1924-07-16

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I have the honour to present the second and final report of the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations as follows:
The Select Committee on Industrial and International Relations beg leave to submit the following as their Second and Final Report:
A resolution was adopted by the House of Commons on May 3rd declaring it expedient that a certain draft convention which was adopted at the first session of the International Labour Conference of the League of Nations in 1919 limiting the hours of work in ini-dustrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Industrial and Internationlal Relations for examination and report, having regard to tlhe lobour provisions of the Treaties of Peace and to the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, deal-in*g with the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures.
Your Committee has held several sittings and made a careful examination of the draft convention, the labour part of the Treaties of Peace and the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, dealing with the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the Provincial legislatures. Evidence was taken with respect to the present position of the eight-hour day in industrial employment in Canada and other countries. Information was presented to your Committee with reference to a conference which was held in Ottawa in September last between representatives of the Dominion and Provincial Governments which indicated that notwithstanding the view expressed in the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, doubt existed in certain quarters as to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities, respectively.
It is accordingly recommended that measures be taken to refer the "Draft Convention limiting the hours of work in Industrial Undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week" to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 00 of the Supreme Court Act together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominioni parliament and of the provincial legislatures, \espectively.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Do I understand there is a motion
to concur in the report?


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no motion for
concurrence.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Can
the government state what their policy is, or is likely to be, in connection with the report of the committee on Old Age Pensions which was submitted on July 1?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The report of the committee to which my hon. friend refers, I think, contemplated that any action by this parliament would be contingent upon co-operative action on the part of the provinces. The

government intends during the recess to communicate to the provincial governments the report which the committee has brought down and ascertain for the information of parliament what action, if any, they are prepared to take with reference to those recommendations.



THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: May I ask the government whether or not they are now prepared to go ahead with the Alternative Vote bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend an answer as yet.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The session is near its close,
and I wish to give a list, though very partial, of the orders of this House still uncomplied with. An order was made on March 27, on the motion of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) for a copy of the report of commissioner Thompson respecting the Six Nations Indians, on April 3, motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for the amount of liquor brought into British Columbia during the years 1922-23; April 7, motion of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) as to the value of production and amount consumed and exported of wheat, butter, eggs and so forth; April 7, motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for the amount of Canadian customs collected by the officer at New York; April 14, motion of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) respecting the dismissal of Peter Hickey; April 30, motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for the production of certain statements made before the Royal Pulpwood Commission by Mr. Piche and other witnesses; May 1, motion by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to cars and locomotives purchased in Canada by American railway companies during the past twenty-five years, and duty paid by them on American rolling stock used in Canada.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) : I think my right hon. friend will find there was some reply to that.


Arthur Meighen: There was a reference
made to it in the House, but the order of the House has not been complied with.

Inquiry for Returns


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think my right hon.
friend will discover there is an answer to it somewhere that was quite definite. If I remember correctly it was that the information required could not be ascertained.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that could possibly be, because the number of cars purchased could easily be ascertained by inquiring in Canada; in fact I think the Bureau of Statistics would have it. However, it could be ascertained without a doubt even if the Bureau of Statistics did not have it.


George Perry Graham: I think the reply was to
the effect that the government did not have the information.


Arthur Meighen: But the order passed the House which made it the duty of the government to get the information.


George Perry Graham: If it does not exist you
cannot get it.


Arthur Meighen: It exists undoubtedly
and can be got. On May 5, an order was passed on the motion of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) respecting the purchase of ties by the Canadian National Railway during 1923, also the cost of all creosoting plants completed or under construction; on May 5, motion by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) respecting the shipment of whiskey from Walkerville, Ont., to Watson, Ensenada, Mexico, and cancellation of bond given in connection therewith; May 28, motion by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet), respecting the dismissal of Edward Gibbs; June 9, motion by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) respecting the non-infliction of lashes on "Red" Ryan; June 9, motion by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), for a return which I am rather interested to see, respecting the amalgamation of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Hamilton; June 9, motion by the hon. member for Kent, N.B., respecting the inquiry on Ludovic Germain, chief of city distribution branch, Montreal; May 9, motion of the hon. member for Lincoln respecting the dismissal of Mr. D. D. Campbell, as postmaster at O'Leary, Prince Edward Island; May 9, motion of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) respecting the necessity of being university graduate before appointment as trade commissioner; June 16, motion of the hon. member for West York, respecting instructions given Dr. Hume re oil industry in Ontario and all evidence, reports, and so forth by Dr. Hume
thereon; June 16, motion by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) respecting improvement, care and betterment of historic sites and battlefields in Niagara district of the War of 1812-14; June 18, motion of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) respecting the Wembley exposition-the use of Canadian materials in buildings thereof, and relationship of High Commissioner of Canada thereto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I con supply that return now.


Arthur Meighen: One out of twenty-three would be a very good response for one day. As my right hon. friend will see some of these returns have stood from March until to-day.
I might mention as well that about a week or ten days ago I called attention to glaring incompleteness of certain reports, and specified the exact data which was not complete.
I was promised a complete report or explanation the other day, but none has yet been forthcoming.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we were on the order "Motions" I could lay on the Table a copy of the correspondence of which I spoke. I move that we return to "Motions."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to lay on the Table copy of all correspondence with respect to the use of Canadian materials in buildings at the Wembley exposition, and the relationship of the High Commissioner for Canada thereto.


Mr. BUREAU:: Now that we are on "Motions," I beg to lay on the Table of the House a return asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) re appointment of Canadian Customs officer at New York; also return asked for by the member for Vancouver Centre, regarding liquor brought into British Columbia during the calendar year 1922-23. My hon. friend has alluded to some delay in returns. The return is incomplete. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Morrison) will bear witness, the return is incomplete because the correspondence is incomplete, having been taken away by the minister to whom it was addressed before I came to office.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the information I had reference to. The return which I referred to had to do with the Department of Marine and Fisheries.

Banque Canadienne Nationale
Hon, P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): The return referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition will be completed to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House returned to "Orders of the Day."
EMPLOYMENT OF MR. CRANFIELD On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I desire to draw the attention of the government to an article which appeared in the Empire number of the Manchester Guardian which has just reached Canada, written by a Mr. Cran-field, entitled, " Canada, the World's Treasure House," which I think contains many extravagant statements regarding this country. I wish to ask whether Mr. Cranfield is an employee of this government, whether he has written these letters in his capacity as an agent of the government, and whether the government assumes responsibility for the statements contained in the article.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the first I have heard of the article to which the hon. member refers. I will make inquiry of the departments of the government likely to be interested, and let my hon. friend have a reply later.
COLONIAL SECRETARY On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. \\ OODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) : According to the press, there has been a discussion in the British House as to the possibility of a change in the name of the Colonial Secretary so that he will be able more adequately to represent the position which he now fills in the British Commonwealth. Has the government made any representations that some change in the name might be desirable from the standpoint of Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have also noticed in the press that the British government contemplate holding shortly a conference to deal with some matters relating to inter-imperial relations, and that would seem to be the appropriate time to bring up a question of the kind. I will undertake on behalf of the government to see that at any such conference the subject my hon. friend has mentioned is brought before the Imperial authorities.


Arthur Meighen: Did I understand my
I Mr. Meighen.]
right hon. friend to say that the British government was calling a conference on interimperial relations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw an announcement in the press-I think it was made by the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas, Secretary of State for the Colonies-to the effect that a conference would be arranged between representatives of the Empire to discuss some of these questions relating to inter-imperial matters. Having seen that intimation in the press I might confirm its accuracy by saying that the government has received a despatch from the Colonial Office, respecting a conference some time in the near future to take up some of these matters. That particular communication is under consideration at the moment.


Arthur Meighen: What reply has been
sent, if any? Has any date been indicated for the conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reply was that it was impossible to give an answer during the last days of the session; but that after the session was over the communication would be considered and a reply sent. The date suggested is some time towards the end of the present year.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I should like to ask how it happens that the Prime Minister is obtaining his information in regard to these matters through the press. Is it not customary to consult the Prime [DOT] Minister before any conference is thought of?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not like my reply to be misleading. My hon. friend in asking the question referred to a matter in the press, and I replied in reference to what appeared in the press, but I say the government has received an official despatch which bears out the accuracy of the press report.



PRIVATE BILLS BANQUE CANADIENNE NATIONALE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri) moved that Bill No. 218, to change the name of La Banque Nationale to La Banque Canadienne Nationale be now read a third time.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I understand that yesterday in the course of the discussion a misunderstanding arose in regard to the position I took in this House on this bill. I opposed the bill in committee, and I oppose the bill now. A misunderstanding arose on account of a statement by the chairman, who is supposed to

Questions
have said that I had been seen and had agreed to the change. The chairman of the committee assures me that that was not his intention and that he did not make the statement. I simply wish to make the explanation now, so that I shall not be on record in any false light. I have not had an opportunity of seeing Hansard, and I am only in a position to be guided by the statements which I have heard. I wish to state distinctly that 1 am opposed to the passage of the bill and will so vote.
Mr. 0OOTE: I was not present-


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman has already spoken on the motion for third reading.


George Gibson Coote: No, I was not present when the motion for third reading was before the House, and I want to make a public protest against this name being given to this bank. I have no objection to the bank using the name " Canadienne " or " Nationale," but I object to the words being used together because I think that will create a false impression in the minds of the public. The name " Canadienne Nationale " might be misleading. Canada should in the near future establish a national bank in the true sense of the term, that is a government bank, and this name should be reserved for the people of Canada if they should wish to use it. If this bank is managed in the same way La Banque Nationale was, in a few years we shall have some of the people coming to parliament and saying: "We were under a false impression; we thought this was a government bank." The House, I think, is making a mistake in allowing this name to be given to the bank.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed. r



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. PRESTON:: 1.	How many mounted policemen were engaged as pari mutuel inspectors on the race tracks in Quebec during the racing season of 1923?
2.	What amount per diem was paid to each by the ra-ing association under direction of the Department of Agriculture?
3.	How many mounted policemen are engaged in this work this year in Quebec?
4.	Has the Department of Agriculture arranged for the engagement of any men who are not mounted police for this work in Quebec this year?
5.	If so, how many civilians are employed?
6.	What amount was paid to each per diem?
7.	Have they any special qualifications not possessed by the police ?
8.	If not, why were they submitted?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Four men for the whole season. In the event of a clash in dates additional men were assigned to make up a party of four at each track.
2.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Department is allowed $12 for each racing day for N.C.O. in charge and $10 for other members of the staff.
3.	One.
4.	Yes.
5.	Three.
6.	Fifteen dollars per day.
7.	Yes. They are familiar with racing and the civilian viewpoint thereof. Consequently their experience in their present capacity may prove of additional value to the department in working out some further legislation which is in anticipation.
8.	Answered by No. 7.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- LEVIS OFFICES
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Was there an embezzlement of funds belonging to the Canadian National Railways at their offices in Levis, by padding pay sheets?
2.	If so, when was this discovered?
3.	On what date did said embezzlement begin?
4.	What was the amount?
5.	At what date did the employee supposed to be guilty of the above offence cease to occupy his position?
6.	Was said employee arrested? If not why, and what were the means taken to have him apprehended ?
7.	Have the sums embezzled been returned?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	February 8, 1924.
3.	June 20, 1920.
4.	$3,794.75.
5.	February 23, 1924.
6.	No; disappeared after having admitted guilt. Officers of Railway Investigation department are making every effort to locate.
7.	Yes.
RESEARCH COUNCIL On the Order:
Third reading of Bill No. 241, to amend the Research Council Act.-Hon. Mr. Low.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Minister of the Interior):: I would ask to amend the title of this bill by striking out the words " An Act to amend," so that it will simply be " The Research Council Act."


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment can be made after the motion that the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) moved the third reading of the bill.
Customs and Excise Act

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


Charles A. Stewart: That the said bill do now pass under the amended title "The Research Council Act", instead of "An Act to amend the Research Counoil Act.


Arthur Meighen: This is the title which, I think, the bill should have, but I think the proper procedure is to refer it back to the committee with instructions to amend the title.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood the other day that it was agreeable to .have the amendment made on the third reading and I was agreeing with the committee's request.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but I was discussing the question of procedure.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FISHERIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 248, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 118, to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from July 9 consideration in committee of Bill No. 237, to amend the Department of Customs and Excise Act - Hon. Mr. Bureau,-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Advisory Board constituted.
Jacques Bureau: Last Wednesday when this bill was before the committee, objections were taken and I left it to the House to decide. Upon reading the debate as it took place in the House at that time, I found that the main objection to the bill was on account of the fear that the commission to 
be appointed for the purpose of investigating and trying to simplify the taxation system would become a permanent commission. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said that he would be willing to see the commission go into existence provided that it was limited for a term of three years. Some hon. members suggested that the officers of the department should do the work. Others said that it would not be advisable for the officers of the department to assume that duty, and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) in particular thought that they would not be the proper parties to do the work. Under the circumstances, as it has been suggested by the hon. member for Brome, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) and other hon. members that we should come to some understanding; that it was advisable to have an investigation made into the system of taxation and that it was advisable also to have somebody who would endeavour to devise means to simplify the system and to alleviate the burden on the taxpayers, I will move to withdraw section 2 establishing a board, and I suggest, if it will meet with the approval of the committee that we change in the Supplementary Estimates the amount which is inserted there to provide for the commission, so that instead of being to pay a commission, a chairman at a rate not to exceed $10,000 and two members at salaries not to exceed salaries of $7,500, the amount be passed as required for the investigation and study of the various modes of taxation with a view of simplifying and improving the existing system. This is a suggestion that I make. As I said the other night, persons who thought that I had in mind a job for a friend are entirely and absolutely mistaken. When I brought the project before the House it was not with the intention of creating any job for anyone, it was with the intention and for the purpose of devising means of simplifying the present system of taxation in order to alleviate the burden upon the taxpayers. So far as I am personally concerned it is, as I pointed out before, purely a matter of duty and I can assure hon. gentlemen that I am not wedded to the proposal. With the knowledge I have of the collection of taxes I thought I was only doing the proper thing in introducing this, but if the committee is not willing to accept the suggestion I will not press it. I therefore withdraw' the clause.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: We will all agree on the withdrawal of the clause and we need not discuss the question of estimates.

Civil Service Commissioners


The CHAIRMAN:: The section is withdrawn together with the amendment of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good).
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 122, to provide for the superannuation of civil servants.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


George Perry Graham: The amendments made by the Senate have been pretty well explained in the press. There is the matter of charging certain employees with 4 per cent; these are,
I think, temporary employees. Then there is another amendment made by the Senate on page 2 of the bill under the heading "Permanent Officer, Clerk or Employee". There is a change in the description which might be regarded as in the nature of interpretation. The following is the amendment:
Page 2, line 25. Strike out from "appointed" to the end of paragraph (h) and insert "as aforesaid, or by or under resolution, order or other authorization of the Senate, House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament jointly, ns the case may be, to perform such duties as aforesaid or duties from year to year during or having relation to the sessions of parliament".
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS-RETIRING ALLOWANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 252, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Annual allowance to Civil Service Commissioners on retirement.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister might explain the reason for this change. One never knows what truth there is in rumours, but we have heard the statement that a popular member of the House is to be looked after in connection with one of these appointments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nonsense.


Mr. COPP:: When this matter was before
the House on a previous occasion in the form of a resolution I made a rather exhaustive
statement in explanation of the desirability of passing this legislation. As I stated then, the question first came to the attention of the government in a letter from the Civil Service Commissioners themselves asking that the proposed amendment to the act be submitted to parliament. I placed on Hansard then a statement which it is not necessary for me to repeat to-day. The letter of' the commissioners was forwarded to the special committee to which had been referred the Superannuation bill which has passed this House, and after carefully considering the matter that committee unanimously recommended that favourable consideration be given the request of the commissioners. As was pointed out the other day, the present commissioners were appointed for life and their work is semi-judicial in character; and as there was no provision for their retirement we thought it was only fair that this bill should be introduced.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope the genial minister will go further and assure us that there is no need to apprehend the loss of our good friend the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier).


Arthur Bliss Copp: I should be sorry to lose the presence of that estimable gentleman.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Mr. LEWIS:: I think that these commissioners should come under the Superannuation Act the same as deputy ministers and other civil servants. A man might easily be appointed to the commission at the age of thirty and after fifteen years' service the government, not being able to get along with him, might make it so uncomfortable for him that he would have to resign at the age of forty-five. I do not think this is a wise step; these gentlemen have as much right to come under the Superannuation Act and retire at the age of seventy or seventy-five, as the case may be, as have deputy ministers or any other civil servants.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Having regard to the interests of the taxpayers I think this is the most scandalous piece of legislation that has ever been presented to parliament. The present commissioners were appointed in 1918 and have been in office six years, and under this bill they may retire and draw two-thirds of their salary for the rest of their lives.


An hon. MEMBER:: A crime.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: A crime? Of course it is: it is a crime against the taxpayers of the country and I cannot see any reason for it unless it is that the government wants to

Civil Service Commissioners
appoint other people to the commission who would be more satisfactory to themselves than the present members. This bill to enable a man after six years' service to retire on a pension representing two-thirds of his salary is an outrageous piece of legislation, and I think the government should withdraw it. As my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) says, let the Civil Service Commissioners come under the Superannuation Act the same as other civil servants. The pretence that they occupy a judicial position is absurd; anybody can see that. There is a nigger in the fence, I think I can see his shining face, and I should like to have him discovered. To my mind, this measure is designed to create vacancies on the commission for men who will be more acceptable to the government than the present commissioners.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The minister says that he explained this measure when the resolution was before the House, but unfortunately a large number of members were serving on committees at the time. Personally I was not in the House when the Superannuation bill passed or I would have said something in regard to certain features of that legislation. I protest against this bill. The Superannuation Act provides for the retirement of civil servants on a pension at a given age, but it is a different proposal altogether to provide a retiring allowance for the members of a commission. I object to government by commission. We are getting loaded up with commissions, and they are hampering the public service more or less. I take the view that any servant of the country who is getting as large a salary as the Civil Service Commissioners is not entitled to a pension, and I very strongly protest against this proposal. I go further, I do not think we should tax the ordinary taxpayers-our labourers, our farmers and our commercial men-to provide pensions for civil servants.
I believe the Superannuation Act is sound;
I think, however, the pension fund should be financed by those who are to be superannuated. In the post offices all over the country there is displayed the picture of two old men walking along hand in hand and underneath is t.he title, " Over the hill to the poor-house. ' It is a warning to taxpayers that if they want to provide against such an unfortunate contingency they should buy government annuities-but they must pay for them out of their own pockets. I do not see why we should put anyone in the privileged class which the Superannuation Act creates. Undoubtedly this bill goes too far altogether, and [Mr. Hocken.J
I shall oppose it as hard as I can. If it passes I am going to oppose it in the country. I think members will be derelict in their duty if they let the bill pass without protesting against it with all their might. If their voices do not prevail in the House they should in the country, and I for one propose hot to stop even in this House if the bill passes.


George Perry Graham: Don't leave the House.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I don't propose to until it prorogues; I hope to get out to pasture a little while between this and next session. I am sorry I was prevented by attendance on committees from being present to protest against some provisions of the Superannuation bill. I want to make another protest. Next session, if we are living and here, I shall urge that committees should not sit while the House is in session, and that several committees composed of substantially the same personnel should not sit at the same hour. We had to have a meeting of a committee this morning to correct something that happened when only a bare quorum was present. Members appointed, to committees are derelict if they do not attend the meetings, but they are placed in a very difficult position when at the same time weighty matters are going through the House which need their attention-more attention than has been given them this session.


George Perry Graham: Make the committees
smaller.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, that would help.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may be well to recall to the minds of hon. members how this measure comes before us. As the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) explained in moving the resolution preceding the bill, a communication was received from the Civil Service Commissioners asking that they should be granted superannuation. That communication was addressed to me personally, and I at once transmitted it to the committee which was dealing with the Superannuation bill with a request that they give it consideration. Precisely what the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) says ought to have been done was what the government had in mind in referring the matter to that committee. The committee, however, reported that they had not power to deal with it in connection with *the Superannuation bill, but they unanimously made a specific recommendation for legislation along lines which they thought proper. The government embodied the recommendation in the legislation before the

Civil Service Commissioners
House. If its form does not suit hon. members, that is reason for further consideration of the matter. But I wish the House to clearly understand that all the government is seeking to do is to arrange superannuation for the Civil Service Commissioners at their request, and not on its own initiative.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the Secretary of
State again give the House the letter from the Civil Service Commissioners which he read when introducing the bill? Those of us who were serving on committees were deprived of an opportunity of hearing the letter read. After the minister has complied with my request I shall have something further to say.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The first intimation came from the Civil Service Commissioners themselves In a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on May 19, 1924. The letter is as follows:
As the government contemplates the passing of a superannuation measure applicable to certain classes of the Public Service, the undersigned respectfully request your favourable consideration of such an amendment to the Civil Service Act as would provide for the superannuation of the present Civil Service Commissioners.
The reasons for this request may be briefly stated as follows:-
1.	The present commissioners have the same tenure of office as members of the judiciary, viz., during good behaviour, and are only removable by the Governor General, on address of the Senate and House of Commons-future appointees holding office but for ten years.
2.	The duties of the commissioners are of a semijudicial character, involving as they do the interpretation of the Civil Service Act and Regulations, of the organic acts of the different departments, and other acts dealing with questions of domicile, of naturalization, retirement of public servants, etc.
3.	Since their appointment the responsibilities * of the commissioners have been extended to the Outside Service, the reorganization of the departments, the reclassification of the public service, the revision of salary schedules, tranfefers, leaves of absence, suspensions, etc., their duties having so been increased tenfold.
4.	No adequate provision can be conveniently made for the commissioners in the contemplated Superannuation Act without differentiating sharply between the commissioners and those other employees in the service who do not perform comparable duties or possess the same status and tenure of office.
It is respectfully submitted that the provision to be made should be the same as that provided by the Judges' Act for members of the judiciary.
The following is submitted as a draft of the proposed amendment, the wording being substantially that of section 19, chapter 138 R.S. Canada.
Then follows the bill now before hon. members. The Prime Minister transmitted that letter to the special committee to whom was referred the Superannuation bill which has just passed the House, and this is the reply from the committee:
There was also read by me to the committee a letter received from Mr. McGregor-
That is, the Prime Minister's secretary.
-enclosing a letter from the Civil Service Commission, suggesting certain salary revisions and amendments to section 54 of the Civil Service Act to make provision for the superannuation of the commissioners.
Mr. Clarence Jamesonl, one of the commissioners, was present at our meeting, assisting up with the re-drafting of various amendments to the bill, and he was asked to offer a further explanation to the letter which he did to the entire satisfaction of the committee.
The committee fully discussed the representations made to you by the members of the commission as contained in the letter to you of June 4, but it was held by the majority of the committee that the request of the commissioners, asking for an amendment to the Civil Service Act of 1918 to meet the injustices outlined in that letter, could not be dealt with.
The reference to the committee from the House was for consideration of Superannuation Bill 122 anid the committee held it could not under its reference amend the bill to comply with the request of the commissioners for an amendment to the Civil Service Act of Canada, and, further, that as the Civil Service Act of Canada is not within the scope of reference, the committee could suggest no amendments thereto.
The committee, however, was most sympathetic to the views expressed by the commissioners and the following motion was unanimously carried by the members present:
"That in view of the representations from the Civil Service Commissioners, contained in letter to the Prime Minister dated June 4, 1924, and the further representations made by Commissioner Jameson to the committee, this committee thereby refers the matter to the government with the suggestion that favourable consideration be given to the request of the commissioners by the suggested amendments to the Civil Service Act of 1918."
That is the reply of 'the committee to the letter that I have already read.*


Mr. SALES:: With how many of the committee present?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know; it does not say. This is a letter to the Prime Minister; it is not contained in the report. The application I have already read from the Civil Service Commission was signed by all the commissioners.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman,-


Mr. FORKE:: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Arthur Meighen: I think I had the floor before the hon. member.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Forke moves that the committee rise and report progress.


Arthur Meighen: I think I had the floor before the member for Brandon rose.


Charles Marcil: I got his eye first.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid you got
the wrong eye.

Civil Service Commissioners


Charles Marcil: The right hon. gentleman may speak now.


Arthur Meighen: I want to say a word as to the bill itself, but before doing so I want to express very complete accord with the words of the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) on the subject of the overdoing of committee work in this House. No government can shield itself behind a committee report. The government is established as the custodian of the treasury;
12 noon, the government and the government alone can superintend the relationship between one call for expenditure and another-in a word, can tell what the effect is going to be of a concession here upon a demanded concession somewhere else; can tell just all that is going to be involved in and entailed by the adoption of a certain course which a committee reports. I have tried in one or two sentences to set out what I conceive to be the peculiar position that a government occupies in relation to the public treasury. It is because of this position, because of this truth, that the rule has been in the British House and in ours that motions looking to the expenditure of money can only initiate with the treasury benches. In my judgment, as I have expressed it more than once, we have gone too far in the invasion of this rule. Once we take a step another follows, with the result that to-day .we find ourselves confronted with one motion after the other, one committee report after the other, all initiating expenditure, all taking steps which unless checked by the government mean a very large outlay. We have had committees galore this session. Last session was little better. But it is getting worse-so many committees that hon. members can only attend a few of .those upon which they are appointed, with this result: That parliament is inundated with a clutter of recommendations. We are faced very frequently, not always, with motions to accept reports, motions that involve us we scarcely know where. In a word, parliament is virtually running amuck under the exaggerated committee idea which has been invoked the last session or two. This is only one of the fruits of this course.
Now, the bill before the committee is a bill to provide a special pension for members of the Civil Service Commission who have served fifteen years or who at any time through illness or, I think, some satisfactory cause are unable further to perform their duties. The reason for the bill, as given by I Mr. Meighen.]
the commission in their request and as given by the Secretary of State, is that because of analogy to the position of judges, because of analogy in relation both to their life tenure of office and to the judicial character of the duties discharged, they should be in the same position as judges as respects pension. I am free to admit that there is a good deal in the analogy; in fact, I would find it very difficult to dispute its accuracy. Judges in this country perform, of course, purely judicial duties. The Civil Service Commission may not perform duties quite so purely judicial, but they are very nearly so. But for the life of me I have never been able to see why the mere fact that a man is performing a judicial duty should give him extra rights in relation to pension. I never was able to see that and I am not able to see it yet. Now, while I am admitting the correctness of the analogy I am of the opinion, and always have been of the opinion,-and I have been consistent in my conduct in this House-that as respects the judges there never should have been this special provision for pension at fifteen years. When the Civil Service Commission make a claim based on this analogy they stand on pretty good ground. As a matter of fact there are very few judges in this country who have duties as onerous, as harassing, as burdensome as those of the Civil Service Commission. I would rather, if I were fit, fill any position on the bench than that of head of the Civil Service Commission. Indeed, it seems to me that if there is any justification on earth for the law that provides a pension for a judge after fifteen years of service there is at least equal justification for a similar provision applicable to the Civil Service Commission. Now I come to the question whether there is justification for such a provision in the case of a judge. Why a man appointed to the bench should have a special right of retirement after fifteen years of service on two-thirds of his salary I am unable to comprehend. It will be remembered that some years ago-I cannot recall the year, but it was during the time that I was Acting Minister of Justice in the late government-I introduced a bill designed to do away with that special privilege, that special pension right. I did not even, in the bill, propose that judges who had been appointed on the faith of the law as it stood should in any way be interfered with, but I did propose to limit the right in respect of any appointments from that time on. I do not like to speak too positively as to just what subsequently happened. My recollection is that the bill passed, but I do know that it met with very considerable opposition from the opposition

Civil Service Commissioners
of that time and also from some parts of the government side. But my recollection is that the bill became law and that subsequently under the late government-not under this government, if I remember correctly-the law which I then initiated and secured the passage of was repealed. Of that I am not very certain. But the accuracy of my recollection does not matter; I only recite the fact to show that the opinion I expressed to-day I expressed then and endeavoured to give effect to, and I will support this government in any move to do away, as respects future appointments, with the whole right of special pension to a judge after fifteen years.
I think the government in its general policy is open to the charge of extravagance and failure to guard the public treasury. But the main charge against it in this regard is a yielding too easily to the placing on the statutes of laws which point to the view that it is not so much what it involves for the present, in the action which we are taking to-day and in various other steps of a similar character into which we have been precipitated, but it is the burden which this country is going to carry in increasing weight year after year as time goes on, a burden which very few countries labour under. I hope that steps will be taken of a broad character to limit these burdens instead of increasing them, and especially in relation to the particular subject which I have just alluded to.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The discussion has taken a
very wide range, embracing the pensions paid to judges and civil servants as well as the particular pensions contemplated here. I wish to say that since I have had the opportunity of meeting the members of the Civil Service Commission and discussing with them the important matters which they bring before my department from time to time I have been very much impressed with the very onerous character of their duties. I quite agree that for a few short years of service it may seem somewhat generous to give a retiring officer two-thirds of a somewhat large salary, but I point out that at least one member of the Civil Service Commission has given several years of his life to the public service. To-day, like the rest of us, he is getting along in years, and if anything should happen which would impair his health and render it impossible for him to continue in office he would have to leave the service without any pension or allowance whatever. Let me say to my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), who assumes to act as the proper custodian of
the treasury of this country, that there are others who entertain the views which he has expressed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad to hear it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Nevertheless, in view of the fact that pensions have been provided for the judiciary, and that we have only just passed a law granting superannuation to all civil servants in the employ of the government, I think it is not asking too much that some provision should be made for the Civil Service Commissioners who have done such excellent work during the years they have been in office. However, although I hold no brief for the Civil Service Commission, I felt that as representing the department to which they report from time to time I was only doing my duty in bringing their request before parliament. I consider the Civil Service Commissioners are entitled to a superannuation allowance or a pension, but if it is the will of parliament that these gentlemen should be left entirely unprovided for I must accept the verdict. I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.


Charles Marcil: I have a motion to that effect from the hon. member for Brandon.


Robert Forke: I no not think anyone in
the House would object to the Civil Service Commission coming under the same conditions as other members of the civil service.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member withdraw his motion?


Robert Forke: No.


Mr. DRUMMOND:: I do not want the
House to be under the impression that this matter was favourably considered by the committee to whom it was referred.


Mr. BELAND:: There is a motion before you, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. This motion is not debatable.


George Newcombe Gordon: The first motion before me was the one of the hon. member for Brandon, and it was simply that the committee rise.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood that also.


George Newcombe Gordon: I understood the member for Brandon to withdraw his motion in order to allow the right hon. the leader of the opposition to speak.


John Douglas Fraser Drummond: I want to place my views on this matter before the House. When it came before the special committee I was
Immigration Act

opposed to it. The statement that this recommendation was unanimously passed by the committee is not correct; I for one protested against itt. This is the first opportunity I have had of saying anything about the superannuation of civil servants. To a certain extent I am opposed to that; the unfortunate position the country was placed in through the operation of the Calder Act makes it seem doubtful to me whether the last position is not worse than the first. In regard to this particular matter I understood the action taken by the committee was to refer this communication back to the House; I did not gather there was any favourable consideration given to it. I wish to state now that I am opposed to it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Mr. Copp moves that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Arthur Meighen: It will never sit again. Motion agreed to.


IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Minister of Immigration) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 195, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: This is a hardy annual. Under section 8 of the bill it was proposed to repeal section 41 of the act as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919 and to substitute therefor the following:
Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or depenidency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or assassination, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat or bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this Act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, anid the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person ma.y be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the Minister of Immigration, giving full particulars."
This is the section which has been struck out of the bill by the Senate.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requasting a free conference with their Honours to consider certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 7, an Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, to which amendments this House has not agreed and upon which the Senate insist, and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make to said bill or amendments thereto.
That the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.
Mr. f, L. CHURCH (North Toronto): Is it not a fact that the Department of Justice has given an opinion that this whole Industrial Disputes Act is ultra vires of this parliament? If so, what is the necessity for a conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the department has given any such opinion I have not heard of it. I would be very much surprised if they had given such an opinion.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The department is fighting the matter before the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, and to provide that any foreign built vessel captured or seized during the war 1914-19 by British forces or nationals and condemned as prize of war or ceded by enemy states to Great Britain or British nationals by the Reparations Commission under the Peace Treaties following the war, and placed on British registry, shall for the purposes of Part XVI of the Act and of The Customs Tariff be regarded as a British built ship and as entitled to engage in the coasting trade.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred jn. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 262 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.

Canada Shipping Act
On section 2-
Mr. SPENCER:: Have these bills been distributed?


Arthur John Lewis: We have not the bills before us, and can hardly hear what the chairman is saying. We would like to know what is being passed.


Jacques Bureau: This bill is introduced at
the request of the Customs department. The law as it now stands does not alLowa foreign-built British ship to coast within Canada. There are only two classes of ships which are permitted to do the coasting, namely those which are registered before the 1st of September, 1922, and those which are built in Great Britain and of course are of British register. Since the war certain ships have been captured and have been kept as prizes of war. After the conference these ships were turned over by the Germans and other enemy nations, to replace sunken bottoms during the war. They were considered to all intents and purposes British ships, and they are British ships; but on account of a technicality in the law they are foreign-built ships, being ships which were given to replace ships that were lost, and cannot engage in coasting. At the time the act was passed nobody foresaw that such conditions would ever exist, and we are asking to rectify this matter to provide the ships which are real British ships to be considered as such, although foreign-built.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this apply to ships which have been built up to the present time, or ships to be built in the future? I think I can understand why the clause was put in the act in the first place, namely to stimulate the building of ships in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: They must be prizes of war or ships given to replace bottoms sunk during the war.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How is it the department have taken six years since the war before recommending this resolution to the House?


Jacques Bureau: Because the matter has
never been brought to the notice of the government, the question not having arisen; and foreign-built British ships having been purchased, or having been brought to Canada, at the first opportunity that presented itself we have brought in the legislation.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 240, to amend the Bank Act.	.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


George Perry Graham: These amendments are not serious. On page 2 in subsection (5) the words "and voted by parliament" are stricken out. The same thing occurs in subsection (11). Then on page 3 this clause is inserted before the words " all " in subsection (12):
Provided an appropriation therefore has been made bv parliament.
^Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from July 15 consideration in committee of Bill No. 257, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1S94 (Hon. Mr. Cardin), Mr. Marcil (Bona-venture) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to build bridge over St. Lawrence.
Arthur John Lewis: I do not wish to say anything derogatory of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, but I have been reading the newspapers since this bill was before the House yesterday and I notice that people in Montreal seem to be in high glee. Some newspapers ask certain representatives to speak on the matter, and I notice that the real estate agents seem to be particularly pleased with the situation and that they claim that real estate will go up one hundred per cent at least. The business men say that this wall relieve the slump in Montreal. I saw where the chairman, Mr. McDougald, had been spending a very busy day with telephone messages, inquiries and telegrams, and the great majority of people seemed to be anxious to get some sort of a contract. If this is a great family pie for Montreal and everybody seems to want to get a finger in it, the government would be wise to see that in the future this work comes under the Public Works department.


Arthur Meighen: The government indicated yesterday that there was in the bill provision for securing the co-operation of at least the municipalities and, I understood, of the province. What does the government really expect in this regard?



Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Mr. CARDIN:: This cornea under paragraph (h) of section 1:
The corporationi may make agreements for receiving and may receive, take and hold grants and donations of property movable or immovable, or money or any other form of aid from any government, municipality, corporation or person.
Nothing definite has yet been reached, but it is the intention of tte harbour commission, as I have been told, to try to make some arrangements with the provincial government, the city of Montreal and the municipalities in order to have them guarantee a eertain part of the bonds which will be issued.


Arthur Meighen: The government's idea, then, is that the province will guarantee a portion of the bonds, the municipalities, by some division, a portion, and the federal gov-arnment the balance.	[DOT]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is the government's policy in respect of this. Therefore, those portions of the bonds which the provincial governments and the municipalities guarantee will not be guaranteed by the federal government.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As I have just informed my right hon. friend it is the intention of the harbour commission and the government to try to make some arrangements with the provincial government and the city of Montreal, but as yet we are not in a position to state definitely w'hat those arrangements are and what will be the agreements which we shall endeavour to come to. After the harbour commission, which is authorized by this legislation, to enter into communication with the provincal government and the municipalities, have made some progress in that regard, the matter will be submitted to the Governor in Council, and then we may decide what portion will be allotted to each of the parties. I confess that nothing definite has been reached until now.


Arthur Meighen: I am, of course, aware that nothing definite has been reached and that, consequently, the government cannot say definitely what will be done. I asked what the expectations were and what plan the government had in mind as to the division of the guarantee. The government, I understand, has in mind the plan that I have stated. What is the idea of having the commission empowered to receive donations? I do not wonder that the minister smiles. Does the minister really expect that after the government ratifies this project, anybody is going to make donations?


Mr. JACOBS:: I should like to suggest-


Arthur Meighen: I see that one is offered already by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs).


Samuel William Jacobs: I was going to suggest that the charity of Montrealers is proverbial. It is just for the purpose of receiving it that we have made a reference to it.


Arthur Meighen: They have been very
charitable to this government in the past, but I understand that their charity has been somewhat? curtailed lately and the prospects are poorer towards this government. Really, I do not see any use in inserting this section.


George Perry Graham: Municipalities often give sites for public buildings.


Arthur Meighen: I just wanted to get the plan which the government had in mind upon which they ask parliament to accept this scheme.
Referring to what the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) said, I think there will be more hon. members than myself, and more at a later period than to-day, in favour of just the suggestion that he has made. Because I have made the suggestion that we go about this matter in a frank, open, manly way ourselves, in such form that we ourselves shall have control of every dollar expended, in such form that every dollar can come before this parliament for review, not in a great, wide account, an all-embracing item, but in the detail which we ought to provide shall always be accessible by this House, I notice that an attempt has been made to make out that I am opposed to this project. Nothing more dishonest could be undertaken by any person than to circulate such an idea. This project I have favoured for years and I am glad the government has undertaken it. I favour, however, going about it directly and not through a harbour board which will have its accounts in such a form that they cannot be supervised by us and which, as a matter of fact, exist for another purpose not akin to the building of a bridge.


Mr. MILLAR:: I should like to ask a
question which I asked yesterday to which I did not get a reply, or rather to which I got a reply which did not answer the question. What guarantee shall we have that after the bridge is built there will be no unjust discrimination in rates? Much of the traffic going through Montreal will be grain, as it is now. Some of the revenue is to come from this bridge for which we are providing, and there might be an inclination to charge merely a

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
nominal rate for traffic other than grain going over the bridge and then make up the deficit by a higher rate than justifiable on grain. With the great amount of money that has been and will be spent on the great waterways, we may assume that it is possible that there will be an advantage in that route over the New York route of say 2 cents; we will say that for the purposes of illustration. Unless there is some controlling authority it might be easy for the harbour of Montreal to consume a large part of that advantage-[DOT] one half, two-thirds of it- in unjust rates against grain going over the bridge. If that were done those who produce the traffic would have no redress. What steps are being taken by the department to see that there shall be no discrimination in rates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The rates in Montreal are fixed with the approval of the Governor in Council and I can assure the hon. gentleman that every means will be taken to ensure that there shall be no discrimination in the operation of the bridge.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Is the government offering to guarantee all the bonds that will be necessary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is contemplated, yes. It is not an absolute provision; the bill provides that the Governor in Council "may" do so.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the
minister think that the provincial government or the city of Montreal will ever offer to guarantee any bonds or any portion of bonds so long as this government is willing to guarantee them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall not commit myself to any definite statement so far as that is concerned. Both the provincial government and the city of Montreal are of course very much interested in the matter and we might intimate to them that if they do not endorse our commitments we will not go on.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With reference to the suggestion of the "Man from Glengarry", (Mr. Kennedy) why not provide in the bill that unless the municipality of Montreal or the provincial government of Quebec guarantee a reasonable proportion of the bonds the Dominion government will not do any guaranteeing? If we gave them a blank cheque they might take it that the Dominion government was over-generous and they might never offer to guarantee any bonds. The fact that the Dominion government offers to guarantee all the bonds would, as the "Man from Glengarry" says, act as a deterrent to the city of Montreal or the province of Que-2891
bee ever undertaking any share of the responsibility. I should think we could provide that the city of Montreal and the province should each guarantee one-third of the bonds and the Dominion the other third; or, if it were preferable, the city and the province might each contribute 25 per cent and the Dominion 50 per cent. In any event there should be some definite provision that the city and the province shall assume their share of the responsibility. I do not think it is at all wise to give them a blank cheque, for they would not be straining the truth in calling the minister a good fellow and allowing him to do the whole thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is very much merit in the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell). It does not make any difference whether the province guarantees any of the bonds or does not. What is the use of misleading ourselves? The guaranteeing of bonds by the province could not affect the obligation of this parliament one iota, because in guaranteeing the bonds they are guaranteeing our commission and our property. The commission is merely a trustee and the position of the guarantor is such that he always has his claim against the person whose bonds he has guaranteed. So that it is perfectly idle to talk about splitting bonds here at all; that is not the point. I fancy the reason we have this clause in as to agreements for receiving and to receive is that the draftsman of the bill recognized that it would not make the slightest difference who endorsed the bonds inasmuch as the liability has got to come home to us by reason of our holdings in the Montreal harbour. Every hon. gentleman must see that. There is therefore a real reason and a definite object to be served in connection with this section relating to the receiving of moneys and the making of agreements. To meet the objections that have been put forward by hon. gentlemen to my left in regard to possible increases in harbour dues, an adjustment could be very easily made: Instead of asking the province and the municipality to guarantee bonds, under this clause agreements can be made and ought to be made. I know that the people down there believe in this bridge and want it; they know it will pay. There should be agreements with them under which any deficits that'may be incurred-and I do not anticipate any-will be met in certain proportions by the province and the municipality. I think that hon. gentlemen who are supporting the legislation will agree that this is the, proper thing do to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Montreal-South Shore Bridge
On section 2-Approval by Governor in Council.
Mr. GARDINER:: I agree with the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton). I had an opportunity some time ago of seeing the accounts of the Montreal Harbour Commission and any member of the House who knows the extent of the harbour works of Montreal will realize that the grain facilities there are only a small portion of the works. Yet the revenue from the grain passing through the harbour of Montreal is more than half the total revenue of that board. I therefore support very strongly the suggestion made by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. LOGAN:: I move that the bill be
amended by adding as section 3 the following:
All material used in the construction and maintenance of the said bridge shall be of Canadian production when the same can be secured at reasonable prices.
It is too late in the session to make a speech but this I think will commend itself to the House. I also suggest that in building the bridge care should be taken to see that the plans are prepared by Canadian engineers, who are quite competent.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it to be a steel or a cement structure, or what?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I presume this
amendment indicates a lack of confidence on the part of government supporters in the Harbour Commission of Montreal.


Hance James Logan: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: I think a good point has been raised by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan). We have in Canada one of the most successful bridge engineers on the continent in the person of Colonel Monsarrat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And Mr. Duggan.


George Perry Graham: Yes-men who on behalf of the government and the company designed and erected the Quebec bridge can build a bridge of this kind. I strongly urge on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) that he impress on the chairman of the Montreal harbour board the wisdom of engaging our own engineers for this work.


William Charles Good: I take exception to the term " reasonable prices," it would open the way for all kinds of extortion. What has the mover of the amendment in mind?
(Sir Henry Drayton.]


Samuel William Jacobs: I endorse the suggestion
made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that we should see to it that Canadian engineers are engaged on this work. The tendency is to look far afield for professional talent when large undertakings of this kind are embarked on. It is said that distant hills look green. Sometimes they turn out to be greener in another sense, than expected. I think it ought to be impressed on the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to encourage Canadian talent in every possible way. If we do not do these things, our engineers and other professional men will gravitate to the larger centres in the United States, and we will have Canadian engineers doing American work, while American engineers will be doing Canadian work. This being a federal undertaking, we ought to show some little patriotism and in a material way. I do not say that we should secure the services of a man simply because he has grown up on our own potato patch, but I submit that other things being equal we ought to encourage Canadian talent.


Mr. MARTELL:: If we have confidence in the harbour board of Montreal, as I have no doubt we have, this matter should be left entirely in their hands. I have not had the honour of a personal acquaintance with Dr. McDougald, the chairman of the board, but from the names that were given to him at his christening-Wilfrid Laurier-I am confident that he is well qualified to do the work in a manner that will add to Canadian prestige.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Forke: I am a little surprised at
the readiness of hon. members to incorporate such an amendment in a statute. While I am perfectly in accord with the idea of employing Canadian architects and using Canadian materials I question the wisdom of accepting the proposal.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is merely a suggestion.


Robert Forke: But if accepted it will be
embodied in the bill. I am rather surprised that it should be thought necessary to make such a suggestion to the city of Montreal where all the apostles of everything Canadian live!


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us cheer them in well-doing.


Robert Forke: Had such a suggestion been made in regard to a similar undertaking in the West I could understand its necessity, but in this case the amendment seems to me to

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
be almost an absurdity! I am not going to vote against the amendment, although I do not like the idea expresed in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not like
the invidious distinction which my hon. friend is drawing against his compatriots in the West. If it is a good principle we should adopt it.


William Charles Good: I am surprised at the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) stating that although he is opposed to this amendment yet he is not going to vote against it. I am opposed to it and I shall vote against it, unless some change is made. I think the phrase, " reasonable prices " opens the door to-well, I do not know what.


Arthur John Lewis: We have no supervision over the harbour commissioners as to what constitutes " reasonable prices," so there is no good reason for accepting the amendment.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: In my opinion this is a very unwise amendment, for it simply amounts to telling our Canadian factories, "There will be no competition for materials, and you may set any price you like." Leave the field open to American manufacturers to quote prices, and if Canadian manufacturers can equal or underbid those prices by all means give them the contract.


Ernest Lapointe: I am largely in agreement with hon. gentlemen who do not like this amendment. I, also, think that as far as possible Canadians should be encouraged and Canadian materials should be used, and I think the remarks made will certainly serve as a warning to those who will be in charge of the undertaking to give every encouragement to Canadian engineers and to Canadian manufacturers; but for parliament to pledge itself to use only Canadian materials I do not think is wise. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) that as his amendment has served its purpose he should not insist on its being contained in the four corners of the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is entirely wrong when he says that the amendment stipulates for the use of Canadian material. The amendment as I hear it read, is simply an attempt to give honest expression to a general statement often made in this House, that Canada and Canadians ought to have a little consideration. The amendment does not direct the commissioners to use Canadian material in any case, but only if the prices be reasonable.


Ernest Lapointe: Why embody it in a
statute?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not?


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not contained in any
other statute.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does my
hon. friend object to the amendment being inserted in the bill if he is sincere? As I understand the amendment-and if it is not so drawn it is wrong-American material may be purchased and American plans used unless Canadian materials and Canadian plans can be obtained at reasonable prices. Is there anything wrong in that?


Hance James Logan: Mr. Chairman, my purpose
is not served, I have moved this amendment because I believe it is right. It is similar to the amendment inserted in the legislation for the building of the National Transcontinental railway, the biggest undertaking ever attempted by this country. It was embodied in that statute by the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Robert Forke: It cost a lot of money.


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) is mistaken in thinking that this amendment would allow of any monopoly. It says distinctly that Canadian materials are to be used only if prices are reasonable.


Mr. HOEY:: 
Hance James Logan: The harbour board of Montreal. I am simply expressing the principle that was established by this parliament over twenty years ago.


William Charles Good: Supposing that some good
friend of the harbour commissioners, the representatives of a Montreal corporation, should tender for a certain part of the work, and some other corporation in Canada or the United States or Great Britain should put in a tender at a distinctly lower price, the harbour board could accept the Montreal tender and simply justify themselves by saying, "We thought this tender was at a reasonable price."


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is not this the way out?-to hold the government responsible for what they do in this matter, whether they give it to places outside of Canada or to places inside Canada. If they do anything wrong in that respect they ought to be held responsible and punished accordingly when the time come3.


Mr. EVANS:: I am opposed to the amendment and I am opposed to the whole scheme from beginning to end. The whole project is unbusinesslike. But, since we are placing

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
the matter in the hands of the Montreal Harbour Commission, why restrict them as to where they shall get the material or what they shall pay for it? "A reasonable price" can be interpreted to mean anything. The hon. gentleman quotes as a precedent the insertion of a provision of that kind in the Railway Act some twenty years ago. Well, that very clause in the act has cost this country millions of dollars more than we should have had to pay in connection with the Transcontinental Railway scheme. I am against this whole scheme and shall vote against the amendment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is a well known fact that we do not produce steel of as high carrying power as is produced in the United States. We do not produce Bessemer steel in this country.


William Findlay Maclean: What about
nickel steel?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think nickel steel is used in bridge construction. We might seriously impair' the efficiency of the bridge if we adopt this restriction. I would certainly like to see Canadian material used, but I do not think we should tie the hands of the harbour commission as to where they should get the material either on account of quality or on account of price. They should be free to get the very best material they can obtain .and at the best possible price. One of the principles of the party opposite-I know it is one of the principles of this party-is to let trade be free and untrammelled, to permit of purchases being made in the best market at the best price. I would regret to see that put in the statute, but I would like to urge upon the harbour commission-


Hance James Logan: While Canadian workmen
walk the streets looking for work.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is no necessity for Canadian workmen walking the streets. They can certainly compete with workmen in the United States where wages are higher than they are here. If our steel manufacturers cannot produce steel as cheaply in Canada as they do in the United States I would like to know the reason. It has been stated from all parts of this House that our workmen are going to the United States because they can get higher wages there and because times are better. If that is the case I do not think there should be any hesitation in urging that Canadian material should be used, but I think more conditions should be stated than appear in the present amendment. The only requisite is that the material be sufficiently good and that the price be competitive in its character.
IMr. Evans.]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: (rising):


Charles Marcil: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "Aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.
Som hon. MEMBERS: Nay.


George Newcombe Gordon: In my opinion the nays have it. Did the hon. minister wish to speak?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may point out that all the plans and specifications and practically everything connected with this bridge are to be submitted to the Department of Marine, and Fisheries and to the Governor in Council. So far as I am concerned, during the time that I am at the head of the department I assure my hon. friend that I will take the necessary steps to protect all Canadian interests in this connection.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Why have it in the
statute, then?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is out.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With this declaration I
suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) that he withdraw his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It has been lost.


Hance James Logan: With that assurance from the minister, rather than have the motion declared lost I will withdraw the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at three o'clock.


TORONTO VIADUCT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 258, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 8-Agreement and date of coming into force.
George Perry Graham: I move:
That clause 8 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
This act shall come into force upon such day as the Governor in Council may by proclamation appoint.

Toronto Viaduct
and such proclamation may be made only if an agreement providing for the construction and completion of the said works, on terms approved by the Governor in Council but not inconsistent with this act, shall have been entered into within four months of the passing of this act.


William Findlay Maclean: I have always
opposed the esplanade viaduct in the interest of the public, and especially in the interest of my constituents, because I represent a great portion of the city of Toronto in this House and have done so for a great many .veal's. Ever since this proposal was first made I objected to it in the public interest. I am not going to take up much time to-day but I wish to place a few facts before the House. My objection to the proposal now before us is that it will never be built for the amount which has been stated. . It is proposed to spend 828,000,000, but from my knowledge of the city and my knowledge of what is involved the cost of this project will run to $100,000.000.


Mr. CHURCH:: Oh, no. Never.


William Findlay Maclean: I make the statement that it will not be finished before an expenditure of $100,000,000 has been entered upon and then the problem will not have been solved.


Thomas Langton Church: No, $28,000,000. Your
plan would make Toronto an inland city.


William Findlay Maclean: I still differ from my hon. friend on my right, and I am going to occupy a few minutes in telling the House what, to my mind, the real solution of this problem is. Toronto is going to be a great city; it is going to be the greatest railway centre in Canada.


Mr. SHEARD:: It is.


William Findlay Maclean: It is but it is
going to be a much greater one. There will not be any railway centre in Canada such as Toronto is destined to be. It is the gateway from the east and the west to the great mining country in the north, and I am going to state what will be the real solution of the problem which is now before Toronto. In connection with that I want to refer to what has occurred in the past. How many people in this House know that for some reason or other the proposal to move the station in Toronto up to North Toronto has been blocked by somebody? Some years ago the Canadian Northern when it was taken hold of by the late Sir William Mackenzie-


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. This discussion is not relevant to the question under consideration namely the Toronto Terminal Company agreement.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are considering a
section of the bill which is fairly general in its terms-


William Findlay Maclean: I should say so.


George Newcombe Gordon: -which provides that the act shall come into force by proclamation.


William Findlay Maclean: I think it is
rather significant that the hon. member to my right is afraid of a public discussion in regard to this matter.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He represents North Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: So do I, and to a greater extent than he does. I have studied the question for a good many years, and in a very few words I am going to point out what the situation is. This House does not know, neither does the city of Toronto, that Sir William Mackenzie and the Canadian Northern people studied Toronto's problem, and in any discussion of the matter the fact has been suppressed that the Canadian National Railway, which acquired the Canadian Northern bought half of everything the Canadian Pacific Railway Company own in the line which crosses Toronto to the north from almost the Humber, certainly from Dufferin street, clean across to Leaside, and they have had it for years. When the brass work at the North Toronto station was moulded the initials "C.N.R " were branded on it; and that brass work is to be seen there to-day. This half interest in this line was the greatest asset that Sir William Mackenzie ever got hold of. Fifteen or twenty years ago his engineers found out that the great obstacle in approaching Toronto to-day is the presence of the Scarboro grade on the old Grand Trunk railway at the front of the city. North of it is the Wexford grade on the Canadian Pacific line. His engineers found that the Wexford grade to the north and the Scarboro grade to the south are one per cent plus grades. They are the two worst grades in all Canada to-day and yet most of the traffic entering Toronto either way passes over them. Midway between them is a grade of one-half per cent. Let anybody estimate what the saving will be if all the traffic can be carried across the city on a grade of one-half per cent. It means saving many thousands of dollars a year in coal. It means rapid running of all the freight and passenger trains, and it gives the city of Toronto, which has now developed from a small city at the waterfront, a real site for a station at North Toronto, where the Canadian Pacific Railway has located to-day.
Toronto Viaduct


Thomas Langton Church: You would do away with
the viaduct agreement.


William Findlay Maclean: No it does not.
My hon. friend is very uneasy.


Thomas Langton Church: No, I am not uneasy. We want no favours only our contract carried out.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. member has not consulted the people of Toronto as to their views, and I am going to put the riews of those people before the House.


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, I have. The people
voted on the harbour plans which included i viaduct.


William Findlay Maclean: I think my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) is acting after the manner of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when other questions were being discussed. What I am stating here to-day was absolutely admitted by Mr. Beatty and all the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and also admitted by the Mackenzie interests. Later on it was admitted by Sir Henry Thornton, and from that arose a combination between the two roads to go to North Toronto. Somebody has stopped that. Because of this delay and this counter-proposition there never will be a solution of the railway problem in Toronto until the station is located uptown. This great saving means hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, as I have heard railwaymen state. When you are down at the front you do not deal with the two problems.
The first point to ascertain is, where is the railway centre of Toronto? It is up north. Where is the passenger centre? It is up north. The passenger centre is a matter of concern to all the population of Toronto, over half a million people. The station should be located where it will be most convenient to the people who travel by railway, and ninety per cent of the people who travel by railways in and out of Toronto are people who live in the city. It is not the petty number who come in and go out of Toronto every day, but the travel is made up of the people of the city. The passenger centre is certainly uptown and not at the water front, where it was when the railway was located sixty or seventy years ago. The population of Toronto who use the railways live uptown, and those people would find it ten times as convenient to have a station at North Toronto rather than a downtown station. Not only is it convenient for these people to go to North Toronto-and the proof of this is that the Canadian Pacific Railway use it for freight -but you have a grade of one-half per cent, you cut off four miles of the distance, and you 
take the people to and from where they reside. It will not cost $30,000,000 to provide this real station for the people of Toronto uptown. Toronto will never be satisfied until a station which accommodates her people is provided. It is all very fine to speak of "Toronto of Old," down at the wrater front, where they had the old Great Western railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the old Northern railway of which Frederick Cumberland was the head. At that time the people all came to the front, but now the downtown front is the furthest place from the centre of the population. The proposition would mean a change in the city but it will not damage the property at the front, which will still remain as it is. The front will be the distribution point for local freight, but it will not be suitable for passenger traffic.
When I speak of $25,000,000 as the cost, I would spend $15,000,000 in erecting the best station in Canada to-day in the city of Toronto, which is the great railway centre. I would spend another $15,000,000 for quadruple tracks, and would have all new viaducts between Leaside and the Don. It would make a great saving in the mileage and everybody coming out of Toronto would save miles of travel. Passengers would arrive at a convenient point in the city, the point of distribution, and there would be a distribution of travel by way of the tram-cars or street cars travelling either to the east or west end of the city.
This proposition has been before the people of Toronto but for some reason has been deferred. The Minister of Railways has taken up this matter. There was a conference in Toronto, and when a celebrated engineer was sent up by the Minister of Railways in order to solve the question, he looked over the ground for two or three weeks, and when he came to the conference between the city representatives and the members at Ottawa he was asked if he had ever looked at the North Toronto substitute for the other proposal, and he said it had never been presented to him. My project will mean that Toronto will be re-formed somewhat by taking the station uptown.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Langton Church: -and make Toronto an inland city.


William Findlay Maclean: But it will not
hurt business. Toronto will be twice the city it is to-day when the station is located at North Toronto.


Mr. CANNON:: Under my hon. friend's
scheme will it be possible to go through without stopping?

Toronto Viaduct


William Findlay Maclean: I hope it will, if my hon. friend is on the train. The real estate interests and the business interests of Toronto are located downtown, but if we are to consult the interests of the people of Toronto who have to travel to and fro on the trains, we will find that they will approve of this proposition. So far they have not had an opportunity to discuss it and to get the facts. It will cost a hundred millions to complete Dubuc's project. I have talked with engineers who know about it, so that I know whereof I speak. I would like to see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) come down here with that pontifical attitude he assumes and tell us what he thinks of the proposition. He is always pontifical when he comes to address the House. He pretends he does not know miuch about it, but that he just hears this and he hears that. After the experience and the conferences he has had with so many people, he knows thoroughly, or ought to know thoroughly, that the greatest blunder that could ever be committed in railroading in Canada would be to spend a hundred million dollars to the waterfront in the erection of that hideous viaduct which is proposed. Do not interfere with the railways at the front, and put in a few bridges, but do as the Canadian Pacific Railway has done, take all the traffic to the North, where the Canadian National wanted to take it. Get away from the water front; save mileage. If you do that you will perform a great service.
We have now six million dollars invested in a new union station at the front which we have never used. If this change which I suggest takes place this new union station, which has not yet been used, will make the greatest custom house that can be found in any iplace in Canada. The uptown station may interfere somewhat with the front of the city and the business in that district, but the change will be gradual, the city will spread out, the public will be accommodated, and there will be a great economy. I want hon. members to get it into their minds that I am not speaking through my hat; I have studied the question for years and know all about it. I will hold a meeting in Toronto and will invite my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) to attend the meeting, and to justify what he has stated to-day. I will get all the members from Toronto to attend and discuss the question before the people of that city.


An hon. MEMBER:: And invite the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon).


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, he can
come too. He is another very wise-looking man. Next to my hon. pontifical friend he locJcs very wise indeed. I am going to leave my statement here to-day for the people, for posterity. I make the prediction that twenty years from to-day, if this enormity is perpetrated, a station will Still have to be built ait North Toronto in order to effect the economies which they must obtain by substituting a grade of one-half of one per cent for two grades of over one per cent that exist to-day. The two worst grades in Canada are those of the Grand Trunk at Scarborough and of the Canadian Pacific at Wexford. I should like to have this question referred to a committee and to put in the box Sir Henry Thornton, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and his assistants, and Mr. Beatty, to see whether they will deny a single statement that I have made here to-day. This is not the first time that I have brought up this suggestion. I took it up long ago. I have fought this question Of a viaduct along the front every time it has come up.
As regards my foresight in connection with this matter, hon. gentlemen may not know that at one time there was in Toronto a proposition called the Bloor street viaduct. That was built and it gave Toronto its first start and made it a great city. My proposition to the House and to Toronto is this-and I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will go and look at that viaduct development and consider this matter: What the viaduct, built at an elevation of 100 feet above the lake front did in allowing the city to expand, the application of the same principle in connection with the Canadian National Railways, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific wall do ten times over for that city in the future. It was my misfortune that I had to suggest that all myself and to work it out. After I worked it out, my hon. friend near me proposed to call it the Prince of Wales viaduct. He has it on the records to-day, but if you ask the people of Toronto, they will tell you that it is "Billy Maclean's viaduct." I have every member of the city of Toronto against me. I will appeal to my co-mate the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who was at one time Chairman of the Railway Commission of Canada. I will challenge him ito go into the box with these other gentlemen and say whether he does not admit that my solution is the real solution of the problem. If the station is built at North Toronto, a great retail business will go uptown. It is going Uptown now, and it cannot be stopped the
Toronto V iaduct

way the people are leaving downtown and going north. They are going north for both business and residential purposes.
The real solution also turns on this, that Toronto is to have a great harbour, and I believe in seven years or less Toronto will be a seaport on the St. Lawrence waterways. I hope to see that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Montreal gets
a little jealous, perhaps, when that is mentioned.


Mr. FINN:: Will Toronto be an Atlantic
seaport?


William Findlay Maclean: It will be a St. Lawrence waterways seaport. My hon. friend thinks that the seaports of Canada are reserved exclusively for Montreal.


Robert Emmett Finn: I never said that.


William Findlay Maclean: No, but my
hon. friend insinuates that here now.


Robert Emmett Finn: There are several great
Atlantic seaports: Halifax, St. John, Montreal and Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: These hon. gentlemen are getting worried. As the Minister of Railways and Canals knows, the United States are entering into an alliance with us for the development of the St. Lawrence waterways. There are to be seaports at Toronto, Detroit, Fort William, Port Arthur and other points on lake Superior. As regards Winnipeg, I will quote John Haggart, who once was Minister of Railways and Canals in this House. John Haggart said that he always believed in the canalization of the country from lake Superior to the foot of the Rocky mountains. That is a broad statement, but that is a statement that has been made. In any case I predict that the St. Lawrence waterways will have seaports all the way up to Port Arthur, Fort William and Duluth. There will be a thirty foot waterway from Montreal right up to lake Superior. We have heard a good deal about harbour commissioners lately, and I want to tell the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), who is one of the members of the harbour board, that they should keep that port of Toronto and make a great seaport of it. It will not be open in the winter, but the coal of Alberta which may have to come to Toronto, will come by rail to Port Arthur and then by water right down to Toronto. In the

same way the coal of the Maritime provinces will come up through this waterway to points in Ontario and perhaps to the West.
I should like some vision to be shown in regard to this proposition. I do not want to see it delayed and conferences called where the Minister of Railways will not disclose to the people the actual situation and the cure. It will cost $100,000,000 to endeavour to cure the situation as it is proposed to cure it, and even then it will not be cured. But with an expenditure of $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 Toronto can secure the greatest station in Canada, and the half million people who live around there will have a station right at their doors as compared with having to go down to the -water front. A grade of one-hallf of one per cent will be substituted for grades of over one per cent. The Canadian Pacific has gone to North Toronto with all its business except what it does at the waterfront, and all its freight goes to the north on this low grade. I could give the details, but this is not the time to do that. I thought we would have had an opportunity of discussing this matter when this conference was held; I thought after the conference was held, that they were coming back with the real proposition; but something has happened; the thing has been stalled; the question is not going to be solved. I am going to rest my case and what may be said of me hereafter on this one thing: That I had something to do with the Bloor street viaduct and the building up of Toronto; that it proved a success; and that I have at least told this House in the year 1924 that the solution of this problem is not the one that the Minister of Railways and Canals is submitting to the House today. It is not the proposal that either Mr. Beatty or Sir Henry Thornton believes in. It is not a proposal which any railway engineer would endorse. There is not a single man who knows anything about railways, there is not an employee on the toads, whether he be a brakeman, an engine driver, a district superintendent, or one in any other capacity, there is not a citizen of Toronto who has used the trains going into and out of that citv, who would not vote in favour of keeping the esplanade for what it is, a distributing road for the local traffic, and carrying the passenger and through traffic by the north where a great saving in money could be effected and where the greatest railway station in Canada will be located. I want to say a word for the city of Toronto in this connection; if there is a railway centre in Canada it is in Toronto.

Toronto Viaduct


An hon. MEMBER:: No, Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: If there is a railway centre in Quebec it leads to the bush. Now, I am sure that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and his colleague beside him (Sir Henry Drayton) must realize that what I am saying is true; and while I shall encounter the opposition of hon. members representing the city of Toronto-although I am the senior member of the city, having represented my constituency longer than they have been in parliament-I will consistently stick to the view I have advanced. I should have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would have hearkened to what I have said in this matter; but if he does not he can go away and meditate upon his failure to seize the point on this occasion. He is being committed now to a considerable financial responsibility, and while the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) would have us believe that this department is going to assume a liability of only seven million or nine million dollars, in my opinion it will be more like seventy millions before he is through,- and even then the problem will not have been solved. Toronto, I emphasize, is the great railway centre of Canada. There are more contributions to the revenue of the country from Toronto than are derived from any other place in the Dominion. Toronto is a great consuming city, and its population embraces the ablest business men as well as first-class workmen. It may have suffered a setback, it is true, but so has Winnipeg, and so will Montreal and every other city. But in this period of reconstruction the place in which our greatest efforts should begin is Toronto; we should start right here and now and build up that railway centre. If the government are determined to go through with this measure, as apparently they are, I shall have at least one consolation: I am sure that I shall live to see the whole scheme fall to the ground and the traffic diverted to the north. You cannot settle this question in any any other way. Let the government consult Sir Henry Thornton, or the late chairman of the railway commission, or let them go to the experts of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific, and if they get a candid expression of opinion all these gentlemen will tell them, I have not the slightest doubt, that of all the wild and crazy schemes which have ever been brought forward as a means of solving a difficult problem that is possibly the most striking. Mine happens to be the one weak voice against the whole House,
but I shall live to see my view justified. Now, I have not given the government many warnings of late.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no need to.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, yes, there is; and nobody needs warnings so much as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I will warn the government, however, that if this proposal is carried out it will not be two years before they will see the whole scheme repudiated as a solution of the transportation problem in Toronto. How many hon. gentlemen, I wonder, have ever gone up to Scarborough and seen the trains slowing up there? Thousands upon thousands of trains go through that neighbourhood in the course of a year and they literally have to crawl up the grade, wasting coal and entailing a greater service than necessary. It was stated the other day that the present system from the Humber to Scarborough will be greatly improved. Hon. gentlemen, however, evidently do not realize that the signalling which is necessary for the improvement of the line on the front will cost some two or three million dollars, which is not being disclosed in this committee. The present proposal will not effect any real saving to the public, and altogether it will in my opinion prove a sad mistake. And here I rest my case. I may not be here but no doubt there will be in this House at some future time some who have heard me, and the judgment will be that W. F. Maclean added one thing more to his credit-that at any rate he saw at the time and pointed out clearly what was the right thing to do.


Mr. SPENCE:: I shall not speak for more than a minute because I do not think that the subject calls for any discussion. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has been trying for as many years as I can remember to- revolutionize our whole railway system in Toronto for the purpose of diverting everything to the north end, in which he is interested.


William Findlay Maclean: Not at all.


David Spence: There are thousands of
people moving in and out of Toronto every day who will be only too glad to use this viaduct, and I cannot see how there can be any question as to the wisdom of going ahead with the proposal. The plan which the hon. member suggests is absolutely impracticable; it is impossible; and I hope that no hon. gentleman will pay any attention to the member for South York so far as this particular matter is concerned. The men associated with
Vancouver Harbour

both railways companies in Toronto have some ability and brains, and they have recommended this thing after years of study. The proposed location of the viaduct is the only reasonable one and it is only a waste of time discussing any other suggestion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: For fear the hon. member for South York has confused some hon. gentlemen on the question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why, has he left no impression? If that is the case I will sit down.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third iime and passed.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 256, to provide for further advances to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Advance of $5,000,000 to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
Mr. HANSONHow much money has the parliament of Canada advanced to the Vancouver Harbour Board since its inception; and also to the harbour boards of Montreal, Toronto and Quebec since their inception? If the minister has not the information at hand I would ask him to send it to me.
Arthur Meighen: The minister certainly
can give the information for Vancouver.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By statute, assented to
July 7, 1919, $5,000,000 was advanced to the Vancouver Harbour Board, and by statute, assented to April 13, 1923, another $5,000,000 was advanced.


Mr. HANSON:: And this advance will bring the total to $15,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. STEVENS:: The minister might add,
to complete the statement:-upon which the harbour board pay interest regularly to the government, and for which they have provided a sinking fund.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Interest during construction to be charged to capital account.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this the method by which the board pay interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During the construction of the work.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Gardiner: Has the minister come to any decision as to whether the elevators are to be placed under the control of the grain commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The harbour commissioners have made certain suggestions to the government; these we will take into consideration and try to reach a conclusion which will be in the best interests of the country, of the port of Vancouver and of the farmers also.
Bill reported.
On the motion for third reading:


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


George Gibson Coote: Let me assure hon. members that I do not intend to sit down until I have had a chance to express myself on this bill. We have been told too often by certain members to sit down; we have a perfect right to give expression to our views so long as we keep within the rules. Western Canada will object to further advances being made to the Vancouver Harbour Board unless the minister insists that the Woodward elevator, or any other which is built with public funds, shall not be used for mixing purposes. This is one of the most important questions affecting grain growers in western Canada, and it is only right that we should be given a statement by the minister in regard to this matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very difficult for me
to make any definite statement because this is a question which should be dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it comes under the Grain Act.


Robert Gardiner: I think the minister's
answer is very unsatisfactory. The Woodward elevator is being built with public funds, and therefore it should be retained in the public service instead1 of being turned over to private companies for exploitation. I trust the minister will see to it that before very long the elevator in question is placed under the control of the harbour board, to be used as a public terminal and not as a mixing house.


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

R. C. M. Police Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 254 to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in Council to determine rates of pay.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would
again direct the attention of hon. members to the very low and inadequate pensions now being received by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The argument is advanced [DOT]-and with some force, I will admit-that if the pensions of the veterans of the force were to be revised now after having been in force for so many years it would result in a general demand for revision of all pensions on a certain scale granted to civil servants years ago. I have replied to this objection on previous occasions, and I submit my reply again to the minister-that the pensions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are so far below the normal lower rates of pension of the Civil Service that he could very properly fix a minimum, say around what the lowest civil service pension now is, and then bring the police veterans' pensions up to that level, which would be a very substantial advance over what they are now getting. There are many old men who gave the best part of their lives to this service; they are now retired and are receiving a mere pittance which can scarcely be considered as a pension at all. The country could well afford to give this very small advance. It would not amount to very much; it would take very little to bring what these underpaid pensioners are receiving up to a minimum level.
My other point relates to the question of scrip, in respect to which there is an outstanding grievance that the veterans have been resting under for many years. The answer to their demand for scrip because of service in the Northwest Rebellion which other forces received and they did not is that they were acting in their normal capacity as police officers and therefore were not entitled to scrip as were those who volunteered, left their homes and went to the scene of activities. But one important point has been overlooked by every government up to the present, namely, that when the Northwest Rebellion broke out the Northwest Police were certainly on duty in their ordinary capacity as western
police officers, and when the military forces entered the western territory the mounted police were drafted into military operations, acted under the command of the military authorities and really took the same status as the volunteers on active service. They performed the same duties; they suffered the same as the others did; many of them sacrificed their lives. When the volunteer forces were disbanded after the rebellion they were given scrip, but the military authorities, under General Middleton, I think, recommended to the government that the volunteers who went into the forces should receive the scrip. It has always been claimed on behalf of the mounted police that failure to grant the scrip to them was an injustice, a discrimination reflecting upon their service and their cooperation. No one will question that the services of this splendid force were of inestimable value to the country at that time. No one will question that they rendered all the service they were called upon to render as military men under military authority. I contend, therefore, that the grievance should be wiped out by the granting of this scrip, so long delayed, to the remnant of the force now living. I want to say in justice to the minister that he does not stand alone in this matter; I am not at all blaming him in particular. I do not want to appear to be taking a partisan attitude, because his immediate predecessor, as well as the Minister of Justice in the government which I supported previously, resisted this demand. Perhaps they resisted it because I did not present the case strongly enough or clearly enough. I still think that the grievance of these men is well founded. I do not know of a 4 p.m. more deserving case and I make a further plea to my hon. friend for its adjustment.


John Evans: I would like to support what the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) has said regarding these old veterans of the Northwest Mounted Police. I am personally acquainted with these men and I know that if it were not for the kindness of their relatives, really taking the form of charity, they could not live at all. These men braved the dangers of the early days, and it is owing to their service and their faithfulness that the Canadian Northwest is as it is to-day, a place where law and order prevails, as it has prevailed during all the years of settlement. Some of us who went there thirty-five or forty years ago know very well the work of these men, and I think it would be unfair to put this amendment through to-day without making
R. C. M. Police Act

provision for these old veterans of the Northwest Mounted Police. I make an appeal on their behalf and I hope the Minister of Justice will not longer ignore it.


Mr. BROWN:: So far as pensions for these old men are concerned, I heartily support the proposal that has been made. The Northwest owes a debt to these men who went there in the early days and established law and order. But what I am opposed to, the issuing of scrip, it is a principle which in the past has led to evil results. Scrip has been issued for titles to land; these have been traded upon and have in the end, except in isolated cases, been of little benefit to the man to whom they were issued. If it is felt that these men did not receive equal consideration with the members of the other forces who served in the Northwest Rebellion, then by all means make it good to them in the form of a cash grant, but let us not issue any more scrip for land .


George Gibson Coote: I think this is a matter that has been passed over too lightly by former ministers who have had charge of the mounted police. This morning it was proposed to pension civil service commissioners who were paid as high as $10,000 a year and to permit their retirement after fifteen years on a liberal basis. If it is thought that these men could not save enough out of that salary to take care of themselves after they left the service, then I cannot understand why ministers for years have refused justice to a few old veterans. Some of them put in thirty or more years in the service of the mounted police, a service harder than most members here can realize. At that time there was very little settlement in western Canada. These men travelled the plains without any covering except a blanket which they packed on the back of the saddle, and their greatcoat, and they did good work in preserving that country for Canada. The pensions they are receiving to-day are in some cases as low as $70 a year. These men are now so old that they cannot be expected to make a living for themselves, and for this country to grant to them a pension of $70 to $100 a year is, in my opinion, perfectly absurd. The number of men affected is very small; if the government puts off dealing with the matter for another ten years they may all be dead, and it will be a national disgrace to Canada if something is not done for them. Superannuation has been admitted as a necessity for these men, but what they are now receiving is so miserably small that it might almost be

discontinued for all the support it gives them. In many cases they are dependent on charity. I hope we shall have a promise from the minister that action will be taken in this matter before another year.


Mr. KNOX:: Two days ago when this matter came up in the shape of a resolution I spoke at some little length and went into details of the situation, as I saw it, and as to the assistance which might be rendered to the old veterans of the Northwest Mounted Police. Again I want to voice my protest against the treatment these men have been receiving. Again I want to impress on the minister that this matter be given very serious consideration and, if a pension cannot be granted these men, that some other action be adopted whereby they may be recompensed and receive some assistance to help them through their declining years. As I stated on the former occasion there were only, at the beginning of the year, some seventy-five non-commissioned officers and men who had withdrawn before January 1, 1919, and who received a pension on the old basis of 75 cents per day. That number, as has been pointed out, is decreasing; I question whether there are that many to-day. However, figuring on seventy-five, the sum required to bring the pensions of those men up to the rate paid to those who have retired since January 1, 1919, would be $27,610.25. That is not a very large amount. We know the difficulties the minister is up against. He said two days ago, and the fact has been stated on numerous previous occasions, that to grant the request would interfere with the Pension Act. If that is so I am sure this House- would be very glad to back up the government in making a grant of some kind instead of increasing the rate of pension.
I heartily endorse anything which has been said here to-day along that line. I shall be very pleased indeed to see some consideration given tp those men who took part in the Northwest Rebellion, and I support what has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in that regard.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I endorse heartily what has been said with regard to the splendid service rendered by the Northwest Mounted Police of this country, and particularly to western Canada. The men of this force carried on their work under the greatest possible difficulties. They administered and maintained justice upon the western plains under very trying conditions in the past. Many of these men who have rendered such service, who devoted the whole of their lives to it in fact, are now retired and living on the Pacific coast.

R. C. M. Police Act
Unfortunately they are in receipt of what is a mere pittance and are experiencing great difficulty in making ends meet. I do not propose to take up any further time now, but I hope the government will give the matter serious consideration.


Mr. MORRISON:: I wish also to endorse the statements that have been made by the hon. members for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and Macleod (Mr. Coote). Having lived in the west for twenty-five years I have come into contact with a large number of these men, and I do not know of any body of public servants who have been truer to their trust than the mounted police. When we consider the pensions we are paying to other civil servants it is a disgrace to the country to be treating these old veterans in such a manner. It will be no credit to any one of us if we permit this condition of affairs to exist any longer. I think the government should find the necessary money. They can recommend large grants when their sympathy is enlisted, and there is no use in side-stepping with respect to this matter and saying it interferes with the Pension Act. If that be a real obstacle I would advise making a cash grant, to these men so that they may be able to live more comfortably and not be dependent on charity.


Mr. CLARK:: I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). This matter has been debated during the last three sessions and the situation has been fully represented to the government. The time has now arrived when the government should state that a solution has been arrived at. If difficulties exist in the way of granting the necessary relief they are not insuperable. I hope, therefore, that the government will take the question under its consideration and that adequate provision will be made when the House meets again.


Ernest Lapointe: With every word and
sentiment which has been uttered in approval of the services rendered by the old members of the mounted police force in former days I am in hearty agreement. A strong appeal on behalf of these men was presented the other day by my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and other gentlemen, and the appeal has been renewed to-day. The question has been before me this year for the first time, and I am going to try and do my best to find a solution. But the problem is not easy of solution. If it were possible to do something for these old pensioners, whose case is certainly a deserving one, without opening the doors to the demands of pensioners in other
branches of the service whose pension is lower than the present rate pertaining to the same .position to-day the question would not be so difficult. But other pensioners are asking that the amount granted to them should be raised to the present level. However, I make the pledge that my officers and myself will try and find a way to come to the help of these old pensioners. The question of scrips, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said, is an old one. The matter was placed in the position in which it now is by former governments, indeed by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, the position being taken that the discrimination was fair as between the men of the mounted police, whose duty it was to maintain peace and order in the Northwest Territories at the time, and the men who left, their homes in eastern Canada to go out and help suppress the Rebellion. The stand taken by the government of that day has been followed by all the subsequent governments. I am quite willing to consider the question again but I must say that I think the case as to pensions is a more deserving one than this. I am sure that if I do not take any action my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, and other hon. gentlemen will remind me next, year that something must be done.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I hope the Minister of
Justice will not be very easily discouraged by the difficulties in the way of providing better remuneration for the men who have served the country in the Northwest Mounted Police. Only those of us who have lived in the newer districts in the West in the early days really appreciate what that body of men have done. I have seen the police patrolling throgh the wilds where there were very few settlers for hundreds of miles looking after scattered settlers here and there and seeing that they did not suffer from want of food or other necessities. They performed that duty in spite of the most inclement weather and in the face of every conceivable difficulty. Most of these men were doing that work for the magnificent sum of fifty cents a day. Yet the majority of them were men of a high standard of education, men who could have made a success in many other walks of life. They gave the best years of their lives to serving the country in those remote districts, and it seems to me nothing less than a national disgrace, a blot on our national reputation, that they should be left in their old age with the small pension which they receive to-day. I sincerely trust that the minister will be able, by the next session at least, to bring down some measure that will yield these deserving men some better remuneration.
R. C. M. Police Act


Arthur John Lewis: I should like the minister to explain the section that is underlined? Is it a new proposal that the Governor in Council shall fix the rates; is any change in the present procedure contemplated?


Ernest Lapointe: As I explained the other day when the resolution which preceded the bill was under discussion the rate of pay to members of the force was fixed by statute, but those rates have been changed frequently. The last change was made in 1919 when the following words were added:
The Governor in Council may authorize an extra rate to be paid to members of the force employed as detectives, to those serving in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory and fod a period of five years from the 1st day of June, 1919, to any other members of the force.
So that the extra statutory pay has been given to all the members of the force under order in council by the statute of 1919. But it ended on the 31st of May last, and another order in council has to be passed for tihe purpose of giving the members of the force the salary they are now receiving. It is thought better to place them on the same basis as other civil servants for instance, and especially members of the militia force whose salaries and rates of pay are all fixed by orders in council.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: Under section 2 or
section 3, in case an ex-member of the Northwest Mounted Police has put in many years of service with the mounted police, and is now in the employ of the Civil Service Commission, would the time he has given in the Northwest Mounted Police be included with the time employed in the Civil Service Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: I really cannot answer
my hon. friend. This would be under the Civil Service Act and not under the Mounted Police Act.


Levi William Humphrey: I was just wondering
if any provision had been made with respect to applying the time employed in the Northwest Mounted Police.


Ernest Lapointe: I really do not know,
but I will get the information from my colleague the Secretary of State and let my hon. friend know.


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

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate that the Senate accede to their request for a free conference to consider the Bill No. 7, intituled an Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and any amendments which at such conference it may be desirable to make thereto, and have appointed the Honourable Messieurs Ross (Middleton), White (Inker-man) and Black, as managers on their part at said free conference, and that the managers of the said free conference on the part of the Senate will meet in the Senate committee room No. 262 at 6.15 o'clock pm. to-day. And this is signed by Mr. A. E. Blount, Clerk of the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move that
Messieurs Lapointe, Murdock, Jacobs, Ray-mlond and Mackenzie King be appointed as managers on behalf of this House of the free conference with the Senate with respect to amendments made to Bill No. 7, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith, and that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 117 to amend the Expropriation Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in Council may order material to be excavated or removed on any public work by blasting or use of explosives.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We might have a brief
explanation of this.


Ernest Lapointe: The purpose of the
amendment is to enable the government or its contractors to carry on any blasting operations which may be necessary in connection with the execution of any public work, on payment of an indemnity for all damages which third parties may suffer. Under the present law this could not be done, and the

Expropriation Act
government would be compelled to expropriate the property, and it is believed that this would be an enormous expense in many cases, which is not justified, because after all only slight damages may be occasioned to property. Those damages under the Expropriation Act will be assessed by the Exchequer Court of Canada when there is no agreement between the government and the parties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has there been any
opposition on the part of the public?


Ernest Lapointe: I must admit that this
will especially cover cases in connection with the construction of the Welland canal. Cases have arisen in connection with the execution of these works, and of course the Welland canal construction has to be carried on, and one company took an injunction last year to prevent the work being carried on by a contractor on a certain section of the canal. There has been no agreement so far, and it is believed by officials of the Railway department, as well as by officials of the Department of Justice that the only way to meet the difficulty is to have this provision enacted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under the common law
citizens may have certain rights and privileges. Does the government interfere with these rights and privileges in any way?


Ernest Lapointe: Not any more than
under the other sections of the Expropriation Act. Public works must be carried on, and this is the only way to do it.


[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. 197, to amend the Winding Up Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Powers of liquidators.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this just a technical
amendment?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to remove a doubt. Under the law as it exists, the liquidator, with the approval of the company, may sell all real, personal or movable property of the estate. It is suggested that this might apply only to sales for cash. This amendment has 290
been suggested by the Home Bank liquidators and creditors. There are cases which arise especially in the case of the Home Bank where this was necessary in order to realise in a better way some of the assets of the estate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Subject to the approval of the court?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, in every instance,
and the inspector.


[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. 119, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee t'heron, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Certified roll to be deposited with Clerk of the Parliaments.
Ernest Lapointe: This bill is word for
word a reproduction of bills that have preceded revisions of the statutes of Canada in every instance. Only the dates are changed.


Samuel William Jacobs: How is this revision being
proceeded with? Is it going on?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is, and very well. The commissioners have done more work in the last six months since they have started to work than was the custom formerly.


John Arthur Clark: When does the minister expect that the statutes will be published?


Ernest Lapointe: In three years from
now-1926.


John Arthur Clark: How many years late will
that be? They are supposed to be revised every ten years.


Ernest Lapointe: Not necessarily.


Samuel William Jacobs: Owing to the death of Mf. Hartley Dewart, there has been a vacancy on that commission. Is it the intention of the government to fill that vacancy shortly in order that the work may proceed more expeditiously?


Ernest Lapointe: I am indebted to my
hon. friend for reminding me that there is a vacancy. I am sure some gentlemen will be quite anxious to serve their country on the revision of the statutes.

Revision of Statutes


Charles Marcil: When the
revision took place some ten years ago, there was a long debate in this House over the fact that the French version was not ready at the same time as the English version, and a special act was passed in that regard. I hope in this instance the government will take proper measures to see that both versions are ready simultaneously. It also came out at that time that the French version was not merely a translation of the English version, but that it was as much official as the English version itself. Many courts in Quebec were handicapped by t.he fact that the French version was not ready, and I hope this will not occur again in the present instance.


Ernest Lapointe: Every effort will be
made to have the two versions given to the public at the same time. I think I may assure my hon. friend that the French version of the statutes is being well attended to, and I hope there will not be the same complaint as was made in the past against what was considered to be a rather poor translation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope the minister will
see that the translators profit by the early experience of this session where two or three bills had to be introduced in order to correct poor translations.


Samuel William Jacobs: It has been the custom
from time to time when revisions of the statutes are being made, particularly of the Revised Statutes, that reports are made in the interim to the department or to parliament. I know that was the rule when our Code of Procedure was revised in 1807. Is that being followed in the revision of these statutes?


Ernest Lapointe: It has not been followed in previous instances. If it is deemed better to do that, I will consider the matter.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from July 14 consideration in committee of Bill No. 253, respecting the disposal of the Canteen Funds (Hon. Mr. Beland); Mr Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Samuel William Jacobs: I noticed in the press this week a vigorous criticism of the bill by Sir Arthur Currie, former commander of the Canadian forces. Is the minister in a position to give any explanation regarding that criticism?


Henri Sévérin Béland: When the resolution was
before the House a similar question was asked by an hon. gentleman opposite and I then stated that I did not consider Sir Arthur Currie's criticism either vigorous or severe. He did express certain views but, as I stated on the previous occasion, I am satisfied that when he knows that this legislation is being passed at the request of the Ralston commission he will feel that the whole thing is equitable.


Samuel William Jacobs: I did not wish to criticise the minister; I simply wanted an explanation so that the minister might show that as usual, like Caesar's wife, he is beyond reproach.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Canteen funds.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I have an amendment to
move to section 2, which may be considered as the interpretation clause. It has been brought to my attention that a certain amount of canteen funds was transferred from the Admiralty to this country for the members of the Royal Canadian Navy who served overseas during the war and who would not come under this bill in its present form. The amount so transferred is not very large, being only between two and three thousand dollars, nor is the number of members of the Royal Canadian Navy who served overseas very considerable. In order to do justice to these men I beg to move that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Or n member of the Royal Canadian Navy who served overseas.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Central Board of Trustees.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would it not be well to
confine the Central Board of Trustees altogether to ex-service men? The whole thing belongs to the men of the forces and ought to be administered by them.


John Arthur Clark: I was about to make the
same suggestion; I made it a couple of years ago and I think the minister should consider it. The minister has told us that the majority of the board will be ex-service men but I do not see why any civilian should be a member of the board at all. Surely it would not be suggested that a competent board could not be secured from among the ranks of those who served overseas. Had the minister not intimated that the majority would be ex-service men it would never have occurred to me for a moment that there could be any question

Pensions-Canteen Funds
of any one being on the board who had not seen service overseas.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Section 5 provides that the majority of the members of the central board and of each provincial board shall be exmembers of the forces. In other words, two out of three will be returned men. No particular reason animates the minister in making this proposal, but the recommendation of the royal commission was so couched. It is not compulsory of course that there shall be any civilian on the boards but it is felt that it is desirable that it should be possible to appoint a civilian in any particular case where such an appointment might appear wise. I have no objection at all to 'having the board composed entirely of ex-service men but there is this consideration. In some cases it might be desirable to secure an outstanding university professor who did not happen to serve overseas and I am sure it would be a pity if we were precluded from availing ourselves of his services by reason of a rigid provision in the bill. I have no one in particular in mind but it strikes me that such an occasion might arise where, either in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in Halifax, in Montreal or in Ottawa, an outstanding civilian whose reputation would commend itself to every one would be available without remuneration. In those circumstances it would be regrettable if we could not take advantage of his services.


John Arthur Clark: No doubt the minister has
in mind eminent educationalists. But surely men of that type can be secured among the returned men. I can think of outstanding men in every university who have had a record overseas and who would be ideal in a position of this kind.


Mr. MANION:: I mentioned the same
point the other day when the resolution was under discussion; I suggested that the board should be composed entirely of returned men, among whom men of the highest qualifications can be found. The minister made then the same statement that he has made to-day, that the majority of the members of the boards will be ex-service men. While there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) says, at the same time I rather agree with the minister that so long as two of the board are returned men the third man might well be one who has a record of notable service for the soldiers during the war. I have a statement from one of the large soldier organizations not objecting to the distribution, but offering a suggestion 290i
in regard to it. It is too lengthy for me to read at this stage of the session, and I suppose it is too late for the minister to deal with now. The gentleman who handed me the memorandum told me he thought the three organizations-the Great War Veterans, the Army and Navy Veterans and the Imperial Veterans- should all be considered. He suggested that, for example, an allotment of $100,000 would allow each of these organizations to continue their excellent work for returned men; but I explained to him that the government had apparently adopted the plan of the Ralston commission and probably would not wish to change it now. He suggested, and I thought rather fairly, that the names of the three trustees to be appointed to the adjustment committee should be submitted to the three organizations for them to pass on. I commend the suggestion to the attention of the minister, for I think its adoption would save him a lot of trouble in the future.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was my intention in the first place to do that. I think the suggestion is excellent.
Section agreed1 to.
On section 4-Provincial boards of trustees.


John Arthur Clark: Does this mean that we are simply passing on a share of the funds to each provincial board appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, with no instructions whatever as to its disposal?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Later on my hon. friend
will see that certain suggestions are being made to each of the provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the duty of the
central board if there are to be nine separate provincial boards?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Probably my hon. friend
was not present when we discussed the resolution. The central board is to administer the $100,000 to be set aside for the adjustment committee here.


John Arthur Clark: They do nothing else?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nothing else.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Allotment of funds.
John Arthur Clark: I think each subsection
should be explained.
Pensions-Canteen Funds


Henri Sévérin Béland: I gave the explanation
when introducing the resolution, but I have no objection to repeating it. The sum of $20,000 is held here for claims that may be made by trustees of regiments; the sum of $100,000 is !to be allotted to the adjustment bureau; the sum of $50,000 is to be paid over to the United Services Fund of Great Britain to relieve Canadian soldiers there; and $50,000 is to be allotted to the American Red Cross to perform the same service for our soldiers in the United States. Any unexpended balance is to be distributed at a certain pro rata which is set out under subsection (e).


John Arthur Clark: What remains of the fund
placed in the hands of the High Commissioner in London?


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
John Arthur Clark: Nothing more will be paid
to him?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, to the United Services Fund.


Mr. SHAW:: On the resolution stage of
the bill the minister suggested that I should ask him as to the percentages of enlistments, of pensioners and of discharges in the various provinces so that we may see whether the distribution provided for in the bill is fair and equitable under the circumstances.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The distribution is made
according to a percentage which is arrived at by striking an average from three figures- the number of enlistments, the number of^ discharges and the number of pensioners in each province.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was this worked out by
the Chief Statistician?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is contained in the
report of the royal commission. I have all the details here; I might hand the statement over to Hansard. It gives for each province the number of enlistments, the number of discharges and the number of pensioners, and in regard to each figure the percentage, and the final average, of course, is in the bill.
The statement is as follows:
Re CANTEEN FUNDS
Statistics on which Provincial Allotments are Based
					Total of	
Total	Discharges	Disability	C.E.F.	from	and Death	Province	Enlist-	%	11-11-18	%	Pension	%ments	to	as of	31-10-19	31-3-24	Ontario-	M. D. No. 1	15.422 73,817 22.423	M. D. No. 2	M. D. No. 3	245,677	41,600	42,849	20,305	40,474Quebec-	M. D. No. 4	33,420 5,075	82,793	14,019	14,773	4,697	9,362New Brunswick-	M. D. No. 7	25,864	4,379	11,802	4,530	1,856	3,700Nova Scotia and P.E.I.-	M. D. No. 6	33,342	o, 646	25,787	9,899	3,182	6,343Manitoba-	M. D. No. 10	66,319	11,230	26,314	10,097	5,408	10,780Alberta-	M. D. No. 13	45,146	7,644	14,585	5,597	4,413	8,796Saskatchewan-	M. D. No. 12	37,666	6,378	11,253	4,311	3,379	6,735British Columbia and Yukon-	M. D. No. 11	53,756	9,104	20,702	7,944	6,928	13,810
$590,572	100,000	260,600	100,000	50,168	100,000


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am particularly concerned
with this situation. A great many western soldiers took their discharges in Ontario and in British Columbia, and many of the latter subsequently returned east, transportation in [Mr. Clark.)
every case being provided either by the Dominion government or by the provincial government of British Columbia. This situation would not exist in regard to some of the other provinces, and I want to be sure that

Pensions-Canteen Funds
the distribution is fair, because it will be readily seen that if the discharges were very heavy in Ontario they would bring up the percentage to which that province is entitled under the basis adopted, although there would be no justification for the increase.


Mr. POWER:: Many of those who enlisted in the western provinces came originally from the eastern provinces.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: They enlisted in the provinces where they had made their homes, and therefore the province would be entitled to whatever benefit* might accrue to it from those enlistments. But you cannot regard the discharge basis as an equitable basis under the circumstances.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In most cases the percentages run close to each other-enlistments, discharges, and pensioners. If there is a province that will benefit more than another, or at the expense of the others, it is British Columbia, where quite a number of pensioners have settled on account of the climatic conditions.


John Arthur Clark: Suppose we have 100,000 enlistments from one province and the men for some reason do not return to that province but go to another; then their share of the canteen fund will follow them wherever they go.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: A great many of these soldiers took their discharges in Ontario and the eastern provinces, not with the intention of remaining there but simply to pay a visit, and were subsequent^' provided with transportation to go to their western homes.


John Arthur Clark: I really think the hon. member is mistaken in that. I had considerable experience in arranging the transportation of the men and I found they were inclined to take their transportation to the furthest point and their discharge at that point and come back afterwards. That is one thing which may account for the great increase in British Columbia. Many men who did not enlist in British Columbia went there to take the trip, and also, perhaps, because they felt they might like to stay there owing to the milder climate. Will the minister give the committee some information with regard to (b) of section 6, which provides for a central board of trustees? What will be the duties of the board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I gave this information when the resolution was introduced. However, I cannot do better than to read again what the commission has said in this respect:
Representations have been made that before there is any distribution of this fund, care should be taken to see that machinery is maintained for the active presentation and prosecution of claims which may arise from time to time on behalf of ex-service men and their dependents, concerning the various forms of assistance which the state provides in respect of pensions, re-establishment, etcetera.
There are a variety of instances in connection with such questions as government employment, land settlement, training, housing, and re-habilitation activities generally, the considerations affecting which depend on the presentation of the individual case rather than on the terms of a general regulation. There are also parliamentary matters not only affecting pensions but amendments to existing statutes, which may indirectly affect the rights and privileges of ex-service men, and in addition there is the desirability of having some agency completely detached from government organization to supply the necessary personal contact between ex-service men and dependents and those who deal with matters affecting their interests.
I Lave always been, of the view, and Sir Arthur Currie has shared in the opinion, that there should be an agency of some kind, made up of soldiers and responsible only to them, situated in Ottawa, to act as their representative. I hope to be able to get three returned men to take charge of the work, because this is the soldiers' money and its distribution should be supervised by the soldiers themselves.


John Arthur Clark: What staff will be required to operate the bureau?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Possibly one chief, one assistant, probably a head clerk and two stenographers or typists. I should think a staff of five or six would be sufficient, but it would depend on the work they would have to do. The board of trustees will have full supervision of the expenditure.


John Arthur Clark: It is not thought that the interest on the $100,000 will pay for the service?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It may not. They are at liberty to use the capital if they wish.


John Arthur Clark: I agree with the principle of having such a bureau, but why should the soldiers pay for it? Why should
5 p.m. they contribute $100,000 for a work which is surely the work of the people as a whole?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sorry to have to differ from my hon. friend. I do not think it is a public duty; it is rather the duty of the soldiers themselves. They have contributed to the fund, and I have not yet received any intimation from any soldiers' organization or from any individual soldier that it would not be desirable to use the canteen funds for that purpose. Sir Arthur Currie
45S6
Pensions-Canteen Funds

was rather reluctant to admit that view, though he was ready to consider an appropriation from the disabled fund. But the Ralston commission, having heard evidence all over the country, recommended that it should be done in this way, and I agree with them. If as minister I had control of this money and was defraying the expenses connected with the adjustment bureau, I would be accused of using public money to exert undue influence perhaps, on soldier bodies. I think the government should remain out of this question; it might develop into a political question if the matter was in the hands of the minister.
Mr. BLAiCK (Yukon): Is there any more danger of this developing into a political question than that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as a whole would develop into a political machine? I think it is a public duty, surely, to look after the returned soldiers who are in need. Those who have come home without impairment are looking after themselves and not demanding anything from the government. I take it this fund is for the benefit of the soldiers whose health has been impaired and who need help, or their dependents, and not for every able-bodied man who may want to take advantage of it.


Charles Gavan Power: It is for every soldier who
wants to ask a question about gratuities, land settlement or anything else.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For every soldier
who wants to ask a question?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that is what he does.


George Black: Surely you do not need to place $100,000 at their disposal for that purpose.


Charles Gavan Power: That appears to be what
they are doing now. For the life of me I do not see why we have to provide funds in order to establish a kind of information bureau as to government activities in so far as the re-establishment and rehabilitation of returned men are concerned. That should be primarily the duty of the soldiers-injured men or their friends-who wish to subscribe money for this purpose. After all, the readjustment bureau is only a kind of liaison between the government department and the soldier with reference to whatever claim he may have against the government. I do not see why the government should be asked to provide funds for this purpose. Neither do I think it would be proper or desirable for the government to provide the funds un-
[Mr. Beland.l
less they have some manner of control over men whose duty it will be, in many instances, to be in conflict with the heads of the various departments which have to do with rehabilitation activities.


Robert James Manion: I think there is a good
deal in what my hon. friend says. It should not be forgotten that in the past the returned soldiers have been paying for this very work themselves. In the past it has been done, I understand, by the contributions from the Great War Veterans' Association to the several veteran associations here in Ottawa including the Imperial-* Army and Navy Veterans. Of course if the government chooses to give another $100,000 to carry on this work the soldiers should be pleased. At the same time no matter what the method of handling this money may be, no matter what government is in power- whether the present government or another government-I take it from what the minister has said that once this $100,000 is handed over to the trustees there will be no considerations attached to it-it will be absolutely independent of the government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No considerations at all.


Robert James Manion: That is the way it should be.


George Black: Would it not be
possible for the board to dispose of the $100,000 the first year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Clause 10 provides:
Any plans formulated should be based on the assumption that there will be prospective beneficiaries for several years to come.
That is the general tenor of the bill. Of course the trustees will have the power to distribute the money in one day if they want to. But if my hon. friend was in my position and endeavoured to select three outstanding citizens who are ex-service men, and if he placed $100,000 in their hands for the purpose of maintaining an adjustment bureau in Ottawa, would he expect that those men would call the soldiers together the next day and divide the money in one hour? Would he expect them to say to each man, "Take your share and go, and we will have done with you." The order in council appointing the board will set out what its functions will be, always bearing in mind the recommendation of the -royal commission which I read a moment ago. Surely, then, we have all possible assurance that this money is not going to be lightly disposed of by such a board.

Pensions-Canteen Funds


George Black: How are the percentages arrived at? I asked the minister that question the other day but I could not tell from his answer how it was done, British Columbia and Yukon joined together will receive 10.286 per cent. The amount coming to Yukon will have to be separated from that allotted to British Columbia. When that money arrives in Yukon it will be handled by a committee of Yukon people and the first question asked will be "How are you going to arrive at your amounts?" The proper way would be to adopt the system by which the separate amounts for the various provinces were arrived at. If I can get the formula by which those percentages were arrived at I can work it out. I do not think for a moment that the returned soldiers in Yukon will want to allow any money due to them to remain in the hands of British Columbia. They will want it to be taken to their own country and administered by a committee there. I should therefore like to get this information in order to arrive at the amount due to Yukon.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was not considered advisable to have a committee appointed for Yukon especially, for the particular reason that there are very few returned men in that district. Of course I am not charged with the preservation and maintenance of the interests of my hon. friend, although I like to do him a good service any time. Let me point out that the returned men in Yukon are bound to profit more by this arrangement than by any other plan. I will tell my hon. friend the reason why. It is because the average is reached by striking a figure from the enlistments, discharges and pensions. The number of enlistments in the Yukon may have been normal.


George Black: More than normal.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, the same thing has happened in other provinces; but the number of discharges in Yukon must be considerably below the number of enlistments, and the number of pensioners still lower, because very few pensioners would select that district to reside in. So that the percentage in the case of Yukon if taken alone would be a good deal smaller than my hon. friend would desire it to be. On the other hand Yrukon combined with British Columbia, stands in a most favoured position. Yukon's share, on account of the large number of pensioners who sought their residence in British Columbia, will be proportionately more than it
would otherwise be. My hon. friend must bear in mind that in British Columbia there are a good many more pensioners than you would think should be there, taking into consideration the number of enlistments and discharges. I have the figures here but I do not care to go into them. However, it will be decidedly unfavourable to Yukon if we said "We are going to strike an average for Yukon only and you may have your share."
There is another consideration. Let us Suppose that it is desirable to evolve a scheme of education for returned men. With the very small amount that will come to \ ukon it could not evolve such a scheme of education alone; but Yukon, if merged with British Columbia, will share in any scheme of that description which that province evolves and develops. So, in this connection also it is to the advantage of Yukon ex-service men to be included with British Columbia.
I do not want to insist too much, but I prefer to adhere to what is proposed here. Of course, the hon. member is at liberty to suggest anything else if he wishes.


George Black: I am quite satisfied if the opinion of the minister is that Yukon would get more advantage by the present arrangement, but in order to decide the question for myself, it will be necessary to know how the percentage is allotted. It is either a case of Yukon having a very small interest in a large sum, or a very big interest in a small sum. Which would be the most advantageous? Until it is disclosed how the percentage is arrived at, it is impossible to tell which is the most advantageous arrangement. I am convinced that the minister believes that Yukon is getting the most advantage by this arrangement, but I should like to be able to convince myself of the same thing. I think taking the percentage of enlistments and discharges and pensions is much too general, and you cannot sit down and figure out percentages on that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Down to the very remotest scale of figures the number of enlistments in British Columbia is so many, the number of discharges in British Columbia is so many, and the number of pensioners in British Columbia is so many. You add the three figures and divide by three, and this average in British Columbia compares very favourably with the average in the other sections of Canada. That is the way it is arrived at. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that stands out as profit-
4588	JULY
Pensions-Canteen Funds
ing by this arrangement. There are more pensioners, in comparison with the enlistments, and discharges than in any other province in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Regulations. Duties of provincial board of trustees.
Mr. LADNER:: That is a peculiarly
worded section. There may be a meaning in it, but I have not been able to find it. In part it says:
and the Li6iiteiuiiit

Governor in Council of any province may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the guidance and direction of the provincial Board of Trustees of his province, provided that the duties of the provincial Board of Trustees shall be to receive and hold the provincial allotment and to ascertain by such method as may appear to them most feasible, the wishes of those most interested and residing in the province, or, in the case of British Columbia, in the province and the Yukon, concerning the disposition of such allotment,-
Why is the question of the disposition not referred to in the former part of the paragraph? After we have ascertained the wishes of those most interested, residing in the province, where is the authority to dispose of the funds?


Henri Sévérin Béland: If the hon. member will
read the remainder of the clause he will see. It determines the object to which the allotment shall be devoted.


Leon Johnson Ladner: These words concerning
She disposition of the allotment would appear to refer to an allotment of the funds in British Columbia and Yukon.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It must be stated in that way, because Yukon is not a province. The percentages are set out in the previous clause. British Columbia is coupled with Yukon, so that we had to repeat the words there.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Hon. gentlemen will remember that I mentioned a member of the Royal Canadian Navy in this discussion, and I moved an amendment to the interpretation section, section 2, in order to cover the point. It is also necessary that a similar amendment be introduced into the preamble in order to cover the same point. For the purpose of completing the bill I beg to move that the preamble be amended by adding after the word " operations " in the thirteenth line, the following:
(IV) The share allotted to the Royal Canadian Navy by the Admiralty.

16, 1924


John Arthur Clark: I have not made a very
careful study of this bill, but it occurs to me in reference to the central board of trustees and the provincial boards of trustees, that there should be a time limit for their service, and let them be reappointed after the expiration of that time. As the bill now reads it is an indefinite appointment. It might be well to amend the bill so that they could be appointed for three years, subject to reappointment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that the
members of this board will be appointed and will hold* the position as long as they wish to do so.


John Arthur Clark: That may be for life.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, they may remain for life if they want to.


John Arthur Clark: I think that is an objectionable feature. Here you have a board of trustees appointed. That board1 of trustees may not be in sympathy or harmony with the desires of the returned men. They may be in sympathy for a couple of years, then they may fall out and perhaps would not be able to rightly interpret the wishes of returned men with regard to the fund. I think it would be a safeguard if their appointment were made for three years, and the same men could be reappointed if desired. There would be no objection to their reappointment if their policy was in harmony with the wishes of the returned men. If the appointments were made for three years, subject to reappointment, I think it would be better than to have the appointment for life.


Robert James Manion: I endorse very strongly
the attitude taken by my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark). I think it is a very wise precaution. Suppose you have one member on one of those boards who is distasteful to returned soldiers, or in some way disagreeable to them-


Charles Gavan Power: I guarantee that in six
months they will all be disagreeable. [DOT]


Robert James Manion: Possibly, but we should
not permit them to remain longer than the returned soldiers wish. I doubt if any man would place himself in that position, but somebody might do it. If the appointment were for three years, whatever government was in power would be glad to reappoint them, if they were carrying on satisfactorily to the soldiers.
I believe an amendment might be made in sections 3 and 4 to provide that the appointment should be for three years.

Pension Act


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like to add my
word of approval to the suggestion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the hon. member
propose an amendment?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member for Bur-rard perhaps would like to frame the amendment.


John Arthur Clark: I had not thought of proposing an amendment, but I think we might say that the board of trustees shall consist of three members, to serve without remuneration, appointed for a period of two years, or whatever period the minister thinks is a reasonable time, or we might add a clause at the end of the bill providing that both the central board of trustees and the provincial board of trustees shall be appointed respectively for a period of two years or three years, whichever period is considered reasonable, and that they may be reappointed at the expiration of their term.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Clause 9 provides that any vacancy in the membership of the central board of trustees due to death or resignation may be filled by the Governor in Council, and any vacancy similarly caused in the membership of a provincial board of trustees may be filled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Under that clause, the only way they could be removed would be by death or resignation; there is no power to discharge them for misconduct. It is unlikely that trustees will be guilty of misconduct, but it is always possible, and in framing legislation I would urge that this fund should be protected as far as possible.


Charles Gavan Power: Should any misconduct
occur, does the hon. member not think the trustees might be proceeded against before the civil courts?


Leon Johnson Ladner: But they would be proceeded against only for the offence with which they were charged. Even if they were convicted of the offence, this bill does not provide that that conviction shall disqualify them. A man who may be a trustee may get into some other trouble and leave the country. In that event, he has neither died nor resigned. He is still a trustee and the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this bill would have no authority to remove that trustee or to fill his place. The whole three of them might get into that situation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is all very well.
When time is so precious, I have been waiting now for five minutes in order to move an
amendment. I move to amend section 3 by adding after the word "remuneration" the words "for a period of three years, at the expiration of which, if not disqualified, shall be eligible for re-appointment."


John Arthur Clark: Would it not be better just to say: "and shall be eligible for re-appointment?" There is no section which disqualifies them.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Very well. The clause
as amended will read:
There shall be appointed by the Governor in Council a central board of trustees consisting of three members who shall serve without remuneration for a period of three years, and shall be eligible for reappointment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I move to amend section
4 by adding after the word "remuneration" the words "for a period of three years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment."


George Black: That might mean
that they would serve without remuneration for three years, and after that they would hope to be remunerated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We will attend to that.


George Black: The wording is
ambiguous.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act amendments, and to provide,
1.	For pension not being awarded when the death or
disability of the member of the forces was due to improper conduct, but that the commission may, when the applicant is in a dependent condition, award such pension as it deems fit in the circumstances; except when the death has occurred on service prior to the coming into force of the Pension Act; and an exmember of the forces suffering from venereal disease who saw service in a theatre of actual war may be awarded a pension for total disability at the time of discharge.	.	.
2.	For the period of delay during which applications for pensions may be made, and for cases which appear to be specially meritorious.
3.	For the conditions under which dependent parents and the widow of a pensioner may be awarded a pension.
Pension Act
[Stage Direction]
4.	For the awarding or refusal of a pension to a widow of a pensioner, taking into consideration his condition at the time of marriagd, and under what conditions pensions may be to prospective widowed mothers.
5.	For the payment of certain sums of money pending consideration of a claim for pent m.
6.	For the restoration in certain rases of pensions previously awarded to a woman who has been married or remarried, and for increased pensions to mothers whose husbands are physically helpless or in a dependent condition.
7.	For what the final payment will be in cases of disability hetween five and fourteen per cent, and what conditions may affect such final payments.
8.	For the amendment of the schedules to the aot in such a manner as to make pension equal to .the actual rate plus bonus.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure), in the chair.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I would suggest humbly to hon. members that we pass the resolution as it is. The bill is now distributed. The resolution itself is in very general terms and it is almost impossible to give a proper explanation of it.


Robert James Manion: I entirely agree with that, with the exception that it is on the condition that we do not absolutely adopt the principle until the bill comes before us.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 255, to amend the Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure), in the chair.
On section 1-Action evidenced by form with signature of commissioner.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is merely to provide that in either awarding or refusing a pension the Board of Pension Commissioners shall state the names of the commissioners who dealt with the case, together with the grounds upon which the pension is either awarded or refused. In the event of the commission not being unanimous the grounds must be given upon which a dissenting commissioner disagrees with the decision reached.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Improper conduct.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This section is practically the same as the provisions which at present are in force, with the exception of sub-section (c) which reads:

(c) that in the case of venereal desease contracted prior to enlistment, pension shall be awarded for the tolal disability at the time of discharge in all cases where the member of the forces saw service in a theatre of actual war, but no increase in disability after discharge shall be pensionable.
The section I think is self-explanatory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Time within which application must be made.
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is only a slight
addition in this section. The amendment provides that where there is an entry in the service or medical documents of any member of the forces who applies for pension such entry on file shall be considered as an application, and the three-year limitation will not be operative in such a case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Pension suspended on imprisonment or paid to dependent.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This section adds to section 17 of the act the following:
Or if in the opinion of the commission it would be of exceptional benefit or advantage to the pensioner, the commission may in its discretion pay the pension or a part thereof to or for the pensioner himself.
It was found that in some cases where the pensioner had been arrested it was desirable that the pension should be discontinued. This amendment is to enable the commission to continue the pension whenever that is deemed advisable.


Robert James Manion: At present if a pensioner is in prison and his family are receiving the pension it may be continued.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Compassionate pension or allowance in specially meritorious cases.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year we considered a provision which we termed a "meritorious" clause and at that time the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), with his keen legal mind, foresaw that it would not be applicable. As a matter of fact his prediction proved well-founded; the clause could not be acted upon. Both the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board found that it was unworkable and therefore this year the committee was asked to draft a new clause, which they have done. It is provided that in specially meritorious cases in which otherwise a pension could not be awarded the claim may

Pension Act
be made the subject of an investigation upon the decision of a majority of both boards united, and the pension may be awarded if advisable.


John Arthur Clark: I have a slight doubt even in regard to this section. The section refers to "any member of the forces or any dependent of a member of the forces". I want to mention a specific class of cases that actually exist and to ascertain from the minister whether they would be covered by this section. Section 33, subsection 3 of the act provides ft>r a pension to be paid to any woman who although not married to a member of the forces lived with him as his wife prior to the war. I have in mind the case of a woman who during the war went through a form of marriage with a soldier who was already married. He assigned his pay to her and then went overseas and was killed. It was subsequently ascertained that the man's legal wife was alive and she was given the pension, while the woman who in good faith went through a form of marriage with him and bore him children is not provided for under the act. I am aware of a case where the first wife re-marries and is no longer in receipt of the pension, yet the other woman gets nothing; in fact,, no one is eligible for the pension. I do not want to press any amendment to meet this class of cases provided I am assured that this particular amendment relating to meritorious cases will meet the situation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: On the face of it, it would
seem doubtful.


John Arthur Clark: Last year I asked the minister a similar question, and, as I understood him, he expressly stated that he considered this a meritorious type of case.


Charles Gavan Power: Does not section 33, subsection 3, cover the case?


John Arthur Clark: But unfortunately in the case I refer to the woman was married to the soldier after the outbreak of war. She complied with the law in every respect.


Charles Gavan Power: Did she go through the form of marriage in England or in Canada?


John Arthur Clark: In some cases the marriage was performed in Canada, in other cases in England.


Charles Gavan Power: If the marriage took place in Canada I should think the woman would be entitled to a pension.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: In my opinion this type of case would not come within the description of " meritorious," and if parliament wants to pay a pension to the second wife it is a matter for legislation. The question was dealt with by the special committee, and, unfortunately for my hon. friend, was rejected.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. I brought the suggestion before the committee at a quarter past twelve the other night, and I did not press it because the members expressly stated that they weie not prepared to express an opinion. Therefore I dropped it, I was never given an opportunity to bring it before the committee afterwards.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It was brought before the committee in an informal way, as were many other questions, and the committee did not lend an attentive ear to my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: I do not admit that at all. The committee said they were not prepared to give a decision.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not wish to argue the point with my hon. friend. If he was of opinion that the second wife should get a pension, it was up to him to propose before the committee an amendment to the law. He did not see fit to do so. He may move an amendment now if he chooses, but so far as I am concerned I do not think that two pensions should be paid in such a case.


John Arthur Clark: I took the position from the outset that it was our duty first to consider the recommendations of the Ralston commission, and I followed the course throughout. Yesterday the chairman insisted upon a report and there was no time for the consideration of amendments; therefore it would have been foolish for me to have pressed any. If it is not possible for the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board to consider just such a case as I have outlined, then what on earth can they consider under this section?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They could consider the
case of a man who had enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, served in Canada, say, for one year, then decided to join the Imperial army, for that purpose took his discharge in Canada and boarded a ship for England, but she was torpedoed and he perished.


John Arthur Clark: I put that case before tha
minister a year ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is a really meritorious case where the widow is entitled to a pension; she is not entitled under the act.

Pension Act


Charles Gavan Power: That maa had been discharged from the Canadian army and had not as yet joined the Imperial army.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But on his discharge papers it was specifically stated that he was discharged for the purpose of enlisting in the Imperial army.


John Arthur Clark: I know; but the member
for Quebec South (Mr. Power) is absolutely right; that man at the time of his death was not a member of the Canadian force.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I know it. If he had been there would be no question about his widow being entitled to a pension.


John Arthur Clark: Therefore his dependents
could not be pensioned under the section.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If that is not a meritorious case, I cannot think of any.


John Arthur Clark: I am not disputing that.
Has the minister changed his mind as to the meritorious nature of the case I have just cited to him?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am inclined to think it should be considered under this section It could be made the subject of investigation by both boards.


John Arthur Clark: In years gone by the minister emphatically stated that he considered this a meritorious case, and it was for that reason principally that I did not press for a further amendment to the Pension Act. Anyway, I think it is inadvisable to have too many amendments to the act. I think this class of woman is just as much entitled to a pension under the act as any other class, but I would be quite prepared to leave it to the discretion of these two boards and the Governor in Council to award such a pension where the applicant is meritorious. If the minister will give us the assurance that this type of case will be considered as in the meritorious class under this act, I will not press for an amendment; otherwise I cannot see what class of people you are going to consider under this act as meritorious.
M>r. POWER: From a reading of the act it will be found that the case cited by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) falls within those to be considered under this amendment, whereas the case mentioned by the minister does not. That of the hon. member for Burrard refers to a dependent. There is no definition in the act of a dependent. We have not said that the dependent should be in any way related to the deceased member of the forces, so that 
if the person referred to by my hon. friend was in any way supported by the member of the forces who has died she would be one of his dependents and therefore entitled to consideration under the meritorious clause The case cited by the minister is that of a man who had taken his discharge from the Canadian army and was proceeding overseas to join the British army, so that he was no longer a member of the forces. This amendment distinctly states that in order to have his -case considered the subject must be a member of the forces or a dependent of a member of the forces. Here is a definition of "member of the forces":
Member of the forces" means any person who was enlisted, enrolled or drafted during the war (i) for service in the military forces of Canada on active service, (ii) for service on the high seas in the naval forces of Canada, or (iii) for service in the air forces of Canada; Provided, however, that after the Declaration of Peace, the words "member of the forces" shall not extend to or include any person who, notwithstanding that he was so enlisted, enrolled or drafted is not at the time serving by virtue only of The Military Service Act, 1917.


George Black: It does not matter how meritorious the case may be or how sympathetic the Board of Pension Commissioners or the Appeal Board may be, unless it is held that the applicant comes within the legal meaning of the word " dependent " as used in the act he cannot get the pension. It is just a question whether the applicant is a dependent or not. If it can be held that the unmarried wife is a legal dependent, then that is a meritorious case and will come within this class; otherwise it is not within the class. I think an interpretation of the word " dependent " is needed in the act.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think it is unfair
to ask the minister to give us an interpretation of this section. I know of cases w'here I am sure it would be agreed by everybody that the dependents in question are entitled to recognition under the act. All I am' asking is whether this section will cover that particular class of dependent, and whether it will be so interpreted by the Governor in Council, who must pass on all applications made under it. Personally I could support payment of pension to such classes on the legal interpretation of this section, but in view of the difficulties which arose last year I really do not want to see this class of case left in dire need for another year. If the government	will	have	each	case	considered on	its	merits,	then	we	shall
not require any further amendments to

Pension Act
the act and we will control the character of the people who are getting pensions under that particular section; it will exclude possible bad characters who do not come within the class of meritorious cases.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not versed in the
law, but as I interpret the clause the Governor in Council acts only after a majority of the two boards have passed upon the application. How then can the minister give a definite assurance that this case would be made a subject of investigation by the two boards? They are the people who will determine in the first instance whether or not this woman who was married to a member of the forces already married may be considered a dependent. If the two boards decide she is a dependent of a member of the forces, she comes within the meritorious clause, but I cannot determine that; the statute does not authorize me to do it. So far as I am concerned I shall be disposed, where the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board jointly decide that a pension should be given in such a case as my hon. friend has cited, to recommend to the Governor in Council that the pension be paid. Can I go any further?


John Arthur Clark: I suggest that we call
it six o'clock. We may have an opportunity of considering the matter between now and eight o'clock and of getting some further light on it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask the minister whether he is now prepared to state to what class of cases this section will apply?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have looked at the interpretation clause of the Pension Act, but I do not find a clear definition of the word " dependent." It is true that the dependent condition is described, but the word " dependent," is not clearly defined. However, pursuant to the wish expressed by my hon. friend from Burrard, I have examined very carefully the clause as drafted and the interpretation of it, in such a case as that referred to by my hon. friend, would rest on the word
dependent." I think we may share the view that a bigamous wife may be considered as a dependent, or rather, we will say,-


John Arthur Clark: The bigamous husband you mean.


Henri Sévérin Béland: -the second wife living.
I think she may fairly be considered a dependent of a member of the forces. If that estimation is just, then the case would form the subject of an investigation by both boards.
If I were asked whether I was in a position to recommend that a case of that kind should be made the subject matter of study and consideration by the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board I would certainly say that it should. I do not think that I am in a position, however desirous I may be to do so, to give any further undertaking. The matter of adjudication, I think, rests entirely with these two boards acting jointly. But as I said before six o'clock, if the tribunal constituted by these boards decided that this second living wife, in view of the conditions under which she is living, is entitled to a pension subject to the assent of the Governor in Council, I would be prepared to recommend to council that the pension awarded be paid. I do not believe that I can be expected to say any more in this connection.


William Findlay Maclean: Meritorious cases must be governed by statute. I do not interpret the case in that way at all. If the case is a meritorious one, and the jurisdiction is given to the minister, as I think it is, the action taken should be in accordance with the true legal position.


Robert James Manion: I understood that the law is to this effect: That if the Pension Board turn down a case on legal grounds the minister can still investigate the case and recommend to council that a pension be paid. Am I right or wrong?


Henri Sévérin Béland: With all due deference to my hon. friend I do not think that I shall have any such power under this legislation.


John Arthur Clark: I appreciate very much the spirit shown by the minister. I think he is taking the right attitude and that we should be able to settle this matter. It seems to me we are in complete agreement that this type of case is a meritorious one and, if effectively and properly established, should be awarded a pension. I should like to put on record the definition given in Webster's International Dictionary of the word "dependent";
One who is sustained by another or who relies on another for support.
Now, certainly this woman must have relied on the man for support because she drew a separation allowance. Therefore under this
Pension Act

definition of the word she is a dependent, just as much a dependent for instance as the mother of a son who has been killed in France and on whose account she is drawing a pension. The mother would not be a legal dependent in the sense that she would have a right of action for support.


Charles Gavan Power: She would in some of the provinces.


John Arthur Clark: Yes, but that would be under statute law; I am dealing with the common law. My difficulty in this case is that I have not had time to look into the matter and investigate whether a woman of the class referred to would have a right of action for support against a man with whom she has contracted marriage. She certainly would have a right of action against him for damages for breach of contract; there is no doubt about that. But I rather think that her civil right would end there. There would be a right to commence criminal proceedings, but I do not think there would be any right to proceed further civilly. If I am correct in my opinion, we must rely upon the definition given in the dictionary of the word "dependent." In my humble opinion as a lawyer, I think that the definition given in the English dictionary would be the definition which should govern the Pension Board and the Federal Appeal Board in their interpretation, because no definition of the word "dependent" has been given in the interpretation clause. The word "dependency" is defined, but the word "dependent" is not. Therefore, I think I am right in my contention that the ordinary definition of "dependent" as given in the dictionary must govern, but I am going to propose an amendment, in case there should be any doubt, and I think my amendment will make it perfectly certain that the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board would readily understand that they were at liberty to deal with this class of case, provided the marriage had been bona fide. I would suggest that section 5-22 of the bill-be amended by inserting after the word "forces" the following:
Or who has in good faith gone through the form of marriage with such member of the forces in accordance with the laws of Canada or Great Britain.
That simply means that the board will have a discretion to deal with such cases, and naturally the only cases they are going to deal with are cases of women who can prove their good faith, and who are living in Canada and who are dependent.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the hon. gentleman
not add to "Canada or Great Britain," or "France"?
Such alliances have been contracted in France. We might include Turkey because some of our soldiers may have gone there, or Greece, because some of our soldiers went to Salonika. If it is designed to cover the case my hon. friend refers to, perhaps we need not bother with it, but if it is to, cover all cases, the motion should include other countries.


John Arthur Clark: I think this would cover
the class of cases the House has in mind.


Jean-Joseph Denis: In my opinion,
this amendment is absolutely wrong. When the meritorious clause was drafted and this matter was before the committee, several members of the committee pointed out particular cases and tried to have this clause so drafted that it would meet particular cases, just as my hon. friend wishes now to have the clause to cover a particular class of people.


John Arthur Clark: The statute is designed to
deal with particular cases.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This meritorious
clause, in opposition to the general statute, has been left open by the will of the committee. This matter has been discussed over and over again; and after the committee decided the cases which should be governed by the meritorious clause, the ruling of the committee was that no special class of people should be included in the meritorious clause, but that it should be left wide open. My first objection is: That if the class mentioned by my hon. friend is to be included in this meritorious clause there would be many classes of people indeed who might also be included, and if this meritorious clause is to be amended to meet the case of a woman who marries a man who is already married, someone would immediately ask that another class be also included in the meritorious clause, and this clause, which is a general clause, would become a clause drafted to meet these particular cases, which was not the object of the committee. But I have another objection on the merits of the case. I think my hon. friend should have brought this matter to the attention of the special committee, rather than to bring it before this committee. The report of that special committee has been tabled. It was the unanimous report of the committee. It will be said that it deals with the recommendations of the Ralston commis-

Pension Act
sion, and that we had not time to deal with recommendations from the members of the committee. There is a good deal of truth in that, but I do not agree that my hon. friend had not an opportunity to move an amendment to the act if he had chosen to do so. However, I am willing, for the sake of discussion, to waive this particular point and face the situation on the merits.
On the merits of the proposed amendment, where a woman has been married to a member of the forces by fraud, where she was the victim of circumstances, under this amendment the state would have to pay her a pension, but the state would still have to pay a pension to the legitimate wife. Would it be argued where a member of the forces has married the second time that the first wife should lose her pension? Certainly not. Therefore if we start with the proposition that the legitimate wife is entitled to a pension, and if we grant a pension to the woman who should not have been married to the soldier, then we are granting pensions to the two wives of the same husband, and if we grant pensions to two wives, why not to three? If we grant pensions in one case, why would we not grant pensions in ten, fifteen or a hundred such cases, if they can be found? This is a matter of principle and should be embodied into the law by special enactment if such is the desire of this House, or if such was the desire of the special committee. But this is no time to bring this particular case into the meritorious clause, which was not drafted to meet this or that case, but which was drafted to meet all cases which appeared to be especially meritorious. Now what was the thought behind this clause? It was that no case should be included in this clause, unless that case was an especially meritorious one. This meritorious clause was not embodied in the act with a view to bringing relief to people who could not otherwise obtain relief, or to people who could not perhaps prove their right to relief. Now, it is desired to amend the clause to meet the class my hon. friend refers to. That is not the object of the clause. The object is to meet classes of cases which appear to be meritorious, and not particular cases. Therefore, on the procedure, as well as on the merits, I will vote against the amendment.


John Arthur Clark: I absolutely dispute the
statement that I had an opportunity to move an amendment, except at half past twelve in the morning, when the members of the committee were tired and asked me not to press the matter at that hour of the morning.
I never had an opportunity to bring this matter before the special committee. Assuming, however, that I had an opportunity every day, is my hon. friend going to deny any member of this House the right to bring cases of merit to the attention of the government and to amend the law at this stage, providing the minister and the House are satisfied?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Did I say that?


John Arthur Clark: That is the only inference
that I could draw-I should have done it then; I should not do it now. That is what my hon. friend says. My hon. friend says that this section is designed to meet specially meritorious cases. The minister says that this is a meritorious case. The only thing that is causing any delay in the proceedings is the lack of a legal interpretation of the word " dependent." My hon. friend has not touched that at all. I am satisfied that I have given the correct interpretation, but I do not think it is my duty to give the committee the legal interpretation nor would it be binding on the boards. It is the duty of the minister or of the government to give us the legal meaning of this section and to state whether it will cover any specific case that any member wishes to place before the government. The question is not whether the particular case is meritorious, but whether the law is sufficiently broad to cover the case. I am pretty well satisfied that the law is broad enough to cover it, and if I were a member of the board I would say that it is broad enough to cover that case. I am only suggesting this amendment to include, not only every man who served overseas and every bona fide widow of a man who served overseas and who was killed, but those women who, in good faith, thought they were wives and who complied in so far as they were able with the laws of the particular country where they contracted the marriage.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand that the
hon. gentleman has moved an amendment to this section?


John Arthur Clark: I hoped that the minister
might accept this suggested amendment. I have not moved it yet.


Mr. ARTHURS:: We have spent many
hours over this so-called meritorious section. It was passed by this House last year. Unfortunately in another place they changed it so that, according to the legal interpretation, it had no value at all. While I have every respect for the opinion of the hon. member
Pension Act

for Burrard (Mr. Clark), I think it would be very unwise to introduce into this section any particular class of cases. It is far better to accept the report of the committee as it stands, which report I can assure this committee has received very careful study.


Robert James Manion: We have spent quite a
long time over this section, and I should like to offer a suggestion in order to see if we cannot get it settled and pass on to other business. I have heard this section discussed thoroughly for an hour and the hon. member for Burrard has been kind enough to explain the case to me personally.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I rise to a point
of order. A resolution has been passed covering this bill, but it does not cover cases which are not provided for in the bill.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to move
an amendment. I am discussing only the suggestion of the hon. member for Burrard.


Jean-Joseph Denis: But it comes to this that we want to create a new class of pensions in this country for which no provision was made in the resolution. This cannot be done because it would mean incurring more expense.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is a well known
and established rule that a member of the House cannot move an amendment which will create or increase an impost upon the public treasury. But no amendment has been moved so far. The suggestion is made to the minister, as I understand it, that he should embody this proposal in an amendment which, it is desired, he should submit or which should be submitted with his consent to create this additional charge. As no amendment has been moved, it seems to me that the discussion is in order if it is to lay before the committee the views of the hon. member.


Robert James Manion: Reference has been made to the case of a woman who in England goes through the ordinary form of marriage with a. man whom she believes to be single. After that she has a child or children by this man. She comes to this country where she finds that he has already been married. The man in the meantime is killed at the front. The real wife marries again so that she does not get a pension and no pension is being paid in this case. This woman married this man in good faith; she has a child by him, and she is in circumstances where she requires assistance. It is a case for compassionate allowance, and the meritorious section would appear to me to cover cases entitled to compassionate CMr. Arthurs.]
allowances. In view of these facts-I do not know whether this suggestion will be acceptable to the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) or not-I would suggest that the minister see that the boards that deal with this case deal with it thoroughly in a sympathetic way. If they do that, they will come to the conclusion that this woman and her child should be pensioned. If the minister will give a promise in good faith that he will see that that is done, that should bring about a result which should be satisfactory to the woman and to the hon. member for Burrard.


Charles Gavan Power: The trouble we have found -and I think the committee endeavoured to deal with this trouble-is that the Board of Pension Commissioners would not deal sympathetically with a number of cases, and that the minister has not power to force them to do so. Therefore, as regards that portion of the argument of my hon. friend, his suggestion is not of great value.


Robert James Manion: I admit there is probably
some truth in the contention my hon. friend puts forward; but at the same time, after the discussion which has taken place before the committee, the discussion which has taken place in the press of this country and the discussion in this House, it is certainly very likely that the Board of Pension Commissioners will take a sympathetic attitude where sympathy is needed.


Charles Gavan Power: The Board of Pension Commissioners know that they are there for ten years and they do not care what parliament says. That is the attitude which they have taken for the last two or three years. I did not rise so much for the purpose of discussing what my hon. friend has said as to point out some difficulties should the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burrard be carried out and an amendment made to this act. Should an amendment be made to cover any particular case? If we begin making such amendments, we could fill this act and this section with case after case. The case which particularly interests the hon. member for Burrard may be one which should be looked into on compassionate grounds, but there is another case mentioned' by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Would the hon. member for Burrard have us include the case of dependents of a man who, after having been discharged from the Canadian army and while on his way to enlistment to the British army, was drowned? Would he have us include every

Pension Act
other ease which every hon. member has had knowledge of in the past two years?
Dealing with this case on its merits alone,
I have no doubt the person whom it is sought to protect by this suggested amendment, was cruelly deceived. She was induced to marry a member of the forces and in perfectly good faith she went through a form of marriage. Is her case any worse than that of a young girl who was seduced by a member of the forces? I do not think it is. In a number of cases, the young girl, innocent and possibly under age, possibly of an age that, if the seduction took place in Canada, would render the seducer guilty of a criminal offence and liable to imprisonment, would not be entitled to anything, nor would any children born of the union be entitled to anything. Yet a woman who may have more knowledge of the world, who may have been better fitted to meet all conditions which she may have had to meet, who may have been better able to look after herself under temptation, should be granted a pension, whereas another woman who, in the mind of every member of this House would have possibly more merit, would not be entitled to a pension. I am sorry I cannot concur in the suggested amendment of my hon. friend.


Mt. BOYS:: I understand that the minister is of the opinion that the clause as it stands meets the case suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Clark), but I see that the chairman of the committee (Mr. Denis, Joliette) takes the view that it should not be so construed. We should first ascertain I think what the intention is. If it is the intention that the clause should cover such a case I should think that the language might easily be made plainer. If the minister thinks that the clause should cover cases of this kind, without mentioning any particular class of cases the bill could very well give the board discretion and jurisdiction in the matter. I suggest this amendment that the section be made to read:
Any member of the forces or any dependent, legal or otherwise, of a member or deceased member-*
And so forth. As the section stands, there is an unnecessary repetition of words, but the suggested amendment would meet these particular cases without referring to them specifically. It would also give the board discretion and jurisdiction to deal with any case they might consider meritorious.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Does not the word *"dependent" mean "legal dependent"?


William Alves Boys: Not of necessity.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I cannot see the necessity for the qualification which my hon. friend suggests; the words "legal or otherwise" appear to me quite unnecessary.


William Alves Boys: Surely the addition of those words does not affect the meaning of the word "dependent". It simply broadens it.


Charles Gavan Power: It makes it too broad.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This discussion is illuminating but it is not very practical. Now, the chairman reports that the committee considered the clause very carefully and that it was adopted unanimously. That being the case, I am reluctant to amend it in any way, especially with a view to meeting one individual case.


John Arthur Clark: The minister is not quite correct; it is not one particular case but a considerable class of cases. What has been brought forward is only an example.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not know that we should amertd the clause to meet even a class of cases. The decision will ultimately rest with the two boards as to whether a particular case cited is meritorious or not.


William Alves Boys: But this is the point: If they have no jurisdiction to entertain the class of cases referred to or any other for that matter, and if it is the desire of the committee that these particular cases should be taken care of, why not put the section beyond the possibility of doubt I admit that once the boards are given jurisdiction they can do what they consider proper; but there is a distinct question as to whether the language as it stands does confer that jurisdiction. Indeed, the chairman of the committee himself declares that in his opinion the boards should not have jurisdiction in these cases.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He does not say that these cases should not be considered.


William Alves Boys: I think he went as far as
that; he said there should be only one pension and that was to the lawful wife. But there are cases of separation from the lawful wife; I know of one or two cases of this kind myself. Surely it would be proper that the so-called second wife who has children should receive some consideration at the hands of the board. If the committee is of opinion that such a woman deserves some consideration, the language, I submit, does not confer the jurisdiction on the board to consider any such case. That is the point I am urging.

Pension Act


Jean-Joseph Denis: I stated that as
I read the clause I did not think it would cover the case cited by my hon. friend; and in the second place, on its merits, I am against the amendment.


William Alves Boys: Certainly the language of the chairman in this House could be urged against the consideration of these cases in the future. If this debate had concluded without the criticism which we have had in this direction, and if no suggestion had been made along this line, it might be felt that the clause as it stands could be regarded as leaving a discretionary power in the hands of the boards. But when the chairman of the committee himself takes the view that the clause does not empower the boards to deal with these cases, it seems to me that the boards themselves would most probably come to the same conclusion.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The hon. gentlemen must understand that the boards are both perfectly independent and free to act as they see fit, and neither my opinion nor that of the minister or anybody else can influence them to the slightest extent. The boards will be acting as judges, and as such they will have to construe the law as they find it.


William Alves Boys: Does the hon. member think
that the language is wide enough to cover the case referred to by the hon. member for Burrard?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I repeat, the boards will not be influenced by the opinions either of myself or of anybody else; our views have nothing to do with their interpretation of the law.


William Alves Boys: Does the hon. member object to expressing his opinion on the point?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I have already expressed my opinion in that regard. But how could my opinion weigh in any degree with the decision of the two boards in any particular case?


William Alves Boys: Under the circumstances I am going to take the responsibility of moving this amendment that the words " legal or otherwise " be inserted after the word " dependent " in the first line and that the words " of the forces or any dependent or a deceased member of the forces" in the second and third lines be struck out-


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. member had
better be careful what he is striking out, because a few words may involve a very important provision.
[Mr. Boys.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me that there is an unnecessary repetition in the language as it stands.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is repetition but not useless repetition.


William Alves Boys: I do not see why we should
use fifteen words to express a thought which can be conveyed in two or three. However, that is not the essence of the suggestion I am offering, and if there is any objection to the elimination of the redundancy I shall waive that part of my amendment and confine the motion to the insertion of the words " legal or otherwise " after the word " dependent " in the first line.


Charles Gavan Power: Now that the amendment
is moved the point of cyder taken some time ago may I think be raised again, namely, that a private member cannot without authority from the Crown propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. There may be some discussion on this point, and I anticipate the rejoiner which my hon. friend will make, that this does not involve the expenditure of public money but merely enlarges the scope of the phrase as it now reads.


William Alves Boys: It is not the intention to
enlarge the section in any way; the object is merely to make it plain just what the language means, and what I understand the minister to think that it should mean.


Charles Gavan Power: If the word "dependent"
is sufficient there is no necessity for adding any further words; if it is not sufficient, then a certain class are brought in who would be excluded under the original clause, and this would involve a further expenditure of public money. Therefore the amendment is out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any other hon.
member desire to speak on the point of order? I should like to have a further expression of opinion in regard to it.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the point of order is well taken. The resolution upon which the bill is founded is in the following language:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act and amendments, and to provide-
2. For the period of delay during which applications for pensions may be made, and for cases which appear to be specially meritorious.
There is no definite language in that resolution, and it was assented to by His Excellency. The bill has not been drawn in the identical language of the resolution. Now,

Pension Act
there is no proposal under the amendment to spend public money at all; the purpose of the amendment is simply to explain the meaning of a single word-"dependent".	Strictly
defined, this word may be held to cover only legal dependents. If the opinion of the committee is that dependents, legal or otherwise, should be entitled to pension benefits, surely it is not a proposal to expend public money. The sole purpose of the amendment is to show what a dependent is, whether a lawfully married or an unlawfully married woman. In my opinion the amendment is quite within the scope of the resolution upon which the bill is founded.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is no limitation in the resolution at all, but there is in the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: If the amendment proposed to spend more money than is authorized by the resolution, the point of order would be well taken; but its only purpose is to give a definite meaning to a word employed in the
bill.


William Alves Boys: I beg to endorse what has
been said by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). If it is wrong to do this, do not do it; but if it is right, do not let us stop on the ground of any such technicality.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment might easily enlarge the expenditure of money contemplated by the resolution. Therefore I am inclined to think that the point of order is well taken.


George Newcombe Gordon: I feel considerable
hesitation on the point raised.	May-and
Bourinot follows him-at page 457 dealing with recommendation of the Crown signified, states:
In Like manner, after the question has been proposed on an amendment, and it has appeared that the amendment would vary the incidence of taxation or increase the charge upon the consolidated fund, the Speaker has declined to put the question.
Upon the ground that the effect of it would be to increase the charge upon the people. The point as to whether dependents should be described as "legal or otherwise" seems to me to be a very narrow one. It would strike me that under the section legal dependents would cover those who have a right to make a claim for subsistence upon some member of the family, that is, a wife and children, or a dependent mother, or any others who come within the interpretation clause as dependents. To add the words "or otherwise" would enlarge that class and thus increase the charge 291 i
on the consolidated fund. Therefore in my opinion-although I give this ruling with considerable hesitation-the amendment is out of order. I would welcome the views of the committee on an appeal from my ruling, because I confess that I am very much in doubt on the point.


John Arthur Clark: What would be the difference between inserting these words, "or otherwise" or the words, "male or female"?


George Newcombe Gordon: I think there is a
very wide difference. It seems to me that the expression "or otherwise" increases the number of dependents who would be entitled to benefit from this fund, and this in turn would mean an increased charge on the public funds. But, as I said before, I entertain considerable doubts on the point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If this point of order is not definitely decided, Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a word or two. If the amendment is adopted it seems to me it will upset the whole meaning of the term "soldiers' dependents"-


George Newcombe Gordon: That is not the point
of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: -because if they are not legal dependents they do not come within the statute, and we are enlarging the class of dependents.


George Newcombe Gordon: The whole point is
whether the amendment would result in an increased charge on the public funds.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think it would. More than that, Mr. Chairman, if I am allowed to speak on the amendment-


George Newcombe Gordon: No, I have ruled it
out of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I hope-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I hope there will be-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon.
member is entitled to speak on the section.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can stand here as
long as my hon. friends opposite care to call "question." I do not often bother the House at very great length, and as a member of the Pensions committee I think I have some right to express an opinion on this subject. We drafted a clause somewhat similar to this last year, and we all know the fate it met; it was amended out of court until the Pensions Board and the Appeal
Pension Act

Board decided it could not be applied to any case. Therefore I think we should be very careful how we tamper with this section The committee gave it very careful consideration, and we had the Justice department put in legal phraseology what we wanted to accomplish. Consequently I do not like to take chances of spoiling the application of this meritorious clause by amending it without further consideration. Personally I would very much regret to see the clause amended at this time. I realize the force of the case the member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) mentions, but if he wishes to move an amendment to cover it I think it should be dealt with as a separate section.


George Newcombe Gordon: The only way in
which that may be done is by the committee making a recommendation for the purpose.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If it is thought necessary and important enough to do this the bill could be referred back to the committee on the third reading, with instructions to make the proposed amendment; or the minister could move it. However, I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you have ruled the amendment out of order on this section, not that I am opposed to the principle, for I think it has a great deal of merit, but I fear we may spoil the bill if we are not careful.


Robert James Manion: Let me repeat the suggestion which I made to the minister a few minutes ago, that he put this case up to the joint boards on its merits.	,


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to submitting the case to the joint board at the earliest opportunity. The conditions as they prevail to-day concerning the relations of the minister to both boards are as follows: In hundreds of cases the minister refers to these hoards, and particularly to the Board of Pension Commissioners, cases for their consideration or adjudication. I would not go contrary to the practice that we have been following for two years and a half in that respect. I am very strongly impressed with the merits of this case; the conditions have been related to the committee this afternoon and this evening and I need not dwell any longer upon them. But when the minister submits to the Board of Pension Commissioners a request to investigate a particular case under the meritorious clause and recommends their sympathetic consideration of such case, it rests w'ith the board to decide whether or not the case appears to be meritorious. The clause reads:

Any member of the forces or any dependent of a member of the forces or any dependent of a deceased member of the forces whose case in the opinion of a majority of the members of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, and a majority of the members of the Federal Appeal Board acting jointly, appears to be specially meritorious may be made the subject of an investigation.
The moment a case appears to these two boards, acting jointly, to be meritorious-as the case cited appears meritorious to the hon. member for Burrard; as it appears meritorious to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton, and as it appears meritorious to me, I have no objection to saying-then they have all the jurisdiction, all the power under the statute, to deal with the case and to adjudicate. I may add that should they decide that a pension should be awarded I will recommend to the Governor in Council that such pension be granted. Further than that I cannot go.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to draw attention to
what appears to be an error in the drafting of the bill. I do not think it is found in the recommendation of the committee, and it is not found in the wording of a similar clause passed last year. Last year it read this way:
Any individual case which, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the Pension Board and the Appeal Boa'Kl acting jointly.
That meant a majority of the two bodies taken together. This year the clause provides that you must get a majority of the Pension Board and a majority of the Appeal Board, separately, which would mean two out of three in the one case and
9 p.m. three out of five in the other. Surely that is a clerical error. I suggest that it be amended by the minister.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That matter was examined into by the committee and it was drafted this way intentionally. The committee were of the opinion that a majority of each board taken separately should carry.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think the point raised by the hon. member (Mr. Neill) is well taken. If two members of the Pension Board objected and all the Appeal Board were in favour, only two men out of eight being opposed to favourable action, the case would be out of court. I think I attended every meeting of the committee but one, and I do not recall that this question was ever considered by the committee. Is the chairman of the committee sure that this was decided as necessary?


Levi William Humphrey: I am of the same
opinion as the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell). In the discussions that took place in the

Pension Act
committee it was very clearly brought out that we should follow the wording of the act of 1923. I think the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Neill) is well taken. I am quite clear in regard to what took place in the committee; I followed its proceedings closely and I fail to remember any discussion of the change now proposed to be made. The chairman of the committee has said that the change was made intentionally, but I cannot subscribe to that opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot understand how these two boards could act separately and still act jointly. Here we have a majority of the members of the Board of Pension Commissioners and a majority of members of the Federal Appeal Board, acting jointly. How in the world they can do that I do not know. If it was the intention of the committee to bring about such an anomaly I would like to know why.


Mr. ROBINSON:: The first appeal would be made to the Pension Board, and the case would not go to the Appeal Board unless the Pension Board threw it out.


Charles Gavan Power: But how can they act jointly?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This meritorious clause is only to be considered by the two boards jointly.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I suggest an interpretation? The clause as drafted means that the boards acting jointly must be composed of at least two men from the Board of Pension Commissioners and three men from the Federal Appeal Board. These five, comprising a majority of the first board and a majority of the second, will be the tribunal to which will be submitted the question whether or not these cases are meritorious. I am not a lawyer, but as I read it the clause is perfectly clear.


Alan Webster Neill: That may be the intention
but the present wording would be the same a= if we required a majority of the Liberals of the House to be in favour of any measure before it could pass, a majority of the Conservatives of the House in favour of it, a majority of the Progressives of the House in favour of it, and so on in the case of every party represented here. A more ridiculous position it would be difficult to conceive.


James Arthurs: I would suggest that the
wording in the third line be changed to read in this way: "a board composed of a majority."


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is all right. I have
no objection to that.


James Arthurs: That would cover the
whole thing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-When pensioned prior to disability.
Charles Gavan Power: There is something I wish
to point out in connection with this clause. I do not offer any objection this year to section 9 which provides for the payment of a pension to a widow who was married after the appearance of the disability, limited to cases in which the marriage took place within one year after the man's discharge from the army. But I have repeatedly pointed out that in this section one year would be extended to two, afterwards to three or five years, and finally we would have elderly men on their death beds marrying young girls and that we would be saddled with pensions repeating the experience they have had in this regard in the United States. That is the tendency here. We have a clause here which reads:
Subject to 'paragraph 1 of this section, the widow of a pensioner who, previous to his death, was pensioned for disability in any of the classes 1 to 5 mentioned in schedule A shall be entitled to a pension as if he had died on service whether his death was attributable to his service or not, provided that the death occurs within ten years after the date of retirement or discharge or the date of commencement of pension.
Up to the present the requirement has been that the death shall occur within five years. Now we are extending the period to ten years, and next year it will be twenty years. And the same thing is more than likely to occur in the case of marriage after the appearance of disability. However, I am not objecting to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Pension to widowed mother.
Henri Sévérin Béland: In connection with this
clause let me point out that the Pensions committee has secured some information in connection with the probable financial liability that will be incurred if the clause passes. I do not want the House to proceed blindly. This is a bill which has been recommended to me by the Soldiers committee and clause 11, we are informed by the Pension Board, will involve an additional expenditure of $616,000 this year. The object of this clause, if I understand it aright, and I think I do, is to provide that mothers of dead soldiers,
Pension Act

who were not widowed mothers at the time of their son's death, will, if they become widowed, after such death automatically fall into the class of the widowed mother. Let me illustrate my thought by an example.


James Arthurs: May I ask the minister
if this carries the recommendation of the
Ralston commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I had thought it carried
:he recommendation of the commission but f am not absolutely sure about that. However, the chairman of the committee is now sitting beside me. Some other members of the committee are also present and they may inform us on the point. But I was proceeding to state what the consequences will be if this clause is enacted. I am of the opinion that we should make the Pension Act as generous as possible compatible with the resources of the country. But here are the father and mother of a dead soldier, who are, we will say, in receipt of a pension, at the discretion of the board, sufficient to provide for their maintenance if they are in a dependent condition. They may require for their maintenance $40, or $50 or $60 a month. They are awarded such a pension at the present time. If the father dies and the mother is in a dependent condition-and she will be since she was in that condition before her husband's death

she automatically falls into the class of the widowed mother. That means that she will get a pension of $600 a year. In addition she will be entitled to an income of $240 a year without any reduction being made in the pension. She is also entitled to free lodging and if she earns $500 a year, or $1,000 a year, or $2,000 a year that will not be counted against her pension.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think the minister
s hardly stating the case correctly. He un-ntentionally gave the impression that the widowed mother would be entitled to free lodging at the expense of the country. What he meant was no reduction would be made for rental from her pension if she owned the house she lived in.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, the rent would not
be counted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think the minister
unintentionally conveyed the idea that the country would have to pay for her rent. What he meant to say was that if she owned the house the rental of that house would not be deducted from her pension. A wrong inference might be drawn from the minister's statement.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Such will be the consequences of the clause as it is drawn. The change will involve the transfer of about 2,700 mothers, who to-day are drawing a pension commensurate with their needs, automatically into the widowed mother's column. In that case they will receive not what they are in need of but $60 a month, or $720 a year. Whatever they earn, even if they receive $240 without working for it, that amount will not be deducted, nor will there be any deduction on account of lodging. Under the circumstances it is for the committee to say whether they will agree to this clause or not.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The question has
been asked as to whether or not this clause carried the recommendation of the Ralston commission. It does carry the recommendation of the Ralston commission. The recommendation of that commission is to be found on page 35 of the second report and reads:
That provision be made so that widowed mothers who fail into a dependent condition after the soldier's death and who, in the opinion of the Pensions Board, would have been wholly or to a substantial extent maintained by the soldier had he lived, will be in the t-ame position regarding pension as the widowed mother under sections 34 (1) and 34 (7), so that personal earnings will not be deducted from pension.
As I understand it it is a privilege.


James Arthurs: I have a distinct recollection of the discussion on this matter, and I think I had the honour of proposing that these very sections mentioned in the Ralston report be eliminated from our report, and that it should apply to personal earnings only. I think this will be substantiated by most of the members of the committee and the discussion was very general.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Does the hon.
member say the recommendation of the Ralston commission was not taken and dealt with separately?


James Arthurs: The various cases mentioned in this section-that is the reference to the general Pension Act-were stricken out of our report.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The report speaks for itself and so does the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think possibly it
should be made clear to the House why this amendment was proposed to the act at this time. Previous to this the widowed mother who was in a dependent condition at the time of the son's death, was entitled to a pension of $60 a month by right. From the widowed mother who later became in a dependent condition-and, in the case of the

Pension Act
widowed mother, who was automatically in a dependent condition at the time of the soldier's death-although she might have an independent income of $240 a year, although she might have owned her own home and earned something, nothing was deducted. In case of the widow who was not dependent at the time of the death, but later became dependent, if she went out and earned a few dollars scrubbing, the amount was deducted from her pension. If she owned a little place, a sort of shelter from the storm, her income was deducted from the pension. If she received anything from any source her pension was cut down very materially.
I want to show the committee who these different mothers might be, or why they might be in this condition. Take the case of the mother in a dependent condition immediately on the son's death-and I want to put a hypothetical case-it is pretty natural to suppose that this family never had done very much for themselves on their own account. They had been dependent on the soldier's separation allowance or the assigned pay. They had not been very energetic and had not provided anything for themselves. Of course, I will admit that these instances do not comprise all the cases, but I want to cite these cases. The other case is that of a widowed mother, whose husband was living probably at the time of the son's death, who had a little property. The husband died. Through the stress of these circumstances, the death of the son and the death of the father, this widowed mother's health failed and she became dependent. This woman was energetic and did provide for herself. I never could see why this woman should be discriminated against, in favour of the one who became dependent immediately on the son's death. I have presented this view in other committees of which I have been a member, but it did not carry with the committees on former occasions. I think these cases coming before members of the House have made it increasingly apparent to them that they involve exceedingly great hardships. Therefore, the conmmit-tee recommended this amendment, and the Ralston commission recommended it, after investigating cases all over the country. I never could see the justice of discriminating against this energetic woman in favour of the other one whose husband had not provided much for her, and had left her dependent when he died.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Time allowed for appeals.
Hugh Guthrie: I want to see if I have
this section clearly in my mind, and to direct the minister's attention to cases which I have no doubt represent a large class of cases that have arisen from the war. There are cases of patients afflicted with tuberculosis, whose illness has only developed subsequent to the war, and whose medical report through the war showed no such ailment. Is it the effect of this clause to allow such men to make application now, or does it only apply to appeals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It relates to appeals.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection (b) of section 13 as amended in the present bill provides that a pension shall not be awarded, unless application therefor has been made within three years after the date upon which the applicant has fallen into a dependent condition. Two cases have occurred to my knowledge within the last three months where the applicants got into the condition that they had to lay off work. Both of them have families who are dependent upon them, and, strange to say, in both cases there is something which the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment looks upon as an important factor, namely that the medical practitioner who treated these two men in the first instance is now dead, and it is impossible, save by referring to his books, to prove anything in regard to their original condition. These men, so I understand, were not so afflicted on service as to be laid off. or to show anything in their medical report; but soon after their return they found themselves in trouble and have been constantly under medical advice since. Both are now in a very serious condition. I have seen them and heard a good deal about them. They are respectable and reputable men, and both have families and dependents. I have applied to the department and have been told their cases would be looked into. One of them is actually in Byron sanitarium. He has been taken from his work, and there is nothing for his wife and children to live on. The doctor laid him off. The other man will be laid off this week and placed in the same sanitarium. Is there any provision in this bill whereby any allowance can be made in the meantime to the wife and family of these men? The resolution provides in section 5 for the payment of certain sums of money, pending consideration of the claim for pension.
Pension Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is only in the case of death.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not say so in the bill. I have looked through the bill and I see no such provision. It has been pointed out by Dr. Arnold that it is doubtful now whether anything can be done in the way of payment to dependents pending investigation of the cases; but if the act as it now stands wiLl permit application for pension for these people, and if they will be allowed to go to the Appeal -Board in these cases, I do not know that I can take any exception to the present law, except to Say that some provision should be made for the cases of these dependents pending the award of pensions. I do not know what these people are to do in the meantime. Both the men are undoubtedly entitled to relief. Medical certificates have been furnished showing that both are suffering from tuberculosis as a result of services overseas, but the difficulty is that the physician who treated them is dead. They have set out the facts, but the department seeks corroboration and the only man who could give Corroboration is dead. These cases we want dealt with by the Federal Anneal Board. If this legislation provides that their appeals can now be considered. I suppose I shall have to be satisfied.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Treatment is a matter
entirelv for the department, and we have a regulation under which, if we admit into a sanitarium a case of the kind referred to bv my hon. friend, and if after fifteen days of observation without pay and allowances, the medical officers are not in a position to diagnose the case thoroughly as to cause and origin, then the department pays to this man's dependents the allocation. Whether it is the case quoted bv my hon. friend or not I could not say. Mv hon. friend refers to two men. If they have been admitted to sanitariums for observation, they are not entitled to pay and allowances until they are recognized as eligible for treatment. But if after fifteen days they are not yet recognized on account of the fact that it requires a cer-,ain number of weeks or even months to determine cases of long standing such as tubercular cases, then pay and allowances are paid to their dependents, if they have dependents.
The hon. member refers to pensions. These men may apply for pensions and the claim naturally comes before the Board of Pension Commissioners and is dealt with by them. If the Board of Pension Commissioners, regard-
less of whatever influence I or anybody else may exercise upon them, decide that the men are not entitled to a pension, there is only one course open to them. It is to bring their case to appeal before the Federal Appeal Board, and this legislation, as well as the act passed last session says that such cases could fairly be considered cases for appeal. If a pension is not awarded, I would suggest that my hon. friend refer the cases to the secretary of the Federal Appeal Board at Ottawa, and the whole record will be examined, the case investigated here and a decision rendered in due course.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister's explanation is most satisfactory. The only other point that I should like to elucidate is subsection (b) of section 13 on page 2 of the bill, which reads:
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years after the date upon which the applicant has fallen into a dependent condition.
These applicants have not been dependent upon any one until recently, but they have sunk very rapidly into that condition. I have seen both of them.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are stiJI eligible for
application three years after the declaration of peace.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Signatures to judgments of Federal Appeal Board, and information to be contained therein.
Charles Gavan Power: Certain objections, I think,
might be raised to this section, the purport of which is that a judgment rendered by the Federal Appeal Board, which is the court of last resort, must first of all be signed by all the members and the medical classification must be given. I presume that means that each of the members of the board must give the medical classification. A large number of the members of this Federal Appeal Board are not doctors and they would have some difficulty in giving any medical classification. Subsection (b) reads-and this is what I have most objection to:
In 4he event of a judgment not being unanimous the dissenting member or members of the board shall submit a minority judgment setting forth in detail the reasons for non-concurrence in the majority judgment.
Let us understand that this is a court of last resort; that there is no real reason why the non-concurring members should give their report. I quite understand why, in the case of the Board of Pension Commissioners, they

Pension Act
should give reasons for their dissent because those reasons might be of some value in helping the applicant to appeal. But this is a court from which there is no more appeal. The only result would be that this judgment would be sent out to the applicant for a pension. He would see that, say one or two members gave certain very strong reasons for dissenting from the opinion of the majority. He would read those opinions. He would become more than ever convinced that he was right in taking his appeal. He would bring these opinions to his clergyman, to the mayor of his town, to his member of parliament and parade them from one end of the country to the other. In this way we would have just what we are endeavouring to avoid by creating a federal appeal board-more dissatisfaction and discontent amongst the returned soldiers. The requirements of the legislation are better carried out when the judgment of the board is given setting forth their reason for rejection of the appeal than if we force the members of the board to give the dissenting opinion and the reasons therefor.


Mr. VIEN:: I will take the liberty of
placing before the committee the reasons which have prompted the special committee to pass this section. This section must be interpreted together with the amendment that is contained in section 15 of this bill. The Federal Appeal Board has been reconstituted and its powers have been immensely enlarged. Prior to the present time the powers of the Federal Appeal Board were very limited. We have made these powers absolute in a sense that they now have jurisdiction to hear all cases that are decided upon by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Strong objection was brought forward as to cases of assessments, and it was stated that such cases should not come before the Federal Appeal Board for reasons which I shall not now repeat. But we granted an appeal even in cases of assessment under certain limitations which are set out in section 17. Giving the Federal Appeal Board an unlimited authority to hear appeals, our committee decided that the Federal Appeal Board, just because it is a tribunal of appeal, just because it deals with very important cases, should render its judgments in the form in which our tribunals all through the country render their judgments. The fact must not be lost sight of that, in many instances, a pension represents $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or more. Therefore, the judgments that are rendered by the Federal Appeal Board are just as important
as judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in cases of, say $20,000.
The amount involved is enormous; and because it is, and because it was considered desirable that the Federal Appeal Board should not only give these cases their mature consideration but should also substantiate by reasons the judgments they deliver, we have declared that those judgments should be stated in practical form as are those of our courts of appeal. In other words the name or names of the member or members of the board who hear the appeal shall appear in the judgment, together with a medical classification of injury or disease causing disability, in respect of which the appeal has been made. It may be objected that it is difficult to indicate precisely what the medical classification is, but we must not forget that 90 per cent of those cases will be taken, as they are taken now, by the Federal Appeal Board on the medical classification of injury or disease. In order to find out whether a man is suffering from a disease which is attributable to service it must first of all be ascertained just what the disease is. One fact which must not be lost sight of is this, that in order to recover a pension the applicant must demonstrate that his incapacity is attributable to or was incurred during military service, and for the purposes of proving that, the medical classification is necessary. The Federal Appeal Board is not in any way limited by the judgment of the Board of Pension Commissioners; they are absolutely independent of that body. All cases which are heard before the Board of Pension Commissioners may be brought in appeal before the Federal Appeal Board, and we have deemed it wise to impose upon the Federal Appeal Board the obligation, when they give judgment, of justifying that judgment in detail. It is to ensure that this shall be done that we have provided these regulations.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In answer to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) I would point out that each of these qualifications in section 17 has been given very serious consideration and is amply justified. That hon. member wants to know how the members of the Federal Appeal Board can make a medical classification, but I need not remind him that the members of that board are in the same position as a court and can determine the classification on evidence. He complains because the members of the Federal Appeal Board are called upon to give their judgments in writing. There is no final court, however, which is not called upon to render reasons for judgment.
Pennon Act


Charles Gavan Power: What court has the hon. gentleman in mind? Does he suggest that the dissenting judges are obliged to give their reasons? I have never heard of such a thing.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not say that they are
obliged to, but certainly in the Supreme court they do as a matter of practice.


Charles Gavan Power: When they like to.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It is the practice in all the
courts for reasons for judgment to be given. The importance of the provision here lies in the fact that if you do not insist upon reasons for judgment you will never secure uniformity in decision, whereas if you make it imperative that those reasons shall be given you will have some assurance at least that the judgments over a given period will be consistent with one another and that the decisions will be fairly uniform.


Charles Gavan Power: Do minority decisions constitute precedents?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Sometimes they do, especially if subsequently the majority opinions are over-ruled. My hon. friend objected to one other point, and that was that the Federal Appeal Board were being called upon to give a medical classification. But there is a reason for that; it may be a case in which the Federal Appeal Board are called upon only to determine the attributability, and unless the Pension Board has information as to the nature of the disease they are not able to assess the pension. Under these circumstances my hon. friend will admit that the provisions here are all justified.


Mr. MARLER:: Does the hon. member
think that subsection (b) is essential, with relation to the minority report? It seems to me that it is only an encumbrance.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It is important for the sake
of the Federal Appeal Board itself and in order to ensure uniformity. But it is also important to the Pension Board. The Pension Board has in a number of casese called upon the Appeal Board to give the nature of the disease and the Appeal Board has said, "No; wp simply find that the applicant is entitled to the pension." In some cases there has been a dissenting opinion and the Pension Board has been called upon to determine whether or not the Appeal Board has been acting within its jurisdiction; because the Pension Board is the body that pays the money. For that reason it is important that the reasons for minority judgments should be given.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I cannot help thinking that there is something lacking in subsection (b). We had before the committee a case wherein the Pension Board decided that the applicant was not entitled to the pension and the matter was taken to the Appeal Board a majority of whom found in favour of the applicant. There was a minority of one against him. In that case I asked whether the judgment of the Pension Board was unanimous and if not whether we might have the minority report. Personally I am not in favour of minority reports because these decisions must be made by a majority.


Charles Gavan Power: Even if you had the minority reports, what difference would that make?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It would not make any difference, certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: Would it do the pensioner
any good?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Certainly not. As a
matter of fact this record is not sent out to the pensioner; it is put on his file for reference in case of a dispute between the Pension Board and the Appeal Board.


Charles Gavan Power: But what good would it do the pensioner?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am simply stating
how the matter came about. I am not in favour of minority reports, but my point is this, that if you are to have a minority report from the Appeal Board there should also be one from the Pension Board. Take the Pension Board: two commissioners decide that the man is not entitled to a pension and one holds that he is. It goes to the Federal Appeal Board. The majority of the Federal Appeal Board decides that he should have a pension, but a minority thinks otherwise. If the case is to be adjudicated by anybody else-


Charles Gavan Power: Is it to be adjudicated?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No; but if there is a
minority report rendered by one board and not by the other there will be trouble. I am not in favour of a minority report being rendered, but this provides that the Appeal Board must render a minority report. Personally I should like to see subsection (b) cut out of section 17, because the decision must be made by the majority of the board, and the publication of a minority report will only cause contention. Therefore I move that subsection (b) of section 17 be stricken out.

Redistribution
Senate be read a first and second time and referred to the select standing committee on


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: In the opinion of
the special committee the information which might be contained in the minority report would be very useful. The Pension Board may use the minority report in refusing to grant compensation, and a number of cases were submitted to us in which the minority report had been dug out from some place and used to the disadvantage of the applicant. We thought it would be advisable that such minority reports should be rendered and be incorporated as part of the record.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In view of the fact that the Appeal Board must give the medical classification of the injuries causing disability as set out in these other subsections, do you not think that the reasons for their decision wi 1 be fully set out in the judgment? On the other hand, the minority report would be merely a bald verdict. I think subsection (b) would cause dissatisfaction.
Amendment (Mr. Caldwell) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On schedule B.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have referred on
two occasions, once in the House and again before the special committee, to a regulation which concerns ex-service men during treatment in hospital. If disability arises from a surgical operation during treatment the man is not entitled to compensation. I gave one case in particular which I think the House was in sympathy with and agreed that the regulation should be withdrawn. Has the minister given any consideration to its withdrawal ?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will give consideration to
that aspect of the regulation. I may point out to the committee that the performance of such an operation is only with the full consent of the man undergoing treatment. He may profit by it; he may suffer by it; but he is never forced to undergo the operation when it is for a disability which has nothing to do with war service.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is very difficult
for the service man to prove that he did not give his consent. I should like to see him placed under the meritorious clause.
Schedule B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: I beg
t,, move that the following bills from the
Miscellaneous Private Bills, and that rule 103 be suspended in reference thereto:
Bill No. 260 (W6 of the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Elgin Caughey".
Bill No. 261 (X6 of the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Alma Ducharme Mullins."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from July 15 consideration in committee of Bill No. 2 to readjust the representation in the House of Commons -Right lion. Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Chairman. there is a typographical error in the description of High Park constituency, which was formerly described as Humber-Vale. I would like the consent of the committee to return to that constituency, page 6, to enable me to move to strike out the words-
-"and Bloor street to the intersection of the line of the Canadian National Railway leading northwest from the said city, thence following the said line."
-in the sixth, seventh and eighth lines of the description and to substitute therefor the words "Bloor street and Lansdowne avenue."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: If I may have the
consent of the committee to return to the Saskatchewan schedule, I have discussed with the members concerned the question of amending a clerical error and they agree that the change should be made. I move that in the last line of the description of Melville constituency, page 41, the following words be struck out: "together with the whole of the Pasqua Indian Reserve."


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I suggest to the
committee and particularly to the chairman of the special committee that the Chief Electoral Officer be requested to plot these constituencies on a map in order that all the areas included may be shown. The amendment just proposed seems to be all right, but some other descriptions may not be exactly correct and difficulty might be caused if they were not adjusted. By adopting this suggestion the different areas may be checked up and there would perhaps be time to make any necessary changes before the next election, at the next session of parliament.
Redistribution


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be
very glad indeed to take up with the Chief Electoral Officer the matter referred to by my hon. friend. He advises me, however, that a great deal of care has been taken with the whole matter and that he does not think any substantial error will be found.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: Following upon
that last amendment, I would move that No. 14. on page 42, Qu'Appelle, be amended by adding at the end thereof, after the figures 80 in the last line, the words "together with the whole of the Pasqua Indian Reserve". Amendment agreed to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Page 27,
Mova Scotia.
Antigonish-Guysborough:


Mr. DUFF:: I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Robichaud, that the following section be added to this schedule:
Provided that if the British North America Act 1867 should be amended by the parliament of the United Kingdom, before the taking effect of this act so as to provide that there should be no reduction in the representation of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, respectively, there shall be immediately upon the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom amending the said British North America Act 1867 to that effect coming into force in the province of Nova Scotia sixteen electoral districts, and the electoral districts of the province of Nova Scotia shall continue to be constitued and represented in the House of Commons as at present, except in the following particulars:-
1.	The electoral district of Cape Breton South shall consist of that part of the county of Cape Breton not included in the electoral districts of Cape Breton North-Victoria and lying north of a line described as commencing in Mirabay and following the Mira river and Mira lake to Marion bridge, the Mira road to its intersection with the Morley road, the said Morley road to its intersection, immediately south of Portage East bay, with the main road between St. Peters and Sydney, the said main road to the intersection of the road leading to East bay and Gildisville and the said road to the waters of East bay.
2.	The electoral district of Richmond-West Cape Breton shall consist of the county of Richmond and that part of the county of Cape Breton lying east of East bay and south of the electoral district of Cape Breton South as above described.
This provision, of course, would not come nto effect until agreed to by the parliament of the Lnited Kingdom. It is desirable that Nova. Scotia shall, if possible, retain its present representation. This is not a political matter. All parties in Nova Scotia have always contended that our representation should be what it is to-day, and I trust 10 p.m._ that all sections of the House will vote to have this section added to the Nova Scotia schedule.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps I should explain to the committee certain facts in connection with the matter which has been brought up by the hon. member. The matter which was referred to the Redistribution committee for consideration was the filling in of the schedules to the act. While we were deliberating as a committee we were approached by the Premier and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and by some representatives of New Brunswick, who requested that we should recommend to the House of Commons that an address be presented to the British parliament to provide that the representation of these provinces should not bp further reduced. It was a matter of doubt whether that question had been a part of the reference to the committee. My feeling as chairman of the committee was this:	Our time having been so completely taken up with the task of considering and completing the schedules, it would hardly be right at this stage of the session to make any recommendation to the House on that question. But representations having come from these respective provinces, backed up by resolutions passed by the legislatures of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it seemed to me that the matter was one which could not be ignored. Now, the amendment which my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has moved does not provide that there shall be any such granting of the request of these provinces by an act of this parliament because we have no power to do so even if we wished, but the situation in regard to the matter stands thus: The Redistribution bill which we are now passing is one of the most unique classes of legislation with which this parliament has to do. We pass it by virtue of the provisions which are contained in the British, North America Act which says, that after every decennial census the parliament of Canada shall pass an act providing for the redistribution of the constituencies of the country. In my judgment once this bill is passed and receives the assent of His Excellency we become functus-so far as legislation is concerned we cease to have power to deal with redistribution. Our duties in this regard have been performed; they can only be performed every ten years. Whether our rights might not be invoked to the extent of correcting a technical error or not is to me a matter of doubt but there is no question whatever in my mind that under the power vested by the British North America Act, we can only legislate by way of redistribution every ten years. Therefore the matter

Redistribution
is in this position:	These gentlemen can
come to parliament next year and ask for consideration of the request which they submitted to this committee. The present bill does not come into effect until the next general election. If they come to parliament next winter and are able to convince us that their case is a good one and that we should ask the Imperial parliament by resolution to amend the British North America Act in accordance with their desires that course would be ineffective-supposing the Imperial parliament did that and supposing this parliament joined in asking that it should be done -unless we made provision in this bill, in my judgment, along the lines proposed by my hon. friend for Lunenburg. The effect of the amendment which is submitted to the reasonable judgment of the House is simply this: That if before the next general election the British parliament passes an act that there shall be no decrease of representation in these Maritime provinces, then we say that here is an alternative arrangement which goes into effect in that event. If next year this parliament docs not pass a resolution then this will have no effect whatever. That is the situation created by the proposal. This parliament would not commit itself in any way to the principle of the suggestion by passing this amendment. And parliament cannot be held in any way to be committing itself to the granting of the request by adopting this provision. It simply creates a situation under which-seeing that we are approaching the end of the session and the matter can come up next year-if this parliament should decide to ask the Imperial parliament to grant the request then the bill would have the alternative machinery by which this would go into effect. That is the situation.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the argument on
which the minister bases his contention that we are not in any way bound if we now pass on the principle? If we pass on the principle contained in the amendment are we not bound by our action?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend has not followed my argument closely or else I did not make myself clear. What I say is that if the British North America Act should be amended by the parliament of the United Kingdom before the coming into effect of the Redistribution Act, so as to provide that there should be no reduction in the representation of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick then the schedule under this amendment would apply. But if the British parliament does not act, and if we do not call upon them by way of resolution to act, then this schedule is of no value, it does not come into effect and the schedule as it is contained in the bill will be operative without the amendment. Exactly the same course was taken in 1914 at the time of the last redistribution. At that time a proposition was submitted to the committee from the province of Prince Edward Island. The committee in that particular case recommended that the Imperial parliament should be asked to adopt the principle that there should not be a lesser number of members in the House of Commons from any province than there were representatives from that province in the Senate; and parliament in the Redistribution Bill of 1914 provided by resolution, exactly in conformity with the present amendment, the conditions under which, if the Imperial parliament adopted such an act, the schedule fixed should come into force. In this particular case we are not adopting the principle, and cannot adopt it because the matter has not come before the House in any form.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Then what is the merit of the amendment? What is the object of pronouncing upon the question at this time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. Nobody is asked to pronounce upon anything.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Then what value does the
addition possess?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are passing the Redistribution bill and in my judgment once we pass it it cannot be amended for another ten years. That is my point. As I said before we initiate legislation in this House by virtue of our inherent powers as a parliament so long as we keep within the lines of the subjects laid down in the British North America Act, section 91. Our power to pass a Redistribution Act is conferred by a special section of the act which says that only after each decennial census can we exercise that power. When we pass this act we cannot redistribute the seats for another ten years. That is why it is proposed.


George Newcombe Gordon: Would the hon. gentleman deal with the point of order in respect of the amendment which is disturbing me somewhat. Section 2 of the bill, which has been passed by the committee, provides:
The House of Commons shal'l consist of two hundred and forty-five members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for the province of Ontario, sixty-five for the province of Quebec, fourteen for the province of Nova Scotia, eleven for the province of New Brunswick-
Redistribution

and so on. The hill has been passed with the exception of certain schedules. Now in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms it is provided:
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with the previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter. Thus words which the House or committee has decided to insert or retain cannot be altered, but additions may be made to them.
The doubt in my mind is this-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not
hear any point of order raised.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, it has been suggested to me by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). I am asking for some information on the matter if the hon. member can give it to me. May, at page 261 says:
An amendment is also out of order if it is inconsistent with the words of *the motion which has already been agreed upon.
The bill has been passed to the point that it is declared and enacted that there shall be fourteen members for the province of Nova Scotia. That has been agreed to and the bill has passed beyond that point. Now an amendment is submitted which strikes me as being incon-:istent with clause 2 which provides for sixteen members for Nova Scotia in the event of a certain contingency happening. Section 2 then cannot stand with this proviso and this enactment which will provide for 16 members. There will be an absolute conflict between the two. If hon. gentlemen could give me some light on the matter I might be better able to decide the point of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it be in order
to move to reconsider section 2?


George Newcombe Gordon: No. I refer to May, page 267, where he states
It is a rule in both Houses-
The English rule is the same-
-which is essential to the due performance of their duties, that no question or bill shall be offered that shall be substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
A resolution may however be rescinded and an order of the House discharged notwithstanding a rule urged (2nd April 1604), "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House.
There will require to be notice given of a motion to rescind brought before the House in a proper way and carried in the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I may say
that I think the motion of my hon. friend is
[The Chairman.]
in order. It is exactly in the same situation as the bill of 1914 in regard to the province of Prince Edward Island. The bill before the House in 1914 provided that the province of Prince Edward Island should have three members, but in the schedule an amendment was proposed, of which this one is almost in terms the same, practically the same in all respects, and it went through the House in that way and was embalmed in the legislation in that way.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would like to have
some information on that point if it is possible to get it. It strikes me as being absolutely in conflict with section 2.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the chairman read
the rule again?


George Newcombe Gordon: There is a synopsis of the English rule at page 94 of Beauchesne, which reads
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with the previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter. Thus words which the House or committee has decided to insert or retain cannot be altered, but additions may be made to them.
The suggestion that came to my mind is this: Section 2 as passed declares that Nova Scotia shall have fourteen members. That quota of membership compares to and is based upon the membership of sixty-five for the province of Quebec. This provision enacts that upon the happening of a certain event the membership of the province of Nova Scotia shall be sixteen while section 2, the enacting section says it shall be fourteen, and it seems to raise a point that is a very serious one, and a difficult one perhaps to get over.


Robert Gardiner: I think the point of
order is well taken and I would suggest that if this House next year passes a resolution asking the British government to amend the British North America Act to permit Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to retain their present quota, then legislation might be passed by the Imperial parliament giving power to this House to amend the act, in order to allow those provinces to have their present quota of members. I think perhaps, that would be the best way to get around this difficulty.


Charles Marcil: It should
never be forgotten that we are living under a confederation arrived at in an agreement between the various provinces. Confederation was made possible on the understanding that Quebec would be the basis of representation. I question very much whether an address

Redistribution
adopted by this House would be entertained for a single moment by the Imperial parliament unless all the provinces concurred. Confederation is a contract, and we have no power to legislate beyond the powers which we have been given under the Act of Confederation. These powers are that we may base the representation of this House on the representation of Quebec as it is at the time of the last census. There is another rule which is paramount, and that is that we cannot ask to obtain indirectly what we have no power to ask for directly. We have no power to ask for sixteen members for Nova Scotia, and we cannot by a roundabout method achieve the same result by the insertion of an amendment in this bill. I should think the position would be, Mr. Chairman, that the basis of representation cannot be changed, except with the consent of the province of Quebec, the legislature of Quebec and the representatives of Quebec in this House.


William Duff: Was that consent asked for
and received when Prince Edward Island was given a representation of four members by a change in the constitution?


Charles Marcil: I am speaking from memory, but my recollection is that the argument was brought forward by Sir Robert Borden at that time that Prince Edward Island had four representatives in the Upper House, and they were given the same number of representatives in this House. A special plea was made at that time.


William Duff: That is not an answer to my question.


Charles Marcil: I do not
know whether the other provinces consented. If you have the power to give Nova Scotia sixteen members, why is it not stated in the bill?


William Duff: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question as to whether the province of Quebec gave consent when the representation of Prince Edward Island was fixed at four?


Charles Marcil: Not only
has the province of Quebec to consent to this change, but the provinces which originally entered confederation have to consent. Before the basis of representation is changed we must have the consent of the provinces. The Imperial House would never consent and would never entertain for a moment the application without the approval of the contracting parties.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May I say
to my hon. friend the ex-Speaker (Mr. Marcil) that he is entirely mistaken as to the fact that Quebec or any provincial legislature was consulted in 1914. There had been various amendments to the Representation Act since 1867 and this change in the representation was not made as a result of consulting any particular province at all. I was a member of the committee in 1914, and I remember the circumstances very well. When the matter came before the House of Commons, then practically in the same way as it has come before us now, the representitives of the province of Prince Edward Island came before the committee on redistribution, stated their case and made their argument, and the legislation which was recommended to the Imperial parliament was this:
That in no province of the Dominion-
It is entirely general in its character-
-are the number of members in the House of Commons to be ever less than the number of senators.
That is the way in which the resolution was proposed and the resolution being proposed, pending its passage by the Imperial parliament, this House was asked in the Redistribution bill in 1914-and I have before me the act which dealt with the subject- was asked first, as we see it in the schedule here, to provide for the number of members which the province of Prince Edward Island was entitled to receive as the law stood at that time. This is what was said:
There shall be in the province of Prince Edward Island three electoral districts defined as follows: the county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member. The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince and shall return one member. The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electoral district of Queens and shall return one member.
Provided that if the British North America Act, 1867, should be amended by the parliament of the United Kingdom in accordance with the address of -both Houses of the parliament - of Canada in that behalf, passed at the present session, immediately upon the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom, amending the said British North America Act, 1867, in accordance with such address, coming into force, there shall be in the province of Prince Edward Island three electoral districts defined as follows:-
1.	The county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member.
2.	The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince, and shall return one member.
3.	The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electoral district of Queens and shall return two members.
That is the way in which the matter occurred in 1914, and in reference to the point
Redistribution

of order, let me say that I find here in the statute the following:
The House of Commons shall consist of two hundred and thirty four members, of whom eighty-two shal-l be elected for the province of Ontario, sixty-five for the province of Quebec,
And so on, and when it came to the province of Prince Edward Island it said:
Three for the province of Prince Edward Island.
This provision which is exactly similar to the one which we are discussing at present and which is proposed by my hon. friend, was made and passed this House.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend read the provision which concerns the representation as compared with that in the Senate? Does it apply only to Prince Edward Island or does it apply to all the provinces of Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To all of them.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The address to which my hon. friend refers, to the Imperial parliament had been passed already in 1914 at the time the Redistribution Act was passed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. That does not make any difference.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It makes some difference.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What difference?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: This legislation must be taken to contemplate the possibility of effect being given to an address which had already passed the Canadian parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Speaking directly to the point of order, I think it is well taken. The provision in section 2 deals finally and conclusively with the representation. Then by a subsequent amendment it is proposed to increase that representation subject to a certain contingency.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does my hon. friend say to the clear precedent embodied in the statutes of this country in the last Redistribution Act which I have just read, where section 2 provided that Prince Edward Island should have only three members and where the schedule set out those three, but where it contained a clause exactly word for word with what my hon. friend proposes now? That evidence is the best precedent we can get in this particular case.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I can answer my hon. friend's question by asking another. Can he assure the House that the point of order was raised

in 1914 which is raised to-day? If it were not raised then, it could not be any conclusive judgment whether or not this particular legislation is in order. This particular point of order must be determined on its merits now because there is no precedent by which we can govern ourselves. Because it was not raised then is no reason why it should not be raised now.


Thomas Vien: What is exactly the point of order?


George Newcombe Gordon: The doubt I have in mind is this. Section 2 of the bill provides that the province of Nova Scotia shall have fourteen members. That has been passed and it is an enacting section of the bill. The schedule, which is not an enacting part, but which is descriptive, it is sought to amend now by providing that, if the British North America Act shall be amended, then there shall be sixteen seats for the province of Nova Scotia. The doubt has arisen in my mind whether or not this is inconsistent with section 2, an enacting section which has been passed by this committee. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 337, which is a summary of the English rule which has been adopted in Canada, reads:
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with a previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter.
May and Bourinot apparently follow that. Section 2 provides that there shall be fourteen members. The proposal is that in the happening of a certain contingency or event there shall be sixteen members.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May I point
this out to you, Mr. Chairman-


George Newcombe Gordon: Might I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou), to enlighten me upon one point that I am in doubt about also? The Prince Edward Island schedule in the statutes of 1914, chapter 51, reads:
There shall be in the province of Prince Edward Isiland three electoral districts defined as follows:
1.	The county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings, and shall return one member.
2.	The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince, and shall return one member.
3.	The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electoral district of Queens, and shall return one member.
Provided that if the British North America Act, 1867, should be amended by the parliament of the United Kingdom, in accordance with the address of both houses of the parliament of Canada in that behalf, passed at the present session, immediately upon the aot of the parliament of the United Kingdom amending the said British North America Act, 1867,

Redistribution
in accordance with such address, coming into force, there shall be in the province of Prince Edward Island three electoral districts defined as follows:
1.	The county of Kings shall form and constitute
the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member;	t
2.	The county of Prince shall form and constitute
the electoral district of Prince, and shall return one member;	t
3.	The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electorate district of Queens and shall return two members.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does the Chairman want to know about that?


George Newcombe Gordon: This indicates that it is not altogether in the same form. I do not know that there is much complaint about the form, but this indicates an inconsistency even in this act with the enacting section 2 providing for the quota of membership.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend's argument was brought to a logical conclusion, the hon. member for the county of Queens, P.E.I., has no business to be in this House. There should be only three members from Prince Edward Island if my hon. friend's contention is correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It might be worth while looking into.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am asking for some assistance in the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am pointing out exactly what is the correct thing. If the enacting section in the act of 1914 is the controlling section, as is suggested now, then Prince Edward Island has a right to only three members. If my hon. friend says that it is not affected by the schedule, then Prince Edward Island has a right to only three members and one man has been sitting in this House for ten years without any right to be here. The situation at the present time is that, under the proper interpretation of the British North America Act, we can assign to the province of Nova Scotia only fourteen members. That is done as it was done in 1914 by section 2 of the bill. As was done in 1914, in contemplation of a possible application to the Imperial parliament to-day, whereas at that time an actual application had been made, we provide that if the additional number of members is given, this is the schedule for them. There is nothing inconsistent in that and we are pursuing a course which has a precedent behind it and which is justified entirely by the statute,


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Was this point that has been raised to-night discussed by the special committee?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What was the attitude of that committee on the point?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation, as I explained before, is that last year and this year the premiers, attorneys general and other gentlemen representing the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick appeared before the committee to make representations. The point was raised that the matter had not been referred to the committee and that we could make no deliverance upon it. The matter was not referred to us specifically, but the course was adopted that was adopted in 1914 when there was no reference to the committee in regard to Prince Edward Island and when they heard representatives from that province.


Thomas Vien: I do not think it would be in order to discuss what took place in the committee. The schedule as annexed to the bill which is now under discussion is, so far as we are concerned, the report of the committee. Therefore, if we are asked to speak on the point of order now, I think it would be out of order to discuss what took place in committee. As regards the question of consistency, I am fully in accord with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), that no matter what took place in 1914, it cannot bind this House in respect of the application of the rules to the study of the amendment which is now before us. I fully agree with the Chairman that there is here a question of order that cannot be overcome. It seems to me that the amendment to be consistent should first tend to amend a section in the bill and not only that, but the schedule giving the details of the various constituencies. It would be totally inconsistent to try to amend the schedule to provide 16 seats in Nova Scotia when the section of the bill referring to the representation of that province declares that there shall be 14 seats. No matter what was done in 1914, this could not be done. To my mind the position now is different from that of 1914. At that time an address had been presented and voted by both houses of parliament, and the parliament of Canada recommended to the Imperial parliament that the British North America Act should be amended so as to provide that the representation in the House of Commons should in no province be less than that of the same province in the Senate. That address, I say, had been presented and voted. There was some consistency on the part of the House in referring to that address in the schedule to the bill. But in this case

Redistribution

the situation is altogether different; this parliament has not presented an address to His Majesty praying for a change in representation. Speaking, therefore, only on the point of order for the time being, and leaving aside the merit of the question, on which it would be necessary for me to dwell at some length, I think that the point is well taken and that the amendment should be ruled out of order.


Harold Putnam: We all recognize that the point of order is a rather difficult one to decide, and I shall attempt to speak to it only in two or three sentences. While, in the words of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), the case of Prince Edward Island is not a controlling judgment, it is nevertheless a precedent to which very grave importance must be attached at this time. There was in the bill on that occasion the distinct statement that the total representation in the House of Commons should be 233 members, that of the province of Prince Edward Island to comprise 3 members. That, on the face of it, was contradicted in the event of the success of the prayer to the Imperial parliament. The bill at that time was read alternatively; it provided that the total membership should be 233 members, in the event of the petition to the Imperial parliament failing, and in the event of its being successful, 234, the province of Prince Edward Island to be given one more member. The bill was read in that alternative way, and so could this bill. In that alternative we should provide for 245 members, of whom 14 should be from Nova Scotia, if the prayer should not succeed, and, if it should succeed, 247, of whom Nova Scotia would continue to have 16.


Thomas Vien: There is no prayer.


Harold Putnam: There is one contemplated. My hon. friend does not advance his point one iota in saying that the prayer was in preparation in the other case.


Thomas Vien: In the other case the prayer
had already been sanctioned by both houses of parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not by
both houses.


Thomas Vien: Was not the address of 1914
voted by both houses?


Harold Putnam: This is asking no more
than that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should have an opportunity to place their case before this parliament, and the address 
to the Imperial parliament is both technically and practically as imminent in this instance as it was in the other case.
Referring now to the merits of the question-and this may not be strictly in order -Prince Edward Island was saved its representation of 4 members for the reason that it was approaching the stark absurdity that its members of the House of Commons would be less in number than those of the Senate from that province, a clear violation of the spirit of confederation. If the members of parliament from any province are diminishing to a disproportion compared with its senators which the Act of Confederation never intended, even though their number is not down to the level of the number of senators from that province, they are in the same meritorious position to have that diminution stayed as they would be if the members of the House of Commons and those of the Senate, representing that province, wpre equal in numbers. The unintended disproportion could be validly checked even before the equality of numbers was actually reached as in the corrected case of Prince Edward Island.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not desire to speak to the point of order except to say a word or two on the proposal itself. I am sorry that owing to the fact that I had not anticipated this amendment I have not had an opportunity of considering the question as fully as I should have liked to. I speak with a great deal of diffidence on this question, for there is no man who would like more than myself to see the representation of the Maritime provinces remain at least as it is. We from the province of Quebec have always regarded our friends of the Maritime provinces as natural allies, and we still so regard them. So that from a sympathetic point of view alone, if for no other reason, we should certainly like to side with them in this matter. But there are considerations of the gravest importance which must influence our decision. Population was accepted at the time of confederation as the basis of representation; it was one of the resolutions adopted at the Quebec Conference which gave birth to confederation. And Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to that resolution at the time, although Prince Edward Island protested.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the minister will review the history of Confederation he will find that the electors of Nova Scotia never had an

Redistribution
opportunity to pass upon the question, nor had the legislature of the province. We were taken in by people who were not properly delegated to represent us.


William Duff: Before the Minister of Justice proceeds I would point out that at the present moment the merits of my resolution are not under consideration; the point of order is being discussed.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought it was more
courteous for me to give my view of the merits of the question before the point of order was decided. Possibly I might not have a chance to say what I am now saying, and I should not like the matter to be discarded merely on a point of order. However, if my hon. friend persists-


William Duff: Oh no, I am not doing that.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister kindly
say what was the immediate subject under review in that debate?


Ernest Lapointe: A motion by my hon.
friend from Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes), for the purpose of parliament voting an address to the Imperial parliament for an amendment to the British North America Act to give better representation to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Did they go to the
various provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the province of Quebec consulted in 1914 when the address was passed?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot speak definitely
on the matter; if I had known it was coming up I would have had all the information at hand. But I am under the impression that the provinces were consulted even in regard to the change that was made in 1914. I do not think that in such an important matter an address should be voted to the Imperial parliament for the purpose of altering one of the most important and essential bases of the agreement which was entered into by all the parties to confederation. I repeat, although I should like Nova Scotia to retain her sixteen members

I do not think it would hurt any other part of Canada even if Nova Scotia had the representation which she enjoyed at the time of confederation-this cannot be done in the way now proposed. I believe that there should be a conference with the provinces before any such decision is reached.
Redistribution


William Findlay Maclean: It is proposing
to shoot holes in the constitution.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my
friends from Nova Scotia want to shoot holes there; but I believe the procedure proposed should not be adopted.


William Duff: I may be allowed to interject just there?-If this amendment which I have moved is agreed to by the House, it will do exactly what the Minister of Justice says it will not do; in other words, it will give this parliament-the House of Commops and the Senate-an opportunity next session to move an address to the British parliament. In the meantime all the provinces can be consulted and can either give or withhold their consent. So my amendment should certainly be agreed to by the Minister of Justice and by every other member, for it does not hurt any one.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
think it is the logical method of proceeding?


William Duff: How else can it be proceeded with?


Ernest Lapointe: His amendment affirms
that under the constitution as it now is there should be only fourteen members.


William Duff: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. But if the provinces agree-it is not said that they are to agree, but my hon. friend now is in accord with my argument-that there should be an amendment to the constitution, and if parliament subsequently votes an address to the Imperial parliament, and if the Imperial parliament enacts legislation amending the British North America Act, then the amendment of my hon. friend will have its full force and effect.


William Duff: Absolutely.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I think those three things should be done first, and the amendment come afterwards.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Donald Sutherland: May I ask whether the point of order has been disposed of?


George Newcombe Gordon: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am simply making some reference to the case of the province, dealing with the remarks of my hon. colleague, in order that there may be no misunderstanding. What has occurred? When you come to apply the saving clause to-day you find that the great province of Ontario has extended her boundaries to Hudson bay. Manitoba, formerly referred to as a postage stamp on the map, has also extended her boundaries to Hudson bay, and Alberta and Saskatchewan, originally territories and under the decision of 1903 not to be included as a part of Canada, have become provinces. So that under these conditions the benefit of the saving clause has been lost. Moreover, the Maritime provinces are so situated that there is no possibility, either now or at any time in the future, of their adding one foot to their territory.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister is discussing the effect of the saving clause. Nova Scotia's loss of representation does not arise under that saving clause or because of the working of it. therefore the resolution has nothing to do with what the hon. gentleman is now discussing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My point
is this: So far as the Maritime provinces are concerned, section 51, subsection 4 11 p.m. of the British North America Act, known as the saving clause, is not operative, as George Brown said it would be, because you have to take into consideration the population of all these other provinces that have come in, with their extended territory, I must apologize for speaking at such great length, but I wanted to make clear at least one aspect of the case presented, as I have
said, by the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia, by the Attorney General of the province and representatives of New Brunwiek and counsel engaged on their behalf. It does seem to me that arguments presented so strongly by representative public men are at least worthy of reasonable consideration. We are straying somewhat from the point of order, and I do not want to go back over the discussion except to say this: That provision might well be made in this bill so that the question may be dealt with if it comes up next year; or it may be desirable in the meantime to consult the other provinces on the subject and get their opinion. In that case we are providing for something to be done if the House chooses to do it; if the House does not choose to do it the matter remains as it is and nobody can be injured by this resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Upon the point of order
being raised I had not intended to make any observations in this connection, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) have discussed more or less the merits of the case and I shall crave the indulgence of the committee while I make a few remarks in that regard. As the representative of a constituency in New Brunswick I am in sympathy with the principle underlying the amendment proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Duff). Were it not for the fact that there would be a discrepancy between the representation of Nova Scotia and that of New Brunswick I would have been happy to move the amendment myself. That, however, is a matter of detail which need not be dwelt upon at this stage. The people of the two Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia feel very strongly on this question of loss of representation. We have every right to believe, 'judging from the statements made during the confederation debates, that had it been anticipated that the original provinces of confederation might lose their original number of representatives, ample provision would have been made to prevent such a contingency. But there was no thought of that kind. The contingency has now occurred, and the fact that it has been in the mind of other provinces is shown in the case of British Columbia, where a minimum was fixed upon the province entering confederation. As a representative of the province of New Brunswick I desire to give my adherence to the principle underlying the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg. I hope that no mere technicality, however well founded, will prevent a proper discussion of the question now
Redistribution

at issue and the sense of the committee being taken. I should like to add that the people of the Maritime provinces are a unit in connection with this matter. They feel very strongly the loss of their representation, and they will not willingly allow this thing to go on census after census, our representation dwindling, as it is dwindling from twenty-one to fourteen in the case of Nova Scotia and from sixteen to eleven in the case of New Brunswick. We desire to protest against that. We think that in the interests of justice this process should be stopped and stopped now.


Clifford William Robinson: As to the point of order it seems to me we have wandered quite a distance from it. At the same time I wish to express the same sentiments as the hon member from New Brunswick who has just taken his seat. I regret the loss of representation in the province of Nova Scotia which is anticipated by the present bill. I point out to the House that this decreased representation is not due to a decrease in population, but simply because our population has not increased in proportion to that of the province of Quebec. I do not think there is any sectionalism involved in this question at all. The Maritime provinces for geographical reasons are placed by themselves, and as the preceding speaker said the people of those provinces are a unit on this question. I would point out that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the Maritime provinces today-dissatisfaction with present conditions. We entered confederation under peculiar circumstances, and the people of Nova Scotia are trying to-day to find out, if possible, what the causes of our present lack of prosperity are. There are those in the province of Nova Scotia to-day who attribute all our evils to confederation and they point to the fact that we are losing our representation. I do not believe it will tend to create a better feeling in the minds of the people of Nova Scotia if no attempt is made by this House to cure in any way what we believe was never intended -when confederation was brought about-that :any one province should have its representation diminished in the Canadian parliament. Where is this going to end? Suppose the province of Quebec increases in population it may mean a further loss of representation to the Maritime provinces, a continual loss until we lose any influence or power we may possess in this House. I merely rose to express my regret that in passing a Redistribution bill the province from which I come should lose two of its members.
[Mr. Hanson.1


Lewis Herbert Martell: I should like to crave the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes, and in doing so I intend to be very brief. In the first place as t'he representative of the county of Hants-a county which is now being amalgamated with its next door neighbour-a county which fought the last Anti-confederation figh't and in the breasts of many of whose citizenship still rankles the old spirit of anti-confederation, a county whose sons have learned from their forebears that confederation was a bane and was the thing that brought about all our evils in the province of Nova Scotia, I feel impelled to speak frankly upon this question.
When confederation was entered into in 1867 Nova Scotia at first refused to send delegates to the conferences which (took place. But there were one or two self-constituted negotiators who entered into the confederation pact on behalf of Nova Scotia. When that pact was submitted to the people at the polls only one confederate was elected in the whole province of Nova Scotia. Subsequently there were other elections in which confederation was the dominant issue, and on all these occasions the people pronounced against that principle. After confederation was brought about the county that I have the honour of representing-which I believe is to pass beyond being a single constituency as a county [DOT]-fought what was termed the last anti-confederation fight. The Hon. Joseph Howe, who had been the leader of the anti-confederates, came to Ottawa-I need not refer to his journeys to England where he was met by Sir Charles Tupper in an endeavour to offset what he was doing to get Nova Scotia out of confederation-and there some malign influence got control of him. He was upbraided to some extent by his electors but assured them that they need have no fear as he would never consent to the confederation. However, a few weeks afterwards he accepted a position in the cabinet at Ottawa, came down to the county of Hants, and told the electors that he was labouring to make the best of a bad bargain. A writ was issued for the election in 1869, and Mr. Howe appeared before the electors of the county of Hants for the purpose of getting m endorsement from them for his action in accepting what he termed better terms for the province of Nova Scotia and giving as a quid pro quo his.consent to the previous arrangement. The feeling was so bitter in that county it was found at that time that the chances of Mr. Howe being elected were exceedingly weak, with the result that the party in power at Ottawa cancelled the writ for the election,

Redistribution
a thing which was never before known in the history of British parliamentary government. Subsequently the government brought on an election in the dead of winter, and the anticonfederates being poor farmers were unable to cope with the great amount of organization that was put against them in the county of Hants. However Mr. Howe was elected but still from time to time we have pronounced at, the polls in the province of Nova Scotia against confederation. Not that we would be against a confederation which would give us justice; but we are against the system which obtains in this country at the present time which makes the people of Nova Scotia the servient tenants in all cases.
As my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago said, the province of Nova Scotia has a peculiar geographical situation. Our natural markets are in the New England states, and if we are going steadily to lose our representation so that our voice will not be strong enough to assert the claims of that province in this parliament then I fear that the day will come when the natural result must be that we will have to apply to the British parliament not for an amendment to the British North America Act giving us a minimum of representation but-and I say it without fear of contradiction

there will be a desire in the breasts of the people of the province of Nova Scotia, or a great majority of them, that we come to this parliament and endeavour to get a resolution passed praying that the British government will enable us to get out of the confederation pact.
Things are not improving in the province of Nova Scotia to-day. Our young men are going to the United States. I do not want to enter into a political discussion but we attribute this condition partly to confederation and a great deal of it to the fiscal policy which prevents us from dealing with our neighbours to the south. Our natural markets are in the United States. As Joe Howe once said "If you threw a grindstone into the bay of Fundy and it could float it would float to Boston." At the time of confederation we were very optimistic with regard to the future of our province. It was not thought at that time that we would ever be reduced to the status that we find ourselves in to-day as regards representation or population. If I remember right that great statesman, Howe, said that he knew the day would come when Nova Scotia would draw from every creek and cove and harbour of her inexhaustible fisheries; that her children would share the treasure, and that the day would also come, *when Nova Scotia, small as she is, would
maintain half a million of men upon the sea. As a result of confederation the Maritime trade has gone down. Our people to-day are not to the extent of twenty-five thousand upon the sea. We should not take the British North America Act, as my hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) has said, and hold it up as a pact, which must remain for ever inviolate. Are we not to be a progressive people in this country? Are conditions not somewhat different from what they were sixty years ago? If new conditions arise, do they not involve some change from the past and should we not view and consider them in the light of the conditions obtaining to-day?


Charles Marcil: If the other provinces are going to keep up their representation why should Quebec consent to remain at sixty-five? If Quebec were to receive an increase in proportion to the increase asked in other provinces we might have seventy-five members.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have every respect for my hon. friend from Quebec, and by the way they elect members, I would like to see them have two hundred.


Thomas Vien: Would my hon. friend accept the suggestion that the province of Nova Scotia should have twenty-three members, as they had at the time of confederation, and that they should then become the pivotal province in the matter of representation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think I would be quite content with that so long as we hold what we have. But coming down, Mr. Chairman, to this question of the confederation pact, four provinces originally entered into that covenant, namely Nova Scotia, New Bruns-wisk, Quebec and Ontario. Prince Edward Island did not come into confederation at that time. At the time of confederation, when this agreement was made between the four original provinces, all of the provinces had well defined geographical confines. The province of Quebec had a certain defined area. The province of Nova Scotia, the province of Prince Edward Island and the province of New Brunswick also had certain geographical confines. But since 1867 the boundaries of the province of Quebec have been enlarged as have also the boundaries of Ontario. We have no means by which we can enlarge our territory, for, as Mr. Howe said, we have all ocean practically wrapping us around.
Since confederation came about in 1867 British Columbia came into -the pact, and was given an irreducible minimum. The
Redistribution

boundaries of other provinces have been enlarged and other provinces have been created out of the Northwest prairies. These matters were not contemplated at the time of confederation, they were not taken into consideration; therefore there should be a new agreement for the conditions of to-day.


Mr. HALBERT:: The Maritime provinces
are not the only ones that have lost representation since confederation. The representation of Ontario has been reduced by ten in a few years.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But your percentage of reduction has not been so great. Our representation was up to twenty-one, and we are now down to fourteen. Moreover when there is little over half of a fraction, not sufficient to give an extra member, we do not get the extra member as swiftly as you for when you have a larger population it is easier for you to compute that fraction than if you have a smaller population.
I am not going to labour the matter any further. I want to congratulate the members of the Redistribution committee on the manner in which they have performed their work. As far as I can see they have done their work fairly, equitably and well. So far as redistribution in the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I do not see with the law as it is, how they could have done anything more than they have done. It is hard for me, representing the historic county of Hants, to have to go back to my people and say: While you of Hants vote for provincial rights, for the stern old province of Nova Scotia, I am sorry that at the time when I was your representative in the House of Commons Hants as an independent constituency was taken away by an unbending law in whose enactment you had no say, and I have only this hope to express, that our friends in the House of Commons will see the iniquity of the matter, that they will accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Lunenburg, in order that equity shall prevail, in order that the letter of the law in this country shall not be maintained against that which is fair, just and right in spirit in the interests of the good province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I am opposed to this
amendment. Indeed it seems to me that Canada is top heavy with government. We have our municipalities, our city councils, our provincial governments and our Dominion government, and old Grandfather has got to have the final say. As I see it, in the interests

of the taxpayer we ought to reduce our representation, and reduce the cost of government to the country, instead of trying to increase it, and I can say if this resolution is carried, it is letting in the thin end of the wedge. If they give Nova Scotia a representation of a certain number, even if the population disappears they will still have that number of members here. Why should not that principle apply to other provinces besides Nova Scotia? Why should they make fish of one and flesh of another? I see no just reason -why this amendment should carry, or that they should get special consideration more than any other part of Canada, and I hope to see the day when representation in this parliament will be reduced fifty per cent. I say that in all seriousness.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas George McBride: Fifty per cent at least,
I should say.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the
Senate?


Thomas George McBride: And the Senate should
be reduced to the same extent. We are sent down here to do the business of the country.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend
confine his statement of a fifty per cent reduction to the Senate and leave us out of it?


Thomas George McBride: No; I can see no reason why British Columbia should have thirteen members in this House. I can see no reason why the half of that number should not represent us in this House when we have a provincial government, and if we are going to set the example to the Civil Service and other people carrying on the business of this country I think we should begin at the top. I do not think the members of parliament are overpaid, but parliament is overmanned. I do not think the Civil Service is overpaid, but it is overmanned. If we keep on increasing our numbers, when will we get through? We will be sitting here ten months in the year. WTe have at present too many in this House whose main object is to get themselves reported in Hansard.


Harold Putnam: Speaking very closely to
the point of order and possibly on the point of order, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) laboured the desirability of consulting the provinces. We should remember that in spirit and practically the provinces would necessarily be consulted. When this comes up in the anticipated debate whether or not

Militia Act
a petition should be sent to the Imperial parliament, it is inconceivable, on that expected discussion, that if there were any real objection from any province, that objection would not be well voiced by the representatives of that province in this chamber. One thing is substantially certain that from three of the nine provinces there will be no objec-at all. There would be none from New Brunswick, none from Nova Scotia, and none from Prince Edward Island, because it is still grateful for the treatment it received and it is no doubt willing to obey the golden rule. The last hon. gentleman who spoke (Mr. McBride), dealt with this as though we were now on the merits. We must not lose sight of the fact that that is not so. We are asking for an opportunity to make our case and this would take some time undoubtedly, as it could not be done in one evening. If you, Mr. Chairman, have any fair doubt in your mind, as this is merely a request that those provinces directly affected have a chance later on to make their case, and as no harm has resulted from a practically parallel case in Prince Edward Island, I would respectfully ask that you bend your doubt as much as you conscientiously can to allow the case to stand.


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that the point of order that has been raised should be first decided before we proceed any further in this debate.


George Newcombe Gordon: Hon. members have
a right to speak on the point of order. Does any other hon. member wish to address himself to that question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Newcombe Gordon: An amendment has
been moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) has argued in support of it that it is in order. Section 2 of the bill has been passed-in fact all the enacting sections of the bill have been passed -and it provides that for the province of Nova Scotia there shall be fourteen members. Section 3 provides for electoral districts to be established as provided in the schedule, so the schedule becomes a part of the bill as an exhibit to an instrument. The schedule is not an enacting section of the bill; it is a descriptive part of the bill. The bill has been passed to the point of the schedules by this committee and this amendment is moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg. It is an unpleasant and a difficult task for me to give my opinion against that of such a well known lawyer and counsel as the Minister of National
Defence. Under the rules and' practice which are laid down very neatly at page 97 of Beauchesne, section 337 reads:
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with a previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter.
That follows May which expresses the same idea but uses a good deal more verbiage in doing so. May at page 261 says:
An amendment is ailso out of order which is inconsistent with the words of the motion which have already been agreed upon.
Section 2 provides that the number must be fourteen and that there can be no more nor less. This amendment provides that, in the happening of a certain contingency or event, there may be sixteen. I feel that this amendment cannot be in order and I so rule.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that the schedule for Nova Scotia be passed in whole as it stands. It has been agreed to and there is no question that it is correct.


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

William Lyon Mackenzie King: The managers beg to report that they have duly held a confe. ence with the managers appointed by the Senate with respect to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No, 7, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, and that the managers for the Senate have insisted on the amendments made by the Senate with respect to the appointment of a member of the board by the Chief Justice of a court of last resort of the province or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and that your managers have refused to agree to the same amendments. It is found impossible to come to an understanding.


MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 169, to amend the Militia Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Militia may be called out to suppress riot.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give us a brief statement of the purport of this bill?
Militia Act


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This bill is presented following the passage of a resolution on the 6th day of June and it is intended to carry out in some respects the recommendations which were made by what is known as the Robertson commission who sat last fall to take evidence concerning the calling out of the militia in connection with a difficulty that occurred in Cape Breton. Under the law hitherto the militia could be called out upon a requisition made either by the mayor of the community in which the difficulty arose or by a judge, who was empowered to issue to the officer in command of the military district a requisition for the supply of certain troops. The officer in command thereupon proceeded to call out the troops and they remained until the trouble was over. The commission recommended that there should be another intervening party in addition to the judge, namely, the attorney general of the province. The theory on which the legislation is put forward is that the duty of preserving order in any particular province in the administration of the criminal laws rests in the hands of the attorney general. In some provinces there are provincial police but in others there are not. Another situation has arisen which has to be taken into consideration. During a considerable number of years the cost of maintaining the troops who were called out has fallen upon the municipality in which the disturbance takes place. But in practice that provision has been nugatory and the cost of the troops has not been collected. Under the law now proposed the province in which the difficulty arises will be liable for the expense. These in a general way are the provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Attorney general may requisition active militia upon judge's notification.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to reiterate the opposition I advanced against the underlying principle of this legislation when the resolution wras introduced. I do not think that the calling out of the militia in such important cases as are contemplated by this act should be left in the hands of a political official of any government. I know that in the province of Nova Scotia where certain grievances have occurred within recent months which perhaps have occasioned this bill, there is the strongest opposition to the principle underlying it. I had in my desk a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle, a newspaper supporting this government, a newspaper which might be said to be the mouthpiece of the minister (Mr. Macdonald), protesting in the strongest terms 
against the underlying principle of the measure, and for the very reason to which I have alluded. The calling out of the militia is in itself an enormously important event in connection with any industrial dispute; and while I am not going to offer any criticism of what has been done in the past, because I really am not in a position to form what might be considered a well founded judgment, yet I do assert that it is a step which should be taken only as the last possible resort. I do further submit that the decision to call out the militia Should never rest in the hands of one who after all is purely a political officer of the provincial government. It is all very well to say that the provinces or the local municipalities should bear the cost, but history proves that they have never done so except in the most extraordinary cases. I can call to mind instances where the cost of supporting the militia would practically break an ordinary municipality; it would not be possible for them to meet the expenses. And as a matter of fact no government in Canada has ever taken strong ground on this particular point. Theoretically, what the minister has said is true, but practically it can be given no effect to at all. I w'ant to voice the protest of those who feel as I do, and as many of the minister's friends in Nova Scotia do, that the placing of the onus on- the attorney general of the province is not a wise departure; it should be left in the hands of either the local municipality or some judicial functionary.


John Evans: The calling out of the
militia to preserve peace is in itself a very important matter; it is a very serious matter. This bill seems to have been made necessary by the dealings of that celebrated concern known as the British Empire Steel Corporation with their men. I believe that we have had more trouble with that company in their dealings with employees than has been occasioned by any other company in Canada. After all the benefits which the Dominion government has bestowed on them they have caused more trouble in labour disputes than any other concern in the Dominion. We have given that company in the way of concessions as free gifts of money during the last few years some $14,000,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is
not in order. This section relates to the question of calling out the militia on a judge's notification and the hon. member's remarks are not strictly relevant.


John Evans: I was saying that the calling out of the militia is sometimes made a good

Militia Act
deal too easy and when the municipalities have to pay the cost it becomes a very serious question. I think that a little investigation into the dealings of some of the companies with their men would perhaps be a good thing at this stage of the game; and if it is found, as I believe it has been found in Nova Scotia, that these men were treated unfairly and were simply goaded into rebellion, it is up to the company to pay a part at least of the cost.
I protest against the calling out of the militia except in the most extreme circumstances.
I have been trying to imagine what it feels like to be under military control. I should think it must give any body of men a feeling that they are outlaws, and altogether it is not wise that the militia should be called out except where the conditions overwhelmingly demand this course.


John Arthur Clark: Under what, circumstances
will the judge act? My point is that the judge should not be put in the position of coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the circumstances warrant the calling out of the militia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In that respect we are making no change in the law. The county court judge will continue tb act as in the past, but there will come in an intervenant in the person of the attorney general of the province, whose attention the judge will direct to the circumstances. Everything is brought before him in the ordinary way as it always has been.


John Arthur Clark: But the old act stipulated
that " the mayor or warden or other acting head of the municipality, together with two justices of the peace," should act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon.
member will read a little further he will see where the county court judge comes in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The county court judge is only called upon in the second place, that is all.


John Arthur Clark: Yes. Here the responsibility is put upon him to take initial action. I do not think the law ever contemplated that the judge should be put in that position.


Thomas Langton Church: This legislation may be
all right in Nova Scotia, but in my opinion to upset a course of procedure that has worked well ever since confederation is a very dangerous departure. The chief of police will now fold his arms and say, " I will let the attorney general keep law and order." As chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners of a big city for seven years, I can
testify that the present law works admirably. The chief of police is the proper person to maintain law and order. In the city I come from our police administration costs two and a half million dollars a year owing to the heavy duties imposed on the force by legislation respecting traffic and other matters. In my opinion it is very bad judgment to. call out the militia except in very rare cases. I venture to say that if a survey were made of the country you would find there is no demand for this legislation from the police commissioners of the municipalities chiefly affected. The machinery now proposed is too cumbersome, and the maintenance of law and order in the event of a riot is far more important than ensuring payment of a few hundred dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 82-Officers to call out militia.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly think the minister's first statement was made hastily and in error. Under the present law the requisition does not have to be made by the judge; he is the secondary person to whom application could be made. We all know that the duty of maintaining law and order is thrown upon the police commission and the mayor. He is making the whole machinery hinge on the attorney general. Why not follow the old language, " the mayor, warden or other acting head of the municipality or a judge," and so allow the notification to go to the attorney general from the gentlemen who primarily have to do with the enforcement of law and order?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed that for the last ten years the practice has been to appeal to the judge, and consequently this change will throw no particularly onerous duty on our judges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
occasion for this amendment, is it because we have not been able to get payment in the past and hope to do so in the future?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The municipal authorities did not invoke the law, it was invoked by the county court judge. As provincial police forces are in existence in most of the provinces, it was felt that the attorney general was the proper official to intervene in these matters, and therefore the bill is submitted in the belief that it will work out much more advantageously than the existing statute. When the resolution on which this bill is founded was before us the
Militia Act

right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) desired me to get him the opinion of the Justice department in regard to the effect of sections 82 and 83.


Arthur Meighen: What is the effect of
the opinion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question involved was the extent of the powers of the district officer commanding, under section 81 of the old act, to summon men from military districts outside his own. The practice in the past was for the district officer commanding, proceeding under section 81, to call out the permanent militia not merely in his own province but outside, through the intervention of the Adjutant General. In order to meet the objection raised by my right hon. friend I wish to move two amendments, as follows:	That section 82, line 7, after the
word " militia," be amended by inserting the words " in the district of which he is in command," and that section 83 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
83. The power to call out the active militia, or such portion thereof as he considers necessary, vested by the preceding section in a district officer commanding, or the officer appointed to administer the district, or, for the time being, performing the duty of district officer commanding, as the case may be, shall extend only to the calling out of the active militia in the district of which he is in command: provided that if the said district officer commanding, or other officer aforesaid considers that the services of the active militia in districts other than the one of which he is in command are necessary for the purpose of suppressing or preventing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, the said district officer commanding or other officer aforesaid may notify the Adjutant General of the number of officers and other ranks, together with their horses and equipment which he so considers necessary, of which number the said district officer commanding or other officer aforesaid shall be the sole judge, and upon receiving such notification the Adjutant General shall call out such of the active militia as are necessary to meet the requirements of the said district officer commanding, or other officer aforesaid, as set forth in such notification, and shall cause them to be despatched to the said district officer commanding, or other officer aforesaid.
I recall that on the discussion of the resolution the right hon. gentleman urged that this matter be cleared up, and these amendments would meet the objections that he raised.


Arthur Meighen: I thought at first that this had met the objection I raised to the resolution, but I am not quite certain that I understand it. I gather that according to these amendments the district officer commanding has power only to requisition troops 
within his district, but that he has power to compel the Adjutant General to bring in from outside such troops as he might think necessary. Am I right in that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The power is vested in the Adjutant General to sa., where they are to come from and generall. to deal with the disposition of them in tha. respect.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way I think it ought to be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the way we want it to be.


Arthur Meighen: When the resolution was before the House I took exception to it because it placed in the hands of the district officer commanding the right to requisition from one end of Canada to the other practically to scour the country for troops, all because he felt they were necessary in his district. The contingency might arise where at least some might be necessary somewhere else, possibly more so even than in his district, in which case there would be hopeless chaos. The attempt to meet the objection is along proper lines, but from the latter part of the resolution I gather that the district officer commanding is still in full com-
12 m. mand of the situation. Suppose, for example, in Nova Scotia the district officer commanding says he requires so many troops, so many horse; he can get them, and it does not matter what may be the eventuality in any other part of Canada, his word is law. Of course, the province pays for them, I admit that; and if he does not ask for all the troops of the Dominion the Adjutant General has power to say which part of Canada he shall draw from. But if he wants to ask for the horse, foot and artillery of the whole of Canada he can do it and the Adjutant General has no discretion whatever. My suggestion was that once the district officer commanding went out of his own district and demanded troops beyond those stationed in his district within the discretion of the Adjutant General-or the government, as I put it; the proper officer- the discretion of the federal authority should come in and should determine the extent to which any requisition should be filled, the reason being that conditions in other parts of the Dominion would have to be considered. It is no fanciful conjuncture of circumstances that I have in mind. It is not at all fanciful to picture that when there is a disturbance in the Maritime provinces that very fact

Militia Act
may be seized upon by those of similar mind in another part of Canada to make a disturbance there feeling that it would be far safer, feeling that the authorities of the law were going to be pretty well occupied down in the Maritime provinces, and consequently they could take chances much more readily. That is a conjuncture that is by no means fanciful, in fact it would appear to be very likely in the course of time. Now, does the minister think it is better that the first one to requisition should have the whole gamut at his disposal, the whole bank account so that he could if he wanted to write a cheque on the whole? Does he not think that the prerogative of the federal government should intervene and that the Adjutant General should have the right to say how far in the general public interest the requisition of the district officer commanding should be complied with.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the committee will agree with me that if, unfortunately, there is trouble in any particular quarter and the attorney general and a judge have requisitioned the district officer commanding it must be assumed that he, being in charge of the situation, would be the best judge of the number of men he needed to cope with this difficulty, and that is what is provided for in this amendment. When it comes to moving beyond his military district for the purpose of getting men he must go to the Adjutant General. If a situation exists in two places such as is suggested by my right hon. friend of trouble naturally the thing must be worked out sensibly and practically. We cannot send all the men to one place. The Adjutant General is there for the purpose of deciding as to how many men should be sent to one place and how many men to another, simply because the number of men he has is limited.


Arthur Meighen: I agree with my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And his
capacity to furnish men to any district officer commanding would depend upon the number of men there are in the country.


Arthur Meighen: I am in full agreement with what the minister says now, but the trouble is that is not the effect of the amendment. The Adjutant General who knows the conditions everywhere must be the judge as to how far it is possible to comply with the requisition of the district officer commanding. The district officer commanding, it is true, is the best, judge of how many he needs and the
number that he requisitions should be sent unless there are other reasons why they cannot be sent of which reasons the Adjutant General should be the judge. I suggest to the minister that he make his amendment comply, by a proviso, with what he has stated here, because I think what he has stated in the House is perfectly true.


John Arthur Clark: The effect of this section
is to give a junior officer the power to order his senior officer to supply him with whatever the former thinks he may need. Furthermore the officer in command of the situation when he thinks he needs reinforcements may requisition far more than is necessary.
I think it is essential to have the final say or discretion rest with the senior authorities here in Ottawa, and not enable a junior at one end of Canada to order the headquarters to furnish him with all the troops available whatever their number may be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is hardly putting the situation rightly; it is not a case of "ordering." Here is trouble and difficulty and a military officer is in charge of the situation. Manifestly the man who is on the job ought to know what his needs are better than anyone else. He intimates them to the Adjutant General. The Adjutant General will supply the troops if he has them; if he has not got them he cannot supply them. If we had a large army in this country it is possible to believe that a situation would arise in which all these men might be requisitioned for at once; or rather if we had ample men to supply half a dozen situations then there might be some difficulty about it; but of very necessity the Adjutant General must exercise his discretion as to what number shall be sent, and there is no reason why he should not intimate to the district officer commanding "I have not got these troops at my disposal."


Arthur Meighen: The minister will note
the effect of the words I am about to quote. I thought at first when I noticed the amended provision of the minister it met the case exactly, but if he notes these words he will see that the Adjutant General's discretion is taken away no matter what the contingency:
And upon receiving such notification the Adjutant General shall call out such of the active militia as are necessary to meet the requirements of the said district officer commanding.
No matter what the requirements are. I will just picture a case: Suppose there is a riot in British Columbia, or an apprehended
Militia Act

riot. The district officer commanding is, it is true, the best judge of how many troops he needs. If he needs any he requisitions what he feels he needs. If he makes a mistake at all it is that he requisitions too many; you can always depend upon him to do that, it is human nature. He requisitions troops that are taken from western Ontario. This is no fanciful picture because it has been done. Now, we will suppose that while these troops are there taking care of that situation, another riot or apprehended riot transpires in Nova Scotia. The district officer commanding in Nova Scotia has the power to call upon the Adjutant General to take all these troops from British Columbia and send the whole of them down to Nova Scotia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think I
can meet my right hon. friend's views by adding one or two words "as in his opinion are available."


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that will be all
right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After consideration I propose to make the amendment read as follows:
Upon receiving-
Speaking of the Adjutant General-
Such notification the Adjutant General shall call out such of the active militia as, in his judgment, are available to meet the requirements of the said district officer commanding.


Arthur Meighen: That is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 84-Statements of fact to be binding and not open to dispute.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the old law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 187-Officers and men shall have powers and duties of special constables.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move to strike out subsection 2 of this section.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain why he makes thait motion? Is this not about the only security we will ever have?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Protests
have come from the provinces against that provision, claiming it is rather arbitrary. I

have not had much experience in regard to the question of dealing with the provinces. I thought that probably their liability would be sufficient.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not obligatory, it is
simply "may." It is discretionary.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think we will
succeed much better collecting from the provinces than collecting from the municipalities. I would rather think that the Dominion might retain it without any special clause.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I had that
in view too, but I do not know enough about finances to be sure about it.


Arthur Meighen: It occurred to me the
Dominion might act under the ordinary rule, that if you do not owe it you do not have to pay it. But personally I would rather see it in, because I know what experience we have had, especially lately, in the way of collecting these debts.


Hance James Logan: I desire to protest against
this section in the strongest way possible.


Arthur Meighen: The whole section?


Hance James Logan: Yes. I want to point out
just what might happen under this section. In my own province of Nova Scotia, we had last year some disturbance. It only lasted a very short time, but the cost of the militia was 8100,000. It was confined to a small portion of the county of Cape Breton, but suppose a general strike were declared in Nova Scotia-and it is a possibility- what would be the result? Suppose there was trouble, not only in a 'part of Cape Breton county, but over the rest of the county of Cape Breton and in the city of Sydney, as well as in the counties of Inverness, Pictou, Cumberland and Halifax, where there is a subsidiary company of the British Empire Steel and the militia were called out; and suppose that instead of the strike lasting only a week or two it continued as strikes ha.ve in Nova Scotia, four months, the result would be disastrous. Some strikes have lasted longer than four months and there has been a tremendous struggle. In that event the province of Nova Scotia would be compelled to pay not merely a 8100.000 but they might be mulcted in $1,000,000, and the province would be financially paralyzed.
In my humble opinion the old law was wrong. The municipality was supposed to pay all the cost but they did not pay and they could not. It was beyond their means to pay

Militia Act
such large amounts for the calling in of the militia. I believe there should be an amendment to the law, but I do not believe the municipality which after all is the place that is protected by the militia, whose property is protected by the militia, whose taxpayers are protected by the militia, and incidentally whose basic company is protected by the militia, should be relieved. Take for instance the British Empire Steel Company in Cape Breton; surely it should pay more proportionately towards the calling out of the millitia for the protection of their property than those who live in Annapolis county or in Digby, or in some remote part of the province. Therefore I say the municipality should not be relieved. Secondly the province should pay its share. This applies particularly to disturbances where coal mines are concerned, because the province owns the coal mines and it is to the interest of the province that these coal mines should be protected. One of the great cries raised during the last disturbance in Cape Breton was that the property of the province was being destroyed. If the property of the province is to be protected by the militia, the province should pay its share of that protection. But the Dominion after all, which guarantees the peace and good order of this country, which is connected in many ways with these great corporations, that sometimes brings in to the country the foreigners who often cause these troubles, surely is not to be relieved entirely from paying its share of the cost of the militia when it is called out. I believe myself that the militia should only be called out as a very last report but when it is called out not only for the protection of the property of the province and the municipalities but also for the preservation of the peace and good order of Canada, surely there should be a distribution of the cost, and therefore I desire to suggest to the minister a scheme of distribution. I would move an amendment were it within my power as a private member. I suggest to the minister and the government that they should strike out from section 89 the word "all" in the first line and substitute the words "two fifths of the". That section will then read:
Two-fifths of the expenses and costs incurred by His Majesty by reason of any of the militia being so called out in aid of the civil power, shall be paid to His Majesfty by the province of which the attorney general made the requisition requiring them to be bo called out.
And add at the end of the section the following words:
Two-fifths out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada and one-fifth by the municipality where the militia is required.
The municipalities could very well afford to pay one-fifth for the protection to themselves, for the protection of their property and the cities or towns as a whole. They would only pay one fifth, the province having its property protected would pay two fifths, and the Dominion would pay two fifths. The distribution, I humbly submit to the minister, is a fair one, will be equitable and will be levied according to the protection given.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) I think that on reflection he will see that the effect of the legislation will be that the responsibility is placed upon the provincial governments in each case; he will see that the cost of maintaining order and peace within its bounds is imposed upon them, and that the natural consequence will be that if there are continues troubles in any particular province of the Dominion, legislation will be enacted to provide for the distribution of that cost. Here is the situation as a matter of law. Under section 92 of the British North America Act, the duty of the enforcement of the criminal laws of the country is placed upon the province. The province creates municipalities and gives them power to organize and maintain a police force. These are maintained at the cost of the municipalities. There is another reason why the provincial government should not provide for the distribution of the cost of maintaining any troops that are called out in time of trouble in the particular municipality where the difficulty arose. I do not agree with my hon. friend that the cost should be borne by the Dominion. The Dominion's share is borne by the cost to which the federal authorities are put in maintaining these men in times of peace so that they will be available in case of trouble.


Hance James Logan: Allow me to submit that the federal authorities are really being relieved under this section because, as a matter of fact, the regular force has to be paid by the Dominion of Canada when no strike is on. If a strike is declared and the militia is called into a province, the Dominion is relieved of paying the men while they are in that province. In the second place, if the minister is right, why does he not ask the province to pay the expenses of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who go through all this country from coast to coast protecting property, much in the same way as the militia is called out to protect property? There is no question of provincial contributions to their maintenance. I submit again that this is legislation which may land the province of Nova Scotia in absolute bankruptcy.
Militia Act

I protest, of course, against subsection 2 of this section in reference to retaining provincial subsidies as if we were a bankrupt, indigent debtor not able to pay his way in this country. That is going some, and it is only another addition to the harassing matters in the Maritime provinces due to conditions over which we have no control. We have had one of them here to-night when we find we have to lose two of our representatives in parliament. Is this also to be forced upon us that we are to pay for calling out the militia for the maintenance of peace and good order in Canada? I believe the people of Nova Scotia are not by any means in a position to undertake this obligation. I quite realize I cannot move this amendment as it would make a charge upon the public treasury, and therefore it is not within my competence as a private member of this House, but I regret very much that the minister and the government will not accept the suggestion I have made which, I believe, is in the interest of Nova Scotia.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is it not only fair to point
out that this applies to all the provinces?


Hance James Logan: Yes, and particularly to
Alberta and British Columbia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would call the attention of the hon. member to section 89 which reads:
All expenses and cost-s incurred by His Majesty by reason of any of the militia being so called out in aid of the civil power.
I would take it that the cost and expenses were only those which were directly due to the calling out. I am not as pessimistic as my hon. friend is about the labour situation in our province, and although we have had difficulties there in the past, I hope they will be less in the future. This law is not intended solely for application to our province. I pointed out in the discussion before the committee that in the last ten years almost every province had had conditions where the militia had been called out, and we want a law which will apply generally to the whole country. I think the provisions in this bill should be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
Arthur Meighen: How much did the
troubles in Nova Scotia last year cost? What is our bill against the municipalities and what steps are we taking to collect it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The approximate figures for 1922 are 863,295.27 and for 1923, $99,621.47. In both of these cases the amounts do not include pay and allowances of the officers and men on duty.


Arthur Meighen: Has there been any payment on account?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


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

['This motion requires\nunanimous consent.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am asking that the order be called "House again in committee of Supply". I should like to explain that the purpose is not to go on with the estimates at any length, but to call an item in the Post Office Department which has not yet been taken up.


Arthur Meighen: If it will save time, I will state right now that I will take no objection to going into supply on any item, so far as I am concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the rest
of the House do the same thing?


Arthur Meighen: I am sure that we on
this side will guarantee that.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the House go into committee of Supply.


Andrew Knox: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter which I wish to bring before the House, and while I am sorry that the hour is so late, I see no other way of doing so. This is a matter which has been discussed in former years and which we had intended should be discussed this year again. If the government can give us any statement that will satisfy conditions in the West in regard to the Hudson Bay railway, I would be pleased, indeed, to have this motion carried. If we cannot get such a statement, I feel that it is my duty to move an amendment, much as I regret to do so. We have a number of speakers who want to be heard on this subject, and I suppose there is nothing for us to do but to go on in this way. I presume the government has no statement to make. If that is the case, I will move my amendment.
MV. GRAHAM:	I have only this statement to make; there would be ample opportunity when the railway estimates are under consideration in committee to discuss this

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
matter to the fullest extent. My own opinion is that it would be far better for the project if no vote of want of confidence were moved and if the discussion were brought up in committee. If I were a friend of the project -'the hon. member is-I would take the latter course.


Andrew Knox: I hope the minister is a
friend of the project, but if we can get no greater assurance than that then there is no other course open to us. Under the circumstances I move that all the words after the word " that " be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
In the opinion o-f this House, failure to complete the Hudson Bay railway means a serious loss to the people of western Canada.
That motion is seconded by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). I regret very much that we are forced to take this action but it is inevitable. A resolution appeared in my name in the early part of the session with reference to the Hudson Bay railway but the motion was never reached on any convenient day. Private members' day was deprived us earlier this session than usual, with the exception of Wednesday afternoons, and it was generally recognized that on that day it was not convenient to take up the discussion of so important a question. As to the question coming up on the estimates, I think it will readily be seen how very difficult it would be to discuss it in committee; every imaginable subject connected with railways might be introduced.
Last year an estimate for S350,000 was passed by the House for the purpose of bringing that portion of the line, on which the steel had been laid, up to a condition in which it might be operated. Unfortunately, however, as revealed in the evidence submitted to the special railway committee, only between $60,000 and $70,000 of that amount was spent. The evidence also elicited the fact that there would be some $300,000 in the vote this year, and that is practically a re-vote of what was in the estimates last year. This is most unsatisfactory to the West. The agitation there concerning this matter is today very much keener than it has ever been before, and yet the apathy in the East regarding the whole situation seems to be more pronounced than ever. I should rather say the antagonism; because the East would appear to be antagonistic to the project. I do not intend to speak at the length I would have spoken had we got at this matter earlier in the day, but there are some things which I 293
feel impelled to bring to the attention of the House.
A resolution was passed last year calling upon parliament to recognize the priority of this scheme over any other transportation scheme started subsequently, and that resolution was carried by the House. Yet, in spite of that fact, we find vast sums of money set aside within the past few days to meet obligations which the government has undertaken in connection with some of the projects more intimately connected with the East. I have in mind the port of Montreal, the Toronto viaduct and the Welland canal; and I am not unmindful of Vancouver harbour. These matters have gone through without very much discussion.


George Perry Graham: The WelLand canal has
not yet been up.


Andrew Knox: But it is in the estimates.
We feel that some consideration should be given to the western provinces in connection with this one transportation scheme in which the people there are so vitally interested, as we have seen a number of our branch lines disposed of in such a way that we shall secure nothing in that part of the Dominion in the shape of relief. Now, there is one thing I want parliament to consider, and to consider most seriously. A good many years ago a bill was put through the House relating to the project, granting 12,800 acres of land per mile to any company which would agree to complete a line to Hudson bay. That act remained on the statute books for a considerable number of years but the concession was not taken advantage of. In 1908 the Hon. Frank Oliver, at that time Minister of the Interior, brought in a bill to relieve the western lands of this blanket, and his bill set aside certain lands in the West for the purpose of raising revenue for the building of the Hudson Bay railway. This matter has been mentioned in the House previously, and although there is nothing in the act to show that the land was set aside especially for that purpose, nevertheless the facts clearly show what the intention was. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) referred to the matter last year and I will quote briefly from his remarks:
It has been said that lands were appropriated for the Hudson Bay railway. I always hesitate to deal with a statute, not being of the legal brotherhood myself, but I want *to present this to the House as I see it, so that we shall be clear as to what took place. In the statute of 1906 the following appears as subsection C of section 6:
"Make a free grant of land, not exceeding in extent six thousand four hundred acres for each mile of railway within Manitoba, and not exceeding in extent



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
twelve thousand eight hundred acres for each mile beyond the limits of Manitoba, in aid of the construction of a railway from some point on the Canadian Pacific railway to Hudson bay:"
It is not necessary to read further; the quotation shows what the minister had in his mind at the time and I have no doubt he is of the same view to-day. In the province of Saskatchewan over 5,000,000 acres of land have been sold and in Alberta almost 3,000,000 acres and it is understood that a substantial sum of the money obtained is still on hand. I think therefore that it would be only fair for the government to give this matter a little further consideration. I do not know what my colleagues may think, but I would be inclined to say that if the government would guarantee to set aside for this purpose the money raised from the sale of these lands, we would be justified in withdrawing the amendment.
We have had a good deal of criticism in some of the eastern papers as to the feasibility of this scheme, and although investigations have proven its feasibility, still the eastern press seize on every pretext in an attempt to prove the contrary.
A western paper of recent date contains the following:
A memorandum on the Hudson Bay railway belt and the Hudson bay issued by the Natural Resources Intelligence branch of the Department of the Interior cites the opinion of twenty-seven "experts" of the navigable .period of the Hudson strait, an abstract of which shows that one puts the period at eleven weeks, two at twelve weeks, ten at thirteen weeks, two at fifteen weeks, five at seventeen weeks, three at eighteen weeks and three at twenty-two weeks. Expert opinion therefore varies between eleven and twenty-two weeks.
I find this would give an average of almost sixteen weeks, or practically the same conclusion as that arrived at by the Senate committee in 1920. Somewhat along the same lines is a paper by Mr. Frederick William Cowie, Chief Engineer of the Montreal Harbour Board, read before the Montreal branch of the Engineering Institute of Canada on April 19, 1923. I think my hon. friends from Montreal and others who know Mr. Cowie will admit that he is probably the greatest authority on transportation projects we have in the Dominion if not on the North American continent. The paper is entitled "Transportation Routes in Canada and Their Relation to Enduring Protection". After quoting the Montreal Gazette, which had stated that the Hudson Bay route had only a gambler's chance of success, Mr. Cowie proceeds:
After no superficial study, however, the writer dares the statement that the Hudson Bay route offers much more than "a gambler's chance of success". He has personality experienced every phase in connection with
[Mr. Emox.l
St. Lawrence river navigation, its failures and its successes.
The late Sir John Kennedy, past president of this institute, in no casual school taught ithe writer that while one cannot force the mighty St. Lawrence one may make terms with it. And where in the world such prodigious difficulties, where such successes, as in the making of the artificial harbour at Montreal?
There is only one St. Lawrence, and Canada may thank God for it. It can have no enduring rival, but is it wise and sufficient that it be relied upon adone? Those who know -will accept that no one may be more, or even equally loyal to the St. Lawrence route, than the writer, who has given his best towards its success in the last thirty-seven continuous years, and based on mature experience he is of the opinion that the Hudson Bay route, under accepted limitations, offers a prize in favour of production worthy of fuller investigation and a better attempt to demonstrate it.
Mr. Cowie also deals with the production of wheat in Canada and points out that we must use every means to place it on the world's market at the lowest possible transportation cost. He shows that the great wheat-growing countries of the world are much more conveniently situated to seaboard than we are; northern Russia and Poland, southern Russia, the Argentine and Australia are all 400 miles from seaboard, India 500 miles. Then he shows what it costs each of these countries to lay down their grain in the Liverpool market from the point of production. The wheat of northern Russia and Poland can be laid down there for 13 cents per bushel; southern Russia, for 19 cents; the Argentine, for 24 cents; Australia, for 321 cents; Canada via the Hudson bay, 24 cents. He figures this transportation cost on the prevailing routes with a 25 per cent addition for ocean rates and an extra allowance for port costs.


Mr. HUGHES:: Who is Mr. Cowie?


Andrew Knox: Mr. Cowie, as I pointed out, is the Chief Engineer of the Montreal Harbour Board-a man well qualified to deal with transportation routes. He has been with the Montreal work for thirty-seven years.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He used to be; 'he is not now.


Andrew Knox: He points out that the Canadian cost is as follows:	By the all-water
route from Fort William to Montreal, 30J cents; by the Buffalo-New York route, 32 cents; by rail to Fort William and lake to Georgian bay, then rail to Montreal, 32i cents; via Vancouver-Panama canal, 36i cents; winter, all rail, via St. John, N.B., 36f cents. So it will be seen that the Hudson bay route, even after allowing 25 per cent additional to overcome any possible extra cost, is far below the cost by these other routes from the Canadian wheat fields.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


William Duff: What difficulty do you allow
that 25 per cent for? Why should you allow anything?


Andrew Knox: For any possibility of difficulty. I think my hon. friend will remember that last year he tried to show we had a great deal of difficulty on the Hudson bay route. I do not think that he succeeded in establishing any such difficulty, but assuming something of that kind Mr. Cowie allows 25 per cent additional.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it 25 per cent over
the rate from Montreal to Liverpool, or over the rate from Fort William to Liverpool?


Andrew Knox: Over the rate from Port
Nelson to Liverpool. I stated that the cost was calculated on the mileage and at the same rate as other routes, and then he adds 25 per cent to that. Is that plain?
Mr.	HUGHES:	Some	people make	the
calculation that the distance from Port Nelson to Liverpool is about the same as from Montreal to Liverpool.


Andrew Knox: That is a fact.


James Joseph Hughes: Then would this 25 per
cent additional be over and above the rate from Montreal to Liverpool?


Andrew Knox: I should think so.
Mr.	HUGHES:	Are	you sure?Mr.	KNOX:	There	is	no other way of
taking it, is there?
Mr.	HUGHES:	Or	is	it over the	rate
from Fort William to Liverpool?


Andrew Knox: No, it is according to the
mileage that the grain is carried on the ocean, and he adds 25 per cent to that. Here is a point Mr. Cowie also makes. Speaking of Captain Anderson's observations he says:
After thirty years he almost confirms Commander Gordon's conclusions. We may, for argument, accept Captain Anderson's season, July 15th to November loth, without counting on the extra week, earlier or later.
Then he goes on to say:
An elevator of only two million bushels capacity, filled with "last year's" crop, would provide cargo for the unbroken first month. The new crop, August 20th to November 15th, would, at 500,000 bushels per day, and a steady procession, result in a port handling output of two million bushels of old, and forty-three of new crop. Allowing one-third for limitations, there would be 30,000,000 bushels, marketed early, at a saving of 6 cents per bushel, a fair prize in itself, as welil as an assurance of enduring production.
What about the argument that "the relatively short period of safe navigation does not coincide with the period of crop movement"? The writer has seen, time and again, new crop from the Canadian West, at
293i
Montreal elevators, from August 20th to 25th. This grain could be at Nelson a full week earlier. Neither the Hudson's Bay route nor the St. Lawrence route, provides an ideal season of navigation, but there is a great similarity, the critical period of each being September, October, and part of November. For live cattle, for cold storage products, and for fish, a port on Hudson's bay offers local advantages.
Summing up, Mr. Cowie says:
The best hopes, however, are inevitably linked up with the possibilities of the Hudson's Bay route, as an additional and cheap outlet, for a portion of the western wheat.
He goes on with some other conclusions, but he puts the foregoing first. Then he says:
Who are the interested parties?
(1)	The producers of the west in particular, and industrial producers, generally.
(2)	The Canadian people, to whom the success of agriculture in the Canadian West, and industrial production in the East are vital.


Harold Putnam: About what time in the
year would those sixteen weeks of an average occur that my hon. friend mentioned?


Andrew Knox: I gave the dates, but I can
look them up again if my hon. friend wishes. Just a word in regard to the territory that would be opened up. Since this matter was last discussed in the House the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) made a personal trip right to the bay and they will be able to speak of what they found and what the condition of the railway is. No doubt they will also speak of the possibilities of the resources lying along the railway. The territory opened up by this railway would be almost an empire by itself. The Hudson bay has a coast-
1 a. m. line, not including that portion of it which is in the arctic regions, of thousands of miles. The south end of the bay is in the same latitude as Calgary-and that is a point that is worth remembering. It is not in the frozen north, as many people imagine it to be and as many people seem tc wish it to be. The opening up would mean a great deal to what I might call the maritime province of Manitoba, because the resources discovered there of late years are such that they would well justify the completion of the railway even if we have no outlet through the bay, and the two combined have got themselves so fastened on the imagination of the people of the West that I can assure the government and assure this House that the matter must be carried further. It is further to be noted that the 'western provinces do not control their natural resources; I believe if they did this railway would have been completed long ere this.
Besides the carrying of grain I believe the strongest argument of all is in connection

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
with the shipment of cattle. I dealt with this at considerable length in introducing the resolution last year and I do not wish to repeat myself. But at that time I pointed out that the feeder steers, which are the ones freely admitted into Britain under present regulations, are ready for shipment during the period when even opponents of the scheme are willing to admit that the bay and straits are navigable. I also pointed out last year that taking the same railway rate per mile of the Hudson bay line from a point like Saskatoon there would be a saving of some $12 per head besides some great saving in the heavy shrinkage which always follows any long railway haul. That $12 per head would mean the salvation of the western stock growing industry. Besides grain and cattle there would be dairy products and just a possibility of British Columbia fruit, all having the advantage of shipment through a zone between the fiftieth and sixtieth parallels of latitude.
Just another point in regard to the resources in that northern country. It has been discovered that there are vast deposits of a very fine quality of iron ore in the Belcher islands. In a speech made by the Hon. Senator Gideon Robertson a short time ago before a business men's club in Toronto, he said:
The first use to which the Hudson Bay railway will probably be put may well be the bringing of the rich ores from Belcher islands to the smelters located on the coal fields of Alberta, around which will grow up all other industries, of which coal and steel form the base.
We must find some other means of assisting agriculture in the West than that of trying to economize in the cost of production; relief must come from some other source. We are convinced that along with co-operative marketing cheaper transportation is the only avenue through which that relief can come, and that cheaper transportation can be secured through the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


Harold Putnam: How long a haul would
that be for the iron ore?


Andrew Knox: It is only a matter of crossing the bay to Port Nelson. I could not give you the exact distance. I do not think you would find it charted or anything more shown than that there are islands on the east side of the bay.


Harold Putnam: Hauling the ore to the coal fields of Alberta.


Andrew Knox: It might very easily be
arranged. I do not think the distance would be as far as in the case of the iron ore hauled from the Mesaba range to Pittsburg. That

has been carried on very successfully, and I understand this iron ore is much of the same quality as that in the Mesaba range.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer because there are other hon. members who wish to express themselves on this question. In conclusion I simply urge the government to seriously consider this matter and to give us some assurance with respect to it if they can possibly see their way to do so.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: I regret very
much, at this late hour of the night, to put further strain upon the patience of the House, and I will try under the circumstances to be as condensed as I possibly can.
I should like to refer at the outset to a remark passed by the Minister of Railways in which he seemed to look upon this amendment as a vote of want of confidence. I do not think it is at all necessary for him to put that interpretation upon it. I have Bourinot before me here and he is very clear in regard to an amendment of this kind:
An amendment moved to the motion to go into committee of supply (or ways and means) does not necessarily involve want of confidence in the administration. When such an amendment simply affirms a general principle or sets forth a public grievance, and does not directly or impliedly challenge the conduct or policy of the government, it is not in a parliamentary sense a motion of want of confidence.
It does not become a motion of want of confidence until the government by its own declaration has taken a step that would justify us in carrying the matter further than we really intend. I should also like to explain to the House the reason why we are bringing the matter up at this hour. It is not through any fault of our own, I am sure, that my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), myself, and others, have done the best we could to air this matter this session before the House. No one is to blame, perhaps, for our being in the position we are to-night. I understand that the session is coming to a close this week, and we are precluded under rule 17c from bringing this matter up on a motion to go into supply on Thursday or Friday. I think, perhaps, that fact is worthy of a little comment because the estimates of the Minister of Railways have not yet been before the House and this is the last opportunity which members may have of bringing up their grievances in regard to those estimates. I do not think that members ought to be forced into a position similar to the one we are in to-night, because it is infringing a very valuable feature in British constitutional practice when hon. members are

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
precluded from free and full opportunity of airing their grievances before supply is entered upon. I for one would be very willing to relieve the House from listening to this lengthy debate to-night if by general consent it would give us the opportunity of discussing this question to-morrow when the Minister of Railways goes into supply on his estimates.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sorry to have to
interrupt my hon. friend but of course he is aware that it was open to him, on any day except Thursday or Friday to move any amendment at all upon the motion to go into supply. It need not necessarily have been the railway estimates; any motion to go into committee of Supply would have afforded my hon. friend the opportunity he was seeking.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. minister will see
that it was very natural for us to wait upon the convenience of the Minister of Railways.


Robert Forke: And we were allowed to
do so.


Thomas William Bird: We would have been very glad to do as the minister suggests if we had thought that we were going to be driven into this position.
Well, I do not intend to go in detail into the many 'arguments that have been advanced against the physical1 feasibility of this project, although one might very well be justified in so doing because of the propaganda that is insistently being carried on. I want, however, in as brief a manner as is possible, to go over some of the arguments that are insistently brought against this project. As regards the railway it is not necessary for me to go into that because the railway is there, an accomplished fact, suffering a little from neglect but still there, a demonstrated fact. And in every essential detail it is a railway of the best kind; in curvature, in grade, in all respects, it is an accomplished fact that cannot be gainsaid. It used to be customary to base the attack upon the Hudson Bay project just on that point. Ridicule was poured upon the railway itself; but now the ground of attack has been shifted and it is the port that is made the target for the usual reckless criticism. And it is very interesting to find that the port is being attacked from a new angle.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) a few weeks ago disinterred from the files of the Railway department-a kind of limbo of official gossip-a bundle of letters which passed between the engineer
and his chief in which there were a few statements that have been laid hold upon by the press and have been made the basis for reams of unscrupulous misrepresentation. We have been accustomed to associate opposition to this venture with the East, but now the far West seems to have unmasked its batteries and we find ourselves between two fires. Like the noble six hundred, we have cannon to the right of us and cannon to the left of us. The letter out of which apparently damaging statements have been taken is before me, and it reads to me very much like the effort of an engineer who was passing through a moment of temporary depression.
I look in vain for any objection to Port Nelson on engineering grounds. There apparently is not a single engineering objection that can be taken. If so, it is not to be found here. Mr. MacLachlan, in order to find food for his pessimism, has to go out of his own element into the sphere of the navigator and the grain exporter, and the statements he makes-well they are statements and that is all. Take all the comfort you like out of the word. With respect to the ice conditions-and that is the statement out of which the press has built up its argument-I have before me a letter in which Mr. MacLachlan states-and it seems on the face of it a very serious statement-that on August 29, 1917 Port Nelson was blocked with ice. That statement was taken as a text by all the press in this country that for one reason or another is opposed to the Hudson Bay project, and wonderful articles were built up from that slender statement. What does the statement mean? What does Mr. MacLachlan mean by Port Nelson being blocked with ice on August 30? Well, here is a letter which I fished out of the pile of letters brought down, and this letter is dated August 30, 1917, the day after Port Nelson was blocked, and this is what Mr. MacLachlan writes to his chief on August 30, 1917-
Yesterday as it was a very fine day, I seized the opportunity and went out in a gasoline boat to a point about five miles beyond the Cearense, and luckily I found the whole estuary studded with grounded ice and there was no difficulty in locating those seventeen foot patches which appear on the chart.
And Cearense was twelve miles below Port Nelson. Mr. MacLachlan went five miles below Cearense on the very day he said it was blocked with ice. That seems as incredible to me as the cruise of the Ancient Mariner, or Dr. Cook's discovery of the north pole. It seems to me that Mr. MacLachlan must have been passing through a spell of very serious depression when he said that

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
on August 29 Port Nelson was blocked with ice, because very evidently in that light gasoline launch he beat through seventeen miles of it there and back, and he only had to go another five miles to be out in the open on Hudson bay. That is the kind of [DOT]thing on which the press of the country opposed to the Hudson Bay railway will build up their tissue of misrepresentation.
The main attack on Port Nelson is usually centred upon the channel which leads to it from the sea, and there is no object in nature that has ever suffered from more misrepresentation than the channel which leads from the open sea to Port Nelson. It is variously described by some of our responsible newspapers as long and winding 'and shallow and narrow, and subject to silting and shifting, and other statements are made about it, but not one of them is correct. Each one is diametrically apposed ,to the truth. This channel which leads from deep water to Port Nelson is one of the straightest channels of its kind. There is one nine-mile stretch of it that is dead straight. You can put the ruler on the chart along the channel, and at no place will it touch the edge of the channel. As to this channel being narrow, why it is one of the widest, most spacious channels of its kind that can be named.


William Duff: How wide is it?


Thomas William Bird: Its narrowest point is twelve
hundred feet, and the average width of the Montreal channel for ninety miles is only a thousand feet; and that narrowest point of twelve hundred feet is practically just at one place and does not extend very far. Then they say that this channel is shallow.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: At what latitude is
that channel?


Thomas William Bird: I cannot see the relevancy
of my hon. friend's question.


William Duff: What is on both sides of
that channel outside of the twelve hundred feet? Does it show water or land or what?


Thomas William Bird: It is hard pan, clay and
boulders, covered with a light layer of mud at low water.


William Duff: How much water is on that
at low water?


Thomas William Bird: None at all.


William Duff: Is it in the open bay?


Thomas William Bird: No, it is in the estuary of the river, twenty-two miles from the port to the deep water.


William Duff: It cannot be in the estuary
of the river, if it is twenty-two miles outside of the mouth of it.


Thomas William Bird: port.


William Duff: Mr. BIRD: Mr. DUFF:
Twenty-two miles from the
Where is that port?
Up the estuary.
Not in the river?


Thomas William Bird: Is not an estuary a continuation of the river?


William Duff: Yes, so is a bay.


Thomas William Bird: Not in the way I learned
elementary geography.


William Duff: Well I have learned practica geography, which is more to the point.


Thomas William Bird: I will admit the hon. gentleman's knowledge in these respects is somewhat superior to my own, and perhaps the hon. gentleman knows as much about salt water as I do about churches.


William Duff: I know as much about churches as the hon. member' does about salt water.


Thomas Sales: Better call it equal and go on.


Thomas William Bird: When the hon. member is on
the sea he is on pretty solid ground. When he is on dry land he is pretty much at sea.


William Duff: My hon. friend was at sea
most of the time when last we met.


Thomas William Bird: The channel from deep water
to Nelson is anything but shallow, as has been alleged. It is a channel throughout almost its entire length 20 feet deep at low water and 33J feet deep at high water. I could almost challenge anybody in this House to find a channel of a similar character that started out with a reputation of that kind.


Mr. McTAGGART:: Is the most dangerous part of the channel not the bar which is at the lower end if it?


Thomas William Bird: No. The bar at high water
is amply protected. There is no danger at the bar at all.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Is it not a fact that ships have to remain beyond the bar for days because of being unable to pass the bar while the water is rough?


Thomas William Bird: 
William Duff: Never mind about the harbour of Lunenburg. That is a little too deep for my hon. friend.


Thomas William Bird: Not according to the estimate.


William Duff: Where does my hon. friend
get the information that the channel is 1,200 feet wide?


Thomas William Bird: I get it out of the evidence of Mr. MacLachlan given before the Senate committee.


William Duff: Let me refer to Mr. Mac-
Lachlan's evidence where he says that the channel is 300 feet wide and is just dredged to 20 feet.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member is reading
without the book there.


William Duff: I have the book in my hand.
This is MacLachlan's evidence.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member is not reading the part with regard to the channel
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


William Duff: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. I will read it again. This is Mr. MacLachlan's evidence:
We will come up to the end of the island with a 300 foot channel just dredged to 20 feet.


Thomas William Bird: That is the artificial dredging
just in front of the island. I am talking of the 22-mile channel from deep water to the port. I know there is dredging done there. It is all in the estimates.


William Duff: Is this island not outside the
port?


Thomas William Bird: It is at the port.


William Duff: Is it a 1,200 foot channel or
a 300 foot channel?


Thomas William Bird: The hon. gentleman is dealing
with the excavation made in front of the island for ships to be manoeuvred in, not the channel. I am talking about the natural channel that extends from near the port to the open sea, the river channel.


Mr. BOBICHAUD:: My hon. friend must
know that all harbours have a natural channel leading from them with any amount of water. What he wants is a harbour with sufficient accommodation for vessels. The other can be got on any sea coast.


Thomas William Bird: I know that, but I am speaking about the channel which has been the target of abuse. This is Mr. MacLachlan's evidence:
The width of the channel at the narrowest point is 1,200 feet. The first shoal near the channel is eight miles from the north shore. At that point where I said it was 1,200 feet wide, it is 30,000 feet or six miles from shore.


Harold Putnam: What was the immediate
purpose of this breakwater?


Thomas William Bird: I am not prepared to say. I
think probably it was a preliminary to the construction of the island and bridge. When the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and I were there last summer, we saw the breakwater. It is just an unsightly dump of refuse of all kinds, stones, barrels of cement, wire and everything else.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. member
profess to know whether or not a breakwater is necessary there?


Thomas William Bird: I should not imagine it would be. The engineering principles upon which the island and bridge have been constructed are supposed to obviate the necessity for a protection of that kind. So much for the misrepresentations that have been made about the channel. Not in a single instance are their allegations true; they are diametrically

Supply

Hudson Bay Railway
opposed to the truth. There is not a harbour proposition in the world that would not be proud to look on such an initial proposition as we have at Port Nedson. Mention what harbour you like of a similar character.
The opponents of this route, when driven from this position, as they easily can be by anybody who knows the facts, although it is very easy to put these things over to people who are not acquainted with the details, fall back upon the straits. That may be described as the Hindenburg line of their defence, and I believe, like its prototype, some day it will give way'- to just a little bit of British spirit and pluck because that is all that it needs to make it a highway of our Canadian commerce. The opponents of this project delight to becloud this thing with mystery. They try to persuade the public that 'little is known about the Hudson strait. There is not a similar spot on this globe that has been more investigated than the Hudson strait. I will not take up the time of the House by quoting from the innumerable traders, whaling captains and so on, who have gone through those straits for generations on errands of business and trade. Their evidence is no doubt valuable. It is corroborative, but it is fragmentary and inconclusive. Fortunately, however, we are not tied down to evidence of that kind. Right in the records of this House, in the Library of parliament, we have the accounts of threb expeditions made respectively in the years 1884, 1897, and 1910-14, well-equipped, scientific and in every respect to be followed and relied upon. These three expeditions were cumulative in their findings; what Gordon discovered Wakeham confirmed and Anderson clinched. They supported each other. The conservative findings of Gordon in 1884 were extended by the more thorough investigations of Wakeham in 1897, and Wakeham's findings were still further expanded by the persistent and dogged investigations of Anderson in the years from 1910 to 1914. So that we do not need any more evidence than is contained in the hydrographic reports during the period from 1910 to 1914; they contain nothing which any reasonable mind can reject. Mr. Cowie of Montreal has been quoted on this subject and he is a man whose opinion can be taken on a matter of this kind; a short while ago he said that the evidence could be accepted as trustworthy. And if it is not accepted, no investigation which one could ever make could be regarded as worthy of belief; some credence must be given to evidence gathered in an investigation extending over that period.


Arthur Edward Ross: Gordon was there
irom 1884 to 1886. What was his report in 1886?


Thomas William Bird: His report in that year was a
favourable one. But I am not tied down to Gordon's report of 1886; there have been more efficient investigations since that time all of which have confirmed his report and extended it.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I quote this
for the information of the hon. gentleman? In 1886 he stated: "I can now-"


Thomas William Bird: I am afraid I must confine the non. gentleman to a simple question; the .[DOT]eading of excerpts is scarcely fair to the argument. If I wanted him to read I would ask him to quote the whole report.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was going to read the report for you.


Thomas William Bird: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman but he knows how things go in debate. I have absolutely nothing to hide. It is true that little passages here and there can be quoted from the reports, apparently against the project; but we must take the evidence as a whole. Now, there was one very interesting feature in Anderson's report for the year 1913. It is shown that in 1912 the straits were open as early as the first week in June and that they remained open so late as January 8, which is a period as long as the open season of the port of Montreal. And that is what scares these people at Montreal.
I want to say just a few words on the economic phase of the question, because it has become the fashion of late to stress the economic side of every problem. Some time ago I came across a statement made by a so-called expert in the pay of the interests who are opposed to the project, contending that the Hudson Bay railway would never compete with the transcontinental lines because it would never carry the high class freight which the transcontinental lines carry, and that high class freight is always necessary to eke out the deficiencies of wheat. He used certain figures to carry his point. He said that wheat earned .516 per ton mile while high class freight, or all class freight, earned 1.037 per ton mile-twice as much. The fallacy lurks in that word "earned". Of course, all class freight earns twice as much as wheat, but the fact is that it does not bring in twice as much profit; indeed, it does not bring in as much. I quote this statement, not because of any importance

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
I attach to it but merely to show the kind of propaganda which is carried on against the Hudson Bay railway by men who are so-called experts on economic questions. It has become the policy of the interests opposed to the Hudson Bay railway to engage these so-called economic experts; every week or so you will find either an article or the report of some address by one or other of these experts, who have academic letters after their names sometimes resembling the tail of a comet. These men usually follow one procedure: They say that the Hudson Bay railway was conceived in political corruption, bom in economic ignorance and nurtured in sectional fanaticism. That is the sum and substance of their entire argument. These men are employed by the interests who day and night are working subterraneously against this project, and they will go so far as to deride the motives of the hon. members of this House. Only a day or two ago I saw in a leading article in a self-respecting newspaper the statement that the advocates of the Hudson Bay railway in this House were purely self-seekers; it was their own ambition that compelled them to bring the matter up in the House. That is the line of argument they pursue, totally disregarding the facts of the situation; it is a constant dish-ing-up of abuse against this parliament and against statesmen who have been here before us and whose repute is worthy of better things at the hands of these people. Let me now refer to a statement I came across in Canada's best newspaper, the Montreal Gazette.


John Evans: Question.


Thomas William Bird: Su*ch saereligious interruptions are improper. This newspaper some time ago carried a leading article entitled "The Hudson Bay Folly," and that title is quite indicative of the judicial spirit with which that paper usually discusses the subject. In that article it was stated that the Hudson bay route would never amount to anything because the open period of navigation did not coincide with the period of the wheat movement. The perversity of a statement of that kind is palpable to anyone who knows the facts. We know that Hudson bay and the straits and port are open for at least four months of the year, with possible conditions at either end running it up to seven months. That four months is from July 15 to November 15. Put that fact up against the fact that the period of the wheat movement in the West begins approximately on September 1, and there 'you have a period of two and a half months in which
the open period in Hudson bay and straits coincides with the period of the wheat movement. Now, two and a half months is a very small proportion of the year, but it is a big slice out of the period of the grain movement. From September 1 to December 24 last year there was moved from the head of the lakes not less than 181,000,000 bushels of wheat, not to speak of the coarser grain which would run up to some 50,000,000 bushels more. That average is a million and a half bushels a day. On that basis there is the possibility of moving to Port Nelson in the course of one season no less than 114,000,000 bushels of wheat. That is what begets all this newspaper misrepresentation, all .this lobbying against the proposition. And when the wheat gets to Port Nelson it is on the last stage of its journey. This argument of mine holds in reserve the earlier portion of the period during which no doubt a large quantity of old wheat will find its way over this route.


Neil Haman McTaggart: How do you arrive at the conclusion that the route would be open for four months of the year?


Thomas William Bird: I think I have dealt with
that. I say that the evidence is in existence to any man who will read and understand it in the records of this House of expensive expeditions which have gone out there year after year for three or four years under the guidance of scientific men. I have never yet made anything like an extravagant statement in regard to the feasibility of this project. I do not say that the route is open for seven or eight months every year, but I take my stand upon what I think is the truth of the matter, that all the evidence we have, whether of the more scientific kind or of the practical kind we get from master mariners, converges upon this basic point, that the average period of navigation is four months.
I refer again to the correspondence of Mr. M'acLachlan. After he had disposed of the navigability of the route, he rushed into the sphere of the grain exporter and tried to show that, whether the route was navigable or not, it was of no use for the exportation of wheat anyway. After he himself had been working for years on the feasibility of this route we find him sitting up nights trying to make out that it is no good, although he had been instrumental in spending six million dollars on it. In order to establish his point he assumes *-it is all assumption-that in the first place the railway will cost 40 per cent more than any other railway line, and that labour at Port Nelson will cost twice as much as anywhere


William Duff: How does my hon. friend
figure that it will cost 24 cents?


Thomas William Bird: Surely the hon. gentleman
has been following me?


William Duff: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: I am assuming the land carriage to each port is the same because the distance is practically the same, and then I am taking the most recent figures as to ocean and lake freight.


William Duff: Have you any figures from
Port Nelson to Liverpool?


Thomas William Bird: No.


William Duff: How do you figure that?


Thomas William Bird: I have not finished my argument yet. Of course, Vancouver gradually gets the advantage the farther you go west; but from Swift Current, the centre of the wheat belt, Port Nelson has an advantage of 114 cents over Montreal and 15 cents over 
Vancouver. That is the margin you have to help overcome the supposed difficulties that lie in the way of transporting wheat through Hudson bay. It is a fairly good margin.


William Duff: My hon. friend has not yet answered my question.


Thomas William Bird: It is not necessary-


William Duff: Because you cannot.


Thomas William Bird: -because it is perfectly legitimate to argue on an assumption.


William Duff: It is not; you must argue on actual conditions.


Thomas William Bird: The conclusion of my argument is this: That all things being equal-


William Duff: Oh, yes.


Thomas William Bird: Well, it is perfectly legitimate. I say you have lli cents to overcome the things that may not be equal.


William Duff: It might take 111 cents to
overcome those difficulties.


Thomas William Bird: If the hon. gentleman makes
that assertion, it is in perfect keeping with all the other assertions that are made against the Hudson bay route.


Mr. GOULD:: There is no evidence upon
which to base that assertion, either.


William Duff: There is all the evidence in
the world. There is the blockade-that is the evidence.


Thomas William Bird: So I think we may assume
that there will be a very attractive premium upon shipping in respect to grain that goes out through Port Nelson and the obstacles would have to be very great to prevent shipping going in to get that premium.
Suppose you can get the wheat to Port Nelson profitably and on time, the question is asked, will the ships go further? I do not pose as knowing much about shipping, but the general facts about sea carriage are pretty well known to everybody. I think the principle is pretty well accepted that shipping will go where it can get freight and will prefer freight at the point nearest to where it is produced. One thing that is extremely favourable to Port Nelson is the fact that it is tributary to the greatest seaway in the world, that is, the north Atlantic shipping route; it is a branch line of it. Take two ships leaving Liverpool at the same time, one bound for Port Nelson and the other for Montreal. At a certain point they will part company; one will proceed directly west to

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Port Nelson and the other will proceed southwest to Montreal, and they will arrive at their destinations at the same time. Port Nelson is as much tributary to the north Atlantic shipping route as Montreal itself. Some one will say, " But the ships going to Port Nelson will be in ballast and it takes a return cargo to make shipping profitable." But you will find that all ships that go into Montreal are not laden, some of the best shipping routes in the world have necessarily been built up on one-way trade. Bigger obstacles than that have been overcome in the world of shipping. Some of the best markets in the world are only one-way markets. The shipping companies have to overcome these things and they will overcome them if the freight is to be had.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Does my hon. friend
know what the prevailing carrying charges on grain from Fort William to Liverpool were in pre-war days?


Thomas William Bird: No, I am sorry I cannot give
the figures. I have made no special study of the costs in pre-war days.
Now, I will leave that phase of the subject and deal with something that I am a little more familiar with, that is, the economic side of the question as it affects the railway itself, altogether apart from the ocean project. I chanced to hear an explorer a year or two ago say that if a wall, were built across Hudson bay straits it would still be justifiable to complete the Hudson Bay railway because of the immense natural resources that would be opened up. Subsequently I heard a prominent railroad man say that altogether apart from ocean traffic the opening up of the Hudson Bay railroad would be of national benefit. Now this Hudson Bay railway has two strings to its bow and two very substantial ones at that, each one of which would serve the purpose.	Let
me as briefly as I can take
2 a.m. you over the case as regards natural resources, dealing with the railroad section by section. The first eighty miles of that road are already taken care of by the phenomenal development of the gold mines at Herb lake, mile 82. Let me read a recent news item with regard to that development:
The following report on the progress of the work at the Bingo Mine, Herb lake, has been cabled to the London office by the manager at the mine, and was published in the Financial Times, London, England:
"Underground development at property rapidly being pushed ahead. Altogether 767 ft. of drifting and 121 ft. of crosscutting. Shaft down 415 ft. in ore pockets. Sumps, bulkheads, timbering and stations completed on all levels, also necessary trackage laid. Free goild
visible on all drifts and crosscuts. Ore body so far approximately 70 ft. wide. Machines still working in good grade ore. Local enrichments heavy with free gold. Last 33 assays on 300 ft. and 400 ft. levels averaged $36.25. The cable adds that many new claims are being staked on new strikes in the immediate vicinity of the Bingo gold mine. The Hudson Bay railway is crowed beyond capacity. Many of the claims are being taken up by western capital. When the enow melts great activity is expected in this district, and it is probable that motor truck services on land and a steamer service on Herb lake will be instituted to handle the traffic."
The first 82 miles of the railroad are already taken care of. From that point on for the next 200 miles you have one of the choicest agricultural sections in Canada-10,000 square miles of rich clay farming land. That stretch of country beyond mile 82 where the gold mines are situated was described in the most glowing terms by the surveyors who went through there. The following is taken from a government report which is to be found in the library:
In summing up his impressions of what he designates "the gently rolling clay covered country", Mr. Wm. Mclnnes, of the Geological Survey, wrote:
"Of the whole of this extensive plateauland, extending from the valley of the Nelson river westward to near Burntwood and Wekusko lakes (west long. 99 degrees, 46 min.), northerly at least to beyond latitude 56 d., and southerly to the limestone escarpment, an area of about 10,000 sq. miles, it may be said it is characterized by a heavy clay soil entirely free from bouldera. Lacustrine clays, composed of the rock flour once held in suspension by glacial streams and deposited by them as they reached the quiet waters of a great lake, are essentially the soils of this region; there is no distinct surface soil clearly separable from the clay subsoil, the one merges gradually into the other, the clayey character of the soil being strongly apparent at the very surface where merely the shallow cover of decaying leaves and other vegetation is scraped away. Generally for from five inches to over a foot down the clay is deep brown in colour from the admixture of vegetable matter, and quite friable, and the rootlets of even the smaller surface vegetation reach down far below this level, though on the tops of many of the ridges the light buff-coloured clay, without any appreciable colouration from vegetable matter, comes to the surface. The rolling character of the plateau generally provides fair drainage, but over considerable areas in its central portion, far from the valleys of the larger streams, there are large tracts that have not sufficient gradients for the proper flow of the surface water but could be made available for agricultural uses by being artificially drained."
And further:
Mr. Mclnnes gave particular attention to the question of climate, which he rightly considered of "vital importance an connection with this region". He kept a careful record of temperatures, and from the time it was "begun on the 19th of June until the night o*f the 29th September, when the thermometer fell to 26 d., there was no frost that affected even tender vegetation. On the night of the 19th of August the temperature fell to the freezing point, but did not get low enough to do damage at least in the valley of Grassy river, though some of the potato vines on the summit of the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
high ridge north of the Pas were slightly touched". He was convinced that the "district is not at all too cold for general agricultural operations. The longer daily duration of sunlight in these high latitudes must be taken into consideration and for purposes of comparison with more southerly localities yearly averages of temperature are of no value."
And then the Rev. John McDougall, a pioneer missionary of the West, thus describes the country to the south of Split lake:
There are but two seasons there-summer and winter -each fitting into the other with little or no spring or fall. This to a large extent does away with the broken weather, which is so often experienced in the east at the changing of the seasons, and makes the conditions more favourable for settlement. The winter is steady and pdeasent, and although cold, is not nearly so severe as is generally supposed. In fact, the climate is far more moderate than in southern Manitoba, the home of "No 1 hard" wheat. The summer begins early and the growth and vegetation are almost of a tropical character. This is attributable to the longer hours of sunshine that prevail and to the proximity of streams of living waters everywhere in the district, each of which is conducive to plant nourishment.
The soil is of clay sift>-strata, with sandy loam on the surface, and, although wooded to a considerable extent, ds a far more enticing agricultural proposition than that which faced the early settlers in the bush farms of Ontario and other eastern provinces fifty years ago.
This is from a report by J. R. Dickson who investigated the natural resources of this district in 1911:
On well drained spots as far north as Split Lake the flora is almost identical with that of similar sites in the Riding Mountains of Manitoba, proving that during the growing season these localities lie under one and the same isotherm, or nearly so. Two other factors which help vegetation in this northern clay belt are the low absolute elevation-only 500 to 700 feet- and the large proportion of sunlight during the growing season because of the long day. No doubt also the large proportion of the country covered by water has a tendency to prevent late spring and early fall frosts. At Cross Lake no damaging frosts occurred between June 8 and September 11, an interval of 93 days. But as a "sixty-day" oat or barley in Ontario will mature in that region in forty-five or fifty days-a general rule which applies as well to fruits, roots and vegetables-there would appear to be no difficulty from a climatic standpoint in growing all the hardier products of the temperature zone. During the last week of July we enjoyed ripe raspberries, gooseberries, black and red currants, blackberries, saskatoons and strawberries (late ones). Certainly, vegetables will grow to perfection anywhere between Cross lake and Nelson House. At the former we ate potatoes weighing a pound and a half each, dug on the last day of August, and when we left on September 10 the corn and tomatoes were still untouched by frost. The soil is exactly similar to that around Cochrane in New Ontario, which yields such large returns under right treatment.
This is from the government's own investigator into the natural resources of this very territory I am speaking about to-night. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and myself passed through this clay belt last summer, and I am sure we can confirm everything said in these extracts that I have read

to you. That country stretching away up for about two hundred miles cannot be described as a land flowing with milk and honey, but I can assure you it has all the essentials for making it such, because a more attractive looking country one has rarely seen at any time. This clay belt reaches up to the point where the railway strikes the Nelson river. From that point onward it parallels the Nelson river very closely, and my hon. friend and myself had the experience of canoeing along that stretch of river for about one hundred miles to Port Nelson, and I am sure we will be impressed for the rest of our lives with the titanic character of the water powers of the Nelson river in that stretch. So the Hudson Bay railroad, throughout its entire length, is in close touch with realizable, tangible sources of wealth. I am not including all the rivers and lakes which stretch out on every side like a vast network, and which abound in all kinds of fish. We may say from the delectable white fish to the epicurean sturgeon they are there in great abundance. As for fur why the Hudson Bay railroad itself will have opened up one of the richest fields in the whole of Canada.
So I think the consideration of these things ought to allay forever that foolish contention that this railway runs through a country of frozen tundras and treacherous swamps, statements that we often see made right up to the present moment in responsible newspapers in this country. This railway not only passes through one of the most attractive and alluring sections of Canada, but it opens up upon that big inland sea which I believe the average Canadian has not yet begun to appreciate, the Hudson bay, whose waters not only hide an immense wealth of a marine character, but which forms a method of access to all the main points in that vast northland of which we sometimes speak so proudly but I am afraid so ignorantly. To the north of Port Nelson we have the mighty Churchill, another big river which connects up with the hinterland which is as rich in possibilities as it is vast. And away again beyond that we have other immense waterways which connect the bay with that big continent sometimes called the Barren Lands, especially the mighty Thelong river, a name which very few Canadians even know of, a river which continues into the waters of Chesterfield inlet, providing a waterway for more than five hundred miles that can be traversed by ocean going ships, leading through a country whose enticing mystery and reputed wealth ought to stir the soul of every normal Canadian.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
And it is all in black and white, in publications issued by this parliament.
It is not a very difficult thing to imagine when Port Nelson is opened out that every spring will see flotillas of trading craft penetrating up into these semi-arctic estuaries and coming back in the fall laden with the wealth with which they most assuredly abound. It is no dream. Further it can be foreseen that Port Nelson, when it is opened up, when it is made a highway for traffic, for trade, for commerce, will form an outpost, will form an avenue by which Canada and by which this parliament can get better acquainted with our northern possessions, with these mighty islands-almost resembling continents 

which are ours, which we are proud to own, and upon which we have such a shadowy but such a formal hold at the present time. The only way we can get contact with those islands at the present time is through channels that are common property to the whole world and which afford no economic advantage, or advantage of any kind, to Canada itself. I believe the time is coming when, from the point of view of national policy, we will have to open out this interior passage to our northern possessions. It is the logical route by which Canada can proceed to lay a firmer hold upon that vast northland which we are proud to call our own at the present time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word with respect to the financial side of this question, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to it. I think probably the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has already alluded to it, and others who follow me will allude to it much more capably than I can. I can assure the House that it is only a stern sense of duty that compels me to proceed at this late hour. If the House suffers, I suffer more intensely.
I want to allude to a provision in the Land Act which was on our statute books for pretty nearly a quarter of a century. It was placed on our statute books away back within sight of confederation, and was no doubt the fruits of the spirit that marked that epoch-making event. That was an age in which fortunately sectional feelings in this country, strong as they were were overridden by broad, statesmanlike vision. The little petty sectional feelings that contended against each other were sunk deep out of sight when that provision was put on our statute book, and it was on our statute book for over twenty years undisturbed, and was regarded as a sacred pledge not only by the western people but by this parliament representing every section in Canada. Indeed* it was not only so regarded
but was acted upon, and over two million acres of that land was given to a private company to build the Hudson Bay railway, and that land was being earned right up to the moment in which the Liberal government of 1908 thought fit to delete that provision. Now it is an old story to explain why the then Minister of the Interior under the Liberal government deleted that provision.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Who put it there?


Thomas William Bird: It was not placed there, I
will admit, by the then administration, but its motives and objects were abundantly approved of by them. The motive that led Mr. Oliver to delete that provision was twofold. He was anxious to introduce the policy of his party at that time with relation to land settlement, and he was also anxious to make that policy agree with the other policy of the government of that time of no grants to railways, a policy which they adopted away back in 1896. It was a very difficult thing for Mr. Oliver to try and reconcile those two things, and possibly it might be charged against him that he sacrificed this provision which safeguarded the interests of the West on the altar of party politics, and it is very hard to explain his action, apart from the political controversies of the time. They are old controversies, dead and gone, and not worth resurrecting. But there is this to be said in his favour:	No matter
what the underlying motives were, he certainly did his best to recognize the sacredness of the pledge which was couched in that provision and he went out of his way in his strenuous attempt to put something in its place that would abundantly honour that pledge. He justified himself I think to that extent. I could read to the House Mr. Oliver's speech, or part of it on that question-and there is no equivocation about it at all, thene it is-in which he recognizes the sacredness of that provision, and in which he categorically affirms that it was a right in possession of the West, a mortgage if you like, in order to lift which there must be some adequate provision made, and he set himself immediately when he had lifted the mortgage, or at the same time, to make a provision which he thought adequate. I will not trouble the House with reading his exact words, but they are on Hansard. There is no possible way of escaping them, and if further proof were necessary one only has to refer to the attitude of the opposition at that time. Their attitude at that time was this: They criticised the government, they criticised Mr. Oliver for tampering with that
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

provision, without, as they thought, making it sufficiently safe. They pointed out to him that it was his duty, not only to make the provision that he did, but to put the money derived from the sale of pre-emptions into a special fund. Sir George Foster in particular pointed out that it was necessary, in order to safeguard the rights of the West, that that should be done, but it was a matter of opinion as to the adequacy of the safeguard. Everybody at that time agreed that it was a pledge, that it was a right, only they differed as to the method in which it should be made secure. Now Mr. Oliver did not follow that suggestion and why? I think, in the first place, he was afraid of being inconsistent. It was the policy of his government not .to grant lands to railways, and no doubt he was afraid of the inconsistency of standing by that policy, and at the same time apportioning money from lands to the building of the Hudson Bay railway. But more than that, I think Mr. Oliver was motived chiefly by the thought that the Hudson Bay railway was going ahead immediately. That is the rea/-son that he did not think it worth while safeguarding that provision more than he did, and as a matter of fact the Hudson Bay railway did go ahead that very year, as the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) knows very well indeed. From the moment that was deleted from the statutes, and a substitute put in its place, the Hudson Bay 'railway went ahead with the full consent of this House, no party dissenting. The spirit of that provision was lived up to for ten years, till the year 1918. The lands were sold, the money was received, the railway was built, and the money was spent up to the year 1918, and then, the work on the railway was stopped. Why? Under the pretext of patriotic necessity. This sacred provision, this right, was set aside, not because of any difficulty in it, but because of national interests, in the year 1918.
I wish to state in a few words what my view is concerning the attitude of the West upon this question at the present time. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the West want to be unreasonable. I think they are fully apprised of the difficulty of granting large sums of money at the present time. But the western people have a certain amount of consideration coming to them in this respect. They have waited a good many years. It is now seven years since this project came to a standstill under the understanding that it was to be temporary; that it was just to await 
the time when the country would be better able to meet its financial obligations. I think that the West can legitimately look to this government for a stated promise, not that this line will be built this year or next year, but that it will be built according to a specific policy. The government has all the data at its command. Just as easily as anything can be done, it could say to the West: Our policy is to build this railway. I think they have said that. I think that is on record. But we have the right to ask that the government be more definite; that this thing be proceeded with in definite and progressive stages, so that we can see ahead of us and have some faith that the project is going to be carried out. The doubt and suspicion engendered by delay are almost intolerable. It ought not to be expected of a large body of people such as those who are demanding this that they shall beg. I urge upon the government that they will pay some respect to the earnest wish of a large section of this country that a definite pronouncement be made upon this question. In doing that, they would in my judgment. be fulfilling a three-fold purpose. I believe-and I am supported by probably 90 per cent of the people in, at least, two of the western provinces-that they would be conferring a real economic benefit upon the West at a most critical period in its experience. Moreover, they would be fulfilling a contract that was entered into almost a generation ago by this House and a more recent compact when suspension was accepted by the West in good faith that it was for national, patriotic purposes. More than that, I believe that in making a decision of this kind in which, I think, the whole House could acquiesce without putting a very great strain upon their personal predilection, and by coming out and saying:	We intend to do this thing in a
given, definite way, they would be showing an amount of good will which would go a long way towards healing the breach which has been growing between East and West for the last number of years.
Thus, there is that three-fold obligation upon this parliament-economic, moral and national. I would put the last first, because I believe the people who demand this railway, who ask for it, are patriotic Canadians. The people in my constituency, a typical Manitoba constituency, are mostly of old Ontario stock and, to a certain degree, of Quebec French-Canadian stock. These people are not hostile to Canadian unity. They are not untrue to Canadian ideals. It is because they are good Canadians that they are asking for

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
this railway. These men whose fathers helped to make Ontario what it is and to make Quebec what it is, surely are no less Canadian because they refuse to be relegated to the condition of a peasant on a Russian steppe, cut off, isolated and made tributary to interests that have established themselves a thousand miles away, interests which sometimes show themselves superior in power even to this popular assembly in which we are met to-night.
It may be difficult sometimes for our friends in the East to understand why we show so much passion upon a question of this kind out West. Why is it that we should pin our faith to a proposition like this which, on the face of it, seems to have so many difficulties? This Hudson bay route may have many formidable obstacles, but there is one obstacle that it will never have, and that is, to be controlled by interests over which the West never had much influence and over which, as the years go by, they have less and less influence. The most formidable iceberg that ever floats into the Hudson strait is not so formidable as those interests that sometimes, without shame, unabashed set themselves up in superiority to this representative House and exact toll from the hard-earned product of western soil. That is one defect from which the Hudson bay route will never suffer. When we talk about eastern opposition in the embittered way that we sometimes do, we do not mean the East as such. We have no quarrel with the rank and file that make up eastern Canada. When we meet them in the street and tell them of our grievances, they instinctively sympathize with us, because they know that our fight in its essence is their fight. I should like to have it well understood that when we speak as we do about the East, about its opposition, about its clumsy selfishness as one of our living statesmen once said, we are not talking of the man in the street because we believe and know that the man in the street is with us. It is to the man in the street that we appeal against those interests that work against us subterraneously and with all the power which their privileged position gives them.
On the one hand the government are faced, as I know they are faced, with an insidious propaganda that gets its vantage point in the editorials of our leading journals. They are faced with that flood of propaganda which, through unscrupulous misrepresentation of facts, is damning this product in the eyes of the people of eastern Canada. On the other hand, they are faced with this appeal which
is not of yesterday, but which stretches away back for a generation or more, an appeal which has never abated, which comes from the heart and soul of every man, woman and child in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is what I ask the government to listen to to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose not of answering the hon. member, but of making a suggestion. In the first instance, I have learned something to-night. I have learned that a big lobby is bn against the Hudson bay project. I have been here now some years and I have to admit that I have been singularly shortsighted; no one has ever come to me in connection with the Hudson Bay railway who has been against it although I have come across many gentlemen who have been for it. I have also learned that some sinister influence is casting its baneful shadow on this project. Well, again I have not seen that shadow and I can freely say that I have been quite free from that influence. But I can tell hon. gentlemen that there are a great number of people in Canada, some in the West and an awful lot in the East, who are of the opinion that if we put any more money into the Hudson Bay railway we are simply throwing it away. They may be all wrong and they may be all right; I do not propose to discuss the matter at this late hour on its direct merits. But I want to make a suggestion. We had a' very similar situation to this at one time in Ontario. I remember that at one time when I was a boy a great deal of interest was taken in the proposal to put Ontario on the salt seas; we were to have an ocean port and a railway to James bay, and we were going to do everything up there except grow bananas. It was taken very seriously and considerable pressure was brought to bear from time to time to secure grants and subsidies and everything else that could possibly get the line built. At that time we had not much hope of having the rest oi the country build it for us. At any rate, it could not be built under any scheme which the country as a whole would have anything to do with and finally, the agitation being so strong, Ontario was compelled to build the line itself. It has not gone up to the bay but it has gone past mile 82 where my hon. friend (Mr. Bird) tells us the railway is already provided for. It has got past that although it stops short of the bay. But it has met with success along the lines the hon. member suggests that this would be successful. Now the position here is different. The Dominion

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
as a whole has an investment of $25,000,000 in the Hudson bay property and my firm conviction is that there is no reasonable hope that this government or any other government which has the interests of the entire Dominion in its control can at the present time contemplate the completing of that railway, the establishment of services and the finishing of the terminals. When I say that I am not suggesting that there is nothing in the project, I do not want to take that position. I am simply saying that as a matter of practical business I do not believe that it either can or will be done. I dislike to see a matter which comes so near the hearts of a large number of our citizens left dangling in the air, made use of in this and that election, and doing nothing except, as I honestly believe, inspiring false hope. I want to make a suggestion in the best of faith and only because I believe that hon. gentlemen are sincere in what they say.


Mr. WARD:: The hon. gentleman says that neither this nor any other government will ever build the road. What makes him say that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am giving it. as my opinion that it will not be done, but I did not say "ever," because that is a very long time. In my opinion it will not be built in the comparatively near future or in a period of time in which my hon. friend will see useful results flowing from the. enterprise. In the belief that the people of the West really want the line and believe in it, and as the greater part of the mileage is built and the government has spent $25,000,000 upon it, I would suggest that what ought to be done would be to give the project and every cent put into it to the western provinces that want it. I would do more than that; I would give them rights in the Winnipeg terminals where they would need them to get the grain through. And I would do more than that even. The line is not in good condition; the provinces are not in any too prosperous a position at the present time, any more than the Dominion, and I would be in favour of giving a grant say of a couple of millions to the provinces and getting finished with the thing.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the hon. member advocate the return of the natural resources, on a fairly equitable basis, at the same time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That question
has nothing to do with the building of the line.
I am perfectly content to let Manitoba control her resources on anything like a basis which
[Sir Henry Drayton.1
will not only deal fairly with Manitoba but with Canada. I am perfectly content that what the Prime Minister said in the opening of the session should be implemented by action. But I do not see why la railway which is going to do all the things which it is said this railway will be able to do, running into the most fertile belt of land in Canada for a distance of 200 miles should be looked at askance; I do not see why that gift horse should be looked in the mouth because there is something else that is not done at the same time. Thiat is unreasonable. If the proposition is, as I believe its promoters think it is, one that is feasible and in their own best interests, I cannot see for the life of me why it should not go ahead and why those who are interested in it should not want to own it and own it free from all encumbrances and get all the profits that will be derived from it. That is only a suggestion, but I think it is better in the interests of the West that something should be done; the matter should not be left dangling in this way. Personally I would do anything in my power to see that the three provinces interested should get that property in such a way as to be able to operate it; having the railway they tvould have valuable connections in Winnipeg and with ready cash to go on with I would suggest that it be given over to them.


James Joseph Hughes: There is no man or woman in Canada who would not be overjoyed if it were shown that this project was feasible and practicable. The imagination can hardly realize what an advantage it would be to this country if we could ship grain and cattle through Port Nelson to Europe and bring back the products of that continent; it would be a tremendous advantage to Canada if Nelson could be brought as near to Liverpool as Montreal is. I approach this question with an open mind. I think I represent the "man on the street" to whom my hon. friend alluded. I read everything I could get on the subject. I attended the meeting to which members of parliament were invited when a delegation came from Winnipeg two or three months ago, and I was disappointed with the speeches because I thought I would hear some argument in favour of the proposition. Premier Bracken was the only man who thought those assembled there were entitled to something like an argument in favour of the project. I put this question to him: "If it can be shown that the navigation of Hudson bay and Hudson strait is commercially impracticable, would you still advise the building of the railway?" He hesitated, but finally he said: "If it can be shown

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
that the navigation is commercially impracticable, it would be a very strong argument against going on with the railway."
My knowledge of this subject has been acquired from reading the statements of men who are conversant with it. I will therefore quote from the Cruise of the Neptune. The Neptune went to Hudson bay in 1903, wintered there, and came out again in 1904; she was two summers and a winter in the bay and the strait. First and foremost let me give the description of the ship:
The Neptune, the largest and most powerful ship of the Newfoundland sealing fleet, was chartered as the most suitable vessel for the cruiser work. Tire Neptune is a stout wooden ship, built entirely of British oak, sheathed with "iron-bark'' and green-heart. Although built in 1873 she is quite sound throughout and of amazing strength. Her sides axe formed of an outer sheathing of four inches of green-heart on top of four inches of oak, covering heavy oak timbers, with an inside lining of three inches; the space between the inner and outer skins and the timbers is solidly filled with rock-salt, so that the sides of the ship are practically eighteen inches thick in all parts where a contact with the ice is expected. The bow is further reinforced by a heavy sheathing of iron plates, and inside it is backed with dead-wood, giving it a thickness of eight feet. The Neptune is of 465 tons net register, and has engines of 110 nominal horsepower. This means that the ship will carry about 800 tons of coal and cargo, and that her engines will develop about 550 indicated horsepower.
That was the kind of ship sent to the bay in 1903. To show the conditions that the ship met with I will read the description contained in the log. All navigators who have been in the bay and the strait agree that September is the month under which the most favourable conditions are found in those waters. This is what occurred on September 13 when the ship was going in the first year:
Squalls of snow delayed us until the afternoon of September 13 when we steamed westward along the north side of Digges islands.
That is at the western end of the strait and on the eastern side of the bay.
A bear was seen climbing over the cliffs, and a boat was lowered in chase, but the animal escaped. In the evening the course was changed to northward, up Fox channel. At daylight the next morning ice was met with some ten miles from Leyson point. Steaming slowly through it, Seahorse point, on Southampton island was reached at noon, and a landing was made with the launch. During the absence of the launch the ship was sent out into the ice to the northeast, in order to examine its condition. It was found to be in large cakes of heavy rafted ice, too solid to penetrate at such a late date.


Andrew Knox: Does my hon. friend know
that Southampton island is not in Hudson bay?


James Joseph Hughes: The map shows it is on the east side of the bay.


Andrew Knox: It is nowhere near the course of navigation from Nelson to Liverpool.


James Joseph Hughes: How could a ship pass into the strait without passing near Southampton island when the island ds almost in the mouth of the strait? But to proceed:
On October 10 a heavy gale blew from the westward accompanied by frequent, thick snow squalls. The anchor was raised at daylight on the morning following, when, keeping well to the southward of the shoals beyond the mouth of the inlet, we arrived safely at Fullerton at dusk that evening.
They wintered in Fullerton, a harbour on the west side of the bay. The ship left Fullerton harbour in 1904, and here is the account:
The anchor was hoisted and the moorings to the ice oast off at two o'clock on the morning of July 18 when the Neptune proceeded to break her way out of Fullerton harbour, after having been nine months there fast frozen in the ice. Little difficulty was experienced in breaking the harbour dee, when, following a pilot boat, the narrow eastern entrance was soon passed and the ship was once more free. Loose stringers of small ice extended a few miles from the shore, after which only occasional lumps were seen during the day, as the ship steamed across to Cape Kendall, and then followed the west coast of Southampton southward. The southwest point of the island was passed before midmight. This point lies well to the northward of its position on the chart, or in about 63 degrees north latitude.
The low southern shore of Southampton was followed during the night and only a few stringers of ice were met with. At four o'clock in the morning the island was lost to sight, and by noon we were steaming along the equally low shores of Coats island, wdth the small but prominent Walrus island in sight to the northward. Ice to the northward gradually forced the ship closer to the shores of Coats, where, after passing a wide bay partly filled with large, low islands, we coasted within two miles of a prominent headland about four hundred feet high which forms the northeast cape of Coats and which was named cape Prefontaine; - Beyond cape Prefontaine-
That is on Southampton island.
-the ice became more plentiful, and many large pans were met with. The ice had the appearance of being lateLy broken up, and owing to its smooth, un-ra-fted condition we judged it came from Fisher strait rather than from Fox channel to the northward. During the night this ice forced the ship southward into the channel between Coats and Mansfield, so that the western shore of the latter was reached some twenty-five miles to the south of its northern end.
Open leads in the ice were found from three to five miles from that island, and no difficulty was experienced in gaining its north end. This island of limestone is somewhat higher than Coats and Southampton, rising inland <in low broad terraces to an elevation of upwards of a hundred feet. Small patches of snow were seen under banks and along the faces of the terraces, but elsewhere the green colour showed that considerable vegetation covered the greater part of its surface.	.
Similar lanes of water, between large cakes of ice, afforded an easy passage from Mansfield to Digges islands. A great amount of ice was seen to the southward apparently completely filling the channel between



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Mansfield and the mainland. To the northward some open water occurred, but the patches became smaller and smaller as Digges was approached, and finally ceased to the eastward of these islands, the southern part of the western end of Hudson strait being completely filled with ice.


William Duff: What date was that?


James Joseph Hughes: Between July 18 and 21.
A strong southerly wind had been blowing all day, and it was hoped that it had loosened the ice along the southern shore of the strait.


Thomas William Bird: Does not the captain state
that an- ordinary unprotected steamer could have easily passed through that ice?


James Joseph Hughes: No, he does not.


Thomas William Bird: He does in my version of the report.


James Joseph Hughes: He says:
The ship was taken under the land, but without success, so that after butting through the slowly closing ice all night, we were finally tightly beset in the early morning, about three miles from the eastern Digges island. The 21st-
That was July.
-was foggy, with snow flurries in the morning and showers in the afternoon; the ice remained tight about the ship all day, and she drifted eastward with the ice, passing cape Wolstenholme, and in the evening being about five miles to the east of Erik cove. At that time considerable open water could be seen about five miles from the ship to the eastward, with a few narrow lanes in the rear, and other small openings to the northward, where the dark sky showed considerable open water beyond our view.
Persistent ramming forced the ship through about five miles of ice on the morning of the 22nd, when she was again tightly beset until the evening; at that time being about twenty-five miles to the eastward of cape Wolstenholme, this distance having been made by the drift of the ice.
The ship was drifting in the ice. Now, here is the record for certain days in September of the same year:
September 8. The weather throughout the morning had been bad, a strong northwest breeze bringing down frequent heavy, blinding showers of snow. These showers became almost continuous, and towards noon only momentary glimpses of the land were to be obtained at long intervals. The tides here are very swift, and when the sky cleared a strong ice-glint was to be seen ahead. It was considered dangerous to attempt to enter the ice in such weather, with the unknown Mill islands directly in the course; we therefore turned back to pass south of Nottingham island. This decision proved wise, for next day the whole mouth of Fox channel was found completely filled with heavy ice drifted south from the northern parts of the channel. The condition of the Neptune's stem did not warrant any contact with the ice that could possibly be avoided.
That was in September, the very ibest month of the year in those waters. Then, on the 13th of September:
Having rounded Salisbury and Nottingham during the night, ice was met with at nine in the morning, twenty-five miles to the westward of the last-men-
tioned island. The course was changed to south of west to skirt the edge of this great pack, and as it continued unbroken to the westward, the idea of passing through Fischer strait was abandoned, and the course was laid to the southward of Coats island. The passage was encumbered by ice until dark, when the ship lay-to awaiting daylight.
There are one or two other extracts I should like to read:
The homeward voyage from Fullerton to Port Bur-well was made in fine weather, and the only incident requiring mention was that the ice from Fox channel had advanced southward and westward nearly twenty miles since we last saw it. This necssitated our keeping close to Mansefield island.
I shall not take the time to read any further extracts from that report but I would commend a reading of it to any one who wants to get a fair knowledge of the conditions in the Hudson bay and straits. Surely it cannot be contended that that report is biased.


William Duff: By whom is the report made?


James Joseph Hughes: A. P. Low, commander
and geologist, under Captain Bartlett. I heard my hon. friend say when he was speaking that Captain Anderson had given a favourable report on this project. I have read Captain ' Anderson's evidence before the Senate committee and it is just the reverse; Captain Anderson has made a report against the project as a commercial proposition. I want to read a few extracts from the comments of a man whom I consider to be one of the most experienced master mariners, one of the mos+ experienced men in ice navigation in Canada or perhaps in the civilized world. I refer to Captain Read of the steamer
3 a.m. Prince Edward. He was three seasons in Hudson bay and Hudson straits. He has been two or three seasons in the Baltic and in the White Sea. He took three ice-breaking ships out to Archangel, and he has had twelve or fifteen years' experience in the navigation of Northumberland straits. He has no interest in this matter; he would be only too delighted, I am sure, if he could report that this project was feasible; that by this means we could give depth as well as breadth to our country. There is nothing, as I have already stated, that the imagination can very well conceive as being more beneficial to Canada than such a project as this if it could be proved to be practicable. I have a long report here written by Captain Read, and I may say I compared it with the captain's diary and the log of the ship. He goes into the matter very fully, and of course I cannot read it all; I must hurry along. He says:

Supply[DOT]-Hudson Bay Railway
It will be asked why a specially constructed ship for ice navigation could not be used to carry wheat from Port Nelson to Liverpool. The answer is 6he must be very strong and compact, closely framed and heavily plated, with a well curved side to withstand the tremendous side pressure exerted by rafting ice. This means that she cannot be very long, for if she was it would be impossible to manoeuvre her in field ice; then she must be powerful enough to force her way through heavy ice when in danger of being pushed ashore or crushed between two different floes coming together. This means she will have to be equipped with powerful engines. They in turn require lots of steam, which must be furnished by many large boilers and lots of fuel. It follows that when we have large engine rooms, large stoke holds and large bunkers, there is very little room left for cargo. This is no supposition on my part, but an actual fact as we know from personal experience; for when we went to the Hudson bay with the Earl Grey to meet His Excellency the Governor General in 1910 we filled all our bunkers the last thing before leaving and even took coal in bags on her deck after filling all the cargo space, and still we had to proceed under part of our boilers only to make the coal last till we got back to Sydney. When we went to the Hudson bay in the Minto the department had to send coal there in the Aranmore to rebunker us for the trip back, and when I took the same " specially constructed ship " to Archangel, Russia in 1915-16 -we filled every available foot of space with coal, even to taking some in bags on top of the house, and still we did not have enough to take us in, and it is no further than from Nelson to Liverpool.
Any who pin their faith on the " specially constructed ship idea " are fooling themselves in more ways than one.
First, the cost per ton to build one of these ships is so much higher than for the ordinary freighter which plys between, say, Montreal and Europe.
Then there is the food and wages, interest, upkeep, depreciation, and insurance which all go towards making up the operating expenses and are greater in proportion than the first cost, for they are all based on the power and value of the ship and not on the amount she will carry, and the less she carries the more per bushel she will have to get as freight to make ends meet.
Then he gives a resume of the period of navigation that the different captains have given.
Bernier gave the opening date as June 22, Wakeham as June 29, Webb as July 23, and Bartlett, Keen and Anderson as July 28; whereas in the years 1914 and 1915, August 15, was the earliest it was safe for ordinary freight steamers, and on July 30, 1914. Anderson in the Acadia was still forty miles out of Cape Chidley the eastern most part of the strait, in heavy ice and did not get to Burwell till August 20 and there was still heavy ice in the strait at that late date. Suppose for example a freighter sailed from England expecting to get into the bay on the date set by Bernier (June 22), and could not get in till the dates set by Bartlett, Keen and Anderson, namely, July 28, it would mean that he would be delayed at the entrance of the strait for five weeks, and if it was in the years 1914, and 1915 he would have been hung up for seven weeks before it would have been safe or even possible for him to get in. Next let us take the closing dates. Captain Webb gives October 15, Commander Wakeham, October 21, and Keen, Anderson and Bernier October 30.
Here is an incident which Captain Read narrates:
294i
On August 5, 1914 at Stupart bay on the south side of Hudson strait, the Bonaventure had followed us in the day before, and the ice caught her and was pushing her on the rocks. Capt. Gross sent me a call for help and had I not responded immediately with one of the best icebreakers ever built, it would only have been a matter of about an hour before the Bonaventure would have been a shapeless mass of scrap iron for as it was we only broke the pan in the nick of time and this was not the only S.O.S. call I had to respond to while in the Hudson straits on account of ice.
There is more here. Engineer MacLachlan, whose report I think most people have read condemns the project altogether. He was for four or five years engineer in charge of the work at Port Nelson. He knew that the chief engineer, Mr. Bowden, was very much it favour of this enterprise, and he did not like to condemn it for that reason but finally he condemned it as being impracticable.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Is my hon. friend reading from the report prepared by Mr. MacLachlan and sent to Ottawa, or is he quoting from his evidence under oath before the Senate committee?


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. MacLachlan's evidence under oath before the Senate committee i not favourable to the project. I have it here and only wish I had time to read it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Has the hon. membei
in his possession the chart made by Engineej MacLachlan showing the different position; day 'by day? I understand that is in the Department of Railways and Canals; also the reason given by Mr. Hazen, the first engineei sent up there, for coming out from the bay.


James Joseph Hughes: I have Mr. MacLachlan's
report here, and I think most people are familiar with it. I will just read two or three paragraphs:
Many a time during the last four years I have been on the verge of coming out in absolute condemnation of the undertaking on which I am engaged, but so long as I thought there was a chance of the Hudson Bay railway ever proving of value for any national purpose, I thought that I had better not do so, especially as I knew that you have always been one of its staunchest supporters.
That was written to his chief at Ottawa, Mr. Bowden.


Neil Haman McTaggart: That is not in the
evidence given under oath?


James Joseph Hughes: No, but this is his state
ment and I suppose he is a reputable man.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I happen to have known Mr. MacLachlan for years; I remember wheri we used to room together. Mr. MacLachlan, I think, is a gold medalist of McGill who was sent up to the Hudson bay to succeed Mr. COMMONS
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Hazen who came out, I am informed, thinking the proposition was not feasible. Every person who knows Mr. MacLachlan knows he is one of the best engineers in Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: Now I will continue the
quotation from Mr. MacLachlan's report:
In the Light of the ice conditions of this year, which I observed carefully on August 13, 29, and September 3, in the entrance to Port Nelson, and the operation of our ships to and from Port Nelson for the past five seasons, I have come to the conclusion that the season for tramp steamships on this route is going to be so short that the cost of doing every item of work in the handling and transporting of merchandise is go-ing to be so great that the route is not going to be able to compete with the lake route to Georgian Day and rail to Montreal.


Thomas William Bird: Can the hon. gentleman find
anything in the correspondence to substantiate this statement?


James Joseph Hughes: This is the correspondence.


Thomas William Bird: Has he any ground for this
statement that he makes?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, he has already given
the ground. This is the summing up.


Thomas William Bird: There is no ground at all.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It was the result of his
own personal investigations.


Thomas William Bird: He talks about the ice conditions. Quote something which will substantiate what he says about ice conditions.


James Joseph Hughes: I quoted from the log of
the ship Neptune which was in those waters for two years.


Thomas William Bird: It was never sent in to investigate the straits at all. The hon. gentleman's remarks about the Neptune are beside the mark because the Neptune never was sent up to investigate.


James Joseph Hughes: "Convince a man against
his will and he's of the same opinion still".


Thomas William Bird: I simply ask the hon. gentleman to quote from the MacLachlan report, grounds for the statements which he makes.


James Joseph Hughes: I have not the time. My hon. friend or anybody else can read Mr. MacLachlan's report.


Thomas William Bird: They are not there, he just
makes a bald statement.


James Joseph Hughes: Let me continue:
Port Nelson *was this year blocked with ice on August 29.


Thomas William Bird: I think that statement has been sufficiently answered to-night. fMr. Martell.]


James Joseph Hughes: And there was still ice around the harbour entrance on September 6, proof of which I enclose.
These are quotations from Mr. MacLachlan's report.


Thomas William Bird: What hon. gentleman believes
it? The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and I were up there at the end of September and there was no ice there then.


William Duff: You must have been snow
blind.


James Joseph Hughes: To continue from the MacLachlan report:
The Shebe altered her course twice on the 12th September, to avoid ice within one hundred and fifty miles of Port Nelson. Though this year is extremely late as regards ice, yet it is quite usual to meet ice in the vicinity of cape Tatman until September. The extreme season will count in a commercial route. I also feel that we cannot extend the latter end of the season 'beyond a date on which our ships have been leaving in recent years, which means that the 15th, of October will terminate commercial navigation, unless aeroplane reconnaissance of the Fox channel ice floes brings to light something now unknown.
Assuming for argument as long a season as can be hoped for, namely, two months between arrival of the first ship at Port Nelson and departure of the last ship, I find that the Hudson Bay railway route could not offer a greater rate to tramp steamers to come to Port Nelson than would be required to induce them to go to .Montreal, and I feel that under equal rates the tramp steamer will prefer to go to Montreal rather than to Port Nelson when sailing to or from a European port.
Then Mr: MacLachlan goes on and gives quite a number of statistics to establish his statement. But I have something else here. I have a report from a gentleman that the Winnipeg people well know. It is a report by W. Nelson Smith, M.E., M.E.I.C., F.R.S.A. consulting electrical engineer to the Winnipeg Electrical Railway Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba. I do not know this gentleman but his article is published in the Engineering Journal. He gives several calculations; he appears to have gone into the project very thoroughly and he condemns it as being impracticable. This is not a prejudiced eastern man at all events.
I regret that I have not been able to go more fully into the information I have before me but as the night is so far advanced I will refrain from doing so. I have read statements somewhat in favour of this project. I have read statements of novelists of repute. Agnes Laut, for instance, wrote in favour of it. Other prolific writers have favoured the scheme, but I cannot imagine they had any experience or knowledge that would enable them to write on a subject of this kind. Personally I would not be opposed to the project

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
if I thought it was practicable or feasible. If I thought any reasonable part of the revenue of the Dominion would be sufficient to build and maintain a harbour at Port Nelson and make it a commercial possibility, I would favour it.
I listened with some attention to the remark made by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who would be willing to give the railway that has been already built, the money that has been expended at Port Nelson, and perhaps a large subsidy as well, to the people of western Canada or to any company in the world that would undertake this project. That offer should be sufficient to induce a company of business men or a corporation to undertake an enterprise of this kind, if they thought they could carry it out. I feel much as the ex-Minister of Finance does, that our friends and fellow countrymen-many of them in Manitoba and perhaps in Saskatchewan as well-are sincere in thinking that this is a feasible proposition. I do not know whether this would appeal to the government or not, but I would suggest that the government invite tenders, asking the tenderers what subsidy per bushel they would take to carry grain from Port Nelson or Fort Churchill to Europe, the subsidy to be paid when and as the grain would be delivered in Europe, and the unsuccessful tenderers to complete the railway to Nelson or Churchill, build their own terminals and elevators and provide their own ships. That would mean to give them all that has been expended; ask them for fenders, and give ainy subsidy that they would be willing to take, say for fifty years even, to carry the grain over the route, the subsidy to be paid as and when the grain would be delivered in Europe. If the proposition were feasible there would be business men in Canada who would undertake it. I do not think the government would get anybody to undertake it even if they offered a subsidy of twenty cents a bushel. With fifteen million bushels going out that would mean three million dollars a year. Such a proposition would be one way of testing the opinion held in regard to this route by business men shipowners and capitalists. If there is any way of meeting the wishes of our western friends beyond spending money that would be absolutely thrown away, I would be glad to entertain it. Mr. W. Nelson Smith, who writes this article presents a proposition-


Thomas William Bird: Is the hon. gentleman aware
that the author of that article is an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway?


James Joseph Hughes: I did not know that.


Lewis Herbert Martell: How would that affecl
his judgment?


Thomas William Bird: I think probably it might.


James Joseph Hughes: He recommends that before any more money is expended on this project a committee should be appointed to examine into the question thoroughly and report to the government.
It is suggested that the commission should be composed of one each of the following experts: Chairman and chief engineer; railroad construction engineer; railroad operating superintendent; harbour engineer; naval architect; shipbuilder; sea captain; ice pilot; air service expert; grain elevator engineer; grain merchant; steamship operator; statistician; one first-class business man of affairs like a banker or a manufacturer; also three farmers who are not politicians or office holders, one to keep in touch with each of the railroad, steamship and grain interests in particular.
That is the recommendation which he makes.


George Perry Graham: We would have to get the Neptune to take them up there.


James Joseph Hughes: At all events all the experienced opinions that I have been able to read upon the subject are to the same effect, that it is impracticable.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Did you read the report of the Senate committee?


James Joseph Hughes: I did.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Is that not favourable?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. but that report is
not borne out or justified by the evidence given before the committee.


John Evans: Who says so?


James Joseph Hughes: I say so. Any person of
intelligence who reads the evidence will come to that conclusion. If my hon. friend will say, afteir reading the evidence that it will justify the report, I will be very much surprised.


Thomas William Bird: Does he say the Wakeham
report is not in favour of it?


James Joseph Hughes: I have not read it.


Thomas William Bird: Is the Anderson report in favour of it?


James Joseph Hughes: That report is not in favour of it, and its evidence is strongly unfavourable to it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mention has been made to-night of the different reports regarding the Hudson bay route. The hon.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) who spoke to such length on this question referred to these reports. The Anderson and Wakeham reports have been spoken of. Mr. Anderson in his report says:
The season of 1912 was a particularly open season. What Commander Gordon found in three years' experience up there is much the same as I would say.
That is the report which was mentioned. Then we come to the Wakeham report. Wake-ham was sent up to inspect the Hudson straits and the whole tenor of the Wakeham report [DOT] is in support of what Commander Gordon stated. Commander Gordon was reported by hon. gentlemen as being favourable to this route, and I am only going to read a summary of the report as given by Mr. Gordon with which Mr. Anderson and Mr. Wakeham and Mr. MaoLachlan agree. After three years in the Hudson bay straits, 1884, 1885 and 1886, Commander Gordon said:
I consider that the estuary of the Nelson river is one of the most dangerous places in the world for shipping to go to. At the outer anchorage the sea in a north-east gale breaks from the bottom, and the captains of the Hudson's Bay ships, if the barometer is falling and the weather threatening, will go to sea in the afternoon and lie off until the weather clears again.
And he repeats further:
I can only repeat my previously expressed opinion, that the Nelson river is no port, nor would the expenditure of any amount of money make it a desirable place for ships.
I asked the hon. gentleman when he referred to the 1884 report, why he did not quote the 1886 report.


Thomas William Bird: Will the hon. gentleman explain why his party, when it was in power, acted on these reports and spent all these millions of dollars in developing Port Nelson?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not responsible for what my party did. I was not in the House at the time. I have opposed this vote when part of my party was in favour of it. I am giving the report as given by these three men who have studied the situation. I have nothing to say against the Hudson Bay railway; it may be very useful; I have no objection to its being built; but after reading all these reports, I can come to no other conclusion than that it would be a waste of a large imount of money to go on and make the Hudson Bay scheme a scheme of navigation and ;ransportation.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, the physical features of this project have been pretty well gone over; but there is another side to it, mostly political. I think

it was away back some time in 1891 or 1892 when I was reading a western newspaper, I came across a cartoon. Sir Charles Tupper was dressed in engineering garb and he had one of the old type engines with an immense smokestack labelled "Hudson Bay railway." Along came Mr. Osier and he asked him: "Well Sir Charles, what do you expect to carry over this road?" "Oh, my dear sir, the province; the province, my dear sir." This project has been made a political football ever since I can remember. In the year 1911 a very curious thing happened. At that time an appeal was made to the country particularly on reciprocity. Two things that the West very much wanted were reciprocity and the Hudson Bay railway. The Conservative party promised the Hudson Bay railway and the Liberal party promised reciprocity, but prior to the present time the West has had neither reciprocity nor the Hudson Bay railway.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Was it through the
fault of the Liberal party that they did not get reciprocity? They sacrificed the Liberal party for it.


John Evans: Have I misstated a fact?


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member has
not misstated a fact, but by innuendo he is trying to make out that the Liberal party were not sincere although they sacrificed their all to get reciprocity.


John Evans: My hon. friend can put his
own interpretation upon it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is not the hon. member's interpretation.


John Evans: This is not a case of party
politics. This is a case of East against West.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: Hon. gentlemen may laugh
at that, but that is the belief in the West to-day. It is not a case of even expenditure or economy. The grade has been completed to the bay, and the time to question the feasibility of the project is now long past. Moreover, as regards the last pre-emption grant made in western Canada, the money was ear-marked for that purpose and enough of that should be left available yet to finish the whole project. If the road had been constructed to the bay when it was under con-sruction, it would have taken some millions of dollars less to do the work; to-day the agriculturists of Canada would be satisfied

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
that the work was either feasible or not, and our produce would be going over that road and finding the nearest route to the European market.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Does the hon. member believe the government should force collection of the unpaid pre-emptions in order that this road might be completed?


John Evans: I do not know that that is
relevant to the question, but in any event the money will be available at some time. The time has come when this work must be completed. In all the towns, villages and cities throughout western Canada an organization has sprung up known as "On to the bay". Association. This organization comprises men of all shades of political opinion, belonging to all vocations and professions in western Canada. They believe that the East must now recognise the claims of the West. Too long have the eastern cities, with their dominant representation in this House, held that part of Canada under tribute to themselves. When I say "under tribute", I use those words in exactly their full meaning.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member had
better explain that a little more fully.


John Evans: The West has been subject
to eastern Canada in all that it has ever needed, and no people on the face of the earth engaged in agriculture have had to pay such high rates of interest, high prices for all the commodities they need as well as high freight rates on everything they have to ship out. The situation in western Canada has been carefully studied and anything calculated to make us independent of the East has been ieft undeveloped. The great transcontinental lines were built because of the mistaken idea that the trade of this country was to run east and west. By that it was meant that it should go through Montreal. The transcontinental lines now in the hands of the government with their yearly deficit are a standing monument to that selfishness. The defeat of reciprocity in 1911 gave a fillip to the East-and-West idea. In 1915, another transcontinental line was opened for traffic, notwithstanding the fact that two were already in operation. This is the reason that to-day we are faced with such railway deficits as we have, and yet we have no means of economically getting the produce of western Canada to the markets of the world. Agriculture in the West is being stifled to death because it cannot pay the freight charges that are called for.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) put forward a project that this government should give to the West this line with all that pertains to it and a grant so that they might finish it themselves and be responsible for it and to do as they liked with it. There are many things to consider before the West would accept that. Shall we have our natural resources along with it on equitable terms with the rest of the provinces? Will any man in this House undertake to say what use a railway would be there, isolated in the northern part of Canada, without the whole system of the Canadian National Railways to feed it? Shall we have control over the feeding lines throughout the three western provinces for that purpose? It would be rendered useless in less than one season with two hostile systems working against us. Is this a fair proposition for the people of Canada to undertake at this time? That is the question. Let us look at that great inland sea and consider its peculiarities. Practically all the arguments used against the feasibility of navigating that sea might very well be advanced against the St. Lawrence.


William Duff: Not at all; there is no comparison between the two.


John Evans: In all the reports that I have read, not one of the navigators of the northern route has ever stressed the effects of fog there.


William Duff: I am in a position to state
authoritatively that there is not one day in the year when there is not running ice in the Hudson straits. Does the same thing happen in the St. Lawrence?


John Evans: I have read the Senate
report and a good many other reports as well and I do not think that the hon. gentleman's opinion is based on solid facts.


William Duff: I have been there at cape
Chidley and I have seen ice in the straits at all times. Furthermore, I have talked with master mariners who have navigated those waters and they tell me that they have seen ice running there every day.


John Evans: This bay was discovered in
1610 by Captain Hudson and it was pretty thoroughly explored in 1612 by Captain Button who wintered at Port Nelson that year. Since that time 750 vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company have gone in and out through those straits and in all that time only two ships have been lost.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


William Duff: How long does it take them
to get in and out?


John Evans: Some of them have left at any time of the year they wanted to. They have gone in and out during the last 250 years and have done the business of the company in that northern part of Canada; and surely when they can make 800 voyages without mishap we should regard that fact as good evidence as to the navigability of the straits. Some of the reports which have been, quoted here this evening have not been controverted. If this House has any fear that the bay and straits are not navigable I have a suggestion to offer which I think provides the only reasonable and logical way of putting the question to the test, notwithstanding what the hon. member for King's, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) and the ex-Minster of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) have said. Before the road is completed let us announce to the trade of the world that upon its completion the railway ports of Hudson bay will all be made free trade ports. Surely even the greatest protectionists who are opposing this road at the present time would raise no objections to that proposal seeing that they are so thoroughly convinced that no ships can go in and out of these waters. I venture the prophecy that if this is done there will be no need for this government to expend one dollar on any extra or special craft for the navigation of these waters; all that we would have to do would be to construct lighthouses and give to navigation the ordinary aids which would be provided on any other navigable route.
The first thing we have to do is to construct the railway, and this can be accomplished very largely during this very season. And it is the duty of this government to take steps towards that end. If the people of western Canada are unreasonable in their demands, who is to blame supposing that it is not shown on solid fact that this road is feasible? Who have given them the idea during the last forty years but the politicians of eastern Canada? But the thing is feasible. The testimony of the navigators who have taken the ships in and out of these waters during the last 250 years is unquestionable and these men are not mistaken. I say that it would be a crying shame and a reproach to the government of this country if this project were left in abeyance for any indefinite time or even for another year. Last year we thought this government had again professed its faith in the project in the vote of $350,000 which was passed for the purpose of putting into running order that portion ,
of the road which had been left to fall into a state of disrepair. But the work was not proceeded with as early as it might have been; it was late -in the summer when the men got down to work.


George Perry Graham: It could not be proceeded with until after the vote had gone through, and that was late.


John Evans: There was nothing done until August 10.


George Perry Graham: That was not long after the vote had passed.


John Evans: Some 48,000 ties were laid last year and some surfacing and brushing were done. Now, the West has a right to this railway. The last pre-emption grant was to provide for this project; money was set aside for the purpose of constructing the road and the people of the West have every right to expect the completion of the undertaking without any further delay.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine related to me that on one occasion, Monseigneur Laflamme, an eminent professor of Laval University, Quebec, opened his speech in the following manner:
I intend to show you that the laying of the transatlantic cable is possible,-and the task is greatly facilitated by the fact that it is already accomplished,-and in demonstrating the practicability of the scheme, I shall bring to bear evidence as satisfactory and convictions as strong as inspired me when I endeavoured to disprove its feasibility.
All great enterprises as regards development have had their opponents and critics. Competent engineers, renowned explorers, and after them distinguished men opposed, with the same spirit, with as convincing arguments and as pessimistic reports-MacLachlan type -the Canadian Pacific Railway project as those which are advanced, to-day, by the opponents of the Hudson Bay Railway.
It would be interesting to ask, to-day, for the production of these official documents containing adverse opinions in regard to the proposed construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We would find in these documents reports of the nature of the MacLachlan one on the Hudson bay. We would wade through speeches of eminent men who have gone so far as to say that " the revenues of the Canadian Pacific would not even suffice to pay for the greasing of its wheels." In spite of this opposition, the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and now is an object of pride to Canada.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
I had prepared quite a number of notes so as to try and satisfy my friends from the East of the advantage which our country would derive from the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway and its practicability. However, this question having cropped up at such a late hour of the session, I find myself obliged to curtail my treatment of the subject and limit my observations to the general outline of the scheme.
Hudson bay is a vast inland sea, measuring 1,000 miles in length and varying in width between 400 and 600 miles. Its depth varies between 70 and 150 fathoms. It has an outlet on the Atlantic ocean through a strait measuring 35 miles at its narrowest width, the depth of which varies between 150 and 300 fathoms.
For more than two centuries, the vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company have navigated these waters bringing from Europe the necessary provisions for the inhabitants of the north and carrying back the inexhaustible treasures of furs which abound in the tributary country of the immense bay. More than eight hundred vessels have entered Hudson bay, and two only of this number have been wrecked. Is this not an eloquent refutation to the statement of those who contend that navigation on the strait and the bay is so dangerous that companies will refuse to insure the ships and the cargoes which they carry on this route? Is there another route in the world where, during the same lapse of time, we have had to register such a low percentage of loss?
The supremacy over this route of which depended the freedom of the fur trade gave rise to bloody battles and homeric combats between the two great races of this country. This is a further historical fact which tends to show that already at a time when navigation had not as an auxiliary, aeroplanes, hydroplanes, lighthouses, wireless telegraphy and other modern aids, navigators were unanimous in recognizing that this route was possible, useful and advantageous. With greater force must we admit that with the progress of nautical science, we are well advised to contend for the establishment of this trade route. Another argument in favour of this route is indeed to be found in the opposition which it encounters. Where does this opposition originate?
It has its source among those who benefit or at least expect to benefit later on from the carrying of western products. It comes from these people who transport our grain, our cattle and our other products; from
those who handle or get a living from this trade. It also arises from persons who plan new enterprises whose maintenance will depend on the traffic of our products. It is the loss of a present or future profit which stirs them to oppose the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. They have dragged in their wake those who, for trade or other reasons are subject to their influence. They contend that the bay and the strait are not navigable and that the grain will never be sent by that route. Why then do they fear competition? We are fully within our rights in doubting of their sincerity. Is there, indeed, one avowed opponent of the Hudson Bay railway who is not at the same time the advocate of another route? Has not even the change of mind of the engineer Mae-Lachlan been followed by a recommendation in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme? Again do I state that the interests of parties in this opposition are clearly shown.
To pass a sound judgment on the chances of success of this route, recourse must be had to information supplied by explorers of this region. Such procedure was followed by the Upper House, in 1920, and the conclusion which was arrived at by the special committee of the Senate was favourable to the completion of the railway. The committee's inquiry covered a very long period, and herewith are some of its conclusions:
1.	That the establishment of the Hudson Bay route is possible and wilt eventually become profitable.
2.	That the navigable season, under the present conditions, extends over at least^ four months each year and that it may be considerably lengthened if we make greater use of aids to navigation.
Without further quoting from the report, I must state that the opponents to the scheme do not accept this latter conclusion. In support of their contention, they bring forth the evidence of certain navigators whose ships were held up by ice floes or storms in the strait. I do not wish to contradict the truth of their statements. But I do hold that their way of arguing does not rest on sound principles. They draw a general conclusion from a particular case. Were we to judge of the climate of Canada by the temperature which Ottawa has experienced of late, we would falsely conclude that summer does not exist in our country. Nothing, ten days ago, gave us an idea of the intense heat of these last days. This is an exceptional year, and it is only by looking over the temperatures of a given number of years that we can form an exact opinion.
This was the way that the length of the season of navigation in the Hudson bay and strait was determined. Those who have visited

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
these places during many years agree in the statement that this season is about four months. According to an average established by observation covering a period of seventy years, from 1824 to 1894, there is open water from June 19, to November 8.
Here is what Dr. Bell, a famous explorer who has made a thorough study of the question, reports:
The Hudson bay is free from ice during the whole year. Navigation between the bay and the ocean can nn'y be carried on without interference during four or five months of the year. However, it is exactly at a time when the greatest part of the wheat can be transported to Europe.
I do not think that I am committing an indiscretion by repeating in substance what one day was told to me by Monseigneur Charlebois, bishop of Keewatin. His opinion rests on a long personal experience and on the reports of his missionaries. It is as follows:
There exists no doubt that the water route of the Hudson bay and strait is practicable, and it will to a great extent help toward tihe development of our agricultural and mining resources; it will facilitate the development of our fineries and be of great advantage to our grain growers and cattle breeders.
If I had the time, I could cite numerous extracts and invoke the evidence of Dr. Low, Mr. O'Sullivan, Capt. Anderson, Capt Webb, Mr. Harling, Mr. Herbert Saunders, Capt. Wakeham, Capt. Bartlett, Capt. Kean. Mr. Stefansson, Capt. Freakley, the Rev. W. G. Walton, Corporal Nain, Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, Capt. Bernier and many others whose opinions are certainly worth that of Mr. Mac-Lachlan, who never ventured any further than Churchill, and who had a lonesome sojourn of a few years at Port Nelson. All these gentlemen are acquainted with the conditions of the Hudson bay and strait. Some of them have navigated these waters or lived there for the last thirty years. 'Others have made numerous trips, the country thereby profiting by the knowledge and experience and they, themselves, winning world renown.
It is the reports of these famous and earnest men that have decided our statesmen to undertake the establishment of the Hudson bay trade route. Shall the labours of these men be in vain? Shall the explorations of our hardy navigators remain without practical results?
The railway is almost completed to Port Nelson. The grading is finished, and all that remains to be done is the laying of the rails and the ballasting of the road over a distance .
of about one hundred miles. Are we going to lose the money already spent? If my information is correct, an additional expenditure of some $20,000,000 would be sufficient to open up this commercial market of the West. The benefits derived by the western population during a year only would cover the cost of all that remains to be expended.
Transportation of grain by way of Hudson bay woud be advantageous. That is evident, for the rates on freight are much lower than those of railways and the distance by railway to the shipping port on the Hudson bay would be much shorter than the present distance. Moreover, the transportation of cattle would be benefited in a still larger degree. It is a known fact, to-day, that cattle transported by railway lose much weight, while cattle transported by ^hip fatten and gain in weight.
Mr. Stefansson, whose name is well known suggests that we should raise reindeers in what explorers have designated wrongly as barren lands, since there grows an abundance ot grass essentially adapted to the feeding of cattle. The reindeer is one of the most useful animals. Man feeds on its flesh and milk, he clothes himself with its skin and hide, he utilizes its antlers and tendons. Man also makes use of the reindeer as a draught-animal. This suggestion alone of Mr. Stefansson, if it contributed to stock with reindeers these barren lands where they would furnish their quota of wealth, would be sufficient to immortalize its author.
The completion of the Hudson Bay railway would give a new start to the development of the mines in that region. The mineral deposits which are found in those parts are probably the richest and the most extensive in the country. We first come across, in the Hudson bay, the coal mines of the Belcher islands, and iron deposits which are responsible for the deviation of the magnetic needle. To the east of the bay, in Ungava, silver ore is found, and to the north of the Pas, a mineral belt of untold richness comprising, gold, platinum, copper, silver, molybdenite, iron and lead. To the west near Schiste lake, lies the greatest mass of copper of the whole world:	the Flin-Flon mine, the
development of which has been retarded owing to the want of communications.
Then we have, in the centre, the new gold fields of Elbow lake which are at present attracting from all corners of the earth those who have the thirst of gold. The development initiated on the Webb, Hammerston and Murray properties have recently uncovered mineralized masses of a great richness, and only a few days ago platinum was dis-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
covered. More to the east at the small and large Herb lakes, are to be found the Bingo and Rex gold mines which have already given fair profits and there are other valuable properties; then, further towards the east are to be found silver, lead, molybdenite and iron deposits. After ail this vast mining region only awaits better railway communication to develop and it promises to be for Canada a source of considerable revenue. One of our colleagues, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) assured me of late that, for the last two years, the engineers in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway were going over that region with the evident intention of linking the copper mines of Schiste lake and the gold mines of Elbow lake with some point on their main line.
The establishment of important fisheries would result from the completion of this railway line. Travellers and people who inhabit the country tell us that fish abound in the lakes and rivers tributary to the bay and strait, and also in these latter. Their flesh is excellent, and the establishing of the ocean route would ensure its transportation to the United States and the European markets. Briefly, the wealth of those regions is inexhaustible, and only awaits the completion of this railway to pass into the hands of the hardy worker. The progress of half the country which would necessarily follow on the establishment of this route would in no way hinder the progress of the east, and I should have liked to prove it, but this proof has already been given, and I wish to be as brief as possible.
It was often stated: What would become of the ships remaining idle during seven or eight months of the year? What would become of their crew?	.
Allow me to make a suggestion. Would it not be possible to rent them under contract to a government of a country whose products are exported during our winter? I wish the government would look into this matter. There would lie, I think, the answer to the most serious objection that has been brought to bear against the establishment of this water route. It is true that even without such a
contract, the establishment of this route would
still be desirable, seeing that most of the transportation companies in Canada draw at least two-thirds of their revenue during the period of shipment of grain from the west, however, a treaty concluded with a foreign country in order to keep our ships in operation during our winter, would be, I think, to the benefit of our country, and also to the advantage of the country with which the treaty would be concluded.
Canada must be united not only by the love of one's country, the same institutions and the same flag, but also and especially by the spirit of justice, in the equal treatment of all its citizens. The hardships which prevail in the West have their sad sequel in the East. Let us call a halt to our fratricide interprovincial strife and let us labour for the happiness of all. Shall the eastern provinces deny to their three western sisters these $20,000,000 so necessary to the progress and development of the latter. I appeal to this great race which inhabit the banks of the St. Lawrence and which has left throughout the centuries, as far back as Clovis, an epopee filled with heroic and generous deeds;
I appeal to my compatriots of Ontario, descendants of those people who through their courage and resourcefulness have carried to the extreme ends of the globe the freedom of trade, and I beg of them: Pray! do not sacrifice to the cupidity of one or more syndicates of profiteers, the interest, the happiness, the prosperity, and I shall add further, the rights of your western fellow citizens. For we are entitled as well as other Canadians to state aid toward developing our natural resources, our unexploited inheritance, our inexhaustible national wealth, awaiting in the bowels of the earth for laborious hands to bring them to light. We have a right to claim the utilization of the natural outlets of the country for our products, routes which Providence seems to have placed there for us, by carving with its creative hand the vast coasts of the Hudson sea.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Sutherland.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I have been speculating
in my mind for some time as to what has taken possession of the House to-night and what object hon. members can have in sitting here at this time in the morning. Early in the night we witnessed what I thought was a burlesque staged by the government in respect to a matter that should not have come before the House at all. After two or three hours' discussion the Chair ruled the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) out of order. Since then I have listened attentively and very patiently to this debate, and have been thinking that had his resolution gone into effect, in the course of a
Supply-Hudson Bay

Railway
few years we would find possibly six hundred members assembled here to conduct the business of the country, and that then the House would sit twenty-four hours in the day for twelve months every year in order to discharge its duties.
Now, the Hudson Bay railway is an old question-


An hon. MEMBER:: Too old.


Donald Sutherland: -and I cannot see any justification for discussing it at this hour in the morning. I can recall that in 1911 when a change of government took place one of the last acts of the outgoing government was to let a contract for the construction of about two-thirds of the Hudson Bay railway. During the interval we have gone through a great crisis, the greatest that we have ever experienced, and it has had a sobering effect upon the people; there is no question as to that. To-day we are compelled to look matters square in the face and not be so inclined to take chances as we were in earlier days. We can all be very wise after the event. In pre-war days there may have been some justification for our optimism, and this spirit may have been responsible for certain undertakings that we are now convinced should never have been attempted or undertaken.
I was surprised and pained to hear the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) state that the East had no sympathy with the West, and that in consequence there was an association in the West advocating "on to the bay." One might infer from his remarks that, conversely, the West had no sympathy with the East, and that if they could keep apart from the East and could obtain access to the bay they would be perfectly happy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that such a sectional spirit should be encouraged either in the East or in the West. We have great difficulties to overcome, and so long as one-half of the country is pulling against the other half we may rest assured that we are not going to make very much headway. On the other hand, if we unite our efforts and resolutely face our difficulties,
I have not the slightest doubt we can very quickly overcome them all, for we have a country of tremendous resources and a people that are not surpassed in any other part of the world. It is true that the vast extent of the Dominion entails expensive transportation; and transportation facilities are necessary to success in this or any other country. To-day we cannot help noticing the fever of unrest that is so apparent everywhere. Indeed one would think that the sole business of our people was transportation, shifting
.
things from one occupation and1 locality to another, regardless as to whether this is necessary or not. I am afraid that this feverish unrest is apt to blind us to a true appreciation of the matter under discussion.
It is a significant thing that over a hundred years ago the Hudson's Bay Company were having access to western Canada through the bay and they are still carrying on through this channel. But that does not justify the contention that the adoption of this route will meet the difficulties with which the people of the West are confronted to-day. By the time the harvest is threshed and ready for transportation it would have to be nearly *all stored at the bay for transport the next season. It might have been a good thing for the farmers of the West this year had they been unable to get rid of their grain of 1923 as quickly as they did, and if we had elevator capacity at the bay in order to carry the grain over for another year it might be a good thing. Possibly when the farmers become organized as they ought to be in order to take care of their own business that is what we will have, and they will then be in a position to control the markets of the world to a greater degree than is possible to-da.y.
I do not see the wisdom of having introduced this matter at so late a stage of the session and under the circumstances under which it was introduced. If hon members to my left are anxious to have their views considered they ought to present them to a full House rather than to empty benches and at a time when members are tired and heartily sick of the whole debate. When I see some of them sleeping soundly -and paying no attention to what is going on I do not think it has a -tendency to elevate the dignity of -parliament in the eyes of the people; indeed, it rather has a tendency to -make parliament look more like a burlesque to the people. The people expect that their -business will be dealt with in a businesslike way, not that there will be all this talking for effect-and I would ask a personal favour that the Hansard reporter would not report anything I am saying here to-night; I am not talking for that purpose at all. I am protesting against the habit we. are getting into of talking in order to have it reported in Hansard -and circulated throughout the country. If hon. members from the West are so sanguine with regard to this proposal why should they not take over the road and manage it and bear the expense in connection with it or have its profit? I am sure the rest of the country

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
would be glad to see the matter settled in that way.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), who is usually so reasonable and moderate in his statements, was very unfair in his references to-night to the attitude of the East toward the West. We had deprived the West of the right to have, he claimed, reciprocity with the United States, and of the right of having access through the bay to the markets of the world; that had the railway been constructed the people of the West would have had the benefit of complete free trade. Does any hon. member think that had reciprocity been enacted in 1911 the present government of the United States would have allowed it to remain in effect?


Harold Putnam: Is there one who wouldn't?


Donald Sutherland: Did I hear an hon. member say yes?


Harold Putnam: Perhaps you are the only one who wouldn't.


Donald Sutherland: I notice there is one hon. member who believes that. Well, I assure him that the Americans are wide awake and looking after their own interests, and I am not blaming them for it. This reciprocity agreement might be terminated on six months' notice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: What is the point of order?


Ernest Lapointe: It is rather late to discuss reciprocity.


Donald Sutherland: It was referred to by preceding speakers and no objection was taken. It is unfair to insinuate that the East has been unfair to the West in that regard. It was after the termination of the reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1866 that it became necessary to develop new channels of trade, and since then the East has assumed tremendous obligations in opening up western Canada. It is true that the lines of communication have been east and west; they could not be otherwise, because our friends to the south erected a tariff barrier against us and only recently increased it until it is almost prohibitive. In no part of fhe world will you find a closer tie between the people of the East and of the West than you will find right here in this Dominion. I can recall that in my boyhood days young men from my district went to the West by the hundreds and by the thousands; they settled in that country and they or their descendants are the people who are out there to-day, bound by the closest ties of kinship to the
people of the East. When hon. members try to stir up feeling between the East and the West they are not doing it from the best motives. It is true that a great many other people have gone into the West. It is also true that a great many of these people have seats in this House to-day, whereas had they remained in the country of their nativity they possibly would have been in a much different position from what they find themselves in at this time.
What Canada needs to-day is a united effort on the part of all the people, regardless of the political party they belong to, in order to overcome our difficulties. I am not sure but what a good deal of this agitation is for political effect at this time. I see the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in his seat and I believe he was occupying a similar position about thirteen years ago when this project was a live issue in the country. He has a great deal better knowledge of conditions to-day than he had at that time, and I am satisfied, in view of the information that has been obtained during the present session with regard to the facilities for transportation or for ocean liners to load grain in Hudson bay, that there is a tremendous expenditure to be made before the conditions in the West can be relieved by anything of the kind. We hear a great deal about shipping grain by the Pacific. We are building harbours and elevators, we are contributing in that way for the relief of the people of the West. It is not altogether for the people of the West, but it is in order to build up this Dominion. We are laying the foundations of a great country in Canada and something must be conceded by one section to another. If I thought for one moment that the building of the Hudson Bay railway was going to be of any very great advantage to the West I would say "Go on with it by all means" but I do not believe that any arguments have been advanced so far to show that after we have constructed the Hudson Baj-railway it will prove to be anything more than a colonization road. It may serve a useful purpose in the district in which it will be built and in that way, perhaps, the building of the railway will be justified. But in the province of Ontario when we require a colonization railway we have to go to work and build it. We had a good deal of difficulty in obtaining a subsidy from the federal government.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does my hon. friend
think that it is fair to compare Ontario with the western provinces when Ontario owns her own resources, and the very lands through which these railways are being built?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Donald Sutherland: That is another disputed point. The matter of the control of the natural resources by the western provinces was going to be settled by the present government when they came into office but I am inclined to think, in view of the grants of one kind and another that are being made to western Canada the prairie provinces are not very anxious to have their resources turned over to them.


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes they are.


Donald Sutherland: We have found them
receiving many to-day that they would not receive if they had control of their lands.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will not the hon. gentleman admit that there has been a discrimination against the western provinces since 1912 v/hen the boundaries of some of the other provinces were extended. Up to that time we will admit that we were perhaps on an equal basis, but while large territories were added to Ontario and Quebec, the lands of the western provinces were still retained by the Dominion government.


Donald Sutherland: I am satisfied that even the present government, and I have no very great faith in them, would be very glad to make a settlement with the western provinces and have this matter disposed of. I believe they have made a reasonable attempt to bring that about. In so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, to-day notwithstanding the fact that we have a government owned system in this country, a road is being built by the provincial government of Ontario which is purely a colonization Toad right up towards the interprovincial boundary and into Quebec. There are no branch lines being constructed by the National Railways in the province of Ontario. These are some things that my hon. friends do not have to contend with in western Canada at all. In view of the fact that so much of the Hudson Bay railway has been constructed I am surprised that the provincial governments in western Canada will not accept the offer made to them, will not consider the matter of taking over the roads in the West and operating them.


Milton Neil Campbell: That offer has never been made to the western provinces.


Donald Sutherland: A meeting of the Premiers of the provincial governments was held in this building not so very long ago and when that suggestion was made to them they would not even say that they would consider it- there is no such disposition on their part.
I am speaking now of the Premier of Manitoba. When that matter was broached and
.
put right up to him he would not consent to accepting the road under those conditions.


Milton Neil Campbell: The Premier of Manitoba would not be in a position to accept such an offer without consulting his government. That does not say that the province of Manitoba would not consider the matter.


Donald Sutherland: This was several
months ago, and so far no intimation has been received that they would be willing to consider such a proposition.
Mr. (BROWN: Nobody in authority has made the offer.


Donald Sutherland: The building of a railway in the province of Ontario, as I pointed out, is undertaken by the provincial government. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) was arguing that the East denies the West any opportunities for expansion. Does my hon. friend realize that in the province of Ontario the work in connection with experimental farms, with the exception of the Central Experimantal Farm here-which is the central station for the whole Dominion-and a little tobacco station at Harrow is really all undertaken by the provincial government.


Thomas George McBride: I want to know what the question of experimental farms has got to do with the Hudson Bay railway?


Donald Sutherland: I should like to know what the Hudson Bay railway has got to do with our sitting here at this hour of the morning? I think the one is just as appropriate for discussion as the other, and if my hon. friends to my left desire to stay here all night well and good. Ample opportunities for discussing this, matter early in the session, whenever they saw fit, were afforded to them, but now when there is a desire on the part of everybody else to bring this session to a close they think theTe is a fine opportunity to put themselves on record and show what a real, active body they are because they kept the House in session all night. If that is their desire and any of them are in any way weary of the struggle we will try and help them out a little. I do not believe they have any intention of having a division to-night and going home. If that is the case I think it would be too bad to deprive them of the opportunity of saying "Why, we sat all night discussing the Hudson Bay railway fighting for western Canada, damning the people in the East and telling them what tyrants they were, and how they are depriving western Canada of access to the markets of the world".

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Free trade with the world through Hudson bay. For only about six weeks in the year they will be able to get out clear of the ice. That is about as long as conditions will permit. What a beautiful programme it is? And yet our liabilities are accumulating, we have to face the most serious conditions that this country has ever grappled with, and we are not making any reasonable attempt to get right down to first principles and attend to the business before parliament. For it is not attending to the business of the country when we sit here discussing such questions in this way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I may say that when I came into the House to-night nothing was further from my thoughts than to engage in this debate. But when I looked around at the empty benches on this side of the House and realized that I was the only member of the party present, I thought it would be too bad not to take my part in helping my hon. friends to my left to carry this matter through to-night. We will not have much longer to go till we see the sun rising in the East, and the sun will rise in the morning just as usual whether the Hudson Bay railway is built or not. That is one thing we can bank on, and if in the west you start thinking about the people in the East when you get up in the morning, do not forget that you have many things to be thankful for, even though you have not the Hudson Bay railway.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I regret as sincerely as any one that I find it necessary to continue this debate at this unfitting hour, but it is not my choosing, and I would be far from assuming the responsibility that was placed upon me by the electors who sent me here if I did not express their sentiments in regard to the subject we have under discussion, no matter what hour of the day or what hour of the night it came before us.
I thought it was a significant fact when I was chosen by the electors of the constituency I have the honour to represent, that outside of the declaration of political principles which I had adopted at that time, there was but one commission which they placed upon me as their representative here. The convention which nominated me passed one resolution, and that was that the candidate they selected should be pledged to use his whole energy to urge the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. That convention was sincere in expressing the wishes of the constituency. In fact I think I might go further and say that the constituency which I represent in central Saskatchewan is a good representation of the constituencies of the western provinces, and the sentiments in the constituencies in the western provinces in that respect are similar to those expressed by the convention I have mentioned. The matter appealed to me as one that was deserving of attention. As I have said, I believe they were sincere.
I myself at that time believed that the completion of the Hudson bay project was necessary for the full development of western Canada, but when I came to this House to represent that constituency I believed that it was necessary to look into the matter a little further than I had done up to that time, to see if the convictions which I held in common with those who sent me here were well founded; so that since I came here I have spent a considerable amount of time in studying the evidence we have available on this subject; and I say frankly to this House at this time that I am more convinced now of the necessity for the completion of this route, having read practically all if not absolutely all the evidence that the library, contains. I can say that I have read every word in Hansard that has been spoken on this subject in forty years. I might inform the House from actual count that this matter has been debated in the House something just over a hundred and twenty times in the last forty years, and by the way, I think that if the hon. gentlemen who formed the membership of this House had been occupied with a track laying machine over the Hudson bay route during the hours that have been spent in discussing the question here, there would have been no more steel to lay on the Hudson Bay railway.
I have looked into the matter since I came here, and I have read the reports presented iby the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), and the other similar reports in connection with this matter, and I am convinced that on the whole the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of this project, I have no hesitation in urging it upon the House to-night. If I were of the opinion of the hon. member for King's, P.E.I., or of some other hon. members who have spoken to-night in this debate and at other times in opposition to the completion of the project, I could, just as well as they have, I think, and at greater length, have found selections from various reports that were opposed to this project. 1 freely admit-and I think every hon. member who is urging the completion of this project on the House will admit-that there is much evidence that shows it to be of a very difficult nature, but there is this difference: The men of western Canada, the producers of grain, and other agricultural products, who

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
are particularly interested in the completion of this railway and the opening of the port, are men who have in Iheir own experience overcome very great difficulties in pioneer life. They know what it is to overcome the obstacles that present themselves to men opening up new territory. For example, the ice conditions in the port and bay have been mentioned in magnified terms. Quotations from reports of extreme conditions have been given. I may tell the House that eighteen years ago on the 9th of June, on the shore of a little lake which borders my farm, I gathered up a huge snowball, as large as I could carry. At that time there was not a bushel of wheat grown within many miles of that district. If gentlemen who are so afraid of the ice conditions had seen the snow piled on the very land which is now producing grain they would have thrown up their hands, and would have said "This land will never be productive; it is wholly unfit for habitation." But that was an extreme condition and it has never prevailed since, and I am not saying whether it might. On a day as late as the 9th of June there might be snow and ice to be found on the land that produces wheat. That is an example of the outlook of men who have studied this from their quiet retreats in their homes and offices as compared with the different outlook of the men who look at this proposition from the wealth of experience they have had in overcoming difficulties which to them seemed just as insurmountable at the time they encountered them as the objects that presented themselves in connection with the opening up of the Hudson Bay railway.


Harold Putnam: 

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
or 20 per cent of the amount exported; then 10.7 millions, or 14 per cent of the grain exported; in the next year it was 24^ millions or 17 per cent; in 1922 it was 39.8 millions or 25 per cent and in 1923, 58.3 millions or 28 per cent of the grain exported. At no time in the past seven years was there less than 10 million bushels available for export through this port during the three months in which it would be open.
An important fact to which I desire to draw the attention of the committee is the amount of grain which is directly tributary to the lines that lead to Hudson bay. The same engineer who submitted the previous report prepared these figures; and if they are no more accurate in this respect than in the one I have quoted they are not very valuable. But as these figures have been collected from our own Bureau of Statistics probably we can place considerable reliance in them. For the years which he had under consideration there was at no time less than 10 million bushels produced in the vicinity of and directly tributary to the Hudson Bay railway. When I say directly tributary I am not including more than half of the province of Saskatchewan and not more than one-third, probably less, of the province of Manitoba. And that goes as far back as 1914. Since that year, as hon. gentlemen know who are acquainted with the conditions, it has multiplied by leaps and bounds; in 1915 it had increased from 10 millions to 41 millions, and although in the following year it dropped to 32 millions, it has crept up astonishingly so that according to the latest statistics there are now in the neighbourhood of 100 million bushels which are directly tributary to the lines running to the Hudson Bay railway. These facts, along with many others, are some of the reasons why the people of western Canada are not satisfied to drop this project but demand that it shall be completed.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) presented a proposition to the House. I have been wondering whether he was enunciating a new policy for the party with which he is associated. If he is and if the hon. gentleman who immediately preceded me (Mr. Sutherland) is acquiescing in that proposition, they are evidently attempting to put forward the policy of the Conservative party concerning the Hudson Bay railway. Well, I would bring this to the attention of the House. A little over a year ago the leader of the opposition stated as his policy and enunciated it as the policy of his party, something entirely different from what we have .
heard to-night from those hon. gentlemen. Let me read from a letter which the right hon. gentleman wrote to a friend and supporter of his in the town of Melfort. I will quote very briefly from the letter:
We therefore maintained the operation of the road as constructed and purpose doing so, and further purpose completing it at the earliest possible date. This remains our policy to-day.
This letter was dated February 13, 1923. There are very good reasons why the seemingly generous offer of the ex-Minister of Finance would not appeal to the western provinces who are interested in this railway. In the first place, as has been pointed out, these provinces are not in possession or control of their natural resources; furthermore they have not been directly concerned in the building of railways. They have no departments built up which could undertake a public work of such magnitude, and their greatest objection of all would be that such a project as the Hudson Bay railway would, if it became a provincial scheme, lose the prestige which naturally belongs to it as a national undertaking. It is a national port of the first magnitude and as such should be developed by the Dominion.
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie); I am not quite so modest as either the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) or the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird); I have no apologies whatever to offer for taking up the time of the House at this hour of the morning. We made repeated attempts throughout the session to bring the matter to the attention of the government and of hon. members and have not succeeded in doing so. A resolution was placed on the order paper early in the session but we could not secure an opportunity of debating it; and the government abandoned private members' day too soon to permit of the matter being taken up. It is to be regretted that we have had to take this rather drastic method of bringing it before the House but the fault is not ours and I for one have no apologies to offer.


George Perry Graham: It could have been brought up on motion to go into supply at any time.


Milton Neil Campbell: Lately the government has not been going into supply until very late at night or in the early morning.


George Perry Graham: The estimates must be taken up on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday before they can be gone into on Thursday or Friday without a motion, and every estimate which has been before the House has provided a means of discussing this subject.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Milton Neil Campbell: At any rate it has been the desire of hon. gentlemen interested in this matter to avoid if possible the present drastic step. We have been in hopes right along that some other means would be available but it seems that we were doomed to disappointment. On the other hand, we have been waiting for some pronouncement from the government as to what their intention is but so far they have not stated their policy. Under the circumstances the present debate is unavoidable.
I do not want to enter into a general discussion of the feasibility of the Hudson Bay route; I considered that this was settled many years ago, if the reports of the navigators and the engineers and explorers who have been employed by the Dominion government are to be relied upon. Our archives are bursting with technical information secured at a large public expense; our Hansards contain thousands of pages of brilliant speeches setting forth the many advantages to be derived from the opening of the route; ministers and deputies have journeyed to the bay and have returned enthused over the proposition. On the strength of such information the construction of the road was undertaken; and if, as its opponents claim, these reports are not to be relied upon, then there is neither political nor commercial honour in Canada. The Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session contained the following paragraph :
Every effort will be made still further to develop the policy of Canadian trade via Canadian ports.
Had the Prime Minister the port of Nelson in mind when he penned that statement? I venture to suggest he had not; nothing was further from his mind. And yet this port means as much to the prairies as does Halifax to Nova Scotia, or St. John to New Brunswick or Quebec to the Eastern Townships. I want to make a suggestion to the government as to the way in which one of these ports may <be developed: remove the artificial disabilities under which the port of Quebec suffers and do away with the discrimination against grain passing through that centre and the port will develop automatically.
I am not going to discuss in any general way the various farming problems with which we have to cope, as the rules of the House oblige me to confine myself to the resolution. Transportation costs and markets iare, however, generally asserted to be two of our greatest problems and it will be interesting to quote some of the figures in this regard. At the present time it costs from 140 to $44 to ship a steer from Winnipeg to Liverpool.
295i
Although there is no limit to what we can produce in western Canada, it is impossible for us to continue to pay such high transportation costs and produce beef for the British market.
When Canadian farmers try to attach some responsibility for these adverse conditions to our political and commercial institutions, they are generally told that these conditions exist because our customers in Great Britain and on the Continent are unable to buy our products. That such is not altogether the case is made abundantly clear by a perusal of the following trade figures. The United Kingdom imported for home consumption in
1921,	3,523,000 hundredweight of butter, in
1922,	4,268,000, and in 1923, 5,125,000. An analysis of these figures shows that the imports in 1922 were 31 per cent over those of 1921, and those of 1923 were 20 per cent over those of 1922. Cheese shows about the same consumption in 1923 as in 1921; that is, there is no falling off. Eggs show a heavy increase, the figures quoted in hundreds being, 1922, 13,661,000, and in 1923, 20,048,000. These figures show that Great Britain imported for home consumption in 1922, 30 per cant over .the amount imported in 1921, and in 1923, 47 per cent over the amount of 1922. The total of meat imported-exclusive of poultry and game-was 1,746,000 tons, an increase of 18 per cent over 1922. Imports of bacon and hams from Canada in 1923 increased over 1922, but the quantity was very small and less than that for 1921; and we supplied only 10 per cent of the total British imports.
While Great Britain has been steadily increasing her importation and consumption of these various farm products, Canada has been steadily losing out in that market. Our exports of butter to the United Kingdom for 1923 were 4,365,000 pounds, as against 17,-
527,000	pounds in 1922. Our total of butter exports to all countries was 13,173,000 pounds in 1923, as against 21,504,000 pounds in 1922. In the face of a heavy decrease of Canadian butter sales in the British market in 1923, the Argentine, New Zealand, The Netherlands and Denmark all made heavy increases. In eggs our exports dropped 25 per cent in the face of increases by Denmark of 18 per cent and The Netherlands of 120 per cent. Of the enormous importations of chilled and frozen meat into the British market Canada does not share at all, New Zealand, the Argentine and Australia supplying the greater part. In the face of decreasing exports our home production of butter has steadily increased, the greatest expansion of the dairy

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
industry having taken place in western Canada. The province of Saskatchewan produced
7.030.000	pounds of creamery butter in 1921,
8.991.000	pounds in 1922, and 10,867,000 pounds in 1923.
Politicians and prominent business men are perpetually advising the western farmers to go into mixed farming as a cure for all their troubles. This is giving gratuitous advice to tlhe Canadian farmer, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier once expressed it. I maintain that the western farmers have adopted mixed farming to a degree almost beyond the point of safety, and that it will be impossible for us to continue to expand in this direction unless we secure a substantial reduction in transportation costs. As evidence of over-production of mixed farm products, in the middle of March eggs sold on the prairies at from 13 to 15 cents a dozen. New Zealand has almost completely captured the British butter market, for the very good reason that New Zealand butter can be delivered in Liverpool to-day at a very much lower cost than from western Canada, notwithstanding the fact that the distance from New Zealand is more than double that from western Canada.
The Hudson Bay route offers the only solution for the marketing of our surplus cattle and dairy products. With it completed we may look with hope and confidence to the future; without it no further expansion of these industries can take place. The northern portion of the prairie provinces are the parts most suitable for mixed farming, and the Hudson bay is its natural outlet for Europe. I do not claim that the route will handle all our grain, the most zealous advocate of the project in western Canada does not so contend that, but I do claim that in addition to being the natural outlet, particularly for our cattle and dairy products, it will provide competition which will be more effectual in settling rates on the Great Lakes than any legislation which this House may pass.
Expenditure on the route is being opposed on the ground of economy. Perhaps no more absurd argument could be used when it is borne in mind that last year this House voted twelve million dollars for construction work on the Welland ship canal, and only $350,000 for salvage work-not construction work-on the Hudson Bay railway, of which amount only one-third was actually spent. At the beginning of the session the Speech from the Throne contained the following interesting observation:
The further development of our magnificent inland water transportation routes, which will result in lower
.
carrying charges for the products of the farms of the West as well as for the products of the mine, the forest, and the diversified industries of the East, is of vital importance. To aid in the accomplishment of this purpose work on the new Welland ship canal is being expedited.
These words bring to my mind the famous saying of Talleyrand, that language is given us to conceal our thoughts. Surely, Sir, the Prime Minister does not think the farmers of western Canada are so gullible as to believe that the completion of the Welland ship canal will result in any appreciable reduction of the transportation charges on grain. If as this reference in the Speech from the Throne implied, the construction of the Welland ship canal was undertaken for the benefit of western Canada, surely their wishes and opinions in such a serious matter are worthy of consideration. The farmers of western Canada have asked for the Hudson Bay railway and have been given the Welland canal; they have asked for bread and have been given a stone; they have asked for fish and have been given a serpent. The money to complete the railway was raised by the sale of our own lands; none of it was raised by taxation; and yet eastern newspapers and business interests are opposing completion of the railway on the ground of economy 1
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) seemed to deplore the fact that to-day there is talk of secession in western Canada. It is only too regrettable that such is the case; but the fault is perhaps not primarily with the people of western Canada. I have before me a number of resolutions from various public bodies in my constituency urging the immediate completion of the road, several of these, in view of continued eastern opposition to the project, placing themselves on record as favouring secession as an alternative. The same note was sounded in the Saskatchewan legislature during the last session-and mark you, by a Liberal member. These are not the impassionated utterances of demagoguery, they are the sober and reasoned judgment of sane men, but of men who feel themselves being driven by the impelling force of economic injustice to undertake any means that may be necessary to preserve to themselves the sanctity of rights-rights guaranteed to them by divine and moral laws, but refused them by their fellowmen. The danger is so great that some of these times some man with an eloquent tongue, without scruples and with no particular desire to preserve unity in Canada may set that whole country in a tumult. And if that day comes-I want hon. members to mark this-the fault will not be

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
that of the people of western Canada. There has lately been a new note introduced into our journalistic, our political and our commercial life: they call it national unity. It is a favorite theme for newspaper discussion. It figures very largely in Canadian Club speeches. Cabinet ministers out in the country frequently refer to it. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) paid a visit to the West last summer. We were glad to see him, and I want to say that no minister of the Crown has more friends in western Canada than the Minister of Justice. I take this opportunity of thanking him for the many kind words he addressed to us on that occasion. He had also a good dc_i to say about national unity and of the necessity for maintaining the spirit of good-will between the East and the West. Now, why is all this talk of national unity necessary? Is it not simply because from one end of this* country to the other, from Halifax to Vancouver, we realize that there are growing up influences that are destroying that unity, that no such thing as national unity exists in Canada? That this feeling does prevail there is no stronger confirmation than is contained in a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne this session, which reads:
National unity, not less than national prosperity, depends upon the surmounting of those barriers which have tended to separate western from eastern Canada and to discourage permanent settlement upon the land.
Surely, Sir, it should not be necessary to emphasize the necessity for maintaining a spirit of goodwill between the East and the West. But when last year this House voted nearly 812,000.000 for construction work on the Welland ship canal without one word of protest from the businessmen and newspapers of eastern Canada, and when such violent journalistic opposition developed, as it did last year, to the voting of $350,000 for salvage work on the Hudson Bay railway, it is not to be wondered at that goodwill between the East and the West is being strained to the breaking point. If this government really mean what they say in the Speech from the Throne; if they want to remove this haunting suspicion from the minds of the people of western Canada; if they really want to do justice, let them spend the necessary amount to complete this railway to the bay and give us some tangible proof of their desire for national unity. I want to make it clear that no other heavy expenditures are being advocated at the present time. The western people are satisfied to permit the project to justify itself once the railway is completed to the bay.
Now, Sir, I -wish to state that anything I have said or anything I intend to say is in
all kindness to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). I believe it is generally recognized in the West that the Minister of Railways himself has always been a friend of the project and I believe that if he had a free hand in the matter this debate to-day would be unnecessary. We are not here as humble suppliants seeking favours from this House. We are not here doffing our caps in the presence of powerful business interests that seem to have had the ear of all our governments. business interests that oppose this project not because they think it is not feasible but because they fear that it is. We are not asking for a privilege; we are asking for what is a matter of right. It is our own money that has gone into it; none of it is raised by taxation. The newspaper propaganda that has taken place has been based on narrow sectionalism. If the government permits its hands to be tied then we must consider this reference in the Speech from the Throne to national unity as just so much camouflage and irony. I consider, Sir, that the time has come for plain speaking with regard to this undertaking. For forty years the people of western Canada have waited for the consummation of their hopes; for forty years the Hudson Bay railway has been dangled before their eyes at election time, only to recede into the mists of obscurity after the polling had taken place. Year after year hope has been raised by the advent of the construction gang, but the Hudson Bay still beckons from the distance, it still eludes our grasp. What we are waiting for is a clear enunciation of policy on the part of the government. So far as I am concerned I will be frank and say that I would a thousand times prefer that the government should come out clearly and definitely as abandoning the whole project rather than that they should continue as they are doing to-day. Anything is preferable to the present policy-a policy like that of the mule on the treadmill, plenty of expended energy but no advancement; the spending of a little money here and a little money there, lifting a few ties out of the mud here and putting in a little ballast there.
Montreal is opposed to the project; all the newspaper interests of Montreal are opposed to it, and why? Is it not because Montreal is afraid that it is feasible and that some of our grain will go out over that route instead of coming down and going through Montreal?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is now talking very airy nonsense. Montreal has no fear whatsoever of developing any other port. If the Hudson Bay route is feasible Montreal

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
will be the first to fall in with the ideas of the people in the West. We are not afraid of any other port being developed; on the contrary we want to see every other port in Canada developed. We have not taken the same selfish attitude in Montreal that my hon. friend is taking now, nor do we issue threats.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have the
assurance of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), but the newspaper reports that come from there and the statements of businessmen in that city do not bear out what he has to say. In spite of what he says I still believe that the atmosphere of Montreal is opposed to the Hudson Bay railway.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The atmosphere of Montreal is opposed to the Hudson Bay railway, it is quite true, but it is not opposed to any feasible or any reasonable scheme. Let my hon. friend not misunderstand my remarks.


Milton Neil Campbell: A great deal has been
said about the responsibility of the provincial governments with regard to this project. When Ontario built its railway into the northland it was appreciating the value of its own holdings. Put us in the same position as Ontario and we will not be asking you for votes of money to build this railway. I know hon. gentlemen will say, "Oh, but you get a subsidy in lieu of your natural resources." That was true up to 1912, but in that year the boundary of Quebec was extended to the shores of Hudson strait; the boundary of Ontario was extended to the shores of Hudson bay; the boundaries of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were moved northward. But there was this difference : while an empire rich in resources, rich in minerals, pulpwood and water-power was added as a free gift to Quebec and Ontario, so far as the prairie provinces were concerned the additions were simply a line on the map, because the Dominion government retained all the resources. Put us on an equal basis with the eastern provinces, give us the territory that was added in 1912 and we will build the railway ourselves. We are not asking for any privileges. My hon. friends in the province of Quebec are all opposed to it. I think they are largely influenced from Montreal. The press of Montreal are opposed to it, and that has influenced to a large extent the province of Quebec. I would like to ask some of our Quebec friends what Montreal has done to their own port? Is it not the influence of Monti eal that is preventing our using the port of Quebec? There is a prohibitory rate on

grain and other products going to Quebec today. I intend to deal with that on a later occasion if I get an opportunity. I shall not go into it fully now. But it seems to me there is ample proof that it is the Montreal influences that are preventing the use of that port to-day. If the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George feels as he expressed himself toward the other ports, I would like to see him support me in trying to secure a reduction of grain rates to the port of Quebec, and to bring about the establishment of a rate that would be in line with the prairie rate, or what are known as the Crowsnest rates.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I know nothing whatever
about grain rates, nor does my hon. friend. That is in the hands of the Railway Corn-emission.


Milton Neil Campbell: It is a remarkable thing that the Railway Commission should establish rates that are almost double those prevailing on the prairie to-day. There are some influences working somewhere. There is something wrong with the Railway Commission or there are other influences.
A good deal has been said about the report of Engineer MacLachlan. It has been fairly well dealt with already, but I just want to point out one or two facts in connection with it. Engineer MacLachlan was retained on that work a year after he had sent in the unfavourable report that we have heard so much about. It does not appear that the department took this report seriously. They continued him on the work for another year and spent a great deal of money on the enterprise after he had sent in his report. It seems to me that it is very difficult to get unbiased reports on the Hudson Bay railway. If an engineer at the beginning of his career wants to damn his professional prospects there is no way in which he can do it so effectively as by coming out in support of the Hudson Bay railway. That is proven in one or two cases. But here and there we will find some man with moral courage who comes out and says what he thinks. Mr. Cowie, who I believe is in the employ of the Montreal Harbour Commission, is a man of that type. A year ago he made a public statement to the effect that there were no obstacles in the way of the Hudson Bay route that had not already been overcome on the St. Lawrence route, and there was a great outcry from various interests in the city of Montreal asking that Mr. Cowie be discharged from his position. Did that show a broad minded spirit?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railieay


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is an absolutely inaccurate statement.


Milton Neil Campbell: I read statements in
several newspapers to that effect stating that demands were presented from various parties asking for his position.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He was not chief engineer of the Montreal Harbour Commission when he read the paper my hon. friend referred to.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then I stand corrected. At any rate it seems a very difficult matter to get a fair and unbiased report on this project. I hope the government will give the assurance that they are going to do something or else definitely abandon it. For my part if the government are not going to complete the railway I do not want to see any more money spent on it. Either they should abandon the project altogether or announce that they are going to complete it.


Thomas George McBride: It is not my intention to unduly occupy the time of the House at this early hour of the morning talking about the Hudson Bay railway. I have stated here on a previous occasion that if the two old parties have committed themselves to that project it is up to them to see to it that the road is completed. They could then give the Canadian National Railway a bonus to operate it. I do not think the Hudson Bay railway should be saddled upon the shoulders of those who are doing everything possible to make the National Railways pay without giving them some financial assistance, otherwise it will be too heavy a burden for them to carry. As to Mr. Mae-Lachlan there is no question but that he is one of the outstanding men in his profession to-day, and those who know him best appreciate his ability most. In regard to the port of Nelson that we have heard so much about, I will read a few extracts from men who are thoroughly familiar with this harbour and whose opinions have not been quoted to-night -at least some of them haye not. I have here a letter from Captain Copp, who spent some thirty years navigating boats all along the coast and through the straits and in Hudson bay. This is what he says:
The Hudson bay straits are blocked with ice for over nine months in the year. The distance from Fort Churchill across the Hudson bay to Daggers island, the entrance to the straits, is five hundred and twenty miles and could be navigated for six months in the year by the use of ice breakers. It is four hundred miles from Daggers island through the straits to Button island, the entrance from the Atlantic, and the ice breakers here would be of little use against icebergs and packed ice.
He goes on to say:
The rate on freight overseas would be naturally high, owing to the high premium of insurance that would have to be paid on' the ships on so dangerous a route. No buoys can be kept in the Hudson bay straits to mark points of danger owing to them being swept away by the ice. Hence the heavy insurance both on grain and ships.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has my hon. friend
read the report by Mr. J. W. Tyrrell who was sent up there in 1903. He spent a winter there and stated there were only two months of the whole year in which a vessel could not have picked a way through the straits.


Thomas George McBride: You have made your statement, I am making mine. Mr. W. J. Jackson, a magnetic expert, speaking of Hudson straits made this statement:
Accidents in which good men will be sacrificed to the requirements of progress will be heard of, and many a brave sailor may find a permanent grave in the icy waters of Hudson bay straits, as undoubtedly the great difficulty in connection with Hudson bay lies in the straits. Both sides are lofty rocky shores, lashed by a tide that rises in places as high as 35 feet, and runs in calm weather ten miles per hour. Through these rocky walH ice has poured and ton# and ripped its way since the ice age, cutting a great channel to the Atlantic. When the ice is running and the incoming tide meets the ice pack, the water often mounts 85 feet high. This wall of water is what mariners fear, and other great dangers are getting ripped between two ice jams, which rear and plunge like fighting stallions.
Suppose a steamer, when the tide is running ten miles an hour, steams into a fog. How can any navigator know his exact position? He cannot go ahead at full speed because of the danger of running into an iceberg. He has to slow down possibly to five miles an hour, and if the tide is running at the rate of ten miles an hour the vessel drops back five miles an hour instead of going forward. No navigator could ever successfully navigate his vessel under such conditions. On account of the fog he would not know where he was, and intead of making progress he would be running backwards.
Mr. J. A. J. McKenna, makes the following
statement:
The Hudson's Bay Company was well satisfied if its ship wintered safely in the bay and returned the next year; indeed a bonus of fifty guineas was allowed the captain who made the trip in two seasons.
That, experience, I will admit, was encountered in the sailing days. Captain Coates is responsible for the following statement:
It is very dangerous to enter the straits before the beginning of July or leave after the middle of September.
Captain Falconer states that the bay straits can be navigated between July loth and October 15th. Captain Kennedy, who, for eight years coasted the shore line, thought that navigation could be carried on without much danger for three months.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Captain Hawkins who made no less than fourteen voyages to the bay, believes four months of navigation would be possible, while Captain Fisher states three and a half months would be the limit. Captain Webb, of Hudson Bay Navigation Company, said the straits are navigable three months of the year for ordinary vessels, but crafts built for the purpose could be navigated for five months. Vessels might be built that could navigate the straits for possibly five or six months of the year, but these vessels would have to be so constructed that they would be practically useless in other waters in other seasons of the year, and what person or company in the shipping business would build' vessels for use in the Hudson bay six months of the year and have them lying idle, the other six months? Such vessels could not be operated at a profit if they had to be idle six or seven months. Captain Hews states that Hudson bay vessels at their port of destination show no arrivals earlier than August 2nd.
Captain Wakeham writes this:
I do not consider that the straits can be successfully navigated in June. Such ships as the Diana might force a passage through, but these vessels would be useless for commercial purposes as they are so braced and strengthened that they are impossible for freight carriers.
Captain- Hews states:
In regard to Churchill, on arriving October 1st I found the men off hunting on snow shoes and there had been good snowshoeing for ten days previous.
That would indicate that the people in that district had gone out on snowshoes on the 20th of September.
Of course, the harbour does not freeze over before the end of October, but for some time before it closes it would not be safe for vessels. I would fix October 20th as the limit of safe navigation in the fall. Of course the bay is navigable much earlier than the straits, and the above estimate is for the latter.
Mr. M. J. Butler, formerly Deputy Minister of Railways and Chief Engineer recommends Port Nelson as the best port on the Hudson bay. He says a number of speculators have already subdivided considerable lands in the expectation of receiving immense profits when the route has been completed.
There is a question in my mind as to what those speculators have to do with those who have taken such a strong stand to promote the Hudson Bay railway. What I would suggest to the Minister of Railways is that he turn over to those provinces which are so anxious to get this railway, the whole railway and all the equipment on the road at the present time, together with all equipment
Mr. McBride.]
at Port Nelson and give them as a start ten of the merchant marine by way of a bonus.
Mr. A. Graham, referring to Churchill, says:
No spring near, drink snow water nine months of (he year. The harbour usually freezes over about November 15. The ocean also freezes ovet during the winter four or five miles out from Churchill. The ice lay off the coast and harbour this year, preventing the return of the survey party until July 13 when a start was made. Five days more was lost by the ice packs off Churchill, which extended 30 miles out to sea. The ice floats up and down the harbour on strong currents which exist, and constitutes a serious inconvenience and danger to ships at anchor, to docks and other works which may be constructed along the shore. The harbour has been reported on occasions to block as late as August. At the present time very little shelter can be had at low tide by any ship drawing 18 to 20 feet of water.. The sea enters with sufficient force to cause a heavy swell to be felt throughout the harbour, in fact, at times it is impossible for small boats to cross the harbour for two or three days at a time. Excavation for ship berths close to shore to avoid the heavy drift ice will in all probability encounter solid rock, as solid rock in several places runs to the water's edge.
Stone for the construction of breakwater and other works may be obtained; about 75,000 to 100,000 cubic yards could be picked up along the tide flats in the shape of scattered boulders and up the Nelson river about 40 miles there is a splendid quarry where any quantity can be obtained.
He also reports survey parties on board government steamers which were investigating the ice and navigation conditions in Hudson bay and the straits. During the present summer reports -are not very encouraging as to the safety and feasibility of the route for transportation.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I had
quite a speech prepared, but at this late hour I am going to cut it very short.


Thomas Vien: I am goi-ng to move that my hon. friend's speech be taken as read and embodied in Hansard.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I was somewhat surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride). I am very much surprised he has taken the stand he did and that he spoke at this late hour. He told me earlier in the session that if the church union bill passed he did not care what else happened this session.
I wish to refer very briefly to the proposition which has been outlined by the hon. member for Wert York (Sir Henry Drayton). He suggested that this line be turned over to the provinces, and that a bonus be given to these -provinces; that the western provinces complete the railroad and own it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Leland Payson Bancroft: An hon. member on the other side says "hear, hear". I think these hon. gentlemen fail to realize that the western provinces have been kept in poverty up to this time because they have not got their natural resources. If the western provinces took this line over and completed it, it would be something like the province of British Columbia, we will say, turning its natural resources over to the Dominion and then starting to develop the harbour of Vancouver and the dry docks at Victoria and Vancouver, or Ontario and Quebec turning over their natural resources to the Dominion and constructing the great St. Lawrence waterway. Even Nova Scotia might turn over her natural resources to the Dominion and build her own harbours and breakwaters.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member would not like to see Nova Scotia turn her resources over to the Dominion because he was born in the historic county of Hants.


Leland Payson Bancroft: No, not even two counties in the redistribution. It would be almost impossible under present conditions for the western provinces to take over the railway and build it. It is a national undertaking and will have to be built as such. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) read short extracts from two reports and read them together. One was from Captain Anderson's report and one was from Commander Gordon's report. When he was dealing with the harbour of Nelson he quoted from the report of Commander Gordon, but I find1 in the other report which he has quoted just before the quotation he read that there was also a report on the port of Nelson, and I find on page 19 of the report of the special Senate committee in 1920 Captain Anderson says:
T was off the entrance to the harbour at Nelson in 1913. The wind blew about 75 to 90 miles an hour- that was about from the northeast, a blizzard-and there was not very much sea around there, just the usual slop from the wind blowing hard. There was no very big sea.
The demand for the Hudson Bay railway arose originally from the fact that owing to the smaller circumference of the earth in the northern latitudes a distance of approximately 1.000 miles could be saved in transportation between western Canada and Great Britain.
Continuous efforts have been made by our federal and provincial governments to overcome our transportation problems. These governmental efforts have taken such forms as land grants, cash subsidies, rate agreements, railway commissions, and control of water
rates. These attempts to reduce transportation costs constitute an admission of the seriousness of our transportation problem. All these have been efforts to overcome distance, which after all is the great factor in transportation costs.
Now here is a proposal, Mr. Speaker, which actually eliminates 1,000 miles from the distance between western Canada and Liverpool, and you can realize the economic possibilities of that shorter haul. I submit that no hon. member should treat this matter lightly, nor allow himself to be prejudiced by the propaganda of those interests who fear the competition of the Hudson Bay route.
The Hudson Bay railway is 424 miles in length, 332 miles have been completed and laid with 80 pound steel and mile long sidings have been constructed at frequent intervals, which will greatly facilitate double tracking when the traffic demands it. There remain 92 miles to be built and the grade is built on that. Three immense steel bridges have been constructed on the route, one across the Saskatchewan river and two over the Nelson These cost about $1,000,000. There is also the steel bridge, two-thirds of a mile in length, which connects the mainland with the artificial island at Port Nelson. The completion of this road which was estimated at that time to cost $2,000,000 was abandoned in 1918 in the interests of economy, so we were told. Because economy seemed necessary, no great opposition was raised to the suspension of the work. Subsequent events however, suggested that some influences were at work to defeat the whole Hudson bay project, for while the construction was abandoned in 1919 in the interest of economy, the Victoria dry dock was begun in the same year at an estimated cost of $5,000,000, and I am informed that the city of Victoria needed: a Ay dock just about as much as the city of Regina. The deepening of the Welland canal was gone on with at the same time, and it is estimated that it is going to cost about $100,000,000 wnen completed. This project in itself will not make a difference of a fraction of a cent in the price of wheat. At the same time also the Canadian Government Merchant Marine was being built at a cost of $71,000,000. The people of Canada for the most part want to see economy practised in our public affairs, but they do not want a policy of economy that is confined to the Hudson bay project.
The construction of this road to date has not cost the taxpayers of this country one dollar. The farmers of the pre-emption area in Saskatchewan and Alberta have contributed every dollar that has been spent on the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Hudson bay railway so far. In 1884 a land grant of 12,800 acres per mile was authorized by the Dominion parliament to cover the cost of construction. From 1904 to 1908 demands were made that the road from Le Pas to Hudson bay be built and controlled by this government. Accordingly the government of the day made an agreement with the Mackenzie and Mann interests that if they would relinquish the land grant of 12,800 acres per mile for the 424 miles from Le Pas to Port Nelson, the government would build the road and make arrangements with the Canadian Northern to operate it for the government. This enormous land grant was now the property of the government, and in 1908 a measure was passed eliminating the land grant and substituting therefor a new source of revenue to meet the responsibilities assumed in the construction of the road. This was the sale of pre-emption lands in Saskatchewan and Alberta totalling some 9,000,000 acres. The amount of sales of these lands which have been actually sold to date is about $28,000,000, of which about $20,000,000 has been paid and about $15,000,000 has been spent on the Hudson bay road. The statement has been made in this House that this money was not earmarked for that purpose. It did not need to be ear-marked. The purpose all through the negotiations was very plain and these lands would have been homesteaded in the regular way except for the government's intention of financing the construction of the road by selling these pre-emptions to homesteaders at $3 per acre. The farmers in that district should not pay one more dollar for that indebtedness on those pre-emption lands until the Hudson Bay railway is gone on with. This money is a trust fund paid to the government by the farmers in the pre-emption afea for the sole purpose of building the Hudson Bay railway.
Apart from the great possibilities of this route as an auxiliary grain and cattle route, there are great opportunities for national development in the northern areas. The Beldher islands, which comprise an area of about 10,000 square miles, and are situated on the eastern coast of the bay about 100 miles off the coast in almost a straight line east of Port Nelson, are said to contain one of the richest deposits of iron ore in the whole world. If this ore is developed,-and it must be developed one of these days-it may be brought south to James bay and by rail to some point in Ontario to be smelted there. If we do that, coal will have to be brought from the United States for smelting purposes, and the cost of carrying the ore down

that railway will all have to be charged up to the ore because there will be the traffic only one way. If the Hudson Bay railway is completed, the ore can be shipped across the bay, and trains that are carrying the grain out to the port can bring back the ore, thus dividing the cost of maintenance between the two cargoes. This ore can be shipped west to some central point where it will meet the coal from the coal areas of Alberta, a great quantity of which is suitable for smelting purposes, and in this way these two natural industries can be built up. This would form a basis of a great iron and steel industry on the prairie and in no other way could these natural resources be developed as economically as this. The presence in the immediate vicinity of the immense natural water powers of Manitoba would open up great possibilities for manufacturing without artificial encouragement. Our transportation systems should be so laid out as to develop our natural industries and to make them supplementary to one another. The Hudson Bay railway is then, from the national point of view, the logical route for the development of the Belcher islands' ores.
This road has been promised by all political . parties. It has been paid for by the farmers of western Canada, and at this late date when only 92 miles remain to be completed. it cannot be abandoned without a serious breach of national trust.


Mr. T. H. McOONICA (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I desire only to associate myself with those who have urged the government to make some pronouncement favourable towards the Hudson bay road. I have no desire to discuss the question at any length, but the people of western Canada are thoroughly in earnest when they ask that this road be completed. They have looked forward for many years with the earnest hope that this would furnish them with an outlet for their grain. It is hope deferred, but it was a hope that was founded upon the solemn, unequivocal promises of both the old political parties, promises made without mental reservation or conditions, and upon that hope they have built themselves up. Moreover, circumstances developing are such that if it were an arrangement between private parties, they would have almost a contract right which the court would enforce. They have bought millions of acres of land and paid for them with the understanding that the money so paid would be used in the completion of this road. They have paid that money in good faith. Part of that

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
money is still in the hands of the government, and the road is not completed. I suppose to-night the vote will be against any further work on the Hudson bay road, and I want to assure this government that no word could be sent from Ottawa to the West that could cast a deeper gloom, because the people there are really anxious and in earnest in their desire that tihis road be completed.


Mr. ROBERT MILNE (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, the reason has been asked many times why the West is anxious for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. The West has been left dangling so far as this railway is concerned, and since 1918 we have never known whether it would be completed or scrapped. After some 115,000,000 of western money has been put into that road the prairie provinces are desirous that some concrete policy shall be stated and pursued in regard to this project. For a good many years the subject has been under discussion in this House, and consulting the debates I find that such eminent statesmen as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, the Hon. Frank Oliver, the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, Sir George Foster, the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), the present member for Welland (Mr. German), and many others pronounced themselves a long time ago in favour of the undertaking. If the project was feasible at that time-and I presume it must have been or these hon. gentlemen would not have declared themselves so outspokenly in favour of it-if it was feasible, I say, in 1908 it is ten times more reasonable and more necessary to-day. At that time the famous Carrot river and the Swan river country of Manitoba was undeveloped and the possibilities of this agricultural area were unknown. And so far as minerals are concerned it has been only within recent years that they have been ascertained to be in that region in large and paying quantities. There is considerable water power to be developed on the rivers as well, the possibilities in that direction being unlimited. It is only within the last few years that we have been able to harness that power and transmit it efficiently. I repeat, therefore, that if hon. gentlemen had strong grounds for declaring themselves so definitely in favour of the project at that time, the undertaking is ten times more reasonable to-day.
The suggestion has been made that the provinces should take over this project; but as has been pointed out, the provinces do not own their own natural resources and you could hardly expect them to snend money building
lines to develop resources which are under the control of the Dominion. There is another good reason why the province should not take over the work. This railway is a national undertaking and if the provinces assumed the responsibility of developing it, it is more than likely that the shipping interests who control transportation on the high seas could, if they made up their minds definitely to oppose the scheme, practically beat the provinces to it. If the project were undertaken by the Dominion, however, with the powers which the Dominion can wield there would be a much better chance of success. As all the arguments have been dwelt upon at some length I do not propose to enter upon any consideration of them. I want to voice my approval of the scheme, and intend to support the project.


Oliver Robert Gould: This is
not the first time I have placed myself on record as being in favour of the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and my reasons, which I have advanced on former occasions, are the same as those which have been put forward to-night. I have nothing new to offer but I desire to emphasize my belief that it is the bounden duty of this Dominion to carry this undertaking through to a successful conclusion and satisfy the demand of the western people. I have received a goodly number of resolutions from boards of trade and towns in my own district in southeastern Saskatchewan, and as the greater number of those who have spoken on this subject to-night have stated the case for the northern part of the country it will be evident when I advance the views of the people of southeastern Saskatchewan that the demand for this project is general throughout the province, both in the north and in the south. The minister himself has favoured the construction of this railway in order to give to the western people that share of justice to which they are entitled and which they demand. But so far, for economic reasons, the hopes of those people have been deferred from time to time.
I do not wish to say anything in any way prejudicial to the case but one fact I cannot overlook. Some years ago there happened to be a great unrest throughout the Dominion on the part of the returned soldiers and we voted at that time a huge sum of money, some $40,000,000, for the purpose, to a considerable extent at any rate, of allaying that unrest, providing means whereby the soldiers might be rehabilitated. I do not think that any hon. gentleman who assisted in the passage of that vote thought at the time that we

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
were making the best possible investment, because no doubt we were prepared to lose some of that money if only we could get matters settled. Hon. gentlemen who are sceptical of this proposition in the West might consider that fact. There is unrest in the West to-day and it would seem to be the part of wisdom for this Dominion to spend some money to appease that feeling there; from that point of view alone, altogether apart from the undoubted feasibility of the scheme, hon. gentlemen might consider the advisability of going ahead with the undertaking if only to allay the unrest that prevails in western Canada over this matter. The people there are certainly of the opinion that the Dominion is not playing the game fairly with them in withholding what they deem to be their absolute right. Hudson bay is situate right in 'the heart of the hinterland and Divine Providence must have placed it there for some useful purpose. It is therefore for the wisdom of man to exploit the potential advantages that lie there. Both of the old parties are on record in favour of this scheme and the third party is now stating its case. I would point out that while there is all the traffic which the two roads can carry at present from the production of grain in the West, only one-fifth of the arable land in Canada is so far under cultivation. We have approximately 300,000,000 acres in the Dominion adapted to agricultural production but we have only 60,000,000 under cultivation at the present time. So that we can reasonably expect that the new area which will be developed will easily provide traffic for all the ports we have.
We in the West feel that justice has not been done us. I want hon. members who live farther east to take a few minutes' time and just try to visualize conditions in the West and our earnest feelings in regard to this project.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker,
I am not going to make even the short speech which I intended to make. I rise simply to associate myself with this project and to remind the House that history is a record of things regarding which people said "it cannot be done." Some day the words which have been uttered in this House by those opposed to this project will be used against their authors, because some day this "will be done," and I only hope it will be done soon enough for the Minister of Railways to have a chance to carry to completion the project which he himself began and which I am sure he would like to complete. This scheme is heartily
[.Mr. Gould.]
supported by the eastern part of the prairie provinces, and we should like to associate ourselves with those who would carry it to completion.


William John Ward: Mr. Speaker, we should be able to get in a good day's work to-day, starting at six o'clock in the morning. Had we always commenced our work at this hour, we would have been through the session long before to-day. I can assure hon. members it is with the deepest regret that I am forced at this time in the morning to address the House, but as I look over at the Minister of Railways, who I am sure has come through a very heavy ordeal during the session, I want to remind him that this is his own making.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I might just as well settle this now. I absolutely deny that this is my " making " or the " making " of any person but the member who introduced this amendment. He has had seventeen chances to move the same amendments-seventeen chances. Do not talk about the resolution. He had time to bring in that resolution, but he let it go by day after day. I am not going to criticise him for that. But to say that this is the only time when the amendment could have been brought in is absolutely counter to the fact. He had seventeen chances to move it, because estimates have been introduced Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, by every department of the government.


William John Ward: I have a super-respect for the Minister of Railways, but he knows just as well as I do that the stage has been set against us for the last ten days.


George Perry Graham: Nothing of the kind; I
deny that absolutely. My hon. friend is not going to work up any heroics throughout the country on that account. Every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when estimates were introduced, this same motion of want of confidence in the government could have been moved; but it was not decided until the last two or three days that it should be a vote of want of confidence.


William John Ward: The Minister of Railways
must be perfectly well aware that this is not a vote of want of confidence.


George Perry Graham: I know it is. It cannot
be anything else.


William John Ward: I am sure the minister is perfectly familiar wuth the rules-


George Perry Graham: I certainly am.


William John Ward: And he will find that Bourinot states very clearly that an amendment oi

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
this kind is not a vote of want of confidence any more than is an amendment to an ordinary motion.


George Perry Graham: An amendment on the motion to go into supply is always a vote of want of confidence in the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not according to Bourinot.


William John Ward: However, I do not rise to take part in this debate simply to play politics as some hon. members have stated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


William John Ward: In response to what the hon member for South Oxford said I request the reporter not to report my speech.


Mr. RINFRET:: I second the motion.


William John Ward: This is only the second time that I have risen in my place during this session. I ask the reporter not to report my speech. I do not think hon. members appreciate the feeling in regard to this project which prevails in western Canada to-day. It is an amazing situation when a matter of such national importance has to be forced upon the House, and we are compelled to remain here all night to discuss it. I must repeat again, it is not my making that I am f,orced at this time in the morning to address the House on this question.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman tell us whose making it is?


William John Ward: There was only one day upon which it was feasible to introduce this motion, and on that day the hon. Minister of Railways was absent from his seat. Consequently out of consideration for him the hon. member for Prince Albert deferred his motion.


Mr.   VEIN@: I have seen the Minister of Railways in his seat almost every day during this session.


An hon. MEMBER:: So say we all.


William John Ward: We might just as well have gone into supply at three o'clock yesterday afternoon as at one o'clock this morning.


Thomas Vien: And six weeks ago.


William John Ward: But the amazing situation is that while in the last ten days we have voted almost thirty million dollars, much of it for projects of somewhat doubtful value, including five million dollars for a bridge at Montreal-


Thomas Vien: And twenty-five million dollars for branch lines in the West.


William John Ward: -another five million dollars for Vancouver harbour; another six million dollars for a viaduct in Toronto-Toronto, with facilities second to none, with steamboats steaming up to its back door, with the very finest railway facilities to be found anywhere in the Dominion, in view of the resolution which was accepted by this House, enthusiastically accepted by hon. members opposite, moved by my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) to give priority to the Hudson Bay railway over other national projects commenced subsequently to this project, I find in looking up the amount of money that has been spent on other works since operations were stopped on the railway in 1911 that we have expended on the Montreal harbour $10,052,000. That is exclusive of the vote this session.


Thomas Vien: To move your grain.


William John Ward: I find that we have expended $26,626,791 on the Welland ship canal. That also is exclusive of the vote this session of another $8,118,000.


Thomas Vien: To move your grain.


William John Ward: Neither the Minister of Railways nor any other hon. member has ever had the temerity to stand up and say that the Welland ship canal is worth one iota to the grain carrying business of Canada.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but he must be careful of his language. If he will look up Hansard he will discover that in two sessions I have pointed out that I had received petitions before the new Welland ship canal was started, petitions largely from the West. All Canada was a unit on the beginning of the canal, and the West was just as much a unit as any part of the East. I pointed out on one occasion the saving which it was estimated would be made in the hauling of grain by enlarging the canal so that bigger vessels could go straight through to Montreal.


William John Ward: Mr. Speaker, the West is
unanimously in favour of the Hudson Bay railway, but I venture to say that you cannot get 15 per cent of the people west of the Great Lakes to vote for the Welland ship canal.


George Perry Graham: That may be now, but it was not the case formerly.


William John Ward: I challenge the minister to
guarantee that the widening and deepening of the Welland ship canal will effect a saving of a thirty-second part of a cent on the carriage of grain, and we have already spent $70,000,000 on the project. If the Welland ship canal

Supply-Hudson Bay Raihvay
was going to be of any value to the grain carrying trade or in connection with the transport of goods into the interior of this country it should have been started at the lower end, at Montreal, and opened up through to Toronto. When the Welland ship canal is completed the money we have expended in the Port Colborne elevators will amount to nothing more than a pile of concrete and the city of Toronto will be down to this House demanding ten or fifteen million dollars to build ele-ators at Toronto. That is what will happen. The government are not respecting the stand they took last year in supporting the resolution of the hon. member for Prince Albert. I find that since the work on the Hudson Bay railway was stopped in 1918, $2,877,137 has been spent on the Esquimalt dry dock, another white elephant on the hands of this country. There is also provision in the estimates this year for $350,000 for the Port Colborne elevators and repairs to the Welland ship canal, and the huge sum of 840.000 for the terminals at Port Nelson. These are amazing figures, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the unanimous demand of western Canada for this national project. It is a national project just as much as the port of Montreal, just as much as the National railways. In view of the fact that it has been paid for by the western people themseles I contend that eastern Canada has no more moral right to attempt to block this project than have the people of China. The money has been provided out of the sale of lands in western Canada set aside for that purpose.
We have been discussing this question now for about five hours. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has not attempted to make any statement on the subject and I contend that we are forced into the position we now find ourselves. I would just like to quote the statement of a very eminent politician and one of the greatest statesmen this country ever produced, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He said:
I hope that I shall live to see a city at the terminus of a Hudson's Bay railway	
A city mark you.
It is not enough for us to confine our views to Canada that is now settled, we must look ahead, we must push northward as far as colonization can go. I have great confidence that before many years are past we shall see towns and villages on the shores of Hudson's bay, as we see on the shores of Norway, where people will be prosperously engaged in thb lumbering business, the pulp industry, the fishing industry, and others. This is what I hope Canadians will see ere long, said Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

In company with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) I made a trip over the Hudson bay route last fall.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did you come
back?


William John Ward: I would like to say that ridicule on the part of hon. members opposite will not get us anywhere. It will not settle these questions, nor will it tend to develop that national unity that is talked about so much by hon. gentlemen opposite.
During the two previous sessions we discussed this question in the House and on those occasions I refused to take part in the debate because I had some doubt in my mind as to the practicability of the whole project. However, I determined to inform myself on the question. Accordingly I made a trip over the route last year, and I intend to give a review of the character of the country, the nature of the soil and the conditions as we found them at the port.
Leaving for Port Nelson on the twelfth of September, we were disappointed at not finding the huge muskegs about which we had heard so much through the press. A false impression has been given to the public regarding the character of that country. We had been told that it was one great muskeg; that trains would run off the track into the muskegs and disappear; that no railway could be maintained there. Well, the facts are these: For the first hundred miles of the Hudson Bay railway, the substratum is almost wholly composed of hardpan or rock, an excellent place to build a railway. From that point on for 125 miles the railway runs through what is termed up in that district as the great clay belt, which the hon. member for Nelson has mentioned. Travelling through this clay belt we found settlers growing all their own vegetables. We found that district quite capable of producing equal to that of almost any other part of western Canada. We passed along through that portion of the country and coming to the port of Nelson, spent a week there. I am not an expert in any sense and am wholly incompetent to judge as to what constitutes a good harbour and what does not. But I think we had enough horse sense to be able to judge whether Port Nelson would constitute a good harbour, and we were unanimous in our opinion that there was nothing wrong with Port Nelson except that it needed some expenditure in the development of these works. We were also surprised to find the 90 miles of grade on which the steel has been laid, from Port Nelson to the Kettle Rapids

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
bridge, in an excellent state of preservation; seventy-five per cent of it would receive ties without any repair work whatever. We were also amazed to find the whole road in an excellent state of preservation considering the years of inaction which it has undergone. I would say in summing up that there is no other five hundred mile stretch of railway in Canada that was built more cheaply or that can be maintained and operated more economically than the Hudson Bay railway. There is not a five hundred mile stretch of country in Canada that can contribute more traffic to a railway than the stretch from the Pas to Hudson bay.
However, the purpose of the Hudson Bay railway project and of all our agitation in that connection is to reduce the carrying charge of our grain from western Canada. It may be of interest to the House to learn that the average cost of carrying the western grain crop from the head of the lakes to tidewater has been $75,000,000 a year. In 1922 it cost a little over $100,000,000 to transport it from the head of the lakes to Montreal, New York or the eastern mills. You may say, what has that to do with the Hudson Bay railway? It has this to do with it: Port Nelson is closer to where the grain is grown, closer to the average railway station in western Canada, than the ports of Fort William or Port Arthur, so that if we could have shipped our grain by way of Hudson bay we could have saved the entire $75,000,000 a year that we are paying to-day, and that is only upon the grain trade. You may add the 50,000 or 60,000 head of cattle that we shipped out of Canada last year and upon which we paid about $22 a head for delivery at Montreal. On the basis of the very same rates and commissions paid last year they could have been delivered at Port Nelson for $9, a savjpg of $11 per head on the fifty or sixty thousand head of cattle shipped. I noticed that in a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture he expressed the hope that we will be shipping 200,000 head of cattle to the Old Country in the near future. You can visualize what a saving there would be if we could ship our cattle via Hudson bay rather than by the long route to Montreal and save an average of $11 a head. In addition to that the cattle leaving Calgary in box cars are on the road for ten days. Unless they are sent right through by fast train it takes, on an average, ten days from the time the cattle leave the stockyards in Calgary until they are delivered on the boat in Montreal. Now, a bullock is not fit for exportation after it has been bunted in and out of the stockyards and carried up and down the tracks for that long period.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. member referring to frozen beef?


William John Ward: No-to live beef. On the other hand if those cattle could be shipped to Port Nelson the longest time occupied on the journey would not be over three days. It would not be over three days until they were delivered to an ocean liner and they would be delivered in the markets of the world in very much better condition than they can be delivered when shipped by the long route which is used today. In discussing this question with a manufacturer not long ago he made this statement, "Ward, the most vicious "-these are his own words -" and expensive system of transportation, transhipping, wholesaling and warehousing that exists in the world exists between the city of Winnipeg and the city of Montreal." And anyone who has had experience visiting these transhipping stations cannot help but be impressed with the truth of this statement. Every bushel of grain shipped out of western Canada to Mlontreal has to be transhipped four times. How in the world is it possible to retain the identity of our grain, or stop the mixing which now goes on as long as our wheat has to pass through that process? I have no prejudice against the city of Montreal, none whatever. I am glad to know that we have great cities in this country, I am proud of our Canadian institutions-I do not think the institutions in any country are better manned than in ours -but I do say that western Canada cannot continue paying 53 per cent of the net value of our grain to ship it to tidewater through the entire season as was the case last year in the shipments to Montreal and New York. When we have paid the $75,000,000 it cost us to transport our grain from the head of the lakes to tide-water we are exactly the same distance from Liverpool that we would be if we shipped it via the port of Nelson, and if we could ship by the latter route we should be able to save that immense sum of money. These are facts that we cannot be indifferent to. It is impossible, so long as we are hemmed in as we are, marooned in the heart of this continent, to do otherwise than suffer heavy loss until we get relief. I have made the statement frequently and I will make it here, that never again will grain be grown' at a profit in western Canada until we can ship it by the Hudson bay route. I may be asked the reason. It is because our natural competitors in the wheat markets of

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
the world are the Argentine, Brazil, Australia, India, and some of the states of Russia. In none of these countries will you find a bushel of wheat grown over five hundred miles from tide-water; the great bulk of it is grown within three hundred miles of tidewater. Those are the countries we have to compete with. How can we do it successfully as long as we are from fifteen hundred to eighteen hundred miles from ocean ports. It is impossible to successfully compete with the countries I have named; and until we get access to the sea, until we have a port on Hudson bay, I hesitate to think what the future of western Canada will be. I was at the station of Togo, just on the west side of my constituency one day last fall. They grow principally oats at this point. I went to the elevator and got the price of oats and found that the freight rate to Montreal on No. 1 feed oats that day was 86 per cent of the net value of those oats. That is what it cost to ship to tide water. How are farmers going to grow oats, which they sell for 22 cents a bushel, when it takes practically that amount to carry them to tide-water. All through last season it cost 56 per cent of the value of a pound of butter to take it to Montreal; in the case of a crate of eggs 63 per cent of the value, and in the case of a ton of hay 84 per cent of the value. These are the salient facts of the situation and they stare us in the face every day. Is there any wonder that there is talk of secession in western Canada. I have here before me a huge volume of petitions, many of them covering whole municipalities. I will 'just read one which is typical of the entire number; and let me say that I had not the slightest idea that any of these resolutions were coming.


Thomas Vien: Take it as read.


William John Ward: I will read the preamble of
one of the petitions.


Thomas Vien: Put it on Hansard.


William John Ward: It is very brief.


Thomas Vien: Unanimous consent.


William John Ward: I am only going to read the preamble:
Whereas, owing to the failure of the present government to implement their promise, on assuming office, to complete the Hudson Bay railway, which is the natural outlet to the seaboard for the western provinces, and which, it is estimated on the basis of the 1922 crop, would have saved the West $50,000,000 in transportation and handling charges, had the route been in operation, and

Whereas, owing to the fact the two previous governments were sufficiently satisfied with the feasibility of the route to invest over $20,000,000 on the project, which expenditure was provided for out of the sale of land in the West, leaving only ninety miles of steel to be laid.
Therefore, we, the undersigned fully qualified citizens, request the Dominion government to complete the Hudson Bay railway in 1924; and due consideration be given to branch lines, and provide terminal facilities by the 31st August, 1925, sufficient to take care of all business offered, and, failing this, we will ask the Imperial government to establish a separate dominion west of the Great Lakes.
We must not view these things too lightly. I know the West very well and I know this spirit is growing there. The people of the West have a feeling that they are being discriminated against. There is no parallel to the situation regarding the Hudson Bay railway in the history of this country where one section of Canada is deliberately blocking a project by selfish prejudice in another province. Do you mean to tell me that if the Hudson Bay railway were the dud our opponents are trying to make us believe it is that there would be such a fierce, persistent, organized and resourceful opposition to it? Of course there would not. The worth of the road is advertised by its enemies; they fight it because they fear it. Of that there is no question at all. Most of the opposition comes from the city of Montreal. In spite of what was said by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) there is the big four in opposition in the city of Montreal to this project. I have inside knowledge that when the order went forth in the fall of 1922 to lift 116 miles of steel off the Hudson Bay railway that order was engineered from St. James Street, Montreal.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What is my hon. friend's authority.


William John Ward: I am not in a position to give it.	,


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does my hon. friend know?


William John Ward: I have it from a member of the staff of the firm in question.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Give the name of the member of the staff.


William John Ward: I could not do that in all fairness.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend has no right to make such a statement in the House unless he can substantiate it, and I challenge him to do so.


William John Ward: I would say this in reply to my hon. friend: My information was so direct as to the real source of this opposition that

Supply[DOT]-Hudson Bay Railway
I could not help but think there was some ground for believing the statement.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is purely hearsay.


Thomas Vien: Imagination 1


William John Ward: That is probably beside the question. Nevertheless there is a big cry in the city of Montreal against the Hudson Bay railway. There is the Bank of Montreal, there is the Hudson's Bay Company, there is the Montreal Harbour Commission, and there is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. These are all opposed to the development of ports on Hudson bay, there is no question about that. There is not any question about that, and I would be happy to think that we only had this parliament to deal with. In fact, I have it on the word of members of this government that there are underground wires which are making it very difficult for us-


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is making
very inaccurate statements.


William John Ward: Not inaccurate at all. My
statements are too accurate.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let the hon. member substantiate his statement, or else give us the names, so that we will have something to go upon. It is only hearsay evidence.


William John Ward: It is getting under the skin
of my hon. friend when we touch Montreal.


Milton Neil Campbell: There was propaganda
in the Montreal papers regarding it.


William John Ward: I think I have an article here that would substantiate all I have said from the lips of the Premier of Quebec. However, that is by the way. I will deal with that a little later on. Premier Taschereau opened out in a tirade against the West for demanding the Hudson Bay railway some short time ago, and as I read that article, in which he charged the West with having created all the national problems in Canada, he went on to say that after the East had built all the railways in Canada, we were demanding branch lines and the Hudson Bay railway, I wondered if the Premier of Quebec knew that the Canadian Pacific Railway had sold three hundred and fifty million dollars' worth of resources given to them by the Canadian people, ninety per cent of these resources being in western Canada. The appraised value of the Canadian Pacific railway is $500,000,000, and yet they have sold three hundred and fifty million dollars' worth of resources that have been given them. And now we have the Premier of Quebec telling us that the East has been building the railroads in western Canada. I will go further and say that the 296
land grants given to the old Canadian Northern were almost equal to the railway itself. So that eastern Canada has not built the railways in western Canada, and western Canada has made wonderful contributions to eastern Canada. It is easy to give away something that does not belong to you. The eastern politicians freed the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation from time immemorial, and the exemption will run for another twenty years. It has been estimated that we have lost in the non-payment of taxes somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000,000, while eastern Canada collected taxes from the railroad. These are the things that are grinding the people of the West every day. The people out there have been going out of business. About five hundred people have left my constituency in the last few months, simply because of the conditions surrounding the production of grain and live stock, and on account of lack of transportation, the high tariff and many other things which produce these conditions.


James Joseph Hughes: What good would it do to spend millions of money on an impossibility?


William John Ward: I will deal with that right now to satisfy my hon. friend and for the benefit of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) I will quote from an article which appeared in a newspaper, which states that the Montreal branch of the Engineering Institute of Canada appears to have had quite a pleasant time at its last monthly meeting. The article continues:
The subject was the Hudson Bay railway and all the good Montrealers present took a hearty kick at the project. When they objected to any money being spent in making Port Nelson into an ocean port, none of them appears to have blushed. Of course, Montreal has been made an ocean port by virtue of expenditure-
And I direct my hon. friend's attention to this:
-that make any possible outlay on the Hudson Bay route look like the proverbial thirty cents.
That is true. If there is any port in Canada which can with less grace oppose this expenditure, it is Montreal, where hundreds of millions have been spent to make it an ocean going port. I am not complaining, but we are still spending millions of dollars on the St. Lawrence route, one of the most dangerous routes in the country. The article continues:
They also had the nerve to object to Port Nelson because it is only open part of the year and because the route of the port wall be subject to differential rates in insurance-arguments that would have been equally valid against the development of the St. Lawrence route. One of the critics was a Mr. Tair, "a marine engineer" who knew all about it.



Supply-Hudson Bay Raihoay
Of course.
It would, he declared, be impossible to navigate any cargo vessels to Port Nelson, or as near there as they could get, for more than six weeks a year.
How would it be if we would introduce a little real information? I will refer to Commander Gordon about whose reliability there is no question. He investigated the Hudson straits. Commander Gordon in his voyage of 1886, following instructions to proceed to the mouth of Hudson strait on July 3rd, pushed through the strait, calling at some of the stations established in 1886. He crossed the bay from cape Southampton to Churchill and arrived in the harbour on July 29th. The voyage appears to have been made with comparative ease from Halifax to Churchill, Nelson and return. In 1886 Commander Gordon found the strait navigable about a month earlier than in 1885. In his conclusion, respecting the season of navigation he takes into consideration the main question of the object of the expedition, namely, that practical navigation in the straits can be kept up during July, August, September and October. He mentions those four months during which the straits can be kept open.
Then I would refer to Commander A. P. Low, and on one will question him. He is a practical engineer, a man of world wide repute almost. Hudson strait never freezes over and the official expedition of 1903 under the command of A. P. Low, has established an important fact of two open currents always flowing in the straits; one along the north shore in and westward bearing the ice drift of Greenland, so that ships entering could go with ice drive; one along the south shore outward bearing the raft ice of Hudson bay so that the ships going to sea could also go with the ice drift. In both cases, therefore, it was found that the ships could navigate the straits with the ice drift, not against it.
Then we have Captain Bernier, another well-known man, whom no one will question. Captain Bernier, the well-known arctic explorer and navigator says:
With wireless telegraphy in a station at the entrance of Hudson bay, the opening of navigation could be made in the first week of July by informing the steamers which side of the straits to pass on, so as to find clear navigable water.
In a former interview Captain Bernier had made the statement that Hudson bay and strait are open to navigation the year round, but as far as the strait is concerned, icebergs block the way in places according to where the current into and out of the bay drives them. With wireless stations established, so that ships could be directed in their course, the

Hudson bay ports would rank amongst the most important on the continent, owing to the very appreciable difference to Europe, compared with that of other ports.
I just draw my hon. friend's attention to the statement of Captain Bernier that the straits are open for navigation the year round.
I have a whole lot more of these citations. My hon. friend from King's (PJE.I.) submitted what he thought was very interesting information regarding the straits. I have compiled my information from these reports which I have gathered from all over Canada, from practically every engineer of whom we have a record who has visited the Hudson bay. I got a report from these different engineers, so that I have not confined myself to one trip or one ship but I have reports of some thirty or forty different engineers, who have made the trip through the Hudson straits.
Bishop Lofthouse, who has spent more than twenty years in mission work throughout what was the district of Keewatin, says that the Hudson straits are just as safe for navigation, or will be when they are properly lighted, as the straits of Belle Isle, more so in fact; for there are more accidents at Belle Isle than in the Hudson straits.
J. W. Tyrrell, who has gone through the straits several times writes:
The strait can, in my opinion, be relied upon for unobstructed navigation from July 15 to November 1, with a possible extension of two weeks at either end.
___I would say that the proposition to open up a
route for commerce through Hudson bay and strait, is, in my opinion, a wise and perfectly feasible move, both because of the service it will render in developing the local resources of the country, and because of the additional transportation facilities it will afford for the products of western Canada.
Mr. Tyrrell has also said:
As to icebergs, they are occasionally met with in Hudson straits, being sometimes carried in along the north shore by the prevailing current from Davis strait, but they are by no means of frequent occurrence and not one tenth as numerous as off the strait of Belle Isle.
Mr. G. Halcrow, a retired factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and a resident of the Pas, who has lived forty-five years or more in the Hudson bay district, eight of which have been spent on the bay, has passed through the strait several times. His opinion is that navigation by that route is possible eight months in the year.
The most quoted authority we have to-day on the navigability of the Hudson strait is Dr. Bell, F.R.G.S. He gives his opinion, after nine years of navigation in these waters, having made seventeen trips to Hudson bay with the several government cruises. He says:
It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
straits, for they are upon tide water, and more than that, the waters of the Gulf stream come back this way from the north of the coast of Europe. There may be some little difficulty near the shore at some time of the year, but I do not think it will ever be necessary to have ice-breaking boats. Why, navigation through the straits should be particularly easy, because, while there may at times be floating ice, there are no rocks and no islands upon which to go ashore.
I would direct that to the attention of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride), who thought that ships would have a terrible time ia getting through the straits.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-and I am sure my hon. friends will not question his authority-speaking at Niagara Falls on September 18, 1908, said:
We have undertaken the construction of another railway, the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railwav, I am sure, does not appeal very much to the people of Welland county. It concerns more the people of the West. But I say to you, gentlemen of Ontario, and you will agree with me, that what concerns one portion of the community concerns every part of the community. Now, we have come to the conclusion that this railway is a necessity, owing to the condition in which our fellow -citirens in the West are placed.
And do not forget that this was in 1908. We need it many more times to-day.
This railway will give an alternative or optional route.
This is what my hon. friends from some eastern ports fear:
At the present time all the wheat as soon as it is tracked is sent out to lake Superior. We want to provide another railway by Hudson Bay route. There will then be the present route and the Hudson Bay route, and the man who raises wheat and cattle will have two outlets for his production. We have been asked: "Are you not going to hurt the trade of the St. Lawrence if you do that?" Oh ye of little faith! the trade of Canada is too great even for these two outlets.
I wonder what has happened to the vision and courage of the politicians and statesmen of to-day. When the statesmen of the day thought that it was necessary to build a bridge at Quebec across the St. Lawrence river, they called together the engineers of the country and they set them to work to design a bridge to span that great river. They made the attempt and when the bridge was partly up, what happened? It fell into the river, taking down with it some seventy souls to an untimely grave. Did the people of that day throw up their hands in holy horror and say: The risk is too great; we cannot take the chance? No; they had vision and courage. They called their engineers together and said: We have faith in our engineers, we believe that they can build this bridge. They tried it again and when it was almost completed, it fell into the river, taking with it twelve more 2965	*
souls to an untimely grave. Did they then say: The element of chance is too great; we cannot take the risk? No, they exhibited the courage and vision which Sir Wilfrid Laurier exhibited in his time. They said: We have faith in our engineers. The engineers made the third attempt, and there the bridge stands to-day as a monument to the ingenuity of man, the greatest structure of its kind in the universe. We are all proud of it, proud that it was designed by Canadian engineers.
When the Panama canal had been attempted by three or four different governments and corporations and after $140,000,000 had been spent on it, when the world considered that it was impossible to build a canal through the torrid zone of Panama, did the United States government say: The chances arc too great? No, they exhibited the same courage and vision which Sir Wilfrid Laurier exhibited, and they said: We believe it can be done. The result is that that canal stands to-day the greatest engineering project of its kind in the universe.
When the Canadian Pacific railway was being mooted and being discussed in this House in 1875, 1876 and 1877, such men as Alexander Mackenzie said:	Why, it will
never pay for the axle grease that will be used on the wheels. He was not considered a fool; he was considered one of the greatest statesmen of this country, and yet those were his views at that time. Will anyone say that the Canadian Pacific railway has been a failure? Let me tell the House that the element of chance was ten times greater in building the Canadian Pacific railway than in the Hudson Bay railway. What was known of western Canada in 1875? There was a little colony in the Red river valley and they came in by the Hudson bay. Had they met the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) or the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), they would have landed them at Montreal or Halifax and walked them across the continent. The only means, however, of connection for over two hundred years was by the Hudson bay.
I have often said this-and I think there is some truth in it-that this country was settled from the wrong end. If this country had been settled from Hudson bay rather than from Quebec, we would have had a heritage that would have paid off our national debt, in fact all our bond indebtedness, provincial and federal, without any trouble at all. I think it was the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) who made the statement some time ago in this House about how some of our forefathers had cleaned up as many as a

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
hundred acres of hardwood bush in eastern Canada and who ended up with broken physique, gnarled hands and twisted backs. What for? To make prairie. They cut down the greatest heritage that this country has ever known to make prairie, while there were hundreds of millions of acres of it out West waiting to be developed. Those instances are by the way; but I wonder sometimes what happens to the courage and vision of our statesmen and politicians. When the question is one of an investment in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, the courage and vision seem still to exist, but when the question is one of an investment at Port Nelson of $2,000,000 something happens. What is it? I can only conclude that it is selfish prejudice; that you fear the route.
A promise made is a debt unpaid, and this debt is not paid. I fear that what the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has said is all too true and that this government has no intention of building the road. I feel sorry for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) because I think he wants to complete it but his hands are tied by underground wires which we cannot tap. In conclusion I want to express the hope that the government will very seriously consider this question and regard this fund as a trust fund. The people of western Canada consider it as such, and if we want to maintain that unity in Canada which I am sure the minister and the government have at heart, if we want to retain confederation, the Hudson Bay railway must be built.


Robert Forke: I want to protest against the idea that a vote of this kind is an expressoion of want of confidence in the government. It has been the custom no doubt when a motion to go into supply has been moved to consider any amendment proposed thereto as a want of confidence motion. That may have been true in connection with the budget or other important debates of that kind but the day is passing when this shall continue to be the practice. It is an absurdity that a government in a minority of the whole House should look upon a vote of this kind as indicating a want of confidence, and there must be some change in our mode of procedure in such cases to allow any hon. member to move a motion of this kind without incurring the charge that he is proposing a vote of want of confidence. When we look at the Mother of Parliaments we find that a government that has been defeated time and time again still carries on and no one thinks that anything wrong has been done. When a motion is intended to be considered as a
[Mr. Ward.l
want of confidence it should be clearly worded to that effect and in that case no government would retain its position five minutes after such a vote was carried.
I have a great deal of sympathy for hon. members opposite and I know that there is abundant excuse for much of the irritation which has been evident on both sides of the House during this debate; under the circumstances that was inevitable. But in justice to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) some explanation is called for. Hon. members on this side of the House, having this project in view this session, have hesitated to introduce a motion of this kind for the very reason I have stated: they considered that it might be regarded as a want of confidence motion. But the representatives of western Canada have a duty to discharge by their constituents who have sent them here and in bringing forward this matter they are only endeavouring to fulfil that duty. It must be remembered that there are at least a million people in the western provinces who consider this project, not in the way hon. gentlemen opposite consider it but with an earnest desire to see the work completed. Would hon. gentlemen think it right that the voice of that million should not be heard on this floor? Of course not. And that is why the matter has been brought forward in this House at the present time, although possibly the circumstances may not have been the most auspicious. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) I think it was stated that fifteen or sixteen occasions had presented themselves when the resolution could have been moved. I admit the truth of that statement, but I have clearly explained why the motion was not previously made; hon. gentlemen on this side did not want to have it thought that they were moving a want of confidence resolution against the government.
I hope that any unpleasant feelings which have been engendered wall soon disappear; I am sure that any unpleasantnesses have already been forgotten. Naturally the members on this side feel strongly on this question, although hon. gentlemen opposite have rather ridiculed the project. I have no hesitation, however, in predicting that the Hudson Bay railway will be a reality in the not far distant future, no matter who builds it. Of course, oceans of evidence can be adduced on both sides of the question, but with modem equipment and scientific inventions available I have no hesitation in expressing the belief that this undertaking will be successfully completed at no very distant date and will prove profitable. I almost hesitate

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
to say a word with reference to the Minister of Railways, who I think is a little irritated to-night, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that there is no member on this side of the House who has any hard feelings whatever in this matter.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Let me hasten to assure the hon. gentleman that I am r ot irritated. I am not anxious to sit heTe all night, but I can stay as late as anyone else. I do want to correct one wrong impression which has been left by some of the younger speakers, who may not have been born after I became a friend of the Hudson Bay railway but who certainly grew up after that. As a matter of fact I signed the first contract for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; I turned the first sod in connection with the work; and I do not mind being lectured for what may be termed a dereliction of duty, as one hon. gentleman put it. An hon. gentleman asked where the courage had all gone. Now, I think that the hon. member for Prince Albert did make a mistake in introducing the subject in this way. I say so decidedly, and for this reason: Under our practice such a motion cannot be considered as anything else than a vote of want of confidence.


Robert Forke: But we must change the
practice.


George Perry Graham: Well, that has been the practice all along and it was the practice when the resolution was introduced. I had not had an opportunity of reading over the amendment before it was moved; I was told 'that it would be moved but I did not know the nature of it until I heard it read. I am not complaining of that, although it is the custom when an amendment of this kind is contemplated for a copy of it to be sent to the minister concerned. Now, all these speeches could have been made in committee to-day; every one of them could have been delivered in committee, so that there was mo necessity for moving a want of confidence vote. I cannot help thinking therefore that the hon. member has been ill-advised by someone in moving his resolution in this way. I say this kindly, but he has injured the Hudson Bay railway project inasmuch as he has compelled friends of the project to vote against his amendment. It cannot be otherwise.
As to the project itself, someone will build the Hudson Bay railway-and I am not going to argue the question of navigation and all that sort of thing. I have said time and
again that the construction of the railway as a colonization road will open up a territory which will be valuable in that respect, even if the transportation end were left out altogether. We must recognize that we are in a practical world, and my hon. friend should remember that governments .do not grant money; parliaments do. You cannot get parliament to vote money unless you go at it the right way, by trying to educate members who do not agree with you; do not abuse them. If parliament is not in a frame of mind to vote the money, you must adhere to the project until you see it forced to a conclusion; but I think every member will agree with me that parliament as now constituted is not prepared to vote money for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. That is plain on the face of it, and we must take that fact into consideration.
It is true that land was set apart in the Dominion Lands Act for this purpose, it is true that that land was released, and it is true that in a speech Hon. Frank Oliver did indicate that the proceeds from their sale would be used for the construction of the Hudtson Bay railway. There is no question about it, but a great many people do not know it.
I have only this statement to make. The war having intervened, everything is turned upside down, and it is impossible to pick up the strings of any project just where they were thrown down before the war; we must bear that in mind in discussing this project. I will not say that our national finances are in a precarious condition, for I have every confidence in Canada and in her people, but I do say unless those behind the Hudson Bay railway go carefully along the lines I have indicated it makes it difficult for their friends especially when such a motion as this is introduced. I would advise those who are in favour of the project, as I know a portion of the West is, not to be discouraged, but to take into consideration all the circumstances, including this outstanding circumstance, that the parliament of Canada as now constituted will not vote money for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway at the present time. Perhaps another parliament may be more friendly. If I were hon. gentlemen living in the West I would do my best to spread information concerning this project, particularly laying stress on the railway as a colonization scheme; then the transportation end may follow.


Andrew Knox: Is the government willing to recognize that the fund which has been accumulating from the sale of the lands for the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
building of the Hudson Bay railway is a trust for that special purpose?


George Perry Graham: I would not care to make any further statement. I am inclined to think that investigation will show that practically all the money which has been received from the sale of these lands has been already expended on the project.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Andrew Knox: Mr. Speaker, I think I should have a right to say a word in reply. I merely wish to explain a certain statement that has been made.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Rule 21 provides:
A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion for the second reading of a bill, but not to any member who has moved an order of the day, an amendment, the previous question, an adjournment during a debate or an instruction to a committee.
I am sorry, but the hon. member is precluded from speaking further on this motion.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Knox), which was negatived on the following
division:	YEAS Messrs
Bancroft,	Hoey,
Beaubien,	Knox,
Bird,	Lovie,
Brown,	McConica,
Campbell,	Milne,
Carmichael,	Sales.
Davies,	Speakman,
Fansher,	Steedsman,
Forke,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Gould,	Ward.-20.
 NAYS Messrs
Baldwin,	Fortier,
Beland,	Gendron,
Benoit,	Gervais,
Binette,	Gordon,
Bouchard,	Graham,
Boucher,	Halbert,
Bureau,	Hammell,
Cannon,	Hatfield,
Cardin,	Healy,
Carruthers,	Hughes,
Casgrain,	Hunt,
Chevrier,	Kelly,
Chisholm,	King (Kootenay),
Copp,	King, Mackenzie (York),
d'Anjou,	Laflamme,
Dechene,	Lapierre,
Delisle,	Lapointe,
Denis (St. Denis),	Lavigueur,
Desaulniers,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Descoteaux,	McBride,
Deslauriers,	McGiverin,
Dravton (Sir Henry),	Mclsaac,
Duff,	McKay,
Ethier,	McTaggart,
Finn,	Malcolm,
Fontaine,	Marcile (Bagot),
Forrester, 	Marler,
Martell,	St. Pere,
Mercier,	Savard, SSguin,
Murdock,	
Ouimet,	Sexsmith,
Power,	Shaw,
Prevost,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Pritchard,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Putnam,	Sutherland,
Rankin,	Tobin,
Reed,	Vien.
Rinfret,	Walsh,
Robichaud,	Woods.-79.
Robitaille,	PAIRS
(The list of Pairs is furnished by the Chief Whips).
Messrs
Robinson,	Gardiner,
Kay,	Evans,
Jacobs,	Lucas,
Raymond,	Spencer.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Civil government-Post Office-Salaries, $1,107,518; contingencies, $145,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I fancy all the minister wants to do now that we are in committee of Supply is to move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the De-partmrait of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act, and to provide that regulations may be made by the minister, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council,-
1.	For authorizing the selection and employment of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required to carry on the work with which the minister is charged, and for their classification and salaries under the regulations, and that such provisions shall be deemed to have /been operative from the date of the passing of the said act;
2.	For the receipt and retention of any properties or moneys held or payable by the Crown, or any other authority, person or persons, on behalf of any persons or their dependents whenever such persons are or have been cared for under the provisions of the act, and to give valid receipts therefor;
3.	For assumption of guardianship in the case of the insane cared for under the act, in respect of such moneys or properties; and,
1.	For the disposal of such properties or moneys to such persons or their dependents, or as may be deemed expedient, or to their estates, if deceased.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.

Canadian Petroleums
Hewitt Bostock: This motion requires
unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 7.20 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, July 17, 1924