1928-04-18

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.
Sixth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Kay.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Hay the fifth report of the committee on banking and commerce was concurred in.

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

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Is the government carrying on any work in forestry pathology in the province of British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is the staff and what is the amount of money spent during each of the last three years?
3.	Does the government of Canada engage in the work of forestry conservation in the province of British Columbia?
4.	If so, what has been the expense thereof?
5.	In view of the great devastation amongst the forests of Canada due to disease, is it the intention of the government to further increase the work of forest conservation and forest pathology?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Agriculture-
1.	If this question includes forest entomology the government has carried out a great deal of research work as outlined in reply to question 3.
2.	Forest entomology in B.C.
1925-26	1926-27	1927-28Staff	
6	7	8
Expenditure.. S9.033.79 $12,068.14 $12,045.42
3.	Yes. In addition to other work of this kind the Dominion Department of Agriculture has paid special attention to injuries by forest insects in British Columbia. For the past six years the division of forest insects of the Dominion entomological branch
has been investigating the extensive forest insect outbreaks in British Columbia. Its officers have studied the insect outbreaks wherever large amounts of timber were being destroyed, have devised and recommended methods of control, wherever possible, and have undertaken the supervision of control measures that were instituted on their recommendations by the provincial forest branch and the Dominion forest service. Through the effect co-operation of these three organizations a large amount of valuable timber has been saved during the past few years.
This work has in the past been devoted chiefly to the control of extensive outbreaks of bark-beetles in yellow pine. The bark-beetle control work has now been brought to a successful conclusion and recently the investigations have been extended to include bark-beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, and other timber trees, injury by the western cedar borer, and other destructive forest insects.
4.	As stated under question No. 2.
5.	Under consideration.
Department of the Interior-
1.	Aside from pathological work on wood performed in the forest products laboratories in this service at Vancouver; and aside from the incidental pathological problems which come to the attention of our forest protective and administrative organization, no special provision has been made by this service for forest pathological study.
2.	Impossible to segregate incidental charges to pathological studies.
3.	Yes.
4.	The forest service expenditure is as follows:-
Forest protection	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28 Total
(a) Forest administration silvicultural			
research		.. .. $225,940 33	$309,653 89 $184,886 47 $720,480 69	
(b) Forest products res. labs.	Van-		
couver and Montreal.. ..	.. .. 22,332 56	27,644 13	30,248 35 79,625 04
	$248,272 89	$336,698 02 $215,134 82 $800,105 73	
Forest fire protection expenditures	in national parks situated in British Columbia-		
Park	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28
			Jan. 31
Yoho	... $ 967 00	$1,629 00	$2,960 00Glacier	. .. 988 00	284 00	1,570 00Revelstoke	. .. 1,028 00	1,419 00	1,473 00Kootenay	.. .. 1,410 00	2,166 00	1,468 00Total	. .. $4,393 00	$5,498 00	$7,471 00

Questions
Wardens' salaries and expenses-			
Park	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28Yoho	S 6,693 40	$ 8,176 63	$ 8,216 99Glacier	4,860 43	4,646 17	4,659 08Revelstoke	1,696 41	2,099 97	2,075 43Kootenay	5,766 91	8,058 08	6,920 14Total	$19,017 15	$22,9S0 85	$21,871 64Forest telephones-	Yoho	S124 78	$1,032 58	$694 20Revelstoke	60 00	109 85	48 75Kootenay	200 10	59 95	105 69Total	$384 88	$1,202 38	SS48 61Fires-	Jan. 31Yoho	$ 298 40	$16,138 00	$ 46 04Glacier	1,324 76	1,107 95	69 51Revelstoke	9,409 58	10,288 04	74 41Kootenay	1,801 79	43,937 73	9 00Total	$12,834 53	$71,471 72	$198 96Fires in National parks of Canada situated in British Columbia 1918-1927 Mr.	DISPOSAL OF TUMMON:	PUBLIC PROPERTYYear	Cost of extinguishing1918- 19	
$	186 041919-	20	
636	651920-	21	
2,269	551921-	22	
450	751922-	23	
2,460	191923-	24	
1,549	671924-	25	
622	611925-	26	
12,834	531926-	27	
71,471	721927-	28	
198	961.	Is there a salvage department maintained by the government for the disposal of government owned machinery, equipment and such like?2.	If so, under what department of the government are said salvage operations carried on, and who is in charge of the same?3.	Is the equipment and machinery offered for sale in each case by public tender?4.	What publicity is given the advertisements?5.	If not offered for sale by public tender, how is disposal made?


Mr. RINFRET:: 5. Yes.


$92,680 67 POPULATION OP CANADA
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	What is the present population of Canada?
2.	How many now resident in Canada were born in Canada?
3.	How many resident in Canada are British born?
4.	How many resident in Canada are foreign born?
1.	Yes.
2.	Government contracts supervision committee; L. R. LaFleche, secretary, L. H. Beer, salvage officer.
3 and 4. Unless required by another department of the government, invitations to tender are sent to all persons and firms known or thought to be interested and (or) by (a) public notices (b) advertisements in the press.
5.	See answer to 3 and 4.


STEAMSHIP HOCHELAGA
Mr. MALCOLM:: -
1.	Estimate as of June 1, 1927-9,519,000. Latest census (1921)-8,788,483.
2.	6,832,747 (1921 census).
3.	1,065,454 (1921 census).
4.	890,282 (1921 census).


Mr. WARD:: 1.	Is there a contract between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Hoche-laga Shipping and Towing Company, Limited, for the operation of the ss. Hochelaga between Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Pic-tou, Nova Scotia?
Questions

2.	When does the contract expire?
3.	What are the terms of the original contract?
4.	Who is the manager of Hochelaga Shipping and Towing Company, Limited?
5.	What are the passenger fares charged?
6.	Has the Hochelaga been under charter or contract to any other department of the government during the past three years?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	November 30, 1928.
3.	The original contract, dated July 21, 1924, provided for a regular daily service, except Sundays between Pictou and Charlottetown, from June 1 until October 31 in each year, from 1924 to 1928 inclusive; subsidy to be payable at the rate of $5,000 for each full month's service, or such proportion thereof as may have been earned. On March 22, 1927, a supplementary contract was signed, extending all the provisions of the aforesaid contract, to cover the months of May and November in each of the years 1927 and 1928; subsidy to be payable at the rate of $5,000 per month for each of the said months. The contract contains the usual provisions in regard to the carriage of mails, approval of freight and passenger rates by the minister, etc., as are common to all subsidized service contracts.
4.	John Simon, Esq., Halifax, N.S.
5.	Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Company,
Limited. Passenger fares 1928
One way fare	$3
Return	5
Commercial	2
Automobiles, small	5
Automobiles, large	6
Automobiles, extra large	7
Meals	1
6.	Yes. Department of National Revenue (preventive service) period 1st April to 15th May, 1927.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Mr. MANION:: 1.	How many schools in the province of Ontario receive financial aid under the Technical Education Act of 1919?
2.	How many schools in each of the other provinces receive grants under this act?
3.	Does the government contemplate the withdrawal of financial support now provided under the Technical Education Act of 1919?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Answered by No. 2.
2.	Number of municipalities conducting day classes in Canada and receiving grants under the Technical Education Act: British Columbia, 15; Alberta, 3; Saskatchewan, 3; Manitoba, 5; Ontario, 32; Quebec, 10; New Brunswick, 8; Nova Scotia, 1; P.E. Island, 1.; Number of municipalities conducting evening classes in Canada and receiving grants under the Technical Education Act: British Columbia, 39; Alberta, 9; Saskatchewan, 2; Manitoba, 1; Ontario, 57; Quebec, 21; New Brunswick, 8; Nova Scotia, 24; P. E. Island, 9.
3.	The act does not terminate until March 31, 1929.
Note: As there is no uniform definition of the word "school" and the provincial statistics are based on different conceptions of what constitutes a school, the number of municipalities conducting day and evening classes, and receiving grants under the act, and not the number of schools, is reported to the Department of Labour.


CUSTOMS INQUIRY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What were the remuneration, living expenses and other allowances received by each of the commissioners in the recent customs inquiry, and to whom paid?
2.	What was paid to counsel engaged in the case by the government in respect of remuneration, living expenses and other allowances?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.
Living Travelling and allowance other expenses Hon. J. T. Brown. ..$8,600	00	$1,436	00Hon. E. Roy	
7,650	00	1,342	62Hon. W. H. Wright..	7,600	00	898	73Sir Frangois Lemieux	
1,032	13*
Including expenses of secretary.
2.	Living Travelling and
Fees allowance other expenses
Hon. N. W. Rowell	$44,060 00	$3,230 00	$3,140 84R. L.	Calder	
21,038	00	3,375	00	1,138	32G. C.	Lindsay	
8,685	71	3,885	00	1,056	66R. B.	Law	
10,142	85	4,085	00	888	59W. F.	O'Connor	
7,400	00	270	00	141	41

Questions
MR. ALBERT ELLIOTT	.


Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	Is Albert Elliott of River John, Pictou county, in the employ of the federal government?
2.	If so. what is his position?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	What other applicants were there, if any, for this position?
5.	Was it made by the civil service, and, if so, when and how were applications called for the same?
6.	How much to- date has been paid Elliott for his services?
7.	At what rate is he being paid?
8.	What part of his duties, if any, are performed in the county of Colchester?
9.	What expenses, if any, have been allowed Mr. Elliott for services performed in Colchester county ?
10.	What seizures, if any. have been made by Mr. Elliott since his appointment?
11.	What previous qualifications, if any, did Mr. Elliott have for this position?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Special customs-excise enforcement officer.
3.	Chief, customs-excise preventive service.
4.	No record of any for this position up to time of Mr. Elliott's appointment.
5.	No. Appointment made by the Honourable the Minister of National Revenue. Vide subsection 4, of section 2, of the Department of National Revenue Act and of the statutory adoption of the provisions of votes 352 and 540 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928.
6.	Salary-$1,050; expenses-$26.20.
7.	$1,200 per annum.
8.	Officers in the preventive service are a mobile force and are apopinted for the whole province and not for any particular county. Mr. Elliott's duties at times take him into Cumberland, Coldhester and Pictou counties.
9.	See answer to question No. 6. No record is kept of expenses incurred in any particular county.
10.	Two excise seizures.
Note: General reports from divisional chief state very little smuggling along shore in vicinity of Tatamagouche during past season.
11.	No previous experience as law enforcement officer; chosen principally on account of his character and knowledge of the district.


TOURISTS
Mr. ROBINSON:: What sort of control, if any, is the Department of Immigration exercising to ascertain
that any individual entering Canada as a tourist has returned home after the period of time he may have stated when passing through the hands of the immigration officials on arrival?


Mr. FORKE:: Control in any doubtful case is exercised under the provisions of section 13 of the Immigration Act which provides that an officer may require a deposit of money as a guarantee that any person admitted to Canada as belonging to any of the non-immigrant classes Shall leave Canada within the time agreed upon at the time of entry. In view of the tremendous volume of tourist or nonimmigrant passenger traffic it would be impossible to ascertain that every person of this class left Canada, e.g., during the fiscal year which ended on the 31st of March, 1927, approximately five million people entered Canada at Niagara Falls and 8,828,220 jenitered Canada at Windsor.


RAILWAY AND PEACE RIVER LANDS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to bring in a bill this session enabling them to negotiate with the province of British Columbia for the transfer to that province of the railway and Peace River lands?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to negotiate an agreement with the province of British Columbia for the return of these lands to the province on the basis of equity suggested in Commissioner Martin's report?


Mr. STEWART:: 1.	It has been, found that legislation is not necessary.
2.	It is the intention of the government to carry on negotiations with the province of British Columbia during the recess with a view to the transfer to the province of British Columbia the ownership and control of the said railway and Peace River lands.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	What were the quantities and values of the imports and exports, also duty collected on (a) raw wool and worsted tops of wool; (b) sheep skins; (c) mutton and lamb; (d) manufactured or partially manufactured products of wool, not including raw wool or worsted tops, for each year ending March 31, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927?
2.	What was the total of the above-mentioned imports and exports for the said five years?


James Malcolm: I table the return.
21o5

Question as Order jor Return
1.	Imports:
Fiscal years ended March 31	(a) Raw Wool, Worsted Tops, Noils and Gar-netted Wool Waste	(b) Sheep Skins	(c) Mutton and Lamb	(d) Wool Mfrs. excluding Raw Wool, etc., shown in Column (a)	Quantity	Value	Duty	Quantity	Value	Duty	Quantity	Value	Duty	Quan- tity	Value	DutyPounds	$	$ cts.	Pounds	s	$ cts.	Pounds	s	$ cts.	s	$ cts.1923..	. 1924..	. 1925..	. 1926..	. 1927..	.	27.568.702 28,045,421 20,430,983 30,010,785 24.751.703	9,604,713 11,341,189 10,947,487 9,766,742 10,311,807	654 52 76 50 281 00 2 00 517 67	2,129,224 3,436,713 3,519,105 3,205,099 3,117,524	350,200 722,551 1,038,908 1,065,052 885,574	None	1,460,130 1,561,528 1,301,637 1,382,657 1,721,453	261,382 271,100 221,596 269,145 298,813	42,785 68 46,845 84 38,079 38 36,431 11 34,878 34	Not avail- able	36,129,668 35,977,179 36,667,416 36,26,9,440 40,263,946	9,153,226 72 8,392,640 57 8,480,043 84 8,436,183 42 9,463,858 33
Exports. Canadian produce
Fiscal Years ended March 31	(a) Raw Wool	(b) Sheep ^ Hides and Skins	(c) Mutton and Lamb	(d) Wool Manufactures	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValuePounds	s	Pounds	$	Pounds	*	$1923 	8,667,409	2,363,931	5,141,100	659,620	3,610,100	847,233	391,5031924 	6,009,079	1,947,234	2,509,200	417,434	1,716,100	403,860	Not	407,5331925	5,625,265	2,434,524	2,529,400	637,141	1,167,200	233,646	available	548,0751926	6,514,767	2,342,887	1,870,500	456,518	2,480,600	593,475	512,9581927	5,233,981	1,538,660	2,695,500	653,785	1,286,600	292,240	283,508
Exports, Foreign produce
1923	1,098,693	310,687	397,100	75,100	2,000	458	242,5201924	999,272	410,504	3,800	1,122	4,500	514	Not	306,3171925	818,408	449,652	16,200	2,152	6,200	975	available	203,5501926	156,779	73,233	25,500	8,315	100	1,800	193,2281927	119,134	45,210	40,200	12,138	56	322	169.762
2.
Fiscal Years ended March 31	Imports	Exports Canadian Produce	Exports Foreign ProduceTotal of-Raw wool, Worsted Tops, Noils, Garnetted waste, Wool manufactures, Sheep skins, Mutton and lamb	Total of- Raw wool, Wool manufactures, Sheep skins, Mutton and lamb	Total of- Raw wool, Wool manufactures, Sheep skins, Mutton and lambValue	Duty	Value	Value1923 	$ 46,345,963 48,312,019 48,875,407 47,370,379 51,760,140	$ cts. 9,196,666 52 8,439,562 91 8,518,404 22 8,472,616 53 9,499,254 34	$ 4,262,287 3,176,061 3,853,386 3,905,838 2,568,193	S 628,765 718,457 656,329 276,576 227,432
Total of Each Category for Five Fiscal Years (1923-1927) combined
Imports	Exports (Canadian)	Exports (Foreign)	Quantity	Value	Duty	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueRaw wool, tops, noils, waste	
Wool manufac-	Pounds 120,807,594	8 51,971,938 185,307,649 4,062,285 1,322,036	$ cts. 1,531 69 43,925,952 48	Pounds 32,050,501	* 10,627,236 2,143,577	Pounds 3,192,286	$ 1,289,286 1,115,377Sheep hides and	15,407,665 7,427,405	14,745,700	2,624,498	482,800	98,827Mutton and lamb.	i99,020 35	10,260,600	2,370,454	12,856	4,069
[Mr. Malcolm.1

Yukon Quartz Mining Act


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of the report of the inquest held at Anse-a-G-iles station in connection with the accident to Mr. Chs. Eugene Lavoie which took place on the national railways, on the 10th of February, last.


ALBERTA RAILWAYS
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports and other documents passing between the Department of Railways and Canals and^ the Alberta government, and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with reference to the purchase of the railways of Alberta, by the Canadian National Railways, or by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways jointly.


Hon. CHARLES DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The other day I asked that this stand until I could see my hon. friend regarding it. I have not had an opportunity of doing so yet. There is some question in imy mind as to what in the way of correspondence my hon. friend wants, and if he would let the motion stand to-day I might have an opportunity of seeing him about it.
Motion stands.


UNITED STATES COAL IN WINNIPEG
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) *moved:
For a copy of the report made by the investigators to the Minister of Customs, with regard to the alleged dumping of American coal into the Winnipeg market.
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: The information asked for by the hon. member was obtained by the investigators of the department on the understanding that the same would be treated as confidential. For that reason it would be impossible to give the information. I have however no objection to showing him the information privately.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why has an investigation of this kind to be held under those conditions? It is public business.


William Daum Euler: It would be impossible to get the information except with the assistance of the exporters in another country.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: All right. I will drop the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


TOBACCO GROWING INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) when we may expect the report to be brought down of the commission that was appointed to investigate tobacco conditions in western Ontario.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The report is now in course
of preparation, but it has not come to hand yet.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 196, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Annual royalty payable to the crown.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: For regulations I propose to take part of the Ontario statute governing the method by which the computation shall take place for the collection of royalties. We found some little difficulty in applying the provisions of the Ontario law to the Yukon, but since this bill was printed and brought down, I have now a complete set of regulations modelled almost exactly on those contained in the Ontario act, with some very slight changes to make them applicable to the Yukon and also to the three prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, where I intend to apply this system of the collection of royalties rather than the old system which is now in vogue. I would have no objection to taking the bill out of committee and embodying these regulations in the bill, if that is thought wise by the committee, so that instead of it being left to the minister and the department to make the regulations, they will be a part of the statute. I just wanted to point out to the committee that our difficulty was in making the regulations that are contained in the Ontario act applicable to our conditions. I am prepared now to report progress, so that these regulations may be embodied in the bill.


Mr. BENNETT:: And the bill will be
reprinted?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Progress reported.

Quebec Harbour Commission



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 188, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Quebec in an amount not exceeding $8,500,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: How much
has been advanced by way of loan to the harbour commissioners up to date?


Mr. CARDIN:: Up to the present time we have advanced $14,660,995.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask further, in what year and on what terms was that loan granted as regards repayment, and in what amounts was it advanced?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Previous to 1912, $4,125,000
had been advanced to the old commission. Since that time $13,500,000 has been authorized1, of which, as I said a moment ago, $10,515,800 had been advanced. The total amount authorized is $17,625,000, of which we have advanced $14,669,000. In exchange for these advances the harbour commissioners hand over their debentures to the Department of Finance. I regret that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the details that he requires as to the redemption of these debentures, but I hope to do so when the bill is in committee.


Mr. BOYS:: In what year was the first advance made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
William Alves Boys: As I understand, interest at the rate of 5 per cent is to be paid on these advances. How much interest has been paid from 1880 down to the present time?
	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On loans prior to 1888 it has been paid $932,721 in interest; on loans subsequent to 1888, $217,000 odd-or a total of $1,150,000.


William Alves Boys: What would be the total
amount of interest for that period calculated at 5 per cent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be five or six million dollars for all the loans.


William Alves Boys: What is the policy of the department not only in regard to this commission but others when, interest is not paid; is the failure to pay winked at, or is any serious attempt made to recover the arrears?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Quebec harbour commissioners have always contended that the lack of facilities made it impossible for the port to earn sufficient money to meet the interest on the loans made. Up to last year owing to the prohibitive freight rates they were deprived of very important traffic as they were getting no grain shipments over the Transcontinental, although the railway had been built with the view of exporting grain through the port of Quebec. Last year the rates were reduced, and the commissioners expect that they will now be in a position to earn more revenue, and that when the facilities are completed they will be able to meet their obligations. Of this proposed loan of $8,500,000, a little over $2,000,000 is required to increase the storage capacity of the elevator; its present capacity is two million bushels, and this is inadequate. It has been represented that unless additional facilities are provided the port cannot get the benefit of the grain traffic over the Transcontinental which is expected to develop as a result of the reduction of rates.


William Alves Boys: I suppose similar representations have been made every time they needed a loan-the prospects were wonderful and they had to have the money. On these representations, although the probability of getting any return is apparently nil, yet year after year moneys are advanced. I am not singling out this particular harbour, but I have to refer to it as it is the only one mow before us. Is it the policy of the department to go on making these huge advances without any prospect of getting the interest paid? Does the minister think there is any probability of the interest being paid in the next twenty-five years? If so, on what does he base his opinion? I think we ought also to have some further information of the nature of the program that warrants this loan so that we may know what is to be done with the money.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am certainly of the opinion that we will get some interest on the money we are advancing. We have already expended a large amount of money on the port of Quebec in developing what is known as Wolfe's Cove terminal, but we can expect no revenue on that expenditure unless we vote the necessary money to complete those facilities. But although the facilities are not complete, business has been increasing. In 1923, the elevator handled a little over five million bushels of grain, as against nearly ten million bushels in 1927, despite the fact that the rates on the Transcontinental railway were prohibitive until the recent reduction. Since the lower rates have been in force the elevator has been filled to capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is only a couple of million bushels.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. People interested in the grain trade complain that unless we increase the capacity of the elevator and provide further facilities they will not be in a position to take advantage of the reduced freight rates over the Transcontinental. I am free to admit that there should be a limit to the advances made to any port-


William Alves Boys: What is the limit?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: *-but we ought to take into consideration the development of our trade and the greater revenue that will follow. I think there is ample justification for this advance in order to give the harbour commissioners an opportunity to complete t'he facilities of the port and earn the revenue to be expected therefrom in the near future.


John Wesley Edwards: Am I right in saying that having regard to the loans already made and the amount now asked for, with the arrears of interest there will be about thirty million dollars involved? And would not this sum be equivalent to about a dollar a bushel on the grain that has been handled?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total amount authorized at present is $17,000,000, and we are asking for $8,500,000 more.


John Wesley Edwards: Taking the
$17,000,000 with the $8,500,000 we have $25,-
500,000,	and adding $5,000,000 odd of arrears, that brings it to $30,000,000 odd.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As regards the unpaid interest, I may say that for several years the commissioners have been making a claim against the Department of Immigration. The port of Quebec is receiving all the immigrants-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a very serious
matter.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is an old ghost.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The port of Quebec, I say, has been receiving all immigrants. The steamers bringing these people to Canada stop at Quebec where the immigrants land, and this requires the use of a very important part of the harbour. No allowance is made to the harbour commission for the use of its wharves and sheds and they are unable on account of the immigration to afford the facilities they would like to give to various companies and firms. As I say, they are not receiving a cent, and they have a claim against the department running up to-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thirty million dollars?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh no, about $2,500,000.
They have also a claim against certain other departments using the present facilities at Quebec, which could be taken advantage of by trading vessels. That claim probably will come before the house some day for consideration. When therefore you set off their claim against the interest due by the harbour commissioners, I do not think the position of the port of Quebec is so bad. I do not think it is bad, taking into consideration their claims against the departments.


William Alves Boys: What were the revenues last
year and, say, the previous year? While on this subject I have this observation to make: If this spirit of generosity were evident in the administration of all departments, we might not feel as we do; but some of us are getting a little bit tired voting large sums of money when we cannot get a copper in our own counties which are asking for three or four thousand dollars. There is no money at all for ordinary purposes. So far as I am concerned, no money has been spent in many years in the constituency I represent; yet these large sums seem to pass without any struggle. The minister is to be congratulated on being able to stand in his place and wear that smile, expecting to get the money voted on the strength of the argument he has presented. Imagine where he would land if he were to appear before a committee of financiers and endeavour to justify his request for $8,500,000 in this matter after what he has said in the house. I suppose the test after all is revenue. We have heard about the prospects, but if we could ascertain what the revenue was last year and for the last five years, and had some intimation as to any increase that might be expected, we could



Quebec Harbour Commission
form some idea as to whether or not there is any possibility within the next twenty-five years of the arrears of interest being paid, or even half paid.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can sympathize with my hon. friend in the statement that it is not always easy to get small amounts for our own constituencies. There are certain things in my own constituency which I cannot get from the Minister of Finance. I am in a better position to speak of the port of Quebec, inasmuch as I am not personally interested in it. The revenues of the port in the following years have been:
1923	$407,116	311924	
568,627	771925	
568,533	251926	
678,882	061927	
702,310	01


Richard Bedford Bennett: Gross?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. SPENCE:: What	are the expenses?


William Alves Boys: Perhaps	the minister could
give us the net tioned.	revenue	for the years men-Mr. CARDIN	: I can	give the expenses:1923	. .. $379,826 371924	. .. 397,078 181925	. . . 404,670 361926	. .. 595,272 891927	. .. 631,539 73


John Wesley Edwards: They are
going up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenses, it is true,
are going up. As regards the prospective revenue it is rather difficult to suggest any amount, because we do not know what business the port is going to do. As I have said', however, we have the representations of the people who are supposed to know, the people in the grain trade. They are very urgent in their request that the expenditure be made. I may add that the shipping federation of Canada has made strong representations even to the Prime Minister that these facilities be provided: in their view, in the light of their experience, these facilities are absolutely necessary to the proper development of the port of Quebec. Now we must get our information somewhere, and the people who ought to know are those who are interested in the trade. It is on these representations-


William Alves Boys: If they paid the piper they
would not be so keen.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -we are asking parliament to vote this. As regards the general financial position of the harbour commission, I would point out to the committee that other harbours

in Canada which are in a prosperous condition to-day were not a few years ago so fortunately situated. They were given the facilities necessary for the traffic going through those ports, and consequently they improved; and I think it will be the same in connection with the Quebec harbour, when we shall have completed the facilities required for the handling of the trade.


Mr. IRVINE:: I would ask the minister to speak a little louder, and at the same time to state as clearly as possible exactly on what ground he asks for this amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret that my voice did not reach my hon. friend; I was afraid I was speaking too loud for those near me. It has been represented to the commission and to the department that the present facilities in the port of Quebec make it impossible to take advantage of the reduced rates for the moving of grain on the Transcontinental, Limited, as these facilities are, it is impossible to take care of any development in trade in that port. It is pointed out to us that if we want to develop the port and to get the business which we might expect, as well as to facilitate the export of grain through Quebec, we must add to the facilities that now exist. I was saying that we have to rely on someone for information, and, I ask, who is in a better position to advise either the commission or the government as to the desirability of making new advances to the port of Quebec if it is not the shipping federation of Canada, the people who are supposed to know something about shipping and about the necessity for developing the port? Who should know better than they or better than the people actually engaged in the grain trade? Not long ago a committee was appointed by the senate to consider the movement of grain and the development of ports, and that body reported that the development of the port of Quebec was absolutely necessary. I believe a similar report was made by the grain commission. It is true that up to the present time the operation of the port has not been very profitable or very promising, but this is due to the fact that the facilities are absolutely inadequate. That is not only my opinion or the opinion of the commissioners; it is supported by the shipping federation and by the people trading in grain. We are only bringing this matter before parliament in compliance with the requests and representations of people who are supposed to know something about it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The minister is very vague, and perhaps necessarily so, as to just what facilities are lacking. He

Quebec Harbour Commission
might help the committee by reading one of the reports to which he has referred, because frankly I cannot see wherein the facilities are lacking.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The following letter was
written by Mr. Smith, then general manager of the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers, Limited, of Winnipeg, under date of October 19, 1927:
I am quite satisfied that to make Quebec a suitable export grain port, you would be forced to increase your present elevator facilities. It is to be remembered your present elevator capacity has to take care of quite a large domestic trade, so that probably only one million bushel capacity is available for export shipment.
This is, of course, quite inadequate, particularly if you ever hope to very materially increase the shipments of grain. With only a million bushel space available, you immediately limit the number of grades a large shipper can send to Quebec, and, as a consequence, your export shipments are curtailed on account of the fact that you only get wheat shipments of one or two grades and in that way miss the steady flow which would naturally result if all types of wheat could be stored at Quebec.
I would therefore strongly recommend to the commissioners at the port of Quebec to increase their present grain elevator capacity by an additional two million bushels.
I am entirely in sympathy with every movement made by the Quebec authorities to develop their port for grain shipments, and believe by the continuance of the efforts already expended you will meet with more success in the near future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that in reply to
another communication?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. Then we have the
report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission of January, 1925:
The situation at Quebec is virtually that of Montreal, with the additional advantage of a longer season. There does not seem to be any reason why the port of Quebec should not share with Montreal a part of the advantages of the St. Lawrence route. Montreal has developed wide business connections with the grain trade so that the traffic is accustomed to move through this port.
It is open to Quebec to do the same thing; no physical obstacles lie in the way of the inauguration of an extensive grain export trade. Indeed, as the capacity of the port of Montreal begins to be taxed at the peak of the movement, a part of the traffic might with advantage move to Quebec. Quebec also enjoys a more favourable insurance rate and is 180 miles nearer to Liverpool than is Montreal.
The report of the special committee of the senate appointed to inquire into the conditions responsible for the routing of large portions of Canadian export grain via American instead of Canadian ports contains the following words:
-that rates be granted upon export grain over the Canadian National railways to Quebec, 56103-1361
Montreal, Halifax. St. John and Vancouver, such as would develop trade through the above ports.
As a corollary to the recommendation in paragraph one, that necessary elevator accommodation should be provided by the Dominion government at Canadian ports.
Recently the chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners, when the board was studying rates, said:
To enable any seaport to handle traffic of this nature (export grain) much outlay must be made, peculiarly and solely adapted to such business. And unless a harbour is equipped for such purpose, it is futile to expect the trade to flow that way.
Commissioner Oliver said:
If sufficient transfer storage, such as exists at Fort William, were provided at Quebec, grain could be moved forward all-rail to that storage at all seasons. During the period of closed navigation it could go into storage (as it now does at Fort William and Port Arthur) to await the opening of navigation on the short ocean haul: and if in storage there, it could be readily pushed forward to St. John and Halifax as required to give return cargo to vessels bringing merchandise to those ports.
I think these opinions are of some importance and are deserving of consideration both by the committee and by the government.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: About a year ago I
understand that some of the grain pool people in the west built new elevators at Buffalo. Why does not the government make arrangements with the wheat pool to build elevators at Quebec, if that is a good place, instead of at Buffalo?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not authorized to
answer for the pool in that regard.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister is answering for the government.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If we properly develop the facilities of the port of Quebec in regard to wharves and sheds it will be a greater inducement to the pool to build an elevator there. Where would be the advantage to the pool in building an elevator at Quebec when they are not sure of obtaining the proper wharves and berthing space for the ships?


Mr. CAHAN:: What is the present rate
from Fort William to Quebec over the National Transcontinental Railway?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid I have not that information, but I will give it to my hon. friend when the bill is under consideration in committee.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I think it is something over eleven cents a bushel.
Quebec Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I believe it is eleven cents, if I am not mistaken.


William Irvine: I believe that two or three years ago-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-we voted $5,000,000 for this very purpose, on substantially the same grounds as those urged by the minister to-day. I do not want it to be assumed that I am opposing improvements in the harbour of Quebec. I want to see that harbour improved. I want it to have all the facilities required for the business which comes its way, but I think we ought to know what improvement will be effected in the financial position of the commission by this vote. I should like to know what increase in the income of the commission was made possible by the expenditure of the $5,000,000 already referred to, in order that we may be able to see whether by the expenditure of $8,000,000 more it will ever be possible for the commission to emerge from this burden of debt. If it is not going to be possible for the commission to do that I think it would be better business to write off the whole thing, because we are only going to saddle it with an impossible proposition. Therefore I should like to know exactly what improvement resulted from the expenditure of the $5,000,000 voted previously, and how much was thereby added to the income of the commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The money expended up to date out of the $5,000,000 voted1 in 1925 has not yet bettered the financial position of the port of Quebec for the reason that the works undertaken with that money are not yet completed and therefore cannot be used. We will need a part of the money we are asking for to-day to bring them to completion. The money expended so far has been devoted to the construction of wharves and also to dredging. The wharves, however, are not completed, and since we are not in a position to use the new facilities that are being provided there cannot be any betterment in the financial position of the commission. We cannot expect that until the projected works are finished. Eighteen cribs, I think, have been sunk, but the cement work has Hot been placed on the top of these cribs because two years must elapse before the cribs are solidly sunk in the bed of the river.


William Irvine: May I ask the minister if the entire $5,000,000 was expended in building wharves?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Irvine: Does the minister think the present loan will complete the facilities that the commission deems necessary-
(Mr. Campbell.1


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Irvine: -to make a first class port of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This money will not only complete the facilities which the commissioners had in mind when they sought assistance in 1925, but will also provide for the extension of the present facilities. Of the sum of $8,500,000 the amount required to complete the facilities we had in mind when we oame before the house in 1925, is $5,000,000-that is to say Wolfe's cove terminal-but $2,500,000 is needed to increase the storage capacity of the present elevator and to build the necessary wharves to make use of that increased capacity. So with the present vote all the facilities required for the port of Quebec, according to the representations made to us, will be completed. This amount covers the whole of the improvements, and as I have said the program will extend over a period of five years from now.


William Alves Boys: Apparently the minister has been prompted in the introduction of this resolution by representations made to him by person's who, as he says, ought to know and whose views in that connection should be regarded. He points out that the shipping interests and those engaged in the grain business have made the recomendations which have had weight with him and have influenced him to introduce this resolution. I think I am making a fair statement of what the minister said in that connection a moment or two ago, and I observe that he nods his head in approval. But I would ask the minister if he has not heard of representations made by those engaged in the grain and shipping interests in regard to the requirements of the port of Collingwood, in the county of Simone, and if so whether he is likely,* when the maitter is to be dealt with by council, to meet these requests, for the same reasons and with the same generosity that characterizes his action in the present instance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
William Alves Boys: Will the minister set his sympathetic will at work then when the matter is before council, and see that the same considerations which prompted him to give sympathetic treatment to the pont of Quebec will be given due weight in the case of the port of Colfingwood?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. MILLAR:: It may be quite proper to
expend this amount of money on the port of Quebec, but I think that in past years certain anomalies have occurred in connection with our efforts to build up that port. Those who recall the speeches that were made at the time of the construction of the National Transcontinental railway will observe that the purpose of building this railway was to enable freight to be carried through an all Canadian channel to the port of Quebec. I think that for a short time the rate on grain was 6 cents a bushel from Armstrong, near Port William, to the port of Quebec. Shortly afterwards, however, it was raised to approximately 21 cents. We expended an enormous sum of money in the building of a railway which could be equipped with trains drawing heavy cars to carry grain to the port of Quebec, and a rate was fixed that was' absolutely prohibitive. The result is that the grass was allowed to grow up around the rails of this great railway. We are asked now to spend more money on the port of Quebec. I think it might be well to ascertain from the minister how much grain has been handled through the elevators of the ports which have a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. That capacity ought to be filled several times if the amount of grain were being carried there that was originally contemplated.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There is an improvement since the new rates came into force.


John Millar: If my memory serves me
aright the rate is now between 11 and 12 cents.


Ernest Lapointe: Eleven cents.


John Millar: I cannot imagine very
much grain going that way except after the close of navigation. I believe the rate to Montreal from Fort William is about 9 cents or less, and I am afraid that grain will continue to go to Montreal in spite of the expenditure at Quebec. It is utterly useless to spend money upon any port such as Quebec in order to attract grain and other freight if some barrier exists which prevents that freight getting there. But if the rate were reduced to eight or nine cents I can well imagine that Quebec would become an important grain port. We have frequently made mistakes in trying to attract trade under conditions that were unfavourable. A lot of money has been spent at Halifax, and some hon. gentlemen opposite get quite angry when one suggests that it is going to be difficult to make of Halifax a great grain port. We have also expended a considerable amount of money in providing facilities for the handling of grain at Prince Rupert but the efforts to attract trade to that port have not been very profitable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is better now.


John Millar: It may be a little better
now. It would be wise for us to make sure that the freight is going there, or that other conditions are favourable so that the grain can go there, before the money is expended on this harbour. Could the minister give us the quantity of grain which passed through the port of Quebec last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly 9,773,370 bushels,
and in 1923 the quantity of grain handled there was only 5,600,000 bushels, so that between 1923 and 1927 there has been increase of nearly
4,000,000 bushels.


John Millar: Could the minister give the percentage of that grain that passed into Quebec by rail route?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I cannot.


John Millar: What percentage of that is export grain?


James Malcolm: I think I can enlighten
the hon. member on his question. The increase in the two sets of figures quoted by my colleague will represent the quantity that has come by rail since the low rate went into effect.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I have been interested in the earnest appeal of the minister for the harbour of Quebec. I recall the request in 1922 or 1923 for a loan of $1,500,000. It was supported, as I remember it, by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). It was opposed by the Progressive party. The statement was made that the port of Quebec was over-equipped; that they had facilities that the port had not yet grown up to. One plea made was:	We require money to buy
paint in order to preserve the equipment that was already there, that had been built in advance of the times. There was strong opposition and it was understood that this loan of $1,500,000 was to be cut to $750,000 and that the applicants would be satisfied if that amount were given. But towards the end of the session the government became gay

Quebec Harbour Commission
and hilarious in spending and the result was that the whole amount of SI ,500,000 was given.
It was stated in gossip-I do not know whether it was true or not-that out of that sum, $70,000 was for lawyers' fees. At all events it was distinctly admitted that Quebec had built larger than the accommodation required; that the traffic had not grown up to the accommodation provided, but it was said they required this money to preserve what they had already built. If this were my case, I would think it a splendid opportunity to save a few millions of dollars for the country. Everyone knows that the basic difficulty with Quebec as a port of shipment for grain is that the railways prefer to carry to and ship from Montreal, and until that situation has changed it will be idle for this government to spend money in this way. I want to ask the minister if it was not claimed in 1922 or 1923, whichever the year was-and in any event it was the year when the 81,500,000 was given-that Quebec had built larger harbour facilities than were required and that the money was needed amongst other things to preserve what had been constructed. I am sure there are some Progressive members present who will recollect what took place at that time. It was felt then, as it is felt now, that the government was altogether too generous with Quebec or with any other applicant who, with no merit in the claim, asked that government money should be voted for such a purpose as this. I am opposed to the grant and I do not think it should be given. I do not believe Quebec will suffer if it is not given. If I thought Quebec would suffer, my mind would be changed immediately. This government can quite well afford to keep this money and come back with a proposal next year or later when it is shown that the movement of grain is towards Quebec and not towards Montreal.


James Dew Chaplin: I want to call the attention of the committee to what was said in June, 1925, when the present minister was asking the house to vote $5,000,000 for the improvement of the elevator and wharves at Quebec. On page 3889 of Hansard of that year, Mr. Caldwell, a former member for a New Brunswick seat, asked the minister this question:
Mr. Caldwell: Could the minister tell us what amount of grain the present facilities at Quebec could handle yearly if used to their full capacity?
Mr. Cardin: I am told it is forty million bushels.
That is a revelation in regard to what the minister says to-day. He tells us now that there have been 10,000,000 bushels of grain
IMr. Ryckman.]
shipped through Quebec, so that at the present time that port has four times the capacity it is using, and yet he is asking us for another $8,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Although I am not sufficiently expert in elevator matters to speak authoritatively upon the subject, it seems to me that there is a great difference between handling grain day by day or week by week and what we call the storage capacity. What the commissioners seem to be more concerned about at the present time is larger storage capacity at Quebec during the winter season, so as to take care of a greater quantity of grain to be reshipped through St. John, New Brunswick, or to be ready for shipment when navigation opens. If you have a capacity of only 2,000,000 bushels in the elevator at Quebec, you cannot expect that shippers of grain will be in a position to deal very much with that port. They cannot store more than
2,000,000 bushels there, which is the full capacity of the elevator. It may be that with an elevator having a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, we can handle a larger quantity of grain than we have handled in the past.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am rather interested in
the minister's last argument. I cannot believe that he seriously advances that argument in support of the contention that that will in any way help the revenues of the harbour commissioners of Quebec so that they may be able to pay any modicum of interest on the loans advanced. Let us examine the matter for a minute. The minister suggests that we should increase the capacity of the elevator at Quebec so that grain may be stored there and later forwarded to St. John or Halifax. In the first place the minister argued half an hour ago, and laboured the point, that it was not until they got the rates down this year that they could get grain to Quebec at all. Surely the minister is not going to suggest that this grain from Quebec to St. John is going to be carried free. It certainly is going to pay a heavy freight rate. If the grain is stored all winter or part of the winter in Quebec and then sent on to St. John, it is going to pay the additional rate from Quebec to St. John. How in the name of common sense can the minister expect to move grain through Quebec and on to St. John in that way? Let us take another supposition. Does the minister expect to earn, out of the storage of grain in Quebec, sufficient even to make a showing upon the interest that is going to be charged against it? What are the figures? I am speaking from

Quebec Harbour Commission
memory and am subject to correction, because I am not at all certain of the exactness of my figures, but I think that the normal charge for storage of grain is one cent per bushel per month. Suppose the minister doubles his present bushel capacity of two million bushels; the maximum number of months during which the port would be closed would be five, and he would not expect to carry that grain more than four months, let us say; that would amount to four cents a bushel on two million bushels. It is very easy to figure out what that would amount to; and that is assuming that the elevator was full to capacity, and that there were no difficulties about the different grades of grain. I do not wish to be offensive, but as a matter of fact it is sheer nonsense to suggest that you are going to earn by the storage of grain in Quebec any sum of money that will be commensurate with the needs of the harbour board of that port.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am out for the development of all the ports of Canada, whether on the Atlantic, the Pacific or the great lakes, where their development can be shown to be a reasonable proposition. I am going to use the port of Vancouver as an illustration. I have under my hand two reports. I sent to the parliamentary library, where certainly all the reports should be available, but all I could get was two, the reports for 1923 and 1924. I am going to show what the port of Vancouver has done in the way of paying interest, and this record has been characteristic of the whole history of the port ever since money was spent there. They set aside, in 1923, $168,000 in the sinking fund, to provide for the retirement of government bonds which were given for advances. They set aside $424,000 for interest during construction of the Ballantyne pier, and they paid to the Dominion government all the interest due on bonds issued, amounting to $145,000.
I take the next year, 1924, and I find that they set aside a reserve for depreciation of $69,000. They paid interest on debentures chargeable to construction amounting to $422,000, and they paid sinking fund reserve amounting to $226,000.


Mr. WHITE (London):: What is the total investment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The investment would
run from five to seven million dollars. But let me finish my point. The minister talks about a young port. Why, this port of Quebec is hoary-headed. It is three hundred years old. Surely that is a reasonable time
for a port to develop. Quebec is the oldest and the most renowned port, historically, in the whole Dominion of Canada, and to talk about needing time to develop its facilities before it can start to pay is sheer nonsense. The facts are these, and my hon. friend the gallant member from Quebec South and his illustrious colleague the Minister of Justice, who I have no doubt will jump to the defence of the port of Quebec shortly-


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Mr. POWER:: You have not said anything yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The port of Quebec has
never attempted to pay any interest on the advances that have been made to it. It has never given that matter a serious thought. To pay the interest has never entered into the caclulations of the board, and furthermore, this talk about the Minister of Immigration being indebted to the Minister of Marine because immigrants land at Quebec is nonsense, because the people of Quebec are delighted to have these people land there.


Charles Gavan Power: They don't stay more than half an hour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps my hon. friend
gets a good deal of comfort, then, out of the fact that the new Duchess ships of the Canadian Pacific line are going to Montreal, so Quebec will not be bothered with that traffic.


Charles Gavan Power: Till they run aground.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will have to fight that out with the Minister of Marine. The fact is that these new Duchess ships are going to the port of Montreal.
As to the amount of grain handled, there is an elevator with two million bushels capacity at the port of Quebec. I have in my hand a report of the harbour board of Vancouver, showing that in the year 1924 there passed through that port 53,000,000 bushels. And what facilities did they have to handle that 53,000,000 bushels? Only one elevator with a capacity of 1,250,000 bushels -less capacity than the port of Quebec has to-day-and yet they handled 53,000,000 bushels. It is true that the present minister, or at all events, that under the aegis .of the present minister, the superintendent who accomplished that remarkable feat was fired. They discharged him out of hand. That is the way they recognized the efficiency of the superintendent. However, that is by the way. The point I am making is that with one elevator with a capacity of 1,250,000 bushels they handled 53,240,000 bushels. The
Quebec Harbour Commission

port of Quebec, with an elevator having a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, handles 10,000,000 bushels, and the minister coolly informs us that the port is congested and requires an additional 2,000,000 bushels capacity.


Mr. VENIOT:: One port is open all the year, and the other for only seven months.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us make allowance for that. The Postmaster General with that subtlety of mind of his developed by his long political training suggests that one port is open for twelve months and the other for only seven months. That was in my mind.


Peter John Veniot: But it did not come out until it was pudhed out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that my hon. friends from Quebec and Montreal never like us to rub in the fact that these ports are closed for five months of the year, but let us make the necessary allowance in our calculation for that. Take seven-twelfths of
53,000,000 bushels, and you have a capacity-


Peter John Veniot: Not at all. The hon. gentleman is again unfair. At tihe port of Vancouver it is a monthly, weekly, and daily in-and-out business, whereas at Quebec it is a system of storage during five months, and there is not the same frequency of in-and-out handling of grain at Quebec as there is at Vancouver. That is where my hon. friend is unfair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing in the argument my hon. friend advances, for this reason, that for seven months of the year the port of Quebec has as ready access to t'he sea as any other port in Canada.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will leave that to my friends from the port of Quebec to decide. Certainly I shall not argue that they have not complete access to the sea during seven months; just the contrary, and I think I have t'he support of my hon. friends from the port of Quebec in that statement. If we take seven-twelfths of 53,000,000 bushels, we shall have the figure thait the port of Quebec would handle at same ratio, which would be a little over 30,000,000 bushels. The point I am making is this. Here we have Quebec, with
2.000.	000 bushels capacity, handling only
10.000.	000 bushels. I have no objection to giving them more capacity, none whatever, if they are going to handle grain through that pout and export it over the high seas, but if they will use their present equipment to capacity, or anything near to capacity, they will find that, instead of making this lamentable showing, they will have some revenue
[Mr. Stevens.J
over expenses for the purpose of paying the interest on capital. I will give the revenue for the port of Quebec from 1923 to 1927:
Year	Gross Revenue Expenses Net Revenue		
1923 ..	.. $400,000	$379,000	$ 21,0001924 ..	.. 568,000	397,000	171,0001925 ..	.. 568,000	486,000	82,0001926 ..	.. 678,000	595,000	83,0001927 ..	.. 702,000	631,000	71,000That is	where the	trouble is.	Even with
the present facilities the port is not properly managed, or the business is not there to permit the earning of sufficient revenue to pay even a modicum of the interest due.


Mr. EDWARDS (Erontenac):: How do the receipts and expenditures compare with those of the port of Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
John Millar: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman? I believe the record that he has given of the port of Vancouver's operations is correct. But is not this the situation: the record reached at the port of Vancouver was in consequence of a great pressure of grain, which was handled by a very efficient superintendent with small handling facilities- a record that perhaps has not been equalled by any other port in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be for that
particular year. Let me take the year 1924, to which my hon. friend refers. In that year the expenditures on operation were just slightly under one million dollars, and the earnings were $1,870,000, and out of the surplus they paid some $400,000 in interest and set aside $226,000 to sinking fund. Again we have an operating ratio of slightly over 50 per cent. When we come before parliament and show management of that kind, I think the harbour commissioners are waranted in asking for support; but when in 1922, 1925 and 1928 we come before parliament and show no progress whatsoever in the differential between operating revenue and operating cost, then I say it is time for the government to be asked to inform the Quebec harbour commissioners, firmly but kindly, that they must produce a better record before they can expect further advances.
Another argument the minister puts forward is this: Give us this money and let us build the facilities so we can earn revenue. I again submit these two reports-and there are similar ones but I cannot get them. I find that these results were achieved by the harbour commissioners for Vancouver while the main facilities, the Ballantyne pier and No. 2 elevator, were under construction at a cost of six million dollars. Yet the commissioners paid each year some $400,000 interest during that construction. I submit to the Minister of Justice, to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and to the cabinet as a whole that this matter ought to be taken seriously. It is no longer possible to bluff us by saying: If you rise in parliament and express your views on this proposal you will be branded as opposed to the development of the port of Quebec. We are not opposed to its development, but
we are opposed to the methods of handling the business there; and we have a right to criticize those methods. Personally I do not feel inclined to oppose the bill, in fact I feel very much to the contrary, but I would not be doing my duty if I calmly voted for this loan of $8,500,000 in face of the record that has been placed before parliament on this and other occasions.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Mr. Chairman, on
every occasion when we have come before parliament to ask for assistance in developing the port of Quebec we have been told that it is a great national port and should be developed, but the official opposition has always objected that we should first arrange to get' lower grain rates on the Transcontinental railway, and then parliament would be well disposed to vote the money required for this development. Last year we succeeded in obtaining from the railway commission favourable grain rates to the port of Quebec, thus placing it in a position to compete with the other ports of this country. It has been generally recognized that the money so far advanced for the development of the port of Quebec has been well spent not only in the interests of the province and district of Quebec but of Canada as a whole. We are now before parliament asking for an additional sum to continue these works so as to increase the capacity of the grain elevators, which is something that all competent people have admitted for years to be necessary in order to handle properly whatever traffio may go to Quebec. I am greatly surprised, after the arguments that have been advanced in this house for ten or fifteen years to show the necessity for the development of the port of Quebec, that the opposition should offer objection to the undertaking. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite are not serious when they contend that this money is not needed. They cannot be serious when they pretend that the harbour commission of Quebec has not paid interest on its loan. I admit that a part of the interest has not been paid. But, on the other hand, what has the city of Quebec done to justify the expenditure of money to provide improvements necessary for the development of the port? The city of Quebec handed over to the federal government property worth over $5,000,000. What was that for? It was handed over so that the city of Quebec might be given the necessary facilities for its development. This is known to every hon. member of this house and throughout the country. We have a written agreement from the federal government whereby the government under-

Quebec Harbour Commission
takes to do certain works in Quebec to develop that port, in consideration of the property handed over to the federal authorities. When, therefore, hon. members opposite suggest that the commission has not paid interest on the money advanced by the federal government, I say they are not serious, for they overlook the great sacrifice which the citizens of Quebec have made in return for the improvements which they are given. This was recognized by the leader of the Conservative party, Sir Robert Borden himself, who is on record as stating that neither money nor effort should be spared to develop that port. I desire to quote from the first volume of Hansard of the first session of 1919, page 293, what Sir Robert Borden had to say on the subject. As leader of the government at that time, referring to the necessity of our obtaining western traffic, he said:
Having regard to the probable enormous development of western traffic to this city and its wonderful possibility by reason of the situation which I have described and seeing also the necessity of providing adequately for future development, the government thought it desirable to possess an extensive waterfront on the St. Lawrence. With this view we have acquired three miles of the best waterfront in Quebec extending from Sillery to Cap Diamond; and portions of the waterfront from the Cap Diamond to the Champlain market have also been secured. This magnificent waterfront will give to the government and to the harbour commission the opportunity of almost unlimited development of port and terminal facilities; and 1 hope you will agree that in thus looking forward to the possibilities of the future the government have taken no unwise course. In adopting -this policy, we feel that we are acting not in the interest of Quebec alone but in the interest of all Canada, for Canada as a whole is concerned in the provision of modern and effective facilities necessary for the outflow and inflow' of commerce at all great ports.
Those are the words of the leader of the government of that day who recognized that the port of Quebec had to be developed at all costs. It is nothing new to members from Quebec to see such strong opposition when we come before parliament asking, not for charity or for any favours, but that we be given what is our due. We vote millions of money for the development of the harbour of Toronto and other ports as well, and no opposition is offered when reasonable explanations are given for these expenditures. But every time we come before parliament asking for money for the port or the city of Quebec, there is always this opposition, as though we were asking for charity. Once more I say we are not asking for charity, because in return for what we receive we have surrendered to the government more than any other city of Canada has given.


Mr. BRADY:: I rise to protest against what I consider, in view of the facts we have before us, a very unnecessary expenditure involving a vast sum of money, particularly under conditions that do not by any means substantiate the claims that are being made therefor. I happen to have a few facts which I should like to present to the committee and particularly to the members of the prairie provinces regarding precisely the relationship of the port of Quebec to the prairies. We find that the prairie grain area extends about 900 miles west of Winnipeg; that is to say that grain shipped from west of Winnipeg to Fort William is hauled over 1,250 miles. The average haul of grain reaching Fort William is approximately 800 miles. Taking the several grain railway points some 400 miles west of Winnipeg as the centre of grain production, the average length of haul to Quebec would be 1,750 miles, which is double the length of haul from Winnipeg to Fort William. We know there are three routes by which grain moves from the western provinces; one is by lake and canal, the second is by lake and rail and the third all-rail, which is the way I believe grain would come from the prairies to the port of Quebec. I find that the Board of Railway Commissioners have said that the lake and canal route is fundamentally cheaper and better than the all-rail route; in fact they say the all-rail route is practically ignored as compared with the other two routes. The evidence given by both railways was that their respective western equipments and organizations were fully employed only during one-third of the year while the grain movement was greatest between harvest and the close of navigation on the lakes, and that during the remainder of the year two-thirds of their equipment was idle and their organizations disrupted for lack of traffic. Moreover, we find that the development of this port to such an extent seems to be contrary to the development of our waterways about which we have heard so much, this session, and I fail to see how this great expenditure at Quebec is in agreement with the data which we have received with regard to the hauling of grain.
We are all great advocates of the development of Canadian ports; that is a fundamental principle to which I think we will all agree, and just here I would like to refer to perhaps the newest port on the Pacific coast. We have heard about Vancouver, which is a splendid port and a city with a great future, but the port of Prince Rupert is conceded to be a second Portsmouth. During- all seasons of the year, by day and by night, vessels can enter that harbour from two directions, from the north of the Queen

Quebec Harbour Commission
Charlotte Islands or from the south by Cape St. James. There are no tides to interfere with the movement of vessels; there are no fogs to hamper shipping, and along the inner harbour for a distance of eight miles the depth of water is not less than forty feet along the waterfront. The future of the Pacific coast is assured; the great developments in shipping will be on the Pacific, and what is this government doing to promote the great oriental trade which must be developed by either Canada or the United States? The number of vessels entering Prince Rupert has increased since the elevator was built, and we must attribute to the Alberta wheat pool the movement of grain to that port, they have recognized its strategic position and have increased the movement of grain in that direction. Up until last week I think twenty-eight ocean going vessels called at that port, and while I do not know the amount of grain which will go through it this year, I presume it will be in the neighbourhood of 10,000,000 bushels. Last year, which was the first year grain was shipped through Prince Rupert, about 6,000,000 bushels passed through that port. So I would point out that this huge expenditure at Quebec, when all the facts are opposed to it, cannot be in the public interest and certainly is not for the well being of Canada at large. Therefore I do protest against such a large amount of money being spent upon a harbour which during 1926, exported only 3,095,334 bushels of grain, while the port of Montreal exported 74,660,253 bushels during the same period. I can hardly believe the object of this expenditure is to take trade away from Montreal; for I do not believe the exportation of grain from Quebec will be greatly increased by building immense terminals at that port. Even if two elevators are constructed there I do not believe the volume of grain passing through Quebec will be greatly increased.


Mr. EVANS:: It is said that the purpose
for which this motion is brought before the house at this time is to facilitate the shipping of western grain to the markets of the world, and since I have been in this parliament it has been said repeatedly that these great expenditures on the ports of eastern Canada have been made for the benefit of the western farmer. It seems to me that there is no doubt that the port of Quebec has been discriminated against, and during the last few years it has come out several times in this house that this discrimination has been practised by a combination of shipping companies and by the insurance companies. To such
an extent has this been the case that demurrage has been charged for the time taken by a boat to go from Montreal to Quebec to load grain.
Too many of these expenditures are made on the excuse that they are for the benefit of the western farmers; the new elevator at Halifax is another sample of that sort of thing, and it is all charged up against the grain trade. In my opinion, unless Quebec can be shown as a point where package freight will be loaded to the extent to which this improvement will be needed, this expenditure should not be made. I do not believe Quebec will ever be a very great port with regard to the shipment of grain. In the west a good many years ago the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company found it necessary to construct a large terminal at Buffalo. The grain landed at Buffalo is within ten or twelve hours of a port that is open all the year round. At ports such as New York and Boston bargains can be made and transportation secured at the very lowest price. We have found out during the last twenty years, when the Transcontinental has been in use, that the port of Quebec is not a grain port. I think this tremendous sum of money which the house is asked to vote for the port of Quebec is unwarranted and unnecessary. I wish to protest against it and I do so for the reason that the facilities already existing at Quebec have never been used to their fullest capacity, and this is particularly the case in regard to grain. When this expenditure is shown to be necessary I am sure the country will make the necessary appropriation, but at present I am opposed to it and cannot do less than vote against the resolution.


Milton Neil Campbell: When a vote of $5,000,000 for the purpose of increasing the facilities at the port of Quebec was proposed in 1925 the group in this corner of the house strenuously opposed it. We pointed out in substance that every facility should be provided for developing trade through that port, but the existing facilities should be fully taken advantage of before further expenditures were made. It is true that since that time the discrimination in freight rates against the port of Quebec have been removed. That, perhaps, is the argument used by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to-day in asking that a further sum of money be voted to increase the facilities of that port. To that extent I am with the minister. I believe there is an opportunity now of developing a considerable amount of trade through that port. I do not agree that the rate of 11 cents a bushel from

Quebec Harbour Commission
Armstrong to Quebec is an entirely prohibitive one. It is true that it is higher than the usual rate paid on the lakes; but in the early spring and summer, when the full movement of grain is on and there is a lack of competition amongst the vessels moving the grain, the grain rates on the lakes have frequently been higher than 11 cents a bushel. In fact, on one occasion, I think it was in 1922, we paid an average rate of 14 cents on the lakes during the whole season, three cents higher than the present rate to Quebec. Now that the rate to that port has been reduced to 11 cents I believe it will set a maximum for lake and rail traffic. I believe the steamship companies will keep their rates down to 11 cents, so that the reduced rate to Quebec has had a very good effect in that respect. I believe that at certain times in the year, particularly after the lake ports close in the fall, a considerable amount of grain will move forward to Quebec. In addition to that I am of the opinion that there will be opportunities of developing the cattle trade, provided that our cattle do not continue to go to the United States as they do at present. I think we shall develop not only a cattle trade, but traffic in other lines, to the port of Quebec. We in this group kept consistently hammering at the rate question for four or five years until something was finally accomplished. We can hardly be accused therefore of trying to divert the shipment of our own products to foreign ports. It has been proved conclusively that our grain deteriorates in quality when it passes through United States ports. If one will read the report of Professor Rutherford, which is attached as an appendix to the report of the Royal Grain Commission of 1923, it will be found that he points out, as the result of his investigations in the old country, that grain carrying a Canadian grade certificate and arriving in the old country from United States ports has a lower grade than Canadian certified grain shipped from Canadian ports. It shows conclusively that although this grain carries a Canadian grade certificate it is mixed when it passes in transit through the United States, a fact which is seriously affecting the marketing of our grain to-day. Professor Rutherford also points out that in the case of grain arriving in the old country from Vancouver the Canadian grade certificate is accepted due to the fact that there is no mixing at the port in question, or there was none at the time. Therefore it is to our interests to see that every bushel of grain possible is carried through Canadian ports, and I am prepared to go a long way to assist the government in bringing about that condition of affairs.

I am sorry that we have not a little more information on this matter. In view of the fact that $5,000,000 was spent on Quebec only three years ago it is hardly reasonable to expect the house to vote this large amount of extra money now. On the other hand I think that if we could be assured that these facilities were really necessary and that there was going to be sufficient trade at Quebec in a few years to take advantage of them, no objection to the vote would be raised in this part of the house. I suggest that the minister send this resolution to a committee. If that were done there could be called before the committee members of the harbour commission of the port of Quebec, members of the wheat pool, representatives of shipping companies and other interests and the whole matter could be thoroughly investigated. I am sure that we are fair enough not to offer any opposition to the vote provided that the necessity of these facilities is fully demonstrated. But with the information at present in our possession I am not convinced that this expenditure is necessary, and in view of the fact that the port of Quebec has not been paying even interest on its bonds, it is unreasonable to exipect this house1 to vote such a very large sum of money without at least having before it some further information. I am not one of those who hold the Quebec harbour commission responsible for the condition of affairs in the past, because we have been lending the commission money on the one hand to provide facilities, and on the other hand dteliberately preventing trade from going to that port. That is the condition of affairs that has existed in the past, due to the prohibitive rates that have existed on the Transcontinental.
The minister of Marine and Fisheries made a statement some little time ago, which was reported in the press, to the effedt that if the insurance companies did not cease to discriminate against the ports of Quebec and Montreal, he proposed to see that a Canadian Lloyd's was established. I congratulate the minister upon making that statement, and I hope the matter will not be allowed to remain there. It is something that some of us in this section of the house have been suggesting for many years-not that there should be a Canadian Lloyd's in its entirety, I do not agree with that; but that a large insurance corporation, centralized we shall say at Montreal, as it likely would be, would be of very considerable assistance. I do not believe a profit-making institution, existing purely bo pay dividends, would bring any large measure of relief. What we have in the past suggested to the government is that they build up an organization similar to what

Quebec Harbour Commission
exists within the Canadian National Railways to-day, an institution that would insure cargoes from all our Canadian ports, collect the regular rate of marine insurance and refund at the end of the year all the money left in the treasury. This institution should be in the hands of capable business men who would see that it was efficiently managed and operated on a 'CokLblaoded business basis, and if the money on hand at the end of the year over and above operating expenses were refunded to the shippers of all those goods, I believe we would then eliminate all the discrimination against Canadian ports. That is where a good deal of the trouble exists to-day, and I suggest to the minister that he consider the establishment of some such organization.
There is no doubt in my mind that shipments from Quebec should carry a very much lower rate of insurance than shipments from Montreal. I have been assured that at least two-thirds of the risk between Montreal and Liverpool is based on the risk in the St. Lawrence river alone, so that the insurance rate from Quebec ought to be relatively smaller than that from Montreal. Under present conditions, however, we are not likely to have a lower rate, for the simple reason that not merely Lloyds but any organization we might build up here would very likely have its headquarters in Montreal, and it is hardly reasonable to expect that a business organization of that kind would do otherwise than endeavour, so far as possible, to assist shipments from their own port. This is the particular business of the government, and if the government really want to assist the movement of traffic to Quebec, I earnestly suggest to the minister that he take the matter into consideration and try to build up an organization along that line. This is not a new experiment; it is done already by the Canadian National Railways and by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The minister knows, as does every member of the house, that millions of dollars have been saved to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine by that system of handling their own insurance.


James Houston Spence: I do not intend to detain
the committee at length, as this question has already had a full and free discussion. I agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) that the bill should be referred to some committee so that the matter may be thoroughly investigated and the interested parties brought together. In 1925 an amount of $5,000,000 was voted for the port of Quebec, and as the situation stands today I do not feel that we are justified in
voting this additional sum. In 1925 a friend of mine told me-and I am not taking this for the absolute truth, although it was given to me as such-that the moss was growing on the wharves and that on all the piers you could write your name in the dust that had been lying there for years.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Where did that report
come from?


James Houston Spence: That was the information 1 got from a particular friend of mine in the city of Quebec, and one who is just as much a friend of that city as is my hon. friend.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: He cannot be a very
good friend of the city of Quebec.


James Houston Spence: Surely no one would support an expenditure that was unjustifiable, and the robbing of the treasury in order to sink money in a mudhole like that. The minister said that he sank eighteen cribs. He sank more than that; he sank $18,000,000. Everyone knows that I am always pleased to support justifiable expenditure in any part of the Dominion, because you cannot make money unless you are prepared to spend money; personally I am always ready to spend a dollar if I can see a possible return of a dollar and a quarter. This should be the attitude of the government, but they should not spend money simply at the request of any individual. [DOT]It is unfortunate that Quebec cannot become a grain port owing to the fact that it has access to the sea for only seven months of the year. Moreover there is some mismanagement. Those of us who are in business like to see revenues increasing with expenditures, but in this case the expenditure is increasing out of proportion to the revenue. The expenditure, which in 1923 was $379,000, increased to $631,000 in 1927, or within only $71,000 of the revenue. Where is this money going to? What makes up the expenditure? Is it all for wages and overhead, or what? Perhaps the minister can justify it.
Then we have another bubble that is bursting. Every year we have demands from Quebec against the government in regard to the accommodation of immigrants in that port. If there is any justification for that claim, let us settle it and wipe it off the slate. Let us give Quebec a square deal, but do not let us sink $8,500,000 into that port if the expenditure is unjustifiable. As I have said, I think the better plan would be, as the hon. member for Mackenzie suggests, to appoint a committee to investigate the matter, because I think the government will receive support from all sides of the house if it is shown that
Quebec Harbour Commission

the expenditure is justified. Personally I will support it if I can be convinced that it is a proper expenditure.


Mr. SPENCER:: One trouble about the
port of Quebec, as with the port of Halifax, seems to be its geographical situation. We cannot supply grain traffic to a port which is so situated that it cannot be a grain port. Unfortunately in matters of trade we sometimes try to go against natural economic conditions, and this seems to be a case of that kind. The minister said that the port of Quebec had certain claims against the Department of Immigration. What are those claims? If they are for rent, what is the amount? What is the capacity of the immigration shed at that port? Wihat rent does he think the Immigration department should pay to the port of Quebec? We were told in 1925 by the minister himself that there were elevator facilities at Quebec capable of handling 40,000,000 bushels of grain per season. This year, however, he comes back and asks parliament for a larger amount in order to build additions to the elevator, although last year they handled only 10,000,000 bushels.


Mr. SHORT:: First I want to take exception to the remark just made about Halifax being geographically isolated. We have heard the story time and time again from our friends from the west that Nova Scotia is geographically unsuited for the shipment of' grain and other shipments from the west. She was not geographically unsuited during the great war When we had to depend upon the port of Halifax for shipments overseas; but when the question is one of shipment of our own commodities in time of peace they tell us that geographically we are unfavourably situated. I am not opposed to this vote for the port of Quebec if it can be justified, but in 192.5 we were told that they required $5,000,000 to equip that port so that it could be made suitable for grain shipments. Now they come along two or three years afterwards asking for $8,500,000 in addition to the $5,000,000 appropriation of 1925. We in the maritimes are prepared to support the vote if we are assured that the expenditures are justified. That is all we desire to know, but we want a stop put in this house to the talk about Nova Scotia being geographically unsuited for ocean traffic. We think Nova Scotia should be given a square deal the same as any other province.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: When the $5,000,-
000 loan which has been referred to several times was voted in 1925, the minister made it quite plain, as recorded in Hansard of June 4, 1925, that that appropriation was

to carry out a five-year program. At page 3887 of the Hansard of that date, the question was asked by the hon. member for Macleod:
Mr. Coote: How much of this construction is contemplated this year?
Mr. Cardin: It is very hard to say, but the execution of the whole program will certainly take five years.
Mr. Caldwell:	What will the whole program cost?
Mr. Cardin: Five million dollars.
Mr. Caldwell:	Is it estimated that this
$5,000,000 will complete the whole five year program ?
Mr. Cardin: Yes.
I recall, too, that in the year 1925, on June 4th, some of us were suspicious that a federal election was not very far off, and we were right. A federal election came on in the fall of 1925. Is the minister not just a little premature in asking for $8,500,000 at this time? There will not likely be another federal election this year, and it seems to me that the minister is a couple of years ahead of time at least. Surely, according to what the minister told us in 1925, that $5,000,000 has not all been expended, judiciously expended, at least, and if it has, I wonder if he has carried out the spirit and the letter of the resolution upon which the loan was based. I find that the resolution was introduced on May 28, 1925, and a very important clause of that resolution reads:
That the corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
It goes on to say that these interest charges shall be collected from tolls, and so on. Now the information given to us is that absolutely no interest has been paid by the Quebec harbour commissioners.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a mistake. The interest was kept back when the advances were made, exactly as was done in the case of Vancouver, although my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre did not say sa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was that?


Ernest Lapointe: During the period of
construction, when those advances were made by the government, an amount sufficient to cover the interest was kept out of the advance by the Minister of Finance. It is very easy to pay the interest in that way, and that has been done in the case of Vancouver as well as Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Except in the items I
read, interest was provided out of operating revenue at Vancouver.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Ernest Lapointe: Out of construction.
That is what the hon. gentleman himself said.


Mr. GEARY:: The interest during construction is always made a capital charge.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The impression we got over here, with our imperfect facilities for hearing, was that no interest had been paid in recent years, and that there was over $8,000,000 of interest outstanding. Now as a business proposition, when anybody goes to get money from a business concern, if he has not paid the interest and generally some of the principal, he is not likely to get another loan, and I do not know that we would be following strictly business principles in this house if we were even to consider making another loan to a corporation that has been unable to pay interest on tihe loans already made.
Further, in the debate that took place on the loan that was made to Quebec harbour in 1925, the minister stated that the total elevator capacity of Canada for grain was 200,000,000 bushels. That takes in all our storage elevators, at Vancouver, Fort William, Port Arthur, Montreal and Quebec. We had also one built recently at Owen Sound, and I understand there is a movement on foot to build another one at Collingwood, on the Georgian bay. We have ait Quebec an elevator with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, and the minister stated in 1925 that that 2,0(X),000 bushel capacity elevator could handle 40,000,000 bushels of grain in a season. I fail to see where there is any great need for increasing the elevator capacity at Quebec, and certainly with the amount of grain handled at the port of Quebec, some 5,000,000 bushels in 1925, and not quite 10,000,000 bushels in any year since, I fail to see where there is any real need for the expenditure of another $8,500,000 for further elevator capacity at Quebec. I do not know whether there are enough of us here to vote down this unnecessary expenditure, but certainly some of us will vote against it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would ask the minister to give me a reply to my question: what rent does he think the Immigration department should pay to the port of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot saitisfy my hon. friend on that point because I have not before me the accounts, but I think the total amount claimed is in the vicinity of $2,000,000. That is what they are claiming from the Department of Immigration for having placed at their disposal facilities for the landing of immigrants at the port of Quebec, wharves and sheds, and so forth, which the commission was prevented from using for otheT shipping, and
that is the reason for their claim against the Department of Immigration. I am not in a position to say what would be the proper charge, but I can say that the port of Montreal would not be prepared to provide the necessary facilities for the landing of immigrants at that port, and they would refuse to do it because it is not a paying proposition. In fact, nothing has been paid by the Department of Immigration, anid it is using facilities which could be devoted to the shipping interests of the port.


John Wesley Edwards: What about Halifax and St. John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the same thing.


John Wesley Edwards: Are they
paying anything on account of immigration?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The port of Halifax was formerly under the control of the Canadian National Railways, and St. John has made no claim.


Ernest Lapointe: They were not losing any money. The government has spent $19,000,000 on the port of St. John without getting any revenue.


John Wesley Edwards: They are
asking for a loan.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, because they formed a commission last year in accordance with the Duncan report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may not have given the proper information, or I may have been misunderstood, in regard to the interest. The interest on the loan of $5,000,000 in 1925 was kept back by the Department of Finance, so practically it has been paid. When I said that 'the interest had not been paid I was speaking of the interest on the previous advances to the port.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How much was the
interest on the previous advances?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It runs to several million
dollars.


Peter McGibbon: That is very indefinite.
Is it two, four or six million?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Over five million.


John Millar: What other large Canadian ports have failed to pay interest on advances?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The port of Vancouver
and the port of Montreal are paying interest; they are the only two. The port of St. John was the property of the city, and works were erected there by the government through the Public Works Department.

Quebec Harbour Commission


John Millar: Has Toronto paid any
interest on its advances?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The port of Toronto is controlled by the city, and the money has been spent through the Department of Public Works.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much?


Ernest Lapointe: It amounts to $10,490,-
000.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to this bill going through provided that the port of Quebec pays interest on the loan. The minister refers to the amount owing to the port by the Department of Immigration. Why does he not collect it? If there is any minister in the house from whom it ought to be easy to collect money it is the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). But the port of Quebec is in very good company in not paying interest. As a matter of fact, this government does not pay interest; the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) has collected money in excess of the amounts due in respect of income tax, and he has retained that money for eight, nine and ten months without paying interest. In fact he Still refuses to pay such interest. The sauce that is good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not wonder at the Quebec harbour commissioners declining to pay interest if they think they can get away with it. Then we have the national railways failing to pay interest, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. So the minister has fairly good precedents to guide him. I submit that the proposal made by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) has considerable merit. I would also suggest that from the loan there be deducted the amount of overdue interest.


Mr. GARDINER:: Were the immigration
facilities at the port of Quebec provided by the Department of Immigration or by the harbour commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not quite sure, but
they are at present under the control of the harbour commissioners and have been for some time. The wharf and buildings occupy the best space in the port.


Robert Gardiner: Did the harbour commissioners erect the buildings in the first place?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They were built by the
Department of Public Works.


Robert Gardiner: Did the harbour commissioners consent to the building being placed there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They could not refuse the
use of the wharf and building for immigration purposes.


Ernest Lapointe: The immigration facilities were placed there before the harbour commission was formed.


Harry Bernard Short: Were those immigration
facilities provided out of the five million dollars which was appropriated for the harbour some years ago?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, those buildings and
wharf formed a part of the property of the old harbour commission.


Harry Bernard Short: Then they were charged up to the general expenditures of the Department of Public Works. This being so, what right has the harbour commission to expect the Immigration department to pay for the use of those facilities?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All the wharves and buildings erected by the Public Works department have come under the cpntrol of the harbour commisisoners since the commission was organized. That is practically the case with all the other harbours-after the incorporation of the various harbour commissions the respective properties, which up to that time had been under the control of the department, were transferred to the various harbour commissions and now form part of their assets. That is why the Quebec harbour commissioners are entitled to some, revenue from the wharves and buildings used by the Immigration department.


Harry Bernard Short: Then I presume that the
same thing will apply to the immigration buildings in the port of Halifax-if our harbour does not pay, the harbour commissioners will be able to charge the Immigration department for the use of the buildings erected by the Public Works department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The case is absolutely the same.


Harry Bernard Short: And I presume we shall receive the same leniency in Nova Scotia that is extended to Quebec; that is, if we are not able to pay our harbour expenses, the government will not expect any interest on the debentures, and we shall be able to charge the Immigration department for the use of the immigration sheds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the time to present your bills; bring them along.


William Alves Boys: I understood the minister to inform the committee that the total interest in arrears was a little over five millions dollars.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was guessing; I had not the figures before me.


William Alves Boys: I wondered if I had misunderstood him, because I have in my hand the report of the board of audit made at the instance of the Minister of Finance, bearing date January 16, 1926. I observe that the board was instructed:
To inquire into and report upon the following
matters:
1. The financial affairs of the Quebec harbour
commissioners.
The board reported as follows:
Unpaid interest on the foregoing loans, calculated to December 31, 1926, $8,830,992.52.
The same report deals with the indebtedness of the harbour as follows:
-resulting in a net debt of $24,546,412.81 as of December 31, 1926.
To that must be added, if this legislation goes through, $8,500,00, making the total debt $33,000,000 odd. If then we add even one year's interest-and we should allow a year and a half-we find the total indebtedness will be $34,650,000. Surely before we are asked to make this loan we should have more information. I do not know what the attitude of the minister will be towards the suggestion that the proposal should go to a special committee for investigation, but I think it would perhaps meet the situation. Speaking for myself, I have every desire to support any expenditure in Quebec that the facts and figures warrant; but there is certainly nothing before the committee at the present time to warrant increasing a debt that is now over thirty-four and a half million dollars by the vote which the minister now seeks from the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think my hon.
friend's figures are quite correct. He is adding the $8,000,000 which it is proposed to vote, but he is neglecting to deduct the $7,000,000 claim against the government.


William Alves Boys: We have not heard about
that.


Charles Gavan Power: Let the hon. gentleman
read the document which he has before him. The report of the Auditor General gives it.


William Alves Boys: If I have made any misstatement I am ready and willing to correct it at once. I have quoted the figures from this report. If there is some claim outstanding in connection with the Immigration department I am not making any reference to it.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not mean that the
hon. gentleman had made any misstatement;
I said the figures were not quite correct, in that on the very next page the Auditor General himself admits that there is a claim by the harbour commissioners of Quebec of something like $7,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not admit it;
he says the claim has been made.


William Alves Boys: The claim is $1,300,000 odd
and there is a further claim of $2,000,000; and the interest amounts to $3,500,000 odd.


Charles Gavan Power: It amounts in all to about $7,000,000.


William Alves Boys: That is correct. It has been outstanding for years without any effort being made to enforce it.


Charles Gavan Power: There was some question
as to how this account arose and who built the immigration sheds. The sheds themselves were built by the Department of Public Works, and therefore by the parliament of Canada, but the wharves on which these sheds were erected were built by the harbour commission. Permission was asked from the commission to erect these sheds and I happen to have in my hand the annual report of the harbour commission in this regard. I will read the following extract from it:
On application permission has been given to the Department of Agriculture to erect immigra-lion buildings on the Louise embankment, or on the breakwater, or on both, with the understanding that the terms for the occupation of the ground will be settled amicably between the government and the commissioners. The site chosen has been the breakwater-
And so forth. Apparently this question has never been settled. As long as I can remember I have heard the claim put forward by the people of Quebec and by public bodies in that province that the Dominion government owed for this. There is a recommendation on the point from the audit board, and I understand that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has always recognized the claim. The audit board recommends that this claim be settled in some way in order that we may arrive at some satisfactory figure, showing just what the port of Quebec does owe the Dominion government, and thus straighten out the matter. In justice to both parties some arrangement should be made to settle the question. I may tell the committee however that to my knowledge the present state of affairs is due to no laxity on the part of the port of Quebec in endeavouring to enforce its claims, because on all possible occasions it has written to the government and forwarded memorials to the different departments in an effort to receive payment. But the commission has received nothing. Every year the annual report of the Quebec harbour commissioners-which



Quebec Harbour Commission
report must be made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries-includes certain sums payable by the Dominion government to the commission.


John Wesley Edwards: Can the
hon. member give us the ground of these claims which are due, or alleged to be due, to the harbour commission, totalling $7,000,000?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not all the figures; I have some of them.


John Wesley Edwards: I thought
the hon'. gentleman had a statement giving that information?


Charles Gavan Power: The claim is based partly
on the rental for the ground and partly on the services rendered to the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the wintering of boats at the wharves belonging to the harbour commission. The Solicitor General has handed me the following statement:
Claims against the Dominion Government
Department of Public Works	
Department of Interior	
Department of Marine and Fisheries	
Department of Naval Service	
Department of Militia and Defence	
Department of Immigration	
Intercolonial railway	 [DOT] * [DOT]	;	
Commissioners of National Transcontinental railway. ..

Accrued interest $ 182,620 03 382,361 30 192 54 61!) 56 16 20 3.029,070 14 964 05 823 86
$3,727,081 32	$3,596,667 68
3,596,667 68
Total of claims and accrued interest


Richard Bedford Bennett: My difficulty is with respect to the $3,000,000 accrued interest. It is larger than the principal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Compounded for twenty
years.


Charles Gavan Power: I presume that the interest on the loan is compounded too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report does not show whether it is compounded or not and I thought the hon. gentleman would be able to say. This accrued interest of $3,000,000 strikes me as a very large sum; it must be at compound interest. I asked the Minister of Finance whether the $8,000,000 was also compounded, but he was not in a position to say positively.


Mr. ROBB:: I think they are both compounded.


John Wesley Edwards: I confess I
am very much alarmed on behalf of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). If the Minister of Immigration is to have deducted from his appropriation this year this charge of over $2,000,000-


An hon. MEMBER:: Seven millions.


John Wesley Edwards: Seven millions. If he is to have deducted from his appropriation this year that considerable sum, I fear the Dominion of Canada will suffer seriously by the hampering of the hon. gentleman's magnificient efforts to induce immigrants to come to Canada. This is a very serious matter for the minister and I am per-

turbed to see with what placidity and equanimity he receives these startling figures affecting his department. I should be very sorry indeed to see his wonderful efforts along immigration lines curtailed by millions; most assuredly it would be a calamity to the Dominion. Really I think we are entitled, before this matter goes through, to receive more information than so far has been given us. Probably that will apply to other votes of a similar character. It is all very well to say that $8,500,000 is being asked to provide increased facilities, but that is a very wide term which may mean much or nothing. I think the house should be provided with more details in connection with these expenditures, and I have thought so for some time. Since hearing of this accrued interest and of the demands made upon the various departments of the government by the harbour commissioners I am more convinced of that than ever before. Apparently some of these matters date back fifteen or twenty years, and I wonder who has been handling the business of the harbour commission, to allow these departments to get into debt to this extent. Apparently there has not been a very good business man at the head of the commission, or they would not permit other departments to get into their debt to these amounts. I think we should have more details on the items given us by the hon. member for Quebec, who told us the amounts owing by the Department of Public Works, the Department of the Interior and so on; I think we are entitled to that information.

Quebec Harbour Commission


William Alves Boys: I would like to read just a reference to the gross earnings and gross expenses for the years 1924, 1925 and 1926. In each case the gross earnings are given as 100 per cent, and the gross expenses for 1924 appear as 69.83 per cent; for 1925 as 85.25 per cent and for 1926 as 87.68 per cent. There is more than a page and a (half of this return devoted to the results of operations from 1924 to 1926 inclusive. This is certainly most illuminating, and I am going to venture to read it unless I can secure consent to place it on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


William Alves Boys: I do not want to delay the house or to tax my voice if I can secure consent, but otherwise I will read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


William Alves Boys: It will be difficult to digest it all as I read it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no objection to filing it.


William Alves Boys: It is nearly six o'clock, and I presume it will appear in Hansard to-morrow so that hon. members will be able to read it. That being so, I will hand it in and it can be incorporated as part of my remarks.
Results from operations 1924-1926 inclusive:
The published reports of the Quebec harbour commissioners for the years ended 31st December, 1924, 1925 and 1926, give the following information:
Gross earnings	
Gross expenses	1924 $ 568,627 77 397,078 18	1925 $ 568,533 25 484,670 36	1926 $ 678,882 06 595,272 89Surplus	
From which should be deducted overcharges to capital accounts, claims against governmental departments, etc	$ 171,549 59 280,836 52	$ 83,862 89 187,312 88	$ 83,609 17 211,787 64Deficit before interest on government advances.. Add annual interest due the Dominion government.	$ 109,286 93 460,743 45	$ 103,449 99 489,802 20	$ 128,178 47 494,741 17Deficit before charging depreciation	$ 570,030 38	$593,252 19	$622,919 64Assuming that the claims against various governmental departments can sidered as earnings, the results portrayed above would be affected as follows:	be fairly con-Annual deficit (as shown above)	
Less claims against governmental departments..	1924 $ 570,030 38 116,981 00	1925 $593,252 19 97,306 00	1926 $622,919 64 113,785 00Annual deficits before charging depreciation.. .. If interest on the claims against the government be considered as earnings; the above deficits would be reduced by	$ 453,049 38 138,894 00	$495,946 19 144,743 05	$ 509,134 64 149,608 35Annual deficits before charging depreciation.. ..	$314,155 38	$351,203 14	$359,526 29
Examination of the published reports clearly shows the expenses to have increased steadily and out of proportion to the earnings during the three years; this fact is set out in the following percentages:
1924	1925	1926per	per	percent	cent	centGross earnings	
100	100	100Gross expenses	
69.83	85.25	87.68
The accounts examined by us provided no explanation for these variations, due largely to the suspension some years ago of cost accounts.
The figures submitted above clearly demonstrate that, even allowing for a reasonable increase in traffic at the port of Quebec, the gross earnings will not be sufficient in any year to pay the operating expenses and interest on government loans; and as no provision has been made for depreciation, it may be forecasted that the annual cost of repairs and renewals will increase considerably in the future.
It will be noticed that the annual deficit for three years, excluding claims against depart-56103- 137i
ments of the government and interest thereon

neither of which have been paid by any of the departments-but including interest on government allowances, averaged $600,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that the government should endeavour to adjust these claims: before we proceed further with this resolution. In my opinion the harbour commission of Quebec have a correct and proper claim against the other departments of the government if their wharves have been used by those departments and if they have not been paid for such use. That is my personal opinion as a lawyer, because it is quite clear that the space thus utilized cost the harbour commission money upon which they have been paying interest. That is quite clear from the report which has been tabled here. The question now is as to the fair allowance for

Quebec Harbour Commission
the use of that space and the interest which should be allowed for the non-payment of these rentals by the government departments. There is the further point that it is unfair to ask the harbour commission to pay interest if we do not allow them interest if they are entitled to anything. We all want to be fair, and in my judgment this matter should be adjusted without delay, because we are carrying $8,800,000 arrears of interest against the harbour commission of Quebec, against which they say they have a set-off amounting to many millions of dollars. I do suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the various departments affected that this matter be adjusted without further delay, and the whole debenture debt of the harbour commission reorganized in some way. This might be done as my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver has suggested, by issuing new debentures indicating the amount of the indebtedness as of January 1, 1928. There is nothing more conducive to this very condition than to continue this sort of thing, which is not right or proper. If the facilities which cost the Quebec harbour commission a large amount of money have been used by another department without payment, the commission have been deprived of that space which might or might not have been used by someone else, and they are entitled to receive a reasonable rental.
Here is another difficulty which I think the government might also consider. This is a large sum of money and, when I saw this resolution on the order paper I proceeded to make certain inquiries. We are asked to grant $8,500,000 to the harbour commissioners, and this amount represents 50 per cent of the money which has been expended there so far. That must be borne in mind. Now I find that the large liners are being constructed in such a way as will permit them to go to Montreal, and we are spending roughly $1,500,000 a year to make it possible to navigate from Montreal to Quebec. For instance, the new ships Laurentie and Megantic, together with the new Duchess ships of the Canadian Pacific line, are going to Montreal. I only learned that last week, in consequence of inquiries which I made after I saw this resolution on the order paper. I understand that additional beam has been provided so that the depth of water required will be somewhat less than was formely the case, and the large liners, including the Duchess of Athol and the Duchess of Bedford, as well as the Laurentie and Megantic, ships of roughly 20,000 tons register, all go to Montreal. Under these circumstances, might it not be desirable

for the minister to reconsider this resolution, first to give effect to the very proper claims of the Quebec harbour commissioners for such sums as may represent a just and proper rental for the use of their facilities by the various departments of the government? In that regard this is no different from railway companies, which have inter-departmental charges. When one department uses the telegraph system, for instance, although it may have a frank, a charge is made for that particular service. The same applies to other branches of industry; the manufacturing end of a concern makes a charge against the administrative end if it uses part of the manufactured material of that concern, and this is exactly the same principle. The harbour commissioners have only one thing to sell; they sell space, and if that space is used by some of the departments of the government a fair rental should be paid.
Then I submit to the minister that in view of the sums which we are compelled to pay annually to maintain and extend the channel between Montreal and Quebec, and having regard to the fact that these large ships now proceed to Montreal, it is desirable to reconsider the whole situation as to whether or not at this moment it is desirable to contemplate such a large expenditure. This is a national port; I need hardly say that this is not a Quebec port in the general sense of that term. This is a national port and is the concern of every part of Canada, perhaps more especially western Canada because the facilities with respect to grain are the facilities from which it is expected a very large revenue will be obtained if those facilities are used by the public to their full extent. I look at the harbour of St. John, for instance, and I find that last year that harbour handled
25.000.	000 bushels of grain, with an elevator capacity of only 2,100,000 bushels. They have a capacity of 1,600,000 bushels at one point and 500,000 bushels at another, and with this total capacity of 2,100,000 bushels they were able to handle 25,000,000 bushels of grain. It did occur to me that with facilities at Quebec capable of handling 2,000,000 bushels, the proper course to pursue at the moment, having regard to the commitments which have been made, would be to ascertain whether or not it would be possible in the seven months of the year during which navigation is possible, to increase the turnover of grain from
8.000.	000 or 9,000,000 bushels to possibly 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 bushels. This struck me as a fair suggestion to submit to the minister, because everyone who lives in any

Judges' Salaries
part of Canada other than Montreal, Quebec or the eastern provinces is vitally interested in the success of these ports. To the extent to which they are loaded with unnecessary debt it becomes an increasing burden upon the shippers, because the tolls charged must be sufficient to pay the interest upon the investment. Under those circumstances would it be unfair to suggest to the minister, seeing that it is six o'clock, that between now and the time his resolution is next in committee he settle and determine, if possible, the two propositions to which I have directed attention, namely, the claims of the government in respect to the portions of the piers that have been used by various departments as outlined by my hon. friend for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and that referred to in the report of the audit board; and secondly, whether having regard to all the circumstances a less ambitious program might not be possible and a lesser sum appropriated for the purpose at this time. It does appear to me, having regard to what has taken place, that fifty per cent of the possible expenditure is entirely too large a sum to ask for until we have proved by concrete effort what may be accomplished in connection with the movement of grain from the western provinces through the elevators at the city of Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: The statements which have been made by the hon. leader of the opposition will render it much easier for the Minister of Finance when he comes before parliament, as he intends to do, to clean up these outstanding accounts. Indeed, when we provided in the preparation of the budget this year for the writing down, as hon. members will recall, of some $16,000,000 odd that might be classed similar to this in accounts for soldier land settlement, and for advances to settlers for seed grain in western Canada, we had in mind that these old standing accounts with the harbour commission of Quebec should be cleaned up. While much has been said to-day as to the total amount owed by the harbour board of Quebec, it must be kept in mind that the total advances made by the Dominion amount not to $24,000,000 but to $14,000,000 odd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Alexander Robb: It is true that the unpaid interest has been compounded to something over $8,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the minister quite
certain of that?


James Alexander Robb: If it is not compounded in the one case it is not in the other, and both accounts are on the same basis. And then it
must be remembered that they have an overdraft in the bank amounting to some $747,000 odd. But coming back to the question of expenditure, the Dominion of Canada has advanced the sum of $14,000,000 to provide facilities at the port of Quebec where large liners call. If we did not make provision for the accommodation there of these large steamships their passengers would probably go to New York, Boston, or some other port in the United States, because they would not go by vessel to Montreal. My hon. friend will agree that most of the first class passengers disembark at Quebec and take the train there to their destination. We must keep in mind that we are bringing business to our Canadian railways, and it is not all Canadian business. I recall coming home on a vessel last year that was loaded down, every berth occupied, and on the whole ship there were not one hundred Canadians; most of the passengers were on their way to the middle west and other parts of the United States. That represents the business we are getting through the great port of Quebec. If you compare the $14,000,000 we have invested in Quebec with the money spent on inland ports by the Department of Public Works, I think the comparison will not be disadvantageous to the port of Quebec. My hon. friends might very well allow the resolution to go through, and then the bill to be founded on it can be introduced.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


James Dew Chaplin: No, it is six o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 19, 1928