1928-04-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada, as follows:
Your committee recommend that they be given leave to print their proceedings and any evidence taken by the committee to the extent of five hundred copies in English and two hundred and fifty copies in French, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Copyright Act
[Stage Direction]
Your committee also recommend that they he given leave to sit while the house is in session.
On motion of Mr. Thorson the report was concurred in.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the senate informing this house that the senate doth unite with the House of Commons in approving the opium convention signed at Geneva on the 19th day of February, 1925, after the second opium conference, and which was signed on behalf of Canada by the Canadian representative duly authorized to that effect.



NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE ICING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move:
That the name of Mr. H. A. Stewart (Leeds) be substituted for that of Sir Henry Drayton on the committee on national railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of bill to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act.-Mr. Ladner.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: This bill standing in my name, Mr. Speaker, is one which had its origin in the bill of the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), which was introduced on April 1, 1924. As a result of the introduction of that bill and of a further bill dealing with the same subject in 1925, the subject was referred to a special committee, which prepared a report, comprising some three hundred pages, which I have in my hand. The committee went exhaustively into this question, in which the Canadian Authors' Association, the radio people, the theatrical people, and a number of other people in Canada are interested. The committee's report did not seem to find universal approval, and in 1926 I became sponsor for bill No. 3, which was practically a copy of the bill originally introduced by the senior member for Ottawa. Following its introduction, conferences took place between the interested parties, the Canadian Authors' Association, publishers and printers, theatrical and radio people, and as a result a modification of the clauses which were in controversy was agreed to, so that finally the only clause re-

maining which was a matter of controversy was one relating to licenses by which printers and publishers have certain rights in regard to reproducing works in Canada against the wishes of the authors of these works.
In 1927, by Bill No. 45, the subject was again introduced into parliament, but through the exigencies of parliamentary business and procedure, that measure was never carried through to completion, and now this bill stands on the order paper in my name for presentation to parliament this year.
I wish to explain that I understand from a statement which the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) made to the house the other day, that it is not the intention of the government to introduce a measure relative to the Copyright Act this session. I believe also that a convention is being held in Rome at *which it is hoped by most of us, and indeed it is likely, a representative of Canada will be present. That convention has to deal with matters in connection with the Berne convention, of which Canada along with thirty-five other nations is a member, and as a result of international rearrangements regarding copyright which may be made at that convention, I am hoping that the government will see its way clear to introduce a measure providing a remedy that will satisfy the claims of the authors, as well as certain other remedies which certainly ought to ibe provided by parliament. I shall not enter into details at this stage because they are well known to the government. As I have reason to believe that the government will, following this convention in Rome, introduce a measure to remedy the situation, and perhaps considerably revise the Copyright Act, I ask leave to withdraw this bill.
Bill withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Who represents Canada in the League of Nations, Geneva?
2.	What is his position and duties?
3.	What official staff does Canada maintain in connection with the league?
4.	Who constitute the staff:	(a) what are
the duties of each; (b) what salary does each receive ?
5.	What is the total expenditure made by or on behalf of Canada in connection with the league, for the fiscal year 1926-27?
6.	What has been the total expenditure made by Canada in connection with the league from inception up to December 31, 1927?

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	W. A. Riddell.
2.	Canadian advisory officer, charged with furthering Canadian interests in connection with the League of Nations, including representation at conferences and meetings of league organizations.
3.	Three members.
4.	Name-Duties-Salary.
W. A. Riddell, Canadian advisory officer,

Miss M. Clark, secretary, $1,500.
Miss E. McLennan, stenographer. SI.200.
5.	$181,119.54.
6.	$1,610,223.36.


INDIAN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, RED DEER
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1.	Has the government leased or rented that property known as the Indian industrial school, situate near Red Deer, in the province of Alberta?
2.	If so, to what party or parties?
3.	For what period?
4.	What annual rental is paid?
5.	For what purpose is the property to be used ?
fi. What acreage is involved?
7.	Are the lessees exempt from municipal and school taxation?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Reverend Roderick A. Macdonell of Red Deer, in trust for the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society.
3.	March 1, 1923, to April 30, 1928; in 1926 an arrangement was made to renew the lease for a further five years from April 30,1928-and thereafter subject to termination by either party on one year's notice.
4.	Nominal rental, one dollar per year.
5.	For depot and training centre for immigrants from Great Britain.
6.	1,116.
7.	The lessee agreed to pay all taxes, rates and assessments which may be levied against the land. The government is not aware of any exemption granted to the lessee by the municipal or provincial authorities.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RAIL AND RIVER COAL COMPANY
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways or any of its subsidiaries own a controlling interest or any stock in the Rail and River Coal Company, situate in the United States of America?
2.	Does the Canadian National Railways or
any of its subsidiaries own stock in any coal companies in the United States of America; if so, state:	(a) names and location of companies; (b) extent of interest or holdings?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The entire capital stock of Rail and River Coal Company was owned by the Grand Trunk' Railway Company, which company now forms part of the Canadian National system.
2.	None other than company mentioned in answer No. 1.



COLDBROOK-UPPER MIDDLE RIVER MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. JOHNSTONE:: 1.	Who is the present contractor for conveying the mails between Goldbrook and Upper Middle River, in Victoria county, Cape Breton?
2.	How long has he had the contract and what is his salary?
3. Who was the previous contractor and when did his contract expire?
4.	What was his salary?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	D. A. McRae.
2.	Since 1st July, 1927, $150 per annum.
3.	Alex. J. Grant & Don D. McDonald, sureties to J. N. McRae (deceased). Contract expired on 30th June, 1927.
4.	$93.60 per annum.



CANADIAN FARM LOANS

Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	Has the government appointed, according to article 3, chapter 66 of the revised statutes, a commission to handle Canadian farm loans?
2.	If not, will one be appointed soon?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	This matter will call for attention on the part of the government as soon as the provinces which intend to participate in the plan are heard from.



OHSWEKEN POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. SMOKE:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Ohsweken, Ontario ?
2.	When was he appointed and upon whose recommendation ?
3.	Was Mr. J. S. Johnson, former postmaster of Ohsweken, Ontario, dismissed?
4.	If so, was an investigation held, and what were the reasons for his dismissal?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Clifford Styres, OAS.
2.	11th April, 1928. On recommendation of government candidate for constituency.
3.	Yes.
4.	Dismissal was authorized on representations from the Department of Indian Affairs.
St. Lawrence Waterway



INDIAN SCHOOLS-TEACHERS' SALARIES

Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Indian Affairs to increase the salaries of teachers now in their employ?
2.	If so, what will he the rate of increase and on what date -will the increase become effective?
3.	On what basis are the salaries paid to teachers in Indian schools fixed?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No general increase.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Qualifications, experience and nature of duties.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Who is the agent for the Department of Indian Affairs in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	What are his duties and remuneration?
3.	Referring in each case to the Indians of l'ictou county. Nova Scotia, who is the agent for that department in that county?
4.	Who is the medical officer?
5.	What are his duties?
6.	What was paid him by way of salary for the years 1925-26-27?
7.	What was paid him by way of expenses for the years 1925-26-27?
8.	What was paid him for medicines or supplies during the years 1925-26-27?
9.	What was the total amount spent on or on behalf of said Indians during the years of 1921-22-23-24-25-26-27?



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, be amended to provide,
1.	That the period for the payment of the annual grant to the Federal District Commission at present fixed at sixteen years from the first day of April, 1927, be extended to thirty years from the first day of April, 1928, the said annual payment to be reduced to the sum of $200,000.
2.	That the Minister of Finance may provide for the purposes of the commission by the sale or other disposition of securities of the commission, guaranteed as hereinafter provided, an amount or amounts not to exceed in the aggregate $3,000,000, or he may, with the approval of the governor in council, pay to the commission, out of the consolidated revenue fund, such sum or sums, not exceeding $3,000,000, as may be required for said purposes, or may make such provision partly in one way and partly in the other. The governor in council may _ authorize the guarantee of the payment of principal of and interest on any such securities, the proceeds to be deposited

to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for _ the _ commission and released by the minister in his discretion for the purposes of the act.
3.	That the Minister of Finance may provide out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may be required to pay interest on the said securities and also such sums as are required for the purpose of establishing a sinking fund or for retiring the said securities by annual instalments.
4.	That the provisions of the Expropriation Act instead of the Railway Act shall be made applicable to expropriation proceedings of the commission.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, at page 1946 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in moving the adjournment of the debate on the St. I ,awrenoe waterway until the papers were tabled, assured the house, in reply to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), that the debate would be resumed, notwithstanding any obstacles in the rules, when the papers were tabled. May I ask if this arrangement will be carried out? After consulting the whips as to the convenience of members, could a day, or part of a day, be set aside for resuming the debate?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): I did not quite cat.eh my hon. friend's remarks. Did he say that I promised a day would be named for the discussion of this matter? I do not think I ever made such a statement, I did say that the rules of the house would be followed, and I remember my hon. friend saying that he hoped the fact that the debate was being adjourned would not preclude some further discussion before the close of the session. I think that is all that was said. I certainly did not intimate that a day would be set apart for the purpose.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I think the Prime Minister is partly right. On the occasion referred to he did not say that a day would or would not be named, but when I asked him if there would be an opportunity for further discussion after the papers

Committees oj the House
were tabled, his reply was that there would be. I pressed my question, but he did not give any further answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I intimated that opportunities for discussion are always open to members and that I stand by; but I did not say the government would fix a day for the discussion of this particular subject, because I think that would be going rather too far having regard to other measures of equal importance that await consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: Let me quote from Hansard, page 1946:
Mr. 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?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	The members of the
house always have that privilege.
Mr. 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.
There was a definite promise that this debate would be resumed when the papers were tabled.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire to bring to the attention of Your Honour the inadequancy of accommodation for committees of the house. I am speaking now more particularly in regard to the committee on railways and shipping, of which I happen to be' a member. That committee is occupied with the consideration of very important matters, which involves bringing to Ottawa a number of officials of the Canadian National Railway system with their staff and files, and their time is exceedingly valuable. This morning we were told that the committee would have to meet in a room away off in a corner of the house. Through the courtesy of the government whip (Mr. Casgrain), we turned out the members of the illustrious party opposite from one of their smoking rooms, and we secured very fair accommodation, for which we were grateful. But I submit that an important committee of this character should not be driven from pillar to post for a meeting place. I assume the answer will be that several committees are meeting. No doubt 'this is the case, but I think we should set up a system so that when a committee has a certain task to perform which it is clearly understood will extend over many days, a room will be set aside for
its use. We have held our last three meetings in different rooms, and we only know of the change of meeting place at the last moment, so that necessarily there is considerable confusion in members finding where the committee is sitting. I submit this condition of affairs should be remedied by the proper officers of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: I thank the hon. gentleman for his remarks. I find from various quarters that already this building is inadequate with respect to the rooms available for committees and for members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: I shall confer with the
hon. Minister of Public Works on the matter.



HUDSON BAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I want to ask the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries when we may expect the report he promised on the results of the aerial surveys in Hudson strait.
Hon. P J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):	I shall be in a position to table that report to-morrow.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: May I ask the Minister of the Interior whether he is yet ready to table the correspondence with the United States in regard to the Chicago drainage canal?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yes, but I find there is an
arrangement with the government of the United States in regard to the tabling of the report. I shall ask the permission of the house-in fact I may do so now-to table the report immediately after eight o'clock, when I should like to make a brief statement on the matter.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 18, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution. - Mr. Cardin. - Mr. Johnston in the chair:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan 'o the harbour commissioners of Quebec in - r. amount not exceeding $8,500,000 to carry on
[Stage Direction]
Quebec Harbour Commission
the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Some few
years ago this house had before it a vote of a similar character. At that time the amount asked for was $5,000,000 and the minister in response to queries stated that the $5,000,000 was to cover a five-year program. Moreover, >'e said that this was all that would be required for that program. According to his statement, that five-year program will not have reached its conclusion until 1930; yet we find the government coming back to the house again this year and asking for $8,500,000 more. At that time it was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that the facilities at Quebec were ample for the business then being transacted-absolutely ample. A considerable opposition from this corner of the house, and some from my friends to the right, has arisen on the ground of the nonnecessity for this expenditure, and the suggestion has been made that the item might be laid over until such time as the traffic flow into Quebec will have shown a sufficient increase in volume to justify the additional facilities asked for. These facilities at the time of the previous vote were not required, but it was explained by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as well as by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) that if they were provided the business would go to the port. It was also indicated that within a short time it was expected that the grain rate from Armstrong to Quebec would be reduced. Now that grain rate has been reduced; it has been cut almost in two. Yet the total increase has been but 5,000,000 bushels. At that time about 5,000,000 bushels went through the port, and the total last year was about 10,000,000. According to the minister's own admission also the capacity of the elevator will not be reached until 40,000.000 bushels per season passes through the port.
I have visited the port and have seen the docks down there and I must compliment Quebec and this government on the excellent facilities they have provided for cattle. I do not think that an hon. member opposite will allege for a moment that there is any further space required for cattle storage. The question arose yesterday regarding deep sea vessels, liners and so forth, and there was some half-hearted interjection to the .effect that the amount of money asked for was required to make it possible for more of these

larger vessels to dock. I do not know why that statement should have been made. I myself have inspected one of the largest liners afloat, the Empress of Scotland, which was docked at Quebec; and we all know that many of the other great transatlantic liners dock there frequently.
Frankly I am not prepared at this moment definitely to oppose this vote. If forced to do so I will vote against this resolution, unless the government is prepared to allow the bill which will follow to go before a committee where we can get information from the engineers, examine the blue prints, and have a full demonstration of the requirements of the port, together with proof of the prospects of an increased volume of business. The request is not an unreasonable one. I admit it is not original; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) made it yesterday, and it was supported by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). The minister will find that most hon. members on this side of the house will be perfectly willing to pass this resolution if he will agree to send the bill to a committee for further examination. It is perfectly absurd to expect us to let the matter go through at this stage when we take into consideration the weak response the minister has so far been able to make to the request for information as to the necessity for this vote. His explanation has been so futile as to convince me that until we have further information this house would not be justified in passing the resolution. If the minister desires to have the resolution go through, let him undertake to send the bill to a committee. Not only would he be wise in doing so, but he would be showing confidence in his own view of the matter. He would be saying to the house, virtually, "We have nothing to hide; this matter is open and aboveboard. The facilities are needed and we are prepared to prove it." But he has not yet proved his case. Indeed, I do not think the government can prove it in this house, and all we ask is that we be given an opportunity to get the facts. We have a right to ask this before we are urged to vote this enormous sum of money, at least two years before the program of 1925 is completed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It was not my intention to speak at this stage, expecting to make, on the second reading of the bill, any remarks I have to offer. But there have been such extraordinary statements in the course of the discussion that I think I owe it to those I represent in this parliament to say something now. In the first place, this amount which is

Quebec Harbour Commission
asked for in connection with Quebec harbour comprises two items. One is to complete the Wolfe's cove harbour development, started after the appropriations of 1925. This item would be $5,310,000. The second item is for new grain and other facilities on the Louise docks-that is, the old harbour. It amounts to $2,840,000. There are also debentures issued to the public amounting to $350,000 which fall due in 1928 and 1929, and these must be met. These are the items which make up the amount of $8,500,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Ernest Lapointe: I would prefer to finish my statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: I want to get this clearly in my mind. Is the wharf at Wolfe's cove the same wharf for which $2,800,000 was voted in 1925?


Ernest Lapointe: In 1925 we voted
$5,000,000.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: But of that amount $2,800,000 was for one wharf. Is this the same wharf?


Ernest Lapointe: The whole $5,000,000 was for the improvement of Wolfe's cove. I am going to show my hon. friend the work which has been done, if he will allow me to proceed with my explanation.
The reasons given to the house in 1925 were that the old harbour was not sufficient for the traffic which was using the port of Quebec. Obviously the new works, which are not completed, cannot be utilized at present, and there were then and still are seven deepwater berths provided with shed accommodation in that harbour. Three of these berths weTe used and are being used by ships which carry immigrants, and these berths cannot be rented or leased to shipping companies; they must be available all the time for ships carrying passengers and immigrants. One of these sheds has been burned since 1925, and part of the money which is asked for is to provide for the reconstruction of that shed. Last year only two berths were available for passenger and immigrant traffic, and many ships were detained through lack of accommodation. Two other berths are used for ordinary cargoes such as lumber, cement, asbestos and so on, as well as for cattle. Facilities to take care of that traffic have been built in recent years, and obviously those two berths cannot be used for passengers or immigrants. One berth, number four, is rented to the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company, while two other berths are used for grain and for oil bunkers; these are used to their full capacity. One berth
is rented to one of the shipping companies;
I do not know whether it is the Cunard or another line. Those are the only berths available, and as I have already said three of them are used for the immigrant and passenger traffic.
A few moments ago my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) handed me a telegram from the secretary-treasurer of the harbour board indicating what space is used for the immigrant traffic. It is as follows:
Total frontage Quebec for ocean vessels 8,150 lineal feet not including coasting berths. Frontage taken up by immigrants, passenger boats at berths 18. 26, 28 and 29, 3,300 lineal feet, or 40 per cent.
That is the reason why the shipping federation petitioned the government, stating that additional facilities were required there. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the head of the Canadian National Railways both endorsed the demands then made upon the government for the extension of the harbour, as being a work winch was absolutely necessary.
What has been done? At the time the last vote was passed much opposition was manifested, really more than the bill deserved. The works at Wolfe's Cove were started immediately afterwards, during the navigation season of 1925, and they have progressed satisfactorily during the years 1926 and 1927. Sixteen cribs, having a total length of 2,666 feet, are now sunk in position and filled with stone, and the concrete superstructure on top of these cribs was to have been started early in this year. It is expected that by the close of navigation this year this wharf surface will be completed. The remaining cribs for a length of 1,634 feet, to complete the 4.300 feet of wharf, must be sunk in 1928, as one year must elapse after they are sunk to allow the concrete wall to be erected thereon. The present application for a vote of $5,310,000, which is a necessary complement to the first application, includes the construction of the necessary facilities and equipment without which the wharves cannot be utilized by the shipping interests. When the wharf is completed the facilities to be erected thereon such as sheds, railway tracks, elevators and so forth, are all works which can and must be executed at the same time in order to have these facilities ready for operation with the least possible delay. Some of my hon. friends opposite were asking yesterday why the previous vote of $5,000,000 had not produced any revenue as yet. It cannot produce any revenue until the work is completed; it is easy to see that. Shipping companies have made application for space in the new har-

Quebec Harbour Commission
bour, as sooa as the work is completed. The works which have been begun with the vote of $5,000,000 cannot remain as they are; they must be completed.
The second item is for enlarging the grain elevator and for some other works which are necessary in the old harbour. In 1925, when the question of the shipment of grain through the port of Quebec was discussed in this house, hon. gentlemen opposite of the Progressive group took the position that it was absurd to provide for that movement, because a prohibitive rate was in force on the Transcontinental Railway, and that railway was not serving the purpose for which it was built. I admitted at that time that the claim was sound in many respects. I admit that my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) has been a consistent advocate of the use of the port of Quebec for the shipment of grain. He argued that the rates should be decreased; that it was of vital importance and even a necessity that the port of Quebec should be used for the shipment of grain. Well, I promised at that time that I would use all my energy for the purpose of trying to reach that desirable goal. I think we have succeeded. Much work has been done, and finally we were pleased to have the railway board of Canada decide that the rate had to be decreased. It was decreased and is now 11 cents and as a result, as I said yesterday, the harbour commissioners report that the elevator has been filled since the reduced rate went into force. But those who wish to see the desired goal reached, state that it will be useless to have the rate decreased unless the facilities in the port are also extended. That statement is made in the report of the Royal Commission on Grain. That was not urged by the people of Quebec; that was not the statement of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) or of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) or of myself. The Royal Commission on Grain said that the storage and elevator facilities in the port of Quebec should be largely extended. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) read a letter yesterday from a man who is deeply interested in the grain trade, Mr. Smith-I think he is one of the officers of the pool-saying that these improvements are necessary, and that shippers cannot take full advantage of the reduced rate unless the needed facilities are provided.
One hon. member who spoke yesterday said that the west is not asking for these improvements and facilities and that they will be a charge upon that part of Canada. Well,

I do not think that is a fair argument. As I said, all those bodies which have urged these improvements are not animated by a local point of view. The commission referred to, for example, was appointed to study the problems in connection with the grain trade and they suggested that this work be done. Furthermore, I have in my hand a petition signed by members and senators representing western constituencies, dated September 25, 1920, and addressed to Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of Canada. No Quebec name appears on that petition. I am not a signatory of it. I did not know at the time that such a petition had been drawn up and signed. But in that petition the very improvements which we are proposing to-day were asked for and suggested by these western members and senators. I will read only the last portion of the petition to the following effect:
That it make such arrangements that the marine insurance rates from Canadian seaports shall be the same as from New York, and that sufficient additional grain storage be built at Quebec, Halifax and St. John to handle the business in Canadian grain which, we believe, it will be possible to win back from New York, if these suggestions are adopted.
These are the final words of the petition that was signed and addressed to Sir Robert Borden in 1920 not by the Quebec members but by the western members of the House of Commons and of the senate.
Now the trouble we are experiencing is due to the fact that the work is being done under a commission. But we are not responsible for that. The present commission system now in force in regard to the harbour of Quebec was instituted in 1913. Somebody said yesterday:	Surely the commissioners must have
been lacking in competence to have allowed matters to go on as they did. I think I need only mention the names of those who have been at the head of the board to show that those men did their best. Certainly they were men who enjoyed the confidence not only of the community of Quebec but of Canada as a whole. My hon. friends opposite will remember Sir William Price. Surely that man stood high in the estimation of the people of Canada and his memory has been held in general esteem since his death. Sir William Price was a former chairman of the Quebec harbour board. He is one of those who were responsible for the starting of the work at Quebec, and he always claimed that it was impossible for the commission to take interest because the best part of the harbour is used for government purposes and in the national interest. Then we had

Quebec Harbour Commission
Senator L'Esperance. He is one of the able members of the senate who has been president of the harbour commission. Ask Senator L'Esperance about these improvements. He devoted his time and his energy to carrying out the works projected for the harbour. We have had the late General Sir David Watson, who distinguished himself in the war. He was a president of the Quebec harbour commission and a first class man. I may say that the present president of the Quebec harbour commission, the Hon. Mr. Power, possesses the confidence of all the citizens of the district irrespective of politics, and is doing his best in the interests of the harbour. But as I said 40 per cent of the best part of the harbour is used for national interests and is absolutely unproductive as far as the work of the board is concerned. The commission have tried to remedy that condition, just as their predecessors did. They claim that the most important of the facilities at Quebec harbour are for passengers and for immigrants. The commissioners sought to bring about a remedy and they passed a by-law' with that object in view, but every by-law which the board passes has to be accepted by the government. The commission are not as free in that respect as any other financial institution would be. They adopted a by-law to impose a charge of a dollar per head upon every person using the port of Quebec or landing there. There is nothing extraordinary in that. It is done in other ports, not in Canada, but in the ports of other countries. The port of Cherbourg is one of the important ports of France, and it has been built up and developed in that way. I have disembarked and embarked at the port of Cherbourg and I have been charged a tax for doing so. But the government has always taken the position that it would hurt immigration to Canada if such a charge were to be imposed. The claim has been made also that the steamship companies would have to pay the toll and incorporate it in their passenger rates. But successive governments and departments of immigration at Ottawa have always held that we should abstain from such a course in order to encourage immigration. Very well, I do not object to that, but it makes the facilities at Quebec public works in the interest of the country at large. How could you expect interest to be paid when you prevent the commission from collecting the only revenue which they really could collect? I heard my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries say yesterday that the port of Montreal does not want the immigrant traffic. I know it does not. Every commodity that comes into the port of Montreal pays a duty for using the advantages of
the port. They prefer there packages, cases and barrels of freight, to enter the port and so they derive an important revenue. Immigrants do not pay anything and, as I have said, the best part of the port of Quebec is used for that purpose. It may be that the system of commissions and making advances is not the ideal one though it has been thought better to let prominent business men in various communities which are interested, manage the affairs of their respective ports. The Duncan report recommended that it would be a good thing for Halifax and St. John if they also had commissions which they did not have before. The system was again ratified by parliament when last year we adopted legislation for the purpose of putting both Halifax and St. John under the control of commissions. These two ports will now be coming to parliament asking for advances; it is the only way by which they can do their work, and there is no way of avoiding it.


Mr. BENNETT:: I think the Duncan report contemplated making these ports national ports, not necessarily through commissions.


Ernest Lapointe: Statutory ports through
commissions exactly as in the case of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report did not put
the matter in quite that way.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is exactly the
same thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree that public money was to be spent on those ports. There is no doubt about that.


Ernest Lapointe: We are asked to pay interest. Other ports in Canada have been developed and some of them have not the benefit of being under commissions, but nobody is asking them to pay interest on the money which has been spent on them. It will be seen by the public accounts that the government has spent 819,218,417 on the port of St. John.


Mr. CARDIN:: It is $21,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody is claiming that they should pay interest on that amount. In the port of Halifax S17,080,049 has been spent by this country and nobody has yet asked that they should pay interest on that sum, or that we should not look at Halifax until they pay the interest. As regards Fort William my hon. friend is not anxious to offer the government interest on the sums which have been expended there. We have spent an amount of $15,000,000 on that port.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Robert James Manion: Fort William and Port
Arthur.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. But when the
question is one of Quebec, we are told that 314,000,000 has been spent in Quebec; that interest amounting to 38,000,000 is owing on that, and that we should not do anything for Quebec until that is settled.


Robert James Manion: In Fort William and Port Arthur we handle, I should say, twenty times the quantity of freight that is handled in Quebec. They constitute a national port.


Ernest Lapointe: That does not detract
at all from my argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only point that was made was that in case of Quebec there were outstanding obligations, being promises to pay by the commission with interest, whereas in the other cases moneys were expended by appropriations of parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: I know that. I am endeavouring to explain why such is the case. It is because we are under a commission and the others are not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: If we had no commission and the money had been spent, as has been the case in other ports, we would not be asked to pay a cent of interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
think that should be a reason for preventing necessary work from being carried on? I say it is not.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: With regard to
the expenditure of $17,000,000 at Halifax, I would point out that that was for the completion or partial completion of the terminals of a system of railways extending over the whole Dominion. It was not a government expenditure for such purposes as that now proposed for Quebec. It was for the construction of terminals to complete the railway system and to enable that system to carry on its business economically and profitably.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly the same as the work we are asking for in Quebec. My hon. friends from Toronto were rather critical yesterday, but I never heard the hon. member for East Toronto offer to pay interest on the sums which we spent on the inland port of Toronto.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Will the Minister of
Justice be just? For every dollar that the government has spent on the port of Toronto, the city of Toronto has spent five dollars. Has Quebec done that?


Ernest Lapointe: That is another proposition altogether. I merely say that we have spent $10,000,000 on the port of Toronto and nobody is paying interest on that sum-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: And Toronto has spent


Ernest Lapointe: -and some of that has been for works in improving the site in Toronto, works which are not of much use as regards shipping. Other works are being constructed in Canada and nobody is offering to pay interest on them. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) yesterday was one whose voice was loudest as against this nefarious resolution on the order paper. There is a public work called the Welland canal, which goes through St. Catharines, and so far as I am aware nobody is paying interest on that. My hon. friend said yesterday: Why should the grain growers of the west not come to Quebec and build an elevator there as they have done at Buffalo? Is he asking them to go and build the Welland canal because it is, after all, for the shipment of grain that the Welland canal is being built? We are pleased to vote money for the Hudson Bay railway and for the port at Fort Churchill, but I must tell my hon. friends that some of us do not think that Fort Churchill is a better port than Quebec and we do not expect interest to be paid immediately on the expenditure which will be made in Fort Churchill. Nevertheless we are voting the money because we think that national works must not be considered only from the point of view of locality, and that we must see a little further than our own constituency. I do not blame any particular government for the amounts which have been expended. My colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) reminds me that we are going to spend money to experiment on the carrying of coal from Alberta to Ontario. We do not expect any interest on that amount but we are voting it because we think it is in the national interest.
We have only a few ports in Canada and I claim that we should equip them properly and that parliament should be rather generous in that regard. What do the United States people do? Some hon. gentlemen are always pleased to quote the example of the United States and so I took the trouble to ask for a statement from that country in that regard.

Quebec Harbour Commission
This was prepared at Washington and I see that to this date the congress of the United States has voted appropriations amounting to $661,613,501.75 for works in United States harbours. The figures in round numbers are as follows:
Poston	 $28,000,000
Providence, R.1	 23,000,000
I shall not quote the figure for the port of New York, where, of course, the expenditure is tremendous. In other ports, the expenditure has been as follows:
Philadelphia	 $54,000,000
Wilmington, Delaware	 6,900,000
Washington, D.C	 4.000,000
Norfolk, Virginia	 15,000.000
Wilmington, North Carolina. 10,000,000 Charleston, South Carolina. 10.000,000
Savannah, Georgia	 25,000,000
Jacksonville, Florida	 23,000,000
Montgomery. Alabama	 3.000.000
Mobile. Alabama	 15.000,000
New Orleans, Louisana.. ..	32,000,000
Galveston. Texas	 60,000,000
Duluth, Minnesota	 16,000,000
Milwaukee, Wisconsin	 27,000,000
Chicago, Illinois	 15,000,000
Detroit, Michigan	 57,000,000
Buffalo, New York	 43,000,000
Before my friends of the pool built an elevator at Buffalo, the government of the United States had spent $43,000,000 on Buffalo harbour. To continue:
Los Angeles, California. .	. .	$13,000,000
San Francisco, California (1st)	19.000,000
San Francisco, California (2nd)	317,000
Portland, Oregon	 36,000,000
Seattle, Washington	 10,000.000
Juneau, Alaska	 1,000,000
Honolulu. Hawaii	 7,000,000
Porto Rico	 3,000.000
So I think I may fairly claim that we have a good deal yet to do before our own ports, which are greater ports than most of those I have mentioned, are equipped in the manner congress has provided for American ports. I need not dwell upon the importance of the St. Lawrence route because I think everybody recognizes its importance. I think it will also be recognized that the St. Lawrence ports must be equipped in the most modern way if they are to be in a position to compete with our friends to the south in the matter of shipping.
At the London congress of 1923, held under the auspices of the International Association of Navigation Congresses, Mr. L. H. Saville, chief engineer of the admiralty, made a very important report from which I wish to quote, as follows:
The percentage number of vessels of 30 feet draught and over is at present very small, but it is on the increase, and there is little doubt that when the Suez canal is deepened to 40 feet, the percentage number above 30 feet
draught will be greatly increased, and first class ports would do well to afford a depth in their approach channels not much inferior to that of the Suez canal.
He adds:
A first class passenger harbour serving the Atlantic trade will require to provide depth in the neighbourhood of 40 feet at low water.
Sir, only the harbour of Quebec on the St, Lawrence can supply such a depth of 40 feet, and at the very works for which this money is requested, the depth at low water is and will continue to be 40 feet.
One more word and I conclude. When other public works have been undertaken-I am referring especially to some of recent date- it has been stated that both of the two historic parties were pledged to the work. Now if there is a work to which both the two historic parties are pledged, it is the development of the port of Quebec. As I have already indicated, Sir William Price and others who opposed me politically in the district of Quebec claimed, and with some reason, that they originated the harbour works at Quebec. At the last general election I had the privilege of hearing the then leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Meig'hen, in addressing a huge meeting in Quebec which received great publicity all over Canada, say in almost his first words that the port of Quebec would be completed by those who had commenced the work, namely, the Conservative party. Well, we are pledged to it, too, and as far as I am concerned, I am not only going to see that this pledge coming from us is redeemed, but we are also going to redeem' on behalf of my hon. friends opposite the pledge they made in that regard. True, Mr. Meighen said that it would be completed by the Conservative party, but really we should have to wait too long for that, so I hope my friends opposite will help me to redeem the pledges which both parties have made.
My friends angularly opposite said yesterday that at the last general election they opposed the loan to Quebec harbour which was made in 1925. That is quite true. It did not hurt us very much, for we were successful anyhow. But let me say to my hon. friends that I could quote not only newspaper editorials but pamphlets and circulars, saying that we of the province of Quebec and the district of Quebec had sold the east to the west on many occasions, that we had always been ready to vote any amount of money that was needed for the west, that we had always accepted legislation for the benefit of the west, but never for the benefit of the east. That is what we were charged wtih in our own district, and it was said that when it came to a

Quebec Harbour Commission
national public work of interest to the whole of Canada, our friends from the west, for the upbuilding of which we had been quite willing to expend whatever was necessary, were the very first to try and prevent the Quebec district from getting the public works which it required. I answered at that time that it was quite true that our friends from the west did not help us, but that probably in the years that were to come, with better information, they would amend their views in that respect. I was pleased that the tone was a little better yesterday, and that my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) almost supported the resolution. Of course, he suggested a committee, which I do not like veiy much. Why should this bill be given different treatment from any other bill? We are taking the responsibility for this legislation, and we are prepared to give all the information which is needed. I quite realize that those who oppose the legislation would try to put obstacles in the way of its passing, but surely my hon. friend from Mackenzie, who has been advocating the shipment of grain through the port of Quebec, will help us to provide the necessary harbour facilities for shipments through that port.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: If the minister wants
my assistance, all he has to do is to accept my suggestion and send this resolution to a committee of the house, where, if the information we desire and which the minister assures us will be forthcoming is presented, I shall have no difficulty in supporting the measure.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should not my hon. friend accept my suggestion, rather than force me to accept his? He did not ask for a committee on the Hudson Bay railway, in which he was so deeply interested.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I remind the minister that the vote for the Hudson Bay railway was contingent upon receiving political support from western Canada, and not on the merits of the issue at all?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I see. May I tell
my hon. friend that it is not so with the vote for Quebec harbour? It is quite independent of the support of the hon. gentleman. We are asking that this work be done in the national interest of Canada, quite independent of the support which is given to this government in the district of Quebec and the province of Quebec, and thank God we are given good support there. We have more than sixty of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister has
certainly made a most excellent defence of the position he has taken, but he has failed utterly to face-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends opposite
will not even wait until I complete my sentence. I say that he has failed utterly to face this fact, that the port to which he is referring is operated under a system of administration adopted by this parliament, namely the harbour commission system. In his recital he reviewed the other ports of Canada which until very recently had been administered by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But he left out of his calculation entirely the ports that are under a similar form of administration to this, namely, a board of harbour commissioners. We are not complaining-and I insist upon this fact being established-we are not complaining about spending capital money on the port of Quebec. That is not our position at all. Our position is that the works which have been created as a result of the money spent there in the past are not showing a reasonable return to this country. We have no assurance from the Minister of Justice or from the Minister of Marine that this additional expenditure of $8,500,000 will bring any better results. That is our complaint. We are asking for information to demonstrate the soundness of the proposal, and no information is vouchsafed.
Now let me call the attention of the committee, not to a report prepared by some opposition critic of Quebec, but to a report made to the government by its own auditors, and which was placed on Hansard last night. It will be found at page 2157. The report deals with the years 1924. 1925 and 1926. I will take the last year, the figures for the other years being somewhat similar. The administration of this port shows that the gross earnings for 1926 were in round figures, $678,000, and the gross expenses $595,000. leaving a surplus of $83,000. The auditors say:
From which should be deducted overcharges to capital accounts, claims against government departments, etc. of $211,787.64.
Overcharges.
Leaving a deficit before interest on government advances of $128,178.47.
Add annual interest due the Dominion government. $494,741.17.
Deficit before charging depreciation, $622,919.64.
Then they take off all of the claims made by the port of Quebec against government

Quebec Harbour Commission
departments, leaving a net deficit of $359,000 odd. These are not my figures; they are the figures of the auditors, appointed by the government, who prepared the report. Therefore, any complaint or quarrel must be with the auditors. But this is what I want to specially stress for the consideration of hon. members. The auditors continue:
Examination of the published reports clearly shows the expenses to have increased steadily and out of proportion to the earnings during the three years:

I pause there. These government auditors present a statement that the expenses have increased steadily and out of proportion to the earnings during the last three years. In view of this I submit to the government that before another $8,500,000 is placed in the hands of the commission some explanation of the statement ought to be vouchsafed to parliament. Then we have the auditors making this further statement:
The accounts examined by us provided no explanation for these variations-
That is, variations in, earnings.
-due largely to. the suspension some years ago of cost accounts.
Here is another point. The commission comes before this parliament and asks for this additional $8,500,000. The board of audit tells us that the commission has suspended cost accounts, and that the absence of these cost accounts makes it impossible for the board to properly audit the books. Then let me draw attention to this further statement by the auditors:
The gross earnings will not be sufficient in any year to pay the operating expenses and interest on government loans.
Again, I ask, are we to loan another $8,500,000 in face of the statement that the gross earnings will not be sufficient to meet the operating expenses and interest on government loans? We have to determine whether we are going to keep the port of Quebec as a place for the expenditure of public money without any expectation of the interest being paid; or whether the port is to be administered under the aegis of a board of harbour commissioners. If the latter, we have a right to demand that it shall pay interest on its indebtedness to the crown. The report continues :
It may be forecasted that the annual cost of repairs and renewals will increase considerably in the future.
And again:
It will be noticed that the annual deficit for three years, excluding claims against depart-56103-138
ments of the government and interest thereon -neither of which have been paid by any of the departments-but including interest on government allowances, averaged $600,000.
On excluding these claims, $359,000 last year. Now, it is not a question whether we are going to advance money for the development of the port of Quebec. We have already advanced large sums of money, on which interest is not being paid by the harbour board. The evidence of the auditors shows that this harbour board is not attempting to pay interest on its indebtedness.
A moment ago I said that the Minister of Justice had failed to cite two other harbours that were organized on exactly the same basis as the port of Quebec. I am going to show what the port of Vancouver did last year.


Ernest Lapointe: We know Vancouver is
a splendid port. This is simply for publicity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, I am going to make a request to the government in a few minutes. But let me first give these facts. Last year Vancouver harbour commissioners paid $681,000 in interest to the government and put aside a reserve for depreciation of $180,000 and for sinking fund of $200,000, or in all $1,061,000. In addition, they had built up a reserve for depreciation of $416,000 and for sinking fund of $S00,0O0. In other words, the reserve now is $1,200,000. Now I say to the government-no, I say to parliament: If it is to be the practice to spend public moneys, as the minister argued at such length and with such voeiferousness, without expecting a dollar of interest in return, then the port of Vancouver should be relieved from payment of interest to the exchequer. Why should Vancouver or Montreal be required to pay interest on the advances made to them if other ports are to be allowed to escape payment? Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec, Chicoutimi, St. John and Halifax have asked that their ports be placed under a board of harbour commissioners so that local interests may be taken -care of and the port conducted in harmony with the wishes of the people. If the government would put up the capital expenditure, each port authority undertook to pay interest and provide a sinking fundi for redemption of loans. We are criticizing this proposed loan because there is no evidence that the Quebec Harbour Commissioners are making the slightest effort to pay the interest on their indebtedness.
Now,	I come	to what	the	Minister ofJustice	and his	colleague	the	Minister ofMarine	referred	to, the claim	against theImmigration Department.	I	agree with
my leader (Mr. Bennett) that there is



Quebec Harbour Commission
every evidence that there is fair ground for compensation for the use of the harbour. The suggestion was made by my leader yesterday and I repeat it now, that a careful accounting be made by the audit board or by some competent authority to ascertain what the claim amounts to, with compound interest if you like, and that this be written off the total sum owed by the port of Quebec; the remainder to be funded, as part of the funded debt of the country, against the harbour of Quebec, whatever it may be-eight or ten millions. Let us start at that point, and let the harbour board of Quebec undertake to pay its interest and provide a sinking fund. But I may be asked: After this is done are you going to vote this $8,500,000? Let me call the attention of the committee to this fact: three years ago we voted $5,000,000 for the port of Quebec, and parliament was told that this was for a period of five years. We are now faced with another demand, within three years, for $8,500,000 more. Now I submit that this $8,500,000- granting that we are given an explanation of these points to which I have referred-should be cut down to a reasonable amount. So far as I can see there is no justification, in any information that we have had, for the voting of $8,500,000, and I suggest therefore that it be reduced to a reasonable sum. Moreover we are entitled to a clear demonstration as to what it is to be used for, together with some indication of how the harbour board intends to pay the interest and sinking fund in connection with it. Either that, or we should abandon entirely the practice of making loans to the port of Quebec and let the matter be placed under the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Public Works, having all the accounts and the administration submitted to parliament.
I am not sure that I am correct in what I am about to suggest, but I fancy that the accounts of the harbour commission of Quebec are not included in the public accounts presented to parliament. I think I am right in that; the minister indicates that I am. Now, what are we doing? In the face of this record to which I have referred, and in view of the criticism-because it is criticism -of the auditors appointed by the government, we are asked to vote another $8,500,000, the expenditure of not one dollar of which we are going to be allowed to scrutinize. No member of this house can call it in question. The minister cited expenditures at Halifax, Saint John, Fort William, Toronto and other places; but in every instance, so far as these

are concerned, every dollar is subject to scrutiny by parliament. In every instance the names of the persons to whom the money was paid have been reported in the public accounts. But in the case of the port of Quebec not one single dollar is submitted to the scrutiny of parliament, nor is any information given as to how it is spent. Under the circumstances I resent the suggestion of the Minister of Justice and others, that in offering these criticisms we are opposing the port of Quebec as such. We are simply opposing the method by which the money is appropriated and expended. There is much more that might be said on the subject, but-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: That is enough.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; some of my hon.
friends do not like to hear these criticisms, but parliament must face the facts; and I submit again to the minister and to the government that we should adopt one course or the other. If the money is to be spent without any control on the part of parliament, we have a right to crthaand a return on these investments. If, on the other hand, no interest is to be paid and no accounting made, then we should no longer vote money on that basis, but bring the matter under the control of parliament and under the scrutiny of the public accounts committee.


Mr. DUNNING:: I have just a word or two to say on what I regard as the practical aspect of the problem before the committee, and not so much with reference to the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) who has just sat down. I may observe, however, that as he was speaking I wondered what sort of speech he would have made had his party been successful in the last election and his then.leader appeared in the house to carry out the pledge which he gave so specifically when speaking in Quebec during that election.
After all, the point is a practical one. We have the ancient port of Quebec, and we have spent as a country each year millions of dollars to facilitate the carrying of trade past Quebec to ports further up the river. That is a situation which does not obtain in relation to any other of the ports of Canada. In no other case can it be said that the government is spending millions, but for the expenditure of which the trade of a particular port would be much greater than it is. But it is a fact, with respect to the St. Lawrence river, that the millions which we expend-


Ernest Lapointe: Thirty millions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty millions. I say, it is a fact that the millions we spend above

Quebec Harbour Commission
Quebec have the effect of creating, at least in large part, the problem which has risen in connection with the financing of that port. My hon. friend says that no interest is paid. Why is no interest paid? Because sufficient use is not made of the facilities which have been provided, to enable a sufficient revenue to be earned.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It does not pay, then?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is merely a question of getting sufficient business through the port of Quebec in order to enable the fees charged to pay the expenses and interest on the money advanced.


James Dew Chaplin: It does not pay now, and you propose to spend another $8,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend interrupts. I venture to say that if we had started with Vancouver-a great natural port though it is -on the basis of advances instead of on the basis on which it was instituted, that port would not in all probability have evolved so quickly to the favourable position which it now occupies. But for many years public expenditures were made in the ports of Vancouver, Halifax and St. John, and subsequently the commission form of administration was instituted under very favourable terms.
The suggestions I have to make have to do purely with the question of enlarging the use made of the port of Quebec and, by enlarging its scope of usefulness, the probability of its being able to pay interest on advances made. Manifestly, from the information which has been placed before the house, the present accommodation ati the docks and slips is not sufficient to care for a very much increased trade. It is admittedly necessary to complete the plans which were formed a few years ago for the development at Wolfe's cove, and to which my hon. friend opposite, through the mouth of his leader, is absolutely and completely committed. The promise to complete that work was just as definite on the part of my hon. friends, opposite as on the part of leaders on this side of the house.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Not necessarily along
these lines.


Charles Avery Dunning: Since that time a change has taken place. The rate on grain from Armstrong to Quebec has been reduced to a point which has created a grain loading and a grain storage business at Quebec. I do know a little about the grain business, and in my opinion the best way to build up the port of Quebec, from the point of view of revenue, is to provide adequate facilities for the winter storage of grain at that point. I am satisfied 56103-138i
that if there were adequate facilities for the winter storage of grain at Quebec the tendency, after the close of navigation on the great lakes, would be increasingly to ship all-rail on the new rate to that port. In fact, it is demonstrated by what has taken place since the new rate came into effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit a question? He knows the grain business thoroughly. Out of what does a grain elevator make its chief revenue-from grain passing through the elevator or from grair stored in the elevator?


Charles Avery Dunning: That depends entirely
upon the location of the elevator and the class of business it is doing. At Vancouver the great earnings of the grain elevators come from the handling charges for putting the grain through the elevators. On the other hand an elevator located at Fort William, as the desk-mate of my hon. friend can tell him, derives a large revenue from the charge for winter storage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have had the privilege
of operating these elevators, and I think I know from whence the earnings came. With respect to an elevator located at Fort William, its most valuable earnings are from winter storage, and the aim of every elevator company at such points is to fill up their elevators for the winter as soon as possible after the close of navigation, because there is then a continuous earning at low expense until spring. It is true that during the period of open navigation every effort is made by the same institution to handle as much grain as possible, but the earning from winter storage is undoubtedly a very profitable source of revenue for any elevator located upon waters which are not navigable during a certain period of the year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree with the
minister there, but that was not my question. Take a grain elevator at Fort William, if you like; from what does that elevator obtain its chief source of revenue-from grain passing through the elevator or from the winter storage of grain?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Neither.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: From mixing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some of my friends behind me would answer that question in a way which would not exactly touch the point. Again I would say that it depends upon the elevator, even at Fort William. If it is an elevator with a fast handling capacity and
2174	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commission
a limited amount of storage it will make money out of the handling of grain; if on the other hand it has a large tank storage capacity, it will make money through the storage of grain in the winter. Some of the elevators with which I have had something to do had a tank storage capacity of 10,000,000 *bushels. It depends on the nature of the business, and studying the port of Quebec from that point of view I am honestly of the opinion that there are great possibilities, not so much in connection with the fast handling of grain through elevators but in storage for the winter months of grain brought forward by rail during the closed periods of navigation on the lake under the new rail rates which went into effect a year ago. I say that because even with the limited storage capacity available at present the western grain pools have used the port of Quebec to a very considerable extent during the past winter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nine million bushels.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the figure. Why is that; what is the attraction to the owner of the grain in getting a substantial portion of his holdings as far as Quebec? The answer is very plain:	A great many of our largest
ocean liners turn at Quebec, and these liners carry parcels of grain back to Europe. They are not cargo boats, but almost every one of them loads a proportion of grain, which is practically a ballast cargo. Unquestionably in this way there is an oportunity to have grain moved economically, and indeed at lower rates than prevail at other times on the north Atlantic. In my opinion-and I speak merely as a practical grain man who has had something to do with the business in a rather large way-there are great possibilities in the accommodation of the cheapest kind of grain storage at the port of Quebec in order to enable those interested in the grain business to utilize the low rate which now exists and to accumulate their grain at that point near the seaboard for export as soon as the season opens in the spring.
I have only one other word to say, and that is with reference to the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell). I understood him to say, with reference to the Hudson Bay route, that it was in the nature of a political bribe to the people of the west. If I am unfair in my understanding of what he said I hope he will correct me now. I want to contradict that statement;
I only hope my hon. friend was not bribed by it; because I would consider the price altogether too high.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not profess to have
the experience with regard to the storage of grain which is possessed by the Minister of Railways, but from such knowledge as I have of the operations of the port of Montreal I think I can say that the earnings of that port are larger during the summer months, when grain is being transhipped, than during the winter months when the elevators are used for storage purposes. I think there is no doubt about that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would repeat that statement; I did not catch it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the earnings per
month of the elevators in the port of Montreal are larger during those months when the port is open to navigation than when these elevators are used simply for storage purposes. My hon. friend shakes his head. I will have the figures looked up, and we will have an opportunity to discuss that question later. I wish the minister had refreshed his memory before making such a positive statement as he has made.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not argue that
in connection with the port of Montreal they do not have tremendous earnings simply out of the transfer business, but the winter storage in Montreal is clear profit, with no expenses attached to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is an entirely different issue, and places a different complexion on the statement which I understood the minister to make.
Some reference has been made to Vancouver. I do not think any hon. member of this house who has watched the progress of that port can fail to have a feeling of satisfaction and pride in the way Vancouver has developed. Of course it has the advantage of being on the Pacific coast; it is open during the whole year. Sometimes I think that if Columbus had only discovered the Pacific coast of America before he discovered the Atlantic coast the development on the Pacific coast would have been beyond the reach of our imagination. On our north Atlantic coast, of course, we have severe winters; many of our ports along the St. Lawrence are closed for a considerable part of the year, and the earnings of those ports are seriously diminished as compared with the earnings of the ports on the Pacific coast.
With regard to the port of Quebec, I do not believe any member of this house has any objection to the development of that port in the national interest of Canada. If I felt that we as a party opposed the development

Quebec Harbour Commission
of that great port-and it will be a great port in the future-I would have to dissent absolutely from that view. However, I look upon Quebec as a port which is likely to be open all year within the next ten or fifteen years; I sincerely hope that such developments in the navigation of the St. Lawrence to Quebec may be made as to render it possible to keep that port open for at least ten months of the year. Having that possibility in mind, I believe the members of this house are desirous that this port should have every facility which is required for its future development.
However, there is a difficulty in the way. Personally I do not think the traffic of the port of Quebec, which at present is largely a passenger traffic, can be properly developed if it is anticipated that that port will pay the carrying charges on the money necessarily invested in its development. Therefore personally I am opposed to the commission system as applied to these eastern ports with which I am more or less familiar. The Minister o-f Justice hardly met the criticism which has been made from this side erf the house; at least I put a different interpretation upon that criticism than the one which the minister has placed. If the government had come to the house and asked for an appropriation of so many million dollars, five or eight as the case may be, for the purpose of developing the port of Quebec as a national port, without any subterfuge whatsoever, I feel that his proposal would have met with more general approval. This appropriation is presented as a loan, and that is a mere subterfuge. There is no anticipation that the development of trade and commerce in the port of Quebec, which at present consists largely of immigration and regular passenger services with such additional traffic as comes through it in the way of freight will, within a reasonable term of years, create sufficient revenue to pay the interest upon the advances necessary, or for return of the principal or provide for the depreciation of property in the meantime. That being so, why keep up this subterfuge? Why set forth upon the statute books of Canada that you are making a loan to the harbour commission for which you are receiving its debentures upon which interest is payable annually, when there is no reasonable prospect of the port having sufficient revenue to repay to the government the interest and sinking fund on that loan.
That is the criticism which I make with regard to placing such harbours as Chicoutimi, St. John, and Halifax under commissions which receive loans from the Dominion government and are expected to pay the interest on these loans and sinking funds, plus the depreciation of harbour works, from the receipts obtainable from t'he traffic entering those ports. I suggest that putting Halifax, for instance, under a commission with t'he expectation that that commission will be able to tax the trade of Halifax harbour to a sufficient amount to repay the principal and interest of the loans necessary for t'he development of that port is perfectly futile-nay, it is ridiculous. If that port, placed under a commission, is to be taxed a sufficient amount to repay interest plus the cost of operation and sinking fund for repayment of principal, the tax upon the shipping of that port would be so great as to prevent any trade or commerce entering from the Atlantic. And in the case of the port of St. John, for its commission to assume so large a capital indebtedness is one of the measures which will retard the development of the trade and commerce of the port rather than develop it, because it will necessitate placing such a tax upon the trade directly passing through that port as to preclude the port from fulfilling its functions as a great national outlet and inlet. Therefore T suggest that with regard to certain classes of ports which are really parts of our national transportation system, and which are as neces-sarjr to transportation as the railways of the country and without which the railways could not function efficiently, they should be regarded as national ports to be sustained by the national government, and that we should not resort to the trick and subterfuge of making advances or loans for the developments of these ports, when the trade and traffic will not give a revenue sufficient to maintain operations and pay sinking funds and interest thereon.
If the government will examine into these eastern ports along the St. Lawrence which are only open for traffic for a limited season of the year, and if it will look into the trade-and traffic passing through Halifax and St.. John it will find that it will be absolutely impracticable for these ports to earn sufficient to pay their way. Why then go through the farce of making loans which are really cash advances the repayment of which you may never reasonably expect? That is the measure of criticism which I have to make. The port of Montreal is so far paying the interest upon the advances made. It is having some difficulty in keeping up the sinking fund for the payment in the future of its bonds as they become due; and in the case of that port if you are to tax its trade sufficiently to obtain a return to the country of the principal and

Quebec Harbour Commission
interest, plus the carrying charges of the (port, you will soon have to impose such taxation upon the trade passing through Montreal as to preclude it from really ever functioning as a national port of Canada. I do not like to do things by way of pretext or by subterfuge. Personally I do not like following an ancient practice or a practice which has been established by other governments before the present administration, and to offer the procedure formerly followed as a justification for continuing to make these loans.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps we are the true
Conservatives in that respect.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have found the province
of Quebec to be more Conservative than it receives credit for. My hon. friend who is so critical of precedents at times, is always willing to justify his own conduct by some far-fetched precedent from a Conservative regime.


Ernest Lapointe: It is in order that my
argument shall have greater influence upon those to whom it is addressed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend would
address himself to the actual facts and the actual conditions that prevail rather than to devising fallacious arguments to appeal to the intellects on this side, his speeches oftentimes would be more effective than they are.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But to state my case briefly: It goes against the grain, coming as I do from the province of Quebec, to take an adverse stand, but I would point out that never will a single measure come before the house which I regard as justifiable in the interests of the country as a whole, while at the same time calculated to promote the development of these ports of Quebec but it will receive my earnest support. But it goes against the grain to vote for a loan of S8.500,-000 when I know it is essentially not a loan, but that some day in some way some offset must be found for that unless the harbour commission of Quebec is to acknowledge itself bankrupt. If that commission is to be maintained as a commission, an appropriation should be made to it annually for providing facilities for the immigration service which is carried on though the port of Quebec and which is essential to the well-being and development of the whole of Canada. In the second place, apart from the freight traffic, if it is desirable that we should develop the passenger traffic at that port as a great inlet and outlet for both national railways, we

should consider making a further appropriation in that respect so as to relieve the city of Quebec of the burden of carrying locally the charges for what is really a great national undertaking and one absolutely necessary not only for the development of the commerce of the country but to preserve for all time commercial outlets and inlets for our export and import business.
Further, with regard to that part of the works which may be developed and which are used in the ordinary course by the steamship companies making their headquarters at Quebec, they should pay a reasonable amount as well for these facilities. What I object to is the futility of placing upon Quebec the burden of alone maintaining these great national services out of the taxable traffic which passes through that port. I do not think Quebec can carry that Ipurden alone. The whole matter should be reconsidered. When I am saying that I am not disparaging the city of Quebec. We have, as the Minister of Railways has said, given certain facilities to trade and traffic as far as Montreal. We undoubtedly will in future provide facilities for trade and traffic far beyond Montreal into the interior as this country grows and develops. But Quebec, to my mind, looking to the future, will become a great ocean port which is bound to carry a large part of the trade and traffic of eastern Canada not only during what we now term the summer and autumn season, but throughout at least ten or eleven . months of the year. Therefore I am anxious to see this port developed; but I commend to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and to other hon. gentlemen who represent Quebec in the government that they should consider meeting the problem fairly and fully now, and that they should not year by year place upon the port of Quebec a financial burden in respect of which the trade and traffic of that city alone will never be able to make a sufficient return to meet the obligations of the Harbour Commission.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was evidently somewhat annoyed at remarks which I made the other day, because he brought up the Welland canal as being on a par with this development at Quebec. First of all I wish to point out to him, although he knows it quite well, that the Welland canal is not under the commission but under parliament. The work is being performed by government engineers and each year the accounts come before the department and we have an opportunity of discussing the estimates in the house. There is a great deal of difference between that method of procedure and a commission coming to par-

Quebec Harbour Commission
liamen.t and asking for a five-year cheque without any regard being had, so fair as the house is concerned, to how the money is to be spent, and ail we have is an audit that, if any atention were paid to it, might induce members to vote differently from the way they have done in the past. When the question was before parliament in 1925 I never spoke on it at all. I was prepared to sit and listen to the information that was given in regard to the situation. Apparently the fact that I quoted the minister's own statement also annoyed the Minister of Justice. Because I quoted from 1925 the statement of the then and the present minister he did not like it. Was that because it was true? On t-hait occasion I listened to the members who spoke on the subject and I voted on the question because of the arguments brought forward by those who were providing the goods to go through the port. I refer to Mr. Sales, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and others of those who knew. I refer also to the minister who is sitting right in front of me, the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). I do not recollect that he said anything on the question but I know I voted the way he did. The hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Beaubien) also made a long address. I voted then against the motion while he also voted against it, and I presume he and others will vote against this further advance because this is worse than the last one.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have received a good
deal of information since that time.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member may
have received something more than information. Perhaps he will give us the information. For the benefit of those who probably did not care to look up what happened several years ago. I want to quote again what was said when the matter came up in 1925. Mr. Caldwell, who was opposing the vote, asked the minister the following question:
Mr. Caldwell:	Could the minister tell us
what amount of grain the present facilities at Quebec could handle yearly if used to their full capacity?
Those are not, as the Minister of Justice says, the facilities that are being built now or that were being built last year, but the facilities that were in existence in 1925. As regards the facilities that were in existence then, the minister gives this reply:
Mr. Cardin:	I am told it is forty million
bushels.
That was the capacity then, and what has been the result? Ten million bushels of grain have passed through that port. They have
not done more business than that with a forty million bushel capacity and yet they are coming to parliament requesting a larger vote to provide even greater facilities. According to the minister's own statement, the facilities for wheat or other grain are four times as great as they have required.
What is said about the facilities for cattle? They have built large facilities for cattle. With the facilities which were then in existence ten thousand head of cattle could be handled, yet during one year I think the number reached five thousand and the average prior to the present year has not been more than three thousand. Indeed the number went as low as 1,500 head of cattle during one year.
In respect to the Montreal development someone said that by developing Montreal we hurt Quebec. Was it wrong to have developed the port of Montreal? Was the money expended on the port of Montreal money wrongly spent? If the money was properly spent in Montreal, must we now go back and subsidize Quebec to make it as cheap a port as Montreal? If it is cheaper to carry goods to Montreal, that is where they will be carried. I have nothing against the port of Quebec. I want to see all our ports provided with the necessary facilities to carry the traffic that is coming to them, but certainly it has not been demonstrated that Quebec is a cheap port to run, and, of course, the traffic will go where the charges are the lowest.
The minister criticized a remark I made about the western people building an elevator in Buffalo. The remark I made was quite apropos. If those people will go into a port like Buffalo, where grain can be handled cheaper, and will build there an elevator without any cost to the country at all, why should we have to build elevators ourselves in Quebec or any other port if private interests will do it? It must mean that grain can be handled cheaper through Buffalo than through Quebec. The minister told us in 1925 that Quebec had a capacity of forty million bushels, and yet in only one year has it handled ten million bushels; in the other years it has handled only about five million bushels. Therefore, until Quebec is using approximately up to the capacity it has, I do not see why we should spend money to provide further capacity that may never be used.


Robert James Manion: I had no intention of
taking part in this discussion because I was not in the house yesterday, and I had not given any particular study to the question, but some of the comparisons which the Minister of Justice made were so malapropos that I just wish to mention one or two of them. He said,

Quebec Harbour Commission
for instance, that something like thirteen or fourteen million dollars had been spent on the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur, which is really one harbour. But the difference is this. While the port of Quebec handled last year something under ten million bushels, Fort William and Port Arthur handled nearly three hundred million bushels, and while the port of Quebec has had over seventeen million dollars expended on it, which with this eight and one-half millions will make over twenty-five millions, about half that amount has been expended on Fort William and Port Arthur, handling the immense amount of grain they do, as well as general freight.


Ernest Lapointe: There are other sources
of traffic than grain. Over one hundred thousand immigrants came to Quebec last year, and not one to Fort William.


Robert James Manion: I venture to make the assertion that nearly as many immigrants came through Fort William and Port Arthur as through Quebec, and it must be remembered that these immigrants do not stop at Quebec; they pass through.


Ernest Lapointe: But they do not land at Fort William.


Robert James Manion: No, but it does not require an expenditure of twenty-five million dollars to prepare the port of Quebec for the landing of immigrants. I was saying that in spite of the vast amount of grain that is handled at the head of the lakes, making Port Arthur and Fort William the greatest grain-shipping port, I believe, in the world, the expenditure on that port is just about half of what will have been expended on the port of Quebec when the sum mentioned here is expended.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not opposed to expenditure at Fort William.


Robert James Manion: Nor am I opposed to expenditures at the port of Quebec so long as the work is really requited. The port of Vancouver in 1923 had less than two million bushels elevator capacity, and yet in that year it handled fifty million bushels. It is true that it has not handled so much since then, but with a capacity of two million bushels it handled in one year fifty million bushels.
I think the point made by the hon. member for Lincoln a few minutes ago was sound, and that is that if there is a demand for additional elevator capacity at any port, generally speaking you will find private interests who will be glad to provide the capacity. Nearly all the elevators at the head of the

lakes, except one large one, were built by private funds, and I believe that if greater facilities are needed at the port of Quebec, there will be private interests who will be glad to provide them.
I did not rise for the purpose of opposing the expenditure on the port o.f Quebec because, like anybody else who has visited it, I love the old city of Quebec. I think anyone who has any sentiment in him cannot come away from that city without a real affection for it, but it is the duty of parliament to scrutinize the expenditures that are made at any port and in any part of Canada. Unfortunately, with this harbour commission form of government, we do not get the opportunity of scrutinizing the expenditures at the port. There are many people in the city of Quebec, I believe, who do not think these improvements are necessary. I was there some time ago myself, and while naturally I do not wish to mention names, there were many citizens of Quebec who told me that the expenditures were a long distance ahead of the necessities of the port, and they told me also that the expenditures were made so carelessly that perhaps they were made for other purposes than the building up of the port of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish these informers
would say that to me. I have never met one who would say such a thing.


Robert James Manion: If they did, my hon. friend would not repeat it in the house. I stand by my hon. friend in supporting the expenditure in Quebec, and by the hon. gentleman behind him (Mr. Power), for whom I have always a friendly feeling. I understand that he is supporting this vote just as I would support a vote for any work that I considered necessary at Fort William or Port Arthur, but I think the government would be well advised to allow all these expenditures to be properly investigated by this house, or if not by this house, by some committee of this house, with the right to call before them the commissioners of the port of Quebec, and go thoroughly into the expenditures which are being made in the port. I do not wish to .take the attitude of opposing an expenditure like this, but in view of the comparatively small traffic passing through the port of Quebec, as compared with other ports mentioned by the Minister of Justice, I find it difficult to understand why so mucih money is needed, and much more difficult to understand why we should not have all these expenditures thoroughly scrutinized, whether they are made in the port of Quebec or elsewhere.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Mr. HARRIS:: I would not have taken
part in this debate had not the Minister of Justice seen fit to refer to the good city of Toronto. He well knows my feelings with regard to the national port of Quebec. I had the honour and privilege of saying a few words in this house on behalf of the city of Quebec when the minister was in his seat, and he was gracious enough to congratulate me afterwards on the good word I had said for Quebec. It is, however, very disappointing to us to see the slow progress which the port of Quebec is making not only in the handling of grain, but also in the handling of live cattle and hay. When the $5,000,000 loan to Quebec harbour was under consideration in 1925, it was stated that a great movement of cattle and of hay and of grain could be expected through the port of Quebec, but the facts adduced as to those movements are not such as to warrant this house in voting another $8,500,000 for the port, and before we go ahead in an experimental way and spend this large amount of money, I think we should be shown what results have been achieved by the expenditure of the $5,000,000 loan voted in 1925. Before asking us to vote this money, you should demonstrate to us that the port of Quebec is developing as fast as you were wont to prophesy it would when in 1925 you obtained a vote of $5,000,000 for the port.
It has been my privilege during the past five years never to miss an opportunity of passing a day in Montreal and two or three weeks in Quebec. The Minister of Justice will admit that Quebec is not going ahead in point of population and industry or as a national port at the same rate as some of our other ports. In regard to port development, I have in mind particularly Montreal; in regard to growth of population and industrial development I am thinking of the city of Toronto. And may I refer to the manner in which the Minister of Justice mentioned the city of Toronto? His heated tone and wild gesture rather amused me, and' I did not think he was helping to improve the bonne entente between the two 'provinces. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain), the government whip, interjected something about Scarborough beach. Let me tell the house that not one dollar of the money of this Dominion has ever been spent on protection of the Scarborough beach area. It is not covered by the 1913 agreement. In that area which I have the honour to represent there are 100,000 good Canadian citizens, and they deserve some consideration at the hands -of the government. The hon. gentleman's interjection was most inept. I may
say that the city of Toronto is standing behind the Toronto harbour commission in paying badk the bulk of the loss which has been sustained, in order that the harbour may be developed and' that loss 'in years to come converted into an asset not only for the city of Toronto but for the whole Dominion. As every hon. member knows, it is the duty of the Dominion government to protect the shore line where there are large centres of population. Under the 1913 agreement the Toronto shore line protection work from Woodbine avenue west is being assisted by the Dominion government, but not eastward in 'the Scarborough area, where, as I said, there is a population of 100,000 To-day the city of Toronto has been generous enough to advance the necessary funds to protect the shore line, and up to the present the Dominion government has not been asked to participate in the cost, although, I repeat, it is the duty of the federal authorities to look after this work. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will admit that the city of Quebec is very fortunate in that the rock formation resists the ravages of storms much better than the sandy shore line of Toronto.
Now, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should give us some more details as to what has been done at the port of Quebec during the past three years. What about the shipments of hay, cattle and wheat from the port,? What has been the development along the line voiced in this house by many hon. members in 1925-encouraging more and more traffic over the transconitinental line? Let the minister give us facts and figures so that we may vote intelligently on this proposal, and let those facts and figures bear some relationship to the experiment which we undertook in 1925 when we voted $5,000,000 in order that a national port might be developed at Quebec. It might be edifying to hear the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) and other of our Progressive friends reiterate some of the statements they made in 1925 in support of the vote to which I have referred, but they are sitting very quiet to-day-there has been an election or two in the intervening years. I was sorry to see the Minister of Justice rise to such great heights of eloquence in an attempt to introduce political issues. Instead of anting as a statesman and giving us information on which we might base an intelligent decision, he told us what we had done years before. Let me tell him that the people of this country are tired of politics; they want to hear sound business arguments. As the matter stands now, I do not feel disposed to vote in favour of the proposed loan. I would urge the government to use a little

Quebec Harbour Commission
common sense and refer the proposal to a committee, for conclusive facts and figures to be submitted. In 1925 we were promised that, given, lower freight rates, there would be such a 'movement of grain through the port of Quebec that the interest and other charges would be fully met. Well, the freight rates have been lowered, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has had an opportunity to tell us haw the business of the port has developed.. Let him now tell us why he is asking for another $8,500,000. Let him base his request on the facts and figures which he must have under his hand at this time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that whatever facts and figures I might quote to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Harris) they would not satisfy him, and he would ask for still further information before admitting that this request is absolutely justified.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like the hon. minister to base that assertion on facts too.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is one point which
does not seem to be very clear in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the expenditure made out of the vote of $5,000,000 authorized in 1925. As I think I explained at the opening of the discussion, this amount has not been all spent. Work has been started at Wolfe's Cove, the new terminal, but it is not yet completed. About two and a half or three million dollars has been spent' in the building of cribs and the dredging necessary for the placing of these cribs, as well as for other materials essential to the completion of the work. The contractors have already sunk sixteen cribs, and the work on the top of the cribs cannot be completed before a certain period has elapsed to permit the proper footing of the cribs. It takes two years before the cribs can be properly sunk, and before you can begin building the concrete superstructure. The work, I say, has been started and cannot be completed before the end of this year. By the end of the summer season of 1928 the work in connection with nearly the whole of the $5,000,000 will have been finished.
There are certain works to be provided for. We have to provide sheds, rails and other facilities on these new wharves which are being constructed, and we come before parliament this year for the reason that we do not wish to run short of money at the end of next year before we can complete the work already started. At the end of the navigation season of 1928, I repeat, certain work I have outlined will be completed. If we have no money available to complete the work at this

terminal we shall be exposed to delays, and we decided therefore that it would be preferable to come this year before parliament, before the $5,000,000 has been completely expended, in order to get the necessary funds to carry on profitably.
We have no return to show on the money
already expended, for the very good reason given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself yesterday: these works are not completed and therefore cannot be utilized. At the present time the work consists merely in cribs which have been sunk and filled with stone, and a certain amount of dredging has been done. We cannot use the cribs to advantage as they stand. We need the money we are asking for if we are to complete the work, but it will not take the full $8,500,000. The amount necessary to complete the wharves, tracks, sheds and elevator facilities is $5,300,000, and the other sums contributing to, the total $8,500,000 are rendered necessary for increased storage capacity in the old section of the port of Quebec. In asking for this money we are supported not only by individuals, by the people of Quebec, but by the shipping federation. We are supported by persons interested in the grain trade, by persons who are supposed to know something about that business. And these persons are to be found not only in the city of Quebec but throughout Canada. What we are asking for has nothing to do with adding to the facilities for disposing of grain in the elevator at Quebec. I stated in 1925 that the present facilities, so far as the elevator is concerned, could handle 40,000,000 bushels of grain, supposing that the 2,000,000 bushel elevator were used all the time. But we are not asking for any increased facilities for disposing of grain; what we want is greater storage capacity.


Mr. GARDINER:: Howr much?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Double the present storage
capacity.


Robert Gardiner: What is that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At present it is 2,000,000
bushels, and we are asking for an additional
2,000,000.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated
cost?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About $1,900,000 for the
storage capacity. The balance of the money required is to reconstruct and repair the present wharves in order to permit the advantageous use of this increased storage capacity in the old section of the port of Quebec.

Quebec Harbour Commission
We are also asking for a certain amount, which is included in the $8,500,000, to meet certain debentures due the public. The harbour commission of Quebec owes the public over $1,150,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they guaranteed by
the Dominion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They were given under the old commission, and we have to meet these debentures maturing presently. All these items are included in the $8,500,000, but what is needed to complete the works undertaken in 1925 and 1926 is the sum of $5,300,000. This will complete the program which has been advocated and supported very strongly by the shipping federation, not only at the request of the people of Quebec but because the members of that federation are convinced that it is absolutely necessary that Quebec be developed more extensively in order to take care of the traffic which should go through that port.
When it is said that we have no justification to offer for this vote, may I ask this question:	What better proof, what more
urgent request could be suggested than the demand of the shipping federation, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, as well as the request of the very people who are interested in the grain trade? Even if this matter were submitted to a committee, no one could bring forward anything which would add strength to our argument, for the reason that no stronger support could be given that argument than it has already received in writing from these various quarters. What would be the use of bringing these people before a committee to repeat orally what they have already stated in writing? What they stated in writing two years ago, in the representations they made to the government, is much stronger than anything that might be said orally if they were called before a committee. These are the people whose word we are taking in coming before parliament and asking for this money.
It is all very well to say that the port of Quebec has not shown the same prosperity or the same financial development as the port of Vancouver, and that Quebec has not been paying interest. But the same criticism could be made against all other public institutions to which we have advanced money in the past. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) have said, "Oh, well, the position is different. You have a commission at Quebec, while at St. John, Fort William and Port Arthur there is no commission." Well, this is only an
objection to form and procedure. But what is the real meat of the matter? I submit it is the money which is advanced by the government to any corporation or institution. If we are not getting any return from the port of Quebec we are in no worse position than in respect of moneys we have advanced to other ports or public bodies that have been organized in the country. The ' objection, I say, is a question of form, and I am free to say that I am almost ready to concur in the views expressed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It may be that the present system of handling these affairs through a commisison is not the proper one. I have my doubts on the point and I am ready to take the committee into my confidence to the extent of stating that I am considering another scheme of dealing with the business of all our ports in Canada.
I think we have reached the time when it is necessary to make a change in the procedure which has been followed up to the present time, and I am quite willing to consider that matter. However, that is a very large problem; it has many aspects which must be considered, and I am not in a position to say that we should delay the work at Quebec until we are ready to come before the house with a new program which will apply to all our harbour commissions and all our Canadian ports. I think I can say to the committee that before very much of this money which we are asking is spent at Quebec my successor or I will come before parliament with a program which will suggest something to take the place of the organizations we have at present.
The port of Quebec has not been paying interest, but as I said yesterday, and as everyone is bound to admit, the facilities are not complete. That port has been only partly equipped, and while the ports of Vancouver and Montreal are showing good results, those results have been made possible because we have spent the money necessary to equip them perfectly in order to take care of their traffic. Quebec has not been getting the advantage of all the traffic which could go through that port, for the very reason which was mentioned by the hon. member for Mackenzie in 1925 and subsequently. The rates on the Transcontinental railway were prohibitive, and no grain went to Quebec by that road. During the last year the position has been changed; grain is moving in larger quantities, and now that we have removed the obstacle of the high freight rates it is time to remove the obstacle of lack of facilities in the port. What is the use of doing away with the prohibitive


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Chicoutimi.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, Chicoutimi and other
ports, in order to advance the necessary money for their required developments as suggested by the report of the Duncan commission. The same thing applies to the. port of Quebec. The case for the port of St. John is no bettei than the case which has been made for the port of Quebec. Already the government has advanced to St, John the sum of $21,000,000, which has been expended in dredging, building

Quebec Harbour Commission
docks and in other ways looking to the development of that port. Who will reproach the harbour commissioners of St. John because they are not paying interest on that $21,000,000, which has been expended by the Department of Public Works? They will never be in a position to pay interest on that money.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution I am moving is justified under the circumstances, and it should be accepted by the committee because the government are trying to do the best they can to develop our facilities in order to take care of our increasing trade. We want to keep the important position in regard to trade which we occupy to-day among the nations of the world.


Robert Gardiner: When it has been
demonstrated that money asked for the development of facilities in our national ports is really required, no objection to that expenditure has been raised in this quarter of the chamber. But the position in which I find myself to-day is that so far we have received very little information as to the purposes for which the money now asked is to be expended. We have received, for instance, no information from the minister with respect to the tonnage capacity of the port. We do not know whether the tonnage is increasing, and if so to what extent. We have no information whatsoever in that regard. Then again no information has been forthcoming as to how much of the $5,000,000 voted in 1925 has been spent and for whait purposes that expenditure has been made. The minister has stated that a certain portion of the money has been spent, but for what works and in what amounts we are left in the dark. If difficulty is experienced in putting the present resolution through the-house the fault lies with the minister because of the lack of information with respect to it.
Let us return to the situation with respect to this port as it existed in 1925 when parliament was asked to vote the sum of $5,000,000. I have before me the revised Hansard for that year and I observe that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) asked the minister upon what works the sum .mentioned1 would be expended. The minister replied that the first item of the proposed expenditure would be dredging, which would cost $1,500,000. I ask now how much dredging has been done, what the cost has been, and is it completed or only partly completed? We have no information at all in that regard. Then the min' ister stated that $2,800,000 would be devoted to the building of a new wharf. I ask him to state irow how much of that wharf has been completed and what the cost has been up to
date. This is another item as to which there is a complete lack of information.. The minister on the occasion referred to said there would have to be a reconstruction of tracks on the new wharf at a cost of $125,000. In 1925 we made provision for that work. Today the minister tells us that out of the vote of $8,500,000 asked for it is intended to provide for tracks on the new wharf. In 1925 the following other items were stated to be provided for by the vote of $5,000,000: Electric light, $3,000; roadways, $65,000; riprap, $70,000; water mains for the water supply on the wharf, $150,000. I suggest that the minister give us some information along the lines indicated! If the information is forthcoming and we are satisfied with it there will be no objection to this vote as far as we are concerned.
Coming to the question of harbour commissions, I quite realize that ports under the care of commissions are somewhat different from ports not managed by commissions. These commissions, of course, are organized for the purpose of making the operation of these ports more efficient. But I would point out that it is highly necessary for parliament to scrutinize closely such expenditures as are proposed here, because the commission is not responsible to parliament. It may be quite true, as the hon. member for St. Lawren.ee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) suggested, that it would be advisable to do away with the commission for the port of Quebec. The subject is one to which I have as yet given no consideration, but it may be worthy of some attention.
It is presumed that because the grain rate from Armstrong to Quebec has been reduced there is going to be a very much larger traffic in grain through the port of Quebec. In that connection I have been reading what I had to say on the subject in 1925, when I emphasized the importance of obtaining a lower grain rate. If that were done I thought the port might have some chance of proving a success. Well, the grain rate has been reduced; there is a possibility of a large volume of grain flowing through the port, and it is proposed to devote a portion of the proposed loan to an extension of the elevator facilities so as to accommodate an additional 2,000,000 bushels. The minister stated a few minutes ago that the cost of the new elevator would be approximately 95 cents a bushel storage capacity, or $1,950,000 for a 2,000,000 bushel elevator. Now he says he wants that extra accommodation for the storage of grain in winter time. Did the minister ever stop to figure out exactly what that storage capacity

Quebec Harbour Commission
will earn in the winter time? If it is required merely for storage capacity in the winter, too much is being paid for an elevator of that capacity. The rate usually charged for winter storage is one-thirtieth of a cent per day, in other words, one cent for every thirty days a bushel of grain remains in storage. Assuming the capacity is taken up by grain in storage for a full five months, just about sufficient money will be earned in that time to pay 5 per cent interest on the capitalization of these two elevators, no more and no less. So if the elevator is intended merely for winter storage purposes, that does not seem to be to be a very profitable undertaking. If it were a question of storing the grain for a few days until it could be placed on board chip it would be a different proposition, but if the extra elevator is desired simply for winter storage purposes in my opinion it would be impossible for the harbour commission to pay interest on such a basis. That does not take into consideration insurance, depreciation, or other items. Such a proposal, when you examine it very closely, defeats itself. If the minister would just take the committee into his confidence and give us all the information he has with regard to the tonnage going through the port, the increase or decrease, as the case may be, and the possibility of new tonnage; if he would give us all the information that has been asked for by different members of the committee, his resolution might receive a different reception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret that I have to take issue with certain observations that have been made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is an error to suppose that the criticism that has been made in connection with this resolution is directed at the city of Quebec. Speaking for myself I am opposed to any attempt to leave the impression that when hon. members, having in mind the public interest, call attention to certain facts, it is because it is Quebec that is being dealt with. The minister I think very wrongly endeavoured to induce the house and the country to believe that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can relieve the mind of
my hon. friend in that regard. I had no intention of saying such a thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know exactly what the minister said; his language is reported1 in Hansard. I am glad to have the minister realize that no effort is being made to discuss this or any other item of the same character

merely because the city happens to be Quebec or Toronto. The same principles that have been advocated with regard to Quebec will be advocated with regard to Toronto or any other city in Canada. The hon. gentleman in his observations was rather led away by figures than by the application of them. He said that the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur would never be able to pa3>- the $20,000,000 odd that had been advanced to them. No money was ever advanced to them-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Nor to Toronto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just coming tp
that. No money was advanced to them or to Toronto, because no commission had ever been set up, and we must consider the fundamental fact that expenditures of public money at the head of the lakes were made by parliament under its direction and control, with the public accounts committee inquiring into every dollar thus expended, whether under contract or otherwise. The harbour commissions at St. John and Halifax were also referred to. Those commissions were not sought by the people of the communities themselves; they were placed upon them by the government in consequence of the Duncan report.


Mr. VENIOT:: That is not the case with
regard to the port of St. John. They asked for it in 1920, and the proposal was defeated. Afterwards they got it by a plebiscite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they asked for it
and it was refused. They then took a plebiscite and the majority of the people were in favour of a commission.


Mr. POWER:: Is that not asking for it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just coming to that.


Mr. RALSTON:: In regard to Halifax,
telegram after telegram was received by me insisting upon the implementing of the Duncan report in its entirety, including the recommendation in reference to a harbour commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am endeavouring to say.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said that
it was not sought.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not sought in that sense.
At six o'clock the committee took jecess.

Quebec Harbour Commission
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, when we
rose for recess the hon. the Postmaster General and the hon. the Minister of National Defence had taken issue with my statement that Halifax and St. John had not come under the provisions of the statute relating to harbour commissions of their own motion, but rather because of the provisions of the Duncan report. What I was endeavouring to present to the house was the fact that these two ports had been recommended by the Duncan commission to be treated as national ports. My own personal view was that it was never intended that they should be dealt with by harbour commissions at all, but rather that they should be treated in the sense in which ports are regarded as national ports, just as the free port of Hamburg is a national port; and the Dominion, I suggest, should make the necessary appropriations for dealing with these harbours and making them national ports in every sense of the term. The mere placing of them under a harbour commission I have never thought to be an implementing of the recommendations of the Duncan report.
In this connection might I suggest to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he consider the desirability of utilizing the young engineers of this country who are graduating from the Royal Military College and elsewhere, as is done in the United States. You will find that in the United States the graduates of West Point and Annapolis have been used very extensively in connection with the ports to which reference was made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. These young engineers have been put in charge of them, have made the recommendations as to the expenditures, and from time to time have secured the necessary appropriations from congress; and in every instance there has been a committee of congress which has dealt with these expenditures and appropriations.
I cannot but think that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not desire to leave a wrong impression on the house, but the effect of their observations was to do that very thing. The port of Fort William and Port Arthur never had any money advanced to it-never; neither did the port of Toronto; neither did the other ports that were mentioned this afternoon. What happened was that this parliament, on the initiative of the government of the day, appropriated moneys for the purpose of dredging, building wharves, docks, slips, and so forth, and from time to time these moneys
were expended on contracts called for in the ordinary course by the minister whose department was principally concerned, and the public accounts of the country of the succeeding year would indicate how the money was expended. But in the case of these harbour commissions we have no check upon the expenditures at all. When I some years ago made reference to the fact that an audit was desirable, it will be recalled that my friend from Vancouver Centre and myself were able to induce' my friend the minister to see the desirability of provision being made for the parliament of Canada exercising some supervision over the accounts, the manner in which they were kept, and the purpose for which the money was expended, through an audit board, and the report of the audit board that was placed on the pages of Hansard yesterday is a report made at the instance of the minister, I take it, in pursuance of the provisions of the Audit Act to which reference was last year made.
There is a clear distinction between those cases in which the harbour commission unquestionably will pay its way and in which sufficient interest will be earned by the fees derived from various sources to meeit the interest on the sums of money outstanding, and those cases in which it is quite clear the money will not be earned. The port of Quebec certainly is a case that belongs to the latter category. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this afternoon pointed out what might be hoped to be earned at Quebec. I can only say to him that if he will appeal to the Minister of Railways, he will tell him that a four million bushel terminal will never in the world make a storage terminal. I appeal to my hon. friend from Acadia and to other hon. gentlemen from that section of the house who spoke this afternoon, whether anything short of a ten million bushel terminal can in any sense be classed as a storage terminal with respect to a port like Quebec. It is for that reason that I pointed out that there is mo likelihood by the mere increasing of the elevator capacity in Quebec from two to four million bushdls of making it a storage terminal, and the Minister of Railways *pointed out that the storage terminal is a imoney-making terminal. I observe, for instance, that last year the harbour of St. John handled twenty-five million bushels of grain, and yet the total revenue of the port of St. John was only about $257,000. That being so, 'I do 'suggest to the minister the desirability of reconsidering the whole situation in the light of the knowledge that has come to the government, in the light of the reduced rates that were made last year. I am not now interested in these matters, but at one time

Quebec Harbour Commission
I was very considerably interested in grain facilities, and knew something about them, and1 I cannot think that a four million bushel terminal will in any sense assist the government in making the harbour of Quebec a storage terminal. You would have to have at least a ten million bushel capacity for that purpose.
I desire to point out further, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, that if any effort is made to convey grain by rail to the harbour of Quebec for storage in the spring, the facilities will have to be largely in excess of four million bushels. It is not possible during the time navigation is open to convey the grain to Quebec by rail, in competition with bringing it to the head of the lakes by rail and then down to Montreal by water. Considerable grain that has gone to Quebec in the last twelve months went there by water carriage. I mention that because it does apear to me that if the plan for the development of the port is based on the assumption that a four million bushel terminal will in any sense provide storage facilities adequate to the extent of earning interest on the money invested, the assumption is entirely erroneous.
Now, with respect to passenger traffic I am wholly in agreement with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I think there is no more beautiful scene in all the American continent than that from the deck of a ship as you approach' the harbour of Quebec at sunrise or sundown. I confess that I have never witnessed that impressive sight without considerable emotion. Quebec in my judgment must always remain the deep water summer seaport of this country, and anything that makes efficient and effective provision for taking care of the large ocean liners that enter the port will certainly receive the support and assistance of those who sit to the left of the Speaker. The Louise basin, if my memory serves me right, has now a depth of water of thirty feet, and, as I understand, there is ample docking and berthing space to take care of all the first class liners, to use the words of the minister, that now or in the near future may come to the port of Quebec, for the reasons I gave yesterday as to the movement up the river of ships of 20,000 tons and over. But the United States traffic, the first class passenger traffic which our ships are endeavouring to secure, must come largely to the harbour of Quebec. I recall coming ' in there on the Empress of Scotland, and 80 per cent of all the passengers were destined to United States ports, some for New York and Boston, and others for Chicago and further west. Every-
[ Mr. Bennett.]
thing that can be done by this parliament, having regard to our financial position, should be done to insure a continuance of that traffic to the harbour of Quebec. With respect to the appropriations for further facilities at Wolfe's Cove, this is principally for the construction of piers upon the cribs that have already been put in place, with additional elevator capacity as well, but only to the extent of 2,000,000 bushels. However, for the reasons I have indicated I cannot think that those extra facilities will add materially to the revenues of the port.
There is a universal desire on the part of the members of this house to insure that the passenger traffic should be retained for the harbour of Quebec, and to assist in every possible way the development of the port in the shipment of grain for export. But we do suggest very strongly that there must be something in the administration of the port itself that does not secure the results that have been secured in other ports. The figures before us abundantly prove this, for they disclose a marked difference between the gross and net revenues that does not obtain at our other maritime centres. The minister is right 'in saying that having regard to the character of the present facilities it is to be expected that the net would be very low as compared with t'he gross earnings; but the fact is they are so much out of line that in the opinion of those of us who have given some time and attention to the figures there should be a close examination of the accounts to ascertain if it is not possible to prevent a continuance of this condition of affairs. The minister says that he has in mind a plan by which he hopes to be able to alter that condition. This is commendable on his part. But in the meantime we are asked to vote a very large sum of money by way of loan to the commission. May I point out again that if the minister were asking for an appropriation, it would be subject to the power and control of parliament? But since the commission cannot possibly pay its interest, in the light of the report mode by the audit board to the minister, and also in the light of what the minister himself says, should it as a matter of business be permitted to expend these moneys, which are nothing more than a direct appropriation out of the public revenue, without our having control directly through our auditors? In other words, to lend to the port of Montreal or the port of Vancouver-'ports that are able to meet not only their interest 'but to take care of sinking fund and depreciation charges and set aside adequate reserves-is a purely domestic

Quebec Harbour Commission
matter; we simply guarantee their securities. But where we have what amounts to a company in default, a company that would be in the hands of a receiver if it were a commercial enterprise, and I lend money on the receiver's certificates, surely I should have the right to audit the accounts. In other words, in this case we should bring before a standing committee of the house those responsible for expenditures in the port of Quebec to ascertain how the money is being expended.- For instance, we have sitting now a committee dealing with the Canadian National Railway accounts. Why is it we do not analyse the accounts of the Canadian Pacific railway as we do those of the Canadian National Railways? For this reason, if the Canadian National Railways were an institution that did not require financial assistance from this country, then only from time to time might it be necessary for an audit board or a special committee to be set up. But where you have the very condition with respect to the port of Quebec that you have with respect to the Canadian National railways, namely, the appropriation of public moneys, true, under the guise of a loan, but admittedly with mo prospect of the interest being met, should we not do one of two things? Should not this matter be referred to a committee before the appropriation is made? Or, secondly, should not these moneys be treated as expenditures of the Dominion and subject to the audit of the Auditor General under the control of the public accounts committee, with power to send for and examine witnesses to ascertain whether or not these expenditures have been made in the most economical and efficient manner possible?
Realizing as I do the difficulties in respect to freight traffic, I do not think the revenues in that regard can ever amount to sufficient to meet interest demands. If the dreams and fond hopes of some are borne out with respect to deep water communication from Fort William to the sea, there will be less grain stored at Quebec; and if the Hudson bay route is in operation two years from now, there will be still less grain for storage at this port. So it seems to me that this must be treated as a direct appropriation for the public service of Canada to develop Quebec as a national port, and before the minister asks us to give our approval to so large an obligation, he should say frankly to the house that he will treat this as an appropriation subject to audit and that the expenditures shall also be subject to our examination for the purpose of determining why it is that in this port alone the operations are so con-56103-139
ducted that hitherto they have resulted in an annual deficit. Under these circumstances is it unfair to ask the Minister of Finance-because it is to him I appeal-to treat this as an ordinary appropriation, giving the people of Canada the right to examine into the expenditures and to determine why a port thus situated should have an annual deficit of operating expenses over operating revenue?- something that does not occur in the other ports to which reference has been made. After a close examination of the whole matter and the securing of reports from the proper officials, as well as from the engineers, if the government believes it is in the interests of the public that these moneys should be appropriated out of the revenues of the country from time to time in order to make the port of Quebec what I have no doubt we all desire to see it become, I for one, subject to the amount being properly determined and its being efficiently and effectively expended, would heartily support it.
It is quite right to say that the party to which I belong has pledged itself to assist in the development of the port of Quebec. As observed by the minister and one of the speakers this afternoon, there should be no question of party politics in relation to that port. It is not something that belongs either to Liberals or to Conservatives; it is not a port in respect of which expenditures should be made either by Liberals or by Conservatives as such. It is a port over which, for the reasons I have indicated, the jurisdiction of the harbour commission should be ended, and the necessary expenditures should be made subject to tenders being called for, contracts awarded, and all expenses checked as they are in other matters. Every dollar spent in Fort William, St. John, Courtenay bay and Toronto, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon, was expended under the control of the government of the country as a direct appropriation and not as a loan. There is this distinction to be noted: in the one instance the minister has in the treasury the promise to pay of the ports, which are under commission; in the other case he has none. Among the assets of the country, in the public accounts, are the debentures of Montreal and other ports over which there are commissions. But where public moneys have been appropriated there is no more promise to pay either interest or principal than there is in the case of a post office built in Edmonton, say, or Calgary. Post offices, dredging, wharves, piers, money spent in St. John, Halifax, Toronto, Fort



Quebec Harbour Commission
William-all these are moneys taken out of the annual revenue from time to time with respect to which there exists no promise to pay, and there is no question of interest being earned or paid. In relation to these harbour commissions, however, for reasons which may at the time have' been good but which in my judgment, and as the minister said this afternoon, have no longer any binding force on us, the harbour commissions have given debentures, bonds, by which they promise to pay these moneys back to the country with interest thereon. And the difficulty lies in the fact that we are now approaching this matter in the same manner as heretofore, although we realize, as the minister has very frankly admitted, that we cannot look forward with any hope to receiving either interest or principal, having regard to the fact that we are endeavouring to develop a national port. If. that be so should we not treat this question as we would treat an appropriation to build a wharf in Nova Scotia or a post office at Mahone Bay? Should it not be treated as an appropriation of public moneys for the purpose of developing a public institution, namely, a great port intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole?
Undoubtedly we on this side of the house are anxious to co-operate in building up the port of Quebec; but we are anxious at the same time to ensure that there shall be 100 cents of value for 100 cents of expenditure. For every dollar expended there should be a dollar of effort put forth. If this were a commercial enterprise the receiver would be in charge. We urge, therefore, that there should be direct control on the part of this parliament over the expenditures that are made in connection with the harbour of Quebec. To this end the question should, I submit, be referred to a committee of the house. Much more important is it in this case to refer the whole subject to a committee than it is in the matter of judges' salaries. Where there is default-and were this a commercial enterprise it would involve the appointment of a receiver-the question should be investigated and a report brought down as to what moneys should be spent in order to save what we have already expended. After all that is what a receiver does. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), up in his committee, is dealing with the Vermont Central railway, and we are going to pour large sums of money into that railway, now in the hands of a receiver, with a view to saving what we have now in it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are not pouring any sums into the Vermont Central under a receivership.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an amount of
some $4,000,000-[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not our money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are behind the receivers' certificate; we have to take care of it. I do not think my hon. friend will question that. The point I am making is that if this were a commercial enterprise the harbour commission of Quebec would be in the hands of a receiver. You know, Mr. Chairman, as well as I do, that if a receiver desires to put more money into an undertaking he goes before a judge, with every detail of the business, and is authorized to issue receiver's certificates for the purpose. In other words, he is enabled to take such action as will save the money already invested in the undertaking. Take the great St. Paul railway: that is the best illustration in recent times of the procedure I am pointing out. When the business has been rehabilitated the receiver was discharged-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the receiver's certificate becomes a first charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the receiver's certificate becomes a first charge on the undertaking. Is not the harbour of Quebec in that position? I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin), a skilled lawyer and an able administrator, whether that does not appear to him to be the situation. We are asked in this instance to put $8,500,000 into the institution. We are agreed that some money must be put into it, because we desire to develop the port as fully as possible. Well, as a matter, of business we say that if we put that money in we should have a committee decide how much is required in order that we may save what we have already expended and make the port what we desire to have it become. In other words, that is a direct appropriation by the parliament of Canada to the harbour in question for the purpose of improving it so that it may render to the Canadian people the service we should expect from a great national port. I suggest that in all cases of this nature, where there has been default or failure to pay contractual obligations the question should be referred to the committee on railways and shipping before parliament is asked to vote a dollar. This matter vitally affects'the existence of the railways themselves, the National Transcontinental being a part of the Canadian National system, and it should therefore, I submit, be referred to the committee so that the harbour commission may present its case and that those associated with it, including the engineers, may be able to satisfy the committee of the necessity for the proposed expenditure. We are being asked to vote money

Quebec Harbour Commission
which, in the ease of a commercial enterprise, would be advanced on receiver's certificates. In this instance we ourselves will put up the money, and we should therefore be thoroughly satisfied of the necessity for the proposed expenditure as a means of saving the present investment and improving the facilities that now exist.
I cannot usefully make any further observations. I need hardly say that I desire in every way to assist the minister in carrying out his plans for the development of the harbour, but I Cannot think that this house would be true to the trust reposed in it if for a moment it did not point out the facts which I have * indicated. The expenditures that may be required for the development of the port should be made only to the extent to which necessity indicates, in the light of knowledge obtained by the standing committee of the house which deals with railways and shipping, and subject to absolute control on the part of parliament, through the Auditor General.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just a word with reference to my hon. friend's remarks concerning the Central Vermont, which I think are capable of being misunderstood, as I misunderstood them. Of course there is an important difference between the position of the Central Vermont and that of an institution such as we are now discussing. I understood my hon. friend to say that this parliament was furnishing the money to rehabilitate the Central Vermont Railway, but apparently my friend *means that receiver's certificates are being issued which, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said, are a first charge upon the property when the receiver is dealing with the discharge of his receivership.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And they have precedence over any interest of the Dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our interest amounts to $33,000,000.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: That may be so; I have not the exact figure in my mind. I would point out, however, that there is a distinction between the Central Vermont Railway and the institution now under review. There is a minority interest in the Central Vermont Railway; there are minority stock and bond holders. In the case of a harbour such as the Quebec harbour I believe the Dominion is the only creditor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there are bonds in the hands of the public. The minister is overlooking the fact that part of the money requested to-day is to take care of the bonds in the hands of the public.
56103-t3DJ


Charles Avery Dunning: Then there is a minority interest, but I understand that they are guaranteed bonds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries could not tell me.


Charles A. Stewart: It would be strange if they were not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems that they were issued in the early days.


George Reginald Geary: I believe there are now outstanding, in the hands of the public, bonds totalling $1,100,000 against the harbour commissioners of Quebec. These bonds were offered for sale and were taken up by the public under powers which were conferred in the original act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unguaranteed?


George Reginald Geary: I do not know, but it is stated somewhere. I do not flatter myself that I can usefully add anything to the discussion up to this point, and I would have had nothing to say had it not been for the manner in which the Minister of Justice put his case this afternoon. It seemed to me that the minister made this a local issue as between the city of Quebec and some of the other municipalities in the province of Ontario, and incidentally the Minister of Justice, together with two or three of his friends behind him, had something to say about the harbour commissioners of Toronto.
There is no interest paid and no interest due in regard to expenditures made by the harbour commissioners of Toronto. In 1911 the harbour commission was formed by a statute of this parliament, and it was definitely provided in that statute that this should not be a Dominion commission in the sense of having control of navigation facilities only, but that it should be a land company in effect and that the city of Toronto should turn over to the harbour commissioners all its waterfront property, worth many millions of dollars. Under that act the harbour commissioners:
.... may hold, take, develop and administer on behalf of the city of Toronto, subject to such terms and conditions as may, at the time the control thereof is transferred to the corporation, be agreed upon with the council of the city, the area known as Ashbridge's bay, together with the dock property and water lots owned by the city of Toronto in the harbour as defined by this act. . . .
All the property of the city of Toronto, including Ashbridge's bay and the docks, wharves and land along this waterfront, was turned over to the harbour commissioners of Toronto who have administered it since. There was no provision in the act by which the harbour

Quebec Harbour Commission
commissioners could secure advances from the Dominion government; on the contrary, they have gone to the public for their money and have borrowed it on bond issues which have been endorsed largely by the city of Toronto. Although the interest on these bonds has not been kept up out of the proceeds of the harbour, the deficit has been made up by the corporation of the city of Toronto, and the bonds are in good standing with all payments made to date. The city of Toronto has never come to this parliament for any advance whatever on account of its harbour. It has been suggested by hon. members opposite that because there is an amusement park in the west end of the city called Sunnyside, and another in the. east end called Scarborough, the moneys of the Dominion have gone towards the establishment and maintenance of these parks, but that is a misapprehension; not one dollar has gone for that purpose. These lands have been reclaimed at the expense of the city of Toronto; the parks have been laid out, the buildings erected and the property managed by the harbour commissioners out of the revenues of the harbour chiefly derived from lands turned over by the city, supplemented by the amounts the city of Toronto has been obliged to pay. I should say that for every dollar spent by the Dominion government on navigation five to six dollars of city money have been added to the funds of the harbour commissioners. You might as well talk of charging interest on the money expended in dredging the river channel between Montreal and Quebec as to mention charging interest on the expenditures for navigation purposes at either Port Arthur or Toronto. It is the same thing, and as my leader has said, in every case the appropriation and expenditure of the money placed at the disposal of the harbour commissioners of the port of Toronto for navigation purposes has been under the scrutiny of this parliament.
Perhaps that will settle this point in the minds of hon. members of the house, and I have only a word to add in regard to the proposal now before us. I understood the Minister of Justice to say that out of the amount now asked for, some $5,310,000 is required to complete the work for which this parliament appropriated $5,000,000 only three years ago. The terms of that appropriation were very definite; it was worded as follows:
.... such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of five million dollars, as may be required to enable the corporation to complete the construction of terminal facilities in the harbour of Quebec, for which the plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the governor in council before the passing of this act; and to construct. . . .

It does not say to begin the construction, or to construct in part.
.... such additional terminal facilities as may be likewise approved as necessary, further to properly equip the said port.
My understanding of the situation, as outlined" by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is that this $5,000,000 improvement has been started, and it has been found impossible to complete the work with the sum voted. Whether it was estimated wrongly at the time or whether it was known that $5,000,000 would not be sufficient I do not know, but it would appear that $5,000,000 is only half enough. The works are in an incomplete state, partly under water; they will be lost if further moneys are not voted, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries asks for $5,310,000 to complete works which it was obviously contemplated would be completed for $5,000,000. We have not been told whether that is the result of a bad estimate; apparently something is wrong with the estimate of $5,000,000 which was presented to this house in 1925. That has not been sufficient for the work, and we are now asked for $5,310,000 more to complete it. As far as I can see that is the situation; in 1925 the harbour commissioners of Quebec contemplated this work, but whether they expected to spend $10,000,000 on the work then in prospect we do not know. If they did it was wrong of them to ask this house for only $5,000,000, saying that that would complete the work, and on the other hand if they miscalculated the cost and now find themselves saddled with a work which will cost over $10,000,000 on which they had expected to spend only $5,000,000, there is something radically wrong with the construction department of the Quebec harbour commission.
The second amount asked for is $2,840,000. I only need refer to the remarks of my hon. friend from Acadia to show that the expenditure of that amount on a storage elevator is not justified by the business which may be expected. We are going to spend over $2,000,000 for further storage; that is an important matter, as the Minister of Railways has said, but you can tell almost to the cent what will be the income from that expenditure. You know the rates for storage, you know the period for which storage will be used, you have the cost of management, and when it is proposed to provide storage facilities for an additional 2,000,000 bushels of grain it is possible to say whether or not you are justified in making that expenditure in view of what you will get in the way of returns. That is not a matter which has to do with the port- of Quebec as far as the

Quebec Harbour Commission
passing through of grain goes. The facilities at that port to-day are acknowledged to be more than are required for all the grain that can reasonably be expected to pass through that port. They will take care of 40,000,000 bushels of grain in the season, and even with the reduced freight rate the volume of grain handled there has only risen to 10,000,000 bushels. So that four times the amount of business actually done in Quebec is already provided for. Surely we do not need to contemplate that feature at all. The only question then remaining as to the $2,980,000 is, will it pay? Is it good business to put up a 2,000,000 bushel storage elevator considering what the returns from that elevator will be? As to the remaining item of $350,000, it is a matter of refunding to which no objection can be made. May I point out to the minister that if this were a going concern which- had been meeting its fixed charges and its operating cost, to say nothing of depreciation, we might have been justified in advancing the sum of $8,500,000 because the returns would be in sight, but in the case of the Quebec harbour we know the interest on the loans is in arrears, and we know moreover from the auditors' report that there is no prospect of ever collecting that interest. Therefore you are going into a proposition in which the interest and fixed charges, to say nothing of other items, cannot be met. The right policy to pursue is to follow the course which has been suggested by my leader to scrutinize carefully every item and consider whether the expenditure is justified, not only from the point of view of dollars and cents but from the point of view of making Quebec a great national harbour and maintaining it as such.
Once more, may I say that I regret exceedingly the tone that was taken by the Minister of Justice in his remarks this afternoon, remarks which to some extent reflected the feelings of others. Personally I should like to see the port of Quebec developed, or any other port on the east or west coast developed, if it is going to add to the general prosperity of Canada. It is a small thing to accuse any hon. member, even by implication, of being influenced in his attitude by local attachment. That is nonsense in the case of myself, and I know that in saying that I can speak for others both to the right and left of me. We desire to look at this as a national matter. The fact that we are dealing with the port of Quebec-and we are all proud of that city and its historic associations-does not enter
into the matter at all, nor the fact that it is not Toronto; and if the Minister of Justice, and one or two others, suggest that we are influenced in our attitude by local prejudice, they are following a course which is entirely wrong.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not see why this port should not have its votes in the estimates, and not by resolution. The trouble in the administration of these ports is that politics has been rampant in them. The government in my opinion are spending money like water. Money has been spent on some ports and canals in this country which never should have been spent; money that should have been spent has not been spent, and in many cases practically every dollar of that expenditure has been wasted. There has been no well conceived general plan of development. We have been creating ports on the great lakes where the expenditure has been used for political purposes. The same can be said of some of the canals. I know a canal where it was customary to start work a month before every election but after the election was over that expenditure was discontinued. There are instances of this kind in almost every province in the Dominion. The port of Montreal is in politics to-day. The elevator business is also in politics. The grain trade is in politics. The railways, also the canals, are in politics. Canada is more cursed with partyism than any other country in the world. We can solve no economic problems at all in this parliament, all such questions are referred to the courts or to a commission. The port of Quebec is a great port with a history dating back over three hundred years but it has never had a chance; the politicians have killed it. The Liberal party which launched the Grand Trunk Pacific is responsible for all the railway ills of this country to-day as well as for all the evils that have grown up in connection with our ports and grain trade. I know of no agencies where politics have been used to a greater extent than in connection with the port of Quebec, the administration of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the ad-ministiation of the national railways under the present chairman. The port of Quebec will never have a chance against the port of Montreal until its administration is freed from politics. It used to be said that New York and Boston were the great ports of the Atlantic seaboard of the United States; now there are nine or ten fine ports along that sea coast from Boston to Savannah. Every one of these ports is prospering and the ships which enter and leave them are gather-

Quebec Harbour Commission
ing business from the seven seas. Have we seen any like development in the case of our ports? The ills the maritime provinces are suffering from to-day are largely due to politics, and politics prevailed to a very great extent in the administration of the Intercolonial railway. The Quebec bridge was built and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway constructed to help Quebec and the grain trade.
The great port of Vancouver handled 53,000,000 bushels through one elevator which I saw when I was there last year and which has a capacity of only 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 bushels. The opening of the Panama canal has revolutionized matters of transportation on the North American continent and particularly in regard to the transportation of grain from the prairie provinces. You will never settle this grain problem while it is in politics. The elevator question is in polities; the port of Quebec is in politics, and as regards the grain policy of this country you will never get any more grain passing through the city of Quebec until you change your elevator and grain policy. We had a royal commission appointed in 1924 to investigate this question. What did they recommend? They recommended that an embargo be placed upon hard wheat going to the United States, as will be found at page 145 of their report. It was a hard struggle to get this commission appointed; I was in the house at the time, and I made some comments and charges in regard to bootlegging of Canadian grain and the elevators at Buffalo and New York. The government said that this was not so; but when the evidence was taken, it was proved that it was so; that bootlegging in grain was taking place at Buffalo and New York, United States wheat being mixed with Canadian and the flour shipped overseas as number one to the detriment of Canada.
The minister is not handling this question in the proper manner, although I do not wish to blame the present minister entirely. He could not find a five dollar bill for life saving stations in the upper great lakes to protect the lives of our brave sailors who are endeavouring to advance the grain from the prairie provinces to the seaports. Last month an American life saving tug from Ashtabula arrd Erie, Pennsylvania, had to come up and take some men off a tug caught in the ice on lake Erie. What did the Ontario government do? They sent a wire to Hon. Mr. Martin, the Minister of Agriculture congratulating him on his forethought in getting a United States tug to save a few Canadian sailors on lake Erie.

What did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries do last session with regard to grain? He is talking about getting more grain to Quebec. He had the coastal laws suspended on the Great Lakes, with the result that our boats are lying up at the docks and all the grain is going to fill American hulls. Last summer I saw in the Detroit river, United States ships carrying our grain down to Buffalo, where during the past few years they have erected twenty-eight elevators. What does the commissioner of industries of Buffalo say about this matter? One of the main things in his report is that he takes pride in the fact that they have been able to get Canada's hard wheat to fill up twenty-eight elevators at Buffalo where they can bootleg our grain and mill it into flour for export. Every Canadian would rejoice to see those twenty-eight elevators erected in Quebec, Montreal, and other places along the gulf of St. Lawrence, where they would be if this country had a proper grain policy, and a proper water-borne traffic through Canadian ports overseas.
After all is said and done, the discussion initiated by hon. members on this side of the house will do a great deal of good if it can persuade the government that we have had enough politics in regard to this matter. The Hon. Mr. Hoover has spoken, in a report to congress and to the Interstate Commerce Commission about this particular problem, and in his report he refers to the great ports in his own country on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. He says that a definite, well-worked out scheme, like those which New York, Boston and Baltimore have, should be adopted and that before votes of money occur or are gone ahead -with, competent engineers should be employed to investigate the whole question from engineering, financial, navigation, and economic standpoints. It must not be forgotten while this vote for Quebec harbour is under discussion, that as regards the export of our grain, the overseas market with regard to grain has all been changed. Argentina and Russia are back in the market and many of the Balkan states and others are back to-day competing with our grain growers for the overseas markets of the world. The result is that the grain situation in the old world has been changed and we have been sitting here spending millions of dollars on some of our ports without any results as to routing Canadian grain in mass through our gulf and coast ports.
The port of Quebec could, in my opinion, be made a great port if we had a well-worked out economic plan. Last year I visited it for

Quebec Harbour Commission
the first time in twenty years; it is suffering from congestion owing to lack of modern facilities for handling the freight traffic. It will never be a port except for five and a half months in the year, and it will be a grain port only if it has the support of an allCanadian rail route and waterborne traffic route for grain and an adequate and economic storage capacity. It will be a good storage place for grain forwarded there late in the year and held in the elevator for spring shipment overseas. I understand that the capacity of the Quebec elevator is only 2,000,000 bushels and that last year they handled out of that port only about nine or ten million bushels, whereas at Vancouver with an elevator with a capacity of 1,500,000 'bushels they were able to handle 53,000,000 bushels.
Reference has been made to other ports, and there has been a very wide discussion of the policy of this country in general in regard to national ports and ports on the great lakes. There are a few ports like Montreal and Vancouver which pay the interest on their indebtedness. The quantity of grain shipped through the port of Montreal during the last few years is as follows:
Year	Bushels
1921		 138,000,000
1922		 135,000,000
1923		 120,000,000
1924		 165,000,000
1925		 166,000,000
1926		 135,000,000
1927		 185,000,000
Let us not forget that last year there landed in the port of Montreal 80,000,000 bushels of grain from the United States. We are pursuing a very foolish policy on the great lakes in regard to grain. We have amended the coastal laws with the result that our own Canadian boats are tied up at the docks and our United States competitors are getting all this grain. Is that a proper policy for the people of this country? No, we must change our whole grain policy and adopt the recommendation of the commission by imposing an embargo and utilizing all-Canadian routes to get our grain through to the seaboard in Canadian hulls.
The government has been spending money like water. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier announced his Grand Trunk Pacific scheme away back in 1896, it took $36,000,000 to run and maintain the country, whereas to-day it is taking $400,000,000 a year to run the country. The province of Ontario used to get along with an expenditure of $6,500,000, but to-day it alone is spending $57,000,000 a year, or $21,000,000 more than it cost to run the whole country in 1897.
Some reference was made by hon. gentleman opposite to the port from which I came. Let me tell the Progressive members of this house that the port of Toronto has never got the loan of a copper from the government of Canada. Since confederation only ten millions have been spent by the government on Toronto harbour. The taxpayers of Toronto have themselves spent $30,000,000 on harbour improvements. Any money the government spends it handles itself free from the city or harbour board. From 1867 to 1912 only $2,000,000 were spent by the government. In 1912 the port was reorganized, and the harbour board has jurisdiction only over city property in the harbour. The government never built a dock or a wharf in Toronto, and Toronto harbour right down to the present time never got a five cent piece by way of loan from the government. There are five commissioners under the new scheme, three appointed by the city council and two by the government, and the two commissioners appointed by the government are on the city board spending city money. The government spends its own money and it has built a seawall, a turning basin in Ashbridge's bay and dredged the entrances. The late Lieutenant Governor Clarke, Mr. Smith and I were commissioners, and we had a non-political board for twenty years, until 1925. It was the present government's two delegates that caused all the recent trouble; the government appointed two politicians or ward-heelers, and they tried to work a city board on a Liberal basis with the taxpayers' money, mind you, not the government's. I was a commissioner without a cent of remuneration, for twenty years. I was appointed by the city council and I worked all that time with my colleagues. We never had any politics on the board till 1925. A gentleman by the name of MacKendrick, appointed by the city in 1924, joined the two Liberals and while he was a commissioner, he tried to buy a large property at a cut rate for his company on Fleet stret. I objected to this as improper, and an illegal government inquiry was started over a purely city board, spending only city money and not a cent of government money, by a person who, while acting, had, according to the harbour board's own solicitor, Mr. A. C. McMaster, K.C., and the government's own legal officers, no powers, and acted only voluntarily. Well, they had a year's inquiry over nothing, with nice, fat fees for the judge, although, while sitting he was neither judge nor commissioner, and a number of lawyers got fat fees as was the case in the customs inquiry. They spent $75,000 of the taxpayers' money,

Quebec Harbour Commission
found not a cent misspent or a thing wrong, if you please, on this investigation; they did not get anybody, nor did they find out anything. The only body they got was the taxpayer. Mr. Home Smith and Lieutenant-Governor Clarke served for many years without fee or reward. I myself served for twenty years on the harbour board, and got nothing for it; all we got was abuse. I spent thousands of dollars of my own money also in the work. We were a non-political board until two disturbers appeared with political minds. While I was chairman of the harbour board I settled the viaduct case long standing, opened up Fleet street, and made rapid strides. I resigned my seat voluntarily. After this farce of an inquiry the city council unanimously reappointed me, but I got sick of the work and the abuse and gave up this end of my work after twenty years full service.
If you want to make a success of the port of Quebec or any other port you must eliminate politics; in other words, as Mr. Hoover says, you must have a non-political administration of the board. The port must be administered from an economic standpoint. If the port of Quebec had been given any chance at all, it would have been a great port to-day, but the money that has been voted for the port of Quebec has not been spent to the best advantage and the same is true to a certain extent of Montreal. They take on a large staff in Montreal, I am told just before election time, and then turn them off after the election. The port is in politics. I think every Canadian is proud of the port of Montreal. I am a warm supporter of Montreal, and I believe that it will grow from strength to strength as a port if the commissioners are let alone.
The government have now had considerable experience in connecttion with these various harbours, which should be an example to them, and let us make a fresh start with Halifax and St. John by administering these new ports from the commercial aspect. We can still do something with Quebec, but I do not believe in giving $8,500,000 to the port of Quebec at the present time. I was in the house in 1925 when Mr. Caldwell and the present member for Macleod, in reply to questions, were informed by the minister that the $5,000,000 that was being voted at that time for the port of Quebec would be sufficient to complete the whole five years' program. Only three years have passed since then, and here is the harbour commission back again asking for $8,500,000 more. It will take a lot of money to provide the necessary extensions for handling the grain, but even 
when that work is finished, I doubt if any more grain will go to the port, because the Canadian National Railways are not trying to help the port of Quebec.
Those of us on this side of the house, Mr. Chairman, would like to see the port of Quebec dealt with fairly and justly and equitably, the same as any other port. We must not forget that these ports are a connecting link in a well organized transportation system, but we have not a properly connected transportation system in this country because our transportation system is mixed up in politics. The ports are also in politics, and you will never get them out of politics until public opinion drives them out.
The province of Ontario pays forty-nine per cent of the postal receipts of this Dominion. The city of Toronto contributes $62,000,000 in customs duties, and well on to $7,000,000 in postal receipts, and we have never got a cent from the government during the last four sessions except a few dollars for revolving doors for the post office, and when that item is reached I am going to move to strike it out.


Peter John Veniot: What about the terminals
costing $1,500,000 last year?


Thomas Langton Church: What about terminals?
Let me tell the minister about the terminals. He is a new minister here, and he seems to think he knows something about the Toronto terminals, but I think he knows more about elections and the ballot boxes in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: The people know how to
handle the ballots.
Mr. CHURCH; I do not want to be unfair to the minister because he supported my newspaper bill to make public the ownership of newspapers, and to let everyone know who Mr. Honourable-in-Trust is in connection with some of these newspapers. The city of Toronto itself spent $30,000,000 on its own property-the harbour.
Mr. VENIOT; I was referring to the postal terminals, not the railway terminals.


Thomas Langton Church: The government spent
some money on the postal terminals, but they get a revenue of yearly $7,000,000 out of the Toronto post office. The minister has a patronage list in the post office department, and you have to pay a dollar to join the Liberal ward association before you can get a temporary job. Even a returned soldier in Christie street hospital, if he wants a job at the post office for five or six days at Christmas time, has to pay a dollar and join

Quebec Harbour Commission
the ward association. There is no city in Canada that is paying the peak of taxation like Toronto is. We have spent $30,000,000 of our own money on our harbour, and if it had not been for the harbour improvements and breakwater at Sunnyside the right of way of the Canadian National railway would have been washed out. Eight millions were spent (1914-1924) by the government on the harbour. About $2,500,000 of this was spent on a breakwater to protect the right of way of the Canadian National railway, and a contract as to the harbour in 1912 was made with the city of Toronto and the federal government, and this government is trying to back out of it. The city of Toronto has spent over $10,000,000 on the viaduct agreement on the water front and thirty millions on its harbour besides. We seek no favours from the government; we would not get any anyway, and we do not ask for them, no matter what government is in office.
So far as the port of Quebec is concerned, I agree with the leader of the opposition that this vote ought to be cut down, and an interim grant of $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 made, this year; and a proper survey should be made of the business of the port and its finances and terminals. The grain law of Canada should be revolutionized in the interest of Canadian ports, and the coasting laws should be re-established. There should be a showdown with the Canadian National Railways to further help the ports of Montreal and Quebec. There should be non-political administration of the port of Quebec and all the other ports. The port of Vancouver has been ruined through the dismissal of one of the ablest traffic superintendents on the North American continent, as the hon. member for Vancouver said in the house last night. There should be a non-political administration of these ports, a proper survey made of the business of the port, and expenditure made on business principles; for at present money is being spent like water on ports and harbours. Money is being spent on ports where there is not a ship, and when the pork barrel is opened up, they sometimes vote money for harbours where there is not even a row boat. I do not say that that is true of the port of Quebec. I believe that Quebec never had a fair show. Take politics out of the administration of the port and have a proper survey made by reliable engineers, not the kind of a survey that was made in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which it was estimated would cost only a few million dollars instead of one hundred millions. We should get a proper survey of Quebec harbour and an up-to-date plan even if we have to
go to Great Britain for engineers. Go and get them, and have a survey and permanent plan of development made of the port of Quebec. I venture to think that every good Canadian, when this is done, will rejoice to see the great port of Quebec go ahead by leaps and bounds and get a fair share of the gain and other traffic from the interior of Canada. What I have said of the port of Quebec will apply also to the ports of St. John and Halifax when organized.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Quebec and hon. members who are interested in the port must feel gratified at the almost unanimous desire expressed on both sides of the house to see the port of Quebec improved to accommodate the great ocean traffic now developing there. But the trouble is we have been debating this question now for almost two days without making any progress, and our friends who are interested in the port may begin to question the sincerity of those who speak so well of Quebec. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church) has told us about the great port of Toronto, and has emphasized the point that during the period when he was on the harbour board it was a non-political organization. I think I shall be well within the mark when I say that the board of harbour commissioners of Quebec is justly as non-political as my hon. friend's board.
I agree with much that has been said tonight as to our having spent a lot of money on our ports for which the country has not received the value that it should have received, and the records of the public accounts wrill confirm this. I observe, for instance, that we have spent some $21,000,000 on the port of St. John. Well, mo one will say that that is a better port than Quebec. We have spent on the lake port of Toronto-I am not finding any fault; I am simply placing the facts before the committee-through the Public Works Department between ten and eleven million dollars. My hon. friend from Toronto Northwest says that the port never got a copper from the Dominion, but apparently he has not looked at the public accounts.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He said in the nature of advances.


James Alexander Robb: Quite right; we paid out the money and did not expect to get it. back.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was not a loan, it was contributed.


James Alexander Robb: But the fact remains we spent $10,000,000 on the port of Toronto.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is no question of that

Quebec Harbour Commission


James Alexander Robb: No one will argue that the port of Quebec, where the ocean traffic of the world comes, is not entitled to equal consideration. No one will challenge the point raised 'by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that wherever public moneys are paid out there should be a careful audit. But after all that is exactly the position we are in to-day.


Thomas Langton Church: May I point out to the minister that the 810,000,000 was spent by the Public Works department; the city of Toronto had no control over it?


James Alexander Robb: Certainly; 'but the money was paid out of the exchequer. We have the right, and we exercise it, to insist on the most careful scrutiny wherever public money is expended. Now the port of Quebec asks for an advance of sufficient money to take care of its harbour plans for the next five years. Everyone will agree that to do such work economically and efficiently we must be able to lay out a program extending over a period of years. No advance is made until a report is received from the engineers indicating the progress of the work. I believe there is a superintendent of harbours who checks up the work of the port engineer. That report is sent to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, wher;e it is carefully checked, and then the accounts are senit to the Department of Finance before the advance is made.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Are advances made to the harbour commission of Quebec on monthly applications from the commission to the minister, giving the amount of construction work to be done and detailed statements?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The procedure followed at Quebec is the same as that followed at Montreal. The work is executed, a report is made by the commission to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that report is checked by us, and when we are satisfied we ask the Department of Finance to advance the money.


John Wesley Edwards: On monthly applications?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the procedure followed in the case of Montreal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not necessarily.


James Alexander Robb: Then these advances are made. Bear in mind, the accounts are carefully audited. We insist on an additional audit wherever these expenditures are made. We have a perfect right, for example, to check the expenditures made in the port of Halifax.

I have not heard any person say yet that the money spent there was spent bo the best advantage. It is quite true, as hon. gentlemen say, that we have wasted money. But we are all aware that government expenditure is never made as cheaply as private expenditure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit a question before he leaves that point? He is dealing with the system of audit. Will he kindly explain these statements in the report of the board of audit that checked the port of Quebec's accounts?
Examination of the published reports clearly shows the expenses to have increased steadily and out of proportion to the earnings during the three years.
And:
The accounts examined by us provided no explanation for these variations, due largely to the suspension some years ago of cost accounts.
Now I put this question to the minister, having some knowledge of the meaning of this language: upon receiving a report of this character from a board of auditors appointed for the purpose of examining these accounts, does he think it a wise policy to make any' further advances before some adequate explanation is forthcoming of what I would call a dereliction of duty on the part of the board?


James Alexander Robb: I was just coming to that. I imagine that when I send out the audit board, as I intend to, to audit other ports we may have similar reports to this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These insinuations might as well ibe cleared up at once. I ask the minister now to instruct the board of audit, to check carefully the expenditures at the port of Vancouver-the papers in connection with which I called for and they were laid on the table- because I think some of those expenditures were recklessly, extravagantly, improvidently and wrongfully made.


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend referring to the contract for the Ballantyne pier?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am not.


James Alexander Robb: I thought not. I was proceeding to say that the government has the right to go in. It was for that very purpose that the audit board was created under the act assented to on June 27, 1925. Here are the powers of the audit board covering this point:
It shall be the duty of the board to act in an advisory capacity to the treasury board and

Quebec Harbour Commission
under its direction to inquire into and report with regard to any matters entrusted to it by the treasury board including the following:
(a)	the sufficiency of the methods of accounting and of the procedure in other respects employed in the conduct of the public business of Canada or of any department or detail thereof;
(b)	the economies which may be effected in any of the public services or in the conduct of the public business;
(c)	the financial affairs of the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, and any other undertaking owned or carried on by the government of Canada;
(d)	-
-and I direct my hon. friend's attention to this:
(d)	the financial affairs of any commission or other public body the operations of which are carried on by appropriations from the treasury of Canada, or which are aided by grants or loans from the said treasury.
It is under that that we have the board look into the accounts. The question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) is a very proper one, but the chairman of the audit board has informed me that he has had a talk with the commission and they recognize that their system of accounts might very well be changed so as to afford more information. And the system of accounts will be changed. But there is no report that the contracts were irregular or that there were any irregular expenditures. Now I come back to this point: To carry on the work successfully and economically they must be able to lay out a program for more than one year, and it is not unreasonable to give them a sufficient sum to cover a period of five years. They say that this amount is * required for a five year program, and I can assure my hon. friends that under the Audit Act we have full powers to go and audit their accounts. And it is our intention to do so in respect to that port as well as in respect to others in Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I asked a question of the minister and 'he was kind enough to answer. I asked the question after a hasty glance over the act passed last year covering the loan made to the Montreal harbour commission. I found that in connection with that commission a certain course was taken to safeguard the interests of Canada in doing business with the port of Montreal. I found in the first place that before the money was granted the plans had to be approved by the governor in council. That seemed to be wise and businesslike. Monthly statements were also required to be presented by the harbour commission to the minister in connection with applications for loans on account of construction work being performed. A
detailed statement of expenditures in connection therewith was submitted. That also struck me as a very wise provision inasmuch as it kept the minister constantly in touch with what was going on. In view of these provisions in connection with the Montreal harbour commission I asked the minister a question in regard to the present resolution and I understood him to say the same course was not being followed in relation to advances to the harbour commission of Quebec. I notice that there was a further safeguard in the case of the Montreal harbour commission, in that the corporation deposited with the Minister of Finance debentures equal in value to the loan asked for. That, too, was good business. It is a fact that in 1925 the sum of $5,000,000 was advanced to the Quebec harbour commission and we were told at that time that this sum would be sufficient to complete certain works. It is now apparent that it will not be adequate to complete the works which it was said it would take care of, and we are now asked for further millions to supplement that grant. The minister has said that certain statements are presented-he has not told us at what intervals

to his department in regard to these expenditures. One would expect such statements to be submitted. But why not follow the same course in dealing with the harbour commission of Quebec as was adopted in connection with the harbour commission of Montreal? Why not require monthly statements presented to the minister, giving a detailed account of construction work undertaken and of the moneys expended thereon? That seems to be a reasonable course, and I cannot help thinking that if the same method had been followed in the case of the Quebec port the government would have been more in touch with what has been going on, and the financial condition of the port would not be as bad as it is at the present time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When I replied to my hon. friend from Frontenac a few minutes ago I spoke from memory in regard to advances made in the past. I notice that in the bill which will be introduced following the resolution there is a clause providing for monthly applications and monthly statements from the commission before they can get any money. So that the clause in the Montreal act to which my hon. friend has referred-I do not know whether it is in the Quebec act of 1925 -will be found in the bill which we propose to introduce on the basis of this resolution.


John Wesley Edwards: That was
wise. Can the minister inform the committee
219S

Quebec Harbour Commission
just how frequently these statements have been presented in the past covering the $5,000,000 advanced in 1925? Apparently they have not been presented monthly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Offhand I cannot say, but
I shall be in a position to give this information definitely when we reach the committee stage on the bill. As regards my hon. friend's observation with reference to the adequacy of the 85,000,000, I may say that this amount is sufficient to meet the requirements we had in view in 1925. The money has not all been spent, and the vote for which we are now asking is for the purpose of adding to the facilities which were provided for through the advance made in 1925.


John Wesley Edwards: How much
of the $5,000,000 voted in 1925 has been spent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About $3,000,000.


Mr. KAISER:: As I understand it, the
harbour commission now owe $750,000 to the banks, presumably for current obligations. We are voting $8,500,000 for additional facilities. The minister has stated that the port has claims against the government amounting to something over $7,000,000. No doubt the government is considering that $7,000,000 odd in addition to the $8,500,000. If that sum were paid over this year or next year, as an obligation which we owe to the board, would the board have the power to add still further facilities or would they be obliged to use this money in paying interest on the loans advanced?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The claims of the commissioners are set up against the government's claim for interest. The government is claiming $8,000,000 or arrears in interest on moneys which have been advanced to the Quebec harbour commission. The commissioners say, "Well, you claim that interest, but we have a claim against the government for taking care of the immigrants and for other services. Our claim amounts to almost $7,000,000. and we would like to set that off against the claim of the government for interest on the loans which have been made to us." They are not asking for payment but simply that their claim be accepted to apply against the amount of interest claimed by the government.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Then we are in the position of lending them $8,500,000 and allowing the interest to be offset by claims against the government; in other words we not only lend them money but pay the interest as well.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the claim of the
commissioners, but as yet the government have not decided to accept it.


Robert Gardiner: At this point I should
like to ask the minister as to the attitude of the government in regard to these claims. How long have they been in existence, and what is the government going to do about them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These claims have been in existence for a long period of years, and I am free to say that the accounts sent in by the commissioners have not been accepted by the various departments to which they were sent. There is no doubt that the commissioners are entitled to something for having taken care of the immigrants and so on; they are entitled to some compensation, but up to the present that claim has not been accepted by the departments concerned.


Mr. IRVINE:: Why not charge it up to the
Department of Immigration?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is charged to that department, but the various ministers of immigration have refused to accept it.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has just admitted that there is some justice in the claims made by the harbour commissioners against the various departments. When did he arrive at that conclusion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have been of that opinion always, but I cannot force my views or con. victions upon my colleagues. I am convinced that the commissioners should receive something, if not the whole amount; they should receive a certain compensation, but up to the present time the successive ministers of immigration have refused to accept my views.


Robert Gardiner: Does not the minister
think that before any further loans are made to the harbour commission the question of these claims should be settled? Is not this a good time to settle them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot see any relation
between the two matters. The claim of the government is for interest from the harbour commission, and that is quite different from the advance for which we are asking at present. If these accounts are accepted from the harbour commissioners, the amount will be set off against the claim of the government for the unpaid interest.


Mr. FORKE:: What difference would it
make in the long run?

Quebec Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is simply a matter of
bookkeeping, but the position of the harbour commissioners will be more clearly presented because a large proportion of their indebtedness for interest will disappear if their claims are entertained.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Cannot the cabinet as a whole settle that?


James Alexander Robb: The cabinet as a whole did settle the question of the remission of a considerable amount of money to the Soldier Settlement Board, and the remission of advances for seed grain.


Robert Gardiner: Those matters have no relation to the subject under discussion, but with respect to the other question, in my judgment the minister cannot say it has no relation to the matter with which we are now dealing. The relation I see is this:	Just so
long as the claims of the harbour commission remain against the government, that provides them an excuse to refuse to pay interest, which means that the harbour will not be operated as efficiently as should be the case. Now I should like to ask the minister if he could give me the information I asked for before six o'clock. I notice that the Minister of Immigration is smiling; probably he would not be quite so joyous if a part of his appropriation were taken to pay some of these just claims. Can the Minister of Marine and Fisheries give the committee any information as to the expenditures which have been made out of the 85,000,000 loan since 1925? How much has been actually spent in dredging, providing new wharves and so on, and what is the condition of the work at present?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to give a detailed statement of the expenditures which have been made, but as I said a moment ago-and that was only a repetition of what I have said several times before-out of the $5,000,000 voted in 1925 approximately $3,000,000 has been- expended in dredging and in the construction of the cribs which have been filled with stone and sunk into the river. The work remaining is the concrete work upon those cribs, and the balance of the money to which the commissioners are entitled will complete the cement work which was provided for in 1925. The $5,300,000 in addition for which we are now asking is to extend that part of the work which is covered by the $5,000,000 voted in 1925, of which nearly $3 000,000 has been expended already. There remains the concrete work and the construction of certain sheds and roadways upon these cribs.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that the minister's reply is to the effect that in so far as the vote of 1925 is concerned, the work contemplated under that vote is only partly completed, but that sufficient funds still remain to complete the work as contemplated at that time. Further, I understand that the new vote which we are discussing to-night is to provide for an extension of that work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: I am glad to have that information; we have been trying to get it ever since this resolution was introduced. Now I want to ask the minister whether in view of the contemplated new work, which will eventually cost $8,500.000-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It w'ill cost $5,000,000.


Robert Gardiner: That is right, $5,310,000. In view of that, will the minister give us some information as to the tonnage into and out of the port, which will warrant this contemplated construction?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The committee will understand that it is very difficult to say what tonnage will pass through the port of Quebec in the years to come. However, for the information of my hon. friend I might say that in 1926 about. 900 ocean steamers went into and out of the port of Quebec, and the total tonnage was 6,408,059. In 1927, although the new terminals constructed out of the $5,000,000 voted in 1925 were not in use, the tonnage was 6.820,375, so there was an increase of over 400.000 tons without taking into consideration the new facilities.


Robert Gardiner: How many steamers
were there that year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total would be about
900, but I am not sure as to the exact number. If the reduction in rates on the Transcontinental will have the effect of causing a greater volume of grain to flow through the port of Quebec we may reasonably expect a greater tonnage. We have to recognize that ocean vessels are becoming larger and larger and that each year the tonnage will be greater. As I said at the opening of this discussion the shipping interests are behind these improvements and they say:	In view of the
developments and the needs of the port, we support heartily the program of the harbour commission. But my hon. friend will clearly understand that I cannot give any definite figure as to the prospective increase in tonnage.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Robert Gardiner: Would it not be reasonable to suppose that when the present works are completed, that is to say the works undertaken under the $5,000,000 vote of 1925, they will take care of all the requirements in increased tonnage for some years to come?
Mr, CARDIN:	The representations which
were made to the commission and to the government were in support of the program we are contemplating at the present time, including the additional work. The representations of the shipping federation and of the grain people not only supported the improvements decided upon in 1925 but requested new undertakings. They feel that an expenditure which will run to about $10,000,000 should be made to equip properly the port of Quebec and give it the facilities which they think are absolutely necessary. That is the representation which has been made to us.


George Reginald Geary: Without disturbing the minister's argument further, will the sinking of the sixteen cribs, and the placing of the superstructure upon them, require more than the original $5,000,000 before this work is available for use?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


George Reginald Geary: Then the remainder of the
$5,310,000 is to produce more cribs, an entirely new proposal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: The minister this afternoon gave us some information with regard to the number of berths available in the harbour of Quebec. I notice that he stated a berth was rented to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and another to a second shipping company. Could he give the committee any information as to the rentals paid by the two. companies in question for the private use of these berths?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, I cannot give the rentals at the present moment. I have certain information here but it is incomplete. The Robert Reford Company, for example, is sending a cheque for $4,000. My notes are not sufficiently complete to permit me to give exact information.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister secure that information before the bill comes before the committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, certainly.


Robert Gardiner: I think it is advisable
for us to know whether or not these rentals are profitable.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be quite ready to
supply the information.


George Reginald Geary: Will the minister have the
plans showing the work contemplated under the $5,000,000 vote in 1925 and the plans of the work contemplated under the present vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to draw the minister's attention to claims made upon the Dominion government by the harbour commission of Quebec. There are two items in particular that interest me. One is a claim against the Department of the Interior for $351,437 plus interest of $382,361, and the other a claim against the Department of Immigration for $2,613,716 with accumulated interest of $3,029,070. In each of these claims the interest is a good deal larger than the principal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like to point out that at 5 per cent simple interest these amounts must have been running for over 20 years. What rate has been charged on these outstanding accounts? Is it simple or compound interest?


Mr. CANNON:: In answer to my hon. friend I want to point out, in order that the matter may be well understood, that the present commission came into existence in 1913, and we have to make a distinction between the loans made since 1913 and whatever advances may have been made previous to that year. The total advances made by the government to the present commission amount to 13i millions. Now the advances made by the government of Canada for the harbour of Quebec from prior to 1867 till 1913-and the harbour was administered by several bodies during that time-amounted to only $4,125,000. Great emphasis has been laid in the present discussion by several gentlemen opposite on the claim that .the harbour board was bankrupt. The leader of the opposition ended his remarks by saying that the board was insolvent and practically in the same position as a commercial corporation in the hands of a receiver. In order to reach that conclusion they charged up against the harbour board an amount of $9,103,899.34 but the present commission should be responsible only for the interest on the advances made since the inception of the commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not if they took over the liabilities of the old board.


Lucien Cannon: I will come to that in a minute. I wish to give these figures: Ad-

Quebec Harbour Commission
vances previous to 1913 by way of accrued interest charged up to the commission, $6,022,565.38; interest on advances made since 1913, $3,081,433.96. But on the $5,000,000 voted by parliament in 1925, or at least on that part of the $5,000,000 which was really advanced, the interest was deducted by the government before the money was paid.


Robert Gardiner: How much was deducted?


Lucien Cannon: Five per cent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: For how many years?


Lucien Cannon: Since 1925. On the advances made under the legislation passed in 1925, the commission does not owe one cent of interest to the government because the Minister of Finance retained it, and this is done in all such cases wherever construction is going on.


George Reginald Geary: It is provided for in this legislation.


Lucien Cannon: Yes. I should like the
members of the committee, in order that they may understand the situation, to bear in mind first that certain moneys were advanced before 1913 when the present harbour commission system did not exist; that the first large advance made to the Quebec harbour with a view of developing Quebec and making it a national port was made in 1913 under the Borden government; that war broke out, and that then the commission had practically to place the harbour in the hands of the government for war purposes. Naturally there was no idea at that time of administering the harbour from the standpoint of making profits and revenues and paying interest. The whole harbour was placed at the disposal of this country, but nevertheless the Minister of Finance every month and every year charged up interest against the port of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: During the war?


Lucien Cannon: That is something that
must be borne in mind when the general situation of Quebec is under consideration, and it is going too far for any member to say that -the port of Quebec should be considered as bankrupt. The whole harbour facilities were placed in the hands of the Dominion government during the period of the war.


Peter John Veniot: And for two years afterwards.


Lucien Cannon: And for some time afterwards. As everybody knows, many soldiers came back through the port of Quebec, but that peculiar situation was never considered
by the Department of Finance. That is number two. Supposing the same system were adopted for the other harbours in the Dominion, what would be the situation? Last year we incorporated a harbour commission for the city of Halifax. What attitude would hon. members for Halifax or the people of that city have taken if the government had told them: We are incorporating a harbour commission, but before you start developing or looking after the shipping facilities of your harbour, we will charge up to you $19,000,000 which have been already advanced-not only the capital but the interest from the very moment one cent was advanced from the Dominion treasury. Would any hon. member say that that was fair? Nevertheless that is the attitude taken in regard to Quebec harbour. We are not bankrupt if we are treated in the same way as other sections olf Canada have been treated, and the rules which obtain in regard to othtft harbours of this country should obtain in regard to Quebec.
Let me take for instance the harbour of Toronto. I may say to the hon. members for Toronto that I was in their beautiful city last week; I admire its development and the harbour improvements and works; I do not begrudge a cent they received. But would their harbour commission be in a position to make the report which was mentioned by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) if they had to pay interest on the S10,000,000 which were expended by the Department of Public Works on harbour improvements in Toronto?


George Reginald Geary: I-t is not the same thing. Why should it be?


Lucien Cannon: The interest should be
charged up if Quebec should be charged up with interest. The situation is the same.


George Reginald Geary: Surely the situation is not the same. These are navigation works. You might as well charge up the cost of dredging the river channel opposite Quebec.


Lucien Cannon: Legally my hon. friend is perfectly right.


George Reginald Geary: Practically I am right.


Lucien Cannon: Legally he is perfectly
right, but I am not talking strict law; I am talking equity.


George Reginald Geary: I am not talking law.


Lucien Cannon: I am asking for Quebec fair treatment from this house. I am not quibbling as to the interpretation of statutes; I know there is a difference between a loan and a gift; but if $10,000,000 was given to the

Quebec Harbour Commission
harbour of Toronto, I congratulate my hon. friends on having received that money. I am pleased that they received it. But when the harbour of Quebec comes before parliament asking that we be given the means to improve our harbour facilities, I ask my hon. friends to discard petty and mean considerations and to look at the matter as we should look at it.


George Reginald Geary: Will the minister allow me?


Lucien Cannon: If last year we told Halifax that they would have to assume liability for the $19,000,000 which were expended in that city prior to last year, not only the capital, but the interest, that commission would not be able to work. Supposing when the resolution concerning Halifax is brought before the house, the Quebec members get up and say: Before half a million dollars are advanced, you will have to show that $19,000,000 have been looked after and that eve^y cent of interest has been paid! Supposing we did the same thing concerning St. John, New Brunswick!


Peter John Veniot: You would get killed.


Lucien Cannon: That only goes to show that this matter is not one of dollars and cents and a small matter as to whether interest was paid or not. It is a larger and much wider matter than that. It is a question of finding out if the Dominion government as such and the federal parliament as such wish to develop Canadian trade through Canadian ports or want Canadian trade to go through United States ports. That is the whole question. Hon. members who sit in the corner have shown sympathy.


Miss MAOPHAIL:: Be very careful about that.


Lucien Cannon: I think it is a very favoured comer. It has shown some sympathy for the harbour of Quebec. My hon. friends have said, and rightly so, that parliament should be given information. That demand is quite legitimate, and I am quite sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who has charge of this legislation will be pleased to give to the house all necessary information. There is nothing to hide in this matter.
Again I repeat, this is a national question, not one simply of local concern, and we from Quebec ask all our colleagues, whether they belong to the Conservative party or to the Progressive party, to consider this as a national question. In the harbour of Quebec you have, so to speak, the whole question of our national future summed up. When a newcomer enters Canada seeking his fortune,

having confidence in the greatness of our country, where does he land? He lands at Quebec. Where does he go?


An hon. MEMBER:: To the United States.


Lucien Cannon: He goes to the western provinces. My hon. friend on the other side says that he goes to the United States. He knows better. These newcomers go to the western provinces. My hon. friend forgets that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have been built up by these newcomers, and that Canada does not end at the borders of Ontario but stretches farther west. These western provinces produce wheat, and that wheat has to be shipped to some market. Are we going to spend millions to encourage immigration to come to this country in order to develop the natural resources of our western provinces, and then when it comes to marketing the goods these newcomers produce, so that the advantages of our immigration may be realized, refuse to spend the necessary money on our harbours and provide the necessary shipping facilities? I do not think this parliament will hesitate.
It is most unfair, I repeat, to speak of the harbour of Quebec as if it were a corporation which should be placed in the hands of a receiver. If the harbour of Quebec were given the same treatment financially that has been accorded to other harbours, the figures would be quite different. Lastly, I have no doubt that the government will be quite satisfied to give to all members of the house any necessary information they may require as to the nature and character of the work which ought to be carried out at Quebec.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The Solicitor General, in coming to the rescue of tihe Minister of Marine-


Lucien Cannon: I did not; he does not need any help.


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody is in danger on this side.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister gave a statement as to the amount of money guaranteed by the port of Quebec to the Dominion of Canada, but that was not a reply to my question. The figures to which I referred were the amounts supposedly owing by various departments of this government to the port of Quebec. I mentioned two, the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior, and in both cases the interest exceeds the principaJl of the amount claimed. I asked the minister if he could give us the number of years during which interest has been accruing, and if it was calculated at simple or compound interest.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to say whether it is simple or compound interest, but so far as the length of the account is concerned, it is a very old one. The first one which was produced dates back thirty years.


Robert Gardiner: What was the amount of the liabilities charged up to the commission when it was first formed in 1913?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information here, but I can have it when we go into committee on the bill.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Perhaps the minister would also bring down the information I asked for.


Robert Gardiner: I was very much interested in the remarks of the Solicitor General. In my judgment, all the ports that are under the administration of the commission should be on the same basis and be treated in the same way, and if it can be shown to this committee that the port of Quebec did not have as good a deal as the other ports when its commission was first formed, then I maintain that a proper settlement should be made before we go further with this legislation, so that we may know just exactly where we stand. That is a very strong reason, in my opinion, why this matter should go to a committee. If the remarks of the Solicitor General are correct, and I have no reason to doubt but that they are, I can quite understand that the people of Quebec feel they have a very strong grievance. This is the first time I have heard that this commission was charged, when it was formed, with these liabilities, and I think I am safe in saying that the committee as a whole did not understand that that was the situation. Would it be possible to prevail upon the government to clean this matter up before we go further with this legislation? I would like to see that done, and if the claims of the commission for further assistance can be shown to be well grounded, I would be satisfied.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I understand that there is a claim of 12,000,000 against the Immigration department by the port of Quebec. We have immigrants coming in also at Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. Is there any reason why Quebec should receive consideration in regard to these claims any more than these other ports?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no particular
reason except that the harbour commission of Quebec claim that the immigration causes such a tax upon their facilities as to deprive the commission of one of the best sections of 56103-140
the harbour, and they feel that they are entitled to compensation. If a similar situation exists in any other port, I would see no objection to considering the claim of that port.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that a valid, subsisting claim which is recognized by the government as a material, substantial claim?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So far as my department
and .myself are concerned, we are prepared to recognize that claim, but up to the present time it has not been entertained by the various departments concerned.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As long ago as 1922 when the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the present Minister of Justice, was asking for $1,500,000, he said in regard to this claim:
Of course, there is a bill standing in the books of the commission against the federal government on that account. This bill has never been paid, and I do not expect that it ever will be.
It seems to me that too much has been made of this claim. Away back in 1922 the claim was stale and was not recognized as a claim that the government would ever undertake to pay. It has dragged along for nearly six years, and after such a period an ordinary debt would be outlawed, but we find this claim now set up as an important reason why the Quebec harbour commissioners should receive consideration. There is every reason why they should receive consideration, but this is not one of them. Nor do the remarks of the Solicitor General apply, for a reference to Hansard of May 5, 1922, will show that the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries recognized that the harbour commission of Quebec was insolvent and could not pay its interest, but in course of time he hoped that it might approach to the success of the harbour commission of Montreal. We are sorry that that has not come about. But it is not on any sectional grounds as the Solicitor General alleged-


Lucien Cannon: I never alleged anything of the kind. On the contrary-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Read Hansard to-morrow.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order -to a question of privilege. I was particular to state my position with great care, and my hon. friend has no right to make such a statement. I deny it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman; on the point of order-



Quebec Harbour Commission


Lucien Cannon: It is not a point of order; it is a question of privilege and is not debatable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member cannot escape his responsibility. He rose to a point of order, not to a question of privilege. On the point of order I wish to say that in my hearing the hon. gentleman did refer to hon. members on this side of the house and told them to remember that Canada did not begin or end at the boundaries of Ontario. If that was not an imputation of sectionalism I do not know what is.


Charles Gavan Power: That may have been only a lesson in geography.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Solicitor General also said that this was not the narrow question that the opposition were trying to make it appear.


Lucien Cannon: I did not say that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Read Hansard to-morrow. I maintain that it is not a narrow question. But the people of Canada will demand that this money when expended shall not only come under review by auditors who may be sent to the port of Quebec to examine the accounts, but by auditors who are responsible to parliament; that parliament shall have an opportunity of investigating expenditures running into millions of dollars in the case of a harbour commission which, up to the present time, has failed to carry on the business of the harbour of Quebec with success to the city and to Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: I may tell my hon.
friend that it was not the city, it was the parliament of Canada that inflicted this upon us.


Charles A. Stewart: You should have resisted. In reply to my hon. friend from East Toronto, the Minister of Finance assured him that the very accounting that he is calling for is made to-day, notwithstanding the fact that the expenditure is under the control of the harbour commission.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I did not understand
it that way. There is no investigation by parliament into the expenditures on the harbour of Quebec; there would be in the case of any other harbours receiving money directly from the government, such as Fort William and Toronto.


Charles A. Stewart: If I understood my colleague correctly, he said the audit, was exactly the same as in the port of Montreal, that we would have access to the report and that full information would be given to the house.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But the point is, there would not be an investigation by the public accounts committee.


Robert James Manion: At Fort William, for
example, where there is no harbour commission, the work is done by the Public Works department under the direction of the deputy minister and his engineers, so it is done directly under the authority of the parliament

Quebec Harbour Commission
of Canada; whereas in the case of a harbour commission the work is done under their own engineer and not under the supervision of the Public Works department.


Ernest Lapointe: They are under the
Marine department.


Robert James Manion: The harbour is not under the Marine department.


Ernest Lapointe: You are speaking of
those under commissions; they are under the Marine department.


Robert James Manion: But they have no investigatory powers. They might be able to do it if they insisted. But take any work that is done at Fort William or Port Arthur: it has to be submitted to the Public Works department, and as a matter of fact it is done by them through their own engineers and officers. They lay out the plans and perhaps call for the tenders and supervise the whole work. That is the whole difference.


Mr. SPENCE:: When I spoke yesterday I thought the debate would close within a few minutes, but twenty-four hours have elapsed and we are still discussing this question. I suggested then, and I still contend, that if this government owes the Quebec harbour commission any money on any account the matter should be straightened out. It is unfortunate that members of the government should try to create an impression in the country that we are endeavouring to discriminate against Quebec merely because it is Quebec. There is no intention on the part of any member on this side to vote against any legal improvements or developments which may be necessary at that port. I do not think anybody wishes to take that position and it is wrong for any hon. member to insinuate anything of the kind. But we do wish to get all the details in connection with this matter and to know what is being done with the money. We are being asked to vote a large sum, and it is important that we should know just how it will be spent. If the government will give us the necessary information they will not encounter any difficulty.


Mr. COOTE:: I must crave the indulgence of my impatient friends opposite for speaking so late. I have been present the greater part of the two days during which this discussion has been in progress, and I have listened patiently-sometimes impatiently-in the hope of getting some information which would really justify the committee in passing the reoslution. I have been reminded of a story I once heard-
56103-140J


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


An hon. MEMBER:: Get down to business.


Charles Gavan Power: A bedtime story? It is halfpast ten.


George Gibson Coote: This story is about a coloured gentleman, a darkey who was driving a team of mules through a southern swamp. It was late in the day, and by the time he got into the interior of the swamp it was quite dark.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: There was no
swamp.


George Gibson Coote: A thunderstorm came up
and every time there was a flash of lightning it lit up the road. The darkey liked that, but very soon the flash was followed by a clap of thunder which naturally made the mules very restive. As the storm got worse, after a particularly brilliant flash of lightning and the resultant clap of thunder, the mules became altogether unmanageable and ran away with the darkey, who fell into the bottom of the wagon. In this plight he began to pray, and his first words as reported were these: "Oh Lord, if it's all the same to you, could we have a little less noise and more light?'' Now I think we have had the noise, but I do not believe we have had all the light that we should have had.


Charles Avery Dunning: What about the mules?


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
all over on the front benches.


George Gibson Coote: I could not help thinking, as the minister was complaining of our having wasted two days on this question, that if we had been given the information to which I think the house is entitled when it is asked to vote $8,500,000, we might have disposed of the matter yesterday. If this question were referred to a committee and they devoted two sessions to it, I fancy they would find out all the facts by the end of that time. As it
is,	although we have spent nearly two days on
it,	we have not nearly all the information which should be given us. Perhaps it is not fair to lay all the blame on the minister, although he might have given a complete statement at the outset and so have saved a lot of time. I want to refer first of all to the question of the audit of moneys spent not only on this harbour but on all harbour commissions. That expenditure should be audited by the Auditor General's department. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that he will have the audit board audit the accounts if necessary, but I have never known the audit board's reports to be submitted to parliament. The Auditor General's

Quebec Harbour Commission
report is submitted to us annually and referred to the public accounts committee, and the house has an opportunity then of finding out how every dollar is spent in every department of government. But we cannot find out anything about the expenditures of these commissions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Gibson Coote: I regret that the one who
speaks last in these debates is under so serious a disadvantage. The house gets so noisy that it is almost impossible to speak. I do not think it is fair. I have sat and listened quietly to the discussion for two days, and now I have a right to be heard. I want to say first of all to the minister-and I do not intend to keep the committee very long-


An hon. MEMBER:: A good thing.


George Gibson Coote: Maybe, but I could talk for
half an hour if absolutely necessary. I was going to say, we voted $5,000,000 for the Quebec harbour in 1925, and we were told then that this was sufficient for a period of five years. Now after three years the minister comes back and asks for $S,500,000 more. He has not yet enlightened us as to what has made him change his mind, and why he now finds it necessary, two years before the expiry of the five-year period, to ask for this large additional vote. The minister should know just what claims ought to be allowed which are now being pressed by the commission. He might have told us what revenue has been collected by the commission during the past two years.


Charles Avery Dunning: He did; it is all in Hansard.


George Gibson Coote: Well, that must have been
while I was called out of the house. I am sorry I missed it. Somebody suggests that it is so small I did not miss very much anyway.


Charles Avery Dunning: The light was shining,
but you weren't here to see it.


George Gibson Coote: The minister might tell us- in fact, I hope he will when he brings down the bill-just how many berths there will be when he gets the wharf completed, and how many berths will be available for use. He might also let us know whether the prospective tonnage will require this additional accommodation.
Now, a word or two in regard to the proposal to erect the new storage elevator. I do not think the minister has yet given any reply to the question asked by the hon. member for
'Mr. Coote.]
Acadia as to how he was going to secure sufficient revenue from that elevator to pay interest on the' money. I did intend to read some of the remarks made by some of the hon. members in 1925 with regard to the possibility of shipping western grain through the port of Quebec, but I do not think I will do so. If anyone is interested he will find these statements reported in Hansard. The remarks of the hon. member for Provencher were particularly well put. He pointed out that in his opinion grain never would go through the port of Quebec during the open season, because the railway companies would not furnish enough cars to carry grain that distance when they could unload their cars at Fort William. In order to provide additional rolling stock which would be necessary they would have to spend millions of dollars, as the hon. member pointed out. If the hour were not so late and if some hon. members were not so impatient-and I really do not want to get into their bad graces- I would read some of the words of the hon. member.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps those gentlemen
have seen the light.


George Gibson Coote: They have not seen much
light if I correctly understood the number of bushels which have been handled through the present elevator at Quebec. In my opinion we are just as likely to handle 40,000,000 bushels through that elevator in one year as the proverbial camel is to go through the eye of a needle. It never will be done, for the simple reason that grain will not go to Quebec to any extent except when the river is frozen up. Then it will be used for winter storage, and the elevator will not handle very much more than three or four times its capacity in any year.
I think the cost of elevator construction, which was given by the minister as approximately 95 cents a bushel, is much too high. It seems to me that that statement Is a sufficient reason for us to ask the government to give this question very careful consideration. In the face of the present situation, and in order to remove any doubt as to the voting of this amount the government have only to convince the house that this work is needed, I do not see why they have not been wiling to let this matter go before a small committee, preferably the public accounts committee, before which the engineers could appear and demonstrate the need for this additional accommodation at Quebec harbour.

Chicago Drainage Canal


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: On division.
Resolution agreed to on division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 214, to provide for a loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
consent of the house to revert to the order, Motions.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles A. Stewart: I desire to
place upon the table a return asked for by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the subject being the report of the three' Canadian members of the International Waterways Commission dated on or about April 5, 1906, recommending the negotiation of a treaty with the United States. I should like, with the indulgence of the house, to make a short statement in regard to these important documents.
Incorporated with the material which is being tabled to-day regarding the Chicago diversion is a series of exchanges between the Canadian and United States governments, which has taken place subsequent to the exchanges tabled on February 24, 1926. In view of the complexity of the Chicago diversion matter and of the lengthy nature of this recent correspondence an explanatory statement with respect to it is desirable.
The tabling of this further correspondence will demonstrate the careful manner in which the interests of Canada have been continuously guarded by the Canadian government as the Chicago situation has developed from month to month.
On February 24, 1926, there was tabled in the House of Commons an interchange of correspondence between the Canadian government and that of the United States with respect to the matter of the withdrawal of water from the great lakes system by the Chicago sanitary district. In my statement to the house at that time, covering the correspondence then tabled, I mentioned the fact that on January 5. 1926, the Canadian government,
having secured an official interpretation by the United States government of the permit which the United States Secretary of War had issued on March 3, 1925, in favour of the Chicago sanitary district, had set forth its position in a comprehensive manner in a further despatch, dated February 4, 1926, which included a protest against then pending proposals for the construction of a nine-foot navigable channel in the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, based upon the diversion of
10,000	cubic feet per second from the great lakes through the sanitary district canal, and that this despatch had been withheld from publication, in accordance with an understanding with the government of the United States.
In the interval which elapsed pending the receipt of the reply of the United States government to this note, and because of the increasing concern arising from the progress of the Mississippi waterway measure before congress, the government of Canada sent a further communication to the government of the United States on April 30, 1926, drawing the attention of that government to the international aspect of the matter and protesting vigorously against the action contemplated by the measure.
At about the same date the Dominion government was in receipt of a communication from the government of the province of Ontario, transmitting a copy of a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province also protesting against the enactment by the United States congress of any legislation authorizing the abstraction of water from the great lakes system at Chicago. This protest was also formerly transmitted to the United States government on April 23, 1926,
A response to the Canadian government s representations was received on July 26, 1926, which among other things, advised that the bill which had been before congress and which had had in view the authorization of a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from great lakes system to the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, had not been enacted into law during the session of congress then recently closed, and advised further, however, that the bill would be taken up for consideration shortly after the next session of congress which convened in December.
To follow this point further I might state that the Mississippi waterway measure was considered by the reassembled congress in December and was passed with a reference to the 10,000 cubic feet per second diversion deleted, and with an amendment added to the effect "that nothing in this act shall be con-
Chicago Drain-age Canal

strued as authorizing any diversion of water from lake Michigan." In view of the consistent protests which the government of Canada had registered in opposition to the principles embodied in the Mississippi waterway measure as first introduced, the amendment to the bill should give ground for a considerable measure of satisfaction on the part of the people of Canada. This amendment removed the objections of the lake bordering states which had been vigorously fighting the proposal in congress, and would appear to have very largely met the objectionable features inherent in the original bill.
Furthermore, in response to a specific inquiry made in the Canadian government's despatch of January 5th, 1926, as to what progress had been attained by the Chicago sanitary district and by the municipality of Chicago in the provision of the curtailment measures called for by the permit of the United States Secretary of War, dated March 3, 1925-under which authority the diversion is now being made-the United States government in its despatch of July 26th, informed the Canadian government:
(a)	That preliminary investigations had been made with regard to the installation of controlling works at the intake to the sanitary canal, and that it was expected that detail plans would be prepared during the ensuing year, and that no difficulty in the completion of these works prior to the expiration of the permit was anticipated.
(b)	That the progress made by the city of Chicago in carrying out the installation of sewage treatment works was satisfactory.
(c)	That it was expected that the installation of water meters would, in the near future, result in a reduction in the consumption of water used for domestic purposes.
From the statements made by the United States government as to the progress made by the Chicago sanitary .district in meeting the conditions of the Secretary of War's permit we would be warranted in assuming that the United States government was satisfied that the progressive reduction which it anticipated in its note of November 24, 1925, would be realized. This note anticipatel a reduction by December 31, 1929, to 8.000 cubic feet per second and probably 6,700 cubic feet per second, and stated further that the sewage treatment program of the sanitary district had been arranged so as to make it possible to effect a reduction to a gross flow of 4,167 cubic feet per second by the year 1935 or before.
The subsequent exchange of correspondence tabled to-day has to do mainly with the securing of the assent of the United States governfMr. C. A. Stewart.]
ment to the publication of the despatches to which I have just referred. This was formally requested in a communication from the Canadian government dated November 16, 1926.
In a response dated December 7, 1926, the United States government expressed the view that the report of the Joint Board of Engineers on the St. Lawrence waterway project had greatly altered the understanding of the situation with respect to diversions from great lakes watersheds, and that it would, therefore, be unjustifiable to publish the correspondence which was based upon, at least, a partial misapprehension of the facts. The note pointed out that there had been a general impression in many parts of Canada and United States that the fall of some thirty inches in lake levels was very largely due to the diversion at Chicago, whereas, the joint board's report showed that only a small part of the fall in lake levels had been due to that diversion. The note further suggested that the two governments enter upon a discussion of the practical question of providing compensatory works as recommended by the Joint Board of Engineers.
In the response of the Canadian government, dated September 1, 1927, the Canadian government pointed out that it had not been under any misapprehension as to the extent which the abstraction of water through the Chicago sanitary canal had lowered the levels of the great lakes, and that it had been fully advised that this lowering had been in the neighbourhood of six inches, and pointed out that if any misapprehension existed in the United! States or in Canada as to the degree of lowering occasioned by the Chicago abstraction, the publication of these papers would go a long way towards relieving such misunderstanding.
The Canadian note furthermore pointed out that the installation of compensatory works for the restoration of lake levels would in no way recoup to the great lakes system, the power which is lost to that system by water abstracted therefrom through the sanitary canal, and that while recognizing the marked advantages which may be gained by the construction of suitable compensating works, Canada would not be prepared to enter upon a discussion of any plans for the construction of such works if this course involved an assumption that the present abstraction through the Chicago sanitary canal is to continue. A further suggestion that the correspondence be published was incorporated in the Canadian note.
In the United States government's response the suggestion as to the publication of the
correspondence was accepted incorporating,

St. John Harbour Commission
however, in the series to be published, a further despatch dated October 17, 1927, in which it inferred that the apportionment of water for power purposes at Niagara under which Canada receives 36,000 cubic feet per second, and the United States, 20,000 cubic feet per second, was in compensation for the abstraction of water by Chicago. It is hardly necessary to state that the Canadian government does not concur in this viewpoint and that aJll Canadian governments have consistently taken the stand, in all protests made to the United States government, since the initiation of the abstraction of the water, that no compensation has anywhere or at any time been made for the Chicago withdrawal.
The house is also aware of the suit which is now pending before the United States Supreme Court, under which the states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pensylvania, and Minnesota, with the support also of the states of Michigan, and New York, are questioning the legality of the permits which have been issued by the United States Secretary of War to the Chicago sanitary district authorizing the withdrawal of water through the Chicago sanitary canal, and questioning further the right even of congress to authorize such withdrawal from the great lakes system.
This suit in the United States Supreme Court is, of course, a purely domestic matter with which the government of Canada has no direct contact and with respect to which it could not with any propriety taken any action or make any representations. I might add, however, that as the suit involves legal principles of the very highest importance to Canada, the progress is being followed with the utmost care, in order that the effect on Canadian interests of whatever decision is reached may be fully appreciated, and that any necessary action may be taken to protect those interests.
It will be evident from the foregoing that the Canadian government is maintaining the closest possible contact with every phase and feature having to do with the Chicago diversion. The government of Canada has consistently refused to recognize the diversion in the slightest measure and will continue to present the Canadian viewpoint with all possible firmness to the United States government against the entire principle of abstracting water from the great lakes to another watershed.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OF 85,000,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Saint John in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 to enable the corporation to construct such terminal facilities as are necessary properly to equip the port of Saint John, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would be good enough, in a clear and concise way, to tell us the circumstances under Which this resolution is being moved. This is a large sum of money and we should like to know just what is involved in it and what obligations the country accepts, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as apparently there was in another case. It seems to me we should get a statement of that kind from the minister in the case of this harbour commission which is coming to parliament for a grant for the first time since it came into existence.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The conditions in connection with the placing of the harbour of St. John under the harbour commissioners are embodied in the act under which the commission was created. The total consideration for the transfer of the harbour to the commissioners amounted to 12,135,118, apportioned as follows: existing bonded indebtedness of the city occasioned in the development of the harbour, to be taken over by the harbour commissioners, $1,467,164; balance to be paid to the city in harbour commissioners' bonds, $667,953.04. Of course this does not include the expenditure made through the Department of Public Works; it covers only the expenditure made by the city of St. John. As we all know, St. John harbour is a very old one, having been established in 1783.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are those bonds to be a first charge, first mortgage bond?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Guaranteed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no guarantee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean the $600,000 bond to which the minister has referred, to be given to the city of St. John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This will be the payment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cash payment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that the government is supposed to make to the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand the
matter, the Dominion of Canada has bought the harbour?

St. John Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assuming obligations for $1,500,000 and paying some $600,000 in bonds; is that correct?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Harbour commissioners' bonds?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To be paid to the city in harbour commissioners' bonds. The commissioners themselves are going to pay the city of St. John by bonds of the St. John harbour commission as created last year, the sum of $667,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What rate of interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five per cent, the rate which is. charged to all the commissions.


George Reginald Geary: It is the commissioners who are buying the harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How was the price arrived at?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was a valuation.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: By whom?


Peter John Veniot: By the engineers of the Department of Public Works.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No arbitration?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand that the $600,000 worth of bonds of the harbour commission are to be given to the city of St. John in addition to the $5,000,000 worth of bonds that will be issued by the Dominion government for this loan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The program which has been presented to us by the commissioners of St. John requests an amount of $10,000,000 for the work that they were disposed to undertake after careful examination by their engineers, but it has been agreed that $5,000,000 would satisfy them and would cover a program of three years' development. The statement which is given to me is that the initial development proposed with the loan now asked for would provide working space for four vessels loading general cargo and two vessels loading grain, and it includes the necessary dredging to provide basins and a channel of thirty feet at low water, to be increased to 35 feet should that later be found necessary. There will also be provided a new grain elevator; with a capacity of
2,400,000	bushels, with grain conveyor galleries connecting with two of the new berths. The

new shipping berths will be equipped with one storey freight sheds 575 feet by 90 feet. The work is to be undertaken with the idea of providing a complete unit of development ready for operation within the term of three years over which the loan is to be spread, as provided for in this bill.
As was stated this afternoon in the course of the discussion on another proposal, these developments in the port of St. John are recommended by the Duncan commission. This is what is said by the Duncan commission in regard to the matter:
We recommend that, in respect of each of these two harbours-
That is St. John and Halifax.
-the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually- but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer.
It is pursuant to these recommendations of the Duncan commission that we have incorporated the present harbour commission to take over the harbour, and following that recommendation we are accepting part of the program which has been suggested by the present harbour commission. I may say for the information of the committee that the gross earnings in 1927 amounted to $257,704.97 and the expenditures to $218,462.80.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include the interest charges?


Peter John Veniot: The interest on the city's own indebtedness.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1926-27, with the present elevator facilities, they handled 25,855,000 bushels.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does that mean if the present rate of earnings is maintained, the interest on the bonds will be earned in part?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think I can say that interest on the $5,000,000 for which they are asking will be met for some time. The commissioners do not expect to be in a position for some years to pay interest on this amount.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is the $5,000,000 for the completion of one unit of development?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that really $5,000,000,
or does it mean $10,000,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount required for the whole development which they have in

view is 810,000,000, but they have represented to the department that with 85,000,000 they are capable of building a complete unit.


George Reginald Geary: The minister does not expect that there will be any interest chargeable during construction?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The interest will be retained by the Minister of Finance.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 20, 1928.