1924-03-24

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Beaubien, Beland, Carmichael, Deslauriers, Euler, Garland (Carleton), Gauvreau, Good, Gouin (Sir Lomer), Hopkins, King, Mackenzie (York), Lapointe, Lovett,'

Questions
Meighen, Pritchard, Robinson, Ross (Kingston), Sheard, Sinclair (Oxford), Steedsman, and Walsh, a Committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as Members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the Members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, viz:	Messrs. Baldwin, Charters, Chevrier, Coote,
Euler, Fansher, Gauvreau, Hocken, Humphrey, Jones, MacKelvie, McConica, Malcolm, Marcil (Bonaventure), Michaud, Murdock. Preston, Pr6vost, Raymond, Rinfret, Robichaud, St. Pere, and Thurston, will act as Members on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My attention has been drawn to the fact that when I replied to the request of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Order in Council amending the Order in Council respecting the Home Bank inquiry, I did not at the same time lay on the Table of the House the original order respecting the appointment of the commission to inquire into the Home Bank failure; I therefore beg to lay this order on the Table.



THE PULPWOOD COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: On Friday last the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) inquired whether the members of the Canadian Royal Pulpwood Commission had gone to Washington. I have received a message from New York which reads-
Your wire 21st, Chairman Picard, Deputy Chairman Anstie and self came here informally to consult well informed men on statistics and other matters relevant - inquiry. Also to check up some opinions expressed during inquiry. Have not been and do not intend going Washington, as majority of points cleared up here. Fully expect return Ottawa Monday noon.
This is signed by the secretary Mr. E. H. Finlayson.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask the government what their intention is in reference to the Redistribution Bill and when the appointment of a committee to deal with such bill, if such be the intention, shall be made. No time should be lost.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the intention of the government to have the second reading of the bill this week, probably to-morrow or the day after.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert.-Mr. Stork.
Bill No. 15, respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 16, respecting the Detroit River Tunnel Company-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 17, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 18, respecting a certain patent of The Fleischmann Company.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 19, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff.

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

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many Chinese have entered Canada since the passing of the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, which was assented to on the 30th June last, up to the 31st day of January, 1924?
2.	Of those entering, how many came (a) as students; (b) as merchants; (c) in any other capacity?
3.	How many Japanese entered Canada according to government returns during the year 1923, and from what ports did they leave?


James Alexander Robb: 1. 455. Section 41 of
the Chinese Immigration Act. 1923, provided that Chinese en route to Canada, who presented themselves within three months of the date of the passing of this act (June 30, 1923) and who were admissible under the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act, should be permitted to enter Canada upon payment of the tax, or exempt, as the case might be. Of the above number, 483 applied for admission to Canada prior to that date, i.e., before September 30, 1923.
Questions

2.
	Admitted under Chinese Immigration Act, 1923			Admitted under Chinese Immigration Act	Total
	Under sec. 5	Temporarily under Sec. 9			
		New arrivals	Prior residents		
(a) Students		5	i	2 2 1		8 7 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 1 11 7 20 3 377 1
(b) Merchants						
				5	
(c) 440, as follows:- Actors						
Clergymen					1 1 2 1	
Clergyman's wife						
Clergymen's sons						
Clerks						
Farmer				1		
Housewives					13 1 7 7 20 3 377	
Infants						
Labourers				4		
Merchants' wives						
" sons						
daughters						
School boys										
Servant to Consul		1				
					
	6	i	10	438	455
					
3.	404. They sailed from Yokohama and Kobe.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many acres of land in each province now have been transferred by the Department of Interior to the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	What amount, if any, has been paid by the board to the Department of Interior for said lands?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1. (a) Dominion lands transferred (patented) by Department of Interior to the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada, up to the 10th March, 1924. (Approximate Area.) Province	No. of acres
Manitoba	 39,570.50
Saskatchewan	 77,964.92
Alberta	 100,735.50
British Columbia	 6,190.20
(b)	School lands sold (patented) by Department of Interior to the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada.
Province	No. of acres
Manitoba	 14,778.67
Saskatchewan	 123,129.20
Alberta	 11,619.81
(c)	Dominion lands reserved (unpatented) by Department of Interior for the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada up to the 10th March, 1924. (Approximate Area.)
Acres
Porcupine forest reserve	221,175
Riding Mountain forest reserve . 172,200

(d)	Dominion lands covered by
soldier grant entries	 1,391,680
(e)	Dominion lands granted to
soldiers as homesteads	 755,840
2. (a) Amount paid account Dominion lands.
Province	Amount
Manitoba	$270.60
Saskatchewan	 151.50
(b) Amount paid account school lands.
' Province	Amount
Manitoba	$ 174,923.21
Saskatchewan	 1,754,294.58
Alberta	 177,012.79


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FINANCIAL STATISTICS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$254,926,456.04.
2.	Total operating revenue for year 1923, $38,348,280.15; increase over year 1922 was $7,351,599.75.
3.	Amount included in total operating revenues representing freight charges on company material of the system was, $791,216.08.
Note: All revenues on inter-system company material which is used in operation is included as a part of operating expenses and to that extent cancels the revenue thereon shown in
the revenue account.
4.	Total operating expenses of Canadian National Railways for year ending December 31, 1923, was $234,689,892.95; amount expended for maintenance of way and structures, $44,781,775.95; maintenance per mile of road, $2,050.05.
5. The total capital charges of Canadian National Railways at close of December 31, 1923, and December 31, 1922, were as follows:
(a)	Held by public..	..	$ 812,724,537	41(b)	Pledged.... 146,601,212	94(c)	Held in	treasury..	42,427,123	06(d)	Held by systemcompanies	
72,557,312	10
*(e) Held by Dominion
government. 1,022,099,301	97
(f) Held in sinking funds	 286,000	00

Includes appropriations for Canadian Government Railways including operating deficits thereof from January 1st, 1921, only.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOME BANK DEPOSIT
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Were moneys of the Canadian National Railways placed on deposit in the Home Bank of Canada on or about May 28, 1923?
2.	If so, to what amount?
3.	Was this amount still on deposit on June 1, 1923, in the said bank?
4.	Were the books of the said bank closed for the year on that date (June 1st) and submitted to the shareholders at the Annual Meeting as exhibiting the position of the bank resulting from the year's operations ?
5.	On the said showing so made, was a dividend on the bank's stock declared? If so, to what amount?
6.	Were the said moneys of the Canadian National Railways drawn from deposit shortly after June 1, 1923? If so, on what date? .
7.	Was the deposit of the said amount in the said bank authorized by the directors of the Canadian National Railways? If so, when and by what directors?
8.	Whose signatures were signed to the cheque or cheques on other banks covering the said amount of said deposit or was such deposit made in cash?
9.	Was such cheque or cheques before being issued submitted to any auditor or auditors for authorization?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1	and 2. Deposit of $1,000,000 agreed to May 21; voucher dated May 25; receipted for by Home Bank, May 28.
3.	Yes.
4	and 5. The annual report of bank, as filed with the government, shows that the directors declared a dividend of 7 per cent on operations of the year ending May 31, such dividend being declared on profits and not determined by the deposit of May 28.
6.	On June 2, 1923, the deposit was transferred, on request of the management to the Bank of Montreal.
7.	Authorization would have been secured in due course at the June meeting of the board had deposit remained with the Home Bank. The matter was broached by Mr. Gough at the conclusion of the May meeting of the board, but did not come before the directors. Pre-authorization of such matters is not customary.
8.	The cheque was signed by J. A. Yates, General Treasurer, and C. D. Cowie, Assistant to the Financial Vice-President.
9.	Vouchers covering this transaction were
duly approved by the heads of the accounting department and recorded in the accounting and cash records.	[DOT]
Mrs. MARY ELLEN SMITH


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Was Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith, Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, sent to England in the employ of the Dominion government? If so, when, in what capacity and upon what terms?
2.	What is the total amount paid said Mrs. Smith for salary, allowances, expenses or otherwise?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to further employ said Mrs. Smith? If so, when, for what purpose and on what terms?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes. July 16, 1923. To give series of lectures on Canada; $200 per month and expenses.
2.	$1,967.59.
3.	Question for future consideration.


WAR PENSIONS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is it the intention of the government to increase the amount of pensions now paid to former members of His Majesty's forces, their widows and dependents, by the amount of the bonus now paid in addition to pensions, making the permanent pension equal to present pension plus bonus?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: The answer is:
Under consideration.
Questions


EXPERIMENTAL TOBACCO FARMS
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of the superintendents and assistant superintendents of the experimental tobacco farms and stations in the Dominion?
2.	What salary is paid to each, and what are the respective dates of appointment?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1 and 2. Farnham, Que.-J. E. Montreuil, superintendent, salary, $2,400; date of appointment, March 3, 1919. J. R. Cossette, assistant to superintendent, salary, $1,500; date of appointment, March 24, 1923. Harrow, Ont.-
D.	D. Digges, superintendent, salary $2,460; date of appointment, Januaary 12, 1915. O. G. Williams, assistant to superintendent, salary, $1,620; date of appointment, July 1, 1921. The farm at Harrow, Ont., was formerly used as an experimental tobacco station but is now a regular experimental station.



FRUIT MARKS ACT

Mr. PORTER:: 1.	How many convictions have been made during the years 1919 to 1924, inclusive, for breaches of the Fruit-Marks Act in Ontario?
2.	What is the name of the person or persons convicted, and what penalties were imposed?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	40._
2.	Name	FineD,	Cantelon, Clinton	$25
David Robertson, Beamsville.... 10
Richard S. Martin, Winona		10
Norman Hallman, Niagara		10
Stephen Dudley, Colborne	 10
David Coyle, Colborne	 25
Jas. Coulson, Grimsby, Suspended sentence William Filman, Aldershot ..	..	$10J.	W. Nash, Stoney Creek	
10G. Philp, Beamsville	
10W. L. Fraser, Forest	
10Mrs. Charles Bondi, Wingham. ..	75Charles Bondi, Wingham	
10E.	Brown, Port Hope	
10John Cole, Aberfoyle	
10Thomas Cook, Clinton	
10Coyle & Floyd, Colborne	
40Coyle & Floyd, Colborne	
50John Drury, Stoney Creek	
10J. R. French, Melville	
10A.	E. & F. W. Rundle, Courtice..	10B.	H. Coyle & Son, Colborne....	50B. H. Coyle & Son, Colborne....	50B. H. Coyle & Son, Colborne....	50W. H. Brown, Colborne	
ioA. Cantelon, Clinton	
ioThomas Cook, Clinton	
50Coyle & Floyd, Colborne	
25W. E. Eakins, Colborne	
15

Name	Fine
A. Drury, Winona	 10
W. Squires & Son, Glencoe	 10
A. Alyea, Curries	 10
R. M. Cale, Bowmanville	 20
Elisha Farr, Simcoe	 10
F.	C. Jones, Beamsville	 10
Matthews Bros., Colborne	 10
Nathan Zegar, Toronto	 25
D. W. Coyle & Son, Colborne.. ..	10
W. J. Huy eke, Warkworth	 10
J. I. Graham & Son, Markdale. ..	10



INCOME TAXES

Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Has the government lost revenue on account of allowing individuals and corporations to pay income taxes on the instalment plan on account of such individuals or corporations leaving the country?
2.	If so, how much was lost in this way in each of the respective years of 1920, 1921 and 1922?
3.	Does the government still allow or grant such privilege to persons or corporations ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Accurate information not available but it is reasonable to assume no loss has been sustained.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes, under authority of section 7 of the Income War Tax Act, 1917, as amended 1920.



DUTY ON WHEAT

Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Is there a duty imposed upon Canadian wheat entering Japan?
2.	If so, what is the duty and when was it imposed?
3.	Prior to the said duty being imposed, was the Canadian government given notice?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) (for the Minister of Trade, and Commerce):: 1.	Yes.
2.	A duty of 77 sen per 100 kin, i.e., 29 cents per 100 pounds, was imposed on wheat from all foreign countries, including Canada, by the Japanese customs tariff law which became effective on July 17, 1911. This duty has been suspended at certain times, the last suspension having been by Imperial ordinance of September 17, 1923. Wheat was then made exempt from duty until March 31, 1924, but an amending ordinance was enacted on February 26, 1924, which restored the ordinary duty on wheat .from that date, except that provision was made for exempting from duty until March 31, 1924, wheat contracted for before the date of the amending ordinance, or which was at that time en route to Japan. '
3.	On February 29, 1924, the Consul General of Japan in Canada advised the Department of Trade and Commerce of the passing of the

Questions
amending ordinance of February 26. This information was published in the Commercial Intelligence Journal of March 8, 1924.



SALES TAX-EXEMPTIONS

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What, if any, articles or commodities have been exempted either in whole or in part by order in council or otherwise from the consumption or sales tax, since July 1, 1923?
2.	Have applications for exemptions of other articles or commodities from such sales tax been made and refused ?
3.	If so, what are such articles or commodities?
4.	Have applications for exemptions of other articles or commodities from such sales tax been made and are not yet disposed of?
5.	If so, what are such articles or commodities?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Barley meal.
Usual coverings to be used exclusively for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax; materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of usual coverings to be used for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax; woollen rolls or wool yarn milled for a producer of wool from such wool supplied by him for his own use; articles admitted to free entry under Customs Tariff item 692; goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 139; bakers' cake and pies, not to include biscuit.
Printing paper for use exclusively in producing newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semi-monthly magazines, weekly literary papers unbound, hymn books, religious tracts and Sunday school lesson pictures-reduced by fifty per cent, on the amount of consumption or sales tax.
2	and 4. Applications have been made and are under consideration.
3.	and 5. Baking powder, barrels, books, biscuits, candy, penny and five cent bar candy, coffee, roasted and ground, cut flowers and potted plants, confectionery, com syrup, dex-tri-maltose, granulated wheat flour, hospital supplies, insulin, ice cream, liquid eggs, meat scrap and meat and bone scrap, manufacturers' mail order catalogues, house organs, magazines, memorials, multigraphing, news print, packages, parchment, leather aprons, paper tubes, wool felt, machinery repairs, etc., used in botany yarn industry, raw materials of magazine publishers, religious publications, rolled oats and molasses mixed, shredded wheat, school books, soap, spray or other materials used in the control of pests, macaroni and vermicelli, extract of rennet.



SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What correspondence, if any, was exchanged with the government of Great Britain or other overseas
dominions regarding the Singapore Naval Base and its continuation ?
2.	What position did the government of Canada take on the question?
3.	Will the government lay the papers herein on the Table?
4.	Will a time be set by the government for a discussion by this House of the resolution adopted and laid before the Imperial Conference, 1924? If so, when?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government of Canada has had no communication with any of the other overseas dominions on this subject, excepting such communications as took place at the Imperial Conference. This matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference, and such reference as it was thought advisable to make thereto is contained in the report of the Imperial Conference at page 17. The pertinent paragraph is the following. After quoting certain principles in accordance with which defence should be carried out, section 4 reads:
In the application of these principles to the several parts of the Empire concerned the conference takes note of:-
(a) The deep interest of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and India, in the provision of a naval base at Singapore, as essential for ensuring the mobility necessary to provide for the security of the territories and trade of the Empire in eastern waters.
Such correspondence as has taken place with the British government since the conference has related to the form in which an announcement on this subject should be made in the British parliament. I do not think it would be in the public interest to place that correspondence on the Table. There is nothing really confidential about it, but it is, I think, of such a character that the British government would not wish to have it made public at this time. I have, however, in my hand copies of the correspondence, and I propose to pass them over to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), who might look them over and show them to any of the members of his following who may wish to see them. I would ask also that they be shown, upon a like understanding to the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke).
2.	I think at the moment it is not advisable to say more than is in the report of the proceedings of the Conference but I have no objection to stating the position taken by the government at any time the matter may come up for discussion in the House.
3.	I have answered this question by handing copies of the correspondence to the right hon. leader of the opposition.
4.	Matters relating to the Imperial Conference might, I think, be best taken up when the House is considering the estimates of the'
Questions

Department of External Affairs. That would give ample opportunity for a discussion of all phases of the conference. As probably the House would like to take up these matters at an early date, I shall endeavour to arrange to have these estimates brought on at an early period of the session.



GRAND BEND PIER

Mr. DRUMMOND:: 1.	What repairs were made to the pier at Grand Bend, Ontario, in 1923?
2.	What was the cost of said repairs?
3.	Were the said repairs done by tender?
4.	If not, how was the work done?
5.	Who was the contractor, and what is his address?
6.	Was the said work passed by a government inspector or official?
7.	If so, what is the name of said inspector?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Twelve new round piles driven around south guard pier and two rows new waling placed, one at water level and one 4i feet above water level, and also general repairs -to decking on north pier.
2.	$1,099.70.
3.	No.
4.	Day's labour.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes; District Engineer H. B. R. Craig, London, Ont.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



QUEBEC-ORLEANS FERRY SERVICE

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Does the "Compagnie de Navigation Maritime In-dustrielle," of Levis, which performs the ferxy service between Quebec and the Island of Orleans, receive any subsidy?
2.	If so, what is amount of subsidy, and why is it Daid?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1 and. 2. No, but a subsidy of $4,250 per season is paid to the Quebec and Levis Ferry Company to carry mails six times per week each way between Quebec and the Island of Orleans from the close of navigation each year until the completion of the ice-bridge road, and from the breaking up of the ice-bridge road until the opening of navigation each year.



R.C.M.P. OFFICER, POINTE-AU-PIC

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who was stationed at Pointe-au-Pic, Charlevoix county, last summer?
2.	How long did he stay there?
3.	What was his salary?
4.	By whom was he paid ?
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
5.	At whose request and upon what instructions was he sent there?
6.	Has he made a report to the Department of Justice?
7.	If so, what was the nature of said report?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Constable James A. Acheson.
2.	From the 8th July, to the 9th September, 1923.
3.	That of an ordinary constable, namely,
$2.10 per diem.	.
4.	By the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Department.
5.	At the request of the Department of Marine. He was sent to Pointe-au-Pic by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
6.	No, he made a report to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
7.	Constable Acheson reported that after some difficulty with the cab and taxi drivers, who up to the time of his arrival, had been in the habit of forming a blockade at the head of the slip-way leading to the boats making it almost impossible for passengers to leave the dock by any other method than taxi or carriage, he had succeeded in having a system adopted by which satisfactory order was maintained at the dock.



PACIFIC CABLE BOARD

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Who. is the Canadian representative on the Pacific Cable Board?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Have these duties not been performed in the past by the Canadian High Commissioner?
4.	If so, why has change been made?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Lucien T. Paoaud and Sir Campbell Stuart, K.B.E.
2.	Mr. Pacaud appointed January 15, 1923; Sir Campbell Stuart appointed August 14, 1923.
3.	Sir Campbell Stuart was appointed in succession to Mr. William L. Griffith, following the 'latter's retirement from the Office of Secretary of the High Commissioner.
Mr. Pacaud was appointed in succession to Mr. Alexander Lang.
4.	Answered by the answer to No. 3.



GRAND TRUNK SHAREHOLDERS

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Were members of the government interviewed by, or on behalf of, holders of Grand Trunk preferred or common shares in England during the past year?
2.	If so, what commitments or intimations were made by the Prime Minister, or by any other member of the government to such shareholders which, in certain contingencies, could be used as a basis for advancing claims on their behalf in the future?

Questions


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No commitments or intimations of the nature suggested were made by the Prime Minister or any member of the government in England. The government's position is set out in the letter of the Hon. G. P. Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals), dated February 7, 1924, of which a copy is tabled herewith.
The letter tabled is as follows:
1	February 7, 1924
Dear Sir:
I am now in a position to write you concerning the representations made to the Canadian ministers at the Ritz Hotel, London, on November 5 last, which were to be further considered on our return to Canada. I would have written sooner, but desired to discuss the matter further with my departmental advisers, and also with my colleagues in council, and, as you are no doubt aware, the return to Canada of the Deputy Minister, Major Bell, was unavoidably delayed until quite recently. The position of the Grand Trunk shareholders is admittedly most difficult and unhappy, and it is not without feelings of sympathy for their unfortunate plight that my colleagues and I have again reviewed the circumstances leading to the acquisition of the property. It is beyond question that such arrangements as were made to effect the transfer were considered by all concerned to be the best solution that could at that time be determined. As things turned out, it would no doubt have been infinitely better for the shareholders had the previous management accepted the original offer of the government of rental in perpetuity based upon the average dividends of the ten-year period preceding 1917. That offer was made at a time when no question had arisen concerning the propriety of certain of the dividends paid during that decade; and made also despite the fact that the Drayton-Acworth commission had publicly reported that there was neglect of the physical property in the interest of dividend declarations. It was made also in . the face of the default of the Grand Trunk's subsidiary in respect of the lease of the Transcontinental railway. That the former Grand Trunk management failed to take advantage of that offer clearly cannot be charged to the Canadian government. It is now very evident also that, the delay of the former management in facing an inevitable situation also was most detrimental to the shareholders. Negotiations were deferred until the Grand Trunk Pacific was plunged into actual, and the Grand Trunk draggqjl into virtual, bankruptcy. This, as it turned out, was the determining factor in the award of the arbitrators-the only difference among the three being Chief Justice Taft's view that the Grand Trunk, if left alone, would eventually have recovered. That view was problematic, was opposed to the ascertained facts, and was based upon the disregarding, by the Canadian government, of the Grand Trunk's unfortunate connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific.
After declining a proposition which was clear cut and definite, involving no uncertainty, such as arbitration, the management agreed, and the shareholders ratified, an arrangement by which the value, " if any," of the preference and common shares should be arrived at. There was contest over the inclusion of the words " if any " in the agreement because it implied that no value might possibly be found. The management was, therefore, aware that there was question as to whether, under all the circumstances, value might be found. The shareholders assert that the award of
the arbitrators was based upon the situation of the Grand Trunk as of one certain day-the date of the assumption by the government of financial responsibility. As a matter of fact, the award was based upon a survey of affairs of the company and its subsidiaries, covering a long period of time, and of the troubles and difficulties which culminated in the agreement finally reached. It was an agreement containing the following clause:
" Grand Trunk Pacific guarantee and claims,-For the purpose of the valuation provided in this agreement, the obligations of the Grand Trunk as guarantors of any indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, or otherwise, and the claims of the Dominion of Canada, against either of the above-mentioned companies, or against any company forming part of the Grand Trunk Railway System, shall not be treated as extinguished or affected by anything contained in the said Act."
After ratifying such an agreement, the shareholders now contend that it should not be enforced, because its enforcement would-in fact, has-wiped out their equity in the property. Recognizing this, the late chairman made a plea for compassionate consideration. Your committee go further and claim (public advertisement in the Citizen, of Ottawa) that " the question of the value of the equity was not settled, and has not been settled yet." To concede such a contention it would be necessary to disregard in toto the conclusions reached as a result of an extended and costly arbitration, confirmed on appeal on a point of law by the Imperial Privy Council.
On this suggestion of equity, the committee's proposal that the shareholders should be permitted the right to participate in future Grand Trunk earnings is no doubt based. To concede such a claim would be to nullify the arrangement under which the value of the stock was ascertained, and, in so far as it was declared to be worth nothing, vested in the Crown by order-in-council, under clause 13 of the acquisU tion agreement. Since the road was taken over, the Canadian taxpayer has had to provide more than a hunlred millions of new capital. Because ofiphe provision of this capital, with consequent improvement of road and equipment the Grand Trunk to-day, under reorganized and resident management, is not th^ Grand Trunk of yesterday under the former management. It is now in a much stronger position and working in close harmony with, instead of competing against, other railways now comprising the National system. In the future earnings of this rehabilitated railway the former shareholders claim the right to participate. In other words, the Canadian taxpayer must find the means to make the road successful-for the benefit of the former shareholders!
It may be urged that recognition of the former shareholders might well be a charge on the railway and not necessarily on the taxpayer. The present management would quite naturally expect to have some say as to such a proposition. Public opinion in Canada is insisting not only on a reduction of taxation, for much of which railway requirements have been responsible, but is demanding as well the scaling down of interest charges which press so heavily upon the management. The scaling down of interest charges could only be effected by writing off loans and advances made by the government to formerly privately-owned roads. Thus, the government is being urged on the one hand to forego any prospect of future interest, and, on the other, to increase its already heavy burden by the reinstatement of former Grand Trunk shareholders to participating rights in future earnings.
I have gone more fully into the question than I intended as I am most anxious that you should have a clear conception of the difficulties with which the
Questions

Canadian Government and the Canadian people are faced at this time, and of the circumstances which make it impossible to comply .with the request on behalf of the former shareholders for recognition of an equity or the right of participation in future Grand Trunk earnings.
Believe me, dear Sir,
Faithfully yours,
George P. Graham.
F. B. Lacy, Esq.,
Honourary Secretary,
Grand Trunk Junior Stockholders
Protection Committee, Limited,
325 Winchester House, Old Broad St., London, E.C., England.]



COL. O. F. BROTHERS

Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Was Colonel O. F. Brothers in the employ of or paid directly or indirectly by the government of Canada in the year 1923?
2.	If so, for what services was he so paid?
agency is established, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., or at such hours as the Post Office Inspector of the division may direct.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ROLLING STOCK

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many cars and locomotives were built m United States for the Canadian National Railway System?
2.	How many cars and locomotives were built in Canada for United States Railways?


George Perry Graham: Hon. gentlemen
will see that no dates are attached to this question. The full answer up to last year will be found in the statement of the Minister of Railways in Hansard of last year. In a very few days I hope to have a statement compiled for this year.


James Alexander Robb: Department of Immigration and Colonization.
1.	Yes.
2.	For publicity work.



SACKVILLE PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is the work on the Public Building at Sackville, New Brunswick, being performed under contract or by day labour?
2.	If by contract, who is the contractor, and what is contract price ?
3.	If by day labour, under what management and under what terms and conditions?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does this question stand?


George Perry Graham: I have answered it as
fully as I can now.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a return showing all moneys paid to newspapers in Canada for printing and advertising since January 1, 1923, showing the names of the companies and the amounts paid each newspaper or newspaper company.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. fy|r. KING (Kootenay):
1.	By contract.
2.	E. F. Powers Construction Co., St. John, N.B. $29,802.55.
7 §
3.	Answered by No. 1.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARTHURS.
1.	Has any regulation been passed regarding the hours at "which money orders are payable at post offices in Canada?
2.	If so, when was such regulation passed, and what are the hours?
Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) (for the Postmaster General):: 1 and 2. Rule 13 in Book of Instructions for Postmasters in charge of Accounting Post Offices, which is of many years standing and is still in force, reads as follows:
(a)	At offices in cities, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and later when so directed by the department.
(b)	At offices in towns and villages where banks are situated, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and later if so! required by the Post Office Inspector.
(c)	At offices in places where no bank


Mr. RYCKMAN:: For a return showing the names of all persons who acted in the service of, or as advisers to, Canadian representatives at the recent Imperial Conference and Imperial Economic Conference in 1923, together with the sum paid to each for such service and for expenses.



MR. CHARLES BLAKE

Hon. Mr. MANION:: For a copy of correspondence dated July 14, 1922, and July 28, 1922, respectively; and addressed from Charles Blake, barrister, of Brandon, Manitoba, to the Minister of ^Justice, relating to the withdrawal of professional work for the government service formerly performed by the said Charles Blake; and copies of the replies of the Minister of Justice to the letters mentioned above.



BUCTOUCHE BAY

Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, engineering reports, estimates of cost and other documents in connection with the proposed public wharf at Buc-touche bay, Kent county, New Brunswick.



DESPRES ROAD, N.B.

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the closing of the post office at Despres Road, Kent County, New Brunswick.

Unopposed Motions



PUBLIC BUILDING AT BUCTOUCHE

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, engineering reports, estimates and other documents relative to the proposed public building at Buctouche, Kent County, New Brunswick.



PROPOSED BRANCH-BUCTOUCHE-RICHIBUCTO

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, engineering reports, estimates of cost and other documents relative to the proposed railway branch line between Buctouche and Richibucto, in the county of Kent, New Brunswick.



NEW BRUNSWICK LOBSTER FISHERIES

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and any person, persons or corporations, relative to the enforcement of the lobster fisheries regulations in New Brunswick, during the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and up to February 29, 1924.



NEW BRUNSWICK SMELT FISHING

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents to and from the Department of Marine and Fisheries relating to the extension of Smelt Fishing in New Brunswick during the season 1923-1924.



THE JEANNE D'ARC

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents in possession of the government relative to the seizure and release of the vessel Jeanne d'Arc for infringement of Customs laws.



GREAT LAKES FREIGHTS

Mr. MacKELVIE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the government and American vessel owners, or vessel owners' organizations, since the passing of the Inland Lake Freights Bill, and relating to the carriage of freight on the Great Lakes and the compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of such act.



SALES TAX

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing a copy of all orders in council or other authoritative orders or rules affecting the sales tax or making exemptions or rebates since the passing of the sales tax amendments to the War Revenue Act of last session.



IMMIGRANTS AT QUEBEC

Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: For a return of any and all reports of the Commissioner of Immigration to the Minister, upon the operation of the contract system for feeding immigrants a't the port of Quebec, and also all reports
and correspondence with reference to the way in which that system is functioning at that port; and also all reports and correspondence in connection with the adoption of the contract system at the port of St. John, New Brunswick, and in connection with the substitution of the system of government supply for the contract system at the latter place.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES

John Babington Macaulay Baxter: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, passing in the year 1923, between the Prime Minister or the government and the government of New Brunswick, requesting freight rate concessions to the Maritime provinces.



RICHARD FORDHAM

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MAiNION:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents, exchanged between any member of the government and any member of parliament or other person with regard to the appointment of Richard Fordham as junior clerk-stenographer in the Customs department at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, together with copy of advertisements showing this position to be vacant by the Civil Service Commission; also a return showing date such advertisement was issued; date position was filled; number of applicants examined and all other details regarding said appointment.

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a return showing all employees of the Canadian National Railways receiving $4,000 per annum or over, with the salary of each.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	In regard to this
motion, while the government does not intend taking any objection to it, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that by statute, the Canadian National Railways are operated by the Canadian National Railway Board, and the response to this motion will come from that board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any member of the government or any member of parliament and any official of the Canadian National Railways with regard to employment, seniority, retirement or dismissal of any employee of the Canadian National Railway System.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, this
has something to do with the Canadian National Railway Board and with members of parliament as well, and may necessitate the production of a very bulky lot of documents -at least I think my right hon. friend (Mr. REVISED EDITION
Unopposed Motions

Meighen) so imagines. What I want to call his particular attention to is his use in the the third line of the words, "and any official of the Canadian National Railways." Where are we to draw the line respecting "any official?" There are thousands of men under the category of officials of the Canadian National Railways. If we can restrict the definition, I have no objection to the motion passing.


Arthur Meighen: As regards the last
point, I am quite agreeable that it shall apply only to district superintendents and those above them. As to the correspondence being bulky, I should hope it would not be, but I do not think the government should feel alarmed on that score. A similar motion of mine, only a little wider in its scope, was passed last session, but instead of starting with letters from members of the government and members of parliament, a lot of utterly uncalled for, minor, negligible stuff was looked up by the government


George Perry Graham: Not by the government.


Arthur Meighen: It was brought down by the government. But the part which would have been comparatively small was omitted, and the session closed without the government having time to get to it; however, the chaff was all reached and the session occupied in bringing it down.


George Perry Graham: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are not supposed to debate such motions, but might I be allowed a word? My right hon. friend, I think, will find it mostly chaff.


Arthur Meighen: Probably.


George Perry Graham: But here is the point. When any person writes to me-as I think nearly all the population of Canada do- concerning anything on the Canadian National Railways, I transmit the letter with a note of mine to the board. Would that be considered my letter to the Canadian National Railway Board?


Arthur Meighen: If it is nothing but transmission, no.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried as amended- district superintendents and above.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
BRITISH COLUMBIA-ORE TESTING PLANT Mr. HUMPHREY:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any of its members and other governments, corporations, or individuals, relating to the establishment of an ore-testing plant in the province of British Columbia.



HOME BANK INVESTIGATION

Mr. IRVINE moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a parliamentary committee should be appointed immediately to investigate the Home Bank failure, with a view to discovering any weaknesses in the Bank Act which may be amended to prevent a similar occurrence; to devise some means of protecting depositors generally; and to make recommendation as to the possibility of saving the Home Bank depositors from loss.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the government
has requested that this resolution should stand until Thursday of the present week. I am prepared to meet the wishes of the government, on condition that this resolution will be taken up by the House on the date mentioned, and that there will be full and ample opportunity for its discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the understanding is as my hon. friend has stated it.
Motion stands.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) (Translation) moved:: For all copy of memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any of its members and other governments, corporations or individuals, since the first of January 1922, relating to the St. Lawrence waterway route, and the establishment of dams on the St. Lawrence for the development of certain water-powers.
You will not wonder, Mr. Speaker, if to speak of the St. Lawrence river I make use of the language of its discoverer, of the pioneers who explored it to its very sources, of the heroic toilers who settled on its enchanting banks still inhabited by their descendants. It may not, perhaps, be out of place to remind, at the outset of this debate, those who think that the history of Canada only begun in 1759, or a little later, that Jacques Cartier having sailed from St. Malo in 1535, ascended, on his second voyage, the St. Lawrence river as far as Montreal, and from 1615, the time when Champlain together with Etienne Brule explored the St. Lawrence, the Ottawa river, lake Huron and lake Ontario, up to the time when Pierre de la Verandrye and his sons, after his death, and Legardeur de St. Pierre, from 1731 to 1755, explored the water courses of North America, and penetrated as far as the Rocky mountains, all those routes were discovered and explored by Frenchmen, the glorious ancestors of the people of the province of Quebec.

St. Lawrence Waterway
There is nothing, Sir, to be astonished at, if, besides the material interest and sound policy for Canada to prevent the St. Lawrence river from passing into foreign hands, you find us unflinchingly determined, relying upon our veneration of the past, to resist all attempts which, in our mind, would border upon sacrilege. Therefore I was not astonished when, in the city of Sorel, the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) acknowledging the congratulations of his fellow-citizens, declared himself entirely opposed to this undertaking. Uncontrollable circumstances prevented me from being present at that demonstration; however, I take advantage of this present occasion to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on his promotion to the cabinet, and, to express to him all the admiration that I have for his character, his eloquence and all the reliance that I place in him as a safeguard to the interests of the district of Montreal.
In his speech on the Address, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) expressed himself in the following manner on the subject:
First, no scheme will be entered into at any time as far as I am concerned, and I think it is the policy of the government, until it is clearly shown that the present level of the St. Lawrence river at all points will never be lowered as a result of the works to be carried out: second, that all rights which any of the provinces may possess will be properly safeguarded.
In view of this statement, Sir, I would have felt inclined to allow my motion to pass without adding any futher remarks; but, the day following the statement, a despatch arrived from the President of the United States notifying us that an American committee had been formed, at the head of which were Mr. Hoover and a number of other prominent persons of the United States, who according to newspapers, were all in favour of the scheme. Having come to the conclusion that this announcement took even Ottawa by surprise, I feel it is most important that all correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the two governments should be placed on the Table of the House] The correspondence already published is to the effect that the commission which will be appointed, will examine the report of the International Waterways Commission of 1921 to find out the practicability of the scheme and its cost. May I be allowed, Sir, to state that this commission is fundamentally wrong, because the Conservative government of that date, as usual, had not failed to ignore the rights of the provinces of Quebec in this commission and replaced the Hon. P. B.
38i
Mignault, who, at present is a justice of the supreme court, by Sir William Hearst, exPrime Minister of Ontario.
Useless to add that the Commission having no one on its board to look after the interests of the province of Quebec, these were unsparingly sacrificed in the report of the commission.
The Prime Minister stated, last Monday that the committee which would be appointed to complete the inquiry of 1921, would take no decision which would not have been previously presented to parliament to be ratified. I am sorry to say that this statement to me, is not sufficient. The present government is worthy of congratulations for its policy of economy, we notice that the estimates have been cut down this year. I state, however, that if the government wish to persevere in that policy, they must not be drawn into an undertaking like that of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. I shall be more explicit, I will state that I do not approve of the proposed inquiry in connection with this scheme at the present moment. We have had some experience on the cost of inquiries. Even the initial cost such as salaries to engineers, experts and the incidental expenses of this inquiry is absolutely unjustifiable during the crisis we are passing through. If, Sir, we do our utmost to convince our electors that they are forced or obliged to retrench, if we are to preach to them selfdenial, if we tell them that the government has not even the necessary money to carry out urgent works, to prevent buildings somewhat old from falling into ruins, the more so must we preach to them that the government to start with is cutting down expenditures on a large scale. I think, Sir, that I am able to prove that this scheme should be set aside immediately and this on many scores.
The first is that the cost is absolutely prohibitive, especially under the present circumstances.
The second is that the scheme is impracticable; it will not give the results expected; it will be an economic failure and a disastrous policy both for Canada and the province of Quebec.
Thirdly, I think, Sir, that it is not in the interest of Canada to undertake such a scheme jointly with the United States.
Finally, if it can be shown to us that the dredging of a deep waterway between lake Ontario and the city of Montreal is, under the present circumstances absolutely necessary and that from the economic point of
St. Lawrence Waterway

view Canada is in a position to undertake such a scheme, I state that we should then, instead of deepening the St. Lawrence, build the Georgian Bay Canal route.
If you will allow me, Sir, I shall briefly pass in review, the various contentions that I have enumerated. I mentioned that the cost was prohibitive, we have not forgotten how this St. Lawrence waterway scheme started.
In 1920, a commission was appointed composed of members of both the United States and Canadian governments. This commission appointed two experts the late Mr. W. A. Bowden, Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways to represent Canada, and Colonel W. P. Wooten, an American expert to represent the United States; a report was made in July, 1921; these experts estimated the cost of the construction of the St. Lawrence canal at $253,000,000. If we add to this amount an additional $18,000,900 that the experts have stated to be necessary to bring the depth to 30 feet, and moreover the cost of the development of the water-powers on the St. Lawrence, which the experts have further estimated to cost $236,000,000 we arrive at the total amount of $507,000,000 and even this amount does not cover all the cost3. A prominent American engineer, Hugh L. Cooper, stated that the cost of deepening the St. Lawrence including the deepening of the canals, the development of the water-powers, would be $1,420,000,000. He further remarked that in winter there would be but 30 per cent of the water powers that could be utilized. But this is not all, so as to make this waterway useful, in order that the deepening of the St. Lawrence may fulfil the aim in view, it is absolutely necessary that the ports on the Great Lakes be deepened in such a way as to allow ships drawing 26 to 30 feet to enter those ports. At present the mean depth of the Great Lakes is 21 feet. In order to obtain a depth of 25 or 30 feet, it would first be necessary to dredge the St. Mary's river, between lake Huron and lake Superior; the St. Clair river between lake Huron and lake St. Clair. The deepening of the Chicago harbour would cost $10,000,000. We find close to the city of Buffalo a mean depth of 10 to 15 feet and it is only three miles out of the harbour of Buffalo that there is a depth of 30 feet which is necessary to make use of this canal. That only goes to show the additional cost of this scheme, it does not include the sum which would be needed for the harbour of Toronto and those of other Canadian cities situated on the Great Lakes to allow free access to ships drawing 25 to 30 
feet of water. This, Sir, will give you an idea as to the cost of this scheme.
I was calling your attention, Sir, to the fact that it would be unreasonable for the government, owing to the economic crisis we are at present passing through, to disburse money for this scheme, I brought to your attention, Sir, the fact that we found it hard to convince the citizens of this country, in our respective constituencies, that even urgent and necessary work could not be carried out because the government had not the means to do so. For my part, Sir, there is a project which affects not only my two counties but the development of the city of Montreal, and I may say the province of Quebec and the whole of Canada, it has been discussed for many years. I refer to the construction of a new bridge between Montreal and the South shofre. Were I to tell you Sir that the means of communication between Montreal and the South shore are actually less than they were in 1890, you would likely be astonished; however such is the case. In 1890, to connect the city of Montreal to the South shore, there existed on the Victoria bridge two vehicle roadways of 13-J feet. There did not exist, at that time, any motor car traffic there was very little tourist traffic. In 1910, one of these roadways was kept for vehicles, the other was given to the Tramway Company, so that the only means of communication for vehicles of all kinds, between the city of Montreal and the South shore, at present, consist in a Roadway of 13j feet in width. The conditions are entirely inadequate to the amount of traffic, they are dangerous and all those who have crossed the Victoria bridge have been able to satisfy themselves as to the danger that exists in crossing this bridge and the inefficiency of the means of communication. I have no desire, Sir, in this speech of requesting the government to vote the necessary funds fo|r the construction of a new bridge, but I am here to protest against the expenditure of fabulous amounts for a scheme of which it is impossible to foresee the results,-such as the St. Lawrence waterway,-before we undertake the useful and necessary expenditure of building a new bridge.
As a general policy, Sir, no government should spend such considerable amount unless it is first assured that this expenditure is in the interest of the country. If I clearly understand the scheme of the promoters,-and I have been receiving pamphlets favourable to the scheme since the beginning of the session,-their aim is to deepen the

St. Lawrence Waterway
St. Lawrence and the canals as far as the Great Lakes so as to allow ocean vessels to reach these lakes. I contend, Sir, that seagoing vessels, will never be able to compete successfully with ships on the Great lakes. This question was considered by the Shipping Federation Board of Canada; it was studied by a number of engineers specially conversant with the subject and the result was found to be as follows: Ocean steamers cost 80 per cent more than lake steamers; the latter have three times the cargo space with the same draught. This is easily explained: On the Great lakes you have very short waves, you are not forced to build ships with the same rigidity, the same strength, consequently you have not to lay out the same amount for construction as for the ocean steamers which are obliged to battle against much longer waves when crossing the ocean.
Now, there is one thing absolutely certain: If the ocean steamers were used to carry the wheat ijrom the West to Montreal, they would be forced to return West without any cargo. It is a well-known economic principle, in the maritime world, that a ship which carries a cargo but one way and is obliged to return without cargo, cannot pay its way.
This is, Sir, in my opinion, one of the strongest reasons to prove the futility of wanting to have ocean vessels reach the Great Lakes.
It was stated that the construction of this waterway would bring down the cost of transportation of wheat. I see the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) in his seat. He introduced, a few days ago, a resolution, in which he contended-he must know of what he is talking-that the cost of transportation on wheat, from the West to Montreal, would not be lowered by the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. Moreover, the transportation by inland navigation, the transportation by rivers or lakes is, at present, an economic failure everywhere. Take for instance, all the canals that exist in America, all have proved a failure, all show, in their reports, at the end of the year, large deficits. The Mississippi canal, called the "Mississippi Warrior" has accumulated a deficit, since 1917, of $2,036,608; the Panama canal, has yearly deficits and the canal known as the "New York State Barge" is in the same predicament. Look at our own waterways, from Niagara to Montreal, if you look into the transportation of freight, from 1908 to 1914, you will find that there has been 8,279,477 tons of freight which were carried during these six years. Now, from 1914 to 1922-and yet we include in these the years of war during
which the freight should have been greater- we find, instead of 8,279,477 the total freight transportation reduced to 5,424,420. The cause is quite simple; the shippers fight shy of the canals, they have misgivings in regard to water transportation, and the quicker they can send their goods to ocean ports the better they like it. We already have accidents with boats of three thousand tons in the canals, when a boat of the above tonnage hits the door of a lock, it means that perhaps, for five or six days or a week, the boat is held up. Wheat shippers are under contract to deliver their merchandise in Europe; all manufacturers of this country who carry on exportation, are under contracts, mostly on fixed dates, their goods must reach their destination within a time limit, now, they do not wish to run the risk of seeing their goods held up in the canal and delayed for five or six days or a week. If these three thousand tonnage boats are the cause of rather numerous accidents in our canals, so much more will it be the case should we be using 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 ton ships.
Another reason given, it is claimed-I think it is the contention of some of my hon. colleagues of the West-that we shall economize large sums in the cost of the transportation of wheat. Let us suppose that we have a crop of, say, 400,000,000 bushels, and let us agree that we economize three cents per bushel, this would, amount to $12,000,000.
If the cost of this canal system amounted to only $300,000,000-and I think that I have shown that it would cast at least $500,000,000 -we shall have to pay an interest amounting to $15,000,000 per year, plus $2,000,000 for maintenance, this means a total amount of $17,000,000 that we shall disburse to economize $12,000,000. This establishes clearly that the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, economically speaking, admits of an expenditure which is at present unwarranted.
Moreover, I think that we should, by now, be wiser regarding our transactions with Americans. And this brings me to my third point: That it is not ini the interest of Canada to construct so expensive a waterway system jointly with the United States.
In 1921, the International Waterways Commission's report was published, hon. members will recall some of the petitions that were presented to the United States Congress and Senate. Hon. members will recall that Senator King from Utah, introduced a motion to the effect that Canada should cede to the United States the whole territory comprised between the Richelieu river, lake Champlain and the northern boundary of the state of New York, Congressman Ten Eyck introduced a bill in
St. Lawrence Waterway

congress to purchase from Canada the whole territory to the south of the St. Lawrence, all Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. A neutral zone like that of the Panama canal* was proposed. Experience should have made us wise. The result of the war of 1775 which ended by the Treaty of Versailles, in 1783, swept away the whole territory to the south of the Great Lakes, part of Minnesota, all the states of Wisconsin Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
We were despoiled of the iron mines of lake Superior, the copper mines of Michigan, the oil fields of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, the bituminous coal of Indiana and Ohio, part of the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania and finally 300 miles square of the richest territory in the world.
This proves, Sir, the ravenous appetite of our neighbours. We must also bear in mind the treaty of Ashburton and the treaty where we afterwards lost part of Alaska. Each time our best interests were sacrificed to the advantage of the United States.
The political aspect in regard to this project is therefore important. It is stated in the report that the cost would be proportionate to the benefits which the two countries would derive from it. Can you imagine our position in the face of the United States, who would probably be deriving 70 per cent of the benefits of the construction of this waterway having paid 70 per cent of the cost of the work? You can well form an opinion, Sir, regarding the situation of the representatives of Canada on a board of management of which 70 per cent of the members would be United States citizens.
We have still had a more recent test. Years ago the city of Chicago emptied its sewers in the Chicago river. The latter emptied in lake Michigan. It was claimed that, from a sanitary point of view, they would have to divert the waters of the Chicago river. A treaty was concluded, in 1910, between Canada and Washington by which it was agreed to divert the water course of the Chicago river-which emptied until then in lake Michigan-so as to give it an outlet in the Mississippi basin, on the well defined understanding that the total quantity of water which would thus be diverted from the Great Lakes would be 4,160 cubic feet per second, at the most. At present, 10,000 cubic feet of water is being diverted. The Canadian government protested. I am even informed that the Washington government itself protested to the authorities of the city of Chicago. It was of no avail; they continued to divert 10,000 cubic feet, and in one year 
alone the fact of taking 10,000 cubic feet of water has brought down the water level of the St. Lawrence, at Montreal, ten inches, causing $300,000 damages. Do you wish for another example? In 1918, the company known as the St. Lawrence Power Company was incorporated. It requested from the International Waterways Commission their leave to construct a dam at Massena, New York. The Canadian government opposed this request. A counsel representing the Canadian government went to Washington to protest Noticing that their protests had no effect, the government passed an order in council to further protest, in a more official manner. The Massena dam still remains, notwithstanding the protests of Canada. It is nothing more or less, that the United States government adopted in this circumstance a policy of "don't give a hang." It is the same policy which would prevail if we had the misfortune to enter into an agreement with them allowing to the two countries, a joint control on the St. Lawrence river.
There is no necessity, Sir, to mention the danger that would exist for navigation between lake Ontario and Montreal if this waterway scheme was carried out and if, at the same time, dams were constructed for the purpose of the water powers. All those who are interested in navigation, the Shipping Federation and other interested companies, are all unanimous in saying that these dams would lower the level of the river, at Montreal, and between Montreal and Quebec, and consequently, would prevent between these two ports, the navigation of heavy draught ocean steamers.
I think I have clearly established that the scheme is impracticable owing to its great cost, the results which would follow, and, owing also to the bad policy which would result from admitting the United States to a joint control with us over the St. Lawrence river. However, if, as I mentioned at the outset, it could be shown that it is in the interest of Canada to have a deep waterway between lake Ontario and the port of Montreal, if it could be shown also that the finances of Canada can sustain such an expenditure, I state, that before even thinking of constructing the St. Lawrence waterway, we should build the Georgian Bay canal. We would thus have an all Canadian route, we would have a waterway which would be in Canadian territory from its head waters to its outlet into the Atlantic ocean, a route three hundred miles shorter than that of the St. Lawrence river. By the St. Lawrence route, the distance is nine hundred and forty-three miles between Sault Ste. Marie and Montreal, by the

St. Lawrence Waterway
Georgian Bay canal way, it would only be six hundred and sixty one miles. We have reports of well known engineers on this scheme.' I shall only mention one, Mr. Arthur Surveyer, president of the Institute of Engineers of Canada who stated that the Georgian Bay canal and the development of the rivers and lakes situated along the water course of this route would supply 1,000,000 horse-power, over and above the 2,500,000 horsepower that could be developed in that part of the St. Lawrence in Canadian territory. I might further add that this route is easier to build owing to the smaller volume of water. The Ottawa river not being as wide as the St. Lawrence river, the dams would not be sc wide, and therefore would be less expensive; there would exist more safety for navigation: we would thereby avoid lake Erie, which is exceedingly dangerous and where shipwrecks are of frequent occurrence, and finally, we would develop Northern Ontario and Quebec; we would open up a mining country which h^s not its equal in the world, and we would be building, as I said a moment ago, a route which would be entirely in Canada, and thereby accomplishing a truly national work.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to add to all these arguments that we must protect our St. Lawrence, that we must safeguard it as a sacred trust bequeathed by our ancestors, and resist with all our strength that it may not become an international river.
The propaganda emanated from the United States. It is not astonishing that they eagerly covet the most important and beautiful asset of our country. Cartier had alreadly noticed this lust when he wrote, more than fifty years ago, these patriotic verses:
L'etranger voit, avec un ceil d'envie,
Du Saint-Laurent, le majestueux cours,
A son aspect le Canadien s'ecrie:
O Canada, mon pays, mes amours.
If we wish, Sir, that these verses remain true, we will not divest ourselves of any part, even trifling as it may be, of this inheritance. Let us therefore, oppose with all our strength any ambitious attempts of our neighbours, and, politely but firmly tell them in a language they will understand "Hands off the St. Lawrence."


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to the
motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault); in fact, I was thinking of putting on the order paper a similar motion myself in regard to the production of papers, telegrams and correspondence of all kinds on this subject. Another reason why I do not iwish to deal with the question at length is because the government have recently stated through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that they are about to have a thorough investigation made of the whole question.
I tried to follow my horl. friend in his eloquent French, but I am afraid my French is rather limited, and I could not follow him as well as I should have desired. But I think I caught the drift of most of his arguments. I take it that from the standpoint of the province of Quebec or of the city of Montreal he is strongly opposed to the St. Lawrence waterway project and holds the view that if we do anything of this sort we should devote our attention to the Georgian Bay canal scheme. He also suggested, if I understood him correctly, that a bridge might be built in his constituency which would be of much more importance to the country as a whole than the building of either of these canals. I have no objection to his standing up for his constituency. He always does that, as the rest of us do for ours, and I do not wish to argue against that either. But I understood him to give the opinion of an engineer, Mr. Cooper, of New York, that the cost of this project would be $1,400,000,000.


Joseph Archambault: More-$1,450,-
000,000.


Robert James Manion: He presented that figure
in opposition to the estimate of the engineers of the International Joint Commission that the work would cost about $252,000,000.


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend permit me to correct him? The engineer of the International Joint Commission stated that the cost would be $253,000,000, but this was without the development of the water powers, which would cost $236,000,000, bringing the total estimated cost up to $489,000,000.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is wrong
in that. I do not happen to have any cf the literature at hand, because I did not know that this question was coming up today. But I know that the figure given by the engineers of the International Joint Commission was $252,000,000, and that included the development of all the power in the international section of the river; in fact, it included the development of a million and a half horse-power of electricity. I am positive that if my hon. friend looks up the report he will find that this figure
St. Lawrence Waterway

is correct. I am sorry I have not the report here, but I am quite familiar with the figures because I have read them many times. I well remember a speech by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), on my hon. friend's own side of the House, in which he brought out that very argument.


Joseph Archambault: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but will he tell the House what he means by the development of power in the "international section" of the river?


Robert James Manion: There is a part of the
river, between Prescott and Cornwall, I think, although I am not sure I have the exact stations, but there is a part of the river east of Kingston, which is really international, running between the province of Ontario on the north and the state of New York on the south. Below that section you come to the really national part, so far as Canada is concerned, that is where the river runs between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario or through the province of Quebec.


Joseph Archambault: The $256,000,000
does not include the cost of that second part.


Robert James Manion: I agree, but it does include the cost of the development of 1,500,000 horse power on the international section.


Joseph Archambault: For the Americans.


Robert James Manion: No, it is international power, to be divided between the two countries. Canada has as much right to half as the United States has to the other half. The $252,000,000 includes not only canalization but the development of that 1,500,000 horse power on the international section, and the report of the International Joint Commission claims that that 1,500,000 horse power could be developed so cheaply that in all probability the return from the electricity developed would pay the interest and sinking fund on the whole undertaking. My hon. friend shakes his head, and I know there are others as well who do not agree, but I am simply quoting from what the engineers say in the International Joint Commission's report. So the jump from $252,000,000 up to Mr. Cooper's figures is sufficient to cause further investigation, and in that I have no quarrel with the government.
In regard to the Georgian Bay canal, I think no Canadian would object if something was to be gone on with and the country 
could finance it, but personally, as between the two, I think that if we could develop the St. Lawrence route it would be better for the country as a whole because of the lesser expense so far as Canada is concerned, for the United States would pay half the expense. The International Joint Commission not only included that $252,000,000 in the total expenditure, but the $80,000,000 or $90,000,000 which is being spent anyhow by the Canadian government on the Welland canal. So if these figures are correct, Canada's share in developing the St. Lawrence route would be very much less than the cost of building the Georgian Bay canal. I looked up the figures a few months ago, and I remember that away back in 1904 or 1905 the probable cost of the Georgian Bay canal was estimated to be about $100,000,000. Of course, to-day with the higher cost of everything, that would be doubled or trebled. I was going on to say that the Georgian Bay canal from the Canadian standpoint, and certainly from the standpoint of western 'Canada, would be just as advantageous as the development of the St. Lawrence route. But when you consider that the cost of the St. Lawrence route is to be divided, and the fact that there are some 36,000,000 people in the United States who are much more tributary to the St. Lawrence project than they are to the Georgian Bay canal project, it makes the St. Lawrence project much more feasible from the standpoint of bringing about a new route for traffic.


Mr. CAHILL:: In what states are those
30,000,000 people?


Robert James Manion: I do not mean in the
states directly bordering on the Great Lakes; but the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Kansas, for instance, which do not border on the Great Lakes, are tributary to the Great Lakes inasmuch as their produce, wheat and so forth, is carried over the Great Lakes, and the states that are tributary to the Great Lakes in, that way include about 30,000,000 people, and these same states, it is claimed by the authorities, also produce some seventy per cent of the food and raw materials produced in the United States. I am giving these figures from memory from the International Joint Commission s report, and I am quite sure that my memory serves me correctly in this case.
My hon. friend from Chambly and Ver-.cheres (Mr. Archambault), if I understood him correctly, also took up the question of

St. Lawrence Waterway
ocean boats going up the Great Lakes. I am not one of those who ever had a picture in my mind of ocean boats using these canals, if they are built and proceeding up the lakes to Toronto, Fort William, Chicago, Buffalo and other cities. But what would happen if this project was undertaken would be that the boats carrying wheat from the prairie provinces, instead of stopping as they do to-day at Georgian Bay ports, or at Port Colbome and transshipping to Montreal, or transshipping to New York via Buffalo would continue on to Quebec or Montreal, and one of these two cities would still get the traffic. I do not think there would be any injury to Montreal. And in that connection I would just like to give one thought that I think the people of Montreal and of that district should consider very seriously before making too much opposition to this whole scheme. If you will look at a map of the United States and Canada together you will find that from Oswego at the southeast end of lake Ontario to the Hudson river there is only a very short distance which would require to be canalized to have lake and ocean steamers traverse the Hudson river and out at New York, and the New York people are to-day very strongly advocating-especially in view of the opposition of some Canadian people to the St. Lawrence scheme-the building of a canal system from the Hudson river across to Oswego. If that scheme were gone on with, they claim, it would be cheaper for the United States than paying for their half of the St. Lawrence development, and! Montreal and Quebec would bq to a very large extent sidetracked because much of the traffic which now goes to them and which would certainly go to them by way of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system-


Mr. CARROLL:: Is it not a fact that the
strongest ground the promoters of this scheme are taking is that ocean boats would go right up the lakes? I am not saying that it would be a bad thing, even if it did affect Montreal and Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Some people take that
stand, but those who have given the subject a great deal of study-and from the layman's standpoint I think I can claim to be one of those-do not take that view, except as regards tramp steamers, but that the boats instead of stopping at the points I mentioned a moment ago would continue to Montreal or Quebec and trans-ship there. It would save trans-shipping at Georgian Bay ports or at Port Colborne. The grain from the West could be transported right through to Montreal, and it would convey to Montreal or Quebec, whichever got the traffic, much of the American traffic which now goes by way of Buffalo, because up to very recently-two or three years ago-about sixty and sometimes seventy per cent of all our Canadian wheat carried from the head of the lakes was taken to Buffalo and trans-shipped by the Erie canal to New York. I repeat in all sincerity that if this St. Lawrence scheme were gone on with Montreal stands to gain in every possible way, and not to lose at all, because she would get not only a large proportion of the Canadian traffic which she does not get now, but a large proportion also of the American traffic which she does not get now to any great extent.
Particularly am I impressed with the point that I mentioned just a few moments ago, that Montreal and the cities in that district should very seriously consider the danger of the American people deciding to build a canal from Oswego to the Hudson river. That project is very strongly supported. I think it was the New York Times, probably the strongest paper in New York, that came out in support of that scheme only recently. Certainly if it were gone on with, it would be a very serious matter for Montreal.


Joseph Archambault: Does my hon.
friend seriously contend that if the St. Lawrence project reduces the depth of the water in the St. Lawrence from Montreal to Quebec, it will aid the development of that district?


Robert James Manion: I do not admit it would do any such thing. Neither do the engineers. My opinion is of no weight whatever on that question, because I do not pretend to have any engineering knowledge, but very good engineers claim positively that there would be no change in the levels of the waters below the canalization or the power scheme development. However, that is an important question, and if the further investigation which is to be made should show that that would be brought about, then of course there is much more reason perhaps for Montreal to seriously consider the matter.
I should like to touch one other point that my hon. friend (Mr. Archambault) made in regard to the saving concerned in this scheme. He mentioned, if my understanding was correct, that in the operation of this scheme he figured the cost would be something like $300,000,000, laying aside Mr. Cooper's figures, and he took the interest upon that, and figured it to be $15,000,000 and then said that the gross saving would amount to $12,000,000. I think that was his estimate of the saving on the grain of the West.

St. Lawrence Waterway


Joseph Archambault: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I thought I understood him. Then let us assume his figures are correct. I will not argue about them, though they are very much lower figures than those given by Mr. Herbert Hoover, who is a member of the American cabinet to-day. Furthermore, the figure of ten cents was given by Mr. Julius Barnes, whom everybody in the House knows. He is one of the best authorities in the world in regard to the handling of grain; and he made the statement that there would be a saving of ten cents a bushel on the wheat from Canada and the United States. It would be not only on the wheat shipped out, because that wheat fixes the price of the wheat left in the country.


Joseph Archambault: What is the actual cost?
Mr. MANION; The average cost last year from Fort William to Montreal was about twelve cents.


Joseph Archambault: You would save
ten cents out of twelve.


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say that; I simply quoted Mr. Julius Barnes as saying it would save ten cents a bushel.
Let me point out to my hon. friend that once a cargo is put upon a steamer it costs very little more to carry it a long distance than to carry it a great deal shorter distance. You can carry freight to-day, I am informed, from New York to Bombay and from New York to Calcutta at exactly the same price, though the distance is two thousand miles greater for one than for the other. I am giving that as an illustration of the cheapness of carrying freight on boats, though I would not claim that ten cents would be saved out of twelve, I was simply quoting Mr. Barnes' figures. The price the year before-and my hon. friends from the West will bear me out-would not be the average price of twelve cents but nearly double that from the head of the lakes to Montreal.
I was going to point out another saving. In addition to the saving on grain we have the revenue from the horse-power; because the horse-power can be developed, engineers claim, on this section, at a very low cost, and can be sold at a sufficient price to pay not only the interest but also the sinking fund upon the scheme.
Referring to the great objection my hon. friend made with regard to any dealing between the United States and Canada, he appealed to our Canadian nationality, to our great 
patriotic feelings, against uniting with the United States in a deal such as this. Well, I must confess frankly that I have not those feelings in the matter that he seems to have. At the same time I do not wish to be misunderstood, I do not want to be understood as not advocating that we should take every precaution, if this deal were ever proceeded with, to look out for our own interests'. One thing I have always noted with reference to the United States is that when they go into any deal they are very careful to look after their own interests, and I admire them for that. No one knows that better than my .hon. friends to my left, because the United States are looking after their interests to the extent of barring out anything produced in Canada if it suits them to do so. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Archambault) that all precautions should be taken, but I do not agree that it would be necessary to find this an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the scheme.
I hesitated to speak on this question, but I felt there were a few points that should be laid before the House, and particularly the point which I will take the liberty of emphasizing another time; namely the possibility of the building of a canal system from Hudson river to Oswego, which would certainly do more harm to Montreal than this scheme would do.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: In
common with my hon. friend from Fort-William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), I was unable to understand the drift of the discussion on the other side on this question -in fact I was not able to understand any of it. It was not until my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River spoke that I could catch more than the drift of it; and as I spoke very briefly on this question the other day-in fact I did not speak on this phase of it at all-I would like to make some observations on one phase of it, namely the saving on a cargo of grain. I have been trying to arrive at what would be a reasonable saving, and I have approached the question in this manner. The Canadian people at the present time are building the Welland canal, and whether the international project proceeds or not, we are going to have the Welland canal completed in a few years. That project will permit boats to load at Fort William and proceed to the eastern end of lake Ontario. The largest boats will carry their cargo there. The fact that it will be some years before we can complete the St. Lawrence waterway, even if we decide to start

St. Lawrence Waterway
at once, and the fact that we would have the Welland canal completed several years before the St. Lawrence scheme could be completed, mean that it would be necessary to build elevators at the eastern end of lake Ontario. It would be possible, of course, to transfer the wheat by floating elevators into barges; but as we will have to handle grain for even four or five years, I think it is a foregone conclusion that we would have to build some elevators at the eastern end of lake Ontario. According to the figures in other harbours, the cost of transferring grain from cars into boats through an elevator, rendering the same service as we would render at Prescott or Kingston, only in the reverse order-and I take it the cost in this case would be about the same -is a cent and a half a bushel. Hon. members will understand that I am making a comparison between the cost of handling the grain from the eastern end of lake Ontario to Montreal, and the cost as it would probably be after the St. Lawrence was deepened and the large boats were able to proceed to Montreal. If the cost of transferring the grain from the large boats through the elevator to the cars is one and one-half cents, we add to that the railway cost from Prescott, if we take Prescott, which is only 108 miles from Montreal. Taking the average of a long haul, the cost would be only a cent and a quarter. But owing to the fact that it is a short haul, it would only be fair to add considerable to that cent and a quarter, say we call it two cents and a half. Now, we have the grain carried from the boat at the east end of lake Ontario and placed beside the elevator at Montreal for four cents a bushel.
This covers all charges, and that I take it is a very liberal margin, considering that before 1910 in some years the average cost of carrying grain from Fort William to Montreal was only four cents. Now, suppose that we proceed with this project and that we are able to proceed upon the St. Lawrence with large boats to Montreal, there is now and always will be from 30 to 40 miles of canals, depending of course upon what you call a canal; I suppose there are places on the river where there will have to be a little dredging, but it is figured at from thirty to forty miles of canal. In these canals boats cannot move rapidly. In the Panama canal and some other large and differently constructed canals they can move at 5J and 6 miles an hour. But in such a canal as this, engineers put the rate at four knots an hour, even though the vessels may be able to go at twelve or more knots an hour on the open water. The dangers are greater and the insurance will be higher than on the open water. One can readily see that, with a depth of even twenty-five feet, where depth is no impediment, boats cannot proceed down thirty-three miles of canal to Montreal and back again without making a considerable charge. All that will be saved will be the cost of such transportation by large boats from the end of lake Ontario to Montreal as against the route which I have just mapped out by rail. If the higher is only four cents and the lower must be something considerable, where under the heavens, I might say, are .you going to get a saving of ten cents?
Let me set forth another factor in this connection. It is quite possible that the grain may be transferred by floating elevator to barges-these proved very satisfactory at New York-down this canal at a cheaper rate than the railway could carry it. If so, then the saving would be between four cents and the new rate under the better conditions; but it would be between the barge rate and the rate of the large boats after the canal is completed.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend know the rate from Buffalo to New York via the Erie canal during the season of navigation?


John Millar: I do not know it exactly,
but I know that about a year ago eighty per cent of the grain that was going into New York went in by rail, not by the Erie canal. There is an argument that, I think, is worth while taking note of. The Erie canal has not been able to compete with the railway, and it is a question in my mind whether a canal that is deeper-that canal is just a large ditch-where vessels can go at only four or five knots an hour will have much advantage over the all-rail route.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact, I
know the rate. The rate is from eight to ten cents on the Erie canal. As my hon. friend says, it is much in the shape of a ditch; it does not amount to anything; it is only for a few flat boats. The reason I asked the question was this. The same conditions, more or less, exist to-day east of Port Colborne, from Port Colborne to Montreal, as my hon. friend knows. He quoted a figure of four cents, but he did not give me the dates. I know he showed me the figures at one time, and about fifteen years ago those were the rates. Since the war, however, there have been no rates such as
St. Lawrence Waterway

those, and there is no likelihood of the rates being as low again for many years to come.


John Millar: I think I said prior to
1910. As I did not expect this question to come up, I have not the figures; but those figures were correct for some years prior to 1910, when the rate averaged about four cents from Fort William to Montreal. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has referred to the possibility of a large canal being constructed from Oswego to New York. It is possible that this canal may be constructed, but I am very doubtful, about that being done. Even if this canal were constructed to a depth of thirty feet as is proposed, there would always be this danger. If, later on, the St. Lawrence river project is carried out, as I hope and believe it will, and it should be a cheaper route, then the more expensive one will have to go out of business. As soon as two routes come into competition, then one that can give the better transportation is the one that is going to take the trade.
I think I have only one more point that I wish to touch on just now, and that is the possibility of boats traversing both the ocean and Great Lakes. I am quite convinced that only a few boats will traverse the ocean and go up to Fort William, for the reason that vessels that cross the ocean cost about three times as much, and because of the more expensive construction and more material in them, they can carry only about two-thirds as much grain. More money is invested, and such boats, having their return cargoes to Montreal where the distributing point must be for some years to come, and not Fort William, will go empty after they have discharged their cargoes at Montreal. They will have to crawl up through those long canals at the rate of four knots an hour, load grain at Fort William and crawl back again. I am convinced that they will never pay. They would also require larger crews.
I was struck with a sentence in an address delivered by Mr. Keefer of Port Arthur, to a body of business men of Montreal in regard to this matter. Many hon. members know that Mr. Keefer is, perhaps, one of the strongest exponents of this project, and in speaking before that body of men, he confessed that it was not likely that any great number of boats would traverse the ocean and proceed to Fort William and Port Arthur to load grain. He said: "A few boats may do so, will do so, but not very many." And I am convinced that that is so. It is really a fatuous dream to imagine that Port Arthur or Fort William is going to become an ocean port.

Like my hon .friend from Fort William and Rainy river, I am a little inclined to think Montreal might make a mistake in opposing this too strongly. I am not going to oppose the St. Lawrence river project; but I would oppose constructing it now, and especially on the strength of resolutions passed and letters written by those who believe they are going to gain eleven cents a bushel. I have sympathy with those who live near the St. Lawrence and believe that as a great international project, this would be a good thing -they will get their power cheaper, the power will in time pay for the project, and Canada will be better thereby. I am willing to listen very sympathetically to what they have to say; but if they are the people who want it, let those people ask for it. I believe the people of the West, if left alone, do not want it now.
Being unprepared and since this question has come up in this way, I shall not have more to say on this subject, but I am pleased that the government are taking the course they are. There are many matters involved, such as the lowering of the water.
5	p.m. I understand a delegation was here a few days ago from Goderich claiming that the diversion of water at Chicago had caused a lowering of the level of water at the elevator there by either one and one-half or two and one-half feet, I am not sure which. They thought that a sufficient reason of Complaint to justify them in coming to Ottawa about it. All these matters are involved, and it is well to go very carefully, to measure every step before we take it. But eventually the project should, and I believe it will, be carried out.
Mr. E. C. ST. PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : I have listened, Mr. Speaker, very attentively to the splendid statement of claims made, on behalf of Montreal and its surroundings, by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). I represent, Sir, as you are aware, a large Montreal division most interested in the Maritime import and export trade; I, therefore, deem it my duty to rise in this House and set forth some of the reasons which justify the opposition of my constituents to the St. Lawrence waterway scheme.
The various opinions expressed heretofore, regarding this project are worthy of being considered. Hon. members representing Montreal and the province of Quebec are not alone in disapproving of this scheme and if we look outside of this House, we find that Governor Smith, of New York State, is entirely

St. Lawrence Waterway
opposed to this scheme, so highly extolled within the' last few months, a scheme which has been given widespread publicity in the newspapers, a scheme which is approved, morally at least, by a large proportion of the population of Ontario, and also by the majority of the population of the west. It is true, that this project is of American origin, it was conceived in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, the two Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado. No doubt, the western provinces are interested, however, as it was stated just now, and much to the purpose, by the speaker who preceded me, in these days when all preach economy, the West is not particularly desirious that this scheme should immediately take definite shape.
We have heard the probable cost of this new waterway scheme discussed. I followed attentively, just now, the argument of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who was trying to establish that the cost of this undertaking would not be much more than $250,000,000. Well, Sir, we must, in this House, speak plainly and discuss this question in a businesslike way; to the $250,000,000 which this undertaking is supposed to cost, must be added the interests as long as the system of canals is under construction, and so far as I have been able to judge, there is not one engineer, having made a survey of the ground who is in a position to state in a definite manner that the carrying out of this scheme will take place within a limited time. We are told, however, that the work on the St. Lawrence waterway would last from ten to twenty-five years; if we add to the cost of construction the compound interest, I leave it to you, Sir, to figure out what this scheme will have cost us when completed.
Governor Allan, of the state of Kansas, the greatest champion of this project, states that the United States would, using the St. Lawrence waterway, try and find a market for 200,000,000 tons of merchandise. After having made inquiries from a great number of shippers in my county, I can state positively, that it is absolutely impossible to find any other markets than those at present existing: London, New York, Liverpool, Hamburg and Montreal. Where could this new market be found for 200,000,000 tons of merchandise? That is the question.
We have read, here and there, that the electric power developed, by the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, would be sufficient to defray the cost of this undertaking. We should, Sir,
accept such a statement, only if it can be proven that it is possible to find a market for the electric power so developed. This still remains to be shown.
I am aware that our western farmers have had somewhat to suffer, up to the present, from demurrage charges at the ports where the wheat is unloaded, and this source of complaint will disappear in the future, because we have built quite recently, at Montreal, in my division, a $10,000,000 elevator. This very up to date elevator is designed to store all the wheat that the western farmers may send us, and will facilitate the rapid loading of all the ocean steamers which may come to Montreal during the autumn season, to fetch the wheat destined to the European markets.
I must admit that I place very little reliance in the good-will of our neighbours to the south, when it is a question of business. I am not convinced that our neighbours favour the St. Lawrence waterway scheme with the idea of ensuring to our merchant marine the benefit of this new wheat transportation route. I see but one object which can urge them on to press for the carrying out of this undertaking: it is the development of the water powers. I was reading quite recently, in an American magazine, that Mr. Ten Eyck, an ex-congressman, suggested to his government the building of a new canal extending from Oswego to Troy. Can we reasonably suppose that our friends the Americans would take advantage of the St. Lawrence route and neglect the one extending from Oswego to Troy, and thence to New York by the Hudson river, simply to give proof of their good-will towards us? What our American friends covet above all, is our water powers. We have, up to now, suffered enough owing to the Rush-Bagot Treaty, without further making the mistake of going blindly into such an undertaking by handing to our neighbours advantages which we should keep for ourselves.
All public bodies, Sir, of the province of Quebec, and even the government itself of that province, are strongly opposed to that project. I share their opinion. Montreal is, to-day, a large sea port, which desires to expand, and, within five years, I feel certain, it will extend as far as St. Therese island. If Montreal is, at the present time, considered as one of the five large distributing centres of the world, I fail to see why we should hinder its progress by adopting-even in principle, I might say-a scheme which might have such a harmful result as to injure the great metropolis of Canada. [DOT]
St. Lawrence Waterway

I am therefore acting as the spokesman for all the public bodies of Montreal; I am acting as spokesman for all those who, in my division, earn their living in the shipping business; I am acting as spokesman for all those who are truly working in the interest of the Montreal harbour. I approve, without reserve, the opinions advocated by the hon. member for Cha-m-bly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) and I beg the government to act with caution in this affair. And if, some day, a similar project is introduced, I will again side with the hon. members for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) and Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) to request that the Georgian Bay canal scheme be substituted for that of the St. Lawrence waterway.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Representing the constituency which would benefit most by the building of the Georgian Bay ship canal, I wish to say a few words before this discussion is concluded. I am one of those who believe that the commission which is to be named by the government will demonstrate to the satisfaction of our western friends, and to all those who are interested in the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway, the economic impossibility of that project, and that the development of the electrical power on the St. Lawrence is as a matter of fact the real objective of the great propaganda which has been in progress for several years. One of the reasons for the desire to have water-power developed on the St. Lawrence is the necessity that exists to-day for more electrical power in eastern Ontario. I maintain, however, that the building of the Georgian Bay ship canal would supply all the power needed in eastern Ontario, and at a very much cheaper rate than it could be developed along the St. Lawrence. The building of the Georgian Bay ship canal would enable us to develop 1,000,000 horse power, which would be available to eastern Ontario and Quebec, and would also provide an all-Canadian water route, should it ever become necessary, for the grain from the west at a rate every bit as low as that which could be obtained on the St. Lawrence waterway. Furthermore, it would enable Canadians to have absolute control of the grain rates, giving them an all water route to the sea. The Georgian Bay ship canal is a problem that has been discussed in this House for many years, and it has been declared by engineers as perfectly feasible. There is no doubt in my mind that had the United States possessed the same natural advantages, the Georgian Bay ship canal would have been built long ago. Northern

Ontario is on the eve of one of the greatest mineral developments Canada has ever known, The potential wealth of that great north country is just being brought before the world. Within the next ten or fifteen years there will be a greater industrial and mineral development in northern Ontario than has ever taken place in any similar area in the world. The deepening of the Georgian Bay ship canal would give an impetus to the healthy development of the vast natural resources of that country and would no doubt stimulate the development of our rich iron deposits there.
In discussing this problem Mr. W. F. Tye, who has made a thorough study of our waterways, expressed the following opinion:
With tile rapid depletion of the high grade iron ores, and the increase in the cost of coal which mast come from the great waste and rapid exhaustion of the easily mined high grade seams, the great advantages possessed by Pittsburgh and the Ohio valley as a manufacturing centre will disappear. With, the disappearance of the great advantage now enjoyed by Pittsburgh will come Canada's great opportunity.
The construction* of the Georgian Bay canal will develop a very large amount of water power. It is conservatively estimated that the Ottawa and its tributaries will give 3,000,000 horse-power equivalent in power requirements to the mining of 40,000,000 tons of coal per annum. This water power, unlike coal, can never' be exhausted, and with the rapid depletion of the coal and iron in the United States, and with the enormous horse-power of the Ottawa and its tributaries and the low grade iron ores of the Ottawa valley, it is easily possible that in years to come the great manufacturing centre of this continent may be transferred from the Ohio valley to the Ottawa valley. There is no reason why it should not if the people of Canada have the enterprise to make it so For such reasons as this I believe that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is a national necessity. I do not mean to say that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal will at once transform the Ottawa valley into a great manufacturing centre, but it will "ake l!- possible, as with abundance of iron ore, abundance of the cheapest and best power in the world with a deep draft canal permitting ocean freighters to penetrate into the heart of the Ottawa valley, there seems to be no reason why it should not become in time as great a manufacturing district as any in the world.
The Georgian Bay ship canal would give all the electrical energy required in eastern Ontario for many years to come. Lower down the St. Lawrence, the district of Montreal has all the water-power it will require for the next quarter of. a century.
The development of the St. Lawrence waterways would entail a tremendous expenditure, which would simply augment the stupendous burden this country is already struggling under. The electrical power so generated would have to be transmitted to the United States. As we know, this would lead to the establishment of great industries there, and they having once enjoyed the privilege of receiving

St. Lawrence Waterway
this power we should have to continue to supply their needs right along.
In a statement by Sir Adam Beck, Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, on the possibilities of the Ottawa river for power development, made before the Railway committee of the House of Commons in 1912 he said:
The Ottawa river must be the backbone of the supply of electricity to the province of Ontario. We are limited on the St. Lawrence by treaty obligations, and we must depend on one great source of supply, the Ottawa.
We of northern Ontario believe that before any steps are taken for joint international ownership of our great St. Lawrence waterway further study should be given to the merits of the Georgian Bay ship canal. Its construction would mean the development of 36,000 horse-power on the French river and would make it possible for boats to come further inland and supply the coal needs of northern Ontario; it would also serve as an outlet for the pulpwood and timber of that country. In the opinions of those who have studied the development which has already taken place in the north country within the last ten years, it would be a great deal more in the interest of the people of Canada as a whole that the Georgian Bay ship canal should be built in preference to any other similar project.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on this motion has taken the trend of opposition to the St. Lawrence waterway, and in the case of the last speaker (Mr. Lapierre) of advocacy of the Georgian Bay ship canal. Coming from the centre of the province as I do, it would naturally be expected that I should discuss these rival projects, but I do not intend to do so. I only want to bring to the attention of hon. members that the subject raised this afternoon is the development of water-powers on the St. Lawrence, and I would point out, as I did the other day incidentally, that those who are seeking this development are not concerned in the propaganda which has prevailed in the West for the deepening of the waterway, nor are they behind that propaganda. We believe the time has arrived when electricity is essential to the needs of eastern Ontario, and that the development of this power should not depend upon either the Georgian Bay ship canal or the St. Lawrence waterway route.
The government of Ontario is anxious to develop electricity for the eastern portion of the province, and will undertake to carry out such development at its own cost. That is
the point I want to impress upon the House to-day. Eastern Ontario has been very generous in. its attitude towards the other parts of the province. We stepped aside while hydro-electric power was being developed at Niagara Falls for western Ontario; but we can stand aside no longer-electricity is vitally necessary to eastern Ontario. We have no large industrial centres there, outside of Kingston and a few smaller towns, so the industrial aspect is not of first importance. The primary desire is to have electricity to serve the needs of the settled part of eastern Ontario, principally those of our agriculturists. The development of electrical power on the Georgian bay ship canal would be absolutely useless to us. I do not know what the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has in mind, but any power development north of the city of Ottawa could not be transmitted to the people of eastern Ontario in an economical way. Ottawa has all the power it wants or will want, but lying along the St. Lawrence river there are very thickly settled parts of Ontario where electricity is required by people living in small towns, and by farmers, and they need it now, not ten, fifteen or twenty years hence. Moreover, the erection of dams for this purpose will not, judging by what the engineers say, interfere in any way with navigation. As an example of this, I would point to the case of the Mississippi River Power Company, which is developing power on the Mississippi by means of a dam, with no resulting interference. I know that some time will be required for the consideration of the question whether or not the canal project is to go on, but I want to impress upon the government that the development of electricity is a matter of great importance to the part of eastern Ontario to which I have referred, and that is a need that the carrying out of the Georgian Bay project or anything else of that kind will not supply. Ontario is anxious to meet this need-


Joseph Archambault: Does my hon. friend say that the building of dams for the supplying of electricity as he suggests will not affect the level of the St. Lawrence river?


Arthur Edward Ross: Others who have spoken this afternoon have pointed out that they are not engineers; neither am I an engineer. But in 1913 the engineers of the HydroElectric Commission of Ontario stated that the erection of dams would not cause that interference, and I am pointing to an example, that of the Mississippi Power Gompany, which is developing many hundred thousand horsepower.
St. Lawrence Waterway


Joseph Archambault: I am not ready to take the word of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission's engineers.


Arthur Edward Ross: If any other commission can succeed as well or can get the results which they have obtained, their word should go a long way. I would direct the attention of the government to one other important point, namely, the change of water level along the Great Lakes. The water has gone down not two feet but three or four feet, and the emptying of the drainage and so on is going to be a great menace. The question is a very serious one which the government should take up at once, because the lowering of the water level must expose sewage, with resulting menace to the people of Ontario and of other parts of Canada, and to people of the United States as well. If this condition continues for another year I should not be surprised to see some very serious epidemics in this country.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: I	do not wish. Mr. Speaker,
to prolong this debate any further. There is, indeed, very little to add after the splendid speech of the member for Cham-bly and Yercheres (Mr. Archambault). I cannot, however, resist the temptation of protesting against the press campaign which is, at present, being carried on in the United States and Ontario, in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, I think that the time is ill-chosen-when the people of this country are uniting in a retrenchment campaign to insist on the carrying out of such a project, which would cost hundreds of million dollars. The right hon. Prime Minster (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that it was simply a question of holding an inquiry, so as to judge whether the time was ripe for this undertaking. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) further stated, the other day, that this scheme will never be carried out so long as it has not been established that the level of the St. Lawrence will not be affected, and, he further stated that the rights of all the provinces would be protected. We are continuously being refused necessary improvement for our counties, because Canada is not in a financial position to undertake these improvements, and I cannot, under these circumstances, see the utility of this inquiry, which will certainly cost the country many thousand dollars.
The speakers who have preceded me in this debate have pointed out that each time we had disputes with the United States, they have never been settled to the advantage of Canada ;

the Americans have always succeeded in having their claims acknowledged to our detriment. We must, therefore, be on our guard against such a desire of seeing this project carried out immediately. At all events, Sir, if it was established that an undertaking of this nature is in the interests of Canada, I would rather favour the building of the Georgian Bay canal which would give us an entirely Canadian route. The Georgian Bay canal would create a waterway just as advantageous to the western provinces, and, according to the report of engineers, would facilitate the development of all the water powers of which we are in need, just as well as the St. Lawrence waterway, and it would greatly benefit both northern Ontario and northern Quebec which contain minerals and forests in abundance. The construction of the Georgian Bay canal has been urged for a great number of years, long before we ever heard of the St. Lawrence waterway, and, had it not been for our participation in the war, which brought on a disastrous financial crisis, I am certain that the government would have already begun the construction of that canal. Our financial situation does not permit, at present, the carrying out of that project, which would however be far less costly than the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. It is, nevertheless, a fact that the first great national undertaking that the government will be called upon to carry out, will be the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. All citizens of this country would gladly see the realization of this project which would establish a waterway located entirely on Canadian territory, of which we could be complete owners and not have to share the privileges and responsibilities with our neighbours to the south.
Before closing my remarks, Sir, I would request the government to proceed slowly and with caution and not to carry out the St. Lawrence waterway before it is clearly shown that this project will turn to the advantage of Canada.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I wish to say a word in support of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Areham-bault) in his desire that the government should go slowly in entering into any contract with the United States for the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway. The history of international canals has not been such that a country, particularly a small country should hasten into a contract with a larger country. The history of the Suez canal and of the Panama canal will show that both the countries through which they were constructed lost control of the territory through which the

St. Lawrence Waterway
canals ran, and it is quite possible that the same thing may happen to us with regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterway if we consent to make the St. Lawrence an international waterway. It is conceivable that at some future time the United States may be at war with some country and that Canada would wish to be neutral but it would be impossible for Canada to obstruct the passage of ships along the St. Lawrence of any country that might be at war with the United States; and vice versa, if Great Britain were at war with Japan, and the United States were friendly with Japan or neutral, I do not see how we could stop their ships from using this international waterway into the Great Lakes. There are many phases of this subject that require very careful consideration before we enter into a contract with the Americans for the construction of this canal. There is no doubt that the canal would be a good thing for the interior of the North American continent. It would mean cheaper transportation and better facilities for all that country. But we have an alternative route in the Georgian Bay canal that would answer the purpose very much better from the Canadian standpoint. My hon. friend the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) pointed out that there were some 30,000,000 people tributary to the great cities on the Great Lakes.


Mr. BROWN:: Has there been any estimate made of the cost of the Georgian Bay canal?


Frank S. Cahill: An estimate was made some
years ago, and it was put at about $100,000,-
000.


John Livingstone Brown: For what depth of water?


Frank S. Cahill: I cannot give my hon. friend the exact depth, but it was to be deep enough for ocean-going vessels.


Joseph Archambault: Twenty-five feet.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River pointed out that there were some 30,000,000 people tributary to the territory around the Great Lakes, but those people would be from three to four hundred miles closer to the St. Lawrence outlet by way of the Georgian Bay canal than by way of the St. Lawrence waterway; that is, between Fort William or Chicago and Montreal the Georgian Bay route would be shorter by about three hundred miles than the St. Lawrence route. ,
So far as power is concerned, there is ample power in the Ottawa river for many, many 39
years. It was estimated by the engineers in [DOT] charge of the survey of that waterway that about 1,000,000 horse power could be developed within a reasonable radius of the city of Ottawa. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) was talking of the necessity for power in his district. If he will come to my county he will find he can get power there at $12 per horse-power, which is cheap, if not cheaper than it can be had at any place in Ontario. We can develop power along the Ottawa river cheaper than it can be developed at any point in Canada. The Ottawa has numerous streams emptying into it over the Laurentian range which give a great deal of water power, all tributary to the Ottawa river as well as the power that can be developed on the Ottawa river itself. The Georgian Bay canal could be developed for less than the Canadian proportion of the St. Lawrence waterway, and it would be through all Canadian territory and under our absolute control, and therefore would involve no international complications. I am not saying that the government should rush into the building of the Georgian Bay canal at this moment, but if they are not prepared to build the Georgian Bay canal, they certainly should not commit themselves to the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway at this time. The Georgian Bay canal has been advocated for a great many years, and- plans were prepared very carefully by eminent engineers, and I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am more converted than ever to the power of the press and of propaganda when the Canadian people have been brought to the point where they will seriously consider the St. Lawrence deep waterway in opposition to the Georgian Bay canal. A few years ago the Georgian Bay canal was the only proposal of this kind that was discussed in this country, before the great West was populated as it is to-day, and before it was producing the wheat it does to-day, but apparently this scheme has been dropped. There has been) no appeal made to the people of the West to support the Georgian Bay canal as a cheap grain route to the East. The advocates of the St. Lawrence waterway have taken up that project and have campaigned vigorously in favour of it throughout the West, distributing literature and doing propaganda work until they have convinced a great number of people in western Canada and the western states that the St. Lawrence deep waterway would be the thing.


Mr. SALES:: They have not convinced
many in the West.

Interim Supply


Frank S. Cahill: I trust the members of this House will consider the advisability of recommending to the government, at the earliest possible date the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.


Mr. GOULD:: I hope the hon. gentleman recognizes that the sentiment he spoke of in the West in favour of the St. Lawrence scheme does not represent western opinion.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous
consent of the House I desire to move that this debate be suspended and that we now go into Committee of Supply for the purpose of putting through an Interim Supply Bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I take it that it is the
unanimous wish of the House that the debate be suspended for this purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: That a sum not exceeding $40,871,970.85 being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in. the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1925, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1925.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: A few years ago, there would have been a very, very fierce debate upon a resolution of this kind. The House would have been held up, and it would have been necessary, in order to do business, to find some method of choking off talk which was made for the purpose of preventing the. ordinary business of the country from being carried on. But the years have passed and they have brought changes, some saa and some happy ones, and a happy change at any rate in this respect that there will be no attempt made to hold up public business. A few years ago, if we had the situation where parliament met for business in March, we would have heard very, very indignant speeches, and some of the most indignant and most forcible would have come from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to the neglect of the government to call the House earlier and expedite public business. But, Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the country's business ought not to be held up by reason 
of government defaults and failures. If a contrary view prevailed, I am afraid an awful lot of things would be held* up. And therefore on behalf of the official opposition, we consent to the usual grant for interim supply being now made, with the usual stipulation that all votes are open to consideration and censure. Everything is left wide open, as though this vote bad not been passed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You do it gracefully.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1925, the sura of $40,871,970.85 be granted out of the consolidated revenue of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. ROBB moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20 for granting to his Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1925.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume this bill is in the standard form.


James Alexander Robb: I understand so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And that the grant is one-sixth the amount of the estimates as tabled.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under that assurance, Mr. Chairman, there is no objection.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS TOWER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works:	Before returning to the previous
order, may I table a report asked for in debate? One is the settlement with the architects, and the other the original cost.

St. Lawrence Waterway

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the resolution of Mr. Archambault.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can say in a few minutes all I wish to say on behalf of the government on this motion. The motion is entirely in accord w^th the government's own policy of getting as much information as possible before proceeding in any official way with this great project, and also of having the public as fully informed as possible on all the aspects and bearings of the question. The hon. member (Mr. Archambault) who has introduced the resolution has spoken very emphatically of the many important considerations which this country should take into account before concluding any treaty as far-reaching as a treaty relating to the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway would be, and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr, Cahill) who has just taken his seat has made mention of one_ consideration, namely the international complications that may arise at any time, which also helps to illustrate how important it is that every aspect and possible bearing on the question should be fully considered before anything in the nature of finality is submitted to parliament or is accepted by the government. It is for that reason the government has decided to appoint a national committee to advise on just such matters as have been referred to by hon. members who have spoken. The government recognize? that this is perhaps as large an undertaking as the country has ever been called upon to consider, and our view is there should be a national committee composed of outstanding citizens in whom the public at large will have confidence and to whom the government may look for careful, thoughtful advice in regard to the different aspects of the question. I may say I mentioned this matter a few days ago; my remarks will be found in Hansard of March 17, page 357.
The government has agreed to refer to an enlarged joint engineering board just such questions as the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) has mentioned, namely, the practicability of this scheme, its cost, and particularly the effect upon the river and lake levels. That will be an expert technical board which will report on that particular phase. The government has also appointed a small interdepartmental committee composed of officers of the departments of Railways and Canals, Marine and Fisheries, Public Works, Interior, Trade and Commerce, and Finance, to assemble such information as is contained in the departments
39i
of the government, and also to go carefully into this project from the point of view of the knowledge which government officials have in regard to it. These are all steps in the nature of caution, and if anything more is needed, it will be found in my announcement the other day that the government would not think for a moment of committing the country to any project as great as this, involving so much for both the present and the future as this project does, without first submitting the whole matter to parliament for its consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Archambault) replies, there are one or two remarks that ought to be made. In the first instance, it seems to me that, perhaps, it would be wiser if we had not so many declarations from government supporters of absolute opposition to the scheme, when the whole of this matter is to be left very largely in the hands of government employees to say whether the project shall go on or not. If we are to have this investigation, it would be just as well that the engineers investigated it without a threat over their heads or the dice being loaded. In the second instance, it seems rather extraordinary that hon. gentlemen find so much difficulty in having truck and trade with the Americans in connection with a matter which can be very easily made definite, permanent and binding, while on the other hand, they are prepared to hand over the whole of the country's markets to those same gentlemen merely on the face of a gentleman's agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does my hon. friend get authority for his last statement?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think we need go very far to find it. We have only to refer to the old Reciprocity pact that my right hon. friend talks so much about which could have been changed the day after it was written as regards the American market.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would have been a good thing for this country if it had been carried out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is really a mistake that we should talk in utter ignorance of the facts. One hon. gentleman said that the grain rate from Prescott to Montreal would be probably two cents, and much lower if the proper through rate was considered. He forgot that he was talking about eastern territory where rates have not been cut down by any Crowsnest pass agreement.
St. Lawrence Waterway

As a matter of fact, the grain rate from Prescott to Montreal is thirteen cents a hundred pounds, so it would be just as well if we were to find out the facts.


James Alexander Robb: Such nonsense!


Henry Lumley Drayton: I challenge my hon. friend to deny the authenticity of that statement.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member is quoting the rail rate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, the rail rate, and that was the rate that was quoted before. It would be really just as well, if we are leaving this case fairly to those engineers, that we should leave it without expressions of opinion on matters of which we know nothing.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support
the resolution moved by the hon. member for Chambly and Vereheres (Mr. Archambault). This resolution aims at deferring the St. Lawrence waterway scheme.
I congratulate the mover on the splendid outline he has given us on the subject. In my opinion, the government was quite right to appoint a special commission with instruction to look into the report of the International Joint Commission previously appointed. The St. Lawrence waterway project has such far reaching effects. Canada and the United States, at present, have gone so far into the matter that we cannot give' too much study to the reasons invoked by one or the other party. It is quite proper that Canada should be cautious and not venture in such an undertaking without having first foreseen all the consequences. It cannot be denied, this project will entail an enormous expenditure. In the original reports, the engineers claim that the canal system of that part of the St. Lawrence river, between lake Ontario and Montreal, would cost at least $252,000,000; if, however, we take into consideration the whole scheme,-from the Great Lakes to the ocean,-it is quite certain that an undertaking of this nature would reach into the billions of dollars.
Lately, the members of parliament have been receiving numerous pamphlets, some favourable, others unfavourable to the scheme. When this question was first
[Sir Henry Drayton.)
launched, I am convinced that the most interested parties were not citizens of this country, but rather citizens of certain states situated in the neighbouring republic.
In this country, in western Ontario as well as in the western provinces the necessity of such an undertaking has not been fe'.t. No request, that I know of, has been made by those provinces. *
Have we not all the means of communication that we need? Have we not, to-day, numerous and well equipped railways, that have cost a great deal to this country, which, nevertheless, are too numerous, considering our present population? Have we not spent millions of dollars in establishing a canal system on the St. Lawrence? We have canals which are necessary to us, also means of transportation by rail. It is therefore, not in Canada, but rather in the United States that such a request originated. The St. Lawrence waterway would be constructed' from lake Ontario to the ocean, nine tenths of it on Canadian territory, that is to say, that there would only be one tenth of the St. Lawrence waterway which would be located between the United States and Canada. This afternoon, the hon. member for Kingston) (Mr. Ross) claimed that eastern Ontario was deficient in water-powers so as to distribute cheap electricity in its rural districts. If that is what is needed, I think it will be possible to solve the problem in another way and that it will not be necessary to undertake the work on the St. Lawrence waterway. Already, in eastern Ontario, part of the electricity is supplied by the St. Lawrence water powers, such as the Cedar Rapids plant. The Ottawa river can supply that hydraulic power. The development of the water power at Carillon alone would suffice to supply electricity to all eastern Ontario.
This project supported by the government would be to the benefit of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It would be necessary to dam the Ottawa river at Carillon, so as to develop this source of electric power and place it, at a reasonable figure, on the markets of the province of Ontario as well as the province of Quebec.
h, o great haste exists to carry out an undertaking of such magnitude. We have been at peace for a century with our neighbours to the south and it would be wrong to court occasions for misunderstandings, because this project might have the effect of wiping out the century old "entente mutuelle."
I again state, Sir, I share entirely the opinion so eloquently expressed by the hon.

St. Lawrence Waterway
member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) against the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. On the other hand, if the finances of the country were in a better condition, I do not think there would be a more popular project than the famous Georgian Bay canal.
We have not reached that stage; but I hope in the near future the finances of Canada will allow the government to carry out this project.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: In the debate on the Address the suggestion was made by some hon. gentlemen that there had been a great deal of propaganda in the West for the deepening of the St. Lawrence; and there is no doubt in my mind that, if this work were done and at some time in the future we found this country saddled with a debt of $300,000,000 or even more, we might be told that it was western Canada that had launched this scheme. It is well for the House to remember, therefore, just what has been the attitude of hon. members from the West during the past three sessions of parliament whenever this matter has been discussed in the House upon resolution introduced by any member from the city of Toronto. [DOT] So although there may be a good deal of propaganda on behalf of the scheme in the West, especially in my constituency this year, it is as well to remember that at least two years ago there had been already organized in the East an effective propaganda for the same purpose. In order to show that sometimes our friends in the East endeavour to saddle the WTest with the responsibility of initiating the project, I shall quote from an article which recently appeared in the Port Arthur .Chronicle:
Swift Current has the honour of being the first organized municipality in western Canada to take up earnestly the cause of the St. Lawrence deep waterways scheme and place it before the people of western Canada as a feasible and desirable public work.
From Swift Current there recently was issued a little booklet written and published by Mr. Bennett, at his own expense, telling of the benefits that will accrue to the whole country through the development of the St. Lawrence system.
This pamphlet is already beginning to bear fruit as witness the formulation of the first St. Lawrence Canal Association in the West.
Not only should this national waterway be improved for the benefit that it would bring to the grain growers of western Canada, but as a link to bind the separated parts of the Dominion into one whole.
Swift Current is to be commended for the honour it has done itself and Canada, and may nothing stand in the way of the movement spreading from that town to all parts of western Canada.
It would seem from this article that the original propagandists wished to place the
burden and the responsibility for the proposed development upon western Canada, and I am simply rising in my place to emphasize the fact that similar propaganda had already been organized two years before the appearance of this article and before any organization was attempted in Swift Current. I have the honour of representing Swift Current, and it is true that a great many municipalities and boards of trade in my constituency have already expressed themselves in favour of the immediate construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway scheme. But I do not altogether agree with some hon. members who reflect upon the intelligence of these western municipalities and boards of trade, for I do not think it is fair to assert that no investigation into the merits has taken place. We know that the scheme has already been investigated and reported upon. However, I am heartily in accord with the government's decision to institute a fuller and more specific investigation into the merits of the scheme. As showing the absolute necessity for this further investigation, we heard this afternoon an hon. member from my side of the House state that from a certain port in Ontario they could carry grain to Montreal for four cents, while shortly afterwards he was contradicted and told that it would be a matter of thirteen cents.


John Millar: Is my hon. friend aware that I stated a fact and made an estimate? My fact was that grain is hauled long distances at a cent and a fraction a bushel. Does he deny that fact? As to my estimate, there is no similar condition with which to make a comparison where so many factors would be brought together all tending towards a lower rate. And, this being so, I made an estimate, which may be wrong, and yet it may be right. But does my hon. friend recognize that it was an estimate?


Arthur John Lewis: are considering a scheme that would involve the country in the expenditure of millions upon millions of dollars it is not wise to rely upon estimates only; we want to be certain that there is going to be a saving if the scheme is adopted.
I	do not think that Montreal need fear the loss of much traffic, because Montreal is three hundred miles nearer to Liverpool than New York, and if the St. Lawrence waterway development scheme is undertaken there is no doubt that a great deal of freight would pass over it from the sixteen middle western states. That would assist Montreal a great deal; in other words, the volume of business would necessarily be increased. I heartily commend the government for wisely staying their hand in this matter for the time being, especially when there is a demand for economy. I hope the investigation will be full and in detail and that there* will be no political pull or interference in any way so that an investigation may be held which will result in a sane report setting forth to the whole of Canada, the East as well as the West, the benefits that would result from the development of this great scheme.
There is another point that I would like to emphasize. If the proposal originated in the United States and involves chiefly the development of power which they so much need, I do not think the Canadian people should be burdened with the cost of it. But if it can be proved that there are advantages on both sides, that we shall have our share of. the power and that benefit will accrue to the Canadian people as a result of the development, then I hope the time will come when we shall be able to afford the expenditure necessary to carry the project to a conclusion.


Mr. J. A. DENIS (Saint Denis) (Translation) :: I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to take up the time of the House and prolong uselessly the debate on this question. Representing one of the^large electoral divisions of the metropolis of Canada, I deem it my duty to strongly protest against this St. Lawrence waterway scheme. The St. Lawrence river is the source of the prosperity and great development of the city of Montreal, and all which may- affect this river is of vital importance to my fellow citizens. Considering the financial situation of the country, it does seem to me inadvisable to take up just now the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. I must, by the way, congratulate the government for having so clearly understood the present situation and endeavoured to econo-
mize, and, still more economize in order to extricate the country from the chaos in which it was so deeply plunged by the late Tory -Conservative government.
I	wish, Sir, to assure my hon. friend, the member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Arohambault), and my hon. friend the member for Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere), who also represents one of the large industrial and manufacturing divisions of Montreal, that I entirely share their views and that I shall, like them, strongly oppose this scheme which, in my opinion, would greatly prejudice the interests of the Canadian metropolis, and would, in no way, facilitate the cheap transportation of western wheat. If the Progressives are sincerely striving to better their lot, I think that instead of supporting this scheme, they would be doing far better by supporting the Georgian Bay canal project. This route would greatly shorten the distance between Montreal and Fort William and would allow them to transport .their wheat on better conditions and at reduced insurance rates. I am fully convinced that the whole country would benefit by this last project.
The government should endeavour to develop, first, the projects having a national import before thinking of international undertakings.
The aim of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, is clearly to seize the water powers of the St. Lawrence river for the greater benefit of the United States. It is the duty of all the representatives of the laTge metropolis of Canada to strive to preserve this asset which the waters of the St. Lawrence represent to us, and prevent them from falling into other hands and thus endanger the future progress of our beautiful city.
I	shall close my remarks, Sir, by congratulating the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres for having drawn the attention of the House to this important question, and for having given proof to the whole country that, to safeguard the national unity, we must not support the schemes which aim at favouring one section only of the country to the detriment of the others, but that we must work together for the common cause, the national welfare.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion on the order paper dealing with this same subject, and as the matter has been very thoroughly discussed here to-day, I should be very glad, with your permission, to withdraw the motion standing in my name and to confine my discussion of the subject to the present motion.
Two years ago a very admirable report

St. Lawrence Waterway
was presented on this proposed scheme by a commission appointed by both governments. They heard evidence on both sides from the point of view of engineering, finance, traffic and so on. The report subsequently brought in emphasizes the fact that the St. Lawrence is one of the great natural waterways of the world.
The cost of the improvements will be divided between the two countries. The scheme is entirely practicable, according to the engineers, and the cost will be less than that of any other proposed route. The United States government, under the late President Harding, and under the present president in his message at the opening of congress, have taken very strong ground in support of this project. I do not think that anybody in Canada can find fault with the policy of the government to have a further inquiry, provided it be not too long delayed. On the United States side of the inquiry commission will be such men as Herbert Hoover. The report of the last commission has dealt with all phases of this question, but if there is any further information it is in the interest of the country that it be made known. This question should not be approached from any sectional standpoint. What should govern is the greatest good for the greatest number. It is one of the most important economic problems of the North American continent to-day and a right solution of that problem will mean a great deal to the future of Canada, not only eastern Canada but the country as a whole.
For the reasons I have given, and as the government has announced its policy, I support this resolution for the production of papers, and ask leave of the House to with* draw my motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. member
for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) addresses the House, if any other hon. member desires to express his views on this question, the time is now. Meanwhile I will put the formal motion: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) shall have leave to withdraw his motion, No. 26?
Motion agreed to and resolution (Mr. Church) withdrawn.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, this motion
being for the production of documents and the Prime Minister having assented to it, I shall refrain from answering the arguments made by hon. members who have spoken in the debate, reserving my right to discuss them if
this question should arise on another occasion.
I wish, however, to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). He stated that during my address I said that the construction of a bridge between the city of Montreal and the south shore was more important than the project of the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel. I did not express it that way. What I stated was that it is very difficult for members in the present financial crisis to tell their constituents that many useful and reasonable local projects must be sacrificed because of the state of our finances, and it would be much more difficult in my own case to ask my constituents and those who live in the district of Montreal to refrain from asking the government to contribute directly in the building of that bridge if the government was to go into such an expensive undertaking as the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel. I am sure my hon. friend did not wish to misquote me, but probably the cause of his mistake was that I was speaking in French at the time, and I was not speaking Toronto French.
I also wish to answer one word of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). He compared the St. Lawrence project to the reciprocity pact of 1911 and waxed very indignant about the control of our markets that we were supposed to give to the United States by that pact. I may tell him that by the reciprocity pact we were not giving away any control of any kind to the United States, that in this project we are giving joint control to the United States over a most valuable asset of Canada, and in waxing indignant it was my hon. friend himself who lost control.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon.
gentleman allow me a question?-whether or not under present existing treaty rights of the United States that country now has the right of navigation in the inland waters?


Joseph Archambault: Yes, there is no
doubt that they have the right of navigation, but they cannot supervise navigation; they cannot build dams, for instance, or make rulings about navigation on the St. Lawrence. But if we were to adopt the project that my hon. friend likes so much we would give to the United States joint control over everything pertaining to the St. Lawrence, that is quite different.


John Millar: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hewitt Bostock: Only by unanimous consent.
Industrial Relations


John Millar: It is partly to put myself right. Unfortunately I was not in the chamber when reference was made to figures I quoted this afternoon. Reference has been made to present rates. May I ask the hon. member, who is more familiar with that route than I am, if he has ever known of a full carload of wheat being shipped from Prescott to Montreal.


Joseph Archambault: I think there has been wheat shipped from Prescott to Montreal.


John Millar: Was there ever a carload
shipped that way?


Joseph Archambault: I cannot say for
certain. I do not see the point of my hon. friend's question.


James Alexander Robb: I might say that some years
ago, the Montreal Transportation Company built a very large elevator at Prescott, it is there yet, and millions of bushels have been put through that elevator. Some of the grain is shipped to Montreal by water and some by rail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTII (Centre Winnipeg) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable to appoint a Select Standing Committee to ileal with all matters coming before the House which involve industrial relations.
He said: I am in the happy position of being able to introduce what I think is a non-contentious resolution. We have a number of standing committees in the House dealing with a great variety of subjects, banking, marine and fisheries, mines and minerals, railways and agriculture and so on. There is no committee charged particularly with questions with regard to labour and other matters affecting the relations of the people. It has seemed to me that there are a number of questions that might very well be sent to such a committee. We had last year amendments to the Criminal Code and Immigration Act which were sent to special committees. Some measures are being pressed this year that will have to be dealt with by committees. The government is becoming more and more related to the industrial life of the country. We have now our own national railway system; we are constructing a great many public works; and we have ' 
connections with various contracts which involve the Fair Wage clause and that kind of thing. It seems to me very necessary that there should be every facility given for discussion and understanding of these various questions in this House. We have been urging upon labourers and employers alike that, wherg possible, constitutional and parliamentary methods should be adopted in solving these problems. I take it, then, that we should have the machinery for a very full consideration of these questions. I have no intention whatever of arguing the case tonight. It seems to me the proposition itself is eminently a reasonable one. If the farmers feel in connection with their agriculture that they ought to have a committee, we in the Labour group feel that we might very well have a similar committee to deal with labour questions. I offer this as a suggestion to the government and the House, and would be very glad if the government could see its way to accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) was kind enough to mention to me before the House met this year that it was his intention to introduce a resolution of this kind, and he will recall I expressed to him the view that I hoped he would do so. I see no objection whatever to the object of the resolution. I would like, however, to point out to my hon. friend that we already have a very large number of select standing committees. I think the number of select standing committees in our parliament, is about twice the number in the British House of Commons, ilthough, of course, we have not more subjects or subjects of larger magnitude to consider. Each additional committee means something in the way of additional expense, not a very great expense to be sure, but nevertheless it does entail an extra clerk and stenographer or two, and other additional expense.
The government has been considering this matter and we feel that possibly the object my hon. friend has in view would be met, and a still larger object attained, if we were to consolidate two of the committees that are now separate committees, and form a new select standing committee on industrial relations; broadened, however, so as to make it not a standing committee on industrial relations only, but a committee also on international relations. Of recent years the importance of both of these classes of questions has very greatly increased. Members

Soldier Settlement
of the House will notice that more and more time has been taken up ever since the war with the discussion of international questions, such important matters for example as the one referred to in a question asked by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) relating to the Singapore base. There have been many questions relating to the matters that came before the Imperial Conference, and I venture to say that every few weeks we shall be discussing in this House some question of international import. It may well be that a select standing committee to consider these international questions would serve a very useful and helpful purpose. True, any subject can be referred under the rules of the House to almost any committee if there is relevancy at all, and so the House is not precluded from having any matter considered in a select standing committee, but there is an advantage, when committees are being chosen, in placing on each committee those members of the House who are likely to have a special interest in and a special knowledge of the questions to be discussed. I think the combination of industrial and international problems would be a very proper one. International questions deal in very large part with industrial matters, and certainly our industrial problems are becoming more and more international in character. To add a new select committee would require an amendment to Rule 10 of the House. That would require a couple of days' notice. But if members of the House generally approve of the idea, the government would be prepared to bring in an amendment to the rules suggesting a consolidation of two of the select standing committees and the formation of a new select standing committee on industrial and international relations. If that meets with the approval of my hon. friend I have no objection on behalf of the government in sanctioning the resolution as it stands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To what extent
would the minister substitute the statutory powers of the Minister of Labour by powers given to this committee? I notice they are to have full power to deal with all matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Powers to be
given to this committee, I assume, are similar to powers given to other select standing committees; in regard to any matter that may be referred to the committee by parliament, the relations of the minister will be just what they are to-day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say that
the suggestion of the Prime Minister appeals to me to be a most excellent one-far better
than my original resolution,-and will carry out the purpose I had in mind.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the resolution pressed,
or is it to be withdrawn?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it necessary to
have an expression of opinion of the House?
If not, I will simply withdraw the resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the abnormal deflation in the value of all farm products which has taken place since the year 1920 and which has been reflected particularly in the economic position of the returned men who have gone on the land under the provisions of the Soldiers Land Settlement Act, renders it imperative that immediate consideration be given to the question of a substantial reduction of their capital debt. And that a committee of this House be appointed to whom this matter may be referred with instructions to review the situation and report to parliament at the earliest possible date this session.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I introduce this
motion only after having made a most exhaustive survey of the situation as it exists in my constituency, and also, since coming to Ottawa, after having surveyed the question from the broader aspect in discussions with various members of this House. I made that survey of my constituency and of other portions of Manitoba in company with, not only the local supervisors, but the district supervisor for Manitoba. Therefore, I introduce this question with a full realization of all that is involved in making a physical revaluation. If I were to suggest the measure that, I believe, would be in the best interest of the soldiers of my constituency and of the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada, I would advocate a complete cancellation of the whole account. My reason for making that statement is this. After having made a survey of my constituency and after having secured figures from the various departments, I found that this condition prevailed in my constituency. There had been-I use the term "had," because I do not contend that the same amount is invested now-invested in that constituency through the Soldier Settlement Board, $2,750,000. Of that sum, on the 30th September last, abandonments had taken place to the amount of $600,000, of which the government or the board had been able to salvage only 18 per cent. If abandonments should- continue for another two years at the same rate at which they have taken place during the last twelve

Soldier Settlement
months, we shall have lost all the returned soldiers but 15 per cent. That is the situation in my constituency. Therefore, if the abandonments continue at the same rate for another two years, we shall then be in exactly or almost the same position as we would be if we cancelled the entire account to-day. I am not, however, asking for cancellation of the entire account; I am asking for revaluation. Two years ago when a special committee sat considering these matters, I was one of the few members of this House who strongly advocated revaluation then. I think the chairman of that committee, whom I see in the House to-night, will recall that almost daily I waited upon him and urged that revaluation should take place; that I was sure it would have to take place some time. I think we have arrived at the time when revaluation is the only possible solution if we intend to retain the soldiers on the land. I secured some figures from the department at Ottawa on the question of abandonment and so forth, and I will give the figures for all the provinces in the Dominion:
Percentage of
, ,	abandonments
British Columbia	 17
Alberta	 19
Saskatchewan	 14
Manitoba	 25
Ontario	 19
Quebec	 34
That prosperous province!
Percentage of
t	abandonments
New Brunswick	 23
Nova Scotia	 15
Prince Edward Island	 16
This makes an average of 18-1 per cent of abandonments. Nor does this tell the . whole story. In discussing this question with the chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board at Ottawa the other day, I learned that the field supervisors, in submitting their reports, classified their soldiers something like this. There is a class that they call "good;" there is another class that they call "fair;" there is another class that they call "doubtful," and there is a fourth class that they term as "likely to quit." In the class that is likely to quit there were 12 per cent. If you add the 12 per cent of those who are likely to quit to the 18 per cent of those who have already quit, we have 30 per cent that have practically abandoned their farms. In the West we hear a great deal about mixed farming; in fact, to-day it is held out as the panacea for all our ills, and many of the soldiers in my constituency have attempted to readjust their position and tried mixed farming, but it has not stopped the exodus.

I have under my hand a report from the municipality of Lakeview which, I think, is in the constituency of Neepawa. In the Lake-view municipality there were settled 101 soldiers under the Soldier Land Settlement Act, of whom 53 have already abandoned their farms. One of the supervisors in my constituency advised me, just before I left for Ottawa, that 100 soldiers had left his district in the last twelve months.
I do not intend to go into this matter at any length to-night. Other members are present who, I know are anxious to say a few words on this particular question. I feel that with the situation as it exists to-day. there will be very little opposition to the matter of appointing a committee of this House, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing the question when the report of that committee, if one should be appointed, is submitted to the House. As the hour may be late when we conclude this debate, I do not intend to say more than merely to introduce this question, and I may have a few remarks to make in closing the debate. I would point out to the government, however, that if the purpose of the Soldier Settlement Act, namely, to establish the soldiers on the land, is to be effective, something must be done to build up the morale, to stimulate the hope and to improve the psychological condition of the soldiers. If something is not done, I am convinced that within two years from now, in Manitoba at least, we shall have lost practically all the soldiers.


William F. Carroll: Has the hon. gentleman gone into many of the reasons why, say, 18 per cent of our soldiers have left the land?


Mr. WARD:: In making the survey that
I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, I visited personally in the neighbourhood of one hundred soldiers' farms, went into their homes, talked the matter over with them and asked them why they were not able to make their farms pay. The question is simply one of high cost of production and low-priced products. Another reason that might be mentioned is that in many of the districts the soldiers were settled on land on which they should never have been settled.
I have here the prices that were paid for land in the various provinces of Canada, and it may be interesting to hon. members to learn just how much was paid on the average in the West. In British Columbia the average price was $54 per acre; in Alberta $18 per acre; in Saskatchewan $17.50 per acre; in Manitoba $20 per acre; in Ontario $38, and

Soldier Settlement
in Quebec $30, the average over the whole lot being $22.50. In Manitoba, where the average price was $20.25, I have no hesitation in stating my opinion that no honest and practical man would	value	any of the land sold	to thesoldiers at	more	than $10	per acre.	I amconvinced of that. I believe that the land was	sold	to these	men at	pricesthat were	at	least 50	per cent	more
than should have been charged. I do not want to charge anything like wrong doing, because everything was inflated at that time. But there is no doubt whatever that these men paid altogether too much for the land they got. Land was greatly inflated then, and very high prices were paid for stock also, cows, for example, were selling then at $125 each, and I know of several teams of horses that were bought for returned men at as high as $500 and $550 apiece. It was exceedingly unwise, in the first place, to buy stich expensive horses for the returned men going into the backwoods and on the frontiers; and high prices were paid for cows that are to-day worth not more than $20 apiece. This accounts largely for the failure of these men to meet their payments.
I want to reiterate, because of its importance, the fact that while the financial insolvency is a very serious matter, what I call the psychological insolvency is not less serious. Let me give an illustration of what I mean.
I visited a home about a year ago last fall, and although the returned man himself was somewhat downhearted, at the same time his wife appeared to me to be rather elated; she had some hope of being able to augment the family budget, since she had decided to go into the raising of ducks. She raised 75 ducks last year, a beautiful flock of birds, and in the fall she crated them and shipped them to Winnipeg. In return she received a cheque that netted her 22 cents apiece for these ducks. You can imagine the pscychological effect of this circumstance upon that soldier's wife. Only the year before she had entertained high hopes of being able to help the family by providing the means for obtaining the necessary clothes and groceries which they would require. And this is what happened. I say, Mr. Speaker that the psychological conditions that surround the lives of a great many of the returned soldiers are such that it is impossible for them to carry on. I am sure that the House and the government will show in some way their appreciation of what the soldiers have done for us. Do not let us forget these men who went overseas and endured a virtual hell to save
loved ones, homes and country and the lives of others who stayed at home fortifying ourselves against the days that were to come.
I think that this parliament owes it to the returned men to show them every consideration which it possibly can. I will not take up more of the time of the House, but I beg to bring my remarks to a close with an expression of hope that the government will see its way clear to appoint a committee to go fully into the matter; and I shall be glad to give any information that I may possess, as I am sure other hon. members will be only too ready to do.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I wish to add a few words to what has been already said by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). I think the hon. member is in a better position than any other hon. gentleman to speak for the province of Manitoba. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is a subject, one might say, of almost tragic importance, and I desire the House to be fully seized of the situation and to know that all is not well with the soldier settlers. We have heard some glowing reports in regal'd to this matter, and while I do not suppose that they have been intentionally misleading, nevertheless it seems to me that this House should be made aware, as it is not, in my opinion, of the precise situation in reference to a great many of the returned soldiers out on their farms in the prairie provinces where I am acquainted. No doubt we have had right intentions so far as our dealings with the returned soldiers have been concerned. We are proud of the fact that no other country has done so much for those who went to the war as has the Dominion of Canada. However, we must not allow ourselves to feel that we have done all that we can do and that everything is all right. If anything can be done more than we have done we should seriously consider the matter and ascertain in what way we can relieve the situation of the returned men.
An hon. member on the other side of the House asked why the returned farmer soldiers had got into the condition in which they found themselves to-day. Well, it is not very difficult to answer that question. The House is continually hearing stories about the difficulties that confront the whole agricultural population of the country at the present time. We know that farmers who own their own farms, their own stock and implements, are experiencing great difficulty in keeping their heads above water, and when we reflect that the returned soldiers had to face a handicap when they went upon the land, I do not think we shall be surprised to find them in straitened circumstances to-
Soldier Settlement

day. There came to my office to-day a gentleman of ability, a man who had spent a number of years in the war. He told me that on his return he thought at first that he would find comparatively little difficulty in settling down; but, he added, so soon as he tried to buckle down he discovered that he could not, and it was quite a while before he was able to get into his stride. That is something that must be taken into consideration. We must remember, too, that a great many of these men were not highly experienced agriculturists, and they went upon the land because it offered an attraction: they naturally wanted to live an independent life and to earn an income that would support them. When the soldiers began to settle on the land in large numbers in 1919 and 1920, at the time the great bulk of the land and the stock and implements were bought, everything was at the highest price; things were higher then than they have been in the last fifteen or twenty years. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read some extracts from a few letters I have received. These letters are not anonymous; they are all signed, and while I will not give the names, I may say that the writers are all prominent business men in different towns in the province of Manitoba. The first is from the town of Eriksdale:
In this district the settlers are having great difficulty to content themselves to stay with the farm as they realize that it is going to be a hard proposition to keep up these payments, for the number of years they will be obliged to, in order to clear themselves of the debt which is hanging over them.
The next comes from the town of Carman:
Settlers are on the poorer land as the board would not purchase the best land at from $70 to $100 an acre. They will have a hard time paying for the land unless they go in for mixed farming, as it is very light.
I have another one from Eriksdale:
There are very few if any soldier settlers in this neighbourhood making much progress as the majority started when prices were at tlieir peak.
Another comes from Dominion City:
Unless conditions are made much better for the farmer the land is not worth any more now than it was in 1913. Unless a change is made soon the soldiers can never make it pay, as they had to pay far too much to get a start.
The last one comes from Minnedosa:
I yield to no one in my interest in the establishment of returned men on the farm, and speaking generally they have paid 33 per cent too much for everything.	-
This is signed by Hugh M. Dyer,-General Dyer, who made a name for himself in the war and who I am sure is a friend of the soldier. I have read these letters to show what is the general opinion all over the prov-
ince of Manitoba as to the condition in which the farmers find themselves.
It is difficult enough for the soldiers, but the municipalities are suffering too. They are not able to collect taxes from these lands. As a result, in many districts in the province where soldiers have been settled, the schools are being closed and the children are receiving no education. We also find considerable debts due to the hospitals for treatment given soldier settlers and their dependents. I have a list before me of the various municipalities in Manitoba, with the number of soldier settlers and the number of those who have been forced to abandon their farms; but I will not deal with this because the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) has already given the percentages and I need not duplicate his remarks. But I find that the unpaid taxes in Manitoba-and this is not a complete list by any means- amount to about $42,000, while unpaid hospital bills run to over $3,000.
In order that the House may understand some of the circumstances that surrounded the purchasing of land for soldier settlers, let me give the figures respecting a quarter section. The land was obtained originally from the provincial government in 1906 for $720; in 1917 it was again sold for $1,760; but the Soldier Settlement Board paid $4,500 for the quarter section-a rise from $720 to $4,500. There is no doubt about these figures, and I can verify them at any time. If the original owner bought the land for $720, how in the world does anyone expect a soldier settler to be able to pay $4,500 for it, buy his stock and implements, and make a living? It is an utter impossibility, and the quicker the man gets off the land the better.


James Alexander Robb: What province was that in?


Robert Forke: Manitoba. I think there
should be a thorough investigation. I am not blaming anyone for graft or other dishonest dealing. It is well known that the soldier settlers came into possession of their land, and bought their stock and implements when everything was at the peak. As I have already said, the farmer without any encumbrances on his land finds it difficult enough to make ends meet; but these poor men are up against an impossible proposition. When I think of some of these soldier settlers with their wives and families in the hewer districts enduring hardships and confronted with many trials and difficulties, and then remember what the men did for us when the Empire was fighting for its very existence, I feel that we in our turn cannot do too much for them, and I would ask this House to institute a thorough investiga-

Soldier Settlement
tion into all the circumstances, because I do not believe for a moment that our people wish to see the slightest injustice done to these veterans who were willing to sacrifice their lives that we might be free.


John Millar: Mr. Speaker, having a goodly number of returned soldiers in my constituency, and knowing the condition in which many of them now find themselves, I cannot conceive of any resolution with which I am more heartily in accord. I will not dwell at great length on this question because it has already been pretty well covered. I believe the scheme was perfectly sound in its inception, but unfortunately it was started at a very bad time, at a time when land, horses, implements and everything else were at the peak and just starting to decline in value.
I have visited some of these returned soldiers, and they have appealed to me for support. A very great majority of them are very economical and hard-working men, and many of them are not as strong physically as they were before they went overseas. I have one man in mind now whom I visited last fall. He had a tidy place, and everything looked thrifty. He was not a strong man physically, in fact he was in a nervous condition, and probably he will never be as strong again as he used to be; and yet he was doing wonders, working long hours. He had built a cowshed of poles and straw, and although there was only about $45 worth of lumber in it, the result was a credit to any man. He was doing all that any farmer could possibly do to make a living, yet he was in financial difficulties.
In some cases the land purchased was not of good quality. The man I refer to wa3 fortunate in having a sound knowledge of land and was able to pick a very choice quarter section, but where the men were not good judges they had to depend on inspectors of the Soldier Settlement Board to pick out their farms. The board itself at the outset had to take on untried men, and in some cases these men [DOT] were not properly qualified for the duties required of them. Later on, I believe, this trouble was overcome, but in the meantime a goodly number of soldiers were placed on land that was not just suitable for farming. I do not know that anybody in particular was to blame, but that was the situation.
These men did their very best for us, they served us, as has been well said, faithfully and without stint. While some of us were able to profit by the war, these men sacrificed everything, and I should very much like
to see this resolution taken seriously in order that we may help such deserving cases. Difficulties lie in the way, but I do not think they are insurmountable, and if we could have a revaluation made of the land and property it would give these men fresh hope and renewed courage to try to hold on to their farms. Otherwise they will slip away from this country the same as the 30 per cent already referred to. I have some letters also from returned soldiers somewhat similar to those read by my leader (Mr. Forke) but 1 do not think it is necessary for me to place them before the House. I wish to give the resolution my most hearty commendation and support.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. gentleman said that land was bought in his province for soldier settlers at the peak price. Does he mean to imply that it was bought at more than its ordinary market value?


John Millar: No, for the most part it
was bought at the regular price. Land, horses, everything was high; but in some cases land was bought for more than it was worth. I could give instances where land was bought at three times what it was worth, but these were isolated cases.


James Arthurs: I am sympathetic with
the motion and am merely asking for information. Was the value of the land in the district referred to passed upon by the local inspectors? [DOT]


John Millar: It was passed by an inspector of the Soldier Settlement Board, but I do not care to dwell very much on this particular case, because I dealt with it in a former session and then took it up with the Soldier Settlement Board. It was an isolated case, and I do not know whether anybody connected with the board was to blame.


James Arthurs: As I said before, I am
most sympathetic with the motion and am desirous of doing everything possible for the returned soldier. I am trying to get fixed in my mind the conditions in the West, and I think my position is similar to that of all other members in this section of the House. I heard the hon. member who. introduced the motion state that in his province land was purchased at $22 an acre while the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) read a letter stating that land had been bought at from $70 to $100 an acre. I am simply asking for information.
&22
Soldier Settlement


Robert Forke: I want to make a correction. The letter I read stated that the Soldier Settlement Board would not buy land at $70 and $100 an acre.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just one or two words in support of this motion, and also to make a suggestion. Anything that goes to make a farm-land, equipment and stock -is of value eventually in proportion to the value of products which can be sold from that farm. Land may be sold, and possibly be resold, at a high price, but if a man has bought it and intends to make it his home, to live on it for twenty-five years and pay for it, he must pay for it eventually out of the value of his products, and it is the low value of the products in comparison to the capital debt on the farm that has largely brought about the present situation.
The act was orginally, I believe, a good act, but with the changed conditions its provisions became inadequate to meet the situation. Of course none of us expected at that time that there would be such a tremendous deflation of values, particularly in the comparative values-that is, the purchasing values-of farm products. I am not attaching blame to anyone, nor should any blame be attached. The matter is one in which all members of the House are equally interested, and I think, equally sympathetic. Two years ago we had hoped that the difficulty was met; we attempted honestly to meet it. But since then ^matters .have developed and the soldiers' position has become worse. As the conditions change and as matters become worse we must change our act, if necessary, to meet the existing circumstances, just as we tried to do two years ago. However, I do not intend to speak of that so much as to point out one or two of the complexities of this problem which make it necessary that some such committee as has been suggested be appointed if the problem is to be dealt with intelligently, as it must be if it is to be dealt with satisfactorily.
There is the question, for instance, whether such readjustment of the capital debt should be retroactive, and if so to what extent, Some men have paid a good deal on their lands and others have paid very little, so the question whether it shall or shall not be retroactive must be given consideration. There is also the question of the basis of the revaluation, whether it shall be a physical revaluation or a revaluation by percentage. I think we pretty nearly came to the conclusion in 1922 that a physical revaluation was almost an

impossibility, that is, to send men to every farm to value them in accordance with their respective market prices. In some parts of the country there is no market price because there is no demand for land and no land exchanging hands. But in any case the expense involved in making a complete and systematic investigation of every parcel of land and of all the equipment and stock on these parcels of land would be almost prohibitive. Further, it would to a certain extent discriminate against the careful settler in favour of the settler who was not so careful. The more careful a settler was, the better he farmed his land and the better the condition in which he kept his stock and equipment, the less would be the deflation in value, so that such a physical revaluation would to a certain extent discriminate in favour of the careless settler.
The question also comes up as to localities. There is no doubt that certain localities were not well adapted to farming and that there is greater deflation in those localities than in others. On the other hand, if the percentage basis was taken, if you simply reduced the capital debt by a given percentage, I suggest that you might have to adopt some kind of sliding scale percentage, based possibly to some extent on the locality and also to some extent on the years during which the purchases were made.
These are the complexities of the problem, and they have to be faced. In the first place, we have to safeguard the men who did so much for us, because after all it is not merely a matter in their case of dollars and cents; it is not simply a colonization problem. We endeavoured to assist these men, to put them on a better footing than that on which they would have been had they not taken out these loans-that was our purpose, in addition, of course, to our attempt to increase production through that method of colonization. The suggestion I would make, then, would be this. If the government see fit to accept this resolution, and I most certainly hope they will, I suggest that the reference should be somewhat widened. The resolution itself would refer to a committee simply the matter of a decrease in the capital debt. Now, that is involved with other matters; it is almost impossible to consider a subject of that kind by itself.	I would therefore, with the permission of the House and of the mover of the resolution (Mr. Ward), move to amend it by inserting after the word "matter" in the second last line the following words:
"together with any other question relative to the operations of the Soldiers Land Settlement Act,"

Soldier Settlement
The last paragraph would then read:
And that a committee of this House be appointed to whom this matter, together with any other question relative to the operations of the Soldiers Land Settlement Act, may be referred,-
And so on, I hope that the mover of the resolution will agree to the amendment and that the House will adopt the resolution as amended.


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, I asked one or two questions a few minutes ago, but not with the intention, as I stated then, of opposing the motion now before the House. It has my heartiest support; I honestly believe that something should be done to ameliorate the conditions of these men now upon the land, I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) that perhaps the motion does not go far enough to provide for an inquiry, into all the circumstances, and I question whether the motion in its original form might not bring upon the country a greater expense than the saving to the soldiers.
There is no doubt that many of these men bought land when the land was at the peak price. Generally speaking the land was largely in the hands of local men whose honesty or dishonesty was well known throughout the community, and I think that on the whole they did the best they could under the circumstances. Since that time, not only in the West but in some portions of eastern Canada as well, the conditions have changed, and there is very good reason for the proposing of a motion of this kind at this time. We have an example in this respect that our friends to the left may not have noticed; the Dominion of New Zealand is at present engaged in revaluing all the lands sold in that country to returned soldiers. These lands were sold on a basis of a term of purchase of thirty-five years, a much longer term and with much smaller payments than applied in the case of our men, who were supposed to make a payment of ten per cent before the land came into their possession at all. New Zealand did not experience the boom that we had during the war period, for reasons which it is unnecessary for me to enumerate to-night, but they have found it necessary to revalue all these lands. I am thoroughly prepared to support a motion of this kind, whether moved by the hon. member who proposed it (Mr. Ward) or by any other member of the House, and I think that in doing so I am voicing the opinion not only of the group which immediately surrounds me but of every returned soldier in the House. I have some doubt whether it would be wise or unwise to make this
retroactive; I have very grave doubts whether it should be on a percentage basis; but these are matters that should be threshed out by a committee of this House, and when we all put our heads together, those who are in favour of any action along this line and those who are opposed, we can no doubt suggest some plan whereby we can give these men presently on the land by our volition, not their own perhaps, fair play in this matter. I am in favour of a committee. I am opposed to a commission because I think it would take too long, cost too much, and not be entirely in the interests of those we desire to serve. So I support most heartily the amendment of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman).


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speakei I wish to associate myself with those who are supporting this resolution. I prefer the resolution as amended because I think it covers the ground better, but I feel that I would hardly be doing my duty if I did not support this motion for a committee of the House. I have discussed this matter with the returned men in my constituency. There are many there who are in financial difficulties, as there are in other places. I visited them personally and talked with them, in order to get their viewpoint. The resolution asks for a revaluation. I am not particular myself whether it is a revaluation or a percentage cancellation of the debt. I think that could best be worked out by a committee of this: House, after going into the matter thoroughly..
I might, however, give the views of many different men I have talked with. I asked for - their ideas regarding a percentage cancellation of their debt, simply because I was led to believe from the former inquiries held that a revaluation would be very difficult. I asked them how much of their debt they felt should be cancelled in order for them to make good under present conditions, and their ' opinions varied all the way from thirty to fifty per cent as the percentage to be cancelled before they would be able to pay up and hold their land. But the committee would be able to determine that better than I could from the information I have.
I realize that from whatever angle this, problem is attacked there will be difficulties. There are difficulties in a revaluation. If we have a percentage cancellation the man who has made the best and most intelligent effort, and who has been perhaps the most industrious, would be penalized more or less unless the cancellation were made retroactive. The soldier himself might be blamed in some cases, but on account of the deflation in
Soldier Settlement

values it is only the man who has had good experience and is very favourably situated who could have made good. I feel that we were all to blame more or less. I felt quite pleased when the government first decided to undertake this land settlement scheme. We needed the soldiers as producers, and we needed to find a place for our soldiers returning from the war, and this offered an opportunity. In some cases men have undertaken farming operations without proper experience, but I think that conditions generally are to blame more than anything else. I do not think that the men who were locating these soldiers, in many 'cases at all events, were dishonest or did anything dishonourable, but conditions are so bad that we must look into them, and I think that a committee of the House is the. best way to deal with the question, and that is why I support the suggestion. The government will lose in any event. If they wait for the soldier to leave the land, discouraged as he would be, the government will lose in that way. If the soldier stays on the land and cannot pay, the government will lose in that case. So we have to make the best of conditions as they are, and it is for us to do what we can to provide a remedy to do the best we can for these men. For these reasons I am in favour of a committee being appointed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, though I do not pretend to know the provisions of the Land Settlement Act in detail, still I feel that I should say a few words on this occasion. As the House is aware, the administration of the Land Settlement Act is vested in the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, but at the present time my hon. colleague (Mr. Robb) has such important duties to discharge as Acting Minister of Finance that I felt perhaps the House would pardon me if I rose and said a few words on this occasion on behalf of the government.
The debate which has taken place has been in more than one regard informative. It has brought home to a very large number of members of this House some conditions not at all favourable which prevail amongst the land settled soldiers. The act which was passed gome years ago was passed unanimously by this parliament with the best of intentions. At that time it was foreseen and expected and hoped that soldiers who decided to avail themselves of the privileges of the act would in time succeed in their new avocations. It is well to remember that at that time the price of land in Canada was at its peak, and almost without a moment's warning, after

a large number of soldiers had availed themselves of the provisions of this act, the price of cultivated land in Canada started to decline. To-day conditions for agriculturists generally throughout Canada are far from being favourable, as we are all ready to admit; but what of the condition of the soldier who has to bear in addition the burden of the interest on a very large loan which he has received at the hands of the government? Taking all in all, it is impossible to say that the act has been a failure. In my opinion the act has been a success. It is almost miraculous that such a small proportion of the men who have entered upon this scheme have decided to abandon it or have been unable to carry on. Loans, generally speaking, have been repaid in a very respectable measure. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), has pointed out, I think perhaps better than any other hon. member who has spoken on this subject, the course that would likely be adopted as the more favourable, both from the point of view of the soldier settler himself and the country. My hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Ward) is asking that a committee be appointed for the purpose of investigating the subject and reporting to the House for its action. Every session since the war ended, the House has appointed a committee to deal with soldiers' affairs generally, with the exception of last year. Two years ago the committee generally known as the committee on Pensions and Re-establishment sat for many weeks, and not only examined the question of re-establishment and the question of pensions, but also dealt extensively with the question of land settlements, and submitted to the House a report on which certain action was taken, relieving in a certain measure the bad lot of the land settled soldiers. Last year no committee wtas appointed. This year the question of appointing a committee of a like kind has been under consideration by me for a number of weeks.
I have so far not made up my mind whether such a committee would be indispensable or not. All that has been said this evening by hon. members who addressed the House would lead me to believe that a committee of the kind should also be appointed this year. Moreover the final report of the royal commission appointed to investigate and report upon the question of re-establishment will be submitted to the House within, I understand, two or three weeks, if I am to rely on the communications that I have received from the chairman of that commission. It will probably be necessary to appoint a committee

Soldier Settlement
when this report is laid on the Table of the House, in order to devise truly the proper legislation which will be indicated on the face of that report. I would make a suggestion to my hon. friend who has moved the resolution (Mr. Ward), and the hon. members who have supported it. If he will allow his motion to stand or to drop, I will undertake to move for the formation of a committee .within a few weeks, in order that both subjects I have referred to-that is the one discussed this evening and also the final report of the commission-may be submitted to this committee. The investigation should not take very much time. I believe that if the committee were appointed, say in three or four weeks, it would be all that is necessary in order to discharge the duties that will be expected from it.
Some reference has been made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) to the duty which this country owes to returned men. I do not hesitate for one moment to concur with the remarks which have fallen from his lips. I remember once in my capacity as medical man I had given my care and attention to a friend of mine who had been ill for a number of weeks, and happily nature came to my rescue very considerably and my friend recovered entirely. After a little while he sent me a note in which he said, "I wish you would tell me what that part of my debt towards you consists in, that which you call your doctor's bill. As far as the other part of my debt is concerned, I can never discharge it." I think the country may make the same statement to the returned men. The part of our debt to these returned men which is not counted in dollars and cents can never be discharged adequately. So far as I am concerned, I will in all possible ways assist my hon. friend who has moved this resolution, and if he will allow the matter to stand for two or three weeks, until we get the report of this commission, I shall move this committee, and all the subjects referring to the soldiers may then be gone into fully.


James Arthurs: It may be somewhat
difficult for a private member to secure, before the formation of this committee, a copy or a substantial synopsis of the legislation passed by the government of New Zealand or Australia. Will the hon. minister endeavour to obtain for the use of members of the committee a copy of the legislation at present in operation in New Zealand or Australia? This can be easily secured, I imagine.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think that is feasible
and we should be able to obtain that information within three or four weeks.


Arthur Meighen: I think the legislation of New Zealand or Australia will be in the Library just as quickly as it can come here. It comes over as fast as it can be sent.


William John Ward: I would be quite willing to agree to the request of the minister, if he will assure us that ample time will be given for the consideration of matters that it would be necessary for this committee to consider. There is one other question that I should like to emphasize.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: If the hon. member speaks on this motion, he will close the debate, he being the mover of the motion. Therefore, if any other hon. member wishes to speak, he should do so now.


William John Ward: Another matter that has come to my notice quite frequently is regarding pensioned soldiers who have taken land under the Soldiers' Land Settlement Act. While these men are pensioners, apparently they are not eligible for treatment from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment doctor, and the thought in my mind when I suggested that there might be an amendment to the motion making wider the scope of "inquiry was that these men should at least be afforded examination or some treatment free of charge by the doctor of that department. If, however, the minister will assure us that there will be ample time to hear any witnesses who may wish to come here, to consider the question fully and to submit a report to the House before the conclusion of this session, I shall be glad to agree to his suggestion.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member who introduced the amendment consent to withdrawing it?


Alfred Speakman: I shall be glad to consent to that, because this will cover not only the point that we wish to cover, but other points of equal importance.
Amendment withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-HALF-BREED SCRIP
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill
[Stage Direction]
Half-breed Scrip
[Stage Direction]
to amend section 20 of chapter 25 of the statutes of 1921. We discussed this matter two sessions ago and it is up again at this session. I introduced the bill last session, but it did not reach the second reading. Objection has been tatken to the amendment that was passed to the Criminal Code in 1921, because at the time it was passed, certain half-breeds on the borders of northern Alberta and the provisional district of Mackenzie had made somewhat strenuous efforts to secure an adjustment or redress in connection with what they claimed was a very severe grievance. Scrip was issued to halfbreeds residing in the Northwest Territories, that is in the district of Athabaska, in the years 1900 and 1903. P.C. No. 918, passed on the 6th May, 1899, reads:
The practice heretofore followed in satisfying such claims under that provision has been.
1.	To issue scrip, redeemable in land, to the extent of $160, to each half-breed head of a family, on proof of residence in accordance with the terms of subsection aforesaid.
That is subsection (f) of section 90 of the Dominion Lands Act.
2.	To issue scrip, redeemable in land, to the extent of $240. or scrip entitling the grantee to 240 acres of land of the class open to homestead entry, at the option of the claimant, to each child of a half-breed head of a family on proof of such residence.
The minister therefore recommends that as to the half-breeds of the territory to be covered by the proposed treaty the following policy be adopted:
1.	That every half-breed occupier of land in the said territory be confirmed in possession to the extent of 160 acres.
2.	That scrip, redeemable in land, to the extent of $240, or at the option of the grantee, scrip entitling the grantee to 240 acres of land of the class open to homestead entry be granted to each half-breed found to be permanently residing in the said territory at the time of the Indian Treaty and not to have previously received scrip in extinguishment of his claim.
The Indians of the territory were met by the treaty by which they still receive treaty money and they also got the reserves. As regards the claims of the half-breeds, due to the fact that they were persons with mixed white and Indian blood, their Indian claim was extinguished through the issue of scrip, redeemable in land. A number of those scrips were issued in that territory, and it is claimed that several hundreds of persons living in the northern boundary of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories, were defrauded in connection with the transfer of scrip and its location. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was Prime Minister of Canada, he visited the city of Edmonton in November, 1920. On the 11th November, a delegation of two half-breeds met him in the 
Macdonald hotel at Edmonton and presented this petition.
The petition of Philip Atkinson and Alexa Lafferly humbly showeth:
That your petitioners are persons of mixed white and Indian blood, residing at or near Fort Resolution, in the province of Alberta, and that your petitioners have been delegated by a number of persons of mixed white and Indian blood, residing in the environments of Fort Resolution, Fort Smith and Fort Chippewyan, seeking redress for what they believe to be a real grievance and to ask that justice be done them.
The next paragraph goes on to state that between the years 1900 and 1903 scrip was issued to a certain number of persons under certain conditions; and the third paragraph reads:
That unscrupulous speculators following in the wake of the commission entrusted by the hon. Minister of the Interior with the delivery of such certificates or half-breed scrip and, taking shameful if not even criminal advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the half-breed, purchased such scrip from the holders, paying-
And this is the point.
-paying therefor a proportion of the agreed purchase price, and agreeing to pay the balance, together with the expenses of the vendor in travelling to and from the land office at such time as the vendor might be called upon by the purchaser to come to the Dominion Lands Office and file upon the parcel of land located and selected by the purchaser. Many of the unscrupulous purchasers, instead of bringing the vendor to the land office and paying him or her the expenses of such trip, together with the balance of the agreed purchase price, by fraud, perjury, subornation of perjury and forgery procured other persons to appear at the land office and represent themselves to be the persons named in the scrip, and to file upon the land selected or located by the purchaser, and to forge the name of the real vendor to transfers and other documents in connection therewith, thereby committing a fraud upon His Majesty's government and a fraud upon the vendor. That in the north country in the neighbourhood of Forts Resolution, Smith and Chippewyan, there are several hundred half-breeds who have been defrauded and with respect to whose scrips His Majesty's government has been defrauded. And your petitioners pray that a commission be appointed to inquire into-
And so on. The then Prime Minister took the petition with him to Ottawa and it was turned over for attention to the Department of the Interior, the minister in charge at that time being Sir James Lougheed. A reply was sent from the department signed by Mr. Cote to the effect that requests of this kind for investigaion had been presented to the department on several occasions previously and that the department had not seen fit to take action. It was said in the letter:
The question has been before the department on several occasions in the past, and in view of your petition has again been considered. The scrip certificates issued in satisfaction of half-breed claims and scrip notes issued by the department were delivered to the grantees personally, and it is not considered that

Half-breed Scrip
the department can be held responsible for subsequent, action taken in connection with the location of the scrip; and if there were any fraud perpetrated' in connection therewith it was open to them to take ordinary proceedings before the proper courts.
Now, the department having taken the stand that they had no further responsibility, and that such a length of time had elapsed that it would be difficult to dig up evidence that could be relied upon, suggested that if anyone had a grievance the right thing for anyone having a grievance to do was to go to the proper c-ourt. Consequently action was taken by a returned soldier, one John Graham, of Edmonton. On April 5, 1921, this man laid a criminal information before Lieutenant-Colonel G. B. McLeod, Police Magistrate for the city of Edmonton, charging a certain Edmonton millionaire with uttering a forged document in procuring a half-breed scrip. The result of the preliminary hearing before Magistrate McLeod was that Mr. Richard Secord of Edmonton, a prominent millionaire and the man referred to, was committed for trial before the first court of competent jurisdiction. That was in April 1921. The charge was that Mr. Secord had bribed a half-breed woman with $10 and a grey shawl to go with him to the Dominion Lands Office and there represent herself to be the holder of a particular certificate which belonged to a woman who was then living at Fort Rae. It was alleged that Mr. Secord had purchased the scrip from, I believe, Mrs. Elizabeth Hyslop, and had paid her a part of the agreed purchase price on condition that her expenses to Edmonton would be paid along with the balance of the agreed purchase price when the land was located. This scrip was located near Edmonton by the other woman, while Mrs. Hyslop was living about seven hundred miles northeast of Edmonton, near Lake Athabasca. As I have said, the result of the preliminary hearing was the committal of Mr. Secord for trial.
When we discussed this matter two years ago we spent a good deal of time dealing with the Secord preliminary trial. I want hon. members to bear in mind that this case was tried after the department had taken the stand that very little could be done by them, or that it was inadvisable for them to take any steps because it was almost impossible to get direct and reliable evidence in the matter. The complaint made by these half-breeds was not that any particular man, but that many unscrupulous speculators, had followed up the men who were issuing scrip to half-breeds, and had taken advantage of the ignorance 401
of these people. I want to read an extract from the Morning Leader, of Regina, in this connection. It refers to the trial at Edmonton and its result, and also makes reference to the amendment that was made in the Criminal Code. Most of the newspapers in the West during the year 1921 seemed to think that the amendment to the Criminal Code shut out the possibility of proceeding further with the Secord case. Be that as it may, here is the point:
That the objectionable amendment in question was designed to cover more than the Edmonton case appears to be more than likely, for more than one reputed millionaire in the West owes his financial position to the utilization of just such practices as those alleged in the Edmonton case. Saskatchewan is not without representation in this class of half-breed scrip millionaires whose shady practices had brought them within reach of the law until a kind-hearted government at Ottawa legislated specially for the purpose of relieving them of all further liability to prosecution for their criminal offences.
The foregoing is from the Morning Leader of Regina, Saskatchewan, of August 23rd, 1921. The point I make is that whether or not this amendment was retroactive and affected the Secord case, it did shut out the possibility of prosecuting others who might be guilty and against whom action had not been commenced at that time. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me examine the amendment itself. It reads:
Any offence relating to or arising out of the location of land which was paid for in whole or in part by scrip or was granted upon certificates issued to halfbreeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title.
This was inserted in the list of offences covered by the limitation of actions. In section 1140 of the Criminal Code we find:
That after the expiration of three years from the time of its commission no action shall be commenced if the offence be-
(1)	treason, except treason by killing His Majesty, or where the overt act alleged is an attempt to injure the person of His Majesty,
(2)	treasonable offences,
(3)	any offence relating to the fraudulent marketing of merchandise; or,-
Then this amendment was inserted as paragraph (4). At first glance, it would seem to deal merely with an ordinary fraud in connection with the location of land paid for in scrip. But apparently it covers any offence, no matter how serious it may be, if it is at all connected with the location of land which was paid for in whole or in part by scrip. If the guilty person keeps out of the way for three years, and action is not commenced, thereafter he is immune. I cannot see any reason for this limitation.
Half-breed Scrip
Mr. MARTELL:: As I understand the
statute, action can be brought at any time within three years, and once information is laid and a warrant obtained the statute of limitations would not operate.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Forgery in connection with the title to other lands does not come within the statute of limitations, and the wrongdoer can be proceeded against even after the lapse of many years. And this is quite right. Such an offence is considered to be so serious, that the guilty person may be sentenced to life imprisonment. For subornation of perjury the punishment may be fourteen years' imprisonment. This restrictive amendment to the Criminal Code deals specifically with offences relating to the location of land paid for in whole or in part by scrip or granted upon certificates issued to half-breeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title; there is no similar limitation in respect to other cases of fraud of the same nature.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend state what under the law is regarded as the commencement of an action?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not a lawyer, but I may say that in a case of forgery there is no limitation of three years, and I claim there should be none when the offence is connected with half-breed scrip. People throughout the western provinces to-day are convinced that this legislation, introduced within fifty-five days after Mr. Secord was com. mitted for trial in the city of Edmonton-the case having been started to demonstrate to the authorities at Ottawa that substantial evidence could be adduced in support of the claims of the half-breeds-some people I say are convinced that the amendment was passed to save, if not Mr. Secord, at least some others who possibly may have been as guilty as he in connection with the filing of other half-breed scrip in western Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will accept this bill to restore the code as it was previous to 1921. As I say, the amendment created a very bad impression throughout the West and has tended to discredit our parliamentary institutions. Therefore I hope that parliament will repeal the objectionable amendment in order that any people who have a grievance may get redress through the courts, or possibly through an investigation by the government itself.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, when a similar bill was introduced two years ago it was accepted unanimously by the House, and therefore I do

not see why I should object to this bill tonight. However, I do not think it is necessary as far as the special case is concerned to which my hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy) has referred. It was the opinion of the Department of Justice two years ago, and is still, that the amendment introduced in the Senate in the session of 1921 had no retroactive effect in that special case because the proceedings had been commenced before the amendment was enacted by parliament.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would the
minister state what effect it would have in other cases?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not sure that in cases in which the limitation or prescription had previously applied, this law would revive the offence which had been prescribed under the amendment of 1921. However, as I said before, there is no objection on my part to the bill being accepted by the House.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly do not rise to oppose the second reading, any more than I did two years ago. I had not the least objection to the bill passing then, nor have I now, and I db not complain at all of the hon. member's introducing a bill on this occasion. What I do complain of is the intimation that he still seeks to press, that the amendment of three years ago was passed for the purpose of relieving a wealthy man in Alberta, and his attributing to the government and parliament of that day this intention which, he says, has had so baneful an effect through his province. He tells us to-night-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the right hon. gentleman wish to deny that it has had that baneful effect?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, but the responsibility for that baneful effect is upon hon. friends to my left. That the baneful effect was there I do not dispute. This was part of the dust storm raised by hon. gentlemen to my left-I am afraid I must include also some in front of me-in that campaign. It was all part of a malevolent and wholly foundationless propaganda that the government was always the friend of the rich. In this particular case they said that the government passed through parliament legislation to relieve a millionaire in Edmonton, and did it after the Minister of the Interior, and the Prime Minister even, were warned of the great crimes that had been committed and after the Department of the Interior had acknowledged that they were

Half-breed Scrip
powerless and had sent those who complained of the crimes to the courts. The newspapers were full of it. As I explained two years ago, I never even heard about the amendment until I reached Alberta and found the press alive with this frightful allegation against the administration. I explained at the time that such a bill passed when a prosecution was on cou'ld have no effect on the prosecution. But of course that could not be accepted; it had to go forth for the political effect it might generate; it had to go forth that the government had used the instrument of parliament to save its friends of the wealthy class against the poor half-breeds who were seeking to prosecute. So it went forth and so the baneful effect was produced. When this repealing bill was first introduced in the House I urged that the original legislation never affected the Secord case at all. I explained it in the plainest possible terms-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What about the other cases?


Arthur Meighen: Well, I am at the Secord case now. It never could have affected the Secord case, and it was the Secord case that was filling the province of Alberta.
I never heard of any other; in fact I never heard until now. If such a thing was mentioned two years ago it did not sink into my mind.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Did the right hon. gentleman read the petition that was presented to him?


Arthur Meighen: I suppose I did. I do not doubt that there were general allegations in the petition, but if the hon. member ever attains office he will get a lot of petitions and he will not find it very easy to carry each line and each sentence in them for any great length of time in his memory. I am speaking of the Secord case. I made it clear it could not have applied; that no one with the faintest knowledge of law could have imagined that it would apply; that all it did was to place in the category of a three-year prescription this offence, the same as many others which were in a like category.
It would, of course, while it was in operation prevent prosecution of others where the offence dated back beyond the prescription fixed in the statute, but as to the Secord case it did not apply. I did not know anything about the amendment at the time, and as to those members of the House who were at that time members and are here to-night, I venture to say that not one of them recalls it even now. Very well; not only did I take
that position, but other hon. members of the party here took the same view, and the Minister of Justice was frank to state and state most openly and clearly that it did not apply to the Secord case; that such was his opinion and the opinion of his department. But the hon. member makes his motion to-night and does not inform the House of that fact; does not say, as I think he should have said, that it could not have been introduced with any reference to the Secord case at all. And I fancy he would hardly think there were some others who, we feared, might be prosecuted and whom we were going to shield. The motion to-night should have been divorced from all reference to any special case at all. If there is reason in the public interest that the amendment should pass and that the prescription should be removed, all right. The government accepts it; I personally have no objection whatever.


Robert Forke: Just as a matter of information what reason was there for passing that soft of legislation in connection with scrip land more than in connection with any other forgeries?


Arthur Meighen: There was no more
reason than for passing other legislation that many a time passes this House.


Robert Forke: That does not explain it.


Arthur Meighen: What about all the other prescriptive legislation in the statutes? Other forgeries were already prescribed.


Robert Forke: That does not explain why
it was necessary in this particular case.


Arthur Meighen: The minister who had
charge of the bill in the Senate-for the bill originated there-had the matter brought to his attention, I do not know by whom; I have asked him and he cannot remember by whom. But he mentioned to the Senate that he knew of one case in which he knew where prosecution had been entered alleging an offence some twenty years old. He knew of that himself, consequently he felt there should be a prescription, and this three years was inserted. That is all the connection he had with it. My hon. friend laughs.


Robert Forke: That looks fishy.


Arthur Meighen: It looks fishy does it?
Well the hon. member does not do credit to himself to reflect on the honour of another member of parliament unless he has some reason so to reflect.


Robert Forke: I have the reason of the
circumstances that have already been explained: that special legislation was passed
Half-breed Scrip

at that particular time when a very shady transaction had taken place in connection with scrip lands. I have good ground for my suspicions.


Arthur Meighen: Well the hon. member
can entertain the ground all he likes. All I am seeking to urge is this: That it could never have applied to the Secord case, could not have been dreamed by the member who introduced it to have applied. The member who introduced it is a lawyer of some standing; he could not have had any such belief. As to whether he had in mind someone else, I have his own word that he had not. I never heard of any other case myself. But if hon. members want this passed, why, it can be done. I notice that a point is raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as to whether a repeal now would revive heretofore prescribed crime. I would not like to express an opinion on that myself, I never had the point raised; but I should have thought it would. Personally I earnestly hope that the actual state of the law is such that it will revive; that the legislation passes, and that the government of Alberta is free to go ahead full steam-and then we will see what will be the effects of this amendment..


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I think that when this amendment was brought in, the Attorney General of Alberta took the ground that it did apply to the Secord case. I realize that possibly he is not a competent authority to pit against the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Lewis Herbert Martell: How could it apply if the information had been laid prior to the bringing in of that amendment?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I do not wish 'to discuss that matter. I am giving you the authority, and the opinion-


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would like to read the opinion of that man. If he said that, he is not fit to be attorney general.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am very sorry that the hon. member makes a remark of that kind, for I understand that the present government is elevating him to the bench.


Arthur Meighen: I doubt very much if he gave that opinion. I would like to see the opinion produced. I know who the gentleman was.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I hardly understand the leader of the opposition. Do I understand him to say that the attorney general did not make that statement?
{Mr. Forke.]


Arthur Meighen: I can hardly believe that the Attorney General of Alberta gave the opinion that the legislation would apply to a case where prosecution was already entered, and if he did it would be a curiosity to have that opinion produced in this House.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am sorry I could not produce the evidence other than what is contained in the press. I am quite convinced it was contained in the press of Alberta at the time. If that was not the ground he took, it seems to me a remarkable thing that the prosecution was dropped. I can hardly see what excuse he could give if he thought that it did not apply, for there had been a conviction in the lower courts. I think the leader of the opposition has possibly taken this thing too seriously in so far as it applies to the Secord case. I think those who would like to see this amendment go through have no ambition to prosecute that case in particular. I think they desire to clean up many of these cases, and there are many men in Alberta who profited largely in these matters. I think it would be a good thing to pass this amendment and let them take their chances. I am quite convinced that sufficient time has elapsed. No one will get an unfair deal of any kind; and those not guilty have nothing to fear. There is an element of suspicion in the whole transaction, as our leader (Mr. Forke) suggested a moment ago. At the time, it was thought possible that some prosecutions would take place, and I think members will agree , that there was a demand for that amendment from some source. Some felt that they had to take to cover, and they thought they needed that amendment. If it is the policy of the parliament of Canada to pi'ovide ways for people to evade their responsibilities, well and good; but on the other hand, if it is the policy of the parliament of Canada to see that criminals are brought to justice and have to take their chances under the statutes of Canada, then I think this amendment should be made.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There seems to be an element of confusion in this matter, and perhaps if there was a little more law and a little less politics there would not be any difference of opinion among the members of this House. We are treated to newspaper extracts instead of to legal opinions, and so long as the law of the country is to be administered by the newspapers we shall probably have a very unique result, but one that, perhaps, will not always be in accord with law as a science.

Half-breed Scrip
There is no use in exchanging legal opinions in this House with gentlemen who profess they have no legal opinions, and who rely on the newspapers for their information as to law. The very extracts that have been quoted to-night show clearly that the newspapers have been actuated by political motives rather than by legal principles. We ought all in this House to be quite prepared to accept the legal opinions of the responsible officers of the Department of Justice. Two years ago when another gentleman, who had entirely the respect of this House was acting as Minister of Justice we had those principles enunciated by him. To-night, when a gentleman equally respected by the bar of Canada is occupying the position of Minister of Justice, we have those principles repeated without the slightest deviation, and we have not before this House one single syllable in support of the assertion that the Attorney General of Alberta ever took a position contrary to that enunciated by two Ministers of Justice of the present government.
There was a statement made by my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Stewart) that the deputy attorney general had apparently thought the prosecution could not succeed. That hon. member was not speaking at all in a legal sense, and two years ago I suggested, and I have never found that my suggestion has been met in any way that probably the difficulty in the Secord case was because they found they could not get the necessary evidence after a great lapse of time. That has sheltered many a criminal, great and small, in this country and in other countries, and there is no necessity to reflect upon the honourable gentlemen who occupy or have occupied distinguished positions in the province of Alberta. Every trial lawyer knows it is one thing to state an offence; it is another thing to prove-it. You can only prove it by documents or human instruments, and sometimes one and sometimes the other, and sometimes none, is available, and without strict proof we cannot and we ought not to obtain conviction. You should not obtain conviction upon newspaper articles nor upon political prejudice. If we come down to that the level of the country will fall very low indeed, and we shall not improve matters if we attempt to tinker with the criminal law here solely from a political point of view.
No one in this House, as I understand it, is objecting for one moment to the repeal of this legislation which is being objected to. At the same time there is no reason why
this House should assume that the Secord prosecution was one whit affected by that amendment which is so strenuously objected to. It was not, and it could not have been, and you can take what you like as the answer, but it must be one of a very few things. Either a blunder was committed by someone in knowledge of law, or the evidence was not available which would warrant the law officers of Alberta to assume that the prosecution could possibly be successful. I prefer the -latter alternative, having respect for the law officers of Alberta. But whichever alternative is correct, that matter was settled absolutely in Alberta by people who could not be considered as in any conspiracy or in any connivance with members of a former government of this country. They had it entirely in their own hands, and if Secord has escaped any punishment that he merited he escaped it by reason of some failure in the province of Alberta, and not by any action of this parliament.
Now we are invited to consider other criminals, or possible criminals, who have not been prosecuted. Every one of them could have been prosecuted. Within three years from the passing of that objectionable legislation no one laid an information. Why? The law did not stop it. Perhaps the facts were not available. I think we can go a little further than that. I look at the debates of this House of two years ago, and I find that the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill made extended reference, and I think he has repeated it to-night, to a certain petition which was said to have been presented to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) asking, in effect, for an investigation of land frauds. He also presented quite fully to this House the reply of the Minister of the Interior, and while 1 do not wish to take up much time of the House, I think it is only fair to refer to a portion of the answer of the Minister of the Interior, who, as reported at page 3214 of Hansard of 1922, stated:
Since the beginning of 1900 about 4,800 claims have been satisfied by the issue of land scrip calling for some 1,153,092 acres nearly all of which have been located and patents therefor issued either to the grantees of the scrip themselves or to their assignees. Many of these patents covering thousands of acres were issued nearly 20 years ago, the titles passing through many hands, and to question such titles now would, in the opinion of the department, be very injudicious and could result in no benefit.
Moreover, many of the original grantees and witnesses are dead and it would be impossible, at this date, to locate many of the others or obtain satisfaction or reliable evidence relating to these transactions which took place so many years ago.
Half-breed Scrip

Now, if it is a matter of punishment, no one in this House wants to prevent the hand of justice falling heavily upon a man who has committed a crime. But time enough elapsed for anyone who knew the facts to enable a prosecution to be brought, and I presume successfully brought, against anyone who committed a fraud. The half-breed would not be particularly interested. They would get nothing out of the prosecution. Some one might be punished, but the halfbreeds would not be restored to their rights. The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill two years ago was pressing this matter, and I think I heard him read to-night this demand for an investigation. But will anyone show me how the passage of the bill that is proposed to-night will result in one iota of an investigation into these 4,800 cases in which there may have been, and probably has been, some fraud? When we find the whole strength of the case put upon the Criminal Code, coupled with the extracts from the newspapers, and coupled with the suggestions we have had, and I think the rather unfair suggestion from the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) I think I am not unfair in making the deduction that this assumes entirely a political aspect. If my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party and his stalwart supporters want to help the unfortunate halfbreeds, why do they not introduce legislation into this House providing for that investigation, . accompanied by provisions which will restore to the half-breed the rights of which they have been defrauded? When they content themselves with animadversions upon the change of the law which they wish to get rid of, and do not follow up the desire for the investigation, then I stamp the attack as purely a political one, as malicious as it is insincere, and as dishonest in its character as the stories of the land frauds, as it seeks to destroy the character of a man who ought to be considered beyond the pale of such attacks.
Now, are we to have some measures which will restore to the half-breeds the rights which, it is said, have been taken away from them? What measure of compensation has been proposed? What honest endeavour has the gov-, emment been asked to make, and what honest assistance is the leader of the Progressive party prepared to give to restore to the halfbreeds anything which has been taken from them? Do they know of all the cases? Can they point to one case where such a thing has happened? They come here two years afterwards with no more and no less infor-
[Mr. Baxter !
mation than they had two j^ears ago. They come here with the eternal whine and eternal calumny and nothing better. No one objects to the passing of the bill, but what we do object to is the attempt to make the pas- ' sing of this bill a vehicle of political persecution.


William F. Carroll: I am not going to enter into any discussion of the merits of the case which my hon. friend may have had in his mind when he moved the resolution, but I do think that the Minister of Justice will be well advised if he does all in his power to pass this amendment. I have some serious doubts as to the form of the proposed) amendment, but that will be a matter for the committee to which the bill will be referred. I believe that there should1 not be in the minds of any of the people in Canada any idea that justice is being perverted in this country. I say I do not know whether it has been or not, but the hon. members on the other side who spoke on this subject must be aware of the fact that they had three years to lay the information in this case, and if they had laid an information they were not prevented-I am giving the opinion of a humble lawyer- ftom pursuing that criminal information to the end, by having a jury bring in a verdict either of guilty or of not guilty in the case of the parties who were charged, notwithstanding any legislation that might be brought down in this House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: You refer to the Secord case?


William F. Carroll: I am referring to any case this act might cover in any way. If there is an information, if the case is pending in court, unless there is something in the amendment which brings these informations to a conclusion immediately without going further, then the information may be followed, if the persons behind the information want to bring it to a conclusion, by having a jury return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. I do not know the facts of the Secord case, but I wish to say that if there is in the minds of hon. gentleman from the East, the West or the centre of Canada any idea that legislation has been instrumental in allowing criminals to get clear, then I say we should go into that matter and1 show the people who had that suspicion that the parliament of Canada will not be a party to that. That is the only reason I have risen. I think the Minister of Justice will be well advised if he does everything in his power to have the amendment

Halj-breed Scrip
to the Criminal Code passed; and then if my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) who, I believe is sincere in this matter, or his friends who are promoting the cause, wish to lay an information against Secord or others they will have an opportunity of doing so. May I point out that the limitations in the way of bringing criminal charges and in the way of actions at civil law are not new. We have various limitations; practically every criminal offence you can think of, outside of capital offences-I am not speaking by the book just now, but I mention those-has those limitations. There are limitations in civil matters, in the ease of slander, in the case of libel, and in the case of debt; and it may be the government of the day-I am making no charge against them has no thought in the world of letting Secord or anyone else go free, but I say again if there is a suspicion in the mind of any part of the general public in any part of this country that an injustice has- been done, or that^ an act has been committed whereby a criminal was prevented from being brought to justice, it should be remedied, and if the amendment of the hon. gentleman from West Edmonton is going to remedy that kind of thing, I would strongly advise the Minister of Justice to allow this measure to become law; and if criminals have escaped owing to the amendment, they may be brought to justice.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: I know nothing about the facts of the Secord case, nor of any of the other cases, nor have I made any study whatever of the section in question; but as I sat and listened to the discussion in reference to the question of reviver, I was prompted to say just a word or two. It seems to me that the offence in question has not been extinguished at all. It is merely a case of limitation of prosecution being imposed. Let us assume for a moment that some one is charged with the offence in question after the passage of this proposed amendment, and counsel for the defence takes the point that the prosecution is not warranted owing to lapse of three years. I presume he would immediately be asked by the Crown prosecutor to cite his authority for his position. The limitation having been removed from the statute, it would not be there and could not be cited; there would be no section of the act stating that the prosecution must be commenced within three years. Therefore, I venture to suggest that if this proposed amendment becomes law, no matter how many cases there may be, the prosecution of them could be taken up and
proceeded with. There seems to be a consensus of opinion from all quartern of this House in favor of the amendment, by all means let it be passed, let the doors be opened wide, and if any persons have been guilty of any such offence as is suggested, they can be successfully prosecuted.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It seems
to me that it is a very absurd proposal at this late date to make retroactive legislation. As I understand this matter, although I have no knowlege of the Secord case, an information was laid and a limitation of action was passed concerning offences of that nature. The information having been laid in the Secord case and the amendment that has been passed not being made retroactive, it could not affect that ease. It was, therefore, open to the officers of the Crown or the informant or private prosecutor to press the matter from a preliminary trial to get the party accused committed for trial, then to have him brought before a grand jury, and if the grand jury found a true bill, to have him brought before a petit jury and either a verdict or an acquittal secured. As the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) and the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) have stated, statutes of limitation apply in all cases, both in civil and criminal matters. We have also other laws of somewhat the same nature, although they are not statutes of limitation, and those statutes have obtained for a great number of years. For instance, in some provinces there are statutes to the effect that a person cannot bring an action for the price of goods bought, if they be of a value of forty dollars and upwards, unless some memorandum appears in writing or some of the goods have been received and so on. This is commonly known as the statute of frauds.	These are restrictions on the
rights of people to bring actions. There are also limitations of actions for slander, actions for libel.	There are limitations in the
Criminal Code as to bringing prosecution in cases of assault, bribery, criminal libel. This is done for the protection of persons. Supposing such a limitation of action was not to be found in the statutes, insinuations might be made against a certain person; the action probably would not be brought for say ten or fifteen years afterwards, and the accused would be devoid of all his evidence that would enable him to make a complete and proper defence. The law in its wisdom has determined that it is absolutely essential to have limitations of action. Yet my hon. friend opposite seems to think that by this
Half-breed Scrip

amendment he is going to have this Secord case revived, I would say that would be an absolutely absurd thing to do. Secord, at the time the information was laid against him was undoubtedly in possession of all the evidence that would enable him to carry on his defence. The statute was passed. It probably was not passed to meet the Secord case; it was passed in order to protect the public generally. He probably has lost his evidence; he probably has lost his means of making a complete defence on the merits of the matter. Therefore, to come back to-day and say that Vte should pass an amendment to the Criminal Code enabling that particular case to be tried again is unfair. It would be just as well to say that, because we have discovered evidence to-day in regard to an assault that a man committed twenty years ago, we should pass an act stating that the limitation as regards action for assault should not apply to assaults committed twenty years ago.. We must have a termination in these matters. That was the wisdom of legislatures in days gone by; and so long as we tamper with these principles that have stood the test of time, we shall be legislating to meet mere insinuations as they arise. This is simply a statute of limitation of action, and I think my hon. friend should be satisfied with the law which is made, not for one case, but for all people.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We are gettting tied up in our discussion with the Secord case. I am not particularly interested in the Secord case; but I am particularly interested in this, that the contention of the department "no evidence was available" does not stand, and that this calls for an investigation. That result of the Secord trial demonstrates that the department was wrong, and I think that is sufficient for our purpose as regards this case.
As regards this cry about limitation of action, I am not a lawyer; I never studied law; but to-day I read in Crankshaw's Criminal Law this:
4n the common law there is no limited time for the prosecution of proceedings at the suit of the Crown; and therefore, the proceedings in all criminal cases, in relation to which the time is not limited by statute, may be prosecuted at any length of time after the commission of the offence.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is where the time is not limited by statute.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Rights saved and continued.
Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps the hon. member will explain what he has in view in subsection 2.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have had this matter
explained to me by a lawyer, and I understand, that, even if the amendment to the Criminal Code passed in 1921 were repealed now, should any irregularity be found to have occurred during any part of the time that the amendment has been on the statute books, that is to say from 1921 to 1924, the limitation would still apply and might be an obstacle in the way of complete justice in any case that might be brought up. This section was drafted by parliamentary counsel to meet that situation.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I had in
mind when the motion was made for the second reading of the bill. There was some question as to whether, if the prescription had already operated, the offence could be revived by repealing the amendment. There occurred to me at the time the decision of the courts of England in a case practically similar to the matter under consideration. I understand that this is what the hon. member has in view by subsection 2. But this subsection is not drafted to meet the case, the subsection reads:
Any offences in violation of the provisions of the section repealed by subsection 1 of this section, and committed between the fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one-
That is, the date of the amendment.
-and the date of the coming into force of this act-
The present act.
-shall be dealt with as if this act had not been passed.
If it is dealt with as if this act had not been passed this prescription would operate.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is
evidently a mistake in the wording of the section.


Ernest Lapointe: I would suggest that
the hon. member move that we report progress, so that another draft might be made of the bill.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not know upon whom this drafting of the bill should reflect, or what it is intended to cover. It might be the subject of investigation in future parliaments. However, I should like to know what subsection 2 as drafted means when it refers to "any offences in violation of the provisions of the section repealed by subsection 1 of this section," and so forth. The section which it is sought to repeal is the section as to procedure, and that does not create any offence; it merely states that you shall not prosecute after three years. Some hon. gentlemen seem to think that this creates an offence. We have had views from hon. gentlemen who are not lawyers, and in the discussion of this matter I think that fact has been absolutely demonstrated.
Progress reported.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING BILL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, respecting quartz mining in the Yukon Territory.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is rather
late, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest, if the hon. member has no objection, that the consideration of this matter be deferred and that the House adjourn.


George Black: This bill has been up on
two occasions now and I am afraid that if it is not dealt with at an early stage of the session it is apt to go by the board. I do not think it can be called a contentious bill. It follows pretty much along the lines of orders in council which constitute the law at present regulating quartz mining in the Yukon territory. The chief object of the bill is to state in the form of an act of parliament the laws governing quartz mining in the Yukon, which laws are now embodied in a large num-
Yukon Quartz Mining

ber of orders in council. I am quite sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that that is an undesirable method of government. Formerly the laws regulating goldmining in the Yukon were contained in orders in council. But because of the fact that the government was far removed from the scene of operations, veiy often the regulations were found to be very undesirable in their effect. In many instances the government was not well advised by its officers on the spot, and the advice given enured to the benefit of persons who had not the best interests of the country at heart; in other instances the advice showed a lack of understanding of what should have been done. Ultimately the Yukon was given a representative in parliament, and a bill governing placer gold mining was introduced and passed into law. That law has worked very satisfactorily.
Up to the present, quartz mining has been carried on under orders in council, but the time has at last arrived, as it did in respect of placer gold mining, when it should be regulated by an enactment of this parliament. In this bill I have followed the language of the orders in council for the most part, and it expresses the law as now in force. It contains no radical changes, and if it is passed no radical changes will be possible in future except by parliamentary sanction. To-day radical changes are made in the regulations without notice to the parties most concerned, and such changes are not always in the best interests of the industry affected. Changes are made at times which are found to be undesirable, and after a remarkably short period of operation it has been found necessary to make further changes. At the present time there is an order in council running in the Canada Gazette making most material changes in regulations which were issued as late as 1922, on the advice of officers of the government who are out of touch with the situation, but the government acted in good faith. These frequent changes would not be necessary if the law was enacted by parliament,. Each change has a disquieting effect on titles, property rights and methods of operation. I am sure that this is a necessary bill, and that if enacted it will be in the best interests of the territory and of the mining industry. If it is given a second reading, I propose to ask that it be referred to the committee on Mines and Minerals.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the second reading of the bill, provided that it goes to the committee on Mines and Minerals.

But I think my hon. friend will discover after the bill is in operation that quartz mining could be carried on much more acceptably by the old method of regulations. The complaint he makes that changes in the regulations prejudice the industry I cannot believe are well founded, because such changes apply not only to the oil industry but to other activities. If this bill is passed it will relieve the department to a considerable extent, because very frequently we receive requests for changes in the regulations. Each proposed change is carefully considered by the officers in charge, who have mining experience, and usually the changes are in the best interests of the industry. Once this bill becomes law, changes can only take place annually and upon the request of hon. members, perhaps at times when our officers have not an opportunity of making an investigation. However, the bill is quite acceptable to me provided it is referred to the committee on Mines and Minerals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Tuesday, March 25, 1924