1926-05-19

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, respecting the Bronson Company.-Mr. McClenaghan.

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

Mr. BELL (St. John and Albert):: Who are the officials connected with the harbour boards of Montreal and Quebec other than members of the harbour boards commissions, and what are their salaries ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: The names of the principal officials of the harbour boards of Montreal and Quebec, are as follows:

Montreal Harbour Commission:
Thos. W. Harvie, general manager; Thos. F. Trihey, secretary; George E. Smart, comptroller; M. P. Fennell, Jr., director of trade and transportation; Paul Leclaire, chief engineer; F. W. Cowie, consulting engineer; Capt. J. F. Symons, harbour master; John Vaughan, Supt. of railway terminals; M. Peterson, Sup. of grain elevators.
Quebec Harbour Commission:
Charles Smith, K. C., secretary treasurer and legal adviser; Brig. Gen. T. L. Tremblay, chief engineer and general manager; Ernest H. S. Woodside, comptroller and chief accountant; Capt. A. Landry,' harbour master; Louis Fortin, traffic manager; H. Peterson, grain elevator superintendent.
The government does not consider that it is in the public interest to require the harbour commissioners to furnish details of the salaries which they pay to these officials of their organization. The commissioners have power under their Act of Incorporation to appoint their own officials and to fix their salaries, and there is nothing in that act which requires the submission of proposed salaries to the government.


COST OF COLLECTION OF TAXES
Mr. DOUCET:: What was the cost of the collection: (a) of the income tax, (b) excise tax, (e) customs duties up to the end of March, for the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: It is not possible to state separately the amounts paid for the collection of taxes as distinguished from amounts paid for other customs excise services such as prevention of smuggling and illicit distillation of spirits, registration of vessels, administration of laws and regulations affecting imports and exports, etc. The total cost of collecting the income war tax and the 'business profits tax for the said years, was as follows:-
1920-	21	
$1,953,988	541921-	22	
2,277,349	781922-	23	
2,040,461	081923-	24	
1,935,242	191924-	25	
1,693,025	231925-	26	
1,724,159	39



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What -is the total number of civil servants who were eligible to voluntarily elect to come under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1924 at the time of the passing of the act?
2.	What is the total number of those thus eligible who have up to the present date declared their intention to come under the scope of the said act?

Questions


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	A return presented to the House last session indicated that the number thought to be eligible was in the neighbourhood of 25,-
000.
2.	12,224.



JUVENILE COURTS IN CANADA

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How many juvenile courts are there in Canada?
2.	By whom may judges of juvenile courts be appointed ?
3.	By whom are juvenile court judges paid?
4.	What are the names of the judges of juvenile courts in Canada who have received their appointment by order of the Governor in Council?
5.	In what provinces is the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908, in effect throughout the entire area of such provinces?
6.	In what provinces does the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts cover children up to eighteen years of age?
7.	How many juvenile court judges are there, (a) in the province of Manitoba, (b) in the province of Saskatchewan, (c) in the province of Alberta, and (d) in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The act has been proclaimed to be in force throughout four provinces, six counties, one district, twelve cities, four towns. The exact number of courts in operation is not known.
2.	Where the act has been put into force in any city, town or other portion of a province under section 35, the Governor in Council may designate a superior court or county court judge or a justice having jurisdiction in the city, town or other portion of a province in which the act is so put in force to act as juvenile court judge for- such city, town or other portion of a province. Where the legislature of any province has passed an act for the establishment of juvenile courts or for designating any existing courts as juvenile courts, and the Dominion act has been put into force in such province or part thereof under the provisions of section 34, the juvenile court judges may be appointed or designated in the manner provided by the provincial act.
3.	The remuneration of these judges must be provided for locally without recourse to the federal authorities.
4.	The following judges have been designated by the Governor in Council:-Hon. T. M. Daly, Winnipeg; G. O'Keefe, Ottawa; A. E. Bull, Vancouver; John A. Macdonald, Charlottetown; Judge Wallace, Halifax; J. E. Starr, Toronto; J. J. Coughlin, Stratford; S. Atkinson, Haileybury; A. Weir, Berlin; Judge Patterson, New Glasgow; Judge Hardy, Brantford; Robert Hawkins, Dauphin; Dr. J. Hunt,
Halifax; D. W. McKerchar, Winnipeg; J. R. Blake, Galt; D. B. Harkness, Winnipeg; G. F. Jelfs, Hamilton; Judge McQuarrie, Summerside; E. H. Blois, Halifax.
5.	Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba.
6.	British Columbia and Manitoba.
7.	This information is not in the Department of Justice.



A. F. MITCHELL-ALLEGED DEFRAUDING OF IMMIGRANTS

Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	Is the government aware that an immigration agent named Andrew Fraser Mitchell, appointed to represent Prince Edward Island in Great Britain in the year 1923, whose remuneration was paid by the federal government, has defrauded certain immigrants or intending immigrants of amounts of money aggregating as far as known to about $17,000?
2.	Have representations been made to tlhe present government asking for reimbursement for parties so defrauded?
3.	Did the legislature of Prince Edward Island pass and forward to the government an address praying for redress in this matter?
4.	What action, if any, was taken by the government regarding such representations or address?
5.	If such prayers have been refused or declined, upon what grounds?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	The government is aware that one Andrew Fraser Mitchell was appointed by the government of Prince Edward Island to represent it in Great Britain in 1923. No salary was paid by the Dominion government but it agreed with the provincial government to contribute $150 per month on account of expenses for a period of four months.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Representations were considered but no action taken; (b) Answered by No. 3.
5.	The federal government refuses to assume any responsibility for the actions of Mitchell who, as stated, was an appointee of the government of Prince Edward Island.



PRE-EMPTIONS AND PURCHASED HOMESTEADS

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the approximate area of land disposed of in the province of Alberta under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Aot, 1908, up to March 31, 1920, as, (a) pre-emptions, (b) purchased homesteads?
2.	What was the approximate gross revenue received from the sale of, (a) pre-emptions, (b) purchased homesteads?
3.	What is the approximate amount of arrears owing on the sale of, (a) pre-emptions, (b) purchased homesteads ?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	(a) 1,991,840 acres, approximately; (b) 307,040 acres, approximately.
2.	(a) $5,432,681.98; (b) $1,027,431.63.
Questions

3.	(a) Principal $1,439,821.55, approximately; Interest $752,760.16, approximately, (b) Principal $54,166.04, approximately; Interest $25,833.75, approximately.



DISMISSAL POSTMASTER AT PETIT ROCHER, N.B.

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Was Mr. Sydney DesBrisay dismissed from the position of postmaster at Petit Rociher, Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, Why was he so dismissed?
3.	Were complaints made to the department?
4.	Who made such complaints?
5.	Was an investigation held, and if so, when?
6.	Who was the investigator for the department?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Dismissal authorized, not effected yet.
2.	Political partisanship.
3.	Yes.
4.	Member for the constituency.
5.	Yes, 5th March, 1926.
6.	C, T. Richard, barrister, Bathurst.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DAVIS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the department and any persons whomsoever, with regard to the suspension of Indian Agent Faunt of the Blood Indian reserve at Cardston. Also a copy of the report sent to the department by Inspector Christensen of Regina in this connection.


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: I ask that this motion stand.
Motion stands.



PURCHASES OF LAND BY SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of the report made by Major Barnet to the government in conneotion with the purchases of land by the Soldier Settlement Board.



LONG TERM FARM LOANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That there shall be a board known as the Canadian Farm Loan Board which shall be a body politic and cc-rporate consisting of four members, one of whom shall be the Minister of Finance and the other three shall be appointed by the Governor in Council and of the latter one shall be designated by the Canadian Farm Loan Commissioners.
That the board shall issue farm loan bonds to make long term loans to farmers, and the government of Canada shalll provide initial capital for the board to an amount not exceeding five million dollars and subscribe an amount of 5 per cent of the capital stock as loans are made by the board.

The government o>f each province in which loans are made shall be required to subscribe to the capital stock of the board as loans are made in such province an amount equal to 5 per cent of the said loans and each borrower an amount of 5 per cent of his loan payable at the time the loan is made. The loans shall be made on the security of first mortgage cn farm lands; the interest rate shall be such a rate in excess of the interest payable on the farm loan bonds as is sufficient to provide for the expenses of operation; the farm loan bonds shall be legal investments and may be .purchased by the Minister of Finance provided that the amount of such bonds held by him shall not at any time exceed $15,000,000; and the amount of any payment by the government of Canada on account of capital of the board or as payment for farm loan bonds purchased shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on the authority of the Governor in Council.
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. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved:
That rule 10 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the House be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the House for the present session a select standing committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and for report to the House, provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of Supply; and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Bell (St. Antoine), Boys, Campbell, Fiset, Clark, Drayton, Dunning, Euler, Harris, Heaps, Jelliff, Jones, Johnston, Power, Robichaud.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I oppose the motion. I do not think it is in the public interest that this committee should usurp the rights of parliament. The committee should not be appointed. The National railway is a public utility which should be operated from the commercial aspect and the country has elected 245 members of parliament as directors to see it is run properly.
We appointed a committee last year to go into the estimates of this particular railway and its operations from the commercial standpoint. The same special committee was appointed two or three years ago and what did it do? It met once in a while. The members of the House could not get any information about the operation of the road unless they were on the committee. Then a

National Railways and Shipping Committee
report was presented in the dying hours of the session. Last year the matter was taken up at a quarter past one in the morning of the day the House prorogued. This railway does not pay interest on the debt due the country; $42,000,000 interest is entered as a bookkeeping item. It is a frozen asset. When we ask questions about the operation of the railway and its finances we are told that it is not in the public interest to divulge information. The Canadian Pacific Railway can get it though. We know the salary of the Governor General and the salary of Sir Henry Thornton and the cabinet, but when we ask for the salaries of some of the American imported officials they say the question is out of order. I think the Canadian National Railways should be operated according to business principles free of politics and should be put on a paying basis. From the president down the men on the Canadian Pacific are Cahadians, but the National Railways are importing men from the United States and you do not know who they are, what their contracts are or what expenses they incur.
Let us take another case of public ownership, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission, with an investment of $262,000,000. Every year Sir Adam Beck, the late minister, had to meet the House and explain his estimates and he laid all the cards on the table. The Minister of Railway and Canals has had his functions taken away from him and the portfolio might as well be abolished. The railway commission has taken away part of the functions of the Minister of Railways in regard to rates and Sir Henry Thornton has taken away his other functions so that the portfolio itself as I say, might as well be done away with. The other day we asked for an agreement regarding the operation of the National Railways and the giving away of a public franchise of the Grand Trunk Railway on the streets of Detroit including Woodward avenue. Where is that agreement? Will the minister bring it down as he promised? No. On the other hand, Governor GroeSbeck called the Michigan legislature on the Fourth of February last and it held a special session to consider that agreement before it was signed, sealed and delivered. Yet we have never seen it and will not until parliament prorogues and the agreement is signed over our heads.
Is this a free parliament or not? Are we conducting business in the way in which it is done in the mother parliament to-day? Does the National Railways belong to the president or to the people of Canada? Is parliament not entitled to this information?
We are 245 representatives of the people of Canada; we are trustees of the people; we are asked on the hustings about the Canadian National Railways and no one cau answer. Is there unnecessary duplication and waste? Are branch lines being built that are not necessary? Does politics enter into the administration of this railway? I do not believe this committee should be appointed. It is not in the public interest that five or six or ten members of parliament should be selected to take our functions away and to deprive us of our right to consider the estimates of this railway. I am interested in the operation and administration of the National Railways and the true and real success of public ownership in this country, and I do not propose as a member of parliament to sit in this House and see a committee of five or six or ten men who may be appointed, who may or may not be in favour of public ownership, take my rights and privileges away from me. The minister, like every other minister, should bring down and explain his estimates to parliament and all the money expended should be in the public accounts. Why should these things be hidden away so that we cannot find out the salaries of these officials or the details of operation and capital account? We know the salary of the Governor General and what is spent on Rideau Hall. The Hon. the Speaker who is the most important public servant we have in this country, who presides over this House, gives us the details of the expenditure for the maintenance of the services of this House.
Surely it is not in the public interest that parliament should have no control over the most important responsibility we have-the National Railways-on which two billion dollars of the taxpayers' money has been spent. What will happen after this committee makes its report? We shall have to sit here and practically take it as read. The minister's estimates are reached at half past one in the morning; only two or three members discuss them; we ask for information and we cannot get it because the minister says: We will ask the head of the railways, and he will say:	It is not in the public
interest. Is it Sir Henry Thornton or this parliament that has the final say as to whether such a matter is in the public interest or not? Is he superior to parliament which appointed him and gave him such great powers? We see instances that indicate that this road is not being administered in a commercial and businesslike way; day after day hon. members ask for information and the minister says:	It is not in the public
interest to furnish it. It is in the public in-
3554	COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping Committee
terest of the Ontario legislature to give information in connection with the HydroElectric and in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway to give full information regarding its affairs to its board of directors. You are the board of directors, the trustees of the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific in connection with two billion dollars of the taxpayers' money which has been expended on this railway and the conduct of the enterprise. It is not in the public interest that this information should be withheld, and if a vote is taken I intend to register my vote and protest against the lack of responsible government which we have in this parliament to-day.
Is it responsible government that public property amounting to two billion dollars, which is not in my opinion being administered in a commercial, businesslike way, should be taken out of the control of parliament and handed over to a committee which will make a report, whitewash everything, in the dying days of the session when a formal vote will be moved in the House involving millions of dollars, perhaps at the end1 of a last and an all-night session? Off that is the way in which the Canadian National Railways are administered, the sooner we have the end of public ownership, the better. It is not in the public interest that we should hand over our responsibility to a committee. The issue is clear: A vote for this committee to-day is a vote for inefficiency in the administration of this system. It is a vote against public ownership; it is a vote against the trust we have as representatives of the people of Canada, and for that reason I wish to vote against the appointment of this committee as not being in the best interests of the National Railways, of the Canadian merchant marine, of public ownership or of efficiency and economy in our publicly owned railway system.
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of supporting all that has been said by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church); but even if only part of what he says is true, there is much in the contention that he has laid before the House. During this session I have tried to get some information with regard to the Canadian National Railways and I am under somewhat of a disadvantage, not knowing what rules have been mutually agreed upon or enforced in this House or in the committee for the past ten years. I desire to have this information because I think it is vital in the interest of the country, but so far I have been unable to get it. We

were told by the minister that when this committee was formed we would be in a position to come before it, ask questions and get information. If, however, what my hon. friend says is true, unless I am on that committee-and I am not-I shall not be able to appear before the committee, ask the questions I desire to ask and be sure of getting replies. I can appreciate coming before the committee and being peremptorily told with a wave of the hand: It is not in the public interest to furnish that information.
Is it in the public interest that the people of this country should know whether three or four men from the city of New York who may have been connected with a firm there that went into liquidation, should be given positions in Canada at salaries which, it is reported in the streets, are anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 a year, when we know there are in this country to-day men 4 p.m. who could be appointed to those jobs at one-half the salaries and who would do just as good work? These matters are in the public interest regardless of whether the management of the National Railways or the government of the day says that it is not in the public interest. I should like to know whether they are paying men three times what they are worth in order to perform jobs which could be very well performed by men raised in this country. If members are to be deprived of the opportunity of securing information in the committee and if when these matters come befroe the House in the last days of the session, and at one o'clock in the morning when everyone is weary, we have perhaps half an hour in which to delve into them-and we are speaking about limiting speeches to thirty or forty minutes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. F'CSTER: Let hon. members limit their own speeches, As regards these particular estimates, if hon. members feel they are not sent here in the interest of the people to discharge their public duties and to take such time as is necessary to do that, they ought not to be here. If, as I say, in the last days of the session we are not permitted to deal properly with these matters, certain considerations ought to enter into the formation of this committee so as to enable hon. members to get the information they require by coming before that committee whether they be designated by the Prime Minister as members of the committee or not.
Mr. H E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Montmo-rency): I should like to ask the minister to

National Railways and Shipping Committee
give to the House some more information as to the work of this committee. Tor my part I should like to know what is the object of its formation. Why should not the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian merchant marine come before the House in the ordinary way?


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman for the last two sessions of the committee on National Railways and Shipping, I should like to make a reply to my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). I have nothing to say particularly with regard to the willingness of the government to answer certain questions respecting the National Railways; that must be within their judgment. I think they are perfectly right in certain instances to refuse information which might be detrimental to the interests of the National Railways. I can recall very well under the former government that information of a similar character was refused, and I thought the government was right at that time.


Mr. MANION:: There were many protests against the refusal, though.


William Daum Euler: I know, and I did not agree with those protests altogether. In reply to the statement by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest that the committee does not permit any member to ask questions of those managing the railway, I desire to contradict it flatly. So far as I remember-I am open to correction-no member of the committee was ever refused information by the officials, from Sir Henry Thornton down.


Robert James Manion: He said members who
were not members of the committee.


William Daum Euler: I will go further. The meetings of that committee were always open to the members of this House, and there have been instances where members who were not members of the committee itself asked permission of the committee to address certain remarks and questions to those who were present on behalf of the National Railways, and in no case were they refused. I do not think there is any danger whatever, if the committee is reconstituted, that such permission will be refused. In addition to that, all the evidence brought before the committee was printed by permission of the House and was spread upon the records for the information of every member. Something has been said about the Canadian Pacific Railway issuing an illuminating report every year for the information of its shareholders. The National Railways issue a similar financial statement
each year, and I think it is fully as illuminating as that issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific management do not spread all the affairs of their railway before the public for their competitors to take advantage of, and I do not think any member of this House who has the real interests of public ownership at heart should ask the management of the National Railways to do something in that particular which the Canadian Pacific management would not do.


Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I rather concur in this resolution. It seems to me it is quite proper that these estimates should go before a special committee of the House, particularly as the resolution contains this proviso:
That nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of Supply.
I should like to see the government go a step further and refer all the estimates to a special committee of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I believe, Sir, that a great saving of the time of the House could be accomplished in that way. Departmental officers when their estimates were up could be called before that special committee. To me it has always been absurd when a minister of the crown was being asked all sorts of questions, some pertinent, others not, on matters affecting his department-which in many cases he could not be expected to know-to see his deputy, who naturally is familiar with the affairs of his department, compelled to whisper the information to his minister, who repeated it to the House, his deputy not being allowed to give the information direct. I believe in many departments of the government we would get more information and save a great deal of the time of the House if the estimates were dealt with by a special committee.


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to add a word. I had no intention of starting a debate in moving this resolution. I had been informed by members on both sides of the House that the special committee appointed in the past few years to deal with government railway matters had been satisfactory and had been the means of placing much valuable information before the House and the country. The resolution as it stands on the order paper is in exactly the same form as the resolution which was adopted on former occasions. May I point out, Sir, that so far from restricting
3556	COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping Committee
the members of this House, the resolution provides in addition to the ordinary machinery a special committee for the purpose of going into the complex details of National railway financing. It in no way reduces the opportunities of members to secure information; on the contrary, it rather widens them. In this connection I should like to call attention to the proviso referred to by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn):
Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of Supply.
The whole machinery of the House still remains, but in addition to that machinery a small committee of men, selected by agreement between the party whips, is given the special task of going into the very complex matters connected with the administration of our National railway system and the Canadian merchant marine. Surely it is apparent to business men that a small body dealing with these very complex matters can do so more effectively than the whole House.
The matter of refusal of information I endeavoured to deal with yesterday. I admit its difficulty, as every previous Minister of Railwaj'S has admitted it. I might perhaps by way of illustration call attention to a question which is now on the order paper referring to the National railways, if it is in order for me to do so, Sir.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the third paragraph of the question:
Is It the intention of the Canadian National Railways to purchase St. Paul's church .property and a number of other properties in the vicinity for terminals?
Let us assume, Mr. Speaker, a question of that sort being answered in advance of the deal for the property being consummated, does any member think for a moment that the publication of such information would not be prejudicial to the interests of the railway, supposing such a deal was intended? It is manifest on the face of it.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What question
was that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Paragraph 3 of question 16. I use it merely as an illustration. There may be parts of the question which are quite proper. From what I have heard from members on both sides of the House regarding the proceedings of this committee in former sessions, I understand that it operates in exactly the same manner as any other committee of the House. While, strictly speaking, hon. gentlemen who are not members of the committee have not the right to ask ques-

tions, they can and do, as in the case of all other committees, submit their questions to the parties who are being examined through the medium of a colleague who is a member of the committee.
I moved the resolution, Sir, merely because I am informed that it has been found in the past a satisfactory method of dealing with the affairs of the National Railways and merchant marine. I repeat, the resolution in no way restricts the liberties of hon. members or the ordinary procedure, but rather adds to the machinery of the House and makes it more efficient in dealing with this very important matter.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that representation on the proposed committee is to consist of six members from this section and nine from the other sections of the House. Why is not representation given to this party according to its parliamentary strength? I might also point out that the present representation is on the basis of eighty-one members from this side of the House.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask a
question of the minister. I understood him to say that he would not give the information regarding the purchase of the electric railway in Montreal because it was not in the public interest, but I may say the price appeared in the Montreal newspapers shortly after the transaction.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Charles Avery Dunning: In answer to the question of my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) I can only say that the matter was arranged after consultation between the whips. I had nothing personally to do with it.


John Arthur Clark: I would suggest that it is
quite simple to amend the resolution. Surely it is obvious that several members on this side are desirous of appearing before that committee, and if proper representation were given us certain additional members would have an opportunity of putting their questions before that committee.


Mr. T. G. MURPHY (Neepawa):: I do
not know whether I am in order, but I would like to suggest that if the committee is augmented the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) be added to it.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: May I ask the Minister of Railways if he would be good enough to tell me, having doubt-

National Railways and Shipping Committee
less considered the matter thoroughly, in what way he thinks the passing of estimates will be furthered by this procedure? As I understand it the House is to have full opportunity, as it has at present in regard to other estimates, of discussing each item, and I should be very much obliged if the minister would tell me the functions of this committee in regard to making reports, for example, and in sifting the evidence. Are they to be given some facilities which this House does not enjoy? Otherwise I cannot at the moment see any advantage in having the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must apologize to m>
hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) in that I omitted to answer his question; it passed from my mind for the moment. Will he repeat it?


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister give a
list of passes issued by this railway to the special committee, contrary to the Railway Act?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that would be a proper question for this committee to go into. If passes are being issued contrary to the Railway Act I would like to know it, and it would be stopped. But that is not the question my hon. friend asked me before.
Then I am asked as to the functions of the committee and the value to the House of the committee proceedings. That committee can do what this House in committee cannot do, that is, summon before it the railway officials and direct to them all sorts of questions respecting the operation of the people's railway. More than that, many questions which would arise in committee of the Whole if there were no special committee are cleared up in the proceedings of that special committee, without taking up the time of this House. Very much more time is taken up in a body of 245 men, of course, than is taken up by a smaller committee inquiring into the same question. That, I understand, is the facility provided as a result of previous experience. I believe it has generally been regarded as of value to the House to add this committee to the existing machinery of the House, without in any way limiting the right of members in committee of Supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I
have had the opportunity of serving on this committee since it was started. It functions well in some directions, and in other directions not so well. We get a lot of useful information but we do not get it all; it may be that wre ought not to get it all. The former chairman of that committee is wrong when he says 14011-226
that no information is withheld in committee; if he considers the matter I think he will agree that his memory is a little faulty there. In connection with questions of salary, I think my hon, friend will at once agree that information was not forthcoming.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend will
admit that the information was given him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But what is the use, Mr. Speaker, of a member being given information in confidence? As a matter of fact I did not get it; I did not want it in that way. I wanted to know what the facts were in connection with the general business organization of the company, and in connection with matters of that kind the shareholders and directors of that company-because we are really the directors, and the Canadian people the shareholders-are entitled to know what is being done with their money. I still take that position.


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he state here definitely that information he asked for was absolutely refused him by the officials of the railway?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes; there is
this salary question, as I say. But, Mr. Speaker, there are more things of importance in connection with this resolution than this. We do get some information which is certainly of great value; we get the opportunity of an extended investigation which could not be made in the House, and this is also of use. It could be made, as I say, a little more full without harm. I do think it would be a good thing if we could have some clear idea as to what we can and cannot do; as to when Sir Henry Thornton can tell the committee he is not going to say this or that. I think we should know that, because we do not know it now. In our informal discussions in the committee I do not think there is much between myself and the chairman; I think we both agree fairly well.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Will my hon. friend permit an interruption before going to another point? I am simply making the suggestion that in any committee, if at any time the committee finds it has not sufficient power, all that is necessary is for it to come back to the House and get further powers. Should not the same rule apply here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not a question of the power of the committee, but rather one of whether information will not be given which is a matter of governmental discretion, or whether the government shall

3558	COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping Committee
take the ipse dixit of the officials of the system, because that is what it amounts to. I was going to say that I do not think there is very much difference between us, when we are honest with each other, as to what should be done. The former administration took a course which, although strongly objected to at the time and attacked many times by hon. gentlemen opposite, was consistent. That position, which I still maintain, was that having regard to the operations of the railway system, the .purchases made; the individual day-to-day business; things which have to do with matters of costs, should not be revealed. Take, for example, the question of supplies. As supplies are bought and contracts are made and running, we took the position that it would be against the interests of the system to make public, therefore giving to the competitor of the system, the prices of the supplies. Further than that, as was pointed out at the time, no special cuts could ever be made for the benefit of the people's railway, because if they were made public everyone else would want the same price, which would mean that the hands of our purchasing agents would be tied, and we would not get the economies we should get. I think that position is clear and that hon. gentlemen opposite although they bitterly opposed it formerly, will agree with me. We never took the position, however, that the officials of the railways were the custodians of the people's money, to do with it as they liked having regard to new capital commitments, or the sale of company asets and the purchase of new assets. Again I think my hon. friend the chairman of the committee agrees with me. I know the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham, after the Scribe hotel purchase had been ventilated, and after a question had come up as to the sale of some property in Montreal, I think it was, took the position that all matters either of the sale of the property or purchases for the extension of the property should be a matter for the government; in other words, that there should be no change in capital account having regard to new commitments, and no contraction having regard to sales of the physical property, without the knowledge, assent and approval of the government. Would my hon. friend the chairman of the committee say that I am wrong in that? Would he not agree with me there? He did agree with me at the time, and the former Minister of Railways agreed with me at the time. But what is the attitude to-day? The attitude to-day is, you cannot get that information. The Minister of Railways shakes *Sir Henry Drayton.]
his head. The attitude to-day is mot only that there shall not be purchases made except with the government's approval, but the purchases when made are to be kept secret. W7hy, it is only a couple of days ago that we had this request in connection with the Montreal Tramways. That is a new purchase, a matter of capital commitment. Nevertheless we are told that it is against the public interest that that capital commitment should be known: Why? How is the committee to function if it is going to be tied in that way? Again, apart from the committee, surely it ought to be clear that the people's representatives in parliament should have the right to know whait is going on in regard to these new commitments, and have a right to have 'their questions regarding these new commitments answered on the floor of the House.


Mr. JACOBS:: I thought we were going to keep the railways out of politics. That was the slogan when we took them over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not see
the purport of my hon. friend's question. We never said, I do not think anybody ever said-perhaps my hon. friend now wants to take that position-that the capital commitments of the railways could be extended without governmental, without parliamentary consent. Does my hon. friend think that that should be done?
Mr. JACOBS':	I think'the Canadian National Railways management should be given the widest latitude to run the line as they see fit, with the least possible governmental interference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is perfectly right, but with his usual facility he dodges the question entirely. I absolutely stated that when I commenced, and then I stated that the view of the chairman of the oommittee, as I understood it, and certainly the view of the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham-


Charles Avery Dunning: And of the present one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And of the
present one, the minister says, was that there should be no new purchases made with the people's money without the people's representatives having something to say about it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: The
statute provides that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The statute
should have governed in the case of the purchase of the Scribe hotel, but apparently statutes are made in connection with railway administration to be dodged and evaded.

National Railways and Shipping Committee


Finlay MacDonald: That
will be found out in the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is being
found out in the committee, but how much good do we get from that?
There was one very pertinent thing said to-day by the member from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) that the committee's report is brought down to the House so late that there is very little opportunity of doing anything with it. I wonder if we could not have that changed this year, and if the report could not be brought down at such a time as would give the House full opportunity of dealing with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I answer that question? So far as the minister and the department are concerned, I shall be very glad indeed to facilitate the proceedings of the committee, but the date on which the committee will make its report is entirely in the hands of the committee itself. But everything that can be done, so far as the ministry of railways is concerned, will be done to facilitate the committee's work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am glad to
hear the minister say that, because that state of affairs has been one of the things which give a good deal of force to the objections which have been made to-day as to what has happened in the past.
I am objecting, Mr. Speaker, to this committee as constituted. I know of no reason why the opposition should not be given its fair numerical standing on this committee. We are entitled to seven out of fifteen members, seven as against eight; we are given six as against nine.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps yours are better
men, equal in weight to the other nine.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix~Sag-uenay):: At the time when there was a discussion regarding the appointment of the different committees, this question came up of the representation of all parties in the House on the different committees. I think the chief whip of the opposition was not present, but a representative of his party was, and I think it was agreed that the number mentioned in the resolution now before the House was the right proportion for the different parties in the House. I think the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) was present at that discussion, also the assistant whip of the opposition, and nobody seemed to find fault with the arrangement, seeing that other parties and groups in the House had their representation on the committee as well.
14011-226J


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend does not show that the figures are right. He says there was no objection made at the time. It is time objection was made if it it wrong, and it is wrong on the face of it. I am not going to speak on this question any further now, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I just wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, that my chief objection to this proposal is the one lastly touched on by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the question of when this committee is to report. By the rules of this House, no matter referred to this committee can be mentioned or discussed in this House so long as the committee is seized of it. Last year this practical difficulty confronted me. I had several matters concerning which I wished to inquire respecting the Canadian National Railways. I was not a member of this committee, and the committee did not bring in its report until one or two o'clock in the morning of the last day of the session, and no opportunity was given me to make the inquiries I desired to make. That is a practical difficulty that should receive attention.
There are only fifteen members on this committee in a House of 245 members, so 230 of these members will have no right to ask questions or bring up a subject pertaining to the National railways until that committee makes its report, and unless the committee is going to make its report within two or three weeks before the close of the session, our opportunity of discussing these railway matters will be very limited indeed. I personally think that a smaller committee is the best procedure.


Charles Gavan Power: What is to prevent any
member of this House from going before the committee and asking any questions he
pleases?


Hugh Guthrie: I want to discuss these matters in the House. I am not on that committee, and I think I am entitled to bring these matters up in the House.


Charles Gavan Power: What is to prevent my hon. friend from going to that committee and asking any questions he desires, and then bringing up these matters in the House?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not intend to go to the committee; I am not on it. I wanted to discuss certain matters in the House last year, and did not have the opportunity because of the late hour at which the committee's report was brought in. If we can provide against that state of things happening again this year I am quite content to have the
3560	COMMONS
National Railways and. Shipping Committee
committee appointed. I think a smaller committee is the best way of dealing with the business, but the composition of this committee is manifestly unfair to this side of the House. Here we are, a party of 116 members, with only six members on this committee; the government, with only 100 members, has six members on this committee. That does not give the main opposition its proper representation, and I think that matter should be remedied.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: Just a word, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is too late to ask the minister to put this matter right. I was not on the striking committee tliis year, as is usual in the case of the whip of each party, and when I was informed that the committee was to be constituted nine and six, I took exception to that at once, as I think the chief whip of the government party will admit. Before that, we had practically agreed that the representation on committees should be on a mathematical basis, disregarding fractions. He told me that the representatives of our party had agreed to that. I said I could not see how they could have agreed to a representation of nine and six, but if they had I would be bound by that agreement. It is proper for me to say that I made inquiry and found that they had agreed to nine and six. I then asked on what possible basis of equity such a request could be made. The whip of the government party could give me no good reason, but as the matter had been agreed to I felt that I had to waive further opposition. It does seem to me now that it only has to be brought to the attention of the minister and the government to see that an injustice is done this group. If we take the figures and carry out, as we did carry out in connection with all the other committees, mathematical representation as far as possible, the figures would show that we should have a representation of 7 5-49 on that committee and the government and the Progressives a representation of 7 44-49. That basis of representation has not been adopted and we get the short end of it. I think the government, nothwithstanding what has gone before, should now give us seven members, take seven themselves, and give one to the Progressives.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
was on the striking committee along with some other representatives in this group, and I must say it is true that the proportion in this particular committe is wiped out in comparison with the allotment for the other committees. The representation on the other

committees is, I think, satisfactory. As regards the representation in this particular case the chief whip and his associates were very insistent on the representation they thought was called for. In carrying out the work of these committees it is always a matter of give and take to a certain extent, and while the representation on the other committees was pretty satisfactory in this particular case, notwithstanding our insistence we did not succeed in getting the representation that is really our due. However, I think it is not too late to right the wrong, and the House should consider making a suitable change such as suggested by the chief whip of our party.


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: I was also a member of the striking committee and I may say this for the gentlemen who represented the various parties. They took the view that the committees were not partisan bodies but committees of parliament, empowered to ascertain what was the best course to pursue with respect to legislation on the matters before them, and there was a disposition to strike these committees on what would seem to be a fair basis. The government have a certain responsibility and in accordance with the ordinary procedure usually have a majority on a committee. As the House is now constituted that is not so. However, thu government are prepared to accept that situation. The representation on this committee, I think, is in the same proportion as that on other committees.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I think that is so, and I do not see why there should be a change.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does the minister say the representation is the same when it is not?


John Warwick King: The majority in this House is not with the Conservative party or with the Liberal party.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well?


John Warwick King: There is a majority in this House and that majority will rule in the committees.


William Alves Boys: What we are contending for is what has been granted in the case of other committees. I am not seeking to introduce any partisan feature at all. We are discussing what is fair, and we are complaining of the departure which has been made in this particular case.

National Railways and Shipping Committee


John Warwick King: I think it would be a mistake to interject into our committees a party viewpoint in view of the present constitution of parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not have regard to the viewpoint of fairness?


John Warwick King: I think hon. gentlemen should be satisfied with the constitution of the committee as it stands.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Public Works was wrong, probably unintentionally, when he said that the representation on this committee is the same as on other committees. It is not. That is why our side of the House is objecting. The representation on the other committees, as the chief whip and other speakers pointed out, has been worked out on an absolutely mathematical basis. Owing to some misunderstanding the representation in this case has not been worked out in the same manner but is different from that of the other committees. The representation of the government side and the Conservative side should be worked out on a fifty-fifty basis, and the Progressive and Labour should have a representation of one. It will not be denied that the Progressives have voted pretty solidly with the government. They have a representation of two with twenty-four members, and we have a representation of six with one hundred and sixteen members. The representation therefore is not fair bearing in mind the numerical strength of the respective parties.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would my hon. friend exclude Labour?


Robert James Manion: I do not exclude anybody, but the government may have to exclude somebody. It is the government that chooses the other members of the committee. I do not understand the attitude of the government. Our side has appealed to them simply from the point of view of the fairness which has been followed in the case of the other committees. Why should the attitude of fairness be departed from in this one case?


John Warwick King: The government
are acting in accordance with what they deem to be the position of the parties in the House.


Robert James Manion: I do not quite follow
what the minister is trying to argue. A conference was held between the whips, and the leaders I presume of the three parties. They came to an understanding as to the representation on the other committees but either
through accident or intention-and it begins to look as if it were intention-the question of representation on this particular committee is treated differently. My hon. friend the minister shakes his head but he is absolutely wrong. This committee is being treated on a different mathematical basis from any other committee in the House.


Pierre-François Casgrain: At the time the composition of the committees was being considered it was agreed that as regards certain committees the two chief parties should break even, that is, that they should have the same number of members, and that the majority should be represented by the other groups in the House, composed of Progressives, Labour and Independent members. Thus the majority given to the government would come from the various groups outside of the two main parties.


William Alves Boys: Did I not take the position
that we should form our committees on a mathematical basis? Was that not the position I took on behalf of this party in regard to the formation of the committees?


Pierre-François Casgrain: There was a discussion
when the time came for the formation of the committees. At the conference there were present representatives of all parties in the House, including the Minister of Public Works and the ex^Minister of Agriculture the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie). We all agreed that on certain committees the larger number should be given to the main opposition and to the government side the lesser number; but in certain committees it was agreed by all parties there present that we should break even, and the majority should come from the remaining groups in the House.


William Alves Boys: That has been done.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Those committees were
the Privileges and Elections committee if I remember rightly-there may be another one, I am speaking from memory-and the committee on National Railways and Shipping. That was a committee upon which it was agreed that the two main parties should have the same number of members, and that the majority would be given by the other groups, Labour, Independents and Progressives.


William Alves Boys: Does the hon. member not
think if we concede seven members to the government, when they have a representation in the House of one hundred, and only ask for seven members for ourselves, when we number one hundred and sixteen members, we are being rather generous?
3562	COMMONS
Rational Railways and Shipping Committee


Pierre-François Casgrain: If the honourable member will look at the representation in the other committees, he will find that that of the opposition was greater, in some cases, than ours. In some committees, the number was greater because the proportion was agreed to. The Minister of Public Works conceded that the'main opposition party should be given one more, and in some cases it will be found that there will be one, two, three of four members allotted to the main opposition party. This was done with the consent of all parties represented.
Mr, MANION:	In conclusion, I wish to
repeat that it seems to me it is a very unfair attitude to take. Of course there is no ulterior motive, in fact this is an absolutely new question coming 'before us now. All members are interested in the success of the National Railways. It is not suggested that there is any ulterior motive and there has been a fair arrangement in making up the different committees. Of course, there may 'be an exception as the hon. member says, but by and large, the government agreed that the committees of the House should be mathematically arranged. In this case, in the absence of our chief whip, they succeeded in making the numerical proportion different. I appeal to members of the government to look at it in a fair light, as they did in regard to the other committees, respecting which there is no complaint, and I ask that this committee be re-arranged in such a way that both sides will be represented proportionately. Even then the government will have the advantage.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member
wish to repudiate an arrangement to which two members of his party agreed?


Robert James Manion: No, but if two hon. members of this House happen to make a mistake there is no reason why this House should not rectify it.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: I wish to say a word following up what has been stated by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). If the appointment of this committee means that all discussion in regard to matters relating to the Canadian National Railways is to be taken away from this House and transferred to a committee of fifteen members, then I object. Within a few days, or a very short time at least, we expect the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will make the usual annual statement with regard to matters relating to the Canadian National Railways, and looking upon that subject as a most important one I, as a representative of some

of the people, desire to make some remarks in connection with Canadian National Railway matters. If the apointment of this committee is going to do what has been done with regard to all other committees of the House -make it impossible for a member to discuss * the matters which the committee is dealing with until the committee has reported-then you have effectivly closed my mouth and every other mouth in the House in connection with the National Railways until that committee reports. We have been in session four and a half months. The committee is being appointed to-day, and it is obviously impossible for it to make any intelligent inquiry into matters referred to it and report before the closing days of this session. In the meantime the Minister of Railways will have made his statement, all matters relating to the Canadian National Railways will have passed the House and we will have no opportunity whatsoever to discuss the subject. Unless there is a reservation made whereby it will be possible for us to discuss Canadian National railway matters here, notwithstanding the fact that the committee is sitting, then as a representative of my constituency I most strenuously object to having my liberty taken away.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I have
noticed in checking over the committee as constituted that every province in Canada is represented except Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Maritime rights again.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, Martime rights again.
After all the talk we have heard in this House about Maritime rights since January 7, we now find the province of Nova Scotia is ignored again. The matter of railways is of great importance to that province, particularly at the present time. I might make a suggestion as to how this difficulty can be solved. With the fourteen members from Nova Scotia we have no representative on the committee. Take one member from the other side of the House from the committee, and appoint a Nova Scotia member from this side, and the whole difficulty is remedied.


Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: Had
this committee been clothed with authority to thoroughly investigate matters concerning the Canadian National Railways and report back to this House information which we have been refused, I would be in favour of the appointment of this committee. We recall that on October 13, 1921, the Prime Minister speaking in the city of Moncton said, that if returned to power matters concerning the affairs, the direction and the operation of the Canadian National Railway

National Railways and Shipping Committee
would be thoroughly gone into and the public given information concerning them. That statement was made by the Prime Minister and it has not been lived up to. I have asked for information on the floor of this House, and I have been told that it was not in the interest of the railway to divulge it-not in the interest of the railway perhaps through fear of competition with other railways. As a matter of fact, I think the Department of Railways and Canals knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway has all the information the department has with regard to the traffic in and out of the ports of Canada. It must have that information just as surely as the Canadian National Railways, and my purpose in bringing up this matter was to get what I could in the way of data, to make comparisons between certain portions of the Canadian National railway in different sections of Canada. When hon. members opposite utter a little condemnation-possibly I better say a little criticism-with respect to the Maritime provinces, I would ask them to consider carefully the conditions in the Maritime provinces and to compare the railway facilities and opportunities for the movement of traffic in the west with those in the east.


Hewitt Bostock: I am afraid the hon.
member is not speaking to the motion before the House and I would suggest that he confine his remarks to the matter under discussion.


Otto Baird Price: I am trying to point out
some of the things I would give this committee authority to investigate thoroughly. I was going to mention some of those items and I trust, Sir, you will permit me to do so. In the Canadian west they have a freight rate which is practically 100 per cent less than what their neighbours across the line have.


Hewitt Bostock: I am very sorry, but the hon. gentleman is really out of order. He must limit his remarks to the question at issue, which is whether or not this committee should be appointed. The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity on the estimates to speak with reference to the particular grievance he has, but the question that the House has to decide is whether or not this committee should be appointed.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that if this committee is appointed, this House under the present practice will not, until the committee reports, be able to discuss matters relating to the National Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit me? I do not so understand the resolution. Discussion of the details of the estimates will of course have to be deferred until the committee reports, but it is my intention to make the annual railway budget statement, as it is called, just as soon as possible now that the budget debate is over and I expect that I shall be able to do so sometime next week.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend should go on in all fairness to point out that he refers this to the committee and we hear nothing further until the committee reports.


Charles Avery Dunning: But on the statement that I make to the House debate can occur; at least debate has occurred in past sessions.
Sir HEIS'RY DRAYTON: For a very short time.


Charles Avery Dunning: It can last as long as hon. members wish. There is no limitation as far as I know.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to have, if possible, the opinion of the Speaker with regard to the practice of the House which, I understand, is that when matters are referred to a special committee they cannot be discussed in this chamber except upon a report from that committee. The statement made by the Minister of Railways from time to time, to which the present minister has referred, is not usually made under circumstances which permit of debate. There are certain matters relating to the Canadian National lines that I and other members wish to discuss in the House. We desire to have ample opportunity to present our views with regard to those railways, and if the appointment of this committee is to postpone such discussion and to preclude us from entering upon such discussion until the committee reports, I am going to vote against the appointment of the committee. Therefore I would like to have some suggestion from you, Sir, because your familiarity with the rules of the House will enable you to decide.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Having sat in the last two sessions of parliament where this motion went through by consent of all parties, I think hon. gentlemen who are worried about their rights being curtailed, need have no fear on that score. The Minister of Railways will probably next week present his annual statement to the House and a motion will be made to refer that to the committee for consideration. As in past years the fullest discussion was permitted as a matter of right and the
3564	[DOT] COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping Committee
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George need have no worry about having an opportunity of putting before the House any views he has in regard to the question of the Canadian National Railways or its management because the fullest and most complete right of putting questions to the government exists during that period. As regards matters of detail on which members want complete and full information, they have a better opportunity of obtaining it through members on that committee than on the floor of the House where only questions may be asked.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I wished to know was whether upon a motion made by the Minister of Railways to refer the matter to this special committee we are entitled to enter upon a full discussion of all matters relating to Canadian National lines. I do not so understand the practice.


Finlay MacDonald: During the past two years on the statement being made by the Minister of Railways prolonged discussion has taken place without any question. I can say on behalf of the government and the Minister of Railways that when his statement is made the fullest opportunity will be given to hon. gentlemen to discuss the matter in detail.


Henry Lumley Drayton: After having now satisfied the objection of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), why not go a little further and satisfy the objection which I have taken to the committee by providing for proper representation of the House upon it?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my colleague the whip to let me have a statement of the several committees that were appointed by agreement on Tuesday, February 23, when the striking committee reached an agreement with respect to all the committees of the House. The point I want to make clear is this, that the committees were all arranged at one and the same time. There were reasons why a larger number of representatives from one party was given to one committee than to another, but the entire schedule was arranged with the view of doing justice to all parties concerned. With respect to the standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, I find that the total membership is 129. On that committee Liberals have 54 members; the Conservatives, 61, and the Progressives, 14. If the government were to follow the reasoning of hon. gentlemen opposite or meet the suggestions which they 
are asking us to meet, we should request that instead of having 54 members on that committee, we be given 61 as the Conservative party opposite are given.


John Arthur Clark: Why should the Liberal
party have the same number as this party?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am
asking is perfectly fair.


John Arthur Clark: I am asking as a matter of representation in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member will perhaps concede that the government has some rights and privileges.


John Arthur Clark: I will concede that the government has its rights and I shall be the first to support the Prime Minister in his contention. But on the representation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) this is a minority government and on the minister's own submission, it being a minority government, it recognizes the principle of minority representation on committees. There is no reason in the world why the two parties should not be represented on committees according to their representation in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not wish to take up much of the time of the House on this matter, because I think all phases of it have been sufficiently canvassed; but I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact, which is a very material one, that on the standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, hon. gentlemen opposite have 61 of a representation while the government has 54. On the committee with reference to the National railways the representation is six, six and three. I have not the slightest doubt, although I was not present at the meeting, that there may have been reasons which made it in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite desirable to have a larger representation on the standing committee than on the special committee and which may have governed with respect to the larger representation there. The point is, as I have said,- that the committees as a whole were struck in relation to each other and should stand or fall together. All the other committees have already been appointed; the government has accepted its smaller representation as indicated, and I think the government is justified in asking that the representation on this committee shall remain as it is at least until the committee gets under way. Then if it is found desirable to change the personnel in any way, it can be done as a matter of usual procedure.

National Railways and Shipping Committee
I wish also to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the government will no doubt wish to have the chairmanship of this committee. The minute the chairman is appointed the active membership of the committee is reduced to that extent. I think when hon. gentlemen opposite consider all phases of this question in the light in whicn they have been presented, they will see an endeavour has been made to do justice all around.


William Alves Boys: My arrangement at the very
outset with the government whip was that the representation on committees should be on a mathematical basis. That is exactly what we have in the Railway committee. We have 116 members, the government have 100 and the Progressives and Independents have 28, and our respective representation on that committee is 61, 54 and 14.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 have no
doubt my hon. friend presented the mathematical point to the government whip, by whom it was considered.


William Alves Boys: The proposition was agreed
to. I admit it was varied in this particular
committee we are now discussing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add
this further fact, that on the Customs committee, the membership of which was agreed to by the right hon. leader of the opposition, there are four members of the Conservative party, and four of the Liberal party. The agreement was satisfactory in connection with that committee. Why should it not be equally satisfactory in this ese? -


Henry Lumley Drayton: But you had
only one of your friends there; you have three here.


William Alves Boys: That is exactly what we ask
here. We conceded that, although you had only 100 to our 116, you should control the committee so long as the Progressives were with you, and we agreed to 4, 4 and 1.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what
we want here.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: I should like to point out to my right
hon. friend that, apart altogether from the strength of the respective parties, he appears to have overlooked the very important fact of Nova Scotia not having any representation on the committee at all.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the membership of this committee is the result of an agreement. I have often heard my friend
from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys)-who has acted as whip for a great many years with remarkable success-say in the House that these arrangements between the whips of the various parties are gentlemen's agreements and should be accepted and honoured by the members of the House. I have heard him state that on various occasions. This session all the committees were struck at the same time, and the number of members on this committee was also accepted at that time. But it happens that the other committees were organized at an earlier stage under that agreement, which was accepted by everybody in the House. Now when this special committee comes to be organized I claim that in justice and fairness to all concerned the agreement, so entered into by the whips and accepted by everybody should prevail.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask the Minister of Justice a question? Does he suggest that any party in this House is bound by the reports of committees? I assume he would say no.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that in this
instance, as in other instances of arrangements between the whips, it is an honourable agreement and should be accepted and respected by the House.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Are you -going to persist in
ignoring Nova Scotia on this committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the members of my hon. friend's party wish to substitute a member from Nova Scotia in the place of one of the three members from Ontario, the government will be pleased to accept the suggestion. But the point I wish to direct the attention of the House to at the moment illustrates wherein considerations have been taken into account by the striking committee which perhaps we are losing sight of altogether. A special committee cannot exceed 15 in number without the unanimous consent of the House. Now, I venture to say we cannot hope to get such consent to alter this committee as arranged by the whips. That being the fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the House pass the resolution, and if when the committee has been appointed there appear to be very strong reasons why its personnel should be altered in any particular, we can then take into consideration anything further that may be necessary to be done.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime
Minister:	Having regard to the vast importance of matters to be dealt with by this committee, does he not really think that he
3566	COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping Committee
could get the consent of the House to double its representation? I think this committee is entirely too small in view of the importance of the business which will come before it. Only those fifteen members on the committee will have the special privilege of getting information and keeping it to themselves. They are not to let it out to any person else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
let me say to my hon. friend that this committee is different from other committees in that in no manner does the committee take away from the members of the House the right to discuss railway matters in detail. It is simply a committee for sifting information in the first instance, and thereby enabling hon. members to discuss the points they wish to develop further in the House, without bringing in a lot of irrelevant matter, and so save a lot of time that otherwise would be taken up here in seeking information on minor points. It is really a committee for the purpose of saving time.


John Wesley Edwards: I appreciate that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. members who are not on the committee wish to appear and get any information, they will De at perfect liberty to do so. The government has no desire in any way to take a stand that cannot be modified. I would suggest that the resolution be permitted to pass, and that the whips of the respective parties should then meet. If they will agree among themselves to allow hon. gentlemen opposite another member, and the remainder of the House another member, we are quite agreeable to accept the arrangement. But I think this should be effected in the same way as the original arrangement-by the whips themselves.


William Alves Boys: This is an unfortunate misunderstanding and I would propose this as a compromise. Would not the Prime Minister accept a suggestion that the membership, by unanimous consent, be increased by one, that we have the right to name that one, and that he be from Nova Scotia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which I think is eminently fair, namely, that the whips themselves should get together and recommend any changes in personnel, seeing that they had to do with the original arrangement. A unanimous suggestion from the whips will receive favourable consideration by the government.


William Alves Boys: Will the government agree to
accept my suggestion to increase the membership by one?


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Min-. ister that to be fair he should allow the resolution to stand and give the whips an opportunity to get together. He must realize that, as a party, his party is not the government. We do not recognize and never will recognize it as such.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take absolute exception to my hon. friend's statement. I wish him to understand that so far as the government is concerned this is not a question of party at all. It is a question of who is able to command a majority in this House. The present administration is in that position, and it intends to remain there.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then do away with groups and say:	Here is the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what we are doing.
Mr. ROSS -(Kingston):	Then let the
government-or what you call the government-demand a majority.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was done in
January.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is suggested
that the resolution should be allowed to go through and have the whips consult later, but I think that is quite unfair. Why not withdraw the resolution now and then let the whips get together?


Finlay MacDonald: Because the whip representing my hon. friend's party agreed to the list of names contained in the motion. If a change is desired my hon. friends should confer and make a recommendation to the House.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I desire
to speak to this motion very briefly. I quite approve of this method of referring these accounts to a committee, because it does appear to me that we will get better results in this way than by attempting to thresh the matter out in committee of the Whole. But I cannot overlook the fact that this committee is dealing with perhaps the largest and most important matter before the House; the Canadian National Railways extend across Canada, and this committee should be representative of all parts of this country. I think the province of Nova Scotia should be represented, and I think the number suggested, fifteen, is too small.

National Railways and Shipping Committee
I suggest that the House unanimously consent that this number be increased, then let the whips get together and agree upon a selection which will be thoroughly representative of all parts of Canada and of all groups in this House. The committee will then command the confidence of this House and the best possible results will be secured in this very difficult and very important matter.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The
Minister of Justice is generally very fair in his remarks, but though he has referred to this as a gentleman's agreement, even in an agreement of that kind misunderstandings may arise. It is quite clear that there is such a misunderstanding between the government whip and the whip of our party. It is quite clear that parliament is supreme; this question has been referred to parliament and I think even the suggestion of the Prime Minister, that this matter be referred back to the whips, is not quite in order, if I may say so. I think this should be settled by parliament this afternoon.
The injustice we on this side of the House are under has been clearly pointed out. The Minister of Railways has told us that any questions brought up by members not represented on the committee may be referred to those on the committee and that the matters will be discussed. We have sixteen members more than any other group in the House and these sixteen members will be unrepresented. For that reason we should have another representative on that committee. It has also Been pointed out that every province, with the exception of Nova Scotia, has a representative on this committee. That surely is not fair, because I would point out that the Progressive group, having but twenty-two members, have two representatives, whereas the Maritime group having twenty-five members have no representative.


Ernest Lapointe: New Brunswick has
two representatives, Mr. Jones and Mr. Robichaud.


Leslie Gordon Bell: But the members representing Nova Scotia are so vitally interested in this question that they surely should have representation on this committee.


John Warwick King: Who suggested
those from the opposite side who should be on the committee?	We know that the
Maritime representation, especially from Nova Scotia, is largely Conservative, and if the Conservative party are desirous of having a
representative of Nova Scotia on this committee it can easily be arranged through the whips.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I think one of the chief difficulties is that this report is not brought into the House for a full discussion. For that reason we should have a full measure of representation in order to see that this report is presented to the House for discussion at an early date.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
would like to ask the government if they consider it fair that the province of Nova Scotia, returning fourteen members, should have no representation on the committee. I appeal to the government and to the House, as a represenative of Nova Scotia;
I do not ask the province of Ontario to divide their representation with Nova Scotia, but I ask that a representative of that province be placed on the committee. Transportation in Nova Scotia is quite as important as in any other part of Canada, and perhaps more so, and any arrangement which would preclude a representative of Nova Scotia from having some insight into the workings of the railway is grossly unfair. Perhaps it is because Nova Scotia returned so large a proportion of Conservatives that my province is now being penalized.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can settle that point
in a moment. If hon. members opposite are not prepared to so adjust their representation as to give Nova Scotia a member of the committee, I will undertake that someone on this side of the House will be sufficiently generous to do so.


Thomas Cantley: I am not in a position
to make bargains for our party, but I am pointing out that we are unfairly treated as the situation now stands. I am not content to come to Ontario and ask them to take a man off the committee in order that we may put one of our men in his place. I ask for justice for Nova Scotia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I was not paired; I was not asked to pair, and there was no understanding with respect to a pair, but knowing the reason why my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is not in his seat to-day, I felt that I would not care to vote on this motion. Had I voted I would have voted in support of the motion.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Culligan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Charles Gavan Power: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewbum). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. FRASER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Wright). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Canada Grain Act (Warehouse receipts).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, I understand
that the right hon. leader of the opposition desires to speak to resolution No. 1, so we will iet that stand, and I will ask the committee to take up resolution No. 2.
2. Resolved, That schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter fifteen of the statutes of 1913, chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1919, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1921, chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1922, chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1923 and chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1924, be further amended by striking thereout' tariff items: 7, 20a, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, 39b, 77a, 90, 134, 135, 438, 448, 590a, 680a, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in Schedule A:-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest that we take the resolutions up item by item. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will address himself to each item as it comes up it will save a great deal of time.


James Alexander Robb: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend explain that?


James Alexander Robb: This is simply an increase of half fi cent in the general tariff to correct a mistake that was made in the Australian agreement in cabling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is wrong in what he tells the House. I think the Australian or New Zealand rate
is half a cent. If my hon. friend looks at the customs tariff he will find under the heading of "Australia and New Zealand, item No. 7," this very item of "fresh meats, n.o.p." and the rate under the British preferential tariff is two cents, under the intermediate two and a half cents, and under the general tariff, three cents, and in the case of Australia and New Zealand half a cent a pound. What is my hon. friend doing? Does he think he is raising the rate of duty on Australian fresh meats from half a cent a pound to two cents? Because if so I do not think he is.


James Alexander Robb: No, I am raising the general tariff from three cents to three and a half cents so as to give them an additional spread.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While my hon. friend may think that is what he is doing I am afraid that is not the case. I have the statute here and am reading from it. The item he is striking out is:
Meats, British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 2$ cents; general tariff 3 cents.
Then the Australian and New Zealand rate is half a cent. I would suggest that my hon. friend look into this question and that in the meantime we report progress.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to the Minister of Finance that there is a shortage apparently of these resolutions. I happened to find a copy in my room but I could not get any downstairs. I think there should be some extra copies because other members may have lost the copy they originally received and one cannot form an intelligent idea of what is going on unless he has the resolutions before him.


James Alexander Robb: May I inform the hon. gentleman that if the files of hon. members are properly kept a copy of these resolutions will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of April 15th. I would suggest that this item be passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I want to find out what change is really being made here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It occurs to me that it would suit the convenience of hon. members if these resolutions were printed in the orders of the day. I understand there is no reason why they should not be reprinted and that being the case I would ask the Clerk to see that they are printed in the orders of the day so that we may have them before us.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: That will suit me particularly. I received one copy of these reso-
3570	COMMONS
Promotion oj Railway Employees
lutions but I took the liberty of sending it away, and it has been impossible for me to get another copy.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 20, 1926