1924-06-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I move, seconded by
Hon. Mr. Robb, that the name of Mr. Good be substituted for that of Mr. Kennedy, (Edmonton), on the select standing committee on Public Accounts.

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

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What is the yearly rent paid lor the postal station, occupying part of La Patrie building, at the corner of St. Catherine street and City Hall avenue, Montreal ?
2.	How long has this building been occupied as a post office branch ?
3.	What was the yearly rent paid for the building previously occupied by the post office, on the north side of St. Catherine street, a short distance from La Patrie building?
4.	Is it not a fact that a building just as suitable for a branch post office could be rented for at least 50 per cent less than is paid for the present location?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The
answers to these questions are as follows:
1.	$11,358 per annum.
2.	Since May 1, 1917.
3.	$1,080 per annum.
4.	The department is not aware that equally suitable premises can be obtained for at least 50 per cent less than is paid for the present location.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ICE SUPPLY


Mr. BOURASSA:: 1. What amount was granted for the maintenance and repair of the Quebec bridge foT the years 1922 and 1923, respectively?
2.	What amount was expended for the years 1922 and 1923, respectively?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$25,000, year 1922; $20,000, year 1923.
2.	S18.S84, year 1922; $10,598, year 1923.


ONTARIO HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER COMMISSION
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	How many horsepower is the Hydro power commission of Ontario exporting to the United States?
2.	Have they any surplus power to export at the present time?
3.	When was the last license granted to export power?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Licenses granted to April 14, 1924, totalled 167,050 horsepower.
2.	The department has no positive information on this point.
3.	April 14, 1924, 59,850 horsepower.


PERMANENT FORCE OF CANADA
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Have any orders been issued to reduce the strength of the permanent force of Canada?
2.	If so, when?
3.	What is the reduction for each permanent corps of (a) officers; and (b) non-commissioned officers and men?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	Yes.
2.	16th April, 1924.
3. Unit	Non-commissioned Officers & Officers Men	TotalRoyal Canadian Dragoons.. ..	22	22Lord Strathcona's Horse	(Royal Canadian)	18	18Roval Canadian Artillery..	28	28Royal Canadian Engineers..	7	7Royal Canadian Regiment..	20	20Princess Patricia's Canadian	Light Infantry	1	29	30Roval 22nd. Regiment	17	17Royal Canadian Army Ser-	vice Corps	1	15	16Royal Canadian Army Medi-	cal Corps.. 	1	4	5Royal Canadian Ordnance	Corps	15	15Royal Canadian Army Vete-	rinary Corps	1	1Corps of Military Staff	Clerks	1	1* *	-	*Totals	4	178	180

Questions
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- DIRECTORS' MEETINGS Hon. Mr. GRAHAM: A question was asked by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) the other day in reference to attendance at meetings of directors of the Canadian National Railways, which was answered by myself. I discovered that one page of the answer had been omitted. The list of meetings given in the former answer ends with October 1923. I have here a list of the regular meetings between November, 1923, and May, 1924, together with certain executive committee meetings. This will complete the reply to the hon. member's questions.
November 19, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Col. O. E. Talbot.
November 28, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Col. O.
E.	Talbot, Mr. Tom Moore.
December 17, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. E.	R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore.
January 21, 1924: Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. E. R. Decary, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. J. H. Sinclair.
February 14, 1924:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. F.	G. Dawson.
March 1, 1924: Sir H. W. Thornton, Major
G.	A. Bell, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. E. R. Decary, Col. O. E. Talbot, D. J. McDougald.
March 17, 1924:	Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. D. J. McDougald.
April 14, 1924:	Sir H. W. Thornton, Col.
O. E. Talbot, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. F. G. Dawson, Mr. D. J. McDougald, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Tom Moore. May 19, 1924: Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. J.
H.	Sinclair, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. D. J. McDougald, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel.
Executive Committee-July 24, 1923:	Sir
H. W. Thornton, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. James Stewart. September 24. 1923,: Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Mr. F. G. Dawson, Col. O. E. Talbot.


STEAMSHIPS T. J. DRUMMOND AND J. A. McKEE
Mr. ARTHURS:: I call attention of the
Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. 211
Graham) to a question standing in my name which was answered on Monday last. Apparently two of the answers have been omitted entirely. I would like to have the minister look into the matter.


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: I have just given
an explanation and have handed in an extra page of the answer.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
WEMBLEY EXPOSITION Mr. SUTHERLAND:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Canadian High Commissioner and the Minister of External Affairs or the Department of External Affairs, and between the British Columbia representative in London, Mr. F. C. Wade, and the Minister of External Affairs, relative to the Wembley exposition; the use of Canadian materials in the buildings thereof and the relationship of the High Commissioner of Canada thereto.
SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I would like to ask the government if they have any additional information to give the House regarding the dispute as to the Post Office employees wage schedule? What has become of the conference to-day between the men and the government? Also, in the event of a strike, what will the government do to move the mails and safeguard the public interest?


George Perry Graham: The representative members of the cabinet are at present in conference with representatives of the postal employees.
JUDGES' ACT AMENDMENT Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges' Act.


[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-Residence within county court district.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the Minister of
Justice explain that?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Under the law at present, judges have to reside in the county for which they have been appointed. In 1919 the province of Ontario enacted legislation for the purpose of ultimately increasing the number of county court judges. It provided that the Lieutenant Governor in Council had authority to group two or three counties into one county court district, and when one of the judges retired or died, he would not

Judges' Act Amendment

be replaced, but the business would be done by the remaining judge or judges. This has been done in a number of cases and the number of county court judges in Ontario has actually been reduced.
The object of this legislation is to authorize a judge who has been appointed for a county to reside at another place in the new district formed by the grouping of several counties, and to live there legally and be entitled to his travelling expenses from that place when he goes into the district which is constituted by the amalgamation of those counties.
Mr. CHURCH; What is the minister doing to reduce the number of judges in Ontario? There are 66 county court judges in that province. According to the Ontario government returns, there were 60,533 civil suits, of which about 28 per cent were in the city of Toronto where there are only six county court judges. There is a congestion in the Toronto district and I should like to know what the minister is doing in regard to it. His predecessor said that during the recess of parliament he would take this matter up and relieve this congestion in the county of York, but nothing whatever has been done yet to put the matter on a proper basis. We have about eighteen high court judges, three or four of whom at times can spend about six months' holidays on political commissions. If we are to have economy, let us have it in counties where there are two judges where there is not enough civil and criminal work for one judge. In some parts there is scarcely enough division court work for the county court judge, whereas in Toronto the work is congested. In view of the Ontario legislation, the minister ought to tell the committee what he is going to do respecting a reduction of the county and high court judges, especially when some of these high court judges can take holidays, sometimes two or three times a year, and spend months on political commissions.
Mr. BO\S:	I should like to make an
observation or two regarding what my hon. friend (Mr. Church) has just said. His knowledge of the work is probably confined, to some extent, to what takes place in the city of Toronto. My life has been spent in the country, and I can assure him that he is entirely in error if he thinks that county court judges are not called upon to perform a good deal of work. Any return that may be referred to at the present time will not, in my ^ opinion, reflect the true condition of affairs. Since the amendment to the County Court Act, in my county, and I venture to say in many other counties throughout 
Ontario, cases are and may be sued in the county court no matter what amount of money is involved, and unless the jurisdiction of the court is disputed, those cases proceed to trial in the county court. My own firm and many other firms in Simcoe are continually bringing actions in the county court where, as a rule, the jurisdiction is not disputed and the cases go to trial there. On account of that the county court judge has a great deal more work to do and, perhaps, two years from now the returns, when they are secured, will reflect that feature which they do not reflect at present.
I agree with what my hon. friend says in connection with the work in Toronto. There is no question that the county court judges there work very hard, and it may be that something should be done. Possibly the scheme which the minister has will relieve that to some extent by bringing in outside judges from time to time for use in Toronto. That was done in the past and it can be done in the future. But I do not wish to allow to pass unnoticed the statement that judges in the county courts in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada are not having a good deal of work to do. They certainly are. Our county is a large one and we have two judges. I think I may say that outside of the judges, perhaps, in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and London, they have certainly as much or more to do than any of the other judges and they are kept fairly well occupied. The returns as to cases are not reliable data to go upon. A judge in the country may have to travel twenty or thirty miles to try one or two division court cases, and if you look only at the returns, it would appear that he was having very little to do. It means, however, that he leaves his home in the morning or, perhaps, the night before, and he has to spend the whole day there for the convenience- and properly so-of the litigants in that particular place. A judge in Toronto leaves his home at half past nine, ten or eleven o'clock and sits in court until four, half past four or sometimes five o'clock in the afternoon and he is never away from home. That is a consideration that must not be overlooked. I venture to say that most judges would prefer to be engaged continually from ten o'clock to four or half past four in the afternoon and have no travelling to do rather than spend many days in the year away from home. I trust if any consideration is to be given to what has been said, the minister will bear in mind that feature.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 
Ernest Lapointe: With regard to the first
part of the remarks of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) as to the congestion of work in the county of York, I may observe that this matter does not come directly under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice inasmuch as the organization of tribunals lies within the sphere of the province. There is no doubt that the judges of the county of York who are administering justice in Toronto have a considerably larger amount of work to do than have the judges of the other districts of the province. Applications have already been made that special treatment be given those judges in the way of increased salaries. It has also been represented that in the districts of Hamilton, London and Ottawa there is legitimate ground for special consideration. The matter presents some difficulty; as my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) himself admits, it would be somewhat unwise to discriminate between judges of the same jurisdiction and standing. There is no doubt, however, that especially in the case of Toronto where the judges are overwhelmed with work a larger salary than is at present paid is deserved. But I would hesitate to open the question of increasing judges' salaries at this session.


Mr. LANCTOT:: It would not be popular.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from
Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) applauds that statement; but the demand is being made and certainly it will have to be considered seriously. The present discussion, however, is hardly relevant under this bill. There was an agreement, about which I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) knows, between the previous government and the government of Ontario, when the salaries of county court judges were increased, that the number of judges should be reduced; and the province has enacted legislation to that end. The Attorney General of Ontario has indicated the districts which have been formed by the grouping of two or three counties where a
Judges' Act Amendment

lesser number of judges can do the work, and this has been the policy pursued both by the previous and the present government. Only recently there was in the county of Huron a vacancy which has not been filled, that county having been added, I think, to Perth to form a new district. There is therefore no longer any necessity for a judge in Huron and no new appointment has been made. The purpose of this bill is merely to determine the most convenient place in the whole district for the residence of the judge.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is it not reasonable that when the readjustment takes place there should be an improvement in the salaries of the judges in the county of York, in view of the greater amount of work they have to do?


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to have a
general expression of opinion as to whether that is advisable and whether it would be good policy to discriminate in the matter of the salaries paid to judges administering justice in the respective districts.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the minister that there is a good deal of difficulty about the question of adjusting judicial salaries, and that difficulty arises largely from the fact that our counties or judicial districts, particularly in the province of Ontario, are by no means all alike. There is a great disparity between the judicial districts; there is a great difference in their respective areas; there is a great difference in the facility or the difficulty of travelling from place to place; and there is also a difference in the population of one as compared with another. There are some counties in Ontario where one judge can perform all the judicial duties and have time to spare; but I do not think that is the case in the great majority of our counties. The Ontario legislature passed an act to overcome that difficulty by grouping certain counties for the purpose of reducing the number of judges and thus saving the extra cost in salaries to the country. There are counties like York where there is always a great pressure of business and where a very large proportion of the litigation in the province takes place. My hon. friend (Mr. Church) stated a moment ago that about 28 per cent of a certain class of cases arising in the province were disposed of in Toronto. The county in which I live is fairly compact and has a population of some 55,000. Hitherto we have always enjoyed the distinction of having two county judges, but after the passage of recent legislation in Ontario the number was reduced to [Mr. Lapointe.l
one. Simcoe county, represented by my hon. friend who sits behind me (Mr. Boys), has I believe a population of about 90,000, and territorially it is a very much larger county than the county of Wellington. Simcoe still has two county judges, and I maintain that there is as much work for one county judge, if not more, in the county of Wellington as there is for two in the county of Simcoe. At the same time, let me add, the two county judges in Simcoe perform in a year as much judicial service as do the county judges of the county of York. It would be very difficult under these circumstances to discriminate in the matter of judicial salaries. If the minister thinks that the time has come when there should be an increase in those salaries,, all well and good but I think that increase should apply to all county judges alike, whether they be in Toronto or in the most remote districts of Ontario. I for one am inclined to think that judicial salaries might well be increased. I am aware that there is no unanimity of opinion upon the point, and I am expressing only my own view. I think that the county court judges in this province are still underpaid. the high court judges likewise, but whether this is the proper time to advocate an increase in their salaries I do not know. This bill, however, is certainly a move in the right direction. When the legislature of Ontario grouped the counties, a difficulty arose as to where the judge was to be located, where we could expect to find him; and particularly is this bill necessary because it will fix the point from which the judge will base his calculations for travelling expenses. I assume that that is one of the important objects of the proposed measure.
There are a large number of judicial functions arising in Ontario under the Municipal Act entirely unconnected with litigation, such as questions of assessment and appeals from mimicipal assessments. Judges in Ontario are also police commissioners, in which capacity they have to perform duties of various kinds not altogether judicial in character. When all these extra duties are taken into consideration, I submit, judicial salaries in Ontario, whether for high court judges or county court judges, cannot 'be termed exorbitant, and I think the minister might well consider the propriety of some increase.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Is it correct that certain
judges in Montreal are paid higher salaries than county judges in the province of Quebec by reason of the fact that their expenses are greater in Montreal than they would be in the rural districts?

Judges' Act Amendment


Ernest Lapointe: No, the judges of the
high court ia Montreal are paid exactly the same salaries as the judges in the rural districts. My friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was referring to the judges of the circuit court; they are in a class by themselves and are not like the county court judges in Ontario, who have the same standing and the same jurisdiction all over the province. The circuit court at Montreal is a special tribunal with a special standing, and apart from the jurisdiction which my friend has referred to these judges have jurisdiction in all municipal matters, and it is well known by litigants and the bar that those judges have a very considerable amount of work to do. Their salaries are not as high as those of the high court judges, but, it is true, they are higher than the salaries of the county court judges of Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Two thousand
dollars more, is it not?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is.


Edmund James Bristol: Since there has been
taxation of incomes, have judges' salaries been increased at all?


Ernest Lapointe: I think they have.


William Findlay Maclean: It follows from
what the minister has said that the legislature of Ontario ought to create a special court for Toronto.


Mr. LEADER:: Mr. Chairman, I know it
will appear somewhat audacious for a farmer to discuss matters pertaining to judges and lawyers, but I understand that the hon. minister has intimated that the judges are making a demand for increased salaries. I also understand that the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) upholds that viewpoint and thinks that an increase would not do any harm. In view of this, I beg to siibmit some figures contained in an answer to a question which I put on the order paper on April 14', last. I was informed that we have 280 judges in the Dominion. I do not know how that figure compares with the judiciary in other countries, such as the United States or England, but I venture the guess that we are overmanned in this respect as well as in respect to other governmental machinery. I was also informed that the annual salaries paid our judges in 1919 were $1,452,554.57. In 1920, I think in conjunction with the increase of parliamentary indemnities, the salaries of the judges were increased, the aggregate amounting to $529,845.43. The total salaries paid our judges now are $1,982.-
440. In addition to these salaries we also have to meet a bill for travellling expenses, which last year amounted to $134,623.47. Not only have we 280 active judges, but we have 38 on the retired list, these being in the fortunate position of drawing very remunerative pensions, the total paid them on this account last year being $179,166.63, or an average of $4,714.90. In view of the condition of the country I think we are paying our judges too much. There is a demand for economy all along the line, and it seems to me that, although many of these judges are eminent men deserving of all we can give them, they are also rich and should not expect such high salaries. I have been met with the argument that a good lawyer can always command a high salary. We have evidence that this is the case, for we know that our government will pay lawyers from $200 to $250 a day to take a case-yes, I believe in the case of W. N. Tilley they paid $400 a day. So there is no doubt something in the argument that good lawyers can get m ore-money in private practice than they would receive on the bench. I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to protest against any increase in judges' salaries.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I have
searched this bill in vain to find anything in it in connection with salaries of judges, and I think that the whole discussion is out of order. Let me therefore practise economy in time by getting back to the subject of the bill. I should like to ask the hon, Minister of Justice if he would accept an amendment so that the section would read, "the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia." The conditions existing in British Columbia are parallel with those existing in Ontario, and if it is just and proper-and I quite believe it is-that the federal government which appoints the judiciary, should also designate the place at which they should reside within their district, then it is equally applicable to British Columbia. I do not know whether he is perfectly acquainted with the facts, but his predecessor in office was advised of conditions in British Columbia which rendered an amendment such as I have indicated very desirable.


Ernest Lapointe: The matter has not been called to my attention at all. This bill is intended to meet special conditions arising in Ontario on account of the act which was passed by the legislature of Ontario in 1919 grouping together many counties for the purpose of the administration of justice. I do
Judges' Act Amendment

not know that the same conditions exist in British Columbia. The law as it is to-day compels a judge to live in his county, but we have to change it on account of the new conditions in Ontario. Has there been special legislation enacted in British Columbia organizing a new system of grouping of counties?


Mr NEILL:: No, there has not been any grouping of counties; but this condition arose: in a certain district there was one county court judge, who resided, as the law provides, anywhere within the riding. Owing to the sparsely settled character of the district and the long distances to be travelled it was desired to have another judge to reside in the northern or more scattered portion of the district. After a great deal of agitation extending over a number of years this was granted and the second judge, when he was appointed, elected to reside not in the scattered portion of the district, where he was required and for the sole purposes of which he was appointed, but in the southern portion, a location more convenient to him. He is now drawing the salary, without being of any advantage to the government or to the lawyers or the people of the district wherein he resides. He really helps the other judge do what that other judge was quite able to do himself. He is within his rights, because he is living within the county. While this is not a question of the grouping of districts, the condition arises precisely there as in Ontario. The government is passing legislation here taking power to direct any judge to reside in any portion of his new district, or group district, as it may be. The principle is the same: you are not saying here that a judge shall reside somewhere in this group district, but that he shall reside at that point in his group district which the government shall designate. I submit that that is a parallel case, and that there could be no harm in taking similar powers in that respect to those now being taken for Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that what my hon. friend mentions is a condition which prevails only in one particular place.


Alan Webster Neill: So far it has taken place only in one county, because there is no other country district where there are two judges, but it is apt to occur at any place. One error is quite sufficient to justify our making provision for it, now that we are passing an act dealing with the matter. As the government retain the power in their own hands, no harm can be done if the government afterwards find it inadvisable to exercise that power. It is identically the same principle in British Columbia as in Ontario; it is a question of

the taking of power to designate the residence of a judge within his jurisdiction.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend should let this legislation go without the addition of the amendment he suggests. This is to meet a special provincial condition arising out of legislation applying to Ontario alone. I shall be pleased to consider the question submitted by my hon. friend and I assure him that if any legislation is necessary owing to the circumstances existing in the case to which he refers, we shall be glad to deal with the matter with a view to remedying the difficulty.


Alan Webster Neill: I am obliged to the minister for his statement. But ministers of justice have a habit of passing away sometimes. We have the bill; we have the grievance; the remedy is right here, and I suggest that no great harm would result if this bill were allowed to stand over for another day, with a view to amending it as I suggest.


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt very much whether the bill now before the committee would meet the situation in British Columbia. The bill is drawn precisely to meet a situation in Ontario which has arisen as a result of action by the legislature of the province. If the legislature of British Columbia passed an act similar to the legislation passed by Ontario I have no doubt that the bill could be amended as my hon. friend suggests. But until we have evidence that British Columbia has passed an act to apply the grouping system, I think it would be entirely inappropriate to amend a bill drawn especially for Ontario. I rose particularly to say a word in reply to the hon. member (Mr. Leader). I admit that the question of judicial salaries does not arise directly in this bill, and I only mentioned the matter in response to the invitation of the minister that the opinion of hon. members be given on the subject. I did have reason to look into the matter with some care in 1920 when the salaries of judges generally were increased. I found then what I think you will find to-day, that judicial salaries in Canada are far less than they are in Great Britain or in any other British dominion. There is no comparison between judicial salaries in Canada and those in the United Kingdom.


Harry Leader: How does the number of judges in Canada compare with that in Great Britain?


Hugh Guthrie: I could not answer that;
I am speaking only of the amount paid to individual judges for the performance of their duty as judges. In England the judges are paid on such a high scale that we could not

Exchequer Court Act Amendment
consider it in this country; I admit that. But comparing the salaries paid in Canada with those paid in Australia, South Africa, even New Zealand, we found in 1920, and I think you will find still to-day-though I cannot speak in regard to the figures to-day, because I have not examined them-that the salaries of judges in Canada are substantially less than those of judges in any of the other self-governing dominions.


Thomas Langton Church: The legislature of Ontario has placed on the county court judges of York a volume of work which county court judges in no other province are required to perform. They have the work in connection with the assessment rolls, voters' lists, election courts, and so on. The duties of division court judges and a very large proportion of the High Court work of Ontario has been laid upon the county court judges. A great many of these judges work very hard. The county of York has about one-third of the population of Ontario, and one-third of all the writs issued in the province are issued in the civil courts of York county. But they have only six county judges out of a total of sixty-six in the province, so that six judges do one-third of the county' court judicial work of the province, while the other sixty do the remainder of it. Let me give a few figures to show why the Ontario government passed this cluster county district legislation. The county court judges of the county of York have to call for assistance from the county court judges of the county of Simcoe, the junior judge for that county and the senior and junior judges of Ontario, Halton, Peel and many other counties. Last year 5,430 county court writs were issued in civil cases throughout the whole of Ontario, while in the county of York 2,230 were issued, or 42 per cent of the number for the whole province. In Ontario there were 163 jury trials in county courts, and in York county 54, or 33 per cent. In Ontario there, were 705 non-jury trials, and in York county 273, or 35 per cent. The figures for the criminal cases are about the same. There are only three other counties that can compare with York in this respect, namely, Middlesex, Wentworth and Carleton. In Middlesex county in 1922 there were 19 judgments entered, amounting to a total of $4,447; in Wentworth, 56 judgments, amounting to $14,555; in Carleton, 18 judgments, amounting to $3,680; in York county, 317 judgments, amounting to $110,061, or half the mount-$220,000-registered for all Ontario counties. The idea of the legislation passed in Ontario must be to
transfer judges from districts in which the work is light to districts where there is a greater volume of business. A meeting of the county court judges was held last September and it was felt then that the county of York judges ought to be dealt with as a special case. In view of the fact that the late Minister of Justice promised that something would be done for York county judges,
I hope that action will be taken this session by the minister with a view to giving recognition to the men who do the work.


Mr. HOCKEN:: In view of the fact that
this is the 18th of June, I would ask if this discussion is in order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: It may be in order,
but I am somewhat in doubt.
Mr. CLARK; Much has been said from the point of view of the province of Ontario.
I merely wish to express the opinion that discrimination at any time is a bad thing, and that if salaries in the city of Toronto, for instance, are increased for the county court judges, they should be increased in Vancouver and every other city of Canada, and I am not so sure that they should not be increased also in the rural districts.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 116, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On Section 1-jurisdiction conferred by agreement.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend explain?


Ernest Lapointe: Section 20 of the Exchequer Court Act defines the matters in which the court has jurisdiction. That section was amended in 1916 by the addition of paragraph (g) which reads as follows:
Every matteT in which the Crown and any person interested therein have agreed that the Crown shall pay to such person an amount to be determined by the Exchequer Court.
The purpose of this amendment is to widen the effect of this clause so that the court will have jurisdiction when the Crown and any
3336	COMMONS
Exchequer Court Act Amendment
person have agreed in writing that either the Crown or that person shall pay
4 o'clock an amount to be determined by the Exchequer court, and also in cases where any question of law or fact have been agreed upon in writing to be determined by the Exchequer court. To illustrate: when a contract is entered into by the Crown and any person, it may be stipulated in the contract that any difficulties arising out of it shall be determined by the Exchequer court, and this amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court to try such cases, where both the Crown and the person have agreed in writing, upon it. Matters have already been submitted to the court in similar cases, but there has always been a doubt whether the court had jurisdiction under the act. This is to make it perfectly clear and to prevent difficulty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does this matter come up objectively? What case has brought this question to the front?


Ernest Lapointe: No special matter. This amendment is suggested by the officers of the department, on account of the fact that in some contracts a clause has been inserted providing that difficulties that might arise out of the contract should be submitted to the Exchequer court. The officers of the department have a doubt as to whether the court had jurisdiction under the law as it stands to-day, even where an agreement had been signed by both parties to refer such questions to the Exchequer court.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon.
friend considered what the effect of jthis amendment will be, having regard to the volume of work of that court? The Exchequer court is fairly busy now, I understand. What volume of work does my hon. friend think is involved here? We have courts in some places that are not at all busy that might be looking after this work. Is this to be an argument for the appointment of another judge to the Exchequer court?


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing of the sort is
contemplated. I think two judges, when they both work, are sufficient to look after all the work of the Exchequer court. My hon. friend will agree that it is desirable that matters in which the Crown is concerned should go to the Exchequer court; that is the natural tribunal to deal with all claims against the Crown or by the Crown arising for instance, under the Expropriation Act, cases for damages caused to property by reason of public works, cases under the Patent Act, and cases where there is loss of life by neglect of 
a servant of the Crown. And of course my hon. friend will see that these questions which may be submitted in consequence of an agreement are always matters in which the Crown has an interest, but I do not think they are so numerous as to multiply the work of the court.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I just wanted to get an assurance on that point. Of course, it is perfectly clear that the Exchequer court is looked upon as a tribunal fitted to look after all these claims against the Crown that my hon. friend refers to, and they can be referred to the Exchequer court under the law as it now stands; but questions of agreements and the like were thought to be questions which could well be looked after by the ordinary courts, and so different principles are applied to them. I am not saying but that this legislation may be perfectly all right and serve a useful purpose, but it will not serve a useful purpose if we are taking work from courts that are not now busy and are giving it to a court that is fairly fully employed. I think my hon. friend will say that the Exchequer court is a fairly busy court. I am not saying that the judges are overworked, but they are busy, and sometimes there is a lot of work put upon them.
I do not suppose my hon. friend's view is that this in any way discharges the jurisdiction of the regular courts. I mean, does he think that the Crown ought to be put in bar of an action? In the case of a contract which to-day would not be sufficient in the opinion of the law to confer jurisdiction on the court itself, because the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement-my hon. friend gets around that by his admendment- would he think it proper that this jurisdiction so conferred should be treated in bar of an action in one of the regular courts; in other words, as something which would oust the jurisdiction of the regular courts?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid my hon.
friend thinks that this will be a bar to a regular proceedings before a court which has jurisdiction to-day. This merely gives the Exchequer court jurisdiction which it does not possess, or which it is doubtful if it possesses. I may say to my hon. friend that this feature of additional work being imposed on the Exchequer court has been fully considered. We do not -think that there will be such additional amount of work as to cause a congestion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the matter been considered with the judges of that court?


Ernest Lapointe: I could not say.

Exchequer Court Act Amendment


Mr. CALDWELL:: What tribunal deals
now with the cases that are to be referred to the Exchequer court under this bill?


Ernest Lapointe: The ordinary high court in every province.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have they competent
jurisdiction at the present time in such cases?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And there is a question as to whether the Exchequer court has jurisdiction or not?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. BAXTER:: I followed the minister's
explanation, and really I see no objection to giving the Exchequer court jurisdiction in regard to the class of subjects he has enumerated. But there is something here that puzzles me, and I doubt if it has been put in intentionally. The Crown and the person agree-to what? That the Crown or such person shall pay to any person or to the Crown an amount of money to be determined >by the Exchequer court. It says that the Crown or such person shall pay to any person. I cannot understand how a case could possibly come up where the Crown and an individual would agree in writing that the Exchequer court should determine that an individual should pay to some other individual. I do not think that that could ever have been intended.
I think now I shall wait until the impertinent member stops interfering with the minister. It is discourteous to the member addressing the House, and only an hon. member of-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Mr. McMASTER:: I would draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that those who are removed more than a rod from the gentlemen who are discussing matters in this House cannot hear a word that is being said.


An hon. MEMBER:: How long is a rod?


Andrew Ross McMaster: "Sixteen and a half
feet, one rod, pole or perch."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: When hon. gentlemen are
all through talking I shall proceed with my discussion with the minister.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the clause carry?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is quite proper to check me for remarks I have made with reference to another hon. member, but at the same time I have a right to be heard, which right some hon. gentlemen would not accord me. I am speaking on rather an important point, and I doubt whether it has been brought to
the minister's attention. I intend to bring it up now. I do not propose to have the whole Progressive party conversing at the same time that I am addressing the committee. It looks as if by a certain construction it might he possible for an agreement to be made between the Crown and some individual, by which the rights as between the individual and another would be determined by the Exchequer court. I do not think that is the function of the Exchequer court. I am heartily in accord with the minister in wishing to amplify the jurisdiction of the Exchequer court, so as to get rid of any technicality and utilize that court as a court of speedy and convenient resort in all possible disputes that occur between the subject and the Crown. But I do not think the minister wants any possible interpretation argued by which the rights of two individuals would be litigated in that court in a proceeding between the Crown and one of these individuals. Yet the drafting is open to that contention. I do not think this was intended.


Ernest Lapointe: I will take the matter
into consideration.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am quite willing that the bill should pass now and that the minister should look into it.


Ernest Lapointe: There are circumstances
in which the Crown would not itself pay the amount which might be adjudicated to be paid in the Exchequer court by some other person. That might occur in the ease of contractors on public works, where there is a power of expropriation. Damages might be caused to private property of other persons by works earned on by public contractors, and the Crown, though it is interested in the matter, might not ultimately pay the amount, which might be paid under the contract by the contractor himself. Still, it may be advisable to improve the wording of the clause, and if my hon. friend agrees, the bill might be put through committee and the third reading deferred.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I agree. In the case of a
contract for a public work, where we have a contractor and a sub-contractor, there might be litigation with the Crown, and the amount payable to the sub-contractor might have to be dealt with in that litigation; and if it is intended that all those matters should be settled in the one action, I would have no objection to it, but I do not think it is clearly expressed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend omitted just one point in this dis-
3338	COMMONS
Exchequer Court Act Amendment
jussion; and that is this is mere drafting, in view of the subsequent further explanation of the minister. It may be the intention to bind a man although that man does not consent.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what
was hinted at a moment ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Always subject to the
condition that there is an agreement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An agreement
between one person and the Crown that either that person or the Crown shall pay to some other person or the Crown a sum of money. The other person is not a party to the agreement in this case at all. I do not think my hon. friend really wants it put in that form. It says:
Such person shall pay to any person or to the Crown an amount of money-
That other person is not a party to the agreement.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then he would not be
bound by it, in my opinion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know.
If the jurisdiction is given to this court to fix the amount which some other person is to be paid, why is he not bound?-unless we are going to say at once that this is idle legislation. It may be entirely idle legislation. But the minister does not want that, he wants the legislation to be effective. I think the underlying idea is that no one is to be bound by this legislation, unless first, there is an agreement in writing.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that is not how it reads, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) pointed out. There are two parties to this agreement. The section says:
Such person shall pay to any person or to the Crown-
"Such person" mean the person who has agreed in writing.
There is a distinction between "such person" and "any person", because "such person" may have to pay the money to "any person." But "any person" is not a party to that agreement, but "such person" is a party. If the hon. gentleman looks at the section I think he will see that it is perfectly clear. Why not get it right? If what we want to do is to have it over cases only where everybody agrees,
I should suggest that the section be worded;
The amount to be paid whenever the Crown and any person have agreed in writing that the Crown or such person shall pay to-

Then strike out the words "any person."
-the Crown or such person as the case may be an amount of money.
And so on. That confines the matter entirely to the people who have signed a contract. Of course a dozen persons may have signed, but as, under the Interpretation Act, the plural is covered as well as the singular, we need not worry about that phase of the question. The effect of that would be that no one could be bound in any way unless he signed the contract, and if on the other hand the interpretation of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was right that any person could do what he pleased, no matter what this legislation stated, it could not be said that we were passing an idle act. The question turns on what the minister really wants to do. Does he want to have a perfectly proper claim of a third person adjudicated upon by the Exchequer court because a contractor on one hand and the Crown on the other agree between themselves that the payment to this third party shall be made as a result of a reference to the Exchequer court although that party is not a party to the contract. Are we to look upon this legislation as creating a jurisdiction based entirely on agreement, so that any person whether he is liable tp pay something or has rights to receive payments will have these claims considered and adjudicated on by the Exchequer court and be bound by the court's decision only if he is a party to the agreement?
Mr. BOY'S:	I agree with what has been
said, and I would also point this out to the minister, that unless there is some definition, in the interpretation of the word "person," this would not apply to a corporation, and I venture to say that most of the agreements would be with corporations. An idea has struck me which I will offer to the minister for whatever it is worth, namely:	That the
section might be worded as follows:
The amount to be paid whenever the Crown and any person or persons or corporation have agreed in writing that the Crown or such person or corporation shall pay an amount-
I do not see any object in repeating the phrase, "to any person or to the Crown." The agreement will provide that a certain sum be paid, that sum to be ascertained by the Exchequer court. If you leave those words out, you avoid the confusion. But I think jmu should have after the words "any person" in the second line the word "persons" which would enable an agreement to be signed not only by the department or by a contractor, but by a sub-contractor, and I have not much doubt that the intention here is to include a

Prisons and Reformatories Act
sub-contractor. He certainly could not or should not be included unless he was a party to the agreement. I gather that the minister has no thought of making this applicable to any person who is not a party to the agreement. If those changes were made, it seems to me that would meet the difficulty which the section, as drafted, appears to present.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister take
time to consider redrafting this section? The explanatory note makes quite clear the object which the minister has in view. It says:
The purpose of this amendment is to widen the jurisdiction of the Exchequer court so as to enable it to deal with any matters which the Crown may by agreement with any person commit to its jurisdiction.
The difficulty is that the clause, as drawn, provides for other persons who are not parties to the agreement, and the result will be that parties not parties to the agreement will be bound by the payment. I think there is something defective in the drafting. I can see quite easily the object which the minister has in view, but some time should be taken to consider redrafting.
Progress reported.


PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 120, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
He said: By certain sections of the Prisons and Reformatories Act introduced in 1913, there are special provisions for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. When Protestant girls under sixteen years of age are brought before a court for certain offences which are mentioned in the act, the judge, instead of sending them to the common jail, may send them to a place called the Maritime Home for Girls at Truro, a sort of reformatory for girls. The province of New Brunswick has built and is operating a similar institution at Moncton called the Interprovincial Home for Women. This is to authorize a judge, when it is more convenient to send the girl to Moncton, to send her there rather than to Truro.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express in a word my very earnest approval of the excellence of the Maritime Home for Girls which happens to be in Truro in my constituency and which has been mentioned by the
hon. Minister of Justice. It is managed by Miss Strothard who is a young lady of superior education and attainments and of a peculiarly humane disposition, who understands human nature and who particularly understands the somewhat unfortunate girls who are sent to that home. This home, which is a combined home and school, is among the very best institutions of its kind in existence and it is meeting with very marked success.
I do not want to take up the time of the House but I am bound to express my personal pride for my constituency in this regard; the institution has done exceedingly well and though still comparatively young has established a record which is enviable throughout eastern Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 176, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-"Platinum" to be applied only to articles of defined component parts.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is really being done in connection with the production of platinum at the present time? No doubt the minister is familiar with this subject. A lot of ore is leaving this country in which there is a comparatively large percentage of precious metal content. During the past few years it has been possible to win platinum commercially from nickel and a very large proportion of this metal has left the country along with the platinum that has been exported. Our ores are yielding a good many other valuable by-products besides platinum, but I believe that platinum is about the most important. Is this bill being introduced at the request of the producers of platinum? And if so what is being done in connection with that industry?


William Findlay Maclean: Some years ago I asked in this House whether there had ever been disclosed to the people of Canada the information regarding the precious metal content of the nickel ore which was being exported from this country. That information has not yet been disclosed. We have absolute control of that nickel ore including the precious metals it contains. and yet we are unable to find out what the percentage
Gold and Silver Marking

of that precious metal content is. I believe that the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Mond, who has a considerable refining plant in Wales, takes a large amount of our nickel ore and refines it in the Old Country, and so far the Canadian people, who have absolute control of the nickel ore in this country, have been unable to ascertain the percentage of the precious metal content of the ore that is exported. It is high time the people got that information. Those who demanded it during the war were unable to get it and I hope that the minister will see to it that the facts are disclosed. I think the time has come when all this nickel ore should be refined in this country; we have absolute control of nickel, platinum and these other metals, and there is no reason why we should not know just what percentage of precious metals is leaving the country. There should be a policy to establish the refining of these metals in Canada; with our control of the ores, we could supply the whole world with nickel steel.


Mr. LOW:: It would be better for the
hon. member to put his question to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) who has charge of the Mines branch. He would no doubt be able to give the necessary information not only to my hon. friend but also to the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Dnayton).


William Findlay Maclean: Why does the
minister not hold the bill, then, until he can get that information?


Thomas Andrew Low: If the hon. gentleman presses
for the information I shall be glad to hold the bill over.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister
might give the information on the third reading. The country would like to know why these precious metals are being exported when they should be refined in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked the
minister pretty much the same question when the resolution was introduced and I thought that the information would now be available;
I do not see why we should not have it. This legislation must be asked for by the people who are interested in platinum. We are producing platinum and we ought to know just what is being done; we ought to know what is the necessity for looking after this particular interest. After all, this question of marking and all that sort of thing, in the absence of real national interest, only means more or less trouble to the people who are engaged in the business; that is refelly all it 
means. I know that we are producing platinum to-day, and the minister also knows it perfectly well; he knows too that we are producing platinum out of nickel ore. At Deschenes with the electrical process we are winning in Canada such a proportion of precious metals as [DOT]practically makes that process feasible; we are winning 4 per cent as against 2 per cent-a difference of 100 per cent-of nickel out of the ore by means of the new process. I am sure the minister must know something about this matter. If he does not he should not introduce legislation in regard to which all this information is absolutely necessary. He must Satisfy himself that the bill is in the public interest, and he cannot do so unless he knows what the facts are.


Thomas Andrew Low: This is an entirely different
matter, and I am sure a very simple question on the order paper would elicit the necessary information.


Hugh Guthrie: Here is a question that is bothering me. I understand that the metal called platinum if pure to the extent of 950/ lOOOths might be marked as platinum under the provisions of this bill. That is, if it is pure metal to that extent. Then the last line says:
and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.
What proportion of iridium will be permitted in that mixture to entitle it to be marked as platinum? Will the minister describe what iridium is and how it is mixed with platinum?


Thomas Andrew Low: I would say that 950/1000ths of the product would require to be platinum.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the meaning of the bill according to the last clause.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend will tell me who supplied this wording?


Thomas Andrew Low: I told my hon. friend a few nights ago that at a gathering of the Canadian Jewellers' Association in the city of Windsor, at which about 400 members were present, it was requested by resolution that platinum be added to gold and silver in order that it might have the same protection as these precious metals. My hon. friend knows that if he were getting married to-day his fiancee would probably suggest that the wedding ring should be of platinum with a mixture of iridium in place of gold. It is therefore considered to be of equal value with gold.
Mr, MACLEAN (York): Mr. Chairman, I am again going to point out to the minister that to-day Canada has an absolute control of

Supply-Steamship Services
the nickel supply of the world, and that associated with the nickel ore are other metals, called the "P" metals-platinum, palladium, polonium, iridium, and two or three others. I think it is time we should have information with regard to the location and quantity of these metals in the Dominion. There is no country in the world with such rich nickel deposits as ours, and nickel is becoming more and more essential in the manufacture of nickel steel. Having this monopoly, we ought to establish a nickel steel industry as a national policy, especially in view of the fact that modern warfare depends largely on nickel. This metal played a great part in the old war, and it may play a [DOT] still greater part in the wars to come. This being so, in the interests of peace we ought to control our nickel deposits, and, if it is possible to do so, we should develop to its fullest extent the nickel steel industry in this country.


Hugh Guthrie: I am satisfied that the
wording of the section is wrong and does not carry out the intention of the minister. The article may be styled "platinum" if it contains 950/1 OOOths of that metal. I understand that. Then the section continues:
-which said article consists either of the pure metal and element platinum alone-
I understand that.
-or in conjunction with iridium.
I submit that under this wording if 1 per cent of the article was platinum and 99 per cent iridium, it could be styled platinum. I am satisfied that the clause has not been drawn to carry out the idea of the minister himself. If he can explain it, all well and good, but it is meaningless to me in its present form.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend wishes, I
shall be glad to allow the bill to stand over to enable him to satisfy himself on this point.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister get the additional information I have asked for?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will ask the
Minister of Mines, he will no doubt supply him with the information.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mall subsidies and steamship subventions-Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, steam service between, $50,000.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who has this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Lovat Steamship Company.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the government
has not made a contract before the vote is passed, because I see the old amount was only $24,000; this is $50,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my right hon. friend
knows that it has been the custom for years to make contracts in anticipation of the votes.


Arthur Meighen: But not for double the
vote.


Thomas Andrew Low: I might point out that the
population of these islands, numbering 7,000 people, is isolated for six months of the year. They import their coal and gasoline, and do a large fishing trade, and in order that they may be at no disadvantage compared with their ueigbours in the United States it is necessary to improve the service. My right hon. friend will agree that these people who have communication with the mainland for only six months of the year should have a first class service. We found it impossible to give that service under the old conditions, consequently we provided for this increase. My right hon. friend will agree that I have endeavoured to cut the estimates for these subsides as low as possible. Although this service has been very much improved as a result of an increase of $26,000, on the whole I have saved a very large amount in these estimates.


Arthur Meighen: The only savings up to now amount to some $2,300. This is an increase of $26,000. I see there are some appropriations not required; I presume some people are being abandoned altogether.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not agree with my right hon. friend when he suggests that there are only a few items amounting to a reduction of a couple of thousand dollars. The total decreases amount to $40,000.


Arthur Meighen: I was referring to the items that had been passed. I know there are $42,000 not required.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is scarcely fair to consider them item by item. I was speaking of the subsidies as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: In the services that are being continued there is a very considerable increase. It seems strange that for 1924-25 it ought to take more to run boats than it did in 1923-24 or 1922-23, because costs have gone down. But this is a striking increase-$50,000 as against $24,000. What is the extra service being given? What was the defect in the last service?
Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: I would remind my right hon. friend that we passed items involving decreases of $21,000 and $30,500. There are several other decreases amounting to several thousand dollars.


Mr. HARRIS:: Was there a tender for this service?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, tenders were called for.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say that tenders were asked for in this case, and would he tell us what tenders were received?


Thomas Andrew Low: Three tenders were received: from Magdalen Transports, Limited, Steamer R. W. Hendry, $24,000; William Fraser, new steamer to be built specially for the route, $50,000; Messrs. Young and Burchell, of Sydney, Nova Scotia, new steamer to be built, $50,000.


Arthur Meighen: The minister took the highest.


Thomas Andrew Low: The first tender was the same as before, which had been reported as unsatisfactory.


Joseph Henry Harris: In what respect was it unsatisfactory?


Arthur Meighen: It looks rather bad to have a tender from a company which had a steamer built specially for the route. I do not know who would build a steamer specially for the route, unless he knew he was going to get it and knew what he was going to get out of it.


Thomas Andrew Low: The boat was entirely too slow and there was very poor accommodation for passengers.


Joseph Henry Harris: What benefit are we going to get for this extra $26,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have succeeded in saving a greater amount than that. We have saved $65,000, which would leave a net amount of about $40,000.


Arthur Meighen: Is it incumbent on the government to see that whatever it saves on one route it gets rid of on another? We are considering this one item. The minister got three tenders, two at $50,000 and one at $24,000, and he accepted the $50,000 one. He says that was accepted from a company which built the steamer especially for the purpose. The minister read out from his memorandum that this steamer was built specially for the purpose. Now what provision had the owners of the steamer that they were going to get this contract?
fMr. Meighen.J


Thomas Andrew Low: The memorandum says, "to
be built." The steamer was to be built specially for the route.


Arthur Meighen: It does not look very
good.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think it looks first rate. I
am anxious to give the people of the Magdalen islands the very best service possible.


Joseph Henry Harris: On which items is a saving made of $65,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will look
over the estimates on page 44, he will see at a glance. It is hardly fair to a3k me to give the items in detail when they are before my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I have a recollection
that I saw an advertisement of a company issuing bonds for the amount stated here, in which advertisement assurance was given that the government was going to give them this steamship route. Has the minister seen that advertisement?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I have not seen it, and it
does not matter how they raise their money. I know they had the contract at that time.


Arthur Meighen: I am pretty sure this
is the one. I am going to find out.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have heard of the advertisement, but I did not see it. It was issued after we had given them the contract.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: How many people are served by this steamship service?


Thomas Andrew Low: I stated in my opening remarks that there were about 7,000 people on these islands. They have a service during the summer for six months, and for the other six months of the year they are isolated from the mainland.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What wilt be the probable amount of freight in tons, and the number of passengers carried?


Thomas Andrew Low: The total number of passengers carried last year was 1,675; total tons of freight carried 4,009; live stock 70; mails: locked bags, 2,734; tied sacks, 1,902.


Joseph Henry Harris: How many years will this
contract run?


Thomas Andrew Low: Ten.


Arthur Meighen: That is not usual, is it?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, they are not usually made for ten years, but I think you will find contracts have been given before by my hon. friends for that length of time.

Supply-Steamship Services


Arthur Meighen: Not in one contract. It
is extremely new to give a single contract for that length of time.


Thomas Andrew Low: You could scarcely get a vessel owner to build a boat to meet the requirements if the contract was for any shorter time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is
the distance between the ports, and how frequent is the service?


Thomas Andrew Low: The service is twice a week.
It is seventy miles to Souris, and fifty miles to Pictou.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is, one hundred and
twenty miles altogether?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: When was the contract
let?


Thomas Andrew Low: April 17, 1923.


Arthur Meighen: Why, the minister's estimate would be passed a good while after that. Why did not the minister come down with an estimate to cover it and tell the House the facts? The minister, I know, was not in office then, but he only had $24,000 put through, and all the time he had a contract made for $50,000 with a good party supporter in Pictou.


Thomas Andrew Low: The officer informs me the
contract was made on August 22, 1923, not April.


Arthur Meighen: Who are the members
of this firm that got this $50,000 contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract was awarded to
William Fraser and the steamship company to whom the contract has been transferred is called the Lovat Steamship Company.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Fraser made the
contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know
who he is?


Thomas Andrew Low: He has been a contractor for
several years, and is a resident-


Arthur Meighen: A resident of where?


Thomas Andrew Low: -of Nova Scotia.


Arthur Meighen: Pictou?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I thought so. He is the right bower of the Minister of National Defence.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not prepared to say
whether he is the right or the left bower.


Joseph Henry Harris: Where was this $65,000
saved? Would the minister just indicate the number of the votes?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will turn
to page 44 he will find two columns headed "Increase" and "Decrease" respectively and if he will follow those down he will find savings as follows:
Item No.	Amount
172		 $21,000
173		 30,509
190	 1,000
192	 1,300
207	 1,000
209	 1500
I am sure that nothing could be made clearer. The information is set out so that hon. members can get the information at a glance. I referred my hon. friend to page 44 before, and it was a very simple matter for him to have looked over these items himself.


Arthur Meighen: The minister wants us
to be impressed with the fact that he has been very diligent in saving up a little money for Mr. Fraser. I read as follows from the Lovat Steamship Company prospectus. This is dated the 1st of October, 1923:
The ship is being built in compliance with a subsidy contract entered into between Mr. William Fraser and the government of the Dominion of Canada, under which the contractor is entitled to a subsidy of $50,000, payable annually for ten years commencing with the opening of navigation in 1924. Payments under this subsidy will extend beyond the longest maturity of the bonds. All payments under the subsidy are to be assigned to the company, and by the company to the trustee, and the trust deed will provide that from these moneys the trustee will in each year pay the amount of the interest and principal payable in that year.
Based on earnings from operation of the existing steamship service between Pictou and the Magdalen Islands for the years 1922 and 1923, with subsidies at $29,000 and $24,000 respectively-
I draw the minister's attention to the fact that last year the minister evidently considered the service too good, and had the subsidy reduced from $29,000 to $24,000. Evidently there was a different contractor then. It goes on:
-it is estimated that the company's annual earnings will be not less than $36,000, available for interest and serial maturities of these bonds, which is at the rate of over three times the largest amount of interest payable in any year, and approximately one and two-fifths times the largest amount required in any year to pay interest on serial maturities. This estimate is arrived at without making any allowance for the very substantial increase in revenue which is expected consequent upon the greatly improved and enlarged passenger accommodation, and approximately fifty per cent greater cargo carrying capacity. The management will be in the hands of Mr. William Fraser-
Supply-Steamship Services

It will be noted it is not put in the hands of the Minister of National Defence.
-of Pictou, N.S., as president and managing director.
The Magdalen Islands are part of the province of Quebec. The population is approximately 7,000 and the islands support one of the most prosperous fishing communities on the Atlantic coast. The service which the Lovat Steamship Company, Limited, will operate is the only regular means of transport between the islands and the mainland, and this service will be operated practically without competition. Under its operating contract with the government the company has the right, with the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to make direct fortnightly trips between Halifax and the Magdalen Islands, calling at Souris, Prince Edward Island, both ways. The estimate of earnings does not take into consideration this additional source of revenue.
It is quite clear that very generous treatment was afforded Mr. Fraser, and also clear that there was virtually no competition whatever in the letting of the contract. I would like to have some particulars as to who that other contractor was, and particulars also as to just what service was given, what the speed was, and how often the calls were made under the late contract, and why when a reduction was made the year before from $29,000 to $24,000 the minister suddenly felt he ought to pay $50,000 to Mr. William Fraser.


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount of the subsidy paid was never $29,000.


Arthur Meighen: It is so stated here.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend knows
very well that in these advertisements they put forward the very best side of the case, when bonds are offered for sale. He asks: Why did the minister reduce the estimate in the year 1923 by $5,000? I think that bears out the reason why he increased it the following year. It was the same minister who reduced the amount by $5,000 in 1923 who increased it to $50,000 within twelve months. Personally I had nothing to do with the contract.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Thomas Andrew Low: I signed it the day I came into office. The Magdalen Islands have a population of 7,000 which is growing all the time, and they ask the country for the very best service. There is not one word in anything my hon. friend has read in that advertisement which condemns this government or would tend in that direction.


Arthur Meighen: It is not likely they
would condemn the government when they were getting the contract.


Thomas Andrew Low: The hon. member has read the advertisement for the purpose of condemning the government. There is not one word of

condemnation, but there is every evidence in that advertisement to show that the government were justified in making the increase in this subsidy. If the trade is going to be increased by fifty per cent and the passenger trade increased by one hundred per cent, is it not money well spent? We are spending thousands of dollars on railways in different parts of the country. Why? To increase the trade of the country and the volume of traffic in every way. My hon. friend has read to this House an article that bears out the statement made early in the day that the government were justified in increasing this subsidy and placing a first-class boat on this service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have to
get down to the justification for the change at all, before we talk about justification of an item of $26,000 a year. We have been making a departure from what I think is a general rule of passing these votes annually, so that we are now faced with an increase of $260,000 in connection with this service;-it is a ten-year contract.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is spread over ten years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. Has my hon. friend any more ten-year contracts? Or is there any contract for any length of time for these short routes?


Thomas Andrew Low: We will look it up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did the minister have any precedent before him when he saw himself signing that ten-year contract? I am just asking for information. I do not know what is being done. I have never been, in that department, but if that is the practice I think we should know about it.


Thomas Andrew Low: When calling for tenders the
contractor is asked to state the minimum number of years for which he will accept the contract. Both these contracts are for ten years to provide the service required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that we have ten years suggested by the contractor. How many yearn did the man who got the $24,000 contract want?
Mr. LOW7:	One year, for this service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it a habit of the department to put in the number of years? Is the usual practice of the department to allow the tenderers simply to say how many years they wish to have the guarantee?


Thomas Andrew Low: That has been a part of the
tender for many years.

Supply-Steamship Services


Henry Lumley Drayton: On short routes like this?


Thomas Andrew Low: On all routes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On what
authority is it done? What act enables the government of this country to bind parliament? What permits this session to compel the next session of parliament to vote $50,000?


George Perry Graham: It is all subject to the
vote of parliament-.


Thomas Andrew Low: All these items are subject to
the vote of parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know, but
while that is true in one sense, in another sense it is not correct. I think everybody realizes that if it were stated1 that we were not getting value for these services, we would at once be met with the argument that the country is obligated and the country's honour is involved.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend knows that there is a clause in every contract which provides that unless the vote is passed by parliament the contract becomes null and void.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we vote it
this year, it is a contract which may be terminated next year?


Thomas Andrew Low: It may be terminated any
time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All a man has is the good faith of the government-that the government will stand by its obligations, which are for a ten-year period?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection
with the other work which was unsatisfactory, I think we should have a statement made to the House as to what the old minimum schedule was and what the new minimum schedule will be. The government should tell us how much oftener these boats will run than they have been running in the past and what improvement there is in the actual movement.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is an entirely different boat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have an
entirely different boat, but there is no improvement in the service.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is not correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, there is no improvement whatever in the frequency of 212
the service. The hours are just the same. What is the next step? Has the department any particulars of freight left because the boat was unable to carry it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, we have some.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The deputy
might look it up for the minister.


Thomas Andrew Low: That was the year 1919. The islanders were in danger of starvation, not having received their supplies of flour and oil for the winter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that that had nothing whatever to do with the ship at that time. If we have to go back four years in order to find an excuse for the government, we are working pretty hard to help them. If I remember rightly there were ice troubles in 1919 and there was a great deal of difficulty, not only at this point, but at other points. Let us get down to something within reasonable hailing distance. What were the troubles in the year last past?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I stated to my hon. friend that this boat had not proper passenger accommodation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was dealing
with freight for the moment. During the whole of last year what freight was left that the boat could not look after?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no record.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I think we can take it that as regards freight there is no excuse at all. What is the length of the trip for the passengers?


Thomas Andrew Low: About fifteen hours in good weather. I might add to that statement that this old boat would take about thirty hours in bad weather.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
difference in tonnage between the two boats?


Thomas Andrew Low: The tonnage of the old boat was 439 gross. The new boat has not been measured and I cannot give the tonnage. She will be bigger of course.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the result of last year's business on the old boat?


Thomas Andrew Low: The old boat had a profit of about $3,000 or equivalent to about 2J per cent on the capital investment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some newspapers in that part of the country are unkind enough to look upon this as a political deal of a questionable character and to say that there were no advertisements for tenders at all.

Su-pply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend has just read an advertisement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that was an advertisement boasting about their excellent contract, about their $50,000 a year. That is not the trouble. The local papers said that there was no advertisement at all for tenders. I think we should set that rumour right.


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been the custom -of the department for many years not to advertise for tenders, but to address a tender to each ship owner in the Maritime provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the local paper is correct in saying that there was no advertisement for tenders. What sort of letter was written to those people and to whom were those letters sent?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not a copy of the letter, but I shall be glad to submit it to the committee before we finish with this item. I will send for it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will admit that prior to 1923 this work was done for a considerably less figure still.


Thomas Andrew Low: In an inferior way.


Arthur Meighen: The last estimate provided only $20,000 for it.


Thomas Andrew Low: I presume my right hon. friend knows that the company went bankrupt.


Arthur Meighen: I have no information to that effect. In fact, my information is quite to the contrary, that the company did very well.


Thomas Andrew Low: The company that had the
contract went bankrupt, that is the company to which my right hon. friend refers as receiving $20,000.


Arthur Meighen: When did it go bankrupt?	[DOT]


Thomas Andrew Low: In 1920.


Arthur Meighen: This estimate happens to be for 1922.


Thomas Andrew Low: I was only taking it from the figure quoted by my right hon. friend, $20,000.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is wrong.


Thomas Andrew Low: The minister is not wrong. The firm that received $20,000 went bankrupt.


Arthur Meighen: It was getting $20,000
some two years after the minister said that it had gone bankrupt. The steamship company was in operation while it was getting $20,000 to which I have referred, and I have information, which I do not think he will contradict, that it was doing very well.


Thomas Andrew Low: The last year that that company received a subsidy of $20,000, the year 1920-21, that company went bankrupt. As a matter of fact, the steamer was seized for debt, and the next year my right hon. friend voted $24,000, an increase of $4,000.


Arthur Meighen: What year?


Thomas Andrew Low: 1921.


Arthur Meighen: I have the estimates for 1921 and it is only $20,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have a statement here. If my right hon. friend will look back he will find that he usually had Supplementary Estimates to bring down later on. If he will add the supplementary item to the original estimate, he will find that the amount was $24,000.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say that for the year 1922 there was a supplementary estimate for $4,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am speaking of 1921.


Arthur Meighen: But for 1922?


Thomas Andrew Low: For 1922 the estimate was $24,-
000.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not
follow me. The main estimate for 1922 is $20,000. I asked the minister if there was a supplementary estimate for that year?
Mr. 'LOW: During the session of 1921, my right hon. friend's government introduced an item for $24,000, the company that was paid $20,000 the previous year having gone bankrupt.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not
answered the question yet. He should have the information there if there was a supplementary estimate. If there was not, he is wrong, because the main estimate was $20.000. Next year, what was the amount paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: The same amount as the
previous year. Last year, 1923, the amount was $24,000.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
that the company did not do very well under that subsidy?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have just stated that the profit was $3,000 odd which represented 2| per cent on the capital invested.


Arthur Meighen: W'hich year?


Thomas Andrew Low: The boat cost $125,000 and the last report is for 1923 when they made $3,117.


Arthur Meighen: What did they make
the year before?


Thomas Andrew Low: They made $8,290.

Supply-Steamship Services


Arthur Meighen: What percentage would
that be?


Thomas Andrew Low: That would be 6 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: They were quite ready
to continue at the same subsidy.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no doubt they were
ready to continue at the same subsidy but we did not think that the service was a good one for 7,000 people isolated on an island for six months of the year.


Arthur Meighen: They were getting the
same in so far as the period of service was concerned; they were getting the same number per week. As far as the minister's information goes there was room for all passengers applying as well as for all freight, and there were no petitions.


Thomas Andrew Low: The note I have on this matter is as follows:
The R. W. Hendry was very unsatisfactory, with poor passenger accommodation, and weak engines, which gave her a speed only of about 7 or 8 knots, instead of the 12 knots promised by the contractor. Constant complaints have been received against her from the islands, both direct and through their member of parliament, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux. Her contract, which was for five years, 1921 to 1925, was accordingly cancelled early in 1923, and tenders were called for.
My hon. friend must bear in mind that the last contract was given for five years as against one that existed before of one year. My hon. friend's government made it five years.


Arthur Meighen: And you have doubled
that.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend gave a contract for five times the length of the other; we merely doubled the existing contract. If we had accepted the principle the previous government established we would have given a contract for twenty-five years.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend's type
of autocracy was just twice as bad as ours at its worst.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister informed me
that part of $65,000 had been saved on the Pacific coast and apparently that is the reason for increasing the cost of service on the Atlantic. Has there been any increase in the population? The simple fact is that the minister's colleague happens to come from Pictou. Why not be honest and say outright that the reason for this boat is that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) comes from that part of the country and needs patronage?
212i


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I understand that there was a discussion of this item while I was engaged in the Redistribution committee, and my hon. friend's reference to myself shows that there is a great misapprehension regarding this matter. This service connects with the mainland, part of the constituency represented by His Honour the Speaker (Mr. Lemieux),-known as the Magdalen islands which form a part of Gaspe which is represented in the House by the Speaker. This service has been maintained for fifty years between these islands and the mainland and the steamer calls at a port in the county I represent. I am sorry that the Speaker is not in the House at the moment. The agreement in connection with this matter was made before I had the honour of a seat in the cabinet and it was made largely at the request of His Honour-


Mr. ROBB:: And the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -and, as my colleague reminds me, of the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec as well, Hon. Mr. Caron.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Caron
represents the Magdalen islands in the Quebec legislature.


Arthur Meighen: I thought that possibly
the Minister of Agriculture in this government (Mr. Motherwell) had something to do with it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not as bad as that.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The people of the Magdalen islands are thrifty and progressive and they are largely engaged in the fisheries. Previous to the war there was maintained on the route a very fine boat, which rendered good service and for which a very large subsidy was paid. During the war, owing to the appropriation of practically all available vessels for war and other purposes, the service on this particular route deteriorated and the boat which replaced the former vessel was slow, unsafe and altogether most unsatisfactory. His Honour the Speaker and the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, supported by representatives of the local house, made certain representations, I understand, to the then minister, now Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), as to the desirability of securing a better boat. In consequence of those representations a subsidy was granted. It is quite impossible on the Atlantic seaboard, owing to the number of boats that were appropriated and which were
Supply-Steamship Services

sold during the war, to obtain a satisfactory-boat for service of this kind, and I understand that this contract was made with a view to having a boat specially built for the purpose. Personally I know very little about this matter, and I had very little to do with it. The provision was made not in the interests of the people in my constituency but for the accommodation of the people living on the Magdalen islands.


Arthur Meighen: The minister would except Mr. Fraser when he says that it is not in the interests of the people of his constituency; it would be in the interests of Mr. Fraser.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me repeat that I did not know that this contract was made until the whole thing had been arranged. I was not in the government when the arrangement was made, and the mere fact that a gentleman named Fraser w'ho lives in my constituency and who has been connected with the service in the past, received a contract from my right hon. friend's government, should not prohibit him from entering into a new contract for the purpose of providing a new boat.


Mr. HANSON:: Does the hon. member suggest that the service requires the accommodation which is contemplated by the building of a new boat by the Lovat Steamship Company? It is true that the Hendry was not fit for the service; every one is agreed on that. She did not have the proper or necessary passenger accommodation, nor did she have the proper sanitary conveniences. But the department has gone out of its way to assist in financing the building of a new boat. Any one who is familiar with the newspapers in Nova Scotia-


Thomas Andrew Low: In what way has the department gone out of its way to assist in the financing of the boat? We knew absolutely nothing about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: First of all the department has entered into a ten-year contract at more than double the preceding subsidy. The last subsidy was $24,000 and the contract was for five years.


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract was only for one year in the first instance and my right hon. friend increased it to five years. Surely we are not to be condemned merely for having doubled the length of the last contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I believe this matter will
bear a good deal of scrutiny. In order to finance the building of the boat bonds were issued and sold by the Eastern Securities Company, and the subsidies under this con-

tract were assigned as security for the bondholders. In that way they were able to finance the undertaking. Now, the government might as well have built the boat in the first instance and owned it. The effect of this arrangement will simply be that the country will in ten years have contributed $500,000, which, I am informed, will be more than the cost of the ship. The subsidy being spread over a period of ten years wall cover the bond issue, and the bonds have been sold in eastern Canada on the strength of the subsidy and on nothing else. The whole thing looks to me as though the government were endeavouring to buy a boat for its friends, the Lovat Steamship Company, otherwise Mr. William Fraser of New Glasgow, and Mr. Ralph Hendry, the prospective Liberal candidate in the city of Halifax.


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Hendry is not an officer of
that company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was an officer of the
Lov^t Steamship Company up to a very recent date.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not state it positively, but I am informed that he is not in the company now. But why should my hon. friend say that this subsidy is intended simply to assist political friends of the government? Would he say that the successful tenderer before was a political friend of the then government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, he was an enemy.


Arthur Meighen: We did not go on that
principle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister will look
up the correspondence in connection with the subsidy contract he will find that representations were made to his department in 1923 that these gentlemen must have a ten-year contract in order to finance the building of the boat, and the department yielded to their representations, although as a matter of fact the service never was worth $50,000; the service is simply worth what was paid for it by previous governments. The best service ever rendered was by the Lady Sybil.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me remind my hon. friend
that it has been the custom for years to ask tenderers to name the minimum number of years of the contract and the tenderers in this case named ten years. The other tenderer named a similar term.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not a copy of the
other tender, but it is quite apparent that this is a departure from the former practice; the contract for this service before was never for a ten-year period.

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: But there was a one-year contract for a number of years, which was eventually increased to five years, but not by this government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that this was
made a ten-year contract in order to finance the building of the boat. I do not think that these subsidies should be on such a scale as to render it possible.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's):: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend should give consideration to the size of the boat and the speed required, when he will readily see that the subsidy will not go far towards financing the building of the new boat. There was complaint of the service given by the old boat, which was small, only 400 tons. The new boat is to be about 700 tons, and will require more power to drive her. She is also to have passenger accommodation, which the old boat did not have. All of us who have had any experience in the running of boats know that the largest item of expense is coal, and when you double the size of the boat and double her speed, it is obvious that the increased expense will amply warrant the increase in subsidy. The old boat could not make the trip under thirty hours; this boat is supposed to make it in fifteen.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister
say that the old boat took thirty hours to make the trip while the new boat will make it in fifteen?


John Ewen Sinclair: I am quoting
the statement made by the minister.


Arthur Meighen: He said the old boat
took fifteen hours in good weather and thirty hours in bad.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And he never
said what the speed of the new boat would be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. member
for Queen's says is very plausible, but let me point out what the Eastern Securities Company gave to the public last spring.


Thomas Andrew Low: In order to save time, I may
inform my hon. friend that we have already had it' read to the House.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad it was read,
but I was not here.


Arthur Meighen: It will bear repetition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Like the hon. Minister of
National Defence, I was attending to my duties on the Redistribution bill. According to the prospectus, the new steamship was being constructed in Paisley, Scotland, under contract for the opening of navigation in 1924. The underwriters state:
This ship is being built in compliance with a subsidy contract-


Thomas Andrew Low: We have heard it before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You will hear it again,
please.
-entered into between Mr. William Fraser and the government of the Dominion of Canada.
I may say that the subsidy contract has been assigned to the Lovat Steamship Company.
-under which the contractor is entitled to an annual subsidy of $50,000, payable annually for ten years, commencing with the opening of navigation in 1924. The payments under this subsidy will extend beyond the longest maturity of the bonds.
That is to say, the subsidy will finance the proposal.
All payments under the subsidy are to be assigned to the company and by the company to the trustee, and the trust deed will provide that from these moneys the trustee will in t ach year pay the amount of the interest and principal that may be payable in that year and will pay over the balance remaining to the company.	.	1
I submit that although this seems to be a profitable arrangement for the company, it is not in the interests of the Dominion exchequer, and that the subsidy is altogether too large for the service. It may be that the boat is too big for the service, but the net result will be that out of the subsidy the owners will own the boat and1 besides will have had a substantial profit.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does my hon. friend mean to insinuate that you can get a company to operate a boat without profit?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not require
answering.


John Ewen Sinclair: No, I do not think it does.


Arthur Meighen: Before the Minister of
National Defence came in the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that he did not know whether or not Mr. Fraser was the right or left bower of the Minister of Defence.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, my right hon. friend suggested that Mr. Fraser was the right bower of -the minister. I said I did not know whether he was his right or left bower.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Maybe we can
get which he was from the minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is
neither.
Supply-Steamship Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: He may be the joker, and take all the tricks.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I was not present when
this discussion started, but I find there is apparently an increase of $26,000 in this vote. I have no objection to the increase if it is necessary to better the service in question. But last year and preceding years I had occasion to interview the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the necessity of establishing a winter service between Murray Bay and Tadoussac in my constituency, and at that time numerous petitions and telegrams were forwarded to the government by people living in that part of the country urging the establishment of such a service. As a matter of fact, a few years ago when I was in opposition I succeeded in obtaining from the late government a service during 1920 and 1921.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But the service was discontinued when the steamer Champlain was sold. When I made representations to the government for the resumption of the service the hon. minister told me that this year there was not enough money available to finance such a proposal. The subsidy was a very small one, running to about $15,000 or $20,000, but we were given to understand that there was not enough money available to establish that service. How is it then, that money is found to increase so largely the service given under -this item in another province?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
hon. member did not know exactly how to go about it. He should go to somebody in the business wrho understands this sort of thing. He should go to Mr. Fraser, or somebody like Mr. Fraser.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will go to the head
of the department and those who -are responsible. I do not go to outsiders.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a good deal in what my hon. friend says. There is a section which is not reached by any railway communication, although it is fairly well populated. Tadoussac is entirely cut off; the people there have to cross the Saguenay, which is extremely difficult at all times, and during part of the year practically impossible.


Mr. CANNON:: That section does not
count.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently not. but I think it ought to.


Lucien Cannon: I think so myself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I happened to
have something to do with seeing that a service was given there. When I was at Tadoussac in 1919-and a charming and picturesque place it is-I found the people unanimous in the view that something should be done. Rightly or wrongly I thought there was a place where service should be given, and we supported that view and acted accordingly. It was really a smaller matter than my hon. friend thinks. On the other side of the river we have the Intercolonial railway; further up the river we have the branch running down to Murray Bay. As I recall it we used to maintain a service on the south side of the river. When I went there I found that the Champlain was not doing very much and that she, might just as well give this service as not. The result was that mails were got in, -contact with the outside world was kept up, and the cost was small. I regret to hear that that service has been discontinued.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no objection to stating exactly what I said to the hon. member (Mr. Casgrain) in regard to this matter. It is true that he called at my office and asked for a subsidy varying from $25,000 to $40,000 a year. He asked me to open up a new service but I told him that in the present state of the finances of the country we hesitated to do that, and I declined to agree, to the subsidy. I think the committee will bear me out in that stand. These subsidies that have been granted for forty or fifty years we appear to have to continue. For some reason, once a subsidy is granted it must be kept up; at least it has been the custom of governments in the past to continue them. I told my hon. friend that when the finances of the country were in a better condition I would be very glad to look into the matter, and if it is my pleasure to be in charge of the Trade and Commerce department when that time comes I shall be only too pleased to give consideration to the request he has made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When do you expect that will be?


Arthur Meighen: The minister now takes the ground that once a route is established it has got to stay and if it is not established the people have got to do without anything until the country gets richer.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I do not take that stand. I say that once we grant a subsidy, in almost every case it has to remain. Certain subsidies have been cut off, but it is very hard

Supply-Steamship Services
to eliminate them. My right hon friend will know that from experience; once the people in any part of the country get a certain thing they seem to take it for granted that it is going to continue for all time.


Arthur Meighen: It is difficult, I know, to discontinue a subsidy, but surely it would be better to maintain a subsidy and a service on a basis that has proved good enough for years rather than to double that at the price of denying other people any means of getting in and out at all. I have pointed out that in his own estimates the minister has $42,000 abandoned; I will ask later what this $42,000 was applied to previously. I know something about the Tadoussac service, although the route was established before I came in and consequently the petition was not presented to me. But I hope I will be forgiven if I call attention to something the late government did undertake on behalf of chat district, in the face of the bitterest possible antagonism from some hon members whom I see in front of me now. I refer to the extension of railway service into that district, the rescue from wreckage of the Quebec and Charlevoix railway and the placing of it in a position actually to serve the whole north shore. I was glad to hear the generous words of the hon member (Mr. Casgrain) in the House on one of the branch line bills, in which he paid tribute to the excellent results that had been achieved by that policy I could not help thinking at the time of the attitude then taken by many hon. members who pretended to be very much concerned about the people of that district but who abused us for all the efforts we made to serve them; especially of the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) who was so disgusted with what we were undertaking on behalf of the district that he rose in his place, declared that our conduct and our policy was reprehensible, and left the House.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The chief objection I take to this subsidy contract is that it was entered into and negotiated by the minister or his predecessor in office long before the boat was in existence. Secondly, the boat iu question, if she lives up to the advance notices, is far beyond what the service requires. This is a weekly service, as I understand it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Twice a week.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, does the minister say that in the winter a twice a week service is required?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated half a dozen times that the islands are isolated for six months of the year. I am sorry that the Redistribution committee is meeting this afternoon, otherwise the discussion or. this item would be over by this time. Unfortunately each member of the committee as he comes in has to make a speech on the subject. I do not object to that, of course, but I am sorry those hon. members were not here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister had been
in the Redistribution committee instead of here, he might have made more progress with public business than he is making here. The government is financing the building of this boat, and that is contrary to public policy. What has the minister to say about it? The subsidy was granted to Mr. Fraser personally, and he thereupon organized a joint stock company and assigned the subsidy to the company, and then subsequently the subsidy was assigned to the trustee, under the trust deed, for the benefit of the bond holders and the prospectus of the underwriters says that this is going to pay the whole thing.


Thomas Andrew Low: The prospectus also says, if my hon. friend had read a little further, that they hope the freight traffic will increase by 50 per cent, and the passenger traffic by 100 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: But that is in addition
to getting full pay for the boat from the government. That is velvet on top of the other.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have control over the rates, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that these people who are shut off from the mainland for six months of the year are entitled to the very best service we can give them during the months when there is an opportunity to communicate with the mainland.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is another feature,
and that is the service between Pictou and Souris. Does the minister think it is good policy that there should be any more competition with the car ferry or the Prince Edward Island railway than there is to-day, and that the government should subsidize a private concern to enter into competition with the Canadian National Railways? That is a matter of policy upon which I would like to hear the minister express an opinion.


John Ewen Sinclair: The call at
Souris is a help to the Canadian National
Supply-Steamship Services

Railways. A great deal of through traffic from the mainland goes to Souris and is picked up there by this boat and taken to the Magdalen island, and freight is taken back. It is benefit to the Canadian National Railway's, rather than competition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is freight for the
Magdalen islands?


John Ewen Sinclair: And freight
for the mainland as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not follow the argument.


Arthur Meighen: How could it be for the mainland?


John Ewen Sinclair: From the
Magdalen islands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister serious in
that? The broad gauge has not been extended to Souris.


John Ewen Sinclair: But there is a railway there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With a narrow gauge, and the freight would have to be trans-shipped at Souris and handled again at Charlottetown.


John Ewen Sinclair: It does not
make any difference whether the railway is broad gauge or narrow gauge; it has to be trans-shipped from the boat to the railway just the same.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there would be no
carload lots trans-shipped in that way.


John Ewen Sinclair: It makes no
difference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It means all this extra
handling at Souris and again at Charlottetown. I would ask how much traffic goes that way from the Magdalen islands?


John Ewen Sinclair: The extra
handling does not add to the freight. The shipper gets the same rate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it adds to the cost
for the National Railways. I do not see how it is of any benefit to them. The National Railways could get the freight at Pictou.


Thomas Andrew Low: This is a condition that exists, and there is no way of changing it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will have
time between now and eight o'clock to bring

down copies of the letters which were written to these ship owners inviting them to tender, so that we can get the names, the dates and so forth.


Thomas Andrew Low: If the item carries I will agree to bring that down.


Arthur Meighen: It will not carry now,
until that is done, although I do not purpose myself delaying the passing of the item.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Andrew Low: Before the committee rose at six o'clock I promised the right hon. leader of the opposition that I would lay on the table a list of the parties to whom the forms calling for tenders were sent and a copy of the tender, and I now comply with that request.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the item to be passed till I have time to go through this list. What I have gone through is not very illuminating. The call for tenders was sent to the secretaries of the boards of trade of Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, Pictou and Charlottetown. I wonder whether they were sent to the hospitals in these places.


Thomas Andrew Low: Surely my hon. friend would not object to having these forms sent to the secretaries of the boards of trade in these different, cities?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what good it would do.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend never had any dealings with boards of trade.


Arthur Meighen: Not very much. I do not quite understand what they are sent there for. These forms were also sent to the Deputy Postmaster General at Ottawa, to the vice president of the Canadian National Railways, and to Mr. Teakle, manager of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, in case he would want to build another boat probably. They were also sent to Major Bell. I do not know that very much information can be obtained from this list. However, I have not had time to go through it.


Thomas Andrew Low: Twenty-five or thirty other names are mentioned.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but why they would be sent to these people I do not know.

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: I cannot understand my hon. friend objecting to them being sent to the secretaries of the boards of trade. They are some of the persons to whom the forms certainly should be sent.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest to the minister that unless some hon. member wishes to discuss this item, he should go on with another item till I get time to read these papers. I cannot read them in a second.
Item stands.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington and other ports on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, steam service between, $85,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Better tell us something about this service?


Thomas Andrew Low: This is a weekly service between Quebec and the north shore.


Hugh Guthrie: How long has it been in
existence?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have the record here for about ten years, but I understand the service has been in existence for twenty-five or thirty years.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Who has this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Clarke Steamship Company.


François Jean Pelletier: How many trips do
they make during the season?


Thomas Andrew Low: One trip a week.


François Jean Pelletier: How much of this
amount is being paid for the transportation of mails?


Thomas Andrew Low: The boats are compelled to
carry the mails free. There is no special item for the mail service. We insist upon them carrying the mails.


Hugh Guthrie: How many boats are
there? The item is $85,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: Two boats.


Hugh Guthrie: One trip a week?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, it is a long trip.


Mr. DOUCET:: How many trips is the
boat supposed to make, in order to qualify for the subsidy?


Thomas Andrew Low: One trip a week during the season of navigation.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Is there a check made on
those trips?


Thomas Andrew Low: Certainly.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My reason for bringing
this matter before the committee is that I realize quite well that the people on the north shore are entitled to a good service but we often read in the press statements that they are not getting the service desired. If they get a weekly service while navigation is open there is certainly no cause for complaint. It seems to me that when the large sum of $85,000 is paid as a subsidy for that service pains should be taken to see that a weekly trip is made while navigation is open.


Thomas Andrew Low: The customs officers certify
to the number of trips.


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that the season
of navigation does not last much more than six months, say twenty-five weeks. If the total number of trips made is twenty-five $85,000 seems to be a rather enormous subsidy.


Thomas Andrew Low: Each trip is approximately
809 miles.


François Jean Pelletier: When does this contract expire?


Thomas Andrew Low: 1931.


François Jean Pelletier: When was it made?


Thomas Andrew Low: 1922.


François Jean Pelletier: Is it customary for
the department to give ten-year contracts?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is done occasionally, but it
is not customary.


Mr. MILLAR:: In 1922 how many tenders
were put in?


Hugh Guthrie: Who holds the contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Clarke Steamship Company. The contract was running and the company agreed to improve the service.


François Jean Pelletier: If the company make
the trip on time, do they always make a trip each week?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


François Jean Pelletier: Is the minister aware
that last August the North Shore left the north shore with the mails, took a cargo and went to St. Pierre Miquelon? By doing that they were eight days late in arriving at Quebec. According to my information this has been done twice.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have had no complaint
about the service and if my hon. friend knew of any violation of the contract it was his duty to file a complaint.
Supply-Steamship Services


François Jean Pelletier: I learned of this just
a short time ago, and even though I had known of it and had interviewed my hon. friend before the opening of this session, I do not believe it would have done me any good. I remember full well the occasion when I went to him to try to get a subsidy for a company that is now operating between Matane and! the north shore. I am very sorry, but I must say that the way in which I was received could be compared' with the treatment of a dog in a bowling alley. My hon. friend was so busy that he could not take time to listen to me so that I might tell him what I wanted. He told me that it was absolutely unnecessary for me to go to that trouble. I had petitions from different companies on the north shore, and he did not even give me an opportunity to show them to him. There were some from the Ontario Pulp and Paper Company, the St. Regis Paper Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. One of these petitions was signed by 89 others, and another by 62 others, and they asked that the mail be taken to Matane by rail and then from there by water to the north shore. The minister is giving a subsidy of $85,000 to the Clarke Steamship Company for the number of trips that they make and he has given them a contract for ten years, thereby eliminating any competitors for that period. We are now improving the harbour at Matane and making an attempt to serve those people and serve them well. Now that the people on the north shore are asking to come to Matane, I fail to see why the subsidy that I asked for cannot be granted. It seems to me that if my hon. friend will think this matter over and endeavour to be fair, as I hope he will be, and give the people who are asking for accommodation, the facilities they require, he will put into the supplementary estimates a certain amount so that the people who are now going from Matane to the north shore will have an opportunity of continuing their work. Will my hon. friend even dream of putting an amount in the supplementary estimates for that purpose?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry to hear an hon.
member speak in that way because if there is one minister who tries to see everybody, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sure, when I tell the committee that I had interviews on three different occasions with the hon. member, he cannot claim that he was shown any discourtesy. I did not turn him over to one of my officials, I spoke to him myself about the matter, as I always feel that members are anxious to interview the

minister himself. If he did not have time to present his case, as he says he had not, in three visits, that is not my responsibility. I have upon every occasion shown the hon. member the greatest courtesy in anything that he has laid before me, and I am prepared to do so in the future as I have done in the past. The hon. member has absolutely no grounds for making the statement that I did not appear to have time to discuss the matter with him.


François Jean Pelletier: Such is the case for
I remember full well what occurred. The reason I applied to the minister was that I wanted to come to the assistance of the people of my district and the people on the north shore as well. As the matter stands to-day the freight is being taken down by rail oh the Canadian National railway and on the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway to Matane, thence by water to the north shore. The mail is all being taken over to Matane. The other vessel is not taking it down from Quebec. These companies have boxes in the post office at Matane where they receive their mail and it is being taken across by our boats. The Clarke Steamship Company is receiving the subsidy and the others are doing the work. I do not believe that is altogether fair and just.


Thomas Andrew Low: I drew to the attention of the hon. member at the time, as he will remember, the fact that there was a railway service to Matane; that a dock was being built by the government and that I thought in view of the expenditure that was being made in his riding, he should at least wait before pressing his request until the finances of the country were in a better condition than they are now.


François Jean Pelletier: At the same time if
what I asked had been granted to me, we would have come to the assistance of all those people and as well we would have aided in the development of that district.


Thomas Andrew Low: I might also remind my hon.
friend that if we had responded to all the claims we had1 from members of this House we probably should not have had a surplus this year.


Arthur Meighen: That is the best joke
yet.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it usual to let contracts of this kind for ten years? My impression is that steamship contracts are usually let for periods of from three to five yearn.

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated at least
six times to-day that it is not the usual thing to let these contracts for ten years, but the custom was established under my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: Oh no. The minister
cannot fetch one contract which was let for a period of ten years while we were in power.


Thomas Andrew Low: As I pointed out to the
leader of the opposition this afternoon, the contract was always let for one year previous to the time he came into power. His government made it five years and we merely doubled that. In other words, he increased the usual period five times whereas we simply double the length of time he established. It is not the usual thing to let these contracts for ten years; it is only under exceptional circumstances that this has been done.


Hugh Guthrie: This contract I understand was made in 1922, the first year this government wias in power. What were the exceptional circumstances that made it necessary to increase the time to ten years? Will the minister at the same time say whether the Clarke Steamship Company is the same company which is operating in timber and pulp wood in Quebec?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no knowledge of that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the name of the
ship?


Thomas Andrew Low: There are two, the North Shore and the Labrador.


John Millar: Can the minister answer
my question now as to how many tenders were received when the contract was let? And what was the next highest tender?


Thomas Andrew Low: The negotiations were carried
on with the minister iand the contract was renewed without tender.


John Millar: That means that this
contract was renewed for a longer period without tenders being called for?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was negotiated by the former minister for ten years.


John Millar: Without any tenders?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes. I might tell the hon.
gentleman that these contracts contain a provision that parliament may decline to vote the amount any year.


Arthur Meighen: That is a wonderful advantage for parliament to have, and it is astonishing that the minister should protect parliament in that way.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is a protection for the
people.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is protectionist all right; he reserves to parliament the right to vote the money each year. The fact of the matter is that when a contract is made, especially in a case like this where bonds are sold on the strength of that contract, it is just as easy for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle as it is for parliament to get out of its undertaking. The predecessor of my hon. friend adopted the habit, and I presume that for similar reasons the rotating system is adopted of changing ministers before the next estimates come along so that the actual minister can plead that he is guiltless.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not pleading that at all;
I am willing to stand behind the former minister.


Arthur Meighen: That is all very well,
but it is altogether different attacking a minister's successor from attacking the minister himself who did all these things. The government has entered into a contract for ten years, in all probability binding future governments, and in so doing it is launching upon a course which neither it nor anyone else can defend. A five year contract is wholly different; it can only extend a short time into the term of the ensuing government or parliament. But ten years is a comparatively indefinite period, and for the government to tie the hands of parliament for ten years is without any defence at all. I notice too that in calling for tenders the government does not say that the contract is for so many years; it is left open so that the government may take whichever contract it chooses and say it is the best. The whole thing is open for the government to put its hands upon its favourites here, there and everywhere. Here is a case in which the government renewed the contract for ten years.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me correct the hon. member before he goes further. During his regime there was used the same form of advertisement for tenders as is used to-day; the number of years was not stated in it but it was left to the contractor to say for how long he would undertake the service.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows that
previous to this government's coming into
335o
Supply-Steamship Services

power no contract was ever let for a period of ten years; he himself admits that five years was the longest term of any contract up to that time. Now he has let a contract for ten years and he puts the advertisement in such shape that the government can fix a period of five or ten years as it sees fit; it can say that the advantage in having a contract for five years is that it will overcome some difficulty or other, or on the other hand that the ten-year contract will be advantageous in some other respect. As a matter of fact it simply does away with competition.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would ask my right hon.
friend whether it is better to have a wide open contract or one in which the number of years is stated.


Arthur Meighen: Ordinarily the contract
was just for one year.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: It appears to me, as I
think it should appear to the committee, that it must be very poor satisfaction to the people on that shore who could get a proper service from Matane to be told that, because the government which was in office prior to 1921 adopted a certain system, therefore it must now be followed. If the government previous to 1921 did not do what was exactly right in any respect there is no reason why this government should follow suit. If this contract had been let for five years only it would expire in 1927 and the department could then call for a new contract to give a satisfactory service to the people of Matane and Nat-ashquan. As it is they are subsidizing this other route whereas a better service could' be secured.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the policy of the department now when these contracts expire to renew them for periods of ten years? If that is not the policy, what is the justification in the case of this vote for the Magdalen islands service, no tenders having been called for ? This is a matter of principle.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me correct the hon. gentleman; the contract was not let without a tender in the case of the Magdalen islands. It -S not the policy of the government to renew* lontracts for ten years, but there are exceptional cases where the circumstances render contracts of that period unavoidable. The ordinary man will not invest a large sum of money in a service for only one year; he will undertake it only if he can secure a contract for a number of years.

Ml*. HANSON: That is the statement with regard to the north shore service, which does require a good type of boat, and the North Shore is a splendid boat. But why a ten-year contract? Is it to suit the convenience- of the contractor-a matter of assistance to him; or is it now the settled policy of the government in such cases?


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend say that
the term was extended in order to assist some-individual or company?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why it is all assistance.
All these subsidies are assistance. What else are they?


Thomas Andrew Low: These are the same contractors who were awarded the earlier contracts for this service by the previous government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the case of the Magdalen islands boat the subsidy was not only to assist, it was to finance the whole undertaking. There is no doubt the bonds were sold on the strength of the subsidy and on nothing else; the underwriters would not have been able to sell the bonds otherwise, because the only guarantee that the bondholders would have that their interest would be paid regularly and the principal met at maturity w'as in the subsidy. And1 not only that, the subsidy itself is part of the security of the bondholders.


Thomas Andrew Low: Surely my hon. friend will not charge the government with knowing anything about the bond issue at all. As a matter of fact I understand there has been a bond issue of 8500,000, if I heard my hon. friend correctly this afternoon. The proceeds of that issue will help the contractors to carry out their contract. A short time ago I received a tender from well recognized shipowners who have been in receipt of the subsidy for the service to the West Indian islands for a number of years. If I remember rightly they asked that they be given a contract for ten years. We have the matter under consideration now. But it is not an unusual thing where a large amount is invested in the boat for a contractor to decline to assume the responsibility of such an investment as the capital required for a large boat, unless some assurance is forthcoming of a contract for a period of years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Apparently the minister is not very familiar with the details. If he confers with the officers of his department he will find that in the case of the Lovat Steamship Company the minister was consulted at every turn. As a matter of fact, he had given his consent to the assignment of the subsidy contract.

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The file shows that the
department was kept informed of every step that was being taken. It contains a record of correspondence between the department and the solicitors of the underwriters with respect to the assignment of the subsidy as security for the bonds, so that the government might be said to have been parties to the whole transaction.


Thomas Andrew Low: I know only of the letter asking us to agree to the assigning of the contract to the Lovat Steamship Company, and a further letter asking us if the assignment had been completed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did not the minister have
to consent?


Lucien Cannon: What contract is my hon. friend referring to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The contract with the
Lovat Steamship Company.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend not know that that item has been passed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: When was the item passed?


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is out of
order; we are on item 203.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has 202 been passed?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, it stands. Does
203 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: We will revert to item 202, Pictou, Souris and Magdalen islands, steam service between, 850,000.
Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: I was waiting for the
hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmoreney (Mr. Casgrain) to renew his protest.
Mr. CANNON. He has eaten since.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have no objection to
the vote passing. I am satisfied that I shall get the Murray Bay-Tadoussac service next year.


Arthur Meighen: I thought something had
happened.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Nothing has happened.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not had the pleasure of seeing my hon. friend since six o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: It might be done otherwise; these transformations take place rapidly.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not being familiar with politics,
I do not know how such transformations are effected.


Arthur Meighen: I have learned from
observation. For how many years was the other tender of 850,000, and from whom?


Thomas Andrew Low: Ten years; from Young and
Burchell of Sydney.


Arthur Meighen: For how long was the
tender for 824,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: One year. That was for the old boat.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister see what they would do it for if they got it for ten years with the chance to sell their bonds on the faith of the tender?


Thomas Andrew Low: No purpose would have been served by such a course, the boat was not at all suitable for the service.


Arthur Meighen: Did the boat comply with the stipulations which were sent out?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Arthur Meighen: In what respect did it not?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was a very slow boat, seven or eight knots an hour.


Arthur Meighen: What did the tender form specify?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract was for ten knots.


Arthur Meighen: No; I am asking what did the request for tenders stipulate.


Thomas Andrew Low: It did not so state, but the contract was specific.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing was said in the request for tenders? They would not know what the contract was to be until after the tender had been accepted.


Thomas Andrew Low: The department thought the boat offered by the former contractors was not suitable for the service and the terms of contract offered were not acceptable. It had the right to refuse the tender. The rejection of this boat for this service necessitated the original call for tenders. They undertook to operate at a speed of twelve knots per hour.


Arthur Meighen: That is the tenderers?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, the contractors under the contract.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, doing business that way the minister can give the contract
Supply-Steamship Services

to whom he likes. He asks for tenders, but he does not stipulate the speed of the boat. Then when he gets a tender offering to operate a boat at a certain speed, he puts in the contract that the boat must have that speed, and he awards that tenderer a ten-year contract at more than twice the rate that has prevailed for years. What traffic was carried this year? We have had this new boat in operation for considerably over a year now.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is not in operation yet.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, it is still being built?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes; the subsidy is being paid on the 824,000 basis.


Arthur Meighen: According to the contract the boat should have been in operation. Surely things are not frozen up there yet?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contractors are operating the service with the old boat until the new one is ready, at the same rate as heretofore, $24,000.


Arthur Meighen: Then they have not fulfilled the contract. Under the contract they were to start with the new boat at the opening of navigation.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my right hon. friend knows that there have been several dock and shipbuilding strikes in Scotland which naturally delayed the building of the boat?


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell us what freight and passengers were carried this past year? I want to see how the new boat gets along.


Thomas Andrew Low: I gave the latest return to my hon. friend this afternoon. I think he will find it in Hansard to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: I never heard any return as to the passengers and freight carried, except for the years previous. For that year the figures were these: Passengers, 1,313; freight, 6,380 tons; live stock, 8; bags of mail, 4,003. The number of trips made was 59 and the subsidy paid $24,000. Can the minister give the corresponding figures for the year past.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall give the same figures that I gave this afternoon: Number of passengers carried, 1,675; tons of freight, carried, 4,009; live stock, 70; mail bags: locked, 2,734; tied sacks, 1,902.


Arthur Meighen: Doing less business than the year before.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is accounted for by the poor service

the very boat we have been discussing all afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot understand it, because the year before it carried 6,380 tons of freight, this year 4,000 odd. If it could carry 6,000 the year before it could carry 6,000 this year if the freight was offered.


Thomas Andrew Low: Last year it went by schooner and gasoline boat.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any
more of these contracts pending-$50,000 contracts to political favourites?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend has a complete list of the subsidies that are proposed for this session. There may be a few in the supplementary estimates, but he has the main estimates before him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec or Montreal, and Gaspe and ports on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, steam sendee between, $30,000.
François Jean Pelletier: Who has this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Clarke Steamship Company of Quebec.


François Jean Pelletier: How many trips do they make a season?


Mr.   LOAV@: Every two weeks.


François Jean Pelletier: I learned on the 12th of May of this year that last summer they used this boat for service on the north shore to Cape Breton and left the people without accommodation in the district that they should have served. The Tremblay, plying between Quebec or Montreal and Gaspe, did the work. Is it fair that the Clarke Steamship Company should receive the subsidy while the other parties do the work?


Thomas Andrew Low: The report received by the
department indicates that the Clarke Steamship Company are giving a good service. The Clarke Steamship Company's boat is much superior to the other boat.


François Jean Pelletier: Does my hon. friend
know that when the Tremblay was built I got a subsidy of $8,500 for that same boat, to go from Montreal to Gaspe? Afterwards the Clarke people leased the Tremblay and did the work, so the boat was good. WThy should it not be good now? A subsidy of $15,000 was asked for the Tremblay and was refused. Why pay $30,000 when the others are ready to do it for $15,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: The passenger accommodation on the Tremblay is very poor. It is generally speaking an inferior boat to that operated by the Clarke Steamship Company, at least so our officers report.

Supply-Steamship Services


François Jean Pelletier: Seemingly the Tremblay was giving satisfaction when the Clarke people leased it.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Tremblay was used simply because it was the best boat that could be obtained at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski and Pointe aux Outardes, service between, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is this a new one?


Thomas Andrew Low: The new contract commences
this year.


Arthur Meighen: Who was the member
powerful enough to get a new service when my hon. friend (Mr. Gasgrain) failed?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: The need of the country.


Thomas Andrew Low: This service was established
last year.


Arthur Meighen: It is a new contract,
though. If it were the member for Temis-couata I could understand it, but he is not the member for Rimouski. What was the need for this new contract when there was none needed for Tadoussac?


Thomas Andrew Low: The country is being developed rapidly and lumbering


Arthur Meighen: Is this the reward for
speeches in Rimouski?


Thomas Andrew Low: Speeches by myself? I have
not made any down there.


Lucien Cannon: It is to facilitate my right hon. friend's trip when he comes to meet the local member.


Arthur Meighen: That is very kind indeed. I hope, however, to be in the district and to disclose the simplicity of my life and the innocence of my character. I did read the last deliverance of the hon. member, but gauging it very much, I know, as the member for Dorchester did himself, I did not think it was worth a reply.


François Jean Pelletier: This is a newly
organized company, is it not?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is a new contractor-J. A.
Fafard.


François Jean Pelletier: When was the contract given?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is dated May 9, 1923.


François Jean Pelletier: Is it not a fact that
this company was organized only last winter?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no knowledge of the
organization of any company.


François Jean Pelletier: These people came
here after the opening of the session, and I find it rather strange that my hon. friend would go sixty miles further to give a subsidy to a company while refusing me what I came here to ask of him three weeks before the opening of the session.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He refused me, too.


Arthur Meighen: Cannot the minister
answer the question?


Thomas Andrew Low: What is the question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is the hon. member for Matane being turned down? He did not put it in just those words, but that was the substance of his question. He said that he was here three weeks before the House opened, and that he had a first rate case, but got no consideration, and that somebody sixty miles further away, with no case at all, got consideration, and he is appealing to the minister.


Thomas Andrew Low: The only answer I can give is that there is no political patronage in the department.


Arthur Meighen: It appears not to be a case of looking after the constituency, but of the ministers looking after themselves.


Thomas Andrew Low: Will my right hon. friend point to one case, just one, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce has looked after himself?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not any water in his riding, but the right bower case from Pictou looks suspiciously like it to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John and St. Andrews, calling at intermediate points, steam service between, $3,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice a decrease of
$1,000 in this item. I was not aware that the route was so profitable that the contractor could afford to get along with a reduced amount, but I commend the minister for saving $1,000 of the people's money. Is this the same company or a reorganized company?


Thomas Andrew Low: The same company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that it was current in the city of St. John and the county of Albert that the minister, or the department, had threatened to take away this subsidy altogether.
Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: I told them they could have the contract at a reduction of $1,000. They threatened to withdraw, and I simply stood #by my original decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What were the considerations that moved the minister to reduce it by $1,000? I would like to know how well run the department is.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is very simple. This company is showing a large profit, and I decided to cut down the subsidy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister is to be commended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John and Bridgetown, steam service between,
{1,000.
Arthur Meighen: What company has this service?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Bridgetown Steamship Company, of Bridgetown, N.S.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, that is in Lunenburg
county?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, in Annapolis county. I suppose my hon. friend noticed a reduction there of $500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John and Digby, steam service between, $15,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the Canadian
Pacific line from St. John to Digby?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never could understand why it was necessary to subsidize that line. It is part of the through Canadian Pacific route from Montreal to Nova Scotia, and I had always supposed from the very liberal patronage that the boat received 9 p.m. that it was a paying proposition; but I may be wrong about that. I quite agree that it is necessary to have a steamship service across the bay, and a daily service such as they give, and it is a very, very good service, but I cannot understand on what principle the subsidy is granted for that line. Is this in consideration of carrying the mails?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is one of the considerations. I might point out that the Canadian Pacific have had this contract for a number of years, and each year it has shown a large loss. They were paid $20,000 at one time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Hanson.l
St. John, Digby, Annapolis, and Granville along the west coast of Annapolis Basin, steam service between, $2,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What line is that?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Valley Steamship Company, and the steamer is the Granville.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John and ports on the Bay of Fundy and Minas Basin, steam service between, $8,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What boat is that, and between what points does she run?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contractors are the St.
John Steamship Company, and the steamer is the Glenholme. The service is between St. John and Windsor, calling each way at Canning, Wolfville and Cheverie.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How often is the service
performed?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is a weekly service during
navigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For how many months?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is all the year round there.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not in the Bay of Fundy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be interesting
news to the people of St. John, that the Bay of Fundy is not open all the year round.


Thomas Andrew Low: A boat can get into St. John,
but it would be impossible to reach these other points during the winter season.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many months in the year is the service operated?


Thomas Andrew Low: About seven months.	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: About how much per trip does it amount to?


Thomas Andrew Low: The minimum number of trips is twenty-six.


Lucien Cannon: Why should every company leaving St. John get a subsidy? There is a whole row of companies here operating from St. John to different points and getting subsidies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: St. John is a great metropolitan city.


Lucien Cannon: Then the traffic should be heavy enough for the boats to pay their own way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The benefit is not for St. John but for these little places in Nova Scotia.


Lucien Cannon: Why should they go to
these little ports in Nova Scotia? They ought

Supply-Steamship Services
co go to the larger ports and get freight and passengers enough to make the boats pay, instead of having to come to this government. In the province of Quebec we have not been able to get anything, on account of economy, but I notice the Maritime provinces get everything they want.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Even an increase.


Lucien Cannon: Increases too. I think
the whole system ought to be abolished.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: A great many
of these subsidies are granted, I understand, because the places touched by the steamer are not within reasonable distance of a railway. In the case under consideration, I understood the minister to say the connection was between St. John, Windsor, Wolfville and Canning. Now, it is well known that all these points are not only in daily touch with rail communication, but semi-daily, and it seems to me the necessity for an $8,500 subsidy for such a service does not exist.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would ask my hon. friend if
Maitland, Spencer's Island, Parrsboro, and Bass River can be reached by rail.


William Anderson Black: Parrsboro can.


Thomas Andrew Low: But not the others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John and Wedgeport, steam service between, $5,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Wedgeport.


Thomas Andrew Low: Down near Yarmouth, Nova
Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In Digby county?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The government keeps
up the wharves and docks, I suppose, at these places.	*


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I presume then that if
we have the Belle River wharf built there will be a subsidy to get in there. Has the government considered that?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is quite a fleet
running from Belle River.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Heavy traffic
all one way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John, Westport and Yarmouth and other way ports, steam service between, $10,000.
Thomas Andrew Low: Hugh Gann and Son, Limited, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and the contract is for one year. The service has been performed for a number of years and the subsidy has been paid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And renewed from year
to year?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why the discrimination
between Hugh Cann and Son and the Lovat Steamship Company? This company has a good boat and performs a useful service along the Nova Scotia shore. I do not see why the minister discriminates between this company and the Lovat company.


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract is from year to
year.


William Anderson Black: I was under the
impression that items 213 and 214 could very well be brought together, and if tenders were properly advertised, instead of renewing from year to year, the department could get offers for the two services with a reduction at least of a third. In other words, $10,000 should cover that whole service very easily.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be glad to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion into consideration when the matter comes up next year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What company performs
the Wedgeport service?


Thomas Andrew Low: The D. D. LeBlanc Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, steam service between, $9,000.
Lucien Cannon: How long has this service been in existence?


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been in existence many years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Bay St. Lawrence.


Thomas Andrew Low: On the north-east coast of
Cape Breton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, steam service between, $13,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us get an
explanation of Whycocomagh. Who has that service?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What company is this, Mr. LOW:	James T. Burchell, Sydney,
and when was the contract entered into? Nova Scotia.

Supply-Steamship Services


Henry Lumley Drayton: How long has
it been running?


Thomas Andrew Low: About twenty-five years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The same one?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, not with the same company. The service calls for three trips a week during the summer and two in the spring and fall.


Arthur Meighen: Was it $13,000 previously?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was the same amount last
year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What were the earnings last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: The department has not the
detailed statement of the earnings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For the year
before?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not got them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that go
as a matter of form, or are the earnings checked?


Thomas Andrew Low: They are checked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In what way? Is there
an independent audit of the accounts?


Thomas Andrew Low: Our inspector drafts an account of the earnings and sends it to the office.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What steps does the department take to ascertain if the character of the service is satisfactory? Do you have an inspector travelling incognito on these lines?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have a travelling inspector
who spends all his time at it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports and ports on the West coast of Cape Breton, steam service between, $18,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Tell us why the increase
of $4,000.


Arthur Meighen: Getting back to Pictou
again.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is because the contractor
refused to renew the contract at the same figure. By a statement which he furnished the department he showed a loss of $4,000.


Lucien Cannon: Were there any tenders?


Thomas Andrew Low: We negotiated with the same
contractor.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand the
minister to say the increase of $4,000 is because the company would not renew their contract at the same price, and their request was granted, without finding out whether the service could not be performed more cheaply by other companies?


Thomas Andrew Low: The steamship subsidy inspector verified the statement of the company and was satisfied that the company had lost $4,000 in operating last year, as they stated. They would not renew at the former figure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know if
the company who receive this subsidy does not also receive another subsidy for the same boats for another service, and that their total receipts now will be something like $22,000 a year in subsidies?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is another company and
another boat.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What method does the
department take to check up the statements of these companies?


Thomas Andrew Low: The statements have to be certified by a chartered accountant; otherwise they have to send in their statements with vouchers, and our accountant checks them up.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Would the minister tell
us what, service is performed on the Bras d'Or lakes and the west coast of Cape Breton and the name of the boat?


Thomas Andrew Low: The boat is the Bras d'Or and gives a weekly service from Sydney to North Sydney, Baddeck, Grand Narrows, East Bay, Big Pond, Irish Cove, Johnston's Harbour, Marble Mountain, St. Peter's, Grandique, Pou'lamond, L'Ardoise, Arichat, Mulgrave, Hawkesbury, Hastings, Port Hood, Margaree. Grand Etang and Cheticamp.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many trips does this boat make?


Thomas Andrew Low: Weekly trips during the season of navigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many months?


Thomas Andrew Low: About seven.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Perhaps the Bras d'Or lakes should be drained and a railway service put in.


Mr. MARTELL:: When the hon. member speaks about draining the Bras d'Or lakes, he should read literature. Charles W. Warner said that the Bras d'Or lakes were the finest salt water lakes in the world. They are noted

Supply-Steamship Services
for their beauty, and all along the shore of that body of water are to be found some of the hardy Scots of Nova Scotia than whom there is no better breed alive. Every one of those places is devoid of railway facilities. The people have no method by which they can get to market or leave their homes save with their own boats or by means of subsidized ferry system. If the people of Cape Breton were coming here and getting $100,000,000 voted for branch lines, there would be very little criticism from my hon. friends over there, but the unfortunate part of the matter is that when a small vote is being made for any portion of Nova Scotia, every person in the House from Dan to Beersheba stands up and endeavours to criticise the finest province in the world, the province that made confederation possible and which is to-day the milch cow for the rest of the Dominion.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Instead of draining the lake, I think a windbreak should be put up.


William Anderson Black: Item No. 190 is a local service between Halifax, South Cape Breton and Bras d'Or lake ports, for which $5,000 is voted. The sendee under discussion is between Sydney, which is practically at the entrance to the Bras d'Or lakes, and Bras d'Or lake ports, although not altogether the same ports, and $13,000 is being voted for this service. Why is there such a discrepancy? I am sure the distance covered by the steamer from Halifax is much greater than that covered by the steamer from Sydney.


Thomas Andrew Low: Halifax is asking for more service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there duplication in these services? I have no objection to these communities being served, because I know, as stated by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell), the justification for them is the fact that they have no railway communication, and they would not have any service at all if it were not for these subsidies. But there is always a suspicion in the mind of one who is not conversant with the locality that there may be an overlapping of service or that the same boat may be receiving two subsidies. Is there any suggestion of that character as regards any of these services along the coast?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know of one service duplicating another subsidized service.


Mr. DUFF:: I am rather surprised that
the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) should object to any subsidies being 213i
paid andi especially to this subsidy. The minister was good enough to read out the names of the ports at which this steamer calls and the hon. member should know exactly where those places are. Owing to the fact that this boat is on that service, a great deal of business is done by Halifax merchants and the hon. member is supposed to be in this House representing the people of Halifax. I am, therefore, surprised to hear him object to and criticise this service, because it is not in the interest of Halifax that he should do so. This boat gives a good service. She goes not only through the Bras d'Or lakes, but through the St. Peter's canal as well. She calls at Grandique, Poulamond, Arichat, Mulgrave, Hawkesbury and a number of other places in Cape Breton where there is no other communication, and I cannot understand an hon. gentleman who has been receiving subsidies from the government for fifty years getting up and objecting to this small amount.


William Anderson Black: I did not object to the subsidy, but I asked for an explanation of the discrepancy in these subsidies.


William Duff: There is no discrepancy.


William Anderson Black: I have not yet
received an answer from the minister.


William Duff: The hon. member heard what the minister said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection of subsidized steamship services, $4,500.
Arthur Meighen: Who is the inspector?


Thomas Andrew Low: Wilfrid Eddy Tupper, a gentleman who was appointed in the year 1912.


Arthur Meighen: Is he a good inspector?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give us the items making up the $42,000 which are discontinued?


Thomas Andrew Low: Canada and Newfoundland
sendee, $35,000. We found that the Newfoundland government had taken over the service and on account of that government running the service, we declined to continue it. The Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence service, $5,000, and the Cheticamp and Port Hawkesbury service, $2,000, were also discontinued. That makes in all $42,000, not required for 1924-25.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell us how much we have saved in subsidies on ae* count of the mercantile marine?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not that information by me now.


Arthur Meighen: Can you give me an approximate figure?


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be glad to get the
information and hand it to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: If possible we could let the item stand until we got that information. The amount of course would be calculated on the basis of the previous subsidy and not on t'he basis of the increased subsidies; it would not be on the basis of the scale that now prevails.


Thomas Andrew Low: We do not pay any subsidies to the mercantile marine.


Arthur Meighen: The country is entitled
to know in detail exactly what we receive now in subsidies on account of the mercantile marine.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend would ask
the Minister of Railways I am sure he would be able to get the information.


Arthur Meighen: I would venture a guess on that.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is the privilege of my right
hon. friend to guess on anything.


Arthur Meighen: The amount saved would be under the Department of Trade and Commerce and the minister's officials could get the information quickly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and Gas Inspection, including Export of Electric Power, $500; International Electrotechnical Oomtmission, $400, $181,295.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain this?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is an increase of $11,295 over the vote of last year and it is required to meet increased salaries and $2,000 for additional travelling expenses. The estimate of the salaries is $136,215; rent, fuel and travelling expenses, contractors and inspectors, amount to $44,180; on account of export of power, $500 and the International Electrotechnical Commission $400. The total expenditure for the year ending January 31, 1923 was $140,351.10 and the total revenue, $186,559.25, leaving a surplus of revenue over expenditure of $46,208.15.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has this service been
always self-supporting?


Thomas Andrew Low: For a number of years it has been almost entirely so.
[Mr. Meighen.}


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by "export of electrical power"?


Thomas Andrew Low: We grant a license to power companies and commissions in the different provinces to export power to the United States.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that power vested
entirely in the federal government? Have not the provincial governments similar power too?


Thomas Andrew Low: The power is vested in the
Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: What was the heading of this item last year? It is not the same this year.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know of any change from last year.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot locate the item in last year's estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not last year's estimates here but I do not think there is any change.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say that previously this $500 for the export of electric power and the $400 for the Electrotechnical Commission were included?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think this is a standing item; these amounts are included in the lump sum, the details of which I gave to my hon. friend. The amount expended in the twelve months of the past year was $156,702.26 and I am inclined to think that these sums are included in last year's estimate.


Arthur Meighen: It is not mentioned. When items are mentioned in this way it is usually for the purpose of handing the money to some one; otherwise they would not be mentioned specifically as these two items are in this estimate. There is no mention of them in last year's estimates. I wonder that the minister does not realize just what the significance of that is. The amounts are not large but the principle is one that should be avoided.


Thomas Andrew Low: If the hon. member will allow the item to stand a moment I shall have the information.


Mr. HODGINS:: Is any revenue derived from the export of electricity?


Thomas Andrew Low: No. Perhaps my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) might allow the item to pass on the understanding that I will get the information before the evening is over.


Arthur Meighen: I think it would be better if the minister would let the item stand.


Thomas Andrew Low: This item has appeared for
many years. It is for the purpose of paying the engineers to inspect power plants exporting power to the United States. The $400 to the International Electrotechnical Commission is our contribution to the expenses of maintenance of the head office of the commission in London, England. There are thirty contributing countries.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not
made the slightest explanation. His assistant was not in when I called attention to the point. Last year the item appears as follows :
Gas and electricity inspection.
Just those four words, with the amount. Now the item appears:
Electricity and gas inspection, including export of electric power, $500; International Electrotechnical Commission, $400.
These must be new or they would not be specially mentioned. When the amounts are put in separately it is a bad principle; it is done for a special purpose.


Thomas Andrew Low: The wording of the item is
slightly different from what it was last year, but my right hon. friend need not be at all suspicious. There is no desire to conceal anything. It is exactly the item which was included in the total vote of last year.


Arthur Meighen: I hope I will soon be
where I have not to take the government on trust. I have prepared estimates myself-


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no doubt.


Arthur Meighen: -and I never remember a case where a deputy or other official wanted to put in an item in that way that there was not some special reason for it. There is a reason for the change all right. The minister does not know it, I am satisfied of that.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend says I
do not know the reason.


Arthur Meighen: I give him credit for not knowing the reason, because I am sure if he knew it he would tell me.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have stated to my right hon. friend as clearly as possible what the $500 and the $400 stand for. I have told him that the $500 was to pay a portion of the engineers' salaries while they are inspecting the hydro-electric plants that export power to the United States. I have also told him that the $400 is to pay our portion of the expenses of maintaining the head office of the com-
18, 1924	3365
Supply-Trade and, Commerce
mission in the city of London, England, to which expenses thirty countries contribute. Can I make it any plainer to the right hon. gentleman?


Arthur Meighen: I presume someone is
getting the money, but the point I made is not answered yet. There is no need whatever for having the amount put in separately according to the explanation given by the minister. What I say is, it would not be set out separately were it not essential to do so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this not a way to get around the classification of the Civil Service Commision in order to pay the inspector $400 more than his classification?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is to cover travelling expenses, and only a little over $200 was used last year. It is true the item is worded a little differently from what it was last year, but if we wanted to conceal anything the amount would not be mentioned. The accountant prepared the 'wording. Why he changed it from the form used last year I do not know, but I have explained for what purpose the item is intended. My right hon. friend knows enough about the preparation of estimates to be aware that it is impossible to spend money except for the purpose for which it is stated to be required.


Arthur Meighen: I think the member
to my left (Mr. Caldwell) has hit on the reason all right. I do not think the minister has the point yet. It is no use for him to say that if he wanted to conceal anything the item would not be mentioned, because if the amount was not mentioned it could not be paid. What the accountant is trying to do is to get around the act and pay somebody a little more. The minister apparently has not observed that. That is the point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Elevators, operation and management of the Canadian government, $420,000.
George Newcombe Gordon: This is the vote which was formerly before the committee.


John Millar: What items are included
in this vote?


Thomas Andrew Low: The operation of the five grain elevators that are under the department, and the handling of all grain in these terminals.


John Millar: Would the minister mention the location of the elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: Port Arthur, Moose Jaw, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Vancouver, until recently.
Supply-Grain Elevators


Arthur Meighen: Prince Rupert?


Thomas Andrew Low: Prince Rupert will come too
soon for my right hon. friend.


John Millar: Is the Halifax elevator
included in this vote?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not built yet.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, it comes under another
vote; it has not been built yet.


Mr. LUCAS:: Is there any revenue from
the operation of these elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: The total revenue for the past four years is as follows:
1920-	21	
$672,325	001921-	22	
804.201	161922-	23	
860,421	391923-	24	
658,747	21


William Thomas Lucas: How is this revenue made
up?


Thomas Andrew Low: With the consent of the committee I shall hand in the statement of revenue for the last fiscal year so that it may be printed in Hansard. The statement is as follows:
Canadian Government Elevators
Details of Revenue at Government Elevators, for fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.
	Port Arthur	Moose Jaw
Storage		$ 272,267 46 64,640 73 3,258 23 5,906 00 38,734 73 651 97 2,069 54 440 00 10,341 16 92 25	$ 17,305 01 3,678 45 277 84 75 00 1,419 76 150 32 977 17 102 00
Cleaning			
		
		
		
		
Chopping and Sacking			
Lining Cars			
Surplus Grain			
		225 00
		
	398,402 07	24,210 55
Saskatoon	Calgary	Vancouver	Totals$	$	$	$26,709 63 7,965 97 347 99	73,083 08 3,431 11	45,507 57 9,371 62	434,872 75 89,087 88 3,884 06 6,091 00 57,510 73 1,711 82 53,109 57 566 00 11,192 33 721 0745 00 5,872 53 232 66 75 32 24 00	60 00 4,639 86 662 15 16,729 38	5 00 6,843 85 14 72 33,258 16	132 01	719 16 385 98	17 84	
41,422 95	98,605 58	96,106 06	658,747 21


Mr. SALES:: Will the minister give us a
statement of the returns in connection with the operation of these elevators since the government have owned and operated them?


Mr. GARDINER:: Does that include interest and sinking fund?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall put in a complete statement showing receipts and expenditure from 1913-14 up to January 31, 1924. With the *consent of the committee, I shall not read it Uut shall hand it to Hansard so that it may be [DOT]printed in full. The statement is as follows:
Canadian Government Grain Elevators Revenue and Expenditure for each year since the commencement of operation, also the Profit or Loss for same.
Receipts	Expenditure	Profit$	s	$1913-14	107,494 14	40,785 60	66,708 541914-15	240,323 18	115,236 24	125,086 943915-16	444,566 77	1/7,549 98	267,016 791916-17	890,038 75	312,069 46	577,969 291917-18	936,608 96	354,309 01	582,299 951918-19	741,523 88	353,823 33	387,700 551919-20	698,295 82	295,034 53	403,261 291920-21	672,325 00	384,510 91	287,814 091921-22	804,201 15	365,823 98	438,377 171922-23	860,421 39	426,257 49	434,163 90*1923-24 to January 31st..	595,876 50	293,290 84	302,585 666,991,675 54	3,118,691 37	3,872,984 17
Vancouver elevator transferred to the Board of Harbour Commissioners on October 1, 1923.


Thomas Sales: In the $94,000 that the minister mentioned a few nights ago, are the licensing fees for the elevators included?


Thomas Andrew Low: The license fees are included.


Thomas Sales: In the $94,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, in this item, I think.


Thomas Sales: What about the license fees for the country elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have handed in the statement of earnings, but I shall give my hon. friend the total revenue if he wishes.


Thomas Sales: That is not the point at all. The other night when I gave as the surplus a figure of $4,000,000 odd, which the minister at that time was not inclined to agree with-


Thomas Andrew Low: And I do not agree to-night.


Thomas Sales: Well, taking the figures the minister gave to-night and adding to them the $94,000 which he admitted had been the revenue over expenditure through the opera-

Supply-Grain Elevators
tions of the Grain Commission, we now have $3,966,984.17. We require only another item or so to make the figures furnished by his owm department correspond with those I gave the other night, and I think licenses would probably cover that.


Thomas Andrew Low: The figures presented by the hon. member tell only half the tale. They would give out the impression that there was a surplus of $4,000,000, but I shall endeavour to show that there are quite a few items that are not included in the ordinary figures of operation of these elevators. To mention a few small items to start with, there is no charge made for the services of the Board of Grain Commissioners in connection with these elevators. That charge is by annual vote under the Canada Grain Act which we discussed the other night. There is no charge for the services of the department at Ottawa. There is no charge for printing and stationery, or for insurance, except on grain stocks at Port Arthur. There is no provision in these annual statements for depreciation on buildings, machinery and equipment. We have invested in the elevators $5,882,523.78 upon which no interest is charged against the operation of those elevators. There is no charge for taxes of any kind. And we are adding to all this an item of about $1,400,000 for an elevator at Edmonton. If my hon. friend will figure out this capital investment at say 51 per cent interest, he will find it amounts to about $275,000 each year, not including the elevator that is under construction at Edmonton. Then if the cost of the Canada Grain Board be added the profits will naturally be decreased.


Robert Gardiner: The services of the
Canada Grain Board are paid by the farmers in inspection and weighing fees.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, but my hon. friend does not follow me. We had a surplus during those thirteen years of $94,000 on the Canada Grain Act. Had any charge been made under this item for the Canada Grain Board there would perhaps be a deficit in the other. Of course, it is only a matter of whether we shall have a larger surplus here and less in the other.


Robert Gardiner: Why suggest charging
it against this account, when the farmers have already paid the bill? We have paid for everything, and there is no reason why a charge should be made against this account.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend does not follow
me at all.


Robert Gardiner: Oh yes, I do.


Thomas Andrew Low: If you charge certain services
against the other item you would not charge them against this; we are putting the total charge in the other item. We might divide it, and if we did that, it would simply mean that the surplus here would be less. It does not affect the joint result of the two items.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If I follow the minister, any surplus in the $94,000 item would be greater if he charged part to this item, but the net result of the two items together would be the same.


Thomas Andrew Low: Exactly.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then why confuse-the two?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not trying to confuse
them. I did not raise the point. I am simply trying to explain it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The other vote has
been passed, and the minister admits a surplus of $94,000. Then why confuse that with this?


Thomas Andrew Low: I want to deal with this separately, but my hon. friend asked me the question. I want to point out that there is no charge made by the department here at Ottawa for printing and stationery, or any other service, and in the elevator item there is no charge for depreciation. Any man knows that a depreciation of two per cent is not excessive. Almost every company in its annual statement writes off at least two per cent depreciation in its permanent buildings, and it would write off about ten per cent depreciation for the class of machinery that is in use in these elevators. The life of one of these cleaning machines is not more than ten years, and therefore ten per cent depreciation should properly be written off the machinery installed in these elevators. Then there are belts and many other things for which no allowance is made, and nothing is allowed for capital expenditure. Charge up these items as an ordinary company would, add -interest, say 5i per cent, and something for depreciation, and you will find t-hao during the thirteen years these elevators have been in operation, the whole $4,000,000 would be more than wiped out. The point I wish to make clear is that while the elevators showed a surplus of $4,000,000, no allowance was made to provide for depreciation or interest on the investment. I am not complaining; I am simply pointing that out.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that the method by which this surplus for the year was arrived
at?
Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, without any provision for interest or depreciation. I might mention that during the last four years we have had a surplus from what are called overages amounting to $179,000, or about $40,000 or $45,000 a year.


Mr. FORKE:: Does not the minister think it would be advisable to change the system of book-keeping so that the country could know just how these elevators stand? Why does not the government make these charges against them, and issue a business-10 p.m. like statement giving the actual standing of the elevators? As it is, it goes out to the country that there is a profit of $4,000,000 in the operation of these elevators, and all these expenses are kept in the background, giving a wrong impression. I do not see why that is done. It creates a great deal of dissatisfaction. If the country knew they were being run on an even basis, all this dissatisfaction would disappear.


Thomas Andrew Low: I, as minister of this department, shall be very glad to take into consideration the remarks of my hon. friend from Brandon. I do not see why interest should not be allowed in figuring out the ultimate result. The point was raised the other night, and I have simply presented these figures to show the House why there is a surplus in the operation of the government elevators.


John Millar: A large amount of this
surplus grain is in litigation between the elevator companies. They have refused to pay the government for overages. I suppose that is not included in the receipts, as given here?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, that is not included.


John Millar: There is a rumour that .
there was something in the nature of a dispute over some 29,000 bushels in the elevator at Vancouver when it was taken over by the Harbour Commissioners. Could the minister give us any information about that?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think there is any
dispute. We weighed up the amount in the elevator at the time it was transferred to the Harbour Board; the Trade and Commerce department know the number of bushels there, and we expect the Harbour Commissioners to pay us for that amount. I do not think there is any dispute about it.


John Millar: The minister still expects
the Harbour Commissioners to pay for that?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not doubt for a minute
that they will. As long as I am in charge of the department I am going to insist on it being paid.


John Millar: Have they admitted or
denied the debt?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think they have
denied it. It is just in abeyance.


Robert Gardiner: Was this 29,000 bushels of grain that no one had any claim to ownership of, in other words, a surplus?


Thomas Andrew Low: A surplus at Vancouver, yes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister told the
hon. member for Brandon that he was going to consider having the reports appear as disclosing interest on investment, depreciation, and so forth. Will the minister tell us where he thinks he can make this appear?


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to rely
upon a suggestion from my hon. friend as to where it might be put. He has had a much longer parliamentary experience than I have had, and I think I could safely rely upon his advice.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister was just stringing the hon. member. There is no place in the world where that could appear. Where can he make appear interest on capital and depreciation? The public accounts show moneys going out and coming in; they are not like the accounts of a corporation, and the minister would have to revolutionize the whole public accounts of Canada. That was only a means of getting past.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend says I
have just been stringing the hon. member for Brandon. I have not been long enough in parliamentary life to adopt those methods, and I hope I shall never have to resort to them.


Arthur Meighen: Tell us where you could have them appear.


Thomas Andrew Low: It could be very easily shown
that the surplus as apparent did not take into consideration certain other charges, which could be enumerated in the same statement.


Arthur Meighen: It could be shown by
a speech or in a statement issued, but you cannot show that in the estimates or public accounts, and that is the only place they are absent from now.


Thomas Andrew Low: It could be shown in a statement that might be issued from the Trade and Commerce department, giving the result

Supply-Grain Elevators
of the operation of these elevators. It might even be shown in the report of the Canada Grain Board which is tabled here every year. It would be an easy matter to do that.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the public
accounts.


Thomas Andrew Low: There are some things I know a little about, and one of them is the preparation of financial statements.


Mr. HOEY:: Do they appear now in the
annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think they do.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say they
will not appear there either.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend has prophesied many things for several years.


Arthur Meighen: And pretty accurate too.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not always rely on the
prophecies of the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: They are fairly accurate.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not very accurate.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, fairly accurate.


Thomas Sales: I am sorry rhe minister
should get the idea in his head that I wanted to circulate wrong information throughout the country. I had no such intention in my mind.


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not think so, and I do
not think I intimated that I thought the hon. member had any desire to mislead the House or the country. I would be sorry to think that, because in the short acquaintance I have had with the hon. gentleman our relations have been most pleasant, and I have the highest regard for him.


Thomas Sales: I was only trying to find
out what the real situation was, and when I 'applied to my hon. friend's department for the receipts and expenditures I had no idea what the figures would show, and I quoted them in good faith. I notice, on looking through the Auditor General's report for this department, that if interest is not charged, the cost of the Grain Inquiry Commission, consisting of Mr. Justice Hynd-man, Mr. Lincoln Goldie, Mr. J. H. Haslam, Mr. W. D. Staples and Mr. C. Birkett-which was charged up to the administration of the Canada Grain Act-is $46,373.12. I find considerable items for the maintenance of
these elevators, for belts, iron beams, steel rods, steel columns, boiler plates, wire cable, buckets and so on. So apparently they keep on maintaining these elevators out of the fund before it shows any profit.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will refer
to item 380 he will find it reads: "Elevators, government terminal, maintenance of and necessary equipment, $60,000."


Thomas Sales: I am pointing out that in
the old way of keeping the accounts, which apparently has been followed up to this year, all the expenses and all the receipts are grouped in the Auditor General's report, and that is where the figures are obtained which I quoted the other night. Now apparently the minister is following some new method of bookkeeping and singling out these items, and very nearly arriving at the same result.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think so.


Thomas Sales: Taking the figures the minister has given to-night, and coupling them with the $94,000 which he agreed to a few weeks ago, we have $3,966,984.17, and I do not think we have yet got the license fees from the country elevators included in this. I think the weighing and inspection and the registration and cancellation of warehouse receipts are not included either.


Thomas Andrew Low: Perhaps I should read the
items included in the total revenue.


Thomas Sales: Has the minister any
revenue other than what he quoted to-night?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no other revenue. I
think it is all included in that amount of three million dollars odd.


Thomas Sales: I am anxious to prove that
the figures given me by the department are correct.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think if my hon. friend is
prepared to accept half the story he might satisfy himself that the figures that he quoted the other night are correct, but if he tells one half of the story I shall endeavour to tell the other half. If he adds my half of the story to his, he will find that we arrive at a point where there is practically no surplus at all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think this last statement of the minister coupled with the rather disturbing admission which he made a while ago, is going to make us a bit critical of surpluses reported by the government or by
Supply-Grain Elevators

any department. In the first place, he admitted the other night that there was a surplus in the administration of the Grain Act of $94,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, for thirteen years and
ten months.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: To-night he stated that there was a surplus of $3,900,000 odd in the operation of the elevators, and later on he tells us that their bookkeeping is so faulty-


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I did not say that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will appeal to the
sense of the House on that point. He said he was considering very seriously changing his method of bookkeeping. This would not show any surplus at all-


Thomas Andrew Low: I said I would take into consideration the remarks of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke).


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: And that is not saying what
I am going to do.
Mr, CALDWELL: Which means that he is willing to believe that his bookkeeping can be improved upon.


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not say that, but I said
that we might give more information. I am glad to receive suggestions from hon. members in different parts of the House, and if it will add anything of value to the statement I am willing to insert a clause in the report of the Canada Grain Board, showing the charges that should properly be made against the operation of the elevators, the interest on the investment, the depreciation, and other charges that should properly be included.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then we will take the statement actually made by the minister tonight. A few minutes ago he said there was a surplus of three million some hundred thousand odd in the operation of the elevators, but he also said that if the whole account was brought down and all the expenses charged there possibly would not be any surplus. I think we have a right to be a bit critical of the method of bookkeeping of the department. I think when a statement is brought down by a department of the government we are entitled to have all the information in the statement.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend has noticed
from year to year items in the current expenditure for elevators. They are not in-
eluded in capital account. If we build an elevator this year, as we are doing and which is costing $1,400,000, it will be included in the current expenditures of the year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In the capital expenditures?	.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, in the current expenditures.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Well Mr. Chairman, I may be just a bit thick in my understanding; at the same time I can hardly recognize the different statements made by the minister tonight as meaning one and the same thing; that on the one hand there might be a surplus of nearly $4,000,000, and on the other hand that if the bookkeeping had been thorough there would not be any surplus at all. I would advise the minister to take private counsel from the hon. member for. Brandon, so that he could improve his bookkeeping. Then when his statement was brought down we would know what it meant. It is quite a serious thing to say one minute that you have a surplus of three million odd and the next minute to say you have not any surplus at all. If I made out a statement of that kind in reference to my own banking account, it would be a disturbing element.


An hon. MEMBER:: It might hurt the bank.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It might mean success or failure of the Home Bank. I submit that we are entitled, when we get a statement, to have all the facts and charges against the item. I thought the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) had about $3,000,000 coming to him a few minutes ago, and now I find he has nothing. I am feeling very sorry for him.


Thomas Andrew Low: An hon. member asked if the license fees for the internal elevators were included in the receipts under this item.


Thomas Sales: The country elevators.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, the country elevators. They are included in the vote for the Canada Grain Act which went through a few nights ago.


Robert Alexander Hoey: In the $94,000.


Mr. GOULD:: The minister has been talking about depreciation of the elevators. When did the government commence writing off depreciation of the elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sure the hon. member has been following the items from time to time since he entered parliament, and he has never seen any item for depreciation. That has always worked to the advantage of the producer of grain. It was pointed out that there was a surplus of $4,000,000. It is only right, in explanation of that, that there should be

Supply-Grain Elevators
taken into consideration, the capital expenditure, interest on the investment, depreciation and other charges that might properly be made. I am sure though we left it out, that fact is working no hardship for any producer of grain in this country. If an elevator is built at Prince Rupert, it will be built out of current expenditure.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister states that it is not used detrimentally to the producer of grain. What I have in mind is that when the audit was made of the terminal elevator companies at Fort William and Port Arthur, not only the government elevators, but the other elevators, in the amounts that the companies submitted as valuation, they used that. That is, they did not write off any amount for depreciation, but they allowed that to accumulate. Upon that sum which had accumulated, they added another sum almost equal to it in an endeavour to justify the huge profits they were making. I think it would be good business on behalf of the people to make these companies use a system of bookkeeping which would oblige them to show reasonable depreciation, so that dividends might be shown on the annual valuation of a plant. The depreciation in my estimation is an important item to be considered in these huge sums that are being expended on elevators.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister speaks of several items that might be written up against this surplus, one of them being taxes and the other depreciation. I think the minister must be mistaken as regards taxes. If the Dominion government are liable for taxes on any of their properties, I shall be glad to know that, because we have in New Brunswick some Dominion government property from which we should like to collect taxes. I refer to the soldier settlers' land taken over by the Soldier Settlement Board, and railway shops. In my constituency there is a terminal division that we would be pleased to put a nice tax on. Is anything written off for depreciation on any public building such as post offices, armouries, docks, wharves, railroads or any other Dominion government property? If not, why should this item be interjected into the debate on elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: The post offices serve the general public-everybody.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do the elevators not do that too?


Thomas Andrew Low: Not everybody.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Everybody eats bread.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Therefore an elevator must serve a public purpose.


Thomas Andrew Low: One group of people might ask that they be exempted from depreciation charges or other overhead taxes. I mentioned a number of small items, but I said that the big item not taken into consideration was interest on the investment. Let me point out to hon. members opposite that, without any depreciation or any other charges, the total item of net earnings referred to by my hon. friend amounts to only 6.26 per cent upon the capital investment. That is not out of reason. If you deduct from that, perhaps,
2 per cent for depreciation of the building and 10 per cent for the machinery, you can soon work out the total amount of actual profits.


John Millar: As I understand the matter, the policy of the department is that the grain shall pay for every service rendered by the government, namely:	Inspection, weighing,
cleaning, handling of the government elevators, and so on. We do not know exactly from the figures given to-night whether there is a surplus or a deficit. I do not wish to cast any slur on the minister, but I do not believe the minister knows that exactly and a careful accounting has not been made. Is it the policy of the government that the grain shall pay for every service rendered by the government?


Thomas Andrew Low: The result for the last ten years would not indicate that. I stated just a moment ago that the earnings would only amount to 6.26 per cent on the capital investment, without any deduction for depreciation. The interest alone on the investment would almost eat that up.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is after paying operating costs?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How will that compare with the earnings of the government railways?


Thomas Andrew Low: If we are to take for granted the elimination of interest charges against many things that cause deficits there is only one result-the people will have to pay those charges in the final analysis.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We are not finding
fault with this, but I think the comparisons are hardly fair. What about the earnings of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? Will they pay 6 per cent on the investment after paying operating expenses?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Canadian Government
Merchant Marine is for the benefit of all the people, not for any particular service.
Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And the elevators are not? I submit that there is no comparison at all. Everybody eats bread. Everybody does not use the merchant marine vessels.


Thomas Andrew Low: Surely the hon. member will not argue that the elevators are for the benefit of all the people.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Indirectly.


Thomas Andrew Low: The man that eats bread, the blacksmith, the storekeeper, the labourer in the factory, derive direct benefit from the elevator?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They all eat bread.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is pretty far-fetched. If any individual class were seeking a special service from the public revenue, I am sure my hon. friend opposite would be one of the first to object. I am willing, however, to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and to show just what conditions are-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the minister will take the advice of the hon. member for Brandon he will not go far astray on anything.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister think it fair to charge the building of elevators to current account? When you build a post office or a wharf, you charge that, not to current account, but to capital account. All buildings built by the government are charged to capital account.


Thomas Andrew Low: The only difference is that if you charge it to capital account, you charge it to the public debt and thus you make it appear as if you had a large surplus from operating over current expenditures.


Oliver Robert Gould: When the minister spoke of 6.2 per cent as the profit, on what valuation was that based? Was that based on the original cost or the cost submitted to the government when the latest audit was made of the valuation of the elevator, say at Fort William? I see a disparity between the original cost and the cost submitted recently to the government. The original cost of the elevator was shown as $1,315,767. When they were asked what the present valuation was, they showed a valuation of $2,105,228 and this was given in justification of the huge profits earned by the elevator. This was in spite of the fact that the elevator should have had depreciation charges written off, and the valuation shown as the original cost less those depreciation charges.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am glad to inform my hon. friend that the lower figure is correct; the amount is $1,383,822.


Oliver Robert Gould: There is a disparity between that figure the minister gives and the lower figure I have mentioned of $1,315,767.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is a difference of some $70,000 odd.


Mr. SPENCER:: How much is allowed for the depreciation of these elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: No allowance is made for depreciation. It is customary in manufacturing businesses to allow 2 per cent, on the buildings and about 10 per cent on machinery. The life of a machine in an elevator operating at high speed is not more than ten years and it is therefore safe to provide for that length of time.


Oliver Robert Gould: What I am trying to show is that when the Canadian government elevator was asked to justify the huge profits it had made, the valuation of the whole concern was raised approximately $1,000,000. The assessed value of the land site was $145,714 but when the valuation was submitted to the Audit Board it was shown as amounting to only $90,000. We can see the genius of this: It is a very common practice throughout the urban centres, when the assessors come around, to reduce the valuation of property, and the Canadian government has been guilty of the same practice in this instance. To justify the profits they have made they have increased the total value of their land and buildings something like $1,000,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated that the correct amount is only $1,300,000 odd and not $2,000,000.


Oliver Robert Gould: I understand that; I am merely pointing out how the method changes to meet the circumstances.


Thomas Sales: What has been the result of the operation, since their inception, of the elevators at Saskatoon, Calgary and Moose Jaw?


Thomas Andrew Low: The revenue from the Saskatoon elevator 1923-24 amounted to $41,422.95 and the total expenditure, $62,462.86, or a loss of $21,039.91. In the case of the Moose Jaw elevator the total revenue amounted to $24,210.55 and the expenditure, $57,228.28, or a loss of $33,017.73.


Thomas Sales: What about the Calgary
elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: The total revenue amounted to $98,605.58 and the total expenditure, $71,590.33, or a profit of $27,015.25.


Thomas Sales: That is for one year.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Thomas Sales: Has the minister any idea
what the total result has been since these houses have been in operation? Has there been a consistent profit or loss?


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall give the figures for a period of years showing the various profits or losses as the case may be.
Calgary
Year
1915-	16 (Sept, to March)
1916-	17	
1917-	18	
1918-	19	
1919-	20	
1920-	21	
1921-	22	
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
Elevator
Profit Loss $ 9,540 28

Moose Jaw Elevator
Year	Profit	Loss
1914- 15 (Oct. to March)	517,092 21
1915- 16	 $56,432 37
1916-	17	
59,829 261917-	18	
73,482	321918-	19	
24,705	671919-	20	
22,310 111920-	21	
12,778 791921-	22	
14,017	831922-	23	
14,628	241923-	24	
33.017	73
Saskatoon Elevator
Year	Profit	Loss
1914- 15 (Oct. to March)	$11,787 69
1915- 16	$ 57,740 17
1916-	17	
124.506	191917-	18	
79,949	551918-	19	
61,847	051919-	20	
49,897	371920-	21	
43,759	451921-	22	
9,828	731922-	23	
15,434	771923-	24	
21,039	91


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the reason for
quite a large profit one year and a heavy deficit the next; would it be due to a crop failure?


Thomas Andrew Low: When I was at Moose Jaw last year a group of men asked me to provide an amount in my estimates for advertising purposes to urge the farmers to patronize the elevator there. That apparently is the reason for the loss at Moose Jaw-the failure of the farmers to patronize the elevator.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What other method do
they have of getting their grain out?


Thomas Andrew Low: They can ship it right through to Fort William.
Supply-Grain Elevators


John Millar: What would be the object
of getting them to patronize that elevator? It would be simply trying to make water run up hill. If it is cheaper for the farmers to ship their grain to Fort William, why urge them to use the interior terminal elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not agree to provide
that amount for advertising, because I felt that the government having built the elevator at a cost of about a million and a half dollars, could hardly be expected to ask the farmers to avail themselves of the accommodation offered when it was not in their interest to do so.


John Millar: I think the minister was
perfectly right. Perhaps I might explain why there was a surplus some years and a deficit other years. These interior terminal elevators were built for taking care of the grain when there was a shortage of cars and the farmers were not able to ship their grain to the terminal elevators fast enough. The transportation systems are dependent to a large extent on the weather conditions. If they are favourable, as they were last fall, the transportation systems can handle grain very fast, and the interior terminal elevators are not used very much but if the transportation systems are tied up by reason of very bad weather, the farmers must use this accommodation.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister give us
the corresponding figures for the government elevator at Port Arthur?


Thomas Andrew Low: These are the corresponding
figures for the Port Arthur elevator:
Year	Profit
1913- 14	 $ 66.708 54
1914-	15	
153.966	841915-	16	
162.384	531916-	17	
395,425	191917-	18	
399,454	951918-	19	
267,440	921919-	20	
249,249	291920-	21	
156,092	651921-	22	
340,861	081922-	23	
270,331	831923-	24	
246,549	42


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister explain
whether in this statement of profit he is making provision for depreciation and for interest on the investment?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I have told the committee, at least half a dozen times, that there is no charge for interest, for depreciation, for the services of the department at Ottawa, and for stationery and other small items.


George Gibson Coote: Are the profits quoted the
difference between the receipts and the expenditures?
Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: The profits quoted represent the difference between the receipts and expenditures without any provisions for the items I have enumerated.


George Gibson Coote: Then I wish the minister
would explain to the committee why this difference occurs. A short time ago I asked the department for a statement of receipts and expenditures in connection with the various government elevators. According to the statement furnished to me, the receipts of the government elevator at Port Arthur for 1913-14 were $217,641.66, and the expenditures, $68,111.35, leaving a profit, as I figure it, of $149,530. If I understood the minister correctly, he stated the profit on the operation of this elevator for that year was $66,708. In fact there is a discrepancy between his figures and the figures furnished me for every year which he has quoted.


Thomas Andrew Low: The receipts at the Port Arthur elevator 1913-4 were $107,494.14, the expenditure $40,785.20, leaving a profit of $66,708.54.


George Gibson Coote: Is the minister then able to explain why this statement for 1913-14 should be given to me on May 1, if the receipts were not $207,641.66, and the expenditures $68,111.35, leaving a profit of $149,530?


Thomas Andrew Low: The total revenue for 1913-14
was as I gave it a moment ago. If my hon. friend will drop into my office I shall be glad to go into these figures with him, particularly with regard to the differences between those I have given and those he has received.


George Gibson Coote: Just to bring to the attention of the minister the great discrepancy there is I would like to cite a few more of these figures. The letter which I received is dated May first and says:
With reference to your letter of the 22nd ultimo, regarding additional information required in connection with the Canadian government elevators, I now enclose copies of statement prepared by the Board of Grain Commissioners showing the revenue and expenditure of such elevators at Port Arthur, Calgary and Saskatoon each year since the commencement of operation, which I trust will meet your requirements.
I will just give a few illustrations to show how far the figures given in this connection differ from those given by the minister tonight. The statement I have received shows that for the year 1914 the receipts of the government elevator at Port Arthur amounted to $190,238.39 and the expenditure $64,656.36, leaving a profit, as I have figured it, of $125,582; the minister gives it as $153,966. For 1915-16 the statement I have gives the profit as $324,625, and the figure given by the
[Mr. Coote.j
minister is $162,384. The minister will see what a great discrepancy there is for that year.


Thomas Andrew Low: May I ask the hon. member
who signed the letter?


George Gibson Coote: It is signed by Mr. Parmelee, the acting deputy minister.


Thomas Andrew Low: Will my hon. friend show me
the letter, together with the figures from which he is quoting?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, I will do that. For
1916-17 this statement gives the profit as $416,923, while the minister's figure is $395,425. May I ask what were the total receipts for the years 1913 to 1923 inclusive?


Thomas Andrew Low: 


George Gibson Coote: I have it only up to 1922-
23-$3,694,878.61.


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount for last year to
January 31, 1924, is $374,861.92.


George Gibson Coote: Adding this amount to the
total I have given, I make it $4,069,740.53. What were the profits for 1923-24?


Thomas Andrew Low: $269,691.01.


Mr. KELLNER:: What was the idea of
taking the control of the Vancouver elevators from the Board of Grain Commissioners and giving it to the Harbour Commissioners?


Thomas Andrew Low: The elevators are usually
operated by the haifoour commissions, but the inspection and the weighing and the issuing of receipts is still under the control of the department.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Well, the control is under the Harbour Commissioners in transfer harbours such as Montreal, but Vancouver is what might be termed a terminal point, such as Fort William is, and in that respect it is in a different position from Montreal, St. John or any of the eastern ports. I assure the minister that the western grain growers would *much rather have the elevators under the ; Board of Grain Commissioners.


Thomas Andrew Low: In Vancouver they think they
will shortly surpass Montreal in shipping and I would suggest that if my hon. friend happens to be in that part of the country he be very guarded about making that remark within a hundred miles of Vancouver.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister did not
get my point. Vancouver is a terminal point and also a transfer point, but Montreal is only a transfer point. How many mixing licenses have been issued in Vancouver?

Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: I cannot give that information
to-night, but if the hon. gentleman will drop into my office I shall be glad to give it to him.


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister give us
the total profit at the Port Arthur elevator for the years up to 1923-24? I would like to get some more information with regard to these discrepancies.


Thomas Andrew Low: The total profit for the years
from 1913-1914 to 1923-1924 to January 31, amounted to $2,743,053.64.


George Gibson Coote: I have figured this out very hurriedly, and I make the profit $2,940,911. Of course, I will not guarantee the accuracy of these figures.


Thomas Andrew Low: Are those figures down to the
end of the fiscal year?


George Gibson Coote: I have the figures here for
every year except 1923 and 1924, and there is a discrepancy in every year as compared with the figures given by the minister. This discrepancy refers to the elevators at Calgary and Saskatoon. I have statements here covering their operations, and there is a discrepancy as compared with the minister's figures for every year. Really, I think the minister ought to give us some reason why there should be this great discrepancy. Possibly he cannot do it, but he has been very positive to-night, it seems to me, in assuring the members that he is giving the
11 p.m. grain farmers a very cheap service and is not making any money out of them. Possibly his figures are not accurate. We have two different sets of figures coming from his department.


Thomas Andrew Low: Is there any reason why my
figures should be any more inaccurate than my hon. friend's? We are both ordinary laymen, and I shall be very glad to sit down with him and compare these figures, and see wherein the difference arises.


George Gibson Coote: I will admit that I am an
ordinary layman, and the minister can admit it for himself, but we understand that we have a very highly paid and efficient Civil Service which is furnishing us with this information, and it is very hard for members to understand why, therefore, we should get two sets of figures from the same department showing a very great discrepancy. The min-inister will notice that particularly in the year 1915-1916, and there are other years where the discrepancy is just as great. I certainly hope that the minister will try and
see that his department is administered in such a way that we can depend upon the figures we get from it being correct. I would hate to quote these figures and find out afterwards they were not correct. I just wanted to know whether the minister could throw any light on this great discrepancy in the two sets of figures coming from his own department.


Thomas Andrew Low: All I know is that I have a set of figures before me, and I rely upon them being correct. If mine are wrong and my hon. friend's are right, let us get together on the matter. I am ready and willing to meet the hon. member at any time, and compare our figures and see where we differ. There may be some simple explanation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask the hon.
member for Macleod by whom his figures were prepared?


George Gibson Coote: I quoted the letter here.
It was signed by Mr. Parmelee, and the figures, I understand, were prepared by the Board of Grain Commissioners. Coming from them I would take them to be correct. While I am on my feet I would ask the minister to tell the committee, without going over all the figures again, whether the Calgary elevator is a paying proposition from the standpoint of his department, and similarly with regard to the elevators at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have given all these figures;
they are on Hansard; shall I repeat them?


George Gibson Coote: No, but taking a period of
years, does the minister consider them a paying proposition?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have given the years in
which they have been paying, but you have to take into consideration interest on capital investment, depreciation, and the other items I have mentioned.


George Gibson Coote: I simply wanted from the
minister his opinion whether or not it was a paying proposition, because I understand he is proposing to build a similar elevator at Edmonton. I was wondering whether he was going to do that because it was a paying proposition, or what was the reason.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me first ask the hon. member whether his figures are for the calendar or the fiscal year.


George Gibson Coote: I would take it they are
for the fiscal year, because they start off with the year "1913-14."

Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: How did the hon. member
ask his question?


George Gibson Coote: I have not my letter here,
so I am unable to say.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be glad at any time
to go into the figures with my hon. friend One set of figures may have been given for the fiscal year, and the other for the calendar year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With regard to the
discrepancy between the figures given by the department to a member of the House and the figures given to the minister, I am very glad indeed that this matter has come up before the civil government estimates have been taken up. We have a very elaborate staff of statisticians in this department, with a salary list aggregating over $50,000, and one position that struck my attention in view of the discrepancies that have been disclosed to the House to-night is that of Assistant Chief, Division of Educational Statistics. Now, if there is one thing that is needed in this de-, partment, if it is going to have a statistical branch at all, it is an educational statistics branch, so that the officers may be educated in preparing their statistics so that they will not show such a great discrepancy.
Another matter that I think it would be well to consider when the civil government estimates are up, and I hope I am not out of order in referring to this now, is a question that has been referred to at different times in this House when those estimates are going through, and that is that practically every department has an elaborate statistical branch. I think possibly the Bureau of Statistics of the Dominion is as competent and able an organization as that of any country comparable in population, and I would like the government to consider very seriously the advisability of doing away with the statistical branches in the different departments, and putting this whole work of gathering and tabulating statistics under one department.


Thomas Andrew Low: That matter has been under
consideration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think in that way
we might possibly be able to get figures from the one department that would compare at least within a million dollars when given over a period of four or five years, which seems impossible under the present system. I am not blaming the minister. It is possible the statistician who got out the report for the hon. member for MacLeod was more thorough than the official who prepared the minister's

figures, because the minister admitted to-night that if these accounts had been kept under a different system and had been charged with what they should have been charged there would have been a difference of $3,000,000 in the figures he gave us to-night. I would very strongly urge that this question of gathering statistics be considered by the government, so that we will not have the duplication that now exists in this work in every department of the government.


John Millar: Is it not possible that the
discrepancy may exist through the crop year having been taken in the one case? I have compared some figures for the crop year and the calendar year, and I have noticed quite a discrepancy between them.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no doubt that when we
come to compare the figures we shall be able to find the reason for the discrepancy. I assure my hon. friend from MacLeod that I shall be very glad to go into them in detail with him.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is another thing
the minister should take up with his own department and that is the question of giving out statistics to members, because those are what we must depend on; we cannot wait until the estimates come down for this information. There should be some uniform method cf giving out statistics so that when a member gets certain figures from the department he can rely on them, and not find them at variance with another set of figures issued by the same department. It impresses on my mind more thoroughly than ever the necessity of having a uniform method of keeping statistics, and it should all be under the Bureau of Statistics.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where did this vote appear last year? I have been looking for the vote of last year but cannot find it. It does not seem to have been dealt with in the same way. There seems to be some change in the estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: I know that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was not in the House when I explained probably a dozen times the manner in which this vote was being treated this year. In the past the estimates for the Canada Grain Act proper and the estimates for the management and operation of Canadian government elevators have been presented to parliament and voted in one amount. This year they are voted in two different amounts one, the Canada Grain

Supply-Grain Elevators
Act, SI,100.000, and the other the elevators for 420,000 jointly amounting to $1,520,000, the reduction on the two items combined amounts to $38,000 odd.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There must be an increase in the other one. There is a decrease in this.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes. They total $38,000 less.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The other item would be the Canada Grain Act administration, $1,478,000. That is the item the minister is referring to, is it? That is item 363 of last year's estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: The total amount was $1,558,839.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The total amount last year was $1,478,839. It may be that there was a supplementary estimate.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, a supplementary item of $80,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In that supplementary of $80,000 there was an increase.


Thomas Andrew Low: The vote under the Canada Grain Act this year was $1,100,000. Under this item it is $420,000, making a total of $1,520,000, against $1,558,839.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I was talking about. In 1923-24 there would be an increase of $258,000 over the vote of 1923-24.


Thomas Andrew Low: The combined vote?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You will find that the combined vote in 1922-23 was $1,300,000. The amount in the supplementaries for 192324 was $1,478,839, which made an increase of $178,839. Now the minister tells us there was a supplementary item of $80,000, so that it makes the increase of $258,000 which I referred to. My hon. friend, in taking $38,000 off this year, still leaves the amount some $200,000 above the expenditure of 1922-23. What is the occasion of the big increase?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is a decrease of $38,000. The elevator item this year amounts to $420,000, against $472,000 last year, making a decrease of $52,000. The item for the administration of the Canada Grain Act is $1,100,000 this year, against $1,086,839, last year, an increase of $13,161. Deduct $13,161 from $52,000 and roughly speaking you will have a reduction of $38,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree
with that, but my hon. friend's government raised that vote in the estimate of 1923-24 as against the previous year $258,000 odd. The redhction now made of $38,000 would cut that down to $220,000. Is there any way of getting back to the figures of 1922-23. What is the reason for the increase? Were there more elevators operated?


Thomas Andrew Low: The natural cause of the increase for 1922-23 was the large crop. There was a large crop again last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was 1923-24
when the increase took place.


Thomas Andrew Low: In 1923-24 there was an exceedingly large crop, about 475,000,000 bushels of wheat, and it required extra help, inspection, weighing and other services. Naturally it would require a much greater staff to handle such a crop than to handle a crop of 300,000,000 or 325,000,000 bushels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. There
are a whole lot of different matters I want to discuss in connection with the elevators and the handling of the grain traffic, and I do not know;' that these matters can be usefully discussed now, when we are told that the grain report is to come down in time for legislation. Is the government's information still to the effect that this report will be brought down soon?


Thomas Andrew Low: I expect that the interim grain inquiry report will be placed upon the Table within the next few days-


Sir HENRA DRAA  TON@: Dealing with
the question of grain inspection?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know just what it
will deal with, but it will be an interim report by the Grain Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the government s instructions to the commission as to what is to be done in the interim report sufficiently definite to let us know whether we will have that report, not only for the purpose of considering it in detail but for the purpose of basing legislation upon it this year?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am hopeful that there will
be matters reported on which will enable us to introduce new legislation. I cannot be certain. No instructions have been given.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose we
will have an opportunity of discussing questions of spread, market prices on the country sidings as against the elevators and all the other difficulties.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: No doubt hon. gentlemen will
have an opportunity of discussing that report, and if they enter into all the items which my hon. friend has mentioned the discussion will take considerable time. However, it is the privilege of hon. gentlemen opposite to discuss these things. I have no doubt the report will be tabled within the next few days. I have been informed that it is on its way.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What are the sources from which the revenue of these elevators is derived?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have given these statements about three times already to-night, and the hon. member will find all the information on Hansard.


Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: We all realize that one of the most vital questions before us today is that of markets-the extension and the preservation of markets when we once get them. That applies not only to agriculture, but to all lines of industry. We are bending every effort to extend our markets in every direction where we can find them. In order to retain those markets there is one fundamental principle that we must not lose sight of. Once we have found markets, we must place on them a good product, uniform in quality and in such shape that those who are our customers will know that the article that they are getting is according to grade or as represented.
The marketing of grain is of vital importance to agriculturists, not only in eastern Canada, but in western Canada, to agriculturists in Canada as a whole, and in order to show the situation as it exists at the present time, I wish to make several quotations from this report which I received in the mail only last night. This is the report of the commissioners appointed last year to take up the question of complaints received respecting the condition of grain shipments from Canadian ports and from United States ports in bond to Great Britain. This report is made, by Mr. Leslie H. Boyd, chairman of the j Board of Grain Commissioners and George Serls, Chief Grain Inspector for Canada. Onj page 3 of the report -it is stated that the commission was appointed on the 16th May, 1623. The commissioners left Quebec on the 26th May, 1923, and arrived in Southampton on the 2nd of June, journeying down to London on the same day. On Thursday, June 7, a conference was held with the Canadian, Australasian and United States committee of the London Corn Exchange. The

report gives the names of those present but I need not read them. The report continues:
The chairman stated the objects of the conference and called upon Mr. Anderson, the President, to open the meeting.
Mr. Anderson stated that complaints of admixture had arisen in regard to Canadian grain shipped through United States ports and that some time before a i deputation from this association interviewed the
I United States Consul-General in London and placed before him evidence in respect to a number of specific cases of shipments, in regard to which complaints had been made and which had been officially investigated by his association. He further stated the result of [DOT] this interview -was that the consul-general obtained some very valuable reports from various ports in the United States and which, in his opinion, bore out the contention that there is slackness in preserving the identity of Canadian -wheat passing through the United States.
Again I quote from page 4:
It was stated in general discussion that most of the complaints during the last eighteen months had been in respect to shipments from Baltimore and Philadelphia. It was further stated that if the elevator companies are directly interested in wheat, the admixture in shipments is hardly surprising. The wheat was handled in the United Kingdom by docks who have no interest in it, and they could not have any incentive to tamper with it.
Mr. Serls and myself carefully outlined the process of inspection at Winnipeg and the head of the lakes, describing minutely the unloading of the grain into the elevators at the head of the lakes and the loading out into boats at these ports, and explained to the members present that when the certificate was issued for the cargo loaded and the boats left for American ports, the authority of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada ceased. We also explained to the meeting that the large majority of elevators in the United States, which handled Canadian grain, were private, and that Canadian grain going through these elevators for export was supposed to be properly bonded, a great many of them being owned by the American railways, and, in reply to a suggestion of Mr. Robinson that the above government should take steps to protect Canadian grain passing through United States' elevators, I pointed out that as Canada only controls her own elevators, this was a practical impossibility.
Further:
It was very gratifying to note that there was no complaint in regard to Canadian grain shipped through Canadian ports, and Sir Herbert Robson stated that the only satisfactory remedy must come from closer co-operation between Canadian and United States governments, and that the bonding arrangements must be tightened. He was of the opinion that the whole trouble had arisen since the duty was placed on Canadian grain imported into the United States, for use there.
Again:
It was further decided that the Honourable Robert Skinner, American Consul-General in London, should be written to and a suggestion made that he should meet myself and a committee of this association with a view of discussing these matters. A meeting was held at a later date. At the close of this meeting we accompanied several of the members to the sample room of the exchange, where we examined samples of the cargoes complained of. The samples more particularly noted were:

Supply-Grain Elevators
First:-A shipment of twenty-five thousand (25,000) quarters of No. 1 Manitoba Northern wheat per the ss. Livingstonia to Swansea and loaded at Baltimore: The complaint about this shipment was received by the Board of Grain Commissioners in March, 1922, and the substance was that the wheat in No. 1 hold was mixed with another kind of wheat, presumably a Red Winter or similar wheat. This complaint was investigated by the Board of Grain Commissioners at Fort William in the month of April, 1922, and the Chief Inspector on examining the samples forwarded from London, found that one sample of 387 tons in hold No. 1 of this boat, contained a heavy admixture of American wheat, badly heated and would be graded "Rejected 1 Northern, mixed with Heated". A further sample marked 120 tons in the same hold also contained a heavy mixture of American wheat badly heated, and would be graded "Rejected 1 Northern, mixed with Heated". A further sample of 759 tons, also showed a mixture of American heated wheat and would be graded the same grade, and the Chief Inspector was of the opinion that the grain as represented by these three samples from hold No. 1, certainly gave the consignee grounds for complaint. The samples from holds 2, 5 and 4 and bunker were all equal or better than the standard of 1 Northern. On an examination in the Sample Room of the London Corn Exchange of samples from this same cargo ex the Livingstonia, Mr. Serls, the Chief Inspector, was of the opinion that an admixture of wheat of American origin occurred after the wheat left Fort William.
It might be pointed out that, according to the official records in the offices of the board at Fort William all the wheat covered by this shipment went forward from the head of the lakes via Buffalo and Baltimore.
I quote now from page 7:
The members of the London Corn Exchange at this meeting made it quite clear that, although the causes of complaints were not numerous, these few cases were bound to create a suspicion in the minds of the members of the exchange that the one-time high standard of the Canadian certificate could no longer be relied upon. It was the general expression of opinion of all those present that grain imported through an allCanadian channel was very satisfactory, but as a buyer was bound to accept the grain tendered on Canadian certificate, they were not in a position to know through what channel, Canadian or American, this grain would be received, and, as when buying grain on a Canadian certificate, the certificate is considered as a certificate final and the buyer must accept the grain delivered on such certificate.
This goes to show the necessity for handling our grain through our own Canadian ports. Passing now to page 14 of the same report, I want to quote just a brief paragraph with reference to Holland:
The wheat importation situation in Holland is somewhat peculiar in the fact that one firm, namely "von Stock's Commissiehandel", was appointed by all the Chief flour manufacturers to act as their buying agent. This firm has an office in New York and buys most of the Canadian and other wheats and grains there, as well as through commission agents in Holland when prices are advantageous. The manager of this concern, Mr. Spierenberg, informed Mr. Johnson that he thought the reason why English firms had complaints regarding Canadian grain was that they bought on terms of "Sea-Board Inspection" which enabled exporters to tamper with the grain before inspection was made. He further stated that his company never buy on the terms of "Sea-Board Inspection" but always insist
214J
on Dominion Inspection when buying Canadian grain and that this is the case with practically all Canadian grain which is imported into Holland. He further stated that, instead of complaining about Dominion grain, he would wish to compliment the Canadian government for the splendid way in which the inspection of Canadian grain is carried out. Instead of people complaining, every one is very pleased with the quality of Canadian wheat and other grain.
That is to say, when they are not up to grade; and the only way we can be sure of our product when it is placed on the markets of the world, either in Great Britain, in Holland, in Belgium or anywhere else is apparently, according to this report, if it goes through our own ports. Let me quote:
A conference of Mr. Robt. P. Skinner, United States' Consul-General, members of the London Corn Trade Association, Mr. Harrison Watson, Chief Canadian Government Trade Commissioner of the United Kingdom, Mr. Geo. Serls and myself, was held in the board room of the London Corn Trade Association...
The complaints more particularly discussed were those hereinbefore referred to at the London conference.
This is the result of their discussion:
Mr. Skinner emphasized that he had no authority to say anything at all on behalf of the American government but that he would be glad to receive any suggestions and transmit them to his government and to support then if they appealed to him. He further went on to say that he was prepared to receive any facts as to particular cargoes and that he understood the object of the conference was to look into the future and devise some scheme to improve present conditions.
The Honourable Mr. Wiles stated that there was no complaint of the Dominion certificate being incorrect when the wheat was shipped through Montreal; that it was all right.
Mr. Skinner inquired whether there are the same number of handlings of grain passing through the port of Montreal and he was informed that such was the case.
I am not going to quote a great deal more but there are one or two brief paragraphs of importance which I wish to submit. Coming to the summary of the whole discussion we find, in regard to wheat:
Several complaints as cited in the above report were made about the admixtures of cargoes of wheat via United States' ports. Practically none were made covering cargoes of wheat ex Canadian ports.
The grading of wheat was considered generally satisfactory. Some millers stated that they did not quite understand the variation in the weight of 1 Northern but it was pointed out to them that, under the statutory definition, if they received wheat weighing 60 pounds they were receiving what the statutory grade called for, and that in most instances, the weight they received was much higher than 60 pounds Generally speaking complaints about the grading of wheat were very few and of a minor character, and the general expression of opinion was that the grading was remarkably uniform.
Another paragraph appears regarding recommendations :
From your observations and investigations we are satisfied that, although the complaints of grain passing through the United States' ports were not numerous,
Supply-Grain Elevators

they are of sufficient importance to endanger the value of Canadian wheat sold on Canadian certificates passing through these ports. The buyer or receiver is bound to take delivery of the grain on Canadian certificates whether it be imported through United States' or Canadian ports, the certificates being final and there being no redress.
These are the quotations which I wish the committee to consider. From these quotations we find that under present conditions it is absolutely necessary for us to make some effort to have our grain handled through our own government elevators, through our own Canadian ports, transported via bay ports or other landing places over our own Canadian National Railways, thus giving employment to our own Canadian people. I think it is only fair to place the matter before the government and in these few remarks to-night 1 am trying to stress the importance of this feature of our government elevators; I think it is highly necessary that we should handle our own grain over our own railways through our own ports. This is important not only from the standpoint of securing markets but also of maintaining the confidence of our foreign customers.
I have one more suggestion to offer and I do not want hon. members to think that in this I am speaking altogether from the point of view of my own constituency. Let me refer to the situation in the harbour at Calling-wood, one of the Georgian bay ports. We have there one of the best harbours in Canada with first class accommodation for the larger boats; last winter there were about 22 tied up in the harbour, some of them 600 feet in length. There we have also the Colling-wood Shipbuilding Company, which I believe is classed among the first of such concerns in the country. We have, too, dry docks fully equipped for all classes of repair work. We have also an elevator owned by the federal government, but it is altogether inadequate and out of date to handle the large quantity of grain that comes to this port. We are also fortunate in having two branches of the Canadian National Railways running to Montreal, one going via Toronto and the other by way of Allandale, Orillia and Cobourg. My plea to the government to-night is that they do everything possible to facilitate the handling of the grain trade through our Canadian ports and over our Canadian National Railway lines, thus giving work to our people and at the same time helping to extend the markets which we need so badly to-day not only for agricultural products but for every-

thing else. I would ask the government to include in the supplementary estimates this year, or if not, in the main estimates next year, a vote for putting the government-owned elevator at Collingwood in a condition to take care not only of the export grain trade from that port, but also of the domestic grain trade, as the mills and farms throughout central Ontario are supplied from Collingwood, and, as I have already said, the present facilities are not at all what they should be.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It was not very satisfactory to-night to find that the figures quoted by the minister and by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), emanating from the same department and dealing with the same subject, differed so much. It is true the minister invited the hon. member to come to his office and make a comparison of the two sets of figures to see which set is right, but I would ask the minister after this comparison has been made to be kind enough to give the correct figures to the House the next time his estimates are up.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


John Millar: I think the minister could
do a great deal of good for the grain trade if he would distribute all the information given in 'the reports issued by the chief grain inspector and the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners. I am afraid one trouble is that those in the Old Country who are buying our grain do not know the facts as brought out in those reports. The statement was made that those importers were compelled to take the grain from whatever source it might come, whether from the American seaboard or not. I very much doubt that. From what I heard those men say themselves, I gathered that they had ceased taking grain from certain American seaports for the very reason which has been stated here to-night. If the minister would have those reports on hand at Wembley, for instance, I think they would do a great deal of good. The British grain importers are very eager for such information, and I think by this means a lot can be done to have our grain pass through Canadian channels.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose during the year at
least 100 individual farmers in the western provinces have addressed complaints to me, and in every case I have written a personal letter to the chairman of the Grain Board asking him to make an investigation at once.

Supply-Grain Elevators


John Millar: I think the minister misunderstood me. I am referring to importers in the British Isles who are buying our grain. Largely in initiative rests with them to say where the grain shall come from.


Thomas Andrew Low: Any complaints that come to
us are investigated, because we realize it is of the utmost importance that we keep faith with the people in England to whom the grain is sold.


John Millar: I think if the minister
waits until complaints are received he will not be doing the service that is in his power. If this information was spread broadcast in Great. Britain I think the maximum good would be accomplished.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend know
that at the present time one of the members of the Royal Grain Commission is in England investigating any complaints that may be made to him?


John Millar: I am aware of that, but
I know he will not come in contact with one-quarter of the grain people there. I am sure that if those reports were circulated over there they would do a great deal of good and the results would be well worth the expenditure involved.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, in London to-day there is what is known as the Canadian Importers' Association. If the gentleman to whom my hon. friend (Mr. Low) referred meets the members of that association he will come in touch with all the angles of Canadian trade. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and myself had an opportunity of addressing the association while we were in London. We found that they are anxious to get all the information possible to help them to increase their business, which is the importation of Canadian products. My hon. friend across the way (Mr. Ross) spoke about the exportation of grain through Canadian ports. We are all anxious to have this done. I think this is an opportune time for me to say that the route over which Canadian products will go is, in a measure at least, in the hands of the producers themselves. My hon. friend shakes his head. Well, I will put it in a milder way: If the Canadian producer is anxious to have Canadian products go through Canadian ports, he can use his influence to this end. Western farmers or dealers can have their export products sent through Canadian ports if they so route them. The rates to Halifax and St. John are the same as the rates through American ports.


William Thomas Lucas: When the farmer dumps his
grain down the elevator he loses control of it.


George Perry Graham: I grasp that, but if the
farmers of the West would use their influence to have their products sent through Canadian. ports I have no doubt that they could impress upon the man who is routing it the desirability of doing that. We can only develop our Canadian ports by community effort. I merely wish to throw out the suggestion as to the advisability of helping out in this direction in every way we can. It may cost the railways a little more to haul the traffic to Halifax or St. John, but they are bound to carry it the way it is routed. Without the co-operation of all Canadian citizens we cannot develop our Canadian ports.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the rate on wheat
the same, say, from Winnipeg to St. John as it is from Winnipeg to Portland by rail?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, the rates are tne same. There was a differential against Halifax until a few months ago, but that has been removed, and although it would be cheaper for the Canadian railways to haul to Portland they have to give the same rate to Halifax or St. John that they give to Portland. Now, send your products by Halifax and St. John and help us to develop our Canadian ports.


George Gibson Coote: Well, it costs more to ship
wheat from Fort William to Port Colborne than it does to ship it from Fort William to Buffalo. The remedy for that condition rests with the government; if they will abrogate the coastal shipping law, then wheat can go from Fort William to Canadian ports as it now goes from Fort William to American ports. The minister suggests that we are all anxious to have Canadian grain handled through Canadian ports, but we are raising and shipping down to Fort William more grain than our Canadian boats on the lakes can handle. So [DOT] long as the present coastal shipping law remains on the statute book, about 40 per cent of our grain must go through United States channels. United States boats are not allowed to take our grain from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, so when a United States vessel loads grain at a Canadian port she must discharge it at an American port. That grain is lost to Canada; yet the government seems to think it must maintain that coastal shipping law. In the fall of 1922 some of our shippers were being penalized to the extent of 2 or 3 cents a bushel because they tried to have their grain handled through Canadian ports. Prominent grain dealers in western Canada were wiring this government
Supply-Grain Elevators

asking them to suspend the coastal shipping law so that thpy could ship the grain to Port Colborne at the same rate that they were paying to Buffalo. But the government made no move in that direction, and a lot of our grain which might have gone through Canadian channels was forced into the United States. Until this coastal shipping law is repealed it will be impossible for our grain to get out through Canadian ports, and until the people of eastern Canada realize that, the grain will continue to go through American ports no matter how much we get up in this House and talk about the desirability of keeping Canadian grain in Canadian channels.


George Perry Graham: A large proportion of
Canadian grain does go down as far as Montreal and thence to Portland, but it is possible for the western shipper to see that that grain goes to a Canadian port instead of to Portland. Leaving out the Buffalo end of it altogether, that would be a good beginning. I have advised the Canadian shipping companies to have their representatives go to western Canada to discuss this whole situation with the western people and if possible come to some arrangement by which the Canadian ports will be given a preference. This suggested abrogation of the coastal laws is a very big question. Canadian ships are not allowed to do any coasting in the United States, and we have to take some steps to protect our own interests. But it must be remembered that Canadian ports carry a lot of United States grain simply because the shipper works in unison with the dealer in grain in the United States. My idea is to get the western people and the Ontario people in the frame of mind that they will do their best, everything being equal, to have their grain shipped through Canadian ports. If that is done, it strikes me that it will be a much easier task to regulate the freights than if we all stand aloof and take the attitude that we are going to send through the United States if that is better. We do get large shipments of grain from the United States through Montreal, because that is a better way of shipping it. I realize that there are difficulties but I want to sound the note of the desirability of eastern Canada and western Canada getting together in this matter with a view to seeing what can be done; that rather than stand aloof and say it cannot' be done we should be ready to meet with each other with a view to seeing that it is done. I am inclined to think that it is possible to get our rates regulated so that it will not

be more advantageous to ship to Buffalo. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government are working along that line, but there are many difficulties in the way. We are anxious that our carrying trade should not be handed over to the United States. But the question of abolition of coasting laws does not stop at a ship of grain on the Great Lakes; it is very far-reaching. It is not merely a Canadian question, ibut an international question; it is ocean-wide, because the question has been raised by Japan whether a ship starting from Liverpool and landing in Canada is not engaged in coastal trade, both countries being members of the British Empire. So we have to be very careful how we deal with the coasting laws, because our carrying trade and that of the British Empire might be interfered with on a very, very large scale. This is a time when consultation and conference and good-will, each to the other, will bring about results very far-reaching, and I have advised eastern men not to stand at long range, but to send their representatives to the West to consult with them as to the advisability of .them shipping their grain by Canadian ports. I believe that if we go to work earnestly we can bring about results by which without any detriment to the carrying trade of the Canadian merchant fleet or to the farmers of the West we can get a very much greater volume of traffic sent through our Canadian ports than we have at the present time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there not a provision in the Canadian Railway Act that all unrouted freight originating on the Canadian Government railways shall be shipped through Canadian ports, and if so, is that provision being carried out?


George Perry Graham: That is not in the Railway Act. There is a clause of that kind in an agreement made, I think, with the Canadian Northern Railway, in which they got some subvention, but it is difficult to carry that out because it is easy for a shipper to say to the railway:	Send it some other
way.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In that case, it is
routed. The clause I referred to applies to unrouted freight.


George Perry Graham: There is mighty little
traffic that is not routed. You can understand how easily at can be routed if the shipper does not care which way it goes.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I thoroughly agree with the minister's contention.


Thomas Andrew Low: In answer to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) who asked why there was such a great difference between lake freights between Fort William and Port Col-bome and Fort William and Buffalo, the last complete figures I have are for the year 1922, and they show a difference of .62, or about three-fifths of one per cent per bushel in favour of the Canadian port. I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that that is a very favourable advantage for Canadians. In view of the fact that Buffalo claims that they can handle grain cheaper than some Canadian ports, and the further fact that they have iron ore and coal to carry, while the Canadian boats in some cases have not, that lower carrying charge is really to the advantage of Canadian shippers.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to talk too long at this time of night. At the same time, I would not like to let the occasion pass without the comment I think it deserves. In the Maritime provinces particularly, the words just uttered by the Minister of Railways and Canals will, I think, be heard with a great deal of appreciation, and I do not propose that the line which politically separates us on the two sides of the House shall prevent me in any way from expressing appreciation of the policy which he has just enunciated. It is distinctly good and distinctly Canadian, and, if I may borrow a phrase from another quarter of the House, a step in the right direction. We will be glad to have a great many other such steps taken.
'Without in any way detracting from what the minister has said, I w'ant the House to realize that St. John as it is to-day, ready, willing, anxious to carry as much of the trade of Canada as it can secure, and not I think unduly jealous of the other great port in the Maritime provinces, Halifax, could not so far as the Canadian National Railway is concerned take full advantage of the trade of the West if it were being forwarded in the direction of St. John to-day. By means of the other national railway, the Canadian Pacific, we are getting a share of it, and we are willing and would be glad to have that share increased, but I want to emphasize at this moment that it is the business of this country not to make expenditures for terminals in Portland, Maine, but to make those expenditures within Canadian territory, at Halifax and at St. John. The Canadian National Railway to-day has a small grain elevator on the eastern side of the harbour
of St. John. That elevator is used only to some extent; I doubt if it is used at all to its capacity. There is about one berth available in connection with that railway. You cannot handle any reasonable proportion of the trade of the West through such facilities as those. There is opportunity in the vicinity of the new dry dock, and it is said there is a programme of development to go on there to make the National Railways capable of carrying its portion of Canadian trade through this Canadian port. I would like to see that programme implemented by some equal declaration on the part of the Minister of Public Works.
I would also like to see on the other side of the harbour, on the western side, the opportunity of the Canadian Pacific railway to handle the trade of the West made greater by the actual construction of the breakwater to Partridge island, and the completion of the programme to which the government of Canada is solemnly bound by what is known in St. John as the tri-partite agreement. That agreement provided for the building of wharves by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government in conjunction. It has remained a dead letter almost from the day it was executed, and yet until these facilities are provided, the spout is not sufficient to handle the grain. That is no reason why we should not ask to get it in the East; but it is the reason why we should come to parliament and try as patiently as we can to convince, not the government alone, but to convince the whole of parliament, the group from the section from which I am speaking as well as the group supporting the government and the group situated to my left, that there are real opportunities in the Maritime provinces for handling this business, and that it is only fair, just and right that a reasonable portion of the resources of the Dominion of Canada should be expended in making those ports fit for the handling of this business. Add to that the encouraging sentiment put forward and so well expressed by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to-night, and I think we can take a very decided step towards making a more united Canada than in the past.


Mr. FINN:: I agree, Mr. Chairman, with
the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) in the remarks he has just made in connection with business for Maritime ports. We have a condition at the port of Halifax that is going to be partly met by an estimate in the department of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that will come up to-night, or perhaps. if it will suit the hon. leader of the opposition, tomorrow would be a better time.
33&4
Supply-Grain Elevators

But I can assure hon. members of this House that the sentiments just expressed by the hon. member for St. John are shared by the people in the Maritime provinces; and I think that all hon. members, whether they come from the far Pacific, whether they come from the great province of Ontario or the province of Quebec, or from the middle West, should know that in the Maritime provinces- and I speak more particularly for the port of Halifax, and my hon. friend from St. John has spoken for that city-there are no jealousies existing to-day between those two ports. They are the only Canadian winter ports in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert Emmett Finn: I mean in the East. I beg
the pardon of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) who sits near me was about to demur to that statement, and I was about to correct my statement even before I was corrected by hon. members on the other side of the House. When we take into consideration the fact that we have to-day 23,000 miles of railway under the operation of Sir Henry Thornton and his board of management and the statement that there is practically little or no business through the Maritime ports on the Atlantic sea-board over that great system in winter, and, that the traffic must go1 to Portland, or to New London or to the other American ports, I say preservation is the first law of nature, and I desire to repeat, in the words of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond), that we want to be a hundred per cent Canadian in the Maritime provinces, in the great province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec, in the middle West, and in far-away British Columbia. I was pleased to hear the remark of the Minister of Railways to-night that the removal of the differential of one cent as against Halifax put the port of Halifax as a port to-day on the same basis as St. John and Montreal and on the same basis as Portland, New York, Philadelphia, Boston and New London. If that is so, there is no reason why the hundred per cent Canadian in the West, whether he be a grower of grain or a broker who ships it out, or whether he be a purchaser, should not be a hundred per cent Canadian in the East, and when he can get the same rate through the ports of Halifax and St. John in winter, as against Portland, New York, Philadelphia or Boston, he should utilize these Canadian ports for the purpose of transporting that grain to the Mother Country and to any other parts of the world where it 
is required. I say, Mr. Chairman to-night, as I said before, that if our Canadian people are not a hundred per cent Canadian, if they are not going to look after the development of their own ports, but are going to sacrifice the interests of Canada and prevent Canada from becoming a great nation for their own self aggrandizement, it is the duty of this government or any other government that is in power, to see to it that grain and other products are shipped through Canadian ports; and if these products are not shipped through Canadian ports, then the government should consider whether or not an export duty should be placed on products shipped through foreign ports. Consider what the United States is doing to-day. What is it doing? It is giving a differential over its railways on all freight that is going to :be carried across the ocean in American bottoms. They are a country of 110,000,000 people, and we have scarcely 9,000,000 people.


John Millar: Did they not propose that legislation and afterwards withdraw it?


Robert Emmett Finn: No. If I am not mistaken they attempted to withdraw it, and I understood that under the law it was held in abeyance, but it is their intention to put that differential into effect, in order to obtain the traffic for American bottoms. My hon. friend shakes his head. I may say that I read the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and I read the application that was made for the staying of those proceedings, but it was only temporary; it has been held in abeyance and is to come into effect later. Even taking the statement of my hon. friend, it shows what public opinion in the United States is to-day. It shows the tendency of the public mind, not only the mind of the public man but of all the people of the United States; and if that is the tendency and if that is the mind of 110,000,000 of people in that country, surely it is up to us as a Canadian parliament and as a Canadian people to see to it that we protect our Canadian ports, and that we send through Canadian channels that which will help to make our country great and prosperous. If we fail to do that we are recreant in our duty. My hon. friend on the other side laughs. It is all very well for him to take that attitude. He is living in a country where he does not care very much about the Atlantic ports. There are hon. gentlemen in this House and in this country living in our middle West who do not care whether the grain goes to American ports or Canadian ports as long as Providence gives them the soil, the rain,

Supply-Grain Elevators
the sunshine, and the season, enabling them to grow the crops and sell them to the broker, the question as to how they are transported from this country means little or nothing to them. But there is a principle involved; and I desire to say to my hon. friends that when we in the Maritime provinces entered confederation in 1867 we gave to this great country a Maritime frontage that otherwise they would have been without. The moment the St. Lawrence closes Canada as a nation is without a national eastern seaport. If the American governments and the American people put an export duty on Canadian produce going through American ports, where would the Canadian people be for six months of the year? We gave that frontage to this great Dominion, we gave up our right to enter into fiscal relations with the 110,000,000 people to the south, and now we are told that when the St. Lawrence is closed by Providence it is only right that Canadian products should be transported to Portland, New London, New York or Boston. Are we, the Maritime people going to stand for that?


Thomas Sales: Would the hon. member permit me to say that the other night I advocated the shipment of grain through Canadian channels as far as possible. No hon. member on this side of the House has made any such insinuation as the hon. gentleman is making at the moment.


Robert Emmett Finn: I beg the hon. gentleman's
pardon. I prefaced it with the word "if." I said: If it was the opinion of gentlemen- I did not say who sat in the House, but I said gentlemen who lived in the Canadian West, the men that were growing the wheat. I do not desire to detain the committee; but it is only fair and right that as a representative of the East, I, along with the hon. member for St.. John City (Mr. Baxter), should have made this statement here to-night to show that we are alive to the interests of the Maritime provinces, and we are not going to quit either in this House or in this country until we get our right which is due us. When we have that we shall be satisfied, and you will not find us complaining either here or in the country.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In spite of some remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Finn), I may say that I have a very sympathetic appreciation of the statements made by all three hon. gentlemen who have just addressed the House; that is, I am a sufficiently good Canadian to want to see all the traffic, commercially possible, carried through our own ports
and over our own railways. I think the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) was hardly correct in stating that the farmers of the prairies had very much influence in routing their grain after it got east of Fort William. The men who ship their own grain route it to Fort William, and they can naturally say how it will go, either Canadian National or Canadian Pacific. But when the grain gets to Fort William, that is their market; but beyond that, practically all our grain is handled by the men who purchase it from the farmers, and they are the men who must be approached in the matter. No matter what our sympathy, whether we ship by car or in any other way, we have no control over the routing after the grain arrives in Fort William and is unloaded in the elevators there, When I was at home, I wondered at times, and since I have had the pleasure of an opportunity of visiting the ports of Halifax and St. John which, I saw, were fine natural harbours, I wondered why our grain went through Portland and other American ports instead of through our ports in the Maritime provinces. I discussed the matter at some length, and I began to realize why it was; that with all the goodwill in the world it is hard to buck against natural facts or financial, not theories, but actualities. From Montreal to Portland over the Canadian National Railways-and I presume all the grain going to any of these ports must go through Montreal 

the distance is 297 miles. From Montreal to St. John over the Canadian National Railways it is 743 miles and from Montreal to Halifax over the Canadian National Railways it is 843 miles. There is the reason in a nutshell. By the Canadian Pacific-this does not apply to Halifax, but it does to St. John-the distance from Montrael to St. John is 481 miles. There is the reason. The cost, it is true, to the shipper is the same. That is, there is exactly the same rate from Montreal to any of those ports; but you can quite understand why the railway itself, which is supposed to show an operating profit, chooses the shorter route. There is the physical fact that we are up against. That is the disability under which those Canadian ports are labouring. I wondered over this many times, as I discussed the matter with gentlemen I met in those eastern ports and as we discussed it on our way home. Sympathetic and anxious as we were to see those ports prosper, we discussed many times how, through our co-operation or in any other manner, that disability could be overcome.


Robert Emmett Finn: The distance is greater than
from Montreal to Portland, but the rate is
Supply-Grain Elevators

the same as to St. John and Halifax. If the railways were prepared to haul and time was mot a great factor, what is the argument in favour of Portland as against St. John and Halifax in the winter?


Alfred Speakman: I said that from the
point of view of the shipper, unless time was an element, it made no difference which way the grain was routed. From the point of view of the railway which receives the same money for hauling a much greater distance, you can readily see why they, bound, if possible, to show an operating profit, would, as a business concern, prefer the shorter route. That is my point.


Robert Emmett Finn: The distance from Montreal
to St. John over the Canadian Pacific is 184 miles further than the distance from Montreal to Portland. Why would the Canadian Pacific haul 184 miles further to St. John? Why would they not go to Portland?


Alfred Speakman: I am not quite certain
whether the Canadian Pacific has a definite connection to Portland.


Robert Emmett Finn: And the Canadian National
should not have either. If we have, we should not use it in order to ship Canadian products.


Alfred Speakman: I have no intention
at this time of night of entering into an argument with the hon. member for Halifax as to the advisability of owning the American portion of the National Railways. That is a rather large subject. As to the righteousness of utilizing it if we do own it, that is a rather large subject again. I was simply pointing out, as best I could, where the difficulty existed. I am not pointing this out through any lack of sympathy, because if you are going to meet a problem, you must understand the problem. My sympathy is with Nova Scotia. I like Nova Scotia things. I went and got a wife from Nova Scotia, and I could not have paid that province a greater compliment. There is the problem, and there is no use in closing our eyes to the fact that a difficult problem exists and that the president of a railway, whose connection with the railway is a purely business concern, who is bound, if possible, to make this railway pay so as to reduce deficits to the vanishing point, to produce a revenue and to pay interest charges, is justified from his standpoint of view in using the shortest, most economical route and the route that will bring him the most money.


John Millar: Has the hon. member considered also the factor that has not been mentioned yet, namely; that the ocean rate from New York and Boston-I am not sure about Portland-to Liverpool is about two cents better than the rate from Canadian ports?


Alfred Speakman: I am aware of that fae,., but I had not quite come to that point because I was still on dry land. I was discussing the problem of the railway in moving the grain to the port. A number of us, anxious, although we live in the Middle West, to see the best done for the whole of Canada, were discussing and considering how that difficulty could be met. To my mind it is an unfair thing to say to a railway that is struggling to overcome a deficit: You must, at the same price received, haul grain a much greatei distance at a much greater cost. There is also the additional factor that, on the whole, the grade is better to Portland, and again that there is more return freight from Portland. Those are factors which you cannot overlook, and from a railway point of view the argument in favour of Portland is incontrovertible. Then comes the other point -in what way can you meet that difficulty? I am not advocating this; it must be a matter of government and not of railway policy. But to my mind there is only one thing that could be done; the government might say, "It is in the national interest that we should ship through these ports and that they should be developed." But are we prepared to subsidize the railways to pay the difference? I am not advocating that. I am simply saying that this is the only sound business way of approaching the matter, and it is useless to try to camouflage things and to blind ourselves to the situation. Are we prepared as a country to subsidize the railways to pay the difference in the cost in order that the grain may go through these ports? At the present time I have not made up my mind that this is wise and I am not going to offer the government any advice; I can only say that I am thankful that the responsibility is not mine. That, however, is my point of view. Eventually grain and merchandise must go by the way it can be carried cheapest, from the business point of view; and if the business point of view and the national point of view conflict, as they may do in this case-and I am not saying that they do-then the matter is one not

Supply-Grain Elevators
of railway policy but of government policy.
It is not a policy for the business men and the railways to initiate; the government must meet the situation.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am able now to add a few
figures to those I have already given the hon. member (Mr: Coote). I stated that the Fort William to Port Colborne rate was less by three-fifths of a cent than the rate from Fort William to Buffalo. I should correct that; it is lower; it is two-fifths of a cent. The rate for the year 1923 for seven months, amounted to 3.63 to Goderich and 4.36 to Buffalo, a difference of three-quarters of a cent less to Goderich or bay ports than to Buffalo; and from Fort William bo Port Colborne it was a quarter of a cent less in 1923 than to Buffalo. These to the Canadian ports are lees than to American ports.


George Gibson Coote: I must admit that the minister has the advantage of me in quoting figures in regard to lake freights because I have no figures before me to answer him. But I would suggest to the committee that if we could find as much discrepancy in these figures as occurred in those the minister quoted before we might discover that a wrong impression, if I might put it as strongly as that, had been created in the committee. I regret I have not here the report of the royal commission which examined into the matter of freight rates on the Great Lakes in the year 1922. I am sure I could show to the minister that the rates to Buffalo early in that season were one and a quarter cent less than to Port Colborne and that specific complaint in regard to that was made by Mr. James Stewart. He asked the government to suspend the coastal shipping law so that he might not be penalized by paying this high rate which made it difficult for him to compete with American millers. This government absolutely refused or neglected to suspend that law in 1922. If I had the correspondence which was brought down that year between the government and the different parties in regard to this suspension I am sure I could show the minister that the rates to Goderich and bay ports were much higher than they were to Buffalo, although the distance to Buffalo is several hundred miles greater.
There has been a good deal of talk here to-night regarding the question of the shipment of grain from Montreal to Atlantic ports, but that is only a very small percentage of the grain which is going out of Canada through Buffalo, and through Buffalo to the
different American ports on the Atlantic coast. The one great fact which must not be overlooked in connection with this shipment of grain through Canadian channels is that so long as this shipping law remains on the statute books 40 per cent of our grain-and I think I am placing the estimate very low- is forced to go through American channels. It cannot go to Montreal to have even the chance then of going through Halifax or St. John. I think that possibly we have dwelt on this question long enough; I presume that most of the members of the committee at this hour of the morning do not care to pursue the subject much further. But the question of the mixing of Canadian grain is one which must de dealt with and placed in a more satisfactory position than it occupies at the present time. Last year, in the month of July, Canadian wheat was 10 cents a bushel lower on the Liverpool market than Australian wheat, although we are always told in this House that we have the best wheat in the woTld. In conversation with a representative of one of the largest milling firms in Great Britain I was informed that in his opinion one of the reasons was that the Canadian grain which they bought could not be depended upon to be up to standard. He said that if our farmers could form a strong enough pool they could place their own inspectors at the elevator from which the grain left Canada, place their own inspection certificate on that grain, and1 place an agent in the Old Country who would examine the grain when it went there, and if any claim were made that it was not up to standard, the grading and sample could be made good to the English buyer. If we did that, he added, we could raise the price of our wheat, because, as he said, there was no question in the world that a lot of the grain they bought in England had been lowered in grade or sample.
This is one of the most important questions in connection with the grain trade, and so long as the bulk of the wheat which is going through Montreal is American wheat there is danger of the cargoes which go from Montreal being tampered with as well as the cargoes which are going from the United States. I want to impress upon the minister that I have been assured that the grain which has gone from Vancouver has so far been on an average of a better sample for the same grade than the grain going through Montreal. This goes to show that it is possible that the grades which are going out of the elevator at Montreal are not in all cases what they should be.
Supply-Grain Elevators


William Thomas Lucas: It is not my intention, to discuss the matter at any length at this hour, but there is one point that has not been discussed this evening. We all agree that the routing of Canadian grain through Canadian ports is a matter of great importance. I would like to point out to the Minister of Railways, who dealt with this question a few minutes ago, a remedy which would in a great measure prevent our grain going through American ports; that is, the routing of a great deal of it through the port of Vancouver. He could lend a great deal of assistance to this end by using his influence to have the mountain scale of freight rates reduced in proportion to the rates prevailing in other parts of the country. The minister told us this evening, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), that while the distance from Montreal to Portland is only 297 miles, as against 743 miles from Montreal to St. John, that the railways give exactly the same rate in both cases. And while the distance from Calgary to Fort William is 1,280 miles, as against only 640 miles from Calgary to Vancouver, yet we have to pay practically the same rate for the shorter ha,d; This in my opinion is a gross discrimination, especially against the people of Alberta because of the fact that Vancouver is their natural outlet. Although about two years ago only half a million bushels of wheat went through the port of Vancouver, this year already over fifty million bushels have been exported from that port, amply demonstrating that it is a feasible route. Last year Alberta produced 167,000,000 bushels of wheat, and every bushel of it for export would find its natural outlet through Vancouver, as would also a great portion of the Saskatchewan crop. The diversion of this wheat to the western route would relieve the eastern route to such an extent that it would be able to practically take care of all the grain that would naturally go through our eastern ports, and thereby render unnecessary the use of the American Atlantic ports for this purpose. I think the Minister of Railways will agree with me that through the Yellowhead pass the Canadian National Railways have as easy a grade as will be found on any other part of the road in Canada. Therefore in my opinion there is no reason why we in the West should be discriminated against by the mountain scale.
I trust this matter will be given careful consideration with a view to our getting the same treatment in regard to freight rates as is enjoyed by our friends in the East. I am entirely sympathetic with the aspirations of

our Maritime ports, and I should like to see every bushel of grain that is going out from the Atlantic seaboard handled through those ports to the fullest possible extent; but I believe the natural outlet for a great portion of our western grain is through the port of Vancouver, and I think this route should be given every encouragement.


Thomas Andrew Low: I agree very largely with the remarks made by the hon. member for Red : Deer that the individual farmer loses coni of his wheat once it reaches Fort William, when the buyer determines the i route which it shall follow. I know from per-j sonal experience that the seller of 400,000 or ; 500,000 bushels of wheat immediately asks i how the buyer wants it routed. So the in-j dividual farmer, if he is shipping a car load through to Montreal or to Halifax or even across the ocean, is given this opportunity of saying how he wishes it routed; but the individual farmer undoubtedly loses control of his grain once it reaches Fort William. Item agreed to.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is one other item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought my hon. friend was through. I have been keeping quiet so he could get his vote passed.


Thomas Andrew Low: This is a very small item, and I think my hon. friend will allow it to go through without even a comment-Number 380.
Elevators, government terminal, maintenance of and necessary equipment, $60,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is attached to the last vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I beg leave to move, seconded by Dr. King:
That the order of business on Tuesday the 24th instant be the same as on Monday the 23rd instant.
The object is to bring on private bill No. 47 to incorporate the United Church of Canada.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the unanimous consent of the House to adopt this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 12.40 a:m. (Thursday).

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Thursday, June 19, 1924