1928-06-11

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GEARY:: lor a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any officer or official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and (a) broadcasting station CKCL (The Dominion Battery Company Limited), and (b) broadcasting station CKNC (Canada Carbon Company, Limited, Toronto), relative to the change of such stations from the 840 kilocycle channel to the 580 kilocycle channel.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: For a return of a statement showing in full
(a)	the total amount spent from the year 1911 to date on the Hudson Bay railway by the Railway department; (b) the total amount spent by the Railway department in the port of Nelson; (e) the total amount spent on the port of Churchill by the Railway department; (d) the costs to the Railway department in full in the purchase and transport of all supplies to the ports of Nelson or Churchill in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and its terminals and their facilities; (e) the total amount expended by the Marine department in connection with the port of Nelson or Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway and in the survey of navigation in the straits or in Hudson bay and in the placing of aids to navigation in the Hudson straits or Hudson hay and at the ports of Nelson and Churchill; (f) the total cost of aerial surveys in Hudson straits and Hudson bay in connection with the navigation to the ports of Nelson and Churchill; (g) all other expenditures for any department of the government in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, its terminals at Nelson or Churchill and in the navigation of the Hudson bay and straits.
All such statements to include expenditures from the year 1911 to date, inclusive.

Supply-Customs Valuations for Duty



IMMIGRATION-DESTITUTE MENNONITES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I wish
to direct the attention of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) to the fact that seventy-five families of Mennonites lately out from Europe have been left for some time without any means of support. The large land owners have moved to Mexico, and although their bishop has secured from $10 to $15 from the head of each family they are still without any means of support or of getting work.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: There is a special agent at present investigating the different Mennonite settlements and I have had no report from him in regard to the matter my hon. friend mentions. If such is the case I will look into it.


John Evans: The firm of Sibbald and
Caswell, solicitors, of Saskatoon, have charge of the matter.



GRANTS TO AGRICULTURAL FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
am glad to see my genial friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) back in his place. It would have been very wise had he been present Saturday evening; he might have taken cognizance of some of the remarks that were then made regarding one section of his department.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is not a question
on the orders of the day.


George Halsey Perley: I want to ask the minister a question because I am interested in the matter myself. There was a good deal of criticism Saturday night regarding the re-, peal of grants to class B fairs. There is one of these fairs in my own county and I know what a good thing it is. Will the minister say whether he will change the arrangements in respect to these grants to class B fairs and give them the usual amount?


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I want to ask the
minister a question along the same line.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the minister will
be allowed to answer one question first.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I read a synopsis of the discussion that took place last Saturday. There
was a full discussion and it was intimated that consideration would be given by the government to the representations made.



COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND CUSTOMS VALUATIONS FOR DUTY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
John Evans: Before
you leave the chair Mr. Speaker there is one matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the government. It will not take more than five minutes for me to present the facts, seeing that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) already has notice of my intention. I move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"seeing that certain rules and regulations prevail in the Customs department by which appraisals are made which absolutely prevent the successful operation of cooperative societies for the distribution of supplies of certain industries-particularly Agriculture-and the necessaries of life-it is the opinion of this house that all goods imported shall be assessed at purchase price only unless such price is lower than the manufacturer or vendor charges in the country of origin."
I will not enlarge upon the amendment, but I wish to state briefly the conditions under which agricultural cooperative societies are now working. It appears that there is in the Dominion a distributing combine which has set up certain rules and regulations under which goods throughout this country shall be distributed. It appears that we are all classified under one of five or six classifications; at the bottom is the consumer; next to him comes the retailer, then the wholesaler, the jobber or dealer and the manufacturer. Under this rule a cooperative company is always classed as a consumer, and it cannot buy goods from the manufacturer at first cost, whether in Canada, in the United States or any other country in the world. We want all cooperative companies to have the right to purchase their goods at first cost. A cooperative conference will be held at Edmonton next month and the attitude of the government will be placed before that conference to show why cooperative companies in Canada have failed, why they are prevented from operating successfully at present, and the difficulties with which they will have to contend in the future if the present system is continued. We have been endeavouring for
4128	COMMONS
Supply-Customs Valuations jor Duty
a good many years, through farmers' organizations in the country, to distribute our goods at first cost; we have tried the distribution of agricultural implements but these regulations of the distribution combine, recognized by the Dominion government through the customs appraisers, have practically put us out of business. To-day we are still at the mercy of the distributing combine.
I have sent notice to the Minister of Customs with regard to this amendment and in view of the fact that the session is about to close I shall not enlarge on what I have already said.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, for many years the discrimination practised against cooperative organizations was merely on the part of wholesalers and manufacturers; in other words, for many years the cooperative organizations were not allowed to buy their goods at wholesale prices. Now we have come to a different period; the time has come when the cooperative movement is generally recognized as one of the outstanding features of this age. The remarkable success of the wheat pools in the west-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
my hon. friend a question? I think the mover of the amendment made the statement that cooperative societies could not purchase from the manufacturers. Is that correct? *


John Evans: That is quite right.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean to say they are prohibited from purchasing from manufacturers?
Mr. E'VANS:	They will not sell.


Charles A. Stewart: And is my
hon. friend intimating that there has been discriminatory action on the part of the government?


Milton Neil Campbell: I think I can answ'er
that. I was going to say that for many years the manufacturers and the wholesalers did discriminate against cooperative organization.


Mr. MALCOLM:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? I do not think he should make that broad statement in this House of Commons without illustrating his point and giving the names of manufacturers who did discriminate. I do not believe the statement is correct.


Milton Neil Campbell: I might remind the
Minister of Trade and Commerce that a good
[Mr. Evans. 1
deal of evidence on this very point was brought out before the special committee on agricultural conditions in 1923. I was going to say that this condition does not exist today, or at any rate not to the extent which was the case many years ago. We have come to a period now when discrimination on the part of manufacturers and wholesalers against cooperative organizations has very largely disappeared. That is not our grievance at present. We find in the Customs department that there is a regulation which assesses goods brought in by a cooperative organization for duty purposes at the retail price in the country of origin. That is our grievance. It seems to me that with the cooperative movement recognized as it is to-day, and taking an outstanding place in the business of the country, the time has come when this discrimination should be removed. I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the house, but I think the Minister of Customs might very well give us some assurance that in the future this will be done.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend answer another question? Probably he is well aware of the conditions which existed when the Grain Growers' Grain Company were in the implement business. They were buying largely from American manufacturers and selling -the implements to the farmers. I never heard that they were charged excessive duties on goods brought into this country.


John Evans: I would like to answer the Minister of the Interior in this way: No Canadian concern would sell to the United Grain Growers so they wiere forced to go to foreign countries to purchase their supplies. Every time they brought in a consignment of goods the dumping clause was applied, and the extra duty was always just about sufficient to cover the profit of all the concerns which stood between the manufacturer and the consumer. Under the rule of the combine of this country, which was recognized by the customs officials when making appraisals, the United Grain Growers could not get any different treatment, and because of this the duty that had to be paid on these implements in some years amounted to over 78 per cent.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Is the hon. gentleman replying? There is no reply allowed to the mover of an amendment.


John Evans: I was merely answering a
question.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend mentioned that the Minister of Customs had been given notice of this proposed amendment.


John Evans: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know when the police was given, but this is the first intimation I have had of any intention to move an amendment on going into supply this morning. Therefore I am a little surprised that my hon. friend has brought up his motion at this time. If it has been introduced for the purpose of bringing this matter again to the attention of the government in order that it may be examined with care I would say that I am sure the Minister of National Revenue will be glad to join with his other colleagues in seeing that that is done. I would remind the hon. gentleman, however, that his amendment as brought- forward, constitutes a motion of want of confidence in the administration, and if we were to debate the motion probably we would enter on a prolonged discussion.
If what I have said to my hon. friend is sufficient to meat the purpose he has in view, with the assurance that this matter will be carefully considered, well and good; if not I think we bad better vote at once on the question.


John Evans: I would be very pleased to let the matter rest there, on the understanding that the Minister of Customs will make a statement and give us some information in time to lay it before the conference which meets in Edmonton next month. Under these conditions I will withdraw tihe resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment withdrawn.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Loans to Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $39,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "The Company," or any company specified or referred to in chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and chapter 13 of the statutes of 1920 or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it
from time to time under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 172 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or any one or more of such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being herein called authorized expenditures:
[Stage Direction]
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations; rentals for lease of lines;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured;
_	(c) Operating income deficit, whenever
incurred or ascertained;
(d) Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures, in the discretion of the governor in council:-*
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works, entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b)	In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:-
If by way of loans from His Majesty, the amount or amounts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand, with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the governor in council, secured if and when directed by the governor in council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the governor in council may approve.
If by way of loans from persons other than His Majesty (without the guarantee of His Majesty) the amounts, terms and conditions of such loans shall be such as the governor in council may from time to time approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the governor in council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue, and such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance, or such other person as the governor in council may authorize, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
Should temporary loans be made or negotiated before the lapse of this appropriation either from His Majesty or other persons, guaranteed notes, obligations or securities may subsequently be issued under the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this enactment to renew, refund or adjust such loans, or any part thereof.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or Others of the said companies, and, without limiting the generality
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Railways*-C.N.R. Hotels
of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all such other companies from time to time:-
(a)	Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purpose of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all of such other companies;
(c)	Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue, $39,000,000.
Mr. BENNETT:: This resolution, involving the expenditure of some $47,000,000, is a matter of very great importance. I have ventured to point out to this house that I think it should take the form of a separate bill, introduced and passed as a statute, and that question has not been discussed by members of the government o-r by the house.


Mr. DUNNING:: Will my hon. friend just permit me one interruption? I know he wishes to state these figures accurately; the vote in question is for $30,000,000. The total of four or five votes is $47,000,000 including that to provide for maritime freight rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apart altogether from the question of whether this vote should appear in the supply bill, there is another point which I think the Minister of Finance would do well to consider. This particular vote is for $39,000,000, but it does not indicate where the money is to be expended. It has been the custom of this parliament when granting money to indicate exactly what is to be done with it, but this estimate does not in any sense indicate where that money is to be expended. This is done in the Public Works estimates, in the National Defence estimates, in the Customs, and in other estimates. My contention is that these particulars should be set out in an act of parliament, and not in the proceedings of a select committee which does not bind this parliament nor bind the persons affected. I do know that the permanent officials of the Department of Finance have found the gravest difficulty because of this circumstance, through money that was intended for one purpose being applied, very properly, by the railway company to another, because there is no statutory or parliamentary restriction placed upon its use. I think the Minister of Finance should take this into consideration. I insist that we have the right, as parliament, to have these estimates con-
	1
tain a clear statement as to where the money is to be spent and the amount to be applied for each purpose, and its mere inclusion in a statement or report of the proceedings of a select committee does not in any sense meet the requirements of this parliament with respect to the expenditure of public money. We should have the details as given in other estimates.
The other evening I ventured to draw the attention of the house to the fact that obligations in respect to equipment trusts were being paid out of capital or money borrowed from the country, and the minister very properly dbserved that these moneys should be paid out of income. It will be seen from the statement of the National railway system for 1927 that the funded debt outstanding shows an increase of $55,901,492.03. Four and a half per cent equipment trust securities, series J, having a par value of $15,000,000, were issued, and it appears that various equipment trust obligations, amounting to $5,291,400, were retired out of capital. The proceedings before the select committee show that this was not an initial payment, because the initial payment for equipment is provided for in these estimates. I took the trouble to check this up with the Department of Finance. If the $5,291,400 were used to make a down payment, one could understand it, but in looking over the evidence before the select committee it will be found that this year a million dollars is to be used for equipment trust and $7,841,000 is required to make payment of equipment principal certificates during the next year. If the minister will say whether or not these are principal payments for new equipment, it will shorten the argument. If he will say whether they are principal payments on equipment already purchased, it will make it much easier.
Mr. DUNNING; They are both.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My impression was that
it must have been both because it is too large an item for this year. This answers to some extent, the observation made by the minister the other evening that this should be paid entirely out of income.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstood me there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman so
stated in Hansard. He said the equipment item should be paid out of income after the equipment is purchased."


Charles Avery Dunning: My intention was to
state the common practice, that when equip-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
ment purchased in this manner is retired from service it must be replaced out of the charge of revenue and not by the creation of an additional revenue charge. That was the point I had in mind the other evening, and if my language did not convey that, I wish it to be understood now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said that equipment trust obligations should be paid out of income, that is, after the down payment is made and the certificates are issued which mature from year to year and should be paid out of income. I think that is a correct statement of what the minister said. I was pointing out that according to the return made and the evidence given before the select committee, a large sum is paid as principal, that is as capital, to retire certificates that are payable out of income, as is the practice with other railway companies. That matter was not gone into in any detail before the select committee.
This money is to be used for other purposes, one of which is the commencement of hotel operations at Vancouver. There is also a million and a quarter for a hotel at Halifax. I am bound to say that the intemperate language used by the Minister of Railways the other evening makes it necessary for me to deal at some length with the Vancouver situation. One would have thought, from what he said, that the Vancouver situation was brought about by what he termed the shadow government, and that we had incurred the obligation under an order in council. I am going to point out to the minister that either his memory was not to be relied upon with respect to the transaction, and no man's memory should be relied upon with respect to the hundreds of orders in council that are passed, or that in the endeavour to close this session on Saturday night he thought it desirable not to give all the facts. The order in council to which he referred was an order in council prepared by the president and chairman of the Canadian National railway system.


Charles Avery Dunning: I quoted it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister made a
charge against the administration during the shadow days-I have taken his language from Hansard-having prepared an order in council for political purposes. I hold in my hand a letter written by Sir Henry Thornton, under date of August 3, 1926, addressed to the Hon. Sir Henry Drayton, K.C., Acting Prime Minister of Canada, and which was attached to the order in council:
56103-26X4
I enclose herewith draft order in council with respect to the construction of a hotel in the city of Vancouver by the Canadian National Railways, and in support of this proposal I beg to advise as follows.
When the Canadian Northern Railway secured its entrance into that city, a contract was entered into between the city and the company under which the railway agreed to assume certain obligations which are set forth in the attached draft order. The fulfillment of these obligations would cost the railway company about $8,150,000. The city is prepared, to forego them provided the railway company will construct, or cause to be constructed, a first class modern hotel in Vancouver, containing approximately five hundred rooms, and to maintain and operate it.
The abandonment by the city of obligations which approximate $8,150,000 is in itself a convincing argument, but it had the additional advantage of placing in the hands of the company a much needed facility and clearing up a controversy with the city which is rapidly becoming serious and if allowed to continue will unquestionably result in bad feeling with consequent loss of traffic.
From the point of view of the company's business, a hotel at Vancouver is probably one of the most important and pressing matters between the head of the lakes and the Pacific coast. I need not remind you how utterly we are at the mercy of our principal competitor m Vancouver in this respect, and I believe we are losing a good many thousands of dollars worth of business each year through absence of our own hotel facilities.
At a recent meeting of the board of directors ot the^ Canadian National Railway Company, the opinion was unanimous that the company should, for the reasons given above, operate a hotel m Vancouver, and appropriate resolutions to bring this about -were passed
Will my hon. friend be good enough to listen carefully to the balance?
Vo a will observe that the draft order in council indicates that the results from the operation of the railway this year are so satisfactory that the railway company can provide the necessary funds for the purpose from the estimates which were submitted to parliament at its last session and approved by the select standing committee on railways and shipping.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
surely admit that I quoted exactly what he is now quoting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend read the paragraph I have just read but he did not complete the letter. The letter continues: I do not know that I can add anything to what has been said except to repeat with all of the emphasis at my command that a suitable hotel in Vancouver is necessary to adequately protect the company's revenue. Such a hotel would attract much additional business to the lines of the National railway and, in addition, would serve the rapidly growing needs of \ ancouver for increased hotel accommodation. The present hotel accommodation in that city is entirely inadequate to take care of the large number of tourists who visit that city not only in the summer but during the winter to a considerable extent also.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
I trust that the proposals herein contained will be expedited as rapidly as possible by the government, because if there is any material delay the opportunity of making a satisfactory settlement with the city will be withdrawn and an important traffic producing centre will be changed from a friendly district into one which will be distinctly hostile. Aside from all other considerations, this would incur a liability which the national railways, with its need for increased traffic, can ill afford.
Yours faithfully,
H. W. Thornton, Chairman and President.

I neglected to say that negotiations for a suitable hotel at Vancouver have been in progress with increasing activity for at least two years. Also the estimates of our hotel department indicate the net profit from operation will meet all capital charges and leave a small margin besides.
I read that communication because it was attached to the order in council. It was not referred to by the minister. It is the very basis upon which the order in council was framed from a draft prepared by the president and chairman of the company with his assistants. That was when Sir Henry Drayton was acting Minister of Railways and acting Prime Minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the date of
that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is
wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that I am wrong. It would be just as well to make the correction now. I shall be glad to sit down in order that he may do so. It will expedite the business.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will deal with the
matter later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will also deal with it later. I will now read Privy Council order No. 1218, and I desire to direct careful attention to it:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 3rd August, 1926, from the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, representing:
1.	That under date the 5th day of February,
1913, an agreement was entered into between the city of Vancouver, in the .province of British Columbia, of the first part, and the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, of the second part, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, of the third part; the said agreement being hereinafter referred to as "the agreement", the city of Vancouver as "the city" and the said railway companies as "the companies".	.
2.	That under the agreement the companies covenanted with the city, inter alia, to do and perform certain matters and things specifically set out in the agreement clauses numbers 12,
13,	14, 16 and 17 thereof, and in the whole generally in effect as follows:
(a)	That the approach of the railway "through the high grounds lying to the south and east of the railway property shall be by means of a tunnel of double track capacity or two single track tunnels, the tunnels to be electrified and permanently maintained;
(b)	That a permanent station be established at the south or east portal of the tunnel, and if the north portal is more than three-quarters of a mile from the Union station, an additional permanent station to be constructed at the north portal;
(c)	That no engines in False creek shall at any time be operated by steam from coal oil other substances emitting fumes, gas or smoke to such an extent as to make a nuisance;
(d)	That within five years from 1913 a 250-
room first class hotel shall be constructed and thereafter permanently maintained within the limits on property other than railway property ;	_
(el That, if required, a spur-track crossing Main street to the city market be constructed.
That ends that.
3.	That the companies have not carried out the provisions of the agreement, clauses 12, 13,
14,	16 and 17 thereof.

Supply-Railway.s-C.N.R. Hotels
4.	That the city is pressing for the immediate performance of the provisions of the agreement, clause 16 thereof, urging, that the present needs of the city require a larger hotel than the one proposed under the provisions of the said clause 16.
5.	That the estimated cost to the companies of carrying out the works called for by the agreement, clauses 12, 13, 14 and 17 thereof, is $8,150,000.
6. That the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company is of opinion that the companies' liability under the agreement, clauses 12, 13, 14 and 17 thereof, is questionable, and that it is not in the public interest that the companies undertake to comply with the provisions of the said clauses of the said agreement, the agreement in respect of which was improvidently entered into.
7.	That the cost of the construction of the proposed 500-room hotel is estimated at $3,500.000.
8.	That during the past two years-
And I direct the minister's attention to this.
That during the pasl two years negotiations have, with the approval of the Department of Railways and Canals, been carried on between the authorities of the Canadian National Railways and the authorities of the city with an endeavour to effect a settlement between the companies and the city providing for the erection by the companies of a hotel within the limits of the city of approximately five hundred renting rooms to be operated by the companies and providing for the release by the city of the carrying out by the companies of the provisions of the agreement, clauses 12, 13, 14 and 17 thereof.
Now this is the really relevant section:
9.	That the negotiations in the immediately preceding statement referred to have been .-arried on to a successful conclusion.
And they were carried on by the government antecedent to the advent into power of the Meighen administration.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After the advent into
power of the Meighen government no negotiations were carried on with the city of Vancouver.
9.	That the negotiations in the immediately preceding statement referred to have been carried on to a successful conclusion, the authorities of the city making stipulation that action under agreement reached through such negotiations be taken immediately, in which immediate action the authorities of the Canadian National Railways concur.
10.	That the council of the city-
That is the city of Vanvouver-
-passed a resolution on the 15th day of April, 1926, (copy of the resolution hereto attached marked "A") making reference to the agreement, and. in particular, to clauses 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 thereof and to the matter of hotel requirements in the city, and under said resolution resolved as follows:
"That, in consideration of the said railway companies, or either of them, immediately erecting, or causing to be erected by an arrangement with any other person or company, a first-class modern hotel containing not less than five hundred rooms, and forthwith to maintain and operate the same, the city hereby releases the company from its obligations under clauses 12, 13, 14 and 17 of the said agreement of 1913.
The agreement, which is marked exhibit "A," I hold in my hand. It reads:
Moved by Alderman Almond.
Seconded by Alderman Gibbons.
Whereas an agreement was entered into on the fifth day of February, 1913, between the city of Vancouver, of the first part, the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, of the second part, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, of the third part;
x\nd whereas under the said agreement the said railway companies, and each of them, covenanted with the city, inter alia, to do and perform such matters and things as are more specifically set out in clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of said agreement;
And whereas the said railway companies have not carried out the provisions of the said clauses;
And whereas the city has been, and is now, pressing for the immediate performance, particularly of clause 16 of said agreement, and has urged that the present needs of the City require a much larger hotel than the one proposed in the said clause;
And vdiereas the company has indicated its willingness to take immediate steps to procure the erection of such larger hotel and maintain and operate the same, but is desirous of being relieved of any obligations under clauses 12, 13, 14, and 17 of the said agreement;
And whereas it is not deemed that the undertaking provided for in said clauses are required for the present needs of the City;
Therefore, be it resolved that, in consideration of the said railway companies, or either of them, immediately erecting, or causing to be erected by an arrangement with any other person or company, a first-class modern hotel containing not less than five hundred rooms, and forthwith to maintain and operate the same, the city hereby releases the company from its obligations under clauses 12, 13, 14, and 17 of the said agreement of 1913.
Carried.
Certified a true copy of resolution passed by the council of the city of Vancouver on the 15th day of April A.D. 1926.
(Sgd.) Wm. McQueen,
City Clerk.
(Sgd.) Louis D. Taylor,
Mayor.
Who was in power then? What government had control here? Mr. Meighen's government was not in power; the so-called shadow government was not in power. There is the document attached to the order in council that at once destroys the statements made in this house on Saturday night as to whether or not the arrangements had been completed with respect to a settlement between the city of Vancouver and the government of this

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
country. There is the document and the order in council produced by my hon. friend the minister himself. He made reflections upon men who may not speak for themselves, who are attacked for having done things that they did not do, and for that reason it is essential that there should be placed on the record the facts with respect to this transaction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear. I heartily
agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us go further with
the order in council. Paragraph 11 states:
That it is the opinion of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company that, in view of the progress made by the Canadian National Railways in revenue receipts during the present year, the whole cost of the construction of the proposed five hundred room hotel can be met from the estimates which were submitted to parliament at its last session and approved by the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
That is a repetition of the statement made in t'he letter of Sir Henry Thornton, the chairman of the board, in an official communication to the government as to where the money was to come from. He said, "Here is the money because we have done so much better than we expected that we will have sufficient in the $10,000,000 voted by parliament to make the $3,500,000 available for that purpose." Incidentally that supports the statement I made to the Minister of Finance, that if you desire to treat these funds as earmarked for a particular purpose, you must so state in the estimates. Paragraph 12 of the order in council reads:
That the chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways under a letter dated the 3rd day of August, 1926, addressed to the Honourable Sir H. Drayton, Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (copy of said letter hereto attached marked "B"), submitted the above arrangement, together with a copy of this draft recommendation to council-
It did not originate from the old shadow government at all. It was done by the chairman and president of the railway company and his directors:
-submitted the above arrangement, together with a copy of this draft recommendation to council covering the same, and advised in effect that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company at a recent meeting of said board unanimously expressed the opinion that the companies should operate a hotel within the city and had passed appropriate resolutions to give effect to the arrangement and recommending confirmation of the arrangement generally hereinbefore referred to between the city and the companies in the matter.
The minister submits the above and, upon the advice of the Deputy Minister of Railways
[Mr. Bennett.l
and Canals, recommends that approval be given to the recommendation of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company to construct at the approximate cost of $3,500,000 to the Canadian National Railways of a hotel in the city of Vancouver of an approximate capacity of five hundred rooms, and to fully equip and thereafter permanently operate the same in consideration of the city of Vancouver releasing the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company of any and all obligations and liabilities under the provisions of clauses 12, 13, 14 and 17 of the agreement dated the 5th day of February, 1913, made and entered into between the city of Vancouver, party of the first part, and the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, party of the second part, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, party of the third part, and that authority be given to the said railway companies to enter into an agreement or agreements with the city of Vancouver to give full effect accordingly.
Not to the crown:
-and that authority be given to the said railway companies to enter into an agreement or agreements with the city of Vancouver to give full effect accordingly.
That is the position. The authority was given to the railway companies to complete the agreement, not to the crown:
and that authority be given to the said railway companies to enter into an agreement or agreements with the city of Vancouver to give full effect accordingly.
(Signed) G. G. Kezar, Acting Clerk of the Privy Council.
I have read the order in council, and I have read the letter of the chairman and president of the board together with the appropriate action taken on the 15th of April by the city council of Vancouver, and have done so because it does appear to me in view of the observations that were made here the other evening that it of first-rate importance that the facts as the documents indicated should be placed on the record. It is true that the agreement was not signed. Why? Although the right hon. the Prime Minister himself charged that reckless expenditures of moneys were being made by governor general's warrants during the regime of the so-called shadow government, I can say this, and the Minister of Finance will bear me out, that as Minister of Finance in that administration I took the statutes and set up a trust account with respect to every dollar of expenditure of every department in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act and other enactments, and the Minister of Finance himself bore tribute to our care when 'he rose in this house in the next session to point out that every single departmental expenditure that had been made was within the terms of the trust thus set up at

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
my instance by the Auditor General of this country. The Minister of Finance will recall [DOT]that circumstance in connection with the validation of governor general's warrants. It was thought that we were passing governor general's warrants in blanket form. That was not done. Each appropriation was treated as an appropriation bill, and the funds were marked as trust funds, set up as such in the books of the country, as required by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act of this Dominion. When this order in council came under my attention as it naturally would in the end, I having been absent in various parts of the Dominion in the meantime, I pointed out that under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act there is no power to pass a governor general's warrant for $3,500,000 and that parliament had not made provision for that amount. The agreement was not signed. I must accept the responsibility for that, jointly, of course, with my colleagues.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said that the moneys were not to come from the crown. How would a governor general's warrant be necessary if they were not to come from the crown?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman does not mean that seriously. The Canadian National was to get the money from the crown, and had to make an agreement with the city. That was stated in the order in council. The hon. gentleman can read what is written. Do not try to get away with inacourate statements with respect to this matter this morning. The real truth is that the documents we have now negative entirely the statements made the other evening, and what is more, the money was to come from the crown as a loan to the Canadian National railway system.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not my
hon. friend say the other day to the house that he thought the Canadian National moneys ought to be voted separately? Why, if they were not coming from the crown?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. My hon. friend
surely does not mean that. I said they were not supplied to the crown.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
same thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the exact opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does
the crown get its supply, except from parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian National Railways is not the crown. Let us read the supply bill. The Prime Minister has stated
the exact opposite of what is the fact, and I am glad that he has interrupted, because I shall now endeavour to make' that point quite clear. Take the appropriation bill. It reads: Most Gracious Sovereign,
Whereas it appears by message .... that the sum hereinafter mentioned is required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Canada, not otherwise provided for'-
My contention was, and is, that with respect to the Ottawa Federal District Commission, with respect to good roads, with respect to. other matters in which moneys are being expended for specific purposes, the expenditure not being under the control of this parliament, that is mot supply for the crown, but loans made by the crown to various organizations, and should be the subject matter of special legislation, which the right hon. gentleman himself believes to be the proper procedure for in connection with the Ottawa Federal District Commission he introduced a special bill to deal with that situation, and with respect to other matters, with respect to the battlefields, and in other cases where money is loaned to other organizations to be expended by them, and the expenditure is not under the control of this parliament in the sense that we may direot it. And in this case, the money was to be loaned by the crown for the railway-$3,500,000. but the money was being expended by the railway companies, and the agreements were being made' by the railway companies. That is the clear distinction, just as in the Federal District case, the money comes from the crown but is spent by that commission. We cannot direct its expenditure; they direct its expenditure. I thank my hon. friend the Prime Minister for directing attention to this point for apparently he was under the impression that I was contending for something entirely different from what I was in fact contending for. Now, that is the position with respect to the Vancouver hotel.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals after he came back into power cancelled the order in council to which I have directed attention. The question of the execution of the agreement turned entirely on the ability, of course, to get the money, and in my judgment as a lawyer, having regard for the conditions with respect to governor general's warrants, the sum of three and a half million dollars not having been voted or authorized by parliament, could not be withdrawn from the treasury by governor general's warrants, because the necessity for it was was not so urgent as to bring it within the terms of the statute, although possibly had it been done-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Charles Avery Dunning: So I was quite right, in recommending the cancellation of the order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all. All the hon. gentleman had to do was to hold his order, because no agreement was executed. He withdrew the power to execute the agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the whole point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing else in
the order in council except authority to the railway company to sign, and that authority was cancelled. At the next session of parliament the money was not found for that purpose, but this year, according to the evidence given before the select committee, a hundred thousand dollars was placed in the estimates for the Vancouver hotel, and I believe certain moneys have already been expended with respect to the site. I am not sure whether it has been secured by expropriation or otherwise, but a site was pointed out to me in Vancouver as being owned by the Canadian National Railways and intended for a hotel. I do not know whether that is so or not, but probably the minister can clear it up. I have not access to orders in council, naturally, and can only speak from what I find otherwise.
I think I have made it abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that these are the facts. They speak for themselves. They leave no room for inferences to be drawn. They indicate what did take place. At least, they indicate that Sir Henry Drayton and1 the so-called shadow government acted upon the recommendations of the responsible head of the Canadian National Railways, who believed the matter urgent, who believed that immediate action should be taken, and who believed that otherwise the settlement which in his wisdom he considered should be carried through would fail, because it was based upon immediate action being taken and was so stated. That is the case with respect to the Vancouver hotel.
Now I come to the Halifax hotel, and once more the dates which I have verified do not agree with those given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). They are entirely at variance with his statements, and I am certain now that in view of the evidence given by Sir Henry Thornton before the select committee, which is contradictory of the reports made by the Canadian Pacific Company and its directors, and is at variance with the statements made by the mayor, I think it is, of the city council of Halifax- I am certain, I say, that this matter can be cleared up only by the evidence being taken under oath before a select committee next
rMr. Bennett.]
session. This session no evidence was given under oath; a statement was made ex parte, and no cross-examination was had, except that Mr. Bell asked a few questions. The question as to what actually did take place must be considered. But these facts can be verified, because there are still living witnesses who are not connected with either railway system. They state that having come to Montreal as early as April, 1927, to obtain the assistance of the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a hotel, appropriate action was taken by the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific as appears in their minutes; further, that the matter was left entirely to the executive committee and the president, as matters of this kind are, and that, in June-it is no good to call for documents; I do not have them.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was talking to the
Prime Minister about an entirely different matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to the allegations of my connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made none.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know anything
clearer than what was said the other evening. In June of 1927, action was taken in consequence of a delegation further discussing the matter with the Canadian National Railways that they should take part in this enterprise. In June, 1927, the president and chairman of the Canadian National railway system promised to take $250,000 worth of shares in the venture, and urged the delegation of three gentlemen to go down and see the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and urge that his company take $100,000. The Canadian Pacific Railway finally agreed to take $100,000 prior to August 1, 1927, and definitely committed themselves to do so because the Canadian National system had agreed to take $250,000, subject to an order in council being passed. That was rejected in July for reasons stated by the minister. A new scheme was put forward, and the Canadian National Railways were asked whether they would put in $250,000. They replied in the affirmative, and the Canadian Pacific Railway $100,000 stood. Then it was that the gentlemen visited the minister at Yarmouth for the purpose of endeavouring to induce him to realize how essential it was that action should be taken by both systems to participate in the undertaking. The Canadian Pacific Railway at no time would have more than $100,000 out of a capitalization of several millions.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. HotcIs


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend knows
the figures. Why does he say several millions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: The authorized capital is
$640,000 of preferred shares and $600,000 of bonds, together with common shares of no par value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: $1,240,000 outside the
common shares.


James Layton Ralston: But I do not find any
cash value for the no par shares.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
Those common shares were given as a bonus to the preferred shareholders in proportion to their subscriptions.


James Layton Ralston: Surely my hon. friend
does not call that "millions" of dollars. Everybody admits that the total cash to be expended on the proposition, even under the new scheme of financing was only $1,146,000 bonds and all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend prefers I will say that it was less than two million dollars.


James Layton Ralston: A million and a half
would be better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The original proposal
contemplated a larger expenditure.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; it contemplated exactly the same expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is wrong because the price at which the securities were originally to be sold would not have realized sufficient money. It was proposed to issue the bonds at 95 and the preferred at 90. However, the details of the financing are not important beyond this, that the word two means several.


James Layton Ralston: It is the difference between a million and a half and several millions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will say it is less
than two millions. I am perfectly content to make it a million and a half.


James Layton Ralston: If you made it a million and an eighth it would be better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am perfectly content,
it does not make any difference for the purpose of this argument. I point out that it was not a Canadian Pacific hotel. The Canadian Pacific had no interest in it beyond the $100,000, and the bonus of the common
shares. The Canadian Pacific's interest in proportion to the Canadian National's was to be as 100 to 250. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me as to that. Therefore it was not a Canadian Pacific venture; that is clear. They only came in because the Canadian National had suggested they should, controlling as they do the Dominion Atlantic railway running through the land of Evangeline. It was admitted they were interested in the tourist traffic to the extent of 100 as compared to the Canadian National's 250. That I think the records clearly indicate. My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence declined to go on with that venture in July. He says the cost was too great if the railway companies were to take $350,000 of shares, and he was correct in revising the finances.


James Layton Ralston: I did not revise them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the suggestion was that it was too large.


James Layton Ralston: I did not suggest anything. I said it was altogether too great.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if the hon. gentleman did not revise the scheme at least he did not desire the hotel to be proceeded with.


James Layton Ralston: I do not care what my
hon. friend says so long as he states the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, my hon. friend
advised that the Canadian National hotel be built.


James Layton Ralston: From first to last I was
for the Canadian National Railway hotel. There is no misunderstanding as to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to read the
minister's statement as given out to the press. According to an official statement given by him and appearing in the Halifax Chronicle on September 24, he closes with these words.


James Layton Ralston: Read it all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read it all; I shall
be glad to. The text of the telegram follows:
Further reference your telegram as I wired you I had not seen new proposal. Matter was given consideration by council this afternoon and it turns out that this proposal like the previous one, is for purchase minority shares in privately-owned hotel, proposed to be erected in Halifax. Council adhered to the decision reached in July 14 with reference to this same proposal, which decision was announced at the time, namely that large expenditures of this character, which are outside ordinary railway operations, should be included in tile railway budget submitted to parliament. Since then, Sir Henry Thornton

Supply-Railways

C.N.R. Hotels
has publicly announced the intention of the Canadian National management to include in the next Canadian National budget provision for railway terminal hotel at Halifax. Railway hotel is what I have been working for, and I will continue to support it strongly unless private interests think fit to take on project.
Those were the words of the government: "unless private interests think fit to take on project". Did they take it on? They did.


James Layton Ralston: Read the other two telegrams.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the correspondence. This I take from the public press.


James Layton Ralston: It is in the public press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not seen the
others.


James Layton Ralston: You have made some
study of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made a study of it because I wanted to find out what the minister said on September 24, and on that date he told the people through a telegram, made public in a journal, that he had been working for a hotel project and would continue to support it strongly "unless private interests think fit to take on project". Those words are not mine. Now, did they take it on? The hotel is in process of being finished; it will be finished in the next few months.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking you to read
the other two telegrams.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not have them, but if the minister will hand them to me I shall be glad to read them. If I had them I would read them. This one I had copied this morning out of the Halifax Chronicle; I sent my secretary to copy it for me. If there is other correspondence, well and good; at any rate I have not got it. Now I desire to point this out to the government: this private interest, the Lord Nelson hotel, had sought subscriptions from various people throughout the country. Insurance companies have bought the bonds; the banks purchased the bonds; private individuals bought bonds, individuals in Halifax and other parts of the country bought preferred shares in Halifax and in other parts of the country; corporations doing business in Halifax put money into the venture. And how does that venture stand to-day? The windows of the hotel are in and the structure is in process of completion. I do not know but I am informed that the hotel will be ready for occupation by Trafalgar day this year at least, which is now only a little more than four months off. Therefore, before a single dollar has been spent on the other

undertaking we have this privately owned hotel practically completed. I thought the other day that some moneys had been spent on the other project, but I am informed that these moneys may be referable to the terminal and not to the hotel, because parliament had not given sanction to the work being carried on. The position, then, is this: Without any work having been done on our hotel, to be publicly-owned, this privately-owned hotel will be ready for occupation within the next few months, and we are now asked to put a million and a quarter into a public undertaking which will render that private investment a failure. My hon. friends may laugh and say, "Oh, well the Canadian Pacific can afford to do it. Sir Henry Thornton said they wanted to do it, and their directors have considered it". But here we have the language of a minister of the crown, "Unless private interests think fit to take on project". And they have taken it on; and now this house is asked to sanction putting into competition with that privately-owned hotel this public enterprise, on which no money has yet been spent. According to the report submitted by Mr. Pratt, the head of the hotel department, to Sir Henry Thornton, that privately-owned hotel, the Lord Nelson, will lose $100,000 a year. One of the newspapers this morning is of the opinion that I pose as an expert in hotels. Now, I do not know anything about hotels except that I pay large sums of money, thousands of dollars, into them annually. I do know, however, that the expert upon whose judgment we have a right to rely says that it will lose $100,000. So "that is the position with re-speot to that", to quote once more the language of the Minister of Railways.
I ask the government this question: Would a business enterprise put up another hotel in Halifax under these circumstances to compete against a new hotel just created? Would that be done in a city .of 60,000 or less? We are now asked to spend a million and a quarter-or, according to the Minister of National Defence, $1,146,000-so that we shall have in Halifax two hotels costing over $2,000,000 altogether, one competing against the other. In other words, the taxpayers of this country will have to find a million and a quarter for the construction of an hotel to compete with a private undertaking carried out under the circumstances I have stated. We as a parliament are taking the money of the taxpayers as a whole and devoting it to the purpose of destroying an investment of part of our own taxpayers. That is what it amounts to. It must not be forgotten that the Canadian Pacific-I am carrying the figures in my head and I am of

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
course subject to correction-has paid into the country in taxes during the last three years an average .of over $5,000 a day. I believe this is the figure mentioned the other day by the president. This means that one dollar out of every $175 of taxes collected in this country is paid by that enterprise; and every time $175 is lost in this new hotel one dollar is to be paid by that taxpayer, the rest by the taxpayers of Canada as a whole. I am content to have the Minister of National Defence or anyone else go out to secure votes and power under these circumstances. The people put their money behind a private hotel because they could not get the railways to build one. They had no desire to put their fortunes into t'he enterprise, but having done so in good faith, and the minister having stated that he was strongly for a railway hotel "unless private interests think fit to take on project"-private capital, I say, having practically completed that hotel before we have spent a dollar on the other undertaking. I protest against the House of Commons putting a million and a quarter into any enterprise to duplicate an existing facility which the minister himself said would not be done "unless" private enterprise undertook the work. That is my position, and I think it should be the position of every reasonable man. I appeal to the Prime Minister who desires, I am sure, that we should not waste our money, to consider the statements made to the president of the railway, given by an expert, with respect to one hotel losing $100-
000.	I do not pretend to know; I hope it will not be so. It is true, as was pointed out this morning, in the newspapers, that a single hotel, the Lord Nelson, might make money. But what will happen if you have two? This hotel is a 200-roomed building; the other is to have equal capacity. We have not seen the plans, but that is what the press states. And it is stated by Sir Henry Thornton that this is only about equal to the capacity of all the hotels at present in Halifax. I assume there is no question about that. There are of course several hotels in Halifax besides the Queen and the Halifax. We are now to have two new modern structures, one down at the ocean terminal and the other on 'Spring Garden road. The statement has been officially made that the Canadian National hotels last year lost $15,000 ,on operating account alone, paying not a cent of interest on investment, and now in a city of 60,000 we are asked to duplicate the Lord Nelson by putting up another hotel at the terminals for the purpose, not of carrying out an arrangement that has been made, but merely of adding this hotel to .the terminals. I submit that it is not sound business, and no
business man would do it. Would any one of the members of this committee here this morning sit down ait the meeting of a board of directors and vote a million and a quarter dollars for this purpose? Would the Minister of National Revenue do it? Would the Minister of Railways do it? I am sure from what I know of the attitude of mind of the right hon. Prime Minister that he would not do it, but that is what we are asked to do. Once more I get back to where I started the .other evening. We represent the shareholders of this enterprise. It is provided that the governor in council shall represent the shareholders; the governor in council means the government, and that means that as long as a majority of the 245 members of this house support the government. they represent the shareholders of this vast system, the greatest business in Canada to-day. As shareholders, we are asked to vote confidence in the directors appropriating $1,250,000 for that purpose. Why not wait and see the result of the operation-of the privately owned hotel, before we vote further money? Why not see what the demands are and what the requirements are from day to day? It is said that there will be ocean traffic coming in and so on., but my observation has been that special trains are usually standing at the dock t.o take passengers away as quickly as possible, because the third class traffic must be moved out at once. I am sure hon. gentlemen realize the seriousness of this matter.
The Minister of Railways complained that it was suggested by members on this side of the house that the Saskatchewan hotel had been a bribe to him, because the Canadian Pacific hotel did not encounter competition at Vancouver. I am bound to say that I never heard that observation made by any one until the minister made it the other evening. The only observation I ever heard made in that regard was that the construction of the hotel at Regina served a very useful purpose to the gentleman whom he succeeded, which is an entirely different thing. I have never suggested that any bribe was offered to the Minister of Railways; he might as well say that the position I take to-day with respect to this matter is because I am friendly or favourable to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suggested that neither
was creditable to any one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the
hon. member afford me an opportunity to say that prior to 1911 I was solicitor and counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Before I was elected in that year I tendered

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
my resignation, and I have never since been appointed by that company. I have taken cases against them; I have been retained by their local solicitor to take, I think, two cases for them since that time. I have taken a case to the Privy Council against them since that time and I have taken one for them, but after I was elected leader of this party in October, 1927, I disposed of every single share of Canadian Pacific Railway stock which I owned, in order that I might be free from any influence of any kind. I felt the dangers of conflict between duty and interest. I knew the terrible urge of interest as against duty, especially when the interest is financial. I disposed of every share I had in that enterprise, and I had been an interested shareholder for many years. I took that action reluctantly, but I did it because I conceived that the contest between duty and interest should never arise while I had to discharge public duties such as those which now devolve upon me. Therefore I trust that I now approach this matter in a sense of fairness; I have endeavoured to look at it fairly. It has been my privilege during the years wThich have passed since I was a young man to sit upon the boards of many enterprises, banks, insurance companies, electric companies and other corporations engaged in various forms of industrial activity, and I have endeavoured to gain some little experience in matters of business. So I say to-day, without fear of contradiction, that I do not think there is living in Canada a board1 of directors which w'ould ask its shareholders for $1,250,000 to put into an enterprise which would compete with a privately owned enterprise in a city with a population of only 60,000, where the public requirements were being amply met. At least any board of directors would delay action. Is there any business man here who would not do so? They would delay it until some future date, until they had further information; they would try to obtain all the facts and to secure a better appreciation of what the traffic might be, because as the minister said the other evening, we are experimenting with public ownership. I think it is true that we are experimenting; that we must give public ownership a chance. What chance are you going to give public ovrnership to succeed if 3mu take the enormous sum of $1,250,000 from the taxpayers of this country, a very large sum involving an interest charge of at least $50,000 per annum, and put it into a venture where, as far as the report of the experts is concerned, a venture with a monopoly of that class of trade in that particular community would not make ends meet? Then
fklr. Bennett.J
there is the further fact that we are advised that the hotel operations of the system as a whole did not earn operating expenses last year by $15,000.
I may sacrifice the support of friends and of electors, but that will not deter me from contending against and protesting against the investment by the people of Canada, at the instance of this government, of $1,250,000 in a hotel enterprise at this time, in view of the evidence which is now before us. Go on with your terminals; finish them, because they have no relation to the hotel except as they may be connected wilh it hereafter, but let us wait to find the facts from the actual operation of the new hotel before we make this additional expenditure. I suggest in all good part, although it means perhaps the alienation of friends and of electors, that that course should be followed. I am sure that if the Minister of Finance had to deal with this as he has been dealing with joint stock companies all his life he would not ask his shareholders to sanction the raising of money for the purposes indicated unless he had some assurance of what the result of the investment would be.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to congratulate
my hon. friend upon the more moderate tenor of his remarks to-day, and I shall endeavour to emulate his example in that respect. In dealing with complex legal matters such as surround the negotiations with respect to the Vancouver hotel my hon. friend, with his great legal training, has of course a distinct advantage over me, and in diverting attention from the main issue with respect to the Vancouver hotel by reciting, as he did, the preamble to the order in council to which I briefly referred in its essential particulars the other evening, he recites what I presume to be well known to members of this house, because on more than one occasion the matter has been discussed in this house and has been very frequently discussed in the press, particularly that of the Pacific coast.
I refer to the difficulties which arose between the Canadian National and the city of Vancouver, due to the existence of an agreement between that city and Mackenzie and Mann and having to do with certain obligations assumed by the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company in return for certain concessions granted to the company by the city many years ago. My hon. friend quite correctly stated what those obligations were, and may I say to him that they did not change in the short space of time during which my hon. friends opposite were in power. The attitude of the city of Vancouver with regard to putting the agreement into execution

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
did not change during that time; their attitude continuously was one of constant pressure to have the agreement of the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company implemented by the Canadian National Railway Company. While we were in office during the month of April, 1926, there was communicated to me the contents of a resolution passed 'by the city of Vancouver, to which my hon. friend made reference this morning. That by-law or resolution, whatever it was, conveyed the unanimous consent of the Vancouver city council to abrogate certain sections of the agreement between the city and the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, except that part concerning the hotel operation. The resolution provided that the railway company would enlarge the provision relative to hotel accommodation to the extent of five hundred rooms. My question to the management of the railway company in April, 1926, was, "Where do you propose to get the money to build this hotel? Your estimates are in and are before the House of Commons now, and there is no provision there for the erection of a 500-room hotel. Where do you propose to get the money?" The answer was that certain private parties were prepared to build a hotel in Vancouver to be leased to the Canadian National Railways, and that the Vancouver city council would regard such arrangement as a complete discharge of the obligations of the railway company with respect to a hotel. This was what my hon. friend had reference to the other evening when he said this government had encouraged these negotiations and had carried them on. I would inform my hon. friend that this government absolutely refused to consent to such an arrangement with respect to the hotel at Vancouver. That is a matter of fact. The very fact that no order in council was passed by this government giving approval to such a scheme is the best evidence I can offer in regard to that phase of the matter.
When we went out of office on the first day of July the city of Vancouver was quite certain that while we might agree in principle to the erection of a Canadian National hotel at Vancouver as complete satisfaction of what was involved in a former agreement with the Canadian Northern Pacific, we were not prepared at that session to make provision in the estimates for that purpose. The question between us and the city of Vancouver was not one of whether a hotel should be built, for the government agreed with the Canadian National management that the Canadian National should have a hotel at this great Pacific gateway. The question was, as it is with a great many other matters recommended
by the Canadian National, how soon, having regard to the financial situation of this country, such and such an enterprise could be carried out. That was the position in regard to the building of a hotel, but I want to make it doubly clear that this government absolutely refused to have anything to do with the arrangement whereby private parties would put up a hotel which would be leased to the Canadian National at a rental sufficient to pay a handsome profit on the investment to the promoters, and to ensure them completely against any loss in conection with it. I pause to say that to my mind one of the greatest dangers-I have mentioned it in the house before-we encounter in connection with this great public ownership experiment we are conducting, is the effort made by phil-anthropically disposed private individuals or private corporations to erect some sort of structure, a hotel or something of that nature, for the Canadian National, or have the Canadian National invest something in their enterprise. and thereby completely guarantee its financial success so far as they are concerned. In other words, to have a substanial profit, in most cases, guaranteed by the people of this country. To my mind it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that it is desirable for this publicly owned railway corporation of ours to enter into that kind of arrangement with private individuals. That is one of the reasons I never liked the Halifax proposal whereby the Canadian National would have invested $250,000 in a company which would be controlled by others. I may say in passing, the original arrangement with respect to Halifax was one which certainly involved the mulcting of private investors by the promoters of an extortionate amount. I use that, term advisedly, and I believe my hon,. friend the leader of the opposition will agree with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not extortionate, because other promoters have received as much; it was too large a compensation for the services rendered, in my judgment.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
agree that it is much too large.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Y'es.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the word "extortionate" is felt to be too strong, I will agree with him that "much too large" is probably better.
Our hon. friends opposite came into office -not into power-around the 1st of July, and immediately I presume-and here I can only presume-the city of Vancouver and the private interests who were so anxious to con-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
fer favours on the Canadian National', brought the same pressure to bear on my hon. friends as they had been exerting upon this government during the preceding month. What was the result? Conferences took place and it was quite evident to men possessing the astuteness of my hon. friends opposite that it would not be possible or practical or politically wise for that government to authorize the arrangement we had been continuously refusing to authorize. That must have been apparent, but it did not deter the ambitious gentlemen from the Pacific coast who were promoting this enterprise. They started advocating a different arrangement, and before this order in council was passed by the government the government was made aware by letter, of the precise terms under which that hotel would be built, if authority were granted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is probably the reason it was not built.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the authority was
granted after the government knew the terms upon which the hotel would be built. A letter was received from Sir Henry Thornton addressed to Sir Henry Drayton, and my hon. friend was in error when he said Sir Henry Drayton was Minister of Railways; he was acting minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said acting Prime
Minister and acting Minister of Railways, both.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sir Henry Thornton indicated under the date of July 29, 1926- and I would ask the house to remember that the writs for an election had been issued; an election was actually on in this country- the nature of the deal proposed for the construction of a hotel in Vancouver. On the 7th day of August this order in council to which my hon. friend has been referring this morning was passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would you read the
letter?


Charles Avery Dunning: With the greatest
pleasure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the letter that
was not carried out.


Charles Avery Dunning: The letter which produced the order in council authorizing what was contained in the letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: But which was never
implemented, because the people of Canada subsequently refused at a general election to endorse my hon. friends; that was the reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no agreement signed at any time either before or after the election, let us be frank about this. Giving authority does not mean signed.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must then admit that it was completely deceiving the people of the city of Vancouver and the private parties interested in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The order in council
recites that 83,000,000 was available out of the $10,000,000, and I concluded, as a matter of law that it was not proper to do it by that order in council, and the Department of Justice or the legal department of the railway sustained that view.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is again
confusing two matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be interesting to
him, I am sure, to learn that in spite of the fact, as he says, that money was not spent because it was not legal to do so, as he is now saying-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no agreement signed.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no agreement signed to have the money so spent under the authority of the order in council. My hon. friend is not speaking of the matter which I am discussing, that is the trouble. I am discussing the kind of arrangement which was authorized by that order in council, and I say "authorized" advisedly, because the letter indicating the nature of the deal reached the government of the day before they passed the order in council authorizing it. What does the letter say? It is as follows:
Montreal, July 29, 1926.
Dear Sir Henry:
Re Vancouver Hotel
We had a conference this morning with Mr. Evans and Colonel Ryan, Mr. L. J. Ladner also being present, and agreed as follows:
Who was Mr. L. J. Ladner? Mr. L. J. Ladner was a successful candidate in a Vancouver seat in the election then going on.
1.	The railway company will purchase from Mr. Evans, Colonel Ryan and their associates the land representing the site of the hotel, at whatever the cost is to them as shown by their books; this to include purchase price, carrying charges and other items of expense to which they have been put. The total figure, it is anticipated, will be something between $400,000

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
and $45,000. In addition to this we have agreed to pay them $10,000 over and above the cost of the land and carrying charges as compensation for their services in securing the site. It is realized that since this project started the value of the site decided upon for the hotel has considerably increased, and that the promoters are entitled to a commission for securing the site at a reasonable figure.
2.	Mr. Evans and Colonel Ryan presented to us an itemized statement of about $17,500 which included their personal travelling expenses, certain fees and other legitimate items of expense which had been incurred in advancing the proposition. We have agreed to pay them $15,000 in liquidation of this item, especially having regard for the fact that they used their good offices in getting the city of Vancouver to discharge certain of our obligations in return for the construction of our hotel.
3.	The construction of the hotel is to be awarded to Mr. Evans, Colonel Ryan and their associates on the basis of cost plus 71 per cent. We have made a careful investigation of the usual percentages for work of this sort, and we are told by competent authorities that 7 per cent would be fair and that 71 per cent would be perhaps on the generous side. Again having regard for all of the circumstances we desired to deal fairly with these people, and have accordingly agreed to 71 per cent.
4.	The architects in Vancouver, Messrs. McCarter & Nairne, have prepared plans for the construction of the hotel and done a certain amount of preliminary work in connection therewith. We agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their work and to retain them as inspecting architects:-


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with the matter?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend asked me to read it and I want to read it in all fairness to the Conservative government which was considering the matter at the time.
-in other words they from now on will be our representatives in so far as the construction of the hotel is concerned. We reserve the right, of course, to alter the plans in any way we may see fit, and will probably have to secure further expert advice in this connection.
The above arrangements were entirely satisfactory to Mr. Evans and Colonel Ryan, and were agreed to by Mr. Ladner; in other words, the other side are quite content with the agreement reached to-day. A draft order in council will immediately be drawn up and sent to you; and as soon as it is passed we can make whatever announcement you think proper and get on with the work.
Yours sincerely,
H. W. Thornton.
P.S. I enclose two copies of draft order in council referred to above, which I hope you will have passed as soon as possible.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Who signed that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Sir Henry Thornton, of
course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is splendid.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend says,
"This is splendid". It demonstrates one or
two things. It demonstrates, first, that Sir Henry Thornton was pressing very hard for an hotel at Vancouver, not only on our government when we were in power, but on my hon. friend's government when they were in power; that Sir Henry believed it was in the best interests of the Canadian National that they should as soon as possible have an hotel in Vancouver. I assume it is the duty of the government of the day-and no one has been more emphatic in stating this than my hon. friend-to see that a proper arrangement is made. My hon. friend has depicted in strong terms my duty as Minister ef Railways to look into the proposals no matter where they may emanate, he has pointed out time and time again that an ordinary business man would do this, and that the fact that anything is recommended by the management does not relieve me of my responsibility. If that statement on the part of my hon. friend is correct, it does not relieve him or the Minister of Railways of that government of his responsibility in respect to the matter. That is the whole point with respect to that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. My hon.
friend is learning the habit.


Charles Avery Dunning: I admit that I can learn many things from my hon. friend, but I hope that I do not acquire that particular mannerism. What was wrong with the whole Vancouver matter had nothing to do with the contention of the city of Vancouver based upon the old agreement under private ownership with the city. It had to do with the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the new agreement. That is the whole point. I point out in that connection that while this order in council was cancelled as soon as we returned to power, we have not said to the city of Vancouver: "We will have nothing to do with you; go to court." We negotiated; we made the best bargain we could for the people of Canada with the city of Vancouver, and we ultimately reached an agreement, which has been duly authorized by the government, that the Canadian National Railways will build an hotel in Vancouver and will commence construction in the fall of the present year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that on the same site as is mentioned there?


Charles Avery Dunning: As regards the site, I
will admit that due to what my hon. friends did when they were in office, we are in considerable difficulty, which I would prefer not to discuss here, because of the legal consider-

Supply-Railioays

C.N.R. Hotels
ations involved. I hope my hon. friend will not press me on that point and I shall not make any representations with respect to the site, not because I do not feel free to discuss it, except for the legal aspects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister says that it is in the public interest not to discuss it, I shail not proceed with that aspect of the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I only wish to say that
what was done with regard to /the site was done by my hon. friends opposite. I will say that much and I believe my hon. friend will agree thait that is fair. Beyond that I do not wish to go.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot let that pass. It was done by the railway. The railway bought whatever site was bought.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the authority of
this order in council-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: -as part of the arrangement decided in this letter which I have just read and upon the basis of which the order in council was passed. How are we going at the matter? An agreement has been entered into and has been confirmed by order in council by the government, under which agreement, on account of the modification of some of the obligations on the part of the city of Vancouver, and the complete elimination of others, the Canadian National Railways are to construct an hotel in Vancouver, commencing construction in the fall of the present year, 1928. We come to parliament this session with $100,000 in the estimates of the Canadian National Railways for the purpose which I have just indicated. That amount of $100,000 is expected to be expended in the present calendar year and that provision is being asked for as part of the $39,000,000 appropriation which is now under consideration by the committee.
No, our condemnation, if condemnation it be, of the Vancouver situation, does not rest upon the dispute between the Canadian National and the city of Vancouver itself under the old agreement, nor upon whether or not an hotel should be built there by the Canadian National as a means of settling that dispute. It rests upon the means which were taken to carry out that undertaking. That is our quarrel with the whole transaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend
will admit that the Canadian Pacific construct some of their hotels on a cost plus basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: My recollection is that
one of the contractors told me he was getting that now.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like to have
some proof of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may be mistaken, but I think that is what he told me.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will admit this, I am sure, that only under very exceptional circumstances would he adopt the cost plus method and that he would censure us very severely if we undertook as a general principle the cost plus basis for our public works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a general principle.


Charles Avery Dunning: And .particularly where
the construction is of a standard type such as a hotel similar to that contemplated in Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason it is done on the cost plus basis, because it is not standard.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will leave it at that, and the next time I feel compelled to do something on the cost plus basis I feel sure that I shall have the support of my hon. friend if the matter comes up in the house for discussion. I try to avoid cost plus as far as possible, because there is always around it an element of suspicion in connection with public works. Private enterprise can sometimes make a better deal on a cost plus basis than public enterprise in calling for tenders, but always those opposed to the administration of the day will be suspicious of an undertaking involving the cost plus basis, except in very exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances do sometimes arise in connection with all public undertakings. After all, we must look at a matter of this sort from a broad standpoint, apart from the discussions that occur between my hon. friend and myself, and I ask this committee to consider whether, seeing that we have a publicly owned railway system extending from coast to coast, with harbour terminals on both tlie Atlantic and the Pacific, is it not desirable, having regard to modem transportation developments, that the railway system should have an hotel of its own at each of its ocean portals?

Supply-Railways-CJV.R. Hotels
My hon. friend keeps talking about what private enterprise would do. By private enterprise the Canadian Pacific has built a very large hotel at Vancouver. It has also a heavy interest in a hotel at St. John, and in the Lord Nelson hotel at Halifax. My hon. friend says, if it is not good for the Canadian Pacific, it cannot be good for the Canadian National; that was the substance of his argument. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific has been and is expending large sums of money on the building of hotels, although my hon. friend will be the first to admit that the Canadian Pacific hotels are not profitable undertakings, any more than are the Canadian National hotels. They may make a slightly better showing, but they are certainly not a profitable part of the Canadian Pacific Railway undertaking separately considered. My hon. friend says that business men would not do it because the hotel itself will not pay for some time. Well, the Canadian Pacific has built a large hotel in Toronto, and has recently built a large hotel in the city of Regina, and is undertaking enlargements of its other hotels, but the hotels as hotels, as my hon. friend knows, are not profitable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them are.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said that the Canadian National hotels were losing a lot of money. The Canadian Pacific hotels are not profitable either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the report shows that they did not lose money on their entire hotel system.


Charles Avery Dunning: They did not make
money. My point is that the hotels in connection with the railways, considered by themselves, are not profitable undertakings. The Canadian Pacific considers it wise to build hotels, not because they want to go into the hotel business, but because of the value of the hotels as a traffic contributor to the railway system. My hon. friend's attitude this morning would be to debar the Canadian National in large measure from exercising the same kind of business foresight in that direction as the Canadian Pacific has been exercising for a number of years past, and is now exercising.
I desire to make only one more personal reference. My hon. friend spoke of a letter which was referred to during last session with regard to another matter entirely, and which he says that I stated a year ago in this house was not upon the files, but which was subsequently found to be upon the files.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the same file. I said a file. I.was very careful. I said Sir Henry Drayton said he had found a letter on the files and the Canadian Press carried a despatch to that effect.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to introduce the name of Sir Henry Drayton, who is not now a member of the house. I would not refer to it if my hon. friend had not introduced the matter, but he introduced it in a manner that would imply a lack of good faith or something not quite proper on my part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, as an illustration of how one may overlook things.


Charles Avery Dunning: In regard to that I just desire to say this, and I can call all the chief officers of the department as witnesses with regard to the accuracy of my statement. When the matter was under discussion one year ago in this house, before making any statement in regard thereto I ordered the files searched and any documents brought to me which had any bearing on the subject. I was more astonished than anyone else at the time that there was no record of any communication from Sir Henry Drayton, as Acting Minister of Railways during that one hundred days, or from anybody else. I was astonished, and I asked the deputy minister to bring the files into my office, and we went through them together. There was no communication on the files, and every one of us who had anything to do with the search is prepared to swear to that. In speaking to my colleagues I remarked how strange it was that with respect to such a matter there should be no communication on the files. It is true that on the return of Sir Henry Drayton some three months later he asked to see the file, and at that time one letter was on the file. Neither Sir Henry Drayton himself nor the deputy minister nor any of the chief officials can explain why it was not on in the first place, and was on in the second place, but I think my hon. friend knows me well enough to know that there would not be any deliberate suppression of the letter on my part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I entirely agree with that.


Charles Avery Dunning: How the accident, if accident it was, happened I cannot say, but it is only fair to myself to say, however, that the letter in question had not any important bearing on the matter which was then under discussion.



Supply-Railways-CJSI.R. Hotels
I have only one word more to say in conclusion. I believe it will prove to be in the best interests of the Canadian National railway system to have hotels entirely under its own control at both the great ocean terminals of Halifax and Vancouver, and the present policy of the government is to bring about the ownership of terminal hotels by the Canadian National and operated by them, without any private interests in them whatever, at both Halifax and Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about St. John?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter for the future, except for this. My hon. friend mentioned the other day that some time ago the Canadian National did take a financial interest in a privately owned hotel at St. John, and wanted to know why that was not held for a vote of parliament. The amount was $22,500. That was the investment of the Canadian National in that enterprise, and while it is a little difficult to say just at what point parliamentary approval should be sought for a given sum, I feel sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that there is a vast difference between an investment of 822,500, and an investment of a quarter or of half a million dollars. There must be some place where we shall say: "You must include that in your budget and it must be approved by parliament." We took that attitude in connection with the possibility of the investment of a large sum in a privately owned hotel in Halifax. I have no apologies to make for the owning and operation of its own hotels by the Canadian National railway system. I might mentoin that I have been advised only this morning that the Lord Nel,son hotel, which has not yet been opened, is almost completely booked up for next winter. Does not my hon. friend appreciate-I am sure he does-how well located hotels tend to attract business to themselves? I have noted the experience in my own city of Regina, where private enterprise was erecting a hotel, and the owners thought it was particularly hard for them that the Canadian Pacific should come in and build a large hotel there. Does my hon. friend know what the result has been?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the same class
of hotel.


Charles Avery Dunning: There might be some
difference of opinion about that; but the owners of the privately owned enterprise deemed the Canadian Pacific competition so serious a factor as to unfairly prejudice their
	, j |! it
own enterprise. But what happened? That privately owned hotel has since extended its accommodation, and the Canadian Pacific hotel since its completion has done considerably better than the company anticipated it would. I am content to take the word of Sir Henry Thornton in this regard, that the Canadian National railways system needs in its own best interests hotels at Vancouver and Halifax owned and controlled by itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A terminal elevator is
being put up at Victoria, and in connection therewith it has been stated that private enterprise is to construct the facilities to transfer cars from the mainland to the elevator. I should like to have the assurance of the minister on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know nothing of it myself. The Canadian National do operate a car ferry from Vancouver to the island, as my hon. friend knows. I cannot understand why private enterprise should want to go into thait business from what I know of it. But I agree with my hon. friend that control of such facilities should be in the Canadian National Railway system itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the minister will
see that they are? Can we have the assurance of the minister that nothing will be done in respect to the acquisition of the Pacific and Great Eastern railway until the House of Commons again meets-because surely this house must have something to say as to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
does not mean that negotiations which have been going on for some time, and of which members of this house are well aware, should not in the meantime be advanced if possible. I said the other evening with respect to this question that no purchase could be completed without the approval of parliament, but it is quite possible under existing legislation for the railway to make such arrangements for the operation of the other road pending approval by parliament of a purchase agreement. So far as that is concerned my hon. friend need have no apprehension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It involves fifteen to
twenty million dollars I am told. I desire to ask the minister whether or not he would permit the agreement to be completed and signed? In that event we would, if not satisfied, have to move that it be not adopted -that is, a motion of want of confidence. My view is that just as was done here in this

Privilege-Mr. Luchkovich
order in council, the agreement should not be executed until such time as parliament has approved of it. In other words, the railway must not commit itself without the consent of parliament. Do I make myself clear?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, except as to his
reference to this order in council. This order in council does dispose of a matter which never had been voted by parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend misunderstands me. There should be no execution of the agreement, as there was not in that case, until parliament meets. Suppose the Pacific and Great Eastern and the Canadian National get together and arrange for the sale and purchase of the property for X millions of dollars; then I submit the agreement should not be executed by the Canadian National Railways until it has been submitted to this house and approved. In other words, we should not give approval after it is an accomplished fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want any misunderstanding on so important a matter as this, relating not only to the Pacific and Great Eastern negotiations, but also to all the other negotiations which are now going on. This is what I apprehend will occur. My hon. friend will interrupt me if I am not stating it clearly. Negotiations will continue with respect to all these various propositions. Once the president and management of the Canadian National have reached an agreement which is satisfactory to them and to the prospective vendors, they will submit that agreement to the government for the purpose of finding out whether or not the government will approve of the terms and will recommend the agreement to parliament at its next session. Now, the proceedings may go as far as this point in some cases, not all-I cannot tell, but they may. The Canadian National Railways may negotiate an agreement which proves to be satisfactory to the government, and the government may then indicate its satisfaction and its intention to place the matter before parliament at the next session for approval. That may happen-I am not anticipating it will in many of these cases- but I do not want any misunderstanding as to what might happen with respect to, say, the St. John Valley railway or any of these other roads.
Mr. BENNETT; Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one exception which would apply to the roads connecting with the Intercolonial railway, possible acquisition of which is provided for by existing legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless the statute is
amended it would have to take the ordinary course.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But to make it perfectly clear I would strongly deprecate the government passing an order in council approving negotiations unless parliament has had an opportunity to pass on them. The point I was endeavouring to make on Saturday and to-day is that before orders in council are passed the matters so dealt with should be submitted to parliament, as we did, for instance, with the Ottawa district commission -we should discuss the matters before the government has committed itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give consideration to it. I do not wish to be any more definite.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) has made certain personal references to myself, which if it were not one o'clock I would reply to. In order that the resolution may carry, I forego my right to reply to those references. I may take another occasion to deal with them.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



PRIVILEGE-MR. LUCHKOVICH

Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Being one o'clock-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that the faithful who are assembled here would probably prefer to reassemble at two o'clock, rather than at three', to assure the prorogation of parliament sometime to-day at all events. If that is acceptable to the house generally, I should foe pleased if Your Honour would so state.


Hewitt Bostock: I think it would facilitate matters if we had concurrence now. It will take but a few minutes, and then the hon.
gentleman may state his question of privilege.


Michael Luchkovich: Privilege- Mr. Luchkovich
the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) were brought down, the chairman made this statement:


The Chairman:: I am sorry if hon. gentlemen did not hear the item called. It was certainly called and passed in the way we have passed other votes to-night, but I do not think it_ is fair to blame the chair for not announcing these items in an audible tone of voice. If hon. members would keep order in the committee, I am quite sure that I would be heard in all parts of the chamber.
I asked him whether item 44 had been called, and this is the discussion that followed:
Mr. Luchkovich:	I understand that the
minister said vote 44 in connection with grants to exhibitions was passed. When was it passed?


John Frederick Johnston: To-night.
Mr. Luchkovich:	Well, it was passed in
such a clever way that I hope that all the other estimates are not passed in the same way as this was.
Mr. Dunning:	I am going to object to
that on a point of order. One or two members, when the item was before the house, spoke on it. I replied to the members in a very proper way and I resent the insinuation that the vote was put through in some clever sort of way. There was no cleverness about the matter at all.
Mr. Luchkovich:	There are quite a few
hon. members interested in class B fairs and we have been waiting very patiently for the item to come up. I, for one, am very much surprised to learn that this item was passed.
Mr. Dunning:	My hon. friend cannot
blame me for his being asleep.
Mr. Luchkovich:	I certainly was not asleep.
I was listening and waiting very patiently for the item to come up.
The Minister of Agriculture was not in the house at the time. I am referring to vote 44. I stated that I did not hear this vote called, and the Minister of Railways said that the vote was brought up. I notice from the votes and proceedings it would appear that this item did come up; but I have read Hansard very carefully and I fail to find anything there about the item. I do notice, however, that item 46 was dealt with at the time. It is said we were asleep. If we were, Mr. Speaker, then the reporters in this house also were asleep because they did not report anything about a discussion of item 44 at that time. I can quite understand how the chairman might initial an item and pass it on to the clerk; I understand that the other day the votes and proceedings showed that an item had been passed, but the chairman admitted that it was not passed. I know that the Minister of Railways is a fair-minded man, and I am sure when he called us sleepy-


John Frederick Johnston: I think I should correct my hon. friend. He said the chairman agreed that the item had not been passed, but I did not agree in that way at all


Michael Luchkovich: It is in Hansard,
although I have not time to look it up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know my hon. friend does not want to be unfair to me. If he will look at page 4111 of Hansard, in the second column at the bottom, he will find that under the health of animals vote Mr Peck and two or three other hon. members discussed class B fairs. I replied for Mr. Motherwell:
I cannot add anything to what the minister himself said with regard to the matter when he was present. But I can undertake to say that the representations of my hon. friend will be called to the attention of the minister.
That was the discussion bearing upon the very matter to which my hon. friend is referring.


Michael Luchkovich: But I still repeat
that nothing is stated in Hansard to show item 44 was passed, and I take this occasion to express my indignation with the way this item was put through, if it has been passed, as I hold it has not.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the
Deputy Speaker that if the hon. gentleman will confer with the clerk of the house he will show him the scroll, which shows that the item was passed.


Mr. GARDINER:: That does not solve the question. If the item was never called how could it be passed? The item was never called in this house.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that the item was called by the Deputy Speaker.


Michael Luchkovich: It is not in Hansard.


Robert Gardiner: I take it that the
Hansard reporters would know whether this item was called. Many members on this side of the house as well as members opposite were waiting for an opportunity to speak on that item.


Hewitt Bostock: It is in, the scroll which I hold in my hand. At any rate, I cannot allow this discussion to go on. The scroll of the house and the votes and proceedings contain the item, and I am informed that it is in the supply bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I might supplement your remarks in that regard, Mr. Speaker, in

Ways and Means-Supply Bill
any case the item was discussed later under another item; several members spoke on class B fairs then, so surely there can be no complaint now.


Robert Gardiner: I just wish to make a statement with regard to your reference a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. When it is brought to your attention that members of this house take exception to a matter, and when we produce what we believe to be good evidence that something has not occurred I do not think you, sir, as the Speaker of this house, should take the position that merely because it is inscribed on the scroll is evidence of the thing having transpired. I do not think you are justified in taking that atttitude, and I wish to resent the statements you made.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but if the hon. member will refer to Bourinot he will find that the scroll of the house is the evidence which is produced in the courts of the land as a true statement of what has happened in the house When I am handed these scrolls by the clerk of the house, when I am handed the votes and proceedings, when I know that the item is in the appropriation bill, and when in addition I have the word of the Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that my good faith must not be questioned. However, the incident, is closed.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBB moved that the reports of the committee of supply made to the house on February 14 and 17, May 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31, June 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 be read the second time and concurred, in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I am quite willing to speak to it this afternoon if the house desires to adjourn now, I shall not be very long


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman
might bring up his question of privilege while the house will be awaiting the supply bill from the Senate. Meanwhile we might complete this procedure in order to facilitate matters this afternoon.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Very well, provided I have an opportunity to speak to the question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. ROBB moved:: Resolved, that towards _ making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service of the financial year ending 31st March, 1929, the sum of $244,-177,639.96 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 359, for granting to His Majesty certains sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31'st March, 1929.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time and the house went into committee thereon. Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On schedule C.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is schedule C?


Mr. SPENCER:: We have not a copy of
the bill before us; will the chairman tell us what these various sections are?


John Frederick Johnston: They are the estimates adopted by the committee of the whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which supplementary
does schedule C cover?


John Frederick Johnston: Based on supplementary estimates, 1928-29. The amount hereby granted is 810,468,611.91. Schedule D is based on further supplementary estimates, 1928-29. The amount hereby granted is $1,000,200.


George Halsey Perley: What is schedule B, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: Schedule B covers the
Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the next sitting of this house, this day.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Privilege-Mr. Thorson

The house resumed at 2.30 o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. THORSON

Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I rise to a question of privilege.
On Saturday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made certain remarks with regard to myself which are quite inaccurate. On .page 408S of Hansard he is reported as having made this statement with regard to myself:
He himself is a member of the profession; he assisted in the prosecution of those who originated the effort to establish a soviet in the city of Winnipeg. He was one of the prosecuting counsel.
I might quote several other inaccurate statements made by the leader of the opposition with regard to the part which I played in the prosecutions which followed the failure of the strike of 1919 in Winnipeg, but I cite this merely as an instance of the many inaccuracies of which he was guilty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not privilege.
The hon. member can direct attention to specific items in regard to himself, but these blanket charges do not constitute privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Would the hon. gentleman quote the words, because strictly speaking, a question of privilege is only with regard to character. This may be a personal explanation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I made that remark in
an effort to save the time of the house. There are several other inaccuracies which I shall
now cite. Hansard, on page 4090, reports the leader of the opposition as saying:
This was brought about to some extent, through the efforts made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, in the legal knowledge he brought to bear upon the prosecution of the offenders. His knowledge and training as a lawyer helped and assisted in the securing of a conviction against some of them.
Then at page 4091 Hansard reports him as follows:
If the government had yielded readily to the pressure brought to bear upon it, it would have been unworthy of being a government, it would have been unworthy of supporting the prosecution carried on by the hon. gentleman as a lawyer.
At page 4Q92 Hansard reports my hon. friend as follows:
My hon. friend put this case. He said: Other employers take back their people and give them positions. Let us admit all that. That has nothing at all to do with this case. This is the body politic fighting for its life. This is the nation fighting for its existence. This is the struggle between constituted government

and bolshevism. It was a struggle between the municipal institutions at Winnipeg and the soviet form of government and that was the case put by my hon. friend in his prosecution. He may not have put it in those words, but that is the case he put and that is the case upon which a conviction was made.
The leader of the opposition in this manner attributed to me a leading part in the prosecutions that took place after the failure of the Winnipeg strike of 1919. I did not hold the exalted position which the hon. gentleman assigned to me. The case which went to the privy council was a conviction of one of the strike leaders for seditious conspiracy. That conviction was upheld in the court of appeal of Manitoba. An application was made to the privy council for leave to appeal. That application for leave to appeal was refused by the privy council. I had no part whatsoever in that particular prosecution. Subsequently a similar prosecution was instituted against six other men on a charge of seditious conspiracy. Five of these men were convicted and one of them, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), was acquitted. With that prosecution I had nothing whatsoever to do. The only part which I played in the prosecutions after the failure of the strike at Winnipeg was in a very minor capacity. I acted as assistant crown prosecutor in the city of Winnipeg police court, and assisted in the prosecution of a number of men who were guilty of disturbances on the day when the shooting took place and the strike was finally broken. I took part in none of the major prosecutions with the exception of one. I was associated as junior counsel in the prosecution of Mr. F. J. Dixon, a respected citizen of Winnipeg for whom I have a high personal regard. Mr. F. J. Dixon was acquitted on the charge of seditious libel which was preferred against him. That was my connection with the prosecutions that followed the strike of 1919.
I am quite sure that the hon. leader of the opposition did not intentionally mislead the house, but I desire to put on record eor-ectly the part which I took at that time. I am quite willing to believe that the hon. leader of the opposition when he spoke with regard to me as he did, spoke without knowledge of the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of privilege to which the hon. gentleman has spoken is a question affecting the correctness of certain observations made with respect to a member of this house on Saturday last. After listening to the hon. gentleman, and reading from

Supply Bill-Tariff Board
Hansard the extracts to which he directed attention, it is reasonably clear that no statement was made that he appeared before the privy conned or took part in the Russell case. He was prosecuting counsel in connection with one of the offenders, and I assure him that 1 knew he did not appear in the Russell case


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I direct the attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to the first statement which I cited:
He assisted in the prosecution of those who originated the effort to establish a soviet in the city of. Winnipeg. He was one of the prosecuting counsel.
He goes on to say:
I ask him to say to this house whether or not he thinks the conviction obtained in one of these cases was improperly obtained.
Then in the other statement which I quoted, at page 4092 of Hansard, be says:
It was a struggle between the municipal institutions at Winnipeg and the soviet form of government, and that was the case put by my hon. friend in his prosecution. He may not have put it in those words, but that is the case he put. and that is the case upon which a conviction was made.
The only major case in which I assisted resulted in an acquittal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will see that the word "case" did not refer to a particular instance like the Dixon case.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the leader of the opposition should now frankly accept my statement as to the part which I took.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do. I entirely accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but I contend that his statement is not a.t variance in any sense with what I said on Saturday last. I merely said that he was one of the prosecuting counsel. I paid tribute to his ability. If the hon. gentleman thinks that I was in any way reflecting upon his connection with any specific case which went to the privy council or otherwise, I assure him that such was not my intention, and I gladly accept the statement which he has made.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have an amendment to move, Mr. Speaker. It does not involve much in
money, but it involves a principle. I beg to move that:
The bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to the said committee that it have power to reduce vote No. 309 by the sum of $10,000, being the salary of the chairman of the tariff board.
I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to a very limited space of time. I am in no sense reflecting upon the qualifications of the chairman of the tariff board. I dealt with that- question on another occasion. I am merely directing the attention of this house to what I conceive to be a principle, the operation of which we had illustrated on Saturday last.
Succeeding governments have claimed the right to remove from office those who are partisans if it is established that they are partisans when they are occupying a place in the public service. Mr. Moore was a defeated candidate supporting this government in the constituency of Ontario in the last election. The fact that he was a candidate and defeated does not in any sense deprive him of the qualifications to serve the public in any capacity in which it may be thought he may be able so to do. I desire to make that perfectly clear. If the government feels that a defeated candidate is a satisfactory person for appointment to the bench, to the tariff board,- or any other position, it follows that the government may make such an appointment, but when a gentleman who was a defeated candidate is appointed to a position in the public service, my submission is that he should terminate his political activities. By not doing so he is subject to dismissal, and the instance of the dismissal of the postmaster at Lafleohe is an illustration of the position I take.
I submit to this house that since his appointment, Mr. Moore has continued to be a partisan, and by partisan I mean that he has taken active steps to promote his future candidature in the riding of Ontario. This is not simply hearsay. It is published in the public press with reference to his connection with one or twro matters, and there are those who are well acquainted with the politics of the province of Ontario with whom he has discussed the probabilities of his success in the riding at the next election. My submission is that if a returned soldier in Lafleche saw fit to speak in terms not laudatory of the Prime Minister or in terms of criticism of the Liberal party, and thereby made himself liable to dismissal as a postmaster in the constituency of Willow Bunch, it follows that a gentleman, however eminently qualified, who was a defeated can-
Supply Bill-Tariff Board

didate at the last election as a supporter of the government, which appointed him to a very, very important position where freedom from political opinion is almost a sine qua non to the occupancy of the position, when we find that he is still engaged in political activities, he should either resign his position or be dismissed, if his partisanship can be established. While there is no member of parliament to make a charge to the administration which the administration would deal with, I do assure the right hon. the Prime Minister that were a commission appointed the facts could readily be established. I am certain as to that, because part of them are established already in the public press, and of his exercise of patronage, whatever little there may be left, in the constituency of Ontario.
I understand that since my observations on the budget the gentleman in question has taken less interest in political matters, and recently announced that he is out of politics, but I have lived long enough not to attach very much importance to that observation, remembering as I do. "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be; when the devil got well, the devil a monk was he." It is for that reason I make this motion, to vindicate the principle that those who occupy public positions to which they are appointed requiring freedom from political bias, which is the first essential to the successful discharge of their duties, should not be maintained in a position merely because they occupy a position to which a salary of $10,000 per annum and expenses are attached, as against one of those of whom we had the records some days ago who occupies a position as postmaster in a small community, receiving small compensation, and not being able to command the influence and power that attaches to one who occupies a more important place. It is for that purpose, and not because of the gentleman himself or of anything concerned with his past or present attainments, that I make this motion. For it is a striking illustration of a departure from principle if the same measure of justice is not meted out to him as was meted out to the returned soldier who happened to be a postmaster at Lafleche.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my hon. friend say that his motion is in no way actuated by the circumstance that the present incumbent of the office of chairman of the tariff board was a defeated candidate in the last election. I think when this matter was previously discussed reference was
{Mr. Bennett.]
made to the circumstance that he had been in active politics, and therefore it was implied that he should not have been subsequently appointed to his present office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That merely had to do wth the government making the appointment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But at the
moment my hon. friend says he understands that the present incumbent of that office is looking forward to being a candidate at the next election. If that be so, I must say that he as more in the confidence of the chairman of the tariff board and of those of the Liberal party who have to do with these matters than I am myself, because I have never heard, directly or indirectly, any intimation to the effect that that gentleman is contemplating such action. I think before my hon. friend suggests that a commission be appointed to discover whether or not this gentleman has such intentions, we ought to have something much more definite to go on than has thus far been brought forward. If my hon. friend or anyone else on the other side of the house will prefer a charge against the chairman of the tariff board which would justify the government in taking action of the character he has suggested, namely, the appointment of a commission to inquire into the facts, the government will consider the .matter, and will I think consider it in a manner that will be satisfactory to the house. But I do say that a general statement, such as that which has been made by my hon. friend this morning, namely, that he has reason to believe there is an intention on the part of the chairman of the tariff board to run at the next general election, and that the latter is inquiring what his chances may be-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And exercising partronage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to know what patronage the chairman of the board has exercised. Let us have the facts. A general statement such as is now made, I submit, is no ground for an inquiry, and certainly is no ground for moving that the estimate be reduced on the third reading of this bill. I do not think I need say more, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the
right hon. gentleman to say that a complaint similar to that which brought about the appointment of a commission to investigate the cases tabled this session will be regarded as sufficient to warrant the issue of a commission in this case?

Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that any hon. member of this house who will prefer a specific charge against Mr. Moore will be entitled to have that charge investigated in a manner satisfactory to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not my question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my
answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My question is, whether
or not the same complaint which brought about an investigation with respect to rural postmasters w'hose names are in the report on the clerk's table will bring about the issuance of a commission in this case. That was not done on the complaint of members of this house.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment. Shall I read the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived on division.



SUPPLY BILL-REPRESENTATION AT TOKYO

Hewitt Bostock: The question is' now on
the main motion.


George Halsey Perley: I
wish to say a few words in regard to item 342 of the estimates providing for representation at Tokyo. As we are approaching the end of the session I will not speak at any great length on this subject, although it is one I have thought a good deal about, and naturally so, inasmuch as for a number of years I was representative of Canada in London. With regard to this proposal to send a minister to Tokyo my main objection is that it creates a precedent. Canada has a representative at Washington. There were special reasons for a minister being appointed there. The United States is our great and friendly neighbour to the south, with whom we have more trade than with any other country in the world. There were therefore special reasons put forward on those grounds. A vote has also been passed for a representative of Canada at Paris, and there are special reasons why that too should be done. These are largely sentimental reasons. Two-fifths of our population are of French origin and it is a fine gesture that Canada should have a representative in Paris, Moreover, we have a good deal of trade with that country, and our minister should be able at the same time to attend to that trade.
Regarding this particular vote I do not raise any special objection to the appointment of a minister at Tokyo. Japan is our friendly neighbour across the Pacific, and I should have the same objection to the appointment of a minister from Canada to any other country, apart from the United States and France, as I now voice in connection with the proposed appointment of a minister to Tokyo.
My reason for this objection has reference to what I hope will continue to be the status of this country in relation to the other dominions of the British Empire or, perhaps I had better say, the British commonwealth, Under our present relations with Great Britain and the various self-governing countries that compose the British commonwealth, it seems to me that we should be ill advised to adopt a policy of appointing any more ministers from Canada than the two I have mentioned. When I say this I assume that we wish to keep the British commonwealth of nations intact and that we prefer to try to make permanent this wonderful organization which has grown up through the centuries, called the British empire or the British commonwealth. To my mind, the future holds only one of two alternatives for Canada. One of these is independence. I know there are some people in this country who desire that and who look forward to the time when it will come about. But I for one hope it will be very long delayed. The other alternative before us is to remain with Great Britain and the sister dominions as the British commonwealth. We are at this moment in fact a self-governing nation as far as it is possible for us to enjoy these rights under the present statutes of the old country. The rights of autonomy or self-government we certainly will never give up, but I firmly believe that the best chance Canada has for a full and satisfactory development in the future is in conjunction with Great Britain and our sister dominions. Now how can this problem be worked out? How can half a dozen separate nations, each with complete autonomy in relation to its own affairs, act together in their relations with foreign countries? I submit that this cannot be done in practice, if each part of the British commonwealth is to have separate and independent representatives in foreign countries. I take it that the government has definitely adopted a policy of this kind. The natural sequence to the appointment by Canada of a minister at Tokyo would be that Australia, South Africa and the other dominions would do the same, perhaps not immediately; but that would be the natural thing for them to do.
4154	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
Can we imagine the curious state of affairs that would ensue under those circumstances? What would happen if the British commonwealth had half a dozen separate ministers in Tokyo? Let us suppose that some grave question arises affecting Great Britain, ourselves and our sister dominions; how would it be possible in practice for us to all act together? What course would be taken by this government and by the other governments? The obvious answer is that the governments would communicate with each other, put forward their views and endeavour to reach a common point of agreement, and after that each government would have to instruct its representative in Tokyo in identical terms in order to bring about the desired result. If that did not happen, if instructions went out to the different representatives in different terms it would mean the breaking up of the British empire. I claim that this position would be full of danger in time of stress; I do not see how it could be otherwise.
I will admit that the whole question of the foreign policy of this British commonwealth is very serious and difficult, if the commonwealth is to be maintained and made permanent. I have an idea of my own how this might be worked out, but I will not take time to explain it this afternoon. However, I do say that in foreign countries we must have one voice if we are going to preserve this commonwealth of nations; we must present a united front to foreign countries in all matters of foreign policy which affect every portion of the commonwealth. I do not think we should follow out the present plan; If we are to make a success of the British empire we must have some other method of choosing and appointing the various ministers or ambassadors at foreign courts in order that they may represent the whole empire. I know there has been some objection raised to the suggestion that the foreign affairs might be administered by a committee on which each part of the empire would have a representative; some people say it would be dangerous to give so much power to anyone, but whoever was representing Canada would be definitely under the authority and the instruction of the government here, and it would be just as easy to keep him in order as to keep the minister at Tokyo in order. If that were done we would have a central body which would discuss these questions when they arose; each would advise his own government by cable or otherwise regarding the actual facts and would receive instructions from his own government in return. Then they would sit down together

to talk over the question and try to find a solution. We have adopted that principle on several occasions. I remember that in Geneva, when some question came before the assembly about which there was quite a difference of opinion among the delegates from the various parts of the empire, we sat down in a room for a couple of hours one day, threshed out the matter, and found a solution.
All I wish to say to-day is that I think the government have made a mistake in this proposal; I think they have been in too much of a hurry. It seems to me that this is one of the most serious questions which must be faced by the British empire. This problem of keeping the British commonwealth of nations together has been called insoluble, but I believe it can be solved with patience and good will. The vital need is that we should present a united front to all other countries. I suggest that before the government appoint a minister to Japan this question should be more carefully considered and that it should be discussed at length with the other parts of the British empire, with an effort made to arrive at a satisfactory solution which will conserve our rights of self government, which will give us a voice in the appointment of foreign representatives and which at the same time will make sure that this commonwealth will become permanent. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the appointment of this minister to Japan be delayed and that the government take the first opportunity to try to thresh the question out, to find a solution of this most difficult problem.
Before I sit down I wish to express my feeling that this question should not have been brought up in this way. This appointment to Tokyo has been included as one of the items in the estimates, and until this time there has been no opportunity of discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; the estimate was called in committee, but at the request of the acting leader of the opposition it was held over for the express purpose of allowing the leader of the opposition to be here.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so; I was
here when the Prime Minister acquiesced in that request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And on Saturday night
we said that rather than take time then we would discuss it on the third reading of the supply bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Now we have
come to the end of the session, and no one

Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
wishes to keep the house much longer. However, I consider this one of the most important matters to come up this year and I wish it could have been discussed at greater length. In Great Britain they try to keep all questions with regard to foreign relations out of party controversy. The leader of the opposition is kept well posted with regard to matters as they come up, so that if by the turn of the wheel he becomes Prime Minister he will be au fait with the situations which may arise. I am strongly of the opinion that the relations between the different parts of the commonwealth should be dealt with in that way; I do not believe the government of the day should take a step of this kind, which is really the adoption of a definite policy in regard to a very important matter, without having a full discussion beforehand. It is true that the Prime Minister will tell us that this house has the right to vote against this proposal, but as a matter of fact the house cannot do that without putting the government out of power.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, my hon. friend could
vote against it without putting the government out of power.


George Halsey Perley: I said the house could not vote against it without putting the government out of power, and in my judgment this is not the best way to deal with this matter.
Let us look at what has happened this session. On the question of increasing the salaries of our judges, a purely local matter pertaining only to this Dominion, the government were unable to make up their minds as to whether or not this should be done. They came to this house and asked for a committee to discuss the question, when it seems to me it was something the government should have decided for themselves. On the other hand, regarding the appointment of a minister to Tokyo, they did not appoint a committee for that purpose. That was a proper question to have discussed by all sides of the house before any action was taken. I go further than that; regarding the matter of the appointment of a minister to any of these foreign countries, other than the United States and France, I claim the proper method would be for the question to be brought before this house first and discussed; for the Prime Minister to rise in his place and say that every member of this house might consider and discuss it and vote as he thought best, and not tie the hands of the house as he has done by first making an agreement, subject to the approval of parliament, and
bringing it down in an estimate which makes it impossible for the house to reject the idea without its being a vote of want of confidence in the government.
I do feel strongly that the government has taken a step in the wrong direction. I believe that the members of the government on the whole wish to preserve the British commonwealth, and to look forward to our full development as a self-governing nation within that commonwealth. That is my firm belief, but I feel that this action is on the path towards independence and if that policy continues, and other dominions adopt the same policy, I cannot see how it will be possible in the future for the various component parts of this commonwealth of nations always to act together without friction in regard to the serious matters of foreign policy. Therefore, I move, seconded by Mr. Ross (Kingston):
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor, namely:
The bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to the said committee that it have power to reduce vote No. 342 by the sum of $49,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I take up the argument of my hon. friend with
respect to the advisability of opening a legation at Tokyo, may I refer to the concluding part of his address in *which he made mention of the fact- that we were considering this item only at the last moments of the session. May I say to my hon. friend that no one regrets more than myself that it does so happen that we are, during the last hours of the session, endeavouring to discuss this all-important subject. I would, however, point out to my hon. friend and t-o the members of the house that it is not the fault of the government if there has been delay in the discussion of this matter. The government took the earliest possible opportunity to acquaint hon. members of its intention in this matter by making mention of it ;n the speech from the throne, and my hon. friend was one of those who, on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, made very much the same speech as he has made this afternoon. H:is hon. leader also spoke at considerable length and I venture to say presented the very arguments in the'course of his address at that time which he will present this afternoon or on somie other occasion when he may speak. As I recollect, the matter was very fully discussed on the address. May I quote the paragraph in the address: It has mention of other features which help to
4156	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
explain the reason why the government is taking this particular step at this time. The paragraph in the speech is as follows:
As contemplated by the conclusions of the Imperial conference of 1926, provision was made on July 1 for direct communication between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's other governments of the British Empire. The further implementing of these conclusions which aim at more effective consultation through personal contact by the appointment to Canada of a representative of His Majesty's government in Great Britain is being discussed between the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in Great Britain, who is at present in Canada, and members of my government. By agreement between the governments of France and Canada and the governments of Japan and Canada it is proposed that each of these countries shall be represented in the other by a minister plenipo-' tentiary.
So that, as early as January of this year, the house had before it, in a form which permitted full discussion and debate, the question of the advisability of opening a legation at Tokyo. Then a short time ago we had an amendment moved by the hon. member for Labeie (Mr. Bourassa) which was brought in on the motion to go into the supply of the Department of External Affairs. That amendment dealt with external affairs and was very largely concerned with just such questions as the one we are now discussing. The debate occupied considerable time and opportunity was given for hon. members to discuss their views on the subject of legations. Then we moved into the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and those estimates, as I recollect, took two days of discussion, including the time occupied on the motion to go into supply. When these estimates were before parliament, among others assented to was the estimate for the legation at Washington, and the estimate for the opening of the new legation at Paris. I submit that it was quite permissible during the discussion on either one of these estimates, for hon. members to discuss, to the extent that miy hon. friend has discussed this afternoon, the advisability of a legation being opened in any part of the world There was plenty of opportunity then. Then, again, some days ago when we were proceeding with miscellaneous estimates, we came to the item on Tokyo, and the acting leader of the opposition requested that the item be held over pending the return from a trip to the west of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. It is quite true tlhat in further discussing the items on Saturday my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in order to help us expedite business, did not take up the

discussion of the item at that time. I think he was guided in that purpose by the desire to assist the government in bringing prorogation about speedily, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said we would discuss it on the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend made it clear that we would discuss the item on the third reading of the bill at the time of concurrence. If this item is being discussed at the last minute it was not from any desire of the government to avoid an earlier discussion, or because of any lack of opportunities for discuss'on.
May I say to my hon friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) that his speech seems to me to be, in many particulars, as much in support of the policy of the government in opening legations as an argument against it. His first objection was that it was creating an unwise precedent. May I point out to my hon. friend that he preceded that remark by drawing attention to two cases where the precedent had already been made? A legation has been opened at Washington and a legation has been authorized for Paris, and therefore the precedent has already been established. The precedent was fully discussed when the question of representation at Washington was before the house, and it was again opened for full discussion when the question of representation at Paris was being discussed. My hon. friend says there is a difference between Washington and Paris and Tokyo. Certainly there are some major differences, but there are also important considerations which are applicable to all. My hon. friend spoke of the circumstance that the United States was a near neighbour. The United States is our nearest neighbour on the south, but Japan is our nearest neighbour on the west and France is our nearest neighbour on the east. One thing which I should like to draw to the attention of the house is the peculiar and rather remarkable position in which Canada stands in relation to the countries in which we are opening legations. I was very much impressed the other day by a remark of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who was referring amongst other things, I think, to the orient and speaking of the influence of Canadian thought on many public questions. He hoped to see Canada playing more and more a part in the councils not only of the empire but of the world, because he believed Canadian opinion would make for friendly relations as between the different countries,

Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
and that we were in a peculiarly happy position of being able to interpret the views and opinions of other countries to one another. As he spoke, I thought of a remark a friend of mine recently made respecting Canada's position in that connection.
We are as intimately associated as possible with Great Britain; we are all part of the British Empire; we are all one in the political institutions we possess, and we are all	one	in	our	allegiance,	our loyaltyand our sovereignty. In regard to France we	are	in	the	exceptional	position of
being related by kinship, by past tradition, by sentiment and by language in large part. We have with France an association that no other country in the world begins to parallel. In regard to the United States we are so situated geographically that between us we occupy practically the whole of this continent. Our people are travelling back and forth across an invisible line and I imagine we in Canada understand the people of the United States better than they are understood by the people of any other country in the world. There again we are in a happy position with respect to our neighbour. Now it so happens that Japan is our nearest neighbour across the Pacific. Thus as a country we are situated, so to speak, in the centre of the four great powers that are instrumental in controlling w'orld affairs as far as they relate to peace and war. In connection with the invitation that was issued by the United States in respect to the renunciation of war, that invitation was issued in the first instance to Great Britain, France and Japan as three of the great powers. We are in the happy position of having this close relationship and association with all of those great powers and one of the strongest arguments that could be urged for the opening of legations in those countries is that it will enable us as Canadians to gain the attention of those1 countries on matters that are of concern to our immediate neighbours, to gain a knowledge of the problems that are affecting them in relation to the problems that affect ourselves and that it will put us in a position to exercise, in a manner that will be helpful to all, that exceptional knowledge which we may come to possess in this way and the exceptional opportunity which is ours as well.
May I, just to hurry along, refer to the other points which my hon. friend has brought up? He said that the alternatives as to the future of Canada were alternatives of independence and continuance in the British
Empire. I hope my hon. friend in his remarks did not wish to infer-and I do not think he did-that in taking a step of this kind there was anything which savoured of a desire for independence on the part of this country.


George Halsey Perley: I had no idea of suggesting that the right hon. gentleman had any desire for independence, but I did say that I thought this path he was taking, if followed through, would lead there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is straying up the wrong patth when he speaks in that way. I submit that quite the contrary is the case. I submit that the action which the government is taking is along a line which is going to help to maintain our relationship within the British Empire, a line which might I think come to be directed in another way were we to pursue the avenue that my hon. friend has been advocating. That point I want to make perfectly clear in dealing with these questions of foreign relations and we might as well face the broad issue at once. We are as respects methods of representation face to face with the alternatives he has suggested. One is the old conception of a centralized single control, no matter by what other name you may describe it. The other is the method of a joint control. The centralized control conception had its day for some years in the advocacy of an imperial parliament by imperial federation-ists. Anyone who opposed the idea of an imperial parliament was described as a separatist or out for independence just because he could not approve a parliament highly centralized. To-day you will not find any advocates of imperial federation. Then the next attempt we had was to bring about an imperial council, to have some body sitting in London as a council which would be able to control the affairs of the empire. I doubt very much whether anyone to-day would advocate that method of centralized control. Now there is proposed another step in the same direction. My hon. friend would have us represented in different parts of the world by one of those centralized bodies who *would act for the whole. The way to maintain the British Empire in its foreign relations is not by monopoly of control on the part of any one part of the empire, but by a joint control on the part of all.


George Halsey Perley: I was advocating joint control.
4158	*	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When my hon. friend looks into his own argument he will see that it comes down pretty much to a single control.


George Halsey Perley: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His whole
argument was this: How is it going to be possible for half a dozen people to represent the different parts of the empire at Tokyo? How can the British Empire be represented at Tokyo by half a dozen representatives from the different dominions? Half a dozen representatives means joint control. One representative means a monopoly of control on the part of that portion of the British Empire which places that particular representative there. There is no more reason why there should not be single and united action on the part of a group of men in Tokyo than thait there should be single and united action on the part of a cabinet. Indeed the rest of my hon. friend's argument-and that was the point I wanted to make-was a direct proof of the accuracy of what I have been saying. He spoke about all the different dominions being represented at Versailles; he said: We got into our quarrels there amongst ourselves; we went into a room and threshed those things out for a whole day at a time, I think he said.


George Halsey Perley: Not a whole day. An hour or two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, that is
not so bad. At Geneva the representatives of the different dominions and the British government, after an hour or two of threshing out differences came to one opinion and acted with a united front. Why can they not do that in Tokyo just as well as in Geneva? Certainly differences will arise and they will be solved exactly as all differences are solved under our British institutions. They will be solved by collective opinions to which individual opinions will give way. I submit very strongly that such a method of representation is a method that is going to help to keep the British Empire united, because back of whatever expression of policy is put forward where different parts are affected there will be the knowledge that that policy is part of the united opinion arrived at by the different countries that are there represented.
May I say to my hon. friend there is another feature to be thought of in connection with the representation of different parts of the empire, at particular centres? Not only is there the benefit of consultation among all the groups immediately affected, but there

is also the creation of new ties and links of empire. May I point to what is taking place in the United States at the present time? In the United States we have the British ambassador, Sir Esme Howard, working in cooperation with the Canadian minister and the minister from the Irish Free State. Does my hon. friend mean to tell me that Ireland and Canada and Great Britain are not being united more closely than they have ever been in the past, by virtue of these three gentlemen working together in Washington. I say to him that the fact that you have there at Washington these three representatives of different parts of the British Empire conferring together on matters respecting their respective countries, is the surest way of bringing about that unity of opinion that is going to prevent differences within the British Empire. What is the alternative? The only alternative is to have some single minister who acts for all the others, and if a mistake is made, who is going to be blamed for the mistake? My hon. friend says that you could easily deal with a single minister and bring him back. I would like to know how you are going to deal with him. If the British ambassador at Tokyo made a mistake, for instance, on a matter very seriously affecting British Columbia, does my hon. friend mean to say that just by some action of this goverment we could deal with that British minister? I say to my hon. friend that one of the ways to prevent friction arising within the empire is to see that with respect to its external affairs, the different parts of the empire are represented by ministers who are responsible to the government of the country which they represent, and who may be recalled by them if the necessity arises. Let me give my hon. friend, not my view, on that point, but the view of a British ambassador himself, the ambassador at Washington, given since the present legation has been opened. What he says applies equally to Tokyo, Paris and elsewhere. Sir Esme Howard speaking before the Canadian Club at Vancouver in May, 19217, had the following to say:
Now may I say one word more with special reference to the relations of Canada to the United States of America. In the last few months, as you are aware, a new step has been taken in the relations of Canada and the United States by the appointment to Washington of a special Canadian diplomatic representative in the person of my friend Mr. Vincent Massey. Whenever I have been asked, long before the appointment was made, what I thought about it, I have always been able, fortunately, to say quite unreservedly that in my humble opinion it would be an excellent thing to have a Canadian representative at Washington. Canada has now so many and so important questions to treat with the United States government

Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
that it is certainly better that these should he treated by someone who being a Canadian will be better prepared to handle them than any regular British representative could be. The matter was I think largely a question of expediency and opportunity. The question presented itself thus. How soon will it be worth while for the Canadian government to bear the expense necessary for setting up a legation at Washington? The Canadian government has decided that that time has come and, if I may say so without impertinence, I think the establishment of the legation was a wise move, and that nothing could have been happier than the choice of Mr. Massey to launch the ship. Proud as I was to represent Canada at Washington, I always felt that some day-perhaps in my time perhaps later-Canadians might feel rightly or wrongly that their business was not being handled properly by the British embassy. Now that I have passed the buck to Mr. Massey he will get all the blame if there is any going and I shall be able to sit back quietly in my chair unperturbed and at ease.
May 1 say that that is true equally of our representation at Tokyo, and perhaps even more true in that ease, seeing that in relations with the orient there are in some particulars questions which affect this Dominion to a greater degree perhaps than any other part of the British Empire. I think it is all important, and for the good of the empire, for the preservation of the empire and for the unity of the empire, that there should be representing Canada at Tokyo someone who knows Canadian problems, who understands the situation, for example, in the province of British Columbia with respect to immigration, with respect to trade, and with respect to the hundred and one other questions that have already arisen and are appearing in our relations with Japan, who will be able there, in Japan, not only to make' known Canadian opinion, but be in a position also to give us through Canadian eyes a knowledge of the questions that are arising in Japan itself, and of the atmosphere in which they are being discussed. That is the point I would like to make. I am afraid that in hurrying over this subject so "rapidly I am not developing it as well as I should.
I would say to my hon. friend that already the method of having different parts of the British Empire represented at a single centre for the purpose of conferences on matters affecting the empire as a whole, but having special reference to their own particular part, has already been tried out and has worked very successfully. It worked out at Versailles, dealing with the great question of the settlement of the war, at which conferences all parts of the British Empire were represented. It has worked well at the conferences at Geneva, and at the different conferences that have been held at Washington. Wherever
there have been conferences at which all the different parts of the British Empire have been represented the result up to the present moment has been success, success and success. We have sufficient in the way of evidence to believe that in connection with these legations, if they are established, the same methods and the same attitude will prevail, and prevail for t'he good of all.
In regard to my hon. friend's reference to independence, may I say that he has got hold of the wrong word. It is not independence, it is self-dependence we are thinking about in the appointment of these legations, self-dependence and self-reliance in larger measure as we have increased responsibilities and increased obligations. My hon. friend, I presume, would be agreeable to having all our foreign business conducted at the expense of Great Britain.


George Halsey Perley: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is his
alternative? It is to tax the Canadian people and pay part of the expenses of the British officials to look after our affairs?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then the other way is to let the British government do it at its own expense?


George Halsey Perley: My suggestion
was that we should have some system whereby each part of the empire would pay a share of the expense and each part would have a say as to the appointments, and that the foreign staff should no longer be appointed solely by the foreign office of Great Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will strive from now till doomsday but never succeed in working out a plan of that kind. You will never get the foreign office in Great Britain to allow this country to say who is to run that office in any particular, any more than you could get the people of Canada to agree to allow somebody to come here from the Old Country and say how the affairs of this Dominion shall be run.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Does the Prime Minister know whether the statement that was made by Mr. Asquith that the foreign policy of Great Britain could never be shared by the different parts of the empire, but must be dictated by Downing street, has ever been refuted by any responsible statesman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we
might say such an opinion by whomsoever expressed has been refuted by experience.
4160	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
I do not think it would now be maintained that Dawning street was claiming the right to determine the foreign policy for all parts of the empire. The facts are quite the contrary, and that is recognized by the British government itself. Take the different treaties that have been negotiated by this country and by this government; they have been negotiated with the full approval of the British government. That of itself is an answer to my bon. friend's question.
With respect to the introduction of this policy, may I say that before the government decided to open a legation either in Paris or Tokyo, the government had one of its ministers, the leader of the government in the Senate, visit England and confer with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain, advising him of Canada's wish and intention in the matter, and also of the desire of the Dominion to have the good offices of the British Foreign Office in obtaining the necessary introductions for a discussion of the opening of legations in Paris and Tokyo with the foreign ministers of the countries concerned. Sir Austen Chamberlain offered every facility he could possibly offer, and I would like to take the opportunity of expressing the appreciation of our government of the helpful cooperation of His Majesty's government, in Great Britain in this matter, and also of the services of the British ministers at Paris and Tokyo in having the representations of our government made known to the ministers of foreign affairs of both France and Japan. What we have done, we have done with the full knowledge, consent and approval of His Majesty's government in Great Britain. Indeed it is exactly in accord with the procedure laid down at the last Imperial conference.
I do not wish to take up too much time. I have a note on one or two other points that I thought might later be taken up. I will hasten to anticipate them.
The hon. leader of the opposition when he spoke previously, developed at some length a doctrine of sovereignty, and I think rather stressed the point that the oriental mind would not be able to distinguish our action in appointing a minister to Tokyo.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the light of international law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not think we need worry about the oriental mind. It is the Tory mind that cannot understand these problems. It is the Tory mind that cannot get out of its ambit the view that all these matters relating to our external affairs must

somehow or other be dealt with as my hon. friend who has just spoken (Sir George Perley) has said, by some individual other than a citizen of our own country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me put this question to the hon. gentleman: Does he think other parts of the empire would be content to have Canadians manage their external affaire?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, I think it would be quite proper for a Canadian to be the representative of the whole of the British dominions at Paris or Washington or Berlin.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much
support does my hon. friend think he would get for that proposal in the British parliament?	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Robert Borden was discussed as an appointee to Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. But what was the view of this parliament with respect to Sir Robert Borden or anyone else acting as British minister at Washington?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a minister for all the commonwealths.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Put it that way. The view held here when the subject was discussed was that it would be a most lamentable and unfortunate position for this country to be put in to have one of its distinguished citizens representing at Washington not only Canada but all other parts of the empire, for the simple reason that if a mistake were made there with respect tio the affairs of another part, this country would be held wholly responsible. May I put the question concretely to my hon. friend: Assume for a moment that Sir Robert Borden were acting as the minister at Washington for the whole of the British Empire, and Sir Robert were to take a course of action on some subject that.was not in accordance with the will and wish of the government of Great Britain; who would recall Sir Robert? Would he be recalled by the British government, by this government or by the Australian government? I submit you oan have power only as you pay the bill, that the country responsible for raising the taxes must have the power of carrying on its own business and controlling its own agents, and that you will get into an endless mix-up if you try to divide authority in the matter of control.
With respect to sovereignty, in the management of our domestic affaire we have sovereign power already. We have sovereign

____________Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
power in regard to external affairs in so far as they relate to this Dominion. The Imperial conference has distinctly stated that Canada's position in that regard is precisely the same as that of Great Britain herself. I know my hon. friend does not wholly subscribe to the doctrine of equality of status, and I am not going to discuss that question to-day, but I do want to give to this house once for all a statement that I propose to rely on in the days to come as my authority respecting Canada's position in the matter of equality of status when dealing with this question. I hold in my hand a volume entitled, Our Inheritance, being a collection of speeches and addresses delivered by the Right Honourable Stanley Baldwin, M.P., Prime Minister of Great Britain-a book which I think every citizen of the British Empire will be proud to read. Among the addresses are several delivered in Canada and one which Mr. Baldwin delivered within the walls of these' houses of parliament on the occasion of the visit of himself and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Ottawa last year. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition was there on that occasion, and heard this speech delivered. I shall not read the whole speech, but just one or two passages dealing with the significance of the Imperial conference of 1928. Mr. Baldwin spoke in the presence of all the members of the Privy Council on all sides of polities who were able to attend, and in the presence of other distinguished citizens and visitors. He said:
I had the great honour of being chairman of that conference, and I think that it marked an epoch in the relations between the various
parts of the British Empire	
So perhaps it may be of interest, not only to you but also to Canada generally, if I try to explain very briefly liow I personally interpret the main results of the conference.
Its most important work was, by common consent, the unanimous report of the committee on inter-imperial relations, a committee which had the good fortune to be presided over by one who was a master of language no less than of thought-Lord Balfour.
What that committee did was to attempt to define in a phrase the living relationship of all parts of the British Empire to one another, and to begin to work out the practical application of that relationship.
The phrase to which His Royal Highness has already alluded has been widely quoted, and I think I cap say without fear of contradiction that it will go down to history. You will pardon me if I repeat it here:
And this is the phrase which His Royal Highness himself gave to that gathering on the same evening:
Great Britain and the dominions, are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs-"


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ~^oush united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations."
That paragraph, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition remarks, was quoted by His Royal Highness from the report of the committee on inter-imperial relations. Then Mr. Bal dwin goes on to say:
This formula is founded on two principles, the essential equality of status of all the selfgoverning parts of the empire, and the unity of the whole empire under the crown	
We may well be content with the declaration thus unanimously completed and agreed.
The words I particularly direct attention to are these:
To define in a phrase the living relationship ot all parts of the British Empire to one another, and to begin to work out the practical application of that relationship.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to domestic affairs we have full and complete sovereign power; that with respect to our external relations, our powers are just as complete as they are with respect to our domestic affairs; the same is true of .the powers of the British parliament as to their domestic and externa] affairs; the same is true of all the self-governing parts of the British Empire. That being so, we believe we should now work out the application of a living relationship that is fundamental. When we have great questions arising between ourselves and a country such as Japan-which we have-we feel 'that the practical application of this living relationship which Canada bears to the British Isles is to associate with the British ambassador at Tokyo a minister from Canada who will understand 'Canadian problems and be able to interpret them direct to the Japanese, and also to the other representatives of the British Empire who may be associated with him at Tokyo. We believe there is no danger of the Japanese or the oriental mind mistaking in any particular what as a consequence is involved with respect to sovereignty. Indeed,
I think my hon. friend would be the first to admit that the Japanese are not oblivious to what has taken place at Washington; they are not oblivious to what has taken place at Paris. If the oriental mind is to get wrong impressions with respect to Canada's relations with the other parts of the empire, or of possible independence, that difficulty will have arisen already. But I do not think that any people anywhere will be quicker to appreciate the accuracy of the relationship which exists than will the Japanese nation itself.

4162	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
Now, in the paragraph from the speech from the throne Which I read, reference was made to the importance of personal communication, of personal contact in international relations.
I submit, from what little experience I have had thus far in dealing with these external affairs that too much importance cannot be attached to immediate personal contact between representatives of different countries when considering in common some large problem of mutual concern. May I cite a matter which comes to my mind. Hon. members will recall a speech made in this house, in the course of the debate on external affairs, in which a friendly nation to my mind had reason to feel it had been insulted, at least indirectly, by the remarks of a certain hon. gentleman. I will not say more than that. The remarks, however, I may observe were made in application to the people of the orient. Those of us who are assembled here know how easily the hon. gentleman who spoke rolls off some of his various remarks, and we know how much to discount his language. But words of the character to which I refer sent across the Pacific and repeated in another country, as coming from one who has been not only mayor of a great city in Canada for seven years or more in succession but also a member of this parliament for several years, are likely to assume a significance in the orient which they do not begin to assume here. How are you to explain to the oriental people or to any people the significance of many such public remarks which do more mischief in international relations than anything else? Yet a thing of that sort can be explained in a moment, through personal contact, where it could not [DOT]be explained by weeks of correspondence.
I desire for a moment now to stress the importance of the trade which is growing up with the orient. Do hon. members realize that Japan is our third or fourth largest customer in the matter of trade? The exports to Japan in 1926 amounted to $35,000,000, and in 1927, to $30,000,000; the reduction in 1927 is to be accounted for by the war in China as well as commercial depression in Japan. In 1926 Japan was our third best customer, our exports to that country being exceeded only by those to Great Britain and the United States. In 1927 she was our fourth largest customer. Our exports to Japan are 300 times as great as they were thirty years ago. And our imports from Japan, while only about one-sixth of our exports are still large enough to give Japan rank as sixth in the list of countries from which we purchase goods. It is a striking fact that our exports

to Japan in 1926 were greater in value than were our exports to the United Kingdom and France combined in the first year in which we sent a High Commissioner to London and an agent to Paris.	_
May I now refer to what I believe to be the true significance of the step we propose taking in this regard? Action in this field is a natural and necessary development of self government. The different self-governing units of the British Commonwealth have great traditions and many interests in common. But they have also distinct problems to solve. As Canada has grown in population, industrial development and foreign trade, it has become necessary for her to make provision for her special interests abroad. We began by sharing in making commercial treaties with foreign countries, and later in making them ourselves. We are now participating directly in general treaties affecting wider political interests. We are sending representatives to Paris, Washington and other places to deal with special and individual problems arising between foreign countries and ourselves, and the natural, necessary and inevitable development is to send as conditions warrant permanent representatives to the capitals of foreign countries.
As a concrete indication of the advantage of the step we now propose, may I say that since this government decided to ask parliament to appropriate a sum sufficient for a legation in Tokyo, the government of Japan has asked its parliament to appropriate a similar amount for the opening of a legation in Ottawa. The discussions which took place with regard to the opening of these legations were supplemented by discussions with respect to the great question of immigration from the orient, more particularly immigration from Japan. As a result of these discussions, and largely as an expression of good will on the part of Japan herself at this new step which is about to be taken, we have succeeded, as I mentioned to the house the other day, in materially modifying the agreement Which was formerly concluded between this country and Japan. Japan has to-day undertaken to restrict the total number of immigrants coming to this country per year as agricultural labourers, domestic servants and the wives and children of Japanese immigrants resident in Canada to 150 persons. Moreover, Japan has *agreed that, as respects these persons leaving their country to come to Canada, our own minister in Japan shall vise their passports, so that in future there shall be no question about the genuineness of any passports presented or accepted. Japan has also agreed that, despite

Supply Bill-
-Representation at Tokyo
the provisions of the commercial treaty in existence which gives certain rights to her people in travelling to and fro, our own officers of the Department of Immigration shall apply to Japan the immigration laws of Canada in the same manner as they are applied to all other countries, regard being had of course to the limited restriction of numbers to which I have referred.
I should not be doing justice to the attitudle of the Japanese government in the negotiations towards this end if I chid not express, on behalf of the government of Canada, our high appreciation of the manner in which the negotiations were conducted on behalf of Japan *by Mr. Tomii the present Consul General of Japan at Ottawa. These negotiations were carried on largely between Mr. Tomii and myself, they were further carried on of course by immediate reference on my part, to the other members of the Canadian government, and by reference to the Japanese government on the part af the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Japan. I wish to say that throughout the entire negotiations every effort was made by the Japanese representative here to 'have it clearly understood on the part of Canada that Japan was seeking only the friendliest relations with this Dominion and that she was prepared to go to very great lengths in the matter of accepting conditions which in some respects are wholly unwelcome to her as an evidence of the international goodwill which it is her hope and ours that these legations in Tokyo and Ottawa respectively may serve to maintain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) has very correctly indicated that in committee the other evening we dispensed with discussion of this matter in the hope that we might be able to complete consideration of it before prorogation, which was expected to have taken place on Saturday night. That is the only reason why the matter was not discussed at length in committee of the whole When the estimates were under consideration.
There would not appear to be very great difference between the right hon. gentleman and ourselves with respect to one matter, although there are very vast differences between us in another regard. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has referred to what he calls the Tory mind. May I point out that it was the Tory mind in Canada that gave this country trade commissioners. It was the Tory mind that conceived the idea that this country should be represented by Canadian rather than by British trade commissioners in every part of the world. It was the Tory 56103-263}
mind, speaking through a Tory government that made possible the development of this trade in Japan to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. Anid other trade commissioners were appointed by this so-called Tory administration. Of course, there are no Tories in the world now; everyone knows that. There are no Tories nowadays; there have not been any Tories since the days of Peel, who coined the phrase "Liberal Conservative", for the reason that the toryism of Wellington had ceased to exist, as Trevelyan tells in his History of the Nineteenth Century. The word "Tory" disappeared with the death of Wellington and Lord Eldon. That is the fact, as the right hon. gentleman no doubt knows. There are great differences between us, I say, with respect to some matters, and I cannot better summarize our position than in these terms.
First, we say there is no complaint that existing arrangements for -the transaction of Canadian diplomatic business at Tokyo are unsatisfactory. We have no minister at Tokyo, yet the Prime Minister tells us that he has just concluded a most satisfactory arrangement with respect to Japanese immigration. That in itself is conclusive proof that existing conditions are satisfactory. In the old province of Quebec they have a maxim which hon. membens from there will bear me out is correctly stated in these words, "Whenever no change is necessary it is necessary not to change." Therefore, there being no necessity for change, and the Prime Minister just having indicated the satisfactory character of existing diplomatic arrangements, which enabled him within the last few weeks to conclude arrangements entirely satisfactory to Canada, there is no necessity for the contemplated) change.
Secondly, in dealing with our relations with other states it is essential to the maintenance of the commonwealth of free communities known as the British Empire that there should be but one foreign policy. I think no one will dispute that. How is it possible to maintain unity among the free communities which we call -the British Empire if Australia has one foreign policy, New Zealand another, Canada another and the remainder of the British Empire another? It follows beyond question that if we are to maintain the life of the free communities as an empire-the British Empire-there must be but a single foreign policy.
Thirdly, this leads us logically to the next point, that independence of action in diplomatic matters is not compatible with the ideas of partnership and of a united empire
4164	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
We say we are a partnership of free peoples. Has any hon. gentleman in this house ever heard of one partner sending one representative, another partner sending another representative, and another partner still another representative with respect to business matters? How is it possible in a partnership consisting of four people for each partner to have his own special representative for the transaction of business with distant peoples? The partnership deals as a unit with respect to business and speaks with a single voice, and when it fails, so to speak as a unit, disruption and dismemberment are inevitable.
Fourthly, that leads us logically to the next statement, which is this: The appointment of a minister by Canada implies by international law that the Dominion is a sovereign state. We are not, and that implication will create misunderstandings at home and abroad. The Prime Minister dealt with that matter, and all I wish to say in answer is to read from a recent authority on international law.
I quote Oppenheim, section 64, "Conception of the State":
4 state proper-in contradistinction to so-called colonial states-is in existence when a people is settled in a country under its own sovereign government. The conditions wnicn must obtain for the existence of a state are therefore four:	' .	,	.
There must, first be a people. A people is an aggregate of individuals of both sexes who live together as a community in spite ot the fact that they may belong to different races or creeds, or be of different colour.	,
There must, secondly, be a country m which the people has settled down. A wandering people, such as the Jews were whilst m the desert for forty years before their conquest of the Holy Land, is not a state. But it matters not whether the country is small or large; it may consist, as with city states, oi one town only.	,	,, ,
There must, thirdly, be a government-that is, one or more persons who are the representatives of the people and rule according to the law of the land. An anarchistic community is not a state.	.
There must, fourthly and lastly, be a sovereign government. Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "In the strict and narrowest sense of the term."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, with respect to the other matters. I repeat:
There must, fourthly and lastly, be a sovereign government. Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. Sovereignty _ in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.
'Mr. Bennett.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is only in the strict and narrowest sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but you must deal with it i<n every sense. That is the very point I desire to make. We are not a sovereign power even for domestic purposes, and I can best, illustrate that statement by a reference to one house of this parliament. The Shpreme Court of Canada has decided that women may not be appointed to the Senate, and we have not the power to change our constitution in that regard. That must be done by an amendment to the British North America Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a matter of method, that is all; the power comes from us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That did not
disrupt the empire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not, nor is it likely to. The League of Nations is nothing more than an organization set up by various countries in the world, and has nothing to do with the question of peace or war, or the status and position of this country or any other. I put this question to the right hon. the Prime Minister: How can you have at any capital ministers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together with a minister from Great Britain? How can they differ and 'have unity in the empire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
they always differ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point I am coming to is this; I do not think they would always differ, I hope they might always agree, but this empire should have but one .representation of its foreign policies. It can never speak with many voices, it must always speak with one. In every great capital where it is necessary that there should be representatives of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, there should be an ambassador who speaks for the empire. Who is going to speak for the partners who comprise our commonwealth of nations? Not Sir Austen Chamberlain, as was said the other day. Suppose a difficulty arose in France. Sir Austen Chamberlain consults the French foreign minister and he determines upon a course of action, so far as he is concerned, speaking for Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. But Canada has 5. representative there, and 'he says, "No, I do not agree to that; I will have to wire my home government." He wires his home government at Ottawa and they do not agree. Then what happens? It means one of two things; either Sir Austen Chamberlain speaks and says, "I cannot speak for Canada;" and simply speaks for the rest of the empire. Are we ready for that?
It means that if t'he Canadian representative in Tokyo is confronted with a problem that affects Canada and other parts of the commonwealth of nations, and the ambassador of Great Britain agrees upon a given line of action, and there are no other representatives of any part of the king's dominions there except the ambassador of Great Britain and the Canadian minister, and the Canadian minister says, "I cannot agree to what you propose doing," the ambassador of Great Britain must agree with our minister or no action can be taken. What if we are faced with a condition similar to that which confronted Mr. Ambassador Goschen, at
4166	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Representation at Tokyo
Berlin, or Sir George Buchanan at St. Petersburg? You cannot take weeks to decide a diplomatic matter, you can only take hours. The ambassador of Great Britain says, "I can speak for everybody but Canada." Can we then remain within the empire, remain a partner of the commonwealth of nations called the British Empire? We cannot. There is no difficulty in understanding that.
That is the reason we proposed,, and it was not an improper proposal, that we should establish at Washington, as was originally intended, not our own embassy or our own legation, but that our representative should work with the ambassador of Great Britain. I had even hoped that the time would come when the British commonwealth of nations might be represented in foreign countries by Canadians.
Gentlemen here have visited foreign lands as I have, and have experienced the same pride as they looked upon the union jack and the coat of arms of his Britannic Majesty's embassy. We go into the embassy and over the entrance are t'he arms of his Britannic Majesty and the British flag. What is going to be put over the Canadian legation door?


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend intimate that Sir Robert Borden advocated that the Canadian representative should be attached to the British embassy at Washington?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the word "minister" was used. It was intended that our representative, as the minister probably knows, should find quarters in an addition to be made to the embassy of Great Britain at Washington. That was the original idea,-[DOT] that they would work together so there would be no chance of any disagreement.


Charles A. Stewart: You do not get that idea from his public utterances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You should have got it in this House of Commons. What will you find upon the shield outside the Canadian legation? His Majesty's government in Canada with the British flag and the Canadian flag. Let us look at this thing as practical men. We go down to Washington to-day and we find a Canadian flag and the Canadian arms. That is easily understood on the American continent; but you get out to Tokyo and there is a British embassy with the British shield and British flag upon it, and at another place is the Canadian legation with the Canadian arms and Canadian flag. A question comes up which affects every partner in the British commonwealth of nations. What is the ambassador of Great Britain going to do

about it? He arrives at his conclusions as to what should be done, and he goes to the government he is accredited to with his determination. The Canadian minister is advised. If we are going to act in unity with him, then we should be side by side and acting as one people speaking for the whole commonwealth, and not for that partner called Great Britain or that partner called Canada. The Prime Minister says there will be no difficulty because you can compromise and agree, but the world's history is filled with the record of cases where they did not agree. The disagreement of ambassadors brought about wars in times past. Look at the great congress of ambassadors which was supposed to preserve the world's peace after the treaty of Vienna and the Napoleonic wars. This congress was to keep the peace of the world, but differences arose, the first I think being in connection with Brazil.
Let us look at these matters frankly. We are predicating this experiment upon the possibility of men always being able to agree. It is illogical to conclude that this commonwealth of nations can speak as several entities when we know that in matters of foreign policy it must speak with one voice or perish. There can be no division when you come to a question of foreign policy. The king cannot be neutral in one country and at war in another. We cannot be at peace and war at the same time, and thfe commonwealth of nations must speak with one voice. It cannot speak with one voice if power is given to the representative of Canada or any other part of the commonwealth to speak with a dissenting voice. This is the real reason I make a protest against this expenditure.
Then there is the further question of the expense involved at this time for no corresponding results. What do we offer as a substitute? We say trade commissioners, high commissioners if you will. The trade with Japan has not been brought about by diplomatic interviews. Their business is not trade, it is diplomacy. Ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the business, with the United States has been improved by the Minister at Washington or through trade commissioners. A trade commissioner's business is trade, not diplomacy, and your trade commissioners bring about the expansion of business. We could keep up five trade commissioners at $10,000 per year for what this one minister is to cost us. Think what that would mean. It would put trade commissioners in different parts of the world, an additional one in China, two more in Japan, if you will, to

Supply Bill-C.N.R.-Halifax Hotel
expand and develop our oriental trade through the means we have found so satisfactory in the past. We suggest, so far as it is possible for us to do this, that contact and communication by Canada with foreign powers should be maintained through a single office speaking with authority as a single voice representing all communities of the commonwealth. If necessary Canada can have representation in those offices for discussion, for the presentation of her views; but the league or commonwealth of the British communities is the greatest assurance the world has of its peace to-day, and now we are going to make it possible that some man with a strong determined view, yielding not to pressure or to compromise, may for this country speak with a voice different from that of the other communities of the empire and thereby imperil its solidarity and unity and destroy the whole idea that underlies this free community of nations we call the British Empire.
For that reason, without elaborating the matter further at this late hour, I am compelled to place myself on record as against these proposals with all the implications that axe involved-and the implications are more powerful still-the implications of protection in a foreign land, when Canadians rush to their own flag to find protection in their own legation. Where are our fleets? Where are our police? Armies are but policemen; where are they? Where are our police patrols- our cruisers abroad? Where upon the high seas are our destroyers, as Kipling says, "the stripped hulls, slinking through the gloom "? In the east to-day we find ferment, great conflict of ambitions between China and Japan. Some day China will be consolidated; Borne day their internal differences will be settled. Then we have those ambitions clashing in Manchuria, and we know what has taken place there. Manchuria is our great rival in the production of wheat for the great flour mills of Japan. Questions of trade we can understand; but when other moments come; when difficulties arise; when British subjects rush for the protection of their own country, to their ministry, to their legation, the implication is at least that we can afford some protection. What protection can we afford? None. This is putting on show, a pretence, without having behind us power, authority or means with which to assert ourselves should difficulties arise. And the same reliance which in days gone by we have had to place upon the fleet and might of England, the taxpayers of England, to protect the lives and property of our citizens, we shall once more have to place upon them as against this bogus representation of nationality, this false representation of sovereignty which we do not possess and which places us in the eyes of the world in a position wholly unwarranted either in fact or in law.
Amendment (Sir George Perley) negatived on division.



SUPPLY BILL-CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS -HALIFAX HOTEL

James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word, on the third reading, with regard to the item which was under discussion this morning and as to which I stated that I would forego my right to speak at that time in order not to delay the passage of the bill. I will take the time of the house very shortly, but I feel that there should be placed on record One or two matters with regard to the observations made by my right hon. friend this morning so that my remarks may be read along with his.
First, with regard to a suggestion which my hon. friend made to effect that definite subscriptions had been made by the Canadian Pacific, I now have information which shows that the1 subscription must have been of the most informal kind, because, as I now ascertain, the scheme of capitalization of the present Lord Nelson hotel project was not completed until October 7, 1927. I find that the original capitalization of that company as it appeared on the records in Nova Scotia in 1926 was 8,250 preference shares and 16,500 no par value shares. I find that that same capitalization continued, no change being made until a special resolution was filed on October 7, 1927, when for the first time on the official records appeared the capitaliza-. tion which had been the subject of all the discussion and advertisements during the summer, namely, a capitalization of 6,400 preference and 3,200 no par value shares. I refer my hon. friend to that when he suggests that some subscription was made, as he said, prior to August 1st. I point out to him that if such a subscription was made it was not made to the present shares on which the operation of the company is founded. This indicates to me, and, I think, to the house, that there had been an entirely informal and tentative dealing with this matter until some time after the Canadian National Railway announcement.


Hewitt Bostock: Might. I inform the hon gentleman that there is no amendment, but perhaps it is a question of privilege or personal explanation.
4168	COMMONS
Supply Bill-C.N.R.-Halifax Hotel


James Layton Ralston: There is the matter of the third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend is wrong in going on, but I did not want to take' the question up myself.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman may proceed.


James Layton Ralston: I understood the motion was for the third reading and I am speaking on that. I will not be long and I think what I have to say should be put on record.. Further, my hon. friend has intimated that there was some disposition on my part against this proposition, and that objection should have been removed when the change in the financial arrangement was made. May I point out that when the change in the financial arrangement involved a payment of something like 7.31 per cent on the money going into the company, and when this country can borrow money at 4f per cent, it seemed to me that it was not good business to take part in a proposition in which the financing cost as much as that.
In the matter of control, as I also intimated, there1 was no control whatever by the Canadian National. The whole purpose of the hotel was to be a feeder to the railway. That purpose was gone completely if the control was held by individuals who had not the interest of the railway at heart, but whose first endeavour was to earn interest on the bonds and dividends on preferred stock. The advertisements disclose that the chief ground upon which the public were asked to subscribe was that the railway had subscribed to this undertaking and it was further pointed out in the advertisement that the public subscription would be annulled unless the railway subscription were gone on with, indicating clearly that the whole basis of the financial scheme was that the railway should support it. If that was so and the railways were to stand behind the scheme, and if the scheme was really dependent on the railways, then it seemed to me that there was no reason why the company should pay the $111,000 to underwriters which was required under that scheme. It seemed to me that the situation was this. If the project was going to be successful, there was no reason why the railway should not take it on entirely as a railway proposition, and if it was not going to be successful the railway would eventually have to take it over anyway to save their investment and to see that the interests of the road were protected.
My friends opposite have been very solicitous in suggesting hands off the Canadian National Railway, but they only wanted hands

off the railway when the situation was that the railway was, for want of something better, acquiescing in a scheme which they desired, but when the railway propose a scheme that is more for the interests of the railway, the suggestion is now that' the management of the Canadian National Railway in that respect shall be blocked and throttled.
There is one other thing to which I want to refer, and that is the telegram read by my hon. friend which was sent by myself to Mr. Silver in which at the end of the telegram I said something to the effect that I would continue to support the Canadian National railway hotel unless private interests saw fit to take the project over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date of
that?


James Layton Ralston: September 23. I asked
my hon. friend to read the other two telegrams.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not have them.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Silver's telegram of
September 24 reads:
Telegram received. Regret your decision which people here find hard to understand, as it is felt that the participation of all transportation lines entering Halifax is essential to any modern hotel proposal irrespective of who builds it. This is the broad view held by other transportation companies, and it was thought would appeal to you especially as your objections have been so fully met. You, of course, are entitled to your personal views, hut in the interests of the province generally, don't you think the proposal which has been approved of by the responsible heads of the two great transportation systems, and I am informed the Minister of Railways also, is worthy of consideration from the broad standpoint of the benefit the immediate construction will be to the whole province?
I wired him on September 25, as follows:
Wire received. Regret do not see how government's position can be made any plainer than in my wire. Participation of both failway companies is not a new feature. It was involved in scheme first submitted, but that is not the point of government's decision. Let me repeat that the decision of the cabinet was not to approve large expenditures like this for matters outside ordinary railway undertakings without their being submitted to parliament in railway budget. This decision was arrived at and announced on July fourteenth, and therefore do not see how there can he the difficulty you suggest in understanding the situation. Your information is quite incorrect when you suggest that Minister of Railways did not share this view; he concurred in it fully. Concerning approval railway heads, may I refer again to Sir Henry's statement published in Herald July twenty-first to effect that C.N.R. hotel was in accordance with original desire of management and that appropriate amount for this purpose would be submitted in next railway budget. It is because considerations which

Supply Bill-C.N.R.-Halifax Hotel
are simply local have not been allowed to govern that the conclusion arrived at has been reached, and you may be assured that the action in this matter is governed by broad viewpoint of interests of the province generally.
I point out to my hon. friend that the suggestion which was made at the end of the telegram to which I referred was a purely negative suggestion. I want to say to him that it was not intended at all as an undertaking or an assurance. It was simply a reservation, It was in order that there might be no danger in the future of somebody in Nova Scotia coming along and demanding: Now you support and see that there is built a Canadian National railway hotel in Halifax, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a privately owned hotel as well. It was in order that I might have the opportunity of seeing what the views of the Canadian National railway were and of considering the new situation if it arose that I was very careful indeed to make that reservation. I regret if anybody took it as an undertaking that I would not support a Canadian National railway hotel if it was decided that the interests of the railway required one, but I do not think anybody was misled in the slightest because I find that almost immediately Sir Henry Thornton himself made a statement, on September 27, which is reported in the Halifax Herald of September 28 is follows:
Montreal, September 27-It was officially announced by Sir Henry W. Thornton, chairman and president of the Canadian National railways, to-day that the Canadian National system will erect its own hotel in the city of Halifax. Owing to preliminaries involved no further announcement will be made at this time.
As I have pointed out, express notice had been given previously by Sir Henry Thornton and myself repeatedly that a Canadian National railway hotel was in. contemplation. Hon. gentlemen will find in the statement made by Mr. Silver himself as late as October 15, that he rather expected the Canadian National railway hotel would still be considered, and it was with bus eyes wide open that he went ahead in connection with the Lord Nelson hotel. Mr. Silver makes this announcement. He says:
The announcement of Sir Henry Thornton yesterday would appear to be in line with previous announcements made by him, and there does not seem to be any sound reason to believe that a government-owned hotel will be considered until after the next session of parliament.
In view of that fact, President Silver said, the Lord Nelson hotel company were going right ahead with their plans and will immediately proceed with construction.
No one could have had his eyes more wide open than Mr. Silver on that occasion. It was simply a case of competition, a case where the Canadian Pacific Railway felt that an opportunity had come to them so that they might take stock in that hotel and get it started, and they were able to get it started more quickly than the Canadian National. As I have said, no one was misled; they had before them the statements made back in July and before the company was organized on the present basis at ail, that there would be submitted to parliament at the next session an estimate for a Canadian National railway hotel in Halifax, which estimate is in the supply bill now before us. They also had my interview with the Board of Trade in August. May I say further that all the announcements of Sir Henry Thornton had been made and the plan for the combined station and hotel was known before the Lord Nelson contract was authorized. According to the press the contract was not authorized by the directors at least until as late as October 15, the site was not approved by the directors until October 17, the contract for the excavation was not closed until October 19, and as I indicated previously the capitalization had riot been legally fixed and recorded until October 7, some time after Sir Henry Thornton announced definitely that he would build a hotel.
Just one word on the merits, and I have finished. One thing which influences me and which will influence this house and be regarded in this country as important is this, that Mr. Silver himself in advertising the Lord Nelson hotel securities in July points out:
Based on comparisons with other hotels of approximately the same size, it is estimated on the most conservative basis, that the gross earnings for the first full years operation will be $246,456 and the operating expenses, taxes, insurance, and so forth, will amount to $105,225, leaving a balance of $141,231 available for bond interest and preferred stock dividends which amount to $83,800.
That would indicate at least that Mr. Silver did not entertain the same gloomy views which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has suggested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that
he ever entertained gloomy views. I gave the statement of Mr. Pratt to the president of the railway company.


James Layton Ralston: That would suggest that Mr. Silver did not entertain the gloomy views which my hon. friend thought were entertained by Mr. Pratt.
4170	COMMONS
Supply Bill-C.N.R.-Halifax Hotel


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not "thought were entertained by Mr. Pratt," but were entertained by Mr. Pratt.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said that
the combined capacity is 400 rooms. My hon. friend is wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what Sir Henry
Thornton says.


James Layton Ralston: The proposal is that this shall be a combined station and hotel, that there shall be 160 rooms, not 200, and the combined capacity of the two hotels will be 360 rooms, and that is I understand less than the present hotel capacity in Halifax to-day? Further than that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways mentioned this morning that there are indications already that the Lord Nelson hotel will be booked up to capacity. Let me read from the bond circular of the Lord Nelson hotel which corroborates that exactly. They say:
Already it is considered that the demand for such accommodation will be greater than the Lord Nelson can supply, without consideration of the stimulus such hotels invariably have on further travel.
I do not think there will be any doubt that with the statements of Mr. Silver concerning the Lord Nelson in the original prospectus and in the bond circular no gloomy views need be entertained as to the Canadian National hotel succeeding. My hon. friend overlooks that this is a station as well as a hotel, that there will be located at the terminals, where the steamship and the rail traffic all meet, a station and hotel combined to take care of the traffic.
I think my hon. friend realizes full well, as no doubt does this house, that the management of the railway have in view their experience in meeting competition from the other railway at Quebec, for instance, where large tourist parties have actually been taken from them on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway hotel there. They will soon have to face similar competition on account of the new Canadian Pacific hotel in Toronto, and there is the same experience in Regina, in Calgary and in Vancouver. And it does seem to me, sir, that it is only fair to the people's road, as I said the other night, that power should be given to the Canadian National Railways to compete in the matter of hotel accommodation in Halifax when it is so vital to traffic going all oveT the system. It does not concern Halifax alone. I presume I would be popular in some quarters in Halifax if I opposed this hotel, but I am not looking for popularity by so doing. But I believe

it is in the interests of the whole province of Nova Scotia that not simply one but both these great railway systems should be allowed to provide hotel accommodation which will be feeders to their lines not only in the province but all over Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On page 150 of the
evidence given before the select standing committee on railways and shipping there is the following:
Mr. Bell (St. Antoine):	I was wondering
whether there was business for two hotels in Halifax.
Sir Henry Thornton:	That is a matter of
opinion. I might observe for what it is worth, that the capacity of the two hotels under contemplation represents the combined capacity of the present existing hotels in Halifax. Without any reflection whatever upon those hotels, they have not been regarded as adequate, nor of a satisfactory character for the hotel trade in Halifax. In other rvords, this is a substitution of what might be described as really modern hotel accommodation, in an equal quantity to that which existed before, and which has not generally been regarded as of a modern character. It only represents about three hundred rooms.
It only represents about three hundred rooms Sir Henry Thornton says; not 160.


James Layton Ralston: What does?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This new hotel.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong.
It means two hotels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not be two.


James Layton Ralston: There cannot be any question about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am reading from Sir
Henry Thornton's evidence.


James Layton Ralston: But there must be a
mistake. The plans for the Canadian National Hotel are for only 160 rooms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Henry Thornton told
the committee:
It only represents about three hundred rooms.
The Lord Nelson hotel represents 193 rooms. That is the position in regard to that. My hon. friend said that the Canadian National was preparing to meet hotel competition in Calgary. I do not see it in the estimates. Is that settled?


James Layton Ralston: No, I said they had had
experience of trying to meet hotel competition in Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am grateful for that.
I did not so hear it.
Motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Privilege-Mr. Letellier



PRIVILEGE-MR. LETELLIER

Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Before the house rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovieh), on a question of privilege stated that item 44 of the agriculture estimates had not been called by the hon. chairman in committee of supply. It does appear in unrevised Hansard of Saturday last, as follows:
The following items were passed in committee of supply:
Agriculture
And on the following page in the last paragraph under that heading I find this:
Live stock, including grants to exhibitions, feeder shows, etc., $1,480,000.
This is the item that appears in the agriculture estimates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this should be sufficient to establish that this item was called and voted in committee of supply on Saturday last.


Michael Luchkovich: The hon. member
says that item 44, with regard to class B fairs, had been discussed, as would be seen in Hansard. May I point out that what appears in Hansard is simply a list without any record of discussion in the house. I was very sorry on Saturday night that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) could not be here. Regarding his absence, I might express myself in rhyme:
Oh where, oh where is our Minister of Agriculture gone?
Oh where, oh where can he be?
With the B fair grants cut short and the grant to Toronto cut long,
9h where, oh where can our Minister of Agriculture be?
*Ve are going to fight this thing to a finish and I can tell the Minister of Agriculture that we shall meet him at Philippi.


Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton: I may say that I did
not use the word "discussion;" I said that the fact had appeared in Hansard. I may also point out that the question was raised the other night by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.



QUESTION


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to pay to owners of animals which are destroyed because they are affected with tuberculosis the lull value of the animals so destroyed by order of the government's inspectors?
2.	Has the government paid the owners of animals which were recently destroyed for such cause in the county of Compton in the province of Quebec?
3.	If not, when will such payments be completed?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No. Sections 6 and 7 of the Animals Contagious Diseases Act limit the valuation of an animal and the compensation that may be paid. The compensation is two-thirds of the appraised value up to the limit allowed by the act.
2.	Compensation was awarded and payment made or will be made when the owner has fulfilled the requirements of the regulations, such as the disinfection of the premises where his animals are kept.
3 Answered by No. 2.



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, June 11, 1928.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on Monday, June 11, at 5.20 p.in. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James P. Crcwdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
At 4.55 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 5.15 p.m. this day.
The house resumed at 5.15 o'clock.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
BliAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY
Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a question I wanted to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) during the progress of his estimates, but in order to expedite matters I refrained from doing so. I observe by the Gazette that an application is to be made by the Beauhamois Light and Power Company to divert certain waters of the St. Lawrence into a oanal. I am advised that the effect of this would be to destroy the Long Sault rapids which are now navigated by ships. I propose to ask the minister whether or not in his opinion the department would have the power to deal
St. Lawrence Waterway

with the matter in that way and thus prevent further navigability of the rapids, destroying the scenic attractions that go with them, without the consent of parliament?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): In the first place, the question is not properly addressed to me, inasmuch as the Navigable Waters Protection Act is under the administration of the Minister of Public Works. There is of course a very important legal question-almost an international legal question-involved in my hon. friend's query. I appreciate his thinking me sufficient of a legal expert to be able to give an opinion on such a matter, but I assure him I do not aspire to such eminence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend admitted it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no. However, my hon. friend's question will appear in Hansard in the natural course of events, and will be directed to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And of the Minister of Public Works?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. CAHAN:: It may have escaped the attention of some hon. members that all the documents relating to that diversion have been brought down. There are some very interesting documents among them which would take a considerable time in order to be duly appreciated.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to. give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon.	.
An Act for the relief of Adelaide Marie Moore.
An Act for the relief of Delia Elizabeth
Davies.
An Act for the relief of Edith Duff McCoo.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Marion Baldwin.

An Act for the relief of Frederick James Lee.
An Act for the relief of Laveania Maud Kelly.
An Act for the relief of Arthur John Evans. An Act for the relief of Margaret Constance McIntyre Fairbanks.	_	_
An Act for the relief of Lina Elizabeth Foster.
An Act for the relief of Ruby Jean Standing. An Act for the relief of Albertine de Varennes.
An Act ken.
An Act Parsons. An Act An Act An Act Knox.
An Act An Act An Act An Act Boyd.
An Act Parsons.
An Act Donald. An Act An Act well.
An Act Cressman. An Act An Act An Act An Act An Act son.
for the relief of William Bye Fasfor the relief of John Alexander
for the relief of Martha Golding, for the relief of Reginald Key. for the relief of Madeline Massey
for the relief of James Parker, for the relief of Dorothy LaBelle. for the relief of Richard Henry Orr. for the relief of Marjory Sterne
for the relief of Florence Louise
for the relief of George Daniel Maefor the relief of Evelyn Conner, for the relief of Annie May Caldfor the relief of Florence Marjorie
for the relief of Esther Buck Scott, for the relief of Norah Jones, for the relief of Albert Wood, for the relief of Louisa Baldock. for the relief of Albert John Mori-
^An Act for the relief of Amelia Judd Was-serman Berliner.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Edmund Parrington.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Beaton
An Act for the relief of Annie Constance Vipond Coleby Lazier.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Caroline Isbell.	„ _	.	„	_	,
An Act for the relief of Victoria May Hardwick.
An Act for the relief of Annie Alice Tush-ingham.
An Act for the relief of Rita Peden.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lome William
Pstprson
An Act for the relief of Albert William Hornby.
An Act for the relief of Marguerite Adele Berwick.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Harriett Ellen
Isabel Kirkpatrick.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Martha EvelynAn Act for the relief of Winnifred Clark. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Marie Eremca,
otherwise known as Marcia Eramko.
An Act for the relief of Albert Glenn Steinbers:.	.
An Act for the relief of Charles Frederick
SlAn' Act for the relief of Helen Lazelle Margaret Zeller.	, _
An Act for the relief of Rachel Pearson.
An Act for the relief of Ida Myerson.

Prorogation
An Act for the relief of Arthur Wellington Henry.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Warren Gorrie.
An Act for the relief of Stanley Edmunds.
An Act for the relief of Irene Frances Phebe Fricker.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Jean	Maxwell
Douglas.
An Act for the relief of Constance Brown Kinsman.
An Act for the relief of William Wilbur Blackburn.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Viva	Venetta
Rahmer.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	George	Ranney
Price.
An Act for the relief of Percival Bovill.
An Act for the relief of Paul Charboneau.
An Act for the relief of William Franklin Darby.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lome	Wilbert
Helmer.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Marjorie
Jacques.
An Act for the relief of John Edward Gladstone King, otherwise known as John E. King.
An Act for the relief of Winnifred Lilias Maunsell.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Hazel Kathleen
Mulligan.
An Act for the relief of Jessie McLean.
An Act for the relief of Winifred Margaret Pope.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth May
Thornley.
An Act for the relief of Norton Webster [DOT] Kingsland.
An Act for the relief of Alice Edith Knowles.
An Act for the relief of John McArthur.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Charles Alfred
Turner.
An Act for the relief of Lillian May Chandler.
An Act for the relief of Esther Brand.
An Act for the relief of Irene Adela Crann.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Ferguson..
An Act for the relief of William Herbert Gamble.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Maude Giles.
An Act for the relief of Alice Mockford.
An Act for the relief of Alvah Arthur Norris.
An Act for the relief of Eleanor Porter.
An Act to amend the Copper Bounties Act,
1923.
An Act to amend An Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
An Act to amend the Experimental Farms Stations Act.
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.
An Act to facilitate the provision of storage in Lac Seul in the Province of Ontario, and to repeal the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921.
An Act respecting a certain Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Spain and a certain Agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain regulating the treatment of companies.
An Act respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic.
An Act to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
An Act respecting trade between Canada and Esthonia, Hungary. Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Roumania, and the Serb, Croat and Slovene Kingdom.
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act relating to the submission to Parliament of certain Regulations and Orders in Council.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to incorporate the British Empire Assurance Company.
An Act respecting The Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend and revise The Electricity Inspection Act.
An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
An Act to amend the Canadian National Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Seeds Act.
An Act to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
An Act respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Saint John Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Halifax Harbour Commissioners.
An Act for the relief of Edward Bennett.
An Act for the relief of Annie Amelia Eliza Ferguson.
An Act for the relief of Laura Langstaff Dent Kemp.	.
An Act for the relief of Helen McLean.
^An Act for the relief of Robert Pius Nageleisen.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Trene O'Meara.
An Act for the relief of Doris Read.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Zeamond Toll.
An Act for the relief of Katie Louise Turner.
An Act. for the relief of Samuel Radcliffe Weaver.
An Act for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Mousley Monarque Westover.
An Act for the relief of Richard Thomas Bell.
An Act for the relief of Albert Cheney.
An Act for the relief of Katharine Adriance Burruss Christie.
An Act for the relief of Nellie Cohen.
An Act for the relief of Louis Cowell.
An Act for the the relief of Wesley Thornton Davidson.
An Act for the relief of Orfie Earl Dingman.
An Act for the relief of Edith Alice Douglas.
An Act for the relief of Radford Alonzo Dunfield.
An Act for the relief of Reuben James Fenton.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Jane Annie Field.
An Act for the relief of Charles Edward Frank.
An Act for the relief of Bernice Gatehouse.
An Act for the relief of Harriet Elizabeth Roussie Gray.	.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Haggith.
An Act for the relief of Ellen May Collison Keene.
An Act for the relief of Henry Peet.
An Act for the relief of Leon Proulx.
An Act for the relief of Dorothea Wilhelmina Reynolds.
An Act for the relief of Violet Robinson.
An Act for the relief of Susan Amelia Saunders.	_
An Act for the relief of Agnes Georgiana Smith.
An Act for the relief of Walter Edgar Soule.
An Act for the relief of Phoebe Ellen Stevens.
An Act for the relief of Thomas William Storey.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Wellington Thompson.
An Act for the relief of John Edwin Timson.
An Act for the relief of Jennie Campbell.
An Act for the relief of Annie Pearl Appel.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Catalina Day Armstrong.
An Act for the relief of Louise Morris Hays Grier.
An Act for the relief of Thelma Katherine Halliday.
An Act for the relief of Marion Jarvis Lewis.
An Act for the relief of Annie Moore.
An Act for the relief of Olive Druker.
An Act respecting certain Patent Application of William H. Millspaugh.
An Act to amend the Fertilizers Act.
An Act respecting The Sisters of Charity of the North-West Territories.
An Act respecting a certain patent owned by Canadian Cinch Anchoring Systems, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.
An Act to incorporate The United Theological College, Montreal.
An Act to amend The Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
An Act to incorporate The Canadian Credit Institute.
An Act respecting the Canadian Surety Company.
An Act respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Highwood Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Nipissing Central Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of William James Wall.
An Act for the relief of George Rubin San-derowieh, otherwise known as Rubin Sanders.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Hedges.
An Act for the relief of Lotus Henderson Conover.
An Act for the relief of Marguerite Tre-lawney Buller Allan.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Graham.
An Act for the relief of William Henry Phillips.
An Act for the relief of Marjory Elgin Burch.
An Act for the relief of Frances Helen Renison.
An Act for the relief of Katie Abramovitch.
An Act for the relief of Daisy Myrtle McPherson.
An Act for the relief of Claire Ellen Burke.
An Act for the relief of George Edgar Gooderham.
An Act for the relief of Pearl Hazel Clement.
An Act for the relief of John Arthur Towers Irvine.
An Act for the relief of William Henry King.
An Act for the relief of John Pepper.
An Act for the relief of Caroline Mildred Potter.
An Act for the relief of Fanny Alrheta Schaefer.
An Act for the relief of Ivy Ethel James Sergent.
An Act for the relief of Angelo Spadafore.
An Act for the relief of Lena Zimmerman Staples.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Audie	Bertha
Stewart.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Aileen VanderVoort.
An Act for the relief of Roy James Vollans.
An Act for the relief of John Young.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Victoria May
Cameron.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Laura	Esther
Phillips Fortune.
An Act for the relief of Claude Frederick Gibbs.
An Act for the relief of Lillian May Gill.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Gray.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Isabella	Muriel
Holland.
An Act for the relief of Lily Leona Letheren.
An Act for the relief of Sarah Jane Pinkney.
An Act for the relief of Gwendoline Proctor.
An Act for the relief of Frances Evelene Ross.
An Act for the relief of Hazell Scelena Shaw.
An Act for the relief of Amy Simmons.
An Act for the relief of William Charles Worley.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Ham.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Joel Cox.
An Act for the relief of Mary Ellen Gussie Edwards.
An Act for the relief of William Henery Leonard Gale.
An	Act	for the	relief of	Harriet Louisa
Gates.	i
An Act for the relief of Duke Mulloy Gordon.
An	Act	for the	relief of	Victor Edward
McPherson.
An Act for the relief of Annie Schreiber.
An Act for the relief of James Retson Watt.
An Act respecting the disposal of certain Canteen Funds.
An	Act	to amend	the Dominion Lands Act.An	Act	to amend	the Live	Stock and Live
Stock Products Act.
An Act respecting the Department of Pensions and National Health.
An Act respecting Interprovincial and International Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors.
An Act respecting the Saint John River Storage Company.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company.

Prorogation
An Act for the relief of Winifred Osborne Oimblett.
An Act for the relief of Sydney Franklin Lankin.
An Act for the relief of Edward Aranha.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mildred Jarvis
Aspinall.
An Act for the relief of William Bell.
An Act for the relief of Lillias Agnes Gress-man.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Jane	Glass.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Laura	May Hinscliffe.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Wiliam Hogg.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Helen	Horn.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Jessie	McPherson.
An Act for the relief of Sylvia Ortenberg.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Thomas Joseph
Warmington.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Florence Reno
Moxon Attewell.
An Act for the relief of Mary Irene Boyd.
An Act for the relief of Augustus Yernon Ellis.
An Act for the relief of Agatha Jean Hobbs.
An Act for the relief of Hazel K. Clunie Howard.
An Act for the relief of Helen Stewart Graham Lovell.
An Act for the relief of Marie-Anne Palardy Murphy.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Patrick Nolan.
An Act for the relief of John James Ward.
An Act for the relief of Irene Matilda Ballinger.
An Act. for the relief of John Hare.
An Act for the relief of Helena Martyniuk.
An Act for the relief of Francis Marmaduke Steele.
An Act for the relief of Rose Tlustie.
An Act for the relief of Robert Anderson Traill.
An Act for the relief of Violet Claire Mc-Credie.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Garnet Britten
Walton.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Rebeina	Pearl
Bolingbroke.
An Act for the relief of Manassa Fretz.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Charles	Henry
Gifford.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph	James
Harold Graham.
An Act for the relief of Bernice Alberta Haight.
An Act for the relief of Rose Eadie Harris.
An Act for the relief of Mildred Florence McCowan.
An Act for the relief of Gabrielle Norton.
An Act for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Parker.
An Act for the relief of Charles St. Clair Parsons.
An Act for the relief of Ivy Reader.
An	Act	for the	relief	of	James Ramsey
Sloan.
An	Act	for the	relief	of	Harold Vivian
Vincent Turner.
An Act for the relief of Gordon Thomas Wilson.
An Act to amend the Immigration Act.
An Act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
An Act to incorporate The Canadian Commerce Insurance Company.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Anchor Cap and Closure Corporation of Canada, Limited.
An Act respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Jean Baptiste Hurteau.
An Act to incorporate The Detroit River Canadian Bridge Company.
An Act to incorporate Eastern Bank of Canada.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Douglas J. Martin.
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
An Act to incorporate The St. Lawrence River Bridge Company.
An Act respecting The Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Frank Deering.
An Act for the relief of Mary Mabel Jennie Potten Impey.
An Act for the relief of Cyril Wilfred King.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Adelia Baker Knauff.
An Act for the relief of James Harvey Le-furgey.
An Act for the relief of Hilda Evelyn McDowell
An Act for the relief of Catherine Ellen Hobbs.
An Act for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Poole.
An Act for the relief of Henry Frederick White.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Clayton Wilton.
An Act for the relief of Lillian May Yuill.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Ellen Braund.
An Act for the relief of Harry Alvin Heels.
An Act for the relief of Francis Augustus Pearce.
An Act for the relief of Florence Anne Salmon.
An Act for the relief of Rocco Scocco.
An Act for the relief of Mary Audry Walton Smith.
An Act to incorporate The People's Thrift Corporation.
An Act to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1929.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it please your Excellency:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons I present to Your Excellency the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1929.
To which bill I humbly request Your Excellency's assent.
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of His Excellency the Governor General, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this
bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to dose the second session of the sixteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I desire to express my appreciation of the careful attention you have given to the various measures submitted for your consideration during the present session of parliament.
It is a source of special satisfaction to note that the public accounts of the fiscal year recently ended disclose a substantial surplus and that you have been able to effect a further reduction in the public debt as well as a further material reduction in taxation.
The trade of our country continues to expand. Exports of manufactured goods are being well maintained and our total exports to foreign countries show a considerable increase. It is anticipated that the volume of foreign trade will reveal a further increase as a result of the trade agreements just concluded.
I am gratified to observe that the interest and benefit . of ex-service men and of their dependents has had particularly close and sympathetic attention during the session. As a result of the consideration you have given to this most important subject, an act has been passed which considerably extends and improves the provisions made for pensions in respect of disabilities and deaths connected with the war, also an act reviving the beneficial provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, and an act affording further material relief to soldier settlers.
The amalgamation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Department of Health into one department to be known as the Department of Pensions and National Health accords with a natural evolution and is a step which should serve to promote efficiency and economy in administration.
The general subject of immigration, including the work of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, has received careful study throughout the session by the committee on agriculture and colonization. After months of inquiry into the many phases, both national and international of this important and intricate problem, the committee has reported its conclusions and recommendations, and the report has been adopted.
The extensive and important recommendations of the commission recently appointed to investigate all phases of the fishing industry of
the maritime provinces, the Magdalen islands, and the coastal portion of the province of Quebec, have been met in part, and will continue to receive the attention of my advisers.
The report of the National Advisory Committee on the St. Lawrence Waterway project together with the views expressed thereon by the government of the United States in an exchange of correspondence, which was submitted to parliament at the present session, will continue to receive careful consideration. In this connection, provision has been made for referring to the courts certain questions as to federal and provincial jurisdiction with respect to navigation and water-powers.
The offer of assistance in the formation of civil flying clubs has met with a wide-spread response. Flying training has already been started by clubs both in eastern and western Canada. The construction of the airship mooring tower at St. Hubert aerodrome, near Montreal, is being pressed with energy.
The special provision made for the establishment of national research laboratories should greatly facilitate industrial research and prove an aid to the more thorough utilization of our natural resources.
The provision made by the amendments to the Federal District Commission Act, with a view to commemorating the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, will serve materially to enhance the position of Ottawa as the capital of the Dominion.
The appointment by His Majesty's government in Great Britain of a high commissioner to represent, its interests in Canada has been received with much satisfaction.
The appropriations of this session will enable steps to be taken shortly to establish Canadian legations in France and Japan. It is gratifying to know that the arrangements recently made for the further restriction of immigration from Japan, combined with the exchange of ministers between Japan and Canada, give promise of affording a satisfactory solution of this long standing question.	_
The Canadian government has learned with deep interest of the proposals which the Government of the United States, following extended discussions with the Government of France, has *advanced for the renunciation of war, and, in accord with His Majesty's other governments, has accepted the invitation of the United States to participate in the signature of a multilateral pact directed to this end and which it is earnestly hoped will materially strengthen the cause of peace throughout the world.
Members of the House of Commons.
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
Abundant evidence surrounds us of the increasing prosperity of our country. For this and other blessings I join with you in humble gratitude to Divine Providence.
This concluded the second session of the sixteenth parliament.