1928-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Were public tenders invited by the management of the Canadian National Railways for the freighting of coal to Prince Edward Island from the mainland during the years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928?
2.	From what persons or firms were tenders invited, if any?
3.	Were specification and tender forms supplied? If so, what were the details?
4.	If no forms were supplied, what were the particulars and conditions?
5.	How many tenders were received in each year?
6.	What is the name of each firm or person tendering and the unit prices of each tender?
7.	Are "The Albion Lumber Company," "The New Glasgow Terminal Company" and "The Egerton Coal Company" three separate companies or are they names used by the same party for the purpose of tendering?
8.	What are the names of the president, secretary and manager of the above-named companies who have corresponded with the railways officials or signed tenders during the above years ?
9.	What amount, if any, was the railways management paid for the cargo of coal lost in transit to Prince Edward Island four years ago this season?


Mr. DUNNING:: These questions have to do with the freighting of Canadian National Railway coal by water from Pictou, on the mainland, to various railway points on Prince Edward Island. The questions are designed to bring out the prices submitted for the work
referred to by numerous competitors during the last five years. The management feel that it would be unfair to all concerned to place competitors in possession of information of this kind, and hold that it is not in the public interest to give out information of that character.
Possibly it would be sufficient to say that the work in question was given wide publicity among vesselmen and forwarders on the island and adjacent shipping points, both by letter direct and by public notice by local agents of the railway; that numerous offers for the work were received, and that the lowest tenderer was given the contract.


APPOINTMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER RATES, LOUISBURG
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	What office or appointment does Alexander Bates of Louisburg, Nova Scotia, hold in the Department of National Revenue?
2.	What is his age?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What remuneration does he receive annually?
5.	Did the Civil Service Commission approve
of his appointment?	_
6.	What standing was he given by civil service examiners?	.
7.	How many seizures has he made since his appointment?
8.	What are the total fines collected through his seizures during each of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Customs Excise Examiner, Grade 1 Out-port.
2.	Fifty-four years on May 16th, 1927.
3.	Employed February 8th, 1905. Services dispensed with for political partizanship, O.C. June 8th, 1912. Re-employed July 18th, 1925.
4.	$1,440.
5.	Yes.
6.	He was the only successful candidate, obtaining a percentage on his examination, of 77.1.
7.	Nil.
8.	Answered by No. 7.



PAYMENTS UNDER DRYDOCKS SUBSIDIES ACT

Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the Dominion of Canada in each of the years 1921 to 1927 inclusive, to dry docks under the Dry Docks Subsidies Act?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each dry
dock in Canada under the above act in each of the above years?	_
3.	For what period of time in each subsidy is the government committed?
4.	What is the number, name and location of dry docks classified under first, second and third class in Dry Docks Subsidies Act?
Questions


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.
1920-	21	
$301,120	221921-	22	
144 559 02'1922-	23	
535,549	211923-	24	
452,371	781924-	25	
540,483	341925-	26	
614,387	791926-	27	
588,921	34
2,
St. John dry dock at Courtenay bay, St. John, N.B.
1920-	21	
$	57,198	881921-	22	
82,608	561922-	23	
109,656	991923-	24	
198,459	461924-	25	
247,500	001925-	26	
247,500	001926-	27	
247,500	00
" Duke of Connaught " floating dock at Montreal, P.Q.
1920-	21	 $	105,000	00
1921-	22	
1922'-23	 210,000 00
1923-	24	
105,000	001924-	25	
105,000	001925-	26	
105,000	OO1926-	27	
105,000	00
" Burrard " dry dock at North Vancouver, B.C.
1920-23	
1923-	24	
$	9,990	981924-	25	
64,062	001925-	26	
137,966	451926-	27	
112,500	00
3 and 4.
Prince Rupert dry dock at Prince Rupert,

1920- 21	 $ 76,970 88
1921-	22	
1922-	23	
153,941	761923-	24	
76,970	881924-	25	
76,970	881925-	26	
76,970	881926-	27	
76,970	88
Port Arthur dry dock at Porth Arthur, Ont..
1920-	21	
$37,741	501921-	22	
37,741	501922-	23	
37,741	501923-	24	
37,741	501924-	25	
37,741	501925-	26	
37,741	501926-	27	
37,741	50
Collingwood dry dodk No. 1 at Collingwood, Ont.
1920- 21	 $ 15.000 00
1921-	22	
15,000	00	[DOT]1922-	23	
15,000	001923-	24 (final payment)___	15,000	00
Collingwood dry dock No. 2 at Collingwood, Ont.
1920- 21	 $ 9,208 96
1921-	22	
9,208	961922-	23	
9,208	961923-	24	
9,208	961924-	25	
9,208	961925-	28	
9,208	961926-	27	
9,208	96
Period
of
subsidy
Years
35
25
20
Name of dock	Location	ClassSt. John dry dock	St. John, N.B	First*Duke of Connaught	Montreal, P.Q	FirstBurrard dry dock	North Vancouver,	B.C....SecondPrince Rupert dry dock	Prince Rupert, B.C	SecondPort Arthur dry dock	Port Arthur, Ont	ThirdCollingwood dry dock No. 1	Collingwood, Ont	ThirdCollingwood dry dock No. 2	Collingwood, Ont	Third
Denotes that the dock is a floating dry dock.



CHARTERED BANKS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many chartered banks are there now in Canada, and what are their names?
2.	What bank mergers have taken place since 1900 in Canada?
3.	What applications, if any, are pending at present for merger of banks?
4.	Is the stock of chartered banks now being bought for American interests in such large aggregate amounts subject to the double

liability where the foreign holders of the stock and their property and assets are outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts, and what steps are being taken to protect the Government accordingly ?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Eleven: Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bank of Toronto, Banque Provinciale du Canada, Canadian Bank of Commerce,. Royal Bank of Canada, Dominion Bank,.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
Standard Bank of Canada, Banque Canadienne Nationale, Imperial Bank of Canada, Wey-burn Security Bank.
2.	Summcrside Bank and Bank of New Brunswick, Commercial Bank of Windsor and Union Bank of Halifax, Halifax Banking Company and Canadian Bank of Commerce, Exchange Bank of Yarmouth and Bank of Montreal, People's Bank of Halifax and Bank of Montreal, Merchants Bank of Prince Edward Island and Canadian Bs,nk of Commerce, People's Bank of New Brunswick and Bank of Montreal, Western Bank of Canada and Standard Bank of Canada, Northern Bank and Crown Bank of Canada under name of Northern Crown Bank, Union Bank of Halifax and Royal Bank of Canada, United Empire Bank of Canada and Union Bank of Canada, Eastern Townships Bank and Canadian Bank of Commerce, Traders Bank of Canada and Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of New Brunswick and Bank of Nova Scotia, Banque Internationale due Canada and Home Bank of Canada, Metropolitan Bank and Bank of Nova Scotia, Quebec Bank and Royal Bank of Canada, Northern Crown Bank and Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of British North America and Bank of Montreal, Bank of Ottawa and Bank of Nova Scotia. Merchants Bank of Canada and Bank of Montreal, Bank of Hamilton and Canadian Bank of Commerce, La Banque Nationale and Banque d'Hochelaga, Sterling Bank of Canada and Standard Bank of Canada, Molsons Bank and Bank of Montreal, Union Bank of Canada and Royal Bank of Canada.
3.	None.
4.	Section 125 of the Bank Act applies in case of insolvency to all shareholders. Enforcement depends upon the process of law. The provision is for the protection of the creditors of an insolvent bank whose interests, in the first instance, are the concern of the liquidators and the court.



SALE OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE LINES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has the government sold to the British Columbia Telephone Company, the telephone lines owned and operated by the government, south of Kamloops, British Columia?
2.	If so, at what price?
3.	What is the total pole mileage of the lines involved in the transfer?
4.	How many telephone stations are affected?
5.	What has been the total cost of the property disposed of?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$50,000.
3.	1,006 miles.
4.	145.
5.	As some of these lines were built thirty years ago it would take considerable time to compile data covering total cost to date and would in no way represent their present value. The main feature is that they were being operated at a $30,000 yearly loss which by selling is being saved. A very heavy expenditure would also have been absolutely necessary to standardize them so as to meet long distance toll line requirements.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

Mr. ROBINSON:: What sum would be required to pay 35 per cent of their deposits to all depositors of the Home Bank to whom the government has heretofore made payments?


Mr. ROBB:: The government is securing
certain data in relation to the whole matter of the distribution of relief under the Home Bank Creditors' Relief Act but has not before it the particular amount asked for in this inquiry.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	What was the Canadian production in each province during the calendar year 1927 of (a) butter, (b) cheese, (c) potatoes, (d) wheat?
2.	What was the number and estimated value-in each province in 1927 of (a) dairy cows, (b) other cattle?
3.	What was the number and estimated value in each province in 1927 of (a) horses, (b) sheep, (c) hogs, (d) poultry?


GRAIN IN TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were received, in the private terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario, for each of the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively, of (a) No. 1 wheat, (b) No. 2' wheat, and (c) No. 3 wheat?
2.	How many bushels of ivheat Avere shipped out of the said private terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. Ontario, for each of the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927. respectively, of (a) No. 1 wheat, (b) No. 2 wheat, and (c) No. 3 wheat?


Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How maify bushels of Kota A\-heat were received in the private terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario, for each of the years: 1921. 1922. 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?
2.	How many bushels of Kota wheat were shipped as Kota wheat out of the said private terminals for each of the said years, respectively?
Outbreak of Kabies

3.	How many bushels of Durum wheat were received in the private terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario, for each of the years: 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?
4.	How many bushels of Durum wheat were shipped as Durum wheat out of the said private terminals for each of the said years, respectively ?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Re Public terminals: What is the total amount of each grade of wheat received into the terminal elevators during the past crop season?
Re Private terminals: What is the total amount of each grade of wheat received into the terminal elevators during the past crop season?
2.	Re Public terminals: What is the total amount of each grade of wheat shipped out during the same period?
Re Private terminals: What is the total amount of each grade of wheat shipped out during the same period?
3.	What is the total number of bushels of grain dried at each inland terminal inspection point during the past season?
4.	What is the total number of bushels of tough and damp grain, respectively, which was dried at the inland and terminal elevators during the months of September, October, November and December, 1927?


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In
regard to question No. 2 in reference to terminal elevators, which has just been passed as an order for return, I have no objection to that if it does not mean further delay. The question has been called during the last two weeks and it has been allowed to stand on every occasion. I simply wish to ask the minister whether the order for the return is ready or not.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no desire to have unnecessary delay with regard to this question, but it has been very costly and troublesome to procure all the answers for it. I can assure my hon. friend that the answers will be ready so that the return can be tabled to-morrow or Monday.



OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Alexander Robb: Yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) and the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) made certain inquiries regarding grants to the Olympic games and I promised them a reply to-day. Grants have been made towards the expenses of Canadian athletic teams competing at Olympic games as follows:
1920	Antwerp	
$15,0001924	Paris	
25,0001928	Amsterdam	
26,000

Payments have been made to the Olympic games committee. A cheque covering the grant of $26,000 for the 1928 games was paid to the treasurer of the Canadian Olympic committee on July 6, 1927. The grants are not accounted for to the government.



OUTBREAK OF RABIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: In view of the serious outbreak of rabies in certain parts of eastern and western Ontario which is causing considerable concern to many people in my constituency and in other constituencies as well, I should like to ask the government whether they would make a statement as to what effort has been made to check the disease, what is being done at the present time, and whether the government propose to comply with the suggestion of the Department of Health of the province of Ontario to place an embargo on dogs entering Canada from the United States?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The first step we take where
it is established that an outbreak of rabies has occurred, is to put the area concerned under quarantine. That was done two or three years ago in connection with the city of Ottawa and later with the city of Montreal. If conditions warrant in the parts referred to by my hon. friend, the same procedure will ensue if that action has not already been taken.


Mr. ARTHURS:: That does not answer the latter part of the question of the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume that will come under the Department of Health. It has not come to my attention.


William Ernest Tummon: I directed my question
to the government. The Minister of Agriculture answered, I presume, for his department. If the other question refers to the Department of Health, the Minister of Health is in his seat.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: I should like my hon. friend to repeat the question relating to health. I did not catch it.


William Ernest Tummon: I asked whether the government proposed to comply with the suggestion of the Department of Health of the province of Ohtario that an embargo be placed on dogs entering Canada from the United States.

Athabaska Election


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: That would
have nothing to do with the Department of Health. The Department of Health of the [DOT] United States might make a request to the government for an embargo.


James Arthurs: This is a very important subject for the consideration of the government, as it concerns not only health but indirectly the Department of Agriculture. The minister certainly has preconceived ideas regarding this report. He has not considered, I think-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon. gentleman is an old member of the house and he knows very well that a debate cannot take place on the orders of the day. The hon. gentleman has put his question and the government are now fully advised of the purport of it.


James Arthurs: And they are not answering it.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: This question is being treated
with great levity by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is an outbreak of rabies in this country; human life is threatened, and the house cannot get from the government an answer to a civil question as to what is being done to put a stop to that oubreak. That is the story.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon.
friend that the question has been asked on the orders of the day, and I doubt very much whether any notice was given to the minister in advance by the hon. member who asked it. Had some notice been given I have not the slightest doubt that the minister would have been in a position to answer immediately. Certainly the government will look carefully into the situation and will be in a position to make a statement on the orders of the day to-morrow.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The minister would
answer if a dog bit him.


William Richard Motherwell: If a contagious
malignant disease, like foot and mouth disease, broke out in the United States my deputy would automatically issue an order putting an embargo on animals subject to that disease coming in from the United States. I am not sure whether or not he has that authority with regard to rabies but if he has, an embargo would go on automatically. With regard to a quarantine, if the circumstances indicate that there is an outbreak of the disease, the chances are that there is a quaran-56103-152
tine on now at the place, wherever it may be. That can be done without any reference to the minister.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Is the whole government so weak
that they know nothing and have done nothing about this outbreak up to the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Cheap.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Almost as cheap as the
insult to the house by the minister.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, some two thousand years ago we are told there were seven sleepers. It seems to me that we have a somewhat similar situation to-day only the number has increased-there are about seventeen sleepers in this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Edward Ross: Let me ask this
further question:	Seeing that we have a
Department of National Health, is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) or the Minister of Health (Mr. King) not aware, in reference to the outbreak of rabies, that twenty-four people have been under treatment in the city of Kingston?


James Horace King: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Department of Health I would remind my hon. friend that this matter would undoubtedly come within the purview of the Ontario Health Department. If it is desirable that an embargo should be placed on dogs from other countries, representations made by the Health Department of Ontario or any other provincial department should be made to the federal Department of Agriculture, which controls this phase of the matter.



ATHABASKA ELECTION


[Stage Direction]
On t'he orders of the day:
Mr. D. P. KELLNER (Athabaska):: I rise to a question of privilege in regard to inaccuracies that occur in some of the records of this house, and also in regard to the conduct of one of its standing committees. Looking over the votes and proceedings, one would be led to believe that the committee on privileges and elections bad been called for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Such is not the case. It was called on Tuesday, but has not been called since, and I think the necessary correction should be made in the records of the house. Further,

Athabaska Election

when we met on Tuesday, we had before us two bills, Nos. 32 and 28, which were disposed of, and thereupon the chairman immediately advised the committee that the proceedings were ended, that we had concluded the business which was before the committee. The members of the committee did not accept that, and they proceeded to consider the report of Commissioner Clarke in the Athabaska case. It was pointed out that that matter was before the committee regularly, but my recollection is that the chairman stated that that matter had been passed on last year and was not regularly before the committee. If the house will refer to the discussion which took place on Friday when the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) brought this matter up, it will be seen that on that occasion the chairman of the committee, speaking on this matter, said that the committee would be called on Tuesday, and if there was not a quorum on that day, the committee would be summoned for every subsequent day during the week. I do not know what interpretation you would put on that, but I was wondering if the interpretation was that the committee would be summoned until a quorum was obtained, and not after. I submit that we should have that committee called, and notices of the meeting sent out in the regular way, and a real effort made to have the committee meet.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: My hon. friend spoke from a long distance, and I am not sure that I caught quite clearly everything he said. I may tell him and the members of the committee that if the committee was not convened for to-day it was because copies of a report had to be prepared. The committee has been called for next Tuesday. The order was given by me to the clerk to have the committee called for Tuesday of next week, when all the papers will be available to members of the committee.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I
feel some dissatisfaction with the explanation given by the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections. As a matter of fact, within an hour after the committee had closed its proceedings on Tuesday, I sent to the chairman twelve copies of the report of Mr. Justice Clarke, and so I do not see why there should be any delay due to the lack of copies of that report. It is now a month since this matter was debated in the House of Commons, on March 29th, and this house will [DOT]probably sit for another month, and we shall require strict attention to the business before the house if we are going to get through and to do our business in a business-like fashion. fMr. Kellner.]
There is at least one other meeting of this committee required before we can proceed to the actual business of examining witnesses. We cannot proceed very wdll without witnesses, and I think it is very unfortunate that the call that was issued for meetings of the committee both yesterday and to-day was cancelled by the chairman, because a preliminary meeting . is necessary before we can actually get down to business on the report and summon witnesses in connection with it. I think it would be better for everybody concerned if a little more enthusiasm was shown in the conduct of the business of this committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a matter touching the privileges of this house, and I would think, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a question that can be put aside in just a light way. One of the standing committees of this house was appointed, and to that committee has been referred a definite item of business. An effort was made the other day to direct attention to the situation, and the chairman promised us that the committee would be called. A meeting was called, and then against the protest apparently of some members of the committee, it is not to meet again until next Tuesday, the meetings which were to have taken place on Wednesday and Thursday of this week having been cancelled. This committee, after all, is in the control of the house, and some steps should be taken to see that it functions in the manner in which it was intended that it should. I think the right hon. the Prime Minister will admit that any matter that touches the privileges of parliament and the conduct of public business, for which, not the Prime Minister personally, but the government as such is responsible, is worthy of being carefully considered, and every step should be taken to see that there is no deprivation of the privileges of members with respect to committees or otherwise. I feel quite sure that a word from the Prime Minister would result in the matter being put on a proper basis. If my hon. friend from Joliette (,Mr. Denis) has concluded that the duties of Chairman are too onerous or too exacting, or if he does not desire to act, I am sure he would gladly arrange that his position be taken by someone who will see that the committee meets and discharges the business for which it was appointed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am glad to answer the statement made by the leader of the opposition, all the more so because it was clearer than the question that was put to me a while

Quebec Harbour Commission
ago by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). The hon. member for Peace River said that twelve copies of the report which is to be submitted to the committee were sent to me, but he forgot to mention that there are twenty-nine members of that committee, and that twelve copies is not sufficient for twenty-nine members Therefore copies have since been made. The committee was not convened yesterday nor to-day simply because the members composing it insisted that these copies should be printed or duplicated in some other way for distribution at the next meeting. Of course, the leader of the opposition was not conversant with this fact when he criticized the conduct of the chairman for not calling together the committee. Let me point out that there is no attempt at fencing or hedging. The committee will be called together next Tuesday, and all hon. members will be welcome to attend the meeting. The committee will proceed in the same manner as any other committee. I think this explanation should be satisfactory to the house.



RADIO-INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, on April 10 I put some questions on the order paper with reference to radio licenses, which were treated as an order for return. Sixteen days have since elapsed, and as the questions are very simple I see no reason why there should ibe any delay in bringing down the answers. I shall be glad to know if this information will be supplied at an early date.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that
I shall be in a position to-morrow to satisfy my hon. friend. I am not quite sure, but 1 think the return has been prepared and sent to my office.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: May I ask the Minister of Marine'and Fisheries when we may expect the correspondence to be tabled in reference to the same subject?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the correspondence
will be tabled in a very short time.



BRITISH HIGH COMMISSIONER TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister
any idea when the British High Commissioner to the Dominion, Sir William H. Clark, will arrive in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that Sir
William H. Clark will be coming to Canada very shortly, possibly next June, but I cannot say definitely, no final word having yet been received from him.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he had received any reports from the judges of the exchequer court regarding the claims of the Home bank depositors. Has he yet received such a report? If not, does he expect to receive it in time to take any action on it this session?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will refer to Hansard of the 24th instant, he will find there a statement that I made in reply to a question from the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). I shall foe glad to furnish my hon. friend with a copy of the memorandum there referred to.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 214, to provide for a loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was our purpose
to move certain amendments to this bill on its third reading, but the undertakings given yesterday by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin)-which I take it may be regarded as governmental undertakings-[DOT] are accepted as embodying the principle which we desired by sections to incorporate in the bill. In order that there may be no difficulty in the future in respect to the matter, I therefore direct the attention of the house to our purpose and to those undertakings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 218, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that in respect to this bill the Prime Minister would have accepted the proposal of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to limit the period during

Federal District Commission
which the annual payments are to be made to five years intead of fifteen. My chief objection to the bill is that this parliament, through a commission, is making commitments for fifteen years, which in the ordinary course of events will cover the lifetime of possibly three, if not four, parliaments. I think the principle is wrong, and I am surprised that it should be seriously proposed, especially after what the Prime Minister said in this house when in opposition and since he became head of the government. To give to a commission the expenditure of moneys over a period of fifteen years is to my mind preposterous, and to take away from future parliaments the right to say how that money shall be spent, I think is also preposterous. Therefore I move an amendment as follows, seconded by Mr. Manion:
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend by striking out the word "fifteen" in line eighteen and substituting the word "five" therefor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
in order that the house may be fully seized of the significance of the amendment, may I read that portion of the bill which it is proposed to amend? It reads as follows:
The minister is hereby authorized to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada to the commission the sum of two hundred thousand dollars a year for a period not exceeding fifteen years from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, to be expended by the commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of this act.
As the bill was originally introduced the period was thirty years, but after listening to what was said by hon. members I agreed to amend the section by substituting fifteen years. In not accepting the further amendment of the leader of the opposition, that five years should be substituted for fifteen, I gave as the reason that this parliament at the last session did authorize the payment of $250,000 a year for sixteen years. That is the law as it stands to-day; the legislation actually in existence at the moment. The commission to-day is authorized by this parliament to receive $250,000 a year for sixteen years. Now, I have cut down from $250,000 to $200,000 the amount which this house proposes to authorize to the commission annually. I am actually proposing that the annual allowance shall be less than that to which the commission is at present entitled by way of an annual appropriation over a period of years. In those circumstances I regretted that I could not see my way to accepting the further amendment moved by the leader of the op-/Mr Chapiin.]
position, and once the house clearly understands, as it understood yesterday when it voted on the subamendment and defeated it in committee of the whole, that that law to-day does give to the commission-and it was given by hon. members on all sides at the last session-an appropriation of $250,000 for another fifteen years, while it is now proposed to give $200,000 for the same period, I hope the section will be allowed to stand as it is.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the commission suffer inconvenience if the amendment were passed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say whether they would or would not. All I can say is that they have been operating this last year on the assumption that they would receive $250,000 a year, for maintenance and small local improvements, guaranteed over a period of sixteen years. I believe they have made provision with respect to the widening of driveways as well as in connection with other work to be undertaken which has to be planned years ahead if it is to be carried out successfully. This provision they have made in the expectation of the sum of $250,000 for that period of time, and I think we ought to stand by the legislation which parliament has already passed in that regard.
Broadly speaking, I agree with what is doubtless aimed at in the amendment and what in fact was stated by the leader of the opposition, that in making grants to public bodies it is well for parliament not to extend too far into the future the appropriations that are to be made annually. I would submit, however, with respect to a number of important matters which have been dealt with by this parliament in recent years, that the practice has been followed of making grants over a period of years. Grants made for technical education, for example, have been made over a period of ten years; grants made 'by hon. gentlemen opposite when in office, in aid of highway construction, were made for a period of ten years; grants made also for purposes of agricultural instruction over a period of ten years. May I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that in 1919, when his government were in office, they made a grant to this improvement commission for a period of ten years, which period was extended last year to sixteen years from 1927.
While, therefore, my hon. friend is perhaps rendering a helpful service in directing the attention of the house to the wisdom of controlling, possibly more fully than has been

Federal District Commission
the practice in the past, appropriations made by parliament, I submit with regard to this particular amendment that in the light of the legislation already enacted, the section should be permitted to stand as it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This particular bill is, I think, the one in which we endeavoured to apply, as something that should be observed generally in matters of this kind, the principle to which reference has been made. Personally I have held a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hauds of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures. That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected -and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys-this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments. Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation, I submit that it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation; and the undesirability of such a policy can never be more apparent than it is in this particular measure. Last year, it is true, this house enacted a measure which granted to the commission an annuity for a period of some thirty years


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sixteen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, sixteen, the grant being $250,000. If my memory serves me, the matter was not challenged. The government has now introduced legislation reducmg that annual grant by $50,000, while the term of the grant is also reduced from thirty to fifteen years. As regards the reduction in the amount, that is something which must always be a matter of policy; and the government, with all the facts before it, has concluded that it is desirable to reduce the grant from a quarter of a million to $200,000 per annum. That is a matter with respect to which the government, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, accepts fullest responsibility in the light of information obtained and of the knowledge it has of the situation in question
As to the term: the government has reduced the period of the grant from thirty to fifteen yea'rs. Our contention is merely that the very circumstances that have operated to induce the government to change its policy of last year and to reduce the grant from $250,000 to $200,000 may make it very essential for another body of men in another parliament to conclude that there should be a substantial change with respect to the whole
matter. For instance, a very strong agitation is being carried on in this city, and the Prime Minister himself admitted, not without reason -and I too am sure it is not without cause- that by reason of the government of Canada, that is to say the people collectively, owning in Ottawa some $45,000,000 of property which is not taxable, there is imposed upon the citizens a burden which is not at all commensurate with their taxing power, and that with respect to the removal of snow, the cleaning of streets, the supplying of water of proper quality, a limitation is imposed upon the ability of the city to meet the situation for the reason that it cannot tax that forty millions odd of property. The Prime Minister referred to this matter the other day. Now, it well may be that this parliament will have to make a grant in lieu of taxes to enable the city of Ottawa not to overburden its own citizens too onerously with taxes in view of the fact that there is so much government property which is exempt. That also is a matter of policy. I submit therefore that we should not do anything whereby we may bind the hands of the next parliament in its attempt to deal with this question in any way it sees fit. Grant the commission $250,000, if you like, or $300,000 or $100,000; and possibly, by reason of the circumstances that have arisen, make a contribution in lieu of taxation that might be imposed on property of the government were it not exempt. This arises out of the clear distinction which must be made, and to which the Prime Minister directed attention, between Ottawa as a municipal organization and Ottawa as the capital of Canada. Because Ottawa is the capital of the citizens of all Canada, we make this a contri-tribution towards the beautifying of the city and not for domestic municipal purposes. I cannot but think that the principle involved 

the principle which the right hon. gentleman when in opposition always contended should be applied-is the soundest possible principle with respect to the expenditure of public money. No parliament should create a condition which leaves a succeeding parliament under the necessity of either repealing existing legislation with respect to which vested interests or rights may have arisen, or of carrying on regardless of the views of that succeeding parliament, simply because the preceding government has done what is being done in this case. The cases which have been referred to, with respect to technical education, highways and matters of that kind, in my judgment, stand in exactly the same position, unless there are

Federal District Commission
very extraordinary conditions which can be submitted to parliament, and without those very extraordinary conditions, which might arise on questions touching the public debt and the necessity of liquidating it, one parliament should not say that in its wisdom it has placed upon its successors a burden which they must respect because of the interests which may have grown up under it. The power of parliament is always there, but that power cannot be always exercised efficiently because commitments may have been made and obligations created and these interests may be affected by reason of any attempt to repeal or amend such legislation.
As I say, it is with regret that one has to deal with this matter as a matter of principle with respect to this particular legislation, and I have endeavoured to assure the Prime Minister that it is because we believe a principle should be laid down which will be of very great value in this country at this time, when there is a tendency to entrust public moneys in large sums to commissions, that we are impelled by whatever sense of duty may actuate us in the discharge of our obligations here to move this amendment to the third reading of the bill.


Mr. CHURCH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


William Ernest Tummon: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Lang-lois). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for LaurierdOutremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Hubbs). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McDIARMID:: I was paired with_ the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacNUTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few
remarks on the main motion. It is my desire to have for the Canadian people beauty and culture. I believe that is the desire of every hon. member who sits in this house, but I do not believe that we should have splendor in the capital city while hardship exists in Canada in all too many places.
Ottawa is very well supplied with parks and driveways, and besides that it has a glorified farm not far away that serves as a park and a very beautiful one at that. If the plan as proposed by the government is carried out, the view of the parliament buildings from the driveway will be a slanting one; it will not be as good a view as could be obtained if Metcalfe street were very much widened and Wellington street were also widened. I do not think that a view from one corner would do the parliament buildings justice, because they are indeed very beautiful; and if we are going to have a driveway from which they are to be viewed by tourists and visitors, they should be viewed from the point of greatest vantage. I think that Ottawa needs very badly a good commercial hotel, a hotel which will offer to tourists and Canadians comfort and some beauty at prices they can afford to pay. I think it is true that the rank and file of the Canadian people cannot afford to stay at the Chateau Laurier. I have often noticed that the people who most frequently stay there are people who are in the enviable position of being able to pass their hotel bills on down the line.
The Canadian teachers go in parties to Washington almost every year; and I have often wondered why Canadian teachers did not come to Ottawa. It may be because they
2402	COMMONS
Federal District-Miss Macphail
cannot afford to stay in any of the hotels in which they would desire to stay. I would say that for nay own part, had I been planning this development, I would have liked to see a very good commercial hotel built on the site of the Russell house.
The Prime Minister in his very admirable speech referred to the beauty of the architecture of Greece and Rome. We all agree that their architecture is very beautiful. I have not had the privilege of seeing it but pictures lead me believe this is so. But it is known to all of us that that beauty was created by people burdened with debt and with labour. The building of some of the beautiful structures in rural England, referred to by the member for Nelson'(Mr. Bird), falls into an entirely different class. In that case the people themselves decided to build a beautiful building and taxed themselves locally, and with their own hands created the beauty. That was an expression of the ideals of the people of the community. But in this case, the expenditure proposed will bear a close resemblance to that in ancient Rome and Greece, because here the people themselves have not expressed a willingness that this money shall be spent to beautify Ottawa. The people are quite remote from Ottawa, and the most of them will never see the beauty that is Ottawa. I think Ottawa as it is is a very beautiful city. It is true, I suppose, that as time goes on its beauty will be still further enhanced.
I am not so anxious that two or three hundred years hence we will be judged by the beauty of the capital city as I am that we will, with all the facts before us, feel that we are rendering a wise decision. What we think of ourselves is much more important, in my view, than what anyone else will think of us. We live now in a social age, and so I think possibly our age will be judged by a standard different from that of the civilization of the past; I would say that the average living conditions of the individual would be a good test to apply to our civilization.
The greatest piece of art in Canada is a Canadian child; and until all Canadian children have a pretty decent chance to make something worth while of themselves, I am not going to wax very enthusiastic about making an already beautiful place more beautiful still.
There is a very interesting report which was published just recently by the Department of Health, called Maternal Mortality in Canada. I hope all the hon. members in this chamber have read that report. It contains some amazing facts, such as that in the 
fifty-ninth year of confederation 1,532 Canadian mothers died in childbirth and left motherless 5,073 children. This comment is to be found on page 26:
If these homes had been in Denmark instead of in Canada, a thousand of the mothers would not have died.
On page 27 of the report a statement has been compiled to show that the letters of advice which came from doctors who signed the death certificates of these mothers attributed death in 68 cases to the poverty of the mother. She had to go through the trial and suffering of childbirth and was too poor to be relieved of those further sufferings of which she could have been relieved if she had had more money; and 120 died from exhaustion; they went to their deaths because they had not the vitality necessary; they were overworked and under-nourished. One hundred and forty-seven of these mothers had no doctor in attendance; and it was the opinion of the doctors who wrote the letters of advice that if they had had advice the lives of many of these mothers would have been saved.
The medical profession commenting some months ago upon this report said that they had no doubt at all that 50 per cent of all these mothers could have 'been saved if the necessary measures had been taken to save them. While that is true, then, I think our first great task is this one which I have outlined.
When I think of the over-burdened farm women, of whom I know some thousands, as you who are sitting here know some other thousands-women who are very much overworked and who break down in middle life because they are overworked-my conviction is that if we are to be well thought of by succeeding generations, our first task is to make things better for Canadian mothers.
Two years ago evidence was given before the industrial committee by a certain Ontario manufacturer who stated that the wages paid in the industries in a certain town amounted to fifteen dollars a week. The Bureau of Statistics states that 8972 is the average wage paid for the whole of Canada for 1924. While these things are all true, I do not think we are justified in launching into any lavish expenditure for the beautification of an already beautiful city. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner):
That Bill No. 218 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend by striking out the words "three million dollars" in the ninth line of clause 9 and inserting therefor the words "one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars".

Federal District-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this particular question and to give the reason for my vote. I find myself in disagreement with my leader in this little group. My past experience in civic affairs is my guide in the action I take on this particular occasion. During my activities on the city council of Winnipeg, they at times went to the provincial government requesting certain grants for improvements which were more of a provincial than civic nature. Under those circumstances we were always able to obtain promises and grants as well from the provincial government of Manitoba for certain improvements in Winnipeg. If that were the case in Winnipeg and if I, as a member of the city council, could go to the provincial government and obtain grants from them for civic purposes, I cannot see how I could logically oppose a vote of this nature this afternoon, and consequently I supported the proposal of the government. I think most members of the house ought to support the government in a case of this character. We ought to have a certain amount of pride in the national capital of this Dominion and therefore we want to see a capital of such a character that we can have pride in it. Money that is spent |by the government for beautifying Ottawa is money that is well spent. I quite agree with nearly all that the previous speaker has said on this question. I am in favour of beauty and of culture. When I am in favour of beautifying the city of Ottawa, I vote in accordance with what I think; that is, I vote for and not against the grant made to beautify the city.
Another question which was brought up this afternoon was that of the control of expenditures by parliament, I am quite in agreement that parliament should have full control of all expenditures made and I do not see that by voting this sum of money this afternoon for a period of sixteen years parliament divests itself of one bit of control of the money that is going to be spent in- future years in Ottawa. Next year or any future year parliament can, if it so wishes, merely by a vote of the house, cut off its grant to the federal commission. If it so wishes it can also increase the grant which parliament has made for beautifying the city. To me the laying out of a fifteen-year project by the federal commission is equivalent to the erection of a fifteen-storey building. The plan for the whole building has to be drawn up before you start erecting it storey by storey. So when you draw up a fifteen year program for the city of Ottawa, the plans have to be laid out first so that you may know exactly what kind of a scheme you are going to go
ahead with. Therefore I can see nothing wrong in. the government asking parliament to accept such a plan.
Another question was raised by the leader of the opposition in reference to the exemption of taxation in this city. There is not in the Dominion of Canada a capital city that is not faced with exactly the same problem. In fact most cities in Canada to-day give large exemptions to corporations which are of a revenue-producing character. Parliament is not a revenue-producing institution; it exists purely for legislative and administrative purposes, and so the question of exempting from taxation the property of the government in either a national or provincial capital is on an entirely different basis from the question of exemption from taxation of commercial organizations. Therefore I do not thmk a city which is a national or provincial capital can expect to tax its government for any services it may receive from that city.
One statement, however, I should like to have had from the Prime Minister on this particular question and that is as regards the water supply of the city. I should like him to have assured the house that before any money is handed over under this legislation to the federal district commission, there would be an assurance from the civic authorities that they would take some definite steps, beyond speaking about the matter, to give to the people of Ottawa and the members who are compelled to come and reside here for several months of the year, a decent and ample supply of water. In this regard the Prime Minister might perform a good service not merely to the members but to the people of this city. This money ought not to be handed over to the commission until such assurances are given As I said before, I am in full accord with the proposals looking to the beautification of Ottawa; but I think the first essential to any city is an ample and pure supply of water, and before this money is handed over I think the Prime Minister should make some announcement to the house on this particular question. The man or woman who is well off can buy water for drinking purposes, but the poor people of the city of Ottawa are compelled to drink the water that is being supplied to them at the present time. Some members of this house have claimed that the water supply here is not fit to bathe in, and I quite agree with that sentiment. I think the Prime Minister would be doing a good service if he took this question into consideration and got some definite announcement on the matter from the city government.
2404	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
Right, Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I did mention, when we were in committee, that I had discussed very fully with His Worship the Mayor the question of the water supply. I pointed out to him that I was perfectly sure that hon. members of this house would hesitate to vote any money for improvement purposes in the city unless they had the assurance that the city council was giving attention to the question of a pure water supply, and that they intended to deal with that matter speedily. The mayor assured me that the matter is before the city council or the board of control, and that they were hopeful that very shortly they would have a scheme evolved. I also said the other evening that if the government finds that the city does not co-operate as we hope it will, and as I know hon. members of this house expect it will, the government will move with due caution with respect to its part in the matter of co-operation.
This money is required to some extent immediately because, as hon. members know, the demolition of the buildings which have been destroyed by fire and of the property immediately adjacent cannot be postponed with advantage to anyone but with respect to other improvements I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg that the city ought to be given to understand that unless they do co-operate with this parliament in the matter in which we are all mutually interested, the government will ask the commission to take that fact into consideration in regard to any further allowances it may make. I might add that every expenditure made by the commission has to be authorized in the first instance by the governor in council, and speaking on behalf of the council, I would say that we will ourselves take cognizance of the city's action in this matter.
With regard to what my hon. friend the mover of the amendment (Miss Macphail) has just said, I would point out to her and to the house, that with respect to large, open spaces in the centre of cities, it is an experience the world over that those who benefit most in the end are those who, unfortunately, are in limited circumstances and who as a consequence are precluded from having the enjoyment of homes and grounds such as those more well-to-do are able to afford. Those people are unable very often to leave even their own tenements; they know nothing of a sojourn in the country over the week-end. They are the ones who perhaps more than any others derive the major benefit of the large parks in the great cities. At the rate at which development is taking place in Ot-

tawa, I am confident that it will not be long before this city will become congested in the matter of population, and I do not hesitate to say that the ones who more than any others will appreciate what this parliament is doing to-day are the mothers of little children who will find it possible to enjoy advantages for their families in this way of which otherwise they would have been deprived.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the duty of the city, though.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are dealing with the capital.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OF $5,000,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 25 consideration in committee of Bill No. 216 to provide for a loan to the Saint John harbour commissioners-Mr. Cardin-Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Interest during construction to be charged to capital account.
Mr. GARDINER:: Up to the present time what public works have been turned over to the harbour board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The wharves and other
facilities constructed by the Public Works department have not yet been turned over to the harbour commission. After construction by the Public Works department these works are turned over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for administration purposes, so they are now under the control of my department. They have been administered by the corporation since its inception. The cost of the works constructed by the Public Works department at Courtenay bay, including dredging in the bay, channel and breakwater in connection with the drydock, amounted to S9,603,266. On the piers, basins and channels and for dredging at West St. John there has been expended SI 1,697,393.27.	These) two
amounts represent the expenditures made in the harbour of St. John through the agency of the Public Works department. We are taking over from the city of St. John for transfer to the harbour commissioners property amounting in value to $2,135,118. The harbour commission assumes the financial responsibilities of the city of St. John with respect to this property. It is taking over the bonded indebtedness amounting to $1,467,164, and is to pay the balance of $667,953.04 to the city in the form of bonds. The bonded indebtedness to be taken over by the commission and the new bonds to be issued to the city are to be guaranteed by the government both as to principle and interest. This is provided for in the act incorporating the harbour commission.


Robert Gardiner: In regard to the twenty-one million dollars odd worth of property to be turned over to the commission is the government going to charge it up to the commission or make a gift of it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This will be handed over
to the commission and we do not propose to make any claim in respect of interest on

St. John Harbour Commission
it. These expenditures have been made for several years past and we have never asked any interest, and they will be treated just the same now. This will be an asset to the commission; we do not intend to claim any interest.


Mr. SHORT:: Was not that expenditure
of $9,000,000 for Courtenay bay practically for terminals in connection with the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian National
was not in existence then.


James Arthurs: We have here an expenditure of $21,000,000 on the harbour of St. John, made previously to the inauguration of the harbour commission. Yesterday we had an expenditure-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-of some $13,000,000 in connection with Quebec, on which the government has been asking interest for many years. Why this distinction? Why should there be an expenditure of $21,000,000 in St. John on which no interest is charged at all while Quebec is asked to account for $13,000,000 in connection with the harbour there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The reason for attempting to collect interest on the $13,500,000 in Quebec is that this money has been advanced to the harbour there since the establishment of the commission as it exists at the present time.


James Arthurs: I am referring to amounts advanced prior to the establishment of the commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The hon. member is wrong in regard to the amount.


James Arthurs: But I am right in principle.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount advanced
originally was between four and five millions. These expenditures were made in Quebec previous to 1913 through a commission different in character from the commission that has been in existence since that year. That is the reason we are charging interest, because the money was expended through the agency of a eommision while in St. John the money has been spent through the Department of Public Works.


James Arthurs: Why charge Quebec with more responsibility than St. John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend that the port of Queber should not be discriminated against but should be given the advantage of the money spent prior to the organization of the present commission, just as we are making practically a gift to

the commission at St. John of the $21,000,000. The contention is worth considering, and in adjusting the accounts between the government and the commission I think the point should be considered in favour of the harbour at Quebec.


Harry Bernard Short: The harbour of St. John is
charged with $21,000,000 already expended Is that the idea?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Harry Bernard Short: And they will be charged
5 per cent on that expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. As I have explained,
these facilities which have been constructed through the expenditure of the $21,000,000 are to be handed over to the present commission without charge as a pure gift. This certainly will help them to obtain some return on the investment they propose to make if they are authorized to receive the loan of $5,000,000. Their liabilities will not be as great as those of Quebec.


James Dew Chaplin: How long has the St.
John commission been operating?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was incorporated last
year.


James Dew Chaplin: In view of the statement made by the minister yesterday, that he had in mind certain changes that might do away with these commissions, I would ask him whether it is reasonable to turn this over to a commission which he is likely to abolish next year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I did not say that I proposed to abolish this commission.


James Dew Chaplin: No, but you-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I intend to study the question and to effect certain changes in the operation of these harbours. But I did not say that I was prepared at the moment to wipe out all these commissions. They may be remodelled, or their practice of accounting and making returns and reports may be changed; but I am not prepared to say that I will abolish them.


James Dew Chaplin: But you said yesterday
that you might go so far as to abolish them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I might; but if I do not
go that length I want to make the provision we are asking for.


Robert Gardiner: I did not understand
the minister fully as to whether it is the intention to charge interest on this money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.

Halifax Harbour Commission


Robert Gardiner: I want to congratulate
the minister on the method he is adopting in this transaction. I will merely observe at this point that, in studying the question of national harbours between now and next session, it would be well for the minister to put all harbours on the same basis, giving them all the same opportunities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the idea.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
'Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood the minister to say that we would treat this bill as we did the Quebec bill with respect to the suggestions as to the accounts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that was
clear.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 217, to provide for a loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
wish to record my emphatic protest against the passing of this bill, because it is not in accordance with the recommendations of the * Duncan commission, which recommendations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a year or more ago informed the house that the government was prepared to accept practically in their entirety. I have nothing further to say now except to protest against the bill as not being in accord with the recommendations of the Duncan commission.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I do not rise in opposition to the expenditure of this money at the port of Halifax, particularly in view of the large sums which are being expended in other ports of Canada. Let me say first that the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston)-I am sorry he is not in his seat-have come to my notice, and when he named the commissioners who were appointed he spoke of
prominent business men of Halifax, of some considerable standing there. When he indicates to this house that they are not strong partisans and politicians, however, I take exception to his statement. The chairman of that commission, Mr. Jack, I have known for a great many years, indeed, since boyhood; we have been neighbours; as a matter of fact there is a family connection between us. His father was a very strong partisan and a constant contributor to the Liberal organ of Nova Scotia, the Halifax Chronicle. Mr. Peter Jack is a very strong partisan and an ardent worker in the Liberal interests; he is a young man of ability and energy. Mr. Ackhurst, another of the commissioners, is also a very strong partisan who works in the interests of the Liberal party on every possible occasion. The third commissioner, Mr. Murphy, has been a Liberal candidate in the constituency of Halifax, but never has been successful. I know he ran in at least one election and I believe in two, and was defeated each time. He is a constant worker. So much for the political feelings of these gentlemen. They are not, as my hon. friend said, simply Liberals; they are very ardent, earnest and hard-working Liberals.
I maintain that the Duncan report is not being carried out in connection with this vote. In Halifax we have had a very satisfactoiy system of handling the business of that port; It has been looked after with a very considerable amount of intelligence, energy and enterprise. I am sorry I have not the figures here; I asked for them, but they have not as yet reached me. I can say, however, that . as the result of the efforts of the business men of Halifax the business of that port has increased enormously in the past few years. The ship tonnage entering and clearing and the tonnage of the merchandise carried by ships coming and going have increased very considerably due to the energy and enterprise of the merchants of Halifax, and not to the appointment of any harbour commission. Halifax is situated very differently from any other port in this Dominion; it is the end of a system of railways extending across the entire country. I am repeating myself to some extent, I suppose, because I think I have touched upon these points before. But these terminals form part of the system of the Canadian National Railways. It is just as necessary for the railways of this country to have facilities with which to carry on their business as it is for any business concern to have the facilities necessary to operate successfully a private enterprise. For that reason these facilities have been under the management of the Canadian National Railways, and

Halifax Harbour Commission
as far as my knowledge goes that situation has been very satisfactory to the shipping interests of that port. Therefore we do not wish to be hampered with any commissioners; we want to be free to have the Canadian National Railways carry on this terminal work as it has been carried on in the past, unhampered by any rales or regulations which may be formulated by a commission.
So far as I know what is to be done with this vote has not appeared as yet. There are many ways in which it could be spent and in which even more money could be spent, and I am sorry a larger sum has not been granted to us. For instance, the people of Halifax are very much interested now in a bridge across the Narrows. I believe the railways are also interested in it, because at present they are operating two terminals. One is in Dartmouth, where the traffic centres from what is called the Musquodoboit railway, which is really a branch line, probably the most profitable of all branch lines of the same length in the Dominion. That has been reported to me; I do not state it as an absolute fact, but apparently it is true. At all events, a very large business is done by that road, which has a terminal in Dartmouth, across the harbour, and the traffic coming to Dartmouth has to be transferred by truck or lighter or in some other way across the harbour. This applies also to traffic coming to Halifax for Dartmouth; it has to be transported, at considerable expense, by lighter or by track. If a railway bridge were constructed between these points where traffic centres, I think the saving would be very large not only to the owners of the goods passing to and fro but to the railways as well. That is an expenditure that I would like very much to have seen provided for, at least to some extent, in the estimates.
I have pointed out the peculiar situation in connection with these terminals in that they are a part and parcel of a railway system extending over the whole Dominion and are absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of the business of that road. They were built and paid for by the railway department, and operated by it, I believe, economically and satisfactorily to the shipping interests and the public generally in Halifax. For some reason they are turned over to the Public Works department-h'ow much of them I know not, whether the wharfs only, the wharfs and elevator, the station and local freight shed there, or the whole thing. But whatever has been turned over to the Public Works, it is proposed now that a commission shall take charge of the entire business-a commission 
unacquainted with the port and with the local traffic handled by that road. Just w<hy these terminals should be turned over to the Public Works department, any more than the freight shed at any station along the road would be, is something I have not yet had explained or learned the reason for.
The traffic of the port was being carried on in a very satisfactory manner up to the time of the appointment of that commission. The commission, I believe, has not yet taken charge. I suppose up to the present they have been studying the situation; in any case thej' have made no drastic changes in the management. If there are to be charges imposed on the shipping of the port to satisfy the expenses of that commission, I for one, and the whole shipping interests and I believe the people of Halifax generally, will protest against any such tax upon the shipping of the port of Halifax. We have the credit of operating there very economically; it is perhaps the most economically managed port on the Atlantic coast, and we do not want that reputation destroyed or interfered with by any taxes upon shipping that may be imposed by this commission. Futhermore, any such tax is at present absorbed by the railway in their freight charges; that is, the freight rate covers any terminal charges there may be in connection with the traffic of that port. If the terminal charges are transferred to the shipping, then the railway benefits to that extent, and that is a situation we certainly do not want to see arise in the port oi Halifax.


Mr. RALSTON:: I should like to say a
few words, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the subject now before the committee. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) and in the criticism he levelled against the personnel of this commission. I took occasion the other night to express my own opinion of the personnel of the commission, to give to the house something as to the past record of these gentlemen in the business and civic life of Halifax, and to back that up by a resolution from the Halifax board of trade commending myself and the government on the selection of these commissioners, and assuring them of the board's assistance and co-operation. I do not think I ought to have to say more than that. It is down in Nova Scotia, at least, a novel and startling idea that a man is disqualified from accepting a position of this kind simply because he happens to be the adherent of a particular political party.

Halifax Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point;
it is the other qualifications.


James Layton Ralston: I have tried to make it
clear what the other qualifications are, and have put on record the resolution of the board of trade.


James Arthurs: Is it desirable to have all the members of a commission of one particular party?


James Layton Ralston: It seemed to be on the
commission of which my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) was a member.


James Arthurs: He did not stay there,
either.


James Layton Ralston: No, but his place was
taken by another who possesses the same characteristic as that spoken of by the hon. senior member for Halifax. The gentleman appointed to that commission was the one who has just resigned his position in this house, Sir Henry Drayton.
I also am a little surprised to hear the hon. senior member for Halifax suggest that the fact that a man belongs to a political party is a disqualification for a position, because I happen to remember that in the constituency of Halifax, at the last election, when I presume my hon. friend had the right to recommend, the returning officer, who is supposed to be a judicial officer, and who for years was the sheriff of the county, was displaced and the gentleman put in his place was the defeated candidate of my hon. friend's party in 1921. I should have thought that was a position in which political partisanship would not have had a part; but that was done in the very city of Halifax in which it is now suggested that adherence to a political party precludes a man from taking a position. I do not think I need take more time than to say that these gentlemen have been widely commended as having ability for the task which they have been given.


William Anderson Black: They are only
given a half a million anyway.


James Layton Ralston: And I remember that the same party which now protests about political partisanship dismissed from office two gentlemen well and favourably known in Nova Scotia, Mr. Macdonald and Professor Rogers, efficient and qualified secretaries of the Duncan commission, because it was thought that they might have some political leanings. So that I do not think my hon. friends can claim to be so simon pure as would be suggested.
The point was raised by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) and the hon. senior member for Halifax that this legislation is not carrying out the Duncan report. That is the suggestion on the one hand; and the suggestion of the hon. senior member for Halifax, on the other hand, was that he did not want the report of the commission carried out, because he did not want the commission anyhow. I have telegrams from all over Nova Scotia asking that the Duncan commission report be carried out in every respect.


William Anderson Black: I repeat that the
appointment of the commission for the port of Halifax is not carrying out the Duncan report. The Duncan commission's report called for the nationalization of the harbour which is not being done.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is suggesting that the Duncan report should not be carried out at all. The Duncan commission recommends that there shall be a statutory commission for the port of Halifax. My hon. friend (Mr. Black) is not in favour of that, notwithstanding the fact that no doubt he with hundreds of others in Nova Scotia, including representatives of boards of trade throughout the province, called on the government to implement in full the recommendations of the Duncan report. I will deal in a minute with the question which my hon. friend raises. How are we going to find out what the Duncan report means with regard to a harbour commission? The quickest way to do that would be to read the report, and my hon. friend cannot find in it one line which suggests this nebulous word "nationalization" of a port. The word is never used in the report with regard to harbour commissions. The report is made by a commission one of whom is a barrister and understands something about the English language, while another was a judge. This is the wording used in the recommendations in respect of the harbours:
We recommend that in respect of each of these two harbours the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually-but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer, The development of a port is as much a matter of mechanical and technical equipment, business organization and practical administration as is the development of any extensive manufacturing or industrial business.
That is the definite recommendation of the report. Again near the end of the report they state that they have been in communi-
Halifax Harbour Commission

cation with and have had a private session with-whom? With somebody who wants to put into effect new ideas about port development that have not been heard of before in Canada? No; that they have been in communication with the Montreal harbour commission, which has been established for some years; and they say after going over the operations at Montreal:
We are confirmed in our view as to what harbour commissions, (constituted of business and experienced persons) at Halifax and St. St. John could do in stimulating the trade of the maritime provinces.
And again, immediately after the reference to Montreal, they say this:
We express the hope that the recommendation we make with regard to a public commission for each of these two ports will not only be accepted but will be acted upon promptly.
The leader of the opposition the other night pointed out that something was said about railways in this part of the report. If my hon. friend will read the section carefully, he will find-and I say this with all deference -that it does not mean just exactly what he thought it did. This is what they say in the report:
We believe it is in the public interest of Canada, and in the interest of the future growth and expansion of its activities, that its Atlantic ports should be developed, just as it has been-
That means just as it has been in the interest of Canada.
-that its railways and canals should be developed-though development of these has naturally come first.
My hon. friend thought it meant that harbours should foe developed just as the railways and canals hare been developed. That is not what it says. It says that it is in the interest of Canada the Atlantic ports should be developed just as it has been in the interest of Canada that its railways and canals should be developed. Where did the idea of a statutory commission come from? When the evidence was given, were they talking about what my hon. friend referred to a few minutes ago? Let me read some of the evidence given by Mr. Cornell, the expert called before the commission by the board of trade of the city of Halifax. Mr. Cornell, as reported on page 776 of the evidence, says this:
Probably the quickest way to bring this to the attention of the commission would be to glance through the annual reports of the harbour commissions of Quebec, Montreal and Vancouver, and you will find in reading their reports that the minds of the commissioners are centred principally on the two things: Port development and solicitation of traffic; and inevitably they make a great deal of the improvement in the quantity of traffic moving through the port each year.

That is where harbour commissions are established of the kind mentioned in these bills.
We have no objection to their solicitation of traffic, and believe that they are acting wisely as trustees for that property, which belongs to the Dominion government; but we do claim, as I stated before that a similar body should be constituted

Note the words "similar body".
-for the port of Halifax and not with any idea of taking traffic away from Montreal or any other port, but rather in the hope that it will at least offset the competition of these other ports which are being developed by the aid of government money.
I am further instructed, Mr. Chairman, to place the board of trade on record that should you see fit to recommend that such an organization for the proper development of this port and the solicitation of traffic through this port be created, the endeavours of the organization to build up the port at Ilalfax will receive the utmost support of the Halifax Board of Trade.
It is as a result of those representations that the commission recommended what it did. Let me go a step further. My hon. friends seem to think that, a statutory commission having been appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the Duncan report, that is not enough. A statutory commission involves of course the financial arrangements which are generally made with regard to harbour commissions. Can anybody believe that if those gentlemen of the Duncan commission had intended the harbour commissions to be established at St. John and Halifax to be something totally different from those established at Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver, they would not have had the clearness of expression to say so? Does anybody think we would have to read whole paragraphs in order to endeavour to deduce something that was not in the words themselves? Those gentlemen, in submitting their recommendations, expressed themselves plainly and clearly. They say:	Having considered the harbour commission of Montreal, we recommend statutory commissions, and we say that having regard to the experience of Montreal those statutory commissions will benefit Halifax and St. John. I take issue with anybody who says that the government is not carrying out to the full the recommendations of the Duncan report when it establishes the harbour commissions as they are being established by these measures.


George Taylor MacNutt: Why did the people of
Halifax, irrespective of party, oppose this commission for fully a year or more?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's question
is based on a wrong assumption. A portion of the people of Halifax worried over the

appointment of the commission. The city council were divided ten to five, I think, but that is not all the people of Halifax by any means. I think the people were a little fearful, as the hon. senior member for Halifax has said, that there might be results seriously detrimental to the port. I felt that the only thing the government could do after receiving all representations was the bold and courageous thing, namely, to go ahead and carry out the recommendations of the Duncan commission. We have already done that and what we are trying to do now is to provide the financial arrangements in connection with tho matter.
What is the benefit of a commission? It is to do away with the idea that the hon. senior member for Halifax suggested, namely, that this whole port is going to be run by the railways. I say that advisedly. My hon. friend says that, the deveiopment that was made there was made by the railway authorities. We have there railway interests, steamship interests, city interests and commercial interests, and the harbour commission is a trustee for all those interests, so to administer the port that all interests are served; that primarily there is a continuous program of development instead of having one day the board of trade suggest something, another day the railways, another day the city council and another day the people on the waterfront. The harbour commission will co-ordinate the efforts and ideas of all these interests down there in order to see that there is some continuity of administration. That is the benefit that is being received in the other ports of the Dominion and the whole question after all is one of financing.
It has been suggested that these two harbour commissions should be made advances in some different way from that adopted in the case of other harbour commissions in the Dominion of Canada. Let me remind the committee that when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition uses the words " imposing a burden " on the port of Halifax or the port of St. John, I am afraid he has not regard for the history of harbour commissions all over this country. No greater burden is intended to be imposed on these ports having regard to the service provided. The government, it seems to me, would be committing suicide and defeating the very object for which these commissions are appointed if they did something which would impose the port chaiges which would hurt the business of the port.
Mr. CANTLEY; That is what you are doing.
Halifax Harbour Commission


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend, may I say with all respect, does not understand the constitution or t'he working of a harbour commission.


Thomas Cantley: I think I do.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. There is no suggestion in this bill that there shall be any increase in the port charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said there was?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the member for Pictou just a moment ago said, "That is what you are doing," and I thought that is what he meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: I have no doubt that that is what he meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


James Layton Ralston: What I am arguing is that there is no suggestion in this bill at all about increasing the charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course there is not.
MV. RALSTON: I am glad to have that admission, because my hon. friend is the one who spoke so frequently of imposing a burden on the port.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that as the interest charges are increased, the burden on the port is increased if the charges are earned.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has made speeches to the effect that the interest charges should not be paid by the port. That is exactly the point he has taken, and he has also taken the position that the interest charges already incurred iby these commissions should not be paid. That is the position he took yesterday. Only a few days ago it was a somewhat different position, when lie was suggesting that these ports ought to be established on a business basis, and that there should be an issue of bonds to represent the old indebtedness, so that these amounts would have to be paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said
at all. Just turn it up in Hansard.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend can turn
it up. My hon. friend's statement, and I am within the judgment of this house and of Hansard, was to the effect that there should be an issue of bonds to take care of and to cover the previous deficits, if we may call them that, and to put the port on a business basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.



Halifax Harbour Commission


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend from
Vancouver Centre dealt with the matter also, and stated that these things should be put on a business basis, and that we should see that these harbours could earn interest on the money advanced. That is not the history of port development in Canada. The history of port development in Canada is this: What the government has done has been to receive the reports of the harbour commissioners who have been administering the ports, to examine in detail what their proposals are, and to give them, by bill, the money necessary to the carrying out of these projects for the benefit of the port; and then to ask them so far as possible to pay interest on the money advanced. But no government has ever been foolish enough to ask them to increase the tolls beyond the point which the traffic will bear or in any way to stifle or impair the business of the port. No government would be foolish enough to do that, and my hon. friend need have no fear whatever on that ground. The point is, just as in the case of the railways, that the tolls chargeable in connection with the harbour dues and port business generally are what the traffic will reasonably bear, and any government or any commission which goes beyond that and attempts to impose tolls which are too high having regard to the purpose for which the harbour is being used and the service afforded, will defeat the very objects for which the commission is established, just as the railway will defeat its object if it imposes too high charges, because it means that the traffic will not be forthcoming. That has been the history of harbour commissions up to the present.
What has been done is that the harbour commissions which have received advances have issued their bonds and have turned them over to the federal government. Those bonds represent the advances which have been made. That is, I think-and I am not prepared at this date to say it is wrong-a good way to ensure careful and prudent administration, in order that you may segregate the amount of money which has been actually advanced to the commission, in order that they may know how much money is coming from the federal treasury, and in order that the federal system of bookkeeping may be such that there will be no difficulty whatever in ear-marking particular funds going to the development of that port. Further than that this government has not gone, and further than that previous governments did not go. All they have done is to see to it that the tolls imposed have been fair.
IMr. Bennett.]
May I say one thing further? It requires the initiative of the harbour commission to fix tolls in connection with port dues and harbour charges. The commission must first recommend that the government increase the tolls. All the governmet can do is to approve or disapprove; and if the government propose to change them they have to go back to the harbour commission, and the harbour commission must concur. We can scarcely imagine men who are residents of the city of Halifax, and who have the stake in the city which I have mentioned, needlessly or improperly endeavouring to impose on shipping using the port tolls which that shipping should not bear. If the revenue from tolls fairly chargeable is not sufficient then other means will have to be found to provide the necessary money. The harbour commission may say, "We cannot pay the interest;" and I have never heard of any foreclosure proceedings against a harbour because interest has not been paid; but the issuing of these bonds has been found convenient to earmark and segregate the money which has been advanced.
So far as the financing is concerned, I think we are talking about a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that with the assurance given by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with regard to accounting and audit, there is very little difference between one system and the other, except that under the system which now prevails you have an actual piece of paper issued bj? the harbour commission and handed over to the treasury in order that there may be a definite indication of exactly how much money has been received by the port and what expenditures have been made there by the Dominion.
The other night my hon. friend the leader of the opposition referred to the free port of Hamburg, and he suggested that the tolls at that port and at the port of London were very low because of competition. I do not expect to live long enough to see the port charges of Halifax as high as those of the free port of Hamburg. I have obtained a list of these charges, with the Canadian equivalent of the German currency, but I will not take the trouble to read the figures. I will content myself by giving the committee a description of the various dues and other charges: Quay dues on vessels, quay dues on cargo, harbour dues, delivery charges, acceptance charges, storage charges, weighing dues, crane dues, clearance fee, warehouse charges, dock labourers' wages and stevedoring. All of these tolls are charged at the port of Hamburg which has been so often referred to as a free port. I thought my hon. friend

Halifax Harbour Commission
said the other night, but I see by Hansard that I was mistaken, that this port ought to be like Hamburg

a free port. My hon. friend knows, and I presume this committee knows, that the sense in which Hamburg is a "free" port is that a certain portion-of the harbour is segregated from the rest and constitutes a sort of bonded warehouse where men may hold and store their goods and sell them without paying any duty unless they are sent into Germany. Speaking from the point of view of Halifax alone, I think it would be a very fine thing if we could have such an arrangement, but I seriously question whether it would be so regarded by the manufacturers of Canada who support my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They support the hon. gentleman.


James Layton Ralston: I think there would be very strong objection against any suggestion that the port of Halifax or any other Canadian port be made a "free" port like Hamburg.
Fears have been expressed with respect to what may happen at the port of Halifax. The fact that only a small amount of money is being asked for this year is to me a matter of satisfaction, for it shows that the harbour commission is going slow; they are making a thorough study of the situation in an endeavour to find out what facilities can best be improved, and are determined not to ask for further advances until they know how the money should be spent to the best advantage. That is the view they have taken after a thorough investigation, and I think it will commend itself to this committee.
I do not believe there is a single port in Canada where the suggestion would be accepted to go back to the old system. We find that every port under a commission has increased its business. With all due deference to the agencies which have been at work in the port of Halifax in times past-I do not disparage their work in the slightest-I think the time has come not simply for the city of Halifax, not simply for the province of Nova Scotia, but for the benefit of the Dominion itself to take a courageous and a long view, and

if my hon. friend thinks of it in that way-to take some risks; but I do not believe there are any. In my view we should see that the two essentials emphasized by Mr. Cornell are present in the administration by the harbour commission: first, to do their utmost to provide the port with ample facilities for the business which may come to it, developed from year to year along the lines of a well-considered program; and, secondly, to do their utmost to solicit
business for the port, to bring together the man who has the goods and the man who has the ships and encourage them in the habit of trading in and out of that magnificent harbour. That is the future job of the harbour commission which has been appointed. I believe the prospects are bright, notwithstanding the fears which have been expressed by my hon. friends opposite. I join with all they have said in hoping that the charges in connection with the port will be just as low as possible. I do believe that the harbour commissioners are level-headed, sound and cautious, and at the same time courageous, and that they will endeavour to do their very utmost for the benefit of the port. If they do adjust charges, I am confident that that adjustment will be made along sound lines. In short, Mr. Chairman, I am certain that no one in this house will have reason to complain that the facilities or the business of the port have been injured by the appointment of the commission or by the legislation which has been passed, but that on the contrary my hope is that there will be a distinct advancement in keeping with the great natural advantages and the national importance of the port of Halifax.


William Anderson Black: If I understand rightly, tolls wrhich at present are not in force, are to be levied on shipping?


James Layton Ralston: No one has suggested
that.


Thomas Cantley: What did you say? You said that, surely.


James Layton Ralston: I did not.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say distinctly that the creation of the harbour commission of Halifax would not impose any additional burden on shipping or the trade of the port that did not previously exist. That is his statement, as I understood it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will find;
my statement in Hansard.


Thomas Cantley: You made your statement a short time ago, and should be able to remember what you said. If that is not it, you will be good enough to deny it now.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend remembers what I said.


Thomas Cantley: And I have stated it. I want the hon. minister to say if the statement is not correct, as I understand it. Up to the present time all freight arriving at the port of Halifax in steamers or otherwise coming to the docks pays no toll. The toll,.

Halifax Harbour Commission
as has already been explained by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) is absorbed by the railway on both inward and outward freight. That has been the practice for many years, going back further than eithei the minister or I can remember. Will that condition prevail in the future? The minister certainly knows that it will not. All traffic entering the port of Halifax and departing therefrom will have to pay tolls. What tolls are paid now by steamers entering the port? Pilotage is paid, a contribution to the sick mariners' fund is paid, but no wharfage, side or top.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong.


Thomas Cantley: Would you be good
enough to show me?


James Layton Ralston: Side wharfage is paid.


Thomas Cantley: Not where freight is delivered to the Canadian National Railway. How are you going to make these interest payments? The proposal of the government is not what, the people of the maritime prov-inices, and particularly the people of Halifax, understood it to be. The minister quoted what the Duncan commission recommended. Take the port of Montreal: forty-six million dollars or more was expended on work in connection with that port before the Montreal harbour commission was organized. Millions were expended in the port of Quebec before 1913, absorbed entirely by the Dominion of Canada as a whole; and when that was done a commission was appointed.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


Thomas Cantley: Oh yes; that is the fact. Now what we had a right to expect was, in the language of the report, that the port of Halifax should be developed as the Canadian canal system has been developed at a cost of $200,000,000 and more to the country, and operated absolutely free from any toll. Halifax is a great national port-the greatest national port in the Dominion, as was amply demonstrated during the war.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to canals,
wharfage charges are made.


Thomas Cantley: I said nothing about
wharfage charges on canals. I s^id that they were operated entirely free to shipping passing through them.


Peter John Veniot: If they go to the wharves they have to pay tolls.


Thomas Cantley: 
James Dew Chaplin: Where does the Wel'land
canal exact tolls in connection with wharves?


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend opposed to the appointment of a commission?
M'r. CANTLEY: I am opposed to appointing a commission such as you are appointing operating as you propose to have it operated,
I want a commission, if a commission is appointed-


James Layton Ralston: You don't want a commission at all.


Thomas Cantley: Hold your horses. If the harbours were developed as it was proposed by the Duncan commission they should be developed, then they might well be under the control of a commission and administered free of dock and wharfage rates and tolls as the canals are administered.


James Layton Ralston: Are the railways administered free? They are joined in the report, you know.


Thomas Cantley: You will not get me into a hole of that kind. We are not discussing railways. We want a harbour in Halifax administered as the canal system is administered.


Peter John Veniot: The Duncan report says
" railways and canals


Thomas Cantley: It makes no difference
what you say the report says. I know what ' the people of the maritime provinces understood the Duncan commission to recommend. The harbour was to be developed and extended as the canal system has been developed and extended. I am speaking at the moment and hon. gentlemen can speak when I am through. It is now six o'clock and I will reserve the rest of what I have to say until we resume.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Cantley: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the statement which has been made by the hon. the Minister of National Defence that this bill imposes no additional burden upon the trade of the port. I do not think there is any question at all as to the facts of the matter; they are that the commission has power to set such rates as they choose by by-law, they have power to pass by-laws and regulations in regard to rates. In the general act regarding the rates to be charged on the government

Halijax Harbour Commission
piers throughout the whole Dominion there appears a schedule of rates, but section 3 of that act provides:
Nothing in this act shall apply to the harbours of Toronto, Quebec, Montreal. Halifax, Pictou, or St. John, these harbours were specifically exempt from tolls.
In that connection I might say that at one time the port of Pictou was under a commission; I was a commissioner for some years on two separate occasions. The scale of fees necessary to keep the port developments in proper working order and to maintain wharves and docks was so high that trade was discouraged, and the income was not sufficient to keep up the machinery of the port. So it was decided to do away with the harbour commission, which was done on the recommendation of the commissioners themselves, as the older members of the house will no doubt remember.
Until this commission was created at Halifax the harbour dues as far as docks were concerned were absorbed by the railway: local shipments coming from the West Indies, for example and going into warehouse in the city had to pay top wharfage or side wharfage, because that material did not go over the railway. For this reason the city of Halifax, as far as its private business was concerned, did not participate in the relief afforded incoming and outgoing freight at that port. I should like to point out that Halifax harbour is the largest, the safest and the most important on the entire Atlantic coasts of this continent; as far as area is concerned, as far as safety of approach, depth of water, lighting and everything pertaining to a great harbour are concerned, Halifax has no equal on the Atlantic coast. It should be, and by nature is destined to be, the great gateway of this country of Canada. That was amply demonstrated during the war, and as I pointed out before, the difficulty in this country, and I suppose in all countries, is that as soon as the war is over we forget what our necessities were in connection with the war and minimize the importance of what is most vital to the material interests and safety of the country.
As I attempted to show before six o'clock, there is no question in my mind as to what the Duncan commission had in view and intended to express. I spent practically all one night with Sir Andrew Rae Duncan in the Halifax hotel before the report was completed, and a large portion of that time was devoted to the question of the position of the port of Halifax and how it should be developed and administered. I would not say
I am more qualified than any other man to say what was in the mind of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan in connection with this matter, but I think I am justified in stating that I know what was then his opinion and what it was he at least intended to recommend. He intended that the ports of Halifax and St. John should be developed at the national expense. I am not speaking for St. John at the moment, because except in a general way I know nothing about that port, but so far as Halifax is concerned the view taken by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan was that it should be developed at the national expense, just as the canal system of this country was developed and as the St. Lawrence waterway immediately adjacent to the ports of Quebec and Montreal were developed.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Thomas Cantley: I did not interrupt the
minister, and I am not going to be interrupted now, if he will excuse me. We spent $47,000,000 on one portion of the St, Lawrence waterway before it was turned over to the commission, and all we ask is that one tithe of that amount be spent in the development of the port of Halifax. Then you can turn it over to the commission under the terms specified by the Duncan commission, namely for the purely administrative work which it was intended to do. If we look at the schedule attached to the bill to which I have already referred we see that if those rates were put in effect our friends from Annapolis would pay three cents on every barrel of apples shipped abroad from Halifax. That is only one iterp, but that item might run into say thirty thousand dollars per year to be paid by the apple growers of the Annapolis Valley. The schedule extends to scores of items.
The minister made some reference to the port of Hamburg, and to a large extent he was quite correct. Hamburg is not a free port from the point of view of its being free from harbour dues. Hamburg is as we know one of the finest ports in Europe. I am fairly familiar with what the free port of Hamburg means; I have seen it and have spent some time in the free area. The minister has intimated that perhaps no man on this side of the house would be in favour of a free port at Halifax. I would. What does the "free port of Hamburg" mean? Simply this, that a very Considerable area within the port comprises a free zone into which I can take my vessel and warehouse the cargo for a considerable time. I can bring other cargoes

Halifax Harbour Commission
there from other parts of the world; I can reassort those cargoes and after thus reassorting goods from my own and other cargoes, all warehoused within the free area, make up a cargo for any port in the world, having the advantage of a warehouse where no duty is paid and from which I can reship those reassembled cargoes in various parcels. A free port of that kind would be of very great advantage to the port of Halifax and to the maritimes-indeed to all of eastern Canada.
There is another phase of the free port of Hamburg, namely that goods can be taken into that port and be there reassembled and remanufactured. I am free to say that the manufacturing phase of the free port of Hamburg has not developed to the extent that was expected, and from that point of view it is not the success hoped for; but a considerable amount of remanufacturing is done in the free zone. At Halifax, for example, our automobile trade could bring together parts from this country, from the United States or anywhere else, reassemble those parts in the free zone and export them wherever they pleased. Those are outstanding features of a free port, and such a free port in Halifax, therefore, I submit would be of considerable advantage not only to Nova Scotia but to the whole of Canada. It would be impossible to establish it on the St. Lawrence, due to the impossibility of winter navigation. Now I would like to point out to the house on what we base-


Peter John Veniot: Before my hon. friend
leaves that, would he favour the port of Halifax as a free port for coal?


Thomas Cantley: There is no meaning in
the phrase "a free port for coal."


Peter John Veniot: Why?


James Layton Ralston: Does it not mean that
American coal can go in and be reshipped without duty?


Thomas Cantley: Are you going to manufacture it in the free zone? With all deference to the minister, I say there is nothing in the suggestion of a free port for coal, unless you are bringing that coal into the free zone.


James Layton Ralston: That is what we are talking about.


Thomas Cantley: And putting up coke ovens and manufacturing the coal into coke and gas. May I ask him how he would dispose of the gas and where he would propose to export the coke?


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend was speaking of a free port of Halifax, and I was asking whether he was objecting to free coal in the free port of Halifax.


Thomas Cantley: I will not object to free
coal in the free port of Halifax, as the Postmaster General's suggestion is ridiculous. Now I go back to the time of confederation, and what was told us then? That Halifax was to be the great national port of this continent so far as the British flag flew over it. How far have we fallen short of that? I ask any man in the house who is familiar with the events of the last forty, fifty or sixty years in this country, how much has been done for the port of Halifax?


An hon. MEMBER:: We have spent large
sums of money.


Thomas Cantley: I will admit that we
have spent large sums on the railway terminals at the port of Halifax. The Prime Minister spoke of that yesterday. It may be debatable whether the railway terminals should be located as they are. I am not going into that, but that is a development Which was essential to the Intercolonial railway and to the railway system of to-day. What could be done during the war years-


Mr. DIONNE:: Will the hon. member
permit a question? How long is the wharf at Halifax? Is it 100 feet, or 900?


Thomas Cantley: Twenty-four hundred feet. Mr. Chairman, with these interruptions I may close, except that I wish again to point out to the minister who preceded me that we view with all earnestness the essential facts in connection with this matter of harbour development. His bill does not give us what we expected to get; it imposes obligations which were not intended to be imposed by the Duncan commission. The minister suggests that no additional imposts were made. I think I have shown conclusively that they are, and that they are inescapable.	Sir
Andrew Rae Duncan refers to another phase if the matter, where he says:
The experience of the late war is fresh enough in mind to illustrate one phase of the national viewpoint and national necessity.
What will the harbour commission contribute to making a port that will meet the national necessity? How is it possible to create the additional machinery and plant necessary at that port and to maintain them entirely, pay the interest on the bonds, provide for the necessary sinking fund, properly

Halifax Harbour Commission
equip the port-and it is admitted now that the ports are not properly equipped-without imposing corresponding tolls on the business? And how is it possible to do that without adding to the expenses of the port?


James Layton Ralston: Nobody has asked that
that be done.


Thomas Cantley: The idea behind the
Duncan commission report is that the development of the port of Halifax should be carried out, and it must 'be made practically a free port, by virtue of which all developments must be at the national expense, and the interest on the cost must be borne by the nation as a whole.
Now, what has happened within the last three weeks or a month? It is understood that the Public Works department had been asked by the Railway department or somebody else to take over these docks at Halifax, and why? So that the railway will be relieved of the cost of maintenance of the docks and wharves and I admire the dexterity and foresight. of the minister who arranged it. That will be absorbed by the Public Works department. I would have no quarrel at all with that if it stopped there, but the next proposal will be that after taking those docks away from the railways they will be given to the Public Works department and then transferred to the harbour commission.


James Layton Ralston: They are transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, not to the commission. My hon. friend ought to look and see.


Thomas Cantley: Be it Public Works or
Marine and Fisheries, is the commission not to have control of all the docks in Halifax?


James Layton Ralston: The commission has control, but the commission is administrative. My hon. friend misses the point.


Thomas Cantley: I do not care what the
minister may suggest; they are going to pay the bills in the future.


James Layton Ralston: It is not intended that
they should pay the bills, and no commission yet has done so.


Thomas Cantley: I am sorry I cannot take my hon. friend's word for that. He will not 'always be in his present position.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend can take my word for what has happened in the past, namely, that no commission in Canada has yet paid the bills.


Thomas Cantley: I did not suggest they
did. Next year's crop of wheat is not grown yet; but when the commission gets into operation and administers the port, it will take over the wharves and collect tolls on goods landed on and over them.


Peter John Veniot: The commission will not
assume the liabilities.


Thomas Cantley: What liabilities? My hon. friend cannot get around 'the matter in that way. I know what I am talking about and so does the minister, but he will not admit it and speak accordingly.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will not (admit what is the fact.


Thomas Cantley: The minister wants me to admit something which is entirely untrue and which of course I a.m not prepared to admit.


James Layton Ralston: That is not the case.


Thomas Cantley: The fact is that by this bill we are not given what we were told we would receive. There is ample evidence of 'that and time will prove the truth of my assertion. I know there is very little use in .ap-"pealing to this government to do other than they are doing. We register our protest but such consequences will follow as a result from all acts which are unfair. In short, the government have failed to live up in their entirety to the proposals which indicated what we in the maritime provinces understood we were to get.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of National Defence this afternoon delivered a carefully prepared address with respect to the situation in Halifax, With regard to the extracts which he read from Sir Andrew Rae Duncan's report I can only say that it appears to me that if he had read a little longer and a little more fully, he would not have arrived at the conclusions at which he did. The report of the commission certainly contemplated that a statutory commission diould be appointed to administer two harbours, one at St. John and the other at Halifax. It did not in terms state that the commission should be a commission under the existing laws with respect to harbour commissions. There is with respect to harbour commissions a law under which the port of Montreal is organized and operated. There is a similar law under which the port of Quebec is operated. There is a similar law with respect to the harbour of Vancouver. There is also one with respect to the harbour at Chicoutimi-or is it Bagot-ville- and there is similar legislation
Halifax Harbour Commission

with respect to the harbours of Halifax and St. John. My conclusion is that the commission meant by the Duncan report was a commission created by this parliament especially for those two harbours of Halifax and St. John. That conclusion, if it were a court of law in which one were arguing the case, is abundantly clear from the language that is employed, because Sir Andrew Duncan refers to the fact that he visited the harbour of Montreal and observed the way in which that harbour was being operated but he does not suggest in terms that the commission should be that form of commission. He says that it should be a statutory commission and then he refers to the purposes for which it was to be organized. It was to be organized, first, to administer the harbour and, second, to make the merits of the harbour known so as to develop its trade. He says at page 30 of the report:
It is not possible, within a short space of time, to make good the leeway which delayed attention has created. But we must not. on the other hand, underestimate the rapidity with which development of traffic can be expedited through the development of facilities for handling the traffic (including requisite cold storage), and through making known, by all the sources that are open to the energetic administration of harbour commissions, in the shipping exchanges of the world, and to shippers, the facilities that are offered at any given port. It would be a function of the harbour commission to survey and study the possibility of developing the export trade of the maritime provinces. In the recommendation we make as to a public commission, we do not have in mind maritime province trade standing by itself. We have also in mind the development of that trade as a factor in the development of the port, co-ordinated with the very substantial nucleus of shipping traffic that already attaches to the ports of Halifax and St. John, and co-ordinated also with the other factors which the commission's organization would influence and direct. These include the wider export (including grain shipments) and import traffic that can be organized all the year round if the full advantage is to accrue to Canada from such arrangements as lie at the foundation of their policy in regard to trade through Canadian ports, railways, trade treaties, British preference provisions, and immigration.
Those were the two fundamental principles that were in the mind of the Duncan commission as expressed in the report itself. I think it must be abundantly clear that it was never in the mind of the Duncan commission that a body should be set up which would borrow money upon which interest had to be paid and in respect to which tolls would have to be collected, but rather that the port should be developed as a national undertaking. The language I have just read is susceptible of only that conclusion; it is a burden to be placed upon the Canadian people as a whole and not upon the mere shippers of the ports

of Halifax and St. John. It points out at some length the difficulty in organizing a port and expanding its trade where there has been the delay that has characterized the ports of St. John and Halifax. If that report means anything, it means that there has been great delay in developing these ports; that is what it says in its terms.
How were these ports developed? The port of St. John was developed by money put up by the citizens of St. John plus appropriations of public money from year to year for the purpose of building breakwaters and carrying on dredging operations.


James Alexander Robb: Mostly plus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, a very substantial
sum was plus, and a large part of that was probably minus, as perhaps the minister will agree, so far as ultimate gain to the port itself was concerned, because tidal conditions in connection with the development of the port of St. John-and I do not know whether they will be overcome now-made it one of the most difficult ports of America in which to carry on dredging operations successfully and to build breakwaters that would withstand the enormous seas that sweep from the bay of Fundy into that harbour when certain winds prevail. But let me come to the point. What clearly must have been in the mind of the Duncan commission was that we would develop these ports in the manner I have indicated, as a national undertaking, as it says, depending not upon the traffic of the communities themselves but upon the large traffic that might be developed by a vigorous and energetic harbour commission, a body not only administering the affairs of the port but developing its trade by means such as have been employed by the harbour authorities of Liverpool or, in more recent years, the harbour authorities at Southampton, to say nothing of the development of the port of London under Lord Devonport. That was clearly in the mind of whoever wrote the report. The development of trade and the directing of the attention of the world to the facilities that exist are emphasized.
Halifax has been one of the most efficiently operated ports in America. Its piers are so located, its facilities are so good, that it can handle certain kinds of traffic faster than any other port on the continent. It is favourably located for particular kinds of traffic. There are no cranes in Halifax, as in the great ports of continental Europe for taking care of heavy traffic. The handling of that form of traffic has not yet developed in the port of Halifax, but for the purposes of a steamship of anything up to 600 or even

Halifax Harbour Commission
700 feet in length going into one of the slips at the port of Halifax, there is probably no finer harbour anywhere. It has deep water, concrete wharves, good sheds, facilities of every kind for taking care of the class of traffic other than that handled by cranes.
In St. John, owing to the abrogation of the traffic agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the old government railways after 1921, when Mr. Graham declined to renew it, great impetus was given to the harbour of St. John as the "winter port of Canada, especially having regard to through traffic on. the Canadian Pacific railway. Unfortunately in many respects it became necessary for this country, because of the default of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to take over that system, and that meant that we ourselves were developing at the harbour of Portland a port that was a rival both of St. John and of Halifax. That was one of the results of the country being compelled, by reason of the falling down of the Grand Trunk in its obligations, to take over the line that runs into Portland. Everyone knows that in Portland we have very valuable terminal facilities, costing many millions, which were built by the Grand Trunk and assisted to some extent by the community in which they are located. At one time, perhaps not since the Minister of Railways has herd that portfolio, it was thought desirable to have these sold to the state of Maine or to the city of Portland itself. But leaving that aside, the fact is that you have there a port which is a competitor of our two Canadian winter ports, one the port of Halifax and the other the port of St. John. That is one of the complaints made by the people in the maritime provinces, that Portland is a competing port of Halifax and St. John. To meet that we are going to have a statutory commission. I do not disagree entirely with what was said by the Minister of National Defence this afternoon that form seems to be the difficulty between us. We are agreed that it is to be a statutory commission, but I submit that it was a special commission that was contemplated in the report of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. My friend the Minister of National Defence says: No, it is the ordinary commission organized under the general harbour commission law that we now have in Canada, with the same provisions that apply to the port of Vancouver or any of the other ports I have mentioned. Assume that we have a statutory commission-and my hon. friend is right when he assumes that we have; for it is a commission operating under the provisions of the general harbour commission
law; I think that is a fair way to put it. But we raise the' further point that in view of the findings made by the audit board with respect to the harbour of Quebec, that St. John harbour last year had an operating profit of $40,000 after paying interest on its investment from a gross revenue of $257,000-


Peter John Veniot: And sinking fund too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and taking care of
all the charges incident thereto-they had an operating profit of $39,000, to be exact, upon a gross revenue of $257,000. It is quite obvious, and here is the point upon which the Minister of National Defence and I and those associated with me disagree, that the condition that has developed at the harbour of Quebec is bound to develop at these two other ports if they carry on the trade that is so essential to competition with our own railway-owned port of Portland, and with the port of Boston and the port of New York. No man who has sailed out of St. John harbour and out of Halifax harbour into the north Atlantic in winter, and has travelled on the old Allan line out of Portland in days gone by, and who has proceeded out of the ports of Boston and New York, and has noted the vast improvements in recent years that have taken place in those American harbours, can fail for a moment to realize that if we are to develop and hold traffic for the ports of Halifax and St. John we must be able to offer facilities at least equal to those of any other port on the north Atlantic.
Now the moment you borrow $5,000,000 for the port of St. John-for it is borrowed, mark you-it involves the promise to pay; and when the Minister of National Defence says that a burden is not thereby being placed on the port, he must know that when either Halifax or St. John borrow money from the government and give a promise to pay, it assumes an obligation represented by debentures and bonds, to which are attached coupons, which are promises to pay interest. That is the point I endeavoured to make the other day. Every time, then, that the harbour commission of St. John borrows money from the Dominion government and gives its promise to pay, it has assumed an obligation, and no man would be more ready to admit that than my friend the Minister of Finance. That is the case with Quebec harbour. It has outstanding obligations, promises to pay, which for reasons that have been indicated it has not met. Halifax is to borrow $500,000 for this year. That means that the Halifax harbour commission has promised to pay $25,000 in interest to the Dominion

Halifax Harbour Commission
government, as well as sinking fund. It means more. When, three years hence, the harbour of St. John has completed its present program, it has promised to pay to the Canadian people $250,000 per annum, plus sinking fund. Now, sir, I put it to you and to every member of this house whether this is anything more than mere camouflage. If what the minister says is true, that there is no obligation to be incurred, let us say so in terms in the statute itself, and say we are granting this money to develop that harbour; let us do it direct and say we are giving, not lending, the money to develop that harbour. But, on the other hand, if we are merely swapping pieces of paper with ourselves, creating by a statute a body having power to issue promises to pay, which body will with our permission and sanction issue its promises to pay to us, which we will hold in the treasury, and when the interest comes due, and they find themselves unable to meet it, we shall have to find the money ourselves- that, it seems to me, is nothing but duplicity. It is for that reason-the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not unmindful of it-that we appeal to the government not to put these burdens upon these ports. What is it but a burden? What is it 'but an obligation? If I exact, as a condition of my lending to my hon. friend yonder a sum of money, his promissory note, has he not assumed an obligation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would have to pay it, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am happy to say
that my friend is in the fortunate position of being able to pay any promisory note he may make. But let us go a step further. I advance him $500,000 and he gives me his promissory note, with interest at 5 per cent per annum, payable say half-yearly. Will anyone say that the minister has not incurred an obligation, a liability, and that his fortune up to $500,000 is not liable for the repayment of that obligation? In this case-


Charles Avery Dunning: Suppose I could -not pay the interest, what would you do about it? I assure you I could not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend suggests, suppose he could not pay the annual interest. It would put him in the -position of being a defaulting debtor who might be made bankrupt; or I could put him in the position, if he had given a mortgage, of losing his property-foreclose and take the property in satisfaction of his obligation. Is that the sort of thing we want to do with these ports, hav-

ing regard to the report of the Duncan commission? I submit it is not. That is the whole story, and the whole difference between us.
Let us make -ourselves clear in this regard. On the one hand, we are all agreed that these ports must be assisted; we are all agreed that the port of St. John should have five million dollars within a period of three years to carry out the contemplated plan in connection with the first unit of its development; we are all agreed that the harbour of Halifax should have half a million dollars to take care of its present necessities as indicated by the minister for the present year. The government asks us to insist that these two ports Shall -give -us promises to pay these sums of money in a term of years, to be fixed by the government. We say that will involve, if it involves anything, the imposition of tolls for services rendered; for that is the only' way by which the respective harbour commissions could obtain revenue, unless we give them the money to pay the liability. If my friend has no money, except what his colleague the Minister of Finance gives him, with which to meet the interest charges which he owes me, or the obligations under the note that I have mentioned, the position is clear. All the harbour of Halifax and all the harbour of St. John have from which to derive their respective revenues is tservice. Each has to sell the space on the wharves- the top service, and each has the side service with respect to its berths. In addition to that it may collect certain other dues with respect to its facilities.
Mr. DUNNINlG: Grain elevators.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank my hon. friend:
grain elevators. Those are the services each has to sell. Now, if it. is meant seriously that they shall pay the annual interest, they can get the wherewithal to do so only by imposing charges for all the services they have to sell. I do not think that point needs to be laboured with this committee. But if on the other hand we frankly recognize that it is not intended to deal with the matter in that way, then we say: Here is the money to provide these facilities under the supervision of this parliament, under the supervision, as I said the other day,-I think the minister agrees with me-of the best expert advice that can -be given with respect to these two ports. Then we -are on common ground -and we have done the very thing which I submit is contemplated by the Duncan report.
In my opinion it is not important to consider whether this report used one word or

Halifax Harbour Commission
another. I am not attaching any particular significance to the specific use of a certain word here or there. What I am anxious about is that we Aould treat these two ports as great national ports-national in the sense of serving Canada as a whole, not the maritime provinces in particular-and by their utilization in this national way bring about that increased prosperity of the maritime provinces which their geographical position should ensure, and which is demanded in the interests of the Dominion as a whole. That is our position with respect to it.
Although the government has a sufficient majority with which to put this legislation through, I cannot think from what my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said, that he is not fully cognizant of the difficulties of the existing situation, and I accommodate myself largely to these measures because of the observations that he has made, because of the studies that he is instituting because of the reports that he will receive, because of the expert attention which is to be given to the matter by men under his direction, and because of the undertakings that have been given with regard to checks upon the expenditures. I do not expect interest will be paid by these ports upon the advances to be made if they are to do what we want them to do. Indeed I do not wish them to pay interest if they are to do what we expect them to do, because I know that with the competition from the north Atlantic ports to the south they will not be in a position to meet the interest charges. Because of these facts, I am content to limit my opposition to these observations rather than to divide the house on a matter of this kind.
There is one point with respect to which I think the government might have taken a position entirely different from that which it has taken. Page 31 of the report says that these commissions should be:
constituted of business and experienced persons.
I listened to what the hon. Minister of National Defence said to-day, I listened to what the hon. Postmaster General said the other day, and I impose but one single question upon them and upon this house: Would any corporation in the Dominion employ the men forming the personnel of those commissions for that purpose?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can go from one end of this country to the other and fail to find any corporation in Canada that would employ those men for that purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: The corporation of the city of Halifax employed one of them as mayor and as controller.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That but proves the very point I am making. Corporations do not employ men with qualifications as mayors to carry on their business. That is the answer.


James Layton Ralston: Another one has been managing director of a corporation for twenty years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all the more reason why he has not time to give to the duties of a harbour commissioner.


Peter John Veniot: No; you are talking about ability.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am talking about-the words used in the Duncan report, "business and experienced persons". What does experience mean here? It means knowledge derived from past practice in this particular work. Did any one of them have any experience in running steamers in and out of Halifax?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, in and out of St. John.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking of Halifax; I will come to St. John. Did any one of the three mentioned by the minister this afternoon have experience in managing a harbour? What is their experience? The Minister of Finance may have had experience, but he has not had experience in the practice of law. The Minister of Railways and Canals has had experience in the grain business, but that does not fit him-although he may think so-to run a railway. The Postmaster General may have had experience in dismissing postmasters, but that does not qualify him at all to be a minister of finance.


Peter John Veniot: What experience has the hon. gentleman had in running harbours to place him in a position to criticize those appointments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an unfair question. I was born by the sea.


Peter John Veniot: So was I. My hon. friend should not have left the maritimes so early in life. Has he gained the necessary experience in the west to manage harbours?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From my youth up I have been interested in matters affecting the sea.


Peter John Veniot: So have I all my life.
Halifax Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I have made it my business to learn something about great ports and harbours. But the answer I would make to the hon. gentleman is this: I am not offering myself as a harbour commissioner, either for St. John or Halifax.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is my privilege to
say I will listen to the hon. member.


Mr. GOTT:: Let the Prime Minister speak over there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ask your question.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was just
going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that following out logically the position which the hon. gentleman has taken-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: -would he be qualified some day to be Prime Mlinister of this country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In much the same way as his leader qualified in the United States,
I suppose. The language of the report was that they were to be experienced persons, and experienced persons in relation to harbours must have been men who had some knowledge with respect to the matters with which they would have to deal. That is my point. And I did impose this test, and this only: Would a great corporation employ these gentlemen for that purpose? That was the test I imposed, and it is not an unfair one. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence said that it was not a drawback which should prevent a person from finding service under the crown on a commission that he happened to be of a particular party in politics. I agree with him, wholly. But, where you have a national port, I do suggest that it would have been the proper thing to have at least insisted that the considerations prevailing in making the appointments were purely of a business character. And surely no three men would be selected in either Halifax or St. John, men experienced in business, one of whom would not have been a Conservative.


James Layton Ralston: There could not have been three experienced Liberals?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three men representative of business-because business is not so onesided that, if you selected the men for the qualities of experience and knowledge, one of them would not be a Conservative. Furthermore, and I repeat this, the tendency has

been to treat these matters as purely political, with the result that you have patronage, with all its attendant evils, in the administration of the commission. I pointed out therefore that the time had come when we should try to get away from a state of affairs such as that. It was not worthy of the Minister of National Defence to compare the appointment of men on a commission of this character to the appointment in 1926 as a returning officer, of a man who had been a candidate in 1921.


James Layton Ralston: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


James Layton Ralston: Isn't the position of the returning officer a judicial one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is both administrative and judicial.


James Layton Ralston: And does my hon. friend suggest that by 1926 he had lost the stripes and spots which he bore in 1921?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the least; but I say that he had been five years removed from an election. In the appointment of the tariff commission, however, hon. gentlemen saw fit to place a defeated candidate at the head of the greatest and most important commission -a gentleman who is avowedly a candidate for the next election. He was defeated as a candidate in a constituency largely industrial, and hon. gentlemen put him at the head of a tariff commission of such importance. It seems to me that this but indicates what is in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite when dealing with this problem.
I submit that the harbour commissions of St. John and Halifax, in view of the fact that the government has accepted the Duncan commission's report, should be lifted out of party politics, and that there should be secured the services of men who are not of one political party. That is all our suggestion was. Now, my hon. friend may properly say that you cannot expect this; he may contend that it is not reasonable, human nature being what it is, inasmuch as the supporters of the government would demand that these positions be given them and them only. I pointed out however that this was the very thing that had been happening all these years in Canada and that the time had come, with this report in their hands, when the government might hope to avail themselves of the wide knowledge and experience of men on either side of politics, one of whom at least should be a Conservative and who, surely, would be able to bring to the discharge of his duties that measure of impartiality and that recognition of unity of

Halifax Harbour Commission
purpose on the part of the nation itself which would accomplish the ends contemplated in the report. Such an appointment, we contend, should be free from the taint of purely party considerations of patronage. I realize the influences that operate in such cases and I thoroughly appreciate them. I quite agree with what the minister says as to the weaknesses of human nature and the proneness of men to wish to support their own friends. And that is but a reflection of the political condition in Canada. But here you have the report of a non-political body with respect to two great harbours like St. John and Halifax, urging that they be treated somewhat differently from other ports because they belong to the people of Canada as a whole and not to the Liberal party nor to the Conservative party. That is our point.


James Layton Ralston: The same with respect
to a returning officer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No wonder hon. gentlemen over yonder laugh. It is vastly amazing to think that the Minister of National Defence should suggest that the appointment of a man who, for a few hours or perhaps days, discharges duties under heavy penalties if he abuses the powers conferred upon him, being subject to fines and imprisonment in the penitentiary if he violates the provisions of the statute, can be compared with the appointment of men on a harbour commission. In the one case you have a man who happened to be a candidate in an election in 1921, appointed in 1926 as a returning officer, and in the other case you have the selection of three active partisans to discharge duties on a commission with respect to a great national port. And the Minister of National Defence suggests that there is an analogy between the two.


James Layton Ralston: Two of the three never
even ran at an election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not necessary to
run in an election in order to be an active partisan.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that was the
*thing that tainted this man and which he had got rid of after five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the minister is
not so small-minded as all that, although there is striking evidence in connection with certain operations in Halifax that he is. Any man who suggests as an analogy the selection of three partisan Liberals to manage a national port, a port owned equally by all
Canadians, Liberals or Conservatives, and the appointment as a returning officer in 1926 of a man who happened to be a candidate in an election in 1921, is going far afield indeed for his analogy. That is all I say on that point. It is the sort of thing one expects to hear from some people but not from members of the legal profession.
That is the position we take with respect to these two harbours, about which there need be no misapprehension. Largely because of what has been stated by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) as to the position which will be occupied in the future with relation to these ports by the commissioners, we are content to express our position and avoid a recurrence of what has taken place in the past in some of the Canadian ports. Surely the minister must know the conditions that have obtained in some of them-conditions, I said the other day frankly, under both political parties. It is in the hope of lifting these ports, as national ports, out of that condition that we made the suggestion which we did, as to the appointment of at least one of these men not reflecting the mind of the party in power. For if that condition continues and there is a change, out they go, just as occurred in Montreal in 1911, although it is true some resigned. Such a situation is one that cannot make for the advantage and benefit of Canadian national ports. It is for the very reason that these ports have come to be regarded as being owned by political parties and their friends that we have had the situation which has prevailed in Canada, as disclosed in the records of parliament the last few days, showing increasing deficits with respect to harbour administration. That is what we are trying to prevent, and it is to that end that we made the suggestions which we do as to the manner in which these ports should be dealt with.


William Anderson Black: I would not have referred to this matter had it not been suggested by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who referred to the selection of a defeated candidate as a returning officer. May I call his attention to the fact that, contrary to precedent, the sheriff of the county in an important election in Halifax not many years ago-a sheriff who had always acted well and faithfully and to the satisfaction of the electorate generally and who, I may say, is a Liberal-was thrown overboard and a defeated candidate appointed, a man who had been for a number of years a supporter of the Murray government. This man was always a strong Liberal and was chosen as presiding officer at that election.

Halijax Harbour Commission


Peter John Veniot: I should not like to allow
the debate to close without saying a few words, not on the merits of the development of the port of Halifax especially, but in order to direct the attention of the house to what I consider the unfair interpretation which the leader of the opposition has been trying to place on the Duncan report. The hon. gentleman told the house that we on this side, by introducing legislation with regard to the development of these harbours, were doing nothing more or less than practising deception and camouflage. I do not think for one moment that the leader of the opposition desired to practice deception and camouflage upon this house when he undertook to-night to read from the Duncan report words which might leave the impression that the Duncan commission desired and in fact recommended that Halifax and St. John be made national harbours in the sense that the harbours should be developed entirely at the expense of the Dominion. If the leader of the opposition had wished to be fair he would have read from page 29. From page 30 he read the following:
It would be a function of the harbour commission to survey and study the possibility of developing the export trade of the maritime provinces.
My hon. friend concluded from that statement that the Duncan commission did not intend that the harbour commission should have anything to do with the development of the facilities of Halifax and St. John.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I particularly pointed
out that one of the functions of the commission was to develop the port. I will not permit the hon. gentleman to make that statement unchallenged.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman only
read from page 30, and he cannot find those words on that page.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not permit the
hon. gentleman to say I said something which I did not say. I stated that there were two functions of that commission; I named them, and one was to develop the port.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman read
these Words:
It would be a function of the harbour commission to survey and study the possibility of developing the export trade of the maritime provinces.
He particularly directed the attention of this house to page 30; he read from no other page.


Mr. ERNST:: But he said so.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will just pay attention to himself I will do the talking. Had the leader of the opposition read from page 29 he would have found the proper words:
We recommend that, in respect of each of these two harbours, the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually-but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer.
The Duncan report definitely recommends that a commission shall be appointed to see to the development of the ports of St. John and Halifax.


William Gordon Ernst: A statutory commission.


Peter John Veniot: It could not be otherwise than statutory; with all his legal knowledge the hon. gentleman should know that. If there is anyone in this house who attempts to show his legal knowledge more than my hon. friend does, I should like to know who it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General is
not a lawyer, but he would consider himself a very poor one if he did not know as much law as some of those who pretend to speak from the legal point of view here to-night.
Let me go one step further. Again I do not wish to imply that the leader of the opposition did so wittingly, but he did deceive the house when he hesitated and did not read the second last paragraph on page 30. If you read that paragraph you can come to no other conclusion than that the Duncan commission desired that the harbours of St. John and Halifax should be dealt with as the harbour of Montreal is dealt with. Why do I say that? Because the Duncan commission commends the development of the harbour of Montreal in these words:	*
... and particularly at Montreal where port development has reached a very high level indeed. ..
' That development reached such a high level under the administration of a harbour commission.


Thomas Cantley: No, before there was a harbour commission.


Peter John Veniot: The development referred to has taken place only under the Montreal harbour commission. The development to which my hon. friend refers is not within the harbour of Montreal, and it was not done under a commission; my hon. friend criticized it because of that fact.

Halifax Harbour Commission
Now let me deal with one other point. The leader of the opposition claims that because we are lending a certain amount of money to the harbour commissions of St. John and Halifax we are thereby imposing a burden upon these harbours.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Peter John Veniot: But my hon. friend and
the gentleman who said "sure" forget that if you secure development of the facilities necessary to care for the trade which will come to these ports, you will increase the volume of business and therefore increase the revenue without raising the dues in the ports. The port of St. John has been increasing its traffic annually, not only in grain, but in mixed exports, but notwithstanding the fact that the dues have been lowered from six cents to one cent a bushel, for top and side wharf dues the revenues of the port have gone up, the dues paid by shipping have been lessened and the business has been increasing. If you give to St. John and Halifax the facilities necessary to meet the large increase of business which will go through those ports you will impose no extra burden upon the shipping interests. You will increase the revenuse without imposing extra fees, and in increasing the revenues you will place these ports in a position to pay interest at a proper time on the investment made by the commissions.
The leader of the opposition referred to the experience of certain gentlemen in this house, and he took the liberty to refer to the experience I have had in dismissing postmasters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: Let me tell my hon. friend that perhaps I have had more experience in dismissing postmasters than he has had, but I am only following in his footsteps. I have a record which shows that the leader of the opposition took delight some years ago in ordering the dismissal of certain postmasters in the county which he represents, distinctly stating in his letters to the then postmaster general that he did so because they were Liberals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
having referred to a document, by the rules of the house he is now compelled to lay it on the table. I should like to see it.


Peter John Veniot: I will produce the document with pleasure, and will lay it on the table of the house when I take up my estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now is the time to do it.


Peter John Veniot: I will do it to-morrow; I
will bring the original here, so that the hon. gentleman will be satisfied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is more, there is no doubt that the government of 1911 laid down the rule that if any defeated candidate or member of the house made a report over his signature, the minister might act upon it. That rule was adopted by this house when Sir Wilfrid Laurier led the opposition.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then why complain
about the operation of the rule to-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it is not being
followed.


Peter John Veniot: This discussion has gone
far afield, and the leader of the opposition can blame only himself for my reference to this matter to-night.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What about
Gaspe last year?


Peter John Veniot: I will answer my hon.
friend when the time comes. I had not intended to refer to this matter to-night; I was going to reserve it for when my estimates came up, so that I would be able to show the hon. gentleman his own signature on letters asking that this very thing be done for which he blames me now.
Now, another point. The leader of the opposition referred to the political aspect of these harbour commissions. It is true that the harbour commission of St. John is composed of three Liberals. It is also true that :he junior member for the city of St. John (Mr. Bell) in his speech the night before last supporting the appropriation of $5,000,000 for St. John harbour, stated that they were three honest, able, executive men, and that St. John was proud of them.


Mr. JONES:: Did he say that they had
any experience?


Peter John Veniot: No, he did not say that,
but the hon. gentleman will say that there is one man who knows more about the harbour of St. John than perhaps all the other citizens of St. John put together-


George Burpee Jones: Who is he?


Peter John Veniot: William E. Scully; and
the hon. gentleman will not deny it if he wants to be fair. Everybody knows that, no man in St. John to-day has had more experience pertaining to the harbour business of St. John than has W. E. Scully.


George Burpee Jones: What about the chairman?
Halifax Harbour Commission


Peter John Veniot: The chairman is a business man of the highest standing in St. John. He has been one of the leading men in helping to plan the development of that harbour and to put forward its claims, on delegations appearing before the government, to the rights that have so long been denied the port of St. John.


George Burpee Jones: Who denied them?


Peter John Veniot: Your government and this government both. I do not give credit to one more than to another, because neither Conservative nor Liberal governments since 1867 have treated St. John or the other harbours as they should have been treated.


Peter McGibbon: They are surely coming into their own now, are they not?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, since the Liberal government, in the present legislation, are doing what hon. members on the other side do not want us to do.
Now, as to the political complexion of the gentlemen composing the commission of the harbour of St. John, I believe the hon. members from the city of St. John will bear me out when I sa'y that the St. John board of trade, which is supposed to be a non-political body, is composed largely of followers of the Conservative party.


George Burpee Jones: No, that is not so.


Peter John Veniot: What do you know about
it? I had a delegation wait upon me in the city of Ottawa last winter when the harbour commission bill was before the House of Commons, asking me if I would accept from them a recommendation for the appointment of members to that board. I told them that I was prepared to allow them to make recommendations, and I would decide myself whether or not I should accept them. They submitted to me three names, and the three names were those of Liberals.


An hon. MEMBER:: No chance for anybody else.


Peter John Veniot: The members of the board of trade who waited upon me were not Liberals, but Conservatives. They submitted to me the names of Alexander Patterson, W. E. Scully and the Hon. W. E. Foster. Of the three names submitted to me I accepted two, and I picked out the third myself in the person of Colonel Alexander McMillan, of the city of St. John. When those men were appointed, the newspapers in the city of St. John, which are none too friendly to the Postmaster General or to the government of the day, came out with commendatory articles

complimenting the government of the day on the nomination of three such capable business men as those named on my recommendation. I want to say plainly, because I want it to be distinctly understood, that in naming commissions or other bodies I am not going to take from any of the Conservative party my advice as to their political complexion, and in that respect I am only following the practice adopted by the Conservative party themselves when they were in power.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was not here this afternoon when this discusssion commenced; consequently I may be among those who rush in where angels fear to tread. But after listening to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Veniot) I am sure I shall not be absolutely alone if I do happen to be considered as coming within that class.


Peter John Veniot: Neither of us would make a good angel.


Finlay MacDonald: With
one thing that has been said I heartily agree, and that is that both governments for a number of years have been denying justice to the maritime provinces. That observation strikes me as particularly appropriate when I hear people talking about the harbours of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, representing as I do a harbour that is naturally of far greater strategic importance than any of them and that has been denied justice during all these years. We know and we have heard of the millions of money that have been spent in Montreal. Every year since I have been here a bill has come down to borrow so many more millions for Montreal. This year we are giving $8,000,000 more to Quebec. For a number of years the island of Cape Breton has been denied the benefits of its proved advantages simply because financial prestige and financial influence has been strong enough to centre the developments at the two ports of. Montreal and Quebec. Some twenty years ago an experiment was made by which Atlantic boats landed mails and passengers at Sydney harbour, with the result that they were landed in New York and in Montreal twenty-four hours ahead of mails and passengers carried by the same boats to Montreal or Quebec. The time will come when what our friends down in the corner call economic pressure will compel the appropriation of the sums necessary to the development of those ports which are geographically best situated to meet the demands of transatlantic travel.

Halifax Harbour Commission
From the discussion that has taken place since I came into the chamber I am somewhat in doubt as to just what is the present position of this matter. The question as I understand it is this: that we are lending to the harbour commission at Halifax the sum of half a million dollars and in return for that we are getting their promissory note. Do I understand the Postmaster General or the Minister of National Defence to say that the traffic which goes through that port will not have to pay interest on that money? If that be the case then I am in favour of the proposal; but I cannot see how under present circumstances, with the development of the port in the 'hands of the commission, they are ever going to develop traffic enough to pay the additional cost.
There was some difference of opinion as to what this recommendation in the Duncan report meant. There was a keen difference of opinion in the city of Halifax itself and I remember reading discussions that took place there, among members of the board of trade and other representative business bodies, whether or not they would accept this recommendation. Many leading business men were strongly in favour of the vieiw expressed by the leader of the opposition, namely, that the port of Halifax should be built up as a national port; and on t'he other hand we must admit that there was among those who wished to secure positions, a keen desire that a commission should be appointed and that the commission should receive salaries. I understand that a free port, a nationalized port, is one in which no tolls are imposed on traffic going through it.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know of any port in the world in which tolls are not charged on traffic passing through it?


Finlay MacDonald: I
would say that certain tolls must be charged.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Finlay MacDonald: But
the point I am making is this: As I understand the contention of the Postmaster General, and possibly that of the Minister of National Defence, it is that the additional tolls necessarily imposed through the creation of this commission will not entail any further impost on the traffic going through that port. Is that correct or not? There is no getting away from the fact that the government is making on the traffic that is going through Halifax an impost that will cripple that port. We are now appointing a commission of three persons. They will necessarily have a staff, the expenses of which will run into $12,000, 56103-154
$15,000 or $20,000 a year. In addition to that there are interest charges amounting to $25,000 a year, and a sinking fund; so that I venture to say that the traffic going into Halifax harbour will have to bear an additional impost of at least $50,000 a year. I should like to have some member on the government side explain where the extra traffic is to come from that will keep the tolls at the present level. If the government can do that, I am quite prepared to support this legislation; otherwise I think the position taken by the leader of the opposition will commend itself to the good judgment of the people of Halifax.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister tell the committee just what this amount of $500,000 is to 'be expended for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The items are as follows:
Improvements and additional equipment to wharves, piers and sheds. $290,000 Improvement to elevator system, ineluding conveyor galleries		00,000
Additional port equipment, including a locomotive crane and a fuel oil bunkering plant	 150,000
Total	 $500,000


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give
some indication as to what is to be turned over to the harbour commission, or will anything be turned over to it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So far no existing facilities in the harbour of Halifax have been turned over to the commission. The facilities are the property of the Canadian National Railways and the commission is negotiating with the board of directors of the Canadian National in regard to acquiring the facilities which the Canadian National is using at the present time. The Canadian National estimate the facilities which are going to be turned over to the commission at $12,722,617. There is also the grain elevator system, valued at $1,000,000, and the site, valued at $46,000. It appears, therefore, that the facilities which are to be handed over to the harbour commission are valued at a little over $13,000,000.


William Anderson Black: Do I understand
from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the items he has mentioned are to be paid for by the government? Or are they to be paid for by a toll placed upon the traffic now passing through the port of Halifax free of any such impost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That depends upon the
terms of the transaction. As I said, the Halifax harbour commission is negotiating with the Canadian National and the latter will



Halifax Harbour Commission
probably ask for compensation. But I should be inclined to say that the commission will not be asked to pay any interest on the amount necessary for the purchase of those facilities from the Canadian National.


William Anderson Black: That is, those
expenditures will fall upon the traffic moving through the port?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Anderson Black: Who meets them? The government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The government will have to supply the necessary money for those expenditures when the facilities are turned over to the commission. But as I said, it is not expected that the commission will have to pay any interest on that amount, so that when the facilities are transferred to the commission they will not have to impose any dues to pay for them.


William Anderson Black: We are thankful
to get the money free of interest, but it seems the most extraordinary proposition ever laid before any body of people that you are lending money on bonds and saying: You will not have to pay interest on them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not saying that.


Mr CANTLEY:: The .minister referred to
a new coal bunkering crane. WTiere is it proposed to put that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Probably on the docks
which are at present occupied and used by the Canadian National.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister describe again the type of crane?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The additional port equipment includes a locomotive crane and fuel oil bunkering plant.


Thomas Cantley: The crane is to replace
the bunkering crane that was formerly on pier 9, a crane that is capable of doing-I will be conservative-ten to twenty times as much as the crane to which the minister refers. That is the first step that is to be taken to improve the facilities of the port of Halifax under this commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We cannot start to improve very materially the facilities of the harbour of Halifax until we have acquired the facilities which already exist there. The first step is to take over those facilities, and then the necessary means will have to be taken to improve them. The commissioners have a program for the expenditure of $3,000,000,

which will probably be submitted to parliament next session, but this program cannot be undertaken before they have acquired the property which is at present under the control of the Canadian National.


Thomas Cantley: On pier 9 there was
erected a bunkering crane which bunkered thousands of vessels during the war. That crane was allowed to blow down within the last twelve or fifteen months. It should have been replaced; it could have been re-erected at a moderate expense. Instead of that our friends propose to supply a locomotive crane costing five or six or ten thousand dollars- whether new' or second-hand I do not know, but it will be entirely inadequate for the purpose for which the original crane on pier 9 was used. That is the first thing that Halifax is going to get from this precious commission. I commend that to the minister's attention.


Robert Gardiner: When these facilities
are acquired from the Canadian National system, is it the intention of the government to turn them over to the commission without any capital or interest charges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That would be my view.


Charles Avery Dunning: The properties in question belong not to the Canadian National Railways but to the Canadian government railways, which are operated by the Canadian National. It is part of the Intercolonial system, which simplifies the transaction very much.


Robert Gardiner: I take it, then, that
part of the old Intercolonial is still a part of the property of the government. I think the government should treat Halifax in the same generous way in which they have treated St. John. Has the minister any information as to the amount of grain that passed through the elevator at Halifax during the past year and the year previous? I should like to know whether or not the movement is increasing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1925-26 the amount was 1,032,624 bushels, and in 1926-27, 1,070,099 bushels.


Robert Gardiner: Not much of an improvement.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the figures for this year.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the elevator
capacity at Halifax for handling grain?

Railway Act Amendment


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to
say, because that elevator was built through the agency of the Department of Trade and Commerce. But I am informed that there is an increased capacity.


Thomas Cantley: It is 1,200,000 bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the minister say that there was a plan with respect to Halifax harbour involving a larger sum than $500,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What sum is involved?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over a period of years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the proposal which is supposed to come next year after the present facilities have been acquired, and after the commission has had an opportunity of studying the whole problem and making recommendations for improvements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister the details of that proposal? If so, perhaps he would outline it briefly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The program includes a
chid storage plant, additional shed at ocean terminals, addition to elevator and conveyors, fuel oil bunkering plant, marine leg at elevator, and a mobile crane.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 220, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Perhaps if I make a short general statement as to the purport of the bill the house will accept the principle and discussion can with greater facility take place in committee.
The grade crossing fund administered by the board of railway commissioners has not been used throughout Canada to the extent which is considered by the government to be desirable. After a careful study of the reasons why this fund is not of greater use for the purpose for which is was created, the government reached the conclusion that several limitations in the existing law operated to bring about that result. One of the limitations is
56103-154J
to the effect that the fund shall not be applied to a crossing of more than four tracks. Another limits to $25,000 the maximum amount which may be granted under the existing law to any one crossing. Another limitation has to do with crossings which have come into existence since 1909, to which, under the present law, the grade crossing fund cannot be applied.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been applied?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps that would be a more correct way of putting it. The amending bill eliminates the restriction to crossings of four tracks and less, and leaves that to the discretion of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The amending bill also provides for a 40 per cent grant to be made by the Board of Railway Commissioners out of the fund with respect to crossings costing in the aggregate up to $100,000; over $100,000 in total cost the contribution from the fund may be 40 per cent, but not to exceed $100,000. By these provisions the government hopes to insure a wider use of the grade crossing fund than has been possible under the existing legislation. I have some information here with respect to the use which has been made of the fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From year to year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not from year to year, no. The total number of crossings which have been affected by the fund since its inception in 1909 is 520. But in this connection it should be stated that with respect to 44 of the 520 the grade crossing fund has been used on two or more occasions. That will give the house an idea of the extent to which the fund has contributed to making more safe railway crossings throughout the country. I think all will agree that this result over a period of almost nineteen years is not attacking the problem as vigorously as we should desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the total sum expended?


Charles Avery Dunning: From April 1, 1909, to March 31 last the total expended out of the fund was $1,368,354. I think those are all the particulars I need give at this stage. When the bill is in committee and members have before them the legislation as proposed, and on the opposite .page the legislation as it exists, it will be possible more intelligently to deal with the questions which may arise as to details. In proposing the second reading I am merely asking the house to accept the principle that the grade crossing fund should be more widely utilized. This will be rendered
Railway Act Amendment

possible by removing the limit on the number of crossings and by increasing the amount which the board may grant with respect to any individual crossing.
Mr. 'SPENCER: How much has parliament voted to this fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: I omitted to mention that. Parliament votes $200,000 each year under a provision in the Railway Act. This statutory provision expires in 1929. My hon. friend will notice that by the amending bill I am not proposing to extend that period. I thought it wise to get one year's experience of how the new amendments work before proposing to the house any extension of the statutory period, provided for first in 1909 for ten years, and in 1919 for an additional ten years.


Mr. MANION:: How much does the fund amount to now?


Charles Avery Dunning: I should explain that
prior to 1919 the fund was actually allowed to accumulate, and there still remains an unexpended balance in the fund, accumulated up to 1919, of $631,645. Since that time the statutory votes have not been physically set aside, the principle adopted being to expend out of the fund accumulated up to 1919. The total available under the statutory provision, including that balance, is $2,631,645. This is available for the railway commission to order grants, to be applied under the grade crossing statute.


Robert James Manion: That is made up of the
balances that would have been laid aside had you accumulated them in one fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It is callable by the railway commission?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. EVANS:: What is the nature of the crossings dealt with?


Charles Avery Dunning: Any crossing of a railway over a highway, or of a highway over a railway-any kind of grade separation is contemplated by the legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose
to speak at length with respect to these proposals, beyond pointing out that when the legislation was initiated it was for the purpose of taking care of small country level crossings.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.
>


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not contemplated that large and rich communities should be assisted by the fund. I recall that the late Judge Mabee when chief commissioner of the railway board was very careful to see that only the smaller communities that could not afford the luxury of large expenditures with respect to grade separation were assisted out of the grade crossing fund. I have never been able to understand why this fund has not been availed of to the extent that it should be. Hardly a month goes by that we do not see in the newspapers accounts of fatal level crossing accidents. From what the minister says there must be at least half a million dollars out of the fund available, ear marked by the country, in addition to the statutory votes *which would have been available had the board been requested to take action, I recall only one case in which the late Chief Commisioner Mabee recommended that money should be made available from the fund to assist a small country community in Alberta to provide a subway as against a level crossing. It will be recalled by hon. members that automatic bell signals have been installed at some of these level crossings. I fear the existing legislation may be used to divert this sum between now and 1929, when the present legislation expires, to large undertakings involving contributions of $40,000 or $100,000 from the fund. I cannot think the country understands that the fund is available. Only some five hundred odd cases have been dealt with in a period of nearly nineteen years, or about thirty a year, and the total sum expended amounts, as the minister has just said, to less than a million and a half dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know
whether any large expenditures are contemplated such as I have referred to. I think the fund should be used in providing protection or separation of crossings in small communities where fatal accidents occur far too frequently.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will deal with that
feature when the bill is in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we should
have some assurance that the minister has no specific cases in mind in putting through legislation for the purpose of assisting the larger communities, but that we could make it our business to say to the smaller communities interested that they could have a portion of the fund for their purposes. I know that

Railway Act Amendment
there are portions of Alberta in the constitu-eney of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) in which a substantial number of level crossings might be greatly aided by this fund. This is the only observation that I have to make with respect to this experiment-because it is only an experiment, inasmuch as the legislation expires in 1929.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Railway grade crossing fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)- the point with which as minister I am most concerned-is the endeavour to work out something which would enable the legislation to be really effective for the purpose for which it was originally designed. There is one possible explanation as to why the grade crossing fund has not been more widely utilized by the smaller municipal communities, and that is the fact, as a reference to section 262 will show, that the principle is laid down that in connection with crossings which came into existence after 1909 the railway company assumes the whole of the responsibility except where a highway comes into existence after the railway is built. That brings about the condition that the grade crossing fund really is not made to apply in very many cases to railway crossings which came into existence after 1909. There is in the present statute, however, an exception- that the railway companies may enter into agreements with the municipality. The bill now before the committee proposes that in cases where crossings came into existence even after 1909, in the event of the railway company making an agreement with the municipality, the grade crossing fund may in future contribute towards the cost of such crossings. That is quite a broadening of the application of the fund as compared with the farmer condition referred to by the leader of the opposition. In western Canada, in the locality to which my hon. friend refers particularly, there are of course a very large number of crossings which came into existence after 1909. In fact, one might almost say that the majority of the crossings in western Canada came into existence after that date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not dangerous level
crossings where there are old trails.


Charles Avery Dunning: But in many cases new
villager have sprung up and grown into
towns since 1909, and crossings which at first were not considered by anyone to carry any considerable element of danger are now subject to increased traffic. The increase in traffic, and the change in character of the traffic, have altered completely the whole problem during the course of the years since 1909. In future, then, under the legislation now proposed, in any case in connection with crossings constructed since 1909, in which the railway company and the municipality come to any agreement, the Board of Railway Commissioners may make a contribution from the grade crossing fund. This formerly was not possible.	.
With regard to the large communities, I know the leader of the opposition will be surprised when I tell him that even under the existing statute the major contributions in the past two or three years have been to the city of Toronto, even with the $25,000 limitation and the 40 per cent limitation as well. A considerable number of grade separations have taken place in the city of Toronto during the past few years, and that city has been wise enough to take advantage of the $25,000 per crossing. Some of the municipalities have also taken advantage. of it, although not to the extent that we could desire. There is of course another reason, which hon. gentlemen representing rural communities particularly in the west will appreciate, why even with the $25,000 limitation it has not been possible for rural municipalities to avail themselves of this legislation to any considerable degree. That reason is this: that even one subway in a municipality represents, for a rural community, a very large contribution, notwithstanding that 40 per cent of the cost is borne by the grade crossing fund and another proportion by the railway itself. Add to this the further fact, to which I have referred, that crossings built since 1909 have not up to now-received any benefit from the fund, and you; will probably have an explanation as to why the fund has not 'been utilized to a greater extent.
There is another limitation to which I referred on the second reading-a limitation which it is difficult for me to understand. I refer to the four-track limitation. Even out in the country, or adjacent to villages, there are very many places where more than four tracks are involved in a very dangerous level Crossing and which at the present time could not under any circumstances benefit from the grade crossing fund. I am proposing in the bill to eliminate that four-track limitation and to leave it to the good judgment of the
Railway Act Amendment

Board of Railway Commissioners as to whether in any particular case six or eight or any number of tracks shall be considered by them.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise at this stage not so much to criticize the bill as to suggest to the minister that if he is broadening the operation of the fund to the extent he indicates, then within a year or two there will be no fund left. This is a danger which I am rather inclined to think he has overlooked. With regard to these small rural communities, is not this fund intended to provide them with warnings like automatic bells, gates and so forth?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then if,
within a year or so, the fund were used up and these small towns were without any supply of proper warning signals, they might find themselves in a different situation. To the various reasons given by the minister for the restricted use of the fund by western municipalities in the past, I may add that of ignorance of its being available. In my opinion most of them were not aware of the existence of the fund. The secretary of a municipality may have received a copy of the act and filed it away, and when any railway crossing problem arose no one in the council ever dreamed of such a fund as this. It could not therefore be taken advantage of. If the existence of the fund and its availability were made known to the municipalities in the constituency of my hon. friend from Macleod, or in Peace River and other places where there are crossing problems, I have no doulbt the minister would find the raids on the fund a good deal more frequent than they are at the present time. I would ask the minister, particularly with regard to the increasing of the amount from $25,000 to $100,000 and the broadening of the application of the act to include six, eight and ten lines of tracks, involving the larger communities, whether he does not think that within a short time the fund will be consumed.


James Dew Chaplin: Under the statute is there not a constant building up of this fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is the point.


James Dew Chaplin: Why has it been allowed to drop?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to deal with
those two points together. On the second reading of the bill I mentioned that until 1909 the actual deposition of the money was carried on. There was at that time a con-

siderable accrual in the fund, and the government of the day decided that nothing more should be allowed to accumulate until the then existing fund was used. That fund has lasted until to-day, and $600,000 still remains. However, I should point out to my hon. friend from Lincoln that the $600,000 actually in the fund does not represent the limit of what is available. Under the law $2,600,000 is available, representing in addition to the $600,000 remaining some $2,000,000 of accruals since that time, which the Minister of Finance would be called upon by the Board of Railway Commissioners to pay.


James Dew Chaplin: Under the statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Now with reference to the point made by my hon. friend from Bow River, I think the chief reason is not so much that suggestion of ignorance to which he referred, because the railways themselves are very much alive to it. Whenever a grade crossing problem arises in any section of the country the first thing the railways do is find out whether by any chance the grade crossing fund could be made applicable. The reason is that it is limited to crossings constructed prior to 1909, and the great change which will take place is to make available the grade crossing fund to crossings constructed after 1909 but only in cases where the municipality agrees to contribute. We are not in any sense removing the responsibility which rests upon the railway in cases where the railway is junior to the highway or upon the highway where it is junior to the railway, but by this bill we are saying that if the two agree to do the job, they may get a contribution from the grade crossing fund. In that way I am hoping to make it applicable to a much larger number of the crossings which have come into existence since 1909.


Thomas Cantley: If the minister will look
into the history of this legislation I think he will find that with reference to four-track crossings the underlying idea is that when the railway occupies the space of four tracks it should look after the crossing. We have crossings over six, eight or ten tracks, and in those cases manifestly the railway should protect the crossings. When there is only a single or double track the case is a little different.
I am quite sure that is the underlying principle, and I think upon reflection the minister will agree with me. As far as the accumulation of that fund is concerned, I am afraid the difficulty is that we have not been advertising it; many sections of the country are not

Railway Act Amendment
aware that these contributions may be made.
I think there are hundreds of crossings throughout the country in connexion with which the municipalities would take advantage of that legislation if they were aware of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one point which
will perhaps clarify for my hon. friend what I have in mind. There are very many crossings in the country of four tracks or more where the railway is senior to the highway; that is to say, the railway was there first, and in such a case it is a general principle of law that the highway must pay for the crossing. When the highway is there first it is a general principle of law that the railway must pay for the crossing, and in the newer sections of the country in particular there are cases in connection with rapidly extending cities or towns which are entered by country roads where crossings have been made necessary by developments which have taken place since the construction of the railway. In those cases the railways urge the old principle that he who is there first has rights which come first. It is true that the railway commission have very wide powers, and I am not laying down this principle of seniority as an absolutely fixed principle, but in general it is well known that he who is there first has rights for which he who comes second must pay if he desires to cross.


Thomas Cantley: Let us finish this out.
What the minister suggests is true; in many cases the railway wtas there first, but perhaps with only a single track. Due to the growth of the town and of the railway accommodation necessary to meet that growth, the tracks have been extended to two, four, six, eight, or perhaps ten. I submit to the minister that these conditions should be met by new regulations.


George Reginald Geary: Apparently the minister is
not aware of the practice of the board of railway commissioners. As far as seniority goes, when the seniority belongs to the -highway the board of railway commissioners laid down the principle long ago that this does not apply. They are inclined to apply it when the railway is senior, but where the municipality with its highway is senior you get very little comfort from the present board of railway commissioners. There is no question about that at all. As I understood it, the bill which the minister is now introducing in place of the old regulation provides that in cases of crossings which have come into existence since 1909, where there is an agreement under which
the municipality undertakes to pay a share of the cost of construction, a contribution may be made from the grade crossing fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: I think upon a little reflection the minister will see that that is not fair. A crossing which existed in 1909 later requires protection; travel either over the railway or the highway has increased so much that protection becomes necessary. It has been the policy of the railway commission for many years to be very niggardly in ordering contributions from the fund, with the result that the fund has accumulated, but of late years they have seen a little more reason and contributions have been larger and more frequent. However, this situation arises:	The road
allowance has been crossed by the railway since 1909; that road allowance may not be paved and may not be even a road. In very few cases is there an agreement between the municipality and the railway as to the future protection of that crossing when protection becomes necessary, so your bill would apply in only a very few cases. That some crossing, which has come into existence since 1909, later becomes a crossing where danger exists; the road becomes paved and travelled; the automobile traffic makes it a road which must be protected. In such a case you are going to prevent the board from making any contribution from the grade crossing fund under the terms of the bill, because it says that you can make a contribution only where there was an agreement between the railway and the municipality at the time whereby the municipality agreed to assume a share of the cost of protection.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think that is
right.


George Reginald Geary: That was the way the
resolution read.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not so in the bill;
the resolution was necessarily a condensation of the bill. With reference to that point I would say that in the first place I did have in mind presenting to the house the suggestion that the grade crossing fund might be made to contribute to any crossing whether it was constructed prior to 1909 or since, and I expected to meet the contention, which would have been sound, that thereby we would be relieving the railway companies of a responsibility which is now theirs under the existing law. Under the present law the railway companies are held to be responsible, subject only to these variations which have
Railway Act Amendment

to do with the question of which is senior, the highway or the railway. I thought it would' be broadening matters considerably if in connection with crossings built after 1909, wherever an agreement, say, is made now between the railway and the municipality, not having been entered into when the crossing was built, we should permit the grade crossing fund to contribute. If we broadened it to apply to all crossings I can assure the committee we would need a much larger contribution to the grade crossing fund than parliament has been making up to the present time. A statement was made as to the likelihood of the fund disappearing in a very short time as a result of these amendments. I would say in reply to that that this fund was instituted _ for the purpose of building grade crossings, and whereas parliament intended that $4,000,000 should have been expended to date in this work, as an actual fact only $1,300,000 has been expended. Parliament has been setting money aside not fot the purpose of accumulating a fund but in order to help solve the grade crossing problem, which has become more acute from year to year. Municipalities have not been taking advantage of the fund, but these provisions are designed quite frankly to bring about a spending of the money for the purposes for which the grade crosing fund was created. Perhaps the criticism is sound that the raising of the limit to $100,000 is too much. But I have had many consultations with the Board of Railway Commissioners during this year regarding the matter, and this is the outcome of a careful examination made not only by myself and the officials of the department but also by the Board of Railway Commissioners and their staff. May I remind the committee that I made that examination as the result of a debate which took place in this house last year and in the course of which complaint was made on all sides that the grade crossing fund was not being made use of. I undertook that during the recess there an examination would be made by the Department of Railways as to the reasons, and undertook to come down this session with legislation which would tend to broaden the operation of the grade crossing fund and if possible increase its use. This is the result of the undertaking I gave to the house a year ago in this regard, and it is the best thought of myself as well as of those who have been most closely connected with the administration of the law, and who are decidedly in favour of a solution of the level crossing difficulty. Important labour bodies, including the locomotive and train men, have 	j
taken a very keen interest in this legislation; they have studied it and have intimated to me that in their view a decided improvement can be brought about by the distribution of the fund under the terms of the bill now before the committee.


George Reginald Geary: Clause 1 of the bill enacts
a new section 262. At the end of the first page these words occur:
The board shall not apply any moneys out of the railway grade crossing fund towards the cost of the actual construction work, for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of any existing crossing (railway crossing of a highway or highway crossing of a railway), at rail level, constructed after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nine, unless and except an agreement, approved of by the board,- has been entered into between the company and a municipal or other corporation or person by which agreement the municipal or other corporation or person has agreed with the company to bear a portion of the cost of the actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of such crossing
Now the minister will see that that is exactly what I said. Suppose a crossing has come into existence since the first day of April, 1909, affecting probably not a made road but a laid out road; in not one case out. of a thousand, I have no doubt, has the railway agreed to contribute to the construction of that crossing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend refer to an agreement made when the railway was built?


George Reginald Geary: Yes, that is my point. A
railway runs its line across a road allowance. When the time comes for the protection of that crossing, what the minister says is that at that time the municipality and the railway shall get together and make an agreement whereby the municipality agree to pay some part of the cost. If they do make an arrangement of that sort and the allocation of the cost then comes before the railway board, the board may order a contribution to the fund. But can you imagine any such case arising? By this bill a municapility may be driven into making an agreement in regard to a crossing in a case where it expects that being senior and the law being in its favour it can escape making a contribution. The minister has said that the municipality cannot receive a contribution unless it makes an agreement to contribute, while it hopes at the same time that it shall not be called upon to make a contribution.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
has not read the existing law. Section 260, which is not affected by the present bill says:

Railway Act Amendment
In any case where a railway is constructed after the nineteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and nine, the company shall, at its own cost and expense, unless and except as otherwise provided by agreement, approved by the board, between the company and a municipal or other corporation or person, provide, subject to the order of the board, all protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of any crossing of a highway by the railway.
Therefore the present law is that the onus is entirely on the railway company with respect to crossings coming into existence after 1909, but they may make an agreement with the municipality. I did not think parliament would want to get into the position of relieving the railways of any portion of that liability under section 260, but I did and I do think parliament would agree, in case a municipality deems it. important enough in its own interest to agree to pay some part of such a crossing, that the grade crossing fund might properly be asked to contribute. I should point out that at present no contribution from the grade crossing fund is possible with respect to any crossing built after 1909. If I understand my hon. friend's view correctly, he would have that condition continued and the responsibility left wholly upon the railway companies.


George Reginald Geary: No, left on the railway board to order a contribution, with a fund out of which a contribution could be made by the Dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend then advocates that the responsibility should be removed from the railway companies


George Reginald Geary: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: -to the extent that even in a case where the municipality is contributing nothing, where the railway company is discharging merely its legal liability under section 260, he would have the state contribute to the railway company for the purpose of constructing the crossing.


George Reginald Geary: N!o, because it will be found that, despite section 260, protection is rarely ordered in respect of crossings constructed since 1909. That is the point I am making.


George Gibson Coote: What action will be necessary by a municipality to secure a grant from this fund for the creation of a subway or elevated crossing or for the erection of any other method of protection at a crossing, in regard to crossings both before and after, but principally before, 1909?


Charles Avery Dunning: I fear that in answering these questions I shall come under the lash
of the leader of the opposition for posing as an authority. Least of all do I desire to pose as a legal authority in matters of this sort or, indeed, of any sort. I know a member of the legal profession is an expert in connection with all other professions and I am not a member of that distinguished body. I can answer only as a layman and, of course, as the minister responsible for the bill. I hope my hon. friend will not take any legal advice I may give him as being necessarily sound; but I would say that a letter from any municipality to the Board of Railway Commissioners would bring back definite information as to the method to be pursued, having regard to the circumstances surrunding the particular crossing-for instance, whether it came into existence before 1909 and whether the railway or the highway was there first. When I say "highway" I do not mean a constructed highway but a road allowance dedicated and set aside as a highway. All these things could be developed; but in general one might say that at the present time where a crossing has come into existence prior to 1909, the first motion on the part of a municipality would be to apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners for an order compelling the railway company to undertake the necessary grade separation or other protection. That would be the procedure prior to 1909, but I presume the municipality will have a lawyer and can get advice from someone more reliable than myself in matter of legal opinion.


George Gibson Coote: I am much obliged for the opinion. In case the railway commission decided, that some protection should be provided, what share, if any, would the municipality be called upon to contribute in regard to a crossing in existence prior to 1909? Does the act state that?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; that is within the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I had a review made of cases that have come before the board in order to endeavour so far as I could to establish some general principle, but there was so much variation in the conditions prevailing as to make it impossible to say, as a result of that study, that a certain definite principle was applied. In general, however, the railway commission say that the cost shall be assessed against the junior party to such crossing, but this rule is subject to variation where the necessity for the protection work is largely due to the increased traffic of the senior party over the crossing. That enters into the calculation and into the judgments that have
Railway Act Amendment

been given in this regard. I take that to mean "this in a specific case: Suppose you have a road allowance in existence prior to 1009, and a railway in existence over it prior to 1909, but in 1909 the road allowance was not used at all; it was not a highway. Only recently, by reason of growth of traffic, has it become an effective source of danger. That factor is taken into account by the board in its determinations in relation to crossings in existence before 1909. It must be remembered that after 1909 section 260 governs the situation.
Mr. C'OOTE: I ask the question for this reason: There are quite a number of crossings that are really dangerous, some of them on highways to which the Dominion government has contributed. The municipalities, if they knew of the existence of this legislation and the possibility of having some contribution made, would at least foe interested in the matter, and I am endeavouring to get from the minister some information which will be of assistance to them. Could the minister tell lis-and if he cannot tell us he can say where we can get the information-what different types of protection may be erected at grade ^crossings, that is, gates and bell installations. He might also state whether these gates are automatic or whether they must have a man to operate them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Subsection (4) of section 1 of this bill reads:
In this section "crossing" means any railway crossing of a highway, or any highway crossing of a railway, at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway by the elevation or the depression of the one above or below the other, or by the diversion of the one or the other and any other.work ordered by the board to be provided as one work of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of one or more railways of as many tracks crossing or so crossed as in the discretion of the board determined.
That means, first, a subway; second, a bridge; third, the elimination of a square corner which crosses the railway twice by providing a- road diversion along the railway; fourth, any other works for the protection of a railway crossing, for instance, gates, signals, and so forth.


John Evans: I am glad this question has come up in parliament this year. Level crossings constitute a tremendous problem, and if we are going to solve it by the construction of subways only, an immense amount of money and a great deal of time will be required, while tragedies will be going on in the meantime. It may be said that on the prairies the problem is not so acute because you can see a train in the distance, yet many
tragedies occur there. It is quite often the case that a man who is drifting at an angle of sixty degrees or so to a railway has his fur collar drawn up over his ears and he cannot hear or see the train coming. I have known of serious accidents occurring from that very cause. I think we should give some consideration to the means of making these crossings throughout the country safe. It might be made the subject of research by scientific men. If it is a bell that is needed, that does not cost so much, but we should find out what is the best means at the least cost. Not only are lives lost, but I understand from engineers with whom I have been in conversation that after one or two such accidents they are hardly fit for the control of their train in the future. I have been told also by conductors and engineers that quite often a motorist will hit the second or third car, because so many people do the wrong thing when suddenly faced with danger. It seems to me that either a bell or a red light or both should be installed at practically every crossing. I do not think any provincial highway should be built without providing safe crossings, or having at least some warning device. This subject might well be placed before the research council with a view to finding out the very best means of making level crossings safe, and of having this fund applied to that purpose.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I wish to subscribe to and endorse what my hon. friend from Rose-town has said. It is a problem that we must face sooner or later in the prairie provinces at any rate. While the most of our country there is level, a very slight difference in the elevation of the land will sometimes make a great difference in visibility. Just last week there was a very serious accident at Clair, in my constituency. An automobile was struck by a Canadian National train; one woman was instantly killed, the baby died in hospital two hours later, and the man is now lying in hospital and not expected to recover. While it is open prairie country at this place, the railway track is probably seven feet above the level of the ordinary land, and the person approaching the crossing finds his view more or less obscured by box cars standing on the siding. I can quite understand, because I have travelled over that road myself, how anyone might easily miss seeing the train at the crossing. To instal even an electric bell is quite an expense and quite a problem for the ordinary rural municipality. Even the cost of upkeep of some of these devices, I presume, would be quite considerable, and where the railway winds in and out, sometimes crossing the

Railway Act Amendment
highway two or three times within a mile, it is indeed a problem. But sooner or later we must face this whole problem and try to find some appliance which will give the proper warning and be so reasonably cheap that the ordinary rural municipality can shoulder its share of the expense.


Mr. FRASER:: I am thinking of an entirely different situation in British Columbia. Since 1909 both the Grand Trunk- Pacific and the Canadian Northern have been built through that province. Heretofore we have not come under the operation of the act, but now it is proposed to bring under the operation of the act, to a certain extent, the railways constructed before 1909.


Charles Avery Dunning: Wherever an agreement exists. In the case of British Columbia the province could enter into an agreement.


John Anderson Fraser: Throughout the length of these railways there are no municipalities. It is all unorganizezd districts, and the province takes charge of the road work. I understand the minister to say that the province can enter into an arrangement to secure assistance from this fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Could recourse be had to the fund in the case of the building of new roads in these unorganized districts?


Charles Avery Dunning: New crossings of highways?


John Anderson Fraser: Yes. In my district a large program of construction is going on at the present time, with the roads paralleling and sometimes crossing the two railways I have mentioned. There may be quite a number of cases of that kind throughout the province, and I was wondering if the government of British Columbia could have recourse to the grade crossing fund in connection with crossings over these new highways.


Charles Avery Dunning: If there was a sharing
agreement between the authority, which in that case would be the province, and the railway, I would say yes, unquestionably. Of course, in the case mentioned by my hon. friend the highway would be junior to the railway and I could not attempt to say exactly how the board of railway commissioners would view the relationship of the province or the municipality, as the case may be, to the railway. But. it is certain that under this legislation, if an agreement came into existence, they would be able to obtain the benefit of the fund.


John Anderson Fraser: The province has never
made application to get assistance from this fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets that it is not in existence until we pass the bill.


John Anderson Fraser: The fund has been in operation for quite a number of years, because the Canadian Pacific Railway was in operation before 1909, and all crossings on the Canadian Pacific would be entitled to the benefit of this fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the details before me, but looking over the five hundred odd cases I find there were cases in British Columbia. As to what authority made the application through the eighteen years, I cannot say.


John Anderson Fraser: But there were applications?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly, and contributions have been made with regard to crossings in British Columbia. I do not think there is a province in the Dominion that has not received some assistance from the fund during its operation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the sole decision as to whether the safety device to be provided shall be a light or a bell or a subway rest with the board of railway commissioners?


Charles Avery Dunning: My own interpretation
of the statute-and again I speak with all deference to the lawyers present-would be that the board has the jurisdiction.


George Reginald Geary: That is the practice.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the practice to submit to the judgment of the board as to the type of device to be installed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the report of their engineers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: No matter what
safety devices are provided, if it is a level crossing accidents will happen. The only safe crossing is the subway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or the bridge.
Mr. ROiSS (Kingston): Why not have a greater number of them provided along the old highways crossing the old Grand Trunk? Is it a matter of economy? Should not the consideration of safety be the biggest factor in the decision?
Railway Act Amendment


Charles Avery Dunning: That opens up a very real and a very wide question, the whole question of providing for safety at crossings, having regard to the tremendously changed conditions in recent years with respect to vehicular traffic. So serious has the problem become in the United States that in several of the states hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended by the state in order to deal with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Especially in the middle west.


Charles Avery Dunning: Especially in the states of the middle west, which are perhaps more analogous in topography to our own western country. I can assure the house that this is but a very small start on the railway crossing problem in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Like the beautification
of Ottawa.


Charles Avery Dunning: With reference to what my hon. friend so properly suggested just a moment ago, and also the members for Rosetown and Mackenzie, I should state this. The member for Kingston touched upon it when he said, no matter what form of protection you have, short of grade separation, you are going to have accidents. That is borne out by the fact that last year in Canada seventy-five automobiles hit the sides of moving trains-the sides; they ran into the trains instead of the trains running into them. Several of those accidents were fatal. I have not at hand information as to the number of gates that were carried away by motors, but several hundred cases occurred last year. That illustrates the point made by the member for Kingston, that so far as our present knowledge goes it appears that nothing is effective except .complete grade separation. But I do think we are making a real advance in the use of this fund as now proposed. After all, it is intended as an encouragement to the parties responsible, the railways on the one hand and the municipalities on the other, by way of contribution from the fund accumulated to develop further works of every kind by way of protection or grade separation.
But I must say that the observation of my hon. friend from Kingston conflicts with the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition at the opening of this discussion, that it is desirable to apply the assistance of this fund to as many .crossings as possible in country districts. That protection of course in most cases takes the form of gates, lights or bells, instead of grade separation. I am

personally of the view, having regard to the experience we are having at the present time, that the more of this fund we devote to actual grade separation the better, even if as the years go by we have to ask parliament to put up a more substantial contribution in order to enable the work to be continued. In Nova Scotia and some other of the eastern provinces very valuable work is being done in the form of road diversion; that is, where the railway cuts across a winding road twice in a short distance one of the crossings is eliminated by diverting the road. This work is being studied both by the .railway engineers and the technical men of the railway commission as a means of dealing with the situation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Occasionally the danger at a level crossing is increased by obstructing the view. I know a case where a lumber company put up a house at the corner of a very dangerous crossing. Is this covered by the bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 258 of the Railway Act, not touched by this bill, reads as follows:
The board shall, without limiting any general power elsewhere conferred, have power, for the purpose of diminishing the danger at any highway crossing with any railway heretofore or hereafter constructed, to order
(a)	that any trees, buildings, earth or other obstruction to the view, which may be upon the railway, or the highway or any trees on any adjoining lands, shall be removed;
(b)	that nothing obstructing the view shall be placed at such crossing or nearer thereto than the board designates;
and for any such purpose the board shall have power to authorize or direct the expropriation of any land, the acquirement of any easement and the doing of anything deemed necessary, and shall have power to fix and order payment of such compensation as it deems just.
It would appear that the board has power to deal with obstruction of view either on the railway or the highway.


George Reginald Geary: At the expense of the
crossing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 258 does not say so. It gives the board power to order.


Arthur Edward Ross: Two cases have
come to my knowledge where a coroner's jury drew the matter to the attention of somebody, but nothing was done. In one of those cases another accident has since happened.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the onus would
be on the municipalities to take action; they are the bodies most intimately concerned.


George Reginald Geary: Will the minister take this
into consideration? Prima facie, any crossing

Railway Act Amendment
coming into existence after 1909, as the minister has indicated, is at the expense of the railway. This proposed section is entirely in ease of the railway. If the crossing requires protection, by separation or otherwise, the 'board should order the protection and put the cost on the railway, where it belongs under section 260. Now you are tempting the railway board to resist the demand of a municipality for protection at a crossing by saying to them: We can give you a contribution towards this protection out of the grade crossing fund, but you must first go to the railway and make an agreement whereby you will assume a portion of the cost; whereas under the law you are not bound to contribute anything towards that cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: Since we have got to
understand what was in each other's mind I have been thinking of that. The answer is simply this: There are of course cases since 1909, as I mentioned before, where,, while the highway is senior so far as dedication is concerned, yet it is in fact junior so far as use is concerned.


George Reginald Geary: Trust the railway board to
get out of recognizing any seniority for a municipality.


Charles Avery Dunning: In such cases the railway board cannot order the municipality to pay anything under the existing law. Neither has the board power to contribute anything towards the protection of such a crossing; but the board may, and in operation frequently does, vary the general rule to the extent of not making an order against the railway company where it appears to the board that there should be some responsibility upon the municipality owing to the circumstances. I am informed that that has been the view of each succeeding chairman of the board with respect to variations which necessarily occur in the administration of this act over so wide a territory and so many thousand miles of railway.


Mr. MILLAR:: Are any figures available to indicate whether or not accidents are more numerous at double-track than at single-track crossings? I recall a terrible accident that took place because the driver of a car containing some five or six people believed he was approaching a single-track crossing. There were two freight trains passing, one going east, the other west. He waited until the westbound train had passed and then drove his car on the track just in front of the east-bound freight. The engine of the train travelling east had blown the whistle but the two
engines were close together and in that way the accident occurred, causing the loss of three lives, I believe.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not aware of any statistics which indicate a distinction between double track and single track crossings. I can inquire and let my hon. friend know.


Peter John Veniot: In provinces where municipalities have nothing to do with highways, clear of cities and towns, what is the form of co-operation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The province has charge.


Mr. KAISER:: In all these cases where accidents have occurred and crossings are dangerous there is one outstanding difficulty: who shall make application to the railway board? The municipalities hesitate because they are under the impression that if they ask for protection the board will take the view that they should pay in proportion to the degree in which they require the protection. In my opinion there should be some automatic means by which the more dangerous crossings where accidents occur shall be taken care of. I have in mind two or three crossings in my own constituency where accidents have occurred not once but repeatedly. The municipality is afraid to go before the board for fear the board will ask it to pay more than it should. I contend that where an inquest has taken place the findings of the coroner should be forwarded to the board and some investigation automatically ensue, to determine to what extent such a crossing is dangerous and what should be done in the circumstances.


Charles Avery Dunning: That suggestion is in practice now; the railway commission investigates every accident of that description. But as to evolving any automatic method whereby the proportion of cost could be predetermined, without such judicial hearing as the board brings to bear, I am afraid my hon. friend is setting me a task I cannot accomplish. I do not think it would be possible. I believe the judicial hearing before the board is the only way of determining the matter. The circumstances vary so widely from one end of Canada to the other that I do not think any rule could be laid down. But it is an absurdity to presume, as some municipalities de presume, according to my hon. friend, that the board will be influenced in the amount they assess against the municipality by the fact that the municipality has applied for the crossing. I do not think there is any foundation at all for that impression. While I recognize that my hon. friend has knowledge of
Railway Act Amendment

the particular case to which he has referred. I can only assure him that there is no foundation whatever for any such idea.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It has prevailed in two cases I know of. In one instance-the crossing at the Grand Trank Railway station going out of Oshawa-the question has been discussed for three or four years of providing a subway. The railway is endeavouring to get the municipality to make the application, and vice versa.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Do I understand the minister to say that this is available in a case where a provincial highway crosses a railway?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, on the same terms as any other crossing.


William Russell Fansher: In the older provinces the old act would apply to most crossings.


Charles Avery Dunning: To quite a proportion.


William Russell Fansher: I have in mind a crossing on provincial highway number two in Ontario, the main highway from Toronto to Windsor, where last fall there was a serious accident. The municipality tried to get a subway and it seemed that the railway board were reluctant about granting it. Every few years there is a serious accident there. Nearly every year someone is injured and probably every three or four years someone is killed at that crossing. The crossing was straightened this year and a warning bell put in. It does seem to me that on a provincial highway, where the traffic is as great as that, some pressure should be brought to bear to have a subway provided. I know that this municipality is very much disappointed that a subway has not been secured, because the traffic is very dense on that particular highway. It is one of the most heavily travelled highways in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the railway resist it?


William Russell Fansher: I could not
say.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give the number of applications made, and state what has been done?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have given that information twice already.


Arthur Edward Ross: But the minister
must admit that along the Grand Trunk alone there are dozens of highways on which people are killed every summer, and nothing is done.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must say that this
legislation, no matter how we shape it, can-

not possibly eliminate all level crossings, and wherever there is a level crossing someone will be killed sooner or later. That is axiomatic. I cannot promise that this is any more than it purports to be, an effort to make more elastic certain provisions which have been in the law for eighteen years, and to enable money to be expended which up to now the law has not been sufficiently clastic to permit bo be spent for the purpose intended. I am not in a position as minister to discuss individual cases. I do not know the circumstances referred to by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), but he might himself find out, from the records in the office of the Board of Railway Commissioners, just why it was in that particular case that an order was not made. The information is public and is readily available to him. If the board set out to order a subway at every crossing in Canada where a fatal accident has occurred, they would soon break our railways. The railways could not stand the cost..


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Are all accidents-reported to the board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What is the use of getting
the reports unless something is done?


Charles Avery Dunning: They investigate every
case. That is the law.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the section carry?


Charles Avery Dunning: Report progress, Mr. Chairman; the clock is striking eleven. I shall have to bring the matter back again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At 11 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 27, 1928