1925-05-28

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LOVETT:: Wbat percentage of all letters, applications, requisitions, correspondence, etc., received and sent out by the following departments, Marine and Fisheries, Interior, Public Works, Agriculture, Post Office, National Defence was with the Civil Service Commission?
Questions


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Marine and Fisheries:
2.7 per cent for year ended March 31, 1925.
Department of the Interior:
(a) Of the total correspondence received in the department during the first three months of the present year, the percentage received from the Civil Service Commission was .329 per cent, (b) Of the total correspondence sent out by the department during the first three months of the present year, the percentage sent to the Civil Service Commission was .529 per cent.
Department of Public Works:
2.2 per cent of all letters, etc., was with the Civil Sendee Commission.
Department of Agriculture:
All correspondence with the Civil Service Commission is carried on through the deputy minister's office, and approximately 5 per cent of the correspondence of that office is with the Civil Service Commission. Correspondence with the various branches of the department in connection with appointments or other civil service matters amounts to approximately fifty per cent of the total correspondence of the deputy minister's office.
As to the branches, correspondence on civil service matters will probably be less than five per cent of the whole. It is exceedingly difficult to make an accurate estimate as the correspondence varies greatly at different seasons of the year.
Post Office Department:
One-half of one per cent.
Department of National Defence:
No special record is kept of letters to the Civil Service Commission and it is, therefore, impossible to furnish this information without going through the whole of the correspondence of the Department of National Defence.
No. 3 ELEVATOR-VANCOUVER Hon. Mr. STEVENS:
1.	Having reference to sessional paper 165 of the present session, regarding No. 3 elevator, Vancouver, B.C., under the terms of clause 6, page 42, of the said return: (a) do the rates and charges to be made by the lessee become subject to the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners under the Canada Grain Act; (b) have the owners or shippers of grain using this elevator any right of appeal on a question of charges to the Board of Grain Commissioners?
2.	Having reference to clause 12 on page 43, of th8 said return, 165, is the said bond of $25,000 considered by the government to be sufficient security for good faith on the part of the lessee, in view of the total cost of the property being $824,412 as set forth in answer to question No. 7 on page 2052 of Hansard ?

3.	Has the government, or the Board of Harbour Commissioners, Vancouver, received at any time any communications prior to the execution of the lease between the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and the British Oriental Grain and Elevator Company, dated March 1, 1924, protesting that the said bond of $25,000, was inadequate protection of the public interest, in view of the magnitude of the investment of public funds in this elevator?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) Yes. (ib) Yes.
2.	The harbour commissioners report that they consider the guarantee of $25,000 ample in the circumstances. The rental is paid in advance.
3.	No.


COLONEL G. B. BEGY
Mr. STEWART (Hamilton):: 1.	Has Colonel G. B. Begy, of Belleville, a contract with the government respecting the purchase of fish?
2.	If so, when is the contract dated, for what period does it last and what fish in what areas are covered by such contract?
3.	Was such contract secured by tender?
4.	If not, what prices were to be paid for such fish, and who fixed the prices?
5.	How much has been paid to or on behalf of Colonel Begy on this contract and how much is owing and unpaid at the present time?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 
GRATUITIES TO SOLDIERS
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What was the total amount paid as bonus or gratuities for the solders enlisted for the late war?
2.	In what years was the amount paid, and how much each year?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	8162,310,156.12.
2.
To March 31, 1920	
April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921 April 1, 1921, to March 31, 1922 April 1, 1922, to March 31, 1923 April 1, 1923, to March 31, 1924 April 1, 1924, to March 31, 1925


$156,924,519 44 4,607,647 77 294,815 91 289.360 17 115,173 22 78,639 61 $162,310,156 12 CORNWALL CANAL
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Is the standard rate charged for leases of water power in the Cornwall canal four dollars per electrical horse-power year?
2.	If not, what is the rate now charged?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What is the total amount of money advanced by the government to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners?
2.	How much more money may be advanced by the Governor in Council under existing legislation?
3.	What is the amount of the total obligations of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners funded or unfunded?
4.	What is the amount of bonds at present issued by the said commission?
5.	What amount of such bonds are held (a) by the government: (b) by the public?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$12,612,995.
2.	$119,138.62.
3.
Debentures-old and new
issues	$13,221,602
Advances without debentures	 541,393
Accrued interest unpaid..	8,077,962
Account old loans. Account new loans Sold to public.. .
(a)	By government.. ..
(b)	By public

[DOT]8,458,800
1,150,000


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the cost of the Quebec bridge, excluding the cost of the two bridges which foundered?
2.	Were the plans of the Quebec bridge, at its inception, approved by order in council as provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, c. 115, R.S. 1906 and previous identical acts?
3.	Have the plans of the bridge to be erected between Montreal and the south shore been deposited at the Department of Public Works (c. 115, sec. 7, R.S.C. 1906)?
4.	In what newspapers of Montreal was the notice of the deposit of said plans at the Department of Public Works, published (c. 115, sec. 7, R.S.C. 1906)?
5.	Did the Canada Gazette publish said notice? If so, in what numbers (c. 115, sec. 7)?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	$15,821,315.12. Plans of the original Quebec bridge were approved by order in council, P.C. 1172, of May 16, 1898.
2.	No, but they were approved by order in council dated May 16, 1898, as result of consideration by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.
3.	No, this bridge was authorized by special act, being Chapter 58, of the statutes of 1924, which requires plans of such bridge shall be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before beginning the construction thereof.
4 and 5. No information.


MORTON S. BINET
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is Morton S. Binet an employee in the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any other department of the government of Canada?
2.	What position or positions does he hold; when was he appointed; what is his salary?
3.	How much has he been paid, (a) in salary; (b) in travelling and other expenses, in each fiscal year since his appointment?
4.	What are his duties, and in what part of Canada has he been placed for the discharge of such dutes?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inspector of fish curing and packing (seasonal). Date of appointment, June 21, 1922; salary at rate of $1,260 per annum.
3.
Year.
Salary Expenses.
1922-	23 ..
1923-	24 ..
1924-	25 ..
$ 848 75	$1,254	651,056 28	1.888	011,050 00	2,906	77
4. To inspect pickled fish and containers, and to enforce the provisions of the Fish Inspection Act. His district covers Richmond county and south part of Cape Breton county in Nova Scotia.

Questions


MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Military Service Act, 1917, still in force?
2.	If not, when and how did it cease to have effect?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Because it is in terms limited in operation to the provision of reinforcements for the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the duration of the then present war.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence) for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of the China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst in the province of Quebec, chapter fourteen of the statutes of 1924, and to provide that the compensation to be paid by the company in respect of the acquisition of an unencumbered title to the right of way and all prior construction thereon of the River Rouge Railway Company or the Rouge River Railway Company between China Clay and St. Remi d'Amherst, be determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada and shall be based on the value to the company of such right of way and prior construction, but shall not in any case exceed fourteen thousand dollars.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the minister may on behalf of His Majesty the King enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa extending for a period of five years from the first day of July, 1925, the provisions of the agreement between His Majesty and the corporation dated the thirtieth day of March, 1920, set out in the schedule to chapter fifteen of the statutes of 1920, which last mentioned agreement was extended for a period of one year from the first day of July, 1924, under the authority of chapter fifty-nine of the statutes of 1924.
Provided nevertheless that the minister may agree on behalf of His Majesty to pay to the corporation annually the sum of one hundred thousand dollars during the said period of five years from the first day of July, 1925, instead of the annual sum of seventy-five thousand dollars as provided for in the said agreement.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends

it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) to the following statement which appears on the front page of the Toronto Globe of Wednesday, May 27, 1925:
Government to Occupy Ten Stories
The Dominion government has decided upon the centralization of its various Toronto offices in the new "Canadian National Building," to be erected at the northwest corner of King and Yonge streets.
Including the Canadian National Railways space, the Dominion government will take a lease of at least ten stories in the new building. The lower three will be used as railway offices, and the seven immediately above will be occupied by the Customs and Income Tax staff, Public Works, Labor department and Department of Agriculture officials.
The housing of these officials in the new skyscraper will have nothing to do with the ultimate erection of a customs house in Toronto wrhen, in the opinion of the government, the time is opportune for that course of action.
Has such a policy been decided upon by the government with regard to the co-ordination of federal offices in the city of Toronto?


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: I could not hear what the hon. member was saying but I gathered that he was quoting from the Toronto Globe. I shall be glad to look into the matter and reply later.


THE DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved- that the House go into committee to consider Bill No. 109 to amend The Dairy Industry Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: I may say that the
agricultural committee substituted "which" for "with" in subsection 2, paragraph (p) of section 1, so that the latter part of the paragraph will now read:
-or is contained in a package which contravenes the same;
On section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (k)-[DOT] "Renovated1 butter."


Mr. CRERAR:: What is the significance of this change?

Dairy Industry Act


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Two "or's" have
been inserted in this paragraph, so that now any of these processes constitutes renovated butter.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Is the minister quite sure it is going to have the effect he intends? Would not the word "rechurned" there apply only to refined? Should not the minister put in the words "in any case"? Otherwise it would define renovated butter as melted butter, which would apply to all kinds of butter in the summertime.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know how a legal mind would interpret that, but it is the way the draftsman put it. To clarify and to refine are practically the same process. The definition of "renovated butter" is made to include butter which has been melted and rechurned without clarifying. Many of these processes mean melting down.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the rechurning an
essential part of the process in any case?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I think my hon. friend knows that himself.


John Livingstone Brown: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Rechurning, by incorporating the old material with the new, used to be practised more in years gone by than it i9 to-day.


Mr. KNOX:: What is meant by clarifying?


William Richard Motherwell: Clarifying and refining are looked upon as practically the same process. It simply means skimming the residue off the top as you do when making maple syrup.


Mr. CALDWELL:: That, I imagine, would be like the froth on "4.4."


William Richard Motherwell: I have no experience, myself, of that.
_ Mr. BROWN:	But the clarifying or refining in itself would not constitute renovated butter?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is the rechurning with those other processes which constitutes renovated butter.


John Livingstone Brown: Then it is very doubtful
if this language expresses what is intended.


William Richard Motherwell: If there is any
doubt about it we will let the paragraph stand.


Arthur Meighen: The minister can cure
it in a second by putting in the words "in any case" after "and."
231i


William Richard Motherwell: Then I move to
amend the paragraph by inserting between the words "and" and "rechumed" the words "in any case." The paragraph will now read:
(k) "renovated butter" or "process butter" means any butter which has been melted or clarified or refined and in any case rechurned.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. .
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (o)- Dominion analyst.
Arthur Meighen: Was this defined before?
Mr. MOTHER'W ELL: I think I explained that on the resolution. We have a number of Dominion analysts under salary, and others who are appointed by order in council without salary, but their appointment is an assurance to the public that we recognize them as competent men to whom samples may be sent for correct analysis.


Thomas Langton Church: It seems to me that this legislation gives the Dominion officials very wide jurisdiction, and its exercise may enhance the price of dairy products, which, goodness knows, are already very high. This being a subject of Concurrent jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces, has the minister consulted the Justice department as to whether this legislation is ultra vires of parliament? Do not the provincial governments maintain officials to do this work? And who has been complaining and requesting this legislation?


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman's;
questions scarcely come under this section.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a general'
law for the Dominion and is applicable largely' to dairy products intended for export, so it is entirely a federal matter.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister mean to include under this paragraph a seed analyst?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: The paragraph reads:
Dominion analyst" means any analyst appointed by the government of Canada and having authority to make analyses for any public purpose.
I presume that would include an analyst of iron ore, of silver ore, or of anything.


William Richard Motherwell: The inference, I
imagine, is that this is an interpretation of "Dominion analyst" as applied to this act. This is an interpretation for the act we are considering, not for any other act.
361S

Dairy Industry Act


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


William Richard Motherwell: If we attempted to express specifically everything that is plainly implied, we should have a rather cumbersome act. This cannot be the interpretation clause for any other act than the present one.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the minister add the words at the close of his definition, "having authority to make an analysis for any public purpose under this act." We should not legislate by inference. The minister will be coming back next session and patching the law up again.


William Richard Motherwell: Do not let my right hon. friend be exercised about that. In the first instance these laws were enacted years ago, and I am only trying to iron out kinks that were left in them by my right hon. friend's government. The old act says:
In this act, unless the context, otherwise requires,- "butter" means the food product commonly known as butter.
And "creamery" means so-and-so; "dairy" means so-and-so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What does "analyst" mean?


Arthur Meighen: It is not defined.


William Richard Motherwell: It was not defined
in the old act, and that is why it is underlined here. In any consolidation of this act the whole thing would run concurrently under these various subheads down to "Dominion analyst" in the amendment, and the words "in this act" would apply to them all. I am not a legal authority, but surely that would be the case.


Arthur Meighen: It certainly applies to
all; nobody suggested that it did not. I have no doubt the minster is a good farmer, but I would not recommend him to the study of law at his age.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no intention of doing so. I would say the same for my right hon. friend and suggest that he hesitate just as much about trying to study agriculture at his age.


Arthur Meighen: I will try to point my
meaning out to the minister; it is not very material to me whether he accepts it or not. The amendment to the last was not factious in its character, and this is not either. The way the act will read, including this definition, is as follows:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,- "Dominion analyst" means any analyst appointed by the government of Canada and having authority to make analyses for any public purpose.

I do not think it is the minister's intention that "Dominion analyst" shall mean anything of the kind in this act. Where "Dominion analyst" appears throughout the various clauses of the act he would not want it to mean a Dominion analyst of seeds, but it would mean that by his definition. I made a very simple suggestion which would cure everything in a minute; it is merely a little negligence in drafting. It could read "for any public purpose under this act." I do not think the word "public" is necessary, but it does not do any harm.


William Richard Motherwell: We will let this
paragraph stand until we draft, that and make sure it does not apply to some other act.


Arthur Meighen: All right.


George Newcombe Gordon: Paragraph (o) stand?.
Paragraph (p), "illegal dairy product" has been amended by the committee on Agriculture by substituting the word "which " for the word "with" on line 23-a clerical error.
Paragraph (p) agreed to.
On paragraph (q)-"Oleomargarine"


William Richard Motherwell: There was no
definition before.


Arthur Meighen: I do not object to the
drafting at all, but this is a pretty wide definition of oleomargarine. It may be safe to do it, I do not know; more practical people would be better judges of that than I am. It says:
All food substances other than butter, of whatever origin, source and composition which have the appearance of and are prepared for the same use as butter.
I do not know what that might include; it is pretty wide.


William Richard Motherwell: It is meant to be
wide. My right hon. friend is quite right. In entering prosecutions we have to prove everything right up to the hilt before we can get a conviction, because sympathies go to the individual when the government is prosecuting; so that everything has to be made plain. We have all sorts of concoctions with oleo oils and cocoanut oils and we have all proportions of butter included therein. While the usual understanding is that oleomargarine contains only a small amount of butter, sometimes we have compounds called "manna" which contain fifty per cent of butter. We have to make the provision wide and comprehensive to cover all the various compounds that are imitations of butter. Then, the oleo *oil portion of the beef fat is a constituent part in oleomargarine, and when mixed with

Dairy Industry Act
milk fats this oleo oil resembles oleomargarine.


Mr. LADNER:: Unless there is some other qualifying clause, this is wide enough to include lard.


William Richard Motherwell: No, because oleo
oils do not come from the hog, while lard is usually from the hog.


Mr. HANSON:: I submit that it is wide
enough to include lard, and I think the minister ought to reconsider this definition.


Arthur Meighen: It is a question whether lard is ever used for the same purposes as butter. It may be; I do not know.


Mr. HOEY:: Would this not apply to
cream cheese?


William Richard Motherwell: Lard is entirely
a cooking compound. There is no fear of its being sold as butter.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Both lard and butter are
used for many cooking , purposes. The minister's antipathy to oleomargarine has led him to an extreme of description that will bring trouble to the department and to the country.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no antipathy to it. I thought we were better without it; that is all. You cannot have this working both ways:
And are prepared for the same use as butter.
If butter is sometimes used as lard, I do not know of any such use. I can recall when lard was used as butter as a spread on bread.


Mr. FORKE:: Did the minister ever hear
the word "kitchen" used


William Richard Motherwell: Yes-a very long
time ago.


Robert Forke: Would that not apply? It
is an old-fashioned word, I know.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a colloquial
term. I do nqt think it is put on the market.


Robert Forke: I think the minister is too
careful altogether. He is so determined that butter will be put on a high shelf by itself that he does not dare to let anything come within approaching distance of it. He uses the word "oleomargarine" to include margarine that never saw oleo of any bind.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
knew what we have to compete against in the British market with other countries much
more adapted to dairying than we are, he would realize that we must have sufficient restrictions to be able to prosecute and secure convictions. We are asking for nothing that we have not found to be quite necessary in carrying out any prosecutions we undertake. We have to be able to prove our case right to the hilt, or the decision goes against the government. I can assure my hon. friend that this is not being done with any pernickety desire at all. Further, I know, and I am sure the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) know, and as times goes on we shall all get to know intimately, that we are to-day, far more than ever we were before, under the necessity of successfully competing in the markets of the world with countries in the Antipodes, such as New Zealand and Australia. A necessary feature of that is to see that law-breakers are presecuted and that they do not do anything which will prejudice our goods in another market. All I want to do is in a general way to improve the quality of farm produce, and in every possible way to encourage the idea of paying on the basis of quality. That is our policy all along the line as regards dairy products or anything else. That is absolutely imposed upon us by the markets of the world to-day, and I am referring particularly to the main market, the ' British market. These products come from all parts of the world, and one phase of the procedure is to be able to control the situation at home in order that our goods may arrive abroad in proper condition. I would be sorry to impose any restriction which we could do without. I have no antipathy to oleomargarine. We discussed it very fully; it is not an issue just now, but we did not have a definition before, and now we have to give it a definition.


John Livingstone Brown: Of course the last part
of the minister's remarks do not apply. They are an argument against oleomargarine. The question before us is to get a definition of oleomargarine that will be adequate and yet not too exclusive. I imagine this definition would include such a substance as peanut butter that is put on the market under its own name, and properly used.


William Richard Motherwell: It would not include peanut butter.


John Livingstone Brown: Beyond all doubt, peanut
butter would come within the scope of this definition. It is a food substance and it certainly has some origin. The definition says

Dairy Industry Act
"of whatever origin." Peanut butter is a composition; it has the appearance of and is prepared for the same use as butter.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume my hon. friend has seen peanut butter?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: It does not resemble butter made from milk fat. It is quite dark.


John Livingstone Brown: It depends upon what
degree of resemblance is asked for.


William Richard Motherwell: The commodity
must be capable of being mistaken for butter. You can get peanut butter in any retail store where it is handled, put up in little glass containers. It is quite dark. In fact, it is more nearly black than the colour of butter.


John Livingstone Brown: I understand that oleomargarine in itself is a very indefinite term. Would at not be possible to frame a definition that would more adequately describe it and yet not be too inclusive?


William Richard Motherwell: My staff went over this very carefully. After that we asked some of the officers, including the president of *be Dairy Council of Canada, Mr. Stonehouse. of Toronto, and his secretary to come here; and they and my officials went over every clause of this carefully, including the interpretation. They all O.K.'d this definition. That, of course, is not necessarily conclusive evidence, this Parliament is the last supervising body; but it is also significant that this definition ran the gauntlet of the Agricultural committee without any change. That still is not conclusive evidence, and I recognize that this sifting committee is the final process. But there is no resemblance between peanu' butter and butter made from milk fat.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Does the definition cover
apple butter?


William Richard Motherwell: No. That is made from apples.


Mr. WARNER:: Some hon. members are
afraid that this will discriminate against lard by including it. I do not think it is possible to put up lard in containers to resemble butter in a way to cause confusion or difficulty under this section.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The point in regard to
the definition is simply this. How is a court going io interpret it? Some question may arise in the administration of the act as regards prohibition of some commodity where the question of lard will come under confMr. Brown.]
sideration. I will ask the minister to apply his mind for just a minute to these definitions.
Oleomargarine means all food substances-
Let us hold lard in mind.
-other than butter, of whatever origin, source and composition which have the appearance of-
Lard undoubtedly has the appearance of butter; "winter butter," we call it.
-and are prepared for the same use as butter.
The definition does not say that it is to be used for the same .purpose as butter. The definition is peculiar. It says:
-and are prepared for the same use.
I do not know just what that means; in fact I do not 'hink it means very much. Lard is used in making cakes and so is butter; lard or butter is used for shortening; lard is used for almost as many things in the kitchen, apart from the table, as butter is used for. There can be no argument or question about that. I would suggest that the minister take subclause (2) into reconsideration and submit it to the legal department so as to get a definition which will be precise, and as regards which there will be no necessity to go to the courts to find out what parliament meant. It is quite easy to find a definition of oleomargarine which will not include other things it is not intended to include.


William Richard Motherwell: Lard has not the
appearance of butter. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman knows what lard is, and it would not be Io his discredit if he did not know where lard came from, or never saw it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister always poses as a superman on all questions in connection with agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: No. I was saying
it would not be to the hon. member's discredit if he did not know where lard came from, or never saw it. Lard has not the appearance of butter. It is not made for that purpose. Is it any wonder that we have to have an iron-plated law in order to get past lawyers on the other side-not on the other side of the House, but on the other side of the case-when we are prosecuting? You have them there in all forms and all qualities, arrayed three or four deep, discussing the composition of lard. How are we going to get a conviction under such circumstances. I appeal to the representatives of the agricultural class to say, in such a case as that, if there should not be the widest possible kind of definition for these laws if I am going to get past this array of talent we shall surely be up against, and get a conviction. My hon

Dairy Industry Act
friend has supplied the best argument I could get for this definition.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The trouble with the minister is that he endeavours to answer arguments of merit by casting some reflection upon the limitations of knowledge of certain hon. members on the subject of agriculture while he considers himself to be a walking encyclopaedia.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The difficulty is this: When the minister is not satisfied with the points or the merits of the contentions submitted by hon. members, instead of meeting merit with merit he engages in mental gymnastics of a humorous kind which attract the attention of members to something else. I am not joking about this matter. I have had a legal training, and I am sure I shall be supported by every hon. member similarly qualified, in the statement that the definition here is confusing and partakes of the very essence of mental gymnastics itself. It possesses every element for causing confusion and consequently there will be great difficulty in administering the act. If the minister will submit that definition to the legal department, instead of forcing it through here, he will find there is more merit in what I say than he admits now when he resorts to ridicule.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend says the definition is confusing. Perhaps it is, to him. There are a great many discussions on legal questions in this House that are confusing to the farmers including myself. If a man is not thoroughly informed on agricultural subjects there must inevitably be times when points arise that are confusing to him.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will be astonished to learn that in the main I agree with his purpose in this section.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh no, I think all sensible people will agree with it.


Arthur Meighen: These things are not hard to cure if the minister will be a little more charitable toward other people. I want to help the minister in every way that I can to get a definition that will be as wide as possible. I think it should be as wide as possible. But experience may have taught him that the reason he loses these law suits is because he has sloppy law; his statutes are not properly framed.


William Richard Motherwell: These are old statutes.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest to the minister that he could cure one trouble by pluralizing the word " use " at the end of the paragraph. Then, I do not think he could possibly run into any difficulty. There is only one other suggestion that I make as to this definition. It is that a definition should never start the way this one does. It reads:
"Oleomargarine" means all food substances other than butter-
And so on. Oleomargarine cannot mean " all "; it means any one of them. I am not finding fault with the minister, it is his draftsman. He cannot have a good one; I do not know who he is. Take his definition in the preceding paragraph, it reads properly:
"Illegal dairy product" means any dairy product which does not conform-
And so on. That is right. The present paragraph goes on to define oleomargarine as meaning " all " food substances which have the appearance of and are prepared for the same use as butter. It cannot mean all of them. It should read:
Oleomargarine means any food substance other than butter, of whatever origin, source and composition which has the appearance of and is prepared for the same uses as butter."


William Richard Motherwell: I will accept that
amendment because I believe it will answer the purpose better.


Mr. STANSELL:: I am quite in sympathy with what the minister desires to accomplish. I also agree with what he says about the necessity of safeguarding the purity of Canadian products in the markets of the world so that we can get our fair share of the available trade. At the same time, I am sure that this wording is not sufficiently clear to bring about what the minister desires to accomplish. If the wording had been perfectly clear, and if there were mo danger of confusion or any difficulty arising in connection with the matter, it would have been perfectly plain to us. But the' very fact that there is misunderstanding and confusion tells me that if the act is passed in this shape confusion will arise when the law is being enforced. I would earnestly recommend the minister to let this clause stand, and see if it cannot be redrafted and placed in a more acceptable form than it is at present.


William Richard Motherwell: It is one of the
delights of my life to agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen); he and I seem to be the only ones that are agreed on this matter. If he will move that the word "uses" be employed instead of "use"
Dairy Industry Act

I will second the motion. That will evidence a fraternal spirit that we do not always see here.


John Livingstone Brown: Is that the only change?


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that the word "all" be changed to "any;" that the word "have" be changed to "has;" and the word "use" be changed to "uses."


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the paragraph
will read as follows:
''Oleomargarine" means any food substances-


Arthur Meighen: Make "substances" singular.


George Newcombe Gordon: -any food substance other than butter, of whatever origin, source and composition which has the appearance of and is prepared for the same uses as butter.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right.


Mr. CARROLL:: What would my right
hon. friend think of substituting the word "or" for the word "and" between "sources and composition?"


William Richard Motherwell: I think the wording is all right as agreed upon. If we adopt further changes the paragraph will be so mauled that nobody will know what it means.


Thomas Langton Church: There has been considerable complaint by the health department of the city from which I come in regard to this particular matter, and the many changes which the minister has made in the act since he has been at the head of this department. The city of Toronto maintains officials, as does the Department of Agriculture, in order to see that the law as to the purity of butter, milk, and other food products brought into its precincts is observed. No less a sum than 12,000,000 is spent in administering the health regulations and seeing that these are properly carried out. The minister poses as a free trader and so do his colleagues, yet they are found supporting amendments to the law which are nothing less than paternalistic legislation of the worst kind. In fact I might go further and say to my hon. friends to my left who are free traders that this legislation constitutes the worst form of protection I have ever witnessed. We are proposing here to say that something is oleomargarine When it is not oleomargarine. The minister said the next war would be between man and the insect. To-day with the many acts the minister brings in, no one can tell where we are between the province and the federal field. I fail to see the value of this paternalistic legislation. Considerable complaint has been made. Nobody 
knows the law. There are many regulations in regard to the industry to-day which are Virtually in restraint of trade, and which have the effect of enhancing prices. The people of Canada are divided fifty-fifty in regard to the need and advisability of anti-oleomargarine legislation. The minister is becoming a tonic specialist for Canada. There are many other matters besides milk and butter which the minister might take in hand-"4.4" and other bad liquors for instance, and he might secure better beverages all along the line for the public. I say there is too much legislation in regard to agriculture such as the Dairy Act and other red tape acts all through the minister's department. Seven or eight agricultural bills have been brought down this session and every one of these related to requests with regard to the various commodities which are sold and on which the provinces have concurrent legislation. The minister and hon. members to my left here although free traders, are now championing protection in its worse form. Certainly, with such drastic amendments the act shouLd have been consolidated and all these drastic changes, which affect every man, woman and child in this country, should have been brought down in the form of one measure after an examination of the whole subject and a conference with the representatives of the different provinces. The medical health officer in Toronto spends a lot of money on milk and butter regulation. No one ever died from eating oleomargarine but people have died from drinking bad liquids.


William F. Carroll: I do not want the Minister of Agriculture to think that all the genius for moving amendments rests with the hon. leader of the opposition. Another amendment should be made to this bill to make the meaning clearer, and that is the substitution of the word "or" for "and" between the words "source" and "composition."


William Richard Motherwell: This is getting
better and better.


Arthur Meighen: The word should be "or."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. [DOT]
William Richard Motherwell: Any more amendments?


Mr. McQUARRIE:: It seems to me that
the easy manner in which the minister accepts amendments to his bill shows that it has not been properly drawn. Probably he drew it himself.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I did not draw it.

Dairy Industry Act
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	He may be like the
Premier of British Columbia, who at one time acted as attorney general, although he never had any legal training whatever. It seems to me that whoever drew the bill had better look over it again and see whether it cannot be properly drawn. It is a very dangerous procedure to have bills chopped up in this manner in committee, not having received proper consideration by the legal officers of the crown. The present method of drafting bills leads to the mischief which the minister has been speaking about. They say that we have too many lawyers in the House.


An hon. MEMBER :: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, if the House were composed exclusively of lawyers we would have much less trouble with the legislation than at the present time-


William Richard Motherwell: I have no trouble whatever.


William Garland McQuarrie: It would be better than having the House composed of members who do not know anything about the law. some of whom do not possess very much common-sense.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order, order.


William Garland McQuarrie: With all due deference and respect to the minister, I would suggest that this particular section should be referred back to the legal department, if he has one.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: Or to the legal department for the preparation of the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: All these bills go through the general department here, whatever it is called. We draft the bill in my department and then it goes through the regular process. It has gone through one sifting by lawyers already. It is like putting the grain through a sieve the second time. I do not pretend to be a lawyer and have no desire to be one. I am only professing to handle this from the departmental end, and, as to how it goes through, I am at the mercy of the lawyers. It was drawn by officers of my department and we do not make any apology if all the i's are not dotted and ail the t's are not crossed.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this bill contains eleven sections, each one having a considerable number of subsections. We have been dealing all this afternoon with one section, and during that time we have accepted three amendments offered by the leader of the opposition and an hon. gentleman opposite; we have set aside another section to be reconsidered and are now being asked by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) to defer another section for reconsideration.


William Garland McQuarrie: No, the same one.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, the same one for another reason. I would suggest, not merely that these suggestions be referred back for reconsideration, but that the whole bill be referred back and have it drawn up properly. I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a few days ago we had two agricultural bills before us. On the first measure the ex-Minister of Finance and myself spent an hour trying to put a certain point over to the Minister of Agriculture and totally failed, because he ended up by cheerfully expressing the view that we did not know what we were talking about. We despaired of any further effort, and the bill went through, but I th.nk time will show that we did know what we were talking about. The next bill consisted of three sections and it was reported without the committee passing any of the sections, with the intention of having the measure redrafted. Here we are starting to deal with another measure, and there are several similar bills on the order paper. I suggest that we should consider establishing a dose season for agricultural legislation for a little while. A lot of the sections are trivial amendments of something passed a year or two ago, and which we will be asked to amend again a couple of years from now. I think this legislation has not been properly considered before being placed before us, and I think it would facilitate the business of the House-because we are not here to delay the business of the House, and that has not been the attitude of hon. gentlemen-to bring the legislation before the House in a proper legal form, and there will be much less trouble in putting it through.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
just following up the line of his remarks on the Dairy bill the other day. I did not look up the original bill. It looked to be very simple, but when I did look it up I found, to my surprise, that the government which preceded the present administration, or possibly the government in power previous to that administration-certainly not this government-was responsible for the provisions of the bill. I refer to the Meat and Canned Food Act. The reason that we did not get
Dairy Industry Act

along with this measure was this. When ws came to look it up we found that two departments, the Marine department and the Agriculture department, were administering the one act. I was asked by the hon. gentleman from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) if this measure included fish. My officers always told me we had nothing to do with fish, and naturally I assumed that we had nothing to do with it. I may say it was done by some former government; it may have been the Liberal government or the Conservative government, but that is not the point. I have never had any experience of two departments administering an act, which would show to my hon. friend from Vancouver South, if he wanted further evidence, that I do not pretend to know it all and that I never expect to know it all; as long as I am alive I expect to be a pupil in that respect. So that if there is difficulty in regard to an act which is administered by two ministers, that is not so overwhelmingly serious after all. If I refused all amendments that were submitted hon. members would say that I was trying to put legislation through arbitrarily. I have never refused any amendment which I thought would improve legislation I was attempting to put through, and the amendments that have been offered by the official opposition as well as by my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) have all been in the direction of improvement. The bill was originally drafted by the members of my staff and it passed through the usual channel to ensure its being in the proper form. Surely it would not be wise for me to reject all amendments offered. But hon. gentlemen must not magnify any defects that appear in the bill and tell any long cock-and-bull story about having to send it somewhere or other outside of the House for rejuvenation-or rechurning shall I say? -or renovating, or whatever may be the terms that have been applied to the present legislation. Let us deal with the matter soberly and sensibly. I am willing to share in all the fun that is going, because this House does become solemn and dull occasionally; but we must not carry this sort of thing too far, we must try to go ahead with the business of the House.


John Lawrence Stansell: I am not a lawyer and I do not even know that I could qualify in the second grade, that of common sense, as suggested by an hon. member to my left. So far as I can see, however, the amendments that have been offered would all tend to improve the bill and certainly they would make it clearer to me.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Even with all
these amendments, is it not possible that the interpretation is wide enough to include certain forms of cheese? There are some brands of cheese made to-day that are spread like butter, and the bill should make it quite clear that these are not to be regarded as any form of butter.


William Richard Motherwell: Butter is spoken
of as a spread, but you cannot spread cheese.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You can spread
cream cheese.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that my
hon. friend has had on the order paper a question dealing with this very matter, and I think the time is coming when we shall require some form of legislation in this regard. But hon. gentlemen can see what trouble I have in passing even such legislation as concerns the dairy products as they come directly from the cow; and if I were to bring down a bill dealing with kraft cheese it will be seen what difficulty I should encounter. But such legislation will undoubtedly be necessary some day; there should be some regulation covering the export of cheese such as my hon. friend has in mind. So far the hon. member is the only one who has agitated for it, but I have a record of the matter not only on paper but in the back of my head, and some day the question will have to be considered. A large portion of the exports from Canada consists of this artificial cheese, but I do not think that in the meantime there is any danger of its being mistaken for butter.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not think the
minister would know kraft cheese if he saw it walking around the streets. He talks about its being spread, but that cannot be done very well. There are other kinds of cheese, such as MacLaren's cheese that comes in little jars, that can be spread, as well as Quebec cream cheese and other varieties.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph (r) subsection (2), section 1 agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2, subsection (1)-Process butter, etc.-agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Adulterants not to be kept on certain premises.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This provision goes rather far. To say that because adulterants are found on the premises this shall be conclusive evidence of an intent to use them in the

Dairy Industry Act
manufacture of the article in question is drastic legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: We consider it
necessary. When you find these ingredients about a creamery they can be there for no other purpose.


William F. Carroll: I do not think that the
paragraph as worded is very wise. If liquor is found in any shop or place of business in prohibition provinces it is prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for sale. But in this case, a man might have certain adulterants on the premises for an entirely different purpose and he might be able to prove conclusively that they were not intended for use in the making of butter. Under this provision he would not be allowed to give any evidence in his defence; the words "conclusive evidence" would preclude him from attempting to prove for what purpose he kept these ingredients. I think the intention of the minister and the interests of the industry would both be better served if, instead of the words "conclusive evidence," the words "prima facie proof" were used. That would enable the accused to give evidence on his own behalf.


William Richard Motherwell: That would be
satisfactory. Personally I never intended that the mere finding of such ingredients on the premises should convict anyone. If the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) will raise no objection I will accept the amendment. I move that the words "conclusive evidence" in lines 19 and 20 be struck out and that they be replaced by the words "prima facie proof."


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister kindly explain in English and briefly, what "prima facie" means?


William Richard Motherwell: That again is
where my education is lacking.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Butter, character of and weight.
Arthur Meighen: What is the purpose of
this section? It is pretty hard to read it while we are waiting a minute.


William Richard Motherwell: There is very little change here; mainly it is a renumbering. I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman's suggestion that this should have been consolidated, but we had reasons for amending the act, which reasons I do not need to enter into now. The changes are indicated on the
right hand page. What is added is underlined.


Arthur Meighen: I will ask the minister
to have his deputy refer to to-day's Hansard before he brings in this bill again, for I think he should insert in section 2 after the word "act" the same words exactly as he has after the word "act" here in section 3, that is, "as amended by section 4 of chapter 43 of the statutes of 1923." This must be more than a mere re-arrangement, and it is an important section.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a re-arranging and amending as shown on the opposite page. I admit that where an act is amended two or three times it is very confusing to follow the numbering of the sections; that is why a consolidation is better.


Mr. BOYS:: Are we to understand that
the only change produced by this section is the leaving out of the words "of butter to which milk or cream has been added," which appear in paragraph (b) of subsection 1? If that is the effect, why in the world we want all this I cannot see. I thought the minister was seeking simplicity. Here is a good opportunity to get it.


William Richard Motherwell: It was thought
not to be necessary.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Chairman, I am putting
a definite and, as far as I know, an intelligent question to the minister:	Are we to understand that the only thing done by this proposed amendment is to eliminate the words "or butter to which milk or cream has been added," which appear in paragraph (b)? If so, why in the world does not the minister have a section striking them out and have done with it?


William Richard Motherwell: The drafting is
modelled this way by the law clerk.


William Alves Boys: What has that got to do with
what I am asking?


William Richard Motherwell: I understood you
were asking me a question with reference to subsection 1 of section 3.


William Alves Boys: I am not finding fault with
the work of anyone. If I rightly understand what the minister has told the committee, it is that the words appearing on the right hand page, which I have quoted twice already-and which perhaps I had better quote a third time, "or butter to which milk or cream has been added"-are struck out. I again say, if
Dairy Industry Act

that is the only purpose of this amendment, why do we need more than a section simply striking those words out? May I try to assist the minister in understanding what I have been endeavouring to make plain? In the first place, I want to heartily commend those in charge of the amendments for making them plain to the House in two ways:	In the
sections which are being amended we have the new words generally indicated by a heavy line drawn underneath, and to show us what the former section was we have it on the opposite page in different type. Now, looking through section 3, I do not find anything underlined, indicating that there are no new words there.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I turn to the right-hand page
to see what words are left out, and we find the words I have quoted three times, and no'hing else. If that is so. I would suggest to the minister that instead of having this cumbersome and utterly unnecessary method of amending the act, he should simply strike the words out of the section.


William Richard Motherwell: If I understand
my hon. friend aright, I 'hink he wants to know why the words "or butter to which milk or cream has been added" are dropped out?


William Alves Boys: The minister has not even
yet got what I want. I do not know whether it is due to the stupidity of a lawyer or the stupidity of a minister.


William Richard Motherwell: We will take it
both ways.


William Alves Boys: I would be inclined to think
that the minister is entitled to at least fifty per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: I will take my
share of it.


William Alves Boys: Is the only purpose of this
amendment to strike out "or butter to which milk or cream has been added?" If so, in-s'ead of these twenty lines, why don't we simply say that section 6 of this act is amended by striking out the words, "or butter to which milk or cream has been added," which appear in a certain numbered line?


William Richard Motherwell: I am going to make a brave struggle to meet my hon. friend. I am sure he can see that I am in good humour, anyhow.


William Alves Boys: I always give him credit for
that.


William Richard Motherwell: What are we going to rechurn in if it is not milk or cream?


William Alves Boys: My goodness! I will only
give the minister ten per cent now.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not necessary; each of us is stupid this time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, I think
I can see the reason for the section being drafted in its present form. For instance, if we simply struck out the words "or butter to which milk or cream has been added," We would not find them in the statute of 1925, and wre would have to turn back to the statute of 1923 to find what is meant.


Arthur Meighen: You have to now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In this case we have
the whole of the section as passed in 1923 with the 1925 amendment striking out these words.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought my hon.
friend knew that much.


William Alves Boys: I did not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not a lawyer,
but having sometimes looked back over the statutes of four or five different years to get at the meaning of an amendment that had been introduced in the House I would like to see all the amendments made in this way. Have the whole act reprinted, consolidating the act and amendments, and then we will not have to employ a lawyer to tell us what the amendments mean.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
quite right. The law clerk insists that when an amendment is made the whole section shall be repeated, although we do not ask that that be done. It is the usual practice.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Paragraph (b) of section 8 repealed.


William Richard Motherwell: This practice is
forbidden, but in the event of some person violating the provision and actually incorporating old cheese into the new curd, then by giving due notice he is permitted to sell the article for what it is.


William Alves Boys: The only change from the old act appears to be the omission of the word "knowingly." On a previous occasion in this House dealing with another act I had occasion to make reference to the same matter, and I want to register my protest now against the leaving out of the word "knowingly." I

Dairy Industry Act
do not think anybody should be found guilty of an offence, either criminal or quasi-criminal, unless it can be shown that he knowingly committed the act. I cannot think it proper that any man who innocently does a thing should be found guilty of a crime or quasicrime. Why does the minister want to omit the word "knowingly?" It is a dangerous thing to do. I know there are similar provisions in the Inland Revenue Act and very great trouble results from them. I suggest that the minister seriously consider whether he wants to put through a provision which will enable any magistrate or judge to convict one accused of an offence unless he has committed the act knowingly.


William Richard Motherwell: When you use the word "knowingly" you make it exceedingly difficult to prove that the act was deliberately committed or that the accused was at all conscious of the wrongdoing, and the result is that the prosecution fails.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If this section applied
to the man who manufactured the product, I could undertsand why the word "knowingly" might be left out, but when it applies to the man who sells, offers, exposes or has in possession for sale, I think we are going too far. Every storekeeper is not an expert in these things; he is not supposed to know. In British law I think it is recognized that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Section 4 was called "passed" before I realized that we were dealing with it, and I would like to refer to that for a moment, if I may. I think the minister is reversing his ordinary practice and opening the door a bit. The old section 7, which is amended by section 4, said:
No person shall either by himself or through the agency of any other person manufacture,-
And so forth. This section if it passes will allow a man to do the prohibited thing through someone else, through some other agency, and he cannot be held responsible. I am just a little afraid of section 4. Also I believe that section 5 is too drastic, and I think that the minister should not insist on it.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think
section 4 opens the door. The amendment covers every medium of handling the product and is, I think, quite sufficient.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not like to put my view against the minister's, although I may possibly be on a par with him as regards legal matters. I do think section 4 is opening the door, and as to section 5 I would not like to see it passed1; I would suggest that the minister reconsider it.


Arthur Meighen: Really, I thought for a while we could fix this act up, but I am getting discouraged. The drafting of the bill is terrible. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, and I do not say he was not intelligent, but he was not trained. In the first place, the member behind me (Mr. Boys) was right, in my judgment, as to section 3. The idea of repealing a section half a page long and re-enacting it for the sake of striking out six words-


William Richard Motherwell: They do that.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but it is not
good drafting. It might be desirable where there are several changes, but where there is only one small change it is fearfully clumsy. But when he comes to section 5 the draftsman abandons this rule. This section by itself does not mean anything, and anyone reading it has to go back to the original act in any case. That criticism applies all through. No rule whatever is followed. But just lef the minister follow me in this- and I call the attention of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) especially to it. Here is a section which says:
No person shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale, any cheese in which has been incorporated during the process of manufacture any inferior curd or cheese, unless due notice has been given of such incorporation.
Now, that is the way it reads. The change is the leaving out of the word " knowingly ", a very material change indeed. Perhaps it is necessary, I am not arguing that at the moment; but it is a change of the most pronounced type, it makes a man guilty whether the act was committed knowingly or not. And here is the explanation given-will hon. members just enjoy this with me for a minute:
The word "knowingly" is removed as redundant and the clause redrafted in order to make it more intelligible.


William F. Carroll: Of course no lawyer ever used that expression.


Arthur Meighen: Imagine addressing such words as that to the House of Commons- telling us that the word " knowingly " was omitted because it was redundant and in order to make the clause more intelligible 1 It is nonsense.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a lawyer's work, as the ri^ht hon. member knows.


Arthur Meighen: If so, he ought to be
arrested. It is absurd to address such rot as that to any person. "Knowingly" is not left out as redundant; it is left out because of
Dairy Industry Act

the difficulty of prosecution, of establishing that the man knew it. Consequently, there are so many evidences of knowingly clumsy draftsmanship as to be impudent. It is really impudence to tell anybody that "knowingly" is left out as redundant. If the minister wants to attain his object, I would give him this suggestion for what he may think it is worth: leave "knowingly" in, but put the burden of proof on the defendant. That is frequently done, although it is pretty drastic. Say that the burden of showing that he did not know shall be on the accused. When the minister is having this redrafted, let him please see that nobody ever again asserts such nonsense as that before a House of Commons or even before a kindergarten class.


William Richard Motherwell: I have to accept
responsibility for this phraseology although I have nothing to do with it, whether I "know" or do not "know;" whether I bring this down "knowingly" or not.


Arthur Meighen: I know. I do not want to be too hard on the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me draw my
right hon. friend's attention to something that happened here two years ago as regards this kind of drafting. I have kicked against it often enough, and I have lost any hope of making any change in draftsmanship here in regard to legislation. The right hon. member will recall that two years ago when an amendment came down to the same act, when a resolution with regard to oleomargarine was actually on the order paper, the bill came down prohibiting oleomargarine. How did that happen to be there? I did not send it up to the law department and my officers did not send it there. But pursuing the same practice, because once a section was amended the draftsman repeated all the other ones, and in that repetition he repeated the prohibition of the manufacture of oleomargarine when a resolution was on the order paper ready for discussion. I had nothing to do but to discharge that bill from the order paper. That was the way in which the prohibition got in the bill. My right hon. friend was suspicious; he thought it got there by some sinister means. We are very careful with these bills. Some of the bills had to be reprinted because in the repetition of the whole section-sometimes in order to get only one word inserted-something else was brought up that we did not want to be brought up and that it was not necessary to bring up, opening up contentious questions. We might as well have had consolidation as to have

it repeated. Some of them were actually repealed in order to avoid repetitions of whole sections for the purpose of eliminating one or two words.
As regards the word "knowingly," I think my right hon. friend's suggestion that the onus of proof be on the defendant is rather extreme. That, I think, is done only in a few cases. I know in some of the liquor legislation in the west, the burden of proof is thrown upon the defendant. That is regarded as being quite contrary to the usual British practice of a man being considered innocent until he is proven guilty. I would not like to bring down a bill embodying that principle of the defendant having to prove his innocence. If, however, the right hon. member thinks it is less drastic-


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it is. In this
case the poor fellow has no chance to prove his innocence at all. He is not allowed to say a word. As soon as he is shown to have sold it, he is guilty.


William Richard Motherwell: I would rather have "knowingly" put in.


William Alves Boys: I would like to support the
suggestion of my leader and I think the minister ought to welcome that suggestion. I quite appreciate there are difficulties from his standpoint. I have been up against this thing a good many times in the courts. If the section were to remain as the minister has it with a subsection worded something like this:
Provided, however, that if the accused can show that he acted innocently, he shall not be convicted.
That is fair. In the first place the department's case is made out by merely showing that the man offered for sale, let us say butter which should not have been offered for sale. Supposing he has done that innocently, I do not think the minister would wish him to be convicted.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


William Alves Boys: Very well. We agree there.
Possibly we should not go any further, but if the minister thinks in the enforcement of this and other similar acts, it is necessary to go a little further, then he might adopt the suggestion that is made and insert a proviso that if the defendant in the case can show that he acted innocently, he is not to be convicted. That prevents the conviction of an innocent man, and at the same time it gives the department, perhaps, a wider scope for the enforcement of the law.

Dairy Industry Act


William Richard Motherwell: I think it would
be almost the same to put in "knowingly."


William Alves Boys: No, it is not. The minister at once thinks a person who is a lawyer is very technical and trying to make trouble and 60 on.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


William Alves Boys: This can be explained. In the one case, the "knowingly" is part of the crown's case, whereas in the other it is not. The crown has presented and closed its case. It establishes its case by merely proving the sale. Then it is up to the defendant. If he cannot satisfy the magistrate of his innocence, he is convicted; if he can satisfy him of his innocence, he is discharged.


William Richard Motherwell: I see the distinction. It is who has to do the proving.


William Alves Boys: Only in that one respect. The
crown must do all the proving of the sale, so it is not a case of a man being assumed to be guilty until he is proven innocent as the minister thought it was at first blush. The crown must make out its case except as regards knowledge. I would not suggest that the words I have offered are the proper words to effect this, but words of that import would meet the case and protect both the accused and the department.


William Richard Motherwell: As the bill is to remain in committee, we will let this section stand.


Mr. COOTE:: I think the power which is
asked for is altogether too wide. The minister . would have plenty of power if he just put back the word "knowingly." I want to protest against such legislation as this because it would put the innocent retailer in a position where he would be almost afraid to handle cheese, if the minister really means what he says in this legislation. If he wants to interfere with the sale of dairy produce, this is a good way to do it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am going to suggest that the minister eliminate the word "knowingly," but employ here the same idea that is found in one of the other sections and in many acts of parliament by using the words "prima facie proof," so that the prosecution proves its case by showing the selling or offering, which is prima facie proof of the man's guilt, but the man can then escape in an equitable way by showing that he was not really responsible. For instance, a grocer might obtain quite a large quantity of this material and sell it
quite innocently. It would be the height of injustice to inflict a severe penalty upon that man when he has no real intent to break the law.


William Richard Motherwell: We cannot have it every way.


Mr. TOLMIE:: With regard to this particular clause, I am not so much afraid of some innocent man getting stuck as of some fellow deliberately selling this mixed cheese or something that is not right. What does the minister propose to do in the way of protecting the public in the selling of this cheese? He has carefully safeguarded the sale of butter. That is quite right. Is it proposed that there shall be marked on the package that it is a mixed cheese, and presuming it is so marked and a man comes in and wants two pounds of cheese, how is he going to know that the grocer is selling him mixed cheese? I should like the minister to take that into consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: The product is
usually sold and notice is given by the cheese board. The practice is not a frequent one. Some intimation however, is given to the public or whoever is making the purchase.
Section 5 stands.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Penalty sections.


William Richard Motherwell: There are so many of these offences committed that we find it necessary to make the penalties severe.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Penalty for obstructing persons enforcing act.
Arthur Meighen: Has the minister come
in contact with offences of this kind?
_ Mr. MOTHERWELL: Very few, but there is a possibility of more in the future. They are very rare at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that
this section has been considered thoroughly enough as yet. I think that hon. members who are accustomed to perusing statutes will see that this section makes the failure to do something an offence before the man has ever been required to do it. Does the minister see what my point is? There is no section so far as I could trace it; one cannot trace these things in a minute-making it obligatory on any one to help the officers of the law, and without making it obligatory on him to do it this section then goes on and
Dairy Industry Act

says that if the man failed to do the thing required of him he is liable. That is ipretty serious. I am quite ready to legislate that anybody who obstructs an inspector should be punishable, but it is quite a different thing to say that any man who fails to do a thing commits an offence. Why, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand would fail to do a thing because they had an opportunity to do it. You cannot pass that kind of legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: This is to meet a case where any person refuses to render the necessary assistance, we will say in a large warehouse where cheese or butter is piled up in great quantities, and the inspector or officer, whoever he is, comes along and requires a certain amount of assistance in order to get at a package. The tenant or whoever is there refuses to give that assistance sometimes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister had better substitute "refuses" for "fails" in the second line.


William Richard Motherwell: He might not at
the time refuse. He might assent and then while assenting fail to do it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I really think the minister is looking for trouble when he words the section in this way. I do not think you can pass an act of that kind; I do not think you could enforce it if it were passed.


William Richard Motherwell: There may be a
little difficulty there but if my hon. friends think the provision is too wide-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think it is altogether
too wide.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friends, of course can imagine a case where the inspector turned away to do something else and on returning found that although the man had assented-he had not refused-had failed to do as he was requested.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If a man is requested
to do a thing and does not do it it is a refusal no matter what he says. We have, probably, a good illustration in Holy Writ where a man said to his son "go work to-day in my vineyard" and he answered and said "I will not"; but aftc.ward he repented and went. And he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, "I go, sir"; and went not. And he who said "I will not" and afterwards went was justified, while the other was condemned.
Mr, MOTHERWELL:	Will my hon.
friend move to substitute the word "refuses" for the word "fails?"
[Mr. Meighen.l


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will move that the
word "refuses" be substituted for the word "fails" in the second line.


Arthur Meighen: I have no particular
business to be warning the minister, but I never saw legislation like that which is proposed here before. I will read the provision to hon. members; if they want to pass it all right. This is the way the law reads now:
Every person who obstructs any person charged with the enforcement of this act in entering any premises to make examination of dairy products* * * or who refuses to permit the making of any such examination, shall be liable to a penalty-
And so forth. That is reasonable. But listen to the wording of the section here:
Any person who obstructs an inspector in carrying out any of the provisions of this act-
It is all right so far. Let me continue:
-or who fails to give any such officer all reasonable assistance in his power-
And so on. Now, if a man is walking
along the street not in the least concerned, who is not even asked-there is a lot of assistance that is in bis power to give and he does not give it; Is he to be guilty of an offence and liable to be committed to gaol?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He would, in this case.
Mr. MEIGHE'N: In other words the man who drafted this provision does not know how to draft. The minister talks about the trouble he has experienced. He will never know what trouble is until somebody tries to enforce this section. He will know what trouble is then. Let us see further:
Any person who obstructs an inspector in carrying out any of the provisions of this act-
I do not object to that:
-or who fails to give any 6uch officer all reasonable assistance in his power, or to furnish him with any information he may reasonably require,
The middle feature is the worst, although the last one is bad too; it says here that if a man fails to do something he is a criminal. The fellow encountered on the street is just as liable as anybody else although he has not been asked to do anything. I could not make a suggestion as to how the section should be worded at the moment, but the minister will be well advised if he reserves this clause.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, whether
this provision would be wise or the contrary will depend on the manner in which it is administered. Under the old act much

Dairy Industry Act
difficulty was experienced, because of having to just nail a man right down in order to prove anything. This provision has been made purposely wide so as to make it easier to prove our case and get a conviction; that is the avowed purpose of it. The provision would not look so extreme if my right hon. friend could picture the circumstances which call for it. Take a warehouse, as I pointed out a few moments ago, and the tenant or owner, as the case may be, refuses to give the necessary assistance to take out some parcels.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right, but
the minister has not said "the owner or the man in charge." Surely the man down the street, who has nothing to do with the matter at all, is not expected to be hauled in off the street and told that he must take out boxes and that if he fails to do so he commits an offence.


William Richard Motherwell: My right hon.
friend has such a vivid imagination he can picture anything.


Arthur Meighen: I am only citing an
extreme case in order to make the argument plain. It may be true there is some difficulty in obtaining a conviction for such an offence, but you cannot make that a justification for rendering a man liable to an offence that he is no more guilty of than the man in the moon. You have got to take care that your legislation is so worded that nobody who is really innocent shall be convicted. But you can convict the whole world under this wording. It needs revision.


William Richard Motherwell: The provision may be unnecessarily wide-I will be quite candid with my hon. friend-at the same time nobody is going out to pick up a person on Wellington street and because he did not do something find him guilty of an offence under this bill. We have to assume that a little modicum of common sense will be exercised in the administration of the law. Having regard to my right hon. friend's legal acumen and his analytical power to split hairs and dissect a piece of legislation, I would possibly take the same position as he does, and allowing for everything I think perhaps it is too wide and not sufficiently definite. Rather than take the necessary time to redraft section 8, we will let it stand.
Section stands.
On section 9-Entering premises; assisting
the inspector.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister will observe that this section really covers all that he needs. I have not been able to follow it carefully, but have not observed any previous difficulty about it. With section 9 as the minister desires to have it passed, he does not require the part of section 8 that I have objected to as being loose.


William Richard Motherwell: Section 8 deals with obstruction.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and here the section defines what obstruction is, and so widely that he does not need the provisions of section 8 at all. If the minister gets a real draftsman to go over the sections again, he can shorten it up by saying that anyone who is guilty of an obstruction shall be liable to such-andi-such a penalty, because he has defined obstruction in section 9.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I suggest that the word " employee " be struck out. I do not think it would be fair to have an officer apprehend an employee who is under the control of a master and say that he shall be exposed to a fine. The same idea would apply to section 8. Why should an inspector come in and say to an employee, " You do this ", or " you do that ", without the consent of the master? I do not think an employee should be subjected to that.


William Richard Motherwell: It might be a joint stock company or something of that kind, and it would be very difficult to get at them.


John Lawrence Stansell: There is no doubt about what the minister wishes to cover, but the last clause will cover it all. The difficulty with the first clause is that it did not define who came under its provisions; it might apply to anyone. This says: "all manufacturers or dealers in dairy products and their employees and all common carriers, railway, steamship ''-and so on. That makes all the provisions that are required, in my judgment, and the other clause only requires a very slight change.


William Richard Motherwell: The first clause
deals with obstruction and the other does not.


John Lawrence Stansell: It makes the clause so that it will apply to anyone.


Arthur Edward Ross: No man can serve two masters, and the employee is under the order of his master and is paid by him, and the government inspector has no right to come in and say, " You do this or I will fine you ".

Dairy Industry Act


William Richard Motherwell: Quite a number of these creameries are joint stock companies with a large number of shareholders, and very likely none of the shareholders 5 p.m. will be there. The creamery is operated by the employees, and if you exclude the employees whom will you prosecute? I think the clause is all right as it stands.


Arthur Edward Ross: You could say the manager and not the employee.


William Richard Motherwell: The manager and
all the employees.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Regulations. Subsection (1) -Definition, etc.


William Richard Motherwell: The term "or constituents thereof " means ingredients like salt and colouring.


Arthur Meighen: The draftsman here has not followed his rule, and one has to go back to the act in order to get the slightest idea of what this means. I do not think it will do any good to read it; one has to study it. The effect of (a) is this: That in addition to empowering to make regulations as to classification, marking and branding of butter and cheese and other dairy products, parliament proposes to empower the Governor in Council to make new definitions of butter, cheese and other dairy products or constituents thereof. There might be need of more definition of the constituents, but there is certainly no more need of definition of the products. I do not know why the word " definition " is put in at all. So far as (a) is concerned I do not see what the amendment is for. We have everything defined in this act so widely that surely we do not need to give the Governor in Council power to define it again.


William Richard Motherwell: There are quite a number of things we have not defined.


Arthur Meighen: The constituents, perhaps.


William Richard Motherwell: There are rennet,
salt and colouring matter, and these are all important, especially the salt.


Arthur Meighen: No, I see. In order to get power to define the constituents the amendment must carry, and I do not object to giving the Governor in Council power to define the constituents, but as to giving power to define butter and cheese and other dairy products, surely they are all defined in the act now.
[Mr. A. E. Ross.}


William Richard Motherwell: Take this kraft
cheese.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Is that not defined?


William Richard Motherwell: It is not defined.
New dairy products are being constantly put on the market and unless we have fairly wide powers to cope with changing conditions by means of order in council I shall only have to come back to parliament frequently to secure amendments. I understand that kraft cheese was one of the things we had in mind. Three or four members of the agricultural committee were under the impression that we should make regulations controlling the export of that product. If this particular article increases I think we shall sooner or later be obliged to define it; at present no one knows what its composition is.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think it is absolutely
necessary that the minister should be given a certain degree of latitude in the matter of regulations, particularly in view of the constantly changing conditions of the market. Very often articles are adulterated and put upon the market in competition with legitimate products and it is important that regulations should be made on short notice to meet such a situation.


William Richard Motherwell: What we are providing will meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart).
Subsection (1) agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Seizure and confiscation.


Arthur Meighen: What is the change
here?


William Richard Motherwell: This merely adds
certain words to make the provision more comprehensive. By an omission the added words were not underlined.
Subsection (2) agreed to.
On subsection (3).


Arthur Meighen: This is all new.


William Richard Motherwell: This provides regulations with regard to the construction of cheese boxes. We have had a great deal of complaint from our representatives on the other side of the Atlantic regarding the condition of cheese boxes on their arrival in the-Old Country. For many years our cheese boxes have been made of very flimsy material and although they are subject to the control of the railway commission it has happened in actual practice that by the time the boxes-have been landed in England they have become sadly dilapidated, so that one would.

Dairy Industry Act
think they had passed through a cyclone. I have received photographs of Canadian cheese boxes landed in England, with complementary pictures of Australian boxes, and the contrast was anything but flattering to us. There is no question that the proper container has something to do with the sale of an article even in such a practical market as the Old Country. There has been no uniformity in the matter of cheese boxes in this country; the thing has, so to speak, simply grown up, Topsy-like, during the past fifty years without any direction. The result is that we have had four different kinds of hoops for various grades of cheese, and boxes of four different sizes; and some manufacturers have actually turned out twelve varieties of cheese boxes. These containers have all been made out of more or less flimsy material and on the whole they 'have reflected great discredit on the business of this country. I think it is highly essential that there should be some uniform system to secure a better class of boxes. It is proposed to arrange for a standardized diameter both for the large boxes and for the small containers and to allow' shippers two or three years in which to utilize the boxes they have on hand and to enable the box-makers to dispose of the wood they have already sawn. This will avoid any loss in this direction. There will 'be no inconvenience to the shippers in changing the boxes. This matter has been discussed during the consideration of the estimates as well as in the agricultural committee, many hon. gentlemen who come from dairy districts agreeing that the provision is necessary. I have also consulted manufacturers and those generally interested in the business and they concur in the wisdom of the proposal, provided that they are allowed to use up the material they have at present on hand. Mr. Daoust, of the harbour board of Montreal, when he came back from the Old Country, called at my office and expressed surprise that an otherwise excellent product should 'be shipped in such an unsatisfactory manner.
Mr. Mac'LEAN (Prince):	Has any weight
been decided on in regard to cheese?


William Richard Motherwell: No, that will be
left to the factory. We are providing a standard diameter and the weight can be made up by the height of the cheese.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I understand that the delivery of our cheese in 'bad condition in the Old Country is due largely to the fact that the article does not fit the container and 232i
thus the box is frequently broken. Perhaps it would be well to have a standard weight of cheese. Butter is shipped in 56-pound boxes, so that there is a standard so far as that commodity .is concerned; but cheese ranges from 70 to 80 pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: If the cheese are
all of the same size there will be no trouble in fitting them into the containers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11, subsection (1)-Establishment of guilt for violation of act.
William F. Carroll: The words "prima facie
evidence" occur in this section. We have already amended one section in which similar words appear, and to make the present provision clearer I move that the words "prima facie evidence" be struck out and the words "prima facie proof" be substituted therefor.
Mr. MEI'GHE'N:	The minister will notice
that the draftsman did not follow his celebrated rule here.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no rule; I
do not pretend to be an authority on legal questions.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are factories that manufacture butter and cheese required to register.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there any penalty
provided for factories that are not registered using the registered number of some other factory?


William Richard Motherwell: Until a factory
secures a registered number we have authority to withhold our certificate for the butter or cheese which it turns out.


Arthur Meighen: I think the amendment
is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. Subsection (1) agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Subsection 2 of section 11 has been amended by the Agriculture committee to read as follows:
The said act is further amended by adding the following as subsection 2 (a) thereof:-
Then 2 (a)-originally 2 (b) follows-expense of analysis.


William Richard Motherwell: That simply means the expense of the analysis is treated as part of the costs of the court.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is subsection 2 (b) as
printed in this bill changed, or is it simply a renumbering of t'he subsection?
Dairy Industry Act


George Newcombe Gordon: Subsection (b) stands
exactly as it is, but it is marked 2 (a).


William F. Carroll: If the minister is anxious that the expense of the analysis should be actually included in the costs of the prosecution, he is not using the correct language, because the words, "shall be deemed," give the magistrate or judge discretion, in the matter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not see any great
objection to giving the magistrate discretion. I can well imagine cases where the person accused should not pay the expenses of the analysis.


William F. Carroll: If he is convicted?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: For instance, we refund fees in this House on certain bills.


William F. Carroll: I am simply pointing out that in all cases the minister may not get this expense, but I have no objection to the provision.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is sufficiently manifest.


Arthur Meighen: I do not very often differ with the lhon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), but I do not quite agree with him there. The old section says that for the purpose of establishing proof there may be resort to a Dominion analyst, who shall make a report, which shall be received as evidence in any proceedings. This paragraph 2 (a) says that any expenses incurred shall be deemed to be a portion of the costs of proceedings and shall be payable by the person accused accordingly. But the act does not make the costs payable by the guilty person. I am not sure that the act even gives the magistrate authority to add the costs to the fine, and consequently if this passes 1 think the magistrate would be bound to make the fellow pay the costs of the analysis .-although in his judgment he should not pay the general costs at all.. I would suggest that we amend the paragraph to read: The expense of the analysis shall be part of the costs.


William Richard Motherwell: That is more concise, I admit, but I think it would have about the same effect.


Arthur Meighen: It is not only shorter,
but it prevents any conflict. As the paragraph stands, the magistrate, it seems to me, would be bound to make the fellow pay the costs of the analysis although in his judgment he should not pay them at all. The result would be that the accused person would be

let off from paying the general costs, but would be forced to pay the costs of the analysis. I would simply make the paragraph read: The expense of the analysis shall be part of the costs.


William Richard Motherwell: I second the
motion.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then, as amended,
paragraph 2 (a) will read:
2.	(a) The expense of the analysis shall be part of the costs.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it ig expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the corporation of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, in addition to the moneys heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation for the construction of harbour improvements by existing legislation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $5,000,000, as may be required to enable the corporation to complete construction of terminal facilities in Quebec harbour for which the plans, specifications and estimates have already been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as may be, likewise, approved as necessary, further to properly equip the said port.
2.	That during the period of construction of the works referred to, the interest payable on the debentures to be deposited with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, under the provisions of the proposed legislation, shall be deemed to be money acquired in the construction of such works and to be a part of the cost of the construction thereof, and may be paid out of the said sum of $5,000,000; the period of construction herein referred to shall begin on the day when the first advance is made on account of said construction, and terminate on such date as the Governor in Council shall determine.
3.	That no advances shall be paid, as above provided for, unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates for the works on which the money to be advanced is to be expended as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before work on the same has been commenced.
4.	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances as they may be entitled to apply for, with statements, in detail, in such form as the minister may direct, and, upon approval of same, authority for the payment of the amount applied tor may be granted by the Governor in Council.
5.	That the corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable wthin twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
6.	That the principal and interest of the sums advanced under the authority of the proposed legislation to the corporation shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property, assets, tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall rank as a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after, the principal and interest of all debentures or bonds heretofore issued by the corporation to the public and amounting to the sum of one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, such debentures or bonds having been issued under the provision of chapter 48 of the statutes of 1898, chapter 34 of the statutes of 1899 and chapter 36 of the statutes of 1907.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to consider this resolution section by section? Section 1.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think, Mr. Chairman, that there should be a general discussion of the resolution before we consider it clause by clause.


George Newcombe Gordon: The general discussion would be permissible on the first clause, which provides for the expenditure.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think it would be
necessary to consider the last clause before we take up the first one. The last clause says:
The principal and interest. . . . shall rank as a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after, the principal and interest of all debentures or bonds heretofore issued by the corporation to the public and amounting to the sum of $1,150,000.
Has the Quebec Harbour Commission ever made any payment of interest or principal in respect to the bonds issued, and if so, how much?


Mr. CARDIN:: The resolution is a very
extended one and contains practically all the details that it is proposed to incorporate in the bill. It provides for a loan not exceeding $5,000,000 for new facilities at the port of Quebec. This request on the part of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec and on the part of the citizens of Quebec has been made to the present government and was made also, I believe, to previous governments, but action has been delayed up to the present. I think we are now justified in granting the request, which has received the approval, I may say, of the companies interested in shipping. In these days of keen competition among trading countries it would seem to be the duty of governments to do all they can to provide necessary facilities at the ports of the country in order to facilitate the handling and transport of goods, which is one of the most interesting and most difficult problems we have to deal with. Canada is one of the most
important trading countries of the world; it is necessary that she should build up her ports and through that development lead to the development of the country as a whole. Expenditures which have already been made upon our ports have proved to be profitable to the public at large. The ports of Montreal, Vancouver, St. John and Halifax are a credit to the country; I think we are all proud that Canada has such facilities. It is by and through its ports that a country is best known abroad; it is through the traffic in and out of our ports that Canada becomes better known to all other countries with whom she has to deal. Montreal is to-day one of the most important ports of the world, and unquestionably its development has played a large part in the progress of all this part of the country. There is room for further development at Quebec also, located1, as it is, at the centre of a very interesting district. When our country starts anew in its progress; when they enjoy in this part of the country the development toward which they are working, I think the port of Quebec will need all the facilities that we are capable of granting them. The government are following a proper policy, it seems to me, in trying to bring about as much development as possible in this port of Quebec, which is one of the greatest natural ports in the world; and I am confident that the result will be to bring about greater progress and expansion. I think, therefore, there can be no serious objection to this expenditure. What the harbour commissioners have in view is the building of a wharf, and the erection of sheds thereon, and the carrying out of some dredging. The proposed wharf will be nearly four thousand feet long, and upon it will be erected sheds for the housing of goods for loading on and off the boats. The work will start about three hundred feet east of what is called the car ferry wharf on the St. Lawrence and go up toward the Quebec bridge. The developments which have so far been carried out at that port have been rather at the mouth of the St. Charles river, at the east side of the city. These proposed developments are to take place on the St. Lawrence in front of the city of Quebec. I said a moment ago that this project was approved by people interested in navigation. It will be well to place on the record the approval of this project which has been given by the Shipping Federation of Canada. This association has sent to the Prime Minister an approval covering the project that the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec have in mind.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the
date of that?

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 24th March, 1924. This
memorial reads:
The memorial of the Shipping Federation of Canada, incorporated by act of parliament of the Dominion of Canada, who own or represent 977,799 gross tons of ocean and coasting shipping trading to the St. Lawrence route, with a capital investment of many millions of dollars, a considerable portion of which is for Canadian account.
1.	Whereas the accommodation at the port of Quebec for the larger cdass of vessels is .entirely inadequate, and the draft of water available will not permit using ports above Quebec, and,
2.	Whereas, the berths available for ocean-going vessels at the port of Quebec are now all allotted for the coming season of navigation and accommodation is unavailable for any other vessels which may desire to trade to Quebec, and
3.	Whereas at the present time a large passenger liner company is seeking accommodation for its vessels at the port of Quebec and none is available, and
4.	Whereas fully two-thirds of passengers and cargo arriving at the port of Quebec is destined to other provinces in the Dominion, and
5.	Whereas the St. Lawrence route is the principal artery of the trade and commerce of the Dominion, and any trade diverted to ports to the south of us through failure to provide adequate accommodation would be a national loss, and
6.	Whereas the government have already spent large sums of money in improving our aids to navigation, and the increased trade which has resulted therefrom during the past twenty-years has fully compensated the country for the expenditures made, and
7.	Whereas the travelling public prefer to go direct to or from their homeland or their intended protracted sojourn without passing through foreign territory, and
8.	Whereas your memorialists have had submitted to them by the Quebec harbour commissioners a general plan providing for the present and future requirements of the port of Quebec, which has received the unanimous endorsement of your memorialists, and
9.	Whereas your memorialists feel reluctant in recommending this plan to the government at such a time of financial stringency, but, nevertheless, are strongly of the opinion that unless Canadian routes are developed to the fullest extent possible, there is danger of Canada losing trade to competing ports to the south of us, where immense sums of money are being expended annually in providing modern ocean terminal facilities.
Therefore your memorialists are of the opinion that an appropriation should be granted to the Quebec harbour commissioners to enable them to commence this national work, as it may be pointed out that the matter is urgent when it is considered that it will take five years before any of the additional berths can be provided for the use of ocean traffic. .
Furthermore, your memorialists have the greatest confidence in the present Board of Harbour Commissioners and feel that any money voted by the government will be judiciously spent in providing accommodation for the present and future needs of the port of Quebec. The whole most respectfully submitted.
Wlliam I. Gear,
Chairman. Thomas Robb,
Secretary.
Although this approval was given in the month of March, 1924, the shipping federation entertains the same view.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Conditions have . entirely changed, that is all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The condition of the
country-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has entirely
changed and my hon. friend knows that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I contend that the shipping federation entertains the same view in regard to the project. In answer to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), I may say that the harbour commissioners have paid the interest on the bonds issued to the public to an amount of $1,150,000. The interest has always been paid by the commissioners.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have they paid any interest to the government on advances made by the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am one of those who believe the harbour of Quebec should be developed; but there is a consideration that comes before further development of Quebec harbour, and that is that the present harbour facilities shall be used to its full capacity. In this respect, I feel that an injustice is being done, not only to the port of Quebec, but to the Transcontinental railway and to the ports of Halifax and St. John. When the Transcontinental railway was built, we were told that it was built for the express purpose of furnishing a short direct route to the eastern seaboard, a route with the best grades of any road in Canada, and this was done at an enormous expense to this country. Traffic, has not gone over that road in the volume it should. For instance, the port of Quebec is nearer to Winnipeg by rail than is the port of Montreal. I think I am well within the facts in stating that. Moreover, the port of St. John is nearer Winnipeg by rail, using the Transcontinental railway, than the port of Portland is to WTnnipeg via Montreal. This has been a sore point with us in the Maritime provinces-for, I was going to say generations; at least, ever since the Transcontinental was built. If the government will guarantee that traffic will go over the Transcontinental in the shape of grain, cattle and other products coming from the west to the east, and products that the west needs going westward, we shall have no hesitation in assisting the minister in developing the port of Quebec. But until this is done, I feel quite reluctant to support this resolution or a bill based upon it. If the traffic were put over the Transcontinental that it is capable of handling, if the traffic were put through the port of Quebec that it is capable of handling with its present

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
facilities, and then something further were needed, the minister would be well justified in coming to this parliament to get a further loan for the Quebec Harbour Commission. For instance, when the minister's estimates were up a few days ago, I for one took the view that at present the channel should be deepened as far as the harbour at Quebec for large ocean-going vessels and not on to Montreal; that the port of Quebec should be developed to accommodate those vessels; and that traffic should be brought over the Transcontinental to Quebec to furnish cargoes for those ocean-going vessels. I still hold those views.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: How can that be done if the port of Quebec is not enlarged?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is my point exactly. The point is that Quebec has not been given the traffic it can handle at the present time. We have over-built our railways, we have over-developed our ports in some directions, and we have carried to a port in the United States a large quantity of traffic that should go through Canadian ports. This has been done because east-bound traffic from the west has largely centred at Montreal. Then when water navigation closes to Montreal in the fall, we have an immense stock of grain and other products that must go overseas. It is a long haul from Montreal to Halifax or St. John as compared with the haul to Portland. If more of this traffic were centred at Quebec,-there will be plenty of traffic for Montreal, too-then when navigation closed, this surplus tonnage stored in the elevators at Quebec would go east to the Maritime seaboard, would furnish traffic for our Transcontinental railway to those ports in the east and would, I think, help to reduce the deficit on the Canadian National Railways. But, as I said, just as long as the whole traffic is headed for Montreal, we in the Maritime provinces have no hope of developing our ports and of getting the traffic that we feel we are entitled to and that we were promised at the time of confederation.
I think, possibly, the government but faintly realizes the feeling in the Maritime provinces that they have lost out by going into confederation, largely due to the fact that the promises made when confederation was entered into have not been carried out. I am not blaming any particular government for this failure but this is the sore point-the perpetual withholding of the fulfilment of the terms of confederation. While possibly we have nothing in black and white that we can produce to prove the promises made I think that all
the arguments used at the time to induce the Maritime provinces to come into confederation have been violated; at 'least nearly everyone of them with the exception of the promise to construct the Intercolonial railway, and even in that respect I feel that the representatives of the Maritime provinces at that time were just a little bit too slack. I think possibly they should have had more in black and white instead of the verbal promise of the Dominion government to construct and operate the Intercolonial railway. Of course, for many years the railway was operated not as a commercial enterprise but as a connecting link between the two portions of Canada. It was operated on a freight rate that was not a paying rate -it never was supposed to be a paying rate. However, at the present time the Intercolonial is part of the National system and I do not know that we are going to cause disruption by demanding that the line be taken out of the Canadian National system. I for one am not. I do think, however, that the Maritime provinces should have more consideration than they are getting now in the way of railway freight rates. Possibly these remarks may not be in order at the presen [DOT] time-they would be more appropriate when the railway rates are being discussed, and 1 have no wish- to transgress the rules by entering upon such a discussion now; but I stiil think that we should have some assurance that the port of Quebec will get a share of the traffic that we hope to develop.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in
saying that if the government is going to loan a large amount of money to the harbour commissioners at Quebec in order to provide for new developments there, we intend to use those facilities and do all we can to render profitable such developments as may be brought about at that port. According to the representations made to us the present facilities at the port of Quebec could not take care of the traffic that would be created if we acted upon the recommendations of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell).


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Right there may I ask
a question? Will the minister tell us if he thinks the facilities at Quebec are used to their fullest capacity now, or have they been so used at any time during the last ten years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In so far as the wharves
are concerned I may say that all the berths available for vessels in Quebec are occupied, there are none vacant for the accommodation of any new boats that may come to the port.
3G3S

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not speaking now of the local traffic that is handled at the ordinary wharves; but a larger portion of the grain and cattle traffic, which is deemed to be immense in volume, should come to the port of Quebec, and incidentally the Maritime province ports would get a larger percentage in winter than they are getting at the present time. I will go so far as to say that it is hardly logical for the Canadian National railways to haul wheat or other grain from Montreal to St. John at as cheap a rate as they do to Portland. Yet that is being done at the present time but it is increasing our railway deficit; I am well convinced of that. But some of this grain and cattle trade should go through the port of Quebec seeing that it is a much shorter route from Winnipeg to Quebec by the Transcontinental than from Winnipeg to Montreal by either Canadian Pacific or Canadian National.


Ernest Lapointe: Two hundred and fourteen miles shorter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can see no legitimate reason therefore why the port of Quebec should not handle a very large volume of the western grain. With regard to cattle there is no comparison between the ports of Montreal and Quebec. I understand that at the former port the cattle sheds are not at the docks, the cattle must be loaded into cars and sent down to the wharf to be loaded on to the boat. I had the pleasure of being down at Quebec and of seeing a shipment of cattle loaded there two years ago, and the facilities could not be excelled.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are the best
on the continent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Not the best on the
continent; we have as good at St. John, New Brunswick.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad it amuses
hon. gentlemen.


Mr. POWER:: May I point out to the hon. member that the facilities at Quebec are being used very extensively this summer. Since the opening of navigation not a week goes by without one or more cattle boats loading from Quebec.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am pleased to know
that. For my part I should only be too glad to acknowledge your facilities for handling cattle through the port of Quebec. But as I have said we have as good facilities at St. John as there are at Quebec and I am

going to adhere to that statement. Quebec .and St, John, by reason of the facilities which exist at these ports, are the two logical ports to ship cattle from and the cattle can be handled much more cheaply there than through the port of Montreal. The diversion of this traffic to an American port is a sore point with us in the Maritime provinces; we have spent money to build elevators, wharves, and warehouses in Portland. At the same time I am not one of those who thinks that the government or the Canadian National Railways should give away the Grand Trunk railway. That has been advocated -but I think it is a foolish proposal. The result would be to put that road into the hands of some competitor that would haul freight from Montreal to Portland at a rate so much cheaper than the Canadian National could haul freight to St. John that we would not get a carload for our Maritime province ports; but I think that by using the port of Quebec we can logically and economically get a bigger share of the grain traffic and the Maritime province ports would also benefit. Quebec would be the proper port in summer and Maritime province ports would be used in winter.


Mr. CLARK:: I would ask the minister
whether he will give the committee the total advances made by the Dominion to the ports of Quebec, Montreal and Vancouver; the present unpaid interest owing by each port; and the gross income and the net income earned by the harbour commissioners in each case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am in a position to state the total amount of money advanced to the port of Quebec, but unfortunately I have not under my hand the same figures in regard to the ports of Montreal or Vancouver. However, I am quite willing to give my hon. friend the assurance that when we go into commi tee on the bill I will have those details for him. The total amount of money advanced by the government to the port of Quebec is $12,612,995.


Arthur Meighen: How much of it by the
public?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is money loaned by
the government to the old commission and to the commission as it has been organized since 1912.


John Arthur Clark: How much interest is owing on that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already said that
the interest has not been paid by the Quebec Harbour Commission.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


John Arthur Clark: What is the total amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has that interest been
compounded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would advise the government to take some such steps as they took in the case of Greece and Roumania and get bonds issued for the $8,000,000. I do not know whether the bonds would be worth very much unless what I propose is carried out and Quebec is given a larger share of the traffic.


John Arthur Clark: I wonder if I might get
an answer to my question before the hon. member goes on to Greece and Roumania.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already stated
in answer to the hon. gentleman that the accrued interest unpaid is $8,077,000.


George Gibson Coote: What is the amount owing
to the public?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is $1,150,000.


John Arthur Clark: What is the gross revenue
of the Quebec Harbour Commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the year 1924 it was
$568,627 gross.


John Arthur Clark: What is the net?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The operating expenses for 1924 were $397,07S.18 and the net revenue would be $171,549.59.


John Arthur Clark: Are there any other advances that are not secured by bonds?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not a floating
debt due by the harbour commission to the Dominion government or to the bank?


John Arthur Clark: Not secured by bonds.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. There has been advanced without debenture, $541,393.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: To whom is that owing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To the government.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much on bonds
are there outstanding to the public, and has the harbour commission paid the interest on the bonds which the public hold?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The amount of bonds is $1,150,000 and the interest has been paid on these bonds to the public.
Mr.. CALDWELL:	Annually?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Is there any money owing
to the banks other than the amount mentioned-any advances made by the banks in addition to this money?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are only the current advances which are made by the bank, which advances are repaid when the commission obtain loans from the government.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister any record of what those advances ar-e.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately at the
present time I have not the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister tell
us if any interest has ever been paid by the Quebec Harbour Commission to the government of Canada on advances made either secured by bonds or unsecured?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Many years ago, on the
first advances which were made to the port of Quebec, interest was paid, to the amount, if my memory serves me right, of $200,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the amount
last paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The note I have here
states that on advances made in 1873 and 1887, Quebec paid to the government interest to the amount of $923,000, and in addition to that there has been paid into the sinking fund $191,746.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am sure we are all deeply
interested in the resolution before us and also in the development of Quebec harbour. There is no one who does not want to see the city of Quebec with its harbour occupy that position in the national life of the country to which it is justly entitled. I must say however that I was amazed when the government introduced the proposal now before us and I became more astounded as the discussion proceeded. I think it was the hon. member (Mr. Power) if not the minister himself (Mr. Cardin) who intimated that the harbour facilities at Quebec at the present time were taxed, if not to their utmost capacity at least to an extent that would justify further development and further expenditures. I have no desire to question the

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
accuracy of that statement, but if it is true, what does that statement signify? It means that with the amount of money owing this government and the interest thereon we might as well forget any payments of interest and take over the whole sum as a direct obligation. The government yesterday answered the following question thus:
What is the amount of the total obligations of the Quebec harbour commissioners funded or unfunded?
Answer: $21,840,957.
We sometimes deprecate any tendency to develop the Canadian National railways or the transportation of commodities on those railways because we believe that such development, in view of our present volume of traffic would injure to some extent the Canadian Pacific Railway. I should like the minister to tell us during the course of this discussion what will be the net saving to the people of Canada and what will be the net loss that will likey accrue to the harbour of Montreal, upon which we have spent millions of dollars, as well as the other harbours, in the event of this legislation being adopted, in view of the fact that we have only a certain volume of trade in this country anyway and there is no striking evidence that that volume is going to be considerably increased in the immediate future? A few weeks ago, speaking on the Hudson Bay railway, I took the stand, while advocating its completion, that I would not vote for the expenditure of a single dollar on the development of harbour facilities at Port Nelson. With the development of the Panama route at this stage, I think we have harbour facilities that are altogether ahead of present needs. The present proposal is not the only expenditure that we are making at Quebec this year. If hon. members will look at the estimates, page 31, they will find the following item:
Quebec harbour-Champlain dock-to complete, $68,000.
And at page 44 there appears the following:
River St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet, $1,663,000.
I cannot possibly see why the government has brought down this resolution at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: The vote of $68,000 for the Champlain dock has been in the estimates for the last few years. There are claims outstanding since the war on the part of the contractors and they have not been adjusted, and for that reason the amount is put in the estimates; but it does not mean that any new work is to be undertaken. The other item has no reference to the port of Quebec.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am directing the attention
of the committee to the amount of money spent in that locality at present.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not spent there.


Robert Alexander Hoey: It; is now almost the month of June and I notice from; the information supplied by the government that the Quebec harbour commissioners have still a sum of $119,138.62 to spend. It seems to me that this proposal might very well stand over, and in the event of a general election it might become a very illuminating and legitimate subject for discussion. If it is held over the government can give it a prominent place in their election literature and in their election orations, and if the people of Canada as a whole believe that such expenditures are justified then I will raise no serious objection. But I certainly think that I should be lacking in my duty at this time if I did not raise my voice in protest against this premature expenditure; and unless convincing information is submitted I shall vote against its adoption.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: This appears to me
to be about the most remarkable vote that has come before parliament in the four years I have been in this House. The port of Quebec already owes something like $21,000,000 on which, according to the statement given by the minister, no interest has been paid since 1887, and the accrued interest at present is over $8,000,000. Now, I do not think than any hon. gentleman in this House would object to this expenditure if the money were going to be properly used and if there were some reasonable hope of its being paid back. But it seems to me the height of absurdity for the government to be spending more money on the port of Quebec while at the same time this very government is actually preventing our western produce going through that port. . Every session since I have been in this House I have raised my voice against that condition of affairs. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) two sessions ago treated my plea so sympathetically that I was encouraged to hope that something would be done. I noticed that about that same time Sir Henry Thornton promised that the question of rates over the Transcontinental railway to the port of Quebec would be dis- . cussed by his board of management. But nothing has come of it. Two years have gone by since that time, and those discriminatory-no, I will say, those prohibitive rates over our own railway to the port of Quebec are still maintained. Now, this government has it in the hollow of its hand to develop that port, and if it were making any serious

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
attempt to do so there could be no reasonable objection raised to this expenditure on the harbour.
I should like to submit a few figures in connection with grain and other rates to the port of Quebec. Armstrong is a point on the Transcontinental railway due north of Port Arthur and Fort William, and for purposes of comparison it may be taken as the equivalent of those two points. Armstrong is 959 miles from Quebec, and the present rate on wheat from there to Quebec is 20.7 cents per bushel. This would appear to be about double the prevailing wheat rate on the prairies, as is shown by the following comparison. From Edmonton to Port Arthur the distance is 1,305 miles, about one-third further than the distance from Armstrong to Quebec, but the rate on wheat is only 15.6 cents per bushel. That, I may say, is what we commonly call the Crowsnest rate-the prevailing prairie rate to the head of the lakes. It is not necessary to quote any further figures. I think the case is very clearly established that a serious discrimination exists against the use of the Transcontinental railway and the port of Quebec. To-day we look on the construction of the Transcontinental railway as a monumental blunder. Even our Liberal friends say so. I have not heard one single hon. gentleman in the Liberal party during the lifetime of this parliament defend the construction of that railway. Now, I am not clear in my own mind that it was a blunder. I am rather inclined to think that the men who designed and carried that project through had a vision a little beyond that of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches today, because it was designed for the purpose of giving the farmers of the west the shortest possible route to the sea. But if the construction of that railway was a blunder, then I say it is a crime not to use it at the present time, but to maintain on it a prohibitory rate, a rate that prevents us using what is one of the finest pieces of roadbed on the continent of America. This magnificent road remains idle, and the port of Quebec is not given an opportunity to develop in the way that it should.
I wish to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I am not pleading for the port of Quebec. I do not need to. There are many hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches to-day who are better qualified than I am to put forward the claims and merits of that port.


Mr. McMASTER:: Quebec est bien represente.	;	: | jjj |


Milton Neil Campbell: I am pleading for the farmers of the prairie provinces, and I am attempting to show wherein their interests are prejudiced by the failure of this government and the preceding government to redeem the pledge that was made to the farmers of the west, in fact to all the people of Canada, when the Transcontinental railway project was before the country We in the west were told that if we supported this expenditure our grain could be transported to the port of Quebec cheaper and more expeditiously than it could be handled via the lakes; and I am quite convinced that that is so. I have before me a copy of an editorial from the Manitoba Free Press, in which it is said-
The building of the National Transcontinental road was supported in the West under a promise that it would carry grain to Quebec at some six cents a bushel; but this has proved a delusion. The building of this system has been of no special service to the Western grain-grower.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: My hon. friend knows that the rates on the Transcontinental railway are fixed by Sir Henry Thornton and his officials who are operating that railway, not by the government.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am quite aware how the rates are fixed; but I am also aware that this government has control over those rates.
Mr. MACDONALD	(Pictou): In what
way?


Milton Neil Campbell: The cabinet sits as a court of appeal over the judgments of the railway commission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not unless
an appeal is taken; and this particular case has never been before the government by way of appeal.


Milton Neil Campbell: Even if the case has not been taken before the government specifically, I do not think that is an excuse for the government to evade its responsibility. Time and again we have had particular instances in which the government has seen fit to introduce rates below the standard.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Never. The government does not, and cannot, interfere with the railway commission.


Milton Neil Campbell: The railway commission has nothing to do with the reduction of rates. After all, the real management of the railway is in the government. We cannot get away from that fact. Even the government cannot escape its responsibility for the management of the railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the contrary, my hon. friend knows the position of

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
this government has been not to interfere with Sir Henry Thornton and his board of management in the operation of the railway. That has been our confirmed attitude.


Robert Alexander Hoey: But the minister's interjections, if well founded, are really an argument against this resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the rates are not favourable to Quebec. It is unfortunate that they are not.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the government has no control over the Canadian National Railway-which I for one refuse to admit-I think it is time that it took the case for reduced rates to the railway commission, and if the commission turned it down, the government should appeal to itself. Surely the government has some means of dealing with this situation? It is not impossible of solution. When I see the facility with which the government does something in the interests of particular business corporations or of particular sections of the country that it wants to favour, I can discover no serious obstacle in the way of the government dealing with this situation, and dealing with it effectively, and so redeem the promises made by the Laurier government at the time the Transcontinental railway was built.
The only time that any grain goes forward to the port of Quebec by the railway is after the ports at the head of the lakes are closed in winter time, and when that grain is so transported it means that the unfortunate farmer receives about ten cents a bushel less than he is entitled to. But this is only part of the story. The farmers' interests are seriously prejudiced throughout the whole season when the grain is being moved by water from the head of the lakes. For the shipping season of 1921 the average cost of transporting wheat from the head of the lakes to Montreal via Port Colborne was 12.60 cents per bushel.


An hon. MEMBER:: All rail?


Milton Neil Campbell: No, all water. In addition there is .60 cents for insurance, making a total of 13.20 cents per bushel; the average for 1922 was 13.72 cents, plus .60 cents for insurance, making a total of 14.32 cents. Now, let us analyse these figures a little further. Taking the Edmonton-Port Arthur rate as the basis, the Armstrong-Que-bec rate will be 11 cents a bushel. Now, had this eleven-cent rate been in effect during the season 1921, our grain could have been delivered by rail at the port of Quebec for two and a fifth cents less than it was delivered to Montreal by water; and in 1922 for three and 
a third cents less. Taking the total amount of grain shipped from the head of the lakes during 1921 and 1922, an eleven cent rate would have saved the farmers of western Canada $7,273,000 in 1921 and $8,621,000 in 1922. To be fair, I should point out that in 1923 and 1924 the average water rate was less than the eleven cent rate. In 1923 the average cost of transporting our grain over the water from the head of the lakes to Montreal was 10.91 cents. In 1924 it was 8.99 cents, but there were certain periods in both those years when the rate went considerably above the 11 cent mark. For instance, in May, 1923, the average rate was 12.10 and in October. 12.61, and for the month of April, 1924, the average rate was 11.71 cents. In the figures I have quoted I am including only the grain actually shipped by water from the head of the lakes. I have not taken into account the grain that was ground in Canadian mills and went out as flour, neither am I considering the grain that went forward all rail to Quebec, much of which no doubt paid the double rate. Quebec is 150 miles farther down the river than Montreal.


Mr. PARENT:: One hundred and eighty.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have my hon. friend's correction; that makes my argument all the stronger. Most of the insurance risk between Montreal and Liverpool is based on the risk in the St. Lawrence river, and this is almost, if not entirely, overcome when Quebec is reached; and that again is ano'.her factor. So in addition to saving the amounts I have already quoted, there is the advantage of being 180 miles nearer the market and the very much reduced insurance rate. Of course, I do not assume for a moment that if this low rate were put into effect all our grain would go forward all rail to Quebec; nobody would take that suggestion very seriously. But I think the assertion will not be challenged that if the 11 cent rate were in effect to the port of Quebec it would immediately create a maximum rate on the lakes, a rate that would be more effective in curbing the predatory instincts of the shipping combine than any legislation this House has passed or ever can pass. Now, this government made a rather feeble attempt some years ago to deal with the shipping combine on the lakes. I pointed out on that occasion, and I have pointed out repeatedly since, that the government had in the hollow of its hand the very means of dealing effectively with the combine, because just as soon as the rate was set at 11 cents a bushel we know that the lake rates would never go beyond that figure.

Quebec Harbour {Commissioners
The question of the cost at which gram can be handled comes in, and I think it is an incontestable fact that both our railways have made very substantial profits in carrying grain at the rates in effect on the prairies, or from the prairies to the head of the lakes, since July 6, 1922. A careful analysis of railway statistics will convince anyone of that. If we just look at the lower earnings, the reduced profits of the railways this year, we will see that it is due very largely if not entirely to the fact that we had only half a crop of grain in western Canada. But if the question should arise at all as to the profitable nature of the business of carrying grain from Armstrong to Quebec at 11 cents a bushel. 1 would like to quote some figures that I think will supply the last connecting link in that chain of proof. I have some figures here showing the tonnage out of the various divisional points between Winnipeg and Port Arthur over the old Canadian Northern main line, and also between Winnipeg and Quebec over the National Transcontinental. I find on looking up these figures-and they are based on what is known as a 53 per cent engine-that the average tonnage from Winnipeg to Port Arthur via the old main line is 2,600 tons while the average from Winnipeg to Quebec over the Transcontinental is 3.205 tons, or 23 per cent more. That means that at the same cost per mile 23 per cent more grain can be delivered at Quebec than can be delivered at Port Arthur, so that the question of cost is all in favour of Quebec as against Port Arthur. In 1921, 219;j000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat were shipped from the head of the lakes, and of this amount
98.000.	000 bushels went out through American ports. In 1922, out of a total shipment of
278.000.	000 bushels, 154,000,000 bushels went forward through United States ports. In 1924,
265.000.	000 bushels were shipped out from the head of the lakes, of which 114,000,000 went to the United States. There is no doubt that some of this grain came back to Montreal from Buffalo, but unquestionably the great bulk of it found its way to the ocean and thence to Liverpool through American channels, resulting in a loss of millions of dollars of earnings to our National railways, millions of dollars in wages to our working people, millions of revenue to our ports, and as well a deterioration in the value of our grain through its being mixed in transit. Incidentally I may say that one of our grievances in the west has been that the grain which goes out through American ports is contaminated in transit. While it is given a grading certificate at the head of the lakes, and when it goes to Buffalo that grading certificate follows it to Liverpool, very often it is an entirely different grade when it gets there. That has an effect in setting the price for the grades that are bought back on the prairies, and as such is one of the farmers' grievances. I would not have hon. gentlemen from the Maritime ports think for one moment that the farmers in the west are not interested in diverting this grain through our own ports and having it sent to Europe by that rou'.e instead of the American route.
To deal a little further with figures, I may say that the Canadian Pacific rate from Goderich to Halifax, 1,305 miles, is 121 cents a bushel, considerably less than the prevailing prairie rate, or the rate from the prairies to the head of the lakes. The rate from Fort William to Halifax, a distance of 1,753 miles, is 21.3 cents a bushel, while the rate from Armstrong to Quebec, only 959 miles, is maintained at 20.7 cents a bushel. I may say, Sir, that we in the west are interested in this question for another reason. It is generally admitted that no large cattle trade can be built up with Europe under prevailing conditions. In 1923 the United Grain Growers made a trial shipment of 600 steers from Winnipeg to Liverpool, and they shipped those steers over the Transcontinental to Quebec. Perhaps it is almost unnecessary to recount the circumstances connected with that shipment. A large number of members of this House went to Quebec to see the cattle loaded, and I think all those members were impressed with the superior facilities provided at that port for handling cattle. We found that whereas at Montreal the cattle were unloaded miles from the dock, and when ready for the vessel had to be loaded again and shipped from the railway to the vessel, at Quebec they were unloaded directly at the dock and when ready for the ship were driven on board without any further handling. Any cattle man knows that all this extra handling and unloading is very detrimental to the cattle; it means a considerable extra shrinkage. We were told by one of the men in charge of these cattle that taking all these factors into consideration-and I may say that the running time of the train between Winnipeg and Quebec was eighteen hours less than a train could have made to Montreal-taking all these factors into consideration, he said, the probable saving per head would be not less than $5 in favour of Quebec as against shipping these cattle to Montreal. I have a letter here from the first vice-president of the United Grain Growers in answer to a letter I wrote to him asking for some facts in connection with this
3644	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour 'Commissioners
particular shipment, and in part this is what he says:
The approximate difference in the running time to Montreal and Quebec last year was eighteen hours. NaturaMy the longer the cattle are on the cars on a trip of this kind, the more they shrink. Further, it would be possible in a case of making trainload shipments to get through to Quebec with two feedings instead of three.
This is not only a saving in feed but a saving in shrinkage as it is generally recognized that repeated loading and unloading is, within certain limits, of more injury to the cattle than benefit.
When we realize that the port of Quebec is 500 miles nearer to Liverpool than the port of New York, the question .arises: Why is it that this prohibitive rate is maintained? The government tries to wash its hands of the responsibility. Of course we know that no government can do so. This government or any government stands condemned before the country for continuing this prohibitive rate, particularly in view of the fact that the country was burdened with an enormous expense to construct the railway-and I may say that it is one of the best constructed railways on the continent of America- for the exress purpose of delivering our grain at the port of Quebec and so saving a great deal of work on the St. Lawrence river.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Whose fault is
it that the freight is not routed over that northern route?


Milton Neil Campbell: The fault is this government's, coupled with the management of the National Railways for maintaining a prohibitory rate.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has the shipper not something to do with the routing of his stuff?


Milton Neil Campbell: The shipper has a good
deal to do with it; but if my hon. friend were shipping a carload of wheat from Winnipeg, and he found that he could route it through the United States ten cents a bushel cheaper, he would not be likely to patronize the port of Quebec, and no other hon. gentleman would. Cattle cannot be shipped through the port of Quebec because they must be shipped in mixed shiploads. Part of the ship must be loaded with wheat or other heavy freight and the cattle are put on deck. As long as little or no grain is shipped through Quebec, it is impossible for us to use that port for our cattle.


Charles Gavan Power: This year all the sailings
of cattle on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the months of May, June and July, are booked for the port of Quebec,

and recently a shipload of cattle arrived over the Transcontinental and was shipped from Quebec. I do not know how many head there were.


Milton Neil Campbell: Was that vessel loaded
below deck with grain?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know. I obtained that information just recently.


Milton Neil Campbell: Probably those vessels
will be handled in the same way that the particular vessel to which I have referred was. That vessel loaded at Montreal with grain. They had to put especially into the port of Quebec to take on the cattle. They were paid the full Montreal to Liverpool rate on cattle, and in addition they were paid a bonus of $600 for putting into the port ot Quebec. Surely my hon. friend does not suggest developing his port in a way like that.


Charles Gavan Power: No. I am simply giving
my hon. friend the information, in order that he may use it in his argument, that as a matter of fact boats are coming to Quebec for cattle this year.


Milton Neil Campbell: If boats are going tc
Quebec for cattle, that means that they are going there considerably hampered and that the trade is being ruined in a way.


Charles Gavan Power: I agree with my hon. friend.


Milton Neil Campbell: If we can make up
mixed cargoes at Quebec and those vessels do not have to go to Montreal for cargo, that means a difference of $5 a head. That would make a very considerable saving to the farmers of the west, and that is the only way in which we can ever secure the market in the Old Country. We are talking about developing the cattle trade. It costs to-day over $40 to deliver a steer from Winnipeg to Liverpool, and about $45, I believe, from Calgary. Any farmer knows it is impossible to develop - trade under those conditions. The difference of that $5 alone would mean that we might be able to build up a reasonably profitable trade.
Just why are these rates continued? Naturally when we see a discriminatory rate of that kind existing, we look around for a reason. I do not believe for one moment it is simply indifference or, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) would indicate, that the government finds that it has not the power. There is something wrong there. It is ordinarily said that this is due to the influence of the port of Montreal; that Montreal is jealous of developing a rival and is determined that Quebec will not be

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
developed any more than the Hudson Bay route. I do not accept that altogether. Surely it is not advantageous to the port of Montreal to be sending hundreds of millions of bushels of our grain through American ports. If the port of Quebec would handle only one-half of the grain that is taken through American channels to-day, that would not hurt Montreal at all. But I think the crux of the situation is the rate. Lake shippers are concerned not so much about the volume of trade as about the profitable rate it pays. They would1 rather have a small trade at a large profit, than a large trade at a small profit. They are not particularly w'orried about discrimination against our ports. They are not concerned whether Montreal or Quebec or any other port develops. They are concerned with one thing only, and that is the amount of dividends they can pay. As long as they have a rate that is not settled by anything, as long as there is no maximum rate, as long as whenever there is a period of congestion they can raise those rates and tax us eight or ten million dollars extra, as they did in 1922 and in 1921, they are not concerned with handling a large volume of trade. That, it seems to me, is the crux of the situation. It is hardly believable that this government, that the management of the Canadian National Railways would be so much under the influence of the shipping combine as that. I can scarcely credit that. I have a little more confidence in our political institutions than to accept such a suggestion. Therefore, there is a responsibility on this government. It must be in a position either to defend or to condemn this rate. I have discussed this for the last four years with every railway official I have met, men who know what proper rates are, men who have studied this situation for years, and I have yet to run across a single railway official who will defend this rate. This government does not defend it. There is not a minister of the crown to-day who will say that it is necessary to maintain this rate. There is not an hon. gentleman on the Liberal benches who will say that. Sir Henry Thornton will not defend and has never defended this rate. In his answers to the Quebec Board of Trade, he gave them to understand that he was very sympathetic to a reduction of the rate, but his hands seemed to be tied. There is something in the way of giving us a reduction in the rate.
In conclusion, let me repeat what the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) said. I am prepared to support this
project, if the government will give us an assurance that they are going to permit trade to come forward to develop the port of Quebec. Further, I think I can say that every hon. gentleman in this section of the House will support this resolution if the government will give us some assurance that they are going to remove this discrimination against their own railway and the port of Quebec. But if they fail to give us that assurance, I for one must vote against it.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Why does
the railway board permit an excessive rate? The hon. gentleman says that it is a discriminatory rate on that particular line. Rates are not a matter for the government.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not think that is a proper question to come from the government. That is something the government should answer.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member says that the government must interfere with the rate. The government will not interfere with the rate. That is a matter for the railway board. If there is a discriminatory rate, the railway board is very precise in dealing with it unless it is a statutory rate.


Milton Neil Campbell: It certainly is a discriminatory rate. If the Minister of the Interior will look into the figures, I think he will admit and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will admit that it is discriminatory. This matter has been discussed by the railway board, and I have no doubt the government knows just what the railway board thinks about it. I cannot believe the railway board at a meeting discussed this matter without the government having some knowledge of it. The government has the responsibility.


Charles A. Stewart: Only in
case of appeal.


Milton Neil Campbell: In any case, the government has this responsibility right now, that it should refuse to vote a dollar more for development work at Quebec untii that port has some opportunity of getting traffic.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
really think my hon friend can argue that only the traffic that comes over the Transcontinental comes to the port of Quebec. Because that is the only port at which the bigger ships coming up the St. Lawrence can
3646	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commissioners
berth to-day. It must get some traffic; all the business coming up the St. Lawrence does not go to Montreal. I am not denying, of course, that if more traffic went over the Transcontinental it would not help the situation.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am quite aware that we get a good traffic at the port of Quebec. But I think the minister must admit- particularly in view of the fact that we spend millions and millions every year to enable larger ships to go to Montreal-that we are doing something annually to take away trade from Quebec. Sometimes I think it was a mistake to ever develop the port of Montreal; that is my humble opinion. I think grain can be moved more cheaply to Quebec by railway to-day than it can be moved through the circuitous route over the lakes.


Ernest Lapointe: 'Vith much that my
hon. friend has said I would not like to disagree. Indeed, he has used figures and arguments that I was going to use and I shall not repeat them. I think he and I might reach a common ground of understanding if he only uses a little good will. Personally I am willing to contribute my share of that good will. It is true, as my hon. friend said that when the Transcontinental railway was built the people of Canada were not only given to understand but were told that it would be used for the carrying of products from the west to the Atlantic ports, especially grain; that the distance by this route would be considerably shorter; that the grades would be much lighter, as they are; and that facilities would be provided at the ocean ports to handle all the traffic that offered. Indeed, pieces of land have been purchased on the waterfront of the St. Lawrence river from Quebec to Sillery by successive governments. This land was thus acquired by the country for that very purpose. However, I am free .to admit that the promise made at the time has not been carried out to the extent it should have been.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To what ex'ent has the
promise been made good.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the road has been built but it has not been used in the way it should have been. I am quite willing to say that I agree with my hon. friend when he says the rate is much too high on the Transcontinental as far as the port of Quebec is concerned. Our western friends have always complained about it. In 1920 twenty-two senators and members of parliament representing the west wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden,

dated Ottawa, 26th September, relating these facts, complaining that the rates were made so high as lo prohibit the use of the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg or Armstrong to Quebec- and asking that sufficient additional grain storage be built at Quebec, Halifax and St. John to handle the business of Canadian grain "which we believe it would be possible to win back from New York if these suggestions are adopted." This communication was signed by the representatives of the west both in the House of Commons and in the Senate in 1920. In 1921, my hon. friend will see, steps were taken to try to redress what appeared to be a grievance. In that year the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec made representations to the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada complaining about this rate, and an investigation was held by the 'board, presided over by the late Mr. Carvell, in Quebec city. I have here the evidence that was given at that time and the arguments advanced, and I find the extraordinary argument used by the then chief commissioner that apparently if the rates were reduced as conditions would justify their reduction it would mean ruin for the other railways and that this could not be done. I quote from the statement of the chief commissioner as reported at page 2755 of the record:
I can hardly agree with that. If my conception of the National Transcontinental was right when it was started and when it was being built I think freight can be transported over that line at a figure which would mean the absolute ruination of other railways in Canada. If not we were all wrong and we were not justified in building it.
And then Mr. Commissioner Rutherford, as reported at 2756 says:
This is something that has to be general in a very careful way. When we, consider the elevator systems at Fort William and Port Arthur, the tremendous machinery created for the movement of that grain crop to introduce a revolutionary method like the making of a speoial rate on any one road would mean disturbing the whole movement of grain, such a disturbance as would bring about economic disaster for the time being.
The whole purport of the discussion between the representatives of the harbour commission and the board of trade and the commissioners was to that effect. It was practically admitted that the rate was too high, but to reduce it would have meant, according to some of the arguments presented, disaster for-the other roads.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Just before the minister leaves that point would he permit a question? Have the people of the city of Quebec ever appealed at any time to the Governor in Council against the discrimination?

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there
was an appeal from the ruling of the board at that time.


Mr.   ROEY@: Has there ever been an appeal?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so. I
speak subject to correction but I think there was no appeal from the ruling.


Charles Gavan Power: There was an appeal to the government and there have been unofficial appeals. In 1920 a memorial was presented to the Privy Council at Ottawa by the mayor of Quebec, who was accompanied by a deputation of citizens. That memorial has been printed.


Robert Alexander Hoey: When was that, in 1920?


Charles Gavan Power: On January 19, 1921. In
that memorial the whole question of rates and of the harbour was discussed; it is a formal appeal.


Mr. SFEAKMAN:: Was that a formal appeal from the decision of the railway commission?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it was not. This
was followed in 1922 by an investigation in the other chamber of this parliament. The late Senator Bennett took a prominent part in that investigation, and the report of the committee of the senate, which was adopted by the upper chamber, concludes as follows:
That the government be advised:
(1)	To cause rates to be granted upon export grain over the Canadian National railways to Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, St. John and Vancouver such as would develop trade to the above ports.
(2)	As a corollary to the recommendation in paragraph one, that necessary elevator accommodation should be provided by the Dominion at Canadian ports.
(3)	To arrange with the marine underwriters or others in such a way that the marine insurance rates from Canadian seaports be as cheap as from the United States seaports.
So that the Senate also has found that the rates there were too high and recommended that steps be taken to have them reduced.


Milton Neil Campbell: Judging by their recommendation, I think the Senate hold the same opinion as I hold, that the government had some responsibility.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that the
whole question of freight rates on railways is going to be discussed in this House, and I think that when the question comes up it will be the proper time to discuss it. My hon. friend would not ask me to give an opinion just now, but I may say that I agree 233
with him that the rate to Quebec is too high, and if I can do something to reduce it,-if this has any effect on the decision of my hon. friend-I will tell him that I am going to try to help them to reduce it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I be
permitted to suggest to the minister that if that is his argument it would be advisable for him to withdraw this resolution until after the freight rates have been decided.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my hon.
friend is logical in that position, when he knows that it would take five'years to build the work which it is proposed to build with the money asked for by this resolution I do not think it would be advisable to wait until there is a dhange in the freight rates to do it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the minister suggest that it will take five years to get the rates down to the proper level?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I hope it will
be possible to do that in a day or in a few days, but it will take five years to complete the necessary development in Quebec, and for that reason it is urgent and important that we should proceed now.
Apart altogether from this question of grain, and a larger proportion of wheat and cattle being shipped to Quebec, there is the necessity for the development of the port, even for the traffic which is handled there now. I do not agree with my hon. friend when he says that there are already more than sufficient facilities at Quebec for the traffic. Every berth was rented and occupied during the last season of navigation. There is no space available for the new vessels, which would come to the port of Quebec.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the accommodations are all used how is it they cannot even pay interest on the investment?


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to tell my
hon. friend why; it is especially because the bulk of the traffic at Quebec is passenger traffic. Last year 75,000 people landed in Quebec and they did not pay one
9 p.m. cent to the harbour commission. Every little box of goods which is carried to Montreal is paying a rate for the use of the wharf there, but all the people who travel to the other provinces of Canada, and -who use the port of Quebec in landing, do not pay one cent to the commission.


Milton Neil Campbell: That bears out my
argument that we should provide rates which



Quebec Harbour Commissioners
would enable those goods to be shipped through Quebec, and make that port the terminus of the ocean voyage instead of Montreal.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with my hon.
friend in that statement. I do not want him to believe that I am opposed to further use being made of the port of Quebec.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not suggest that
for one moment.


Ernest Lapointe: But the hon. gentleman
wants me to say why they have not paid interest. It is because the port of Quebec is a national port, used in the general interests of Canada, and especially for the passenger traffic, but it has not been a paying traffic. The harbour commissioners of Quebec have been applying to the government in many instances for their approval, and I believe they have enacted a by-law to remedy the difficulty, but the government has always refused to approve of such a by-law, because the steamship companies represented that it would hurt the St. Lawrence route and the traffic of these companies. The harbour commissioners of Quebec have passed by-law to impose a tax of one dollar on every immigrant and passenger using the port of Quebec when landing. It is done in other parts of the world. It is done in the continental ports of Europe where the traffic is especially a passenger traffic. I have seen that myself and read about it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that done in other
Canadian ports?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it is.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: St. John or Halifax?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is talking about St. John. The hon. member is usually fair but he made a remark this afternoon about the Quebec Harbor Commission not paying interest, and suggesting that it should be charged compound interest. How much has St. John paid to the government for works built there ?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I suggested that the
government should get the harbour commissioners to issue bonds to cover the unpaid interest, as they did in other cases?


Ernest Lapointe: Why not apply it to
St. John?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Surely.


Ernest Lapointe: The improvements have
been built there by the Public Works department, not charged to anybody and nobody is
LMr. Campbell.]
complaining about it. Millions of dollars have been spent there and the very gentlemen who have been favoured in this way are asking that Quebec should be made to pay interest every year on every dollar that has been spent at Quebec. In Halifax everything has been built, I understand, by the Department of Railways and Canals, as part of the expenditure of the Intercolonial Railway.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As far as the expenditure at St. John is concerned, I do not agree that it was all wise. I think there has been a development at St. John which is absolutely absurd and the expenditure upon which has been wasted. I refer to Courtenay bay. While money has been expended here, the place where we need the facilities has been starved.
I am not blaming this government particularly; it has been done by several other governments in the past. I think the time may come when we will need Courtenay bay, but it was premature to spend so much money there and starve that part of the harbour of St. John that is really in use, and which needs more facilities.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not want to discuss the question whether the expenditure at St. John was necessary or not. It was a part of the system, and the same may be said of Halifax, where not very long ago about twenty million dollars was spent, which is a good deal more than all the advances which have been made to the harbour commissioners of Quebec. Nobody is complaining about them not paying anything to us, but the system has been introduced in that way. As far as the port of Quebec is concerned, the interest has been charged on works which were really national works in such a manner that it was absolutely impossible for the harbour commissioners of Quebec to make both ends meet and pay the interest on the advances which had been made. Let me instance one thing: The government of Canada-I do not mean this government particularly-has built a pier in the harbour of Quebec which has cost one million dollars. It was built by the Public Works department. The work has been transferred to the harbour commission, charged to the harbour commission as an advance or as a loan, interest being added every year on that million dollars, and for what purpose has this pier been used? Only for the purpose of the Immigration department of the Canadian government. The pier and the shed and the buildings there are used for no other purpose than the work of immigration; and we are

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
charged interest on the amount. We are not receiving one cent and we have been charged $1,000,000 on that pier, which as I say is entirely at the disposal of the Immigration department. I ask the committee, is that fair? Am I not right in the statement that this is a national port and should be so considered, and that we should not be constantly hearing about this amount of interest not having been paid on the investment of the government?


Milton Neil Campbell: I was not particularly complaining of the failure to pay the interest. As a matter of fact I have a good deal of sympathy with the harbour commission and I think the present condition is due largely to the fact that the legitimate trade of the port is not properly developed.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not complain that my hon. friend has not been fair in that respect; far from it. The hon. member has put up a plea for a greater use of the port of Quebec which I could not equal, and I agree with him in many of his statements. I only wish that his conclusion had been as sound as his premises in this matter. Let me assure hon. gentlemen opposite that the large vessels cannot go above Quebec; whatever may be done in the way of dredging or otherwise vessels of over 16,000 tons will not take a chance on going above Quebec.


Mr. SALES:: And yet it is proposed to spend $16,000,000 in an endeavour to take them past Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not logical. He opposes, as he and his friends opposed the other day, any expenditure for the further dredging of the channel between Quebec and Montreal, on the ground that it would be a useless expenditure especially at this time; and they argue that the vessels should use the port of Quebec. If they were on sound ground in that regard1 at that time, are they logical to-day in opposing the necessary facilities for the use of the port of Quebec?


Robert Alexander Hoey: If the minister takes that position, both votes cannot be justified.


Thomas Sales: Which one would you rather have?


Ernest Lapointe: Hon. gentlemen are not reasonable there either. Montreal is at the mouth of the canal system; it is at the head of navigation in that part of the country. I am free to admit that the bulk of the traffic, the larger portion of it, will always go to Montreal as far as this is possible. If the 233i
vessels can use the channel between Quebec and Montreal they certainly will go on to Montreal because it is always more economical to go as far as possible by water route. But there is room for the use of both harbours. Hon. gentlemen have admitted this, in advocating that as much traffic as possible should go through Canadian rather than American ports. But surely Montreal is not able to handle all the traffic alone.


Thomas Sales: Does the minister think that the country at this time has money for both of them?


Ernest Lapointe: I think the country at the present time must equip its trade routes as other countries are doing. There are other countries that suffered in the world war to a greater extent than Canada did, and they are building their trade routes and equipping their ports. This being the case, I do not think that a young and growing country like Canada can afford to neglect the proper development of its ports to handle its exports, the increase in which every year is something which we in Canada are proud of.


Thomas Sales: May I remind the minister
that they are doing this and not attempting to pay their debts?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend
wants to be fair, and I have already explained to him that it was impossible for the port to pay under the circumstances that have been stated. If when amounts are asked year after year for public works, on ocean and river, there is a demand for some return on the money spent, I do not think that much will be voted under such conditions.


Thomas Sales: The minister misunderstood
me; in the remark I made I was referring to nations that are developing their trade routes although they are not paying their debts.


Ernest Lapointe: It is of the utmost importance that our ports should be properly equipped for the handling of traffic. I regret any objection that may be raised against the development of the St. Lawrence route for the use of large vessels. I heard the statement made the other day that if large ships cannot go on the route we should have small ones. It seems to me that the tendency is to have all types of vessels in modem navigation: and the St. Lawrence route is one of the finest waterways in the world. We have so built it that much of the passenger traffic which formerly went through New

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
York is now going to Quebec and Montreal. It is necessary therefore that we should make it possible for all types of vessels to use the route. And it has been equipped for that purpose; it has a dry dock which is one of the largest in the world and in which all sorts of vessels can be repaired.


John Arthur Clark: Is the cost of the dry dock included in the total indebtedness of the commission?


Ernest Lapointe: No; it was built by the Department of Public Works.


John Arthur Clark: What is the cost of it?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say.


Mr. GARDINER:: Has that dock ever
been used?


Ernest Lapointe: It is used all the time. I cannot understand the lack of knowledge of some hon. gentlemen as to the conditions in the port of Quebec. That dry dock is used every week in summer if not every day, and it has been used by some of the largest vessels that go on the St. Lawrence route. It would be a pity if we had no such dry dock on the St. Lawrence. If hon. gentlemen think, as the hon. member seems to believe, that this dry dock has not been used, I can understand that they would1 be reluctant about voting for the present resolution. But I beseech the hon. member to make himself better acquainted with the facts. The dock, I repeat, is being used; and it is highly essential that it should be there. And when hon. gentlemen argue that the port of Quebec is the natural outlet for shipments to bring about a lowering of rates on the Transcontinental route, surely they will realize that this cannot be done, that the port cannot be used, if the necessary facilities for the handling of traffic are not provided.


Mr. GOULD:: The minister is well acquainted with the letter which Mr. Scott, a member of the Royal Grain Commission, wrote?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Scott's whole plea, as
I understand it, was to have freight alone sent to the port of Quebec; he makes no plea for extra facilities. That is the feature of his argument.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the main plea,
but my friend should read some of the letters I have from Mr. Scott, when 'he would see that that gentleman claims this resolution is necessary.
lMr. Lapointe.]


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Scott may be pleading for that too, but in the circular letter sent the members of the House he has not featured that part of it, and I think the minister who has charge of the resolution (Mr. Cardin) admits that extra facilities are not particularly necessary at the present time, that indeed the facilities now there are not being used. I recollect being at Quebec two or three years ago, and the harbour commissioners told me that they had facilities there sufficient to handle five times as much grain as was being offered.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely, I agree with
that.


Oliver Robert Gould: If it is a question of charging immigrants, give the board license to do so, but use the facilities now there before asking this impoverished and groaning country to assume this further obligation. I want to remind the minister and the governm uit again, as I did the other night, that we have a vast hinterland that is providing one and three quarter million dollars of federal taxation every year for the building of these harbours and ports, and the people there are groaning under the burden of taxation. We are simply pressing the objections of our people back home in opposing these extra expenditures.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend will understand that grain, important as it is-and I agree with him on that-is not the only thing, and if he asks my friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), for certainly he has not understood the minister correctly, he will be told that although ail the facilities are not being used there for the shipping of grain, they are being used for other purposes.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) a few moments ago lamented our ignorance about conditions at Quebec. I do not think any group in this House has taken more trouble to travel over the country and find out local conditions for themselves than have my friends around me. We have been willing to do that at all times. If my friends from the province of Quebec can tell us that they have taken as much interest in the west, for instance, and seen for themselves the conditions there as my friends around me have taken to become personally acquainted with conditions in the province of Quebec and the Maritime provinces, I should like to hear it.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Charles Gavan Power: We do not have to travel;
we take everything said by my hon. friends as gospel.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is the hon. member
ready to take what we are saying now as gospel?


Thomas Sales: I am glad to hear my hon.
friend is converted, but it is only lately. When we went to Quebec we were very sympathetic towards their problems. I remember telling my friends when I was speaking to them there that the future of Quebec was tied up with the National Railways.
Mr. MEIG-HEN:	The National Policy.


Thomas Sales: No, the National Railways.
When the minister talks of cattle going down to Quebec this year, I should like to know whether those cattle are paying the same rate from Quebec as from Montreal, Quebec being the shorter route by 214 miles. The minister seems to deplore our doubting whether all the facilities at Quebec are being used. I may say-and in this again I shall be supported by my friends around me-when we went to see the dry dock there we entered an immense workshop covering a city block in area, and there was half an inch of dust on every implement and only one or two men around the building. We were told that there had not been a ship in that dry dock. If my information was wrong, I cannot help it.


Ernest Lapointe: What time of the year
was that?


Thomas Sales: I believe in June-Ma>\


Ernest Lapointe: I think it was in May.


Thomas Sales: Perhaps it was. But that
was the information we received, and we did not know any better. If it was wrong, I am glad to be corrected.


Ernest Lapointe: It was certainly wrong.


Thomas Sales: We found a big shed for the
receipt of merchandise turned into a cattle dock with a great big pen built all through it. We asked why this had been done, and were told that no merchandise was received at the port of Quebec, it was all being carried on to Montreal. Now, the difficulty I find myself in is to know what to vote for, whether to vote this money for the harbour of Quebec to be developed, or to vote 816,000,000 to carry goods past Quebec. Both proposals cannot be right, in my opinion. But if they are both right, Mr. Chairman, I want to
say that it is not a bit of use our talking economy either in this House or in the country and then making these expenditures. I find myself unable to support this proposal.


Mr. WARD:: At this point may I ask
the minister a question? Does he think that Canada should continue deepening her waterways and her harbours and building huge canals to satisfy the obsession of the shipping companies in continuing to build greater and still greater ships, while the evidence adduced before (he Shipping committee is that these big ships are most uneconomical in operation, and that the smaller, slower ships are the cheaper to run? To me it would indicate that we are heading in the wrong direction.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, will the
minister advise me whether the ports of Vancouver and Quebec are national ports? Based on that I have another question to put to him.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly they are.


John Arthur Clark: Before dinner I asked the
minister for the total indebtedness of the port of Quebec, for the gross revenue and the net revenue earned by the harbour commission of Quebec' and for similar figures for the ports of Montreal and Vancouver. The minister stated that he would get those figures for me. Can he give them out now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think
my hon. friend misunderstood me. I promised him that I would get these details when we were in committee on the bill, because I had not the figures before me at the times and the officers had left the department. But I have some figures, although they are not a complete answer to the question of my* hon. friend. The total expenditure on the harbour development in Montreal to December 31, 1924, was $39,732,992.52, and the total amount advanced to date to the Montreal Harbour Commission is $39,730,000.


John Arthur Clark: At what rate of interest?'


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At 3, 34 and 5 per cent.


John Arthur Clark: Are those the same rates as are charged Quebec and Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The rate charged Vancouver is 5 per cent.


John Arthur Clark: Why the difference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The 3 and 34 per cent
rates apply to old loans, when the rate of interest was much lower than it is now. Upon the relatively recent loans the rate is 5 per cent everywhere.
3652	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commissioners


John Arthur Clark: What rate is charged Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five per cent. At Montreal there is no interest unpaid. At Vancouver the total expenditure on works of harbour improvement and development to December 31, 1924, was 811,513,269. The total advance to date has been $10,34o,900, and interest unpaid, amounts to $225,291.49.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does that mean that there is some unpaid bond interest which has had to be paid by the government, or is it old interest for some years gone by?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for interest owing at the present time.


John Arthur Clark: I think some explanation of this might be given. Is it not the case that in respect to new works of construction in respect to which no revenue is earned, the interest accumulates as construction goes on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
country owes the harbour commission, at Vancouver, a certain amount for work which they have done, and when this money has been paid, the commission will be in a position to pay the interest.


John Arthur Clark: In other words, it is held back as an offset against money owing by the country to Vancouver, so that there is no default either at Montreal or Vancouver in the payment of interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


George Gibson Coote: Does the amount given as .expended on Quebec harbour include the money spent by the Department of Public 'Works? If not, how much has been spent on the harbour by the Department of Public Works?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the exact information at hand, but I am inclined to think that the amount expended by the Public Works department is not included in this.


George Gibson Coote: The minister has no information as to the amount that has been spent by the Public Works department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid I have not that information here.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister know that something like half a million dollars was voted for Quebec harbour last year through the Public Works department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: It is probable that a considerable amount has been spent by that department.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: There was a vote last year of $500,000 in the Public Works department - for the harbour of Quebec. With the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Justice I visited the harbour of Quebec and it was thought better that that vote should be administered through the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Accordingly it was transferred to that department, and as I understand it the expenditure has been made under the harbour commission.


Mr.   FIOEY@: How much df that was spent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information, but I can get it for my hon. friend.


Mr. LUCAS:: What new facilities are requiied at the port of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I mentioned this afternoon what the expenditure was to be for. It is for the building of a wharf about 4,000 feet long, starting about 300 feet from the car ferry wharf; for the necessary dredging to provide a depth of 40 feet there, and for the building of sheds and the extension of railway trackage on the wharf.


George Gibson Coote: How much is this wharf
expected to cost? Would the minister tell us also what are the present facilities at Quebec? What works have been provided with the money that has been voted in the past?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The facilities available at
Quebec include the following: steamship berths: in wet dock, six berths of from 400 to 500 feet in length; in tidal harbour, four berths or from 400 to 500 feet in length; breakwater, four berths of 500 feet in length, or three berths of 700 feet in length, or two berths of 1,100 feet in length; Pointe-a-Carcy wharves, four berths

one ocean, two coasting and one bunkering; river St. Charles basin, seven berths of from 500 to 600 feet in length. There is a grain elevator with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, with marine tower, conveyors and grain galleries. Its loading capacity is
60,000	bushels per hour. It has also a grain dryer, a Richardson separator, and a bagging shed. There are also the following facilities and equipment for handling cargoes: four locomotives for switching cars; railway lines to all ships' berths and sheds; one 50-ton floating crane; cars and scows for removing ships' ballast; five locomotive cranes; city water,

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
electric light and power installations. There are landing sheds, cattle berth, coal capacity and bunkering. There is a cold storage plant with a capacity of 500,000 cubic feet, in connection with which a fish house and a power house are now in course of construction.


John Arthur Clark: Are the grain elevators
charged against the harbour commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: What quantity of grain was
handled through the elevator during the last year or two?


Charles Gavan Power: Last year the total quantity received was 5,607,462 bushels, including grain in store at the end of 1923.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1924, the grain received amounted to 5,265,829 and the grain delivered to 4,540,616 bushels.


George Gibson Coote: What was the number of
cattle handled last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 1,505.


George Gibson Coote: Any in 1923?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Over 5,000.


George Gibson Coote: What was the tonnage and
what was the number of boats that have used the harbour at Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1924, 668 vessels inward and 98 vessels outward.


Charles Gavan Power: May I call the minister's
attention to the fact that there must be a mistake there? There must have been more than 98 vessels outward if there were 668 inward.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Outward means from
Montreal stopping at Quebec, ocean bound. The total net tonnage is 4,791,757.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister say that
all the berths that he enumerated a few minutes ago cannot handle 668 vessels? That seems inexplicable to a layman. Does the minister claim that they are short of wharf space now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information that is
received from the harbour commission is that there are no more berths available for vessels of big draught.


George Gibson Coote: I know we can never provide facilities that will satisfy all the harbour commissioners, because we shall run out of money before we arrive at that happy position. I should like to quote briefly to show what some people in Quebec thought a few years ago they ought to have. In 1922 an hon. member from Quebec said:
We have got a grain elevator, but it is only a small one and not of the capacity we should have in the city of Quebec. An elevator of the proper capacity in that city would be a benefit to the country as a whole. Our elevator has a capacity of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 bushels.
Sir Henry Drayton: A capacity of 2,000,000 bushels.
Mr. Lavigueur: We should have an elevator with a capacity of at least 10,000,000 bushels. That is what we were promised.
The elevator that is there handled last year a little over 4,000.000 bushels. I should like to know what we would have done with an elevator of a capacity of 10,000,000 bushels, and how much more the Quebec harbour commissioners would be in arrears of interest if we gave hon. members from Quebec what they really thought they should have. From the information which I have been able to gather from the minister, I am unable to see that Quebec is very badly in need of this additional S5.000.000 for work in the harbour. As I said before, I have no doubt they would like to have a great deal more money spent and more facilities provided. We would like to have more facilities sometimes in other parts of the country. In the section from which I come we would like to have had, two years ago, some more railway cars. There were not enough cars to move the crop away. Some farmers had to build bins to hold their grain, and some who could not afford to buy lumber threshed the grain on the ground simply because they could not get cars to take it away.


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend think
his section is the only one that suffers from shortage of cars?


George Gibson Coote: No. But when we complained, we were told that the railway could not possibly be expected to furnish us right away with all the cars we needed and that we should be content to wait a while. I think there was some reason in that, and I think the same answer should be given to the Quebec harbour commission; that we cannot afford just now to spend $5,000,000 on this harbour; but that when they show more business through the port of Quebec and when this country can afford it, we should vote the $5,000,000 or whatever is necessary. I do not think any justification has been shown for .the vote. The speech that was made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) tonight sounds very much like the one which he made three years ago when $5,000,000 was granted to the harbour commission. They have come back and they seem to need the money quite as much as they did that $5,000,000.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Charles Gavan Power: It was not $5,000,000 three
years ago.


George Gibson Coote: It was pretty nearly that.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Were it evident that
a large quantity of business was going through Quebec and that the export business was increasing, I think there would not be so much objection made apparent to this vote as there is. If it appears that a port is not being used to its full capacity and that a large volume of business is not being done through that port, it seems natural that an objection should be raised to the vote, and I quite see the force of it. W'e must, however, remember that the Transcontinental was built for various reasons, but that one important outstanding reason was that there should be direct transportation from Winnipeg and the west to Quebec for purposes of transhipment, and that most important of all this transportation was the question of grain. That expensive project was constructed largely for that purpose. We know now it has not been carried out. I think it should be carried out but it has not been. That, I think, is one of the reasons why objection was taken to the vote. It seems to me that Quebec has sound advantages, geographical and otherwise, such as should entitle it to a much larger volume of business than it is now receiving. It seems to me that the port of Quebec is particularly well suited for the transhipment of grain from Winnipeg and the west. Now, I would suggest to the government that they exert some pressure in this matter; it would be perfectly proper for them to do so. It is not a question of interfering with the management and operation of the Canadian National railways; the question involved is one of national policy for the country. When the government come and ask for this vote I think they should also be prepared to advise the Canadian National Railway board that the original idea contemplated by the construction of the Transcontinental railway should ibe carried out-that is to say there should be a substantial transportation of grain and other products from the west through the port of Quebec. I think the government have got this matter in their own hands. They should prove, what we believe should be established, that Quebec is capable of carrying on a large part of the export business of this country. I believe that if that fact were made evident-if it were made evident that the facilities which the government are asking for can be used and are going to be used; if there is substantial evidence of the

port being employed in the way originally proposed and in the manner which I think Quebec merits, I believe a large section of this country are willing that Quebec should be properly equipped, because such a proposal would not only be fair to Quebec but would help to solve the transportation problem of this country.


Mr. GOOD:: It does seem to me that under the circumstances the government would be well advised to allow the committee to rise and report progress, and consider this matter later on in the session-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Charles Good: -after the freight rate question has received some consideration. We would then be in a better position to decide this question than we are to-night. I would very seriously submit to the government the propriety of so doing. I should like also to remark that personally I would have less reluctance to support this and other similar votes of money if we collected our revenue from the people of Canada in a different way. By the method we are following at the present time we are taxing industry and penalizing thrift and enterprise, and under those circumstances I have very little satisfaction in supporting any vote of money for what is, perhaps, in itself a very useful thing. I do not care to develop that idea any further at the present moment, but I do think the members of the House should seriously consider the relationship of expenditures to our methods of collecting taxation-the incidence of taxation. If we were to impose a different system of taxation it might not, perhaps, be a hardship upon this country to vote this amount of money and other large sums for similar development purposes. I may remark also incidentally that it seems very unfortunate that we should be confused as to the expenditure of money for this kind of work, sometimes through loans to harbour commissioners, sometimes through the Department of Public Works, sometimes through the Department of Marine and Fisheries; sometimes through the Department of Railways and Canals, and so on. We have asked to-night for information as to what amount has been spent in the port of Quebec under the Department. of Public Works, and what amount of that has been charged up to the harbour commissioners. We have not got that information. There seems to be a good deal of confusion on the subject, and I think it would be certainly very informative to the committee if,.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
before the matter is finally disposed of, we could have definite information as to how much is spent through these various departments. I should like to know, for instance, as to the expenditure in the port of Quebec under these different departments. May I again submit to the government the propriety of letting this matter stand and possibly we will have further information. Later on in the session some of us might feel disposed to support the project whereas now we will have to oppose it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to point out that this proposal is in the initial stage. It is a preliminary resolution that is being discussed. Questions have been asked and information has been given, and further information will be given lateT or at any stage. There does not seem to be any reason why this resolution should not pass. Later on a bill founded on it will be introduced and then there will be ample opportunity to discuss it fully.


William Charles Good: If this resolution passes will not the House be committed to the granting of this vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, the House is never committed at any stage with regard to any matter by the passing of a resolution. The bill founded upon this resolution has to be introduced and after it receives its second reading the House goes into committee on the bill, and the whole matter can be dealt with without any commitments one way or the other.


George Gibson Coote: Does not the passing of the resolution indicate that the House is favourable to the proposition?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the
majority of the House wants to defeat a bill at any stage it can do so.


Oliver Robert Gould: In taking that attitude the Minister of National Defence is resorting to strategy. The same attitude has been taken with regard to other measures brought in during the last five or six years and to my recollection the second reading of a bill has never been defeated after the resolution upon which the measure was based had been adopted.


Charles Gavan Power: Possibly owing to the lack of perseverance on the part of its opponents.


Oliver Robert Gould: That may be, but it only goes to establish that the adoption of such an attitude by the minister is a piece of strategy, but it will not prevail in this case. I wish again to refer to certain statements in
a letter written by Mr. Scott, being reminded of the necessity for doing so by the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) when he alleged that there was discrimination against the port of Quebec in not providing sufficient traffic for the Transcontinental railway. It seems to me, according to the statements contained1 in the letter in question, that in the year 1904 when the Transcontinental railway was undertaken the railway company made an agreement with the Canadian parliament to provide all the shipping tonnage for the ports of Quebec and Montreal that would be necessary to accommodate the freight the railways might bring to those ports. When the government took over that line, according to the letter in question, it assumed all the obligations that the railway company had entered into. Consequently the failure to deliver the requisite amount of traffic to the port of Quebec is directly chargeable to this government. Let me point out this further fact: Only a few days ago hon. members from this comer of the House pleaded with the government to revalue the land of the soldier settler but the government were not responsive to the demands of the men who fought overseas; they declared that times were too hard to carry out such a policy. This lack of response of the government will be a dire disappointment to the soldier settlers. I do not think that the principle of soldier settlement was looked upon by parliament when it was adopted as an investment, but rather as a means of bringing peace and contentment to the country. Now the government are regarding the policy from an investment point of view, and they are asking the soldier settlers to repay in dollars and cents, by the expenditure of blood and sweat, moneys which were voted by this House for the purpose of pacifying the people. The government to-night is asking five million dollars to provide facilities in a harbour which already possess more facilities than are being used. Under the present condition, with our huge national debt, with no facilities afforded the people in the western country, we are asked to vote this large sum to the Quebec Harbour Commission. We know that when we have made a request for the construction of some small branch lines of railway we are told that there is no money available. Many electoral districts in this country are getting along without even a brick or a\stone.


Mr. CANNON:: How m^-h did we vote
last year for branch lines? W&* it not thirty million dollars?	v
\

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, distributed all over Canada. What does thirty million amount to when distributed all over the Dominion? I have six starving men driving on mail routes throughout my district, men working for fifty per cent of the money they earn; and yet I am asked to take the money raised by a federal tax paid by my people and spend it on this Quebec harbour.


George Newcombe Gordon: I suggest that the hon. member is not debating the resolution before the House.


Oliver Robert Gould: Why?


George Newcombe Gordon: Because it seems to me his remarks are beside the question.


Oliver Robert Gould: I >am drawing my conclusions, and when hon. gentlemen interrupt me and speak about these branch railways, I am answering; it was not my suggestion. I just simply replied to them. The proposition is that the revenues that are taken from the hinterlands are to be put into sink holes of harbours which we do not require at the present time. When I listened to the recommendation of the Quebec harbour commissioners which the minister read I was persuaded that they had to go far afield to try and find reasons why we should vote this money. I am utterly and diametrically opposed to the expenditure of this money in the Quebec harbour at this time.


Alfred Speakman: It gives me no pleasure *-and I will admit it-to assume any adverse attitude towards this vote. I have visited the city of Quebec I think three times. They have treated me very well and I like the city and the people; but I feel that I would be derelict in my duty if I allowed myself to be influenced by sentiment in something which must be a matter of business. If it were merely a question of sentiment, merely a desire to please or to help people whom I like, I would be delighted to do what I could. But I want to look at the question in a business way. As time has passed and I have become more acquainted with
10 p.m. the country as a whole, travelling through it and getting to know it better, seeing the results of public expenditure during the past twenty or thirty years, and considering the condition of indebtedness in which we find ourselves and the constantly increasing burden -fff 'taxation,-because in spite of some reductions at times the burden is increasing and* must increase as long as capital indebtedness increases-I have made up my mind ;imat I would vote for no large capital expenditures unless one of two con-
ditions was present, but if one of these conditions were present I would vote for it. In the first place I would vote for a large expenditure of public money by way of loan if it were a loan pure and simple; that is if the money were invested in such a way that the principle and interest would be returned to the government. I do not look upon that as an indebtdness but as an investment. Now is this condition present here? I hardly think that the history of the past would warrant such a conclusion. I am offering no criticism to the harbour commissioners of Quebec on account of the fact that they have not. made the interest payment. I realize the situation there, the nature of the investment and the impossibility of making .payment of either sinking fund or interest; but the fact remains that, in the light of the past financial history of the country, we cannot look upon this five millions as a direct addition to the national debt of the country, upon which they must pay annual interest. The other condition is this: if growing conditions and the demands of business imperatively called for such an expenditure, so that it was impossible to carry on the business of the country without it, and if the indirect benefit of the country through that expenditure would repay the country for that loan or that indebtedness, whether repaid directly or not, then I would support it. .
I would again frankly state that I have not been convinced1 either by what I have seen in Quebec-and I will admit that my personal knowledge and what I have heard to-night are superficial-that	under the present
business situation of the port and with the present tonnage offering the expenditure is warranted1 at this time. If, as has been suggested traffic conditions were such that we could reasonably expect a large and steady growth in the tonnage there, I would vote now for the expenditure; but as it is, as we have no such assurance, as we have simply to rest our case upon the experience of the past, I shall vote against it. When the time comes that the expenditure to my mind is warranted, when I see those conditions which I think are necessary to warrant the expenditure fulfilled, I shall be glad to support such a resolution if brought forward.


Mr. BEL  AND@: I cannot say how deeply
I regret the fact that we are not enjoying the support of some of the hon. members whom I especially esteem in this House, and who represent part of the country which, in my humble estimation is going to profit in the future more than any other part from the development of the facilities in the port of

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
Quebec. I say that in all sincerity because I am convinced that, though up to the present time an actual lack of facilities has not been evident in the port of Quebec, the time has come when our attention is called to the fact that in many respects the present facilities are taxed to their capacity. It has been pointed out this evening by the minister in charge of the resolution that no more berths are available for new ships. I do not belong to Quebec. I have no personal interest in the development of Quebec, except as a Canadian at large, but it has been my privilege to observe the conditions in Quebec at close range during the last few years, and for that matter during the last twenty-five years. What are the conditions prevailing to-day in the port of Quebec? We have reached a point when it is expected that a large portion of the grain of the western part of Canada will be shipped by way of Quebec. It has been represented this evening that it was impossible to ship the grain through Quebec on account of the high freight rates prevailing. We agree that if the rates are maintained at the present level it may not be possible to use the port of Quebec for the export of grain to the extent to which we should use it, but we feel certain that within two or three years a very laTge amount of grain will be carried through the port of Quebec. The works that are contemplated there will spread over four, five or six years. Now, what would be the conditions in western Canada three years hence if we had some forty or fifty million bushels of grain to ship through Quebec and the facilities were not available? I can hear my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), I can hear my hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), and other hon. gentlemen, condemning the powers that be for such a situation. Some hon. gentlemen may say that such a condition will not arise, but others may take the opposite view; it is a matter of opinion. It is a fact that the cattle trade through Quebec has lately increased considerably and it is foreseen even by hon. gentlemen who criticise the resolution that this increase will continue. I do not think there is a man in the House who will contend that the port of Quebec is not to-day marked for a very large export trade in cattle.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Sales), whom I always like to hear, to-night presented the minister in charge of the resolution (Mr. Cardin) with this dilemma: he said, which of the two ports will you favour, Montreal or Quebec? But what is the situation as regards the St. Lawrence route? We all know that there is no water highway throughout the world that is comparable with the St. Lawrence, with Montreal at its head, for oceangoing ships. It has been suggested particularly by my hon. friend that it is difficult to understand how such a large amount of money could have been spent between Quebec and Montreal. Well, the maintenance of the St. Lawrence channel between Montreal and Quebec calls for a very large expenditure each year. Why? Because the bottom of the river is not smooth except for a very short distance; and as every hon. gentleman knows, as in the case of every river bed in which there is any great quantity of sand, if dredging operations are not carried out summer after summer the channel must before long be absolutely unfit for use by sea-going vessels. That is why the money is spent on the maintenance of the route between Quebec and Montreal.
I do not think that anyone would for a moment contend that we should close the port of Montreal. I belong to the district of Quebec, and if my own interest in the port of Quebec were at stake I nevertheless would immediately take the ground that it would be altogether unwise in the national interests to close the port of Montreal. It must be kept open as it is to-day; and to keep it open it is necessary to spend the money that is now being spent upon it, even if you increase the debt. Large vessels are coming up the river to-day with Montreal as their destination; and on the St. Lawrence route there are still larger ships that cannot go further than Quebec. And the number of these ships is increasing year by year, so that to-day not another berth is available. And what about Quebec? The question is asked, "If you have so much traffic in Quebec, why do you not pay the interest on the debentures, on the advances that have been made to that port?" That is a proper question. But hon. gentlemen must realize that Quebec is the main immigration port of Canada. What part of Canada during the past twenty-five years has benefited by the immigration that has gone through that port if not western Canada? What benefit has the city of Quebec derived from that large immigration that has favoured our shores? Nothing, practically nothing. The flow of immigration year in and year out during the last thirty or forty years has invariably taken train immediately and made its way towards the fertile plains of the west. That is the situation. A review of the immigration statistics shows that more than
175,000	immigrants have been inspected at the port of Quebec within a year. Last year we inspected about 75,000. Now, this is not a paying proposition; as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has pointed out, Mont-

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
real gets a fee in 'connection, with almost everything that is landed there, whilst the port of Quebec receives absolutely nothing for the handling of immigrants.


John Arthur Clark: Where are the supplies, food and so on, purchased for the immigrants?


Mr. BELAND:: The immigrants stay there an hour or two, or three hours at most. I can assure my hon. friend that if the city of Que-bee had to depend for its existence upon the food that is sold to the immigrants it would be pretty lean and meagre looking now.


Mr. MANION:: Is the city of Quebec itself put to any expense in connection with the immigrants?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The city of Quebec itself is not put to any expense, 'but it is the gateway through which the immigrants that go to imy hon. friend's part of the country and mine enter Canada. It is therefore a national port in this sense.


John Arthur Clark: Would the minister suggest that they be taken to Montreal?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They do not go there; I do not know why, but they have never done so. Last year 446 immigrants were examined in Montreal, which has not the facilities to take care of the immigration flow. It would be a great mistake to have two ports equipped on the St. Lawrence for handling immigrants.
Now, why should we not take steps to cope with the immense trade which, in my opinion at any rate, is surely coming to the port of Quebec? Why should we not provide facilities even two years in advance? As a matter of fact, there are not adequate facilities for this very summer. The harbour board is composed of men of outstanding reputation in the business and commercial world and they have submitted a plan and explained it, supporting it by every possible argument that could be advanced. And that is not all; the shipping federation of Canada has endorsed the scheme. If all the facilities are available, if all the shipping companies at present have everything that they can wish for, then I ask pertinently, why should they enthusiastically and forcibly endorse the scheme? Is that all? It is not. What about the president of the National Railways, Sir Henry Thornton? In a memorandum written in March, 1924 he supported this very development. What about the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Beatty? He, too, in a memorandum endorses this scheme. Does this mean that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway touch Quebec only? No, both systems have terminal? in Montreal;

but they also have terminals in the city of Quebec. So it is not a case of favouring Quebec as against Montreal, or of favouring the development of one part of the country as against another part. It is because in their hearts those gentlemen are convinced that those developments are in the national interest that they endorse them. Certainly anything that is in the interests of the railways is. in almost every instance, in the interests of the country generally.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister think
that the Canadian Pacific Railway, under present conditions and as a business enterprise, would spend that amount of money?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think they would.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Seriously, though?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Seriously, I think they
would-if they were in charge of the port of Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I mean as a business proposition.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, because they do not proceed upon sentiment.


Robert James Manion: Like the government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I tell my hon. friend that
this is not put forward on sentimental grounds, it is a question of national interest.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is a political question.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a national question. In what sense is it a political question? It cannot be a political question. Does my hon. friend think that this assistance to the port of Quebec is necessary for my election?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I tell the minister there
is not a fact presented to the House as to the present revenue, the past revenue or the prospective revenue in comparison with the capital expenditure that would warrant any sound, sensible, business man expending that amount of money now in the face of our national debt, and only political expediency before an election would cause this government to bring forward the proposal.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend is absolutely unfair in his contention. It is not a question of political expediency. There is no reason in the world why it should be. Does my hon. friend for one moment contend that candidates in the district of Quebec require this for their election?


Leon Johnson Ladner: They are told they will
not be elected if they do not get it.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Henri Sévérin Béland: I know better. My hon.
friend may be sure of being returned at the next election, but I tell him that all my colleagues from the district of Quebec are ten times surer that they will be returned. This shows that there is no political expediency in connection -with the proposal.


Robert James Manion: Is my hon. friend influenced by the fact that political expediency is one of the reasons for this proposed expenditure?


Henri Sévérin Béland: You may leave that aside; there is no political expediency involved.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. minister
(Mr. Beland) has made an eloquent appeal on behalf of this proposed expenditure and has claimed that it is justified for business reasons. On what grounds does he base his prophecy that enormous business is going to be developed at the port of Quebec within the next year or two? So far as I have heard, he has not yet given any substantial reasons for this prophecy.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sorry my hon. friend has not paid any more attention to my argument, because I have attempted to show-and I think it is easy to do so-that there is a railroad connecting the western country directly with the port of Quebec-the Transcontinental.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not a new thing by any means.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is exactly because it
is not a new thing that my hon. friend should know about it. Why should he ask me upon what I base my prophecy that the port of Quebec is going to be a great grain exporting port? I base it on that very assumption, that the Transcontinental will be used for transporting grain to the port. I know many hon. gentlemen on the other side, and with respect to freight rates I am simply their pupil, for I do not profess to be an expert on the subject; but I have consulted many men who are in a position, I think, to give an opinion worthy of consideration in this regard, and I have not met one that has not prophesied that the port of Quebec will be a grain exporting port before many years. It is the wish of every hon. gentleman representing western Canada-they have so expressed themselves this evening-that Quebec shall be the natural port for the export of western grain. I thank them for their expression of sympathy with the port. This wish of theirs is going to be realized, and the part of Canada which will profit the most by it will be the west. Thereby the other parts of the Dominion will also profit, because if the great western country is prosperous and
thriving by the expeditious shipping of grain through Canadian ports at reasonable rates, a great agricultural development will follow there. Then who would say for one moment that the rest of Canada is not going to be also prosperous and thriving?
Now, I say both ports are necessary to the development of Canada. I refer only to Montreal and Quebec, Mr. Chairman, because this evening we are confined to a consideration of the St. Lawrence route. Had I an opportunity, I could also say something about the port of Vancouver, the port of St. John and the port of Halifax. But, as I say, our discussion to-night is confined to these two ports, and I repeat, they are necessary and should be developed. If they are developed as we think they should be, not only Quebec and Montreal will profit but the Dominion at large.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Mr. Chairman, I have
no fault to find with the port of Quebec in any way. Indeed, I think the harbour board is to be complimented on their confidence in the port. Certainly if they and the people of Quebec have not confidence in it, it will never amount to what every true Canadian would like to see. But I do take exception to one thing and that is the voting of money year after year to develop the port of Quebec while we are not voting similar assistance to other ports. Let me give an example of what'
I mean. In Vancouver the coastal shipping dues have been trebled as compared with what they were ten years ago to provide money for interest and sinking funds. Has the port of Quebec done that? We cannot bring in a yard of sand or a barrel of lime at Vancouver without paying a tax to the harbour board. Indeed, you can scarcely run a sailing boat into Vancouver without paying a tax. If Quebec would tax those who use their harbour along these lines, would it not be possible for them to pay interest on the money that this government has been advancing for the development of that harbour? I think the government is justly entitled to lend money for the development of the port of Quebec, and that it is in honour bound to pay all the expenses in connection with the immigration sheds and similar accommodation there. I think that the government is also in honour bound to dredge the St. Lawrence up to Quebec to permit the largest ships afloat to reach that port, but federal assistance should stop there, and the harbour board should raise revenue by taxing those who use the [DOT] harbour, to pay interest and other charges, for the development of the harbour.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Leon Johnson Ladner: As a member of this House I would be remiss in my duty to those whom I represent if I did not say something in protest against this vote. I do not wish my remarks to be taken as indicating that I object because the vote is given to some other place than Vancouver. My protest is based upon the simple proposition that this is not a business venture. Most of us who went before the people in 1921 told our electors, upon our word as gentlemen and as candidates, that we would come -down here and endeavour to practise economy in our national affairs. Certainly that principle has not been followed in this case. Indeed, the proposal is not based upon the actual business demands either of the port or of the province. We have the figures before us-the minister has given us quite a number; and we have received information from other sources. We know perfectly well that there is no prospect of our ever getting back a cent of principal or interest so far as this advance of $5,000,000 is concerned. We know that because we have the experience in relation to the amount of traffic that goes through the port. We know that $14,000,000 odd have been expended on the port. We know the huge accumulation of arrears of interest. In fact, the information that has been placed before the committee proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no prospect of revenue from the port in relation either to the existing capital expenditures or to the additional $5,000,000 which the government now proposes to expend there. I submit to the minister and to the members of the government that it is votes of this kind which cause the rank and file, the masses of the people of this country, to look upon the actions of parliament as scandalous. It is votes of this kind that bring parties, governments and parliamentary institutions into contempt before the sensible people of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is no question of
order about that.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has no
right to make any such allusion to legislation before the House.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. gentleman is
over-sensitive about my contention it shows I have made my point. He should change his view on the vote. I speak in all sincerity, because it is a serious matter. If it was a case of spending money as it would be spent on the harbours of Montreal and Vancouver,

where dues are collected from the people and where interest is paid on the capital, there would be a good reason for the proposed vote.


Charles Gavan Power: Who told the hon. gentleman that boats coming into the port of Quebec do not pay dues? Where did he get the information?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Who told the hon. gentleman that any statement was made that they did not pay dues?


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman has
just said that the people of Vancouver and the people of Montreal do pay dues. They pay them in Quebec just as well.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They pay sufficiently heavy dues in these other two ports to enable the people to provide interest on the investment and make the proposition a business one.


Charles Gavan Power: We would be able and are
able to provide interest on our investment if we were allowed to charge the dues.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that at the port of Quebec they do not pay interest on the investment and that there is no prospect-


Charles Gavan Power: We do pay interest on the
investment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: He knows that there is
not the business there that would warrant the collection of dues that would pay interest on the investment.


Charles Gavan Power: On the contrary, I absolutely deny what the hon. gentleman says.


Mr. LOVIE:: It does not reach Ottawa.


Charles Gavan Power: It does not reach Ottawa
because we have not the right to charge it. We are running a free port for the benefit of Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman must
know that the gross revenue of the port of Quebec last year was $500,000 odd. How could you pay interest on $14,000,000 out of that after paying operating expenses?


Charles Gavan Power: We would not owe $14,000,000 had we been allowed to make the proper charges and if the government would accept our charges.


Daniel Webster Warner: Who is preventing that
charge from being made?

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Charles Gavan Power: Every government since
confederation has told us that the work we do is in the national interest and that we must not charge for it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Nothing can better substantiate the soundness of my argument than the extreme sensitiveness of one of the members from that section of the country who knows what political effect this will have on his future. I say that this vote of $5,000,000 is placed before parliament to-day, a few months before a federal election, designedly for political purposes; I can see no other reason. A few years ago we had an expenditure there-two years ago-of at least a million and a half, I think-


An hon. MEMBER:: Four millions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, four millions. It is
a pretty expensive way, if that is necessary, of preserving the good-will of that section of the country for the government. When hon. gentlemen review the taxation of the country and the protests which nearly all ol them must receive from all sections of their constituencies-


Lucien Cannon: Did my hon. friend hold
similar view's as to economy when the Es-quimalt dry dock was being built in British Columbia and money was squandered?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, that suggestion is an attempt to get away from the point we are considering. I was not a member of the House at that time, but from information I have had I should say that the expenditure is warranted, because there is no dry dock there.


Lucien Cannon: W'here has the money
gone?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Since the authorization of
the construction of that dry dock there has been a tremendous increase in the number of deep sea vessels calling at ports on the Pacific coast, and without that dry dock there would be no way of looking after these large boats.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has just
said there was no dry dock there.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Canadian Pacific have lately brought to the coast several vessels- the Empress of Canada, the Empress of Asia-


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. gentleman
say that these boats were built since the dry dock was built?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I say they came there
since.


Charles Gavan Power: Then is it not reasonable to suppose that boats w'ill come to Quebec after these proposed works are carried out?


Leon Johnson Ladner: They came to the Pacific
coast knowing that these facilities would be provided.


Lucien Cannon: The dry dock has never
been used. My hon. friend knows that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is not finished; of course it cannot be used. But we will have the ships there when we have a dry dock of that kind to take care of them. But I am not discussing the question of the Esquimalt dry dock. If a mistake was made, it does not justify a second and a worse mistake at this time. I ask hon. gentlemen to look at the increase of our national debt since 1922 and realize what it means in taxation. Then look at the income tax and compare it with that of the United States; it will be noted that ours is two to six times as high as theirs. Then take the deficits of the Canadian National-$54,000,000 last year. Then consider $106,000,000 being poured every year into the Canadian National. We have increased expenditures, business depression, uncertainty throughout the country, the public in suspense, yet here is a proposed expenditure of $5,000,000 on facilities that are not required, with Montreal near at hand to provide in the event of emergency the facilities for export. After all, as my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) remarked, the main purpose of these facilities is for the grain trade. The grain trade has been carried on in this country for a number of years and we have got along all right. I put it to the members of the government in this way:	As
a private business proposition involving their own personal money, would they proceed with this venture? Would they go ahead with such a proposal as is made here to-night? No, they would not do so as private individuals, but as politicians, as representatives of a political party, they would spend the taxpayers money lavishly on the eve of a federal election for political reasons.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot agree with the
hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). I think the same reasoning that he used a few minutes ago could have been used and was used by some hon. members when money was being asked for Vancouver. Money was spent at Vancouver, not after the traffic had come to Vancouver, but in order to provide facilities so that traffic might come to that port. If objection had been raised at that time along the same line that the hon.
3662	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commissioners
gentleman has followed, I think it could have been refuted by a similar answer to the one that I can give to him, that the money that the government proposes expending is to provide facilities that will attract trade to Quebec, which is a natural port. To-day the government has the justification for the money that has been spent at the port of Vancouver, and I hope it shall have the same justification, when the amount actually asked will have been spent at the port of Quebec, to increase the facilities there, in order to take care of the large and increasing traffic that will come to that port.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not the case that facilities have existed at Quebec for quite a number of years, but that results have not come? We have the experience there.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The facilities which have existed at the port of Quebec have been inadequate and they have been pronounced to be inadequate, as they still are to-day, by those who are supposed to know something about shipping matters: I refer to the shipping federation, whose headquarters are in Montreal. The government has to rely upon somebody for information. It has to give consideration to the representations of some people, if it wishes to take action. We are all laymen and we are not in a position to judge exactly the condition of affairs. We have to refer to men who are in a position to know conditions and to pass judgment upon them. The government holds the report of the harbour commissioners of Quebec, who are men of outstanding reputation, and they have declared in a statement, which I have placed before the committee, that at the present time all the berths now available at the port of Quebec are occupied and that, supposing a new big boat decided to come to Quebec to-day, no berth is available at that port to receive it. Besides, the government has obtained from the. shipping federation, the most influential shipping body in Canada at this time, a very strong approval of the proposed plan of the harbour commissioners at Quebec. The shipping federation, which has its principal place of business in Montreal, says in very distinct terms that the present facilities at the port of Quebec are not adequate, and that in Quebec they are not in a position to deal with the new and increasing traffic that can reasonably be expected for that port. There have been complaints about the railway rates. Let me tell hon. gentlemen that the people of Quebec have often made representations to railway-men, asking for a reduction in the rates; 
that Quebec be treated more generously by the railways. The answer has been, privately, 1 may say: You have not at present, in the city of Quebec, sufficient facilities to handle all the grain that we could carry to that port. This answer is absolutely justified. At present, there is only one elevator which is not sufficient to handle all the grain which could pass through that port if the rates were reduced.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is part of this money going into another elevator?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly. That is part of the programme. If my memory serves me aright, it was said by a member of the recent grain inquiry commission that the port of Quebec, with its present facilities, is not in a position to handle all the grain traffic that could' come to it, because it has not sufficient storage facilities.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If all this business is there, how does the minister account for the small revenue?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The business is not there.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not revenue producing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The business is expected
when the developments shall have been carried out just as the business was expected when developments were carried out at Vancouver.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am referring to the facilities which now exist which the minister says are over-crowded. If that is so, why do they not provide a revenue? If that is not a paying proposition, how can this further amount of So,060,000 be a paying proposition?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been said by people who are conversant with conditions at Quebec, that the facilities there are too great and, on the other hand, that they are too small, that there are not the proper facilities for handling the traffic which was intended to pass through that po:*. I think we are losing our time in trying to have reduced rates on the railways, if we are not in a position to show interested parties or companies, that adequate facilities can be furnished and that all the grain that can be carried to the port of Quebec can be handled. Let us first see that all the facilities are there and we shall then be in a position to make out a case.


Robert Forke: Does the minister mean to
tell the committee that if the grain had been flowing down over the Transcontinental last winter to Quebec, it could not have been handled?

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, it could not have been handled.


Robert Forke: Are there any cargoes at
Quebec that are not being transported now on account of lack of accommodation in the harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is hard to say but
people are ndt going to route grain through Quebec, if they know that there are not sufficient facilities to handle it.


John Arthur Clark: What facilities are lacking
for the handling of grain?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Storage elevators and berths for the ships.


Mr. SPENCER:: How much grain has gone through the elevator at Quebec during each of the last five years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During 1924 it was over
5.000.	000 bushels.


John Arthur Clark: At Vancouver with an
elevator of smaller capacity they handled
50.000.	000 bushels in the same year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend wll admit
that they have there other facilities which are lacking at the port of Quebec.


John Arthur Clark: What are they?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have all the year
round to ship grain, as well as more facilities for vessels.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Six months more in every
year.


John Arthur Clark: At the time we are now considering the facilities in Vancouver consisted of one dock known as the Lapointe pier over which all this grain was handled, and there were equal facilities in Quebec for handling an equal quantity of grain if the business had been there.


Robert James Manion: As regards the handling of grain, I might point out that in the elevators at the head of the lakes, where more grain is handled than at any other port in Canada, they handle from five to six times the capacity of the elevator every year. In other words, an elevator with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels would handle from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 bushels of grain. I notice from the figures I saw the other day in the report of the Royal Grain Commission, which was appointed by my hon. friends that a number of elevators at the head of the lakes with a capacity of
3.000.	000 bushels handled 18,000,000 bushels of grain during the year. Therefore, an elevator
at Quebec, with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, in a season which is just as long as that at the head of the lakes, should be able to handle two or three times as much grain as it handled in 1924.


Mr. VIEN:: In 1921, the Board of Railway Commissioners came to Quebec at the request of the harbour commissioners and the board of trade of that city. These public bodies were complaining that the Transcontinental railway was not being put to the best use to which it could be put. They complained that the rates were prohibitive, and that notwithstanding the fact that the Transcontinental railway brought Quebec 214 miles nearer to Winnipeg, with lower grades that enabled a single engine to draw 60 carloads of grain, no grain was shipped over that railway. The public bodies of Quebec were very much interested in seeing that the Transcontinental railway should be used to the best possible advantage with the result that not only would the city and district of Quebec benefit but the western provinces also in whose interest the line had been built. I had the opportunity of acting before the railway commissioners at their sitting at .Quebec on behalf of the hafbour board and the board of trade of that city, and when we showed the figures that are given in the letter from Mr. J. G. Scott, of Quebec, to which some hon. members referred at the beginning of this debate; When-basing our calculations on the figures given by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States-we showed that the Canadian National railways could give a much lower rate on grain from the prairie provinces to Quebec over the Transcontinental railway owing to the shorter haul and also on account of the lower grades, they said, "Surely if we reduce the rate traffic would pass over the Transcontinental, but then you are not prepared, your are not equipped, to handle all the traffic that would go through your port." That is the very reason some hon. gentlemen give against equipping our port; they say, "You have no traffic." So we find ourselves in that vicious circle. When we want to equip the portso as to obtain traffic they say, "You have no traffic to justify such improvements;' and when we tell them, "Give us the rates so that We shall have the grain," they say, " If we did give you those rates you could not handle all the grain that would pass through your ports." This is the vicious circle that must be broken before any advance can be made. In order to ship the grain the rates must be reduced; but no grain shipper would



Quebec Harbour Commissioners
ever send grain to a port where it cannot be handled. Therefore the only recourse, in the false situation in which we find ourselves, is to equip the port. When it is equipped the rates will be lowered and the grain will pass through its natural channel because the carriage of that grain was the main purpose of the building of the Transcontinental railway.


Oliver Robert Gould: May I interject a remark here? I should like to repeat a statement I made earlier in the evening, that one of the members of the board of the Quebec harbour Commissioners told me that they could handle five times as much grain as they received at present?


Thomas Vien: Yes, my hon. friend is quite
right. The harbour of Quebec to-day could easily handle five or six times as much grain.


Oliver Robert Gould: With the present facilities?


Thomas Vien: >
With the present facilities. Why is not the grain coming to the city of Quebec over the Transcontinental? Because the rate over that railway is prohibitive, and when we went to the railway commissioners -because we have gone to them; I have in my hand the minutes of the sitting of February 3, 1921, in the city of Quebec- just to obtain the lowering of the rates over the Transcontinental so that the grain should pass over that line and through eastern Canadian ports what answer did we receive? They said "Even if we did reduce the rates you could not handle the traffic." Because hon. members, particularly in the Progressive group, easily understand that if we could reduce the rates by even three or four cents a bushel the grain would take advantage of that rate and the bulk of the traffic would come by that route.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would it be possible to
obtain the assurance of the railway commission that in the event of this vote going through and the harbour and its facilities being improved the rates would be lowered? If it is possible to get that assurance I do not think there'would be very much objection to passing the vote.


Thomas Vien: The Board of Railway Commissioners have not, until a recent date, had jurisdiction over the Transcontinental railway, and when we applied to them to get these rates lowered they gave us this answer: "It is useless to give you a paper rate. If we grant a lower rate the traffic cannot be handled at Quebec, the grain shippers will not ship their grain through that port because you are not equipped to handle it. There-
fore we cannot give you a lower rate which would only be a paper rate. It is detrimental to the general interests of the railways that you should have only a paper rate.


George Gibson Coote: Did the commission on that
occasion give any assurance that they would lower the rate if we provided more grain facilities?


Thomas Vien: I must reply to that question
in the negative and for this reason. The commissioners pointed out that at that time, February 3, 1921, that they had no jurisdiction over the Transcontinental. They told us on that occasion that our only remedy was either to interview the managers of the National Transcontinental, or else see to it that the National railways were put under their jurisdiction as were the other railways in Canada. Since then the National railways have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Irvine: Would it be of any
assistance if this resolution were held over pending an answer to this question by the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Thomas Vien: I do not believe that the
Board of Railway Commissioners, or any court of justice, would give an assurance of that character. It would be preposterous to ask any court of justice to give an assurance that their judgment would be this or that. You could1 not take that course.


William Irvine: They could surely tell us
that they would not do it. Then we would have an idea as to whether or not we were voting money for something that would be useless.


Thomas Vien: I may tell my hon. friend
that when the port of Quebec is fully equipped, with the assistance of the western members and the co-operation of the members from Quebec, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall obtain such rates over the Transcontinental as the physical condition of the road, its lower grades and the Shorter haul to Quebec, justify. Now, may I point out to hon. gentlemen that two years ago a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the question of railway rates. It was in respect of the Crows-nest pass agreement and the matter of other railway rates involved in that question. We had before the committee as witnesses several grain shippers, people that were fully conversant with all the conditions that affect the shipment of grain. What did they tell us? They told us that when the Transcontinental railway was first conceived and started to be

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
built, it was intended that the storage elevators would be built much further west along the line of the Transcontinental, and that the eastern ports would be equipped to handle the grain that would come to them over the Transcontinental railway. Unfortunately, before the Transcontinental railway was completed the government changed, and the government that took office in 1911 did not continue the construction of the Transcontinental as first proposed; the agreements were forgotten and laid aside. In the first place out west the storage elevators and grading elevators have not been erected along the lines as was in the first place .proposed, and down east the harbours were not equipped to handle the grain that was supposed to come there. When a grain trader receives an order to ship grain, he must take advantage of the market and of the railway facilities. If an order comes to him to fill the requirements of some flour mills in Minneapolis, it would be useless to him if he had transported his grain to the seaboard and then had to move it back, in order to ship it to Minneapolis. If at a given moment there were tramp vessels in Philadelphia or New York, the grain at Quebec could' not be moved by the cheapest route to that tramp vessel at the American port. Therefore the grain must be placed in storage elevators as far west as possible. It must be cleaned and graded there, and when an order comes the grain must take the most direct and cheapest route to the port of embarkation, or to the flour mills that give the order. Therefore the full equipment of the Transcontinental railways, the grain storage elevators out west and harbour facilities at the seaboard must be provided. Now when we apply to the railway authorities they say "We cannot give you cheaper rate; the grain does not pass that way, and if we gave you the rate you ask all the grain would go through on the Transcontinental railway, and therefore you could not handle it." I say let us equip our harbour at Quebec for the summer traffic and the harbours of St. John, and Halifax for the winter traffic. Let us equip our harbours by the seaboard, and then we shall be armed ready to go to the railway commission and obtain that rate over the Transcontinental railway which the conditions of the railway can justify.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I will try to
bring the House to a due sense of the issue before it. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) spoke about the desire of his friends and himself to get a reduction in the freight rates, so that there could be a develop-234i
ment of trade and shipment through our various ports in order to promote the welfare of every one. But the one thing that blocks the country in the matter of transportation to-day is what I pointed out earlier in the session. Until we save the hundred million dollars a year which is wasted you cannot accomplish much. As long as we refuse to consolidate the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National we will have that great shortage of a hundred million dollars. If we save that hundred million we will have it available, not only for this pro-11 p.m. position, but for many others.
My hon. friend from North Waterloo knows more about this question than I do; he knows where the waste occurs and where it can be stopped. The Minister of Justice also understands the proposition and realizes that we must have relief from the present great extravagance which prevails in the east and all over the country before we can meet with any success. We must stop the expenditure of millions in all directions. An election may be on shortly, but even if an election is impending it is no reason why we should not stop the leaks which exist to-day. I challenge any hon. member in this House, any man in the country and the apologists of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway to show why, if the two roads were consolidated, a hundred million dollars could not be saved to the people of this country. But at present every suggestion is to increase the expenditure. Canada to-day must begin to practice economy and stop the leaks. I do not care what may happen to me; I am going to make the proposition in the country that the time has come when we must stop these extravagances and leaks. I wish the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition were in their seats to hear my statement. Give to Quebec and to other places these facilities if they want them after we have stopped the leaks and have shown to the country that we can run our business and make both ends meet. I do not care what the House does in this matter or what happens to me in connection with it, but at the present time, and in the coming probable election, I am going to make the proposition that we can do lots of these things if we stop the leaks, take care of our money and take up propositions only which can be justified on their merits. The people of Canada will demand an accounting from members of this House, no matter on which side of the House they sit, when the matter

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
is brought before them, and I as a humble
citizen of the country will bring it before them. If we stop this extravagance and save to the country over a hundred million dollars by the consolidation of the two roads, the system will be three or four times as efficient, which is something the hon. member for Lotbiniere desires to see. But that efficiency will never be obtained unless we do away with the present system of having two rival railways driving through the country competing against each other. I do not care whether hon. members are Conservative, Liberal or Progressive; if you go back to the country and ask to be re-elected, in view of the fact that you have not endeavoured to stop the leaks and have not insisted on economy, you will not be successful. It is absolute folly to continue to spend more and more millions of dollars, with debts and taxes increasing as they are at present. I hope therefore that before the end of this session the House will find some means of putting an end to this awful extravagance. The money comes out of the ordinary taxpayer; it is he that has to sweat to provide it while we waste it, and we are the persons who will be held responsible.


Thomas Vien: I fully agree with the hon.
gentleman.


William Findlay Maclean: There is my first
convert.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman cannot boast of having converted me; I was of the opinion that economy Should be practised before he stated his views on this matter. He w'as preaching to a convert.


William Findlay Maclean: Then I am a follower of yours.


Thomas Vien: 
Mr. KELLNER:: Is that 25 cent rate from Armstrong to Quebec still existent?


Thomas Vien: I believe so.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that this government has no control over freight rates?


Thomas Vien: I do, because the Canadian National Railways have now been put under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Robert Forke: The rate is 20| from Armstrong to Quebec.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Thomas Vien: And even at that it is excessive.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is the Board of Railway Commissioners under the government?


Thomas Vien: Not any more than a court of justice. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of justice in the fixing of freight rates and there is an appeal from its decisions to the Governor in Council. At the time we applied to the Board, the National Transcontinental and the National Railways were not under their jurisdiction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Thomas Vien: I am reading from the memorandum prepared on behalf of the transportation committee of the board of trade of Quebec. When the commissioners came to Quebec we represented to them that if they gave a lower rate the grain would go through that port, and they admitted it. Commissioner Rutherford said:
But there is a very great difference. Suppose you bring a load of grain down here, and return the cars to the prairies, that takes a long time. That is why those grain elevators were built in the western provinces, to give a short haul on grain. If this 90,000,000 bushels had not gone via Buffalo, where would it have been now?
Mr. St. Laurent: Most of it would still be there, because up to this time the eastern ports could only provide for a few millions.
Mr. Smith: We could have looked after 25,000,000 bushels here.
Commissioner Rutherford: We have another condition to meet there, and that is this: up until now and for a long time in the future that grain will have to be moved in a great hurry, before the close of navigation. It is wrong from an economical and national standpoint to move that grain in that way, but our financial and other conditions in western Canada have been such that it is essential to move that grain in a hurry.
The reason a great deal of that grain went to Buffalo and not to Atlantic seaports was because the Canadian seaports were closed.
It would require a large number of cars no doubt, but it would be unfortunate if this splendid Transcontinental railway were to be built and not provided with sufficient rolling stock to carry all the traffic which would naturally come to it at a fair profit over the operating cost.
Then I said:
I do not see that there is any serious objection to fixing such a price over the National Railways as would allow the Canadian National to make money and yet be able to beat other competitors. There is competition in transportation all over the world, and the country which can arrange its transportation system in such a way as to beat others in prices and still make money will win out.
Argument was then advanced by Commissioner Rutherford that if we did do that it would put all the other railways out of business. We said that we did not think so, that a certain quantity of grain was at all
times bound to come by the lake and rail route, and that therefore the lake and bay ports would always receive a certain amount of traffic, but we wanted in that way to divert to the Canadian National Railways that portion of the grain traffic which goes to the American railways and ports. We think that the only way of breaking the vicious circle within which we find ourselves enclosed is first to equip with proper facilities the eastern harbours, and then you will see that with the assistance of hon. gentlemen from the western provinces we shall get the rates lowered over the Transcontinental.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would it not be a good thing to lower the rates first?
Mr. .MACLEAN (York): Is my hon. friend (Mr. Vien) ready now to do something to stop the mad competition between our two transportation systems and get reduced freight rates? If I could get some assurance of that to-night from the government, I would gladly support this expenditure and a lot of other votes in order to stop the leak that has continued year after year.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, it is not from lack of sympathy towards the development of the port of Quebec that there is any opposition to the pro-posed expenditure from this part of the House. I think every member from the prairie provinces, more especially perhaps from Manitoba and' Saskatchewan, is anxious to see western grain carried over the Transcontinental. I think that if the rates from Fort William or Armstrong to Quebec were the same as they are from Calgary to Fort William, the grain ought to be carried for eleven cents from Fort William to Quebec. I do not know the reason why this rate is not available. I was asked the other day why grain was no-t being carried at the same rate as was in force from Calgary to Fort William. I replied, "Ask Sir Henry Thornton. Perhaps he knows why they are asking 20| cents to carry grain the same distance as it is carried for a much lower rate from prairie province points to Fort William." I should like to see that flow of grain taking place, and were I assured that the Quebec harbour facilities were not able to cope with the traffic now offered I would be prepared to support this vote. But grain is not going there at the present time, and I feel convinced -that the harbour can -take care of all the grain that will be sent there for the next year or two anyway. There is no sentiment with regard to the carrying of grain. We hear a great deal about Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal being national ports and that our

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
grain ought to go through them. I admit that, and I should like to see it taking place, but I think the House will bear me out that as a matter of business grain will go by the easiest and cheapest route, and you cannot by legislation prevent it. I have no hesitation in saying that in years to come our grain will flow to the ports whence it can get the easiest and cheapest exit to- the export markets. But I should like to see Quebec, Halifax and St. John getting their fair share of the business, and if anything can be done to facilitate this I shall be only too willing to assist. In the meantime I regret, as I think all of us in this part of the House do, that it is necessary to oppose this vote. In the present condition of the country I do not think the people would stand behind us in voting five million dollars to enlarge the harbour of Quebec. I am not convinced by anything that has been said tonight that the harbour is not able to take care of all the trade that is being offered at the present time. I have read carefully all the recommendations made by Mr. Scott and others with regard to the Transcontinental railroad carrying grain, but I do not find a single hint that Quebec is not able to take care of the grain that finds its way down there to-day over -the Transcontinental. We were asked the other day to vote 81,600,000 to deepen the St. Lawrence, and now we are asked to vote $5,000,000 to enlarge the harbour of Quebec. Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see my way to support this vote, and I do not think the country would stand behind us if we endorsed the expenditure. I sympathize with the members from Quebec, for they are very much in earnest in asking for this assistance, and perhaps they feel a little hurt at so much opposition developing-


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will permit
me? Does he contend that we should wait until such time as actual conditions justify expenditure on branch lines out west, that is, until they are able t-o pay interest on the investment?
Mr. FORIvE:	Mr. Chairman, if they are
building branch lines in the wesit that will not pay interest, I think the work should not be undertaken; but I am perfectly sure they are paying interest.


Thomas Vien: Will not my hon. friend admit
then that quite a number of branch lines should be closed?


Mr. MORRISON:: There is not a branch
line in the west but has paid interest and sinking fund.


Robert Forke: I think there is a good
deal of misunderstanding in the House with regard to branch lines. Perhaps a branch line in itself does not -pay, but when taken as a feeder in conjunction with the trunk line, there is no branch line in the west to-day that does not pay.


An hon. MEMBER:: It takes a good deal
to convince one -that that is the case.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend adds to the
cost of the branch line part of the cost of the trunk line, he will find that on this basis of computation there are tmany branch lines in the west that should be closed.


Robert Forke: Well, we are a long way
from Quebec now.


Thomas Vien: Not at all; we are advancing the same argument.


Robert Forke: If we were spending -millions of dollars on branch lines in the west that could not be expected to pay interest on the investment for many years to come, I would not be in favour of building them. I am not hostile to the development of the harbour of Quebec, but I conscientiously believe that the couutry will not stand for this expenditure under present financial conditions, and therefore I am opposed to it. I do not want to be pessimistic, but sometimes I become alarmed when I notice how year after year we are adding to the national debt, while our population is not increasing ait the rate it should. Therefore I cannot but think we ought to walk very warily at the present time.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that sometimes expenditures are real savings?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: This is such a case.


Robert Forke: I have repeated the phrase
several times in this House, that you can have a wise pessimism and a foolish optimism. I think this is a case where the optimism is perhaps a little foolish. I am sorry that I cannot see my way to support this vote.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the opposition that has developed, and I am sure there must be some misapprehension with respect to this vote. It is not a new proposal at all; years ago parliament provided money for the development of the harbour of Quebec, and that has naturally led up to this expenditure. At the time property was secured in Quebec city in order that these works might be built.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
Are we in Canada to say that we are not to develop our ports, that we are to stop where we are, that we are to leave things as they were before the war? Or is it the desire of the people of Canada that we should proceed to develop our ports and keep Canadian traffic within our own ports? There is no doubt that if we decided that we should not maintain our own eastern ports the people of the United States would be glad to provide accommodation and facilities for the Canadian traffic. Quebec is one of the oldest ports in Canada. It has a strategic location on the St. Lawrence river. Some years ago the construction of a railway by the people of Canada had the effect of improving that position, and there is no doubt in my mind that if parliament considers this vote favourably it will promote increased trade through the port of Quebec. That increased trade will not merely affect the trade that already goes through the port of Montreal. We have to maintain two sets of harbours on the Atlantic seaboard, Montreal and Quebec during the summer and St. John and Halifax during the winter. Fortunately in western Canada we do not have that condition; our harbours are open the year round. But so far as Quebec is concerned this expenditure was foreseen years ago and money was expended in order that these developments might take place. I think there has been a very unfair criticism to-night from the other side, namely, that the harbour of Quebec was not paying interest on its bonds or on the advances made. Quebec is in a different position from Montreal, in that respect, because you have not the heavy tonnage at Quebec. But the port of Quebec has served a very useful purpose and is serving to-day a useful purpose for the people of Canada, and there is no reason why this vote of $5,000,000 to carry on these developments, to be extended over a period of four or five years, should not be provided. I am satisfied that within the next few years we shall have a western development that will justify the expenditure of this money, and there should be no hesitation on the part of western members to give their support to this measure.


Miss MACPHAIL:: As one of the youngest and most inexperienced members of this House, and knowing the least about the millions of money we hear so much about, I am impelled to say that the people who live in ports on the seaboard and on the lakes must be exceedingly glad for the grain growers and cattle raisers of Canada, because they are the excuse for building needless elevators and dry docks that are never used and harbours
that are#of no use to anybody. Think of the expenditure this year; think of what they are doing in Halifax! What use is to be made of the elevator they are building down there? Then there .is the expenditure at Prince Rupert, improvements in Vancouver- all these tremendous port expansions. They must expect a very great deal of grain to be grown and a tremendous number of cattle to be raised if any of these facilities are to be used at all. As I sit here now in the fourth session since I came to this parliament, I have come to this conclusion that we shall never have economy in Canada until we individually practise economy; until each of us says to his constituents: "If Canada is not to go at once on the rocks"-and anybody who is looking can see that that is the direction in which the country is going-"if it is not to go more rapidly, you and I in this constituency must economize." I offer no apology for voting against this proposal; I feel it is a privilege to do it. I have opposed every expenditure in my riding, even though it has brought me unpopularity to do so. All that the government has been asked by me to spend in Southeast Grey since I came here amounted to $270 a year, and if you knew the trouble I had to get that you would think it was a very large amount indeed. I have not asked for anything, even when my people insisted on it, and in justification to them I must say they did that very seldom. I wonder if we are justified in asking if the request for this immense amount of money does not naturally follow the unpopularity of the proposed subsidy to Sir William Petersen. It is only two or three years ago since we had a vote of almost a similar sum for the same port. I have sat here through almost the whole of this debate and I have not heard any argument that proved to me that additional facilities are needed in Quebec. Five million dollars is a great deal of money to the people who finally pay, and they are the grain growers and cattle raisers of this country. I shall very gladly, Mr. Chairman, oppose this vote.


John Morrison: The hon. member for
Lotbiniere stated that the branch lines in western Canada were not paying.


Thomas Vien: AVill my hon. friend allow a
correction? I said that if you applied a portion of the money invested in the trunk line to the branch lines-because the branch lines are considered as feeders of the main line- many of the branch lines would have to be closed.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


John Morrison: Last year in the Railway committee of the Senate, Senator Calder stated that he had been Minister of Railways in Saskatchewan for a number of years, and he challenged anybody to contradict the statement that there w'as not one branch line built in Saskatchewan that did not pay its interest and meet its sinking fund requirements. In Alberta and Manitoba the branch lines were in practically the same position. There have been no expenditures on railway lines in the prairie provinces that have not paid. But I would point out that when a branch line was proposed this year that was not considered necessary, even the members in who3S constituencies it was proposed to be built objected to the expenditure, just the same as they would have done had the expenditure been proposed for some other constituency or province. In other words, they did not stand for it. Why do not the members for Quebec look upon this matter as a business proposition, not as a political proposition?


Georges Parent: What is the difference between the two?


John Morrison: Some old professional
politician could answer that better than I could. Now, when we ask for a vote to finish the Hudson Bay line we do not get support from eastern Canada to put it through. The Quebec harbour board have not imposed sufficient charges to pay interest on the bonds. I consider that any body of men who have borrowed money and have not paid their interest are a poor corporation to lend further funds to. They ought to clean up at home and show that they are worthy of further loans before they come and ask for more.


Mr.   VEIN@: Does my hon. friend say that
the portion of the Hudson Bay railway that has been built pays interest?


John Morrison: No, it is not paying
at all.


Thomas Vien: Yet he is asking that it be
completed before the portion already built pays interest. We say that Quebec harbour is not completed.


John Morrison: Will the hon. member
sit down? This is my speech. How can the Hudson Bay railway be expected to pay when it is not completed?


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend permit
me a question?


George Newcombe Gordon: This is not a debate on the Hudson Bay railway.


Thomas Vien: How can the hon. member
expect the Quebec harbour to pay before it is completed?


John Morrison: The Hudson Bay line
was a through route and it was left uncompleted. Consequently, it cannot be expected to pay.


Thomas Vien: The Quebec harbour is not
completed.


John Morrison: The Quebec harbour
board should approach the railway authorities and get a paying rate so that they will have their city patronized. They cannot expect us to spend further money there when the facilities which are already provided, are not used to 100 per cent capacity, they are not used to 20 per cent capacity. Therefore, I do not feel justified in supporting this vote.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for
Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has spoken of a certain vicious circle which ought to be broken, and he intimated that the way to break it was to secure shipping facilities at Quebec and then demand the rate. The reasonable proposition would be to get the rate first and then see what the effect of that rate would be upon the traffic. It has already been well pointed out in this debate that the giving of a proper rate to Quebec might very possibly affect rates upon the lakes. If the rate that we think should be granted were given to Quebec and grain began to flow to Quebec, the effect might very well be that a still lower rate as might be given with profit would be given on the lakes. The still further effect of that would be to throw a still greater quantity of grain over the lakes, and we might find that the granting of the lower rate to Quebec would so affect rates on the lakes that further facilities at Quebec would not be required. There is no sentiment in the west as to where our grain should go. It is going to go to that port that offers the best facilities and gives the cheapest rate. The possible effect of that lower rate which we think ought to be granted might be to lower still further the rate on the lakes. It has been pointed out that the reason why this lower rate has not been granted which, we think ought to be given has been that the facilities are not at hand. It seems to have been further urged when the memorandum was presented to the grain commissioners, that possibly that might have the effect of taking all the trade away from the other railways. There is just a suspicion-perhaps it is not justified-that other influences are at work to prevent that

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
rate from being granted over the National Transcontinental. It is, perhaps, more than a suspicion that other railway interests are at work to prevent our grain going in that direction. It is sometimes pointed out to us that all the great expenditures on railways were for the people of the west. As regards the west, prior to the present time, that railway might just as well have stopped at the point where it could most easily reach Fort William. All the expenditure from Armstrong east is valueless to the people of the west and it should not be charged against us. When we are given a rate that will make it possible for us to ship our grain and live stock over that route to Quebec, we shall begin to consider that the argument has some measure of value. At the present time it has none.
Another question that should be seriously considered is this. The whole railway situation in Canada has been changed by the opening up of the Panama canal. The people jf the Pacific coast recognize this fact. One of our Canadian writers, Miss Agnes Laut, a few months ago wrote an article for an American magazine pointing out very clearly the change that has come about in the railway situation through the opening of the Panama canal, so that it is possible to-day to ship freight from Montreal by the Panama canal right through to the Pacific coast and bring it back almost as far as the city of Brandon. That must be taken into account in all rate-fixing in the future, and if that is not taken into account, our railway rates can never be put upon a proper basis. When proper account is taken of the new conditions that have been created by the opening up of the Panama canal, it may be found that we have pretty nearly all the elevator capacity that we need at our eastern ports. I think sometimes we are taking an entirely wrong view of the situation. The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) made an eloquent plea that Quebec was a national port and that it was not being considered from a sectional or local standpoint. But we know that sectional and local interests are advocated time and again in this House. What about the elevator at Prince Rupert? What about the elevator at Halifax or St. John? Are we not being constantly appealed to on the ground that we must give consideration to these ports? Therefore, hon. members for Quebec, in view of the fact that we are constantly being appealed to on these grounds, need not be surprised if it should be thought these appeals are being made in the interest
of the Quebec district. I am very loath to put any obstacle in the way of the proper development of our facilities. We can carry on the trade of our country only on condition that proper facilities are provided. At the same time, the situation with regard to the railways, to which I have briefly referred, is such that we should at the present time be very careful in making further expenditures for the creation of extra facilities at our ports. At present it does not seem to me that these extra facilities that are now being advocated are required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to agree at the outset that Quebec is a national port; but having said that-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a fairly good start.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I am going to say now is just as good, just as true, but the hon. gentleman will not accept it. Our proceedings lately-and I am not going to give many illustrations-remind me very much of the mad hatter's tea party. We have to deepen the St. Lawrence as far as Montreal to take in the big boats. We have to build more docks down at Quebec because the big boats cannot go further up the river. Then we go into another room and we find that all of this is a mistake; that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), as a result of his collaboration with-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member cannot speak , of what is going on in a committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us take the contract and we find that as a result of what-


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order. The Petersen contract is now referred to a committee, and it is against the rules to speak of it in a debate on the port of Quebec.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, to dwell on it in a debate, but I understand this is only a reference to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only a
reference.


Georges Parent: Just a glancing reference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and it shows that we are mistaken in thinking about big boats ,and that what we want is a small boat that requires a very little depth of water. What are we to do? We are just moving from one place to another, with an argument from this government to spend money for any purpose, no matter how inconsistent it

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
may be in connection with other expenditures. Now Quebec is a national harbour. So are other harbours national. But because Quebec is a national harbour is no reason why, at a time like the present, we should spend money unnecessarily. That is the whole question; there is no other question.
We have heard something about rates tonight. There is nothing so far as this immediate work is concerned which depends at all upon the question of rates. Those docks en the other side have not, of necessity, anything whatever to do with the grain elevator and the grain business. There is ample room to look after all the boats on the other side which can be served by the elevator, and it is a splendid elevator. So far as Quebec's terminal facilities are concerned in the grain business-yes and in the cattle business-the facilities are better than they are at other ports. Hon. gentlemen who have been there know that they are better in Quebec than they are in Montreal. Hon. gentlemen who have been there also know that the Quebec elevator is an excellent elevator, and if there was any demand for space there are full and ample facilities.
The minister read this afternoon a submission from the steamship people. Well, in the first instance, the steamship people, as everybody else, like to get the very best facilities they can get when somebody else pays for them. There is no question about that. They are the very last people in the world I would have thought the government would have relied upon for a defence of the expenditure of this money. But what I want to point out to the House, Mr. Chairman, is this: That report was a report which was made last spring in connection with a condition of affairs that has absolutely ceased. Why the boats that special accommodation was wanted for then were the Carmania and the Caronia. They were the two big boats and they got the desired space. There was no trouble in getting the room, they obtained it all right. They operated all right so far as space was concerned, and they have since been taken out of the business. The apparent demand upon which some excuse could be based for expenditure no longer exists to-day. If we attempt to rely upon that excuse we are simply deceiving ourselves here and everybody knows it. Everybody knows that these two boats that wanted the berths, which they got last year, are now no longer in the service.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this work is a big work. My recollection-and I want the minister to correct me if I am wrong-is that this work will amount to $20,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What work?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The completion of the work which is to be started by this $5,000,000. The total development on that side of the river will cost $20,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course the developments that we are providing for can be extended along the same lines; but what we are asking for is sufficient to complete that part of the programme which will be capable of taking care of the traffic.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid the real situation is this-that when we commence it we are committed to the whole scheme and that will involve $20,000,000 expenditure.


Georges Parent: If the demand requires
it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the demand
requires it? There is no demand for it so far
as shipping is concerned. There is absolutely no trouble or no congestion at Quebec so far as shipping is concerned. Why (he revenues of the 'harbour commission show that- absolutely no demand. But the Minister of Justice talks about the low rate for passengers. Well, there is just the same rate for passengers at Quebec, as I understand, as there is at Montreal. If I am wrong I want to be put right; I want to do every justice to the port. But it is nonsense, absolute nonsense, for any hon. gentleman to get up here and say there is a whole lot of passengers coming in there and they are not charged anything when exactly the same charge is made iat the port cf Montreal.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is always using strong language; everybody is speaking nonsense but himself. Let me tell my hon. friend that the immigrants are landing in Quebec not in Montreal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not the point, and my hon. friend knows it perfectly well.


Ernest Lapointe: I know it but you do net apparently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend talks about passengers but the fact is-I want a correction from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if I am wrong-that exactly the same charge is made for passengers in Quebec as is made in Montreal.


Ernest Lapointe: But the passenger traffic is to Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no charge made in Quebec for these passengers.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Ernest Lapointe: Who is talking nonsense now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is. I cannot conceive of any greater nonsense than for any public man having any conception of his duties at the present time in connection with Canada's business to attempt to justify the payment of $5,000,000 of the people's money upon the arguments he has used to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the viaduct at Toronto?


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Is the hon, member
aware that his late leader Sir Robert Borden, when he came to Quebec to try and get the sympathy and the votes of the people promised and engaged himself as the leader of the government that we would develop the port of Quebec with a much larger expenditure than we are asking to-day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah, Mr. Chairman, development is for the purpose of looking after the business, and if there will be enough business, if there be justification for it certainly go on and develop. But we can pay too much for luxuries. Why, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is an ornament to the House, but he is not worth $5,000,000 of the people's money at the present time. This is no time for diamonds and luxuries.


Lucien Cannon: Are we going to hold an
auction?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder where '
that remark comes in. I wonder i.f there is not some way by which we could really help Quebec. What help is it to Quebec to give that port facilities which she cannot use? The only help it is is to aid a few of the government's friends. It will be helpful for election purposes but what real help is it to Quebec? Well, I would like to have seen the Minister of Justice not needing any help, not bringing this down. There are things that could be done to help Quebec. I wonder why my hon. friend does not apply himself in some of those directions instead of this. I point out that not one single ratepayer in Quebec is going to be helped by this expenditure, not one of them. There will be a little temporary work, certainly, and then there will be the burden. There will be the burden of added taxation without the slightest return for it. There will be the burden that comes from all extravagance, and I really seriously appeal to the government-


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask if one single
ratepayer in Quebec was helped by the expenditure of thirty millions in Toronto?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will come to
Toronto at once. There is a situation in Toronto-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Somebody says "order" when I am replying to a question that was asked me. There was a situation in Toronto of many years standing, which stood until the people outwaited the railway, which stood such a length of time that the railways in the name of economy and efficiency had to go ahead. That is the situation in Toronto. There is nothing being done in Toronto on that viaduct for the future business of these railways at the present time.


Charles Gavan Power: No, they built the Station
first and then had to build a viaduct to get to it. They built their big station at a cost of a million dollars, and then they had to spend millions more to get to the station.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder who has the floor at the present time. I wonder if we are to go over the whole continent, in connection with a discussion which is perfectly proper, because some hon. member opposite raises a particular point. Now can we not really do something in connection with expenditures at the present time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the hon. member really wanting to help Quebec?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would love to help Quebec but this resolution will never do it', and my hon. friend knows it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is the hon. member going to do it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That, is another subject, and I would be promptly ruled out of order if I dealt with that. Is it not possible for the government to try and hold down expenditure at least to some extent? They talk economy and that sort of thing, but never try it; and to turn round and look after the business which might turn up in five or ten years from now is simply ridiculous. A great deal has been said about the railway rates. We know how useful Quebec harbour is today, and as the railway rates stand, does the government really think they will do any more business in Quebec with this five million
3674	. COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commissioners
dollar expenditure, or is tlie whole thing really just what it appears to be? This is a vote on the St. Lawrence, and with these elevators here and there, it is just simply preparation for the next election.


Mr. EVANS:: Notwithstanding all that has been said, I must say that I shall have to oppose this resolution. I look on it as uneconomical, unbusinesslike, and I might use a stronger word. I believe at this time it is unpatriotic. Some years ago we built a National Transcontinental railway and the port of Quebec was very much linked up with that. The development of the two must go together. In fact we built that railway on a gradient over which heavy trains could be hauled from the west without a break, but in all the discussion to-day I have not heard even one member of the government tell us what influence has been at work that has prevented that railway being used as the other parts have, or used all the way from Cochrane to Quebec, which lies now, as one hon. member describes it, simply a line of rust. The Minister of Justice said that we must develop our national ports. That this is a national port I do not deny; but only last week we also made Blind River and Trenton national ports, and we built wharves and warehouses at those places, to be from this time forth looked after by the Dominion government. This is all very expensive. But now we come to this question before us. The development on the St. Lawrence nver is sufficient to look after the trade of the country. The trade of our country has not developed at the rate we are developing our outlets and the ports of our country
12 p.m. both east and west. There is sufficient capacity at present to look after all the wheat and cattle that will go to Quebec for many years to come. I have only to repeat the minister's own words and I find that there are twenty-five berths that at least will take boats from 500 to 700 feet long. This capacity has never been used to its full extent. There is sufficient accommodation there for all the wheat that will likely go over that route for many years to come. There is a two-million dollar elevator which can handle ten million bushels a year if used to its full capacity. It has a loading capacity of sixty thousand bushels an hour, and altogether Quebec is well equipped to look after all the trade that will develop through that port for the next five or six yea 's.
Now to look at this matter as between Quebec and Montreal, I think the logical thing to have done would have been to de-

velop Quebec for deep sea vessels, and the lighter trade could have gone on to Montreal. Quebec is 214 miles nearer the heart of the Dominion than Montreal, but we are now going to spend nearly another seventeen millions to develop a channel to take the trade of the country 214 miles further away from the heart of the Dominion. It is unreasonable, and for that reason I say it is an unbusinesslike proposition. The Minister of Health said that the cattle trade will increase. I only hope it will, but under the present conditions, which are destroying trade in this country, we in western Canada have lost more in the cattle business during the last three or four years than we can recover in the next ten years. The Minister of Health also asks defiantly, in what way can this be called a political move? Well, I suppose what is true in one case can apply in another, and I am going to quote the Prime Minister's words in Saskatoon when he said we could not expect development in the west or the completion of the Hudson Bay railway if we did not send Liberals to the House of Commons. Now how can the Hudson Bay railway be built, he asked, under those conditions? I oppose this vote for these reasons: It is unbusinesslike, it is uneconomical and the country cannot afford it.


Charles Gavan Power: I have only one word to say before this resolution passes, and that is to thank the hon. members directly opposite, and particularly the ex-Minister of Finance, for their words of sympathy towards the city [DOT] which I have the honour to represent, and to express the wish that after giving the matter further consideration they may decide to express their sympathy in a more practical way by voting in favour of the resolution. A certain number of arguments have been urged against the proposition. The first is that the port of Quebec needs no further equipment, that the equipment there is ample for all the business that there is or all the business that we will have for some time to come. I think it is only fair that the hon. gentlemen who have discussed this matter should, before forming an opinion, hear what the experts have to say in regard to it. They have heard from the minister (Mr. Cardin) that the shipping federation has declared that the accommodation at the port of Quebec for the larger class of vessels is entirely inadequate. Who should know, if not the shipping federation, the combine of all shipping interests using the St. Lawrence route? If they do not know, and if their word is not worthy

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
of consideration, whose is? I do not wish to criticize hon. gentlemen opposite, but when gentlemen rarely see ships or rarely visit harbours at all are they prepared to place their opinion on record as against that of people who are continually in the business?


Mr. STEVENS:: The last time I was in Quebec I was very much interested in the matter of harbour facilities.


Charles Gavan Power: Why did you not come to see me? I would have shown you some schooners.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I called at your office but you were not in. There is a long pier close to where the liners dock, with ample shed accommodation; I should judge there would be four deep sea berths at that pier. I walked all over the pier and it was absolutely vacant. Indeed, the grass was growing in the cracks in the cement and it had the appearance of never having been used. W7hy is that pier not made use of?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not quite recognize the description my hon. friend gives.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) laughs sarcastically. I think he is putting a wrong construction on what I am saying.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely you did not see grass on the pier?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I certainly did. Hon. gentlemen treat this question as a joke, but I am serious. I am referring to a long pier immediately adjoining the docking place of these large liners.


Charles Gavan Power: The liners of the Canadian
Pacific?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and the Cunardliners as well. Apparently the pier was not being used* at all, and, as I say, grass was growing in the cracks in the cement. Why is that pier not used when it has four deep sea berths?


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite sincere when I say I do not recognize the description. Possibly it *is the pier to which the Minister of Justice referred some time ago, which was handed over to the harbour of Quebec by the Dominion government and for which the harbour paid almost one million dollars. It is very costly and we have not been able to pay the interest on it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why is it not used?


Charles Gavan Power: It was built at the wrong place. Every berth in the harbour of Quebec last year was allotted to some company or
other. This year I was present at a meeting between the harbour commissioners and representatives of the Canadian merchant marine, at which the latter requested the commission to make some arrangements whereby the merchant marine might be assured of a permanent berth in the harbour. It was impossible for the commission to give any such assurance because they had no berths at their disposal. They said that on certain days the vessels of the merchant marine might go to such-and-such a berth if it was not already taken up; but if it happened to be a week-end when, there were a large number of immigrant ships coming in there would be no accommodation. There is a very large berth taken up by the Canadian Pacific who pay a rental of something like $20,000 a year. The Canadian Pacific Overseas Steamship Lines, Limited require a berth there for their own use whenever they have a boat in. For two or three days they may have no boat in the harbour, but they keep equipment, staff and everything necessary at that particular point. Now, 't occurred last year and the year before, and it will occur on a number of occasions, that boats must wait outside. That condition was known to the shipping federation of Montreal; and for that reason they made the statement which appears in the memorial addressed tu the government.
I must refer now to the remarks of the horn, member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) regarding the two large boats that have been taken off the St. Lawrence route. These boats came to Quebec in the hope that there would be a large immigration last year; but for reasons well known to us all the immigration was not as large as had been anticipated. The quota law operated against any large number of immigrants being taken to New York, and it was found that, taking the east-bound and westbound sailings together, there were possibly a larger number of third class passengers from New York to Europe than there would be from Quebec, inasmuch as there are always a greater number of third class passengers travelling from the United States than from Canada. That explained why the immigration last year was not as large as had been hoped for. But the chief reason why the boats were taken off the St. Lawrence route is the fact that this is holy year, and hundreds of thousands of pilgrims have been going to Rome right along. For every third class, or first class passenger for that matter, going from a Canadian port there will be hundreds sailing from the United States. This however will be only a temporary

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
condition, and I may say that the Cunard line will retain their berth in Quebec, paying fifteen or twenty thousand dollars a year to the commission. They would hardly do that if they had any intention of leaving ,the port entirely.
Now, there is no intention of competing with Montreal. As has been said, vessels of over 15,000 tons cannot go to Montreal; they would never be able to go there if you dug until Domesday. The route to Montreal needs dredging in order to accommodate boats of that tonnage and it would be a physical impossibility for larger vessels to go to that harbour. Let me State the reasons. The water has fallen considerably in the St. Lawrence and in the months of August and September, the drier period of the year, it is not possible for vessels of over 15,000 tons to go up the river to Montreal. This lowering of the water is due as we all know to deforestation; it is clear that as fast as the trees disappear in the upper sources of rivers and lakes the water will flow so much more rapidly in the spring time and will be lower in the summer. That is known to anyone who has had anything to do with the settlement of timber areas.
It stands to reason, too, that when this country is opened and the trees removed the sun would evaporate the water on the surface, so naturally there would be less to flow through the river. Moreover, there i3 the Chicago drainage canal. It has been shown, perhaps not with sufficient exactness, that Chicago is taking so many cubic feet of water per second from the lake, and that this has materially affected the levels in the St. Lawrence. This I do not give as a fact, but it was stated recently, after the earthquake in the Saguenay region, that there was a tendency before, and particularly since the earthquake, for the surface of the Atlantic seaboard to rise, so that in the near future we would be more or less going uphill towards Montreal. This was stated iby a prominent scientist who came to investigate the causes and effects of that earthquake. I do not give it as gospel. But there is no doubt that the water level is getting lower. There is no doubt also that the port of Montreal will not be able to furnish proper accommodation for vessels of large tonnage. Why, therefore, not develop the port of Quebec? I think almost every hon. member has read the report made some years ago by the Dominions Royal Commission, in which it was stated that the boat of the future would be about twenty or thirty thousand tons.


Robert Forke: They are building smaller
boats now.


Charles Gavan Power: That may be because they
have not much money since the war. However, this is the most authoritative statement that we have on the subject.


Robert Forke: I saw a statement the other day-


Charles Gavan Power: From Sir William Petersen?


Robert Forke: I saw a statement the other day that no more big boats would be built, they being economically unsound.


Charles Gavan Power: I read that article. It did
not seem to have any great authority behind it. They are building boats much larger than will possibly be able to go up to Montreal. There is another argument urged against the advancing of this money-that the harbour of Quebec has not paid its interest, and that a sum of approximately eight million dollars is owing on this account. In answer to that, the Quebec harbour commissioners filed a contra account against the Dominion government amounting to $5,122,109. This contra account was arrived at by charging one dollar .per head for every immigrant. One hon. gentleman said it was ridiculous to think of that, because neither Montreal nor St. John made such a charge. But in >the harbour of Quebec the best portions are utilized for immigration facilities, and for these alone. We cannot get away from it; for generations immigrants have come through the harbour of Quebec until they have kind of got the habit. The ancestors of most hon. gentlemen, if not the hon. gentlemen themselves, came through the harbour of Quebec. Would they have liked to have had to swim ashore? Are they not .glad rwe gave them a chance to land somewhere? We never charged them for coming in [DOT]-we are glad they came. As has been poffited out by some hon. members on this side, every little parcel pays something to the harbour where it is landed. But the human freight, the immigrant, the man that is to build up our country, the bone and sinew of the Dominion, the man that goes to our western farms and has such a hard time to develop them and make money-he comes through there. We do not want to charge him anything, but we do want to get credit with the government, we want to be allowed at any rate to come before the country and say, "We want those facilities increased, we want to be able to receive immigrants well, and we do not want to be told that in doing that work we are dishonest in not paying.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
interest on our obligations to the Dominion." We have been doing this work for a long time and we have not got very much credit for it. We put in an account, an ordinary business account, and it is laughed at. No member of this House can go on anybody else's property and do what he likes there without having to pay something for the privilege. The very best portions of the harbour, as I have said, are used for immigration purposes, and we should get some credit for it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does my hon. friend
state that at one dollar a head the amount against the Dominion government is over five million dollars?


Charles Gavan Power: I got the figure from sessional paper 194, being a return to an order of the House of Commons, dated March 30, 1925, showing in detail contra-account against, the Dominion government for services rendered by the Quebec Board of Harbour Commissioners, and referred to in answer to a question on page 1262, of Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What year does it start?


Charles Gavan Power: A long time back-not long
enough to give us all the credit which is our due for bringing in probably my hon. friend's ancestors, but long enough perhaps to have looked after some of my hon. friends who are immediately opposite.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
year?


Charles Gavan Power: Some hon. gentleman says
the year 1492; I think he is referring to the Knights of Columbus. From I860 to 1925 it amounts to $5,122,109.20


Alfred Speakman: I think the hon. member must be computing the immigrants at compound interest.


Charles Gavan Power: We are-but they are worth it. Why, my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) said the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is worth five million dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not
enough.


Andrew Knox: Do not the boats that bring
in immigrants pay dockage dues?


Charles Gavan Power: They pay about twenty or twenty-five dollars apiece.


Andrew Knox: Why had the Cunard to pay such a large sum?


Charles Gavan Power: They make their terminus
at Quebec.


Andrew Knox: Do they not bring immigrants in?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and freight.


Andrew Knox: Do you not think that $20,-
000 is charged up to the immigrants?


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite sure it would
not be, because all those shipping companies have been opposed for years to any charge whatsoever on immigrants. For years this has been urged by the harbour commissioners, both on this government and the former government; time and again we have asked to be allowed to make some charge for immigrants. I do not think there is any possible way of the steamship companies passing that charge on to the immigrants.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does not the hon.
gentleman think the steamship companies have made enough out of the immigrant business to pay the bill?


Charles Gavan Power: I think possibly they have. I do not object to that statement at all, although I understand1 that their rates are fairly low at the present time. That does not help us.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Does the hon. member
think that if the Dominion government were to pay this $5,000,000 bill, the harbour commissioners would pay the balance?


Charles Gavan Power: That at any rate would give us a start; we would be able to pay the annual interest charges at least when we had the proper berth accommodation for the boats which are expected to come.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite say they wish to help the port of Quebec; that they are prepared1 to do anything they can but that they think we have gone the wrong way about it. Instead, they say, of asking for equipment for the development of the port we should have gone to the railway commission or to the government or to somebody and obtained from them an assurance that we would get the benefit of lower freight rates. I think that is stating pretty fairly the position taken by some hon. gentlemen opposite. Well, may I point out to them that this work will take five years, so that we have five years within which to agitate to get the freight rates down?


Milton Neil Campbell: We have for over
twenty years been trying to get these freight rates adjusted and we have not succeeded yet.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Charles Gavan Power: We have been for a long
time. But twenty years ago my hon. friend's friendls and his party did not exist, and now that they do and they are willing to join with us, there should be a likelihood of our succeeding.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would point out that the west was very liberally represented in my hon. friend's party at that time, and they failed to get it.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, until they fell away.
At that time they were liberally represented and they were good Liberals, but unfortunately perhaps the situation was not placed before them or was not shown to be as acute as it is to-day. There were other problems to be discussed then, and this one had not become acute.


Milton Neil Campbell: Surely the hon. member cannot claim it was not acute when the railway was built for the express purpose of delivering our grain and cattle at the port of Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, that was one time the east and the west got together, and we put the thing through. If we get together on this thing we may put the next one over.


Milton Neil Campbell: It was of very little
use to us to build the road if there was no means of using it afterwards.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite so; we are in substantial agreement. Some of my Tory friends say that this is a political matter, well, if it does not go through and I get beaten, any one of them can simply come over here and get elected in my seat. What I was coming at was this; we are about to go over the whole structure of freight rates. We will have five years in which to discuss that. The leader of the Progressives said: "We will not need these things for two of three years more." Well, we will not have them for five years; we will not be able to berth a ship in Quebec until after five years have passed. Surely we will have come to some arrangement in this country for an equitable adjustment of rates before five years. If we have not, the collective wisdom of this country which has been gathered here working on this thing for the last three years, and those who will succeed us, will not mean very much. Indeed, it will be time for a change of government, in the sense not only of a change of the government party in power, but of a change in the system of government. If the people working on this for five years cannot

arrive at a solution satisfactory to the people of Canada, then let us have some kind of dictatorship or something other than parliamentary institutions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Judging from the direction in which this country is travelling, where are we going to be economically in five years?


Charles Gavan Power: We are not so badly off, I think. We are not wealthy, but we are not bankrupt, and we have enormous natural resources. If some of my hon. friends over there will let us use them and make money out of them, we shall be able to pay our debt.
Now, I have taken up three times more time than I should, but I could not let this vote go by without saying a word in an endeavour to convince some of my hon. friends who are sympathetic but who apparently have not grasped all the facts. I am sorry it is not within my power to elucidate the matter further. But I would ask them to give to the matter -the same sympathetic -consideration that we have given to all other projects of the kind placed before us. There has been talk of discrimination in freight rates against Quebec. Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that there has been discrimination in more than freight rates? We vo-ted for Vancouver; we voted for Toronto; we voted for everywhere else, and never have we heard any such discussion as we have had from the moment the city of Quebec asked -for what is proposed here.


William John Ward: I would like to repeat my question to -the Minister o-f Justice; he did not see fit to answer it when I put it previously. My question was: Did he think it was in the best interests of -this country that we should continue to deepen our waterways and our harbours and build huge canals to satisfy an obsession on the part of the shipping companies to build greater and greater ships, when proof has been given to us this session that the larger boats cannot be operated to-day in competition with the smaller and slower boats? I would like an -answer from the -minister on this -point.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend's question is really too long for a short answer. All I may tell him is that I believe we should have a deep waterway on the St. Lawrence route.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
367&

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


William John Ward: I do not inflict myself on the House very often, and it will not assist the matter for hon. members opposite to call "Carried." I do not think there has been an item before this House in the last four years so absolutely unjustifiable as the one we are now considering, and I do not think it becomes hon. gentlemen opposite, when they have the whip hand, to call "Carried" and try to choke off hon. members who get up to speak.
Speaking in the House a few nights ago I drew attention to what I felt was an amazing situation, namely, the inflicting upon western wheat growers of elevators all over this country that we were protesting against. I think the government owe us an explanation as to why they are forcing upon us an elevator at Prinlce Rupert, an elevator at Halifax, an elevator at Quebec; and the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan) wants another elevator there. The only answer must be that it is very much more profitable to operate elevators than it is to grow grain. If this vote passes to-night it is just another few nails in the coffin of the present confederation. Is it any wonder that the secession talk is growing in western Canada, when a million and a half people in western Canada have been asking for the opening up of the Hudson Bay route for twenty, twenty-five, even forty years? Who is asking for these elevators that we are called upon to vote money for? We do not want these facilities, but we do want the Hudson bay route. If this vote passes, another 10,000 recruits will be added to the army of secessionists now in western Canada. Discrimination is being practised in this House and in this country to an extent that we people of western Canada are not going to stand for it very much longer. I have in my office and I have received this year a bundle of petitions covering several municipalities with upwards of a thousand names attached to them asking that some steps be made for secession of the western provinces from Canada. I do not know how we can expect anything else when we see the form of justice that is being meted out in this House, because since coming here the only form of justice I have seen is numerical strength. I am sorry to have been forced to make that remark, but it is a fact that the only form of justice applied here is numerical strength. It ill becomes the government of the day to disregard absolutely the protests of hon. members who may not agree with them in matters of this kind. They are 235
simply putting a few more nails in the coffin of the present confederation.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House at this late hour after such a lengthy discussion on the port of Quebec, and as on many former occasions it has been my privilege in this House to vindicate the rights of the city of Quebec in regard to the promises made in connection with the development of that port. We have heard many of our Progressive friends state to-night that the port of Quebec should1 be developed and that they were in favour of using that port, but that first we should obtain a reduction in the grain rates. We have also heard the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) state, I think we can assume in the name of his party, that the port of Quebec does not require any additional facilities or development for the present. We may take it for granted that the hon. gentleman does not agree with the declaration made by his late leader and with the moral and legal obligations assumed by the late government towards the city of Quebec. As regards the legal obligation, there was entered into between the government of His Majesty and the city of Quebec an agreement by which, under certain conditions and in view of certain sacrifices made by the citizens of Quebec, the federal government bound itself to develop and improve the port of Quebec in the best interest, not only of the city and province of Quebec, but of Canada as a whole. The city of Quebec handed over to this government property worth more than 83,000,000 for the benefit of the government, of the railway and port facilities in Quebec, on the special consideration that our ports and railway facilities would be developed as promised and agreed to by the late government. Moreover, when we had the honour of receiving in Quebec the former leader of the late government, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, he announced to the citizens of Quebec that his government had acquired $3,000,000 worth of property along the frontage of the city of Quebec from Sillery to Champlain market; that those properties had been bought by the government in view of developing the port of Quebec, and that that was just the beginning of millions of dollars that the late government proposed to spend in developing that port. What does the present Tory party make of this moral and legal obligation which was assumed by their former leader to develop the port of Quebec? In addition to the numerous arguments that have been



Quebec Harbour Commissioners
advanced to-night in favour of the further development of the port of Quebec, I want to advance especially this legal and moral obligation. It has been stated in this House on many occasions that the government is always willing to fulfil its legal and moral obligations as it intends to do in the Home Bank situation. If this argument holds good in one case, I do not see why the moral and legal obligation towards the city of Quebec should not be fulfilled by this government.


George Newcombe Gordon: Those in favour of the resolution will please say: Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


George Newcombe Gordon: Those opposed to the
resolution will please say: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
And some hon. members having risen.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I want to
put a question.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the question has been put already.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I understood that we were
discussing this and about to carry it clause by clause.


George Newcombe Gordon: No. The whole resolution has been discussed from one end to the other.


Robert Alexander Hoey: But the understanding was
that we were to vote on it clause by clause.


George Newcombe Gordon: We started on it that
way, but the whole resolution has been discussed.


George Gibson Coote: I was on my feet and calling your name, Mr. Chairman, when the question was put.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he was not on his feet when the question was put.


George Gibson Coote: I was on my feet.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have the right to
decide that, and I decide that the hon. gentleman was not on his feet when the question was put.


William John Ward: I rise to a question of
privilege.


George Newcombe Gordon: No question of privilege can be raised after the question is put.

Motion (Mr. CARDIN) agreed to:	Yeas
75; Nays 57.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 160, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, May 29, 1925