1928-04-11

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I desire to lay on
the table the annual report, in English and French, of the Canadian National Railway system; also a statement, in English and French, of revenues and expenses regarding the eastern lines, as defined in the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927, for the six months ending December 31, 1927.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEW7ART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Dominion Lands
Act.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The purpose of this amendment is to permit the extension of the homesteading privilege to others than those mentioned in the amendment of 1925. It is to extend the privilege of granting a second homestead to those who have proven up prior to January 1, 1928. This is being done in order to meet the request of a large number of people in the prairie provinces who think that this privilege should be extended to allow farmers and their families to move into the northern portions of the district, and the father of the family to secure a second homestead.
The other amendment is a minor one with respect to school lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 200 to amend the Insurance Act (lapsed policies).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of this amendment is to require annually a sworn statement by insurance companies of their lapsed policies. Of the new business written annually, forty to fifty per cent is lapsed, surrendered or confiscated. This bill gives the superintendent of insurance power not only to check up the revenues, but also to protect the policy holders who have paid in less than three years' premiums, and who at present lose all the premiums they have paid in if they should happen to be out of work and are unable to continue paying the premiums. This will be a protection both to the public and the government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DUFF

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to speak
to a question of privilege. I have been interested in public affairs in this country for some thirty-three years, and during that time I have always been ready, when my opponents met me on the political platform or elsewhere, to extend to them the courtesies which I expected from them. Yesterday afternoon, when the resolution of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) was under discussion, dealing with proposed amendments to the Customs Act, the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) in my absence arose in his place and made certain statements. Those statements wfill be found at page 1892 of Hansard of yesterday. First, the hon. member said:
Then will the minister inform the committee if there was no breach of the Canadian law when the steamer Kennedy was taken in for hovering in the Northumberland straits with $20,000 worth of Scotch whiskey belonging to a company of which the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was president?
A little further on will be found the second statement:
If the minister is correct in that, perhaps he will be able to inform the committee why the $20,000 worth of wet goods carried by the Kennedy was afterwards handed back?
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago,
I was not in the house yesterday to answer those statements. If they are true, I would have nothing more to say; if they are untrue, then the language permissible to me under the

Privilege-Mr. Duff
rules is not sufficiently strong to express my indignation. Of course, I regret that the hon. member is not in his place, and I would gladly wait for him to take his seat if I were not afraid that my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) will not within the next fortnight or month be in a position to go on with the legislation amending the Customs Act which is now before the house. Consequently I feel that in fairness to myself I must deal with this matter immediately.
Two years ago, during the course of the general election, the hon. gentleman addressed a public meeting in my home town of Lunenburg, where he had full opportunity to deal with the Kennedy matter, but seated with him on the platform were prominent Conservatives of the locality, and throughout his speech he never once dealt with smuggling, boot-legging and rum-running on the Atlantic or Pacific coast; he confined himself entirely to what had been taking place on the Quebec border. That shows the courage of the hon. gentleman. Yesterday he said:
-the steamer Kennedy was taken in for hovering in the Northumberland straits-*
I deny absolutely that the steamer Kennedy was taken into Pictou for hovering in the Northumberland straits during any period. There is no such vessel as the steamer Kennedy.


An hon. MEMBER:: The W. C. Kennedy.


William Duff: Don't worry; I am coming to it; take your medicine. There was a schooner called the W. C. Kennedy-and this is not the first time that a few of my Tory friends have referred to it. It was brought up before the special committee of this house which investigated the customs department in the session of 1936. It was also brought up by some more of my Conservative friends before the customs commission, and last year I had the privilege of coming to Ottawa, at the country's expense, and giving evidence before the commission with regard to the W. C. Kennedy.
It is quite true 'that I had the schooner W. C. Kennedy built in the year 1920 for parties in Newfoundland, but as they could not take delivery of her I formed a company to take over the boat. She is a little three-masted schooner. If I remember correctly, I sold the W. C. Kennedy in 1923, about six months before she was illegally seized- mark you, not legally, but illegally seized- in Northumberland straits, nine and a half miles east by south of Pictou island. At the time of this illegal seizure I had no interest whatever in the schooner, and I had nothing rMr. Duff.]
whatever to do with paying the deposit of $400, which I have been accused of doing, not openly by a few individuals but surreptitiously.	,
Now, sir, the really serious charge is that I was president of a company which owned $20,000 worth of scotch whiskey, or, to put it in the words of the bon. member for West Hamilton:
-$20,000 worth of Scotch whiskey belonging to a company of which the hon. member for Antigonish-G-uysborough was president.
I say that this statement is not true. Perhaps under the rules I cannot characterize it as false, but I do say that it is absolutely untrue; there is not a scintilla of truth in it.
I never was an officer of any company or any body of individuals that purchased Scotch whiskey or liquor of any kind to smuggle into Canada. I was never the president of, nor had I any connection with, any company that smuggled liquor into Canada. I never had any connection with any person who either purchased, smuggled or sold or handled whiskey or any other liquor in Canada. Before the commission in Ottawa I made a sworn statement that I never bought liquors, that I never smuggled liquors to sell, and that I never sold liquors. Under the circumstances I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is grossly unfair for any hon. gentleman to get up on the floor and make such unfounded statements in respect to another member which cannot be proven, as was done by the hon. member for West Hamilton, in respect to myself.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. SPEAKER:: In order to facilitate the business of the house, I suppose I might call the numbers of these bills and make one motion for their first reading. By unanimous consent I will do so.
It is moved by Mr. Jacobs, seconded by Mr Wellington Hay, that Bills 167, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, and 186 be now read the first time.
Motion agreed to on division.



FIRST READING-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Katie Abramo-vitch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Claire Ellen Burke.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 173, for the relief of George Edgar Gooderham - Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Pearl Hazel Clement.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of John Arthur Towers Irvine-Mr. Church.

Questions
Bill No. 176, for the relief of William Henry King.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of John Pepper.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Caroline Mildred Potter.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Fanny Alrheta Schaefer.

Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Ivy Ethel James Sergent.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Angelo Spada-fore.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Lena Zimmerman Staples.-Mr. Hock&.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Audie Bertha Stewart.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Gertrude Aileen VanderVoort.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Roy James Vollans.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of John Young. -Mr. Clark.

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

Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	How many acres of coal lands are there in the province of Alberta to which patents in fee simple have been issued?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	The area of coal mining rights disposed of by sale in the province of Alberta for which patents in fee simple were issued is 238,008.47 acres.
In addition, under rights conveyed with surface on old short form patent for 12,533,340 acres.


PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT-OUTSTANDING ACCOUNTS
Mr. BANCROFT:: 1.	What is the amount of outstanding accounts for meals supplied in parliamentary restaurant previous to January 1, 1928?
2.	By whom are these amounts owed, and what is the amount of indebtedness in each case?


Hewitt Bostock: This question should be dropped, as the gentlemen-not now members of the house, I am pleased to say-who owed the restaurant certain amounts have discharged their indebetedness, on the principle that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Dropped.


LIGHTSHIP NO. 24-COAL
*Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What emergency necessitated lightship No. 24 fueling approximately 70 tons of American coal at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 26th November, 1927?
2.	Was Canadian coal not available in Nova Scotia on that date?
3.	What price was paid for the American coal suplied?


Mr. CARDIN:: Mr. Speaker, this is the
answer to the question:
1.	The necessity of getting the lightship back on her station -at the earliest possible moment.
2.	Canadian coal was doubtless available at several points in Nova Scotia at that time.
3.	87.50 per ton.


DEPARTMENT OF MINES-RESEARCH BUREAU
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Have any specific achievements in metallurgy been recorded to the credit of the research bureau of the Dominion Department of Mines during the past ten years?
2.	If so: (a) what were the nature of such achievements; (b) are any of such achievements in commercial use in Canada; (c) if so, where ?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes. The Department of Mines has contributed very materially to the development and application of the flotation method for the concentration and separation of the -minerals in complex sulphide ores, and to determining the best treatment method for specific ores; to the beneficiation of iron ores; to the cyaniaation of gold ores and the treatment of refractory gold ores; to the development and application of a new process for the treatment of ilmenite ore; to the production of electrolytic iron from pyrrhotite and pyrite ores with elemental sulphur as a by-product; to the preparation and utilization of non-metallic minerals.
2.	(a) The separation of chaleopyrite and pyrite; (b) Yes; (c) Eustis mine, Eustis,Que.; Britannia mine, Howe Sound, B.C.
(a)	The separation of chaleopyrite, zinc blende and pyrite; (b) No; (c) Investigation now in progress to produce three commercial products, a copper, a zinc and a pyrite concentrate from the Aldermac mine ore.
(a)	The separation of galena and zinc blende; (b) Yes; (c) Tetrault mine, Notre Dame des Anges, Que.; Dunwell mine, Stewart, B.C. Investigations have been conducted on ores of Reader mine, Calumet I., Que.; Geneva mine, Geneva, Ont., a number of the Slocan mines B.C., Monarch and Kicking Horse mines, Field B.C.; Malaspina mine,
Questions

Powell river, B.C.; Yankee Girl mine, Ymir, B.C., and many others.
(a) The separation of chalcopyrite from pyrrhotite and pyrite; (b) Yes; (c) Hidden Creek mine, Anyox, B.C. Was at the Huntington mine, Eastman, Que. Will be at the Horne mine, Noranda, Que.
(a) The separation of chalcopyrite, galena and zinc blende; (b) No; (c) Investigation has shown that it is now possible to concentrate the difficult ore of the Stirling mine, Cape Breton, N.S.
(a) The separation of chalcopyrite, zinc blende, and iron sulphide; (b) Yes; (c) Fhn Flon mine, N.W. Manitoba. Investigations have been 'conducted and are in progress on ores of the SherritDGordon mine, N. W Manitoba, and the Amulet, Aldermac and Abana mines in western Quebec, which will probably be in the production stage within the next few years.	_
(a) The separation of cholcopyrite, pent-landite, and iron sulphide; (b) Yes; (c) To some extent at Coniston and Copper Cliff from the copper-nickel ores of the Sudbury
district.	.
(a) Concentration of molybdenite ores,
(b)	No; (c) Was at the Moss Mine, Quyon,
' Que. Investigations were carried out on every variety of molybdenite occurrence in Canada.
(a) The concentration of galena from iron pyrite and calcite; (b) No; (c) Was at the Frontenac mine, Perth Road, Ont. Other investigations' on lead ores include the Alma mine, Camborne, B.C., and the Ogema mine,
Dorion, Ont.	.	.
(a) The concentration of sphalerite in zinc ores; (b) No; (c) Investigations have been conducted on zinc ores from the Abana and Aldermac mines and other zinc properties.
(a) The treatment of refractory gold ores;
(b)	Yes; (c) Argonaut mine, Argonaut, Ont; Gold Hill mine, Boston Creek, Ont.; Central Manitoba mines, East Central Manitoba.; Rex mine, Herb Lake, Manitoba. Investigations have been conducted on ores from the Reno mine, Ymir, B.C.; Cadwallader Creek, B.C.; Matachewan, Kirkland lake, and many others.
(a) The flotation of the mineral sulphides containing the precious metal values in the tailings from cyanide plants; (b) No; (c) Has been tried out with success on the tailings from the Kirkland lake milling plants.
(a) The treatment of ilmenite ore for the separation of the iron and titanium content to produce a high grade titanium oxide for pigment and other purposes; (b) No;
(c)	Semi-commercial plant is operating in 
England on Canadian ilmenite. Commercial plant to be built in Montreal in the near future.
In the preparation and utilization of nonmetallic minerals the following contributions have been made:
(a) The concentration of graphite by flotation methods; (b) Yes; (c) Guenette, Quebec. Black Donald mine, near Calabogie, Ont.
(a) The elimination of impurities from sandstone and silica sands; (b) Yes; (c) Canada Glass Products, East Templeton, Que., and other occurrences of sandstone and silica sands in the Dominion.
(a) The concentration of garnetiferous gneisses and schists for the production of abrasives; (b) No; (c) Plant operated near Bancroft for some time. Many occurrences in Ontario and Quebec have been investigated
(a) The separation of china clay and silica sands; (b) No; (c) Process developed for the Huberdeau deposits, St. Remi, Quebec.
(a) The preparation of volcanic ash; (b) Yes; (c) Waldeck, Sask.
The preparation of many other non-metallic minerals has been investigated, such as calcite, barite, celestite, fluorspar, mica, soapstone, bentonite, etc. Experimental test and research work must always be ahead of commercial application and hence quite a number of achievements listed above have not yet been put to commercial use.
The importance of the experimental test and research work conducted is recognized by the mine operators and consulting engineers, who make the fullest use of it and are constantly seeking advice on the treatment of ores and on their milling problems.


HOMESTEAD ENTRY-GEORGE MARTIN
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	Was the N.E. i 24-5-27 W. 2nd M. leased to one George Martin?
2.	Did the said lease expire in October, 1927?
3.	Did Mr. J. M. Roberts, Secretary, Department of Interior, Ottawa, advise any person or persons on March 1, 1928, that this land was to be thrown open for homestead entry?
4.	Were posting notices giving date when this land would become available for entry sent out by Mr. J. A. Reid, agent of Dominion lands at Moose Jaw, on March 10, 1928?
5.	Did Mr. J. A. Reid on or about March 15th notify any person that he had instructions from Ottawa to reserve this land pending further advice?
6.	Why has this land been withdrawn?
7.	Is it the policy of the government to give the preference to returned soldiers applying for homestead entry on such lands?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton);
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.

Questions
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	In order that the department might make another investigation as to the character of the land, a question having arisen as to its suitability for agricultural purposes.
7.	Yes. Under the provisions of subsection 3 of section 7 of the Dominion Lands Act. (Chapter 113, R.S.C., 1927.)


MR. ALEX. JOHNSTON
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Mr. Alex. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine, absent from his office in the Hunter building, at Ottawa, from July 2, 1927, to August 20, 1927?
2.	If so, (a) from what date to what date, (b) what was the reason of his absence, (e) where did he go?
3.	How long does the annual vacation of the Deputy Minister of Marine last?
4.	How long has he been absent from his office, each year, since his nomination?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) He was absent from his office from July 7th to August 2nd inclusive;
(b)	On departmental business for 18 days;
(c)	To Halifax, Antigonish, Sydney and St. John.
3.	There is no regulation governing the annual vacation of deputy ministers. Hitherto the Deputy Minister of Marine has not been in the habit of taking regular annual vacations. During many of the years of his incumbency he has not taken any vacation. On one occasion only he took a vacation on account of ill-health extending over a period of about four weeks.
4.	There is no record of the time he has been absent from his office since his appointment.


IMMIGRATION OP RETIRED BRITISH OFFICERS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	Did the Department of Immigration and Colonization initiate a policy to bring retired British officers to Canada?
2.	If so, in what year was the policy initiated?
3.	How many settlers came to Canada under this policy?
4.	If any, where were they settled?
5.	Is this policy still in force, and what efforts are being made to encourage this class of settler?
6.	How many such settlers have been secured in 1927?


Mr. FORKE:: 
VANCOUVER ELEVATOR
Mr. MANION:: 1.	Wliat is the elevator capacity at Vancouver ?
2.	How much w'heat passed through the elevators at Vancouver in the year 1927, also in the years 1926 and 1925?
3.	To whom are the elevators rented at the port of Vancouver? '
4.	How much grain was handled by the Vancouver harbour board elevator No. 1, in the crop year 1923-24?
5.	Is there any intention on the part of the government to build any further elevators at the port of Vancouver at the present time?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	7,425,000 bushels.
2.	1925: 34,868,000 bushels; 1926 : 43,207,244 bushels; 1927: 42,006,874 bushels.
3.	The harbour commissioners' elevators are rented as follows: No. 1, Pacific Terminal Elevator Company; No. 2, Alberta Pool Elevators Limited; No. 3, Burrard Elevator Company.
4.	The harbour commissioners' records are kept on the basis of the calendar year. From the beginning of the operation of elevator No. 1 by the harbour commissioners on August 23, to December 31, 1923, the deliveries of grain from elevator No. 1 amounted to 11,266,940 bushels. From January 1 to July 31, inclusive, 1924, the deliveries from elevator
Questions

No. 1 amounted to 41,336,133 bushels. This makes the total for what is known as the "crop year," 52,603,073 bushels.
5.	The matter of constructing additional storage accommodation to elevators Nos, 1 and 2 at Vancouver is under consideration by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.


INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS' RADIO LICENCE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is the government considering refusing to continue the license of the broadcasting station C.H.C.Y. Edmonton (International Bible Students) ?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I answered a similar question the other day, and in view of the fact that I may have something to say later on in this regard I suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. SPENCER:: Stand.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It seems reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that an answer should be given by the minister on an important matter such as this. Absolutely no reason was given for the cancellation of licences.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


PEMBROKE POST OFFICE
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Post Office department to place the post office at
Pembroke, Ontario, under control of the Civil Service Commission ?
2.	If so, when will said change take place?
3.	If not, on whose recommendation will a new postmaster be appointed?


Mr. VENIOT:: While	I have not the
answer here, the question could hardly be replied to except in one way. If it will please the hon. member I will give the answer orally. All post offices with an annual revenue of over $400 are under the Civil Service Commission. This office, therefore, comes under that head.


IMMIGRANTS-NOVA SCOTLA
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	How many immigrants settled in the province of Nova Scotia during the years 1913, 1921-22-23-24-25-26-27?
2.	What was the nationality of such immigrants?
" 3. How many of said immigrants settled on farms?
4.	How many were coal miners?
5.	How many mechanics?
6.	How many domestic servants?
7.	Were those who settled on farms assisted
by the federal government:	(a) by way of
assisted passages:	(b) by advances for purchases of land, stock or implements?
8.	What was the total amount of financial assistance so rendered?
9.	What proportion of those who took up farms and were given assistance by the government afterwards abandoned their holdings?


Robert Forke: 1 and 2.
Fiscal Years
1912-13	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27British-	3,561	1,284	644	405	712	392	473	911262	99	31	25	129	147	70	146751	354	177	187	251	145	83	317Welsh 	96	38	11	13	29	15	9	30
4,670	1,775	863	630	1,121	699	635	1,404
		1				2		
	1							1
10	5	6	3	9	11	1	1	2	5	104	1	1	61	2	1	191	86	8	23	12	3	62	3	2	35	529	158	15	3	26	2	12	3	3	2	2	11	8	1	1	14	624	73	11	16	2	3IS	2	31	39	1	19576	95	13	34	22	8	16	215	338	3	18	8	5	15195	2	4	2	8	3	2	4135	26	143	36	27	38	21	5212	1	1	28	Italian	334	i75	58	35	292	49	11	51

Questions
	Fiscal Years							
1912-13	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-271	1	1	3	1	12	6	3	1	1	7	12	1	335	3	5	3	1	13	Negro	104	61	7	8	4	11	9	12809	706	263	1,059	3,743	802	4	1	3	2	Polish	482	30	35	12	49	31	9	1614	3	3	21	54	2,990	8	2	5	1	1275	3	30Scandinavian-	Danish	18	22	12	18	46	65	17	91	2	Norwegian	208	7	1	3	34	61	4	18Swedish	74	9	2	5	26	25	6	426	36	57	13	4	21	3	1	Syrian	35	6	2	2	34	11	5	176	1	3	1	7	9	1	3	7	i	247	37	2	4	5	8	Total continental, etc	7,571	1,442	577	1,248	4,493	1,312	128	298From the United States	7,565	951	430	289	333	74	88	113Total immigration	19,806	4,168	1,870	2,167	5,947	2,085	851	1,815
For the year 1913, destination of immigrants, for Nova Scotia, cannot be given, the Maritime Provinces being shown as a unit that year.
3 to 6. Statistics are not available except for the fiscal year 1926-27. The figures for that period are prepared from the declarations made by immigrants at the time of entry and they show the following numbers of the classes referred to as being destined to Nova
Scotia:
Farming class	 536
Mining class	 275
Mechanics	 108
Domestics	 260
7.	(a) Only those who came from the British isles under the assisted passage agreements. It is impossible to say definitely just how many there were of this class.
(b) No.	.
8.	The department cannot give the total amount of financial assistance to settlers who came to Nova Scotia under the empire settlement agreement as the settlers are not classified in our accounts according to provinces.
9.	10 per cent.


JAMES BAY AND HUDSON BAY ISLANDS
Mr. PECK:: 1. Are any of the islands in James bay and Hudson bay under the jurisdiction of either of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec?
2.	If so, which are they and to what province are they respectively attached?


Charles A. Stewart: No. 1. The islands in Hudson bay and James bay are part of the Northwest territories.
No. 2. Answered by No. 1.


INTERNATIONAL SCHOONER RACE
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to assist the schooner Bluenose in the proposed schooner race from Sandy Hook to Spain?
2.	If any such financial assistance is to be granted, how much will the government's contribution be?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Representations which have been made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries by the member for Antigonish-Guysborough and others to the effect that, in the event of its being decided to enter a Canadian schooner in the proposed international race from Sandy Hook to some port in Spain, assistance in the form of a money grant should be given by the federal government, are under consideration.
2.	Under consideration.
Questions


PORTS OP ENTRY, NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacDONALD; (Cape Breton South):
1.	Hoiv many ports of entry are in the
following counties:	Queens, Shelburne and
Yarmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	What are the names of the officials at the various ports of entry?
3.	What is.the salary of each officer?
4.	What is the revenue of each officer?
5.	What are the outports of the said counties?
6.	What are: (a) the names of officers; (b) the salary of each; (c) the revenue of each office?
Mr. EULER:: 1.	Five.
2,	3, and 4:
Port-name of official-salary:-revenue. Barrington Passage, NS.; Gray, Wm. W.; $1,200+$180 (Registrar of Shipping); $954.04.
Liverpool, NS.; More, E. D., $1,380+8180 (R. of S.); Sawyer, H. E., $1,260; $17,872.75.
Lockeport, N.S.; position vacant, previous incumbent, J. R. Ruggles, salary $1,380; $993.97.
Shelburne, N.S.; Bruce, A. C., $1,380+$180 (R. of S.); $14,776.90.
Yarmouth, N.S.; Wyman, M. C., $2,340+ $240 (R. of S.); Boyd, Jos. Wm., $1,920; Hood, S. C., $2,040; Horton, R. B., $1,260; LeBlanc, J. L., $1,260; Miller, G. G., $1,200; Pothier, J. D., $1,980; Rogers, Arthur, $1,740; $85,490.91.
5 and 6.
Outport-name of officer-salary-revenue. Clarke's Harbour; Daley, John W., $660; $1,054.52.
Port La Tour; Smith, James D., $360; $11.40.
Caledonia; Chute, J. D., $200; $841.60. North East Harbour; Greenwood, J. L., $200; $50.95.
Port Clyde; Strang, W. B., $460; $285.23. Sandy Point; Goodick, A. S., $780; $25.37. Lower East, Pubnico; Amiro, Chas. Y. $840; $169.02.
Tuskett; Hatfield, A. S., $200; $170.67.


EXPORTS UNDER TREATIES
Mr. ROBERGE:: What is the total value of Canadian exports: (a) to Australia; (b) to New Zealand, for each respective year since the trade treaties between said countries and Canada have been in force?


Mr. MALCOLM:: Exports of Canadian produce from Canada to Australia and New Zealand since the present trade arrangements went into force:

Period To Australia October 1, 1925, to March 31, 1926.. $ 9,542,182 Fiscal year, 1927..	18,965,881
11 months ended February, 1928..	13,184,555
To New Zealand


$ 9,737,132 13,538,513 10,363,430 BUTTER IMPORTS
Eusèbe Roberge: What quantity of butter has been imported yearly into Canada from: (a) Australia; (b) New Zealand, since the trade treaties between said countries and Canada have been in force?


James Malcolm: Imports of butter into Canada from Australia and New Zealand since the present trade arrangements went into force:
From
Australia
Period	Pounds
October 1, 1925, to March 31,	1926..	2,485,502Fiscal year,	1927..	801,32411 months	endedFebruary,	1928..	384.272
From New Zealand Pounds
2,342,966
4,904,536
10,947,425


STEAMER VIGILANT-REPAIRS
Mr. ERNST:: What amount has the government or any department thereof, expended in repairs to the steamship Vigilant during the calendar years 1926, 1927 and to date in 1928?


Mr. EULER:: Calendar year 1926-Not in
the service of the government.
Calendar year 1927-$1,565.18.
Calendar year 1928 to date^Nil.


BIGWOOD, ONTARIO, POST OFFICE
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	Has the post office at Bigwood, Ontario, been removed from the building of one H. Porlier to that of Henry Depuis?
2.	If so, for what reason, and upon whose recommendation was the change made?
3.	Has the Postmaster General or the Post Office department received petitions signed by the patrons of this office asking that it he returned to the original location?
4.	If so, what action, if any, is being taken to meet the request of the petitioners?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Porlier was only acting postmaster. Mr. Dupuis was given permanent appointment; consequently, office was changed to his location. Change made on recommendation of the member for the constituency.
3.	Yes.
4.	None, as department has information that site is central.

Questions as Orders for Returns


BINDER TWINE INSPECTIONS
Mr. BANCROFT:: 1.	How many inspections of binder twine were made during the year 1927?
2.	Was any of the twine inspected found to be shorter than the length guaranteed on the tag?
3.	If so, how many of the inspections showed such shortage?
4.	Ill how many eases was the shortage found to be 21 per cent or more?
5.	In how niany cases did the shortage exceed the 5 per cent allowed by law?
6.	Was any of the binder twine inspected found to be over the length guaranteed on the tag?
7.	If so, in how many cases did this occur?
8.	What quantity of twine, if any, was confiscated as a result of these inspections?
9.	Was any twine relabelled as a result of these inspections?
10.	Will the government introduce an amendment to the act this session cutting down the 5 per cent leeway allowed under the present act?
5.	29.
6.	Yes.
7.	68.
8.	None.
9.	Two lots were seized and held until correctly labelled. One firm was fined $130.
10.	The matter is under consideration, but probably not.
4.	If so, was any assistance given in the search for the Kamloops and crew by the department, and when ?
5.	What equipment is provided on lake Superior by United States government for protection of vessels and crews under United States registry?
6.	What would be cost of providing life saving speed boats and equipment for use on lake Superior?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Vessels taking off lightkeepers on lake Superior were instructed to search for the steamer Kamloops.
2.	She left Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., for Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario, on December 4th, 1927, since which date no official information has been received of the ship, which has been missing ever since.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	The following coast-guard stations: *Deer Park, Mich.; Duluth, Minn.; Eagle Harbour, Mich.; Grand Marais, Mich.; Marquette, Mich.; Portage, Mich.; *Two Hearted River, Mich.; Vermilion, Mich.; Whibefish Point, Mich.
6.	The cost would be governed entirely by the number and class of boats and the amount of equipment that would be provided. A vessel for operation on lake Superior during the period of lake navigation would cost approximately S250.000 to $300,000, depending on salvage outfit and equipment supplied.
Station is not at present in full active duty service, owing to reduced force.



ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What effort, if any, was made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to assist in the search for the steamer Kamloops when lost with all its crew in November, 1927, in a stoim on lake Superior, after leaving Port Arthur with a cargo of wheat?
2.	When was the Kamloops reported lost?
3.	Was assistance to locate the vessel and crew requested by owners of the Kamloops?


RADIO-BROADCASTING STATIONS
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	How many broadcasting radio stations are there in Canada and where situated?
2.	By whom are said stations operated?
3.	How many radio licenses have been issued for the current year in Canada.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO FAIRS OR EXHIBITIONS
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	On what basis does the federal government make grants to fairs or exhibitions?
2.	Are they based on attendance or on amount offered or paid in prizes?
3.	How are such grants classified and the amount for each class?
4.	What has a fair or exhibition to do in order to qualify for the government grant in each class?
5.	How much money has been paid out by way of government grants to fairs or exhibitions in each year from 1924 to 1927, inclusive, in each province?
6.	During the years mentioned what fairs or exhibitions in each province received government grants, and what amount in each case?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers


LEAGUE OP NATIONS-EXPENSES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What remuneration, living expenses, and other incidentals were paid to those in each ease who attended the League of Nations the past six years, representing the government in any capacity, with the names of our representatives in each case?
2.	What has been the total cost of the league per annum to Canada since its inception to date?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
this question should be dealt with as an order for return. In bringing down the order the government proposes, in answer to the first section of the question, not to restrict the figures to the past six years but to give the expenses for all representatives since the inception of the league, as is requested in the second section in regard to the total cost of the league per annum.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands as an order for
return.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MANION:: For a copy of the budget submitted to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the Vancouver harbour commission, by the late R. E. Beattie, of the Vancouver harbour board, in the summer of 1924.



DUTY ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: For a copy of the recommendations made by the Canadian Horticultural Council as submitted to the Minister of Agriculture, fixing the value for duty of fruits and vegetables to be applied during the coming season under the provisions of section 43 of the Customs Act.



INLAND REVENUE PROSECUTIONS, ALBERTA

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For return showing all inland revenue eases prosecuted by members of the Alberta provincial police, in their capacity as inland revenue officers, showing moiety of fines paid to each from January 1, 1922, to date inclusive.
the federal government and the government of the province of Alberta, in connection with the joint offer made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways for the purchase of the Alberta government railways.



CALEDONIA, N.S., CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICE

William Gordon Ernst: For a return giving full details of the total cost of the Customs and Excise office at Caledonia, in the county of Queen's in the province of Nova Scotia:	(a) for the year
ending March 15, 1927; (h) for the year ending March 15, 1928.



PORT MOUTON, N.S., CUSTOMS OFFICER

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents between the Department of Customs and/or any other department of the government and/or the Civil Service Commission and any other person or persons, respecting the dismissal of Clifford Swain as customs officer at Port Mouton, Queen's county. Nova Scotia, and the a in office, and any in relation thereto



CANADIAN NATION


[Stage Direction]
ppointment of lus successor ' and all orders in. ^euneil
'AT, RAILWAY LANDS t.
William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents between the Department of Railways or any department of the government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia, and any or all orders in council, relating to the payment of taxes on Canadian National Railways lands in the province of Nova Scotia.
20th halton riflfjs, headquarters


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports and other documents in any way relating to the proposed purchase of the Barber house in Georgetown. Ontario, as headquarters for the 20th Halton Rifles.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-POWER AND IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION HUNTER COMMISSION

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a return showing the charges and complaints in writing, including affidavits of complainants, charging political partisanship against officials of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment upon which a commission was issued on the 30th June,. 1927, to Alfred Taylor Hunter under the Inquiries Act.



ALBERTA GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS

Mr. BLATCHFORD:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and documents of all kinds exchanged between

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved;
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate action should he taken, without further and unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the immediate development and generation of water-power on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation, and that a greater St. Lawrence *waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada.
And that this house is further of the opinion that the government should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
public undertaking itself and the power incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.
He said: This resolution, Mr. Speaker, deals with one of the most important questions to come before the people of Canada since confederation, and I am sorry that more time cannot be found in which to discuss it. This is admitted to be the greatest economic problem facing the people of the North American continent to-day. It should not be considered as a political or party matter; it is not a local or provincial question but a great economic matter which affects every man, woman and child in the two great countries bordering on the great lakes. We have time to discuss all kinds of academia subjects which are brought up during the session, but we find very little time to devote to basic problems such as this, which will affect many of the great activities of our country. We have a great many rules and regulations in this house, some of them over one hundred years old1; no one can bring up any question for the good of the country without being reminded that someone made a rule or regulation many years ago which has the effect of preventing a discussion of that particular matter. This question, however, is all-important, and should be approached from the national standpoint of the greatest good to the greatest number. We are not allowed to bring up any question in which the matter of finance is involved, but as we all know almost everything we would like to bring up has to do with the finances of the country in one way or the other. Just a few moments ago we found that the question of finance has something to do with even our own little restaurant question. Nothing can be taken up in this house without bringing up the question of money; under our rules only the government can bring up such matters. When a private member tries to do something to help solve some of the great economic problems of the country the Prime Minister will get up and throw a few bouquets, after which he will tell us that the question affects the finances of the country and therefore cannot be discussed. Handicapped and hemmed in as we are in this house by our antiquated rules and regulations, which are contained in the dead text books of the past, it is very hard for a member of parliament to discharge his duty to his constituents in considering any of these great problems which lie before us.
Never in the history of the party system in this country has such a great opportunity
come to any political party to solve one of the great, outstanding problems of our nation.
I would that Canada had an Adam Beck at present to take up this question which deals with power, light and transportation; I would that Canada had a Mussolini, who would do something in a practical way for the people of this country. Instead, we have a government which relies on the law courts for the solution of problems of this kind. The question of the Alberta natural resources is on its way to the Privy Council and no one knows when it will come back again; in the meantime we are not allowed to discuss it. Is this a free parliament or is it not? Are we attending a mock parliament or a real parliament? If we are free, any member should be able to speak on questions of this kind without waiting for some court to bring in a decision.
We also have boards of strategy on some sides of this house, and we are not supposed to bring up anvthing which has not been approved by these boards. We had one such board on this side of the house, which used to bring up questions which kept us here until three or four o'clock in the morning, and no one was allowed to think for himself. Even then, most of the problems which were brought up were not heard of outside the walls of this building. What was the result? When the ballots were counted we found ourselves over here in this Potter s field.
Matters have not improved since we obtained our new status; we now have a minister plenipotentiary in Washington, from whom we can hardly secure the production of papers or any information as to what is going on. There has been a great change m the form of the returns made by our new representatives as compared with those which we formerly received from the British Ambassador in Washington. Our representative signs himself "Envoy Extraordinary." He is extraordinary, in my opinion. He is also our minister plenipotentiary, but wha,t has he been doing in connection with this matter? We have spent millions of dollars on officials, commissions, mock parliaments and so on, yet we have had only one report dealing with this matter. To my fellow members on this side of the house I would say that unless we are up and doing the Liberal party will carry through this great undertaking. We will have an election in a few years, and I believe that within a few weeks we will have at least a declaration from hon. gentlemen opposite that an agreement has been negotiated dealing with this all-important matter.
Why should these matters be referred to the Privy Council? That tribunal seems to
1928	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
be a very handy agency to take up these matters and throw out a life-line to the government of the day when they do not wish parliament to discuss them. In my opinion the political party which takes up this question in earnest will foe in power in this country for a good many years, and I think we should be devoting all our energies to that end. The development of the St. Lawrence outranks in importance all other questions in the public life of this Dominion,, past or present. Now is the time to deal with it, because it is vitally important that it be settled at the earliest possible moment. I hope this question will be brought up again, and I also hope that before it comes up in the house next time the government will see fit to have representatives of the Senate and the House of Commons go to Brockville or Prescott, where they can board a steamer and proceed directly to the places where these operations will take place, because seeing is believing.
Mr. Hoover visited the scene and he is a gentleman who now stands as one of the heads of the great Republican party, had an open mind on this problem, but after going through the ship canal with us and seeing the plans and the work being done on the Welland canal, he became, as he is to-day, a warm supporter of this waterway from the business and the economic standpoints.
There are certain questions which should be answered. What is the seaway? Is such a deep channel necessary? What must be done to improve it? What will it cost? How is an international agreement made? What agreement is necessary? Can we afford the seaway? And then it will be proper to say a few words on the political side of this question, on the engineering features, on the economic and international phases and to discuss briefly how it reacts upon the labour market.
A few years ago-on the 26th of April, 1922 -there was a debate in this house on a similar resolution of mine. The arguments in favour of this waterway were set out by me then along the lines I mentioned a moment ago.
Since then we have had strong reports made in favour of this improvement by the International Joint Commission representatives of both countries, which prove conclusively from an engineering standpoint, from the power standpoint, and from an economic standpoint that this particular highway to the sea is necessary and practical. The great advantage of the St. Lawrence river is that it is one of the principal natural waterways to the sea. The cost should be divided between the two

countries. It is a speed highway, avoiding long delays. We have engineering and commercial assurance of three facts: first, that it can be done, that it is practicable; second, that the cost will be less than that for any other route which has been spoken of; and third, that it will make possible the development of millions of horsepower and the saving of millions of tons of coal every year.
Canada has dealt differently with railway traffic from what it has with water-borne traffic. In the case of water-borne traffic, our canal system does not reveal any well developed policy. The deepening of the Welland canal is an important link in the St. Lawrence scheme and should have been finished long ago if the work had been prosecuted with the same vigour which marked the development of the Chippewa-Queenston power canal. There have been some objections raised to it. Some say it will be an economic failure and a waste of public money. The answer to that is that the power alone will pay for the work, and that is set out in the report of the International Joint Commission. Then it is said that the cost of power will be prohibitive, The answer to that is that the commission's report says it will not be.
Then it is charged that the fogs and ice make the St. Lawrence route too hazardous to be of practical use; although it is admitted that it is all right for six or seven months. The answer is that the fogs and ice on the Atlantic play havoc with the steamship service there as well.
It is objected that ocean vessels cannot navigate the restricted channels or afford the delays of lockage in canals. The reply is that the objection is not sound, the report says so, and it deals to the extent of twenty pages with that argument.
It is said that there will be no return tonnage and that one-way traffic cannot be developed. The answer is that the west is a great consumer and there will be a new development of package freight, and a new type of ship which will be able to sail the lakes and the ocean as well. We have a great many old whaleback type boats now sailing the great lakes and going down to the Atlantic seaboard.
The statement is made that the purpose is to enable Canada to control the export grain trade. The answer is that that is not so.
It is asserted that the project is designed to destroy the competition of the barge canal. The answer is that it would cater to a different form of trade and would be a feeder to the barge canal.

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
Then it is said that the power is not needed. The answer is given by the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission.
The last objection is that it would expose the United States to the peril of invasion by Great Britain. The answer is that we have had a hundred years of peace between the United States and Canada, and we have been digging canals for over a hundred years. There is only one difference between this canal and the others, and that is that it is proposed to be a little deeper.
I might say that I cannot understand some of the objections to entering into the particular treaty which is urged here; they are more parochial than anything else. For the past hundred years and more the two nations have jointly been using the St. Lawrence river and the improvements therein made. Treaties have been entered into, all matters of navigation and rights have been negotiated. To-day it is not a question, as I view it, of getting or giving an advantage, but it is a matter of continuing the policy that is as old as the two nations, that of using the waters of the St. Lawrence jointly and freely for the benefit of both nations. Neither government will forfeit a single right or privilege which they now have, in order that the two governments may jointly develop this river. Whether a ditch is to be four or thirty feet deep does not involve any new international or political question; or whether the improvement is on the American side or the Canadian side, or which government spends the money.
You are not breaking any new ground in entering into this new agreement. You are not raising any new international questions. I could quote from international treaties from 1792 till the present time to substantiate that point. We are not charting a new course, we are not raising new international questions, but we are travelling a road which has been used for a hundred years. All we are asking you to do is to modernize and bring up to date these channels so that the public and commerce can use them.
The last joint reports of the engineers representing the two governments, in 1921 and 1924 and 1926, both support locating a major part of the improvements on what may be called the international section on the United States side of the international boundary. Whether the international section will be on the Canadian side or on the American side, does not matter very much. On the Canadian side there must be a straight right of way; but on the American side it will be a curved course. Whether the one or the other is adopted is a matter for further negotiation between the governments; and I do not know
what the new report says about that. It is interesting to note, however, that according to the engineers, for economic reasons, it should be on the American side. I want it in Canada if possible. I do not believe that the United States or Canada wishes to take any advantage on that account. All that it desired is to take advantage of this opportunity to benefit navigation. The first move is to negotiate a treaty. That is set out in the first clause of the resolution.
If there was less red tape between 'Washington and Ottawa we would have had all the papers on the table long ago. Are we to wait until they appear in the United States newspapers, or are we to get them on the table of the house now? The engineers who made this international report of 1922 rejected the New York plan and adopted the St. Lawrence plan. The case for the St. Lawrence plan has been set forth; it has weathered every possible opposition and attack on both sides of the border, and it stands to-day approved. We have to-day economic emancipation written across the face of this report. It has taken seven years of hard and insistent fighting, but the case of the St. Lawrence has been made and won. The fight has been worth the struggle for it has meant striking the shackles from forty million people in this land. The last and most pleasant task is that of bringing the two nations together in treaty. Let us write a new chapter in world peace, in international co-operation, in econo-' mics. Let us unlock a new treasure house of wealth. If the party on this side of the house will not undertake this work, the government has the greatest opportunity that any party ever had in its history.
A few minutes ago I asked the question: What is this seaway? From the head of the lakes at Port Arthur and Fort William across the ocean as far as Liverpool it covers a distance of 4,500 miles, and there is deep water navigation over all that distance with the exception of two short sections. One is at the old Welland canal, where the canal is fourteen feet deep, and the other is a twenty-four mile strip between Prescott and Cornwall. On the Welland canal section this country is spending $133,000,000 for a new canal. Our contention is that these two shallow sections of the waterway exclude us from the ocean, and because of the limited size of the eastern section it becomes necessary for cargoes from the upper lakes to be transhipped at Port Colborne. This double transfer is slow and expensive; it means extra delay and labour, and at best only a portion of the great lakes commerce finds its way through Port Colborne to the sea. Af
1930	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
a result of this we are losing business to our competitors, the United States, at Buffalo through the Erie canal.
A deep channel is necessary. A start has been made on the Welland canal, and the first half of the greater St. Lawrence waterway, namely, the Welland canal, is well on the way to completion. The second half of the shallow waterway is the twenty-four mile stretch between Prescott and Cornwall. The St. Lawrence seaway is to take the place of the fourteen-foot St. Lawrence canal now in use and to continue the deep channel of the upper lakes on to the Atlantic. Its completion will permit great lakes' ships to reach ocean ports on the lower St. Lawrence, and will allow ocean-going ships of less than 27-foot draught to enter the great lakes. The physical effect will be to make the ports of the great lakes ocean ports. It will give to them, and to the fanners and manufacturers in the interior, the benefit of ocean rates to overseas markets. The economic effect will be to lower transportation costs. The seaway will increase the returns to the producer. It will foster new enterprise; it will throw open new markets; it will permit a normal development of our national life, and in general it will promote the common welfare.
What has to be done is to develop the two short strips at Welland and at Prescott, and also at the Galops islands and rapids which I have mentioned to-day. It is agreed that this is the best solution of the problem. I do not wish to dilate now on the rival plans. It is considered advisable to start this St. Lawrence plan with the twenty-four mile stretch from Prescott to Cornwall and the power development from the work will pay its share of the construction cost of the improvement. The report says that the scheme will cost 1264,000,000. If you deduct the value of the inherent power which will be developed, the cost for a good seaway will be $123,000,000. The cost of this improvement, if built as a twenty-seven foot ship channel alone, and without any power, would be $173,000,000. By developing power in the international section and charging its fair share of the combined cost of navigation and' power to power, and building the rest of the seaway without power, the navigation cost is reduced to $123,000,000. If power is developed in the Canadian section, this entire navigation cost will be increased and the canal distance shortened, thus providing better navigation at an effective net cost chargeable to navigation amounting to $148,000,000. Thus you have a cost of $123,000,000 for a good seaway, or $148,000,000 for a better seaway.

Before this work is gone ahead with, an agreement must be made between the United States and Canada. I asked a few moments ago:	How is an international agreement to
be reached? Under the constitution of the United States, the president has full power to negotiate a treaty with Canada, stating the terms and conditions under which the seaway is to be constructed. The agreement then goes to the senate, where, in order to be ratified, it must receive a two-thirds vote of those present. The Canadian procedure is for the government of the day, speaking for the party in power, to enter into the treaty desired, and to submit the agreement to both houses of parliament for majority vote approval. What agreement is necessary? By treaties already existing, particularly the Washington treaty of 1871 and the Boundary treaty of 1909, the two nations have defined their rights, duties and privileges with respect to the great lakes-St. Lawrence waterway, including the canals and locks, uniting them into one highway of commerce. In either case the only requirement is that the civil laws of either country shall be observed by the citizens of the other while making use of waters that for navigation purposes are declared by these treaties to be equally and jointly the property of both.
The only question outstanding between the two nations is that of further improvement of a waterway already improved, but inadequate for the traffic now demanding passage [DOT] and originating within the interior of both nations. It is merely a question of detail what plan of improvement shall be adopted, where the money shall be spent, and how the construction work shall be administered. It differs from preceding improvements in this, that in all other cases, that is the locks at Sault Ste Marie or the new Welland canal, either government could and did complete the job single-handed. The United States government did the work in the case of the locks at Sault Ste Marie and the Canadian government in the case of the locks in the Niagara district. In the case of the St Lawrence seaway, the international boundary, the course of the river channel, the problems of dam construction, all combine to make joint improvement both necessary and desirable.
Details of agreement as to plans, details respecting the joint outlay and supervision of the joint improvement while building, furnish the reasons for a further agreement between the two people. No additional rights or privileges are necessary to either nation; no concession of any territorial or jurisdictional rights is called for on the part of

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
either nation. All that is required is a written agreement as to when and by what means the seaway already existing and in use shall be enlarged and made equal to the requirements of modern commerce.
Can we afford the seaway? Yes. The power inherent will pay for the construction. Is it practicable? The St. Lawrence commission of the United States in its report to the president under date of December 27, 1926, state:
The construction of a shipway of sufficient depth to admit ocean shipping from the Atlantic to the great lakes will lessen the economic handicaps of adverse transportation costs of a vast area in the interior of the continent. Within the United States it embraces all or large portions of the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York. It includes a large part of Canada. Within this area there are more than forty million inhabitants who gain their livelihood from its basic industries. It produces a vast surplus both from agriculture and from manufactures, much of which demands long transportation. It has been estimated that the values in a single year to the farmers alone would equal the capital cost of the waterway.
The conclusion of the commission is as follows:
The construction of the shipway from the .great lakes to the sea is imperative both for the relief and for the future development of a vast area in the interior of the continent.
hat will Canada do? We do not know. The best answer to this question is to state just what Canada has already done. Canada has been digging for a hundred years and all Canada would have to do would be to join in more digging for a deeper canal between the two countries. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence route has been used as a highway of commerce since first discovered.
In 1779 Canada began building canals and locks to pass the rapids in the upper St. Lawrence. Before the end of the eighteenth century she built the first lock at the Soo. Between that time and the present she has built and twice enlarged the Welland, built and twice enlarged the St. Lawrence canals, built the modern Canadian lock at the Soo, improved the lower St. Lawrence from the ocean to Montreal, and has only recently let the contracts for the last portion of the 27-foot Welland ship canal now building. This has cost Canada not less than $230,000,000, of which amount $115,600,000 is chargeable to the unfinished Welland ship canal, due for completion in 1930. In the meantime the United States has expended at the Soo and in the main channels of the great lakes, $44,-
700,000.
Now I come to the international treaties of which I spoke. Time will not permit me to read them all, but I will mention them. Let me first ask, what has so far been done toward making the great lakes and the St. Lawrence an international highway for commerce? If we look at these treaties respecting the great lakes, the connecting rivers and the St. Lawrence river, it will be found that the free and mutual use of the great lakes and of the St. Lawrence river has been enjoyed by the people of Canada and of the United States from the time of the close of the revolution until the present day. It is true that disputes have arisen. It is true that laws passed by the one country or the other have been looked upon as restrictive, but the fact remains that never in all that time has the actual use of the St. Lawrence or of the great lakes and their connecting channels been denied by either nation to the citizens of the other. That fact is of profound significance, for while the " natural " right to navigate the lower St. Lawrence was denied to the citizens of the United States by Great Britain, the privilege and the practical use of that channel was not denied.
The legal title of the United States in the great lakes and in the St. Lawrence rests upon a firm foundation. That great highway was once completely within the possession of France, secured to her by right of discovery. In 1763 all right and title to the dominions of France east of the Mississippi passed to Great Britain. Twenty years later, by the treaty of 1782, the British dominions in North America were divided and the boundary line between the new nation of the United States and the remaining British possessions was indicated as the mid-channel of the great lakes and the connecting waters, including the St. Lawrence to the northern boundary of New York.
By clause 8 of the treaty of 1782 it was agreed that:
The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.
Then we have the treaty of 1794, known as the Jay treaty, which provided for joint relations. Then in 1814 the treaty of Ghent sets out the rights of the parties with respect to the St. Lawrence, and by article 2 provides:
The intercourse between the United States and his Britannic Majesty's possessions in the West Indies and on the continent of North America shall not be affected, but each party shall remain in the complete possession of its rights with respect to such an intercourse.
In 1817 the Rush-Bagot agreement for limitation of naval armaments on the great lakes

1932	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church
was proclaimed, and since that time these international waters have been without gun or ship or fortress intended as a threat on the part of either toward the other.
In the treaty of 1842 the mind of the two nations is still further shown as drawing together to one common purpose, when in article 2 of that treaty they agree:
It being understood that all the water communications and all the usual portages along the line from lake Superior to the lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage, from the shore of lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries.
Again, by article 3 of that same treaty, the river St. John forming part of the boundary between the United States and Canada, and in part a stream wholly within the province of New Brunswick, was declared "free and open to both parties and shall in no way be obstructed by either." Article 7 of the same treaty declares that the channels in the river St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island, as well as the channels in the river Detroit on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the American and Canadian shores, and the channels between the various islands lying near the junction of the river St. Clair with the lake of that name, shall be free and open to the ships and the vessels of both parties.
Then we have what is known as the Reciprocity treaty, which reaffirmed the same rights. Then in 1871, the Washington treaty was concluded, and article 27 of that treaty provides that the commerce of both nations shall enjoy common and equal rights and privileges within the canals or navigable waters of either. Here we have in this treaty of 1871 the bedrock of common property rights to the navigation of the St. Lawrence as distinguished from any possession or claim of possession of rights extending beyond navigation, upon which to establish the lasting structure of an agreement that will provide a seaway from the great lakes to the Atlantic.
The duty of both nations is to improve the St. Lawrence. But the story is not yet complete. Once more the two nations met in 1909 and concluded the boundary waterways treaty, which reaffirmed the doctrine that the United States and Great Britain have joint rights both as to navigation and power in these rivers. I would direct the attention of the house to the last paragraph of that treaty, which reads as follows:
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of lake

Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line.
It will be noted that the language of the treaty covers canals "which may hereafter be constructed." We possess now every navigation right necessary. Police power we do not seek. The Welland canal, for instance, is wholly within Canada, and the police powers are under the jurisdiction of Canada. We have used these canals for nearly one hundred years and there has never been any trouble. This United States bogey has been raised by a lot of the power interests and the electric ring, and they have done more to bring this electric ring into Canada than any other agency.
What is the United States prepared to do? The United States has expended, in the dredged channels of the Great Lakes between lake Superior and lake Erie, $44,000,000. We have spent $230,000,000 on our canals.
I notice that an important declaration was made in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway by the chairman of the Montreal harbour board, Hon. W. L. McDougald. The arguments that have been used against the development of this waterway have been largely parochial. The Hon. Mr. McDougald takes very strong ground in favour of this waterway. He quotes the report of the joint commission, as follows:
As to the economic practicability of the waterways, the commission finds that, without considering the probability of new traffic created by the opening of a water route to the seaboard, there exists to-day between the region economically tributary to the great lakes and overseas points, as well as between the same region and the Atlantic and the Pacific seaboard, a volume of outbound and inbound trade that might reasonably be expected to seek this route sufficient to justify the expense involved in its improvement.
He goes on to give the volume of grain shipments through the port of Montreal, as follows:
Bushels
1921		 138,454,000
1922		 155,000,000
1923		 120,200,000
1924		 165,650,000
1925		 166,200,000
1926		 135,000,000
1927		 195,000,000
He also states that after the canals were deepened to fourteen feet, the tonnages increased as follows:
Tons
1900	 1,310,000
1925	 6,200,000
1927	 8,000,000
He also states that in addition to the movement of Canadian grain through the port of Montreal, the St. Lawrence has at-

St. Lawrence
Waterway-Mr. Deslauriers
tracted a large and increasing quantity of American grain, amounting last year to
91.000,000 bushels. He goes on to refer to the investigations which have been made by the Dominion Water Powers branch of the Department of the Interior into the power question, and says that if something is not done there will be a large shortage of power soon. He further states:
I give it as my considered opinion as chairman of the board of harbour commissioners of Montreal, and as the opinion of the technical staff of the harbour commission, who are in daily touch with shipping and of the moving of various commodities in and out of that port, that the business of that port will not be diminished, but on the contrary will steadily increase from year to year, and the proposed deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways will greatly accelerate the rate of increase jn the volume of business handled by Canadas national port of Montreal. One of the main factors in achieving this beneficial result will be the undoubted lowering of the costs of the all-water grain movement from the head of the lakes, the minimum estimate of which, arrived at by all authorities, is a saving of three cents a bushel. Many experts say the saving will be as high as six cents a bushel but we are sure it will be at least three.
That is also the figure which the joint commission estimated.
Why is the lake Erie basin much more highly industrialized than the Ontario basin? Simply because it has the benefit of these deep waterways, with the result that Toledo, Detroit, Buffalo and other cities in that basin are large industrial centres.


Hewitt Bostock: Forty minutes.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, should we consider the wording of the resolution of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), we are naturally led to believe that he wants the United States to put up half the necessary expenditure to build a dam across the Long Sault rapids and dredge a canal 27 feet deep, from Montreal to the head of the Great Lakes. Secondly ....


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman is
making a speech.


Hermas Deslauriers: Secondly, after the project is completed, he wants this enterprise to be owned by the state, and that Canada alone should reap the benefits. He seems to forget the aspirations of our neighbours and ignore one of their mottoes.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I started to speak at a quarter to four, and it is now only twenty past four. I looked at my watch and at the clock when I rose.
56103-123J


Hewitt Bostock: I have the officers of the House to guide me in this matter. The hon. gentleman spoke for forty-one minutes.


Hermas Deslauriers: He
seems to forget their aspirations and ignore one of their mottoes which is part of their institution: "If you want a thing well done, do it yourself."
Judging from the tenor of his resolution, we might have expected that he would give proof of the urgency of his project and that he was also prepared to silence, in forty minutes, objections of a constitutional or physical nature but especially those of an international order. He did not do so. First, in regard to the constitutional viewpoint, the attitude he takes in this house seems to me untimely, owing to the fact that the provinces inter-tested in this project, according to the jurisprudence recently enacted in connection with the ownership of shores and beds of navigable rivers, forces the Dominion government not to interfere as long as the general interest of the country is not at stake.
Now, none of the provinces which are free to act in this matter have, at present, taken any official stand in regard to this project. Until the Privy Council has made up its mind we can but look upon this resolution as being out of order.
Moreover, considering that this resolution implies an expenditure of public money, I doubt, according to the rules of the house, that a private member has a right to submit such a measure.
From the physical standpoint, we cannot assert that the construction of a dam across the Long Sault rapids is beyond the reach of civil engineering. However, we may venture to say that at this spot nature would create such serious difficulties in the way of such an enterprise as to render it both uncertain and detrimental to the country's interest.
On December 15, 1908, Messrs. Anderson, Lafleur and Butler, engineers of the Department of Marine, made a report to the Dominion government wdiich in substance was, that no one could forsee the consequences of the building of a dam with artificial causeways in the narrowest parts of the St. Lawrence, at Long Sault, where an immense sheet of water remains opened during the severe cold of our winters.
In fact, in that portion of international territory which extends between Prescott and Goose Neck Island, we have in winter, 18 miles of open water and a stretch of 13 miles of ice; between Goose Neck Island and Cornwall, we have 6 miles of open water and 15 miles of ice. In the open water frazil and
1934	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Deslauriers
anchor-ice form during the whole winter. Much of it is carried down to Lake St. Francis; however every year this ice forms a natural dam or jam in shallow localities and bends of the river that spring weather alone can break up. Years of experience has enabled us to observe that near Cornwall, at Crail island, at Weaver Point-a place located between Barnhard island and the Long Sault island-at Bradford, great ice-fields form. When the Long Sault dam is completed it is but logical to conclude that the ice, not being able to find an outlet in Lake St. Francis, will accoumulate up the river, from the autumn to the spring, hence the overflooding of canals, inundations and unavoidable havoc will be the result.
In the course of the years 1840, 1879, 1887, 1895, 1898 and 1905-serious jams occurred inundating part of the county of Dundas, carrying away buildings, etc.-We were thus enabled to form an idea of the consequences of such jams:	in a few hours the town of
Longueuil was flooded owing to the rise of the waters above the systems of drainage of towns neighbouring the ice-fields. Montreal was forced to build up special ramparts to protect itself and was obliged to install pumps in its draining system to protect itself against the rising water. With his ice-breakers, the Minister of Marine renders great services in the lower St. Lawrence. The artificial causeways at Long Sault will unavoidably and regularly raise the waters, create floods and their natural consequences because, even after the dam has been constructed, the swiftness of the current will still exist, carrying the frazil formed on a stretch of 10 miles of open water which accumulates from the autumn; above this artificial obstacle, anchor ice will form and the spring will accumulate there its ice-fields from less agitated waters, with results that are easily conceived.
This formation of frazil has the effect of greatly interfering with water-powers by impeding the flow of water, which obliges companies like the Cedar Rapids to have recourse to dynamite and gangs of men to remedy this nuisance.
Does my hon. friend believe that by completely damming the Long Sault-with the accumulation of ice over a stretch of many miles-a water-power will be able to develop its electric energy efficiently and produce it at a lower rate than those of other localities where these natural obstacles would not be encountered, and these powers we would be at liberty to acquire?
Besides the inconveniences which I have just enumerated the construction of a dam at the

upper end of Long Sault island and at the foot of Barnhard island the narrowest parts of the river, would mean the closing up of navigation through the Cornwall canal, an entirely Canadian enterprise; it would mean a diversion of 50 per cent of Canadian waters through the South canal, on American soil, when we own 76 per cent of these international waters; that would reduce the efficiency of the canals in regard to safeness of navigation and diminish the interest tourists have in this locality.
With the knowledge that nature creates an irresistable force when water and pack-ice come in conflict, may we not rightly believe,, that at a given moment, in a river of the size of the St. Lawrence, this dam may give way and cause disasters along the flooded area-from Cornwall to Montreal-as it has happened in other countries and even in our own country. In the present instance, what would be the damages sustained in the town of Cornwall, at the Soulanges canal, and even in Montreal? The scheme must assuredly need a great deal of consideration.
If this enterprise carries with it serious physical objections which make it difficult and dangerous to put into practice, and to say the least uncertain, there are other obstacles no less important as to their consequences. I mean in regard to the international viewpoint. Here are the facts: " This international stretch of country, commonly known as the Long Sault rapids is actually governed by the treaty of Ashburton which states that the north and south canals should be free of all obstacles and should only be used for navigation." This treaty would first have to be abrogated. A dam would be built at the upper end of Long Sault island so as to divert 50 per cent of Canadian waters into the United States territory, 86 per cent of the water-power would be within United States territory, the outlay for the erection and development of the waterpower and the dredging of a canal 25 feet deep, from Montreal to the head of the great lakes, would be equally shared by the United States and Canada. The United States would acquire freedom of access and trade on the St. Lawrence. There would be joint management of the enterprise. This is in a few words the plans of our neighbours. Judging by his resolution, the hon. member for Toronto Northwest is opposed to Canadian private interests regulating the level of the St. Lawrence waters; yet, what is most extraordinary, he would allow foreigners to perform this work! It is rather amusing to see him depart from the motto of his party and his own: "No trucking with the Yankees!" and then to meet him on the shores of the St.

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Deslauriers
Lawrence crying out at the top of his voice for co-operation with these same Yankees, in connection with this scheme which, after all, would transfer from Canada to the United States 500,000 horse-power, under joint management, as the output of the St. Lawrence is
200,000	cubic feet per second with a drop of 30 and some odd feet.
If the hon. member for Toronto Northwest will take the trouble to examine our international relations with our neighbours, in the light of history, before taking such a step, he will be one of the first to admit the danger arising from such an enterprise. It is entirely wrong for a good citizen who has the interest of his country at heart, who is loyal to the British crown, to subscribe to such a scheme. Yesterday only, in the matter of the diversion of the waters of lake Michigan, the rights of Canada were ignored by the hon. member's friends of to-day. We have not forgotten the annexation terms of the Alaska peninsula, the States of Washington, Minnesota, Vermont and Maine, once Canadian territory, and, we are also fully aware how they look upon our rights in the Newfoundland fisheries.
Do we not know as a matter of fact that the debentures of the cities of Montreal and Toronto-not to mention almost all the debentures of our municipalities and provinces -are in the hands of New York financiers? We are aware that our lumber and pulp industries belong to them-SO per cent of the capital invested in those industries is American-and the same thing exists in our textile, rubber, glass and automobile industries. When we know the part played by United States capital invested in our water powers and mines, when we witness every day Americanism creeping into our literature, theatres, music and commerce, when financially the Canada of to-day seems to belong to them, one can naturally question whether the hon. member is still logical with himself in upholding his title of British citizen. If the love of his country, Canada, and that of his mother country do no more strike a sympathetic note in his heart, if in the presence of the American dollar his loyalty to the Empire has become but vain words and he wishes so eagerly to surrender to the United States the St. Lawrence, the armature of the richest colony of the British Empire, one may question whether he has shares in the seventy-one cruisers of the United States navy.
I protest against such schemes which aim at favouring the interests of our neighbours to the detriment of ours and places the weaker
at the mercy of the stronger-pursuant to the solemn practice of ages-at a time when war taxes burden the Canadian citizen. A project comprising the dredging of the St. Lawrence to a depth of 27 feet and the development of a water power of 1,000,000, horse power would cost, according to the American estimate and those advocating the St. Lawrence waterway, a sum of $252,428,000 and $2,562,000 per year for its administration, yet we know that these figures are put forth simply to lead one astray, because that amount does not include the interest on the invested capital in the course of carrying out the work, neither does it include the outlay for the dredging of ports on the lakes, nor the further outlay for dredging the rivers which connect the lakes-for it is an accepted fact that ocean liners are not built for the lakes no more than lake vessels are built for the ocean. It is acknowledged that even if ocean liners could sail up the lakes, they could not compete with lake vessels, even if we made allowance for the trans-shipment of their cargoes at Montreal.
Why should we be drawn into such a scheme, when we have at our door a project far more advantageous from every viewpoint -entirely within Canadian territory-a shorter route, less costly and capable of developing 3.500,000 of Canadian horse-power against
1,000,000 horse-power under joint management, and which would permit us to be the masters in our home.
The United States possess 16 per cent of potential energy at the Long Sault rapids; if they are short of electricity, let them utilize that power by damming the south canal at the foot of the Long Sault island, and let them follow the same procedure as in the Cedar rapids development; they will then have all that belongs to them and not 50 per cent of our electric energy as the present scheme calls for. That is all we can concede to them on behalf of the " bonne entente."
Any person who has the least knowledge, who knows American mentality and its ways of doing business must understand the purport of Senator Malby's bill introduced in the United States senate; it amounts to taking possession of our water powers without consulting us.
We must bear in mind the statements of Senator Chas. Townsend when he submitted to the Bureau of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on May 25, 1913, and again on March 17, 1914, a bill which was no other than the project of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest.
This senator expressed himself very clearly when he stated that this measure had no
1936	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Deslauriers
other aim than to prevent the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, a scheme entirely Canadian and approved by all the prime ministers of Canada; the purport of the measure was to allow the United States to make use of our water powers on the St. Lawrence, control the transportation of Canadian grain and give them a navigable route into the very heart of their country by connecting with the Mississippi river. We cannot blame them for endeavouring to promote the interests of their country to the detriment of ours. But what are we to think of a Canadian who sides with them against his own country? We may strive to emulate them to a certain degree, but we would appear very childish if we thought that our neighbours were going to spend hundreds of millions to develop millions of horse-power for us, and dredge water routes to promote our interests, when the whole year round they treat us to embargo and prohibitive legislation. Certainly not. Let us provide for the future as well as they do, for are we not aware that their coal resources have been wasted, worked without discrimination and to such an extent that, to-day, we can foresee the date of their complete exhaustion; do we not know that in 30 years the iron mines of the Ohio valley, like the coal mines of the Appalachian deposits will be exhausted? Therefore, if we have been far-sighted citizens, we shall be in a position to see the same advantages as those of the city of Pittsburg and the Ohio valley transferred to the Ottawa valley where iron deposits are abundant and unexplored. The development of these mines by water powers, instead of coal would be more economical and capable of competing loyally with any country in the world, we shall witness all this on condition that we remain masters in our own country.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toront West Centre):: I am wholeheartedly in support of the principle of the resolution which my hon. friend (Mr. Church) has introduced to-day. For a number of years I have been convinced that the construction of this waterway would do more to promote the prosperity of Canada than any other single enterprise that has ever been undertaken or that is in prospect at any time in the future; and it is with some degree of satisfaction, sir, that I go back to the session of 1924 in order, if you will permit me, to give to the house a few of the sentences I spoke on this question at that time. I was dealing then chiefly with what I considered to the best means of assisting the western farmers, the grain growers and those who come from the prairie provinces, and I said on that occasion that the farmers of the

west would have more to gain from the cheapening of transportation than from the removal of any tariff. I continued:
I would exhaust the resources of this country in cheapening transportation from western Canada to the seaboard.
That is the statement I made at that time. I went on:
The great thing is the development of the St. Lawrence river so that ocean vessels will go up to the head of the lakes, as they did last year, and take cargoes of wheat right over to Liverpool. I do not think that is the inevitable or the natural development of that route; but if the St. Lawrence river were improved to give a twenty-five or thirty foot draft, big ships that take 500,000 bushels of grain would load at Fort William and Would probably break bulk at the city of Quebec. . . A vessel holding 500.000 bushels of wheat would leave Fort William, go down to the city of Quebec and discharge into ocean boats which would go across to Liverpool, or to any other port in the world, in that way saving five to eight cents a bushel on wheat. If from five to eight cents a bushel could be saved on the wheat that was grown on the western prairies last year, the leader of the Progressive party can figure out what that meang. That is one of the ways in -which transportation can be cheapened. Water transportation, as we all know, can be done at much lower rates than rail transportation.
I venture to quote that statement made by myself in 1924, because not only have I seen no reason to change my views, but rather the course of my study of the question has led me to see greater advantages than I was able to discover then. In my opinion, the whole of Canada, from the Alberta boundary to the Atlantic ocean, would derive an enormous benefit from the construction of this waterway. I doubt very much that a large quantity of grain will ever go out by the Hudson Bay route. I voted for that undertaking, but not with any great enthusiasm. I believe the inevitable outlet for the produce of the west is to the head of the lakes by rail, and from the head of the lakes to Quebec by boats loading half a million bushels of grain, thence to be carried throughout the world to any port to which it might be consigned.
It is estimated that there will be a saving to the grain growers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba of ten cents a bushel on wheat. Let us suppose that it will be eight cents a bushel. One has only to consider the volume of wheat and other grain grown in that part of the country to realize what an enormous saving that will be. And remember that every dollar of that saving would go into the pockets of the farmers, the original producers. I believe that Ontario will benefit probably less than the west, certainly less than other provinces, because the province of Quebec will have then the two greatest ports in North
[DOT] .

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Hocken
America. Not only will the grain of the northwest, and probably the cattle as well, go through Montreal to Quebec, but similar produce of twenty different states in the United States will be shipped by that route. We have to consider the organization that has taken place in the middle western states to promote this enterprise in order to realize how much dependence they place upon it as a relief from the high cost of transportation.
It has always been a matter of surprise to me that the western provinces of Canada should be so indifferent to this project while the middle western states of the republic should be so keenly alive to its advantages. I do not know how to explain that difference; I leave it to my hon. friends to my left. It may be that they have been so obsessed with the value of the Hudson bay route; that would explain it in part. But although this is a plan, the consummation of which is certain to save about eight cents a bushel on the transportation of their wheat, there has been remarkably little enthusiasm for it in the west. It would certainly result in an interchange of commerce among the different provinces which would do more than any other single thing to bring about that much desired national unity about which we are talking all the time. One has but to consider the volume of traffic that would pass over that portion of the St. Lawrence running through the province of Quebec to realize what it would mean to that province; and one can catch a glimpse of the prosperity that would result in the maritime provinces from the completion of this enterprise. It would make it possible to bring cargoes of
10.000	tons of coal right up to lake Erie. I do not suppose that Nova Scotia coal will ever do much on lake Erie, which is so close to the American mines. But Nova Scotia coal should go to Hamilton, where there is a great coking plant, to Toronto and to other cities along the lake Ontario coast. The maritime provinces would gain in another way. My opinion, which of course I venture with some hesitation-because I have reached the age when I have ceased to be dogmatic about anything-


Robert Forke: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will get there too.
My opinion, I say, is that these great bulk cargoes of wheat would go to Halifax; and either at Quebec or at Halifax there should be developed the greatest milling centre in North America. Flour leaving Canada should go from Halifax or Quebec, but to-day Buffalo is the great milling centre, because it is at the end of the water transportation route
from the head of the lakes. We should make the end of that route somewhere on the St. Lawrence river or at Halifax, where flour could be shipped instead of wheat. If that development should take place, which I think is very probable, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would become great cattle raising provinces; the by-products of the flour would provide feed for the cattle. These two provinces are well watered and suitable in every way for the raising of cattle, with the exception of feed, and with that one defect remedied they should become exceedingly prosperous in that particular industry. So it is not only the western provinces which will benefit through a lower cost of getting their produce to the markets of the world1; it is not only Ontario, which would probably receive a great quantity of its package freight direct from the ocean, or the province of Quebec, through which all this traffic would pass and whose cities would grow enormously in consequence; the maritime provinces also would receive great advantages. We sometimes do not think of them as particular beneficiaries under this project, but they would prosper just as much as any other province in this whole Dominion.
I am not going into details just now, Mr. Speaker, because that perhaps will be done later, and I would not like to embarrass the government by laying down a policy for them to follow.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You are doing very
well.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not care whether this measure is introduced by the government or by the opposition; I am for it all the way through. The more I have thought about it during the last four years the more firmly I have become convinced that it is the greatest and most advantageous scheme which can be undertaken by the people of this country. It does not require much thought to realize that producers in the United States are going to enjoy equal advantages; they have to pay higher railway rates than are paid by hon. gentlemen from the west. They stand to gain perhaps more in proportion than the farmers on our Canadian prairies; therefore they are more deeply interested in this question than are the Canadian people, although without us they could not possibly go on with the enterprise. I absolutely support my hon. friend in what he has said, and I do so with enthusiasm; I trust that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brings down the correspondence having to do with this matter it will show that the government is deeply in earnest in its desire to carry on this great
1938	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Hocken
enterprise as soon as arrangements can be made with the American republic to join with us in it.
Perhaps I differ from some of my friends on this side of the house in believing that this should be a joint enterprise, but as I have travelled from the head of the lakes down through the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit rivers and the Welland canal, it has been brought to my attention very clearly that already the United States has spent enormous sums of money in improving transportation channels even in Canadian territory. This country is now committed as fully as it can be committed to the joint enterprise; we have this joint work on the rivers from lake Ontario up to Fort William. The Welland canal is used by our friends from across the border on the same terms as it is used by our own people, and most if not all the channels between lake Erie and Fort William have been constructed partly at least by the expenditure of money on the part of the adjoining republic. So we have already undertaken this joint enterprise, and having regard to the amicable relations which exist and which I trust always will prevail between the two countries; having regard to the treaty under which they use our canals on the same terms that we use them, it seems to me there can be no argument against undertaking this great work in collaboration and co-operation with our friends to the south.
I just wanted to say these few words, Mr. Speaker, to put myself on record as being behind this enterprise just as strongly as possible. If I have any influence at all it will be exerted in support of the scheme, regardless of the source from which it may emanate, because I believe it is going to be a great thing for Canada and will do more to develop this country than anything else I can call to mind at the moment.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Hocken) states that he is strongly in favour of this project. I am also in favour of completing these waterways some time in the future, but I do not believe Canada is in a financial position at present to accept the heavy obligations which would be entailed. Altogether aside from that, a great deal is being promised which seems rather absurd. I have a paper here in which a writer makes the claim that on our western grain we will save 12 cents a bushel, while the last speaker stated that the saving would be from 5 to 8 cents a bushel. A year or so ago I looked up the cost of carrying grain by rail from the transfer points of Owen Sound

and Collingwood to Montreal, and found it at that time to be 5.80 cents per bushel.


Robert James Manion: Where was that from?


John Millar: From Owen Sound and Collingwood to Montreal. About 1908 or 1909 the entire cost of carrying grain from Fort William to Montreal was 4 cents a bushel; I think the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) will remember that, because he and I looked over the same book.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I have the speech of the hon. member right here.


Mr. DUNNING:: That was the all-water route?


John Millar: I could not say; I think part was by rail, but it may have been all water.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would not be part rail at the 4 cent rate.


John Millar: The rate was 4 cents, anyway. Before this resolution came up I had intended to look up the rate for last year, but was unable to do so. I have heard it stated, however, that last year the rates were about 6 cents, and I have another statement here to the effect that a year ago the rate was 9 cents. This matter has no reference to the Welland canal; it deals only with the deepening of the St. Lawrence, so how are you going to save from 5 to 8 cents a bushel on wheat over a distance of only 135 miles when the whole rate from Fort William to Montreal varies from 4 to 12 cents? The whole proposition is absurd.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Can the hon. gentleman explain the reason for the difference between the 4 cent and the 12 cent rates?


John Millar: During the war the cost of everything went up; prices doubled and trebled, and that was the reason for the high rate.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: What was
the rate last year?


John Millar: I am not sure. I heard
it stated it was six.


Mr. CAHAN:: 
John Millar: Now let me take up another point. I am very glad indeed that we have such friendly relations with the United States; it is something to be proud of, and it is a lesson to the rest of the world. Yet at this time, while some may think it would not be wise to review any instances of friction between the United States and other

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Millar
countries in past years, I think that in dealing with this matter it may be well for us to consider what difficulties other countries have had with the United States in connection with proposals similar to this.
In the year 1850 the United States and Great Britain agreed on what they call the Clayton-Bulwer treaty to build the Panama canal on the basis of equal construction and equal control. The United States seem to have fretted under this treaty, and some time later they persuaded Great Britain to agree to another treaty, called the Hay-Paunce-fote treaty of 1901. In this Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 it was provided that.
The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation or its citizens or subjects in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise.
However, in the face of this, after this treaty had been agreed to the United States congress at once turned around and passed the Panama Canal Act, which provided that no tolls should be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States. Great Britain took the view that this was a violation of the former treaty, and there was a great deal of friction about it. The Hearst papers of the United States madie much ado about it; organizations sent resolutions to congress and to the president, and a great deal was said about tlhe impudence of Great Britain in objecting to this act. However, later on, after a considerable amount of discussion. President Wilson abrogated this act and did what was fair and right to Great Britain.
Let us look for a moment at the experience of Colombia in connection with the Panama canal. If Great Britain's experience was an unhappy one, so certainly was that of Colombia, formerly New Granada. The new canal ran through Colombian territory. By a treaty entered into in 1846 the United States guaranteed positively and efficaciously to New Granada the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus (Panama) with a view that the free transit from the one to the other sea might not be interrupted or embarrassed at any future time while the treaty existed; and in consequence the United States also guaranteed in the same manner the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada had and possessed over the said territory.
In the year 1903 a treaty known as the Ilay-Herran treaty, negotiated between representatives of the United States and Colombia
and providing for the construction of the canal, was ratified by the American senate but rejected by Colombia. The constituent state of Panama, a portion of Colombia, traversed by the new oanal, thereupon declared its independence; a rebellion took place. In connection with this rebellion the independence of Panama was declared on November 3rd, 1963, and the United States recognized the independence of this state on November 6th, three days later. President Roosevelt who was in office at the time of the occurrence, afterwards declared:
I am interested in the Panama canal because I started it. If I had followed the precedent in such cases I should have submitted a dignified state paper to the congress and the debate would be going on yet. But, I took the canal zone and let congress debate.
An American commentator, Carl Russel Fish, remarks:
Its real excuse was rather the plea by which Jefferson justified himself in the Louisiana purchase,-the plea that the situation was one which could never happen again and was of such unparalleled importance as to exempt it from the ordinary laws of morality and of nations.
A matter that I think the government should very carefully study before this project is undertaken is the effect upon the levels of the upper lakes. It is a trite remark of recent years that the levels of the upper lakes as well as of the lower lakes have fallen considerably.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will the hon. gentleman let
me interrupt and ask: Is the house to infer that if a treaty between the United States and Canada became effective, and the project was consummated, we would be in the same position as in connection with Panama?


John Millar: I just leave the house to
draw its own conclusions. This is what took place in connection with Panama. I might go a little further in that connection. Not only did the United States recognize the independence of that state three days after they declared their independence, but on the 18th of the same month they made a treaty with them. A sequel to it was the memorial of Panama to the United States in June, 1923, requesting that government to declare that it "now holds all land necessary for the protection of the waterway, thereby affording a safeguard against expropriation which might eventually result in the absorption of the entire republic,"-a memorial yet unheeded. Colombia had had part of their land taken away, and when they tried to prevent the secession of Panama by armed force, they were prevented by the United States from doing so. The United States, as I have
1940	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Millar
pointed out, recognized the independence of Panama three days after they had declared it, and on the 18th of the same month made another treaty with the newly recognized state.
I believe the last speaker stated that boats would likely load grain at Fort William and carry it to Quebec. That is indeed very doubtful. There are 44 miles of canal on the St. Lawrence, and a great many locks, and the insurance rates are high. It is doubtful whether large boats would take their loads of grain down through those canals with the probability of coming 'back empty; the cost would be too great. At present grain is transferred to smaller boats carrying 70.000,
75,000	and some of them as much as 90,000 bushels. The comment we would make, as grain growers of western Canada, is that the difference between the present rate and that which we might secure would be nearer one or two cents a bushel than six, eight, nine or twelve cents.
It must be remembered that this route would be open for only six or, at the most, seven moths of the year. Moreover, when a canal competes with a railroad the railroad usually takes the greater share of the trade. Competition between open water and rail gives a great advantage to the open water channel. The cost of the open water route, I believe, is about one-eighth-some have put it at one-tenth-the cost of an all-rail route; but that does not hold good for a canal where boats can travel at only about four knots an hour, which is the average, and where there is danger of their being held up, having to wait for their turn, or being crowded against the side, with possible consequent damage. It is very doubtful whether this route alone could compete with the rail route.
I am glad that some who are studying this matter are beginning to be doubtful about the wisdom of the government's proceeding at once. In my hand is a clipping containing a report of a meeting held at Kitchener. It states:
A number of the speakers were strongly opposed to any loophole which would give American interests the slightest chance of gaining a grasp upon the solely Canadian section of the waterway. There was a very considerable feeling that those parts of the ship canal which lie entirely within Canada should be owned and controlled exclusively by Canada.
We have over-built our transportation facilities; we have made a mistake in going so far in the building of trunk lines, and our railways are finding difficulty in earning dividends. It cannot be denied that if a new route is opened up, if it is going to accomplish what is claimed for it, if it is going to carry more of Canadian

and United States grain to Montreal, some of that traffic will be taken from the railways, which will find it even more difficult than they do now to make profits. [DOT]
I regret that so much of the argument consists in promises of what this new route is going to accomplish for western farmers. I realize that it is really a power project. As such it may succeed, although I do not know so much about that. It seems on the surface that there may be difficulty in developing water power that we do not need at present in Canada. If this surplus power is sold it must be sold to the United States, and after establishments are started there and are using this power, it will be most difficult to get it back. But apart from the water power I think it should be recognized that as grain growers, we are not particularly in need of this development and we do not see very much advantage in it. It may result in a lower rate on grain but the reduction will be very slight. Some time ago, when the joint commission was appointed, Mr. Hoover, in the course of a speech on this question in Canada -I believe it was about the first speech he had made in this country-to my surprise, and I think to the surprise of many, stated that the joint commission would bring in a report favourable to the project. That was an astonishing statement to make, but it was so reported in the press at the time.
I do not care to add anything further to what I have said in regard to this project. I am not against it, but I believe the government would be well advised to study very carefully these matters in relation to the United States and particularly the effect on the level of the upper lakes. In fact it might be found after a thorough investigation that it is not possible to deepen this channel without seriously affecting those levels. If that should ever be found to be the case, I do not think it would be wise to proceed with the plan. A loss of one foot of water in regard to carrying power means a great deal, and that loss falls upon those who are paying for the carrying of the goods. A loss of one foot of water on the upper lakes would cost millions of dollars to the farmers of western Canada through higher rates on their grain.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house at any considerable length, because I believe there are a number of other members who wish to say a few words in regard to this project. I rise because I believe somebody from my section of the country should once again put himself on record on this question.

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Manion
I am on record on it so often, I must confess, that a statement of my views to-day does not really matter very much. May I say before I go any further that I am of course speaking entirely for myself, as other members who -have spoken to-day were speaking entirely for themselves?
I have had the fortune of following my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) once or twice before on this question. I happened out of curiosity to look up Hansard of 1923, and I found that at that time he spoke on the question much along the line he took to-day, and I spoke much along the line I intend to take now; so that at least two members of this house have been entirely consistent on the question. I made a few remarks also in 1921 in favour of this project. As the papers are going to be tabled so soon, perhaps it would have been as well-and I rather hoped it would have turned out that way-had the whole debate been adjourned following the speech of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), because we cannot really intelligently discuss the question until those papers are produced. Whatever remarks I make, however, will be very general.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle spoke of a rate as low as four cents from the head of the lakes at a certain period. There are low rates at certain seasons; there are other seasons when the rates are very high, and of course those are the seasons when the heavy grain traffic is taking place.


John Millar: The four cent rate was for a whole season.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend said that that rate was in force about 1908. Of course, freight rates as well as everything else have gone up since 1908; but Julius Barnes, who is perhaps one of the best authorities, if not the best in the world, on grain, made the statement that the building of this canal would mean a difference of ten cents per bushel on wheat shipped to the old land. I believe he meant by that that the saving would be ten cents a bushel in taking the grain from Chicago, Duluth or Fort William to the old country. I think he included everything, and did not merely take in the lake and rail route.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did he not mean taking the grain from the whole central United States on the average?


Robert James Manion: I have read his speech a number of times and his statement was very clear that this would mean a saving of ten cents a bushel. I have not read his speech for some years, but I believe he said in one
part of it that the building of this canal could be carried on every year by the saving that would be effected by the farmers of the United States in the transportation of grain. That is a pretty strong argument. Mr. Herbert Hoover has also taken pretty much the same attitude. It is a well known fact that the transportation of freight by water over a long haul is only about one-sixth or even one-tenth the cost of rail transportation.


John Millar: Would my hon. friend make a comparison between the railway cost and the canal cost?


Robert James Manion: I have not the figures at
hand, but I presume that the canals would run the cost up. I do not claim to be an expert in any way, and I am speaking probably entirely as a theorist, but it has been stated many times by experts that you can carry a cargo from New York to Calcutta and a cargo from New York to Bombay at exactly the same cost, although there is a difference of 2,000 miles in the distance. That is because of the cheapness of water transportation.
When this question of the St. Lawrence waterway comes up there are some who attempt to make fun of the advocates of this route-I noticed an attempt in one newspaper to-day-suggesting that they expect the Olympic or the Mauritania to come right up to Toronto and perhaps to Fort William. But those who look at this question intelligently never expect any such thing. Those who regard the route as a feasible one do, however, believe that the grain of the west could be shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur bve water right through to Montreal, there to be transhipped on to the ocean-going boats. It is not believed by anybody of intelligence that there will be any regular system of ocean-going boats coming up the lakes, although I remember thirty years ago seeing a Norwegian boat at the head of the lakes, and foreign boats have been coming there ever since, although not on a large scale.
It should be remembered that the building of the Panama canal has made a complete change in the routing of traffic between the east and the west of the United States, and even between the eastern and the western part of Canada. One prominent manufacturer told me not long ago that he could ship his goods from a point near Toronto to Vancouver via the Panama canal more cheaply than he could ship them by rail across the continent. That illustrates very markedly the importance of water transportation. The building of the Panama canal has certainly been a very great blessing to the port of Vancouver. I venture to say that the port of Vancouver for the last
1942	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Manion
few years has been the most prosperous city of its size in the Dominion, and that is largely because of the building of the Panama canal.
Then, of course, there also comes in the question of power development. It is estimated that between four and five million of horse-power can be developed on the St. Lawrence between Kingston and Montreal. There also enters into the question the fact that it will reduce the transportation costs on wheat, and a difference of only a few cents a bushel means a great deal to the farmers of the west. The development of this route would also mean that coal could be brought from Nova Scotia to the central portion of Canada. The development of this route is ultimately bound to come. Whether now is the time to make a start is a debatable question, and there are men just as sincere as I am who believe that we are premature in even discussing the matter at all at this time, while others think we are lagging behind in not making a start now. But ultimately this route will be developed in spite of all opposition from any section of the United States or of Canada, and when it is developed it will mean a much greater consumption of Nova Scotia coal in the central portions of Canada. And that is only as it should be, because it does seem to me a shame, when we have in this country the second largest coal deposits in the world, that we should be importing so much coal from the United States-$60,000,000 worth last year. The development of this route would mean the consumption of Nova Scotia coal to a very large extent in the central portions of Canada, and that would be a great blessing to Nova Scotia.
After spending $120,000,000 or thereabouts on the Welland canal-for that will be about the amount when it is completed-it seems to me that the building of this other waterway is the logical thing to do to round out the whole scheme. It will enable us to go down the lakes right to Montreal, which is 500 miles closer to Liverpool than is New York, and that is a factor of some importance. It is also to be remembered that about one-third the area of the United States, one-third of the population, and perhaps one-third of the production of that country, is tributary to this canal system through the great, lakes. Taking all these things into account I do not see how anyone can definitely take the stand of absolutely opposing this scheme, though of course anyone has the right to do that just as much as I have the right to support it.
I shall not take up further time, Mr. Speaker, because I understand there are others who wish to speak on this question, but in [Mr. Manion. 1
a general way I wish to give what little support I can as an individual member of this house to the hon. member who introduced the resolution.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: One cannot listen to those who address the house on this motion without realizing that the whole question is one that simply bristles wt'ih difficulties. It is not as though we had no information, because from the date of the report of the International Joint Commission. which I believe was in 1921, there have been others well qualified and well equipped who have investigated this question in all its aspects and have made a report, and there is still another advisory board which has yet to make its report to this house. It seems to me that the air would be cleared to an appreciable extent if we could have the report of that advisory committee tabled. Having that, and having copies of the correspondence which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has undertaken to lay on the table at an early day, we shall have information which will enable us to discuss the various features which my friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) has discussed with some knowledge and without groping so much in the dark as we are obliged to do at the present moment.
While I welcome the opportunity afforded by the resolution moved by my friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), I would not dream at the present moment of seeking to have this house compel the government forthwith to enter into a treaty in regard to the matter. We have not the information which has been asked for, and which I believe is being prepared and will be before us in a very short time.
My friend from Qu'Appelle has brought into the discussion queries as to cost, as to the relations with the United States of America, as to the levels of the upper lakes, and probably other questions of which I took no note, but all queries which have been for a long, long time before the various bodies which have been authorized to consider the matter.
Let us assume for a moment that we do find from the final reports that come to this house, and from the discussion on the reports which this house will have an opportunity of engaging in, that the scheme is feasible from an economic standpoint, that there is no danger of international complications, that the levels of the upper lakes and of the lower lakes and of the St. Lawrence will not be interfered with. Of course, we must be satisfied on these points before we can enter into

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Geary
such a tremendous undertaking. But assuming all that, and these difficulties being out of the way, would any hon. member of this house say that it would not be a wonderful thing for Canada that there should be a spearhead of navigation, so to speak, thrust into the very middle of the country? I will not speak of any benefit the United States may derive from that. If they benefit we need not be envious or jealous of them so long as it is a good thing for our own country. When we realize t'he vast resources in minerals stretching from central Manitoba at least, eastward to the province of Quebec, where geologists tell us we have an extension of the pre-cambrian shield bearing tremendous mineral deposits; when we realize the potentialities of that country in the development of minerals, potentialities which would come much closer to realization if we had this sort of transportation at the very doors of the mines; when we picture the industrial activity that would follow with waterborne traffic passing the doors of central Canada to the eastern and western provinces, it seems to me nobody can dispute the fact that the country would be tremendously benefited by such a state of affairs. We must rely on those general principles after disposing of the questions of cost, internationl complications, and so on, that have been raised. I suggest to the government that at as early a day as convenient and practicable all the information collated by the advisory committee be placed before this house for consideration. Then we shall have the last word on the subject, and many of the questions bothering members at the moment will be disposed of.
We have heard it said that Canada's main difficulty is a geographical one, that we have such a stretch of country from west to east as to make it almost impossible for adequate communications to be established. Well, as I look on this project in the large, to my mind it presents an opportunity of remedying one of the disabilities to which Providence has subjected us. I have often been surprised to hear my friends sitting in this house, particularly those representing western constituencies, state that the idea of a St. Lawrence waterway has not taken hold of their imagination. 1 learned this afternoon from an hon. gentleman who sits to my left-in whom I have much confidence- that in the west there is a general feeling of disappointment at the results following the construction of the Welland canal, and a conviction that the great railway bridge along the north shore has not done the work which it was built to do. It was built as a grain carrier in the expectation that it would enable grain to be carried
to the seaboard at a comparatively low cost. In that regard the people of the west have been disappointed. When the third Welland canal was deepened great hopes were entertained in the west of a lowering of freight rates on grain, but it appears that very little reduction in the transportation costs ensued. It is a fact though that the Welland canal on that occasion was deepened only to such an extent as would enable it to be utilized in connection with the other canals along the St. Lawrence; that is to say, it was not deepened sufficiently to allow of the passage of deep draught vessels. The new Welland canal, which will be completed in a few years, will allow ships carrying half a million bushels of grain to pass into lake Ontario. At present ships of that capacity have to break bulk at Port Colborne, where their cargoes are transshipped to smaller vessels. The transportation cost by water from Port Colborne to Montreal has been at the rate of six cents a bushel for a little over one-third the distance for which grain is carried on the upper lakes at three cents a bushel. This higher cost is accounted for, I understand, by the greater overhead expense of handling smaller ships, and in various other ways which I am not in a position to discuss. It is said that if a 500.000 bushel cargo could be shipped by water from Fort William or Port Arthur to Montreal, there would be only a very small increase in the three cent rate to Port Colborne. Of that I know nothing more than one can gather from different quarters, but when we get the report of the advisory committee perhaps we shall be able to deal with that as a matter of fact rather than as mere conjecture.
But looking at this project in the broad sense, as I say, it occurs to me that from the eastern edge of this country to the western, granted that the economic difficulties are removed, there can be nothing but benefit as a whole from the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. It is quite possible, as my hon. friend "from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) said, that grain could be carried down to Halifax and handled at large milling establishments to be erected there, and the products shipped across the ocean all the year around, and that coal from the maritime provinces could be shipped to the central provinces and even further west. Such a proposition would undoubtedly be very attractive to the people down there. My friends from Quebec are not particularly enamoured of this project, and I can only hope that such facts and arguments as may be placed before them will convince them that they are in error in opposing, as they do to some ex-
1944	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Geary
tent, the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway. Take Ontario; if one or two of our sister provinces object, I am quite prepared to admit that we cannot proceed with an undertaking of this magnitude, for it must be considered as an undertaking for the benefit of Canada as a whole, not for one section or the other. We cannot expect the Dominion to spend money for the benefit of Ontario alone. For my part I cannot see how the city of Toronto is going to be advantaged by having grain carried past its door, but it is very likely that it will derive benefit from the waterway And I am safe in saying that a great body of opinion in the province of Ontario is strongly in favour of the project.
This brings me to the subject of hydroelectric power, in which we in Toronto are very vitally concerned. We are running out of power. We have had to enter into a contract with a power company in Quebec to tide us over the shortage. That power has to be transmitted three hundred miles from the Gatineau to the city of Toronto and the surrounding district. It is not a contract with which we in Ontario are very well pleased, for we think we are paying a pretty heavy rate for the power. When we get power from the St. Lawrence our difficulties will be solved for a long time. It has been estimated that all power generated in the St. Lawrence to be allocated to Canada will soon be absorbed in thie Dominion, and Ontario's share amounts from one to one and a half million horse power. Quebec, it is estimated, will have available some 3,000,000 horse power for distribution and use within the province, with all the consequences arising from cheap, adequate and easily transmitted. electrical energy. The province of Quebec I imagine, must look forward to a tremendous industrial development from that source alone.
Now I come to the west. I do not think that my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle means to say that because the grain growers see no particular benefit from the St. Lawrence waterway they are going to oppose the project. I think better of them than to believe that. I do not think, simply because such an undertaking might not in his view be of any particular personal value to him or the grain growers whom he represents, that he will object to it on that score. The Hudson bay route will do a certain amount of business; then there will be competition from the port of Vancouver; and if competition is increased by waterborne traffic from the head of the lakes at least as far as Montreal, surely 
in the end that must enure to the benefit of the western farmer and lighten his burden of transportation charges. My friends from British Columbia need not be afraid that they will be harmed by this enterprise, because after all competition is the life of trade, and competition in grain carrying cannot help but have some effect upon freight and waterborne traffic rates via Vancouver.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence that this enterprise will be of advantage to the whole Dominion, and that it should be proceeded with at the earliest possible date. All I can urge upon the government is that without delay they place the house in possession of all the facts in order that we may have an opportunity of studying them, and also in order that they may be broadcast throughout the whole Dominion so that every one may be in a position to decide for himself that this enterprise, whether from the standpoint of dollars and cents, of international complications, or from any other point of view, is not going to hurt Canada but rather is destined to be of inestimable benefit to the country at large. We have a very clear pronouncement by the chairman of the Montreal harbour board, who sees nothing but good for the city of Montreal in the St. Lawrence waterway. That statement is disputed in some quarters, as is every other statement that is made. I do not think that we should get into that state of mind in which we should want to be fighting between province and province and city and city. We must consider this not as a party question, not as a political matter; one party should not seek to get any particular advantage from it as against another. We should regard the matter as one upon which the future of this country depends in a marked degree. The matter looms up as so important that this house could not devote itself to anything with greater hope of reward than it could to the sympathetic consideration of the construction of this immense waterway.
At the moment we are stopped at Port Colborne. All that immense lake-borne traffic stops there, and we know that transhipment takes place at Buffalo. For economic reasons there is a considerable development there- a tremendous milling centre, where a great deal of Canadian grain is milled, some of it mixed with grain of an inferior quality. As soon as the Welland canal is opened we shall be able to go as far as Prescott. Are we going to stop there? Is that narrow gap between the St. Lawrence, the greatest waterway in the world, and the upper lakes, Ontario included, to be bridged, or are we going to stop at the stage we have reached? The

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
matter, I repeat, is one of vast importance; it may have an effect on the future of Canada such as we cannot comprehend. This house should consider the question from a Canadian standpoint, as effectively and thoroughly as possible, each member contributing his best to the consideration of it in the hope that we may arrive at the solution of a problem which, as I have said before, and as I say again, even at the risk of undue repetition, seems to be the most important before the people of Canada at this moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most hon. members who have participated in the debate have, I think, very wisely recognized that, in the absence of important reports and documents bearing upon this great question, it would be inadvisable for anyone to attempt to give a final expression of his own views. I am sure the house will agree that in suggesting on behalf of the government that no effort be made to press the present resolution to a conclusion, but rather that the debate be adjourned until at least all the documents are before us, I am taking a course which is very much in the interests of all parties and certainly in the interests of the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Tuesday, on the resumption of the sittings of the house, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) inquired when the despatches on the St. Lawrence waterway project would be tabled, and I stated that I had communicated with the Secretary of State at Washington, expressing the hope that they might be tabled very shortly after the Easter recess. My communication had been sent to Washington prior to the recess. I may now say that it has been agreed between the two governments that the papers shall be given to the press on Monday night of next week. They will be tabled in this house at the time of adjournment, so that in both countries, so far as the press is concerned, the information will be available for the morning papers of Tuesday. Monday night the correspondence will be given out in both countries.
I agree with what my hon. friend (Mr. Geary) has said, that it would be advisable to include, in whatever documents may be brought down at that time, the report of the advisory committee, who have made a lengthy and careful investigation of the matter. The essential features of this report were brought to the attention of the United States government in connection with the communications which have passed between the two countries.
As a matter of convenience to all members of the house, and certainly as a convenience in all subsequent discussion of the subject, it might be well to include in the papers that are to be tabled on Monday night all of the important dispatches relating to the St. Lawrence waterway project, the dispatches that passed prior to the meeting of the advisory committee, the committee's report, and the dispatches that have passed since then up to the present time. It will be also of advantage, I believe, to place before the house the questions that are to be submitted to the courts touching the jurisdiction respectively of the Dominion and of the provincial governments in relation to power which may be developed as a consequence of the construction of works for purposes of navigation.
As hon. members know, the question of jurisdiction in the matter has been raised by the provinces and at the last Dominion-provincial conference a request was made of the Dominion government to refer to the courts, for a final decision, this important constitutional phase of the subject. The government at the time acquiesced in the request made, and I may inform the house that, as they will be presented to the courts, the questions will be agreed to by representatives of the provincial and of the Dominion governments. I understand that the Supreme Court will hear the reference on May 28, and probably an appeal may be taken to the Privy Council thereafter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Have they been amended since the first draft was given to the newspapers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that, at the request of the provinces, one or two additional questions have been incorporated in the reference; but the questions except in this particular remain as they were originally drafted in the order in council. The provinces themselves-at least so I am informed-have suggested one or two further questions which will be added. It would, I think, be well to include among the papers to be laid on the table the orders in council governing the reference. By this means the house will then have before it all of the essential recent documents bearing on the St. Lawrence waterway project as a practical project and as one which has come to be the subject* of preliminary negotiations between the United States and Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: \\ ill the Prime Minister submit also the report of the engineering board, which was laid on the table but which has never been printed? I have asked several
1946	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
times at t'he distribution office for a copy of the report and I understand that so far it has not been printed for distribution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To what report does my hon. friend refer?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the early days of the session the Prime Minister laid on the table the last report of the joint board of engineers. The report was not then in printed form and a motion was made to haw it printed and distributed. I have applied time and time again but I have not been able to obtain a copy of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret the
fact; there must be some oversight. The report was printed and distributed and it is unfortunate that my hon. friend has not received his copy. I shall inquire.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am glad to know that it has been printed, but I was told that it had not been.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly I am in error in stating that the report was generally distributed. My impression is that it included some rather expensive plates, and it may be that only a limited number were struck off.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will see that I receive a copy, whether it includes the plates or not. A number of members on this side of the house have been applying continually to the distribution office, and these volumes have not been available. This is really one of the most important documents for our consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The facts are, I think, that there are two volumes, one of the report and one of the plates. How extensive they are I do not recall at the moment; I know, however, they were quite large and it may be that they were not distributed to all the members on that account. In regard to a matter of this magnitude, however, I think the house should have before it, one might say almost regardless of cost, all the information which is essential, and certainly the government will endeavour to meet the wishes of the members of the house in that particular.
Now may I say that when the communications which have passed between the government of the United States and our own government are tabled, hon. members will find, despite what has appeared in the press and what has been hinted at by some of those who have spoken in debate, that so far no commitments have been made of a character which in any way will prove prejudicial to the

Dominion, to any province of the Dominion, to the influence of any hon. member of the house or any organ of public opinion in the country. From the outset the government have taken the view which has been expressed by many hon. members on both sides of the house, that the St. Lawrence project is one of the largest undertakings with which this country has ever been faced or is likely ever to be faced, and we have felt that in the preliminary negotiations we should proceed with the utmost caution, not with undue haste nor on the other hand with undue delays, but rather to make progress in the light of the importance of the project and in a way which will enable public opinion gradually to formulate and express itself. I believe it would be prejudicial to the ultimate success of any project of this character were steps to be taken prematurely which would give rise to doubt or to fear in the minds of the people of any section of Canada as to the w'isdom of the course which was taken. If the project, as I believe it to be, is one which will come in the course of time, and which has very much even now to commend it if certain economic considerations can be satisfactorily met, then it will be made all the more certain of accomplishment by being advanced cautiously, step by step, but always in the right direction. That is what the government have thus far attempted to do and I think, Mr. Speaker, with these words the house will probably support me in moving the adjournment of the debate.


Robert James Manion: Just before the Prime Minister concludes, after these papers are tabled, if the house so wishes I suppose there will be an opportunity for further discussion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The members of the house alw'ays have that privilege.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps there might be
some obstacle in .the way, so I presume it is understood that if the house so desires there may be a further discussion on the papers.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to and debate adjourned.



COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the time is opportune that according to agreement, the government of Canada should discuss with the government of Great Britain, the desirability of Canada accepting article 36 of the statutes of the Permanent Court of Internationa] Justice providing for compulsory arbitration in international disputes.

International Disputes-Mr. Adshead
He said:	Mr. Speaker, at this late hour it
is impossible for me to cover all the points with which I had intended to deal in connection with this most important question. Suffice it to sa}' that if the members of the house will look at page 23 of the report of the Imperial conference they will find that the question of compulsory arbitration is touched on. I do not wish to go into the details of the arbitration treaty more than to say in general that the countries which may subscribe to the arbitration treaty agree that they will arbitrate all their international difficulties without resort to war, with certain modifications and exceptions.
At that conference an understanding was arrived at, something as follows:	A general
understanding was reached that none of the governments represented at the Imperial conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the permanent court without bringing the matter up for further discussion. So you will see that however desirable it may be that Canada, England, Australia, or any of the component parts of the British Empire should sign the arbitration treaty, they cannot do so. Canada's hands are tied; the hands of England, Australia, and all the members of the British Empire are tied until they bring up the matter for further discussion, and it is with this object in view that I have brought forward this resolution to-day. If this should pass the house, or if it strikes the government favourably, we might say to the British government: We are going to bring up that matter for discussion in order that our hands may be untied, so that if we wish to sign the compulsory arbitration treaty we may do so.
At present 26 nations have signed that treaty, and according to the latest report of the Empire Parliamentary Association, two more states, Germany and Guatemala, have signed, so I presume 2S nations have now signed it. It may be that when the government notify Great Britain that they propose to bring up the matter for discussion, some other and better method may be brought forward, but at any rate I hold that Canada should be free to sign that treaty if she so wishes, in common with any other component part of the British Empire.
There are other reasons why we should consider this matter. The other day Lloyd George said that perhaps the most disastrous war in history would occur unless the nations of the world saw fit to resort to something else than force, and unless they worked out some method of arbitrating their difficulties 56103-124
by right and by reason rather than by force of arms. Lord Rothermere has said the same thing, so I think Canada has good reasons for signing that arbitration treaty, or at least for bringing it up for discussion.
Then there is another point to be considered. I am sorry to say that if my information is correct, at present in England there is a very erroneous opinion prevailing among a large number of people that the dominions, Canada among them, are instrumental in tieing the hands of England; in other words, that England cannot sign the arbitration treaty because the dominions will not allow her to do so. In the issue of the Manchester Guardian of December 2 last appears some interviews and some speeches from some English statesmen. I do not wish to bring English politics into this house, but to my mind it is important that Canada should be placed in a right light before the English people, that we may not be looked upon as a deterring factor in this matter One of the gentlemen is reported to havi said that if England agreed to arbitrate anc the dominions did not agree to do so, England would find herself at loggerheads with the dominions. Again, Ramsay MacDonald is reported to have said, "It is not fair to blame the dominions." He spoke about Canada as probably being willing to accept the optional clause; and the reply was made that we did not sign the protocol. Then further it was said:	Well, if Canada and the
dominions are not willing to sign this thing, we should sign it whether they are willing or not. That is the attitude taken. There is a false impression that the dominions, Canada having been mentioned as one of the dominions, is one of the factors preventing England signing the clause by which she will settle her differences by arbitration rather than by war. To set ourselves right in our own estimation and in the eyes of the people of England and of the world we ought to pass this resolution and notify Great Britain that we are going to consider the optional clause, and that at the earliest opportunity we will discuss this matter in order to untie her hands and our hands as well, so that the false impression will not any longer exist.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Call it six
o'clock.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not know whether
I would be right in asking the government to make a declaration on this point. The time is getting late, and I should like the government to say something upon this point.



Privilege-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry that the hour is so late, but it is early enough for me to say simply that I am in sympathy with the subject matter of the resolution. I have some more reasons to give in support of my statement.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 12, 1928