1924-07-17

Mr. SPEAKER:: On account of the late
sitting of the House yesterday, it has been impossible to get the Orders of the Day printed. I have had one prepared especially for myself, and I can lend it to any hon. member if necessary. I will call the orders in the regular way and we will follow the Orders of the Day for procedure for Thursday.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) presented the first and final report of the select standing committee on Public Accounts.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. Lapointe), moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 259, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	It is not contrary to military law or regulations for a battalion to carry battalion colours without the presence of the Union Jack?
2.	Did the Prime Minister, Minister of Militia, or both inspect a battalion on June 30, which carried battalion colours only?
3.	Is it contrary to military law or regulations to carry rifles on church parade?
4.	Is the Minister of Militia aware that on June 30, several units marched through the streets of Ottawa carrying rifles, the same units carrying battalion colours without the Union Jack?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No. Ordinarily only side arms are worn.
4.	No.


ALTERNATIVE VOTE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Has
the government any further information to give the House in regard to the amendment of the Elections Act, dealing with the transferable vote in single member constituencies?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As matters stand at the
moment, it ought to be possible to conclude this session this week, if nothing too controversial arises between now and Saturday, and the government is desirous if possible of having parliament prorogue this week. There are different reasons for that. Among others, one reason is that we should like to have His Excellency at the prorogation, and I understand that His Excellency has planned a trip to the West, leaving on Sunday or Saturday night. However, that is not the reason that has actuated us in our decision. We feel that there is a general disposition on the part of members of the House to have the business brought to a conclusion this week.
I am afraid that if the transferable vote were introduced it might lead to protracted discussion, extending over some little time. Under the circumstances, the government has decided not to proceed further with the bill which is before the House at the present time, but to take it up at an early stage next session of parliament.


CANADIAN PETROLEUMS LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I have been advised that an order in council was passed reserving, in northern Albert townships 84, 85, 86 and 87, in ranges 20 and 21, for the Canadian Petroleums Limited, in consideration of their agreeing to do certain development. Was such an order in council passed? I think it was dated in April of this year. If such an order was passed, what is the nature of the concession granted to this company and who are the companies?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Minister of the Interior):: Yes, there is a
reservation for the company mentioned for the purpose of manufacturing gas into carbon black. The district is away beyond the Peace river. My hon. friend will remember there was a great deal of drilling there about four or five years ago by this company and a company of Winnipegers headed by J. D. McArthur. It will cost some money to
Inter-Allied Conference

develop these oil wells. I think the company has three wells drilled at the moment, with the object of discovering oil. No oil has been discovered, but natural gas has been found in the locality, and we have given the company some concessions with certain restrictions, on the undertaking that they will construct a plant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you bring down a
copy of the order?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Yes, this
afternoon.


INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give us any information as to the status of Canada at the Inter-Allied Conference. It seems to me the Prime Minister should give us some outline as to the councils and the policies of the government with regard to the position and attitude of Canada on some of these Imperial questions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked that some outline should be given of Canada's attitude towards the present InterAllied Conference and the present position of Senator Belcourt. Perhaps in reply I cannot do better than give to the House in a few words an outline of the correspondence which has taken place in reference to the Inter-Allied Conference. The first intimation that our government had of any intention to hold an Inter-Allied Conference appeared m the morning papers here of June 24 in a despatch dated London, June 23, in which it was mentioned that an Inter-Allied Conference would take place very shortly in London, and in which it was also said that, replying to a question in the British House of Commons, the British Prime Minister had intimated that the British government was in communication with the dominion governments respecting representation at the conference. I was asked one or two questions in the House with reference to the invitation which had been extended to our government for representation at the conference, but I was unable to give any definite information or to reply to the first one or two questions, as I had not received any communication at the time the questions were asked.
EMr. C. A. Stewart]
On the 29th June the government received a formal communication from the Prime Minister of Great Britain intimating that the Inter-Allied Conference would be held in London probably on the 16th of this month, and that a week prior to that time a preliminary conference would be held in London of representatives of the different dominions with His Majesty's government to arrange for representation of the dominions at the conference. This despatch stated that, in the opinion of the British government, the conference, as respects British Empire representation, would come within the scope of the resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference in London. We were asked if we would send a representative to be present at the conference. To this communication the government within a day or two replied to the effect that we agreed, from the representations in the telegram which had been sent to us, that the matter did fall within the scope of the resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference, and that we would be pleased to have a representative of the Dominion meet with representatives of the other self-governing dominions and His Majesty's government in London at the preliminary conference. We regretted that the time was too short to perfmit of our sending a minister of the Crown to the preliminary conference, but stated that we would ask our High Commissioner to represent us at that preliminary conference. In order, however, that- there might be no mistake in our position in the matter of representation, we intimated immediately that, in our opinion, representation according to the terms of the resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference should follow the precedents set at Versailles and Washington whereby each dominion would be separately represented by its delegate 'bearing full powers from His Majesty the King to act in the name of His Majesty in respect of the dominion.
In reply to that communication, an intimation was given by the British Prime Minister that he was unable to say whether he could place the same interpretation upon the application of the resolution of the Imperial Conference as we placed upon it. It was however, suggested that the representatives should meet and confer and the question of representation be decided as a result of the conference. The preliminary conference took place on the 10th of this month in London, and our government was represented by the Hon. Mr. Larkin. It appeared at that preliminary conference that its purpose was not so much to

Inter-Allied Conference
arrange for separate representation of the dominions as to inform the dominions of the nature of the representation which had already been decided upon. It was intimated that it would not be possible for more than three representatives of the British Empire to be present at the Inter-Allied Conference and the despatch rather suggested that the three in question would necessarily be members of His Majesty's government. We intimated that this would not be satisfactory to the Dominion; that in our opinion this parliament would expect that precedents set at Versailles and Washington should be followed and that our government would expect that a Canadian representative with full powers from His Majesty in respect of Canada should represent this country as a member of the British Empire delegation. We drew attention to the fact that the internal organization of the British Empire delegation was a matter, in our opinion, for the British Empire itself to decide; that any objection from other nations as to the manner in which representation was arranged within the Empire was something that was none of their affair, if I may use the expression, but that it was for the British Empire itself to arrange the manner in which it should be represented at any conference at which British Empire delegates would be present. We pointed out that we could see no objection to the delegates of the several dominions arranging with the delegates of His Majesty's government such order of procedure and representation within the British Empire delegation at the Inter-Allied Conference as they might see fit.
We received in reply to that communication a despatch thanking us for the suggestion that something in the nature of a panel of the British Empire delegation might be arranged.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Perhaps the
Prime Minister will explain what is meant by a panel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my honourable friend has no objection, I shall first dispose of the correspondence. The communication from the British government expressed appreciation of the suggestion that representation at the sessions of the Inter-Allied Conference might be determined from time to time by the British Empire delegation, which the British government interpreted as meaning that in our opinion the panel system which would enable one Dominion representative to be present at the sessions each day offered a way out of the difficulty. To that communication I replied on July 10, the same day on which it was received, as follows:
Re representation Inter-Allied Conference
My understanding of your telegram just received is that you are agreeable to following, as respects the Inter-Allied Conference which opens to-morrow, the precedent of the Paris Peace Conference in respect of representatives of self-governing dominions on the British Empire Delegation, and that the procedure to be followed at the Inter-Allied Conference as respects the British Empire Delegation will be similar to that followed at the Paris Peace Conference. In accordance with this understanding our government has to-day passed an order in council appointing the Honourable N. A. Belcourt as representative of Canada at the Inter-Allied Conference and requesting the issuance to him of the necessary full powers
This was the procedure adopted with respect to both the conference at Versailles and that at Washington. The Canadian government passed an order in council appointing the representatives of the Dominion and asking that full powers should be given them by His Majesty. I should have added that in the telegram received, to which this one which I have just quoted was a reply, the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated:
This plan certainly seems the best means of meeting the position and I am prepared to take steps accordingly and to arrange for each Dominion representative to be furnished with the necessary full powers.
The British government was immediately informed of the order in council passed, and I had rather expected to hear that full powers had been granted to Senator Belcourt in accordance with the request which our communication in reply to that of the British government contained. Since that message was sent, the day before yesterday, I have not received any further communication from Great Britain so that I am unable to say at the moment in what position matters now stand. I assume that possibly there may be a delay on the part of the home government by reason of its desire to hear from the other self-governing Dominions before sending any further communication to Canada. My own opinion is that there will probably be no difficulty in arranging for Canada's representation in the manner I have described.
My honorable friend (Mr. Maclean, York) has asked what I understand the word "panel" in this connection to mean. As I have gathered, the practice adopted at Paris was for the British Empire delegation, composed as it was of representatives of the selfgoverning Dominions and His Majesty's government, to agree as to how many and who of their number should appear at the different sessions of the conference to discuss the matters that were before the representatives of the several nations there assembled. For example, on the British Empire delegation there may have been ten or fifteen representatives
Inter-Allied Conference

in all, but only three or five of whom would be entitled to a place at the table. Each representative would carry with him full powers from the King, with respect to the Dominion or the part of the Empire which he represented, and all would have like powers to speak touching matters of policy which would be agreed upon by the British Empire delegation through its members conferring with each other in separate conference for the purpose of determining policy.


Robert Forke: There is another matter-


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: If the hon. member
wishes to refer to something else I should be glad if he would let me take up this matter for a moment. Although I am very anxious not. to contribute in any way to any embarrassment of the situation, it may not be inappropriate for me to say that I think the Canadian representation in the British Delegation is essential in this case as it was equally essential at Lausanne. As to what method may be adopted in deciding who from that delegation shall sit at the conference, I would consider it not of primary importance; representation on the Delegation is itself what is of importance. In relation to the last words of the Prime Minister I desire to read a despatch which I understand is just received through the Canadian press:
The High Commissioners of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa this morning conferred with the Colonial Secretary,-
"This morning'' means to-day.
-J. H. Thomas, with reference to the position of the Dominions in connection with the Allied Conference now being held in London. But it is stated that nothing will be settled with regard thereto pending the arrival of fresh information from Canada.
I call attention to the fact that apparently what is wanting and wh't is bdng waited for is fresh information from Canada alone. In this relation may I ask whether to the knowledge of the government the other dominions have taken the same position that Canada has taken in this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before answering the last question of the leader of the opposition, may I say that in my opinion it is an extraordinary procedure that this parliament should have to be advised, regarding what is pending in Great Britain with respect to our representation, through press despatches which come to the leader of the opposition and which the Prime Minister of the country has not received.


Arthur Meighen: No press despatch has
come to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What has the right hon. gentleman just read?


Arthur Meighen: It is a Canadian press
cable which has come to the press of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did it
not come to me?


Arthur Meighen: I have just informed
the Prime Minister that no press despatch came to me; it is a message to the press of Canada. I have no doubt that it is in the Prime Minister's office now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to inform the House that there is no despatch at my office. I made inquiry before coming here, and I also left word that a special messenger be sent immediately to this chamber if any despatch were received. My instructions were that no time should be lost in decoding the message but that a message should be sent immediately by telephone if any despatch arrived. I want to bring to the attention of this House and of the British government the fact that at this moment we are receiving information with respect to what is being done in London as to the representation of Canada at the Inter-Allied Conference, through a press despatch given to the House through the lips of the leader of the opposition, while no communication has reached the Prime Minister.


Mr. BOYS:: I want to clear up a somewhat serious misunderstanding. As a matter of fact I chanced to meet a member of the press gallery about half an hour ago, and he asked me if I bad seen the despatch. I replied that I 'had not, and I asked him to let me have it. Having read it, I showed it to my leader. That is the entire explanation. I have no doubt the despatch will be found in the press room upstairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that the explanation does not improve matters in the least. If the whip of the Conservative party has relations with the press gallery by which he can get information which the government has not yet received, well and good. What I take exception to is, not that my hon. friend has certain information, but that that information should come to the people of Canada through the press or any other channel before it reaches the Prime Minister and the government of Canada as to matters which directly concern this country and as to which we are corresponding with the Imperial authorities.

Inter-Allied Conference


William Alves Boys: I have no such relations with
the press gallery. It was the merest accident that I got the despatch, and I do not think the Prime Minister has any right to in any way try to involve me as whip of the Conservative party. My position has not the slightest connection whatever with my obtaining the despatch, and it was a pure accident that I met the member of the press gallery.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not trying to involve my hon. friend; he is trying to involve himself. I wish to repeat what I said, that from the beginning of the negotiations respecting this Inter-Allied Conference up to the present moment the press seems to have received information with regard to what is to take place, which information does not come to the government of Canada, and to which the government therefore is not in a position to reply.


William Alves Boys: Then find fault with the press and not with the leader of the opposition or the whip of his party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not finding fault with the press. I am trying to make as plain as I can that I think where communications are passing between governments, whatever governments they may happen to be, these communications should be in the hands of the respective governments before they are in the hands of the press of the country and published to the people of the country. With respect to the insinuations of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that in some way or another the Imperial authorities are waiting for further communications from Canada, I was hoping that on this occasion at least he would rise above party differences and try to take with me a united stand in the interests of Canada and her representation; but he gets up and asks the question as to whether in some way this whole matter is not being delayed through lack of further correspondence from Canada. I intimated to him in the last words I uttered that the despatch we sent to the British government made it plain that we were prepared to take, as respects representation, the course which was suggested in the message I have referred to, and that no futher communication had been received by this government. Now, there is nothing owing by this government to the British government in the matter of replies or further information. We have not been asked for any further information. Up to the present time we have not received any answer to the telegram which we sent to the British government intimating that we would meet and would be glad to fall in with the proposal which we
had really helped to make to find a way out of the situation which would secure representation to this and the other dominions without embarrassment to any of the parties concerned.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I really-


Hewitt Bostock: There is no motion before the House, but as the question is a very important one I suppose, by leave of the House both leaders may be allowed to speak in regard to it.


Arthur Meighen: Really I cannot express
my amazement at the temper of the prime minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
temper at all.


Arthur Meighen: -or his criticism of myself with respect to what he terms some insinuation. As a matter of fact I really thought the prime minister was getting up to thank me for according with the government's view. I had never heard until to-day what stand Canada had taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend approve or disapprove of it?


Arthur Meighen: I stated my approval.
I said I thought it was most important we should have representation. I did not know what had taken place, and I heard it first from, the prime minister. I immediately rose and stated my approval Then, having handed to me from the press a despatch, and noting the significance of the fact that the Imperial authorities were awaiting further information from Canada, I merely asked if the government had knowledge of any different stand taken by any other dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think when
my right hon. friend reads his remarks in Hansard he will see that they take the form to which I objected.


Arthur Meighen: I shall find them exactly as I am now expressing myself, and as everybody in the House understood me. I agreed with the prime minister's stand regarding Canada's position, and I thought possibly other dominions were taking a different attitude. Simply because I asked him that question I have received this castigation, which in all humility I accept.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to assure my right hon. friend that I did not mean to castigate him at all.


Mr. HANSON:: Just a little peeved.
Inter-Allied, Conference


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all;
I was very deeply obliged. Answering my right hon. friend as to the attitude of the other dominions, in one despatch, received, I think before the preliminary conference was held, Australia intimated that she desired to be represented at that conference by her High Commissioner, and at the Inter-Allied Conference by one of the British Ministers. I think New Zealand's attitude has since been the same. The communication from South Africa intimated that the Government would await developments before expressing itself definitely in regard to representation. The Irish Free State, I think has taken the position, both with respect to the preliminary conference and the Inter-Allied Conference, that she must be separately represented. As far as I am aware there are no communications from the Dominion of Newfoundland. That is the position at the moment.
I might add this further word, that in the press communications which appeared before the preliminary conference was held there was an intimation that the United States had been asked to send a representative to the InterAllied Conference, and that the government of that country had replied that they would be represented by their ambassador. Our government felt that, having very similar questions to consider on this continent to those which interest the United States, there was a double reason why someone who was wholly familiar with the Dominion point of view should represent Canada and have power to act, in the name of His Majesty, in respect of Canada in the manner I have described.


William Findlay Maclean: I think that the right hon. gentleman's action of battery would lie rather against the Prime Minister of England than against the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). But I do wish to register my protest on behalf of this parliament against the system of panelling.
I do not understand it thoroughly yet and I am trying to get more information in regard to it. But I think if Canada attends the Inter-Allied Conference she ought to go as a fully equipped country rather than by way of panelling.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, as the question I am going to ask is somewhat related to the matter under discussion, I should like to express the opinion that I do not think it adds to the dignity of this parliament that the government of the Dominion has to learn through press despatches what communications the Imperial government has to make to this country.

I notice in the Ottawa Journal this morning the following statement:
The Journal rejoices to see that Mr. Mackenzie King has graciously consented to accede to the wishes of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and to appoint two Canadian representatives to the special committee which is to examine and report upon the problem of marketing Dominion food supplies in Britain.
As this is one of the most important statements in regard to co-operative marketing that I have seen for a very long time, and as it may have an important bearing upon the future trading relations between Canada and Great Britain, I would ask the Prime Minister if he has any information to give upon this matter, and if he is fully seized of the importance of the proposed conference on the subject that is to be held in Great Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or two ago my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) asked me a question with regard to the conference to which the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has just referred. I intimated at the time that the government had received from His Majesty's government an invitation to send representatives to a conference to discuss or to consider ways and means of marketing and distributing throughout the British Isles overseas produce and products, and that the government had stated ,in reply that we would be pleased to see that Canada was represented at any conference of that character. My hon. friend will recollect that at the Imperial Conference there was a suggestion that there should be a permanent economic committee to deal with questions of an economic character arising within the Empire. A very broad aspect was given to the functions of the proposed committee, and at the Imperial Conference, the delegates who were present from Canada took the position that unless there were something more definite than a committee to which subjects in general could be referred, we did not think a useful purpose would be served by the existence of such a body. The British government subsequently took the same view that we took at the Imperial Conference. I think it was partly as a result of the discussions that arose out of this demand for an Imperial economic standing committee that the present proposal to have a committee for one specific purpose, appointed ad hoc in relation to this question, came about. We have thought it would be advisable to participate in a conference of that character, and if it results in good there is no reason why similar conferences for specific purposes might not be held in the future. The gov-

Inter-Allied Conference
ernment appreciates the importance of the conference and intends to see that it is well represented when the conference takes place.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is important-and I apologize to the House for rising again-that no misleading impression should go out from the House connected with the telegram which I read. The telegram was a Canadian Press despatch merely intimating that this morning the Allied Conference met and is now being held. But it says that nothing will be settled with regard thereto pending the arrival of fresh information from Canada.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: A newspaper man's guess.


Arthur Meighen: It possibly is-quite probably is. It may be right; it may be wrong. If it is wrong, of course nobody is to blame; if it is right, equally nobody is to blame. However, I doubt very much if anybody can beat a press man in getting a despatch over to Canada, It is only this morning that the conference has met. In any event, the cable after the conference is had would probably come from Canada's representative; I would expect the first message to come from him. So certainly there is no reason for castigating the British government, much less the press or myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think any one would have attached any importance to the despatch my right hon. friend has read, had not he as leader of the opposition brought that despatch into parliament and tried to make use of it in the manner he did.


Arthur Meighen: Oh well, the rules prevent me from replying.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I would like to ask a question in further reference to that raised by the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke). I understand that the proposal made by ex-Premier Baldwin of the British House, and which was accepted by Mr. Snowden, was to the effect that the British government should enter into negotiations with the dominion governments for the purpose of nationalizing every stage in the wholesale trade in certain articles of food. I would like to ask if that is not a very important departure from old methods, if this government is in agreement witn that general policy, and also whether the government will afford parliament an opportunity to discuss their policy in connection with that proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No suggestion
of the kind has been made to the government through any despatch which it has received. If any such suggestion is made I am sure the government will be pleased to take into consideration the views of members of the House in that regard.


Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: I would like to ask the Prime
Minister whether the correspondence to which he has alluded to-day will be printed and tabled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have assumed that parliament would wish to have the correspondence to which my hon. friend has referred. It is between the two governments, and as a matter of courtesy and right I have asked the British government for their consent to have all the correspondence brought down. We desire to have it brought down, and we would like to have it brought down before this session is concluded. I sent the telegram a day or two ago, and I hope a reply in the affirmative will be received speedily.


BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: I wish to ask the government when the report of the Banking and Commerce committee in relation to the Home Bank depositors will be discussed by the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can say to my hon. friend that if we make progress in the estimates to-day we will take up the report to-morrow'. The government has arranged the procedure with a view to facilitating prorogation by the end of the week. There may be a lengthy debate on the report to which my hon. friend has just referred, and for that reason we desire before dealing with it to get as far along as we can with legislation that has to go to the other House. I think [ can assure my hon. friend that it will be the first order of the day to-morrow.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Before
the orders of the day are called, and this discussion on international or inter-Eimpire matters having concluded, I would like to direct the attention of the government to a matter relating to the development of the natural resources of Canada, namely, Bill No. 6 on the order paper. It was given its first reading in this House on the 12th of
Alternative Vote

March and has been on the order paper for the past fifty-two days, during which matters -of much less importance have taken up the time of the House. The bill was approved by the standing committee on Mines and Minerals and referred back to the House. It would take only a few mitnuites to deal with the bill and I would ask the government if some arrangement could be made by which that few minutes could be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.friend spoke to me of that measure last night. I shall be glad to arrange that it will be one of the first orders at the next session this morning.



ALTERNATIVE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Would the
Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the Alternative Vote bill, which has already received its first reading, will receive consideration early next session, and further 'that there will be no election, as far as he can guarantee that, between now and then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to
the first question, I may say that if we are all here when parliament re-assembles, certainly this alternative vote measure will be one of the first to be brought before the House. As to giving him any assurance as to when an election will take place, I am afraid I shall have to reserve to the government the right to decide that matter itself. I do not see at the moment that there is any necessity for a general election between now .and the next session of parliament, but I do not wish to tie the hands of the government as to its actions in that matter.



PRIVILEGE-MR. PUTNAM

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: I ask for only a moment to make an announcement which is almost purely personal. When the vote was taken last night upon the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), with regard to the Hudson Bay railway, I totally forgot that I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). It was a trick of memory which I am thankful to say is as yet unusual, but one which naturally I very much regret. Besides sending an explanation to the hon. member with whom I was paired, I think it prudent to make this announcement in the open House.



BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I would
like to ask the government whether jt is their intention to bring in a bill to give effect to some Bankrutcy Act amendments which are recommended by the standing committee on Banking and Commerce in their seventeenth report. It is a matter which I think is very important.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a question to which, I think, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should reply, but in his absence I would say to my hon. friend that the government does not contemplate bringing in further legislation this session.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Why not? It is most important.



RAILWAY MAIL CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: I understand that certain contracts for the carrying of the mails by the railway companies are about to be renewed, or new contracts made, and I would ask if the government are taking steps to see that there is an equal division of these contracts between the two railway companies.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The department and the government have been receiving a great many telegrams from points located along the Canadian National Railways, and I had anticipated making a statement when the estimates of the department were up. At the moment it would probably be well to say that the whole matter is under consideration and due attention is being paid to any contracts that a-o expiring and have to be renewed.


Mr. IIOCKEN:: Will the Acting Postmaster General tell us whether the post office estimates will be up to-day?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot say. I am going on with Mines first. If we do not reach the post office estimates to-day, I hope we shall tomorrow.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why not take them up first?



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL REESTABLISHMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[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:
Resolved. That it is expedient to amend the Department of Soldiers* Civil Re-establishment Act, and to

Soldiers' Re-establishment Act
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,
4.	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.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Mr. BEL AND; I might explain in a few words that from the first the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment has been exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act, with the possible exception of certain regulations as to staff increases, holidays and retiring allowances. A situation has developed in the last six months which is rather interesting. Although the department was clothed with the authority to appoint any person to its staff, apparently it had not the statutory power to pay such ap-12 noon pointees. The question was raised in the first place by the Auditor General, and we, of course, expressed surprise that this authority should be questioned after the department had been in operation for such a long period, six or seven years. However, the question being referred to the Department of Justice, the Auditor General was upheld, and we were therefore in this position, that though we could appoint, we could not pay. After a conference with the Auditor General we were able to secure from him temporary authority to issue cheques and pay our staff until the proper legislation was introduced in this House and passed. The first part of this resolution is only to provide that authority. No change in the operations of the department as at present is contemplated, not in the remotest regard or detail. We have, before my time, and since I have been at the head of the department, followed the general regulations of the Civil Service Commission as respects the other departments, and there is no intention, of course, to change the present practice. It is felt that action should be taken immediately, because if this authority is not granted now, the
Auditor General supported by the Department of Justice, will again question our authority, and we shall not be in a position to pay our staff.
The second part of the resolution deals with insane departmental patients. Most of the moneys belonging to the insane who are under our care are held by the department in trust, and interest on those moneys is credited at the rate of 5 per cent. As a matter of fact, we have included an item in the estimates for $20,000 to cover the interest on the moneys we hold for these insane patients But it appears that it is a fact a substantial amount of money belonging to the insane patients is in the hands of the governments of the provinces, and other moneys are in the hands of other parties belonging to these patients, and though we are disposed to receive those moneys and care for them for the patients, as we do in the majority of cases, the parties now holding the money refuse to hand it over until we get the proper authority of parliament to give a valid receipt for it. Generally speaking, my recollection is that we hold $400,000 for the insane or other patients, and there is outstanding outside the department about $90,000 held by the different parties, provinces and others. I have in mind the case of an insane patient, for instance, who was bequeathed a sum of money by a relative living in New York. We have taken steps to get this money for our patient in order to keep it for him, but his lawyer questions our authority to receive the money until parliament has authorized us to give a valid receipt for it. This is the authority that we seek to obtain under the resolution
Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting to the resolution, but I take occasion to suggest to the minister that steps might be taken to bring what are now established virtually as permanent departments in line with the other departments under the act. The only reason I mention it is this: There has been called to my attention a very wide diversion in the range of salaries and remuneration between those who do not come under the Civil Service Act and those who do come under it. I do not say that those not under the act in all cases receive less, in fact as regards important positions I believe their salaries are higher; but there is a very low range of salary applicable to certain employees in certain departments. I do not know about the hon. minister's department, but in the Finance department for instance, I am aware person-

Soldiers' Re-establishment Act
ally of quite a number in the revenue collecting branches who have been in the service two or three years and longer, yes four years, who are still receiving, although engaged in important work, only $50 a month, and, with the taking away of the bonus, the $50 is the entire remuneration. We had a turmoil a little while ago over a schedule of salaries where the minimum was $1,070 per year. I do not think it is right that we should have the scale as low as the one to which I have Just referred. I do not know any reason in the world why these employees should not be brought under the act, because that department now is permanent. The only reason they were ever kept out of the operation of the act was that it was expected that our income and war tax would be temporary, but no doubt they are now permanent, in the same sense as anything is permanent. I suggest that immediate steps should be taken to bring them under the act, so that the same measure of law and equality nearly as may be to all our public servants.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What is the department's position in regard to granting retiring allowance to the temporary employees retiring, say, the first of August?


Mr. BELAND:: I presume my hon. friend refers to Mowat Sanitarium.


Arthur Edward Ross: Not altogether.
There are certain employees of the department who will be dismissed on the first of August.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Employees are being retired I think at the rate of about ten a week, and they get a retirement allowance in conformity with the regulations of the Civil Service Commission. I think it is based on the length of service, one day's salary for each month, if I am not mistaken.
Coming to what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has suggested, that the department should be placed under the operation of the Civil Service Commission in common with the other departments, I really do not believe that the time has arrived when this should be done. I think the departmental staff should be reduced further by at least fifty per cent before this is done. There is a great deal of shuffling in the department in reference to the reductions. We transfer men from one branch to the other, from one city to the other, and their classification is. thereby altered very much. We dispense with one man, and two positions are combined in one, and where two salaries were paid amounting to $2,000, it is possible to combine the two posi-

tions and pay the new holder of the position $1,200 or $1,400. He may be classified a little higher than the two employees were previously, because his duties are more involved. We have classified the whole staff. The department, in conference with high officials of the Civil Service Commission last year, have gone over all the personnel and every employee has been classified to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Commission representatives. We have in every case tried to adhere as closely as possible to the regulations obtaining in the Civil Service Commission, and I think we should be left free to effect our reductions at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister is
right with respect to his own department. I merely use the occasion to bring up the general subject, but I emphasize the Department of Finance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will surely be permanent.


Arthur Meighen: Yes; but if it is found
objectionable for any reason, I ask the government-and I address my remarks to the other ministers just as much as to the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-to look into the scale of salaries which prevail amongst those lowest-paid employees. They are really at a level that cannot be defended- they .are getting quite considerably less than they were receiving three years ago, unless one can really live on less money now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did I understand
my hon. friend to say that some officials were being paid $50 a month? If so, I would like to know what class they are, who they are, * and what work they do?


Arthur Meighen: I made that statement, and I assure my hon. friend that it is right. They are engaged in clerical work connected with income tax returns, not under the Civil Service Act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 264, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 172, to amend the Indian Act.

Yukon Quartz Mining
He said: The Senate amended section 3 which deals with the inheritance of an Indian dying without issue. The committee will remember that we had a good deal of discussion on this section which, as it passed the committee read:
In case any Indian dies intestate without issue, leaving a widow of good moral character, all his property of whatever kind shall devolve upon her, and if he leaves no such widow the same shall devolve upon the nearest of kin to the deceased.
The Senate has struck out the words " of good moral character " and the word " such," so that the section as amended by the Senate will read:
In case any Indian dies intestate without issue, leaving a widow, all his property of whatever kind shall devolve upon her, and if he leaves no widow the same shall devolve upon the nearest of kin to the deceased.
We are accepting these amendments.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 6, respecting quartz mining in the Yukon territory.
Motion agreed to and the House went into
committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions.
George Black: In accordance wjth the suggestion of the department, I beg to move that in subsection (p) of this section after the word " elements " in the ninth line, the following words be inserted:
Quartz, metallic oxides, silicates and the ores of radium, tungsten, titanium and zirconium.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Black: I beg to move that in subsection (x) of section 2 the word " regulations " be struck out and the words " this act" be substituted therefor.
This is to correct a clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.
William Findlay Maclean: Before that passes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the interpretation clause, subsection (p) which enumerates all the valuable metals, some of which are found in Canada alone. I want to impress upon the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) that the time has arrived when there ought to be a disclosure of the actual con-297
tent of the various valuable metals which we have, and that the ascertainment of their content should not be left to those who happen to refine those metals outside of Canada. My objection has been in the past, and is to-day, that we have exclusive control, so far as I know, of the nickel ores of the world, which not only contain nickel but other of the most valuable and rare metals. These are still refined outside the country and all the business in connection with it is lost to Canada. In the late war Germany got all the nickel she wanted, and it all came from Canada as far as I can gather. The source of supply was never disclosed, and because I raised the question I was treated almost as if I were a rebel. I am yet going to know the full story of that nickel exploitation. How valuable these rare metals are we will only know by ascertaining their content. If my hon. friend the minister will read a series of articles which appeared last week in the Free Press of Winnipeg he will see how valuable these metals are. Canada is going to be the greatest mining country in the world, and we are about to develop in that direction. Therefore I say that it is in the interests of the Dominion that the content and the value of these rare metals should be disclosed, and an effort made to secure this information. Having control of the nickel supply of the world practically, we can locate the manufacture of nickel steel in this country and command the world's market for it. If we do not take action in this direction control will go over to the United States. Surely my hon. friend will admit that something ought to be done. It has not been done in the past. As the responsible minister he ought to give some assurance to the country that something will be done along these lines.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: For the benefit of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who has on several occasions stated that we do not know the content of our nickel ore, I propose to give him this extract from the Press Bulletin of the province of Ontario, dated June 4, 1924:
Nickel, Copper and Platinum Metals As will be noted from the table on page 1, production of these metals shows a marked increase. The British America, International and Mond nickel companies operated mines and smelters. The first two mentioned have refineries in Canada while the Mond Company ships all matte produced to its refinery in Wales. During the quarter there was a production of 10,050 tons of nickel-copper matte from 332,260 tons of ore .smelted. Matte exported totalled 3,899 tons, while matte treated in Canadian refineries was 10,640 tons. The average New York price of electrolytic copper for

Yukon Quartz Mining

the quarter was 12.875 cents per pound, compared with 15.566 cents in 1923. Electrolytic nickel in large lots was worth about 23 cents per pound. Precious metals recovered were gold $4,988, silver $10,266.
The metals of the platinum group, to which the hon. member has referred on several occasions in this House are known to every matallurgical corporation in Canada.
These details have appeared in the press from time to time:
Platinum	
495	ounces	valued	at	$50,901Palladium	
638	ounces	valued	at	42,586Rhodium	
276	ounces	valued	at	20,476Ruthenium, Osmium and Iridium	
105	ounces	valued	at	12,820
These are the by-products of our nickel copper ores. These ores are treated by the British American Nickel Corporation, at their refinery at Deschenes, near Ottawa. The nickel produced by the International Nickel Company at Sudbury is now treated entirely in Canada and its by-products are known to the Department of Mines. They are also treated in Canada at Port Colbome.
My hon. friend has stated that there is a monopoly in the nickel business, and that statement has been made in the House before. At present there is far from being a monopoly in the nickel business. There is a large overproduction and our companies are now barely paying operating expenses. In order that my hon. friend may know exactly what the situation in the nickel business is at the present time I will give him a statement which appeared in the Toronto Globe and which will prove that no such thing as a monopoly exists.


The CHAIRMAN ( Mr. Marcil, Bona-ture):: I hope the hon. member will summarize his remarks, because this bill refers to quartz mining in the Yukon territory and a general discussion of mining would not be in order.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I will confine myself
to this one statement. The matter is of great importance to the people of Canada who have been misinformed about the conditions existing in the nickel mining business; and this is the first opportunity I have had of placing the matter before the House. I he Toronto Globe says:
It has frequently been stated in the press that the production of nickel is practically a monopoly, but a glance at the refining capacity of the various companies, which are in no way affiliated, shows this to be anything but the fact.
Tons Nickel per Year.
International Nickel Company, Port
Colbome, Ont	 24,000
Mond Nickel Company,	Wales	
8,000British-American Nickel,	Quebec.. ..	7,000
Le Society le Nickel (New Caledonia ore), Ballande (New Caledonia ore.
Refinery in U.S.)	 10,000
riVTr. Laoierre.1
I hope that my hon. friend now has the information he has asked for in the House on several occasions.


William Findlay Maclean: We have heard a good deal of this before. I thank my hon. friend (Mr. Lapierre) for what he has given us, but not for one moment does that answer my contention. He admits we have the nickel and he says there is no monopoly. That may be so, but the nickel that goes into the manufacture of the nickel steel of the world and which promises to be the most valuable alloy of iron that can be found anywhere today is being manufactured outside of our country. As a Canadian I want to see a policy adopted that will bring the production of nickel steel to Canada. I hope the hon. member will join with me in trying to bring that about. But no matter what way I bring it up I always get some stall.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I was merely referring
to the statement of the hon. gentleman that the people generally were not aware of the by-products extracted from nickel and copper ores, and that there was a monopoly. That was the point I was trying to make clear.


William Findlay Maclean: I still think there is a monopoly. The thing is in the control of certain parties who fix the prices.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend knows that the provinces control their own mineral output and any effort in this direction on the part of the government or of the federal Department of Mines must be in the nature of an attempt to work in co-operation with the provincial departments.


William Findlay Maclean: Or through the tariff, or by export duties.


Charles A. Stewart: What I have said, of course, does not apply with respect to the Yukon, the territories, or the three prairie provinces; in that case we are responsible. I agree most heartily with many of the things my hon. friend has said. The matter of duties might be given some consideration. At the same time, as the hon. member (Mr. Lapierre) points out, the business has not been as prosperous as one would think.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh yes, it was. The Germans paid for what they got.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course it was different during the war, but that condition does not apply at the moment. However, I am quite willing to go thoroughly into

Supply-Mines
this matter. I assure my hon. friend that I am not making any " stall " because I agree very much with what he has said.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: For the benefit of the hon. member for South York I may say that after the disarmament conference that was held at Washington three years ago seventy per cent of the market for nickel was practically wiped out, and it is only by the carrying on of research work at their own expense that these corporations have managed to find new uses for nickel. Nickel that was selling at thirty-five cents a pound in 1917 is now selling at twenty cents, the lowest price in the history of the nickel industry, and to-day the plants are being run at about sixty per cent capacity and are barely paying operating expenses.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 64, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec.-Hon. Mr. Graham.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees with their amendment to Bill No. 64, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from the end of China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec, for the following reasons: That the reduction from $105,000 to $59,500 of the amount to be expended on the total mileage and from $52,500 to $29,750 per mile renders it impossible to proceed with this work as the estimate in detail will show, and that the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


William Findlay Maclean: I want to raise a question, in so far as I may, that seems to be coming up between the two Houses-and I am not going to break the rules, Mr. Speaker. I see an issue coming up in the whole country in regard to the management of the Canadian National railways, which are supposed to be under the control of parliament, and especially under the control of this House; but in other quarters there is an effort being made to attack the Canadian National railways in a way that will surprise the people, and this issue between the two Houses is only a little indication. The greatest issue in Canada is now right at our door, and that is whether parliament as represented by the House of Commons, is to administer the Canadian 297 i
National railways, or whether an irresponsible body, so far as the electors of this country are concerned, is to do it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
For transportation charges from outlying provinces on ore shipments which may be sent to the ore dressing plant of the Mines Branch at Ottawa for testing purposes under regulations approved by the Minister of Mines, $10,000.
Arthur Meighen: I do not think we should go on with these estimates now. I thought the minister was just going in for the purpose of having the item called and then adjourning until three o'clock.


Charles A. Stewart: Very well.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at three o'clock.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before taking up the item which you have called, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that this morning I was asked the question as to when the report of the Banking committee which deals with the Home Bank would be presented to the House for discussion, and I intimated that it had been our intention to have that report presented this morning, but owing to the circumstance that we were kept here all night we thought it was preferable to go on with the estimates to-day and get as much of our legislation across to the Senate as possible at the eailiest moment. Since noon several members of the House have intimated to my colleagues and myself that they believed if the government were to permit the report of the Banking committee to be presented this evening, immediately after reassembling at eight o'clock, probably it would meet the wishes of hon. members of the House more completely than if the report was held over until to-morrow for consideration and that it might result in shortening the discussion on this particular report. It has also been pointed out that one or two members of the House who may be especially interested in being present when this report is being considered are contemplating leaving the city to-morrow and who if the report were held over, would be prevented from being present when the discussion was on. Under the circumstances, if the House concurs generally in the view that we will expedite business by having it understood that the report shall be taken up
Supply-Mines

at eight o'clock this evening, the chairman could be given an opportunity of moving the adoption of the report. I am prepared to say on behalf of the government that we will gladly fall in with that arrangement.


Mr. MANION:: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not here. I have no reason to think he will oppose this proposition, I just mentioned it in case he will have something to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be
understood that if no objection is raised before six o'clock we will proceed with the report of the Banking committee at eight o'clock, but we fervently pray that every hon. gentleman will put his remarks in as close a compass as possible, for the sake of himself and of the House.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: Could the minister tell us what sum has been expended last year under the item for transportation of ore?


Charles A. Stewart: Only $53,
all told. My hon. friend will remember that it was July before the legislation was assented to, and the season was so far advanced that very little chance was given for anyone to take advantage of the offer of free shipment.


Levi William Humphrey: Would the minister be prepared to give any information with respect to the working out of this policy of providing free transportation of ore to the head office here in Ottawa, with respect to the movement in the proposed plan of establishing an ore-testing plant or an ore-dressing plant in the western provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: I think there is somewhat of a misunderstanding with respect to what the government ought to do. There is, I think, an agitation on foot in eastern British Columbia for the establishment of an ore-dressing plant on a commercial scale operated by the government. I am going to be very frank and say that I do not see how the government could undertake it. That is not properly the business of the government. But it is the business of the government to make tests of small quantities of ore, in order to furnish accurate information as to the value and contents, and a plant of that character, I think, would not meet, what is very frequently in the minds of people engaged in the mining industry in eastern British Columbia. What we had in mind-or I should qualify that by saying, what the previous government had in mind- was the establishment of a plant there that would do just a fair share of the work that we are doing here-for the plant here is not
[Mr. Mackenzie King.1
on a commercial scale. If ore-dressing is to be carried on in a commercial way a very much larger investment of money would have to be made for that purpose in eastern British Columbia. But this vote is primarily for the purpose of assisting the prospector, the small miner, to prove his claims and to accurately ascertain the value of the ore that he has discovered or owns. We ask him to send samples of this ore sufficient in size, so that we can demonstrate to him what we think is the value of the ore, and we will pay the freight from his station to Ottawa, make the assay, and give him that information.


Levi William Humphrey: I am not rising to
offer any objection in any way to this vote, but simply for the purpose of gathering a little information in regard to the way it is working out. I have been given to understand that in past years it has been a recognized principle that a testing plant was necessary particularly for British Columbia on account of the abundance of complex ores, and it would appear that providing a sum of money for the free transportation of ores to this office in Ottawa might possibly meet the situation for the time being; but I have come to the conclusion that there is such an unlimited quantity of complex ores that it is necessary to do something further in order to bring out and develop the natural resources of the province. I do not wish to have it inferred that I am objecting to this vote at all.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
something in what my hon. friend has said. There is no doubt that British Columbia has a large field yet undeveloped in mining resources. But we felt that for the time being we could do this work here with the present equipment and staff and give satisfaction if ores were sent forward in sufficient quantities to make the tests. As regards the more complex problems of separation and all that sort of thing, you could not ship such large quantities as would be required to ascertain complete!}' the best methods of handling. This particular appropriation is for the purposes which I have outlined, not with a view of ultimately abandoning the idea, so far as the government is concerned, of establishing a testing plant in eastern British Columbia.


Levi William Humphrey: Has the minister received any shipments of samples from British Columbia under this appropriation?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give my hon. friend accurate information. I stated what was spent last year. I do not know how

Supply-Geological Survey
much is involved. People send forward samples in very small quantities, but samples are beginning to come in this year in larger quantities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have any investigations been made by the Mines branch in connection with the coking properties of coal from the Maritime provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: We received shipments from a number of mines in the Maritime provinces. These samples were tested at the Hamilton plant, and by mixing they gave splendid results, making a first-class coke.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geological Survey
For explorations, surveys and investigations,
wages of explorers, topographers and others $200,000
For publication of English and French editions
of reports,	maps, illustrations,	etc	 55,000
For maintenance of offices and museum, instruments, chemicals, books of reference, miscellaneous assistance and	contingencies.. 50,000
For museum	equipment	
10,000For purchase	of specimens	
5,000
Arthur Meighen: How is this $2,000 less
than last year?


Charles A. Stewart: By a readjustment, we have one more party in the field this year than last year, but by cutting out certain expenses, we have been able to reduce the cost. We have been paring pretty closely.


Arthur Meighen: What expenses are cut
out?


Charles A. Stewart: The amounts, which are spread over all the survey parties, are so trivial for each party that we have not set them out in detail. This is merely a saving of that amount on our survey parties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Mines, salaries and contingencies, $539,870.
Arthur Meighen: How many days and
nights did the minister work in order to reduce this item by $20?


Charles A. Stewart: Last year
we had 231 on our staff; this year we have 223, so that we have a reduction of staff. The statutory increases carry the staff along to a certain amount this year, so that we have only a slight reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Imperial Institute, to permit of retention of exhibition galleries on condition that the other contributors to the support of the institute increase their contributions pro rata, $12,849.
Arthur Meighen: What is the reason of
the large increase?


Charles Wallace Stewart: The reduction in expense to us in connection with these two organizations is over $17,500 annually.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any indication that the contributions will be increased pro rata?
Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; that was the arrangement made and we are now combining the grant.


Edward Joseph Garland: This has already been agreed upon?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supplementary Estimates-Compassionate allowance to the dependent parents of the late T. B. Lawlor, who was drowned at Sturgeon Rapids, Que., on June 4, 1924, while employed on geological field work.
Charles A. Stewart: In this case a young man who was practically the sole support of his parents was drowned on one of the survey parties last year.


Arthur Meighen: What is the principle on which the amount is arrived at?


Charles A. Stewart: Usually it is based on the compensation paid where insurance is in force, or otherwise on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is the general basis, but it is not always acted upon particularly where the victim is married and has a family dependent upon him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Indians-Manitoba,	Saskatchewan, Alberta and

Edward Joseph Garland: How much of this money will be spent in Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: It would be difficult to give the allocation for Alberta because we do not keep the accounts separately for the provinces. We have an office in Regina which has charge of the three prairie provinces and all the agencies are under that office.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much of the vote of last year was spent in that province?


Charles A. Stewart: The Auditor General's report would show that but it would take some time to segregate the figures.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the reason for the decrease?


Charles A. Stewart: This year
we are asking $4,733 less for the purchase of tools, implements and supplies for destitute Indians; and in connection with treaty obligations we are able to reduce the vote by $9,039, largely because of the fact that these treaty obligations fluctuate considerably. It does not mean that wTe are spending less for the relief of destitution.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the reduction in the case of tools and implements indicate a falling off in agricultural activities among the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: 
Edward Joseph Garland: They sometimes borrow from the agencies.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
sometimes we have to supply the agencies w'ith fresh equipment. For surveys we are able to reduce the estimate by $3,000, while for grist mills we are asking this year $1,194 as against $3,462 last year, or a reduction of $2,268. The total reduction in general expenses is some $34,000. But as we have an additional amount for hospital and medical attendance of $22,501 the net reduction is only $31,300.


Charles Wallace Stewart: What is the general policy of the department in the case of Indians who desire to move from reserves that are becoming too much hemmed in by civilization? I have a special case in mind.


Charles A. Stewart: No case of this kind has been brought to my attention. We frequently get suggestions for cutting down reserves and selling lands for the benefit of Indians, but I have not had any application of the nature my hon. friend speaks of. Does he say that a particular band is desirous of moving?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I am not sure that the application has been made to the department, but I know that the Indians in the Nut Lake reserve in Saskatchewan are considering moving. The country is becoming thickly settled so that the reserve is being gradually hemmed in, with a railway in the vicinity. Certain leaders of the Indians last fall informed me that as they did not wish to engage in agriculture they wanted to move. Their reserve is well adapted to agriculture and they are raising a considerable number of cattle besides going in for farming generally. They think, however, that they will be able to secure a more suitable location somewhere further north to meet their requirements, certain Indian scputs having investigated the

Supply-Indian Affairs
situation. Their land is more valuable now than it was formerly and' they believe that they can get a fair amount for it. Would the department in this case try to dispose of the land to the advantage of the Indians and permit them to go further back into the unsettled territory?


Charles A. Stewart: AH the circumstances would have to be taken into consideration. The hon. gentleman knows that we frequently sell portions of reserves.
I suppose the band desire to sell their valuable land so as to have a considerable amount of money at their disposal and then go on to cheap Crown land. I should not like to commit myself as to what action I would take until I have all the circumstances placed before me.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I thought the
application was before the board.


Charles A. Stewart: No. [DOT]


Mr. BANCROFT:: Was not the same thing done in connection with the St. Peter's reserve, in Manitoba a few years ago?-the reserve was sold and the whole band moved north.


Charles A. Stewart: If the reserve is very close to a town that is done. We have a similar case in Nova Scotia to-day.


Mr. HOEY:: Is the Indian hospital at Norway House being rebuilt?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. MILLAR:: The term "band funds" is
not very clear to me.


Charles A. Stewart: Band funds
are the property of the Indians themselves and are held in trust for them by the government.


John Millar: Are they paid out to the
Indians annually?


Charles A. Stewart: The interest only is paid out annually either in cash or for general purposes.


George Gibson Coote: Some two weeks ago when
a bill to amend the Indian Act was before the House I understood the minister to say that leases of Indian lands were not granted without the consent of the band. Was such consent obtained for the lease which was granted some time last year to the Hon. Mr. McLean of land on the Peigan reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: A meeting
of the band was held on the reserve at which most of the Indians were present and voted in favour of the lease, provided they were given
a certain percentage of the rent, $8 per head, annually. I am speaking from memory, the records being in the Indian office at Regina, but I shall be very glad to get them. The lease was granted on the understanding that only $7 per head would be divided among the band. The difficulty at Macleod is that parties who had been pasturing their cattle on the leased land will undoubtedly be denied the privilege, and trouble has arisen particularly with two chiefs who now repudiate their share in the original arrangement. I have had a good many representations made to me in regard to this matter, and Mr. Graham, the agent, was very careful to see that all the regulations were complied with.


George Gibson Coote: According to the correspondence which I have in my hand, the minister must have been misinformed. In a letter from the Indian Commissioner, Mr. Graham, of April 29, addressed to Mr. John Crow Eagle, Peigan Reserve, Brocket, he says:
Your letter of the 4th of April addressed to the right hon. the Prime Minister, protesting against the lease that was granted to Mr. A. McLean, has been sent to me by the department for reply. I may say that this lease was granted to Mr. McLean, but not before the band was consulted, and it is well known that the majority voted against it. The result of this meeting was reported to the minister, who, after consulting his officers in the field, decided that it was in the interests of the Indians of the Peigan reserve to grant the lease.
Apparently the lease was granted against the majority vote of the band. I am unable to understand why this was done.


Charles A. Stewart: Are you not speaking of the Blood reserve?


George Gibson Coote: This is the Peigan reserve.


Charles A. Stewart: My understanding is exactly to the contrary, that the majority of the band who attended the meeting did vote in favour of the lease, and that the two chiefs who are now raising the trouble were both present at the meeting.


George Gibson Coote: That may be the minister's
understanding, but this is a copy of a letter which came down in a return I asked for, signed by the Indian Commissioner himself, and he says, "It is well known that the majority vote was against it". I cannot understand why Mr. Graham would write this letter if the lease was not granted against the vote of the band.


Charles A. Stewart: My information is exactly the other way. I find it is very difficult to reconcile all the Indians to any transaction of this kind. We have some-
Supply-Indian Affairs

times to take what appears to be drastic action, bot this action is always taken in the interests of the band. My hon. friend will remember that a former lease of land on this reserve was cancelled some years ago in order to let the grass recover. Later we received a report from the agent and from all parties concerned that there was again a large quantity of surplus grass that might very w'ell be utilized. On this particular reserve we are changing the status of the farm instructor to that of herdsman in order to encourage the Indians to increase their herds, and we hope to get them to use every available particle of grass in rearing stock. The same is true of the Blood reserve, where we are leasing 150,000 acres; it now develops that there is considerable objection taken to the arrangement by some chiefs, although in the initial stages they were quite willing to grant the lease.


George Gibson Coote: I think the leasing of Indian lands against the vote of the band is wrong in principle. I. had always understood that such lands would not be leased against the wishes of the Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly there have been cases where Indian lands have been leased against the vote of the band, but only after careful investigation to ascertain whether there was grass to spare. My hon. friend should bear in mind that it costs a very considerable amount of money to maintain our Indians, and we have to exercise somewhat drastic powers to deal with these wards. We cannot always agree to every whim that the band may take ,and I think there has been ample evidence given in the House, particularly in our dealings with the Six Nations Indians, that the time comes when those in authority must decide what is in the best interests of the band. But aside from that, it is very important to have the Indians satisfied with any arrangement made, because otherwise they make a great deal of trouble in connection with the transaction.


George Gibson Coote: That is why a mistake has
been made in granting this lease on the Peigan reserve. The Indians voted against it, and if the lease is persisted in and there come dry years again the Indians will be short of grass for their own cattle. The minister says he is trying to encourage them in the production of cattle on this particular reserve.


Charles A. Stewart: At any time when the Indians can use a portion of it the lease would be cancelled, because our endeavour is to encourage these people to raise stock and to become self-supporting, thus 
saving the large sums of money that we otherwise have to vote annually to pay for their sustenance. Take the case of the Blood reserve; their stock was reduced to a very small number, but last year owing to the encouragement they received, largely through the activities of the agent, they had a splendid crop and their stock is rapidly increasing. There is no reason why every acre of this reserve should not be utilized by the Indians themselves. But there are cases where the reserve is not being so utilized. The Indians on the Blackfoot reserve, for instance, are objecting to our renting 100,000 acres that they cannot possibly use. I propose, however, to lease that area, even though they persist in that objection. That was the lease held by the McHugh brothers. If they had the stock to put on it we would encourage them to do it, but they have not the stock to cover that lease.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was not
a portion of that land leased to McHugh brothers in the past


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were they
successful in meeting their payments?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then the
minister proposes to take it out of the hands of the Indians and lease to men who have not made payments in the past?


Charles A. Stewart: That is
hardly the case. During the war McHugh brothers paid about thirty-one cents an acre for grazing land, and it is evident that any one who had to pay a rental of that character was in a very serious position when the inflated prices fell. That was what happened to McHugh brothers; they had to give up because they could not afford to carry on.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
government has not collected from them?


Charles A. Stewart: WTe are endeavouring to collect. I do not know whether we shall be able to do so or not. The same thing applies to another rancher just west of Calgary, Mr. Gardiner.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
criticising the minister or his department in the case of McHugh brothers; I think perhaps there was some excuse for their action. But I do criticise him for suggesting that he should take 100,000 acres out of the hands

Supply-Indian Affairs
of the Indians on the ground that they cannot make use of it and give it to somebody else who may not be able to meet the payments.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
propose to lease it at a price so high that the persons interested cannot succeed. If the Indians cannot utilize the grass, there would be no reason why they should be denied their right to have the lease.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the leasing of Indian lands the greatest care should be exercised to see that justice is done, not only to the Indians but to the taxpayers as well. Above all there should be avoided even a hint of suspicion of political motive. I do not say that has been the case in any instance that has come to my attention, but there are rumours; dissatisfaction is rife. The people see this land being leased and they say, "Who gets it? A friend of the government?" Let us avoid that if at all possible.


Charles A. Stewart: Who said
that?


Edward Joseph Garland: Only too
many people in the Gleichen district.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge of a single individual who has a lease in the Gleichen district. A number of farmers have leased land there that was used for the purpose of greater production. But so far as I know I do not think there could have been any changes from what was the case under the previous government, other than changes from one farmer to another. There is a fixed price per acre for these leases and the man who makes application usually gets them if they are available. I know the McHugh brothers and I know the gentleman who holds the lease complained of by the hon. member (Mr. Coote) but I do not know any individuals who hold leases on the Gleichen reserve.


George Gibson Coote: I have several reasons for
complaining of this lease. Several years ago, owing to the drought which had occurred for a good many years in southern Alberta, a commission was appointed by the Alberta government, known I think as the South Alberta Survey Board, which after studying the question thoroughly, made certain recommendations as to what should be done for the farmers in that area. One of those recommendations was to the effect that any government lands, including Indian reserves which might be available should be leased if possible to small farmers who lived in the vicinity so that they might have some
stock and carry on mixed farming instead of straight grain farming. During the first two sessions I was here I spent a great deal of time trying to get some arrangement with the Indian department by which the farmers living in the neighbourhood of these Indian reserves might secure some grazing lands on the vacant parts of the reserves. I was unable to do so. But I find that in the past year a lease of twenty-tw'o thousand acres has been granted on the Peigan reserve to Hon. Mr. McLean against the vote of the band. The minister is reported on page 4175 of Hansard of this year as saying:
We never lease land on an Indian reserve unless the band has voted in favour of it, which vote is registered in our office.
Then we find that the Indians not only voted against it, but made representations along that line to the government, pointing out that they have not enough grazing land left for their own purposes if those twenty-two thousand acres are leased. I do not see how we are to encourage the Indian to make himself an independent farmer if we are to lease these lands to outside parties for a period of ten years, for six cents per acre, which seems to me to be a small rental, considering the fact that there are no taxes to pay on this Indian reserve. I do not see that the department has any justification for leasing the land, particularly in the way they did. Were any tenders invited for the leasing of these lands? Was anyone else given an opportunity of renting them, or was the lease to Mr. McLean for these 22,000 acres of land at six cents per acre made solely through private negotiations?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, solely on private negotiations, but the land's were leased at the regular price fixed by me for the rental of all Indian lands on which cattle are to be grazed. If sheep are to be grazed the rental is ten cents per acre on all Indian lands, but when cattle are to be grazed the rental is only six cents per acre and that applies to all Indian reserves in the West. As my hon. friend knows, Crown lands rent for two cents per acre. I placed a rental of six cents per acre on these grazing lands, because, as my hon. friend says, there are no taxes to pay. That, however, is a moot question as between the provincial government and some of the leaseholders. In all cases where these Indian lands are to be leased, a careful survey is made not only by the inspector but by Mr. Graham himself, in whom I have the utmost confidence. He is accused very frequently of taking what may be called a high hand with the Indians, but I have
Supply-Indian Affairs

found him a very excellent officer and very trustworthy, and I take his advice very largely in matters of this kind. But one thing I insist upon, and that is that he make a personal inspection in every case where we are leasing these lands. It was done in this case, in the case of the Macleod reserve, and on his representations this lease was executed.
Nobody is more anxious than I am to encourage the Indian to raise cattle, and that is why we do make a careful inspection, because I think the Indian can best provide for himself by the raising of stock. Not more that fifty per cent of the Indians make good agriculturists, and they have to be carefully watched before they make a success of farming. As a rule in western Canada the raising of cattle is a comparatively easy method of earning a livelihood, and as fast as the Indians on these reserves have sufficient cattle to utilize the grass, just so soon will the leases that are in existence upon them be cancelled, and the grass be made available for the Indians. Every encouragement is lent the Indians to breed stock and increase their herds, but to leave areas of pasture land on these reserves idle simply because the Indians refuse to lease them and say as they frequently do, they are going to utilize them themselves, when they have not the stock, would be a mistake, and in such a case we have to take action to get some return from these lands that will assist us in maintaining the Indians. I do not advocate the strong arm method, rather the reverse, but I have had sufficient experience in the administration of this department to realize that there are times when you must be film, but always fair, I hope. I fed quite confident that the commissioner at Regina is quite capable of deciding in difficult cases of this kind.
Let ,us say one word more with reference to what my hon. friend has said regarding sommunity grazing. He knows that we put not only the Crown lands at the disposal of the Alberta government, but the forest reserves as well. In the case of 4 pun. every lease coming up for cancellation, four years prior to its cancellation we notified the Alberta government. In one case they expressed a desire to go into community grazing, in my hon. friend's constituency. That lease has given us a considerable amount of trouble, and finally they threw up their hands with respect to community grazing and decided not to enter into an 'agreement of that sort. There is one in existence in Saskatchewan, and there we have turned the lands over to

the provincial government free of charge, but they have not made application for any more lands. While it sounds plausible to say that community grazing is going to assist the small farmer, it is a most difficult thing to work out, and so far as I am concerned, I have continuously set my face against it on these Indian reserves. We are primarily responsible for the reserves, and we have trouble enough preserving amity and good feeling between one individual on the reserve and the band, without introducing half a dozen other people into it. I went so far as to say on one occasion, and I have said it to my hon. friend, that if one individual came forward and would assume responsibility for the lease, I would be very glad to enter into negotiations with him, but so far as I know, no one 'has yet come forward. I will be very frank with my hon. friend and say that I would not consider community grazing on Indian reserves.


George Gibson Coote: It is felt by the Indians that they have no one to speak for them, that the Indian Commissioner just comes into the reserve and decides what is going to be done, and they have no choice in the matter. I sympathize with the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) to a certain extent, I realize that he has a very difficult situation to deal with sometimes; but I regret that he has not given us more details with reference to this particular lease. In fairness to the Indians I want to present to the House a letter which the Indians have written on this subject. It is addressed to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and is dated April 4, 1924, and reads as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that we members of the Peigan Band of Indians do express our disappointment of a certain lease, which we have learnt from Commissioner Graham, that Hon. Charles Stewart has granted to Mr. A. McLean.
A meeting was called for by Indian Agent Mr. C. A. Arthur, a vote took place, a majority of over three-qunTters of the voters was against the said lease.
I do not know the exact figures of the vote, but if anything like a vote of that size was recorded against the lease, I cannot understand why it was granted.


Charles A. Stewart: That letter does not refer to the vote that was taken a year ago. What is the date of the letter?


George Gibson Coote: April 4, 1924.


Charles A. Stewart: The vote
I am speaking of took place in 1923.


George Gibson Coote: The letter which I quoted
from Mr. Graham admitted that the band was against the lease.

Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be.


George Gibson Coote: This letter may refer to the
vote of 1923 or 1924, I am not sure which. It goes on to say:
Experience has taught us to do away with such leases. We have leased our reserve for the past twenty years to Maunsell Brothers, and we know the consequences. We never received a cent of the lease money and then the dry years came, so our stock had to die.
We understand it will be a closed lease, not in one block, but in three parts, twenty-four sections, ten sections in another, and three sections, so it will take up the best grazing land we have, including the springs and watering places; when it is fenced our stock at large will suffer for want of water.
We surrendered thirty-six sections of our reserve, about thirty-six sections is fenced in for farming purposes, and Mr. McLean got on or about thirty-seven sections.
I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that thirty-six sections of this reserve were sold off some years ago. This reserve is being cut down to the limit, I think. The letter continues:
We have 2,800 head of stock, cattle and horses, to graze the balance of our reserve. If we should get dry years again and do not save our grass now, our stock will die on us again. So we think we will be far better off to not have the lease; six cents an acre, or three dollars and twenty cents for each Indian, is not enough.
This lease is against the Indians' will, and so we are asking you for protection, to see into the matter and to find out why should they force this lease on us. An answer will oblige.
I shall not take time to read the reply. This letter was acknowledged by the secretary to the Prime Minister. I have already read Mr. Graham's letter in explanation. How much land is there on the Peigan reserve that has not been sold and is not under lease? What is the balance now left to the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
the statement here, but will be glad to get it for my hon. friend. This lease has been under consideration ever since I came into office. I refused it the first year because the information I had from inspection was that the reserve had not recovered, and it was well to let the grass grow up and get ripe. It is true the Maunsell herds crossed this land; we had full information about this long before Mr. McLean thought to give some consideration to the community crossing. On that occasion I decided not to sell the property, not that the Indians had sufficient stock to graze it, but in order to give the grass a chance to grow up.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How many acres are involved?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
that information, but I will be glad to get it and give it to the committee. Just recently I have had letters regarding this matter. I
did not anticipate that we were depriving farmers in the surrounding district who were letting their stock run on this reserve free of charge. That will create some difficulty in the locality, and is probably part of the reason we had so much complaint. Then, again the !ear is the reserve will be fenced and cut off the road. These farmers living to the south of this land have been using it for a number of years. Provision will be made against that sort of thing. It is not the idea to inconvenience anybody; but with respect to this particular lease, when the matter was put up to the Indians first I remember very distinctly the same statement was made about the payment of the rental to the Indians with respect to the lease Maunsell Brothers held. That is absolutely untrue, I proved it beyond the question of doubt. They all received the rental. They want eight dollars to-day out of this rental, and we did not agree to give that much, because we believed better use could be made of it. That letter referred to was turned over to me for reply, and I naturally consulted the commissioner at Regina with respect to this matter. My hon. friend I presume is reading from a return that was brought down.


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: The very
moment that the Indians are able to occupy this land I am prepared to see that they have all the assistance necessary to sustain their stock.


George Gibson Coote: I regret I have not the map here to show the area.


Charles A. Stewart: The area is 93,000 acres.


George Gibson Coote: Is that the original reserve, without deducting what was sold off a few years ago?


Charles A. Stewart: That is as
it stands now.


George Gibson Coote: And 22,000 acres has been
leased. I think one of the objectionable features about the lease is that the land has been leased in three separate blocks.


Charles A. Stewart: It could not be otherwise and preserve watering privileges for the lessees and the Indians. There is a travelled road to the pass through this reserve, and the water, with the exception of sloughs on the reserve, is all in the river, running on the other side of the road. I do not know the name of the river. In order
Supply-Indian Affairs

to give water to the lessee and to preserve the waters to the Indians-because the Indians are practically settled along the waterfront there-it was necessary that a small portion be granted across the road for water privileges only. The balance is on the west side of the road.


George Gibson Coote: The major portion of the
lease is in one block, and there would not be quite so much objection if only that land had been leased. Two other small blocks have been granted, and if I understand the contention of the Indians, they say a lot of their water, if it is a dry year, is going to be shut off.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not true.


George Gibson Coote: The land surrounding some of the watering places has been leased.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think so.


George Gibson Coote: I do not think the department have handled the matter properly. I feel they should not have granted the lease at all, and for the small rental they are going to get out of it, 31,200 a year, I do not think it is worth running the risk of having the reserve eaten off. There is no limit to the amount of stock the lessee may now put on the land, and they can eat the grass right into the ground, for nothing is stipulated to the contrary. The department maintain that they are not concerned with the number of the stock-


Charles A. Stewart: My hon
friend is mistaken. We do keep tab; we do not propose to allow the land to be overpastured.


John Millar: In the case of McHugh
brothers and others similarly situated who have leased land for pasture purposes at a price too high to possibly make it pay, would it not be a wise policy to reduce their indebtedness, so that they could wipe it off and get a fresh start? That is being done every day by those who have leased land during war days at a price which was too high. It is being done by thousands of farmers who have sold land.


Charles A. Stewart: I thoroughly agree with the idea my hon. friend has suggested, but the government business is just a little different from business of a private character. In government business every action into which you enter is very carefully scrutinized, sometimes not to your credit, [Mr. C. A. Stewart.)
I am bound to admit. Here is a contract entered into, and to negotiate with a contractor to reduce the price he agrees to pay is rather a difficult undertaking. In the case of the sale of school lands, I know perfectly well that as trustee for those lands very frequently it would be to the advantage of all parties concerned if we could consolidate the payment of two quarter-sections into one, and take back the other. We have put matters of that kind up to the provincial government, and to the owners of the land and the beneficiaries for consideration, and they do not care to instruct us to do anything of the kind. In the case of the McHugh brothers, and the case of Mr. Gardiner, I do not think these men can ever pay the indebtedness they have incurred in the way of rental, and possibly there are some cases in my hon. friend's province where the same thing occurs. But to say that the minister can, in a free-and-easy way enter into negotiations to forgive them their debt in part or in whole, would leave me liable to serious criticism.


John Millar: It is because the minister
has done such a thing in the past that I made the suggestion on this occasion. I could not give day and date. I think it was in the first session of this parliament that reference was made to the pulpwood concessions, I believe in northern Manitoba, where a berth of pulpwood had been appraised at a price which seemed to be too high, and the minister had sold another berth to the same firm at a very much lower price, because it was thought, and thought I believe by the minister, that they could not possibly pay the price contracted for. That being a precedent, I thought the minister would not find it very hard to do the same thing in this case.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a precedent which the minister will never follow again. That was done in good faith, but it develops now that the particular berth in auestion did not have any pulpwood on it so that it was no good. This is not private business, and I have found in some years' experience in dealing with the business of government, that you must protect yourself at every turn or someone is critical of an arrangement of that kind, and can make it appear in a not very pleasant light at times It is an utter impossibility to do business for the government as you would do it for a private individual.


George Gibson Coote: I have looked very carefully over this lease, and I find no provision in it as to the number of stock which may be put

Supply-Indian Affairs
upon this land. I also find in one of the letters from the Indian agent an objection to the fencing of this leased land. This should be pointed out because it is possible that the fencing of this land may cause as much damage to the Indians in loss of cattle as the amount which they may receive out of the lease. This is part of a letter from the Indian agent at the Blood reserve in regard to the question:
With regard to the fence across the reserve, the Indians themselves do not like the idea of a fence, pointing out that the large pasture fences erected by Knight and Watson caused heavy loss both to the Indians and their own cattle and stock, through their drifting along these fences and over the river banks, and judging by the piles of bones along the banks of the St. Mary's river, where the fences ran into the river, the loss must have been heavy.
So far as I am concerned the fence would be all right provided it were watched carefully in stormy weather, and this in itself would be quite a job as the fence would be 22 or 23 miles long, and I know it would never be in repair as the Indians themselves would cut it wherever they felt inclined to go through.
I think there is a great deal of truth in what Mr. Faunt points out. In a bad storm, enough Indian cattle may drift up against this fence and die in the storm to cause the Indians more loss than will be offset by the rental they receive. Has a lease been granted on the Blood reserve, and if so, what is the extent of it and to whom is it granted?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think it is executed, but it is under negotiation with Mr. Neilson. In this case it is a sheep-grazing lease that is being discussed with him. This is a case in which I have accurate information, because I attended the meetings of the band that voted on this particular lease. I was there to hear their grievances and to discuss them. They were many and varied; some of them were reasonable. and some were most unreasonable. The band insisted on a 'fence being built, although we did not wish to build one, for the very reason set- forth by Mr. Faunt. They wanted a fence to separate their stock from that of the lessee because they pointed out that their cattle when grazing became mixed to the detriment of the Indians. I believe it is true that their cattle were driven off frequently. I point out these things just to show the committee some of the difficulties we have in administration. I thought it was a wise suggestion to segregate the lessee's stock from that of the Indians. Therefore, I favour fencing, notwithstanding the fact that storms may come at times when stock will drift up against the fence and cause considerable loss. Under previous conditions, however, the
stocks on the Indian reserve suffered such an appalling loss that they were almost annihilated. I do not know what has taken place, but I am glad to say that to-day under Mr. Faunt they are increasing rapidly.


George Gibson Coote: I agree that if this land
is to be leased, it should be fenced. I do not think any leases should be granted on the Peigan reserve. The Blood reserve is a very large reserve where the Indians have more land than they can use. In the Peigan reserve there is too much risk involved for the amount the Indians are getting out of the lease, which amounts to only $1,200 a year. There are three parcels to be fenced, and that is worse than if it were all in one block.
I think that the department has made a mistake, particularly in view of the fact that the Indians are opposed to granting a lease. I am pointing this out in view of the fact that a few nights ago the minister told the committee that these lands were not leased without the consent of the band.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Some method might
be adopted under which a 'little more latitude would be given to Indians of a more progressive type, those who are getting along and making some headway in farming. I remember, about twenty years ago, when I first visited the Cote Indian reserve near Kamsack, that most of the Indians there were prosperous. Some of them had fine, healthy herds of cattle and swine. I believe that at that time the reserve was self-supporting. I regret that year by year those herds have been depleted and the Indians have become poverty-stricken. They seem to be degenerating, losing out in every conceivable way. From what observations I have made, I attribute this in large degree to the fact that their individual efforts are controlled; that they are not allowed to buy or sell or do anything on their own behalf. Indians who are making some progress, who are making a fair show at farming and who are becoming selfsupporting, should be given a certain latitude. Twenty years ago those Indians were in as good condition as the white settlers, but they have become discouraged because they cannot buy or sell anything without going to the Indian agent. Sometimes he is not a good business man, and sometimes there is a lack of sympathy and understanding on his part of business and business methods. The Indian agent is seldom a man who understands farming conditions, and I have known Indians who know more about farming than the agent.
Supply-Indian Affairs

These Indians have the finest land in the country; they have no taxes to pay, and there is no reason whatever why these reserves should not be self-supporting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian education, $1,854,977.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the reason for the reduction of $88,725 this year?


Charles A. Stewart: We embarked some time ago on a programme of building institutions but we do not require so much money for construction this year as we did last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: There will
be no curtailment of the educational facilities afforded the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: That is
impossible; we find that the demand is increasing year by year and it will be still greater is the Indian parents become more interested in the schools. We have spent about a half million in construction work trying to repair dilapidated buildings.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the state of the school building on the Black-foot reserve? Has it been completed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and the school has started again.
Mr. GARLAND -(Bow River):	There are
few things that are more important than provision for the proper education of our Indians in modern methods of agriculture and civilization generally.


George Gibson Coote: Is the school at Edmonton
completed yet?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: And the one at Macleod on the Blood reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: That will be completed this year.


George Gibson Coote: Has any provision been made for propel'1 accommodation on the Sarcee reserve? The minister stated a year ago that there were children there who had to be accommodated.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
opened the school and a hospital there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
.
Supplementary Estimates-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories:	To provide an
amount to be placed in a special account for expenditure in the interest of Indians as the Treasury Board may from time to time direet, $79,029.03.
Charles A. Stewart: This is an
amount which is derived from the profits of the greater production campaign carried on by Mr. Graham in the western provinces. It is desirable to enable young Indians who graduate from our schools to get a proper start in agriculture. Heretofore we have not had any fund for this purpose and the young men whom the agents have encouraged to marry and settle down have had to start on borrowed capital. They will still have to borrow their capital but it will be loaned by the government. We shall expect them to repay it but it will not be in the same category as many of the accounts in regard to which we have encountered difficulties, as for instance where the Indians are given an order for the purchase of a team of horses and later on find themselves unable to pay. The vote is to provide for loans to the Indians for certain purposes including the building of houses which are frequently needed on the reserves. This fund was turned into the treasury by the department and we asked to have it set aside for the purposes I have mentioned.


Arthur Meighen: This represents only a
portion of the profits of the greater production scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
provided for the return of all money borrowed, plus this amount. Repayment was made of all money loaned to Mr. Graham for greater production purposes except $12,000 and these have been the profits up to date. The operations however, are not yet concluded; he is still farming a considerable area,


Arthur Meighen: The profit account had
a much larger sum than this to its credit some time ago.


Charles A. Stewart: There may
be an outstanding investment in implements, hones and so forth.


Arthur Meighen: I understand.


Charles A. Stewart: This is cash in the bank.


Arthur Meighen: I congratulate the minister on being in on the harvest.
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil): You got the criticism?

Supply-Dominion Lands


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I have looked in
vain for a long while for profits from any venture launched by this government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Indian Affairs-To provide salary for one Head Clerk for three months. $720; to provide salary for one Senior Clerk for three months, $300: $1,110.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the explanation of this item?


Charles A. Stewart: This is
merely to take care of an omission from the Main Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of the Interior-To appoint Mrs. Electa Blanche Hutchison matron of rest room, Langevin Block, from 1st July, 1924, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $900; to appoint H. D. Chapman, Engineering Clerk, Forestry Branch, from the 12th October, 1924, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $592.75: total $1,492.75.
James Shaver Woodsworth: W7hy are these
appointments not made under the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: A large
number of young women are employed in this block, and Mrs. Hutchison is to be placed in charge as matron of the rest room. She is eminently fitted for the work, flthough she is over 35 years of age-the maximum for entering the Civil Service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not objecting
to the expenditure, but I do not like the idea of creating new positions which do not come under the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Meighen: This is only one of about twenty appointments where the government is widening the door day by da}' getting more and more people in against the act.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a
very special case, and I understand that a great many are interested in it. I intend to follow the advice of the Civil Service Commission in connection wtih all appointments in my department. I have investigated this case and find that the lady is eminently fitted for the work. Her husband, perhaps, did more to advertise Canada than any other man. His widow will be able to - occupy this position for a few years. I understand that the Civil Service Commission made no objection, but they could not appoint her because of her age.


Robert Alexander Hoey: WThat about the second appointment?


Charles A. Stewart: It is one of those unfortunate cases where the gentleman was retired by the Civil Service Commission on the understanding that if an opening occurred he would be placed in the service again. We have him in the Forestry branch I have a letter from the Civil Service Commission pointing out that they are entirely in accord with our taking this gentleman in. This is the only way in which he can get back into the service. He is a very excellent officer.


Arthur Meighen: Is he too old?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. But
the Justice department have ruled that where a man retires he is out for keeps so far as the Civil Service is concerned.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Did he retire under the Calder Act?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. He is only in receipt of his salary.


Arthur Meighen: What is the idea of
establishing a rest room in the minister's block; and when is the rest all done?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
very strong on rest rooms, but there are times when the young women engaged in the department are overcome with illness and require attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Lands-To cover professional assistance engaged by the Governor in Council to assist the departmental officers who are advising re international and boundary water questions, $8,900.
Charles Marcil: The whole resolution has been adopted except this one item.


Charles A. Stewart: This item
stood in order that more information might be supplied the committee. In the re-organization work I have suggested that the whole of the Interior department, as well as every other department over which I have control, shall place its legal work under the Department of Justice. I know our officers say that they need these men at their elbow, but we find that for definite and final advice we must always consult the Justice department. I should like the item to be passed.


Arthur Meighen: I would not be content
to have it passed unless the money is owing. Who is the man who got in on this?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Challies has had to employ legal services in connection with the Chicago diversion and the Lake of the WToods.
Supply-Dominion Lands


Arthur Meighen: It is too large an item
to be accounted for in that way. The cost of getting occasional advice would never amount to 88,000.


Charles A. Stewart: He has had to have legal work done from time to time.


Arthur Meighen: It would not amount
to this sum, and he would have no authority to take legal advice except from the Justice department, which is always available. The trouble is these items are used to work in men who want to get a little money out of the treasury, and they are very ingenious in doing so. Observation of the National Railways accounts shows that they are marvellously successful there, the legal account being more than double this past year what it was the year before. I do not know any better test of economy of management than the barometer of the legal account. I advise the minister to resist every effort to have special departmental solicitors and special departmental advice from this, that and the other fellow. He is undoubtedly right when he says that the proper source for legal advice is the Justice department. I never found any very great delay in that department, and certainly I always found the advice very reliable when it came.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Lands and Parks-To cover the Dominion government's share of freight charges in connection with the removal of settlers from the drought stricken areas to other districts, $13,500.
To pay M. J. Patton, Economic Adviser, balance of salary due under terms of appointment, $600.
For the enlargement of the western outlet of lake of the Woods and the provision of suitable control works therein in conformity with the recommendation of the International Joint Commission, $200,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: What has
been done under the first item with regard to the removal of settlers from drought-stricken areas to other areas, and to what districts have they been removed?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
cover last year's work in conjunction with the two provincial governments. There seemed to be some dispute about the obligation of the federal government, but it appeared that we had agreed tentatively to assist in the removal of these settlers. This is to pay our share of the expenses.
Mr, GARLAND (Bow River):	Has the
minister any figures as to the number moved?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it was
all done by the provincial government, we being furnished with a statement of cost.


Robert Alexander Hoey: In what provinces did the removals take place?


Charles A. Stewart: Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Edward Joseph Garland: This principle of removing settlers, though it may be desirable from the point of view of some settlers, is not going to solve their problems. Most of these men we desire to be moved are men who are practically insolvent, and the only thing that can save them and keep them in Canada and enable them to rehabilitate themselves is bankruptcy. Under our present bankruptcy law, however, the unfortunate farmer is not permitted to get the protection that an ordinary trader gets. I would submit the following suggestion as a partial solution of a difficulty that has arisen and that is likely to become more pressing next winter if the western crop is as poor as it is reported to be at the moment. Last year I took up the question with the then Minister of Justice, (Sir Lomer Gouin), and asked him to make several changes in the Bankruptcy Act that would enable a farmer to secure clearance, that would enable him to undertake an assignment in bankruptcy without having to put up an enormous cash fee. The fees at present charged by trust companies and' lawyers in Alberta are*hopelessly high from the point of view of the farmer. They ask him to put up an initial amount of from 8100 to 8200. I find on page 3212 of Hansard of last year, volume 4, I put a question to the then Minister of Justice requesting him to make provision so that there would not be discrimination against the farmers and assuring him that I was informed that the farmer had no chance to get clearance except after he had paid fifty cents on the dollar. The minister replied to me then:
There is no difference between a farmer and a trader as to that.
The discussion then continued for some time, in the course of which the minister assured me-it is recorded in Hansard-that after the amendments of last year had been adopted there would be no further difficulties, the farmer would be able to get clearance, and that an official custodian would be appointed by the federal government who would take over an assignment in bankruptcy without requiring the farmer to put up the initial cash fee, which payment of course was impossible in so many cases. It may be difficult for some who come from the cities to understand why the farmer should not be in a position to put up the necessary cash or to raise it in some way. But in the case of these men, especially

Supply-Dominion Lands
those likely to be removed from one portion of the province to another under this vote, their house and furniture, everything upon which they can get security at all, has been hypothecated, so when they wish to enter bankruptcy they are unable to do so for lack of the S100 to $200 required by trustees. Even their wages are sometimes attached under garnishee. As a result of that situation, certain amendments were put in the act last year, or purported to be put in which relieved this condition. A case arose where a Mr. Baskin of Enchant tried to file his estate in bankruptcy. The application was refused by the trust company in Calgary unless the man would put up $200 in cash. Mr. Fream was written to in connection with that matter and he stated that the farmer had no redress. Mr. Justice Tweedie had the case under consideration and he decided that the trust company was within its right in asking for the initial cash payment. Mr. Varcoe of the bankruptcy branch expressed the opinion that in this case the amount of $200 seemed to be exorbitant. Now, an attempt has been made during this session to secure some immediate legislation in this regard that would enable the farmer to place himself in bankruptcy with a fair possibility of getting the same clearance that a trader gets. An amendment to the act was proposed in the Banking committee. It was introduced as a part of the investigation into rural credits. The question arose whether the subject was allowable in connection with the discussions of the Banking committee, but as the Bankruptcy Act itself largely affected the farmers' credit, especially the farmers of whom I happened to be speaking at the time, an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act was recommended. I quote the amendment proposed and agreed to in the Banking committee:
(1)	Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province, has authorized any officer of the provincial government, charged under a provincial statute with duties which in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council are analogous in any respect to the duties of custodian and trustee, to act as custodian and trustee under this act, the official receiver shall in the case of an assignment by a person engaged solely in farming or the tillage of the soil appoint such officer as custodian.
(2)	Any officer so appointed to the office of custodian by the official receiver shall thereupon in addition to such office be and be deemed to be the authorized trustee as if appointed under subsection (1) of section 15 of this act, and shall continue to be the authorized trustee until properly removed under subsection (2) of the said section 15.
(3)	In case any such provincial officer is appointed custodian and trustee, he shall not be entitled to be paid any remuneration as custodian or trustee nor any of the costs enumerated as costs of custodian in Part III of the General Rules.
Then there was a further amendment:
4. Section 59 of the Bankruptcy Act is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(2) Paragraphs b, c, of the preceding subsection, shall not apply in the case of an application for discharge by any assignor who at the time of the authorized assignment was engaged solely in farming or the tillage of the soil.
The purpose of this amendment was twofold: First of all, to obviate the difficulty involved in the finding of the necessary cash before the insolvent farmers could enter bankruptcy at all, as should this carry the House, the provincial custodian, under paragraph 2 of the proposed amendment that I have just read, would be able to take charge and receive applications without a fee.
Secondly, in the event of liquidation of the assets of the farmer, he would be given an absolute clearance of his debt, and could start over again without disgrace, without a burden of debt on his shoulders, and become again a useful citizen of this country. Unfortunately, at the moment judges decline to give clearance to a farmer in the West, even after entering bankruptcy, even after liquidating all his assets, unless he has kept books for two years prior to his assignment in bankruptcy. That is a most unjust law, it eliminates at feast eighty or eightydive per cent of all the farmers who find themselves insolvent, because very few of them keep books. I think, therefore, Mr. Chairman, it would be indeed an act of mercy on the part of the Minister of Justice, if at the instigation of the Minister of the Interior or of the Minister of Agriculture, under whom, perhaps, this item comes, he would introduce this proposed amendment at this session of parliament. It will take him but a short time to do it, and it will pass the House. I am quite sure, with little dispute, because the justice of the case is clear to everybody. It was Sir Lomer Gouin's expressed intention last year that the act should have this effect, but it failed to have that effect, largely because no amount was provided in the estimates to pay the official custodian for what work he might do in connection with assignments. Now in the province of Alberta, we have a debt adjuster, Mr. Fream, and in the province of Saskatchewan there is, I understand, a Debt Adjusting Board, who would be quite capable, if given authority under such an amendment as this, of accepting without payment the application of a farmer in bankruptcy, and of getting the creditors together and saying: "Now look here, this is a serious case. You stand to lose a great deal. Are you willing to get together and compound with this man,

Supply-Dominion Lands

let him off a little easier, and gelt a settlement of your debt, and let the man go on farming? Eventually, if you do that, you may be paid off, but otherwise;. I shall have to close this man out." Now if he closes the man out under the present system, he still has that burden of debt on his shoulders, and he is going to leave the country rather than go around with that debt hanging to him, and facing even the garnishee of his wages or a continuing judgment. We want to keep our citizens and our farmers in this country, and the Minister of Justice can do a great service to western Canada, and keep more men on the land than will be put on the land under an immigration scheme this year, if he will but make this simple amendment to the Bankruptcy Act. It will take him only a half an hour to do it; and I urge him now, most earnestly, to do it.


George Gibson Coote: I would just like to say a
word in support of what the hon. member for Bow River has said. This subject is very closely allied to the matter covered by this estimate to cover freight charges in connection with the removal of settlers from the drought stricken areas. This amendment to the Bankruptcy Act is asked particularly for the benefit of the farmers in the drought stricken areas who have become bankrupt through no fault of their own. Under the law as it now stands, it is impossible for them to get a discharge, and they are not going to leave a drought stricken area and move up into a portion further north where they might have a chance to make good, if they know these debts are to remain against them and their creditors are going to follow them to their new location and seize the first crop they raise. They have so many creditors that sheriffs' and lawyers' fees often eat up practically all the proceeds of the crop seized. It is simply driving these people out of the country, to leave the act as it is now.
As has 'been pointed out, these amendments to the Bankruptcy Act were recommended by the Banking and Commerce committee, I think, unanimously; there may have been one dissenting vote, but I do not think so. The government now apparently are going to refuse to bring in a bill to give effect to these simple amendments which have been recommended by the committee. In a letter written to me recently by a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, he mentions the case of some good Scotch Canadians of the very best type-we could not get any better farmers-
-who last year had 1,100 acres of wheat completely hailed out, after several years of crop failures, and 
who have now been forced into liquidation. Their position now is that they are unable to get a discharge. They are willing to make a new start, and wish to do so, but under the circumstances they are unable to do so, and they are now waiting to see if anything will be done in this matter. If not, they will drift to the United States or elsewhere and-
I would ask the committee to notice this: -we will attempt to replace them with people of a lower standard, possibly, from continental Europe. Surely the nation is not so bankrupt in statesmanship as to be unable to remedy this situation.
We may not be so bankrupt in statesmanship as to be unable to do it, but we seem to be in such haste to get home, that the Minister of Justice is apparently unwilling to bring in a bill to give effect to these amendments. It would do more good, so far as keeping farmers in western Canada is concerned, than spending a million dollars on immigration. We know something of what it cost to get immigrants last year. These amendments will cost us nothing. There is going to be absolutely no cost put on the Dominion government at all; if there is any cost, it will have to be assumed by the provincial governments, but the provincial governments cannot bring in legislation with regard to bankruptcy. The responsibility must rest on this government, and primarily on the Minister of Justice. I am going to make this last appeal to him to change his mind and to bring in a bill giving effect to these simple amendments.
Let me point out, in closing, what the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States says over his own signature, in regard to bankruptcy among farmers in that country:
Reports were secured from 15 states covering the period January, 1920, to March, 1923. Out of over 68,000 owner-farmers included in this survey 4 per cent lost their farms through foreclosure or bankruptcy, 4.5 per cent lost their farms without legal proceedings, and a little over 15 per cent had been spared such loss up to March, 1923, only because of the leniency of their creditors. Out of almost 26,000 tenant-farmers, 7.2 per cent lost property through foreclosure or bankruptcy, 7.8 per cent lost property without legal proceedings, and 21.3 per cent retained their property merely as a result of the leniency of creditors.
I have often been asked what percentage of the farmers in western Canada are bankrupt. I am, of course, unable to give any estimate of that, but I have given the figures compiled by Secretary Wallace of the United States regarding conditions in the western states, and although conditions in western Canada may not be so bad, they are somewhat similar. I think if the Minister of Justice could realize the amount of good which he would do for these people in western Canada by bringing in a bill to give effect to

Supply-Dominion Lands
these simple amendments, he would do it even at this late day, and I hope the Minister of Interior, who has to administer this vote, will use his influence with the Minister of Justice in endeavouring to have this bill brought in.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to add my
appeal in support of the request of the hon. member for Bow River that the Minister of Justice bring in a bill to make the desired amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. This is a question that is of vital interest not only to western Canada, but of equal interest to eastern Canada, because after all is said and done, the East depends upon the success of the West. It has often been urged, when we have been trying to get through this House legislation affecting western Canada, that it might hurt eastern interests, but in this case eastern interests cannot be damaged in the slightest. The only effect such legislation could have would be to help eastern interests.
As the hon. member for Bow River has mentioned, the question has arisen as to the necessity of farmers keeping books before they can be discharged under the Bankruptcy Act at the present time. The present provision is quite a bar to farmers going into bankruptcy, and it is very unfair to them. The position we find ourselves in is that a lot of settlers who are good farmers, are very heavily in debt through no fault of their own, but through successive crop failures and one thing and another; and to-day they have no alternative but to leave the country. I might refer to one settler in particular, not very far from my own home, who, not so very long ago, left in the night with his wife and five children, because he was in_ the position of not being able to go into bankruptcy. This sort of thing is taking place in many parts of Alberta and not merely in the dried-out area. It is, therefore, in a plea to keep the settlers we have, to recognize good settlers, who are simply hard up and cannot go into bankruptcy and are fleeing for the reason that they cannot get clear of their debts legitimately, that we are asking for this amendment to the Bank Act, and I sincerely hope the Minister of Justice will realize the absolute necessity of the amendments that have been asked for being placed on the statute books.


Mr. GARDINER:: Coming back to the
question of the vote, I again call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to appeals which have already come from southern parts of Alberta for some as-298J
sistance to enable people to get out of that part of the country. I brought this matter to the attention of the House some time ago, and also brought it to the attention of these two ministers some weeks ago, but up to the present time have not been able to convince these gentlemen that it is advisable to move some people from certain portions of southern Alberta to some other parts of the province where they might have a better opportunity of making a living. As I have said on previous occasions in this House, the part of the country to which I refer was opened up by the government in 1909, against the wishes of people who knew just exactly what that section of the country could produce. These people have been staying there for the last ten to fifteen years. They have spent all their capital and have spent the best portion of their lives in trying to make a living. We have passed estimates for three million or three and a half million dollars for immigration purposes. These people are making appeals to the government to assist them to get into some other locations. Would it not be advisable for this government to take the attitude that where they find people who have settled in this country in good faith, to keep faith with these people and try and locate them in some place where they could make a living. It is no use locating them in some other part of the province, unless some provision is made to enable them go through bankruptcy and get rid of their debts legitimately. I can quite realize these people, being in the districts they are in must have accumulated some debts in the past, and it is a question whether the government would be willing to bring down such legislation by way of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act as would" enable them to make a living. I think the proposal is well worth the consideration of the government, and I trust they will give it that consideration.


William Irvine: I have no doubt that if the Minister of the Interior had this matter of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act in his own hands, he would give his promise right now to put it through. I suggest to him that he whisper across to the Minister of Justice and advise that he should give us this amendment this year. It would not take ten minutes to pass the House. I do not believe there would be a single objection to it. I think it would be a great help in keeping the insolvent farmers from leaving the country, and would of course, favourably affect other people as well.


Charles A. Stewart: We might
need it ourselves.
Supply-Dominion Lands


William Irvine: As things are now, the
merchant, for instance, who has been looking after the farmer and helping him along might not get one cent, because some other creditor might come along and take from the farmer all that he has. The effect of this amendment would be to distribute the assets of the insolvent farmer pro rata, and hence it would be a benefit to business men also. Perhaps the minister will tell us that he will pass such a bill to-morrow. Will the minister answer?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not intend to cover the ground already covered by other speakers, but as a member of the Ranking and Commerce committee I would like to corroborate what has been said as to the almost absolute unanimity with which this amendment was passed in the committee. There was full discussion in the committee, and although some members, especially from the eastern provinces, were inclined to doubt the wisdom of the proposal, when they understood the situation they quite readily accepted it, and saw that no evils could arise in any part of the country. I might say that in the western provinces we already have machinery which would enable us to administer such an act as this. I desire to protest against the failure of the government to implement by legislation the resolutions which have been passed by the committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) owes it to us to take action in this matter. We are representing our constituents' interests in this House, and we ask the Minister of Justice at least to make a statement now. We appeal to him to bring down the legislation that is already drafted by the committee in'co-operation with the law officers, and there should be no difficulty.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: My hon. friend says that I owe it to him. These are the estimates of my colleague in the Department of the Interior. I was quite interested in listening to the arguments presented with such eloquence by all my hon. friends with regard to the urgency of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act. I am not prepared to say that I will take the responsibility of introducing such a bill this session. Amendments have been suggested to the Bankruptcy Act in many quarters. Those amendments have been considered and the answer which has been given before this amendment was presented to the department was that no amendment would be presented this year. The Bankruptcy Act will not be touched this year. Some of the sug-
gested amendments are contentious. My hon. friend says this amendment would pass in a few minutes. Perhaps it will, but my experience is that we are disappointed sometimes in regard to the time which is occupied in passing legislation in this House. I think it would not be fair to all those who have been told that the Bankruptcy Act will be left as it is this session to introduce an amendment for this part of the act.
I wish to mention another matter in regard to this part of the act concerning the farmers. Evidently the feeling is not the same in all parts of the country. My hon. friends find it is too difficult for the farmers to use the Bankruptcy Act. In my own province, the farmers, those who are representing the farmers' associations, and the farmers generally are complaining that the act is used too freely. They are asking to be exempted from the operations of the act. They do not want it. The attitude is an absolutely contradictory one. Under the circumstances I desire to consider the matter more fully, and I am not quite prepared to say that I shall introduce an amendment which may complicate the situation more and render more difficult the final solution. Some are suggesting that the provinces should be left free to decide whether they desire that the farmers of those provinces should come under the operation of the Bankruptcy Act. This is a suggestion which deserves consideration. But especially when the report of the committee came up only a couple of days ago urging the necessity of this legislation, I do not think, on the whole, that my hon. friends should insist on my introducing legislation during the very last days of the session.


John Millar: Is the complaint to which the minister refers that some are taking advantage too freely of the Bankruptcy Act? Is it the farmers who are taking too great advantage? There is a section which prevents those taking advantage of it who do not keep books. Very few farmers keep books and, therefore, the advantages of the Bankruptcy Act are at present confined' to the business men and are not available' to the same extent to the farmers. The object of the amendment is to overcome that.


Ernest Lapointe: The complaint coming
from the farmers' associations is that by virtue of this act and many having taken advantage of it-the farmers have not the same credit that they had formerly to carry on their operations. The men who used to lend them money are now refusing to do so because they are afraid that when the Bank-

Supply-Dominion Lands
ruptcy Act is taken advantage of, they will lose the security which they had formerly. That apparently works against the farmers, according to this complaint. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but those are the representations which are very strongly made. Indeed, the legislature of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution calling upon this government to remove the farmers of the province from the operations of the Bankruptcy Act. They contend that it is placed upon them against their will. The situation which my hon. friends mention as existing in the west is quite the reverse, because there the farmers seem to complain that they cannot take advantage freely enough of the provisions of the act. Therefore, this is a matter which certainly deserves a good deal of study and consideration, and my hon. friends should not, at this late hour of the session, precipitate me into introducing legislation to make it more easy and free for a certain part of the country to use the act when other parts complain that it is too easy and free.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has stated that some of the provinces have requested that the farmers be removed from the operations of the Bankruptcy Act. Is there any other province than Quebec that has done so.


Ernest Lapointe: None that I know of
yeit.


Edward Joseph Garland: Nor has
it come to my attention either. I admit that the representatives of the farmers of Quebec -appear to desire to get the farmers away from the operations of this act. In the West we regard it as the possible way out for those unfortunates who, through debt or other causes, are insolvent, who cannot leave the country except as defaulters, who cannot stay in Canada and fight the battle out because they will have to carry this load of debt on their Shoulders and who will be hounded and badgered from one end of the country to the other until they have settled their debt. I tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) seriously and honestly now that the homes and existence in Canada of a thousand people in this country depend upon his inaction at this session. It is a crime to rush through the business of the session without taking action in this matter. I am in no -hurry for the undue end of the session, and members around me are in no particular hurry. If the minister wants a week to consider the matter, we shall be glad to remain here.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
think that this strong language will be more effective than the reasonable remarks which he made a few minutes ago?


Edward Joseph Garland: I want
to tell the minister that there is an undue haste on -the part of some portions of this House to get back home. We want to get this legislation enacted.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to stay here as long as my hon. friend. I live in Ottawa.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am delighted to hear that.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to
stay here until this fall, but not to listen to my hon. friend all the time.


Edward Joseph Garland: It will not take him longer than a few days or a week to prepare and draft this legislation, and to be convinced of the necessity of it. The Attorney General of Alberta has already stated that this would meet his idea of a solution. He would be glad to accept this very proposition. He would appoint the present debt adjuster as a custodian under this act if this legislation is passed, and we would be in a position to meet the coming winter when we expect that conditions will be again bad in the West. This is one little life-belt that we can throw out to those farmers. The minister says:	We have no
time to consider it as one other province has declared against us.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that fair?


Edward Joseph Garland: Those are the minister's own words.


Charles Marcil: We are not discussing the insolvency question. I have allowed some latitude, but the debate should come back to the item before the committee.


William Alves Boys: Is it a fact -that farmers cannot get the benefit of the Bankruptcy Act unless they keep books? If so, under what section does that come?


Mr. YIEN:: The section of the act to which reference has been made provides simply that they can obtain a release only if they have kept books. In the first place, one of the conditions is that they should have paid at least 50 per cent to their creditors, in the second place, that they should have kept books.
Supply-Dominion Lands


William Alves Boys: I am familiar with those provisions. I was wondering if I was overlooking any provision. I live in a farming community; I know a good deal of the life of the farmer, and I cannot see the slightest reason why a farmer should not be able to get the full benefit of this act just as any other tradesman or anybody else. So far as I know the law, the fanner has that right. I quite appreciate what has been said on the question of discharge. The minister knows that some months ago I pressed upon him, and I had very satisfactory conversations with Mr. Varcoe regarding this very question of discharge. In my opinion, the usefulness of the Bankruptcy Act is a nullity unless the provision regarding discharge is amended. You could do everything that could be done by the Bankruptcy Act, under the various assignment laws of the different provinces, with this single exception. The whole purpose of the act was not that a man could make an assignment as he could under the Assignment Act, but that he could get a discharge and make a fresh start in life. I do not know a single assignment where any estate paid 50 cents on the dollar, and thalt stands in the way of the only purpose for which the act was passed. I urged this on the minister and Mr. Varcoe, and I thought we might meet with some success. What I suggest is that county court judges who, it is said, often do not have enough to do, should be given jurisdiction and discretion to allow them to give any man a discharge, so long is the judge thinks that man is a proper person once more to be given a fresh start in life, if he has failed through misfortune, sickness, heavy household expenses and so on. So long as he has been honest in his dealings even if the estate pays only ten cents on the dollar we should give the county court judge jurisdiction to give the man a new start. If you do not do that you may as well abandon the Bankruptcy Act altogether and go back ;o the various provincial acts which were in force m former years. I realize that nothing can be done at this late day, and to be frank, I am one of those who want to get away. If, however, I felt that any good could be accomplished by remaining here a few days longer to discuss this matter fully I would readily do so; but I do not think it would be worth while. I hope that the minister in the recess will take this matter seriously into consideration for the two reasons I have advanced, namely, because it is right and because the county court judges know something of the standing of the various men who come before them; and if they do not they can very easily
[Mr. Vien.l
find out whether in any particular case the man is deserving of consideration and should, be given another chance. I sincerely trust that the minister will bring down some legislation at the next session of parliament covering the matter. If I am here then one of the first things I shall do will be to take steps to see that something is done in this direction. I hope there will not be the slightest intention either in Quebec or anywhere else of adopting any legislation which will make any exception of the farmer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses connected with the survey and demarcation of international boundaries-Further amount required, $6,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How much was spent
last year?


Charles A. Stewart: Last year
we spent $37,000 and this year we hope to clean the thing up with this vote and another vote of $20,000, making a total of $26,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for assistance in transportation of Canadian coal to Central Canada by payments to railway companies under regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council, $200,000.
Charles A. Stewart: This is not my solution of the coal problem in the acute fuel area, but we desire to make a little further study. I think the proper solution lies in the construction of coking plants in all the reasonably sized municipalities in central Canada. At the next session I hope to be able to bring down some policy that will appeal to the House and that will encourage the establishment of these plants for the transformation of Canadian coal into coke. There is a demand at present from western Canada for a trial shipment, and while I have put this sum in the estimates for the purpose I am doubtful whether, under existing conditions, we can carry out the experiment. One must be frank about these things, and we should realize that there is a strike on in the western provinces. Furthermore we are rapidly approaching the time when wheat will be moving and it will be impossible to secure the necessary cars for the purpose of putting on a fair test. There are two or three things that should be taken into consideration and one of them is that the coal itself should be mined at a cheaper cost than is the case today. If the government is to step in and carry out a real test that is one of the considerations that must be insisted upon. Another is this, that the test can. be made only in

Supply-Interior
complete train loads running from the pit mouth ro some central point where distribution would not entail a distance of more than fifty or sixty miles; I have in mind such points as Toronto, London and places of that character. X hope to be able to make the test; but, as I say, it is possible that we shall not be able to do so. After considerable discussion with the mining interests and the governments both of Ontario and of Alberta, who have pressed consistently for this to be done, I agreed to the proposal. This applies wholly to domestic coal; it has nothing to do with any other kind of coal. As to conditions in the East, they can ship by water to Montreal and points on the St. Lawrence and distribute thence into Ontario points. As I said at the outset, this is not intended as the ultimate solution of the coal problem but is merely to encourage the industry in the East this year; and with this object in view we propose to lend some assistance in the haulage from river ports to points of distribution in the province of Ontario.


Mr. WHITE:: Has any arrangement been
made with the interested provinces for the purpose of securing assistance from those governments?


Charles A. Stewart: No arrangement of that kind exists. The matter was discussed, but the provinces took the view that as this is a national problem it should be solved by the federal government. I would not say, however, that they would not be inclined to assist if urged to do so.


William Irvine: The minister speaks of a
contemplated test. Is it the test suggested by Mr. Howard Scutchbury of the Alberta government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister says
that this matter is to be studied more fully.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say that; I said that the coking problem would be looked into.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to the larger question, has the department considered the advisability of reorganizing the coal production system of the West in such a way as to render the work more continuous and to definitely reduce the cost per ton.


Charles A. Stewart: If it were
possible to transport coal in the summer
months during the slack season it would add materially to the length of time the miners could be employed, and it would also reduce production costs.


Robert Gardiner: The minister stated
that the mining costs in the West were too high. Has he any information as to those costs? Has the minister looked into the royalties which are being paid to the original leaseholders by those who are actually operating the mines? Perhaps there might be som~ redress in that quarter.


Charles A. Stewart: I know in
the Drumheller field there are cases where the royalities paid go to the original leaseholders, and it is a difficult thing to cure. As a matter of fact my hon. friend knows that if 300 of the 350 mines in operation in Alberta were closed down the operation of the other 50 would result in very much cheaper production of coal, but you cannot cure this state of things over night. It is a problem which the provincial government will have to try to solve. Our responsibility is perhaps that of refusing to open up new mines where the development is overdone. The heavy overhead in our mining operations largely comes about through the short operating season, although a certain staff must be maintained all the year round to keep the mines in working order. The serious problem for Canadian mining is that the same quantity of coal can be produced at $2.25 a ton on the other side of the line which costs at pit mouth on this side $4.50. From information I have received there does not appear to be much likelihood of production costs increasing in the United States. So we must devise ways and means to reduce our production costs. Our freight charges are pretty much on a parity with those in the United States. I do not just know why there should be this big difference in production costs, but in some cases I think too much is going in royalties to the original leaseholders. Some authorities say that the miner is getting too much. He retorts that he is working only three months in the year, and over the twelve month period his wages are not very high. The distribution cost in our cities is excessive, in fact I think it is a scandal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would seem to
me that the minister is working from the wrong end. This $200,000 is necessary in order to make an experiment because of the present high cost of production. It does seem to be reasonable that those costs should be cut down. The minister has admitted that one reason for the high cost of production is be-
Supply-Railways and Canals

cause we have 350 mines in operation when 300 might very well be closed down. Why should not action be taken in this direction? Undoubtedly the high cost arises because of such matters as the strike, but the strike is very largely the result of slack time and the fact that although the nominal wages of the miner may appear high for the short period he is working, his real wages spread over the whole year are too low to enable him to maintain a decent standard of living. Would it not be well to supplement his wages ir order that he might live decently, and thu3 cut down the cost of production? It seems to me that we ought not to go on year after year dealing with these mere symptoms, but rather we should tackle the underlying trouble. We have the coal, and I cannot for the life of me see why production costs should be so much higher in western Canada than in corresponding districts in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-Salaries

To provide for the salary of chief engineer from February 4th to 29th inclusive, 1924, at $8,000 per annum, $597.70.
Robert Gardiner: What is the necessity
for the number of engineers that the minister has in his department now, in view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways have to all intents and purposes taken over much of the work that these engineers formerly did?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	It is the greatest
fallacy in the world to imagine that the taking over of the Intercolonial by the Canadian National has reduced the work of the department. The department has at least fifty per cent more work to do along these lines than it ever had before. In addition to that the engineers are engaged in the investigation of waterways in connection with the Hudson bay and the construction of the Welland ship canal, as well as superintending engineering work on our various canals. When the late Mr. Bowden died his family received two months of his salary. When his successor was engaged we had to make an extra vote to pay him until the two months' gratuity to the widow of the former chief engineer expired. Hence this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Income-Welland canal improvements, additional amount required, *75,000.
Mr. GRAHAM:: So that there may be no misunderstanding, I must explain that this is not the Welland canal in the strict sense of

the term. It is an amount to begin the reconstruction of a pier that has gone out of business on the old feeder to the Welland canal, which is really the harbour at Port Maitland where there is a lot of transcontinental ferrying. The work has been left undone for a number of years and it has now got to the point where it is becoming dangerous to navigation and we have to reconstruct it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, including the Canadian National Advisory Committee, and its employees and including E. B. Jost, *2,500, as assistant to Chairman of Engineering Board, and G. W. Yates $1,200 as Secretary, $100,000.
Mr. CHURCH:: We had a visit in Canada the other day from Mr. Hoover, chairman of the United States branch of this commission, who announced that his report would be ready for the next sitting of congress. Will the report of the Canadian commission be ready for next session of parliament? When will the commission begin its work?


George Perry Graham: This amount is for the investigation of the St. Lawrence deep waterways. After correspondence and negotiation an organization was formed on each side of the line for the purpose of making further investigation of the St. Lawrence deep waterways project. Some misunderstanding has occurred with reference to the international relationships in this connection; let me briefly explain them. There is in each country what is called the National Advisory Board. In the United States the head of that board is Mr. Hoover; in Canada the head of that board is the Minister of Railways. These are not joint boards; they are appointed each to investigate the situation with regard to the interests and requirements of their own country. The United States board are investigating and securing all the information they can with regard to the benefits that will accrue to the United States from the project, and the Canadian board are doing the same from the point of view of Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Although more or less recognizing the idea, I suppose, that this is an international affair, and that the two must harmonize at some points?


George Perry Graham: The boards are quite independent of each other. Up to date they have held no conferences with each other; the task of each is separate. It is thought better by both countries that each should conduct its own investigation as to the results that might accrue to its own country. In

Supply-Railways and Canals
addition to that the government of each country has appointed three engineers, who comprise a joint engineering board. They meet to discuss the technical questions that may arise in that connection.


William Findlay Maclean: Does that include hydro development?


George Perry Graham: Everything. In addition
to that there are two technical officers in each country, selected by members of the Joint Engineering Board. These technical officers first decide and pass on for further approval the questions to be submitted to the Joint Engineering Board for investigation. The technical officers of the two countries, which, as I have said form a joint body, met in Montreal recently and decided on certain questions to be submitted for approval to each advisory board. I might to-day have been able to give those questions except for the fact that the United States has suggested that a further question be added to the list of those to be investigated, so that perhaps it would not be wise to state them before they are all finally decided upon. When the technical officers decide the questions to be submitted, the references to be made, their suggestions are passed on to the government to be handed to the advisory board in each country. They pass on them and then the government of each country finally decides what the reference shall be. It is hoped that within a few days a decision will be arrived at by the Joint Engineering Board of the two governments as to what questions shall be referred to that board. One of the questions to be submitted-I think I can fairly give it, because it has been unanimously arrived at- is that of the probable effects of power developments on the levels of the lakes.


William Findlay Maclean: The question of lake levels is fundamental.


George Perry Graham: It is more than fundamental. It must include an investigation of Chicago Drainage canal. Both countries are agreed that that, with other questions, should be investigated by the Joint Engineering Board. The National Advisory Board for Canada has had one meeting for the purpose of organization, and in this vote will be seen an amount for a secretary and another for an assistant engineer. We are utilizing men already in the employ of the Railway department and adding a little to their salaries out of this vote for the work they do in that connection. We take these men because they are better qualified and cost less than men engaged from outside. There is one body in Canada that has no counterpart, 60 far
as I know, in the United States organization : I refer to what we call the interdepartmental committee, a very useful body, with Colonel Biggar as its head. As a matter of fact, Colonel Biggar has got to be such a useful man that we use him in other capacities than that of Chief Electoral Officer. The departments interested-Finance, Trade and Commerce, Railways and Canals, Public Works, Marine and Fisheries, National Defence-are each represented on this interdepartmental committee, and they have been studying this whole question; not that they have any authority or power to do anything, but they are acting in a sort of advisory capacity to the Advisory Board and also to the technical officers of the Joint Engineering Board, and the result of their studies, with all the material they have on hand, and all their facilities, has been wonderful. I want to pay tribute to the work these officers are doing. They are taking a wonderful interest in the project, and already they have furnished us with a great amount of data preliminary to the investigation proper. This question of the reference is also being investigated by the interdepartmental committee, and the additional proposal from the United States has been handed over to them for informal advice. They are looking into it and will, I believe, be able to give us sound advice on that matter. A meeting has been called by the Chairman of the Canadian Advisory Board for next week, the 31st, and we hope after that meeting to pass on to the government a final recommendation as to the reference to be made, and it is expected that in a very short time the governments will agree as to what is to be submitted to the Joint Engineering Board, and then everything will be clear for them to go ahead and make their investigation.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister has given
quite a bit of information, but there is one question I should like to ask him before this vote carries. Will the report of this St. Lawrence Advisory Board interfere in any way with the application of the Ontario government and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario for authority to construct a power dam at Morrisburg to supply eastern Ontario with hydro power very badly needed there? The application has been approved by the Ontario government and the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, and I should like to know if this board which is considering the St. Lawrence ship channel project will hold up the application. I understand that the

Supply-Railways and Canals
Department of Justice has given the opinion that the bed of the river and the banks and rapids of all the surplus waters subject to the rights of navigation belong to the province. There is a great scarcity of power in eastern Ontario, and it is very necessary that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission should be given authority at an early date to construct this dam at Morrisburg when the Ontario government grants the leases. I would not like to see the hydro application, which has been pending now for about six months, held up any further by the work of this St. Lawrence Canadian advisory board in Ottawa, and I should like the minister, if possible, to give me the assurance that this hydro power application will not be interfered with in any way. The power is a necessity not a luxury and the construction of this dam at Morrisburg will not interefere with the navigation end of the St. Lawrence ship channel.


George Perry Graham: That application was
made to the Department of Public Works. Under the act no construction can be placed in any navigable stream without the consent of the Public Works department of the Dominion. As that application may now be before the Department of Public Works, I must not discuss any question that may be in dispute as to where the authority lies for doing a certain thing. We must have co-operation if this great project is ever to be carried out. The Bowden-Wooten recommendation, that is, the recommendation of the former Joint Engineering Board, provided for a development,
I think, at the Long Sault. There is a plan for a two-dam development, and it is possible the other plan calls for the construction of two dams. At all events, one plan provides for the construction of two dams, one at Morrisburg, and one further east. The other plan provides for the whole development to be made at the dam further east, at what we call the Long Sault. I cannot say what the effect would be if the application of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission was approved by the federal government; I do not know what effect it would have on the whole scheme, and I do not want to discuss that, because the engineers will have nothing to do with any application made to the Dominion government by the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission. All they are concerned with is the plan for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. It may harmonize with the construction of the dam at Morrisburg, or it may not; I do not know.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the Morrisburg proposal be deferred by reason of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme? Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could tell us.


George Perry Graham: I could not say. It is an engineering problem. The two schemes might harmonize, and they might not; I would not like to say.


John Millar: I am not going to discuss
this matter at the present time, but some months ago I pointed out to the government that some American papers were alleging that President Coolidge, in appointing these commissioners to whom reference has been made, chose men who were active propagandists in favour of this scheme. Later on, I notice in the press that Mr. Hoover in making his first, or almost his first address in Canada, stated in effect that almost assuredly the commission would report in favour of the scheme. I thought that did not look well. It savoured to me too much of the action of a judge who would declare a prisoner guilty and then proceed to take the evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
4.t six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 265 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Dawson Carlyle.-Mr. Boys.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a message from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have amended the resolution passed by the House of Commons:
That it is expedient that section 91 of .the British North America Act, 1867, he amended by adding thereto the following subsection in lieu of that set forth in the address of the Senate and House of Commons to His Majesty the King on the 24th and 26th June, 1920.
(2) An enactment of the parliament of Canada, if expressed to operate extra-territorially shall have and "be deemed to have had that operation, if and in so far as it is a law for or anacillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
By inserting after the word "enactment" in the second paragraph the words "intra vires" and requesting the concurrence of the House of Commons to the amendment.

Supply-House of Commons



BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to the understanding we had this afternoon I move that we return to routine proceedings, so as to permit of the presentation of the report of the committee on Banking and Commerce.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Vien: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Deslauriers, that the eleventh report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried.


William Findlay Maclean: Is
it the intention to have a discussion on this report?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Privy Council-salaries, $49,830.
Arthur Meighen: We have had quite a
lot carried already since eight o'clock. I think we ought to consider this vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are only statutory increases where there are any increases. The total vote asked for this year on account of salaries is between one and two thousand dollars less than last year and the vote asked for on account of contingencies is $2,000 less than last year.
year there are fifteen. The Protective Service has increased in view of the larger space occupied by this House than in the old buildings. Moreover last year the Library was added to the Sergeant-at-Arms supervision, so that we have to look after that part of the building. The number of employees is as follows:
Permanent	
Protective service.. .. Sessional messengers.. Temporary messengers. Servants, all classes..
Pages	
Charwomen	
Last year	This year
16	15
17	23
19	17
20	18
41	40
17	14
88	86
218	214
; will	be noted
From this statement it that there is a net decrease in this department of four although there is an increase of six in the protective staff. This is accounted for by our taking over the patrolling of the parliamentary library from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the transfer from the messenger staff to the protective staff of doorkeepers of galleries in the House of Commons. There is a decrease in the number and a decrease in the amount as well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have not very great details given us yet as to the whole of the expenditure.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member will
look at page 20 of the estimates, he will find the details for the department of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The total amount this year is $175,113.75. Last year it was $177,442.50. This year we have 63 employees in the Sergeant-at-Arms department as gainst 75 last year, so that there is a decrease in the nmber of employees and in the amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons-
Salaries	 $231,475 00
Expenses of committees, clerical assistance,
Contingencies	 w
Publishing debates	 60,000 00
Estimates of Sergeant-at-Arms... 175,113 75
James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a very large amount and we should have some details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What particulars does my hon. friend wish to have?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a large item for the estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $175,113.75.


Hewitt Bostock: There is a decrease in that item. As regards the permanent employees of the staff, last year there were sixteen, this


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no criticism to make with regard to the character of the service which is given in these buildings, and which all, I think, appreciate. At the same time things are on a somewhat extravagant scale all around, and in view of the professed need for economy, we might very well begin at home. I recognize frankly that the scale which we have here is reflected more or less in all the departments of government, but it comes under our immediate view in connection with the parliamentary buildings during the session. Last year, just to show the extravagant scale, I mentioned one particular item and suggested retrenchment. I do not see that that has taken place. That item was with regard to the upkeep of the restaurant in connection with which I notice an item of $20,000, the same as last year. In the supplementary estimates there is another $7,000
Supply-House oj Commons


Hewitt Bostock: As regards the administration of the department I can point with pride to the figures which appear in this volume of the estimates. Last year we were

on the right side of the ledger by about $25000 and this year we have done even better; at page 16 hon. members will see that in the administration of the House of Commons, embracing every department-the restaurant, the Sergeant-at-Arms and everything else- we are to the good by the amount of $33,338.75. As regards the restaurant, it is controlled by a joint committee composed of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons who are selected from amongst the different groups, and of that committee I happen to be chairman. Now, we are bound to have a restaurant and if we do maintain one it must be creditable to both houses of parliament. Large delegations visit this city during the session of parliament; electors come here to see their representatives and naturally they have to be received somewhere. I therefore hold the view that the restaurant of the House of Commons should at least be comparable with the best restaurant in the city. On the other hand prices must not be too high. Generally speaking I know when the restaurant is well kept or otherwise from the complaints that reach me or other members of the joint committee,
_ I am bound to say that this year, with the exception probably of two instances, I have not received one single complaint. The hon. gentleman is right When he says that we must provide for the maintenance of that restaurant, but I would ask him to bear in mind that such an institution is always costly and in this particular case its chef must be retained the whole year round. As it is patronized only during the session, the personnel must necessarily cost more than that of an ordinary restaurant where the outlay is spread over the entire year. When the session closes, the day after to-morrow, oerhaps, or to-morrow night I hope, we shall have to dismiss the personnel of the restaurant, but I Shall keep the chef. Why? Because if I did not keep him he would in all probability be secured by one of the large hotels in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg or perhaps Ottawa. We retain his services and in the holidays he prepares some preserves for his clients and very cheaply at that. We also keep him engaged in different useful work in order that his services might be retained for the next session; in that way we have an excellent chef. And he himself secures an efficient personnel when the session opens.
This year I may say that out of the receipts of the restaurant we shall be able to create a sinking fund. We will begin this session with something like $3,000 which, although it is only a beginning, the fund will

Supply-House oj Commons
increase with time. Hon. members will no doubt remember how poorly circumstanced we were in the old building in the matter of restaurant service. We have a new building now and I am trying to keeip together, under the best cheif that can possibly be secured, as efficient and courteous a personnel as can be desired, so that members may bring their wives, their daughters, their friends and those whom they represent in parliament, and enjoy a visit to the restaurant, feeling a sense of satisfaction and pride in the institution. My hon. friend (Mr. Woods-worth) with whom I have already conferred on this subject, takes a keen interest in it. And I do not blame him. Certainly there must be no extravagance. But, on the other hand, we must maintain an up to date restaurant where the prices shall be fair, neither too low nor unreasonably high, and where a clean service and a respectable personnel will enhance the pleasure of all who patronize this restaurant.


Mr. NEILL:: I think perhaps it would
be appropriate- under this heading to suggest for the consideration of the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Speaker during recess an improvement which might be carried out in this building, and that is some method of automatically indicating to members at any time the business in which the House is engaged. Just take the present circumstances. A member comes into the Houjse-I -am talking about what everyone has experienced, and it must be a painfully frequent experience to hon. gentlemen at the lower end of the chamber-and he sees someone speaking. He asks his neighbour what is going on; but that gentleman who is trying to pay attention to the proceedings does not like to be interrupted and so the newcomer must ask somebody else. After he has inquired of three persons someone says that it is Vote No. so and so. Next, of course, he wants to know what the page is and he experiences the same difficulty again. And when an item is called, unless the chairman happens to be a man of very stentorian voice, he cannot be heard. I have heard no less than six people ask "What is the number of the vote?" That means six people are talking whilst other members are not able to hear what is going on. The confusion could be obviated if we had some means puoh as they have in churches or even in the movies, where they announce on a board whlat is going on. It may sound lacking in dignity perhaps, but it is not lacking in usefulness and common sense. We have a great many guests come
here from out of town, and they will sit in these galleries for at least half an hour before they discover what subject is under discussion. If we had a simple form of notice board, on which we recorded that bill No. so and so was being discussed or that estimates of a certain character were being dealt with, I believe it would be a Godsend not only to our guests but to the members themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons-to provide for the full sessional indemnity of Members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, enquiries, or on account of death during the present session-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons or any amendments thereto-payment to be made as the Treasury
Board may direct	$22,520
Parliamentary Restaurant-further amount required	 7,000
To provide for the appointment of Edouard Taschereau, a clerk, at an initial salary of $960, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or amendments
Hewitt Bostock: 
Arthur Meighen: I notice that another
party is being appointed a clerk not in accordance with the Civil Service Act.


Hewitt Bostock: He is the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite satisfied.


Hewitt Bostock: Two years ago we had
as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Mr. Panet, an old and trusted employee of the House of Commons. He became ill, and during the session his nephew, who has had military training, replaced him in order to help him out. When Mr. Panet died I thought that I should retain the services of his nephew because he was giving full satisfaction to the House.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: I brought the matter before the Civil Service Commissioners. They regretted they were helpless and they said, "This appointment should be made by the House, and we give you our blessing with respect to it." The House knows what a faithful public servant is young Taschereau.

Supply-Home of Commons
While he was acting for his uncle he paid over to him the paltry sum of $500 to which he was entitled as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. As I have said, he has had military training, he has the bearing of a gentleman, he has the requisite education, and I think, he will be a credit to the House of Commons in the years to come.


Arthur Meighen: I did not know the nature of this appointment when I called it to the attention of the Speaker. I am very glad I did, because it gives me an opportunity to compliment the Speaker on the choice he made. This young lad is deserving in every respect. I happen to be acquainted personally with his record, and from the standpoint of his family and his record, and, as well, his relation to the late incumbent, it is perfectly proper that he should get the appointment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Library of parliament-
Salaries	$44,060
Books for the General Library, including
binding	 18,000
Books for the	Library	of	American	Histoy.	1,000
Contingencies	 12,000
To provide for	the	cost	of	printing	reports.	1,000
James Shaver Woodsworth: If at all possible
there should be a modern system of cataloguing and indexing in the library. There are an immense number of very fine books there, and the service of the staff is very satisfactory, but the system itself is antiquated and makes it very difficult for members to obtain the advantages which the library ought to afford them.


Hewitt Bostock: I will call the attention
of the two librarians to the remarks of the hon. gentleman. Unfortunately within the last three or four years we have lost Mr. DeCelles, Mr. Sylvain and Mr. Griffin, who were certainly men of great distinction. New men have come in, and I am glad that Mr. Griffin was replaced by the Hon. Martin Burrell, and that Mr. DeCelles was replaced by Mr. Tache, but they have been keeping down the expenditure and the staff has not been increased. Of course, I am in the hands of the joint committee, but this year Mr. Bostock, the joint chairman of the committee, and I have decided to add one or two typists. We have excellent service from the library staff, from men like Mr. Todd and, Mr. MacCormac and others. Mr. Todd is the 
son of the late Alpheus Todd, the great authority on constitutional government. Whenever you apply to those old employees you get your books and authorities immediately.
Speaking of Mr. Todd, I have been requested by the Joint Committee of the Library of the Senate and House of Commons to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) to place a small sum in the estimates for the purpose of erecting a tablet in the library to the memory of the late Alpheus Todd. There is no name better known and more appreciated in the whole British Empire than his. He is quoted as an authority in the British House of Commons and House of Lords, in the Australian parliament, in the New Zealand parliament,-in fact in all the dominions, as the standard authority. He was a great Canadian. When I was a young lad I saw him here in the library, a modest but very deserving civil servant of the old school. I think he should have a tablet erected to his memory, just as the late Sir John Bouri-not should be similarly commemorated in this building. Their two names are a credit to Canada, and I hope next session the hon. Minister of Public Works will give us that satisfaction.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compliment paid the late Mr. Griffin. In point of learning, in point of command of the resources of a library I do not think I have ever seen his equal. Though to all appearances, so far as individual hunting for books was concerned, there was in his time some difficulty in locating oneself in the library, nevertheless upon application to Mr. Griffin no matter what the subject was, he could procure in four minutes more material than one could read in four months. I want to say, though, that since the incumbency of the present librarians Mr. Burrell and Mr. Tache, I notice a much better arrangement in the library. It is more systematically kept, the books are more easily available to one who does not know just every nook and corner of the place. Of course Mr. Todd and Mr. MacCormac are still there, which helps mightily. I am very sorry to have witnessed the departure of Mr. Sylvain. Generally speaking, the library staff is most efficient. What I rose to say mostly was that without question the order of the library is better, the disposition of the books seems to be clearer and more systematic. Generally it is very effieciently kept, I think, for the purposes of the members.

Supply-C.N.R. Loans


Mr. ROBINSON:: I wish to say one word
in reference to the library, and more particularly in reply to the hon-. member who spoke of a proper indexing system. Under the present conditions it would be almost impossible to introduce a better system than that which now obtains. The room is not large enough for library purposes, and taking everything into consideration I think the library is carried on in an efficient manner. In order to have a thoroughly modem index system they would require almost twice as much space as they have for their books, and that seems to be out of the question at this stage of the game. I wish to add my words of praise of the system that we now have. We should realize that these people are working under difficulties and are doing remarkably well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation-general-
Printing, printing paper and binding.. .. $125,000 Printing, binding and distributing the
annual statutes	 16,000
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried, but with my protest, because I think it is rather unfair that the House of Commons should be called upon to pay for printing for the various departments. Ordinarily when a department furnishes blue books to the House of Commons, we are charged for them. I agree that the House of Commons should be responsible for what the members require in the way of public documents and should pay for them, but it seems to me that the various departments should pay for the blue books printed for them at their request. However, the arrangement has lasted some years, we are paying 25 per cent. No such arbitrary payment should be forced upon the House of Commons. I am simply expressing my own candid opinion that the departments should pay for themselves and the House of Commons should pay for itself.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans to railways-to increase amount authorized by Vote No. 137, Main estimates, 1924-25: additional amount required, $527,000.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain this item?


George Perry Graham: A large amount of this
is to carry out the removal of level crossings
in Toronto in connection with the Canadian Pacific under an order of the railway board. Certain work is required this year in that connection. The whole work will cost a million and three-quarters, I think. The Canadian National's share will be about $750,000, $400,000 being for this year. $100,000 is for carying on the standardization of the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway, and $27,000 for repairs to wharf and shed for the seed potato trade of Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans to Canadian National Railway Company- Amount not exceeding $56,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, hereinafter called " the company," or any company specified in the first schedule to the act incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company, being chapter 13 of the statutes	of	Canada,	1919,	or	by	the company	inrespect of any railways, properties or works entrusted to the company from time to time under the provisions of section	11 of	the	said	chapter 13 of	thestatutes	of	Canada,	1919, or by or	on behalf of	anycompany specified or referred to in chapter 13 of the statutes	of	Canada,	1920)	or	any	one or more	ofthem, on any of the following accounts:	(a) Intereston securities, notes and other obligations; also, rentals for lease of lines, (b) Equipment principal payments, sinking fund, miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured, (c) Operating income deficit whenever incurred or ascertained, (d) Construction and betterments including co-ordination, acquisition of property and purchase of equipment. The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council:	(a) To meet expendituresmade or indebtedness incurred by the company in respect	of railways, properties and works
entrusted to the company as aforesaid, (b) By way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows: If by way of loans, the amount or amounts advanced shall be repayable on demand, with interest at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council, from time to time, payable half yearly, secured if and when directed by the Governor in Council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve. If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the Governor in Council, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto, $56,000,000.
Arthur Meighen: A Statement should be
read giving in detail the purposes to which this sum is to be devoted.
Supply-C.N.R. Loans


George Perry Graham: The details are as follows:
Statement of Fixed Charges and Resources Applicable thereto, together with Summary of Proposed Capital Expenditures Required for Year Ending March 31, 1923.
Item	Amount
Rental for lease of subsidiary lines.. .. $ 1,979,228 64 Interest on funded and other debt.. .. 34,546,455 00 Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed interest. 1,662,120 00
Sinking Fund payments	
151,133	33Equipment principal payments	
6,856.400	00
Dividend on G.T.R. 4% guaranteed stock. 2,433,333 33
Total financial requirements.. .. $47,628,670 30 Less: Resources	 28,174,302 64
Net financial requirements...$19,454,367	66
New equipment-series " H " $12,500,000 .	4,609,375	00General additions and betterments	
25,958,257	34Paris property	
3,000,000	00Ontario electric lines	
1,500,000	00Montreal Terminal Railway	
1,278,000	00Quebec Terminal	
200,000	00Total	$56,000,000 00
The amount to be voted for new equipment is $4,609,375. That is more than 25 per cent of the $12,500,000 of the new equipment series "H," but it includes the interest for the first half year until the end of this fiscal year. It also includes an amount for sales tax, which is quite considerable. These items taken 'together, and the 25 per cent, make the $4,609,375. The bond issue will be $12,500,000, less 25 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I think I caught a reference to the "Paris property." That is Le Palais
Canadien?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian building in Paris, I suppose that means the same thing.


Arthur Meighen: Getting away from that
subject as quickly as possible, so as not to worry the minister, will he give us the details of the $25,000,000 of capital investments and betterments; some of it will be betterments, and I would like as many details of the betterments as possible, because they can be classified. The capital investments should be given in detail.


George Perry Graham: If there is any discussion, perhaps we might go on with it until Major Bell comes in.


Arthur Meighen: I find so much I can
discuss that I am not sure that anything is of sufficiently unimportant a nature as only to take up until Major Bell arrives. I would not venture to say anything about Le Palais Canadien, because to enlarge on this topic I am afraid would mean an extension of the time of the session. I notice, though, that 
the price is continually rising, that now it has passed the $2,700,000 mark and has reached $3,000,000. By the time all the appurtenances and adornments are in place, I fancy it will get much beyond that figure. I observed in a perusal of the evidence of Sir Henry Thornton that somebody had told somebody in Paris that he thought it could be sold. Whether I could seize on this as a ray of hope or not, I do not know. I do not want to get too optimistic and grasp at mere straws or chase rainbows; but if it can, and we can escape or nearly escape, and if my word will be of any advantage to the government, I beg of them to take tne first good offer. Do not let anything pass. We have as much need of Le Palais Canadien in Paris as we have of a lake of mountains in Shanghai. Let us utilize the very best and most honest agent we have, and if Major Bell can make his services of value by going over to Paris and getting rid of this property as effectively as he got title to it last year, then he will earn the undying gratitude of the people of Canada.
I congratulate the government on the new name. Le Palais Canadien has a sonorous sound. It falls on one's ravished ears with a soft and1 dulcet effect. I am sure the very name will bring many clients to the system, and will attract tenants to the building. Sincerely do I trust that somebody will be induced to occupy it pending the triumphant day when we are able to rid ourselves of the Scribe hotel and all its memories.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I must congratulate my
right hon. friend on the fact that he is able to appreciate all the hidden beauties of the French language.


Mr. DAVIES:: Under this item in the
estimates, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very serious situation which has arisen in western Canada owing to the slaughtering of the long deferred hopes of many thousands of our worthy pioneers, many of whom have given the best part of their lives to building up our western country. We are given to understand that through the action of some irresponsible body, and just when the true representatives of the people had decided to give these people on the western prairie the relief in the matter of branch line construction-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I am very
much in doubt whether this vote has anything to do with the question of branch lines.
I have gone over it carefully and I cannot

Supply-C.NJ2. Loans
find any item for branch lines in it, but if the hon. gentleman can indicate where it is referred to, I shall be pleased to re-consider. In the meantime, I think he is out of order.


Claudius Charles Davies: Subsection 9 takes in construction and betterments.


George Newcombe Gordon: It does not take in the construction of branch lines at all.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member can find some way of saving $3,000,000 for the Scribe hotel, I am sure the Senate would gladly vote it for his branch line.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For Le Palais Canadien.


Arthur Meighen: I beg pardon.


Mr. EULER:: Possibly, as the chairman
of the select standing committee on National Railways and Merchant Marine, I should make a few brief observations. It is not my intention to delay the business 9 p.m. of the House, which I know the members are anxious to conclude as soon as possible.
As hon. members know, the committee was appointed very late in the session. Consequently, the time was too short to make a very exhaustive examination, either of the report of the business of last year, or of the estimates for the ensuing year. I think I am right when I say that the chief purpose in the appointment of the committee was to establish what I might call some sort of connecting link between the management of the National Railways and the parliament of Canada. This committee, I take it, was not appointed in order to criticise, but rather to be more in the nature of a help and assistance to the management of the railway. The project is of such magnitude and of such importance to the people of Canada that I think we cannot afford to lend ourselves, no matter to what party we may belong, to anything that would look like a depreciation of the efforts of the management in making that enterprise a success. For my own part, I should regret very much if we did allow the matter of politics to enter into the conduct of the National Railways.
I have a good deal of confidence in Sir Henry Thornton in connection with the National Railways, and 1 would say this: If we are going to make the railways a success we should, as a parliament, do everything in our power, regardless of politics, to hold up his hand so long as he has our confidence-hold 299
him responsible for the success of the railways, assist him in every way possible, and if then he does not make good, then is the time to consider serious criticism and action.


William Findlay Maclean: If that is the
hon. member's opinion, does he not think somebody is interfering with Sir Henry Thornton in not approving an expenditure that we in this House have voted for the National Railways?	-


William Daum Euler: That is with regard to the
branch lines. I am afraid I would be called to order by the Chairman if I entered upon a discussion of the branch lines. But I agree very largely with the hon. member who took his seat a short time ago (Mr. Davies). The committee made a somewhat cursory examination of expenditure. It was more or less incomplete. This is not said by way of apology, but merely by way of fact, and in justice to the committee, which had only a short time at its disposal.
The statement itself showed that the railway made very considerable advancement in the last year, and I think this House ought to congratulate itself upon the success attained. For myself I should have liked, and I rather expected, that the net results would have been a little better than they finally turned out to be; but they are good. The railway is improving from day to day, and from month to month. I have always contended that the chief purpose of public ownership is not the making of money, but the giving of the best possible service at the lowest cost, and I think that members of this House will admit that the service on the National Railways to-day is immensely improved under the new management. In that way we have already secured a large measure of the purposes for which the National Railways were taken over. We have printed the evidence taken before this committee. Hon. members have before them the printed report and the estimate, and I think it would be entirely out of place for me to go into any great detail in regard to that. The committee has felt its way. It learned a good deal in the short time at its disposal, and if that committee is continued in another year, as I think it might very well be, I am sure it can be of a great deal more assistance than it has been this session.
I am in agreement with what was said by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that we should not move for the adoption of the report that has been submitted, because that would, without any great notice, commit the House to the carrying out of the recommendations made by the com-

Supply-C.N.R. Loans

mittee. I think the committee was practically unanimous in all the recommendations that were made. We do not think that report should be adopted without serious consideration, and for that reason I have not moved its adoption.
I desire to make a reference to a number of things. One of them is the allocation or distribution of the mail service to the great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. It was felt, I think, by all members of the committee that the Canadian National Railways were not receiving as great a proportion of the mail contracts, if we can call them contracts, as they were entitled to. I believe it to be a fact that the National Railways should receive a greater proportion of the mail carrying than they are receiving at present. I would not like to say exactly on what basis that division should be made. The statement has been made that the mail contracts should be divided exactly in proportion to the mileage. I am not convinced that that is right. I thought at first that was the correct method, but I am not so sure of it now. It was also suggested that it should be divided on the basis of the business done. If we are to consider the mileage, the National Railways has a mileage of 20,510, whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway has a mileage of 14,895. Yet while the Canadian Nationals have that larger mileage, they receive $3,162,977.51 in money from the government for the carrying of the mail, and the Canadian Pacific Railway receive $3,658,937.40, or nearly $500,000 more than the National Railways receive. On the basis of traffic, the National Railways have a traffic percentage of 57.9 while the Canadian Pacific has a traffic percentage of 42.1. If the postal business were divided on the basis of the traffic, the Canadian National should receive $786,911.23 more than they are receiving now. I do not say that that is the correct method for the distribution of those contracts. There are a great many things entering into it which probably would not occur to the members of the committee or the members of the House, but I do think it is the duty of the government to look very carefully into the question, so that at least an equitable division of the mail contracts will be made between the two systems; and the first thing that should be present in the minds of those who make the redistribution or re-allocation of the contracts should be service to the public.
We heard a good many complaints that along the line of the Canadian National the mail service is not what it ought to be. I am giving my personal opinion when I say that, in view of the fact that the National
rMr. Euler.]	' i
Railways are the property of the people of Canada, and that the postal service is conducted by the government of Canada, it seems to me to be almost absurd that the National Railways should not receive practically all the business that is at the disposal of the government. When I say that I make absolutely no reflection upon the other great railway systems of this country. I am not one of those who would like to see the National Railways make progress to the destruction of any other railway. But what is our own, it seems to me, can very well be supported by ourselves, especially in view of the fact that if we do not act on that principle we diminish our revenues and increase our taxes. In that we are not doing our duty to the people of Canada.


William Charles Good: I am told that the mail from Jasper to Vancouver is taken back to Edmonton, thence south to Calgary and thence out to the coast, in order to travel via the Canadian Pacific Railway. Can the hon. member inform the House if this is true?


William Daum Euler: I think that is correct. There are a good many instances given all of which I cannot recall where, in order to carry the mail by a certain road, very much larger distances have to be covered than it would be necessary to cover if the mails were carried by another railway. That whole situation ought to lbe reviewed. All the mails from Montreal to Vancouver and Toronto to Vancouver are carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It seems to me that the Canadian National should receive at least a portion of that business. But the primary factor and the first consideration should be service to the public; and then, so far as I am personally concerned, bearing that in mind as the primary factor, the government of Canada ought to give to its railways as much of its business as possible. I would like it to be clearly understood when I make that statement that I am not speaking for the committee but merely for myself. The committee does recommend that there should be a very careful survey made of the whole situation, so that an equitable distribution, whatever that may mean, should be made of the mail contracts between the two roads.


Mr. SALES:: Could the hon. member
explain to the House how it is that the western mail was carried for years on the Canadian National west of Winnipeg to Saskatoon, on the Canadian Northern, the old line that runs round by Dauphin, and on to Battleford, and also on the other line which

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
runs through Brandon, Regina and up to Saskatoon? I understand there is no mail van on the Transcontinental Limited of the National Railway. If the hon. member could give us some explanation of that I would be very much obliged.


William Daum Euler: I regret that I cannot give all the details in connection with that. There is such a multiplicity of details that no one man can remember them all. I admit that I am not in a position to give that information, but if the hon. member will consult the evidence in the printed record he will find some information included in the report that possibly will enlighten him upon that matter.
I desire to speak briefly of capital charges. Many hon. members of this House-and I am one of them-have felt for a long time that the National Railways are burdened with an unfair amount when they are asked to make an interest return on the capital indebtedness now charged to the road. That capital indebtedness includes a greater sum than is a fair charge upon the earning power. It includes loans made by the Dominion government. possibly some losses, and capital charges for constructing two or three railway systems, many miles of which would not have been necessary for the construction of one complete system such as we are now trying to make of the Canadian National system. I believe that the National Railways should be asked to earn returns only upon that sum which is owing to the outside public and not to the Dominion of Canada. I am not saying that at all as an arbitrary statement. Many suggestions have been made as to how the capital charges should be fixed upon the National railways. Some have said that they should be-and I thought so myself at one time-on the basis of the cost of replacement by a system that could do the work that can be done by these amalgamated lines. That, of course, should not be a sum equal to the total cost of all these systems that are welded into the National railways, because there is much duplication. Probably it would be better to base capitalization on some sort of fair earning power, and it is no't fair that the nationally owned system should be burdened with anything greater than a privately owned system would be burdened with under similar circumstances.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. member as chairman of the committee make a suggestion as to the process by which that would be ascertained? It must be done by somebody, probably by a parliamentary committee, or the Minister of Railways and 299i
Canals (Mr. Graham), or the government. There ought to be a practical suggestion in regard to ascertaining that amount.


William Daum Euler: That is a pretty difficult
matter. We did not feel that we had sufficient information to make a definite suggestion to the government as to what method should be used to arrive at a proper capitalization. But we felt that we could go so far as to suggest to the government that they take into consideration the reduction of the capital to some reasonable sum. That would have been done if the roads now constituting the National system had been taken over, amalgamated and reorganised by a private company. It would have wiped out a good deal of the capital cost, and capitalized it at some sum on which the roads might fairly be expected to make a return. I may add that if this suggestion which I have thrown out and which is only my own, were adopted, that the road should be asked to earn only on that sum which is covered by obligations to the public, this would mean a sum of something over $800,000,000, which, it seems to me, would be reasonable.
We made a recommendation with regard to duplication of service. It must be known to every member that we have many more trains on the two railway systems than are necessary to give efficient service. I might cite some instances. On the transcontinental travel, we have some nine trains a day; between Ottawa and Montreal we have something like 24 trains a day and I think hon. members know that very seldom are the trains fully patronized or the coaches filled with travellers. The managements of the twc systems, if they are willing to co-operate, as they ought to be, might very well get together and in their mutual interest try to arrange services which would be less of a drain on their revenues and which would give to the people just as good service as we are getting now. It has always been an interesting speculation to myself what saving might be effected if duplication could be entirely eliminated; if, for example, we had one railway system in Canada. I am informed on very good authority that the raialway systems of this country could save a sum of no less than $50,000,000 a year if we could cut out this duplication by having one system. That would immediately relieve us of a large portion of our deficits and it would put the railways on a basis where they would no longer be a drain on the taxpayers of this country.


Mr. HUGHES:: Does the duplication mentioned by the hon. member refer to passenger trains only or to passenger and freight trains?
Supply-G.N.R. Loans


William Daum Euler: I was thinking at that point particularly of passenger trains, but this can very well be earned into the other field as well.


William Findlay Maclean: That is practically a consolidation of both systems.


William Daum Euler: I am speaking there again entirely for myself, merely as an interesting speculation which some day might very well be carried into the realm of practical things.
Possibly the appointment of the committee was the result of criticism in this House in connection with the purchase of the Scribe hotel at Paris. Personally, I believe the appointment of the committee was justified, if only by the results obtained in connection with the investigation of the Paris purchase. I will admit at the outset that I believe the country was somewhat disquieted at some of the criticisms that were levelled at the management of the National railways in connection with that purchase. I had some misgivings with regard to it; but by investigations made and evidence given before that committee, I will say for myself and, I believe, for the majority of the members of that committee, that many misconceptions and misunderstandings were removed as is nearly always the case where men come into personal contact with one another. A great deal of credit attaches to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) for his examination of officials of the road, an examination which established after all that -there was nothing reprehensible in what took place in connection wth the purchase of that property. The thing that impressed me perhaps more than anything else was the entire frankness of the officials of the railway in answering questions that were put to them. I am not going to review the transaction at any length. It was pretty clearly established that the National railways needed office quarters in the city of Paris. By that I do not mean that they were under any necessity of purchasing a property in that city. They did not at the outset intend to buy a piece of property in Paris, and it is possible that a number of mistakes were made. Possibly it was a mistake to deal with a middleman by name of Arnold Aronovici. I am inclined to think that was the case. That may have been an error of judgment. Possibly another error was made that there was not more free consultation between the president and the members of the board. But those are of very slight importance; they were not deliberate, and they do not in reality alter the final, essential facts of the case. The chief objections that were made, mostly in this* House, 
were that these business quarters for the railways were unnecessary in Paris; that the management in buying the property exceeded its power, and finally that too much was paid for the property. The reason given by Sir Henry Thornton why the railway should have quarters in Paris was that Paris was the centre of population and business activities on the continent ; that a great business by way of express and the securing of traffic could be built up in Paris, and that those offices could be used to advantage in the securing of return cargoes for our merchant marine. It is true-and this, I think, has never been commented upon-that if the railway had these offices in Paris, it would be possible to secure return cargoes for boats belonging to the Canadian merchant marine. Those hon. members who have carefully examined the statements of the Canadian merchant marine will find that the reason to a great degree for the losses sustained by those boats was the fact that return cargoes were difficult and almost, impossible to obtain. It was thought that by having offices located in Paris, that difficulty might be removed. Finally-and this is merely an outside fact-it was thought it would be well to house the various Paris offices of the government in one building.
So much with regard to the necessity for having business offices in Paris. But the question as to whether the National Railways should have offices in Paris does not, I think, come within the purview of this parliament at all; if we are to give any responsibility to Sir Henry Thornton and his board, surely the matter of securing business offices in Paris should be left entirely to their judgment and discretion. With regard to the statement that the president exceeded his powers in buying the property, we had evidence given by Mr. Ruel, the solicitor of the company and vice president of the National Railways that the management was entirely within its legal power in the purchase. I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot be dogmatic on that point. But I have a good deal of respect for the opinion of Mr. Gerard Ruel as a lawyer and I believe that what he says is quite justified. Then we come finally to the value of the building. It was stated that no very definite opinions were secured as to the value of the property. It has cost S2,600,000 but not yet $3,000,000, unless heavy expenditures were made recently. It may, however, run up to an additional $600,000 or $700,000 if certain changes are made which may be required upon the securing of certain tenants. If the building should be sold then

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
the cost will not run to $3,000,000. At any rate the cost will be between $2,600,000 and possibly $3,200,000 if all the alterations are made.
We have certain evidence to show that a fair price was paid for the property. We had the evidence of Sir Henry Thornton himself who has a fair knowledge of conditions in Paris; we had the evidence of Mr. Graham Bell, the Deputy Minister of Railways, who made certain inquiries; we had the opinion expressed by Mr. Archibald, a lawyer of merit and standing in Paris and a Canadian that the the property was worth what was paid for it; and we have the evidence of a gentleman who owns property immediately adjoining what is known as Hotel Scribe, a Mr. Pratt, who was in Ottawa and who testified that it was generally believed in Paris that $3,000,000 had been paid for the property and that it was well worth that sum. Mr. Archibald further stated that he believed it could be rented so as to produce a net revenue of 6 per cent on the investment. We had fairly credible evidence that values in that part of Paris are constantly increasing. The leader of the opposition has made a statement with regard to a tentative offer made for the property and he expressed the hope that if a real offer were received the property should be sold. There was some sort of approach made to the management of the railways to ascertain whether 40,000,000 francs would be accepted. I do not think there is anything absolutely definite in regard to that; I do not think there was an out and out offer. But that goes to show, I think, that what I have said about the value of the property and that not too much was paid for it is correct.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman undertake to press upon the management the tracing-down of that suggestion so as to get at its bona fides, and if it is bona fide will he try to induce them to jump at the offer with lightning rapidity?


William Daum Euler: I would say that it has been suggested to the president of the railways that he should look further into the offer, but I am not going to suggest to him that he should jump at it with lightning rapidity. To proceed with what I was saying. We have the opinion of a reputable journal, which is not more friendly to the government than it should be, namely, The Ottawa Journal, which in a full column article approved of the purchase of this Paris property. Now, so far as my own personal opinion goes I think that if the National Railways can retain suitable quarters
in that building and if they can then sell the property without any loss or sell it to advantage, then it might be wise to dispose of it. I am giving that as my opinion, and it is also the opinion of the committee. My reason for making that statement is this: The Canadian National Railways are in the railway business and not in the real estate business; and even though it were true that this property in years to come might increase 50 per cent in value or more, for my part I do not think that we ought to retain it of necessity, because we are not in that line of business but in the railway business to which we should confine ourselves. But whether or not the property be sold, I think that the people of Canada and the members of this House can be reasonably assured that the country has not paid more for it than it is worth.
We may congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the situation in regard to the National Railways is improving. Personally I have always been absolutely heart and soul behind them because I believe in public ownership; and I desire again, without offering any criticism whatever, to suggest to hon. members that they all stand solidly behind the National Railways. The president, Sir Henry Thornton, who I believe is sincere, has expressed a desire to work in harmony with parliament in making the railways a success, and he welcomed the establishment of this committee. And the committee I think has done good work so far as lay in its power. I believe that a very good purpose could be served if the connecting link between parliament and the management could be continued in some form.
If there is any group of people, organized or otherwise, that is working for a monopoly of railways in private hands, I would say, "Hands off the National Railways 1" The National Railways are here to stay and if there is ever to be a monopoly of railways in this country it must be held by the people of Canada themselves. From now on, if it is at all possible, I should like to see instead of a too strenuous competition, in things other than service, a co-operation between the two great railway systems of Canada. Hon. mem-bres should always bear in mind that these roads belong to us and whatever view we may have held at the outset as to the virtue of public ownership, it is now our duty to stand behind the National Railways and do all we can to make them successful.
I have spoken in general terms and possibly I may have transgressed unwittingly the strict letter of the rules, but I have not deemed it desirable to burden the committee with any figures or details in connection with the esti-
Supply

C.N.R. Loans

mate itself. The committee feels that with the information it had and with the confidence which it believes must be placed in the management of the roads, we should recommend to the House that the estimate of $56,000,000 be granted.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: With the general idea of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) I am in entire accord; indeed, I think that is the only possible way of working out the salvation of the railway proper. In that connection there is nothing very much more important than the matter he referred to in his closing remarks, that is, co-operation within the system, the getting away from the expenditure of unnecessary money with respect to railway services, the getting away from expensive and ornamental investment, the getting away from de luxe services which are only put in for the purposes of competition. These do not really add to revenues at all, they add tremendously to our overheads-as I am going to point out in a little while-and they add to our annual deficits.
Now, Sir Henry Thornton has proved himself in some respects-and I hope he is going to in others as well-a very admirable man to look after the system. I think he has done a good deal towards popularizing the system. He is a man of very engaging personality, he thoroughly understands publicity, and it is a first-rate thing to have a man who ioes in charge of a railway system. And he s getting business; his gross shows up very well. Take, for example, the increase in the freight movement. Of course, here I know it can be said that the country provides the freight, that it is the accident of what is happening to some extent in the States, as well as the accident of good or bad crops, and he had a good crop; but it does not make any difference, he has got a first-rate share of business. Illustrating that, the revenue freight tons for 1922-and this is where all the money is, not in the passenger end of the business, not in connection with the expensive steel cars and the like that we are asked to authorize in this present vote-the revenue freight tons in 1922 were 50,540,732, while in 1923 the system carried 59,990,454 tons of revenue freight. That is an increase for the year of 9.449,722 revenue tons, or 18.7 per cent. On the gross side it looks very well.
We are not really in as good shape on the net side as we might have hoped from our gross figures. Of course it is true, as Sir Henry Thornton himself has pointed out, that so far he has not been able to bring

about economies from amalgamation. He stated in his evidence that when you bring three companies together, for example,-I forget whether he said two or three, I am giving the general effect of his remarks-* you of course would have two or three vicepresidents, as the case might be, but these gentlemen had claims on the system, they had not been got rid of, they had been otherwise provided for, and as a matter of fact instead of amalgamation bringing about, as every one thought it would bring about, a decrease in the general expenses, we have an increase. And we have also an increase in our traffic expenses. Of course there is an increase in operation, but that is quite right, for we have handled more traffic and that increase is to be expected. But I hope Sir Henry Thornton will develop another side to his nature and see if he cannot give us some economies in operation as well as getting for us an increased gross.
Now, the figures which the country got in the first instance were reflected from that increased gross very largely. We had a statement-which I think it was a mistake to give out to the public in the first instance-a statement which raised hopes and expectation of very much better results than the real facts show. In other words, we had a figure of some $16,000,000 dealt with as the betterment in the railway situation, a figure which did not include certain additions which afterward had to be made. I want to be absolutely fair in that connection. It is true that in the details of the accounts the appropriate charges are brought down, but they are brought down in a place that the public at any rate did not get hold of them, nor did the newspapers. It is, I think, a matter of cardinal importance. It is really necessary that false hopes of an immediate turn from deficits to profits ought not to be raised; it hurts in the long run.
The accounts show that the net income deficit of the year 1922 was $57,960,097.87, while the net income deficit of the year 1923 was $51,697,674.94. That shows a net betterment in the situation of $6,262,422.93. Those figures, however, do not include the net results of the Central Vermont. We have to look after its deficits also. There was a falling off in the operations of that company, and the net income deficit of the Central Vermont as a matter of fact increased $344,861.58, leaving a net resultant betterment for the year of $5,917,561.35. So we have that to the good on the accounts.
On the other side of the picture we have reflected a matter that the chairman of the

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
committee has already referred to-the constantly increasing capital charges. He has already referred to the capitalization being such that it is unfair to those attempting to handle the system to be burdened with it, and we are going on burdening ourselves. Because while we look at the increase in the net, so far as operating is concerned, we also have to look to the capital account, and during the year the increases in capital charges amount to $77,000,000 odd. Of those increases $18,000,000 odd are to the public and $58,000,000 odd are to the government. Those increased capital charges involve an increased annual carrying charge on the system of $5,798,847.84. So that as a result of the whole year's operations it is necessary for us to do just that much better this year in order to be in as good shape at the end of the year as we are at its commencement. It is not fair ito the system to treat it as being further capitalized by an addition to capital during the year of $58,800,000 representing moneys that the government have had to give out in order that it should carry on. Of course there is no shutting our eyes to the fact that no matter of bookkeeping is going to change the situation as regards the $18,259,000 of securities to the public. This question of capital charges is a matter of more than passing moment. Let us look at the capital commitments, the capital work done by the railways for the year. We have a general vote which provides funds and we also have a source from which funds can be taken in connection with the guarantee the government gives. During the present year the government made a guarantee of $50,000,000. Where has that money gone to? There were only two pieces of original construction during the year. There was the Long Lac cutoff. which I put at $2,500,000, and there was another I did not know about when the matter was up before. But my estimate was too high. As matter of fact the money spent on the Long Lac cut-off during 1923 amounted to $2,160,241. The other bit of construction is the branch to the Minto mines in Nova Scotia, amounting to $111,629.33, making a total of new construction for the year of $2,278,871. Now this question of capital suddenly becomes important. We heard in the House that the whole of that loan had been applied to capital purposes. So far as new construction is concerned anything that will add to the value of the system, more mileage on which returns can be earned-


George Perry Graham: Would not a certain
amount of betterments be charged to capital?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will come to that in a minute. I will deal not very fully, but I hope fairly, with the question of betterments. But so far as actual new lines are concerned which will give access to new territory and which ought to mean increased earnings, the whole .amount during the year is but $2,271,000, as I have already stated. As the minister says, there is no doubt that some betterments can properly be charged to capital account, but the question of the charging of betterments must depend upon whether the company was capitalized or not. Some of the best railway economists in the United States are of the view that no mere betterment which does not add directly to the earning power of the system ought to be charged to capital; anything of that kind should be charged to maintenance. Some of the best authorities connected with the Interstate Commerce Commission are of the view that railway rates should be so fixed that over and above the amount necessary to maintain the property and to pay a rate equivalent to the current bank rate, there will be a further percentage earned which would be put into the necessary work that every railway has to do, so that it would not get too heavy in the future. It is idle to consider betterments which are not adding to the earning power of the system, and on the other hand not to consider what the committee recommends and what the Chairman has read, namely the writing down of capital. In 1920 I started to write down capital. I started taking away from these assets which cannot be looked upon as active assets and therefore reducible from the public debt. The enormous sum of $558,000,000 has been written off, so far as the books of the country are concerned. They are in suspense account; they are a dead asset.


George Perry Graham: But the inactive assets
referable to the $500,000,000 were cash advances, were they not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think they
were all cash advances. I think we paid out down to 1922 in cash on account of railways something like $59S.OOO.OOO, and we have written everything down 'by $558,000,000. It is idle on the one hand for the purpose of governmental bookkeeping to write up capital by not considering these advances as things that have to go but have to be added to capital, and1 then contend that the road is already too highly capitalized. The one thing absolutely answers the other. So far as betterments are concerned my hon. friend is right. Apart from that question of better-
Supply-C.N.R. Loam

ments, railway managements have a right to charge certain expenses to capital, and it is in connection with that very matter that so far as the accounts are concerned a good deal of the improved showing this year results. For example, maintenance of way and structures, maintenance of equipment-these are items where you may charge to betterment on the one hand or maintenance on the other, depending very largely on whether the man in charge wants to make a good annual showing or really wants to look after his property and keep down capital charges.
In the year 1922 the amount charged to maintenance of way and structures was $45000,000 odd, and in 1923 $44,000,000 odd. There was a deduction of $841,760.39 in that item. In 1922 the cost, in so far as maintenance of equipment is concerned, was $56,160,700.14, and in 1923 $52,176,320.13, making a saving in that item of $3,984,380.01, and making a total deduction in charges for the year of $4826,140.40. So that out of a total net betterment of $5,900,000, we find that in these two items for the maintaining of the property, the whole amount was practically taken up, with the exception of $1,100,000. But there is a reason for it, and the thing should not be left in that way. It might be said that the property was being allowed to go down on these figures. That is not true, but the net result is just the same in so far as the comparison of these two years is concerned. What happened was this: In the year 1922 the management set up reserves against the maintenance of equipment which amounted to $4,470,000, while in the year 1923 the whole amount of reserve set up was $801,000. Of course, there again we have a very largely better showing for this year, which is not reflected in and has nothing to do with the results of this year's business, but was earned in the year before. If that were taken into consideration and you were to cut down the maintenance of the year before by the difference in those reserves, hon. gentlemen will see that there is not much net difference in the situation.


William Daum Euler: I agree with the inferences
the hon. member has drawn there, but if you are to cut down, it is also fair to take into consideration where the tendency has been in the other direction. In 1923, for instance, the railways had to assume charges of $1,686,000 for interest, which formerly was assumed by the Dominion government because they had guaranteed certain bonds. So in a comparison, it would only be fair to take that into account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will find I am going to be fair, but I am dealing with the thing item by item. Before leaving that matter, one usually looks around for the purpose of seeing how costs are, whether costs have come down. Now the accounts of the Canadian Pacific Railway, just like the accounts of this company, are open for public inspection, and I made an analysis of the accounts of the Canadian Pacific in connection with this matter of maintenance. Take the year 1923, the year just closed. I am going to give the costs of the maintenance per mile on both accounts -maintenance of way and structures, per mile, and maintenance per mile for equipment, which is the usual way in which they are compared. The cost of maintenance of way and structures on the Canadian National was $1,942 per mile, and on the Canadian Pacific $2,258 per mile; the charges on the Canadian National were $316 per mile less. Now for maintenance of equipment the Canadian National charges were $2,228 per mile, and the Canadian Pacific charges $2,491 per mile, or $263 per mile greater than on the Canadian National.


Mr. CAHILL:: What mileage for the Canadian National is my hon. friend taking?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will give that to my hon. friend in a moment. Hansard, at page 2512, gives the total operated mileage as 21,850.89. Of this 991.69 miles belong to the Grand Trunk Western Lines. I am dealing as far as I can with operation in Canada. On that basis taking off the western mileage, leaves the balance of our lines operating in Canada at 20,859.20.


Frank S. Cahill: What mileage is my hon.
friend dealing with in regard to the Canadian Pacific?


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the same
basis, as shown in the annual returns.


Frank S. Cahill: I recollect putting figures
on Hansard a short time ago taken from the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, and using them in the same way as my hon. friend is using them, and I found the expenditure on the Canadian National for 1923 was greater than on the Canadian Pacific. So my hon. friend must be leaving out the American mileage, or using different figures from the statements of the two companies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of these figures.

Supply-C.NR. Loam


Frank S. Cahill: It all depends on what mileage you are taking.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
there is the slightest doubt the charges are less; I will give the details in a moment, but I do not want to delay the House by giving too much. On that basis, if the same rate of expenditure had applied to the Canadian National mileage, there would have been an increase in the maintenance of way and structures of $6,591,507, and there would have been an increase in the equipment charges of 85,485,969, or a total of $12,077,476 that is, if there had been as much charged to maintenance on the Canadian National as on the Canadian Pacific. Now having said that, it ought immediately to be qualified. These things are absolutely only relative; they have to be qualified; they are only relative yardsticks. Take, for example, equipment. It depends a good deal upon the state of your equipment when bought, and the duty that is thrown upon it. I will give my hon. friend a couple of figures in that connection. There was an increase of 14 per cent in the mileage of our freight equipment, while there was an increase in the maintenance of our freight equipment of only 7 per cent. The usual thing is that there is a ratio between service and repairs, between mileage and cost of maintenance.
There is another reason for some of the discrepancy in (these figures. The Canadian Pacific Railway has put in a whole lot of rock ballast. The charges which they have made for that rock ballast are 25 per cent to betterment as againt 75 per cent to maintenance while on the National system the charge is turned round, some 60 per cent being charged to bettenmenlt, and 40 per cent charged to maintenance. I do not want to be understood for one minute as saying that that cannot as a matter of figuring be justified. As a matter of figuring and valuation, these things can always be justified one way or the other. In any large system the 'thing works out fairly well in either one direction or another. If you want to take 'every single item and say "Well, now, we can charge this up >to the betterment of this road under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission," going the full length, and just charging the same percentage to maintenance, there is only one end of it- multiplication of capital and overhead charges. I am not saying thaJt the thing cannot be, as a matter of fact, justified by a calculation made for that purpose. But while we can congratulate ourselves on the one hand on cuts in maintenance, when we
do that we have got to look forward, of absolute necessity, to just what is happening -large increases in capital. You cannot have one without the other and maintain your railway, and we do not get very far with it, as a matter of fact, unless we do maintain our railway.
Now I come back to one of the larger questions in connection with this railway, namely finance. I come back, after a short consideration of these matters, to what we have been doing in connection with our own capital charges. Here we have the cost of betterment or maintenance down, and I am not now referring to the Canadian Pacific figures but to Canadian National figures. We have maintenance down and betterment up, and we have at the same time this comparatively small amount which I have already given the committee, $2,171,000, of new construction out of a total expenditure of $35,000,000, and yet we are told that that ought not to be added to the debt. I am not going to stress it now. The thing is really too absurd to go on stressing, but I hope nexit year we will not have that same practice persevered in.
There is another thing in the report. In so far as the Scribe hotel is concerned, the committee advises that the property be sold. The position of that is very much like that of the tender mother with her child who has done nothing wrong, she says, "But for goodness sake don't do it again," or the judgment of the juvenile court, "Not guilty but never come back here any more". It was first-rate to buy the hotel, but for goodness sake let us sell it. They are perfectly right in saying, "For goodness sake let us sell it". The most remarkable feature about this hotel business is what was not done for the purpose of looking after the public interest. In the first place, the property is purchased without any valuation at all, and it will amaze hon. members, Mr. Chairman, to know that we have not yet had any valuation of the property. We have the opinions of distinguished gentlemen who know nothing about it, but we have not had a valuation made by any single expert in real estate as to what that property is worth. That is one of the things that is usually looked after in large transactions-getting some indication from somebody that knows as to the value. Well that has not been done yet. There is another extraordinary thing. We do not know even yet the assessed value of that property in Paris. We have no information as to that. &gain we do not know to-day what the taxes
Supply-C.N.R. Loans

are. We do not know what the municipal taxes are, but we do know about the government impost, the charges which run into so many millions of francs, in connection with the transfer of offices. We know one or two other things, but we do not know about the taxes. We do not know yet what the price was. We know the price which Aronovici got, but we do not know what the price was. We know what we paid him, but no one has ever had the curiosity to even find out who the real owners were, and the committee never could get it. Nobody knew who the real owners were. We do know this, that the hon. Minister of Railways told us that the property had been offered to the Canadian Pacific, first in May and secondly in November. I think it was in 1920 or 1921.


George Perry Graham: In 1920, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And it was
offered to them for 20,000,000 francs. We do know that Aronovici got 28,000,000 francs from us, but we do not know whether it was the same old option or a new option. We do not know whether Aronovici or somebody else was getting the benefit of that 8,000,000 francs; we do not know what was happening. That option is stili dark and mysterious. That is something we have not learned, and I think we should learn it. The committee learned one thing, namely that this was not the way to buy property, and the committee also recommended that no such purchases can be made in the future. And again they were very wise. Sir Henry Thoronton in his letter on the file points out that he does not know about Parisian real estate. He starts out with that, and then he tells us before the committee that he met a gentleman in Ottawa who gave him information as to the value of the property, he also saw a friend of his in New York, and the friend in New York also gave him information as to the value of the property, and that he got from them such information as he thought justified the price. But he was not kind enough to tell us in the first place the names of these gentlemen. His attitude apparently was that it was not any of our business, so long as he was satisfied it was all right; and the committee were of the same view. That information was not given, but later on the Ottawa gentleman came before the committee. This matter was so confidential that no information could be given by Sir Henry Thornton yet Mr. Pratt comes before the committee and gives evidence, and his evidence as to value is simply wonderful. It is just on a par with the class of inform-

ation that we have in connection with the Aronovici mystery. He said that he discussed values very little. The truth was that he did not know anything about values. Perhaps I had better give his exact words because we have already had something from the chairman on this point. At page 161 of the evidence he was asked:
How did you come to see him?
That is Sir Henry Thornton.
Did you come to see him about this?-A. No. As I said, I did not know a thing about the Hotel Scribe until I met him. I met him in the parliament buildings, with some friends, in a friendly manner, not to speak of business at all. I was on my way to the coast; I was going to Vancouver and I stopped off in Ottawa to visit my friends.
Q. And as I understand your evidence given to Mr Kyte, you did not discuss values with him?
And the answer of the witness was "No".
Q. But you did tell him if he was after that propert.v-^what did you say, that "He ought to be quick about it"? that "There were two other concerns after it"?-A. Yes, that is about all the conversation we had.
So as regards this witness whose name Sir Henry Thornton very wisely did not give us, who discussed the value with him in Ottawa, that is what he says. There is his oath. I want to congratulate the House and the country that, although there is no evidence whatever as to values at the time the purchase was made, although the star witness, Mr. Pratt, when he comes, knows nothing about the Scribe hotel, although he could not give a single instance of a sale in Paris at any specific value, although he knew nothing whatever about values and was not in the business, we got some evidence from him that,
I hope, is going to be of great value. We learned that a real estate boom is on in Paris; that rents are jumping, and I only hope that real estate boom is actually on. If Paris is affected with a real estate boom, let us take advatage of it and get just as much money out of it as quickly as possible. That is the evidence of values-Sir Henry Thornton's letter stating that he does not know. It is true, after he gets into the box, he says: "Yes, I know something about it, having been in Paris." How much do some hon. members, simply by being here during the session, know about Ottawa real estate? What difference, however, does it make if this boom is on and we can get our money back? What difference does it make in view of the fact that this committee have recommended that this sort of thing cannot happen any more? If the House adopts the report of the committee, I do not suppose we shall ever have any trouble again about the Hotel Scribe transaction.

Supply-C.N.R. Loans


Mr. EVANS:: Regarding a fair division of the mail services between the two great systems, I want to bring to the notice of the government one or two matters. The Canadian Pacific has a mileage percentage of some 42 per cent; the Canadian National has a mileage percentage of some 57.9 per cent. On a mileage basis the Canadian National is entitled to an additional mail traffic which would net that system some $786,911. But not only is there unfairness in the case of mail service earnings, but the Canadian Pacific enjoys earnings that should go to the Canadian National by reason of the location of their lines. Many towns in western Canada have to put up with a service some 24 hours late because the Canadian Pacific Railway is carrying the mailS by a circuitous route. We have the Continental Limited, a train that is equal to anything on the continent and which can give the best of service. On the transcontinental mail alone there should be an increase of earnings of some $390,000 in that respect. But to show the inconvenience to some of the important towns west of Winnipeg, I might point out that, because mails are transferred at Winnipeg from one railway to the other, the mails have to wait at least
23	hours for the train the next day before they can proceed to their destination. In that case, the town of Rivers in Manitoba gets its mail
24	hours later than it should. In Melville, Saskatchewan, the service is 24 hours late; in Watrous, Saskatchewan, also 24 hours late. Saskatoon would get a delivery five hours earlier in the day if the Canadian National carried the mail. That would give people an opportunity of replying on the same day and would save them at least 24 hours in replying to a business letter say from Winnipeg. The town of Biggar is practically in the same position; the mail is some 24 hours late, and again further west on all points west of Edmonton on the Canadian National, the mail is also 24 hours late. Mail from the points west of Winnipeg to Ottawa, Montreal and points east thereof would arrive at its destination in nearly all cases some 24 hours earlier than it does at present if the Canadian National handled the service. Locally in western Canada the handling of all mail traffic would be greatly expedited. For instance, mail between Winnipeg and every important business centre west of Winnipeg and east of Edmonton and between all Canadian National local stations east of Edmonton on the one hand and all Canadian National local stations west of Edmonton on the other, would be expedited by 24 hours. So the handling of mail between Vancouver and Edmonton and the delivery at
Vancouver or Edmonton, as the case might be, would be expedited at least from 8 to 24 hours. This, of course, would vary according to the time at which the letter was posted, all such mail being handled via Calgary. I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) to these facts. Not only is there a loss in earnings to the National system, but there is great inconvenience and delay to the people in some of the most important towns in western Canada. Moreover, as regards the earnings of the National system, in which I am sure we are all interested, there is room for tremendous extension in western Canada. The action of the Senate in turning down a number of the branch lines is deplorable and in my opinion they have rejected two of the best revenue-producing propositions in the West; I have reference now -to the Radville-Fife and the Turtleford-Hafford branch lines. The Turtle-ford-Hafford country is well settled. The settlers went in there many years ago and have put in large crops; they planted extensively last year expecting that a road would be built this summer so that they would not have to travel so great a distance to get to market. The rejection of this branch line is a real tragedy to these people and much inconvenience will be caused them; in fact I think the result will be that many of the settlers will leave that district this coming fall.
There is another difficulty which will have to be overcome as the years go by. Not only are the settlers in western Canada placed in a dilemma, while at the same time the earnings of the National system are curtailed, but we are faced with the problem of having a nonelective body which is not representative of the people and which is out of touch with their conditions, standing between them and the needs of the country. As regards the National Railways paying their way, this is an important matter and the time has come when no body of men not elected by the people should be allowed to thwart all legislation and afterwards shield themselves behind a mask of self-righteousness and so-called concern for the country's welfare, when they were only looking after their private interests.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The limited ability which I have been able to bring to bear on this matter is in striking contrast with that of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who has so thoroughly examined all the proceedings in his address this evening. In that connection I would respectfully impress upon hon. members the responsibility which rests upon us as representatives of the shareholders, and as shareholders ourselves, in this great concern of
Supply-CJ\'.R. Loans

ours, the National Railways, as well as the necessity for acquainting ourselves by application and study with the problems and the figures in relation to the roads. And figures, I may remark by the way, play no small part in the problems that present themselves to us in the public ownership of our National Railways. If we are going to adequately investigate the management of the system as well as its organization from year to year we must give the whole subject our careful attention and I am free to admit that I find myself far from possessing that knowledge and experience which are so necessary if one is to go at all fully into these matters.
The hon. member for West York referred to one or two problems which the report of the committee has not touched upon. In a general way the committee reported to the House in favour of a reduction in capitalization. For some considerable time I have felt that this was necessary, and now, after having rery carefully gone through the figures, I am more convinced than ever of this necessity. I would not pretend to offer any suggestions as to the percentage by which the capitalization should be reduced, nor would I undertake to say just how it should be done. The suggestion offered by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) appeals to me and I think it would be feasible and would call for no great adjustment if the sums which hav3 been advanced by the Dominion to the railways, constituting virtually so many free gifts, were written off the capitalization of the company.
I want to emphasize the points which the hon. member for West York presented with regard to this matter of capitalization. If the government should deem it wise to reduce the capitalization to a reasonable figure there also remains the necessity of keeping the capitalization at that level. Under our present system I do not think it would long remain fixed. From time to time as deficits occurred and were met from the treasury these sums would be added to the capitalization and very shortly one would find the railways in exactly the same difficulties, so far as capitalization is concerned, as they are in at the present time. The hon. member for West York called attention to the necessity for exercising very careful judgment in regard to the accounts of those sums which are chargeable to betterment and maintenance, and I think the point he raised was well taken. It is quite possible, without submitting anything actually wrong in the way of figures, to show that the capitalization has been increased when as a matter of fact the 
earning value of the road has not done the same. The illustration of the rock ballast was one which any member, no matter how little acquainted he might be with the. technicalities of railroading, could understand. There is no doubt that rock ballast increases the value of the road to a certain extent, but the extent to which it does so should be very carefully considered. This is but an illustration and I have no doubt that a great many others must present themselves to the officials of the railway in the course of the year's expenditures. Careful judgment should therefore be exercised in allocating the sums expended as between betterments and maintenance, so that capital account may not be unduly increased, making it almost if not absolutely impossible for tfie road, with any reasonable earnings, to pay a return on the money invested in it. If the road were placed on a proper capitalization basis I think the country would be in a fair way to reap the benefits of national ownership. Ever since I have given any study to this subject I have favoured the national ownership of public utilities, and the results of public ownership of our railways have in no way tended to diminish my desire to see the system extended in this country.
The committee brought in certain recommendations which it would be well, even at the cost of repetition, to consider to some extent. I must admit that the hon. member for North Waterloo very carefully and fairly covered the ground in this matter. I am wholly in accord with the majority of the sentiments which he expressed, both when he spoke as chairman of the committee and in a personal way to this House.
The condition of the road was referred to in the report of the committee. A rumour was current throughout the country, and I think it was encouraged by the press in some parts, that the actual condition of the road had been sacrificed in order that the returns at the end of the year might show an increase over the year that was past. The evidence submitted was convincing to me that such was not the case. The matter of reserve accounts entered into that. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) gave a considerable number of figures as to what was done in the way of utilization of reserve accounts in the maintenance of equipment and right of way, and I shall not attempt to deal with the matter further. The result of the evidence upon the committee was to convince us that the equipment had not been sacrificed, but that it had been kept up, and that if in any particular at the present time the equipment

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
is not fully up to par there is a full reserve account which, if and when expended, will bring that equipment up to par.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) who has immediately preceded me, referred to one particular item of this report, an item which I think deserves the attention and support of every hon. member, namely, the distribution of mail service between the two great railway systems. Hon. members will find all the particulars that were presented to the committee in the evidence commencing at page 181. The facts generally, as they appear to us, are that there has been discrimination against the Canadian National Railway in regard to the distribution of contracts for the carriage of mail. This should not be. I am convinced that there are possibly three groups of opinion in this House as to what might or should be done in this case. I know some members are opposed to granting any concessions to the Canadian National railways, members who perhaps would go so far in their opposition to national ownership that they would limit the earning powers of our National Railways if possible. These, and others who perhaps in their friendship for some other railways might desire to see the National Railways hindered or eliminated altogether. I do not know how far that sentiment extends, but we do know that it exists in this House. Then on the other extreme there are those who are so far committed to the principle of public ownership that they would perhaps stretch a point to give our National Railway system the advantage where possible. I think possibly the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the chairman of that committee, might be included in this class. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I admit that I am in the same class. Then between the two extremes there are a number of members *who are not particularly opposed to national ownership and who are not so committed to it that they would go to extremes, and they would like to see an equitable and just division between the two great systems. I think the report of the committee would appeal to them and to all of us, and it seems to me we might give that report our heartiest support at this time. It may be that this will not be the final report to be made along this line. It may be necessary in the future to look into the matter again, even if the government should at this time, as we expect it will, take cognizance of this report and act upon it,-it may be necessary for us, I say, to look into the matter in the future and see if we cannot turn more of the business of the government and of the
people of the country which is handled through the government to our National Railways, and so help them overcome the deficits they are struggling against.


William Findlay Maclean: What would the
hon. gentleman do if he found the Canadian Pacific not only getting an unfair proportion of the mails, but actually the declared enemy of the National system of railways? Perhaps you can almost see this enmity in a place not very far from here.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think after the expression of my personal opinion it is hardly necessary for me to say what I would do in such a case. Perhaps it is hardly necessary for me to say what I think the House should do in a case like that. At least our National Railways are deserving of just and equitable treatment. But no matter how much we are committed to public ownership, no matter how much we are prejudiced in favour of our National Railways, we must first and always, in regard to the mail service of this country, remember that service to the public is the first aim of the post office system that we have built up, and in all distribution of our mails neither the Canadian National nor the Canadian Pacific nor any other railway should come first in our consideration, but should be wholly secondary to the public service. That sentiment, I think, could be applied to any other business which could be diverted to the Canadian National Railway.
I do not intend to go into any details in connection with the Hotel Scribe. I suppose I may be pardoned for using that name, for I think it was requested that members of this House should refer to the building as the Palais Canadien. The details of the evidence are in the printed report, and have been dealt with by the hon. member for North Waterloo and the hon. member for West York. They have not come to wholly the same conclusion. Possibly the conclusion I have come to is not quite the same as theirs. I suppose that various members in this House will have varying opinions on the subject. I want to state, though, to what extent the evidence affected me personally as it was unrolled before the committee by the head of the Canadian National Railways and by his officials. I was prejudiced against the deal, for I considered that Sir Henry Thornton had in that instance made a mistake. I thought that it was perhaps the one slip of judgment which had occurred since he came to this country as a public servant. But after having heard the evidence I am not
Supply-C.N.K. Loans

so much of the opinion that it was such a serious mistake as I had at first regarded it. I make that statement with certain reservations. I think that the deal showed to some extent the business capacity and the astuteness of the head of the Canadian National Railways. There is no doubt that he was of the opinion, and that in this his directors supported him, that offices were necessary in Paris. There is also no doubt in my mind that he went to work to obtain those offices in what appeared to him the most sensible and rational manner at that time. I do think he made an error, perhaps not in judgment, but. rather because he had not been long enough in the service of this country to know the actual conditions under which we were labouring, and in that he assumed there was more money available for capital investment than was actually the case. Perhaps he did not intend-I think the evidence lends itself to this conclusion-to make a very heavy capital expenditure, but rather that circumstances and the human element entering into them in the person of the third party, Aronovici, caused him to make a larger capital expenditure than was originally intended, and -which I am frank to admit I do not think even at this present time is justified. The report of the committee is that it would be advisable to retain accommodation for the Canadian National Railways within the building and then dispose of it as a real estate investment. The evidence that came before us went to show that real estate properties are increasing in value in that section of Paris, so that it should not be difficult for the management of the Canadian National Railways to come out with flying colours from under the load they have assumed of capital investment in Paris and with proper and adequate quarters retained for the purposes of the railway. Perhaps the wish may be said to be father to the thought; I sincerely hope that proper quarters can be retained for the Canadian National Railways in Paris, because they would be of material value to the system in the way of advertising and the securing of traffic.
Another matter that seems to me important, although no very definite statement is made with respect to it by the committee, is that of the immigration and colonization efforts of the railway. I do not hold the view that we should not be making any efforts towards securing immigration, but I do think we should not spend unduly large sums of money in that effort. The spreading of our activities in that connection is costing more than perhaps is necessary. I do not criticise the Canadian 
National Railways for having an immigration and colonization department, but I am not sure I would not criticise them if they were to make that department too broad. It is necessary that they should have an immigration branch in order that they may attract to themselves a fair share of whatever immigration is coming to our shores, and they should have a colonization branch in order to settle the country adjacent to our Canadian National Railway lines and with a view to making those who come here good citizens in every sense of the word, who will help to build up the Canadian National Railway system, who will become shareholders in it and will assist in making it remunerative. We must not forget, however, that the Canadian National Railways are handled closely in connection with various departments of government-we have a very extensive Immigration department-and there should be the closest co-operation between those departments and a complete co-ordination of their efforts. If they start to spread themselves over the same territory and duplicate services, there certainly will be waste of time, energy, and money.
During the present session this House provided money and charters for the extension of our Canadian National Railway system by the construction of branch lines. It is unfortunate that a number of the bills providing for those extensions have met an ill-timed fate elsewhere. This House should assert itself in some way as to the authorization we give to the Canadian National Railways to provide these branch line extensions. As to the method by which branch line extensions are planned and proceeded with, as I understand it the management of the railways review the situation throughout the country, size up the districts concerned-as to their need of railway facilities, their ability to support them if granted, and the assurance of their being remunerative. They then draw up a programme which they submit to this House. By that very act-that is, in the survey of the country-certain moneys must be expended. Preliminary or reconnaissance surveys have to be made, and if I have any criticism of some of the branch line proposals it is that sufficient survey work was not done before the proposals were 'brought to the attention of parliament. I know that the officials of the road may come back with this plea: "How oan you expect us to make these surveys, no matter to what extent they are preliminary in character, unless you provide a certain amount of money for the purpose

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
and unless you give us the necessary authorization?" I submit that there is justice in that contention. As I have intimated, certain of the branch, lines contemplated this year will not be built because thei bills authorizing their construction and providing the money for the work have met their fate. But this parliament would be justified, it seems to me, in earmarking a certain part of the item under subhead (d) in the report of the committee

"Construction, betterments, including co-ordination, 'acquisition of property and purchase of equipment"- for that purpose. Or if that is not feasible we might have a supplementary estimate, either a new item or an amount included in the present item, which, would authorize the management to proceed with the surveys in those districts where they are apparently convinced that these branch lines should be built, a view shared an by members of the House and expressed in the adoption of the branch line measures. That would be an instruction to the management from this House and from the government to proceed as far as they possibly could without en actual charter to provide the railway facilities in those districts.


Thomas Sales: The Senate would kill it.


Charles Wallace Stewart: That is
highly improbable; they are not likely to kill iall our estimates. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) pointed out that last year the Canadian National Railways did a certain amount of construction work without any special bill or vote in that respect. They apparently considered they were authorized; they were convinced of the need and they went ahead with the work. I should be perfectly satisfied if the management under the existing conditions considered they had the authorization, that the ne^l existed, and thereupon went ahead out of the vote that this House will pass, although for general purposes, and did some constructive work. In the suggestion I am making to the minister I am trying to provide for a contingency which I think exists, in that the railway management would not feel they could draw to any great extent on this particular vote of money, and of course this sum would not lend itself to any extensive railroad construction; but I am suggesting that ait least they should be authorized and financed to a reasonable extent, thus placing -them in a position to later accept. charters which we maintain will come eventually if this House persists in asserting its rights as the representatives of the people of Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Chairman, I wanted
to express my opinion that this was a very useful committee that was appointed this year, and that it had a singularly capable chairman and a man who is in entire sympathy with the nationalization of our railways, I listened to him plead with the members of the House to give the National Railways a square deal and sympathetic treatment. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member was speaking to those who are associated with him on that side of the House.


William Daum Euler: To everybody.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Because on this side of
the House there is unanimous approval of the nationalization of our railways. I only hope that his plea will be heard over there and that the principle of the nationalization of our railways will be adopted more heartily by some members on that side of the House than it has been in the past. Then we will have the unanimous opinion of the parliament of Canada in favour of the nationalization of our railways. The hon. gentleman pointed out that anyway we have got the railways; we cannot give them away, the people of this country would not permit such a thing to be done; and there is therefore only one course for us to pursue, and that is to do our level best in every way we know of and can think of to put the system in such a position that it will pay its way and pay its capital charges.
It occurred to me while the hon. member for North Waterloo was speaking that perhaps it was providential that in this House there should be so many members in the particular group to my left. I am afraid that if there had been an overwhelming majority across the floor the National railways would have had a pretty hard time during the last two or three years. At least the sixty-five or sixty-six members who came into this House under the name of the Progressives made it impossible for the government, if they so desired, to scrap the National railways, and in my judgment the country owes a great deal to the Progressive party on that account.
But what I wanted particularly to do, Mr. Chairman, was to give my support most heartily and emphatically to the proposal of the committee that there should be a larger share of the mail service given to the National Railways. As one hon. member put it to me in discussing the matter: "If I had a team," he said, "I would not hire somebody to do my teaming." That is a pretty fair analogy to the situation which we find in regard to the mail service on the two railways. We own a railway, and we are giving the
Supply-C.N.R. Loans

greater part of our mail service to the privately owned system. I am not advocating that the privately owned system should be treated unfairly. I understand that in the United States and in other countries the different railways get the mail service largely in proportion to mileage. I will not go that far. I will agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken when he said that the primary thing is to give people service, but my examination of this question leads me to the conclusion that by giving the National Railways a larger proportion of this business, there will be a better service given to the public in the western part of this country. In fact, all the way up from North Bay, on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway and out on the Transcontinental, as well as on the prairies, the service would be greatly improved, and our own system of railways would earn another half or three-quarters of a million dollars, and thereby assist in reducing the annual deficit.
My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) gave some figures, very illuminating and very interesting, showing the time that would be saved by dividing the Montreal-Vancouver mail service between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. To save twenty-four hours in the delivery of a letter in these times means a great deal to the business men of any city or town, and the hon. member quoted a number of cases where twenty-four hours would be saved by dividing the mail service between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific.


William Findlay Maclean: Has anybody
ever found out who perpetrated this unfair discrimination against the National Railways? Was it done by the Post Office Department, by the government, by competition, or by what?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I raised this question in
the House four years ago, and I was met with this statement, that the National Railways at that time did not possess the postal equipment necessary to take its proper share of the transcontinental mail service; but that condition has since been rectified. I made some inquiries, and I understand that the Canadian National is now fully equipped to take its full share of this service.
I am not one of those who are prepared to curse the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think it has been very well managed; I think I might go so far as to say that it has been somewhat selfishly managed. The Canadian Pacific Railway has never let any business 
get away that it could get hold of. It has been quite able to take care of itself all the way along. But we cannot forget the service it has rendered this country, from the time it was built right to the present. I am not arguing that that great system should be discriminated against, but I am arguing that our own railway could carry our own business to a much greater extent than it is doing at the present time. It would mean a good deal to the Canadian National if we could save three-quarters of a million dollars, which is what a fair division of the mail traffic would amount to; that amount applied ,to a reduction of the annual deficit on the railway would bring us just that much closer to the time when the system would be paying its own way, and when dt does that or approximates it, all the talk that we hear, largely from the city of Montreal, about the iniquities of a national system of railways would cease. Once that system gets to the point where it can pay its capita! charges there can be no voice raised in this country against it. Even those who do not believe in that principle at all will then have to accept the situation with better grace than they are doing to-day. So I say that this parliament should see that by every fair means our own system of railways gets its full share of the business of this country. It is the people's railway; it is designed to give service; it is giving service; it has been showing splendid results in the last couple of years, and I am sure that as the country fills up and we have that immigration policy to which my hon. friend has referred, when we get more people into this country, there will be no trouble about the Canadian Pacific Railway.
On the question of immigration. I would just like to give an idea which has occurred to me. and which I discussed with a man from western Canada, about the extension of branch lines. This individual with whom I conversed pointed out to me that the government should discourage in every way it can the settlement of lands remote from the railways, and encourage by all the means in its power, those who are settled long distances from the railways to come in closer, thus concentrating the present population and the people who are to come in districts where branch lines will pay. and where branch lines will be warranted: and then as to further settlement, proceed on some systematic and scientific plan whereby men will get into certain districts where they will get transportation at the earliest possible date. I think there is a good deal in that.

Supply-C JV .R. Loans


Charles Wallace Stewart: Does my
hon. friend think it would be possible to persuade the settler who has a real good farm to leave it and take up poor land in the neighbourhood of a railway?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know whether
it would or not. My hon. friend who is a farmer would know better than I would as to that. But these men who have gone in and settled forty or fifty miles from a railway and are now demanding a branch line to be constructed past their farm should have some regard for the financial condition of the country. They cannot expect branch lines to be constructed away out to these remote districts, simply because they chose to settle there. There are millions of acres of unoccupied land nearer to the railways than the land which is occupied now by these settlers, and if settlers would come to these lands branch lines would be built that could give better results, and better financial prospects would await them. But I want to give our National Railways all the assistance we possibly can.


Mr. WARNER:: I feel I would not quite
do my duty if I did not lend a word of approval, especially to the proper division of the mail service. We should try to give service to the people, not merely in regard to the mail but in other ways, in the country which is tributary to these National lines.
I agree with the idea that our railways are designed first of all to give service to the people, and our mail service is more important to our people than any other 'part of business, in proportion to the cost of operating that mail service. I will have very little to say in regard to my own opinion about the matter. But the people I represent and the people in the vicinity of Edmonton where I live, are very anxious to see the mail service properly divided. They feel that at the present time they are not getting the service they should, simply because the National lines are not carrying the mail to them as it should be carried. The mail, as my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) has said, has been delayed on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway taking it, and then the Canadian National Railway along their line having to carry it back from a central point to their people. I understand the Canadian National Railways are prepared to put on post office cars, take proper care of the mail and make proper distribution of it. The reason I wanted to say a word to-night was to assist if possible in giving them a chance to serve the 300
people along their line. I believe everyone is convinced that it is important to give the National lines a square deal in regard to carrying the mails, not altogether because they are National lines, but because they can better serve their people along their lines, in addition to giving the business to our own road, the people's road, although I have some sympathy with the idea that we are not doing this and should not do it for the purpose of discriminating against the Canadian Pacific. That is not the intention.
Regarding the service of the Canadian National lines in other ways, I say that our National lines have certain districts which are tributary and in all fairness belong to them. I wish to see the branch lines and the feeders to this National system built where those neighbourhoods are tributary to these roads. I do not want to see anything interfere in any way with the National Railways getting their branch lines where the country belongs to them and where they should operate. I think that is a very important point for this House to keep in mind-to give the National lines their territory and opportunity to build these branch lines where the country belongs to them.
As far as immigration is concerned, I do not care to say very much. I have not spoken on immigration this year, but I am still of the opinion fully expressed last year that our country needs immigration and that our railways and the country in every way can better be brought to a prosperous condition with more people in it. So I am not going to criticise the Canadian National lines if they lay out some money in getting immigrants to settle along their lines, and in certain districts where branch lines are already built, as well as where branch lines should be built. I would not care to see any reckless method adopted of spending money, but I believe it should be conducted along the same lines as any other business. If I own a farm I have to break it up and put it in a condition to work it before I can expect to get any money back. If the National lines are going to get any money out of the country, to keep them running and to keep them prosperous, as well as to make the rest of Canada properous, they must build branch lines, and prepare to take the traffic produced in their territory. They cannot obtain that traffic unless there are people there in sufficient numbers to make it pay. We want to see that the Canadian National lines get a square deal in the mail service and the extension of their branch lines, and in the business in a general way. That is all we are asking for,

and I feel that I should lend my support to this government along the three lines I have mentioned, in the proper distribution of the mail service, in the soliciting of immigrants to settle along these lines, and in obtaining the business in a general way on the National main lines, as well as over these branch lines.


Claudius Charles Davies: I wish to heartily endorse
the many sentiments which have been expressed in this chamber this evening regarding the carrying of the mail by the Canadian National Railways. It would appear, from an examination of the figures, that the Canadian National Railways are not getting their fair share of the contracts and the revenues derived from carrying the mail. All eastern and overseas mail which is forwarded along purely Canadian National lines should travel the whole distance from Montreal over Canadian National lines and not be taken over Canadian Pacific lines to the furthest point upon the Canadian Pacific to which it is possible to take it and then transferred to the Canadian National lines for a short haul. Whoever is responsible for letting the contracts should seriously consider this phase of the question.
Being a resident for a number of years alongside a Canadian National Railway line and knowing conditions under which they have worked in the past, I would heartily congratulate the management of the Canadian National Railways upon the immense improvement that has taken place within the last few years. That is especially noticeable to people like myself who have lived under the Mackenzie and Mann regime and who can compare that with the system which we have at the present time. Formerly, along Canadian Northern lines in the fall of the year, if we got one car in three months to carry our wheat and the rest of the time we were blockaded with our elevators full, we thought that we were doing pretty well. At the present time, with the efficient management we have, that is something which we do not see very often. We now have as good a delivery of our wheat as exists upon the Canadian Pacific. To any one like myself who has seen the immense improvement that has taken place, it is a matter for congratulation, and it makes us all look forward to the future when we believe that our Canadian National Railways will be a great asset.
The management of the Canadian National Railways have hard work and handicaps enough to put this railway upon its feet without receiving the criticisms which they have to meet in other places. There seems to be at the present time a well-organized attempt,

if I may say so, to discredit the management of the Canadian National Railways in the eyes of the people of this country. Since we have been in Ottawa this session, we have seen a great deal of that, and it is high time for the friends of the Canadian National Railways and the government of this country to do all they possibly can to stop that sort of thing. Let us give the president and the other officials of the Canadian National Railways every opportunity to make good.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) referred to the colonization scheme of the Canadian National Railways. We want more people along our National lines, so that they will produce more freight, express and passenger traffic and thus give us more revenue per mile. That is correct; but while we are trying to bring people into this country and to place them along the lines of the Canadian National, the acts of a certain body in this country during this session have made it so that thousands of people are leaving this land. They are going out at the present time by the hundreds simply because, after waiting long and patiently for the promised railway, they have become tired of waiting. The government were perfectly sincere in trying to give those people the railway, but they are not supreme, nor are we supreme, There are other people who have a say in this matter.
I want to bring to the attention of this committee the great seriousness of the matter to people who are living in some of the remote districts which were to be served by the branch lines which have been defeated during this session of parliament. I have in mind especially one branch line, the line from Tur-tleford to Hafford. That line has been promised to those people living forty or fifty miles away from a railway since 1909. I know personally many men and women who have been living in that country for eighteen years, and who have been working hard, undergoing great hardships, trying to build up homes, looking forward with hope to the day when they would get the much needed railway communication. That railway has been promised them by two governments. In 1914, the provincial government guaranteed the bonds of the railway for a distance of forty miles.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is in this vote nothing that deals with the matter of branch lines. General reference to them such as has been made by some of the speakers would be in order, but a detailed debate on a branch
*

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
line or a series of branch lines would not be in order, as that was a matter of a separate vote already declared and voted upon in this House.


Claudius Charles Davies: If it is not permissible to
talk about one branch line, I will talk about several in a general way.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is a general vote
dealing with securities upon the whole railway, and the branch line vote, as the hon. member appreciates, was a separate vote in connection with each particular line, already dealt with and disposed of in this same session so far as this House is concerned.


Claudius Charles Davies: 
Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear.


Claudius Charles Davies: The hon. member would
not say "hear, hear" if he lived out in that part of the country.


Jacques Bureau: I know the country and
the people.
Supply-C.N.R. Loans


Claudius Charles Davies: And out of all those births only 6 per cent of the mothers ever had medical attendance for the simple reason that they live from 40 to 50 miles away from a railway. What would our worthy friends think if they were placed in a similar position, so that instead of jumping into their limousines and reaching the railway station in a couple of minutes they found themselves all this distance from a railway? Many a moan is carried on the air of those windswept, cold and desolate prairies in the wintertime and in the graveyards the earth covers the mortal remains of many a woman who has virtually sacrificed her life in the heroic effort to rear a family in order to build up that western country. Are we going to leave those people out there away from civilization, or is this parliament going to assert itself and provide for the relief of those who are so unfortunately situated, notwithstanding any action which may be taken by our friends in the other chamber?


George Perry Graham: The government has shown its sympathy in a practical way in regard to these branch lines but I regret to say that there is no possible method that I can see- and I have thought a good deal about the matter-by which the wishes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davies) can be met without a change being made in the British North America Act.


Thomas Sales: Well, let us make it.


George Perry Graham: These things can be done only in a constitutional way. I am not sure that there may not be something in the suggestions of hon. gentlemen but that will not help the branch lines situation this year. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Humboldt, that certain lines have been considered as unaccompanied by sufficient information, I think it is possible that the Canadian National Railways could find means of carrying on a survey without placing a further item in the estimates. And as to the advisability of providing for the matter by means of an estimate, I would point out that estimates are mortal just as branch line bills are.
I want to say just a word in regard to the committee, although I am anxious to get my estimates through rather than to make a speech. The proposal to appoint a committee to look into the National Railways, including the merchant marine, was a happy idea, wherever it originated, and hon. members can see that it relieves the minister of a great deal of trouble and considerable talking, because he is surrounded by men of the
TMr. Bureau.]
committee who have a thorough grasp of the situation and are able to give all the information to the House in a lucid manner. I hope that in future years the committee will be reappointed and will continue to maintain communication in a friendly way between the management of the National Railways and the parliament of Canada. That is the only way of making the undertaking a success and of inspiring confidence each in the other. But you can never attain any results by means of carping and unjust criticism or finding fault in any picayune spirit, because such criticism, although it is only in the nature of pin pricks, can only injure rather than advance any course. I feel that the committee was a great help to the railway management, and I believe the House will agree with me that it has been of assistance to them in getting a clear viewpoint of the situation.
As to the mails, turn your guns on the Post Office Department; I am willing. But this would be my suggestion. The mail of Canada through which the commerce of the country is largely carried on ought to be delivered to the people to whom it is addressed by the shortest route and in the quickest possible time. That is what the mail service is for. While I should like to have everything for the Canadian National Railways, I believe that the distribution of mail throughout the Dominion ought to be on the lines I have indicated, let the carrying of mail come to whichever line it will.
I do not think I need speak about the Paris building. It is forgotten now. We have the most wonderful building in Paris, and worth the money. If it can be sold, and the Canadian National Railways with its various undertakings be given in it the best position and a comfortable and paying home, then sell it; if nor, keep it.
My hon. friend for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) made a calm and careful review of the figures relating to the Canadian National Railways, which I will not attempt to follow. I will be content with saying that the accounts of the Canadian National Railways are kept according to a standard set by the Interstate Commerce Commission, a standard which applies to every railway on the continent of America. That standard prescribes what shall be charged to capital and what to maintenance of way and to maintenance of equipment. I do say that whatever book-keeping there may be, the equipment of the railways' right of way and all the properties of the Canadian National to-day are in as high a state of

Supply-C.N.R. Loans
perfection as those of any railway on the North American continent. I qualify my statement to this extent, that several railways have rock ballast, which the Canadian National Railway system has not to any great degree. Large amounts of money have been expended on this system, and further amounts will have to be expended. The suggestion that you can ever quit spending capital on a railway is all wrong. There is no railway in the world but has to have large capital expenditure made upon it every year, and so long as that capital is expended in a manner which will carry itself the expenditure is a good one.
As to tiie division between maintenance and betterments in regard to capital expenditure, the line may be deviated from, but it is carefully drawn. Any improvements to property is capital expenditure, speaking in a general way. The Interstate Commerce Commission will not allow capital to be charged to operation, or operation to be charged to capital, because that would not be fair to the people who have their money invested m the railway on the one side, or to the people who pay railway rates on the other side.
I thank members of the committee and assure them that I think the House is indebted to them for the services they have rendered. Another year I hope we will carry on the w-ork of the committee as a go-between between the Canadian National Railways and the House of Commons.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked for some information as to the items going to make capital expenditure. If the committee will allow me, I will put the table on Hansard. In order to have clearly in mind what this table contains, I should explain that it covers besides capital expenditure a statement of what is expended on maintenance. For instance, take one item of the account charged to capital, the amount charged +o maintenance in that item is on the table, but as the right hon. gentleman just asked for the capital expenditure I am placing it on Hansard with the consent of the House.
The table is as follows:
Group Class of work	Capitail
1	a Building new lines	$	59,500b	Line Diversion	
333 8321	c	Double tracking	
158,4502	a	New rails & fastenings	
467,535b	Relaving rails	
696,310c	Tie pflates	
715,015d	Rail anchors	
272,528e	Frogs and switches	
4,0803	Ties	
236.4004	a	Rock Ballast	
175,000Group	Cass of work	Capitalb	Gravel ballast	
$1,092,370c	Slag baLiast	
6,0005	a	Widening outs & fills	
156,900b	Scaling rock cuts	
29,500c	Roadway miscell	
31,6956	a	Ditelling	
38,910b	Tile drainage	
124,810c	Trunk sewers	
19,1007	a	Highway & farm crossings	
15,720b	Roadway to stations	
88,2658	Right-of-Way Fence	
61,5809	a	Snow Fence	
17,55010	a	Passing tracks	
500,100b	Yard tracks	
456,905c	Business sidings	
178,38511	a	Rip-Rap	
89,500b	Crib work	
9,30012	a	Section dwellings	
74.678b	Bunk houses	
72,22013	a	Bridges	
2,113,030b	Culverts	
425.044c	Trestles	
113,103d	Filling bdgs. tresis. & cul	
957,502e	Bridges Miscellaneous	
12,18014	Tunnels	
56,50015	Eliminating grade crossings	
60,50016	a	Stations & shelters	
171,187b	Freight sheds	
345,250c	Cattle pens	
41,755d	Platforms	
97.095e	Buildings Miscellaneous	
99.080f	Express Dept. Facilities	
88,71717	Water supplies	
279.93218	Fuel station.?	
72,21019	a	Turntables	
44,500b	Ashpits	
31,400c	Eng'nehouse, mach. shops	
616,10020	Loco. & Car Shop Bldgs	
207,95021	a	Docks & wharves	
47,000b	Dredging for docks & wharves.. ..	55,00023	a	Autom. blk. sgls. & intrk	
169,170b	Highway crossing protection	
11.42024	Betterments to equipment	
3,025,06225	Shop machinery & tools	
892.87026	Railway telegraphs & tel	
458.37927	Commercial telegr. & tel	
282,07128	Purchase of land	
130,30030	Co-ordination Facilities	
2,494,04831	Right-of-Way survey	
51,00032	Stores & bldgs. & equip	
600,18633	Hotels	
382,40035	General Miscellaneous	
496.09036	Unforeseen	
1,577,90737	Express Dept, Equipment	
82 50038	Colonization & radio	
52,50039	Traffic department	
18,20040	G. N. W. Telegraph	
164,000Total	
$23,005,776Grand Trunk Western Lines	
2,952,481


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, the minister has thrown out a very important statement, and I am going to make a suggestion. As a result of what has haippened in another place in regard to Canadian National branch lines, I would suggest that the government call parliament together next October and re-enact the bills that have been defeated this session in the other chamber.
Supply-C.N.R. Loam

By doing that they would serve notice on our friends that .they must play fair with the people of Canada and with thedr representatives in this ohamber.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, while I realize that you must keep this discussion within bounds-


George Newcombe Gordon: Branch line expenditure is not contained in this item; it was voted some time this afternoon.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We believe your rulings are always absolutely fair, Mr. Chairman. At the same time I think we must consider for a moment why we are loaning money to the National Railways. It is because they are not able to earn enough income for their maintenance and operation. Although branch lines are taboo, and I agree with you that they must be treated as separate entities, yet we must consider some of the reasons why the Canadian National Railways have not been able to earn sufficient revenue to cover operating charges and maintenance. If this is because there are not sufficient branch lines, I think the subject will come within the scope of this discussion. However, I do not wish to violate the ruling of the Chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: I call the hon. member's attention to the rule which prescribes that matters already dealt with during the session and disposed of in a debate cannot be debated a second time. It is true they can be referred to.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think, Mr. Chairman, no member an this House realizes that rule better than I do. However, as I have said, we must consider why we are voting this money to the National Railways, and I think we must look into the reasons that necessitate these loans. I believe one reason is that there are not sufficient branch lines to act as feeders to the National system. I also think that the members of this House should be allowed an opportunity of expressing their approval or disapproval as to why these branch lines are not available to the National system.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. member
attempts to debate branch lines under this item, I must rule him out of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not attempting to do so at all, Mr. Chairman. But I would suggest that this House should express itself very emphatically as to the attitude of certain people in this country towards the Can-
[Mr. W. F. Maclean.l
adian National Railways, and the apparent attempt to keep the National system in that position where this parliament will be continually obliged to vote money for its maintenance. I have another suggestion, and it is along the lines of the suggestion made by one of the Toronto members, only I would go a. little further. I would suggest that when parliament convenes again one of the first bills the government should bring down should embody a request to the Imperial parliament to assist us in amending the British North America Act so as to make the Senate elective. If this were accomplished, I have no hesitation in predicting that there would be a very great change in the personnel of that chamber.
As to the mail contracts, I know of an instance in my own riding where the mail is carried on the Canadian Pacific railway to a certain point and is then hauled overland by stage twenty-six miles to serve a po9t office within half a mile of the Canadian National railway. It means that in winter the mail is from one to two days late in being delivered to people who live within sight and hearing of the Canadian National line. This happens at a number of other points along the National railway. I do not think this condition should exist. I think our National railways should have the necessary equipment to carry the mail of the country so as to give service to the people and at the same time bring revenue to the railway.
I was interested in the little lecture given by the hon. member (Mr. Hocken) with regard to people who were opposed to the Canadian National system. However. I do not think he should have confined his lecture to that particular quarter; if there are any over there who are not in sympathy with the Canadian National Railways they also were entitled to the benefit of that lecture. He should also have included some of his colleagues who sit near him, because when the betterments for the Canadian National Railways were up this year in the shape of branch line proposals- and I do not want to refer specially to branch lines-


George Newcombe Gordon: I would remind the hon. member that branch lines are not betterments.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is rather interesting-branch lines not betterments. If they are not they should not be built. I never heard that argument advanced before. However, these betterments were earmarked by opposition in this House and these were invariably the ones that were turned down.

Supply-Branch Lines
With regard to the fact that the Canadian National is not meeting operating expenses, there was a matter I brought to the attention of the minister and which he agreed to put before the management. One of the reasons advanced why there should be no construction of a certain line was that the line it was connected with had been making a big deficit every year. I refer to the St. John and Quebec Railway, part of the Canadian National system, for operation at least. It runs partly through my riding, with an outlet at St. John, New Brunswick. A great deal of our freight for export goes over that road. Our export dock at St. John is on the west side of the harbour. The St. John and Quebec Railway does not run clear into St. John but we have running rights over the Canadian Pacific Railway for the last ten miles into the city. I do not know who secured those rights. During the last two or three years I have repeatedly put questions on the order paper with a view to getting that information, but have never been able to obtain it. The Dominion government say the provincial governments got the running rights, and the provincial governments say the Dominion government got them. In any case, ordinary discretion was not employed in securing those rights, for this reason: Although we got running rights over this stretch of ten miles into St. John, and although we run our freight on the west side and the railway goes down in the west side, no siding facilities were secured at West St. John on which to set off the cars of freight which were to go to St. John for export, due to the fact that the Canadian Pacific insisted that we must take them across a toll bridge at the reversible falls into East St. John where we did not want them. We have to pay a cent and1 a half a hundred by way of toll to get over that bridge, paying for engines, cars and freight, to get them where we do not want them. Then, in order to get them back where we do want them we have to pay another cent and a half a hundred by way of toll, and as we have no switching rights on the west side we have to pay three cents a hundred for switching them back. Until three years ago we paid three cents a hundred terminal charges because they said we occupied the track while we unloaded them. Added expense was thus involved to the Canadian National lines and a great handicap was imposed upon our shippers. For instance, any one shipping potatoes to Cuba-


George Newcombe Gordon: I would point out to
the hon. member that his discussion is not relevant to this item.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will come back to the point and I will show where it is defeating Canadian National Railway revenue.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not think the hon. member can go into a detailed discussion of the matter at this time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, because I think the matter is a very vital one. It cuts into the revenue of the Canadian National Railways.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. member
discusses that in detail then every foot of line in this country can be discussed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am desirious of conforming to the rules, therefore I will bow to your decision and desist for the present. I will endeavour to bring the matter to the minister's attention.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman
may refer generally to it in connection with its causing, perhaps, a loss of revenue, but a detailed discussion is not in order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The freight on potatoes to that point is 16J cents a hundred. We pay 9 cents to the Canadian Pacific Railway for switching and for tolls across the bridge, therefore the Canadian National are getting 7i cents a hundred and the Canadian Pacific Railway 9 cents a hundred for doing the switching and the tolls. I was directing attention to this because it was one of the reasons why we repeatedly have to vote millions of dollars to help maintain these railways.


Mr. JELLIFF:: As a member of the committee appointed to consider matters connected with the Canadian National Railways I wish to express my approval of this item in the estimates. I also wish to express my hearty concurrence in the report of the committee as submitted to the House. I had expected to make some more extensive re-maiks on the matter, but the discussion has been fairly full, the hour is late, the committee is weary as a result of its arduous labours, so I shall do no more at this stage than simply express my approval of the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Government Railways-to provide for the purchase of branch lines-
Moncton and Buctouche Railway-revote.. $70,000
Interest estimated, from date of taking possession to March 31, 1925, not exceeding (including revote $23,625)	 27,125
George Perry Graham: This branch railway was
purchased some years ago but owing to legal
Supply-Branch Lines

questions the government has not been able to ascertain to whom the money should be paid.


Mr. MARTELL:: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. HEALY:: The Senate killed the bill.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The Senators have got
a whole lot of good common sense. I say that we can spend millions on immigration, to bring in foreigners about whom we know nothing whatsoever, and millions more on building branch lines, but the government and the management of the railways will not spend five or six thousand dollars to provide a decent place for the station master at Elmsdale t.o live in and bring up a family of five or six young Canadian children, who will grow up and become good Canadian citizens, because they were born on the soil and they love their native land. I claim that if the Canadian National Railway cannot find five or six thousand dollars to build a proper place for the station master to live in and where his children can be brought up tinder healthy conditions, we cannot afford to spend millions on branch lines and on bringing immigrants into this country. BecACr. Graham.]
fore the vote carries I want to ask the minister what they contemplate doing in regard to this station. I want a direct answer, because I am not going to have the people down there put off again.


George Perry Graham: I would be glad to tell
the hon. member, but that is a matter entirely in the hands of the Canadian National Railway Board, and the minister has nothing to say about it, except that I shall be glad to draw the attention of the board to the remarks of my hon. friend.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Parliament is voting
money for the Canadian National Railways, and the minister should be in a position to say whether he will recommend that this station house will be properly fitted up for the station master, and if not, that the whole board will be told to get out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal: construction, 411,000,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give us an idea how much has been spent on the Welland canal, and how much work has yet to be done before it will be completed?


George Perry Graham: I believe something like
a little over $40,000,000 has been spent. There is one section yet to be let. I imagine it will take four years, perhaps a little more, to complete it.


John Millar: I was prepared to make
some lengthy remarks on this question, but as it is late, and if there is no further discussion, I shall confine my remarks to just one phase of this matter.
The success of the Welland canal depends to a considerable extent, in fact entirely, on the amount of traffic passing through it. Some time ago we had a discussion in which the Minister of Railways pointed out that there was an order compelling our railways to charge the same rate on grain from Montreal to Portland as to Halifax and St. John. I am going to try and point out to the minister that this order, when you come to analyze it, defeats its own purpose, and I think I can demonstrate that.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would ask the hon.
member how that is relevant to the vote for the Welland ship canal?


John Millar: The order diverts traffic
from the Welland ship canal.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is something the minister, under the laws of Canada, has nothing to do with. I am just anxious to learn the point of relevancy.

Supply-Canals


John Millar: When this subject was
discussed before, it was understood that the Minister of Railways was the one responsible for the order, and I am going to show that that order results in diverting traffic from the Welland canal, and sends it through the States. Let us assume that we have a shipper at Fort William who is sending grain to the seaboard. At any time during the shipping season he has the choice of several routes. He can zig-zag his grain in several ways. It may go to the bay ports, to Goderich, and from there by rail to Montreal. During the season of navigation it would go out from Montreal down the St. Lawrence river, or he may ship it by Buffalo across to New York. But when the St. Lawrence is clo.'ied by ice, what is the position? We will suppose that the St. Lawrence is closed or is about to close, and a shipper is sending a cargo of grain from Fort William. In the past, right up to the close of navigation, he has been sending it by Port Colborne or Goderich to Montreal .and Portland or perhaps by Buffalo and New York. But now he finds there is another order that affects him. I do not know exactly what the rate to Portland is, but being a distance of 297 miles I would take it to be about five or six cents a bushel. Now this order has compelled the railway to raise that rate; I think the minister will agree that that is the logical result, that we have to bring down the rate to St. John and Halifax and bring up the rate to Portland. The difference between the two in point of distance is in the neighbourhood of five hundred miles, I am speaking approximately, and the cost of carrying grain this four or five hundred miles would be in the neighbourhood of seven or eight cents. It is likely that the railway would raise the rate to Portland some two or three cents, and bring down the rate to St. John and Halifax two, three or four cents. Now what position is our shipper in? He realizes that if his grain goes to Montreal he cannot escape that penalty of two or three cents. There is no possible way out. That grain must pay that penalty of two or three cents. What will he do? Instead of sending it to Montreal he will send it to Buffalo and it will go to New York.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is basing
that statement on the other assumption, that the Portland rate would be raised and the Halifax rate be lowered.


John Millar: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Is that a fact?


John Millar: I cannot say positively. But if it is not a fact, if the railways are carrying grain to St. John and Halifax for what is only a reasonable rate to Portland, what position are the railways in? They are compelled by this order to carry the grain 500 miles for nothing, which makes the situation a little bit worse. I think it is a fair assumption that they must raise the rates above the Portland rates, and they probably will lower them and carry the grain for less than what is a reasonable rate to Halifax and St. John. If that assumption is correct-and I think it is -the effect of the order will be to drive the grain from Canadian channels. Instead of having the benefit of carrying the grain through Canadian channels and handling it through Montreal and sending it to Portland, the effect will be to drive it into Buffalo, we will lose it, and it will not go through the Welland canal at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, improvements, $114,000.
George Perry Graham: That is a contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation of, $235,920.
Mr. SHAW:: Why do you increase this
vote?


George Perry Graham: Statutory increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-staff and repairs, $2,232,000.
George Perry Graham: That is for the entire
staff of all the canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.08 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, July 18, 1924