. While there was an increase in the revenue of $82,370.10 over that of the previous year; the increase for the year of receipts over expenditures on revenue accoimt amounts to $292,067.23. The expenditure on revenue account showed a decrease of $34,123.16. This is certainly creditable and shows that the traffic in the harbour, which I have no doubt will continue to increase, entitles the harbour commission of Vancouver to the help which this parliament and the government intend to give them.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Do I understand that there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of some $290,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, last year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That being so, why should the interest be paid out of capital?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the law authorizing the loan of $5,000,000 the interest is considered a part of the loan.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But, if the surplus earnings were sufficient to pay the interest on the guaranteed advances, why were those earnings not applied to that purpose? It would not appear to be necessary to add interest account to capital expenditure.


Ernest Lapointe: The commission took advantage of the provision of the statute, that, during the period of construction of the works the interest payable on debentures in respect of such construction shall be deemed to be money required to enable the corporation to carry on 'that construction and pay for part of the construction thereof. It is therefore provided that the interest may be paid out of the $5,000,000.

Vancouver Harbour


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that there is authority for paying the interest during the period of construction. But where there was a surplus of earnings sufficient to pay the interest there would not appear to be any reason for paying that interest out of capital. The showing, I admit, is an exceedingly good one, and I merely wish to know why the interest should be paid out of capital under the circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not the interest paid during construction, on the moneys invested in the harbour, that is charged to capital? That, of course, does not need to be taken into account in the annual returns. The interest after that is taken, into account is paid and there is still a surplus for last year's operations.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right. We are still in the period of construction.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the authority to pay interest out of capital during the period of construction does not necessarily require that it shall be charged to capital, if the public works in the meanwhile are earning interest, as apparently they were in this case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will agfee that in all works of this kind, during the period that the building or construction is under way, the interest is always added to the capital cost.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Usually.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this case we are constructing a very large pier, which is not yet earning anything. It is not yet completed ; it will probably be completed this coming year. During the period of construction, necessarily and in all fairness, the interest is added to the capital cost of construction. The moment that pier is completed and put into use and is producing revenue, then the interest will come out of the earnings of the port. I may add, to supplement what the minister has said, that the earnings of the port have been derived from tonnage dues and dues upon cargoes, as well as from charges for foreshore leases and other things of that nature. The object of the commission in the past has been to establish a strong financial position, which I think they have shown they have succeeded in doing. But it would be wholly unfair to ask them, before the completion of the pier, to pay the interest on its capital cost out of the revenue produced from other sources in the harbour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That, of
course, offers some explanation. Does my hon. friend know whether a large proportion of the net earnings came from other sources?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: None from the pier under construction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: None from the pier at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That makes a difference.


Ernest Lapointe: In the figures I gave I stated that the sum of $4,524,800 had been advanced to the commissioners out of the loan of $5,000,000. In that amount is included the sum of $68,032 for interest during construction charged to capital account. We are supposed to have given them back that amount for purposes of construction, and it is deducted from the $5,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: The interest on the harbour proper-that is, on the constructed part 

is not added to capital; it is paid out of earnings?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Now, while I do not know that I have anything to add, I might say this much. I should be obliged to the members of the committee if they would try to expedite the passing of this legislation in order that the works may be undertaken as soon as possible, and that at least a part of the proposed added accommodation may be open for the traffic of the next season's crop.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope my questions will not leave the impression that I am opposed to the expenditure, although I do think that hereafter, when large expenditures are contemplated in public harbours, they should be very closely examined. I know from experience in my own province that local interests are very insistent in making very large and unwarranted capital expenditures in harbours, and in many cases they turn out entirely useless and unjustifiable. It is very gratifying indeed to learn that at the present moment the port corporation of Vancouver is in a flourishing condition financially; and it is equally gratifying to hear the minister give the committee the assurance that he anticipates that that port will be able to earn sufficient to pay the interest upon the advances which the government proposes to guarantee under the legislation contemplated. I think it would be well, however, for the minister to indicate to the committee what are the esti-
Vancouver Harbour

mated earnings of the port after the projected expenditures are completed. Is it possible to make any estimate, or have the officers of the department made any? I suppose it is quite possible that the very things that have happened in the East can well happen on the Pacific coast. Persons resident in Vancouver may have a very vivid imagination of port developments that are not very likely vo materialize in the early future, and I think the minister should be extremely careful, before authorizing these expenditures, to ascertain that there is a reasonable certainty of interest being earned upon the loan.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do not find myself in opposition to this proposed loan, although I cannot say that I am heartily in sympathy with the method of raising the money. Possibly it is safe enough for the government to advance five million dollars to the Vancouver harbour commissioners, presuming that they are a responsible body and that the money will be repaid. But, in addition to what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has said, it seems to me that there needs to be a reorganization of the Vancouver harbour commissioners so that we may be reasonably sure of a continuous development of the harbour. I do not speak in this way with the idea of opposing the loan, because I happen to come from a section of the country that will benefit very materially from the development of the Vancouver route. I live in the centre prairie province, Saskatchewan, which is the greatest wheat producing province in the Dominion. In 1921 we produced over two hundred million bushels of wheat, and I am not sure but that our 1922 crop exceeded that figure. I live in Kindersley, about forty miles east of the eastern boundary of Alberta, and during the past year a great deal of grain grown in the vicinity has been shipped via Vancouver. We might wonder why that is the case. Our trouble on the prairies is, not that we cannot grow grain, not that the land is not good enough to grow grain, not that the people out there have not faith in their country; we have faith in our country, we know we can produce the grain, but what we are up against is inadequate transportation facilities-these are not as good as they should be. Heretofore the bulk of our grain has been.going via Fort William and Montreal to the European market. That route is fairly well established, but it is only a summer route; at least in the winter time not a very large amount of our grain can be moved. And it cannot be moved very cheaply by that route. It so happens that from where I reside

we can ship grain westward and save considerable. money. From Kindersley to Vancouver the rate is 17 2-5 cents per bushel, from Vancouver to Liverpool 22 cents, making a total charge of 39 2-5 cents per bushel. Now take the rate the other way. From Kindersley to Fort William the rate is 15 3-5 cents per bushel, from Fort William to Montreal by water 20 cents, by rail 21 cents-we will take the cheaper rate-from Montreal to the European market 12 cents per bushel; making a total of 47 3-5 cents per bushel. The difference represents a saving of S 1-5 cents for every bushel of grain shipped from Kindersley via Vancouver. Is it any. wonder that the farmers of western Saskatchewan prefer to ship their grain via Vancouver? During the past season a great many cars were shipped from my home town and from towns immediately west.
I have no doubt as to the future of the Vancouver route, if the harbour commissioners there are as energetic as the harbour commissioners of Montreal, for instance. There is just a query in my mind-and possibly in the course of the debate it will be answered -as to why, seeing that the Panama canal was completed in 1915, it has taken seven years for the Vancouver people to have suf-fiqient faith in their harbour to make agitation for its development. Possibly they are beginning to become progressive in their ideas. If such is the case, Mr. Chairman, within another seven years we may hope to see progressive representatives from Vancouver.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon.
friend? The elevator to which I referred a few moments ago has been constructed and standing in Vancouver since 1914.


Mr. ROBB:: Since 1916.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was completed in 1916. I explained a few moments ago the reasons why grain did not move that way at an earlier date. First, there was no surety that the route would be a successful one; secondly, the Panama canal was blocked for a year and a half; thirdly, there was no tonnage available on the Pacific until about eighteen months after the conclusion of the war. My hon. friend will remember, if he reflects a moment, that for over a year after the war, until August 1920, tonnage was fully occupied on the short Atlantic route bringing troops back. In 1920 we started to ship wheat or grain through the Vancouver route. In 1921 more grain was flowing that way than we could handle because of the lack of facilities, the elevator being used to capacity. And the same condition obtained last year.

Vancouver Harbour


Archibald M. Carmichael: Thank you. I am alraid, Mr. Chairman, that our hopes for progressive representatives from Vancouver are not very good. Now, there is perhaps, one other point that might be mentioned. While the application for this loan is made to the Dominion authority, and while I have every hope that it will go through, yet in my opinion it would be preferable if the citizens of Vancouver and British Columbia and the western half of the prairie provinces contributed the major portion of the money necessary to develop these harbour facilities. Possibly that course will be followed along with the present procedure.
One other point. This is the first application that has been made, I "believe, for a development that is going to continue. Now, I wonder if this is only the first "bite" and if there are many more applications to follow. When the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) was eulogizing the beauties of northern British Columbia and pointing out the advantages of the fine harbour of Prince Rupert, he took occasion to remind us that the prospects of shipping grain from the prairie provinces were never better than by the port of Prince Rupert. Are we to expect that a board of harbour commissioners will be organized at Prince Rupert and an application made here for another five million dollars to develop that port?-and then possibly in the near future another loan of five million dollars asked for the further development of Vancouver harbour? Will the good work continue in this way? If such is the case, I for one would not be very strongly in favour of lavishly expending Dominion money or loaning it out with the likelihood of not getting it back in the near future. I would rather favour the citizens of the interested cities and provinces getting together and contributing the money- I am sure it would be forthcoming in that western country-and so developing the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert and opening up for the prairie provinces further outlets for their grain.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I take this opportunity of supporting the resolution, and I do so not because I am a western man, but because the result will be to encourage business through the port of Vancouver and to assist in bringing about the carrying on of Canadian business through Canadian ports. The adoption of this resolution will be a step in that direction; it will be evidence of an effort to do what means so much for the prosperity of our country, namely, to ensure the employment of our railroads and of our seaports.
It has been stated once or twice in this discussion that grain can be exported through Vancouver during the winter season and that navigation is during that period closed in the East. Now-I was going to say, unfortunately, but rather I should say, fortunately- that is not a correct statement of the facts. At the present time grain is exported from the city of St. John, where the elevator capacity is two million and a quarter bushels, a million more than the elevator capacity at Vancouver. However, the same difficulties exist at the port of St. John that are met at the port of Vancouver; that is, there is lack of accommodation and facilities. It is not a case of creating business. The business is there, but it is being refused; it is being lost on account of the lack of accommodation. That is one reason why I am in favour of the encouragement of all ports in this Dominion that are suited to the handling of the business which presents itself. A few days ago in the port of St. John there were six steamers lying in stream awaiting to be loaded; the business was there, but the accommodation was insufficient.
There is another thing that I wish to emphasize about this business in the East, and that is that it is not closed in winter. It is true that the St. Lawrence route is closed, but the port of St. John is always open. But there is another large port through which grain is sent in streams during the winter, and that is Portland. In other words, a foreign port is handling a great deal of our Canadian export trade. In view of the fact, therefore, that we should be doing this business through our owe ports, I am glad to do what I can to support Vancouver or any other Canadian port with a view to our handling this export trade to the best advantage.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The government is to be complimented in engaging upon this national undertaking, not only because of its benefit from the point of view of a market in the United Kingdom for our western grain, but also because of the developments which are now taking place in Japan and China so far as our grain trade is concerned. I happen to be in touch with interests in Vancouver which handle more of that oriental trade, perhaps, than any other concern, and I am informed that most of it must necessarily be handled through Vancouver. The larger Japanese and Chinese concerns dealing in grain have their head offices in Seattle, and we have now reached the point where there is keen competition between United States and Canadian dealers for the markets of the Orient. I say again that the government are
Vancouver Harbour

to be commended for taking time by the forelock and establishing these elevator facilities in order that Canada may not be behind in the great development which is bound to come in the Orient, as she was behind when the development took place in Alaska. It is well known that on the coast at that time -and this particularly relates to Vancouver- the facilities were lacking for handling trade to the Yukon and Alaska, with the result that Seattle received a great impetus in her development. She had the facilities and was therefore able to take the trade when we had scarcely waked up to its advantages. Grain is to some extent replacing rice in the oriental diet, and as time goes on the trade and traffic in grain between Canada and Japan and China will grow more and more.
Reference has been made by one hon. member to contributions made by the people of the West for works of this kind. But I submit that this is a national undertaking, not merely an undertaking for Vancouver; the people of St. John and of Montreal are just as much interested in it as the people of Vancouver. Certain private enterprises are contemplating the construction of elevators there. As trustee of an estate I sold the first two water frontages for private elevators, and thus I have come in contact with actual dealers in grain, the men who are going to develop elevators there in order to carry on the grain business. I learned from them that it was essential that some large undertaking in the way of elevator accommodation such as is contemplated by this resolution should be carried out; that it would help private enterprise as no other method would. When grain men see the government interested in establishing a sound and permanent business in grain traffic, they themselves feel safe in going on with it. I was advised by one of these dealers that the presence of a large number of export grain dealers in the city would help not only the port itself, but also the producers of grain in the West. As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said, it is a fact that notwithstanding the discriminatory freight rates to which the people of British Columbia have been subjected, there is an advantage of nearly ten cents a bushel on grain going from Edmonton to Liverpool via Vancouver as compared with the rate on grain going from Edmonton to Liverpool via eastern ports. The Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) has stated that some 19,000,000 bushels of grain went through Vancouver last year. So, it is evident that with proper grain facilities there will be no

blocking of the grain, and the farmer will be able to get a maximum of advantage. I am told that one of the reasons why the producers got nearly $2,000,000 less than they should have got was because of the conditions under which the grain dealers were able, by manipulating the cars and so on, to get this ten cents a bushel which really should go into the pockets of the farmers. One purpose this resolution will serve will be to eliminate those opportunities, and thereby directly contribute to the advantage of the farmer. If two hundred million bushels, which is only one-half of the grain crop of Canada, should go via Vancouver, the farmers of the prairies would have on this basis an additional revenue of something in the neighbourhood of twenty million dollars. I see some hon. gentlemen smile at that, but it is a fact. I have the data and can establish the point which I am making. There is an advantage of ten cents a bushel in favour of the Edmonton-Vancouver route to Liverpool over the Edmonton-Montreal route, and the establishment of a grain elevator will be one method of diverting that ten cents a bushel from the hands of the grain elevators into the hands of the farmers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is my hon. friend supporting this expenditure at Vancouver on the ground that it is justified by anticipated wheat exports, or does he hope for some general port development there?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I thought that the immediate justification had been well explained by the minister showing the actual net profits which are now produced, and not wishing to duplicate his remarks I took up another point, the development of trade. I say that it would enlarge the possibilities of oriental trade, and greatly increase the possibilities of still larger profits, and at the same time private enterprise would be encouraged to go in when the people saw the government step in whole-heartedly. The idea that this expenditure is to be a continual drain, that we are going to come back here year after year and ask for another appropriation, is quite unreasonable and quite unfair, because once you get the volume of business going through the port and the trade established, it is more than likely that private enterprise will be able to carry out what it is unable to carry out at the present time.


Mr. MILLAR:: I am pleased indeed to see this western route opened up, because I believe that when we get a great deal of our grain going over the Pacific route, as well as over the Hudson Bay route, many of the

Vancouver Harbour
abuses now alleged of the St. Lawrence route will pass away. I know there has been very little said in the way of searching into the difficulties and perhaps the objections, and I would like to ask for a little information.
I have not been able to find out from the remarks made by the minister whether it is the policy of the government to make of the port of Vancouver a storage port or simply a transfer port. I should also like to ask what information the government has in regard to the amount of moisture that is consumed by grain passing over the Pacific route and through the Panama canal to the Old Country. I believe that a great deal of our grain that goes through Fort William in a damp condition is mixed with dry grain, and while the farmer pays for the drying, I believe that a great deal of the grain is not dried. I submit this opinion, in connection with the Pacific route. I believe that if grain is taken to the port very early in the season, and left lying there for many months before it is shipped, and passes through the Panama canal for London or Liverpool, it will be necessary' to be very much more careful about the drying facilities, because a great deal of the grain that will pass readily and without much damage over the other route would not pass undamaged over the Pacific route.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was thoroughly
tested out on several trial trips. Scientific experts accompanied the vessels and took tests of the temperature, moisture, and everything else on the trip, and they say that there were no bad effects whatsoever.


John Millar: I am quite well aware of that, provided the grain travels quickly to the port of Vancouver and quickly to England, but I doubt whether tests have been made of grain that has been shipped very early in the season and stored for many months before being shipped across the water. The European countries taking our grain and the grain of other countries require about twelve million bushels a week all the year round, so naturally the grain must be stored somewhere. I will not say that Calgary and Edmonton are the proper points at which to provide storage facilities. Lethbridge is mentioned by an hon. member. I think the location should be very carefully considered. Much has been said about the lack of facilities during the past season. I believe it was stated that twice the grain would have gone over that route if it had not been for the lack of facilities. I do not think I am disposing any information I should not disclose when I say that I had a conversation with some
members of the grain commission on my way east from which I gathered that a great deal if not all of the difficulty was caused by the fact that some people had space leased and had not grain, while others had grain and no space, and each class was holding up the other. That occurred also on the eastern route last season. Men who had much space leased on the Great Lakes vessels were able to sell it at a very great advance and made considerable money thereby. So you can see that there is always a difficulty of a port being held up and a blockade being caused in that way. That being the case, I would ask if it is the intention of the government to place this port under the board of harbour commissioners or under the grain commission. During this last season, I suppose, right up to the present time, it has been under the harbour board. Is it the intention of the government to continue that?


Ernest Lapointe: The elevator is under the grain commission just now, and will be until 1st August next, when it will pass under the management of the harbour commission.


John Millar: Let me add that the blockade to which I have referred was broken up by the grain commission taking active steps and using authority and powers that the harbour board would not have. That is one argument for placing it under the grain commission.
There is also the matter of freight rates. I believe that at the present time the freight rate is fixed on the high grade of the Canadian Pacific, while on the Canadian National the grade, I understand, is better westward than eastward. I hope the time will come when the rates from the west will be lowered. I believe that one of the reasons why there has been such an advantage in sending grain westward this season is because of the rates eastward, and that has been caused by a blockade at Montreal. I think the government should look into this matter, and I should like to know whether the blockade at Montreal this past season was caused by the fact that the harbour board had control. Has it been caused by some people leasing storage who did not have grain? These are matters that should be considered when we are deciding whether it should be under the grain commission or the harbour board. Then again, the rates on grain going eastward this past season have been very, very high. An hon. member a few minutes ago, I think, gave the rate as twenty cents to Montreal. Now I have in my room a statement giving
Vancouver Harbour

the rates during 1909. I took the figures from the books of grain companies and figured out the average of a whole page of actual shipments, and the average was just a little less than four cents. I believe the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), who is in favour of opening up the St. Lawrence deepwater ways, claimed on one occasion that a great saving could be made; I think some even talked about a saving of six cents. If we could ever get back to anywhere near the 1909-10 rate, which is less than six cents by a considerable amount, then I think it would be just a question whether any saving could be made by shipping through the West. However, I am convinced that the West can well compete with the East. Iam glad to see the proposition and I am prepared to give it my support.


Mr. HOCKEN:: There is one feature of this proposal which astonishes me, and that is the unusual modesty of the city of Vancouver. That city is asking for a loan to improve its harbour, and I ask if any Canadian city ever made so modest a request before. There have been millions of money spent, on the different harbours of this country by the Dominion government. Large sums of money, for example, have been spent at Fort William making improvements to the harbour, but all that Vancouver wants is a loan. Certainly, I would support a motion of this kind very gladly. I am of the opinion that most of the troubles of our friends in the West-and I think they seem to have more troubles than all the rest of the population put together-may be remedied by the improvement of marketing conditions; and if, as has been alleged here to-day, a saving of eight cents a bushel can be effected by using the route under discussion then I think it is up to the Canadian government not only to make a loan but to make an appropriation, to reach so desirable an end. I think that every proposition that offers lower rates for the marketing of the produce of the West should be exploited, because it is in the marketing of the products of our land that such a tremendous cost arises and that is the direction in which a reduction can be made. I am not very hopeful of being able to reduce the cost of production, at least for very many years. Because men are not going to work for less money than they are now working for, and there does not seem to be any inclination to do any more work in a specified time. The only way that I can see to relieve the situation of our friends in the western provinces is to devise some plan by which their produce could be marketed at lower rates. I believe that the improvement of the St.

Lawrence canals would do a great deal in that connection, and at a later stage I hope to have an opportunity of saying something more definite on that question. What this country ought to do-not only for to-day but for the future-is to improve all its machinery and all its facilities for getting its products out of the country. We are growing a crop of three or four hundred millions of bushels of grain in the West. Why, Sir, if that western country is fully settled there ought to be surely four or five times as much produced as is the case to-day. If, then, the prairie provinces increase their production to that amount the present means of export, as any person can see, will be absolutely insufficient, and with inadequate means of export we are practically limited in our production. The statement has been made that a block existed at Montreal. I am not surprised at that, it is practically the only outlet we have for all the stuff that is grown in the West. I would have two or three outlets, because I think the time is not far away when we will need more facilities than we possess at the present time to handle the produce of Canada. We must remember that it is not only the produce of the West that has to pass out from Montreal, but all that is grown in the great province of Ontario which produces, I suppose, twice as much as any other province in the Dominion. The only existing outlet is either New York or Montreal, a little going, perhaps, to Portland. But my feeling is that it is wise on the part of this government and this parliament to consider carefully and sympathetically every proposal that is made for increasing the facilities for handling the produce of the western prairies. There is no man in this House who is more anxious, or who desires more ardently, to serve, the interests of western Canada than I do. In that respect I am practically prepared to go the limit. It is not only wheat for which better
5	p.m. means of export are desired. The cattle industry, especially in the province of Alberta, ought to become a very large and very important one to Canada and particularly to the West.
Now I cannot speak with any definiteness as to the exact saving to be effected in the cost of transportation, not having gone into the matter as deeply as some hon. members, but it seems to me that there must be a substantial reduction in the cost of handling the produce of the West by the Vancouver route when it is remembered that the distance from Edmonton, I think, is only about eight hundred miles as compared with a distance of well on to three thousand miles to Montreal.

Vancouver Harbour
Manifestly there must be a very great saving in the case of a route so much shorter, especially with proper facilities and a fair and reasonable use of the Yellowhead pass as against the Kickinghorse pass. If the Canadian Pacific railway cannot haul grain through the mountains at the same cost as the National road then the latter and not the former is liable to get the business. And why should it not? Why not deal with transportation in the same manner as one would do when making a purchase of any commodity? If a man makes as good a pair of boots for $4 as a man does who charges $6 for footwear, it means that the former will sell more boots; and if the National road can haul grain through the mountains at a lower rate than another system can, by reason of better grades, it is likely to get the business. That is a very important item to consider in dealing with this quesiton.
I am very much in favour of the motion but I would go to the extent of suggesting to the minister that he should make a grant rather than a loan to the city of Vancouver.


Mr. COOTE:: I want to disagree with the sentiment expressed by the last speaker that the government should make a grant rather than a loan to Vancouver harbour board. I would much prefer that the minister adhere to his proposal, that is, to loan this money to the -board.
As far as the transportation of wheat is concerned, which will be carried through the port of Vancouver, I am sure that the men who raise that wheat are quite willing that the elevator at Vancouver should receive whatever reasonable charges are necessary. I simply want to mention one or two points that were not brought out this afternoon, and then submit one or two questions to the minister.
The first thing I wish to point out in regard to wheat production in Canada is that we have all the production that the present outlets can take care of. We are very close to the danger line. Last season we had a crop in Canada, we are told, of 399,000,000 bushels of -wheat, an average of 17$ bushels per acre. In the year 1915, we had an average crop in Canada of 26 bushels per acre. If in the year 1922, we had had the same average that we had in 1915, instead of 399,000,000, we would have had 582,000,000 bushels,' or another 183,000,000 bushels, which would have had to be taken care of. We are also told that there was a blockade on the one big outlet, that is by the Great Lakes. What would the blockade have been like if we had had to
market another 183,000,000 bushels this year? -and hon. members can see that that was quite a possibility.
One other point which, I am sure, will interest particularly members from the Maritime provinces is this, that if additional facilities are not provided at Vancouver for handling the wheat, particularly from Alberta, there is in the United States another Portland-Portland, Oregon-which in a few years will be taking a large quantity of our wheat, and then members from British Columbia will roar just as much about Canadian wheat going through Portland, Oregon, as members from the , Maritime provinces now complain about wheat going through Portland, Maine. This last year, a representative from the city of Portland, Oregon, came to Alberta endeavouring, to divert some share of our wheat to that city, and assured us that this would be to our advantage. This House should think seriously of that phase of the situation before doing anything which might hinder development of grain-handling facilities at Vancouver.
I am glad to note that there is so much unanimity in this House on this question, but there are a few points which I think we should be a little careful about. From expressions of opinion which I have heard so far this session, I notice that the demand for economy is very general in all quarters of this House, and I hope economy will be exercised in building facilities of one kind or another at the port of Vancouver. I sympathize very heartily with some of the statements expressed by the hon,, member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), for instance, that a great deal of money has been wasted in Canada, particularly on ocean ports or even ports that are not on the ocean, and I want to ask the minister a few questions. After he advances this money to the Vancouver harbour board, will he exercise any supervision whatever over the expenditure of it by the board? If a new elevator is built, would the work be done by tender? Does he expect to have any of this additional elevator capacity at Vancouver ready for the 1923 crop? Once these elevators are put under the board of harbour commissioners at Vancouver, will the department, through the board of grain commissioners, exercise any supervision whatever over their operation? I understand the minister assents. I am glad to be advised of that. Is the elevator at the present time under the Vancouver harbour board?


James Alexander Robb: No.
Vancouver Harbour


Mr. WARNER:: I am glad to have an opportunity to support this resolution. It is a pleasure, to western members at least* to see so much support throughout this House for this proposition. I would that all questions could be considered on their merits, and it seems to me that the considerations which have been put forward by previous speakers as regards this proposition of improving the harbour facilities at Vancouver in order to take care of the western grain by way of the Pacific, have been founded on the merits of the question. We are glad to have this support.
I live at Edmonton, which is, one might say, on the western edge of the great grain producing district, and we are close to the Pacific coast as compared with even the lake ports. We have held for years that it was rather an injustice that we should not be permitted to ship our grain west when we felt that that was our natural route to the world market and our natural outlet. As has been said this afternoon, that route has the advantage of being an all-year-round route. Any time that you want to send grain that way, you can do so. I also live on the line of the National railways, and I have no hesitation in saying that I am partial to having grain travel over the National railways. I believe, too, as a previous speaker has said, that an opportunity is given to ship grain more cheaply on those National roads on account of better grades. Why not patronize the National roads? We have them; we have to make the best of them. Moreover, if any part of Canada will do something towards making those National roads a success, it will be the undeveloped part of Canada in the West which is lying there ready for the hand of man to make productive.
I do not know that I should, at this moment, introduce more than this one idea; but I want to tell the committee, as I told hon. members last year, that in Edmonton we live half way between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. If the Hudson Bay route is opened up at some time or another-I do not know when that time will come-we are about 800 miles from tide-water in Hudson bay, and we are from 700 to 800 miles from the Pacific. We hope that as this route develops there will be established at Edmonton storage elevators and all the facilities for handling, cleaning, drying, keeping and taking care of grain that may be shipped either way. I do not see that that should interfere with present development at Vancouver. The other pro-
position I have referred to is practically untouched just now. Now, all we ask is that the government should have an eye to the future in order that western Canada may get its share of the development that must be carried out if the whole dominion is to become a really great country. We believe that we have a great country to-day, but our opportunities are so vast when compared with what has already been achieved that we cannot help feeling that we are only beginning to develop Canada. We want more wheat growers in the West, and we must provide for them, and enable them to put their products on the market.
One hon. member has observed that nothing has been said about the other products besides wheat. But if hon. members could understand the conditions in the West they would appreciate the other resources we have and perhaps they might view our future with more optimism. But people living in that part of the Dominion have some reason to hesitate about endorsing an immigration policy until they can be assured that intending immigrants will have a better opportunity than they themselves at present enjoy. Personally I do not share that view to any great extent, but I do feel that the work of taking care of the crops which future immigrants will raise in that part of the country is just as important in the interest of Canada as is the question of getting immigrants into the country. We must provide for that work or we shall not be able to hold the people when they do come. But I believe that all this can be done, and I am pleased this afternoon to note the broad view that has been taken by those hon. members who have spoken on this question. I do not think it is too much to hope that the representatives in parliament of the Canadian people may soon learn to appreciate the great value, and the crying necessity, of developing the western part of the country. That development is essential if a market is to be found for the products of the factories of eastern Canada. If the people in the West had been getting better markets and better prices there would have been a better sale for the manufactured goods of the country to-day. I do not like to recount the bad conditions that prevail out there to-day, but I must say that the reason why the manufacturers of the East are not selling their shoes and clothing in the West on a larger scale than they are now doing is simply because the people cannot buy them. I have reason to believe that we may be able to add eight or ten, indeed fifteen cents, a

Vancouver Harbour
bushel to the price of our wheat when the rates are as they should be, and when other necessary conditions are brought about along with reduced freight rates. I do not hesitate to suggest that we could effect a reduction of fifteen cents a bushel oh the handling of wheat, which of course would naturally go to the producer. If that can be done, why should we not do it? As I said before, I do not see why elevator capacity should not be provided at Edmonton if the western route is opened up. I do not believe that the government would need to invest money there for taking care of the grain and storing it, in fact, the government in the present case are doing nothing more than making it possible for Vancouver to establish those facilities which it needs. We do not want the government to make any donation; I believe that any business ought to pay for itself. I think we are paying for the transportation of our wheat, no matter who carries it; and all that is asked is that the government loan what moneys are necessary to provide that transportation which shall pay for itself. I am pleased to associate myself with those who are supporting the resolution, and I have hopes for the government when they bring in a resolution that is as fair and reasonable as this one, and undertake a development that is so badly needed in Canada to-day.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It does not seem necessary for me to extend the discussion. It is pleasing to find a resolution of this character so well and so unanimously received by our friends opposite. I have a pretty close knowledge of the conditions that led up to the desirability, in fact the urgent necessity, of the government bringing this resolution before the House. It has been shown during the last few years that it is possible to ship the grain of the western provinces particularly Alberta and western Saskatchewan, through the Pacific ports. It has been found that that grain can be taken to these ports and transported across the Pacific to the markets that apparently are waiting for it. It has also been proved that by utilizing the Panama canal this grain can be sent to the world's markets, particularly the United Kingdom. As demonstrating that possibility, the present elevator at Vancouver has served a very useful purpose. But it has been seen, particularly during the operations of last year and this year, that if that western route was to carry in competition with the eastern routes and was to serve the purpose it ought to serve for our grain products, then additional facilities would have to be provided at Vancouver. An hon. member has suggested
that he does not altogether like the idea of the government voting money in chunks of $5,000,000 for expenditures of that kind. I will call his attention to the wording of the resolution. He will notice that although parliament will, as I have no doubt, grant the proposed sum of money, the resolution provides that each of these advances shall be made from time to time and must go through the department concerned, namely the Department of Marine. This money is not handed over in a lump sum, but is advanced as the work progresses. It is also well understood,
I think, that the harbour commission is under the authority and control of the government of Canada, so that their activities in the harbour of Vancouver are at all times subject to our approval. It is true that as a commission they may initiate policies and advise the department, but after all the moneys advanced by parliament do remain in our control and are advanced as the occasion requires.
Now, in regard to the port of Vancouver, in fact to our Pacific ports generally, we find, due to the expansion of trade in the Orient and the operation of the Panama canal, that there is going to be a great change in shipping on the Pacific coast. We believe the day is not far distant when freight will be moved to the Pacific coast by water and thence transported into the interior of Canada. And in the handling of this grain traffic we will find that as the grain movement increases to the Pacific coast there will be a larger tonnage coming into that port bringing imports and taking return cargoes in the way of grain and other products of this country.
As to the transfer of the elevator from the grain commission to the harbour board, that matter was very carefully canvassed between the two departments of the government, and owing to the fact that the harbour commission not only controlled the pier over which the elevator is served, but also the movement of ships in the harbour, it was felt that the harbour commission would be in a better position to serve the handling of grain at that terminal point than a grain commission operating either in Port Arthur or Fort William. There is no complaint to make as to the activities of the grain commission. They, in conjunction with the harbour commissioners, did make regulations last year which rendered it possible for the harbour facilities to serve the grain traffic to the utmost limit of their capacity.
I am satisfied that this loan will do much to improve not only the grain handling facilities but other facilities at the port of Vancouver. It has been stated that it is not
!68
Vancouver Harbour

the intention of the harbour commission nor the people of British Columbia to come back to parliament for further grants. I would not promise that, because I believe that the development in the port will be so great and so profitable that the harbour board will be able to come back and ask for further loans, and that this parliament will grant their requests, knowing that it is good national business and in the interests of the whole Dominion to make such expenditures.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution, and I wish to congratulate the minister on bringing it forward at this early sitting. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has asked whether we support this expenditure because of anticipated developments in the grain trade. I would answ'er: No, because of the actual demand which exists to-day on the part of the grain growers of the prairies. They demand facilities for handling their grain through the western port. The facilities at present are not sufficient to accommodate their demands, and consequently an immediate increase is necessary. To-day there are many grain growers on the prairies who would like to send their grain via Vancouver-I know many of them myself-and they cannot avail themselves of that outlet because there are no facilities to handle more than a certain quantity of grain. I repeat, the necessity for greater facilities exists now.
I think I can illustrate by the general growth in trade through the port of Vancouver that there is a necessity for increased facilities in handling this commodity, and I will use the Panama canal as the basis of my illustration. The canal was opened for traffic in 1915. From that year to 1920 the freight rates were so prohibitive that no traffic moved from Vancouver via the canal- practically none. In 1920, however, the rates became normal and traffic was resumed. If we go back to 1913, that is before the Panama canal was opened, we find the total number of ocean-going vessels which docked in Vancouver was 132. We can eliminate the intervening period up to 1920 because no bottoms were available. In 1920, the first year after the war in which ocean rates began to fall, a total of 333 ocean-going ships entered the port. In 1921 a total of 496, of which 103 used the Panama canal. That is practically the first year that the Panama canal was used in so far as shipping from the port of Vancouver is concerned. In 1922 for the first nine months-I do not think the figures are available for the full year-509 oceangoing ships used the port of Vancouver.
[Mr. J. H. King.)
Now for the imports from and exports to Europe through the port of Vancouver via the Panama canal. In 1921 the exports were 154,513 tons; in 1922 they increased to 470,272 tons-more than three times the amount in one year. The imports in 1921 via the Panama canal were 20,416 tons; in 1922, 149,553 tons-or practically a little over seven times the amount in one vear. I use that illustration as a basis to demonstrate why it is feasible to ship grain via the Panama canal. Some doubt did exist as to whether or not grain would heat and thereby deteriorate in its passage through the canal, but I am assured that that theory is completely exploded, as pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).
The member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) stated, I think, that he did not approve of the method of loans. But I would point out, first, that this money is essentially for the benefit of growers of grain on the prairies, and, secondly, that Vancouver is going to pay for these facilities-and we are not complaining. As the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) pointed out, we are extremely modest and we could not adopt any other course than that of paying for the facilities which are required for the western grain growers.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member says that Vancouver will pay for these facilities. Is it not a fact that the shipments that pass through Vancouver harbour will eventually pay for them?


John Arthur Clark: The harbour commissioners will run this thing as a business. The port of Vancouver will pay through their collections.


George Gibson Coote: And the wheat that goes through there will pay its share.


John Arthur Clark: Oh yes, it will pay its share


Mr. DUFF:: It is the business that will pay, not the port of Vancouver.


John Arthur Clark: The question of economy has been raised, and I certainly support that principle. But I would point out that the present elevator capacity of the port of Vancouver is 1,250,000 bushels, and it is proposed to increase that capacity to the extent of 500,000 bushels. Now, we got that capacity of
1,250,000	bushels at a cost of from $800,000 to $900,000, but in order to get an increase of 500,000 bushels we must pay $400,000, or half the original cost. I understand also that the original cost included the working plant, whereas this is only storage. I think the minister should give us some light on this point.

Vancouver Harbour
There are one or two other things which surprise me in connection with the use to which this money is to be put. There is vital necessity for terminal railway facilities if this grain is to be handled economically and with despatch. I am surprised that no mention is made of the harbour railway facilities. At present all railways other than the Canadian Pacific are handicapped because the Canadian Pacific has all the water frontage where the elevator is and where the proposed elevators will be built. It is important, therefore, that the harbour commission should have under its jurisdiction at the earliest day the harbour facilities so that all railways will have a chance and so that the grain can be handled with the utmost despatch.
The port of Montreal, which is a much greater distance away from the grain-growing country than Vancouver is, handles nearly 200,000,000 bushels a year; therefore it is a moderate estimate that the port of Vancouver, given the necessary handling facilities, should handle 100,000,000 bushels a year. But even with this increase we shall not have more than one-third of the facilities offered at Montreal, so I anticipate that at a very early date the western grain growers will be demanding additional facilities. I recommend to the government an immediate consideration of the necessity which is obviously in front of us.


Mr. PORTER:: Is it contemplated that this proposed advance will be sufficient to enable the commissioners to complete and efficiently equip the intended improvements in this harbour, or is this merely a commitment, so to speak, in connection with which further expenditures will have to be made later? I would also like to ask whether the government is in possession of plans and specifications necessary to enable it to determine whether the expenditure of this $5,000,000 will be advisable. That information ought to be in possession of the government, and we should know whether the proposed expenditure will be sufficient without the placing of further obligations upon the people.


Ernest Lapointe: The amount which it is proposed to lend to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver will, it is anticipated, meet the estimated immediate requirements. Of course, it is impossible to say definitely that this will be sufficient to meet all futyre requirements. We have had a rather prolonged discussion and many questions have been asked; I would ask that the resolution be allowed to pass and when the bill comes back before the committee after its second reading I shall be in a better position to give the
information asked for this afternoon from various quarters.


Mr. SALES:: Will the minister give me again the name of the engineer he mentioned?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Rolph.


Thomas Sales: Is there any particular difficulty with regard to the site at Vancouver? The minister gave a lot of figures-$171,000, $155,000, and so on; some of these amounts will no doubt be for preparatory work on the site. My question is this: Is the $2,000,000 for the 2,000,000 bushels merely for the construction and equipment of plant? The minister need not answer immediately if he does not wish to do so. Another point: the amount of $400,000 for the extra 500.000 bushels, as mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) certainly seems very high. I am sure that the estimated storage costs-merely for bins, without any working plant-at the elevators at the head of the lakes are very much below that amount per bushel. I would also draw the minister's attention to the fact that there is one man, a resident of Port Arthur, who does practically all the planning of the terminal elevators. It is very necessary that this elevator should be equipped with the proper machinery. Terminal elevators very soon become obsolete, and if they are not efficient it becomes too expensive to handle the wheat going through them. This gentleman has devoted practically the whole of his time to devising new methods and new machinery for these plants, and I would certainly suggest that in order to make this Vancouver elevator an efficient and economical plant, the government should consult with Mr. Howe and with Mr. Fennel, who, in my opinion, has in Montreal a very efficient and economical organization.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interject that Mr. Howe is the engineer who designed the existing elevator?


Thomas Sales: Yes, also the ones at Calgary, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and our own co-operative terminal, as well as the new one for Mr. Stewart and a number of others. I think he is probably the best man in Canada to-day for that work. I do not know the gentleman you have named here but I would suggest that you have the two men work together in order to get the most up-to-date plant possible.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to provide for further advances to the Vancouver harbour commissioners.
Northwest Territories Act

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
On section 1-Jurisdiction and powers of stipendiaries.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I suppose this merely carries out what the hon. Minister of Justice told us a few days ago was the purpose of the bill. I have not studied it very closely, but I will accept his assurance.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: Exactly. I gave the explanation the other day in introducing the bill. It is to provide for the trial of Eskimos who are now under guard at Herschell Island.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice that this section provides that a man may serve as a juror although he is not a British subject. Is that not a new thing? Is it not an improper precedent to create?


Lomer Gouin: It is not a precedent. If my hon. friend will read clause 44 of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, he will find that a judge has unlimited jurisdiction in choosing jurors. It provides:
Persons required as jurors for a trial shall be summoned by a stipendiary from among such male persons as he thinks suitable in that behalf; and the jury required on such trial shall be called from among the persons so summoned as such jurors, and shall be sworn by the stipendiary who presides at the trial.
This provision my hon. friend mentions is to remove any doubts which might arise in this case. These men are to be tried in the Yukon district, where there is a provision that no one can serve as a juror unless he is a British subject. In the Northwest Territories there is no such restriction. These are offences that were committed in the Northwest Territoriesi so the procedure is not being changed; but the trial having to take place in the Yukon district, where there is a restriction, we feel that we should first remove that doubt.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not follow my hon. friend at all. I understood him to say that he was not creating a precedent. It seems to me now that he is. He says that in the Yukon district it is necessary for a man to be a British subject before he can serve fMr. Sales.]
on a Canadian jury. I should think it was necessary everywhere, without any qualification, that before a man has the right to take part in the administration of Canadian justice he must be a Canadian citizen. I should have thought that a primary qualification. My hon. friend says the provision is necessary here because while that general principle applies in the Yukon, it does not apply in the Northwest Territories. I venture to suggest that unless there is an express exception such as we have here, it would apply in the Northwest Territories. What my hon. friend is doing here is saying that in the case of a trial which is to take place in the Yukon, where you have British subjects and the proper machinery for the administration of justice-it is because of that very fact that this bill is being introduced to change the venue of the trial-the procedure in the Northwest Territories, where there might not be those facilities, shall apply. Unless the minister can give us some explanation, I can see no reason why the general rule should be departed from.


Lomer Gouin: The hon. member
says that there is on Herschell Island a population from which we could get British jurymen. It is exactly because we have no such population there that this provision is made. The population of Herschell Island is very small. It is of a transient character and it is only in case British subjects cannot be found that we shall need the provision that it will not be necessary to be a British subject to act on the jury. This, let me say, is the law under the existing Northwest Territories Act, but there is a difference with respect to Yukon district. My hon. friend knows very well that the qualifications with respect to jurors are prescribed by the provincial legislature. This, however, is an exceptional matter inasmuch as we are legislating for an entirely different district, and the Revised Statutes of 1906 for the Northwest Territories gives unlimited jurisdiction to the judge to select any man residing in that territory to act as a juror. But having to try cases outside of the Northwest Territories, we have to make this provision that a man need not be a British subject. I have no desire to insist upon the provision if the committee objects to it. I repeat that it is not an exception we are making, we are simply transferring to that particular district the procedure of the Northwest 'Territories.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand it, this legislation is for the purpose of securing efficient administration, saving money, and the like, and we all want to help my hon. friend in those matters. He is ask-

Cold Storage Act
ing to change the law so that an accused man can be tried in a different territory, and we are all agreeable. In making that change the minister changes the venue and he says that the venue shall be at a place where, as he himself admits, the necessary machinery and people are to be found. He changes the law so as to apply to the Yukon Territory, and he himself says that in the Yukon territory the law is that a man should be a British subject before he is qualified to serve upon such a jury. And yet my hon. friend says he is not changing the law. Why that is changing the law entirely. In the first place the accused has a right to his local venue. He may not be hurt very much by the change but his right is gone. Having changed that venue, then my hon. friend declares that the laws which apply to the Yukon administration shall not apply to the place to which the change of venue applies.


Lomer Gouin: I shall again try to make the matter clear. These people will be tried under the procedure of the Northwest Territories Act, and by that statute the judge has the right to choose any citizen that he finds as a juror. What objection can there be to our proceeding under the law as it obtains in the territories? The reason for the proposed legislation is that there is a very small population, and unless the amendment is accepted we shall, in all probability, have to send British subjects with the judge to act as jurymen in the cases in question.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS. SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Lapierre.
Bill No. 14, to incorporate La Banque des Cultivateurs.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Cold Storage Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is a very short one consisting of only two sections, and yet it is capable of rendering a great deal of service and usefulness, especially in connection with fruit, dairy, fish and other perishable commodities
throughout Canada. But before going on with the bill itself, might I refer just for a few moments to the working out of the original Cold Storage Act of 1907, because I think this House, when it is asked to vote subsidies for a certain activity of this nature, is entitled to be placed in possession of the facts with respect to the expenditure of subsidies that have been granted under the original act since its inception? I have in my hand a full report of those activities, thirty-four in number, that have been organised throughout Canada under the subsidy act of 1907. They are scattered throughout all the provinces as follows: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 3; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 2; Ontario, 16; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 4; Alberta, 2; British Columbia, 3; total, 34. We cannot assume that all these are due to the subsidies given to encourage construction; but I think we can reasonably assume that a very considerable proportion of these cold storage plants are there to-day as a result of those subsidies. The quantity of cold storage space furnished by these thirty-four plants amounts to 5,244,215 cubic feet. The total cost of construction was $2,408,354.85. The total amount of subsidies that were voted for these various plants during those twelve years was $722,506.46, or less than three-quarters of a million dollars.
P'or a number of -years after the act was first passed, not very much advantage was taken of it. At that time cold storage plants generally were the subject of a good deal of suspicion. As a matter of fact they were looked upon as almost an evil, if not a menace to society; and a great many people, if they wanted to secure a good hearing, would expatiate upon the alleged heinous conduct of cold storage plants as a whole. As time went on, however, people got more familiar with the great service that these institutions afforded, especially if properly controlled and regulated; and as the years passed more advantage was taken of the subsidies, with the result that there were established 34 plants altogether during the twelve years that the old act was in operation. \A hen the war came on we discovered, as other countries did, that we were very short of cold storage facilities, and at the conclusion of the war the government of that day amended the act so that the subsidies should apply to municipal cold storages only. I went over this matter fully when the resolution was introduced, but as there are a number of hon. members here to-night who were not present last Friday when I made the statement, I shall cover the same ground to some extent this evening.
Cold Storage Act
[Stage Direction]
The effect of the change in the act was practically to suspend its operation, because during the four years that it operated in its amended form no subsidies were paid because no municipal cold storage plants were organized nor were any moneys earned under subsidy. During that period the government that preceded us undertook the construction of one of the best cold storage plants, if not the best, in Canada, at the port of Montreal. I had the pleasure of visiting this institution and in my opinion it is one of the finest not only in Canada but on this continent. I do not know whether that government's policy was to converge on that plant to the exclusion of others, but the policy, if that was the obj ect, was a sound one. Be that as it may, the plant is a credit to Canada. But that period has gone by. The present act is not operating and we are voting sums of money from year to year which we are unable to spend because apparently no municipality is desirous of taking advantage of the grant to build municipal cold storages. The proposal therefore is to amend the terms of the act so that it shall apply to co-operative institutions.
When the resolution was before the committee there were two criticisms offered, which I think had a useful object. The first was the fact that the bill did not provide for any proper regulation of these cold storage plants after the instalments had all been paid. It had been my intention to provide for this in one of two or three ways, preferably at that time by way of regulation. It is very difficult to get a bill sufficiently flexible to apply to all the meritorious institutions when you incorporate such a regulation in it. But you can have regulations sufficiently flexible to suit the conditions and the times as necessary. However, I am not committed to that method. If the committee to which I purpose referring the bill, that is, the Committee on Agriculture, has any method of regulation, without making it too rigid, for incorporation in the bill I shall be pleased to consider it favourably.
Another suggestion was that there should be a more specific description of what constitutes co-operative associations. Now, the bill was left open on that point purposely. We may differ as to what constitutes a cooperative association. Sometimes semiphilanthropic joint stock companies may be real and valid co-operative organizations. On the other hand, a great many people hold the view that no institution is strictly co-operative unless its profits are at least partially distributed on the basis of business supplied by each patron. It occurred to myself and my staff, and to those who had the charge of drafting this short bill, that it would be better 
to leave the point open as to just what constituted a co-operative society, because it might be considered that a joint stock company that had as part of its objective profit making, when it was in fact semi-beneficent in its character, had just as much right to be recognized for a subsidy under the act as if it were a full-fledged co-operative organization with at least part of its profits distributed on a business contributing basis as regards its patrons. Howevef-, if any change can be suggested without being too rigid and confining the application of the bill to too small an area, I shall be pleased to consider such a suggestion. As a matter of fact, all we desire is to get the bill functioning. We are not satisfied with merely voting $50,000 a year in the estimates without having the money spent in providing proper cold storage facilities, and the primary object of the bill is to afford such facilities. I do not know that I have anything further to add, Mr. Speaker, and I would now formally move the second reading of the bill so that I may refer it to the Committee on Agriculture.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister stated that under the act three plants had been subsidized in Nova Scotia. Are they still in existence and what are the names of the companies? Further, can the minister tell us whether the Montreal cold storage plant was a municipal institution?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: No, national.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Constructed by the Montreal harbour board?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did it receive a subsidy under the act?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then it has nothing to do with the act?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I mentioned it incidentally. As I understood it, the object of the government in practically suspending the operation of the act was to concentrate activities on the Montreal institution. As regards the Nova Scotia plants, I understand they are all in operation. The Lockport cold storage plant receives a subsidy of $17,055, the Halifax Cold Storage Company, at Port Hawkesbury, $9,115, and the Leonard Fisheries, Limited, $60,000. I might add that the largest grant earned under the old subsidy act was $105,000 by a cold storage plant at Prince Rupert. The Canadian Fish and Cold Storage Plant, which the hon. member for

Cold Storage Act
Skeena (Mr. Stork) referred to in the course of his speech on the Address the other evening. I had an opportunity of visiting this plant last summer, and it has certainly .contributed largely to the development of the fisheries, especially in regard to halibut, on the Pacific coast. The smallest grant was given to the plant at Peterboro.


Mr. HANSON:: In view of the statement the minister makes that he has been unable to spend the money voted for subsidies each year, may I ask him if there is any pronounced demand on the part of co-operative societies for this measure, and, if so, from what part of the country does it come? Or does it emanate from the officials of his department so they may be enabled to spend the money which at present they have no outlet for?


William Richard Motherwell: Properly these questions should be put when the bill is before Committee of the Whole, but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to answer my hon. friend. We have had requests from several quarters, the principal one being from the minister of agriculture for Ontario. We have discussed the matter with him several times. He is very much interested in co-operative effort, particularly as it relates to the dairy industry. The fruit-growing industry of the Niagara peninsula also made a request through Colonel Roberts, who is himself operating a plant at Grimsby and is very familiar with the local fruit industry. He recognizes that the fruit industry can only be successfully carried on in future by the establishment of pre-cooling plants, so that the fruit directly it is gathered may be put into cold storage to reduce its temperature, retard the ripening process and arrest bacterial action. We have also had a request from the Pacific coast. Hon. members from British Columbia are of course familiar with the fruit industry there. We are informed that what is wanted probably more than anything else is cold storage accommodation so that the marketing season may be extended and thus give fruit producers a chance to dispose of their products over a longer marketing period.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I need not remind hon. members that they can speak only once on the second reading. Of course, when the bill is in committee stage no restriction applies.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I asked a question, Mr. Speaker, preliminary to making some remarks on the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon. member put a question a moment ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker,
I do not go so far as to say that I am opposed to the bill, but my experience of cold storage operations aided by government subsidy is not such as to urge me to become enthusiastic over the proposals contained in this measure. The minister (Mr. Motherwell) says he has $500,000 a year to spend for this purpose, and he wants an opportunity of spending it. But surely that is hardly sufficient justification for the bill. We can easily relieve him from his embarrassment by not voting the money.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is my hon. friend prepared to state that the fruit industry of the Annapolis valley, comprising the counties of King's, Hants and Annapolis, is not in need of government subsidies for the establishment of pre-cooling plants for the better handling of fruit? Do I understand him to be opposed to such assistance?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know whether the fruit industry in the Annapolis valley is in need of such assistance or not. My hon. friend, I have no doubt, will tell us before the bill passes whether or not there is necessity for such state aid in Nova Scotia. If there is such necessity, I have not the slightest doubt that private interests in the Annapolis valley could very well supply the accommodation themselves. However, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that I doubt very much the wisdom of continuing the Cold Storage Subsidy Act, and when this bill comes before the Committee on Agriculture I hope it will be given full and frank consideration. In so far as the act has been applied in Nova Scotia the results have not been satisfactory. The present Cold Storage Act owed its genesis I think to the efforts of persons interested in the fish industry in the Maritime provinces. I am not quite positive about that, but that is my impression. As the minister has stated, some plants have been subsidized there, but gradually they have drifted into private hands, and to all intents and purposes they are now private institutions. I believe that will happen in almost all cases where such plants are subsidized by the government. I observe that the minister in moving his resolution stated that he was very doubtful whether the act should be continued, simply by reason of the fact that such few requests for aid under its provisions had been received by his department.
I do not see how you can very well distinguish between a corporation, a co-operative society, and a private individual. The end which any one of the three might have in mind would be served and the same results

Cold Storage Act

accomplished in any locality by any of these agencies. If the principle is sound I think it should be applied to everyone. In Nova Scotia, so far as fish products are concerned, it is my opinion that considerable private capital would be invested in cold storage plants if government control were abandoned. It is very difficult to-day to attract private capital to any business which is subject to severe government control and regulation of rates. As the minister himself stated on Friday last, there has been so much criticism in recent years of the management and direction of cold storage plants that private investment in them has been discouraged. Give them the opportunity to do business with the same freedom as obtains in other industries and I think there will be forthcoming all the capital that is necessary. I quite concede that if institutions of this kind are to be subsidized there must be state control and regulation. It is also true, perhaps, that even though not aided by the state they should be regulated to some extent.
I am not going to the extent of opposing this measure, but I doubt its utility, for our experiment with state-aided cold storage plants has not been successful in any respect. Indeed, I think this might be a very good opportunity to abandon the act altogether and see what will happen in the development of these plants without any aid from the state. However, I have no doubt that the bill will be thoroughly considered by the Committee on Agriculture.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, cold storage, in so far as it relates to improved facilities for fruit growers in Nova Scotia, is of vital importance. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), whose experience, it would seem, has been a very bitter one. He is undoubtedly in favour of every possible government expenditure that will go toward the improvement of his constituency. But the people of western Nova Scotia-and I am referring to my own constituency-are in need to-day of some sort of cold storage or pre-cooling plants in which they can place their fruit when the market does not enable them to sell at a price that will yield a reasonable return for their labour. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, in the course of his remarks in reply to the hon. member for Halifax referred to the North Atlantic fisheries, and also to the Port Hawkesbury cold storage plant and one or two others. It is true that these plants may not have been a great commercial success, but if the hon. member for Halifax will look into the question without philosophizing 
upon economy, he will find that cold storage has been of inestimable value to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. The other day I referred to the fact, as also did my colleague from the county of King's (Mr. Robinson) that there were thousands upon thousands of barrels of apples down in the Annapolis valley, so-called, for which the people there could find no market. If we had these cold storage or pre-cooling plants these apples could be kept until such time as they could be placed on the market at a price to yield a reasonable return. The hon. member for Halifax spoke merely from the point of view of Halifax. We of the western counties are speaking-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I would deny to him the right to say that I was speaking primarily for Halifax. I appeal to the House and ask hon. members if any portion of my remarks justify my hon friend's making such an unwarranted statement. If he wishes to discuss the question, let him do so intelligently.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is discussing the matter with a view to getting away from any improvement in cold storage plants that will go to aid the industry of agriculture in Nova Scotia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend is wrong in saying that.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member can make his own interpretation of it; that is the interpretation I place upon it, and I intend to stand by my own. The bill that the minister has introduced has a tendency to encourage the fruit grower; the only objection I have to it is that it does not cover private corporations engaging in the cold storage business. In many cases the carrying out of the co-operative idea has not been successful, and people are loath to engage in a co-operative business. In the western counties of Nova Scotia there are people who are ready to erect a cold storage plant. The hon. member for Halifax, in his wisdom supernal, said he did not know of any demand having been made for cold storage plants in Nova Scotia, but if he examines the files in the Department of Agriculture he will find that within the last week or so I presented to the hon. minister a communication from persons in the county of Hants asking that the government give them a subsidy for the purpose of the erection of a cold storage or pre-cooling plant in the town of Windsor. My hon. friend may live in Halifax, but the city and county of Halifax is not the province of Nova Scotia. I repeat that the minister in bringing this measure before the House is taking a step in the best

Cold Storage Act
interests of agriculture in my province. I do ask, however, that the granting of subsidies be not confined to co-operative or municipal bodies but be extended also to companies duly incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act of Nova Scotia or the Canadian Companies Act, having in view the erection of cold storage plants. I have stated that the people of western Nova Scotia are handicapped; they have no market for their fruit, their vegetables, their meats, and so on, and the government should do all they can to enable these people to conserve what they produce and get a legitimate return for their labour. But to come here and philosophize and to oppose the measure because it does not happen to favour one constituency is not in the best interests of agriculture in my province. I say again to the hon. member for Halifax that the city and county of Halifax do not constitute the whole of Nova Scotia; the portions of the province which bear the burden and heat of the day are the country districts, particularly the agricultural districts. On these the province must eventually depend; therefore, everything within reason should be done in their interests.
Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weybum) Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill opens up a question in connection with which a big principle is at stake. It is quite evident that there is great difference of opinion as to the best methods of helping the cold storage business. I am afraid I shall incur the displeasure of the member for Hants (Mr. Martell), as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has done by opposing this measure. I realize the great necessity for giving all possible encouragement to the cold storage business, but, like the hon. member for Halifax, I am of the opinion that the bill in its present form is not in the best interests of all concerned. I realize that the men in Nova Scotia who are growing apples, the potato growers and the fishermen, the farmers in Ontario and Quebec and in the western provinces-they all need cold storage facilities. But hon. members know that we are in much trouble in Canada to-day as a result of this pernicious system of subsidies. It opens up a big question; we are going to have demands from many quarters for bounties by the government, just as we have had them in the past. I think public opinion is changing; the people are tired of giving subsidies. The minister told us that $2,408,384 had been spent in twelve years, in thirty-four plants, and that to these the government had granted by way of subsidies, $722,506. I think a much better way would be to give long-term loans at very low rates of interest,
18*
and these could be returned to the public treasury without any hardship on the borrower. I believe they would conduct their business better if they knew they had to return the money, for it pauperizes many people to give them grants. It is a pernicious system, either for the individual or a corporation. We can all recall instances in our own locality of companies getting grants from towns or provincial governments on the understanding that they were to do so and so, and as soon as they got their hands on the money they would turn the tables in some way, go broke or by some manoeuvre get out of their contract, and the parties making the grant would have no redress, and the public would not get the service intended. I am not objecting to the bill in this form for the purpose of putting obstacles in the way of the minister. I merely want to do what I think is best, and we can see from the discussion already that there is going to be a demand from different places if the bill goes through in its present form. The minister will simply be bombarded with requests for big grants for particular districts. But if people know that they are not going to get a free grant, but a loan-


Lewis Herbert Martell: You want the Hudson Bay railway, do you not?


Mr. MORRISON:: I am not asking for any free grant for that road, for the very reason I have given. Railway subsidies have been the curse of Canada, and have been the cause of the biggest problem confronting parliament to-day. It is that very principle I am speaking against. If you give a subsidy to one, others have a right to expect it. The whole practice should be stopped. I am not going to be a party to something that will help farming, and then have Montreal and Toronto come and ask for ten or fifty million dollars and say: Well, you got $100,000 for your constituency; why cannot we have something for ours? The principle is wrong, and there is a good remedy. It is the lack of credit for cold storage, which is so great a necessity in this country, that is the difficulty, and that lack of credit only proves to my mind that we have a poor financial system in Canada, or money would be available for this business on long term loans. I am in favour of giving approved loans on good security for cold storage wherever they are necessary, but I feel in duty bound to oppose the bill in its present form.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: When this discussion was up the other night I
Live Stock Act

understood from the minister that it was going to the Committee on Agriculture for consideration; otherwise, I should have fought it harder then. This is a very important project we are launching into, and it will require a great deal of consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I understood from the minister that we would be given the opportunity in that committee to make changes, and the bill requires several changes. In reply to my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell)', I would say that having a cold storage down in the beautiful land of Evangeline-


Hewitt Bostock: I do not want the hon. member to be under a misapprehension. This is the second reading of the bill, and though he is entitled to speak on the second reading, of course, this stage is preliminary to referring the bill to the Committee on Agriculture.


David Spence: I was scared of letting it advance too far, but if it is going to the Committee on Agriculture I shall have an opportunity to make suggestions there. I was going to say to my hon. friend from Hants that having a cold storage down in the land where he lives, and which he admires so much, will never create a market for his stuff. More than that, having a cold storage sometimes leads holders of perishable goods to hold them too long; they do not put them on the market at the proper time. That has been my experience in the business. I have known many cold storages, and I do not of one in Ontario that has made any money. They are exceedingly hard to carry and cost a lot of money. If you subsidize cold storages, you will have to open wide the door and subsidize municipalities as well as co-operative companies. The other night municipalities were eliminated from this resolution, and I took exception to that. If this bill is going to be of benefit to the fruit growing industry or to any part of the Dominion, I am willing to support it, but it is obvious there is not much demand for it when for the past four years we have not had a single municipality demand a cold storage subsidy. There are two or three cold storages in Toronto, and not one of them is making money. If this government undertakes to go into the cold storage business or to subsidize cold storages, it will be a losing investment, and we should be very careful especially in these times, when we are talking so much about economy, that we do not go too far. I am willing to discuss this further in the Committee on Agriculture, when I shall try to point out to the minister where he is wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting Live Stock.
He said: This is a consolidation of the original act of 1917 and of amendments thereto. It has in addition certain new features, not of a very radical nature, but yet fairly important.
The bill provides for the better control of stock yards. While the act is named the Live Stock Act, the title does not seem to me to fairly represent its purpose. The purpose briefly is for the proper control and establishment of stock yards, and stock exchanges associated therewith, and also to give to the by-laws and regulations of such stock exchanges, the status of law.
The bill also provides for the organization of exporters' associations, very much like what we have in the West in the shape of small shipping associations. Some of the provinces have a statute providing for the organization of shipping associations in order that the farmers may unite and ship their live stock collectively. The bill also provides for the inspection of animals prior to slaughter, and for the establishment of an egg-breaking plant where low grade eggs may be taken care of by breaking and freezing, or breaking and drying.
The administration of the act will be about as before. I think I explained the provisions pretty fully on the resolution.
John Millar: In the Farm and Ranch Review of December 20th appears an article which may have a bearing on this bill, for I see it refers to stock yards. It says:
This relates to the gangs hanging around all places where cattle are received from the farms-kind of speculators, who buy old cows and broken down dairy stuff direct from the farmers for $8 or $10. They then ask for a test. Where infection is disclosed, the animals are condemned and the speculator gets $40 for his investment.
This questionable traffic has grown to considerable proportions around Winnipeg. Farmers do not, of course, engage in this sort of thing. They are glad to get the small amount the old stuff sells for to these speculators. Their cattle are consigned to commission men who, of course, are not expected to call for an inspection until the stuff is ready to leave the yards. By that time the speculators have made their purchases. Not infrequently drovers go over the prairies buying nothing but the old cattle that are likely to react to the test for infection and for which they expect to receive, in that event, $40 from the government.

Inspection oj Fruit


Hewitt Bostock: I must call the attention of the House to rule 21 which provides that no member may speak twice on the motion for the second reading of a bill except the mover, who can reply. Remarks can be exchanged ou the bill in committee when the measure reaches the committee stage. If no other hon. member now wishes to speak the minister will reply and close the debate.


William Richard Motherwell: If any abuse, such as complained of by the hon. member (Mr. Millar) exists, or if there is any violation of the regulations of the stock exchange organized at each stock yard, it must be remembered that the purpose of this bill is partially to give effect to the by-laws and to the wishes of those stock exchanges. With respect to the buying up of old "canners" and "cutters" of which there are all too many around some of our stock yards, the purchasers taking the chance of their re-acting, I do not understand how any person would do that deliberately because they are sure to be caught in the abattoir. The man who owns these animals will find, that when they reach the abattoir they have to run the gauntlet of three or four government inspectors at various stages of the slaughtering, from the beginning to the end, and they are sure to be caught and condemned -they will not be used for food at all. If the animals are not too badly infected the parts which show tuberculosis will be cut away and the sound meat retained for food. If the animals are of the kind referred to they are sure to be condemned, therefore whoever is handling them is going, in the last analysis, to lose money. Anyway the purpose of the bill is to control our stock yards, to give our stock exchanges more authority over their members so that if they make a ruling it shall be carried into effect; also to give the regulations and by-laws of the stock exchanges the effect of law by being O.K'd. by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Fruit and Fruit Containers.
He said: The original act dealing with this subject was passed, I think, in 1905, and there have been some six or seven amendments to it. The measure before the House is a consolidation of all these statutes. A little more, than a year ago a conference was held in Ottawa, when every phase of the fruit industry was taken up and a statement
prepared embodying many changes and recommendations to the government. The matter was taken up too late to pass legislation governing last season's crop, consequently it is introduced at this session.
Some of the changes have to do with the size of the container. When the resolution on which this bill is founded was introduced I explained that there is nothing rigid in the proposed changes, they are adjustable. I may point out that we have had the advice not only of the fruit gi'owers but of all the organizations interested in fruit, from the producer right to the consumer. They have harmonized their differences and given expression to their wishes, and that expression is embodied in the present bill. Nevertheless I have no doubt we shall find quite a number of hon. members familiar with fruit growing who will be able to advance suggestions calculated to improve the bill. If there are any such who are not members of the Committee on Agriculture I can assure them, on behalf of the chairman of the committee they will be given an opportunity to be heard on any particular phase of the bill respecting containers or anything else that they may be specially concerned in.
There are certain changes in the matter of grading that I went into before, certain changes intended to make our berry boxes conform to the American box; certain changes with regard to the half barrel of apples which hitherto has not been recognized by law; also regulations governing the export of fruit and, in the matter of imports, designed to see that such imports conform to the grading of Canadian standards.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, respecting the Testing, Inspection and Sale of Seeds.
He said: The original Seed Control Act -was passed in 1905. It was preceded by one or two attempts to put a similar act through the House which resulted in discussion. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Tolmie) has had some experience in the matter of legislation of this character. As the bill referred to was the first measure of the kind introduced into the Canadian parliament it naturally created a great deal of discussion, some of it of a contentious nature. However, the bill finally passed the House in 1905, and at that time was considered one of the most advanced acts
Inspection oj Seeds
[Stage Direction]
of the kind, I think, on this continent. It stood the test of time until 1911, when it was again amended and brought up to date. Since then it has continued in force up to the present day without any additional amendment. During the interval a number of similar acts have been passed in the various states of the American republic, and also on the continent of Europe, where they have not only overtaken but, in many important respects, actually surpassed us. It is now time that we should make further progress and not only consolidate but virtually build a new act that will do credit to us and compare favourably with any other legislation of the same nature to be found elsewhere.
In the old act the grading of clover and grass seeds was made compulsory. In the present bill not only is the grading
9 p.m. of these seeds made compulsory, but likewise the grading of cereals for seed purposes. The grades are described by law just as our contract grades of wheat are described by law. The cereals, however, are not described by law, but are set by an advisory board in the same manner as the commercial grades of wheat are set in the West by the Western Standards Board. There are a number of other changes in the law, one of which I might mention. I mentioned it on the resolution, and it is a very good example of what we refer to as direct legislation. The conference to which I have referred, during their deliberations recommended to the government that we should insert a section making provision to protect the public from being exploited by some new or fancy variety of cereal, that might have no economic value at all, probably some old, worn-out variety that was rechristened, being put on the market, and an unsuspecting public exploited by such methods. I can recall many occasions in my farming experience when some glib-tongued gentleman would come around and expatiate on the advantages of, say, Alaskan wheat that was to enable one to grow 100 bushels of good milling wheat to the acre. That has been done, not once, but many times. In this bill, there is a clause stipulating that before any new variety of cereal or seed shall be put on the market, it shall be tried out either in some experimental plots privately, or under the auspices of some experimental farm and its merits tested out before the owner thereof will be permitted to sell it. While there are advantages in that in the protection of the public, it has disadvantages also. It might have a deterrent and hampering effect on the real plant promoter or breeder. If a gentleman, let us say, like Mr. Seager Wheeler, who is recognized throughout this continent

as a plant breeder, thought that his discoveries had to go through two years' experimentation in some other hands than his own, that might have a retarding effect on his investigational work. There are the two sides. I am not married to either of them; but I will invite discussion by the agricultural committee of them, because there is a real grievance there. I do not, however, desire that the remedy shall be worse than the disease, and that is the danger of this amendment.
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: Mr. Speaker, it has been called to my attention by the Horticultural Association that it is very desirable that provision should be made for the registration of plants. We all know the great value of registering live stock to enable people, who are desirous of improving their herds and their methods of farming, to purchase such a line of breeders as will be of assistance to them in that regard. In the same way, plant breeding has been advancing of late years to a great extent, and many of our florists and horticulturists have made great reputations by the production of specimens of particular excellence. They desire now to be able to register such plants so as to be sure that those purchasing the plants will be able to obtain the proper strain and also to ensure that they themselves will derive the benefit which is naturally coming to them as a result of their efforts along that line. They strongly protest against anything in this bill which will prevent that. They point out quite clearly how important this registration is, and I sincerely hope that the minister, before the bill reaches its final reading, will give this matter careful attention, with a view, perhaps, of adopting their suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.

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

Robert James Manion: What Civil Service Commissioners signed their names to the recommendation which was followed by Order in Council of June 29, 1922, removing large numbers of employees from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission ?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: The recommendation
which was followed by Order in Council of June 29, 1922, was signed by Mr. Clarence Jameson and Mr. LaRochelle, of the Civil Service Commission.

Questions


SEED PURCHASING COMMISSION
Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	What has been the cost by years of administering the Seed Purchasing Commission during the last five
years?
2.	What are the names of the members of that'commission, and what remuneration has each received for each of the last five years?
3.	What services to the state are performed by the commission ?
4.	What services are rendered by the seed branches of Winnipeg and Calgary?
5.	How much of each of the various kinds of grain have been distributed in each of the last five years?
6.	What kinds of grain, and how much of each is it proposed the commission shall distribute this calendar year?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	1918, $28,614.86; 1919,	$28,905.52;	1920,
$21,553.61; 1921, $9,890.39; 1922, $9,188.92.
2.
1918	1919	1920	1921	1922A.	E.	Wilson..	..	$3,170	$2,820	$3,040	$2,330	$2,490J.	J.	Mulvihill	..	2,344	2,536	2,720	2,800	2,800
(Mr. Wilson is paid at the rate of $10 per day when employed).
3.	The commission have purchased, assembled, stored, cleaned and distributed for cash, seed grain that has been inspected and graded according to the established grades for seed, in quantities each year to meet the estimated requirements of provincial and municipal governments, farmers' organizations and individuals in any part of Canada.
4.	The district inspection and laboratory staffs, having headquarters at Winnipeg and Calgary, each year determine so far as possible the areas in their respective districts within which the supply of seed for any kind of crop may be deficient or of inferior quality, due to drought, rust, hail, frost, insect pests or other causes; determine or estimate the amount of the shortage for each kind of grain and ascertain the areas from which a supply of good seed grain to meet the requirements may be economically obtained; inspect, test and grade seed grain and other seeds for commerce, including all seeds purchased and sold by the Seed Purchasing Commission; enforce the Seed Control, Feeding Stuffs and Fertilizers' Acts.
5.
1913	1919	1920	1921	1922Bushels	Bushels	Bushels	Bushels Bushels	Wheat ..	.. 500,620	2.181,445	1,040,270	41,990	37,624.. 2,386,250	1,734,870	1,287,631	113,000	654,500Barley..	87,645	31,442	17,197	892	4,031Rye.. ..	11,840	2,769	Corn ..	10,380	2,519	Peas ..	. 3,656	41,376	Beans ..	.. 1,000	
6. The reports received from the inspectional districts would seem to indicate that there
does not exist in any part of Canada a seed shortage of a nature sufficiently serious to render activities this year on the part of the Seed Purchasing Commission a matter of necessity. It is known that there is a substantial number of farmers located in east-central Alberta who may have difficulty in securing their requirements of seed grain because of their inability to obtain credit. There is, nevertheless, in adjoining districts plentiful supplies of seed grain, of all kinds, that are being held for sale for seeding purposes by individual farmers, farmers' organizations and seed and grain merchants, a great deal of which seed grain has already been tested and graded for commerce and is available at a cost estimated to be less than the Seed Purchasing Commission would have to charge for the same grain because of having the additional expense of freighting and elevator charges.


EIGHT HOUR DAY
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the government towards calling a conference of all the provinces on the eight hour law recommended by Article 427 of the Treaty of Versailles?
2.	If any invitation was issued by the federal authorities what was the response from the different provinces?
3.	What further action is contemplated by the government towards getting the provinces together on this matter ?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	The labour principles set out in Article 427 of the Treaty of Versailles, including that which urges the adoption of the eight-hour day or 48-hour week as "the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained," were made a subject of consideration between the federal and provincial governments at the National Industrial Conference which was held in Ottawa in September, 1919. All of the nine provincial governments were also represented at the first session of the International Labour Conference in Washington in October-November, 1919, at which a draft convention was adopted on the subject of the eight-hour day and 48-hour week and submitted to the various countries, including Canada, which comprise the membership of the League of Nations. The views of the provincial representatives on the eight-hour day were also obtained in consultation with the federal delegates in attendance at the Washington conference. The federal government, in connection with the Dominion-provincial conference which was held in Ottawa in September last for consideration of the unemployment situation, proposed that attention should also be given to other industrial and social questions f'hich had been
Questions

the subject of attention at the International Labour Conference. The obligations assumed by Canada in connection with these matters under the Treaty of Versailles were considered at the conference, and a resolution was adopted expressing the view that the authorities deemed to be respectively competent to deal with the matters in question should give careful and sympathetic attention to the proposals emanating from the international labour body with a view to enacting necessary legislation where this may be found practicable. The resolution also provided that the federal government, on request from a majority of the provincial governments, would summon a special conference for the consideration of International Labour Conference matters when this may be deemed necessary. In conformity with this last-mentioned resolution a letter was addressed by the Prime Minister of Canada to the several provincial premiers on December 22, last, proposing that a federal-provincial conference should assemble in Ottawa in the near future to deal with matters arising out of the relations between the Dominion of Canada and the international labour body and inquiring if the provincial governments desired that a conference for this purpose should be held.
2.	The replies of five provinces were favourable to the proposed conference, those of two other provinces were not unfavourable but intimated that these provinces had limited interest in the subject matter. In one case the reply was indefinite, and in another case the reply of the provincial government has not yet come to hand.
3.	The suggestion was made in the letter of the federal Prime Minister that the conference should be held in the end of February or early in March. The replies indicated that a meeting in Ottawa at this time would be inconvenient for several of the provincial governments on account of their respective legislatures being in session. After consideration of the replies received, it was decided by the Dominion government that it would be in accord with the desire of most of the provinces that the conference should be held, but that the question of the date should be taken up with the provinces in the spring looking to a meeting in the early part of next summer.
TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY Mr. CHURCH:
1.	What legal agreements and options have been made by the Government of Canada from time to time to date for the sale in whole or part of the Toronto Suburban Railway between Guelph and Toronto to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and why were these agreements for the whole road not carried 
out and acted on in view of this road being an inactive asset of the Canadian National?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to enable the city of Toronto to acquire the part in the city limits in accordance with an agreement made between the city and the Toronto Suburban Company validated by tl>e Ontario legislature many years ago by which the city at the expiration of the company's franchise which expired over a year ago, could acquire this road within the city limits by arbitration?
3.	Was any agreement prepared for sale of the part within the city limits and on what terms, and is the announcement correct of Mr. Gerald Ruel, Vice-President of the National Railways in a letter to the Board of Control of Toronto in January last that such an agreement existed for sale of part? If so, with whom was it made?
4.	Under what terms and conditions of purchase of this road by the Government a few years ago; and its absorption by the National Railways System, can the government sell part and not all of this railway without the consent of the bond holders?
5.	Why was the agreement and options legally given for the sale of the whole road to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario not carried out, and has the policy of the old Board of Directors of the National Railways to dispose of this whole road which never paid, been abandoned by the present directors, in view of a favourable vote of the ratepayers of Toronto to sanction such purchase agreement for the whole road?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No legal agreement or option was given.
2.	The question is not one for the government, but for the management of the Toronto Suburban Railway.
3.	No agreement has been prepared for the sale of the lines within the city. The agreement which Mr. Ruel referred to was an operating agreement.
4.	The government has not purchased this road. The stock merely was acquired by the Canadian Northern Realties Limited. " The question of sale is one for the management of the railways.
5.	See answer to No. 1.


GERMAN REPARATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. J. S. Woodsworth (Centre Winnipeg.)
That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of world peace that Canada should withdraw all claims on Germany for reparations.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I am ready to go on with this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. GRAHAM:: This is an important
question in which the whole House will be interested. There oan, of course, be no objection to my hon. friend going on with it this evening if he so desires, but I would suggest that we adjourn the debate after he has concluded so that we may have a fuller House to discuss the subject on another occasion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like, of
course, to have as full a house as possible when the motion is brought up, because it

Questions
deals with an important question. I do not want to let it go by default, and perhaps it would be better to let it stand until there is a larger house.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 9.15 p.m.	.
Thursday, February 15, 1923